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? — Fooloso4

I just told you!

My version is correct because it is the most recent. Yours is 1974, mine is revised 1987 edition with new introduction of 2007.

Authors do revise their works, do they not?

And why are using the Liddell Scott from the 1800's when there is a 2020 edition of Bailly???!!!

What are you trying to hide???

The fact is that like most words, pseudos can have different meanings depending on the context. This may be inconvenient to you but that's your problem.

At any rate, Plato does not say "a noble lie". The "Phoenician tale" does not refer to Forms or soul and it is irrational to claim otherwise.

The Bailly dictionary uses French terms not available to Plato. Referring to them to resolve the matter is pointless and bizarre.

You still have not produced any example of Greek text that supports Lee's use of the words.

The fact is that like most words, pseudos can have different meaning depending on the context. This may be inconvenient to you but that's your problem. — Apollodorus

No, that is your problem. You argue on the basis of this claim but offer jack to back it up with illuminating passages to prove your case.

Why were America’s top bankers and industrialists sponsoring anti-Platonist academics? — Apollodorus

I'm not at all convinced by that line of argument. As I said before, I think it's part of the much broader 'culture war' between scientific secularism and religious belief, or even anything that can be so construed. Lloyd Gerson analyses that in his work on 'Platonism and Naturalism':

Gerson contends that Platonism identifies philosophy with a distinct subject matter, namely, the intelligible world and seeks to show that the Naturalist rejection of Platonism entails the elimination of a distinct subject matter for philosophy.

Naturalism does this by categorising the traditional idea of 'intelligibility' as a religious belief. That's why you get anti-platonism in academic philosophy, so it presumably extends to political philosophy as well, but I'm not that interested in political philosophy.

His myths do not reveal the truth, they provide something he thinks it is beneficial for them to believe is true. But what they may believe to be true is not the same as what is true. — Fooloso4

It sounds very like a confession of faith. I suppose from the modern perspective, the immortality of the soul can only be regarded as a pious fiction, never mind that it was a central concern of ancient philosophy.

The question I would like to consider is whether there are even any anologies for what 'ascending from the cave' might signify, in modern (i.e. post-Cartesian) philosophy. There are parellels with 'doctrines of illumination' in other philosophical traditions, notably Hindu and Buddhist. There is an SEP entry on 'divine illumination' which makes reference to Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato (see here.)

I think it can be argued that the reason for the Platonic reticence is that it signifies an insight that is not subject to propositional knowledge. It is a deep insight into the nature of mind, knowing, and being, which very few will understand or attain. In that sense, it is 'beyond knowing' in the conventional or propositional sense, it requires a meta-cognitive shift or reorientation.

the truth is he (Socrates) does know that he does not know that there is a transcendent realm of truth — Fooloso4

Bear in mind the sense of 'transcendental' as 'that which must be the case in order for experience to be as it is'. This is brought out explicitly in Kant but it is implicit in Plato, I think. The transcendental is not 'spooky and mysterious' in any sense other than that.

The Bailly dictionary uses French terms not available to Plato. Referring to them to resolve the matter is pointless and bizarre. — Valentinus

By your logic, because the LSJ uses English terms not available to Plato, referring to them to resolve the matter is pointless and bizarre - to say the least.

Plato does not use the phrase "a noble lie". This is a modern political term that should not be used for translations of Plato especially when it is clear from the context that it is wrong to do so.

It should be obvious that Lee's translation fits the context much better.

I think it's part of the much broader 'culture war' between scientific secularism and religious belief, — Wayfarer

Or between change or "progress" and existing culture.

Gerson says:

We see the history of philosophy as the development of Platonism (with a few interesting outliers), followed in the seventeenth century by the beginning of efforts to find some common ground between Platonism and Naturalism, followed in the eighteenth century and then ever after, by the growing dominance of Naturalism ....

- Platonism and Naturalism, p. 265

Elsewhere he says:

I have argued in this book that Proclus's praise of Plotinus as leading the way in the exegesis of the Platonic revelation is essentially correct. Although this is a view shared by scholars of Platonism and by Platonists, too, well into the nineteenth century, it is a view that is today, especially in the English-speaking world, mostly either ridiculed or ignored .... some few scholars have inferred from this fact that the dialogues must therefore not be philosophical writings at all

- From Plato to Platonism, p. 308

Indeed, we find Strauss making the following statement:

In what I said there is an implication which I would like to make explicit: Plato never wrote a system of philosophy

- L. Strauss, On Plato's Symposium, p. 5

Either there is a movement called "anti-Platonism" as Gerson and others assert, or there isn't.

