PHI 197 Plato\'s Tripartite Soul Essay PDF

Preview

Summary

One of the two big essay assignments in this course...

Description

Manasi Karekar PHI 197 03.05.2020 TA: _________ Plato’s Tripartite Soul- Revision Plato’s arguments about human nature and the tripartite soul are presented in his books, Republic Book IV and Republic Book VI through Socrates and his interlocutors. This essay aims to evaluate the structure and integrity of the theory of the tripartite soul and the rational rule, as well as present counter-arguments. Plato’s theory of the tripartition within a soul stands strong as it is well supported by the desires and conflict faced by a human being. Plato’s argument for the rational part of the soul to rule a human’s actions, however, can be countered with several arguments focusing on how a person prioritizes their needs.

Plato presents a complicated theory of human nature and psychology by introducing the concept of a soul comprised of three distinctive and separate parts. His view on human psychology is based on the suggestion that the soul is divided into an appetitive part, a spirited part, and a rational part. The appetitive part consists of a human’s desires and pleasures, such as physical comforts, bodily ease, sex, money, thirst, and hunger. Fulfilling this part of the soul brings about a feeling of satisfaction within the human, and does not deliberate about the conflict between what is believed to be good versus what is believed to be bad. The spirited part of the soul is expressed through anger, pride, and courage. The strong emotions associated with this part of the soul relates to the social aspect of a person’s desires. Plato argues that this ‘highspirited’ energy drives action within a human being. It is the part of the mind that feels a potent sense of anger when injustice occurs, as Plato suggests when he says, “the spirit within him boiling and angry, fighting for what he believes to be just” (Republic IV, 440d). Lastly, Plato

establishes the rational part of the soul to be the part that truly knows what is good for the human being. This part of the mind is suggested to deliberate about the best course of action after careful consideration of reason and logic. Moreover, Plato suggests that the rational part yearns for knowledge, wisdom, and the act of learning.

To support this argument about the soul being divided into three parts, Plato introduces the Principle of Opposites. This suggests that any form of conflict within the soul can be explained by the existence of a tripartite soul, of which all parts desire a different thing. To explain the Principle of Opposites, Plato considers the case of a person who is thirsty but refuses to drink. There is a part of the soul that “doesn’t wish anything but to drink” (Republic IV, 439b); however if he does not perform the act of drinking, there must be another part that is controlling this decision than the part that desires a drink. Socrates asks the interlocutor, Glaucon, to “consider all the following, whether they are doings or undergoings, as pairs of opposites: Assent and dissent, wanting to have something and rejecting it, taking something and pushing it away” (Republic IV, 437b). Through this, Plato proposes that if any situation is opposing itself simultaneously, then the different parts of the soul are conflicted against each other, proving a tripartite soul because of one part of the soul overruling another part. However, this claim can be countered by suggesting that the desire for something is not the exact opposite of the action that one performs. Suppose, a person wanting to eat unhealthy food but stopping themselves may be misunderstood as a conflict between the appetite and reason within their soul, but is just an unacknowledged desire for healthy food instead. Hence, that leaves the soul without conflict to solve. However, this argument may not be applied universally to all apparent conflicts as Plato views it. To this aspect of a counter-argument, Plato may present the situation of withholding an

action due to embarrassment or pride, which shows a clear conflict between the appetite and the spirited part of the soul.

The second argument that Plato makes in the Republic IV is that the spirited and appetitive parts of the soul "belong to the reasoning part to rule" (Republic IV, 441e). Socrates asks, “Isn’t it appropriate for the rational part to rule, since it is really wise and exercises foresight on behalf of the whole soul, and for the spirited part to obey and be its ally?” (Republic IV, 441e). Unlike the other two parts, the rational part is the only part that truly knows what is good for the soul, as well as the difference between right and wrong. Reason ensures that the appetite or the spirit does not dominate the soul, and instead keeps the desires in moderation. Moreover, Plato supports the argument by reiterating that humans are considered humans due to their ability to reason, a trait that separates humans from other animals. A human’s function is to reason and act from reason, hence, making it clear for why Plato argued that reason must be of utmost importance to the soul, and it must rule over the other parts of the soul.

This argument can be responded to in retaliation by questioning why the three parts of the soul cannot be all equally important and used in a balance by the mind. One may suggest that the appetite part of the soul can bring goodness to the human by fulfilling pleasures and desires and living life based on what makes the person feel good. Similarly, the spirited part of the soul ensures that the person is acting justly to their surroundings and not tolerating wrongdoing, hence enforcing a sense of morals within the person. Moreover, the spirited part of the soul ensures a strong political and social standing amongst a society. To this criticism, Plato may suggest contemplating the overall purpose and goal in a person’s life. Attributes such as lust,

greed, pride, and other unhealthy desires are not the predominant and permanent sources of happiness in life. It can be argued that these few desires may provide the human with a temporary sense of pleasure rather than utmost happiness and flourishing. Thus, humans will achieve true happiness if they yearn knowledge and wisdom instead of pleasure.

Overall, Plato’s understanding and opinion on the human soul is deeply complex, and his claims and theories are supported with different aspects of a situation that is presented to the readers of the Republic IV and Republic VI. These analogies and examples are crucial to understanding the argument he makes through Socrates and other characters. Although they come with several counterarguments, Plato’s claims for the tripartite soul and the rational rule remain strong....