Critical Summary: Republic Book IV
In Plato’s Republic Book IV, Socrates sets out to convince Glaucon that a person acts with three different parts of the soul, rather than with the soul as a whole. He does this by presenting Glaucon with a variety of situations in which parts of the soul may conflict with one another, and therefore not acting together. Socrates describes the three parts of the soul as the rational part, or that which makes decisions, the appetitive part, or that which desires, and the spirited part, or that which gets angry (436a).
Socrates sets up this argument by presenting Glaucon with the idea that things cannot move and stay still at the same time, but only different parts of one thing can move and stay still (436c). The two men then come to an agreement that if something were to move and stay still simultaneously, it must be because they are made of several parts. He uses the example of a man waving his arms while standing in place, and that of a spinning top being able to rotate on itself while staying in one place, but concluding that both of those cases involve the one thing having several different parts. He then applies this to the soul and states that the soul
…show more content…
It is unlike the appetitive soul because the spirited soul would endure unpleasant conditions in order to win whatever is at stake (440d), aligning itself more with the rational soul (440e). However, the spirited soul is unlike the rational soul, in the sense that small children and animals are born with great spirit, but do not develop rationality until later in life, if at all, and therefore the two cannot be synonymous (441b). The significance of mentioning the children and animals in this argument is that they can be seen as somewhat pure, uncorrupt souls, and therefore can be used as a marker for how the soul is really
In his Plato’s Republic Socrates tries to find the values of an ideal city in order to rightly define justice. Although I agree with most of his ideals for the city, there are also many that I disagree with. Some of his ideas that I accept are that women should be able to share the same responsibilities as the men, having women and children in common, , the recognition of honor based on the self rather than heredity, that the best philosophers are useless to the multitudes, and the philosopher / king as a ruler. I disagree with his views on censorship, having assigned positions in society, his views on democracy, and that art cannot be a respectable occupation.
Socrates defines justice in the individual as the three parts of the soul doing their job and only their job (433b). The parts of the soul are reason, appetite, and spirit (435c). Reason is the part that thinks and makes judgements. Appetite is the part that is impulsive and acts on bodily desires. Spirit is the part that is emotional, and acts on feelings, such as courage (...
Plato, having defined his perfect society, now seeks to compare contemporary 'imperfect' societies with his ideal standard. He initially criticises the imperfect society as a whole, before leading onto a criticism of any given individual within that society; the imperfect character. He has already dealt with the Oligarchic society and character and now moves onto Democracy and the democratic character.
In Book four of Plato’s Republic, Socrates makes the argument to Glaucon that there are three key elements which act as motivation for the soul. Socrates asks Glaucon, “Do we learn with one part, get angry with another and with some third part desire the pleasures of food, drink, sex, and the others that are closely akin to them? Or when we set out after something do with act with the whole of our soul, in each case?” (436a). Without any discussion Glaucon not only agrees that there are three parts of the soul, but that those are the three parts. Socrates and Glaucon then decide that they should investigate whether or not these aspects of the soul are actually the same or three distinct categories, but in order to do this they first must define
reasoning than desire. So we see two distinct parts of the soul. The first is
In Plato's Republic democracy made a controversial issue in a critique by Socrates. The theory of the soul accounts for the controversy as it states that the soul is divided into three parts: the rational, the spirited, and the appetite which are ranked respectively. The idea of the soul's three parts and the soul being ruled by a dominant part is used as the basis for identifying justice and virtue. However, the theory of the soul is not only used to identify justice and virtue, but also used to show that the virtue within a city reflects that of its inhabitants.
In conclusion, Plato and Aristotle present two different conceptions of the soul. By examination of their formulations, and the structure and genre they used, Aristotle's perception of the soul is more convincing. I am more convinced by facts than I am ideals. But his views should not be thrown away, for Aristotle's focus upon the organism as a whole as the proper object of study is a successful approach to the question of the nature of and relationship between mind, body, and soul.
Socrates’ first argument is the argument from opposites. He says the soul is eternal. It never ceases to be or becomes to be. It’s completely eternal. Everything comes to be from out of its opposite, so that for instance a tall man becomes tall only because he was short before. Similarly, death being the opposite of life, and so living things come to be out of dead things and vice versa. This implies that there is a continuous cycle of life and death, so that when we die we do not stay dead, but come back to life after a period of time. Our soul never dies, however. It is the one thing that conti...
