In this essay, I will try to identify and explain a few problems with Plato’s argument for the Tripartite Psyche. Particularly I will critique his use of logic and reason rather than attack his argument from a modern day scientific perspective.
In Plato’s Republic, it is asserted that the human psyche is divided into three notable parts: reason, will and appetite. It is argued, that depending on the person, one of these components dominate the others to a varying degree. The three parts of the psyche are likened to three types of people in Plato’s ‘Ideal City-State’. Reason dominates the ‘Guardians’, these are the leaders, the planners and the ‘heads’ of the society. Will dominates the ‘Auxiliaries’, these are the warriors and the police. Lastly,
…show more content…
Though he believes that the mind is not a physical entity like the body, he reasons that because the mind is connected to the body, physical actions conducted by the body are attributable to the mind (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#MinBodHisDua). It seems Plato is indicating that whatever is true for the physical world, must also be true for the mind and therefore, by his logic, jumps the ‘gap’ between physical and mental [437b]. This approach is again reminiscent of the ‘affirming the consequent’ fallacy and gives no real proof as to why the ‘gap’ could have logically been …show more content…
He reasons that a just psyche would contain all the qualities of a just city-state and that there would be order of the highest degree between the three aspects (will, reason and appetite). The notion of comparing a city to a mind shouldn’t be taken seriously. The workings of a mind and the workings of a city are worlds apart. Plato’s logic also cripplingly relies on the ‘affirm the consequent’ fallacy, far more evidence and reason is needed to ‘jump the gap’ between either the physical and mental realms, or the realm of the ‘just city’ to the realm of the ‘just mind’. Lastly, Plato’s argument is reliant on the principle of non-contradiction. It has been briefly shown that it doesn’t always hold true in society and in the
Throughout the last five weeks, I have read three of Plato’s dialogues: the cave allegory, Euthyphro, and the Apology. While reading them, I was able to see Plato’s view of a philosophical life. To live philosophically is to question appearances and look at an issue/object from a new perspective. In this essay, I will explain Plato’s cave allegory, Socrates’ discussion with Euthyphro, and the oracle story in the Apology.
In conclusion, it is shown that the ethics of Socrates and Plato can be understood by examining the works of the Crito, Meno and Phaedo. Plato 's philosophical concept in these three dialogues is mostly about denying what the self wants, either normal things like food and earthly desires or trying to gain knowledge, and instead, choosing what is just and right. This is Plato’s concept of a good life. From this quest for knowledge, virtue is obtained, and this is the main goal of philosophy in Socrates ' mind. Laws must be made in accordance with wisdom by those who practice philosophy, and must seek to benefit the city as a whole.
Socrates in the dialogue Alcibiades written by Plato provides an argument as to why the self is the soul rather than the body. In this dialogue Alcibiades and Socrates get into a discussion on how to cultivate the self which they both mutually agree is the soul, and how to make the soul better by properly taking care of it. One way Socrates describes the relationship between the soul and the body is by analogy of user and instrument, the former being the entity which has the power to affect the latter. In this paper I will explain Socrates’ arguments on why the self is the soul and I will comment on what it means to cultivate it.
The books found in "Plato: The republic" all constitute a constant question which they all try to define throughout the different books. What does it mean to be just? Who is a just person and what is justice? In this book a group of old men argues back and forth as to what they believe is the real definition of being a just person and what it means to live a just life. Additionally in book II of "Plato: The republic" two cities, "The city of pigs" and "The city of Luxury" were introduced on page 372,d.
Plato breaks the justification of knowledge down into two types of realms that show what can be known by reason and what can be known by the five senses. These realms, then divided into two other unequal parts based on their clarity and truthfulness, make up what is known as The Divided Line. By understanding The Divided Line we can fully grasp the differences between the perceptual, also known as becoming, realm and the conceptual, also known as being, realm. The perceptual realm is the opinions and beliefs of people or it can be known as the visible realm.
Plato's Republic is centered on one simple question: is it always better to be just than unjust? This is something that Socrates addresses both in terms of political communities and the individual person. Plato argues that being just is advantageous to the individual independent of any societal benefits that the individual may incur in virtue of being just. I feel as if Plato’s argument is problematic. There are not enough compelling reasons to make this argument.
It never changes and yet causes the essential nature of things we perceive in the world. These two perceptions are what Plato describes as the divided line or the journey of self discovery. This progression of the spirit, that can never be reached, becomes the ideal. Plato’s discussions include the involvement of the soul. It is clear, that the main reason for dealing with the soul is to achieve this state
South African Journal of Philosophy, vol. 28, no. 4, Nov. 2009, pp. 415-432. EBSCOhost, dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=48656660&site=ehost-live. 3. Plato.
The final argument of Plato’s Phaedo was created to prove souls cannot perish. Plato does so by arguing how a soul cannot die nor cease to exist on the same fundamental grounds of how the number three can never be even. For the number three holds the essence of being odd, without being odd entirely. Similarly, a soul holds the essence of life through immortality, however the soul is not immortal itself and only participates in immortality, just as the number three participates in being odd. Additionally, an essence or form cannot admit to the opposite of itself just as small cannot be large simultaneously, and hot cannot be cold.
Was Plato trying to show what an ‘unjust’ city would look like? Why would he do that? The analysis and discussion of Plato’s ‘just’ city opens new doors about Plato, himself, and his intentions. From this analysis on the city’s short comings, one can spring more and more ideas about his ‘republic’ and his ‘ideals’ forever. This one analysis is only a small interpretation, or perspective of a small portion, or passage of The
In Plato’s book Republic, he outlines the ideal just society. Through his written dialogue, Plato describes the ideal city. He calls this city Kallipolis and that is where I am from. Kallipolis means beautiful city. The city was outlined to be a healthy city where justice prevails.
In the conclusion of this paper, I will have illustrated that Plato’s government view is more valid than of Locke’s. In Book II of Plato’s Republic, Plato describes a just city to look at the concepts of political justice. He refers to this city as Kallipolis. A just city is that of which everyone develops a skill based off of their innate abilities.
The concept of the Noble Lie is presented by Plato in the Republic. In Republic, Plato is engaged in creating an ideal political community, through the noble lie. The Noble Lie, ironically, despite being a lie, is still recognized as ‘noble’ by Plato since it aims to promote social welfare and harmony amongst the citizens. Plato’s idea of the noble lie led to the division of citizens into three distinct categories, namely, the rulers, the auxiliaries and the workmen . This paper will argue that Socrates principle of the Noble Lie must be considered justifiable under circumstances in which it intends to achieve moral ends.
Plato initially raises the question of the nature of self in the