Word count: 2,527.

Enrique Requero

What does the state in Platos Republic owe to the tripartite division of the soul?

Plato argues in The Republic that the fact that there are five types of society follows from that there are five types of individual human character. This is because, he argues, societies arent made of sticks and stones, but of men whose individual characters, by turning the scale one way or another, determine the direction of the whole.1 For Plato, a state or society is an agglomeration of individuals, and he goes as far as to give to this agglomeration a character of its own. The character of a given society would thus be determined by the characters of the individuals who are part of it. Along these same lines, the platonic perfect society, the Republic, is based on what a just man is for Plato. This essay will analyse the direct parallels existing between Platos tripartite division of the human soul and his socio-functional division of the Republic. In the same way as for Plato the just man is that in whom there is a perfect equilibrium between the Appetitive, the Spirited and the Rational tendencies of the soul; for him also, the just society is that in which there is perfect harmony between Craftsmen, the Auxiliaries and the Guardians, with each group occupying its proper social position and carrying out its proper functions. However, a social structure is not the only thing the Republic owes to the tripartite division of the soul. The essay will additionally analyse how Platos division of the soul also provides the state with a clear explanation of how to achieve social justice. Finally, the essay will turn to assess the extent to which the fact of the Republics constitution being wrong, as perceived by some of Platos contemporaries, is a direct consequence of the tripartite division of the soul being a misleading doctrine. In The Republic, Plato only gives an explanation of the tripartite division after providing an initial layout of the constitution of his Republic. He actually derives his division of the soul from that of society. Nevertheless, once he produces his theory of the soul he seems to use it all the time from then on to justify his social division. Thus, while the theory of the soul is derived from the constitutional division in the Republic, Plato in fact uses the former to qualify the latter, and not the other way around. Therefore, this essay will support the commonly held opinion that indeed the social divisions in the Republic rest on the tripartite division of the soul. Consequently, the essay will move on to expose the Platos theory on the human soul and then carry on to show how it is faithfully reflected in his social division of society. Plato exposes his theory of the tripartite division of the soul in Book IV of The Republic, in which at one point Socrates discusses with Glaucon the different elements of mental conflict. In this passage, there are three basic tendencies identified as present in the human soul. The irrational appetite is the first one described. Plato argues that the Appetitive part of the soul is that with which it [the soul] feels hunger and thirst, and the agitations of sex and other desires (...), an element closely connected with satisfaction and
1

Plato, The Republic, 544e.

What does the State in Platos Republic owe to the tripartite division of the soul?

Enrique Requero

pleasure.2 This part of the soul is thus the most basic, and its object is merely to take care of the needs and natural wants of the body. It is driven by the lowest instincts present in man and, in this sense, it is the Appetitive part of the soul what humans and animals share in common. Nevertheless, Plato believed humans to be higher than animals in the natural order because in the former the Appetitive tendency is limited by the other parts of the soul which the latter lack. Once Socrates and Glaucon seem to be satisfied with their definition of the Appetitive part of the soul, Socrates points out that it sometimes happens that the irrational appetites are resisted, for example when a thirsty man refuses to drink. This resistance must be produced by a part of the soul other than the Appetitive, because the same thing cannot act in opposite ways with the same part of itself towards the same object.3 He then moves on to explain how this resistance of the irrational desires of the human soul is carried out by its Rational part, which prevents and masters them.4 This part of the soul is what differentiates humans from the rest of animals. Reason is a reflective element5 which enables man to control its instincts and to see beyond the immediate appetite. This vision of a bigger picture makes humans capable of reflecting upon something in particular and to assess whether it will ultimately be good or bad for the individual and society. Thus, although the Appetitive part always tells man that he should drink as soon as he feels thirsty, his reason might tell him that it however may be better not to drink just yet because the water is poisoned, because he should share his water with the others around him, because denying the appetite will make him more resistant for when bigger need turns up, etc. Nonetheless, thats not the end of the story. A few lines below Socrates identifies a third part of the soul which is pretty similar to the other two but at the same time clearly different when conflict arises in the soul. The third and last element Plato distinguishes in the soul is what he calls the Spirited part. The Spirited part manifests itself through the indignation or anger that rises up in the soul when there is a conflict between the Appetitive and the Rational parts. Socrates tells the story of Leontion, to illustrate how anger is different from desire and sometimes opposes it.6 He also says that the Spirited part can clearly be seen as different from the Rational in children, who are full of spirit as soon as theyre born; but some never seem to acquire any degree of reason and most of them only at a late stage. 7 The most important characteristic about the Spirited part of the soul is, Plato argues, that unless corrupted by bad upbringing, is reasons natural auxiliary.8 The role of the spirit is essential because whenever there may be an irrational desire strong enough for reason not to be able to cope with it, the spirit is the one that will make it possible for man to maintain control of himself and not behave like an animal.

