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!

In this case, we have the interpretation of the word by Socrates himself:

[421b] ὄν οὗ μάσμα ἐστίν (being of which the search is). And ἀλήθεια (truth) is like the others; for the divine motion of the universe is, I think, called by this name, ἀλήθεια, because it is a divine wandering θεία ἄλη. But ψεῦδος (falsehood) is the opposite of motion; for once more that which is held back and forced to be quiet is found fault with, and it is compared to slumberers (εὕουσι); but the addition of the psi conceals the meaning of the word. The words τὸ ὄν (being) and οὐσία (existence) agree with ἀληθής with the loss of iota, for they mean “going” (ἰόν). And οὐκ ὄν (not being) means οὐκ ἰόν (not going), — Plato, Cratylus, 421b, translated by Harold N. Fowler

Your account has a frothy fever reminiscent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

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. That's pretty nifty.

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!

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.

That resource uses Liddell and Scott for Ancient Greek. You have not provided an example of the use in Greek to support Lee's interpretation.

I have not claimed Plato is telling lies about Forms. The lie I commented upon was the one where Socrates suggested saying humans are born from the Earth.

You have once again failed to distinguish between your various interlocutors. Wayfarer is the one who asked Philoso4 if he was saying Forms were a possible lie.

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!

My copy of Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon has a first edition publication date of 1889.

ψεῦδος is translated as:

a falsehood. untruth, lie

The online version says:

In Pl. ψεῦδος is freq. opp. ἀληθές ... R. 382d.

Now one can play six degrees of separation in a feeble, desperate attempt to discredit Bloom's translation, but Liddell & Scott's lexicon was published before Bloom or his teacher Strauss were even born.

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)

He translates the term as 'fiction' but points to the fact that the term also means lies, fraud, and deceit. He does not insist that in this case fiction is correct and lies incorrect, he says rather that the ambiguity of whether Socrates calls it a lie or a fiction should be kept in mind.

In any case it is an untruth told as if it were the truth. If it is just an innocent tale to be told then why is Socrates so hesitant and ashamed to tell it?

As you say, there is no other language under discussion. I see no use of the word in Ancient Greek that is similar to how other languages use the word "lie." You seem unable to bring in an example of any kind to support Lee's interpretation.

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.

Indeed, nowadays man has a tendency to resolve one's issues in the cave, conversing with a psychologist about the shadows on the figurative wall of their troubled mind, perhaps even laying on a sofa reasoning or even rather rationalizing their thoughts and conditioned behaviors to themselves.

Why is this so? Why can't the prisoner unshackle and free himself? Why is philosophy still associated with no inherent value, or even more practically, valued so little? — Shawn

Philosophy is valued thusly today because it adds but little value to the creation of wealth, which is the icon by which all subjects are evaluated in this age. Psychology fares somewhat better, because it's findings can be used to bolster the social ideologies and power structures which allow said wealth creation to flourish. Philosophy and the humanities have suffered alike under the influence of this zeitgeist, pursuant to which it has become axiomatic that, "money talks, and bullshit walks". Most attend university today not to understand the nature of reality or to comprehend the human , which appears to them but a sideshow to the subjectively more immediate concern of preparing themselves for making alot of money. These young fellows would probably say, "damn the shackles...I'll live with 'em, so long as I have a fat bank account".

That having been said, the objective field of philosophy seems to have been narrowed by other, newer disciplines. The human mind as an object for philosophical scrutiny has been co-opted by psychology, and objective reality, to a large extent, by the natural sciences. Philosophy seems to exist now somewhere in the middle, synthesizing the findings of these other disciplines and evaluating the whole. The modern philosopher must have much more particular peripheral knowledge than his forebears, knowledge derived from these other fields, in order to properly do his work.

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.

Wayfarer is the one who asked Philoso4 if he was saying Forms were a possible lie. — Valentinus

I am saying that as presented, the story of the ascent from the cave to the truth of the Forms can be regarded as a noble lie. It is as if what he says about dialectic in the Republic is no longer just a possibility but an actuality. The Forms are presented not as hypothesis but as what is seen when one leaps free of hypothesis. Here and elsewhere he says he has no such knowledge and yet he gives this image of the Forms as if this is the truth. And indeed to this day there are those who believe it is.

Is not something that is not known to be true but said as if it is the truth and persuades some that it is the truth not a lie?

The word ψευδομένους is a form of the verb ψεύδω.
The word is defined thusly in LSJ Middle Liddell:

