Fundamental Theories of Human Nature - Essay Example

Theories of human nature Name Institution Date Theories of human nature Plato’s division of the soul Plato’s division of the soul was based on the different classes that he viewed in the society. Plato had divided the society into workers, Auxiliaries, and guardians. According to Annas (2000), Plato pointed out that wants, needs, and desires motivated people. For instance, someone feeling thirsty could just want a drink. Plato divided the soul of human being into three parts. His divisions were very surprising. Plato’s direction of human soul divisions were based on different goals and orientation of human action. Feelings were hardly mentioned in Plato’s description (McNeill, 2010). The first part and which is also the highest of the soul is categorized as reason. This is the capacity of humans to think in whatever they do, and take part in active conversations. In these conversations humans are guided by reasons. Plato also means that reason is the opening towards knowledge. Getting to know another person is the mandate of reason. Any activity that includes human discovery entails reason. The desire to know another person belongs to the soul part that is rational. Plato is credited for coming up with the ‘Platonic Love’. This is the love from the mind of the person and not his body. The boundary between lust and love can be back dated to views expressed by Plato (Annas, 2000). The lowest and the third part of the soul as expressed by Plato is the appetite. This is human orientation or inclination towards physical pleasure. This refers to sensations that are pleasurable generated by drinking, sex, and eating. Enjoying the pleasure of wine is appetite while knowledge of wine belongs to reason (Rosen, 2005). The second and middle part of a human soul is the spirit. This refers to a sense of worthiness, pride, or competitive spirit. This part of the soul refers to the ambitious part of a human being. It describes the human orientation towards wealth, power, and general success in life. As compared to other parts of the soul, this part of the soul has close association with emotions like anger. The only emotion that Plato highlights in his descriptions of parts of the soul is anger. Plato has the perspective that a human being functions properly when reason takes charge. The reason has to be aided by the spirit for proper functioning. Consequently despite connection with anger, Plato looks at the spirit as a good thing. Homer purports his characters as being governed by the spirit. The capacity of anger demonstrates the presence of the spirit according to Homer. Anger translates to courage which in turn yields greatness. This is a clear division from Plato and Socrates who think that reason should be in charge for best functioning of human being. Odysseus is offended by the attack carried out by Thersites. According to homer a human being is a set of desires which is directed and governed by the spirit (McNeill, 2010). His views demonstrate that the greater the spirit as shown through pride, courage, anger capacity, and mere physical proportions and strength, the greater the person. Men are great and demonstrate their greatness through self-assertions, whereas some men are timid and weak to carry themselves around in the same amount; and hence they show their inferiority. According to Homer, human beings show their nature through their actions. Rationality and intelligence is part of this expression. How his account makes sense as an interpretation of Socrates" way of living, and as a deliberate rejection of Homer’s picture Plato concurs that the spirit talked about by Homer is important and real, and it’s a quality one would love to see in defenders and rulers. Nevertheless, Plato expresses his reservation about Homer’s spirit. He is of the view that such a spirit should not be trusted. Plato explains that such a spirit can be a loose cannon which is unruly and dangerous if it is not directed by reason. This is demonstrated by Homer illustrations of Agamemnon and Achilles. Consequently Plato division of the soul that places reason to rule over the spirit corrects the point of view held by Homer. Socrates is famously quoted for having stated that unexamined life is not worth living. It is reason that is described by Plato that can fit in Socrates context and not what is talked by Homer. Plato shows in the Republic an analogy between the parts of the soul of an individual and the parts that describes an ideal society as envisioned by Plato (Bruell, 1999). Homer observes the division of the soul but not as in the same perspective as outlined by Plato. Reason, the capacity to be directed by one’s knowledge and to know, has been set apart from other noble attributes. The divisions are made more explicit by Plato in the Republic as compared to Homer. Reason, appetite, and spirit as set apart as different from each other in the Republic. Plato demonstrates that the different parts of the soul can be in struggle with each other until the reason gains supremacy other the rest. A person can desire alcohol but realization by reason that alcohol is bad for his health makes him to hold back his action of over overindulgence (Bruell, 1999). Plato’s description of the division of the soul makes a lot of sense of the Socrates way of living. Socrates was an ardent supporter of self evaluation of examination. Human beings are accountable for their own actions. It is upon a person to differentiate a wrong thing and a right thing. Reason as explained by Plato directs desire and appetite and thus the human actions. From this perspective, it can be concluded that Socrates way of living is greatly supported by the account made by Plato of the human soul (Purshouse, 2007). The Platonic and Socratic views are an improvement on Homer’s perspective. Homer acknowledged some part of the soul particular the spirit but he failed to demonstrate how overreactions of the spirit is controlled. Plato version provides more insight into the Homer’s perspective. Plato is of the view that is very complex and; therefore, it cannot be explained using desire and reason alone. The spirit involves the part of the soul that comprised of emotions. This part can also conflict the desire. Anger and shame are some of the moderation factors that result from spirit which balance between the reason and appetite. Socrates is of the view that the rational part of the soul should be separate from the rest. This is in agreement with Plato who also agrees that the three parts of the soul are located in different places of a human body. Both Socrates and Plato emphasize of the importance of the rational part of the soul (Rosen, 2005). This is the reason according to Plato as described in the Republic. The ideal society envisioned by Plato has to be accompanied by justice. Thought and intelligence is also described by Socrates as he talks about the immortality of the soul. Homer’s description of the composition of a person does not take into account all the aspects that control human behavior. Socrates and Plato picks up from Homer to further expand on the aspect of rationality and moderation. Socrates is famous for scrutinizing one’s beliefs through interrogation called dialectic. An individual has to ask himself important questions that will help him arrive at the appropriate answer. This is what Plato talks about when the reason interrupts the direction taken by the appetite for physical satisfaction that can cause harm to a person. At the point of his trial, Socrates designed not to escape and better remain in Athens and take poison. Socrates believed in the supremacy of the law. As a result of this, he expected people’s actions to be rational and interrogate themselves before making any decision. Both Plato and Socrates believe in virtue and justice in an ideal society. The life of self examination led to Socrates being quoted as saying that living does not matter but living rightly do matter (Bruell, 1999). Socrates interrogations bring out clearly the self evaluation that is pointed out by rationality viewed by Plato. Homer did not discuss the factors that will take the spirit from doing irrational things. Plato and Socrates show the importance of self examinational through rational means. The desires within a person have to be controlled. A person to achieve what is rightly his without frustrating others. From this perspective it can be seen that Homer left some aspect hanging in his description of the soul. The loose ends were discussed in detail by Socrates and Plato. The suggestion by Socrates shows the rationality of the soul through self examination. Plato demonstrates rationality through the struggle of the different parts of the soul when a person wants to engage in something that requires careful judgment (Annas, 2000). Conclusion Plato’s description of the division of the soul is suggested according to the occupants of the ideal society talked about in the Republic. Rationality and moderation are reiterated in both Socrates and Plato accounts. Plato account makes scholars and other people to understand what was envisioned by Socrates. Homer perspective may appear to be very superficial and not efficient enough to describe human action. Socrates and Plato views are an improvement to Homer’s perspective since they provide the missing link of rationality in Homer theory. References Annas, J. (2000). Ancient philosophy: A very short introduction. Wellington: Oxford University Press. McNeill, D. (2010). An Image of the Soul in Speech. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Purshouse, L. (2007). Plato's Republic. London: Continuum. Rosen, S. (2005). Plato’s Republic: A Study. New Haven: Yale University Press. Bruell, C. (1999). On the Socratic Education: An Introduction to the Shorter Platonic Dialogues, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Read More

