Comments here.
Sorry if I cut anyone off mid-comment!
As I was revisiting the argument that the soul has three parts, I noticed that Socrates’s theory is like Freud’s theory of consciousness. The appetitive part of the soul reminds me of the id, the rational part of the soul reminds me of super-ego, and the spiritual part of the soul reminds me of the ego that mediates between the two other parts. Do you think Freud’s theory was influenced by Plato? I mentioned this in my argument analysis, but I was curious to see if anyone else made a similar connection. -Winters
Hi Maegan. I think we might be in the same History of Modern Phil section, so that’s cool. That aside, I think you’re really onto something with the link between Freud and Plato. I skimmed a couple articles about the two but didn’t find much more than you put together on your own. Still though, it almost seems that since Plato’s interlocutors accept the tripartite soul so willingly and the argument seems fairly intuitive, they might have both stumbled on some deeper impulse that people have to view themselves through this sort of lens. -Todt
Yes I find this so interesting, I feel like psychology loves to subdivide the mind, especially to explain internal disagreement! It makes me think of Internal Family Systems which goes even further in terms of understanding the mind as a multiplicity. But interestingly, even within that model, there are three main categories parts fall into in addition to the “self”. — McAdams
I considered this! I used to be a psychology major and Freud’s ego/superego/id idea was one of the first things that popped into my mind. It is possible that Freud was influenced by Plato, however I think the idea of things in threes is also a deeply ingrained cultural idea. -Holden
Deeply ingrained in culture from where? What is it about the number three that we find so appealing? At least 10 sort of makes sense because of our digits. It’s certainly significant for some reason? Is there something natural about thinking of things in threes? Any ideas welcome. -Todt
Good question. I couldn’t tell you where exactly it originated, but we have religious/legendary 3’s like the Holy Trinity in Christianity, Trideva in Hinduism, three sons of Kronos, etc. Those are some quite influential ones I can think of. -Holden
° This is an interesting connection and something that I believe is highly plausible considering the fact that many, if not all, of Frued’s theories where exactly that, theories and not much else. Many of his ideas have very little scientific background and with regards to the field of psychology at the time (which was mostly theoretical), it would not be surprising for a major psychologist to extract ideas from philosophy. I believe that in the early stages in the field of psychology, philosophy was similar to it in many aspects.
-Ste. Marie
Socrates’ argument--in the tripartite soul portion of the Republic—that a top cannot be simultaneously moving and unmoving particularly interested me. I understood his argument, and how it related to the soul being comprised of multiple parts, though it raised the question of what he would argue the top is doing if it isn’t moving and unmoving at the same time. Sure, you could break it into the circumference and the axis, as he does, but I wonder if there is a way to explain what the top is doing as a singular object. -Slade
Rotating on its axis? Moving in place? Rotating with respect to the horizontal plane it sits on, but stationary with respect to the vertical axis? The whole language of 436b7ff is trying to take care of that:
“The same thing will not be willing to do or undergo opposites in the same part of itself, in relation to the same thing, at the same time”
° I think this is an interesting perspective because as you pointed out the top is moving and unmoving at the same time. As a singular object it seems that the top is being two opposites at once. Socrates states that the axis is not moving unless it wobbles as the momentum slows to a stop. Clearly the axis is still moving, by spinning. In the dialogue, they skip over this idea because as Socrates says in the following paragraph, if the above was true it would ruin the argument that something cannot do two things at once. I believe that bringing up the top example takes away from the theory that the soul must have three parts.- Ste. Marie
Yeah I agree with both of you! The top example was interesting and almost kind of out of place because it varies so greatly from other methods of argument Socrates has used. Often the answer is that things cannot be two things at once, he often disproves that claim by the end of his arguments. He even does that with the soul saying that it cant be one thing that experiences the same thing in the same place, for that would wear it down and one thing cannot account for all the different experiences of the soul. Yet the top argument, to my understanding, is in line with the human body argument that I can be in motion (moving my arm, my leg etc.) yet be standing still in one place. Emily F
When thinking about the concept of a soul, and it’s makeup, it’s hard for me not to also theorize about personal identity. How does one identify if you subscribe to the idea of a soul, or if you don’t subscribe? - DiNapoli
Regarding the soul and personal identity, I wonder if these things are different or the same? It seems like it is possible to have an identity separate from the soul. However, in terms of intrinsic makeup, perhaps these might be one and the same depending on how we define the terms.
