Essay On The Difference Between Lies And Lies In Socrates

1804 Words4 Pages

In, Book II of “The Republic of Plato” Socrates affirms there to be a true distinction between lies “to the soul” and lies “in speech.” As Socrates engages with Adeiamantus, his observation comes to fruition. Lies in the soul is the worst type of sorrow a man can feel comparable to other lying told or story telling. The purpose of this paper is to establish the difference between lies of the soul and lies in speech, why that separation is justified to be true, observe how lies in speech are effective in use, and illustrate these examples with an earlier discussion Socrates had with previous men, such as Cephalus in Book I. When Book I begins, Socrates is walking home after a religious ceremony with his comrade Glaucon. There he is stopped and brought to the comfortable home of Cephalus, a wealthy metic father of Lysias, Euthydemus, and Polemarchus. Cephalus invites Socrates to his home, commenting on his lack of strength to ascend out of the Piraeus due to old age, his sexual appetite staunched by time and his desire for pleasures of mind. (328c) Socrates must descend to Cephalus and his children because ascenion, to what exactly, is out of the men 's power as we learn later as a main principle throughout The Republic. Cephalus attributes his …show more content…

Socrates is seeking for the ultimate gain of greater knowledge and truth. If lies to the soul exists, then he, along with man Athenian scholars will be unable to seek out truth due to not knowing if their rhetoric is tainted with lies. But where do these lies manifest? For Socrates, there is an empirical problem. The knowledge that Socrates needs, and that everyone should want to have can only be received by educators that have not been predisposed to lies in speech nor lies to the soul. The structures of our lives are laid down as foundation as

Open Document