Taking as a principle the uneasiness caused by Socrates questioning in Plato s Hippias Minor (363a-364c): which character, between Achilles and Odysseus, would be superior? This dissertation takes into account the direction of the dialogue about the lie according to the Platonic perspective, and is dedicated specifically to discover who could be understood as a liar: between Achilles and Odysseus, who would be lying? First, the research wants to ascertain the definitions that come from the Platonic dialogue, and then return to the scene of the Homeric epic where is possible to define which hero would be named as the liar. By the assignments taken as criteria drawn from the dialogue between Socrates and Hippias, the search for the scene that meets the necessary definitions for the lie is targeted to the tragedies, where the Sophocle s Philoctetes excels among the plays remaining fully, to revel the criteria and allowing us to examine the lie in order to juxtapose definitions and criteria to the scene that best exemplifies the case. In sum, this dissertation tries methodologically to conjecture for beyond what is seen in Hippias Minor, seeking a more opportune example than that given by the Sophist to Socrates, yet without neglecting the arguments and definitions set forth, it is desired to get closer to a complete understanding of this dialogue, using example as a didactic resource that can help concomitantly in the understanding of what is the lie, at the same time as observing who could be a liar.