Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away Paperback – Illustrated, January 6, 2015

I have given this interesting book a five-star rating, because it is an excellent introduction to Plato, philosophy generally, and ancient Greek history. In explaining Plato's historical context, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein consciously—and I think successfully—attempts to find a golden mean between historicism (assuming that a writer's thought is merely a product of his/her time) and what she calls "philosophical insularity" (pp. 161-62). One might add that a golden mean also exists between historicism and anachronism/presentism (interpreting an earlier author solely from the current reader's own historical-cultural-ideological perspective, a characteristic defect of postmodernism as well as historical triumphalism). By resurrecting Plato from the dead and placing him in our own time, Goldstein shows how our philosophical ideas have progressed—and often not progressed—from Plato's deep understanding. She uses Plato's own dialogue format (and other literary devices) to situate him in contemporary circumstances. Goldstein's dialogues are masterpieces of art, wit, and philosophical insight. Like Plato, Goldstein has a literary bent that is in service to her love of wisdom, and, like Plato, she does not hesitate to satirize contemporary popular culture when appropriate. I found myself literally laughing out loud at many of her depictions of twenty-first-century characters. And her dialogues are interspersed with helpful nonfictional expositions regarding Plato, philosophy, and history. Several of these are outstanding.I do not, however, agree with all of Goldstein's statements and interpretations. The following are two examples of such disagreement.First, in discussing Plato's test in The Republic for young people to be advanced to the educational track of philosophers and eventual guardians/rulers, Goldstein has her fictional Plato state the following (pp. 198-99): "What I proposed was having our children be told glorious tales to stir their imaginations, very much stressing all the time that these tales were true, and then seeing which among the children can resist them, can see the logical inconsistencies within these tales, and see all their inconsistencies with other truths that they have been told (Republic 413c-414a)."What Plato actually wrote at this precise location of The Republic was the following ("Socrates" is the narrator; paragraph breaks are omitted, and the entire quotation is not indented due to the technical limitations of the present format):[413C] “And I imagine that you too would claim that people are bewitched who change their opinions when they’re either entranced by pleasure or in dread of something frightening.” “Yes,” he said, “it’s likely that everything that fools people is bewitching.” “Then as I was just saying, one needs to find out which of them are the best guardians of the way of thinking they have at their sides, that the thing they always need to do is to do what seems to them to be best for the city. So they need to be observed right from childhood by people who set tasks for them in which someone would be most likely to forget such a thing or be fooled out of it; anyone who remembers it and [413D] is hard to fool is to be chosen and anyone who doesn’t is to be rejected. Isn’t that so?” “Yes.” “And laborious jobs, painful sufferings, and competitions also need to be set up for them in which these same things are to be observed.” “That’s right,” he said. “Thus a contest needs to be made,” I said, “for the third form as well, that of bewitchment, and it needs to be watched. The same way people check out whether colts are frightened when they lead them into noisy commotions, the guardians, when young, need to be taken into some terrifying situations and then quickly shifted [413E] into pleasant ones, so as to test them much more than gold is tested in a fire. If someone shows himself hard to bewitch and composed in everything, a good guardian of himself and of the musical style that he learned, keeping himself to a rhythm and harmony well-suited to all these situations, then he’s just the sort of person who’d be most valuable both to himself and to a city. And that one among the children and the youths and the men who is tested and always [414A] comes through unscathed is to be appointed as ruler of the city as well as guardian, and honors are to be given to him while he’s living and upon his death, when he’s allotted the most prized of tombs and other memorials. Anyone not of that sort is to be rejected. It seems to me, Glaucon,” I said, “that the selection and appointment of rulers and guardians is something like that, described in outline, not with precision.” “It looks to me too like it would be done some such way,” he said.Plato, Republic, trans. and ed. Joe Sachs (Newburyport, MA: Focus, 2007), Kindle ed., Kindle loc. 2651-70.Goldstein's Plato did not, therefore, accurately quote or summarize what the historical Plato actually wrote in the referenced discussion of The Republic. Goldstein may be getting at a meaning of the historical Plato that is deeply concealed in what he actually said. However, that interpretation of Plato, albeit quite interesting, would be highly speculative. More likely, Goldstein has her resurrected "Plato" provide an updated account of what he wrote millennia ago. Although this verges on the presentist fallacy, it is nevertheless interesting. The updated test would be a clever way to identify philosophic minds in our present culture, with its long history of scriptural traditions. For example, the writings of Professor Bart Ehrman (who began life as an evangelical Christian) are recent specimens of a centuries-long rational/historical critique of the Christian New Testament. Similar critiques of the Jewish scriptures go back at least to Spinoza. It is possible that an individual growing up in a religious milieu might be able to detect such contradictions even before becoming aware of the modern scholarship, and this may well have been Goldstein's own personal experience (it was certainly mine). Her updated test would, however, be less obviously applicable in ancient Athens. Plato elsewhere disposed of the gods of Greek mythology on mostly ethical grounds. Their antics were so ridiculous that the sophisticated method devised by Goldstein would probably not have been necessary for any thinking Athenian to reject the pagan gods outright (though not publicly). Accordingly, I don't object to Goldstein modernizing Plato in this manner, but, literal textualist that I am, I would have preferred that she mention her procedure in a note (as she did so well in other instances).Second, in discussing the character of Thrasymachus in The Republic, Goldstein states (p. 155): "Thrasymachus speaks for an unregenerate Ethos of the Extraordinary that licenses unmitigated individualism. He’s an Athenian Ayn Rand." However, Thrasymachus argued that justice is the advantage of the stronger, specifically, the advantage of those who hold ruling political power. (Republic 338b, 339a). This was virtually the opposite of Ayn Rand's political philosophy. It happens that I have read most of Rand's writings—some of them (for example, Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem, along with many of her essays) several times. Rand's bedrock principle was the rule of noninitiation of force, a position that Thrasymachus would vehemently have rejected. Rand applied this principle universally, especially to government. Thus, for Rand, taxation and some other governmental laws and regulations violate the principle of noninitiation of force. Rand's problem is not that she is like Thrasymachus. In fact, she emphatically rejected Thrasymachean ethics and politics. Rand's problem is that she failed to recognize that it is simply impossible to apply the principle of noninitiation of force to all governmental activities without dismantling all government, which would result, as Hobbes put it, in the war of all against all. Murray Rothbard, whom Rand expelled from her inner circle, took Rand's political theory to its logical conclusion, anarchocapitalism. Rothbard's radical libertarian approach (with competing armed private insurance companies replacing governmental police and military forces) would inevitably result in rival militias fighting for control, as in many areas of the Middle East and Africa today. Rothbard would apparently have welcomed what we now call "failed states." Rand, who accepted limited government, ridiculed anarchocapitalism and wrote that libertarianism, having no ethical principles, was destined to become a hippie movement. If she were alive today, Rand might have been surprised to see that libertarianism has degenerated not into a hippie movement but into a right-wing tea-party movement. Elitist that she was, she probably would not like what she would see. She routinely denounced the Republican Party of her day and said, in reference to Ronald Reagan, that anyone who did not believe in the right to an abortion did not believe in any individual rights at all. Unlike many tea partiers, she was a proud and public atheist. But Rand repeatedly condemned the distinction between theory and practice (she rigorously opposed the dictum that something may be true in theory but not in practice). Once upon a time, the formulation of "pure" but impractical ideologies was a preserve of the Left. For example, Marxism was applied by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao to create totalitarian states. The attempt to apply theoretically pure principles, without regard to practical consequences, now seems to be a preserve of the Right. What has been lost is the practical wisdom of Aristotle and the American Founders. As James Madison said in the Constitutional Convention on June 26, 1787, "In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we shd. not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce." The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), 1:422.But, like Plato (see Plato at the Googleplex, p. 44), I digress. Notwithstanding my disagreements with some of Goldstein's statements and interpretations, her book is an original and important contribution that should be read by all those interested in philosophical inquiry. One of the many themes of the book is the present-day rivalry between science and philosophy, with some scientists arguing that there is no need or use for philosophy. Goldstein's final chapter is a thoughtfully constructed dialogue between a neuroscientist and Plato on this issue, with the neuroscientist's graduate assistant, Agatha, supporting Plato with excellent arguments. Plato and Agatha make a rational and convincing case for philosophy as a pursuit that is not invalidated by science. Indeed, philosophy will never die as long as it has such eloquent and knowledgeable advocates as Rebecca Newberger Goldstein.

