Between truth and lying: on the founding myth of political science

Citing Habermas when he wrote "the spectre of Marx will always be there above our heads forever", I say what if it's the spectre of Plato that will be above us too – we students of political science- forever. 

But since the Marxist spectre is known for his communism then what is the platonic one? And where to distinguish it in the writings of the philosopher? For that, I start to say that the spectre of Plato is that of Al-Farabi after him, and of Tomas more later on, it's the platonic utopia, the myth of political philosophy that never gets bored.

And the myth of philosophy begins from Plato's cave, to be transferred to Utopia, the beginning is Plato's theory of the example, and from then on the permanent distinction between what is reality and what should be, and when Plato used his theory in political philosophy, he created for us a dream is utopia, or example, and Reality, which is all the political systems that humanity has known, and from this moment we live a paradox between what we imagine from an ideal political world, and a reality that is farther from the example.

The idea of utopia is based on a main feature which to imagine an ideal society, meaning that it cherishes the value of truth above any other thing, which is going to be a premises for establishing political science as a search for truth, and truth here is inversely the utopia, so, we notice that distinguishing truth for utopia s blurred, they are almost the same. Later on, utopia will be the search for a society which is the most egalitarian in Marxist terms, the freest in liberal terms, and the most just in Islamic terms. As such, political philosophy has established its great myth- the founder of the science- and political science became the search for truth. 

Then came Arendt to refute this narration of the science saying that lying is not as clear anywhere else as it is in politics. After her came Derrida to state that the issue goes beyond what Arendt said, rather political history is the history of lying. Over time we started to have the concept of '' post-truth age'' as an expression of our own current age. Then we ask what after truth but lying? And If they are the same, then our age is that of lying.

Having spoken about truth, I find myself obliged to return to Foucault. In the final analysis, what can Foucault teach us but the fact that authority penetrates us all? And that if you see any representation of authority, go check your pistol. Its Foucault's dictates about truth that always tell us that when its time to discuss politics, truth jumps from the first window.  In her article '' truth and politics'', Arendt was clear and frank when she tells us that truth and politics are contraries that haven't and will never meet.

Based on the previous, can't we dare to ask political science and political philosophy when they delude us assuming that their main purpose is the search for truth? And if truth and politics aren't to meet, then what is the importance of political science and political philosophy? These are questions that go beyond my horizon in the search for an answer, but I can't spare the effort to pose them.

Criticism can afford not to go that far, but it teaches us – we students of the science- to be modest when we see the world through the lens of our own political knowledge, which – ironically- can be founding lying more than being a search for truth. Rather we can go to say that our history – the near and the far- could snitch to say that political science established for lying in its most battles with truth in clear words, blurred concept, andgood talk when truth fade away behind tons of lying.