The Wiki article does not mention a similar concept in Mahayana Buddhism -- upaya, "skillful means". — baker

Perhaps it should.

As a matter of fact, ancient civilizations had a different understanding of the concept of "lie". Although telling a lie with harmful or criminal intent was universally condemned, telling lies in general, was not always seen as reprehensible. On the contrary, being skilled at telling lies was often seen as a virtue. The Greek heroes (and even the Gods) were particularly good at lying and deceiving.

The absolutist distinction between truth and lie in the Western world was introduced by St Augustine. This is one of the reasons why I am saying that we must avoid interpreting Plato's "Phoenician tale" in the modern sense of "lie".

But if you have reliable sources for the Buddhist "upaya" you can always register with Wikipedia as an editor and suggest it to them :smile:

Morosophos’ argument may be “ad populum”, but the “populum” he cites are respected scholars, interpreters and translators. — Leghorn

They may or may not be "respected". It is still ad populum and it doesn't make it right. There are lots of "respected" people that hold unsound opinions ....

Your argument, however, is purely ad hominem: anyone who thinks Plato believed the rulers ought to lie to the people is an anti-Platonist or Straussian, or pro-tyrannical. — Leghorn

That is YOUR interpretation of my argument. In reality, what I am saying is that some people use Plato's "noble lie" to argue that Plato's whole teaching is based on lies and on dictatorial tendencies/ambitions, etc. as Popper does (see Open Society and Its Enemies).

And it is Gerson, a highly respected scholar, who affirms that there is an anti-Platonist trend that started in the 1800's, as stated in my previous posts.

I think it is legitimate to call someone "anti-Platonist" when they claim that Plato is a "liar", a "dictator", that his dialogues "have no metaphysical or even philosophical content", etc.

Would you call Popper a pro-Platonist?

But I think the objection is that you're coming across as a conspiracy theorist. — Wayfarer

Well, there is no surprise there. It has become routine or knee-jerk reaction to accuse someone of being a "conspiracy theorist" the minute they open their mouth to state facts that some people are ignorant of or choose to ignore.

Instead of checking the facts, even if they are mainstream or academic knowledge, they just scream "conspiracy theory" in affected horror :grin:

See

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11007/conspiracy-paranoia-denial-and-related-issues

Platonism is a battlefield for leftists and rightists? That doesn't sound very likely. — frank

I never said it was.

Gerson says that "Platonism is philosophy and anti-Platonism is antiphilosophy" and that there is a growing anti-Platonist trend, which I tend to agree with.

But some academics like to see Plato as a "counter-revolutionary" and his Republic as a "handbook for aspiring dictators". Popper claimed that the Republic was the founding text for totalitarianism.

The truth of the matter is that the only time Plato got involved in politics was in Sicily after which he gave up on seeing the kind of intrigues active politics entailed. Dictatorship was totally against his personality and character.

Even Lee acknowledges not only that it can be understood in this way but that this should be kept in mind. — Fooloso4

Not true.

He simply says that pseudos can have several meanings - as can be seen from Bailly - in general.

In fact, his first comment on pseudos is with reference to 377a, where he says stories "are of two kinds, true stories and fiction".

And the second refers to 382d where he has "we don't know the truth about the past but we can invent a fiction as like as may be".

Nothing whatsoever to do with 414b-c!

Let's be clear about what he is claiming: — Fooloso4

I am claiming exactly what Gerson is claiming, i.e. that there is an anti-Platonist movement led by academics with a political agenda. Strauss is a political scientist with a keen interest in politics as can be gathered from the press and from his own statements:

Let me explain: as political scientists we are interested in political phenomena. But we must also be interested, simultaneously, in the political as political

The rest of my claims are from mainstream sources like Wikipedia as per the links provided.

On the one hand I have cited five contemporary translations that say "lie"
On the other Lee who says it is ambiguous and we should keep in mind that it also means lie. — Fooloso4

That's an argument ad populum. And not a very clever one, either.

The fact is that Lee is a more nuanced and careful reader. And he obviously consults more recent sources than the 1800's LSJ :grin:

Plus, as I said, the fact that some translators choose to use "a noble lie" must NOT be taken to mean that it is a phrase that Plato himself uses.

Karl Popper accused Plato of trying to base religion on a noble lie as well.

Noble lie - Wikipedia

Popper is a good illustration of how anti-Platonists use the myth (or weasel word) of Plato's "noble lie" to claim that everything he says is "based on lies", which is an unacceptable distortion. In fact, a lot of Plato's statements are demonstrably not lies.

Mellissa Lane in her introduction to Desmond Lee's Republic translation shows why Popper's attacks on Plato are baseless. And Lee's translation and notes are excellent and very illuminating. They make a big difference to the likes of Shorey.

What Apollodorus is proposing is a cultural war against what allows us to have this conversation. — Valentinus

On the contrary, I think that is what YOU are proposing. You are making false statements and using dodgy translations and sources in an attempt to suppress conversation.

The fact that some translators use the phrase "a noble lie" does not mean that it is a phrase used by Plato.

As already stated, "noble lie" is a modern political term that should not be used for translations of Plato especially when it is clear from the context that it is wrong to do so.

I think it's part of the much broader 'culture war' between scientific secularism and religious belief, — Wayfarer

Or between change or "progress" and existing culture.