This is a tremendous book. The excerpts that have been published various places really don't do it justice. This is NOT "Plato for Dummies", but rather a very serious book explaining Plato's philosophy.The book includes several "cute" sections where Plato visits Google, helps an advice columnist advise people on problems with their love life, debates a cable news character, shares the stage with a Tiger mother character and a psychoanalyst to discuss child upbringing, and debates free will with a neuroscientist.These sections are good, and amusing, and extensively use quotes from various dialogues -- most of Plato's speeches are not made up by Goldstein, but are taken from his writings. For example, much of what Plato says to the cable news character is actually taken from the Platonic dialogue called the Gorgias, in which the character Socrates addresses a character who is very similar to some modern cable news personalities. So this chapter actually summarizes and redoes the Gorgias dialogue, which is both enlightening and amusing.However, most of the content of the book is not these fantasy sections. Most of the chapters of the book are instead a straightforward exposition by Goldstein of what Plato's philosophy is, how it is based in the culture of ancient Greece yet deviated significantly from that culture and modified it for the better, how it is distinct from Judeo-Christian and other religious approaches to the "meaning of life", and how it influenced subsequent philosophy in the Western world, and in particular the liberal philosophies that came out of the Enlightenment.I believe that this book is perhaps one of the best introductions to Plato for modern readers that I have seen. As far as I can tell, based on my reading both of Plato and of secondary sources on Plato, Goldstein's book is a highly accurate account of Platonic philosophy. It is also a sympathetic account of Plato.At the same time, Goldstein makes clear that in some respects the philosophies that have developed since Plato HAVE made progress beyond Plato -- which, as she points out, would please Plato very much.A reader of this book will get a biographical account of Plato's life, as well as summaries of some of the key points of many Platonic dialogues, and extensive quotations from many of these dialogues. It's a good introduction that should inspire many readers to read the original Plato.I think this book also makes clear why Platonic philosophy can also be considered a RELIGIOUS philosophy, in the sense that it is not just a theoretical exercise, but a call to live a certain way of life.

This is the fifth R. Goldstein book I've read, so I guess I'm a fan. This book fits in with her two other philosophy explainers; "Betraying Spinoza" and "Incompleteness, The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel". In "Plato at the Googleplex", Prof. Golsdstein does what se does best, breaks down a philosopher's work by setting it within an historic context.I was a philosophy major in college, and have continued to read philosophy since. I've always seen philosophy as conversation spanning generations that makes progress real toward livable truths. Prof. Goldstein makes that argument in this book, fancifully bringing Plato into the 21st century while providing important insight into the ancient Athenian/Greek culture that informed Plato's thought. she makes a strong argument on this point, and fleshes out my own intuition on the topic with some solid reasoning.The Republic was the first philosophic treatise I ever read, and lead me into that college major. I haven't read any of Plato's dialogues since college; and that was a very long time ago, but reading this book makes me want to revisit those old friends.

"Take a breath, find some patience for 5 mins, and read this review. Don't hurry", perhaps this is the sort of lesson you get in chapter 2.Coming back, Chapter 1 was is a marvellous introduction to the sexiness of philosophy from Plato's eye. I literally used to close my eyes to feel the trance sort-of experience while reading some of the ending pages of chapter 1. Chapter 2 is where the journey begins. Plato is seen in his old toga sitting at the Google-Complex (or Googleplex) in Seattle (perhaps like Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev), about to address his fans. The women who is the prime lady having conversations with him hardly know any philosophy, let alone Plato and the Greeks. The journey as you read is really akin of reading a deeply profound novel. This is in fact a novel. Philosophical novel!Chapter 3 is introduction to Greek history and thought in general, which was boring to me. Maybe sometime in the future, I shall return to read it far more carefully than I did it the first time.More soon.

The book is in exactly the condition described. The delivery was announced in advance and the package arrived as planned. Just one point: the package was open on both ends when I picked it up from my local post office.

It is interesting to read Plato presenting different views on ethical problems in contemporary times. The author lets the story run in a nice tongue-in-the-cheek way, and then gets serious about the relationship of Plato with Socrates and their own times. Nice reading,

A very interesting and thoughtful book, with an unusual structure. Essays on various aspects of Plato's life and philosophy are separated by fictional chapters where Plato is depicted in the present day. He lectures at the headquarters of Google, is interviewed by a bullying TV host, takes part in a public debate about how to raise children, and discusses free will in a neuroscience lab. I loved it. I found the essays very useful in helping me to better understand Plato's works. Goldstein is extremely knowledgeable and her writing is clear and enjoyable. And the fiction chapters are fun, and also quite useful.

Ein vergnügliches, gelungenes Buch! Die Idee, Plato in die heutige Zeit zu versetzen und sie durch seine Augen und mit seinem Intellekt zu betrachten, ist eine reizvolle Idee.Erfordert vom Leser zwar gute Kenntnisse der englischen Sprache, ich hoffe aber, dass für alle anderen möglichst bald eine gekonnte Übersetzung zur Verfügung steht. Das Buch verdient einen großen Leserkreis.