A Literal Plato?

Hath Plato a smirk? Is there whimsy in the Laws? Is the Republic the bastion of fools and is Magnesia meant to do for the neurotic what a wheel does for a rat?

No. 

-§-

It has been suggested to me that Plato has been accidentally interpreted in literal terms to the detriment of western philosophy. While the methods and standards of Greek translation are decidedly outside my realm of expertise, hermeneutics is, naturally, a hobby. 

Presently I see no reason to dismiss or shame my copy of The Republic. The passing of time, language, and cultures renders every translation of everything questionable. However the obfuscation of the basic tone and intent of one of the greatest thinkers in western history, I believe, can only be achieved by the willful misdirection of some organization of cloacked evil working under full moons or the perpetual incompetence of every thinker for the last 2,350 years. I conceed that we've had our institutional errors; we've interpreted many texts in order to defend slavery, sexism, and autocratic rule, we produced feudalism, The Treaty of Versailles, and were frightened of the year 2000. So I do spy a streek of incompetence and cannot deny the possiblity. But it's small, really, really small.    

Since the opposing view is fascinating, I suggest a blog debate and will agree to nearly any ground rules. Perhaps the following to start:

1. Citations used whenever possible
2. Debate begins after final exams (assuming I survive them with intellect intact...)
3. We each begin by clearly defining our position on Plato, his era, and the body of work attributed to him
4. Evidence may be brought from any academic discipline, though proper citation is of particular importance in these instances