@@> On Apr-7-98 Frank Masingill wrote to David Martorana
 @@> on "Curable Souls"
 
 DM>> Did Plato later answer his own question? Which of his works is the 
bove
 DM>> mentioned "CONSCIOUS myth of the judgement"? located in.
 
 FM> _Gorgias_ has the best rendition.  Plato was a master artist so the
 FM> myth of the judgement is (where else) toward the end.
 
    Will check it out.... I had found (about) "Gorgias" in "Ideas of
    the Great philosophers" and he immediatly edged close to my own
    "relativistic sophist heart" !
 
 FM> Did Plato answer the question??  The myth of the judgement IS
 FM> the question. Can it claim to be true?  Well, does it fit the
 FM> truth of the soul as it is experienced in its search for order?
 FM> One might well ask: "If immortality is uncertain then why not
 FM> just take a chance, live for hedonistic pleasures and nothing else.
 FM> What could one lose if there is another chance.  But how stringint
 FM> IS that second chance -and IS there a second chance.
 
     Curable soul ???  If I got any fragments of it correct, Socrates
     "implied" (as later polished by Plato) the soul could be made
     right (cured) if its three parts could be brought into balance?
 
 FM> Obviously the "many" tend not to worry about it.  Ever wonder why
 FM> political order is so difficult to achieve?  That is what Plato meant
 FM> by "immoratalizing."
 
 DM> As I pick up on some limited perusals of Plato, I "think" I see a mix
 DM> of a not always consistent "searcher". To start with, did he actually
 DM> consider the oracle at Delphi a legitimate/true source of information?
 DM> AND did he really believe that the "political lie" was a valid tool in
 DM> politics? Realizing that people are mind-fixed in their own time and
 DM> also change their views over a lifetime, I may have read beyond good
 DM> background perspective and reasoning.
 
 FM> David, if you attempt to make Socrates and Plato into modern
 FM> fundamentalists who might "believe" or "disbelieve" you'll
 FM> never understand much of what either was thinking.
 
     I'm still working on how to read them.
 
 FM> I assume that by "political lie" you are speaking of the "Big Lie"
 FM> mentioned in _The Republic_.  Did you not see the irony in the
 FM> context of that FM> "Big Lie" which was part of a myth?
 FM> The "Big Lie" as Voegelin observes is the "Supreme truth" that
 FM> "all men are brothers." Did you really know all of this and were
 FM> just pulling my leg?
 
    Not smart enough to pull anyone's leg! In unfamiliar areas I tend
    to read a bit on the "literal" side of things. But, as I read the
    philosophers AND those (knowledgeable) that comment on them,
    I do find a range of different understandings as to what something
    means (I still have not settled on a mentor I would trust to keep
    me straight [presently happy with Prof/PHIL T.Z.Lavine (G.W.U.]
 
    i.e a sample bit of commentary I pulled from the INTERNET by one
    Gordon Welty (Wright State University)
 
   POLITICAL LIE (Plato)
   >It has been widely recognized that Plato propounded the use of the
   >political lie, whereby he proposed that "With the help of one single
   >lordly lie we may, if we are lucky, persuade even the Rulers
   >themselves -- but at any rate the rest of the city"
   >(Republic  III, 414 (b-c)(2) of the necessity for maintaining the
   >social status quo. It is important to note that the lie was hoped to
   >result in the Ruler's self-deception, as well as the propogandistic
   >deception of the masses. This lie, then, can be viewed as manifesting
   >Plato's insight into the possibility and the functions of political
   >mass-deception as well as of psychological (or personal) self-deception
   >as `legitimations'.  Both of these deceptions accord with Plato's
   >psychological and epistemological rationalism which denies the
   >significance either of one's opinion or the knowledge (or belief) of
   >other's opinions. Of course, if there is significance accorded to
   >opinion, then significance will need be accorded to difference of
   >opinion. The lie is not presented as anyone's opinion, but rather
   >as fact; thus, it can function to deceive either the liar (the Ruler)
   >or his audience (the masses). There is no need for Plato to accept
   >differences of opinion, nor are there grounds for questioning the
   >legitimacy of the political and social system. In light of the
   >rationalism of Plato, it is perhaps not surprising that he shows no
   >inkling of the possibility of socio-psychological deception, operating
   >through influence processes.
 
   
 
 
                          __
                          @@>--- Dave
 
 
 
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------