Download
1 / 46
E N D
Plato (c. 427-347 BCE) Plato starting point for his divisions of the soul is the different classes he observed in society Plato started with noting what motivated people – desires, needs and wants. These wants could be qualified or unqualified. For example, someone who was thirsty could just want a drink or a particular type of drink. The first type was appetitive (1) whereas the second type was reflective and rational (2). Next he noted that young children showed signs of rationality despite their youth. He attributed this to the spirited (3) part of the soul which kept the appetitive (1) part of the soul in check. The spirited (3) part of the soul had an affinity to the rational (2) part of the soul but was quite distinct and separate. Plato explains this tripartite division by The Chariot Allegory
Plato’s Chariot Allegory It is a profound metaphor for the soul and its journey. The soul is portrayed as: - a charioteer (Reason) - one white winged steed ('spiritnedness', the irascible, boldness;) - one black (concupiscence, the appetitive, desire). The myth’s origin was ancient even for Plato, perhaps coming from Egypt or Mesopotamia--but he adapted and reworked it. It greatly surpasses Freud's mechanistic ego/id/superego model, to the same degree that literature and history conjoined exceed history or literature alone. The goal is to ascend to divine heights -- but the black horse poses problems.
Psyche He used the idea of a psyche, a word used to describe both the mind and the soul, to develop a rough framework of human behavior, reasoning and impulses. Plato proposed that the human psyche was the seat of all knowledge and that the human mind was imprinted with all of the knowledge it needed. As a result, learning was a matter of unlocking and utilizing this inbuilt knowledge, a process he called anamnesis. In ‘The Republic,’ Plato first proposed and developed the idea that the mind consisted of three interwoven parts, called the Tripartite Mind. The Logistikon: This was the intellect, the seat of reasoning and logic. The Thumos: This was the spiritual centre of the mind, and dictated emotions and feelings. The Epithumetikon: This part governed desires and appetites.Read more: http://www.experiment-resources.com/aristotles-psychology.html#ixzz0nldbFnLu
Plato’s Tripartite Soul Parts of Rational (2) Spirited (3) Appetitive (1) the Soul: Charioteer White noble horse Black ugly horse Chariot Loves Truth, Honour & Pleasure, Money, Part: Wisdom & Analysing Victory Comfort, Physical Satisfaction Desires: Truth Self-Preservation Basic Instincts – Hunger, Thirst, Warmth The Virtue: Wisdom Courage Temperance The Vice: Pride and Sloth Anger and Envy Gluttony, Lust and Greed Body Symbol: Head Heart Belly/Genitals Class in Guardians Auxiliaries/Soldiers Merchants/Workers Republic: (The Philosopher King) (Keep workers in place) (Self interested)
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) Freud formulated his tripartite model of the mind (or personality) in 1923. Like Plato, Freud believed that mental health (or psychological well-being) requires a harmonious relationship between the different parts of the mind. A lack of harmony can lead to neurosis. Freud’s Structures of the Mind: Super Ego- Conscience i.e. socially acquired control mechanisms. Ego - Consciousness self created by the dynamic tensions of the id and the super ego. Id - Reconciles the conflicting demands with the requirements of external reality. Sexual instincts and drives which require satisfaction
The Dark Horse Freud's id. The dark horse corresponds to appetites, concupiscence, and bodily desires and lusts. In Platonic psychology, this part of the soul is called the epithumetikon. The horse is unruly and causes great problems for Plato's charioteer. But, as in Freud's model, where it imparts energy or libido for general motivation of the psyche, so here too it is needed to draw the chariot. What is required, then, is a training of the horse -- the sublimation of Freud's system -- so that it provides properly-directed energy.
The White Horse The white horse stands for the element of the psyche associated with courage, boldness, heroism, 'spiritedness' and what some call the irascible. Call to mind the image of the hero on the white charger. This horse represents what is termed thumos in Plato's psychology. It roughly corresponds to the Freudian super-ego; however this is the point of greatest difference between the two models. In Freud's system, the super-ego mostly plays counterbalance to the id; further, there is a tendency to regard the superego as something learned -- a set of socialized rules of morality internalized by a developing child. In that sense, the superego and the id are of different basic logical categories. In Plato's analogy, however, the white horse and black horses are of the same logical order, and this is no doubt significant. Like the black team-mate, the white horse is decidedly passionate, ambitious, energetic, and goal-seeking. It imparts equal force or drive to the chariot. But it is a white horse. There is, though, a basic asymmetry to the model, associated with the white horse's innate affinity for the charioteer. Whereas the dark horse needs the whip, the white horse is commanded by word alone.
