Plato’s idea on the self is very simple yet complex. He has a different way of talking, which means that he either tells you what he means or he contradicts himself. He starts off saying that the soul, psyche, is the “thing” that causes things to be alive, but then says that “I” equals my soul. Does that mean that I cause myself to be alive? That thought can be very contradicting and complicated to understand. He then goes and says that the soul is different from the body. This thought is very complicated and makes Plato’s words very contradicting. On the other hand, Plato’s idea of self can be simple to understand if we take another view on it. We know that two things are constant in Plato’s search to find the answers for the soul and these …show more content…
He wrote many dialogues, and one of them includes his famous dialogue called “Allegory of the Cave.” This dialogue explained how we were born into being very naïve people about our surroundings and taking things for granted, but eventually with the right education we grow to be philosophers that know the Form of Good. Society closes our eyes and whispers things to us in our ears and we believe it, in order to break free we need to educate ourselves into being more knowledgeable about our surroundings. We need to analyze even the smallest things, nothing is to be taken for granted because everything is more complex than what it seems (Plato, p. 26). Plato also states in his idea of self, the soul, that the soul is composed of three parts, our desires, the conscious awareness of reason and the spirited part which gets angry at injustice (Plato, p.40). His allegory and this idea about the parts of the soul connect with each other and might as well lead us to understanding what his idea truly means. Like the first argument, we could say that because our souls is what makes us alive, we are aware of the life we live, therefore we become philosophers only when we do not forget where we came from. This though, sounds contradicting to itself if we take the second argument in hand. If our soul is our life and our body is what carries it, than our ability to become philosophers depends solely on our ability to remove our soul from the body in …show more content…
He believes that the soul takes shelter within the body. The three parts are all located in three different areas: reason is in the mind, spirited is in the heart, and desire is in the stomach. Reason is what controls the whole soul (Plato p. 49). The mind tells the body what to do, how to feel, what to say. The mind controls our appetites and decides who to honor according to memories about those people or events. The spirit is in the heart, the heart is what shows us how we feel about others. The stomach is desire as we crave to have certain possessions such as food or other physical materials in life. If what Plato is saying is any truth, than the argument presented that our soul is our life and our body is nothing but what carries our soul, is therefore false and unsupported by this idea of the mind, heart and stomach. Then so, our thought that Plato’s idea that we can make ourselves alive, is fairly reasonable and true. This is because it is more understandable to say that the reason why our souls are what makes us alive is because our souls are physically made of three parts that control the way we live. Our body is now not only what carries life for us, but what allows us to keep it. Our soul is different from the body because it represents life, but it is our body that allows our lives to
The first realm is the Physical world that we can observe with our senses. And second, is a world made of eternal “forms” or “ideas.” He believes that there exists another dimension where perfect templates exist. This means forms are mind-independent entities. Forms are independently existent whether we grasp them with our mind but do not depend on being grasped in order to exist. In the Allegory Plato compares the level of becoming to living in a cave and describes the ordeal necessary for the soul’s ascent from shadowy illusions to enlightenment. From just an opinion to an informed opinion to rationally based knowledge to
For this reason, Plato believes that we must separate the soul based on how it
Bruder and Kenneth (2014) wrote that Plato also had his own theory of souls. According to Plato’s Republic, the human soul consists of three different elements. One of these souls consists of raw appetites. This soul includes our basic desires for various pleasures, comforts, physical satisfaction, and bodily ease (Kerns, n.d). Another of Plato’s souls consists of drives, or anger and ambition (Bruder & Kenneth, 2014, p.288). Kerns (n.d) described this soul as being spirited, in this sense meaning to be with high-energy and power, or hot blooded. It gets angry when it perceives injustice, for example, being done. This is also the part if us that loves to face and overcome great challenges, as well as loves victory, winning, challenge, and honor.
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...
The ideas that Plato instills are both detailed and distinctive, on the other hand he believes that actions do not necessarily justify a person but rather, he states that justness is more of an internal virtue. The idea he is trying to convey is that justness comes from the interpretation of the soul rather than the physical functions. The reasoning behind this is that if the soul remains just, then the resulting actions will reflect just ends. Once the fact that the soul must be just is accepted, the question arises of what qualifies the soul as just will need to be answered.