I find it interesting how Socrates always tries to back up such divine and spiritual topis with specific logic. How does one's soul identify with how they live and contribute to their society. - Oscar
In the Meno, I found Socrates’ willingness to concede and end up in a state of moral-dumbfounded-ness (for Socrates himself not to know and not to convince) to be quite interesting. I think after reading other dialogues that end in aporia, I’ve felt dissatisfied and there is little catharsis because nothing is resolved, but in the Meno it reveals a more complex character of Socrates. - Antinoph
I had a tough time conceptualizing Plato's argument in the tripartite soul analysis. I understand how the rational part and the irrational part or desire influence each other but I couldn’t figure out what the third part does, and how it affects the soul. -Murphy
Ok so somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I think he’s pretty much saying, the third part is the spirited part. He say’s its definitely different than the rational part because kids are full of spirit from birth, but it’s clear that their rational parts doesn’t grow in until later. He also says the spirited part is different from the appetitive part because when the appetitive part makes the body act against the rational parts wishes, the spirited part scolds the appetitive part. — McAdams
Yes I think you’re correct here, the spirited part is something we humans are born with, and the rational part is developed over time as we grow and learn. I’d say the spirited is like the appetitive but for loftier desires, where the appetitive would act for ‘base’ things, the spirited is for higher goals and desires. - Francis V
Someone in class asked why Socrates decided that there were exactly three parts to the soul and that got me thinking. While to me it seems that Socrates is merely saying that three parts is the minimum and there’s no need for there to be any more, I question if that’s true. Why is three the minimum. Where do things fall into this three-part system for example when they’re a rationally inspired emotion that leads to irrational behavior? – Dane
I think that 3 parts can be extremely limiting. Rational, irrational, and spirited does not encompass the range of ones needs. I also agree that there are overlaps in the parts other soul and am not sure what Plato would say about that. - Winberry
SO can you suggest some other parts and some needs that are not covered...
That’s a really interesting observation! As I was reading I assumed it had something to do with a tri-structured government as Plato speaks to the perfect government/society later in the Republic. A sort of triumvirate (though I know that’s way later during the Romans haha); he seems to believe that the soul will be perfectly balanced having three parts
Socrates says that music and poetry on one hand and physical training on the other allow the spirited part of the soul and the rational part to coexist in harmony. According to Socrates, rhythm makes the spirit gentle, and learning stretches the rational part (441e7-11). I think this section is beautifully written. That said, I don’t understand what Socrates means by physical training. Is physical training studying logic and ration (or maybe science and math), as opposed to poetry and song. If so, I don’t see how it is possible to steep the soul fully in both pursuits, at least for myself. I lean towards poetry and music, and I have always found math and the sciences to be inaccessible to me. Do I really need to revisit math (which I wrote off a long time ago for myself) to train my soul, according to Socrates? -Lynch
Yes, you do: math is not optional for Plato, apparently. Music is chock full of things that are mathematically pure, that are essentially math, such as ratios.
I think it is important to note that in the republic, there is mention by Plato of an intermediate between ignorance and knowledge. This intermediate can either be a step towards knowledge or a place. Although you may think that it is fine to be either completely ignorant or completely knowledgeable of something, it is important to determine if there are necessities that are important for having knowledge. To not jump immediately from been ignorant to knowledge, but instead think about the process that lets you reach knowledge. - Wilczynski
I wonder if the in between place is as follows: first, I know the Forms, and that is knowledge because the knowledge and its object are certain and unchanging, because Forms never change. But I only know a sensible thing (say the beauty of a sculpture or the justice of a specific action like Euthyphro’s prosecution) IF that knowledge involves the Form of Beauty or the Form of Justice. Sure, I can have an opinion about a sculpture, that it is beautiful, without a Form of Beauty, but I can’t know it, because my opinion has no founding in anything permanent, in anything that I can explain and support with solid unchanging reason, like I can do with the Form of Beauty. With mere opinion, I can point to things like a sculpture’s proportions or its structure, but I cannot offer an explanation that is really solid. If beauty is real and not purely subjective, I ought to be able to point to permanent features of it and relate them to beautiful things in a reliable way.
