Yves Charles Zark argues in his, The New York Times, article, “The Meaning of Utopia,” that Plato’s “Republic,” according to Thomas More’s definition of utopia, does not meet the criteria of being defined as a utopia. In this article Zark explains that a utopia, as defined by More, must be a place that is not located in the known world ; to find an alternative to the present condition we must look elsewhere for the solution. Essentially, the argument of this article is that Plato’s “Republic” is not a utopia because the solutions given for the problems of the time are to be set up in the known world whereas More’s “Utopia” is on an island outside of the known world.
The above argument, I think, is valid when the concept of utopia is observed strictly on More’s definition of “no-place” and “good-place.” However, as far as the concept of a place that is, a better alternative to the present, I think Plato’s “Republic” fulfills the definition. I certainly do not think that just because Plato wrote a redefinition of society in the current world that it cannot be classified as a utopia. Plato’s Republic most definitely seeks to reshape society in the known world.
While I understand the argument being made by Zark, I believe that Plato’s “Republic” still falls under More’s definition of a utopia. Zark argues it is not a utopia because it would be implemented into known society, however if it is not implemented it is still “no-place.” As long as the society that Plato is advocating for are words in a book, and not actual implementation, Plato’s “Republic” is still “no-place.” However, once the policies of Plato are implemented in the known world, perhaps it is no longer a utopia and another term is deserving.
Perhaps, even if Plato’s “Republic” were implemented it would still be considered a utopia because it would be nowhere. If it is a self-sustaining community without contact with the world outside of community, then to the rest of the world would be unaware of its existence, or have only heard rumors of it. Therefore to the outside world Plato’s utopia would be “no-place” because those on the outside do not have the opportunity to go inside the utopia and again may not be aware of its existence.
Whether or not Plato’s “Republic” remains a utopia after implementation, I believe that Zark is not correct in his assertion that the “Republic” is not a utopia. Without implementation, the “Republic” is still “no-place.”

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/the-meaning-of-utopia/ – “The Meaning of Utopia,” Yves Charles Zarka