But I am quite unwilling to accept the view that social cohesion is impossible except by the help of useful lies. I know that this view has the sanction of Plato and of a long line of practical politicians, but I think that even from a practical point of view it is mistaken.
Source： Bertrand Russell: Human Society in Ethics and Politics, 1954, part II: The Conflict of Passions, chapter 7: Religious Faith Cure Our Troubles ? n7
More info.：https://russell-j.com/cool/47T-2_0707.htm
* a brief comment:
The phrase "A politician is the beginning of a liar" seems to be used around the world. What does this phrase mean? Of course, the most central meaning must be that "there are many politicians who lie." However, if we consider this from a politician's perspective, doesn’t it take on a different nuance?
Politicians with strong logical thinking and linguistic abilities try to explain things logically so that voters (the people or citizens) can understand them. However, those who lack such abilities rely primarily on appealing to voters' emotions. In fact, there are probably not many politicians who are fully aware of their own lack of logical thinking skills. Rather, quite a few politicians likely believe that many voters are foolish and that "a lie can be a useful tool" in gaining public support. They may even see Plato’s "noble lie" as a necessary evil.
For example, both Trump and then-Prime Minister Abe told an enormous number of lies. Without assuming that they believed lies to be necessary in politics (or in Abe’s case, that he had believed so), it is impossible to understand them. Perhaps the reason they got along so well was that they both saw lies as essential to politics. Otherwise, they would simply be "just liars."
What do you think?
* Amazon Gift Card