About ten minutes into last week’s presentation on the article by Gail Fine, I was struck by the idea that something can be both true and false/untrue simultaneously. The example of Santa was given, with the explanation that Santa is fictional and therefore inherently “untrue,” but true, at the same time, because Santa is a believable concept. If I recall correctly, the presenters proceeded to argue that belief can’t be true or false because belief isn’t based in provable evidence. This isn’t meant as a criticism of their presentation, as I thought their presentation was well done. Rather, it sparked my curiosity and reminded me of a debate I had the other day about whether it’s possible to prove something about a “negative.” If we don’t have enough knowledge about something or make something up, can we really argue it doesn’t exist/is false? In this way, it seems just as plausible that something made up could exist, as there is no evidence to prove the contrary. - Slade
Good point! I think Bryce put it really well, but belief loops back to the arguments around rhetoric and persuasion, and partly why I think Plato pushes against rhetoric so fiercely is because it doesn’t have to concern the real, it can make you believe something that maybe isn’t true, but that you were persuaded to believe. (And if I can make you belive something, then isn’t it already somewhat true? Strange, but interesting idea.) - Francis V
I thought it was interesting how the Phaedo was told from a second-hand perspective. Because Phaedo retells the story of Socrates’ death to Echecrates after it has already taken place, the reader is once removed from the actual scene itself. Therefore, we don’t know for sure what actually happened in Socrates’ last hours. All we have is Phaedo’s account. Why does Plato remove the reader from the story in this way? Is Phaedo a reliable narrator? -Winters
Jacque-louis David’s painting the Death of Socrates depicts the final moments of Socrates life as he grabs for the hemlock. Socrates could have escaped this fate; however, he chooses to die to teach his final lesion that death is not to be feared by the philosopher but embraced as an apotheosis of the soul. In the painting Socrates is defiant and is gesturing to the ceiling or the afterlife of which he explained in the Phaedo. Socrates is a symbol of stoic commitment to an abstract principle even in the face of death. This is a painting my intro to philosophy class talked about in high school and I found it very interesting how Neo-classical artist portray Plato and Socrates. -Murphy
I think that’s due to Plato not actually having been there when Socrates died, if you read the beginning blurb again it mentions this. I see it as a sort of padding, a way for Plato to say “hey I wasn’t there, so if anyone contradicts this account, it was hazy to begin with.” - Francis V
In the Phaedo, I was particularly moved and also confused by the concept of prior knowledge of some other reality/place/existence which I believe was briefly discussed in class. Like... is he saying a kind of reincarnation? Intuition? ****What is this “Equal” thing??** (Phaedo 74-76) the passage also reminds me of this cool German word I heard of “fernweh” which is defined as “homesickness for a place you have never been to”. This idea is quite poignant and interesting to think that hundreds of years ago people were having these same types of feelings and thoughts. MaryDove Herrera (here’s the source for translation of fenweh and some other cool words: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20140703-eleven-untranslatable-words#:~:text=%E2%80%9CI'd%20always%20loved%20the,being%20alone%20in%20the%20woods'.
I was also struggling with the idea of knowledge being predisposed from the soul before you are born. To me I think there is a lot of truth to uncovering what you already knew as opposed to learning it because the subconsious mind is so knowledgeable. If this claim about the soul having the knowledge is true I wonder if that implies your brain and subconsious are actually a part of your soul and not part of your body, or at least elements of it. -Lampert
• Although the Allegory of the Cave is concerned with Plato’s metaphysics, when I first read it, I related to it in a practical way and not in a metaphysical way. I do not think that the metaphysics of the Allegory are useful in a person’s daily life. But if you can generalize it’s principle, that things aren't always as they appear, then it can be fruitful — Mike Scott.