The reason has to be aided by the spirit for proper functioning. Consequently despite connection with anger, Plato looks at the spirit as a good thing. Homer purports his characters as being governed by the spirit. The capacity of anger demonstrates the presence of the spirit according to Homer. Anger translates to courage which in turn yields greatness. This is a clear division from Plato and Socrates who think that reason should be in charge for best functioning of human being. Odysseus is offended by the attack carried out by Thersites.

According to homer a human being is a set of desires which is directed and governed by the spirit (McNeill, 2010). His views demonstrate that the greater the spirit as shown through pride, courage, anger capacity, and mere physical proportions and strength, the greater the person. Men are great and demonstrate their greatness through self-assertions, whereas some men are timid and weak to carry themselves around in the same amount; and hence they show their inferiority. According to Homer, human beings show their nature through their actions.

Rationality and intelligence is part of this expression. How his account makes sense as an interpretation of Socrates" way of living, and as a deliberate rejection of Homer’s picture Plato concurs that the spirit talked about by Homer is important and real, and it’s a quality one would love to see in defenders and rulers. Nevertheless, Plato expresses his reservation about Homer’s spirit. He is of the view that such a spirit should not be trusted. Plato explains that such a spirit can be a loose cannon which is unruly and dangerous if it is not directed by reason.

This is demonstrated by Homer illustrations of Agamemnon and Achilles. Consequently Plato division of the soul that places reason to rule over the spirit corrects the point of view held by Homer. Socrates is famously quoted for having stated that unexamined life is not worth living. It is reason that is described by Plato that can fit in Socrates context and not what is talked by Homer. Plato shows in the Republic an analogy between the parts of the soul of an individual and the parts that describes an ideal society as envisioned by Plato (Bruell, 1999).

Homer observes the division of the soul but not as in the same perspective as outlined by Plato. Reason, the capacity to be directed by one’s knowledge and to know, has been set apart from other noble attributes. The divisions are made more explicit by Plato in the Republic as compared to Homer. Reason, appetite, and spirit as set apart as different from each other in the Republic. Plato demonstrates that the different parts of the soul can be in struggle with each other until the reason gains supremacy other the rest.

A person can desire alcohol but realization by reason that alcohol is bad for his health makes him to hold back his action of over overindulgence (Bruell, 1999). Plato’s description of the division of the soul makes a lot of sense of the Socrates way of living. Socrates was an ardent supporter of self evaluation of examination. Human beings are accountable for their own actions. It is upon a person to differentiate a wrong thing and a right thing. Reason as explained by Plato directs desire and appetite and thus the human actions.

From this perspective, it can be concluded that Socrates way of living is greatly supported by the account made by Plato of the human soul (Purshouse, 2007). The Platonic and Socratic views are an improvement on Homer’s perspective. Homer acknowledged some part of the soul particular the spirit but he failed to demonstrate how overreactions of the spirit is controlled. Plato version provides more insight into the Homer’s perspective. Plato is of the view that is very complex and; therefore, it cannot be explained using desire and reason alone.

The spirit involves the part of the soul that comprised of emotions. This part can also conflict the desire. Anger and shame are some of the moderation factors that result from spirit which balance between the reason and appetite.

Read More