The Homecoming of the Truth
In The Republic, Plato argues that the ideal society is one that “uses propaganda and lies to perpetuate the rule of a single class, insisting that justice is everyone keeping his or her place”. Upon reading The Republic, I am convinced that such a society cannot be ideal. Plato seems to contradict himself by proposing a society based on the “noble lie” because he himself elevates truth and convinces his rulers to abide by the truth. Upon examining various passages from The Republic, and grounding myself in properly understanding the terms and concepts Plato puts out, it is clear to me that Plato’s society cannot be the ideal society according to his own terms.
Building upon the concept of the noble lie is the principle of the “ideal city” or the “ideal society”, for Plato, an ideal society is one that is built upon the four virtues of wisdom, courage, moderateness, and justice. The rulers would inherit wisdom, and the auxiliaries would have within themselves courage, while moderateness was to be instilled among everyone within the hierarchy since moderateness is the recognition of who should be ruled, and who should rule (see 428b- 432b). Plato theorized that once the three virtues of wisdom, courage, and moderateness, are present within the society, justice would be present. Once justice is present, that would result in harmony. When all these four virtues are present in society, Plato deduces that that would be an ideal society.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
However, Plato believes that in order for the ideal society to happen, everyone in the society would need to abide by the principle of specialization. Yet, for people to appreciate their “place” in society, Plato saw in necessary to propose what is called, the “noble lie,” or “myth of metals” (see 414d–417b). In the noble lie, Plato outlines a plan that would allow people to be appreciative of their place within society, and therefore actively do what they are good at. Plato unveils his plan of the “noble lie” in which the society would be built upon the thought that people were born with metal within them, either gold, silver, or bronze. If you were born with gold then you were a ruler, silver then you were an auxiliary, or bronze then you would be a craftsman. The people who fall within each category would be very well versed in their position. Plato believed that people should do what they are good at (see 369a-372a), hence the principle of specialization. Plato thought that a noble lie would allow society to exist in harmony and therefore be the ideal society. This myth or lie is “noble” because Plato believed that it would be imposed for the good and well-being of a society (416b-c).
While Plato’s theory may seem appealing, I found that Plato seems to be contradicting himself in other areas of The Republic when it comes to using the terms “lie and truth”. As I have laid out, Plato seems to think that for society to be ideal (in his terms), it must be built on the foundation of the “noble lie” so that harmony may be circulated within that society. However, it is interesting to note that after proposing the “noble lie”, in Book V, while in dialogue with Glaucon, Socrates (the mouthpiece of Plato in The Republic) questions if he should be acting truthfully as he says to Glaucon, “I am not afraid of being ridiculed […] but I am afraid that if I fail to secure truth, just where it is most important to do so, I will not only fall myself but drag my friends down as well.” (451a) Here, it seems that Socrates is not scared of what others may think about his ideas, but rather, he fears the consequence that may come if he fails to propose the truth. Socrates is not only minding about his own well-being but also that of others. Upon reading this in The Republic, I question, “If Plato believes that there is a consequence to lying, then why propose the “noble lie” in the first place”?
Within The Republic, Socrates does not only question if he should act truthfully, but rather, at various moments within the text, he elevates the truth. In Book III, while speaking about truth, Socrates says, “Moreover, we have to be concerned about the truth as well.” (389b) I think Benjamin Jowett’s translation is easier to understand, translating line 389b as, “truth should be highly valued.” (emphasis added) In just a couple of lines below that, Socrates says that only rulers should have the privilege to lie “because of enemies or citizens for the good of the city,” (389c) while craftsmen should be “punished” if they were to lie (390d). This fact is contradictory because later on, in Book V of The Republic, Socrates mentions that philosophers should be rulers because they have knowledge of the Forms. In Book V, while in conversation with Glaucon, both men discuss who are the true philosophers since Glaucon noted that “many strange people will be philosophers” (475d). Upon being asked by Glaucon, “Who do you think, then are the true ones [philosopher],” Socrates replies, “The lovers of seeing the truth.” (475e) It is for that reason that I say it is not possible for rulers (in Plato’s case the philosophers) to be acting upon any lie if they were, whom Socrates defined it as “lovers of seeing the truth”, because society built on the “noble lie” would not contain within itself any truth in sight. There would be no truth for the rulers to love. A ruler, therefore, cannot both be upholding a lie and be loving the sight of truth at the same time.
Going back to the Platonian definition of the ideal society is one that contains in itself a balance between the virtues of wisdom, courage, moderateness, and justice, therefore making it harmonious and ideal. If in Plato’s terms, the rulers were to uphold the “noble lie” for all of society, I do not believe there would be harmony at all due to the imbalance of virtues. Plato attributes the virtue of wisdom to the role of the rulers. Earlier, I mentioned that Plato defined wisdom in the context of The Republic as possessing and using good judgment (see 428b–429a). However, as Plato defined, the rulers, or the philosophers rather, should be “lovers of seeing the truth”. Therefore, connecting these two ideas, it is reasonable to say that to use good judgment is not only to ensure decisions are made for the good of society but also through the lens of truth, not lies. Failing to do so will result in an imbalance of virtues in society, and through the Platonian lens, the imbalance of virtues will not create the ideal society due to the absence of justice (which is the result of the balance of the three virtues stated). While some may argue that Socrates said, “justice is doing one’s own work and not meddling with what is not one’s own,” (433b), I think it is critical to understand that a clearer definition in a Platonian context is to do “one’s own work” in the spirit of truth, which means recognizing what we are good at, and develop skills to either lead, guide, or assist society within our capacity. It is important to recognize that people change and develop skills throughout time and therefore, it is critical to recognize that truth, rather than sticking too closely with the “noble lie”, which would not result in virtuous people, nor would there be an ideal society in Platonian terms.
[bookmark: _gjdgxs] While Plato proposed that a society built upon “lies and propaganda” would be the ideal society, upon examining Plato’s quality of truth required of the rulers, the impact of having a “noble lie” circulating through society and looking at it all through the Platonian definition of an ideal society, it has proven to me that such a society would not be ideal. Instead of the ideal society, Plato would hope for, I have found that one based upon the noble lie fails to meet Plato’s virtues required of an ideal society. Rather, from my perspective, a society based on truth will be virtuous, and therefore likely lead to an ideal society.
Works Cited
- Morgan, Michael L. Classics of Moral and Political Theory Fifth edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 2011. Print.
- “The Republic by Plato.” Translated by Benjamin Jowett, The Internet Classics Archive, http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html.
Stuck on your essay?