Gerson says:

We see the history of philosophy as the development of Platonism (with a few interesting outliers), followed in the seventeenth century by the beginning of efforts to find some common ground between Platonism and Naturalism, followed in the eighteenth century and then ever after, by the growing dominance of Naturalism ....

- Platonism and Naturalism, p. 265

Elsewhere he says:

I have argued in this book that Proclus's praise of Plotinus as leading the way in the exegesis of the Platonic revelation is essentially correct. Although this is a view shared by scholars of Platonism and by Platonists, too, well into the nineteenth century, it is a view that is today, especially in the English-speaking world, mostly either ridiculed or ignored .... some few scholars have inferred from this fact that the dialogues must therefore not be philosophical writings at all

- From Plato to Platonism, p. 308

Indeed, we find Strauss making the following statement:

In what I said there is an implication which I would like to make explicit: Plato never wrote a system of philosophy

- L. Strauss, On Plato's Symposium, p. 5

Either there is a movement called "anti-Platonism" as Gerson and others assert, or there isn't.

If, as Gerson says, "Platonism is philosophy and anti-Platonism is antiphilosophy" (Platonism and Naturalism, p. 8), then anti-Platonism must have certain nuclei of dispersion some of which are more influential than others. Straussianism does have considerable influence in the anti-Platonist movement and I think it is instructive to see how it acquired this influence.

I don't think Platonists can afford to be mere passive observers. They need to understand the situation, its causes, and its remedies, and take appropriate action.

The Bailly dictionary uses French terms not available to Plato. Referring to them to resolve the matter is pointless and bizarre. — Valentinus

By your logic, because the LSJ uses English terms not available to Plato, referring to them to resolve the matter is pointless and bizarre - to say the least.

Plato does not use the phrase "a noble lie". This is a modern political term that should not be used for translations of Plato especially when it is clear from the context that it is wrong to do so.

It should be obvious that Lee's translation fits the context much better.

So which is it? Did he say it or not? Could it be that he said it and did not say it because he said it in an earlier edition? — Fooloso4

I just told you!

My version is correct because it is the most recent. Yours is 1974, mine is revised 1987 edition with new introduction of 2007.

Authors do revise their works, do they not?

And why are using the Liddell Scott from the 1800's when there is a 2020 edition of Bailly???!!!

What are you trying to hide???

The fact is that like most words, pseudos can have different meanings depending on the context. This may be inconvenient to you but that's your problem.

At any rate, Plato does not say "a noble lie". The "Phoenician tale" does not refer to Forms or soul and it is irrational to claim otherwise.

Your questions reveal a complete ignorance of how Ancient Greek works as a language. — Valentinus

Correct. YOUR ignorance! :smile:

He translates the term as 'fiction' but points to the fact that the term also means lies, fraud, and deceit. — Fooloso4

No he doesn't!

That’s an old edition. The latest Penguin Classics 2007 edition that I have right in front of me does not have “fraud and deceit” and it is in the Notes section at the end of the book at page 387.

And anyway, Lee’s translation has “magnificent myth” and this is what really matters.

Verbs are typically given as first person singular, in the present tense. So ψεύδω, for instance, says "I lie." — Valentinus

Really! Wow! That's too interesting. Unfortunately. it does NOT answer my question.

Plus, as even the blind can see from Bailly, ψεῦδος has several meanings:

ψεῦδος ψεύδεσθαι, 2 sans intention de tromper, erreur, Plat. Rsp. 389 b ; particul. mensonge fait avec l’intention de rassurer une armée, XÉn. Mem. 4, 2, 17 || 3 invention poétique, Pd. P. 2, 68, etc. ; Plut. M. 16 b, etc. ; au plur. Il. 21, 276 ; 23, 576 ; Od. 11, 365 ; 14, 387 ; 19, 203 ; HÉs. O. 25, 78 ; Th. 27 ; Soph. Ph. 831 ; Plat. Theæt. 173 a, etc. || 4 action déguisée, trompeuse, Od. 14, 296 ; particul. ruse de guerre, DS. 20, 17 ; Plut. Sert. 10 ;

Le Grand Bailly: Dictionnaire grec-français - PDF

Thus,

1. error with no intention to deceive
2. poetic invention/fiction
3. faint, military ruse

Note that Bailly is a 2020 edition and that the LSJ you are using is from close to the Middle Ages. If that isn’t calculated deception I don’t know what is! :rofl:

Maybe we should start from the start?

So .... according to you ψευδομένους and ψεῦδος are one and the same thing?

Or is it ψευδομένους and ψεύδω?

Or, perhaps, it is ψεύδω and ψεῦδος?

Or is it just hard to make up your mind?

And are you still claiming that "γενναῖόν τι ἓν ψευδομένους πεῖσαι μάλιστα μὲν καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἄρχοντας, εἰ δὲ μή, τὴν ἄλλην πόλιν" means "a noble lie"? Or are you now retracting your fraudulent statement?

The word ψευδομένους is a form of the verb ψεύδω. — Valentinus

Very interesting.

So .... according to you ψευδομένους and ψεῦδος are one and the same thing?

Or is it ψευδομένους and ψεύδω?

Or, perhaps, it is ψεύδω and ψεῦδος?

Or is it just hard to make up your mind?

And are you still claiming that "γενναῖόν τι ἓν ψευδομένους πεῖσαι μάλιστα μὲν καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἄρχοντας, εἰ δὲ μή, τὴν ἄλλην πόλιν" means "a noble lie"? Or are you now retracting your statement?

