Paste your essay in here…In his book, The Republic, Plato introduces the concept of “a noble lie.” Indeed, although he goes so far as to condemn the arts for being false idols of what they represent, and states that philosophy is the pursuit of truth, when he presents his vision of an ideal city, he founds it on a lie. In order to have a content populace, he would perpetuate the myth that each human being is born with a type of metal in their soul (gold, silver, brass, or iron), to which his value and role in society is linked. Instituting such a stratified society would theoretically calcify social class and prevent any civil strife, since it would rationalize the inequality that Plato deems critical to the proper functioning of society. Karl Marx discusses the similar effects of religion on society, saying that “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature[…] It is the opium of the people.” In his view, “the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of people is the demand for their real happiness.” Marx sees religion as harmful because it keeps people passive by promising sufferers a chance at happiness after death. Because of this, they are less likely to rebel to improve their situations. Since these two concepts, the noble lie and religion, seem to have the same consequences, one might draw the inference that they are in fact one and the same. Leo Strauss asked the question whether noble lies have any role to play in uniting and guiding the polis. Are they the glue that holds society together, or are they shackles that keep people locked into whatever social category they were born in to? Moreover, mightn’t it be slightly unrealistic to expect such a large degree of persuasive power to come from a story so transparent in its falseness? How would Plato put such a lie into effect? And how would he justify such a lie within his philosophical framework, which is premised in many ways on telling the truth?
The foundations of one’s ideal society should not be based on a whim. Plato acknowledges this, and spends time justifying his noble lie before launching into its specific contents. His noble lie would be “fabricated in a moment of need” (Plato 329; 414b), and would not be without precedent. Rather, the noble lie is said to be like a “Phoenician tale,” which may be a reference to the Phoenician king Cadmus, who is said to have sowed dragons’ teeth, from which an army of soldiers sprang up. Plato proceeds to evoke other lies that served as foundation myths for cities that “happened all over the place in the past, as the poets say and have persuaded people” (331; 414c), thus portraying the noble lie as something that is commonplace in many societies, and so a viable choice for his ideal city. The first part of the lie posits that men are born of the earth, who as their mother must be cared for and defended against attack. The second part of the lie is that each person is born with a certain kind of metal in their soul, that ties them to their social class. People with gold in their souls are the ruling class, followed by those born with silver, who are the helpers, and those born with brass or iron, who are the farmers and craftsmen. People usually have the same type of soul metal as their parents, meaning that social classes would generally be maintained intergenerationally. However, in order to keep the lie believable, Plato leaves room for some rare exceptions. If a brilliant child is born to common laborers, he can simply be proclaimed such an exception on the grounds that he has gold in his soul. Making him belong to the gold group reinforces the impression that the gold-souls are superior, and explains away the fact that there is no real inherent difference in intellect or talent between the classes.
For this noble lie to work, it needs to be totally incorporated into the society so that the class system established according to the metal in people’s souls remains unchallenged. This is where the noble lie takes on religious or superstitious aspects, with Socrates specifying that the city would be overthrown if a man of iron or brass were ever to ascend to being its guardian. The fear of the state’s destruction if they dare to transgress is intended to keep people in their appointed class. But this fear alone might not be enough to convert generations of people, and perhaps even the rulers of the city, to believing the noble lie. It is not likely that people will be persuaded to give up there prior beliefs, religious and otherwise, to adopt the noble lie in all its absurdity, and “undergo what they regard as the greatest misery for the rest of their days so that future generations will be blessed” (186). For the founding philosophers to successfully raise a generation of people who believe that they are born of mother earth and contain differing types of metal in their souls, they would have to start young. As Strauss says, “political bliss will follow, not if the philosophers become kings, but when the philosophers have become kings and if they have rusticated everyone older than ten, and they bring up the children without any influence whatever of the parents on the children.” While the children of society could presumably be raised to believe its foundation myth, older generations would have to be forcibly reeducated or perhaps expelled from the city, bringing to mind the exile to the countryside of Chinese intellectuals and bourgeoisie during the Cultural Revolution.
