Plato’s tripartite soul: how useful is it in assessing human nature?

If you have ever dabbled into philosophy, whether it be in a classroom or a thrilling dinner-table discussion, chances are Plato will have come up! Often regarded as the founder of western philosophy, Plato’s views have undeniably influenced and shaped modern thought. One of his most interesting ideas is his tripartite soul, in which he proposes that human beings are defined by the antagonism between their reason and emotions.

Plato’s conception of the tripartite soul states that the human soul or psyche can be compartmentalised into three fundamental aspects: reason, spirit ( emotions like pride and courage), and appetite (bodily and worldly desires). These three aspects seek knowledge, reputation and material gain and each can come to do an minate our behaviour. Plato anchors his view, in an analogy of a chariot where the charioteer represents our rational, and the horses represent our spirit and appetite. Plato states that it is the role of the charioteer (reason) to curb and restrain our appetites and emotions in order to guide us to a successful destination. Whilst this might seem a bit abstract, it can be best explained by cake! Imagine you have been offered a scrumptious piece of Victoria sponge cake. Your appetite urges you to eat it, but your rationality understands that it would be grossly unhealthy for you. Which one do you listen to? Plato argues that you should allow your reason to guide you, as this is an essential property in human nature, which distinguishes us from other sentient beings. Moreover Plato believes that our capacity to be rational stems from an ability to be objective, whereby we can disregard bias, and feelings that distort our conception of the world. Plato extends this theory to suggest that reasoning allows human beings access to the transcendent: knowledge or truth that exists above the ordinary realm of experience. Thus, Plato believes that human capability to reason is what allows us to distinguish ourselves from the empirical world that surrounds us.

Whilst Plato’s tripartite soul does an admirable job in addressing the intrinsic dualities in human nature, it is underpinned by the assumption that our reason can be separated from our appetite/spirit- an assumption that has been widely scrutinised by other philosophers and academics. Let’s take the example of a person choosing whether to drink from a chalice that they know has been poisoned. Whilst it might seem like that said person is utilising their rationality by choosing not to drink from it, isn’t this decision underpinned by their desire to live? Extending this further Hobbes propelled a mechanistic view of human nature, suggesting that reason is merely a calculation in which one analyses the benefits and drawbacks of a given action in choosing whether to pursue it. Therefore, Hobbes believed that rationalism was actually a disguised form of self interest, as at its heart it concerns the personal gain of an individual. In this way is rationality synonymous with egoism?

To add another philosopher into the mix, David Hume adopts a sceptical position, questioning the importance of rationality altogether! Hume’s radical philosophy argues that reason alone is completely actionless, as it relies on the assistance of our emotions for it to be used effectively:

“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them”. To put this into context: imagine you are walking to the store to buy a new jumper. Your rationality undeniably has a role to play: it guides you on which route to take, which store to go to, and how much money to bring etc. However, the reason you walked to the store was because of your desire for a new jumper, so if you didn't have a passion for fashion, then you never would have walked to the store to begin with. In essence, our passions motivate us to take action, and our reason helps guide the actions we take. Returning to Plato’s analogy, the charioteer ( reason) is dependent on the strength and vigour of the horses (appetite and spirit) to propel the chariot forward. The role of the charioteer in controlling the horses is redundant if the horses did not move in the first place.

The question of what defines human nature is one that will definitely continue to be investigated and analysed by philosophers. If the ideas of Plato, Hobbes, and Hume have taught us anything, perhaps it’s that human nature is multifaceted, and can not be neatly packaged into one thing - be it rationality or self interest. So the next time you are eating Victoria sponge cake or deciding whether to drink from a poisoned chalice, try to acknowledge that it was the unique intersections of your emotions, reason and desires that brought you to where you are.