DM> Curable soul ???  If I got any fragments of it correct, Socrates
 DM> "implied" (as later polished by Plato) the soul could be made right
 DM> (cured) if its three parts could be brought into balance?
   Your confusing Plato's three parts of the personality (head, heart and
stomach - crudely stated) with the myth of the soul.  
 DM> POLITICAL LIE (Plato)
 DM> > It has been widely recognized that Plato propounded the use of the
 DM> > political lie, whereby he proposed that "With the help of one
 DM> single  >lordly lie we may, if we are lucky, persuade even the Rulers
 DM> > themselves -- but at any rate the rest of the city" (Republic  III,
 DM> > 414 (b-c)(2) of the necessity for maintaining the social status quo.
 DM> > It is important to note that the lie was hoped
 DM> to  >result in the Ruler's self-deception, as well as the propogandistic
 DM> >deception of the masses. This lie, then, can be viewed as manifesting
 DM> >Plato's insight into the possibility and the functions of political
 DM> >mass-deception as well as of psychological (or personal) self-deception
 DM> >as `legitimations'.  Both of these deceptions accord with Plato's
 DM> > psychological and epistemological rationalism which denies the
 DM> > significance either of one's opinion or the knowledge (or belief)
 DM> of  >other's opinions. Of course, if there is significance accorded to
 DM> > opinion, then significance will need be accorded to difference of
 DM> > opinion. The lie is not presented as anyone's opinion, but rather as
 DM> > fact; thus, it can function to deceive either the liar (the
 DM> Ruler)  >or his audience (the masses). There is no need for Plato to
 DM> accept
 DM> > differences of opinion, nor are there grounds for questioning the
 DM> > legitimacy of the political and social system. In light of the
 DM> > rationalism of Plato, it is perhaps not surprising that he shows
 DM> no  >inkling of the possibility of socio-psychological deception,
 DM> operating  >through influence processes.
   Why not just READ the passages in _The Republic_ David, and decide for
yourself rather than attempt a modern psychological fit for what is plainly
said there.  To be sure, there is a great deal of symbolism in Plato's
artistry for which you need help to understand.  For example, the _Republic_
begins with the words "I went DOWN to the Piraeus yesterday" and that phrase
itself is a marvelously symbolic way of posing what Plato is doing in the
piece.  What is being explored is not some final truth of all reality but the
ingredients of an ordered polis in terms of the surrounding realities.  It is
not difficult to understand Socrates when, e.g., he questions the wisdom of
the passengers of a ship deciding in the midst of a storm to elect a new
captain because his personality appeals to them more.
 DM> > differences of opinion, nor are there grounds for questioning the
 DM> > legitimacy of the political and social system. In light of the
 DM> > rationalism of Plato, it is perhaps not surprising that he shows
   Be advised that Plato's deadliest enemy was some "ism" - even 
rationalism"
which is one of our modern words.  "Ism" means "doctrine" and philosophy is
the opposition to "doctrine."
 DM> no  >inkling of the possibility of socio-psychological deception,
 DM> operating  >through influence processes.
   Plato surely wasn't unfamiliar with the possibility of "deception" but the
"socio-psychological" would, to him, have been a redundant addition.  He was
not into "buzz words."
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------