Plato, a student of Socrates, followed in his teachings. After returning to Athens, he founded The Academy, considered by some to be the world’s first university. In Plato’s philosophy the human soul has three parts: intellect, spirit, and appetite. He felt that these three aspects interacted to determine human behavior. He urged that intellect be trained to control spirit and appetite.
For Descartes, these are mind and body, and for Plato they are body and soul. Aristotle, in contrast, believes in a singular being where both body and soul are connected. For myself, a Christian who believes in the existence of a life after death, Aristotle 's theory creates an obvious negation. While I could agree with the levels of the soul argument, I cannot agree with the body and soul being one and the same for the simple reason that I do not believe that when the body dies, everything dies. I believe something is left over. What that something is, where it goes and what its purpose is, I may not know for certain, but to believe otherwise would not create a better life for me. Believing the soul lives on beyond the body creates an inner desire to seek morality and goodness, and it is in that endeavor that one creates a “better” life. Similarly, it is intuition that leads me to reject Descartes ' argument because my best judgment would tell me not to believe that everything I know, all that I sense, is a figment of my mind. I cannot know if such a thing is true or false, but far too many questions are raised by such an explanation. For myself, neither Aristotle nor Descartes provide an adequate understanding into the nature of the
Plato believes there is two types of worlds that are of knowledge and opinion. As he understands, what is an every lasting reality is a true knowledge, which is the heart of what needs to be understood and everything people need to know. As he says for opinion, it will be only successful some times, as knowledge will always be right and successful at all times when implemented. An opinion for him has no base on true knowledge, but pure people’s speculations of their points of views. A true knowledge will never be influenced by any changes and it cannot be affected by anything; it will stand alone without changing. In Plato’s argument of how men will acquire knowledge in life, he says that knowledge resides in men’s immortal soul prior to his birth; this is how men will first encounter what he calls the “Forms” in that
Plato believed that the body and the soul were two separate entities, the body being mortal and the soul being immortal. In Plato’s phaedo, this is further explained by Socrates. He claims that by living a philosophical life, we are able to eventually free the soul from the body and its needs. If we have not yield to our bodily needs, we should not fear death, since it can than permanently detach the soul from the body. The most convincing argument for the immortality of the body is the theory of recollection, which shows that we are already born with knowledge of forms and that learning is thus recalling these ideas. If we are already born with knowledge this implies that are soul is immortal, since it would otherwise be a blank page.
Plato believes the soul is an immortal separate entity that is entrapped in the body until one dies. The soul is what possess knowledge and remembers what was known from previous lifetimes. He illustrates this with the story of Socrates and the slave boy. With this, he showed that while the slave boy was an unschooled individual, he was still able to solve the problem of doubling a square. Plato attributes this accomplishment to the soul as remembering a previous encounter with an eternal knowledge.
Plato widely a respected philosopher and is arguably one of the greatest philosophers of all time. I knew nothing about him or what he stood for before taking this course and I found his theory on human nature very exciting. “Plato’s most fundamental contribution to philosophy was the distinction he drew between the changing physical objects we perceive with our senses and the under changing ideals we can know with our minds.” What Plato means is when we see something that we think is good or bad that there is good strong reasoning behind why we think the way we do. I find this very intriguing because, this it pertains to how I feel about everyday things and big Icons. For example, when hanging out at a friend’s house that is considerably richer
In my opinion, Socrates’ analysis of human nature is very true as it ultimately brings us
body, the mind and the soul. The body is the physical part of the body
Aristotle argued and disagreed with Plato’s views of the self and soul being a separate from the body. Aristotle’s view is that all humans have a soul, yet they cannot be separate from the body in which they reside. To him, there are four sections of the soul; the desiderative and vegetative parts on the irrational side are used to help one find what they are needing and the calculative and scientific parts on the rational side are
A self is some sort of inner being or principle, essential to, but not identical with, the person as whole. It is that in a person that thinks and feels. The self is usually conceived in philosophy as that which one refer to with the word “I”. It is that part or aspects of a person that accounts for personal identity through time. In spite of all the ways one can change with time, the self is invariably same through time. A self is what is supposed to account for the fact that an individual is same person today as he/she was at the age of five, given that all his characteristics have changed over time. For instance, compared to his childhood, this individual is stronger, taller, and smarter; he has different aspirations and dreams, different thoughts and fears, his interests and activities are remarkably different. Yet, he is still the same ...