Even today, Noble falsehood is a popular topic. On one hand, people are keen to talk how politicians use those well-intentional lies to achieve some incredible things. On the other hand, people accuse those politicians of divesting people’s right of choice making and intentionally hiding the truth. It seems that people have an alternative feeling towards falsehood. Thus, this essay is aim to discuss why and how in some cases falsehood is such a useful thing in politics, whereas in the others it is a contradiction in Plato’s political project.
Falsehood could be a useful evil in politic, because, apparently, by means of falsehood, the risk of social turmoil could be efficiently minimized or even eliminated. Thus, the ultimate good of the whole,
…show more content…
What we’ve discussed previously is all on the presupposition, in which we assume that all citizens want to acknowledge the truth. However, what if citizens don’t want the truth or What if people is incapable of burdening the truth? In those cases, ignorance could be a blessing. Like the allegory of the cave in Book VII, those people who get out of the cave is blind by the light, and they need time to “adjust before he could see things in the world above”(Grube, p188, 516a). Similarly, knowing the truth is actually a painful process and it takes time for people to understand. Not everyone could or even want to experience this pain instead they prefer to stay in the dark cave. Even in Snowden’s case, it is true that there is a large proportion of people are willing to sacrifice part of their own freedom and accept government surveillance. Simply because by giving up this proportion of freedom, they could live their old-happy and safe lives. They have no interest to know the true or to burden themselves with those pains and responsibilities. Thus, for them letting government to bear both responsibility of fighting against evil and the pains of hiding secrets seems to be a win-win case. Therefore, for them falsehood is a necessary
For many centuries, the art of deception has been a powerful tool for achieving goals, and it has spawned the ancient debate of the ends justifying the means. In the tragedy Philoctetes by Sophocles and in Hesiod's Theogony, there are many instances of deception, particularly on the part of men in the texts. For each of them, the deceit is justified as a means of building and maintaining a reputation or obtaining power. Ultimately, however, the use of deception results in putting the men in positions of further vulnerability.
In his Plato’s Republic Socrates tries to find the values of an ideal city in order to rightly define justice. Although I agree with most of his ideals for the city, there are also many that I disagree with. Some of his ideas that I accept are that women should be able to share the same responsibilities as the men, having women and children in common, , the recognition of honor based on the self rather than heredity, that the best philosophers are useless to the multitudes, and the philosopher / king as a ruler. I disagree with his views on censorship, having assigned positions in society, his views on democracy, and that art cannot be a respectable occupation.
In Plato’s Republic Book IV, Socrates sets out to convince Glaucon that a person acts with three different parts of the soul, rather than with the soul as a whole. He does this by presenting Glaucon with a variety of situations in which parts of the soul may conflict with one another, and therefore not acting together. Socrates describes the three parts of the soul as the rational part, or that which makes decisions, the appetitive part, or that which desires, and the spirited part, or that which gets angry (436a).
Plato’s Republic was a Socratic Dialogue discussing justice and the perfect State. Today, I will summarize, evaluate, and show application for our society in Book V of Plato’s Republic, “On Matrimony and Philosophy.”
As with all other topics discussed in “The Republic of Plato,” the section in which he discusses the myths of the metals or the “noble lie” is layered with questioning and potential symbolism, possible contradiction, and a significant measure of allusion. In Chapter X of “The Republic,” Plato presents “The Selection of Rulers: The
What is a lie? And when is it appropriate to tell a lie? Are two questions to think about after reading Plato's Republic translated by G.M.A Grube. A lie by definition is a false statement intended to deceive. Most people would agree this is not a "just" thing to do to your friends. In American society today, lying has always been a "bad" thing to do. Trust is very important, parents always tell their kids never to lie or they will loose their trust. Plato disagrees, with what most parents say to their children. He states there are two different kinds of lies, ones that are always improper to tell (True falsehoods). And ones that are suitable to tell against enemies, to prevent something bad happening to a friend, and to make up a story for a point. (Verbal falsehood).
I will now argue that lying is morally permissible on the basis of Plato’s Noble Lie. I will argue...
In the retelling of his trial by his associate, Plato, entitled “The Apology”; Socrates claims in his defense that he only wishes to do good for the polis. I believe that Socrates was innocent of the accusations that were made against him, but he possessed contempt for the court and displayed that in his conceitedness and these actions led to his death.
He attempts to try to reach the audience and tries to explain his reasoning for letting go of the primary causes, he believes if one is to let go of the reasons of the natural man's desires one may enjoy freedom.
