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...
... middle of paper ...
...social norms, centuries old philosophies that have contested each other through time will be forgotten, new lies will be told by an ever evolving interior structure of social elite to promote or retain their position, It is our job as free men and women to strive to obtain truth and to insure that there is justice and liberties for all individuals.
Works Cited
<"Noble Lie." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 12 Mar. 2012. Web. 12 Dec. 2012.
<"Twilight of the Idols." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 12 June 2012. Web. 12
Dec. 2012.>
< “Aristotle. Politics. Ed. Peter L. Phillips Simpson. Chapel hill: UNC Publishing, 1997. >
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).
In Plato’s Republic, we receive the sense that Plato was not trying to create a democratic society, but a just and efficient one. In such society, Plato constructed three such ‘classes’ to categorize his citizens. The political elite consisting of the fewest amount individuals would be on top, and would be known as ‘The Guardians’, next, the military forces, or Auxiliaries would be the middle class, and lastly, the largest group in terms of population would be on the bottom, consisting of all other citizens and they would be considered a working class, consisting of workers, merchants and such. The ensure order was kept and that no one would up rise and seek a new class, a sort of ‘myth’ was in instituted, aptly named, “The Myth of the Medals”. The myth suggests that all citizens were born of the earth, bringing a sort of unity element from everyone so there should be minimal conflict between each other. The myth further states that each citizen has a certain metal mixed with his or her soul, thus determining his or her place in society. A gold mixture signifies those who are fit to rule, or The Guardians, The Auxiliaries would have a silver mixture, and the working class would have a mixture of eith...
Plato states that the Oligarchy, where the ultimate desire is for wealth and character governs emotions without reason, will ultimately collapse and become a Democracy. The lower, drone class are exploited by the avaricious oligarchic class: this leads the drones into discontent, and they plot against their rulers. When the two classes come into contact with each other, the lean and sunburnt lower class will find themselves beside the sheltered upper class with their superfluous flesh. They will realise that they can seize power, and perhaps call upon some form of external force to aid their struggle. Therefore, democracy originates when the poor win, kill or exile their opponents, and give the rest equal civil rights and opportunities.
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
...should either live the life of those that they rule, as an equal, or as a superior allow the necessary input of those whom they rule, to decide the best course of action, as is done in a democracy.
During the time period of The Republic, the problems and challenges that each community was faced with were all dealt with in a different way. In the world today, a lot of people care about themselves. For many people, the word justice can mean many different things, but because some only look out for themselves, many of these people do not think about everyone else’s role in the world of society. The struggle for justice is still demonstrated in contemporary culture today. One particular concept from Plato’s The Republic, which relates to contemporary culture is this concept of justice. In the beginning of The Republic, Socrates listeners, Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus, ask Socrates whether justice is stronger than injustice, and
Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote “One man’s justice is another’s injustice.” This statement quite adequately describes the relation between definitions of justice presented by Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book I of the Republic. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is “to give to each what is owed” (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides. Then, through the unrelenting questioning of Socrates, Polemarchus’ definition evolves into “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (Republic 332d), but this definition proves insufficient to Socrates also. Eventually, the two agree “that it is never just to harm anyone” (Republic 335d). This definition is fundamental to the idea of a common good, for harming people according to Socrates, only makes them “worse with respect to human virtue” (Republic 335 C). Polemarchus also allows for the possibility of common good through his insistence on helping friends. To Polemarchus nothing is more important than his circle of friends, and through their benefit he benefits, what makes them happy pleases him.
One of the versions of governing is an oligarchy, a small group of people in control of a country. In book eight of the republic Plato explains the meaning of an oligarchy and when it is very unsuccessful. It doesn't work because whoever has the most wealth can take part in ruling over the city. Plato even explains "when virtue and riches are placed together in the scales of the balance, the one always rises as the other falls...
In Plato’s The Republic, he unravels the definition of justice. Plato believed that a ruler could not be wholly just unless one was in a society that was also just. Plato did not believe in democracy, because it was democracy that killed Socrates, his beloved teacher who was a just man and a philosopher. He believed in Guardians, or philosophers/rulers that ruled the state. One must examine what it means for a state to be just and what it means for a person to be just to truly understand the meaning of justice. According to Socrates, “…if we first tried to observe justice in some larger thing that possessed it, this would make it easier to observe in a single individual. We agreed that this larger thing is a city…(Plato 96).” It is evident, therefore, that the state and the ruler described in The Republic by Plato are clearly parallel to one another.
In Plato’s Republic, Glaucon is introduced to the reader as a man who loves honor, sex, and luxury. As The Republic progresses through books and Socrates’ arguments of how and why these flaws make the soul unhappy began to piece together, Glaucon relates some of these cases to his own life, and begins to see how Socrates’ line of reasoning makes more sense than his own. Once Glaucon comes to this realization, he embarks on a path of change on his outlook of what happiness is, and this change is evidenced by the way he responds during he and Socrates’ discourse.
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’. The society that Plato imagined was separated into a three-tiered class structure divided between; the rulers, the 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 according to Plato were the most governed by their appetites,and thus were best fit for labor. The introduction of the ‘noble lie’ comes near the end of book three where Plato writes "we want one single, grand lie.... which will be believed by everyone including the rulers, ideally, but failing that the rest of the city". Other translations for ‘grand lie’ include a ‘noble lie’, an ‘opportu...
The Republic is an examination of the "Good Life"; the harmony reached by applying pure reason and justice. The ideas and arguments of Plato center on the social settings of an ideal republic - those that lead each person to the most perfect possible life for him. Socrates was Plato's early mentor in real life. As a tribute to his teacher, Plato uses Socrates in several of his works and dialogues. Socrates moderates the discussion throughout, as Plato's mouthpiece. Through Socrates' powerful and brilliant questions and explanations on a series of topics, the reader comes to understand what Plato's model society would look like. The basic plan of the Republic is to draw an analogy between the operation of society as a whole and the life of any individual human being. In this paper I will present Plato’s argument that the soul is divides into three parts. I will examine what these parts are, and I will also explain his arguments behind this conclusion. Finally, I will describe how Plato relates the three parts of the soul to a city the different social classes within that city.
In Plato’s Republic, the main argument is dedicated to answering Glaucon and Adeimantus, who question the reason for just behavior. They argue it is against one’s self-interest to be just, but Plato believes the behavior is in fact in one’s self-interest because justice is inherently good. Plato tries to prove this through his depiction of an ideal city, which he builds from the ground up, and ultimately concludes that justice requires the philosopher to perform the task of ruling. Since the overall argument is that justice pays, it follows that it would be in the philosopher’s self-interest to rule – however, Plato also states that whenever people with political power believe they benefit from ruling, a good government is impossible. Thus, those who rule regard the task of ruling as not in their self-interest, but something intrinsically evil. This is where Plato’s argument that justice is in one’s self-interest is disturbed. This paper will discuss the idea that justice is not in one’s self-interest, and thus does not pay.