Even if Plato could actually inculcate the inhabitants of his city with his noble lie, how is lying to the populace acceptable to Plato, given the importance of truth in Plato’s philosophy? While Plato, as a philosopher, always seeks the truth, he also asserts that there is room for telling regular people “useful lies” if the purpose of those lies is ultimately to benefit and elevate those people. The noble lie is such a lie. As he devises it, Plato asks: “How then could we devise one of those useful falsehoods we were talking about a while ago, one noble falsehood that would, in the best case, persuade even the rulers, but if that’s not possible, then the others in the city?” (414b-c). In Plato’s view, however, not everyone should be entitled to tell such “useful” or “noble” lies. They are like dangerous tools that must be handled properly, and not everyone has the skills to do so. Only expert “doctors” should be allowed to tell these “useful” lies, and any layman who dares to tell such lies must be punished for “introducing a practice that will disrupt and destroy the state” (235; 389d). It seems dramatic to assume that a “useful” or “noble” lie in the wrong hands could destroy the state, but a noble lie in the form of a set of religious beliefs, for example, could motivate people to rise up and revolt or start wars.
Plato may believe that his “noble lie” will be useful in stabilizing his new state, but if the verbal art of poetry, existing several removes from the Platonic real, threatens to debase the citizens, why does the verbal art of the ‘noble lie’ not present a similar threat? Or to put the question another way: If Homer’s art of imitation is to be excluded from the Republic because it threatens to debase the citizens’ souls, why does Plato enable the art of the imitation lie–the lie in mere words–to become a necessary part of the Republic’s existence? The answer to the question, in Platonic terms, has to do with the effects on the soul of the ‘lie’ to be told. According to Plato, there are true lies and imitation lies: Thus, the lie in words only–a mere imitation of a true lie–is no more real than the bed or the painting of the bed is the real, eternal Idea of bedness. In other words, the lie in words is as negligible with regard to truth as the painted bed is negligible with regard to to the Idea bed, and will thus cause no damage to the soul; it is only the real lie that causes damage to the soul. Plato’s “noble” lie is a lie in words only. While Plato’s motives in telling the “noble lie” might be pure, the distinction he draws between true lies and imitation lies is unconvincing. The impact of such “imitation” “noble lies” on the history of society have often been quite devastating (such as Christianity triggering the Crusades); it’s hard to imagine any “truer” lie doing more harm.
In answering the question of whether noble lies are the glue that holds society together or the shackles that keep people locked in their social category, it is instructive to consider the case of the caste system in India. This system of social stratification developed as part of Hinduism and has existed in some form for thousands of years. It was described in the Bhaghavad Gita, which was written at approximately the same time as The Republic. Perhaps Plato was even aware of it, given that trade routes existed at the time linking Greece to India. The “Varna” or classes of the Indian caste system and those specified by Plato in his noble lie reflect a similar hierarchy: At the top of the Varna are the Brahmins, or priests, below them are the Kshatriyas,who are the rulers, administrators and warriors, followed by the Vaishyas, who are the merchants, tradesmen and farmers and finally the Shudras, comprised of the laboring class. At the very bottom of the totem pole (and not even considered a class) are the Dalits, which includes those referred to as “untouchables”. At its height in the 18th and 19th centuries, the Indian caste system governed almost all aspects of Indian social and religious life: people lived in segregated communities by Varna, different Varna did not share water wells, and people of different Varna could not intermarry. The caste system was exacerbated by the British, who reinforced this system of social stratification by creating what have been termed “zoological classifications of Indian people”, finding that the Varna system helped them to divide and conquer. If you were at the bottom of this pyramid of classifications, it was a terrible thing, and you and your family were likely to stay there. Marx would not have been surprised to hear that the Hindu belief in reincarnation was one of the main pillars of this caste system. According to this belief, your soul is eternal and your “karma” determines where you belong in the caste system. If you have been virtuous in your past life, then in your current life you will be a member of a good caste. If, on the other hand, you were evil in your past life, then you will have a lower Varna or even be relegated to the Dalits. You cannot complain about your current caste, because it is your own behaviour in a past life that has resulted in your plight. You got what you deserved. If you want to change castes in your next life, you must work to improve your karma in your current life by doing good deeds. The religious belief in reincarnation, like opium, served to keep people passive, waiting for their next lives without challenging the Varna system. India legally abolished the caste system in 1949, and today the Indian government does much to protect the Dalits and less fortunate Varna. Yet the caste system still plays a significant role in Indian society, creating needless barriers for people.