I think you may be (conveniently) ignoring some important facts:

1. As a general rule, words can have different meanings in different contexts.

2. As clearly shown by lexicons of Ancient Greek, pseudos can have different meanings depending on the context.

Here is the lexicon text I provided a link to but that you have inexplicably refused to read:

LSJ
A v. ψευδής 1.2: (ψεύδω):— falsehood, lie

Bailly abrégé
3 invention poétique;
4 action déguisée, trompeuse ; particul. ruse de guerre.

LSJ

So, not just falsehood and lie, but also "poetic fiction" and "(military) faint"!

It follows that Lee is perfectly entitled to use "fiction" or "story" whenever this is suggested by the context, as in the present case where Socrates himself says "Phoenician tale like the ones poets tell" (414c) and he does not need your permission to do so.

Presumably, in your opinion, the Greek words "pseudos", "mythos", "logos", "eidos", etc. all mean "lie" and "lie" only and in all circumstances and no matter what. I think that's just wishful thinking, to be honest (not to say anything else).

And now you are saying that you are not talking about Republic 414c but about Cratylus! :grin:

This is what Lee says:

The Greek word PSEUDOS and its corresponding verb meant not only 'fiction' - stories, tales - but also 'lies' -fraud and deceit: and this ambiguity should be borne in mind. (page 114) — Fooloso4

Lee does not say that.

He says:

The Greek word pseudos and its corresponding verb meant not only ‘fiction’ – stories, tales – but also ‘what is not true’ and so, in suitable contexts, ‘lies’: and this ambiguity should be born in mind (p. 387)

And there are examples where he uses "fiction", "falsehood", and "poetic fiction" at 382d.

You seem unable to bring in an example of any kind to support Lee's interpretation. — Valentinus

You seem unable to bring in any evidence that "γενναῖόν τι ἓν ψευδομένους πεῖσαι μάλιστα μὲν καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἄρχοντας, εἰ δὲ μή, τὴν ἄλλην πόλιν" means "a noble lie".

As for me, I have provided a link to dictionaries of Ancient Greek that give additional meanings that support Lee's translation. It isn't my fault that you refuse to read them.

Plus, Socrates' use of the phrase "Phoenician tale" renders the meaning perfectly clear IMO.

That resource uses Liddell and Scott for Ancient Greek. — Valentinus

Of course it does! What other kind of Greek are you talking about?

Lee says exactly what LSJ says, "pseudos = falsehood, lie":

To begin with, there is a difference between "falsehood" and "lie". And other dictionaries list additional meanings such as "poetic fiction", "faint", etc. That's why Lee emphasizes the fact that "English cannot keep the ambiguity" and that the reader should bear this in mind!

I cannot find a single entry in Liddell and Scott that even remotely supports Lee's statement. Are Liddell and Scott also "Straussians"? That means the guy was able to travel back in time. — Valentinus

Well, if you can travel back in time and talk to Socrates, why not Lee?

Plus scholars don’t rely on just one dictionary, do they?

So, perhaps you should take a better look:

LSJ

BTW, you have not demonstrated that Plato is telling lies about Forms.

Can you say that you have verified the authenticity of the translation you quoted, from your own intimacy with Plato’s Greek? — Leghorn

Of course I have verified it. The Greek text does not say "a noble lie", period.

And Socrates himself says, "Nothing new. But a Phoenician one". So he is not suggesting a lie to replace the truth, but a story to replace the existing one.

Moreover, this has no bearing on the Forms or any other key teachings in his dialogues. He doesn't say "let's create a story about Forms" or "let's create a story about the immortality of the soul, judgment in the afterlife", etc. On the contrary, he urges people to believe in the views already current at the time!

Prove that claim, with examples to support the opinion. — Valentinus

The Greek word pseudos and its corresponding verb meant not only ‘fiction’ – stories, tales – but also ‘what is not true’ and so, in suitable contexts, ‘lies’: and this ambiguity should be born in mind [377a] … English cannot keep the ambiguity, but the reader should remember that a single Greek word lies behind the two words used in this passage [382d]

- D. Lee, Plato, The Republic, pp. 387, 388

1. I think if I have to choose between Lee and you, there can be only one option …. :grin:

2. In Socrates’ own words, the “Phoenician tale” is meant to replace an existing one.

3. The tale does NOT refer to the Forms, the immortality of soul, or any other key elements of Plato’s teachings!

Compare the 'edifying tale' with the Buddhist conception of Upaya — Wayfarer

There is no doubt that there are parallels. Straussianism itself is like a religious cult with a subversive political and cultural agenda.

Whilst teaching political science at the University of Chicago, Strauss indoctrinated Allan Bloom, Seth Benardete, Joseph Cropsey, Stanley Rosen, and many others who have contributed to the wider anti-Platonist movement, acting as self-appointed “translators” and “interpreters” of Plato and other Classical authors.

However, as already stated, Strauss and his crew are just the tip of the worldwide anti-Platonist iceberg. If we take a closer look, we discover other leading anti-Platonists from the same notorious University of Chicago, such as Paul Shorey (“Professor of Greek”), whose “translations” of Plato have been propagated by the Loeb Classical Library. As is well-known, the Loeb Library was founded in 1911 by James Loeb, senior partner at Kuhn, Loeb & Co., America’s No 2 private investment bank (after J P Morgan & Co).