The Charioteer The charioteer is associated with Reason, logistikon, derived from the Greek word, logos. It is who drives the chariot and commands the horses, (with special attention needed to the unruly one). This corresponds to the Freudian ego, which manages conflict between the id and super-ego. However, unlike Freud's ego, which, in a sense, evolves or develops in the psyche specifically to broker disputes between the id and superego, Plato's charioteer has a more definite goal and destiny: to direct the chariot to the heights of heaven and beyond, there to behold 'divine sights‘ (enlightenment, eudaimonia) eudaimonia - a moralised, or "value-laden" concept of happiness, something like "true" or "real" happiness or "the sort of happiness worth seeking or having."
Problems Arise The black horse dominates. If the charioteer does not recognize the white horse, all his attention is on the black horse. This is basically the Freudian view that has been indoctrinated into and dominates the collective Western thinking: all psychic life (and, therefore, all culture) is interpreted relative to the dark horse. Either one is dominated by appetites and lusts, and relies on them inordinately and inappropriately for motivation, or else one is unduly preoccupied with controlling and suppressing them. With Plato's model, there is an alternative: to let the dark horse run more or less according to its better natural inclinations, but to use its white companion to keep it from pulling the chariot off course.. The white horse runs wild. While the white horse is noble and responsive to reason, it lacks reason and direction itself. Without the control of the charioteer, it will try to go its own way just as surely as the black horse will. Examples of this would be a strong, ambitious willfulness that is misdirected -- for example, ones energetically pursuing a project that seems worthy, but which is ultimately folly. The figure of Don Quixote tilting at windmills is apt.
The white horse imitates the dark horse. Were we to consider a literal team of horses, we could imagine that, lacking the attention and control of the driver, one horse my follow the lead of the other. Here this would involve a subversion of the white horse and his energies in service of the appetites of the dark one. No doubt we can find examples of this in modern life -- such as individuals who aggressively crusade to promote indulgent lifestyles, falsely thinking this righteousness, etc. • The white horse is misinterpreted and maligned. The charioteer cannot be oblivious entirely to the actions and powers of the white horse. He will feel its stirrings and movements in any case. Lacking an accurate concept to organize these sensations, he will instead use less appropriate ones. The most likely misunderstanding, mislabeling, misclassification, or misconceptualization of thumos would be to perceive it as anger, since their respective physical sensations have much in common. But feeling or expressing anger, per se, is not generally considered a good thing. Therefore the rider might treat his white horse harshly, pulling the reigns hard, even when the horse is actually headed in the right direction.
phronesis — moral or practical wisdom • Metaphysics • The study of being, existence, reality, etc. • Epistemology • The study of the nature, origin, limits, etc. of human knowledge
Allegory of the Cave In The Republic, Plato explains the route to knowledge and the responsibilities of philosophers through an allegory about prisoners in a cave.
Imagine a cave in which prisoners are chained and seated so that they all face one way, toward a wall. The prisoners have been there all their lives and know nothing of the outside world.
All that the prisoners see are the shadows cast on the wall before them. (This is the lowest segment of the Divided Line.) Behind the prisoners is a fire, which they cannot see, that casts the shadows on the wall before them.
Between the fire and the prisoners is a parapet, or walkway, where people are crossing back and forth with strange objects held above their heads.
Everything the prisoners see or hear is bounced off the wall. They therefore think of that as the true reality.
Reality Hits Now, suppose one of the prisoners is unshackled and led away, up out of the cave and into the world outside. The prisoner will probably object and when outside, will be blinded by the light. But in time the released prisoner will realize that it is the world outside that is real and the world in the cave only one of illusion.
If then the prisoner is led back down into the cave and placed in his original position, the otherprisoners would mock him if he told them of theworld outside and think him a fool. And theywould object to anyone else being led away.
From The Republic: “…the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and … the journey upwards [is] the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world….”
The prisoner who is released and attains a full understanding of what is real (the philosopher), has a responsibility to return to the cave and instruct others in what is real, so that they too may escape into the world of truth.
The Duty of the Philosopher For Plato, the philosopher has a duty to enlighten the uneducated. Compare this to the Pythagoreans, who sought to prevent any special knowledge they had from escaping from their cult.
Saving the Phenomena The key is to show the real causes of the phenomena that are sensed by the unenlightened. To show how a lower part of the divided line is accounted for by a higher part. This is called Saving the Phenomena. (Or, Saving the Appearances.)
Saving the Phenomena, 2 Examples would be: Explaining to the prisoners that the shadows they see are caused by the fire behind them and the people walking on the parapet. Explaining that night comes when the sun is no longer visible in the sky.
The Mysteries of the Cosmos Accounting for the strange behavior of the heavens provided an excellent proving ground for the philosopher’s task. Everyone sees the same phenomena. Some aspects of the heavenly bodies seemed to defy explanation. Note the role of science as uncovering the secrets of nature.