For Plato, the soul is considered to have three parts: the appetitive or the passions, the spirited part or the will, the reasonable part or the intellect. The appetitive deals with the bodily necessities and desires. The appetite is often considered base or even sinful, but is clearly not so for Aristotle: the passions merely demonstrate a person’s basic necessities, which one can not consider without considering the human person in the same way. The spirited part reacts to injustices or incorrectness in one’s surroundings, and it is often described as the “angry” part, as anger deal with perception of injustice as well. The reasonable part concerns itself with finding the truth and distinguishing it from falsities, and is often considered both the highest and hardest to perfect part of the soul. Each part has its own intricacies and specifics, allowing them to aid the human...
In his several dialogues, Plato contends the importance of the four virtues: wisdom, courage, self-control, and justice. In The Republic, he describes a top-down hierarchy that correlates to the aspects of one’s soul. Wisdom, courage, and temperance preside control over the rational, spirited, and appetitive aspects of the soul. It is when one maintains a balance between these aspects of his soul that he attains peace within himself: “...And when he has bound together the three principles within him...he proceeds to act...always thinking and calling that which preserves and cooperates with this harmonious condition (Plato 443c).” Wisdom and knowledge consistently remain at the top of his view of happiness. During the apology, Plato is asked what punishment is best suited for him. He sarcastically answers, “to be fed...(It is) much more suitable than for any one who has won a v...
In Plato’s Republic, Glaucon is introduced to the reader as a man who loves honor, sex, and luxury. As The Republic progresses through books and Socrates’ arguments of how and why these flaws make the soul unhappy began to piece together, Glaucon relates some of these cases to his own life, and begins to see how Socrates’ line of reasoning makes more sense than his own. Once Glaucon comes to this realization, he embarks on a path of change on his outlook of what happiness is, and this change is evidenced by the way he responds during he and Socrates’ discourse.
According to Plato’s philosophy in order for human beings to have a healthy “soul,” our view of the world should not be distorted by fears, insecurities, irrational anxieties, or overpowering desires. He also explains that our judgment should not be blinded by greed or self-interest. Having a healthy “soul” means having a clear mind and seeing things for what they actually are; this “soul” is the core of our personality. A person with a healthy ”soul” will live a virtuous life by making ethical choices and controlling his or her desires.
Plato proves the tripartition of the soul in Republic IV by inferences found from the phenomenon of psychological conflict. He begins with showing how it is possible for someone to be standing still and be moving at the same time with their torso still while their hands are moving, displaying how people can have two conflicting properties simultaneously. Plato divides the soul into three parts appetite, spirit, and reason with each part able to lead to action. Allowing for endless possibilities of the three to conflict with each other. An example being reason conflicting with appetite when you know you shouldn’t eat that last piece of cake when you are on a diet. Knowing you should not eat the piece of cake represents the reason part of the
The concept of the noble lie begins with Plato in the Republic, where in search of an ideal state he told of a magnificent myth^1.The society that Plato imagined was separated into a three tier class structure- the Rulers, Auxiliaries, and the labor or working class. The Rulers, he said, would be selected from the military elite (called Guardians).The rulers would be those Guardians that showed the most promise, natural skill, and had proven that they cared only about the community’s best interests. The Auxiliaries were the guardians in training, and were subject to years of methodical preparation for rule. The lower class would be comprised of the workers and tradesmen, who being the most governed by their appetites, were best fit for labor. The introduction of the "noble lie" comes near the end of book three (414b-c)* Where Plato writes "we want one single, grand lie," he says, "which will be believed by everybody- including the rulers, ideally, but failing that the rest of the city".* The hypothical myth, or "grand lie" that Plato suggests is one in which, the Gods created the people of the city from the land beneath their feet, and that when the Gods made their spirit the precious metals from the ground got mixed into their souls. As a result some people were born with gold in their souls others with silver, and others with bronze, copper,or more even common metals like iron and brass. It was from this falsehood that the first phylosophical society’s social hierarchy was established. The myth goes as follows: Those the Gods made with gold in the souls were the most governed by reason, and who had a predisposition to contemplation which made them most suitable for rule. Those with silver in their souls where the most governed b...
The Republic is an examination of the "Good Life"; the harmony reached by applying pure reason and justice. The ideas and arguments of Plato center on the social settings of an ideal republic - those that lead each person to the most perfect possible life for him. Socrates was Plato's early mentor in real life. As a tribute to his teacher, Plato uses Socrates in several of his works and dialogues. Socrates moderates the discussion throughout, as Plato's mouthpiece. Through Socrates' powerful and brilliant questions and explanations on a series of topics, the reader comes to understand what Plato's model society would look like. The basic plan of the Republic is to draw an analogy between the operation of society as a whole and the life of any individual human being. In this paper I will present Plato’s argument that the soul is divides into three parts. I will examine what these parts are, and I will also explain his arguments behind this conclusion. Finally, I will describe how Plato relates the three parts of the soul to a city the different social classes within that city.