From 1936 the Loeb series was co-published by Harvard University which was controlled by the same Rockefellers who sponsored Strauss and bankrolled the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), the National Bureau of Economic Research (NY), The New School (NY), the Social Science Research Council (NY), the American Council of Learned Societies (NY) and many other similar outfits in America and Europe!

Incidentally, David Rockefeller himself in the 1930’s studied economics at Harvard and LSE (which was bankrolled by his father John D. Rockefeller Jr.), wrote a graduate thesis on Fabian Socialism, and completed his studies at the University of Chicago which had been founded by his grandfather in the 1890’s (D. Rockefeller, Memoirs).

Beardsley Ruml of the Rockefellers’ University of Chicago, was put in charge of the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fund and its fellowship program. Together with other University of Chicago operatives like Wesley Clair Mitchell and Charles Edward Merriam Jr, Ruml led America’s Progressive Movement and poured Rockefeller resources into the social sciences and related fields in line with their “progressive” agenda.

The informal name of Rockefellers’ New School whose operatives included anti-Platonists like Strauss and Benardete was “The New School for Social Research”.

Social research for what purpose, one may ask?

As revealed on its website, “formally named The New School, the university has grown to include five colleges, with courses that reflect the founders' interest in the emerging social sciences, international affairs, liberal arts, history, and philosophy”. The same website also states that “The New School for Social Research has upheld The New School's legendary tradition of challenging orthodoxy” and urges its students to “be a force of new thought, knowledge, and ideas in the world. “

The New School

Why were America’s top bankers and industrialists sponsoring anti-Platonist academics? Who were they? What were they up to? What was their agenda? Why have they been seeking to influence, manipulate, and control Western philosophy including, in particular, political philosophy, as well as political science and political psychology?

What does “challenging orthodoxy and replacing it with new thought” mean? Whose “new thought”?! Who challenges the challengers? Is there an attempt to deconstruct Western culture by cancelling its classical foundations? In whose behalf is this being done and why?

I think these are important questions that philosophers should not ignore or sweep under the carpet. And forums should foster, not stifle discussion of this topic.

You might want to deal with our ugly history and immediate problems, instead of staying within a religious fantasy. — Athena

I don't know what "religious fantasy" you are talking about, as to my recollection I have never discussed my religious beliefs! I am simply pointing out what I think are inaccuracies and inconsistencies in your statements.

I do admit that you have an interesting interpretation of European history. But it isn’t very convincing. My interpretation is slightly different.

The Celts were disorganized, disunited, and often sided with Rome against other Celts. This is how Rome conquered and colonized them and Celtic language was replaced with Latin.

The Germanic tribes were a different story. They were never colonized and preserved their language to this day. To begin with, they were better organized and disciplined. Some had served as auxiliaries in the Roman army or as Roman allies (foederati) where they learned strategy and tactics, becoming as good if not better than the Romans.

They defeated the Celts, formed independent kingdoms on the outskirts of the Empire and eventually supplanted the Romans. The Western Roman Empire became a Germanic empire consisting of dozens of Germanic kingdoms that later developed into modern European states.

However, even after the fall of the Latin West to the Germanic tribes (in 476), parts of Italy remained under the control of the Greek East which did not go through any “Dark Ages”!

The Republic of Venice, for example, had its capital at Heraclia, named after Eastern Roman Emperor Heraclius. Already in the 700’s it had expanded its trade links with the Eastern Roman Empire and had become a major trading center.

Under Byzantine protection and privileges (exemption from taxes and duties, etc.) Venice was able to establish a commercial monopoly throughout the Eastern Roman Empire.

It was first under the influence of the Greeks and later of the Germanic Franks (the new European power who held the title of Emperor of the Romans till 1806) that Italian city-states acquired the wealth that led to the birth of the Renaissance.

And, of course, Portugal and Spain became empires in their own right not during but after they freed themselves from Arab occupation.

Anyway, take a look at Byzantine, Italian, and German architecture during the “Dark Ages” when the “destruction of Roman culture by the Church” is supposed to have taken place. I think you will see that “Dark Ages” is a misnomer:

Byzantine architecture - Wikipedia

Ravenna - Wikipedia

Charlemagne’s Palatine Chapel (805 AD) – Wikipedia

(Click on image to enlarge, click again to enlarge further, and scroll up and down for full view)

Soon afterwards, Glaucon says, “How like a man hesitant to speak you are,” (Bloom translation), but in reading the Bloom translation, we cannot understand this response, for his translation reads “noble lie” for “gennaion ti”. He should have written instead, “noble thing”. This would have better, and more faithfully to the Greek, conveyed Socrates’ hesitancy. — Leghorn

However, Bloom is a Straussian, is he not?

But I wonder how much of that interpretation is being driven by your own philosophical commitments? — Wayfarer

I would say philosophical and political.

It is important to understand that Greek ψεῦδος pseudos is not the same as English “lie”. It is less strong and it has a broader range of meaning than the English word. It can mean story, tale, poetic fiction, faint, etc., not just plain falsehood or lie.

More honest translators like Desmond Lee actually point this out in their commentaries. Lee’s translation reads:

‘Now I wonder if we could contrive one of those convenient stories we were talking about a few minutes ago, I asked, ‘some magnificent myth that would in itself carry conviction to our whole community, including, if possible, the Guardians themselves?’
‘What sort of story?’
‘Nothing new – a fairy story like those the poets tell and have persuaded people to believe about the sort of thing that often happened “once upon a time”

In my view, this captures Plato’s intention much better than translations that insist on indiscriminately using “lie” to make Plato sound like Lenin or Stalin.

