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

Popular posts from this blog

Lovers of Wisdom, Not Power—Lily Caswell

In Book VIII of Plato’s Republic, Socrates talks about the possibility of having a well-governed city. However, he also talks about how that particular form of government is impossible to have. A well-governed city becomes a possibility only if you can discover a better way of life for your future rulers than holding office.” (Plato, p 215) Maybe his version of a better life was for those in office to not be lovers of power, since it would then become a fight among rival lovers. Socrates gets to the point that the only rulers who don’t love power are true philosophers. Philosophers are lovers of wisdom and knowledge and not power, ergo they are the perfect rulers. Absolute power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely, so I’m thinking that maybe the trick to being a good ruler is for you to be a philosophical person who loves wisdom and not power. I commented on Jamie’s and Isabelle’s posts.

How to Make a Clone - Clabo

I found books three and four to be very cringy. I mean, to me the idea of structurally producing good soldiers/guardians through heavy censorship is somewhat inhumane. I feel as if human beings should be allowed to experience every bit of knowledge they can at some point in their lives. To me, it seems as if the guardians are being guarded against information throughout their entire lives so they can solely fulfill the duties they were birthed into.  However, the influence and importance Plato places on poetry and music do make me wonder what it would be like if we had the same values as our military today. What if the United States military invested in the souls of its soldiers and placed within them emotional and intellectual values outside of what they have learned previously. Perhaps the military instills values and principles within soldiers to fulfill the same purpose as the guardians would in Plato's Republic and that is to only be that which the government wants you to be....

Dystopian Origins Uncovered ////// Isabelle Ferguson

  I think that ideas eventually run out of originality and circle back to the original idea. During this week's reading, many of Socrates’ suggestions for a place of perfection reminded me of some novels I’ve read depicting dystopian worlds. Disclaimer: There are spoilers ahead. You have been warned.        To begin, in  The  Giver  by Lois Lowry censorship is a major theme. The novel is centered around a boy who is receiving memories withheld from the population! The government in The Giver is especially careful to censor the memories that may cause strife, anger, fear, sadness, etc. In the adults, this society is cemented. So, the government is especially strict with the youth. Socrates talks about verses to “obliterate” to prevent the descriptions from doing “harm to our future warriors” for the better half of Book III (Plato, page 44). The warriors he speaks of are the youth. He goes on to list the multitude of verses that should be done ...