Philosophy: Subject of Vandal Confusion

Taking a course on political philosophy, has all the junk in it: Plato's Republic, Trial and Death of Socrates, Commie Manifesto, Machiavelli The Prince, John Locke Second Treatise of Government. All of the books are revolutionary in some sense, and inspire me to find out my own philosophy instead of prescribing to theirs. First off I don't like Platos Republic, many arguments with my teacher have left me with little answers to the questions I asked. Though the books purpose of course is to understand what justice is; taking you on a journey to an absurd city which would reminds me of Brave New World and 1984 combined, also a little Sparta as well. I reject Predestination, so that is probably the cause of my resistance. I question the point of the book, it may sound that I am crude or obtuse, but when a writers sets up an objective and goes through the process of trying to attain the objective only to trick you into thinking that they have attained the objective but really hasn't; then what was the purpose of it in the first place? Why make a world which is supposedly better then ours but is impossible to attain, and if attained would be a frightful place to live... My teacher explained that it is an idyllic world "a world that exists only in speech"(Plato). Well that is true but what is the purpose of it if it is not supposed to be strived for nor answer the question for which it was created? Oh well... Well I suppose Ill start on One Dimensional Man by Marcuse. Hopefully a more inspiring read. Maybe common sense first...