Theory of Forms "Plato is philosophy, and philosophy, Plato, -- at once the glory and the shame of mankind, since neither Saxon nor Roman have availed to add any idea to his categories. No wife, no children had he, and the thinkers of all civilized nations are his posterity and are tinged with his mind." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Plato; Or The Philosopher"
Book X “The Republic” The Theory of Forms’ origin comes from several different and partly independent features of the general ideas that comprise the recurrent themes of dialectical disputations.
I - Definitions Every discussion of a general issue turns ultimately upon one or more general notions or ideas. Example: Debate whether fearlessness is a good quality. You must work with the two general ideas of fear and goodness. There will be disagreement whether fearlessness is a good or a bad quality, but it is not even disagreement unless you know what fear and goodness are. Explicit definition of one or more of the general terms is required . Any further discussion hinges on this. You may accept a proffered definition, but it is inevitable and just that it is criticized. This criticism teaches what the ill defined idea is not. “Fearlessness" ill defined as "unawareness of danger" exposes of the inaccuracy of this definition. This rebuttal brings out something definite in the idea of fearlessness.
II - Standards of measurement and appraisal Some general ideas, including many moral and geometrical ideas, are ideal limits or standards. Example: A penciled line is as straight as the draftsman can make it; it deviates relatively slightly, sometimes imperceptibly, from the Euclidean straight line. The idea of absolute straightness is the standard against which we assess penciled lines as crooked or straight. Example: To describe a person’s honesty as improving is to describe them getting closer to perfect honesty.
III- Immutable Things Ordinary things and creatures in the everyday world are changeable. Examples: A leaf that was green yesterday may be brown today. A girl may be 5’ tall now but was 2” shorter several months ago. But! The color brown itself cannot become the color green, and the height of 4’10” cannot become the height of 5’. It is always 5’ minus 2”. A change is always a change from something, A, to something else, B. A and B cannot themselves be things that change.
IV - Timeless Truths Our beliefs and knowledge about particular things, creatures, persons and happenings in the everyday world are strained truths Example: The shower is still continuing; it began some minutes ago; it will stop soon. Socrates was born in such-and-such a year. The pyramids still exist today. etc. Truths or falsehoods about general ideas, like those in correct or incorrect definitions, are timelessly true or false. Examples: We cannot say that 49 used to be a square number; Equilateral triangles will shortly be equiangular. So we cannot say, truly or falsely, that fearlessness is becoming, or used to be, “indifference to recognized dangers.” If this statement is true, it is timelessly true. We can ask questions about fearlessness or the number 49 but not questions beginning "When?" or "How long?"
One over many Things, happenings, qualities, numbers, figures, can be ranged in sorts or characterized as sharing properties. Examples: The storms that raged last week. ‘Storms’ in the plural, and we are thereby showing that there is something, some one thing, that each of them was -- namely, a storm. If there are twenty idle pupils, there is one thing that all twenty of them are -- namely, idle. We cannot know how many leaves there are in a forest, but however many or few there are, each one is -- namely, a leaf.
Intellectual knowledge For our knowledge of, and our beliefs and opinions about the things, creatures and happenings of the everyday world, we depend upon our eyes, ears, noses and so on, and what our senses tell us is sometimes wrong and is never perfectly precise. There is no one whose vision or hearing might not be even slightly better than it is. On the other hand, our apprehension of general notions is intellectual and not sensitive.
Conceptual certainties Last, but not least in importance, dialectical debates are concerned only with general ideas, like those of fearlessness, goodness, danger and awareness. The answerer's thesis is a general proposition, such as "Virtue is (or is not) teachable" or "Justice is (or is not) what is to the advantage of the powerful." When such a thesis has been conclusively demolished, something, if only something negative, has been conclusively established about virtue or justice. In the domain of general ideas or concepts certainties, if seemingly negative certainties, are attainable by argument. About things or happenings in the everyday world no such purely ratiocinative knowledge is possible.
Further Elucidation There are those times when we are aware of something more than fleeting sensations and ordinary moments -- when, in fact, we're acutely aware of something special or rare. For instance, a look on a child's face may grab us and leave us wondering about "the things that are important in life." Or the smile of a dog or the penetrating glance of a cat may arrest our attention. Or we may see a mountain range or a colorful sunset or a rainbow and once again be aware of that "special something" that seems to inhere in the object or appear in the experience of the object. What is that "something"? A Platonist might call it an emanation of the eternal or a momentary apprehension of a Form (say, of beauty or love).