...metimes it is the mechanisms that keep the political wheels in motion. If politics were absolutely subservient to morality and honesty, it would seem not only rather unrealistic but also undesirable. In the face of this problem, a challenge for Kant would be to defend the practicality and intuitive desirability of ‘honesty is better than any policy’.
Plato and Aristotle were both very influential men of there time bringing vast knowledge to the world. I honestly believe that Democracy does a lot of good but it definitely has some common side effects. Out of all of Plato's significant ideas, his best was the idea of democracy opening political decisions to the majority who cannot think on behalf of the community. Aristotle on the other hand is very optimistic when it comes to democracy so it becomes a rather interesting compare and contrast between these to men.
In Plato’s Apology, when Socrates is pleading his defence, he makes a good argument against the charges of corrupting the youth of Athens. This is evident when he states that, firstly, Meletus, the man who is trying to get Socrates executed, has never cared about the youth of Athens and has no real knowledge on the subject. Secondly, Socrates states that if he was in some way corrupting the youth, then he was doing it unintentionally or unwillingly, in which case he was brought to court for no reason. Finally, Socrates brings to light the fact that Meletus doesn’t have a single witness to attest to Socrates’ corruption. This is how Socrates proves his argument that he isn’t responsible for corrupting the youth of Athens.
In Book one of the Republic of Plato, several definitions of justice versus injustice are explored. Cephalus, Polemarchus, Glaucon and Thracymicus all share their opinions and ideas on what actions they believe to be just, while Socrates questions various aspects of the definitions. In book one, Socrates is challenged by Thracymicus, who believes that injustice is advantageous, but eventually convinces him that his definition is invalid. Cephalus speaks about honesty and issues of legality, Polemarchus explores ideas regarding giving to one what is owed, Glaucon views justice as actions committed for their consequences, and Socrates argues that justice does not involve harming anybody. Through the interrogations and arguments he has with four other men, and the similarity of his ideas of justice to the word God, Socrates proves that a just man commits acts for the benefits of others, and inflicts harm on nobody.
The concept of the noble lie begins with Plato in the Republic, where in search of an ideal state he told of a magnificent myth^1.The society that Plato imagined was separated into a three tier class structure- the Rulers, Auxiliaries, and the labor or working class. The Rulers, he said, would be selected from the military elite (called Guardians).The rulers would be those Guardians that showed the most promise, natural skill, and had proven that they cared only about the community’s best interests. The Auxiliaries were the guardians in training, and were subject to years of methodical preparation for rule. The lower class would be comprised of the workers and tradesmen, who being the most governed by their appetites, were best fit for labor. The introduction of the "noble lie" comes near the end of book three (414b-c)* Where Plato writes "we want one single, grand lie," he says, "which will be believed by everybody- including the rulers, ideally, but failing that the rest of the city".* The hypothical myth, or "grand lie" that Plato suggests is one in which, the Gods created the people of the city from the land beneath their feet, and that when the Gods made their spirit the precious metals from the ground got mixed into their souls. As a result some people were born with gold in their souls others with silver, and others with bronze, copper,or more even common metals like iron and brass. It was from this falsehood that the first phylosophical society’s social hierarchy was established. The myth goes as follows: Those the Gods made with gold in the souls were the most governed by reason, and who had a predisposition to contemplation which made them most suitable for rule. Those with silver in their souls where the most governed b...
It is reasonable to argue that, governmental institutions or people with authority are subject to withhold a great deal of information from society. Many may argue that secrets are kept to ensure the safety of the nation. Thus, upholding the governmental duty of protecting the nation against possible threats. On the other hand, many believe that secrets may exist which violate our constitutional rights. Over the last year, Edward Snowden, has made headline news for leaking sensitive governmental information to the press. Edward Snowden is a 29-year-old high school drop-out, who was a tech specialist for the National Security Association. Snowden had discovered and later exposed the NSA for monitoring the nations e-mails, phone calls, and internet searches. As the allegations spread like wild fire, Edward Snowden sought asylum in Russia for one year. Snowden had a valid and justifiable reason to expose the NSA to the world because they were in violation of our fourth Amendment rights to unreasonable searches and seizures. The government called him a traitor, while others viewed him as a hero for exposing the government. Edward Snowden is a whistle blower because he felt that it is up to society to decide if governmental practices are just or unjust. Snowden does “express the highest respect for the law”, and he wanted to protect the right of privacy for American citizens.