2 3

Plato, The Republic, 439d. Ibid, 439b. 4 Ibid, 439c. 5 Ibid, 439d. 6 Ibid, 440a. 7 Ibid, 441a. 8 Ibid, 441a.

What does the State in Platos Republic owe to the tripartite division of the soul?

Enrique Requero

Thus, it is clear how important it is for Plato that there should be order in the soul. For a man to be properly man there must be absolute harmony in the soul. In order for this to happen, the appetites will inform a man of his bodily need of a satisfaction or pleasure, but they will be kept in check by the reason, which ought to rule, having the wisdom and foresight to act for the whole, and the spirit ought to obey and support it.9 Moderation, with each of the parts playing its proper function, is what for Plato constitutes justice. Moreover, Plato argues that there is no difference between a just man and a just city, and that is because for him the division that ought to take place in the Republic for it to constitute a perfect state, follows exactly the same patterns of the tripartite division of the soul. The essay will now move on to account briefly for the direct parallels existing between Platos two divisions. The first social class in the Republic is that of the Craftsmen: merchants and workers, which Plato distinguishes for their self-interested desire only to make profit. Plato equates this class to the Appetitive part of the soul, because the members of this class are also moved by a desire of pleasure, money, comfort and physical satisfaction. This class is not inherently bad, because it has the function of attending the basic needs of society. Nevertheless, in the same way as the Appetitive part ought to be kept under control in order to achieve justice in the soul, also the Craftsmen are bound to be controlled by a higher class seeking social justice.
10

The class of the Guardians is the one entrusted with the mission of managing moderation in society. This class is, at the same time, subdivided in two sub-groups with different functions. The group of the Rulers is formed by a few citizens who have culminated a long process of physical and intellectual education provided for all Guardians. The Rulers are also known as Philosopher Kings and their expertise on philosophy makes them the equivalent of the Rational part of the soul. The Rulers are thus able to foresee what the best for society is and have the mission of directing the Republic towards it. The rulers are assisted in this task by the rest of the Guardians, also called Auxiliaries or Soldiers. Thanks to the education received in the Republic, the Auxiliaries will be natural allies of the Rulers, in the same way as the Spirited part of the tripartite division naturally assists the Rational part in mastering the Appetitive, as discussed above. After this brief exposition of the social structure of the Republic, it is clear that there are direct parallels between the two divisions. The state in the Republic clearly owes its structure to the tripartite division. Moreover, the division of the soul also provides the Rulers of the Republic with a clear explanation of how to achieve social justice, thus resulting in a prosperous state in which men are fulfilled and happy. It has already been explained how for Plato justice in the soul means harmony and order among its three parts, with each carrying out a specific function. Justice in the Republic follows in exactly the same way. The state is just when the three elements within it each mind their own business,11 that is, when the Craftsmen stick to production, the Rulers to rule and the Auxiliaries to assist the Rulers in
9

Plato, The Republic, 441e. Ibid, 435b. 11 Ibid, 441d.

10

What does the State in Platos Republic owe to the tripartite division of the soul?