Anyone who has been in a meaningful relationship knows that after so much courting, after so much time together, the "real person" in both people is manifest, and that "real person" is infinitely greater and more nuanced than the person with a particular shade of eyes and color of hair and figure and physique. Even hardened materialists would find it difficult to say that "the real person" they love is simply the sum of so many biological traits or biochemical processes. That "real thing" to which we allude is spiritual, not material, is the unseen nature or "soul" of the person, not the seen body. This very intuition is in its essence Platonic.
Separation can be frought with the deepest foreboding. A parent can be nearly depressed sending a child off to college, realizing that he or she is no longer a mere infant or child, no longer dependent; a sense of loss can naturally ensue. Or someone can be so enraptured by a relationship as to think, "I'll always love you, no matter what." The hardship of separation in the first example and of steadfast loyalty in the second are both instances of loving (and desiring) permanence and immutability. The heart of the Platonic creed is that the true and the beautiful are unchanging, that they are eternal and permanent and not subject to the flux of the material world.
What then is the meaning of amorplatonicus, platonic love? Not, as is often supposed today, a relationship devoid of sex. It is, rather, a profound desire to immortalize the amorous feelings one has for another person (or people), to proclaim such feelings as an eternal fact in a transitory and sometimes seemingly indifferent world.
The Classes The Philosopher Kings – rulers of the society, enlightened ones The Auxiliaries – Warriors, soldiers, protectors of the society The Merchants – working class, laborers, produces goods necessary for society
The Guardians Due to the serious nature of their responsibilities of governing the society and making all the decisions, the guardians must possess: -Virtue of wisdom (Gk. sofia [sophía]) -Capacity to comprehend reality and to make impartial judgments about it. -Absence of venal desires -Predisposition towards knowledge and learning -50 years of life -a profound and natural interest in the common good and the pursuit of truth -Inner Strength and resolve -Internal Morality
Guardian Education Potential Philosopher Kings are targeted from an early age and participate in a rigorous well rounded education of music, athletics, mathematics with special interest in reading but not too much fiction. Plato believed that too much indulgence in fiction would warp their sense of reality. They would be deliberately tested unknowingly throughout their lives to gauge their susceptibility towards temptation, coercion, and trickery.
Rules of the Guardians 1. The Guardians must live in poverty, with any possessions they do have held in common. The very things, then, that mean the most to the commoners will be denied to the rulers. 2. The Guardians have their families in common. Children will be raised in common and will not know who their real parents are. Conception is not random. They will be bred deliberately to produce the best offspring. Plato realizes that such cold blooded match making might be too much for the Guardians, so he proposes that the process be kept secret from most of them. A breeding committee would make its choices in secret and assign people to each other by a rigged lottery during a fertility festival. This is the kind of thing that Plato calls a "noble lie."
More Rules 3. At the beginning of Book V Adeimantus brings to Socrates's attention his casual remark that wives and children will be held in common by the Guardians, suggesting that women are going to be Guardians along with the men. Socrates says yes since women have all the same parts of the soul and so all the same interests, virtues, and personality types. Individual women will not be burdened by child rearing, freeing them to take their proper places along with the men. Warrior women that are not as strong may not be at the forefront of the battle, but should be at the battle. This equality even extends to athletics, which is somewhat shocking, since Greek athletes went naked.
One More Rule The last rule is for all classes. Plato realizes that even with his breeding program, there will be children born to the Guardians who are not suited for the position. This is especially likely when we realize that it is not intelligence that distinguishes Plato's philosophers, but the dominance of a particular kind of interest. Those dominated by desire, no matter how intelligent, belong among the commoners. There will also be children born to the commoners who will be suited for Guardianship. So there must be some way to sort everyone out. That’s where a universal system of education comes in. The Republic makes education an integral part of its structure. Those who go all the way in that system and will be qualified as philosopher kings. They will actually be nearly fifty before they have finished all the requirements.
aUXILIARIES The warriors uphold the decisions and laws of the Guardians. Plato’s ideal vision of the warrior is epic heroism. The person that protects their society as if it is merely an extension or appendage of his very soul. They are devoted utterly to the state. Dedicated to their civic duty. They must be properly educated to avoid subsequent abuse of power later on. They would also live in commune which is typical of military forces. They also cannot be allowed to be corrupted by money therefore they are given only the necessities and a smidge more than the Guardians.
Merchants Merchants are the appetitive class. They are motivated by material desires. Plato does not discuss this class much at all. He breaks down the various fields of labor: Agriculture, Tradesmen, Import/Export Merchants, Ship Builders/Merchants, Wage-Earners. Few and limited luxuries. Plato felt that it was important to hold these things in check to avoid corruption.
The Ideal RulersWise Decisions SoldiersCourageous Actions Farmers, Merchants, and other People(Moderated Desires)
