2.13: Gods in Disguise or Speaking Falsely

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 94492

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

See 380d-383c. Socrates argues that the gods should be represented neither as taking on disguises nor as misleading people with falsehoods. These are two separate but related points. Because the gods are flawlessly good, they are, in every conceivable respect, in the best condition. So a change of any sort would be for them a change for the worse. Disguises are therefore out of the question. And being perfect, the gods would never have a reason to speak falsely. They are not ignorant of the truth, they have no enemies they need to deceive, and they have no friends or family members who, being ignorant or insane, might benefit from a mollifying or therapeutic lie.

What is it to be “best in every way”? Is a being in such a condition incapable of any sort of change at all? What about responding emotionally to works of art or to the joys and sorrows of other persons? Does perfection rule this out? (“Yes” is the answer most commonly given by the medieval philosophical theologians: God, being perfect, is necessarily “impassive” – incapable of being harmed or in any other way moved emotionally.)
How might a Christian philosophical theologian reply to the objection that God, being perfect, could never have taken on the limitations of human form (“the Incarnation”), as this would have involved limiting (weakening and making vulnerable) that which, of necessity, cannot be limited? Is having to eat, sleep, and so on consistent with being “best in everyway”?
Is having friends who are ignorant or insane inconsistent with being “best in every way”?