Skip to main content

Only We Can Lie // Jackson Riddle

 Would you agree that refraining from lying is a good thing? I sure think so. What about if lying benefits an individual by omitting an unnecessary truth, a truth that may negatively affect them? Would you still agree? Plato takes an interesting stance on this, one that stood out to me in my reading. He states on page 85 of Book III, "Further: we must prize truth. We said before that gods have no use for lies. If that is right, and it is also right that lies are useful to men only as a kind of medicine or remedy, then only doctors should be permitted to use them. Lay persons have no business lying. . . Only the rulers of the city--and no others--may tell lies. And their lies, whether directed to enemies or citizens, will be legitimate only if their purpose is to serve the public interest."

From this it can be inferred that Plato believes lying is an inappropriate act that should only be used by a select few as a sort of "medicine" to fix or get out of a situation. I agree with his this; lying is not something that should be taken lightly or used excessively, as it only leads to destruction. The Bible also speaks against lying in Leviticus 19:11. "Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another."

So where am I going with this? Well, later on in Book III Plato addresses the issue that individuals may question the decision of who is made to rule, thinking 'well why not me?'. To combat this, Plato creates a myth that says all people are born from the earth, and there are three kinds of people: those with gold in their nature, those with silver and those with iron and bronze. The people made with gold are suited to rule, those with silver are meant to be a warrior, and those with iron or bronze are made to be the farmers and craftsmen. Each person cannot grow out of their class; it's what they're made to do and that's that. This is where I disagree with Plato. Yes, I understand that creating such a myth keeps the people in line and balances the jobs between the citizens, but this is somewhat contradictory to his earlier statement that said to stray from lying. He's lying by creating a myth! But does it serve the public interest for the rulers of the city to spread such a myth? Plato would say yes, but I disagree. By creating this myth, not only is he lying to the citizens, he's also restricting them in their abilities. Say, for example, you were born into an iron family but had a passion and gift for being a warrior. The officials would not give you any opportunity to expand out of iron into silver, thus stripping your potential to serve your civilization. 

All that to say this: I don't believe it's right for Plato and the other officials to lie and categorize children by their placement in birth. I believe people should be allowed to pursue their passions and, if necessary, go against the flow of society. Just because someone classifies you as something doesn't make you that, and I believe it should have been the same for the citizens of Athens.


PS Abbie and Micah








Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aristotle Might Not Like Me...Or Jesus//Haylee Lynd

      Aristotle says that the man who does not get angry at the things he should be angry at "is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish" (Aristotle 41). While he states that passivity is preferred to excessive anger, he still gives great criticism to it.  In contrast to Aristotle, the man who Christians believe to be the most just is Jesus who states in Matthew 5:39-40, "...do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Essentially, arguing that one is not to respond in anger when insulted or hurt, to not defend one's self. Most individual's are unable to achieve this. Our natural instinct is to defend ourselves, especially in physical cases. However, Christians strive to be like Jesus in this way. I would also argue that it is a very admirable wa...
2 comments
Read more

Oedipus’ Children/Siblings—Lily Caswell

Ok, so Oedipus is a bit of a train wreck to say the least. I love the fact that even after Oedipus found out about his less-than-appealing relationship with his mother, he still tried to look after his children/siblings. After he gouged his eyes out, his children came to him at which point Oedipus talked about how that when they were old enough to marry, no one would want them due to them being products of incest. He said for the people not to condemn them based on what their father had done. Even after he knew what he had done and what his children were, he still wanted the best for them. I commented on Logan’s and Ian’s posts.
3 comments
Read more

Overanalyzing Everyone's Intentions Here-Rachael Gregson

 First off, I'd like to say this is going to be a two part blog post, because a lot of things happened in this reading assignment that demands to be discussed.  As with any war I've realized, it's tricky not to fall into the initial perspective I am given. I began this book skeptical of Hector because I was bias toward the movie Troy, which was told mostly through the eyes of Achilles, but neither were what I was expecting. It's actually funny that they both hold values completely opposite from one another. Hector represented everything related to city-state pride, honor, and humility whereas Achilles was everything wild, reckless, and unpredictable solitary. This isn't to say that Hector is all good and Achilles all bad. Both had instances where I rooted for the other more or less. I just thought it was interesting how their two personalities represented something that basically causes all wars: the clash between civilization and savagery.  Secondly, I'm not de...
2 comments
Read more