My question is: what is Plato doing in the following passage? Is he modifying his own concept of the human soul in comparison, for instance, to Republic IV? Is the condition of the human soul worse in Republic IX than in Republic IV? Read the passage and tell your opinion, if you like to.
“In my opinion we haven't adequately distinguished the kinds and number of the desires . And with this lacking, the investigation we are making will be less clear.”
“Isn’t it, he said, still a fine time to do so?”
“Most certainly. And just consider that aspect of them I wish to observe. It’s this. Of the unnecessary pleasures and desires, there are, in my opinion, some that are hostile to law and that probably come to be in everyone; but, when checked by the laws and the better desires, with the help of argument, in some human beings they are entirely gotten rid of or only a few weak ones are left, while in others stronger and more numerous ones remain.”
“Which ones do you mean?” he said.
“Those – I said – that wake up in sleep when the rest of the soul – all that belongs to the calculating, tame, and ruling part of it – slumbers , while the beastly and wild part , gorged with food or drink, is skittish and, pushing sleep away, seeks to go and satisfy its dispositions. You know that in such a state it dares to do everything as though it were released from, and rid of, all shame and prudence . And it doesn’t shrink from attempting intercourse, as it supposes, with a mother or with anyone else at all – human beings, gods, and beasts; or attempting any foul murder at all, and there is no food from which it abstains. And, in a word, it omits no act of folly or shamelessness.”
“What you say,” he said, “is very true.”
“But, on the other hand, I can suppose a man who has a healthy and moderate relationship to himself and who goes to sleep only after he does the following: first, he awakens his calculating part and feasts it on fair arguments and considerations, coming to an understanding with himself ; second, he feeds the desiring part in such a way that it is neither in want nor surfeited — in order that it will rest and not disturb the best part by its joy or its pain, but rather leave that best part alone pure and by itself, to consider and to long for the perception of something that it doesn't know, either something that has been, or is, or is going to be; and, third, he soothes the spirited part in the same way and does not fall asleep with his spirit aroused because there are some he got angry at. When a man has silenced these two latter forms and set the third—the one in which prudent thinking comes to be — in motion, and only then takes his rest, you know that in such a state he most lays hold of the truth and at this time the sights that are hostile to law show up least in his dreams.” “I suppose,” he said, “it’s exactly that way.”
“Well now, we have been led out of the way and said too much about this. What we wish to recognize is the following: surely some terrible, savage, and lawless form of desires is in every man, even in some of us who seem to be ever so measured. And surely this becomes plain in dreams . Now reflect whether I seem to be saying something and whether you agree with me .”
“I do agree.”
Yes, Plato is putting forward the old idea of balance being the way to wisdom. No apparent darkness here.
I thank you very much for your interesting answers.
The point that strikes me in the mentioned context of the Republic is the force of the negative desires.
I have the impression that this passage is, in the whole works of Plato (I could be mistaken, of course), the strongest one as regards the outlining of the force and the danger of one component/factor/part which individuals have in themselves. Therefore I used the attribute "dark".
In spite of the fact that the passage is contained in the description of the birth of the tyrant, it seems that the contents of the passage are applied by Plato to every individual; that is, that nearly all of us are borne with a potentiality for criminal actions (among other things, sometimes I wonder whether Freud for his descriptions of the Es was directly inspired by this description of Plato).
Both at the beginning of Book IX and at the end of Book IX of the Republic (I am in this case referring at the image of the man and of his interior structure), Plato apparently insists on the elements of dangers in us.
This happens as a culmination of the analysis of the degeneration of individual souls and constitutions: it is interesting, in my opinion, that Plato, at the very beginning of Republic IX, introduces the description of the negative desires/impulses/instincts in order to make clear that, the more we see the danger of this component, the more we must be aware of our own psychic constitution and the more, therefore, we have to acknowledge the indispensability of the philosophical education. So to speak, Plato is accentuating, in this context, the degree of danger everyone of us has, unfortunately, in himself, as if he were not yet satisfied with the descriptions given in Book VIII on the degeneration of the individual soul. Is, therefore, the description of the beginning of Republic IX the explanation why we have degeneration of constitutions, of individuals, why we have persons like Trasymachus, Callicles (in Gorgias), why we have positions like Adeimantus' and Glaukon's? More generally, is Plato in Republic IX giving his clearest statement as regards the causes of the presence of evil actions, of the evil itsel in the human dimension? I am not sure, but I think that the digression on the desires of Republic IX represents a kind of final consideration as regards the causes of evil in individuals, in societies and in history (of course, I do not take into consideration here the question of the cosmological evil).
I thank you very much.
question: If there is in us a presence of dangerous desires, can philosophy be seen, in Plato, as a therapy too? (of course, it is not only this). I ask this because, in the past, I had to examine Aristotle's criticism of the separation of universals which should be directed against Plato. There is no doubt that the subject has to be analysed (I personally think that the attempts at finding solutions to the third man argument deeply influences Aristotle's elaboration of his own ontology - for instance, his differentiation between entities being tóde ti and entities being poión). Nonetheless, I think that, in order to distinguish the two thinkers from each other, perhaps it would be better to begin with their different theories of the soul (I have the impression that Aristotle is not consi
I apologize: the previous message was cut.
I would have a further question: If there is in us a presence of dangerous desires, can philosophy be seen, in Plato, as a therapy too? (of course, it is not only this).
I ask this because, in the past, I had to examine Aristotle's criticism of the separation of universals which should be directed against Plato.