If, as Gerson says, "Platonism is philosophy and anti-Platonism is antiphilosophy" (Platonism and Naturalism, p. 8), then anti-Platonism must have certain nuclei of dispersion some of which are more influential than others. Straussianism does have considerable influence in the anti-Platonist movement and I think it is instructive to see how it acquired this influence.

I don't think Platonists can afford to be mere passive observers. They need to understand the situation, its causes, and its remedies, and take appropriate action.

Let's count:

On the one hand I have cited five contemporary translations that say "lie"
On the other Lee who says it is ambiguous and we should keep in mind that it also means lie.

There is nothing here to even argue about.

I agree, but it's also true that Plato didn't write a system of philosophy, he was not a systematic philosopher.

I don't think Platonists can afford to be mere passive observers. — Apollodorus

I do my bit, modest though it might be. :wink:

Why were America’s top bankers and industrialists sponsoring anti-Platonist academics? — Apollodorus


I'm not at all convinced by that line of argument. As I said before, I think it's part of the much broader 'culture war' between scientific secularism and religious belief, or even anything that can be so construed. Lloyd Gerson analyses that in his work on 'Platonism and Naturalism': — Wayfarer

When you say "it's part of the much broader 'culture war' between scientific secularism and religious belief", do you include the rhetoric being used by Apollodorus as part of a larger story or reject it? Being unpersuaded is very different from rejection. What Apollodorus is proposing is a cultural war against what allows us to have this conversation.

What Apollodorus is proposing is a cultural war against what allows us to have this conversation. — Valentinus

On the contrary, I think that is what YOU are proposing. You are making false statements and using dodgy translations and sources in an attempt to suppress conversation.

The fact that some translators use the phrase "a noble lie" does not mean that it is a phrase used by Plato.

As already stated, "noble lie" is a modern political term that should not be used for translations of Plato especially when it is clear from the context that it is wrong to do so.

I will let you work that out with your partner.

do you include the rhetoric being used by Apollodorus as part of a larger story or reject it? — Valentinus

I can see his point, but I have a different background - more counter-cultural. My areas of interest are traditional philosophy and comparative religion but as you will note, I generally argue against 'scientism' so that extent I'm probably on the same side of the fence, but not in all respects. (I'm also posting here in snatches at the moment as I'm getting my house ready to sell and have about fifteen thousand small and fiddly jobs to do in the real world.)

Right. You will get back to me.
Whatever.

Karl Popper accused Plato of trying to base religion on a noble lie as well.

Noble lie - Wikipedia

Popper is a good illustration of how anti-Platonists use the myth (or weasel word) of Plato's "noble lie" to claim that everything he says is "based on lies", which is an unacceptable distortion. In fact, a lot of Plato's statements are demonstrably not lies.

Mellissa Lane in her introduction to Desmond Lee's Republic translation shows why Popper's attacks on Plato are baseless. And Lee's translation and notes are excellent and very illuminating. They make a big difference to the likes of Shorey.

Right. You will get back to me.
Whatever. — Valentinus

I do take your question seriously but am pressed for time today.

Understood. Thanks for the clarification.

On the one hand I have cited five contemporary translations that say "lie"
On the other Lee who says it is ambiguous and we should keep in mind that it also means lie. — Fooloso4

That's an argument ad populum. And not a very clever one, either.

The fact is that Lee is a more nuanced and careful reader. And he obviously consults more recent sources than the 1800's LSJ :grin:

Plus, as I said, the fact that some translators choose to use "a noble lie" must NOT be taken to mean that it is a phrase that Plato himself uses.

I can see his point — Wayfarer

Let's be clear about what he is claiming:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/599832

As Valentinus pointed out:

↪Apollodorus
Your account has a frothy fever reminiscent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. — Valentinus

It also borrows from the example of McCarthyism.

That's an argument ad populum. — Apollodorus

Have you forgotten your own claims?

Regarding the “noble lie” theory, it is just a theory, typically advanced by those who believe in political propaganda like Strauss and his followers. — Apollodorus

As already noted, the phrase “noble lie” seems to be a (deliberate) mistranslation of the Greek original and it clearly distorts Plato’s intention. — Apollodorus

It is not just Strauss and his followers who interpret is as noble lie. Are you to impugn the integrity of five different translators? Even Lee acknowledges not only that it can be understood in this way but that this should be kept in mind.

I'm certainly not agreeing with the idea that Leo Strauss is the initiator of a grand conspiracy. The first I heard about Leo Strauss was from you, in respect of his 'philosophy between the lines'. I never studied political philosophy at university. My only knowledge of Strauss is what can be gleaned from the encyclopedia entries, but there are ideas in them I find quite congenial, like his analysis of 'the quarrel between ancients and moderns'. I don't know much about it, but I think it has a bearing on a lot of what I'm interested in. I found this excerpt in the SEP entry:

Philosophy has to grant that revelation is possible. But to grant that revelation is possible means to grant that the philosophic life is not necessarily, not evidently, the right life. Philosophy, the life devoted to the quest for evident knowledge available to man as man, would rest on an unevident, arbitrary, or blind decision. This would merely confirm the thesis of faith, that there is no possibility of consistency, of a consistent and thoroughly sincere life, without belief in revelation. The mere fact that philosophy and revelation cannot refute each other would constitute the refutation of philosophy by revelation. (NRH, p. 75) — Leo Strauss

I'm inclined to agree with that, with the caveat that I don't agree that the Bible is the sole source of revealed truth.

Another book in my moldering pile of Kindle Editions is Philosophical Religions from Plato to Spinoza which seems very much llike the kind of philosophical spirituality that appeals to me.

Let's be clear about what he is claiming: — Fooloso4

I am claiming exactly what Gerson is claiming, i.e. that there is an anti-Platonist movement led by academics with a political agenda. Strauss is a political scientist with a keen interest in politics as can be gathered from the press and from his own statements:

Let me explain: as political scientists we are interested in political phenomena. But we must also be interested, simultaneously, in the political as political

The rest of my claims are from mainstream sources like Wikipedia as per the links provided.

that there is an anti-Platonist movement led by academics with a political agenda. — Apollodorus

But I think the objection is that you're coming across as a conspiracy theorist. I'm able to agree with Gerson that there is a profound antinomy between Platonism (which Gerson broadly claims is the Western philosophical tradition) and naturalism as now conceived. But this is not a conspiracy against Platonism so much as a consequence of intellectual history.

Platonism is a battlefield for leftists and rightists? That doesn't sound very likely.

Even Lee acknowledges not only that it can be understood in this way but that this should be kept in mind. — Fooloso4

Not true.

He simply says that pseudos can have several meanings - as can be seen from Bailly - in general.

In fact, his first comment on pseudos is with reference to 377a, where he says stories "are of two kinds, true stories and fiction".

And the second refers to 382d where he has "we don't know the truth about the past but we can invent a fiction as like as may be".

Nothing whatsoever to do with 414b-c!

Platonism is a battlefield for leftists and rightists? That doesn't sound very likely. — frank

I never said it was.

Gerson says that "Platonism is philosophy and anti-Platonism is antiphilosophy" and that there is a growing anti-Platonist trend, which I tend to agree with.

But some academics like to see Plato as a "counter-revolutionary" and his Republic as a "handbook for aspiring dictators". Popper claimed that the Republic was the founding text for totalitarianism.

The truth of the matter is that the only time Plato got involved in politics was in Sicily after which he gave up on seeing the kind of intrigues active politics entailed. Dictatorship was totally against his personality and character.

But I think the objection is that you're coming across as a conspiracy theorist. — Wayfarer

Well, there is no surprise there. It has become routine or knee-jerk reaction to accuse someone of being a "conspiracy theorist" the minute they open their mouth to state facts that some people are ignorant of or choose to ignore.

Instead of checking the facts, even if they are mainstream or academic knowledge, they just scream "conspiracy theory" in affected horror :grin:

See

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11007/conspiracy-paranoia-denial-and-related-issues

That's an argument ad populum.
— Apollodorus

Have you forgotten your own claims?

Regarding the “noble lie” theory, it is just a theory, typically advanced by those who believe in political propaganda like Strauss and his followers.
— Apollodorus — Fooloso4

@Apollodorus Morosophos’ argument may be “ad populum”, but the “populum” he cites are respected scholars, interpreters and translators. Your argument, however, is purely ad hominem: anyone who thinks Plato believed the rulers ought to lie to the people is an anti-Platonist or Straussian, or pro-tyrannical.

Morosophos’ argument may be “ad populum”, but the “populum” he cites are respected scholars, interpreters and translators. — Leghorn

They may or may not be "respected". It is still ad populum and it doesn't make it right. There are lots of "respected" people that hold unsound opinions ....

Your argument, however, is purely ad hominem: anyone who thinks Plato believed the rulers ought to lie to the people is an anti-Platonist or Straussian, or pro-tyrannical. — Leghorn

That is YOUR interpretation of my argument. In reality, what I am saying is that some people use Plato's "noble lie" to argue that Plato's whole teaching is based on lies and on dictatorial tendencies/ambitions, etc. as Popper does (see Open Society and Its Enemies).

And it is Gerson, a highly respected scholar, who affirms that there is an anti-Platonist trend that started in the 1800's, as stated in my previous posts.

I think it is legitimate to call someone "anti-Platonist" when they claim that Plato is a "liar", a "dictator", that his dialogues "have no metaphysical or even philosophical content", etc.

Would you call Popper a pro-Platonist?

I think the following is an accurate summary:

Yet there is a problem in the interpretation of Strauss’ thought that has been persistently
acknowledged in the literature and that goes to the heart of assessing his work:
determining his enigmatic intentions. He has been seen as an atheist, a deist believer in
natural law, a pious Jew, and an antiquarian. Was he a classicist who thought that fifth century Greek democracy was the highest form of civilization? Or a political thinker whose doctrine of natural right influenced the thinking of the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration? Or a Nietzschean engaged in an elaborate philosophical burlesque? Harry Jaffa, an American political historian, says that Strauss taught him to see that the Declaration of Independence embodied “eternal and eternally applicable truth”; Thomas Pangle, another student of Strauss, tends to see such things as more like conventions. Then there is the European Strauss, who is more concerned with problems like Zionism and the Jewish question, the legitimacy of the modern Enlightenment, the rival claims of
philosophy and revelation, and, most fundamentally, the possibility of restoring the
Socratic practice of philosophy as a way of life. To complicate matters further, there is
some textual grounding for each of these interpretations.
https://www2.grenfell.mun.ca/animus/Articles/Supplementa/Hynes4.pdf

Rather than argue to a set conclusion, Strauss' work is dialogical, dialectical, talmudic. It is the questions and problems of philosophy that are of interest to him. Philosophy for Strauss is not systematic or all encompassing. It does not close off but opens up inquiry in full awareness that philosophical inquiry always falls short of what it hopes for. Human ignorance not only leads to philosophy it guides it. It is both its condition and its problem.

Noble lie - Wikipedia — Apollodorus

The Wiki article does not mention a similar concept in Mahayana Buddhism -- upaya, "skillful means".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya

There is a fundamental question that arises when we read Plato, a question we must ask ourselves:

Is the way the soul structures reality rational or willful?

(posed by Ronna Burger and Michael Davis, "The Eccentric Core: The Thought of Seth Benardete")

This is not a question that is intended to be decided one way or the other. It is a question that must be taken into consideration every time we think about or make claims about reality. For some the question is forestalled on the assumption that reality is rational. But it may be that this
is a structure the soul wilfully imposes, motivated by the desire for an intelligible order. For others what is desired is knowledge of a higher reality, transcendence, gods, or meaning not found in ordinary life.

In a reversal of the turning of the soul toward the Forms in the Republic, there is a turning of the soul to itself, toward self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is guided by knowledge of our ignorance. We do not know the Forms. We do not have a vision of the Forms. The question then is: which way do we turn? Do we turn away from the "human things" in pursuit of some imagined (and it must be imagined if it is not something seen or known) reality or toward it? Do we deceive ourselves by imagining we have escaped the cave because we can imagine something knowable outside the cave attainable either through reason or revelation?

Eros makes the distinction between the rational and willful problematic. The desire to know should not cast a shadow over the fact that we do not know, that philosophy remains disruptive, problematic and open-ended. The universal does not supplant the particular. The obverse of Parmenides' claim in the dialogue that humans have no knowledge of the Forms is his claim that the gods have no knowledge of particulars.