Enrique Requero

keeping the Craftsmen under check. Plato supports the idea that social good results from each person doing what one is best at. Nevertheless, he fails to provide with convincing theory about how to find out which class each newborn ought to belong to. He eludes the issue by constructing a Foundation Myth which states that the newborns will belong to one class or another depending on their type of blood (golden, silver or bronze) inherited from the parents.12 The denial of social mobility (for Plato, once one is in one group, one has to stay there for the rest of ones life) is clearly wrong if judged with the standards of the twenty-first century, as well as many other of the platonic theories. Nevertheless, there was also disagreement among Platos contemporaries. Aristotle was the most prominent of Platos disciples but also one of his most renown critics. He develops a detailed criticism of the platonic constitution in the first five chapters of Book II of The Politics. The first objection to the Republic is against the extreme social unity which Plato expected to be lived in it. Aristotle maintains extreme unity is counterproductive because it would impede self-sufficiency, which he argues is the main reason why humans unite progressively first into couples, then households, villages and eventually states. He rejects common property because the greater number of owners, the less respect for common property.13 Aristotle also disagrees with the community of wives and children because, in it, a newborn is equally the son of any person, and as a result will be equally neglected by everyone.14 Moreover, community of wives and children would impede any strong affections or relations among the citizens, thus making crimes more likely and social cohesion harder to foster.15 Nonetheless, the strongest of Aristotles criticism, at least regarding the topic of this essay, is that he claims Plato wrongly equates a moderate life, resulting from justice in the soul, with a good life.16 Justice as a moral good is not for Aristotle a neutral state of harmony in the soul but a positive actualization of a potency. Moral good in Aristotelian terms is the acquisition of a virtue through practice, which is good because it fulfils ones form or nature. The intention here is not to go into Aristotles Metaphysics, but to simply point out that while the Aristotelian understanding of the forms seems to be based in the observation of nature, Platos understanding of the soul is merely the result of intellectual discussion. This gives to Aristotles hylomorphism a more positive vision of the material world and makes Aristotle able to claim his political theory to reflect the natural formation of the state. On the other hand, Plato, as a dualist, saw matter as bad and thus ignored nature when developing his theories. The result of this is that while Platonic theories can make a lot of sense, they are very likely to be completely unidentified with reality. Therefore, if Platos tripartite division of the soul does not accord with reality, then his theory about moderation and justice in the soul is erroneous, together with his claim that justice should be achieved in the Republic in the same way. The final result is that if the constitution of the Republic is wrong (as in that it would fail to provide all the citizens with happiness), it is ultimately because the tripartite
12 13

Plato, The Republic, 415. Aristotle, The Politics, 1261b32. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid, 1262a25-40. 16 Ibid, 1265a28.

What does the State in Platos Republic owe to the tripartite division of the soul?

Enrique Requero

division of the soul the theory used by Plato to justify the constitution of the Republic is wrong as well. As it has been shown so far, Platos theory about the state in the Republic owes a significant amount of its content to his tripartite division of the soul. In the first place it justifies the platonic ideal constitution for Plato the state had to look like that because the soul did. Thus, the division of the soul also provides the state with a clear socio-functional structure and the way the parts of the soul should operate translates itself in the state as a straightforward way of achieving social justice and the fulfilment of its citizens. Finally, it has also been analysed how Platos lack of observation of the external when constructing his tripartite division of the soul ultimately lead to a Republic which may make sense intellectually but turns out as unrealistic when trying to put it into practice. Nevertheless, despite Platos apparent failure, it is important to value the huge contribution which his bridging of the human soul and the state supposes. Aristotle built up on this in his ethics and politics and so did many others after him, to the extent that even nowadays few would disagree with the idea that it is essential for governments to have a deep understanding of the nature of the human being in order to rule in the best way for society.

Bibliography: - PLATO, The Republic, trans. D. Lee (Penguin Classics, 1987). - ARISTOTLE, The Politics, trans. T.A. Sinclair (Penguin Classics, 1992). - Virtues of state and soul, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics/#VirStaSou