There is no doubt that this subject has to be analysed (I personally think that the attempts at finding solutions to the third man argument deeply influences Aristotle's elaboration of his own ontology - for instance, his differentiation between entities being táde tiná and entities being poiá).
Nonetheless, I think that, in order to distinguish the two thinkers from each other, perhaps it would be better to begin with their different theories of the soul (I have the impression that Aristotle is never considering the existence of such negative desires as those described by Plato in Republic IX).
Moreover, I think that, in order to interpret the differences between the two thinkers, we could examine the aims, the finalities being given, respectively, by Plato to the knowledge of the realms of Being, on the one hand, and by Aristotle to the knowledge of the metaphysical realm. I have the impression that this is the point, and not so much the question of separation/not separation of universals.
I thank you very much.
Although this is not the answer you are searching for, I have written on Freud''s probable use of classical thinking and yes I have little doubt he employed Plato. He had some background, and certainly a love of, philosophy and many of his writings can easily be classed as philosophy.
I am not convinced by states of evil, especially when directed by one person on others. Plato''s delight in Socrates was not accepted by everyone/and I think he should be approached with some scepticism. Are negative traits necessarily indicative of evil? I think we are somehow in the strange area of descriptive determinants of phenomenon and people-he was overall a nasty man but because he was kind to animals, there was some good to him.
Dear Professor Wilkin,
I thank you very much for your message and for your information.
I shall search your contribution on Freud.
Yours sincerely,
Gianluigi Segalerba
In connection to what I wrote before: The description of the sphere of desires in Republic IX seems to me as the statement of the presence, in us, of a kind of antireason which opposes the true reason. This is, in my opinion, the new character of Republic IX; nonetheless, the beginning of Republic IX can represent a synthesis of the degenerations of Republic VIII, a kind of statement on the authentic cause of the degenerations: something in us does not function far too well, morally speaking. This is the point, and Plato has expressed it in a perfect way (well, he is Plato, is he not?)
Dear Professor Uebel,
I thank you very much for your message and for the bibliography; I know some of the mentioned studies, whereas I shall search the other ones in the next days.
I have the impression that the passage of Plato represents a mistery; unfortunately, he does not develop further there or in other works these consideration on our psychic structure. The question is whether this passage represents only an insertion, to which not a far too great importance should be conceded, or whether this passage represents a modification of Plato's own interpretation of individual soul (this in connection with the image of the monster in us nearly at the end of book 9). I do not have an answer, but the passage is, in my opinion, impressive; also because it is contained in a context like that of the progressive degenerations.
I thank you very much.
P.S.
The point is, at least in my opinion, that in the discussion of the problem of evil in Plato much more weight has been given to dialogues like Politicus and Laws than to Republic.
Actually, I think that character like Trasymachus, or ideas like those exposed by Glaukon and by Adeimantus are to be connected to the question of the existence of evil characters and opinions (Callicles in Gorgias should not be forgotten).
The degeneration of individuals with the description of desires conquering the akropolis of the soul in Republic 560-561 let me think at a battle between different forces, wherin the forces of bad tendencies have a place. I analysed many studies on evil and related contexts in Plato, and I have the impression that Republic has not been taken into consideration as it would have deserved. Of course, I can be mistaken, since the analyses on the subject are really very many.
Some of the subjects of the question will be dealt with in my next publication. This will appear in the next weeks. I quote here the abstract:
"In my analysis I deal with some causes and origins of evil and of moral degeneration in the human dimension. My analysis focuses on Plato’s Republic. The origins and causes of the presence of injustice and of vice lie in the very structure of the human soul. The division of the soul into parts which are at least reciprocally independent of each other implies that there is the possibility that they are in conflict with each other. This is the origin of injustice and the root of every form of evil. The correct equilibrium among the parts of the soul, which, in my opinion, are to be interpreted as authentic potencies, can be achieved only by developing the rational part. This development requires a thorough education in philosophy. Throughout my analysis I quote passages in which Plato points out the presence of bad instincts and, in general, of a morally difficult component in our soul. The kind of soul considered in my analysis is the embodied soul."
A larger description of the contents will follow as soon as the article is published.
French Abstract
Extrait
Dans mon analyse, je traite de certaines causes et origines du mal et de la dégénération de la morale dans sa dimension humaine. Mon analyse se concentre sur la République de Platon. La présence de l’injustice et du vice trouve ses origines et ses causes dans la structure même de l’âme humaine. La division de l’âme en parties qui sont au moins indépendantes réciproquement les unes des autres implique l’existence de la possibilité qu’elles soient en conflit les unes avec les autres. Ceci est l’origine de l’injustice et la racine de toute forme de mal. Il est possible d’atteindre l’équilibre parfait parmi les parties de l’âme qui, à mon avis, doivent être interprétées comme des puissances authentiques, uniquement en développant la partie rationnelle. Ce développement nécessite d’avoir reçu une éducation approfondie en matière de philosophie. Tout au long de mon analyse, je cite des passages dans lesquels Platon signale la présence de mauvais instincts et en général d’une composante difficile de notre âme du point de vue moral. Ce type d’âme pris en considération dans mon analyse est l’âme incarnée.
Dear Participants,
I send you as attachment an analysis of mine regarding some aspects of Evil in Plato (title: "The Drama of the Human Condition. Notes on the causes and origins of Evil in the Republic").
The analysis was published two weeks ago.
Perhaps it can express better my own positions.
Yours sincerely,
Gianluigi Segalerba
The real reasoning of Plato and Socrates has been altered over time to suit academic elites. Socrates was a monarchist with the intention to undermine or even displace democracy.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction