This term has meaning when it comes to politics but is also in religious texts. That’s why I chose philosophy as the forum to apply this. So where do you stand on this subject? Are you to be more inclined in accepting such a myth or is it just a modern day ‘Agathocles of Syracuse’ where we accept and accept until we’re overthrowing a tyrant? Has no faith gone into accepting a noble lie even if it applies a certain resolution to a situation? Can one go on to say without doubt that there lay a foundation of social stratified societies applying alternative facts as morally acceptable purpose as opposed to a social structure where in lies discontinue and we’re left with hardcore truth? Where’s the absolute model in where, even if it’s working in one country so others use it, it benefit us or is even ‘good’? Have we no shame in taking it for what it’s worth rather than with a grain of sand? I’m going as far as to say i believe Plato was delirious when he came across this notion that it’s better to fall for a lie if it really benefits the cause of the people. Enlighten me.
you gotta understand out of what kind of environment that bullshit evolved. ancient greece was extremely stratified, and because of this, those who education was accessible to… and who did not have to labor… not only thought of themselves as superior (see the ‘metals’ metaphor) on account of their being educated - i should add that this is purely contingent; any lower-class and/or slave would be capable of possessing the same intellect had he access to education - but also quickly learned to appreciate the luxury provided to them by their being exempt from labor. naturally, those aristocrats wanted to devise a way to keep themselves in power, so they invented myths and religions that both justified their power and convinced the lower classes to accept their subordination to the rulers.
what plato really meant was something along the lines of this: ‘it’s better for us ‘noble’ ones that the people fall for a lie, because if these niggas got the big idea to rise up against us, not even our army could stop them. and i ain’t about to be forced to get a real job. i’m tryn to chill here in the symposium with the rich folks.’
Accepting lies as truth is the mark of those who are not able to process the impersonal aspects of reality. Rather than trying to understand those aspects they reject them in favor of anything that supports the rejection. There are temporary satisfactions in this but inevitably the inexorable march of evolution prevails. History attests to that.
For the time being but these methods of ‘alternate facts’ are still current in politics today. I feel as though these type of upper class citizens will never want truth to be sold to them at any cost. Stupidity is bliss in their books and the only man to accept that crock of shit lie is as dense as those aristocrats.
=D>
As funny (and possibly true) as they may be, allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment.
I don’t think it’s controversial to say stupid people exist, in fact for for every above average mind there is must be it’s equal below average… otherwise the average wouldn’t be average.
Couple that with an equivalently non-controversial fact that inner workings of societies tend to be complex and quite difficult to track, taking a great deal of education to grasp, assuming the mental capacity to do so was present
It seems quite easy to end up with the conclusion that the vast majority of the population is either not educated to or incapable of comprehending, much less participating in matters of state.
Assuming that’s a fair conclusion… a corollary of that would be that majority of people would not always be capable of appreciating the real reasons for any given change, however necessary.
A dumbed down version if such can be concocted, or a lie if not, seems to be made necessary if one hopes to engender their cooperation… even in cases where changes are made to benefit the very same people.
of course everything you say is true, and a good argument for it was put forth in plato’s ‘ship of state’ dialogue. you know the one about how a nigga needs to be skilled at what he does… and you caint just give his office/trade to any ol’ body. okay, we got all that. but this obvious truth doesn’t justify the noble lie, nor does it demonstrate that the noble lie was necessary in order for a society to observe and appreciate this truth.
the myth of the metals was something written after a series of major changes had occurred in the structure of greek society, and it’s not incidental that plato’s theory was developed after these major constitutional changes. during the homeric age the phratries possessed no public power that was separate from the people or could be used against them. this stage was still, technically, a democracy (at least for citizens; slaves excluded). eventually though the office of the basileus is no longer given by election, but by inheritance, and the original custom of the greek gentile society sustained through marriage between unrelated families, dissolves. much of this is do to perpetuating ancestral myths (e.g., born of zeus, yada yada), and this was perhaps the first glimpse of what was to be outlined in the myth of the metals later to come. at this point - the beginning of the monogamous family and system of inheritance - you’re starting to see the origins of the bourgeois nobility… which then naturally forms an alliance with government to preserve through law their property rights. but what was absolutely necessary at this point was not just a standard of law, but the actual propagation of myths that persuaded the lower classes and slaves to accept as necessary their social strata. thus, if you wuz born of bronze and not gold, you got to work the fields and won’t fit for government, etc. here, democracy is all but abolished and government exists solely as an intermediary between workers and the owners of the means of production.
now here’s my point. that there are clear differences in levels of competency between people does not justify this kind of new government. at least not in the way playdough tried to explain. in the old tribal confederacy systems a nigga still wasn’t elected to an office he couldn’t handle… so this is a non-problem. rather it’s the nature of the metals myth as a piece of nefarious propaganda that only serves/served to discourage citizens from questioning their social organizations more critically.
Yeah but those dudes didn’t understand the world the same way we do today… even the most educated and brilliant of them made sense of their world and choices with rough heuristic more often than with facts.
The notion that ability is a familial inheritance wasn’t the obvious lie it is for us today… A caste system emerging makes a lot of sense even without unmitigated greed paving the way.
Just to use a modern analogue, most parents discourage their children from pursuing a career in music or acting. This isn’t so that they can keep their kids from becoming successful superstars, at least not most of the time.
This is meant to dispel an ambition that the parents believe to be beyond their kids, so kids can set their sights toward something attainable and that would increase the likelihood of them being successful at it.
Put together the belief that ability is inherited and unrealistic ambitions being bad for you and you naturally get a caste system as an ideal system…
And given that the nature of reality is the creation of the gods then you have to conclude that the gods intended you to live this way.
I told a (noble) lie yesterday evening, in the name of the greater good… and no-one was or will be harmed because of it, and the initial outcome remains the same.
A reply is not a lie, when someone knowingly asks a question that they’re not supposed to ask.