While I do find it fun to speculate on metaphysical realities beyond the reach of human perception, I agree that the cave allegory is primarily practically useful as a reminder that we do not perceive reality as it is. However, I think accounting for the possibility that some things that appear contradictory and/or unexplainable according to our human common sense can be accounted for by taking a different perspective. For example, the shadow a triangular prism casts lying on its side is triangular, while the shadow it casts standing on its end is rectangular. Without accounting for the shapes 3rd dimension, one might conclude based the two shadows alone that they are two shapes not one. I think the same can be said about the spinning top example discussed above. When referencing the axis and circumference of the the top, Plato is classifying its motion (or lack there of) according to the position of its point on a two-dimensional surface. Basically, I think it helps explain the possibility of self-contradictions. —Miranda
I agree with you Mike. While revolutionary for the time and certainly interesting to explore, I sometimes wonder about how useful the cave allegory is in day to day life. For example, the movie The Truman Show, is basically the cave allegory starring Jim Carrey. It’s a great movie but I find that most people use it as an excuse to justify not getting vaccinated because they have the idea that they are a unique and special case, so interesting and intelligent that they can peek beyond the cave and realize that all vaccines are infested with microbots created by Bill Gates. It opens up the paranoid delusion of grandeur where people convince themselves that society is run by evil overlords who are convincing all the sheeple that the world is actually flat. The leader of the flat earth society said that the Truman show was what got him interested in conspiracy theories in the first place. Basically, some people use the allegory of the cave to create a false narrative that they are seeing beyond what the evil overlords intend when in reality, this delusion shields them from the knowledge that nobody cares about them and they are being exploited just like the rest of us. It’s not Plato’s fault or anything but it’s interesting to see how his argument gets twisted to serve a different narrative. -Matt Haverty
Very interesting comparison between the Truman show.
Plato’s description of powers in the end of Republic V was really interesting to me. If I’m understanding it correctly, it has two criteria being a) that it enables us to do something and b) that it is set over something. He describes ignorance as a power because it is set over “what is not” but I don’t think it enables us to do anything. By his definition I don’t think ignorance can be considered a power, which breaks his whole argument. Also, I don’t even understand why he is arguing this in the first place. He uses opposites so often but now he seems to be trying to disprove himself by saying there can be an intermediate. This would also break his tripartite soul argument as well. It seems like a blatant contradiction. - Jackson Trauben
I like when Socrates asks if practice holds less truth than theory. He asks if anything can be done in practice like it is thought of in theory (472e12-13). He prefaces this by asking Glaucon if the theoretical is still reasonable to discuss, even if it cannot be implemented in practice. Glaucon says that it is. Does Plato tackle this question anywhere else? I can be dismissive of theoretical topics that I feel have no reasonable application to life. I sort of understand the value in just talking, but I get bogged down in the theoretical and end up feeling like a phony. I like when a person strives to fully embody a thought. I like when people walk the talk. -Jack Lynch
I don’t think there is any difference between the “lovers of beauty” and the “understanders of beauty” (476a9-d3), other than an inflated ego in the ladder. The idea that some people only opine, and other people only think thoughts seems to be in contradiction with the tripartite soul argument. We are all appetitive, rational, and spirited. Maybe I’m missing something. -Jack Lynch
I found the idea that x-lovers love everything x strange. Do wine lovers really love all wine? Or would many people who describe themselves as wine lovers actually be pickier about which wines they love. Perhaps it’s simply a question of how you interpret lover, but I found that to be a strange premise. -Dane
• Opinion being the intermediate between ignorance and knowledge is interesting to me. If people have no knowledge of anything they opine, wouldn’t they be ignorant (479e3-4)? It seems to me that opining leans more towards the side of being ignorant rather than having pure, true knowledge of something. - Howenstein
I disagree that our souls are ever-existing and that they are immortal, unlike in the Phaedo, where that is Plato’s goal to prove. In my head, the idea is really not plausible. If our souls have lived many lives in order to get to its highest form, a philosopher, then why do we have no recollection of basic accounts of knowledge and concepts? - Antinoph
Something interesting about Plato is his idea about how someone can be convinced of the examples that have to do with a given thing. At the same time how, they may not be convinced about the thing itself. This seems to be kind of ironic since I would expect one to go from learning what the thing is and then giving examples of what that thing can be defined as. Instead, what is happening here is going from examples and then denying that the thing itself exists. - Wilczynski
I was really interested in the way the republic and the ideas of the forms. I had to actually read parts of the republic for a different class and it was a lot about sustainability. It made me think a lot about the ideas of the concept of ownership and mine and how that affected sustainable living. Socrates argues this for a democracy and to have public land. But is this sustainable? I do not know? - Fensterer