Once the meaning of pseudos has been clarified, the correct reading becomes obvious from Socrates’ own answer to the question “What sort of story?”: “Nothing new. A fairy story like the one poets tell”.

Clearly, what he has in mind is a story (literally, “a Phoenician tale”) to replace the existing one. Hence, “nothing new” (meden kainon).

If you take a look at the Talk pages where editors discuss Wikipedia articles you’ll get an idea of what’s happening behind the scenes. Below is a comment on “Noble Lie”:

Does anyone know where Plato said:
"The noble lie will inform them that they are better than those they serve and it is, therefore, their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves"?
This quote is in the article, but with "citation needed." I've been searching for a few hours, and I can't find it. I emailed a professor of ancient philosophy, and he denied that Plato ever said it. This is mind boggling because hundreds of websites and articles attribute this to Plato, but none can specify where in the Republic. Perhaps we should remove it from the article? Lumentenebra (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk: Noble lie – Wikipedia

In any case, we should not assume that academics and their financial sponsors have no subversive political and cultural agendas.

However, that does not make Christianity God's truth. It is not a revealed religion but the work of many minds building on stories others have told. — Athena

But that doesn’t mean that there is no truth in those stories.

Christianity went through a period of clarifying its theology and rejecting anything that was pagan. That is when it went into the Dark Age. — Athena

I don’t think there is any evidence for that. There was no “Dark Ages” in the Greek East.

Why single out the Christians? Because they rebelled against the law and gave us a different truth from the revealed religion the Jews followed. — Athena

They didn’t rebel against the Law. Christians rebelled against animal sacrifices, rituals and dietary regulations that in their opinion distracted from true spiritualty. The core of the Law, consisting of the Ten Commandments, was preserved intact.

To say science reemerged in a Christian society seems to deny what the rest of the world achieved and what the achievements of others has to do with the advancements that the west made. — Athena

Not at all. There is no connection between one and the other. As already stated, Christianity built upon what was already there in Classical and other traditions. And we can’t deny the fact that modern science developed in the West, not in Arabia.

Jews became the money dealers so Christians didn't have to get their hands dirty. You know a lot so perhaps you know of the history of which I speak? — Athena

I think this may be another modern era myth. Of course some Jews were involved in monetary transactions. But large-scale money lending (at interest!) was already practiced by Christian estates controlled by monasteries and the Church.

There was some initial opposition to commercial activities by the clergy and monks but by the 1100's this was no longer the case and capitalism was able to develop without hindrance from the Church. There was nothing comparable in the Islamic world where production and exchange came increasingly under the control of the state. It was the economic freedom in Christian Europe that made the difference IMO.

It's not just one intellectual, it's the whole cosmopolitan intelligentsia, and the thrust of modern academia generally, particularly in the English-speaking world. — Wayfarer

Indeed. Straussianism is a whole school, mainly based in Chicago. There are hundreds of them!

And they are just the tip of the anti-Platonist iceberg. So, Maritain is perfectly right.

The fact is that Strauss was a follower of Maimonides who got the idea from Ibn Sina and al-Farabi that ancient philosophers had secret teachings concealed in their works. Maimonides said that people should avoid Plato because he uses too many allegories and should read Aristotle instead.

Strauss had a “better” idea. He decided to use the “noble lie” myth to develop his own political theory according to which governments and political philosophers must hide the truth from the public and disclose it to an initiated intellectual elite, only.

Of course Strauss was backed by Fabians and their financial sponsors because Fabianism believes in gaining influence and power through deception and “permeation”, i.e. propaganda, and their sponsors like the Rockefellers were among America’s most devious and ruthless industrialists and bankers who were notorious for using academics and politicians to promote their agenda.

The fraudulence of the Straussians and the wider anti-Platonist movement is evident from their spurious interpretation of Platonic texts. The fact is that the phrase “a noble lie” does not occur in the Greek text and it does not refer to the Forms.

Unfortunately, being themselves committed atheists and materialists, Strauss and other anti-Platonist ideologists obviously feel that Plato must have been an atheist and materialist, too. This is why they fail to examine their own assumptions. Their self-confident, dogmatic approach prevents them from even asking themselves why not every translation of the Republic has “noble lie”.

Let us look at the Wikipedia Article “Noble Lie”. It says:

This is his [Socrates'] noble lie: "a contrivance for one of those falsehoods that come into being in case of need, of which we were just now talking, some noble one...”

Note how the translation abruptly stops after “noble one”. What could the reason for this be? Simply put, the Greek text does not say “noble lie”!

And this illustrates the wider problem of a mainstream consensus being built by a (well-funded) intellectual elite that seeks to suppress all forms of opposition to its dogma. It has not yet completely taken over public sources like Wikipedia, but this is what it aims to achieve ….

They are promoting Islam lite, offering a point of contact between Western culture (soap operas depicting romance, personal and family tribulations) and Muslim culture (those tribulations are effectively addressed within the Muslim religious context, wjhich can nevertheless be made to appear secular enough). — baker

I think "secular" is the key word. Islam has always been the sweetheart of the Left who see Islam as a form of atheism (invisible god, no religious images, etc.) that will rid the world of Christianity for them. Hence their constant appeasement of Islam.

It reminds one of Churchill's comment about appeasing the enemy:

Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. But I fear greatly that the storm will not pass. It will rage and it will roar ever more loudly, ever more widely.

