I recommend this translation: by Joe Sachs
The Republic has 10 books.
It sounds like you are looking at editions that publish one book at a time.
Kerr published his work in 1918. He uses conventions that might not be familiar to you.
I suggest you try looking at a range of translators on the web or at a library and find one that seems most natural to you.

Thanks for the help, even though I'm still just a little confused; regarding the book in the link, is that the only one, or are there 9 other volumes? Since you said there are 10...

The book I linked to has all the books.

Oh okay, I get it now

If you’re “new” then I would also highly recommend a series of podcasts uoooi can find for free from Oxford University. It gives a good run over several topics and follows how things have developed historically.

As for tackling Plato’s “The Republic” directly any translation will do at first if you take my approach - which is to have a basic understanding of ancient world history (not confusing today with past outlooks/perspectives) and to simply read the thing and gather own ideas about what is being said prior to reading the translators commentary; but you also need to pay attention to etymology and the difficulty of translating ancient Greek terms into modern English.

Plato and Aristotle are good places to start. If you bolster that with the podcasts above (or some like it) then it should give you a better understanding of how what Plato and Aristotle talked about has been developed and how their questions/writings are still worth looking at.

Enjoy

I recommend starting with overviews written from a contemporary perspective. Something like Donald Palmer's books, which are both very informative and very easy to tackle. Read his Looking at Philosophy, and then move on to Does the Center Hold. They'll give you an excellent idea of just what it is that philosophers are doing in their ongoing "project," they'll give you an excellent guidemap to the basic issues in the field, and they'll give you a good idea where you should explore afterwards, whether you want to start trying to understand the work of particular personalities better or focus on particular topics instead.

Maybe you ought to read some other stories by Plato first, to get a feel for the writing style. They're shorter, somewhat entertaining, and easier to understand.

There's no better place to start than the Apology of Socrates. Then try the short dialogues about the death of Socrates (especially Euthyphro and Crito -- Phaedo is not so simple).

After this, I would recommend the Symposion (though you should probably reread the Symposion after reading some other dialogues, it will broaden your view of it).

Only after this I would suggest the Republic -- and preferrably with a good instructor, good videos, a good guide, or something of that sort. The Republic is hard, and many world-famous thinkers (hey, Popper) have no clue about it even after reading it and writing books about it.

My two cents :).

Thanks for the helpful advice

Plato's books on The Republic are a classic, however not very useful.

Plato himself was frustrated with Athens and with democracy due to the execution of his teacher Socrates. Socrates was charged with corrupting the youth in his school with notions that there was no evidence for Zeus and his Pantheon. The ancient Greeks were very religious and superstitious and they feared that to leave Socrates unpunished would be to offend the Gods.

But the Athenians gave Socrates every chance to escape punishment by exile. Socrates was simply stubborn and decided to stay. He should have left. There were plenty of islands in the Aegean where he could have resettled. Miletus is the classic example.

Anyway that is the background.

Plato wrote his Republic to mirror the Spartan government, only instead of being ruled by two kings Plato invents a philosopher-king. The idea is ludicrous.

As Machiavelli and Nietzsche later explained, government is the will to power and nothing less.

So Plato is pretty much a big waste of time. Even Aristotle would agree with me on this.

If you are starting from scratch I would recommend Aristotle.

However in universities they start with a survey of the history of Philosophy such as that written by Bertrand Russell. If you read Russell's book just beware of his prejudice in favor of atheism. Don't be deceived by it.

Criticism of Plato and Socrates is one of the activities that has been going on since those writings appeared. If you want to argue the matter on your own account as a post upon the forum, then please do so. To discourage somebody from studying something because it is useless to you is an attempt at excluding them from whatever informed your opinion.
Socrates discusses this problem in his many rebukes of Thrasymachus in the Republic dialogue.
Your point of view is argued in the Republic in a more expert fashion than you have done.

The Republic is not excusively -- or even mainly! -- about government theory. But any good intro about it will tell you that.

I agree with you. However for a new entrant into the world of Philosophy I believe that Aristotle is a much better starting point. That was my main point.

Plato's system of Philosophy has many fallacies which a novice would probably not be able to recognize. That's why Plato is hazardous as a starting point.

The best thing about Plato is that he was the mentor of Aristotle. However Aristotle saw through the mistakes of his teacher himself and set out to refute them.

Plato's system of Philosophy has many fallacies which a novice would probably not be able to recognize. That's why Plato is hazardous as a starting point. — hks

Plato has no system of philosophy, and wrote quite a bit against such constructs.

Have you ever read a competent introduction on Plato?

Try Paul Friedländer.

I would not waste my time on Plato.

If you waste your time on every philosopher mentioned in history you would have a lot of knowledge about irrelevant and flawed systems.

That's what Plato's good for, pointing out flawed systems. It's a very useful talent, to be able to distinguish flawed systems. So Plato is a very worthwhile read, teaching one how to avoid wasting time on worthless philosophical systems.

I would not waste my time on Plato. — hks

Indeed. But you waste your time in replying to a thread about Plato, even though you didn't waste your time with his works.

Fascinating, as Spock would say.

Just want the newby to know that Plato is not the only thing. Indeed it is a big mistake.

Oh Popper, where are thou?