ψεύδω Root *y*u*d
A. [select] to cheat by lies, beguile, Soph., etc.:—Pass. to be cheated, deceived, Aesch., etc.
2. [select] ψ. τινά τινος to cheat, balk, disappoint one of a thing, id=Aesch., Soph.; also c. acc. rei, ἐλπίδας ψ. τινά Xen.: —Pass. to be cheated, balked, disappointed of a thing, ψευσθῆναι ἐλπίδος, γάμου Hdt.; δείπνου Ar.
3. [select] Pass., also, to be deceived, mistaken in or about a thing, ἐψευσμένοι γνώμης mistaken in opinion, Hdt.; ἐψευσμένοι τῆς τῶν Ἀθηναίων δυνάμεως deceived in their notions of the Athenian power, Thuc.; ἐψεῦσθαι ἑαυτῶν, Opp. to εἰδέναι ἑαυτούς, Xen.:—also, ψευσθῆναι ἔν τινι Hdt.; περί τινος Xen.: also c. acc., αὐτοὺς ἐψευσμένη Ἑλλάς deceived in its estimate of them, Thuc.
4. [select] of statements, to be untrue, ἡ τρίτη τῶν ὁδῶν μάλιστα ἔψευσται Hdt.
II. [select] c. acc. rei, like ψευδοποιέω, to represent a thing as a lie, to falsify, Soph.:—Pass., ἡ ψευσθεῖσα ὑπόσχεσις the promise broken, Thuc.
B. [select] earlier and more common is the Mid. ψεύδομαι
1. [select] absol. to lie, speak false, play false, Hom., etc.
2. [select] c. acc. rei, to say that which is untrue, ὅτι τοῦτο ψεύδομαι Plat.; ἅπερ αὐτὸν οὐ ψεύδομαι which I do not speak falsely about him, Andoc.
3. [select] to be false, perjured or forsworn, Hes.
II. [select] like Act. II, to belie, falsify, ὅρκια ψεύσασθαι to break them, Il.; so, ψ. γάμους Eur.; so in plup. pass., ἔψευστο τὴν ξυμμαχίαν Thuc.; τὰ χρήματα ἐψευσμένοι ἦσαν had broken their word about the money, Xen.
III. [select] like Act. I, to deceive by lies, cheat, Aesch., Eur.; ψ. τινά τι to deceive one in a thing, Soph., Eur. — Perseus web site

The word γενναῖόν is defined by the same lexicon as:

γενναῖος γέννα
[select] suitable to one's birth or descent, οὔ μοι γενναῖον it fits not my nobility, Il.
I. [select] of persons, high-born, noble by birth, Lat. generosus, Hdt., Trag.; so of animals, well-bred, Plat., Xen.
2. [select] noble in mind, high-minded, Hdt., attic: τὸ γ. ῀ γενναιότης, Soph.:—also of actions, noble, Hdt., Trag.
II. [select] of things, good of their kind, excellent, notable, Xen.: genuine, intense, δύη Soph.
III. [select] adv. -ως, nobly, Hdt., etc.: comp. -οτέρως, Plat.: Sup. -ότατα, Eur.

In addition, I refer to my quote of Cratylus upthread where truth (ἀληθής) and false (ψεῦδος) are exact opposites without shades of ambiguity.

Is not something that is not known to be true but said as if it is the truth and persuades some that it is the truth not a lie? — Fooloso4

I will have to ponder upon that. It at least can be observed that Socrates not knowing whether it is true or not is a different matter than misrepresenting something he does know the truth of.

Lee does not say that. — Apollodorus

This is a direct quote from page 114. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.125807/page/n113/mode/2up

It at least can be observed that Socrates not knowing whether it is true or not is a different matter than misrepresenting something he does know the truth of. — Valentinus

Well, the truth is he does know that he does not know that there is a transcendent realm of truth. I do think that what he says, however, is in service of the search for truth. It is perhaps intentional that some are to mistake the search for something found. They require answers and open ended questions leave them adrift. The Socratic philosopher, however, is led by reason not revelation.

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:

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?

you will find something calling that into question ... or 'it's a poetic image', — Wayfarer

So, not just falsehood and lie, but also "poetic fiction" — Apollodorus

Er, the word in question is Ancient Greek, not French. It feels really strange having to bring that to your attention.

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. — Apollodorus

I was just talking about the words I quoted. I have no idea what you are talking about here.

And now you are saying that you are not talking about Republic 414c but about Cratylus! — Apollodorus

Cratylus is devoted to the origins and meanings of words. Are you suggesting that Plato has a different use for the word "ψεῦδος " in each of the different dialogues? That seems unlikely. Perhaps you could provide some examples.

So far, I am doing all the work while you surf conspiracy sites. You still haven't provided any examples of Greek text that support Lee's translation.

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? — Apollodorus

Greek has different endings and prefixes to show what part of speech the nouns, verbs, and prepositions,etcetera belong to. See this outline for clarity on the matter.

Edited to add information.

When using the lexicon, the nouns are typically given as singular in number and nominative in case. When you read the entries giving different examples of words usage, note how the form of the word changes as reflected in the translation of each phrase.

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

Here is how the phrase is translated in some recent editions:

C.D.C. Reeve translates "noble lie". Griffith: "grand lie". Waterfield: "noble lie". Sachs: "noble lie".

The Straussian conspiracy is even wider and more pervasive than suspected, having corrupted
the authors of all these translations!

I think Apo is Greek.

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?

Your questions reveal a complete ignorance of how Ancient Greek works as a language. Only you can help you now.

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

Correct. YOUR ignorance! :smile:

Your challenge regarding the different forms the words took in the text and in the lexicon has been explained. We have moved on from debating the meaning of specific words to observing your unfamiliarity with the basic properties of the language as a language. Only you can remedy that deficit for yourself.

No he doesn't!

That’s an old edition. — Apollodorus

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?

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

What really matters is that I cited four contemporary authors who translate it as lie not myth. What really matters is that even Lee acknowledges that there is an ambiguity and that it can be taken to mean lie should be kept in mind. What really matters is that there is no conspiracy led by Leo Strauss or "University of Chicago operatives" and no evidence of:

... a (deliberate) mistranslation of the Greek original and it clearly distorts Plato’s intention. — Apollodorus

What you say is careless, groundless, reckless, and irresponsible. I won't dignify your many other accusations by even responding.