The idea of something existing “outside of space and time” makes empiricists nervous — Wayfarer

I think it positively freaks them out.

But what is really hilarious is the way Straussians are attempting to cover up their master’s true colors.

Strauss started his career as a teacher at a rabbinical seminary in Berlin.

In 1932 he left Germany for France on a Rockefeller fellowship. The Rockefellers were major sponsors of Fabian Socialist outfits like the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).

From France Strauss moved to London, England, where he became a close friend of Fabian Socialists like H. R. Tawney who were connected with the Rockefeller-funded LSE.

In 1937, Strauss moved from London to New York under the patronage of Harold Laski, a Fabian Socialist and Marxist who taught political science at LSE and who also was a member of the Fabian Society and British Labour Party executives.

In New York, Strauss taught political science at The New School, a Fabian Socialist institution funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and Universal Oil, after which he moved to Chicago.

Not content with Judaism, Strauss also took a keen interest in Spinozism and Arabism and maintained close links to Arabists like Paul Kraus (who married Strauss’ sister). After studying anti-Platonists like Maimonides, Strauss developed the theory (or fixed idea) that Classical philosophers like Plato had a hidden political agenda which they concealed behind allegorical language.

Leo Strauss – Wikipedia

Strauss believed that governments and political philosophers (like himself) should hide the truth from the public by means of “noble lies”. So, we can see why it became so important for Strauss to propagate the myth of “Plato’s noble lie”. He was making a living out of it by using this myth to justify his own teachings!

In any case, it is clear that Strauss is either psychologically incapable of understanding Plato or deliberately misinterprets him for his own political agenda. And the same goes for his followers.

Take, for example the inability to understand that Forms can be at once transcendent to and immanent in the sensible world. I think everyone can see that the sun is above the world we live in but its light is immanent in it. Similarly, the Forms themselves are transcendent but their properties reflected in the sensible particulars are very much in this world.

As already noted, the phrase “noble lie” seems to be a (deliberate) mistranslation of the Greek original and it clearly distorts Plato’s intention.

As you can see, they cherry pick a bit of text to suit their agenda:

γενναῖόν τι ἓν ψευδομένους πεῖσαι μάλιστα μὲν καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἄρχοντας, εἰ δὲ μή, τὴν ἄλλην πόλιν

Moreover, they provide no translation! Not surprisingly, they are unable to say where exactly the text says “noble lie”. They expect us to believe that Plato needs 17 words to say just 2 :grin:

And, of course, nowhere does Plato say that the Forms are a myth or a lie.

This is why in addition to reading Plato we also need to keep a tab on his detractors, especially those with a hidden (or perhaps not so hidden) political agenda.

Forms, ideas, numbers, principles and so on, are not 'existent things', they're not 'out there somewhere'. Rather they are better thought of as constitutive elements of reason. But they're also not simply subjective or a product of the mind — Wayfarer

Correct. One way of looking at it is that the Forms are within the Universal Consciousness or "Mind of God", in which case they are subjective to the One, but "objective" to the many. As the individual nous expands its field or sphere of awareness, it gets closer and closer to the World Nous and thereby acquires an ever-clearer grasp of the nature of the Forms. In any case, Buddhists and Hindus, especially those who have some experience of meditative states of consciousness seem to find it easier to understand the concept.

Regarding the “noble lie” theory, it is just a theory, typically advanced by those who believe in political propaganda like Strauss and his followers. In reality, it is far from clear that “noble lie” is the correct translation in the first instance.

Desmond Lee makes the following observation:

Plato has been criticized for his Foundation Myth as if it were a calculated lie. That is partly because the phrase here translated ‘magnificent myth’ (p. 145) has been conventionally mistranslated ‘noble lie’; and this has given rise to the idea that Plato countenances political propaganda of the most unscrupulous kind. In fact, as Cornford points out, the myth is accepted by all three classes, Guardians included. It is meant to replace the national traditions which any community has, which are intended to express the kind of community it is, or wishes to be, its ideals, rather than to state matters of fact. And one of Plato’s criticisms of democracy was, in effect, that it was government by propaganda, telling the right lie to the people (cf. p. 263).

- H. D. P. Lee, Plato The Republic, p. 156

If we look at it objectively, some important points become obvious:

Plato’s foundation myth is simply replacing an old myth with a new one. It is not replacing truth with a lie.

A myth taken as a whole, may be false but it also contains truth, as Socrates himself says (Rep. 377a).

Myth enables philosophical inquiry to reach its goal (Rep. 614a).

This is the key to understanding Plato’s myths: they serve a philosophical purpose as well as conveying a truth.

And, of course, nowhere does Plato say that the Forms or God are just myths!

On the contrary, it is imperative to remember that, in order to develop our power of abstract thought, Plato urges us to study mathematics not in any way but in a particular way that prepares us for the specific task of grasping the nature of the Forms.

Such studies he says, “guide and convert the soul to the contemplation of true being” (Rep. 525a), a statement he repeats several times.

Calculation and arithmetic, which “plainly compels the soul to employ pure thought with a view to truth itself”, focuses not just on numbers, but also on spatial arrangements (such as military formations in lines and columns) which prepare us for the next stage involving geometrical forms.

Geometry, “the knowledge of the eternally existent”, focuses on pure geometrical figures consisting of the lines that were introduced in the previous stage.

Astronomy, which “converts the natural indwelling intelligence of the soul from uselessness to right use”, focuses on the correlations of spatial and temporal relations among geometrical solids (heavenly bodies) whose movement gives rise to day and night, etc.

Harmony, the study of which “is of use only when conducted for the investigation of the beautiful and the good”, takes us beyond spatiality by focusing on the ratios expressed by the figures studied up to this point and including musical pitch.

Thus, Plato’s training program takes us from the one-dimensional to the two-dimensional, from the two-dimensional to the three-dimensional, from the three-dimensional to the three-dimensional in motion, and from the latter to time, thus covering all the dimensions of the material world and facilitating our understanding of the innermost structure of the world of becoming as constituted by intelligibles and dependent on being.

Plato’s statements are definitely no “lies”. The study of mathematics in the way suggested by Plato, does actually help in the development of the ability to think abstractly and to grasp abstract concepts.

It is true that Plato stops at the threshold to Forms having Socrates and Glaucon say:

You will not be able, dear Glaucon, to follow me further, though on my part there will be no lack of goodwill. And, if I could, I would show you, no longer an image and symbol of my meaning, but the very truth, as it appears to me—though whether rightly or not I may not properly affirm. But that something like this is what we have to see, I must affirm. Is not that so?” “Surely.” “And may we not also declare that nothing less than the power of dialectics could reveal this, and that only to one experienced in the studies we have described, and that the thing is in no other wise possible?” “That, too,” he said, “we may properly affirm.” (533a)

Still, we know that the method that takes philosophical inquiry forward and enables the philosopher to go beyond mathematical thought is dialectic, which further develops the soul’s internal capacity for insight until it is sufficiently finetuned to grasp the reality of the Forms. The Parmenides, Timaeus, and other works offer further points of departure in this direction.

In any case, it is clear that it is not sufficient to understand the inner structure of the world. Philosophical inquiry demands that we also understand the inner structure of the soul and the interrelation of soul and world. E.g., how does the individual nous relate to the Nous of the World Soul? The answer to this also provides the answer to the nature of the Forms and their relation to both the One and the many.

See also Mitchell Miller, Beginning the “Longer Way” – Research Gateway

I find it annoying when women seem to think so highly of themselves when in truth they don't look that great in my opinion. — TiredThinker

I think this can be annoying both in men and women.

But is your complaint about women who think they look great without actually looking great, or about women who don't care about you telling them that they look great?

It's odd that people say things like, "you have the brains, use it" but never in my life (never say never) have I heard someone say, "you're beautiful, use it." — TheMadFool

It would probably depend on the particular society and culture we are talking about.

In the Western world (some) women do get told things like “you could be a model” or “you could be a movie star”, or even encouraged to become one on account of their good looks.

I think physical attractiveness is a personal asset like any other one, and can perfectly well be used to advance one’s career, to find a partner, or whatever. After all, humans learn how to manipulate others in many ways from an early age and looks, including in terms of what we wear, are used to make a certain impression on others or elicit a certain response from them.

Hence, the not unheard-of question, "Do I look good in this"? :smile:

Is it said that the forms are the subject of such a ‘noble lie’? If they are so central to Plato’s philosophy, that would be unlikely, wouldn’t it? — Wayfarer

Good point. According to Plato:

The tendency to facilitate the apprehension of the idea of Good is to be found in all studies that force the soul to turn its vision round to the region where dwells the most blessed part of reality, which it is imperative that it should behold (Rep. 526e)

Plato makes it clear that in order to apprehend the Form of the Good, the philosopher must develop the power of abstract thought, which is why he emphasizes the study of mathematics for this purpose:

It [the study of geometry, etc.] would tend to draw the soul to truth, and would be productive of a philosophic attitude of mind, directing upward the faculties that now wrongly are turned earthward (527b)

He then makes another important point:

It is indeed no trifling task, but very difficult to realize that there is in every soul an organ or instrument of knowledge that is purified and kindled afresh by such studies when it has been destroyed and blinded by our ordinary pursuits, a faculty whose preservation outweighs ten thousand eyes; for by it only is reality beheld. Those who share this faith will think your words superlatively true. But those who have and have had no inkling of it will naturally think them all moonshine. For they can see no other benefit from such pursuits worth mentioning (527d-e).

Obviously, those who uncritically follow Strauss in the belief that Plato’s Forms are “an absurd doctrine”, belong to the second group.

IMHO the real absurd doctrine is to suggest that we spend years developing our power of abstract thought in the pursuit of the Good, only to discover, in our 50’s, 60’s, or later, that it is all just a “noble lie”. But then Strauss himself apparently believes in deception as an essential ingredient of government and one has to wonder to what extent his own teachings are an elaborate hoax ….

Is this noesis? — Shawn

Good question. Mathematics starts with dianoia and ends in noesis, after which the Forms take over. In other words, mathematics takes us from sensibles to intelligibles but stops at the threshold of the Forms.

We are out of the cave but we still see the objects in themselves (Forms) only in their reflection (e.g. ideal object).

that's what I thought I said. — Wayfarer

And that's why I don't think I confused intellect and imagination :smile:

If anyone committed heresy it was the Christians! I think Christians have some gall to create a new "revealed religion" and pick and choose what they wanted from the revealed religion of Jews and then say the Muslims committed heresy because the Muslims did the same thing the Christians did. — Athena

But why single out Christians? The Jews got much of their religion and culture from neighboring peoples.

Christianity is not a form of Judaism, it is a different religion with core beliefs and practices that are totally different from Judaism.