As Machiavelli and Nietzsche later explained, government is the will to power and nothing less. — hks

Here is one of Socrates' answers to your claim:

"Come then, said I, examine it thus. Recall the general likeness between the city and the man, and then observe in turn what happens to each of them.
What things? he said.
In the first place, said I, will you call the state governed by a tyrant free or enslaved, speaking of it as a state?
Utterly enslaved, he said.
And yet you see masters and free men.
I see, he said, a small portion of such, but the entirety, so to speak, and the best part of it, is shamefully and wretchedly enslaved.
If, then, I said, the man resembles the state, must not the same proportion obtain in him, and his soul teem with boundless servility and illiberality, the best and most reasonable parts of it being enslaved, while a small part, the worst and the most frenzied, plays the despot?
Inevitably, he said.
Then will you say that such a soul is enslaved or free?
Enslaved, I should suppose.
Again, does not the enslaved and tyrannized city least of all do what it really wishes?
Decidedly so.
Then the tyrannized soul--to speak of the soul as a whole--also will least of all do what it wishes, but being always perforce driven and drawn by the gadfly of desire it will be full of confusion and repentance.
Of course.
And must the tyrannized city be rich or poor?
Poor.
Then the tyrant soul also must of necessity always be needy and suffer from unfulfilled desire.
So it must be, he said
And again, must not such a city, as well as such a man, be full of terrors and alarms?'
It must indeed.
And do you think you will find more lamentations and groans and wailing and anguish in any other city?
By no means."

Republic, Book 9, 577, translated by Paul Shorey

This is all very pleasant and entertaining. But it is NOT where I would steer a novice to learn Philosophy.

A good graduate school thesis would be "how did Western Philosophy graduate from the idealism of Plato to the realism of British Empiricism?"

You made a claim.
Defend it against the one you dismissed as having no value.

A good graduate school thesis would be "how did Western Philosophy graduate from the idealism of Plato to the realism of British Empiricism?" — hks

By not reading Plato. There's your answer in one sentence.

I agree with you. However for a new entrant into the world of Philosophy I believe that Aristotle is a much better starting point. That was my main point. — hks

I agree with you that the Republic isn't a great place to start if someone is just getting interested in and starting to explore philosophy, but Aristotle is far worse, in my opinion. It would take a really rare sort of person/set of tastes to tackle reading Aristotle first while managing to retain an interest in exploring philosophy.

Aristotle tends to write like a lawyer, only with much more antiquated language.

There aren't many people who recommend fueling an interest in anything by reading legal contracts about it. Read someone who writes well relative to contemporary popular writing norms. You want the person to be entertained enough by what they read to want to explore more.

Plato's dialogues are thus some of the better choices for pre-modern philosophy, but that doesn't include the Republic, which is probably the biggest slog of anything Plato wrote, because of the stylistic differences, the stuff that's more of a historical curiosity, including mundane details about practical social structure, and the length.

Better than that, in my view, as I noted above, is approaching the subject via contemporary overviews.

Think of something like a person wanting to visit New York City for the first time. We're not going to recommend that they skip all of the touristy stuff and go straight into an accounting office and start reading through formal documents there (Aristotle), and we're probably not even going to recommend that they visit Governor's Island first (the Republic). Something like the double-decker sightseeing buses are a much better first choice for a first-time visitor, because among other things, it will give them a good overview and feel for the whole city, and little tastes of many different attractions, so they can gain a better idea what they want to spend more time on next. Long-time residents aren't going to gain much from the double-decker sightseeing buses, but they're not who the bus tours are designed for. After you've already done a bunch of the typical stuff, that's when you go to governor's island, and you go to the accounting office and start reading through formal documents only if you have a special interest in that.

That's somewhat of a major fallacy.

Read someone who writes well relative to contemporary popular writing norms. — Terrapin Station

I think Russell's lecture notes (which were recommended above) actually aren't a bad choice if you just want to stimulate someone's interest in philosophy. It worked for me, anyway :) Russell was not only a brilliant thinker, but a lovely writer as well, which, unfortunately, is not so common. But of course, entertaining as that little book is, you don't want to use it for a systematic study.

Well, it is funny that the one seeking advice is no longer a part of the discussion and what remains are disagreements about the value of reading the Republic.

If the original poster is still around, I encourage them to just read the damn thing. Do not prepare yourself. Don't approach it through all the reductions and filters developed by those who defended or opposed what is said there. You, the one who is listening to the arguments for the first time, is the one who is being addressed.

Empiricism is indeed a maior fallacy (exposed by Plato, not surprisingly).

Late to the party...

So, far I've read the Analysis and Introduction of the first 3 books (Kindle Edition). Totally worth it in my opinion.

I can't really critique it so idk how fallacious it is.

They start with just and unjust. That just things should be done in and of themselves. No matter how profitable or pleasurable being unjust is. You'll have very unhappy citizens as a result of being an unjust ruler. It's an end into itself. It should be done in and of itself and for the results.

Like taking care of yourself, it is pleasurable and profitable to indulge, but to be happy you have to do harder things (brush teeth, workout, diet, educate yourself).

They go into how education, the state, religion, music and gymnastic should be done. This is at a time of Athens. Capitalism wasn't even in the picture.

Another interesting point is mind and body. Mastering the mind brings the body and mind into unison.

I didn't get all the mythology references so that hurt my understanding.

I don't do it justice, but go for it!

To say that Socrates should have left may have condemned us to philosophical darkness.

It is because of Socrates' death that Plato developed in the way he did, and wrote in the manner he did.

Socrates' death was one of the biggest domino's in the western philosophical canon.