The idea Truth often causes irrationality. Why does it happen? Hopefully this post will get many comments, in which many opinions are given about phenomena, relating to the idea Truth. The post-modern paradigm is opposition to the idea Truth in the sense, people in the post-modern paradigm, influencing academics, want to change the correspondence theory of Truth. They often do not want to discuss the idea Truth, ontologically, because truth has a cosmological meaning to them. Cosmology is basically metaphoric explanations about infinity and therefore objectivity is not possible in cosmological explanations. Cosmology does not use definitions to agree with, objectively.
In classic Greece they were much more open about the idea Truth. Aristotle openly promoted deceit as a functional method, which led to pragmatism and other analytical philosophy. That state of affairs in Greece made it possible to discuss the benefits of deceit and honesty in order to get closer to reality. What is best for society as a whole? What is best for individuals each? Is deceit selfish and too individualistic? Are honest people too individualistic? Are post-modern accusations that they each think they is "God Himself", irrational? I think such accusations are irrational because logically, honesties are good for the whole of society, and often negative for individuals each. Nietzsche rightly wrote the weak singular "God" is dead, therefore the post-modern accusations against honest people can stop.
Socrates promoted deceit in Plato's book The Republic, but he said only the leaders of society should have the right to use it. It is thus no wonder, currently, deceit is common among leaders of society.
My overall view of Plato is however that his books promote the idea Truth. A problem is, what did Socrates promote and what did Plato promote. Often, a clear distinction between the two is not clear, because most of the time reference is made to Plato, whilst actually Socrates is meant. The role hermeneutics had in the recording of Socrates's views is not acknowledged open enough in philosophy currently, in my opinion. A view by Popper that Plato promoted stability, against change exists. Truth causes change because when realities are known, especially with regard to injustice, change is required. This is where the "anomaly of Plato" is relevant. Is there an anomaly in Plato's books? If there is, is it because a clear distinction is not made between Plato's and Socrates's opinions. Did Plato acknowledge, the idea Truth causes change? In The Laws Plato wrote, the best political system has only one leader at the top because, one person can quickly make the necessary changes, when the changes are required. Therefore, it seems Plato's view is not really an anomaly because he did consider changes. He did recognize that changes are needed sometimes and that good leaders can make such changes to avert revolutions. His requirement however, for a singular leader, who can make quick changes, implies that he did oppose continuous change. Change was supposed to be hindered until ordered changes are allowed to avert revolutionary changes by way of violence.