In contrast, Islam saw itself as the heir to Judaism and Christianity and a lot of the narratives found in the Koran are taken from those religions, which was the point made by St John.

And, as I said, it is important to bear in mind that the Christian Bible does not claim to have been dictated by God, but the Koran does claim to have been dictated by Allah to Mohammad and there are difficulties with this claim.

If we look at the Koran verse before the one quoted in my previous post, it says:

But if you back each other against him, then verily, Allah is his Mawla (Lord, Master, Protector), and Gabriel and the righteous of the believers and the angels, moreover, are his helpers.” (Al-Tahrim 66:4)

We are told that Mohammad had 13 wives in total:

Muhammad’s wives - Wikipedia

At the time, however, he apparently only had two, Hafsah and Aishah. Why would the Koran threaten two women with the might of a whole army, terrestrial and celestial, from Allah and the Angels down to the faithful?

To get to the bottom of it, we must consult the Hadith for additional information. And there we find the following interesting statement:

Narrated Omar:
“Once the wives of the Prophet made a united front against the Prophet and I said to them, 'It may be if he (the Prophet) divorced you, his Lord (Allah) will give him instead of you wives better than you.' So this verse (the same as I had said) was revealed." (Sahih al-Bukhari 8.402)

So, the speaker in the Koran is not Allah but Mohammad’s father-in-law Omar! The situation must have been serious enough for it to be included in the Koran. Whatever may have caused it, it is interesting to note that Mohammad’s wives, though said to be “jealous”, were united against their husband and prophet.

In light of the incontrovertible evidence, it would seem that the Koran was not, after all, revealed by Allah to Mohammad and that St John is right.

However, another critical point is, what are the lessons that the women of Afghanistan could draw from this as a basis for political action?

Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan has said that "Afghan women are strong" and they will get their rights in "two or three years". But to do so, political action will be needed.

So while you might want to give Christians credit for the wisdom of pagan civilizations, only by eliminating facts can this be done. — Athena

But this is not what I am doing. What I am saying is that Christian culture (and to some extent religion) is based on Classical (Greek and Roman) culture.

Christianity emerged within the cultural context of the Hellenized Roman Empire. Christians had a different religion but they had the same Graeco-Roman culture as Pagan citizens of the Roman Empire. And science as we know it today emerged within Christian society.

Yes. But we are talking about Plato. In Plato, sensory faculties, emotions, thoughts, are part of the soul the essential core of which is the nous. The soul described by Socrates in afterlife situations is not just the nous but the entire soul which is capable of sensory perception, emotion, etc.

And an abstract concept conceived in the mind is not the same as a visually perceptible object created by the imagination.

Here I think you're confusing intellect and imagination. — Wayfarer

I don't think so.

To begin with, sensory faculties, emotions, imagination, thoughts, contemplation, all are functions of the same one intelligence which ultimately is the nous. The nous is the experiencing subject in all cases.

Even imagination is ultimately an intellectual activity. However, the mathematical object is not visualized as in imagination, it is a purely abstract concept which is why it is in the domain of intelligibles and close to Forms. If it were visualized as in imagination, then it would belong to sensibles and would not be an ideal object.

There are four levels of awareness given in the Allegory of the Cave:

1. Shadows on the cave wall.

2. Images of outside objects and beings whose shadows are seen on the wall

3. Outside reflections and shadows of outside objects and beings.

4. Objects themselves.

Taking a geometrical figure, e.g., a triangle drawn on paper or in the sand, this would correspond to level (1) of the shadows on the wall, which is the level of sensibles.

As we look at the drawn triangle, we notice that “it falls short of” being perfect which gives rise in our mind of the concept of perfection that, at this stage, is indeterminate. This would correspond to level (2) of the man-made images of outside objects.

Guided by this concept of perfection, we next form in our mind a perfect triangle as an ideal mathematical object, that corresponds to level (3) of outside reflections in water, etc. This is the first level of intelligibles, the mathematical level where we are outside the cave and begin to get used to the outside world.

Contemplation (or dialectical examination) of the ideal object leads to the next intelligible level of Forms, in this case Shape or Triangularity, which corresponds to level (4) of the outside objects themselves.

Beyond these there is the level of the Sun that illumines the outside, real world and that symbolizes the Good or the One, the source of all knowledge.

It may be worth pointing out that the shadows are not illusory. They are not figments of imagination but imperfect likenesses of what ultimately are real objects. So, the four awareness levels are levels of increasingly greater reality that the philosopher can use to get as close as possible to ultimate reality as his intellectual abilities permit.

Obviously, some readers may lack the necessary abilities to get very far. (Some Straussians come to mind.) Perhaps Plato is right in suggesting that the philosopher must go through the five mathematical disciplines (calculation and arithmetic, plane geometry, solid geometry, astronomy, and harmonic theory) before reaching dialectic proper.

In any case, in order to really understand something we must become as much like it as possible:

For surely, the man whose mind is truly fixed on eternal realities has no leisure to turn his eyes downward upon the petty affairs of men, and so engaging in strife with them to be filled with envy and hate, but he fixes his gaze upon the things of the eternal and unchanging order, and seeing that they neither wrong nor are wronged by one another, but all abide in harmony as reason bids, he will endeavor to imitate them and, as far as may be, to fashion himself in their likeness and assimilate himself to them (Rep. 500b-c).

Hence the difficulty experienced by some to understand even basic Platonic concepts ....