Rotational Model Theory Examined

Within the Timeaus Plato explains the teleological explanation for the constitution of the material universe. To that end he describes creation as being the interaction between circles whose counter motions affect the imperceptible soul and allow it to be affected by and in turn affect the material universe. These are not within the general scope of my own argument however a base understanding of the movements of the Circles of the Same, the Different, and Being are absolutely essential to grasping the more extractable insights of Plato’s cosmology but will not be addressed in any significant detail henceforth. The circum-locomotion (motion in a circular patter) and rectilinear motion (motion that is caused by two forces straining against one another) of these cosmological circles affect the soul in such a way that, in Plato’s view, causes understanding the eternal model of the Forms to be lost to the soul. Only by intense rational conditioning can human beings realign the soul to again have and make insights upon them (the forms). In his insightful work Edward N. Lee studies the exact meaning of Plato assigning rotary motion to the human soul, as well as the World Soul, addressing what he considers a misinterpretation of how to understand circular thought . In his paper, Reason and Rotation: Circular motion as the model of the mind (nous) in later Plato, Lee makes the claim that this model Plato offers is meant to be understood not as literal motion of the soul, but rather as metaphor. He offers the critique of Aristotle in De Anima and Physics in response to Plato’s assertion, and makes the bold claim that through his interpretation Aristotle’s former critiques can be better understood and actually supports his own interpretati...

... middle of paper ...

...it were to be such and have such motions it still seems a stretch to explain with any real certainty how such motions might be understood at all.

While Lee does not manage to convince me of what I have thusly considered as the ‘circular soul’ theory he does point out a number of interesting points. The distinction between what manner of circling is meant made a great deal of sense to me and seems to be a striking feature of his argument. He does point out how it can be that the Aristotelian response to the theory seems to be leveled and makes it a point to extend further and make a clearer sense for why the attack is made in its particular manner. While it makes the circular soul theory seems a bit more plausible it strikes me too neat. As such I have rejected his thesis but still hold a large bulk of Lee’s engagement with the Timaeus as being very insightful.