In the following essay, I shall argue how Plato’s view of the simple soul in the Phaedo is the most plausible than the composite soul in the Republic as it fits with Plato’s altering beliefs through time and has the least discrepancies. This is firstly as it supports the view that the soul is immortal, whereas the Republic, the composite soul can, by his standard, be broken apart and effectively destroyed. Yet in the Republic, it is still argued that the soul is immortal, but even though the body and soul are separate, what could destroy the body would not necessarily destroy the soul. I will then counter argue that the simple soul blames all errors and wrongdoings on the body, whereas a composite soul allows for more self-development as the errors are due to imbalance in the tripartite soul which can be developed. Plato then uses an analogy of the city state and the three types of citizens to show the different parts of the soul. What we could infer is some souls are more suited to different positions in society, for example some people are designed for leadership as parts of their soul are more developed. This is perhaps more plausible than the Phaedo soul, where because weaknesses are associated with the body which they will not be free from until the body’s death. But on the other hand, this creates the view that simple souls are equal, as it is their body limiting them, not their composition. Therefore, it will be argued that the Republic soul presents more questions than answers, as through critiquing modern scholarship and analysing ancient sources we will be able to see that see the simple Phaedo soul is more plausible as it allows the soul harmony, equality between souls and immortality.
Immortality is a key theme throughout Plato’s middle works, he retains the view point of the soul is immortal in both the Republic and Phaedo but changes how the souls are immortal. We can link both reasons behind the immortality to whether the soul is composite or simple. In the Phaedo (78c) we learn that because the soul is simple and is comprised of just itself, it must be immortal. This is as if something is a composite, it must be able to be broken down to its original parts as it is two (or more) separate essences together. However, the soul being simple and made up of itself, when the body will die, the soul will live on. Therefore, the Phaedo soul, allows for an immortal soul. This is in direct contrast to the Republic, where Plato argues for a tripartite soul. To justify the composite soul being immortal, he argues that because the body and soul are completely separate, what damages the body does not damage the soul. Thus, because the only thing that can damage the soul is injustice, and injustice will not kill it, it is therefore immortal. However, this has its faults, as pointed out by Julia Annas, as it is too simplistic to say that the only thing which is bad for the soul is injustice. And there could be things which are equally bad for the body and soul alike. So here we can see how, if you want to agree the soul is immortal, it makes more sense to believe in the simple soul, which is unable to be broken down. To further this point Plato seemed rather set on a drastic dualism, and throughout ones’ life, the goal should be to separate themselves from their body. But it seems like the only way of achieving this is through one’s body dying, so the soul can live on. As well as the Phaedo dualism supporting the immortality argument, it also supports the argument that a simple soul means there is no internal conflict between the body and the soul, as soul’s sole purpose is the pursuit of reason or intellect.
The unified soul presented to us in the Phaedo presents us with the idea that there is no internal conflict within the soul, as all irrational desires are associated with the body. Because of the dualist view point, the soul focus is on knowledge/intellect, whereas the body is home to all passions, desires and pleasures. (94 b-c). This means the soul has a harmonious quality, while all faults are due to the body, as result the soul does not have to argue with itself like it may do if it were complex. However, this can be counter argued as sometimes the soul does fights with the body’s desires, for example the analogy of stealing a bottle of water when you are thirsty, and the moral dilemma of whether you should take the water. You are thrust into internal conflict which a complex soul may be able to reason out, as it has been argued that you cannot face opposition without having multiplicity. With this method, you can justify inner conflicts. Because by allowing multiple parts in the soul, it allows for different oppositions at the same time, and removes any decisions from the body. Moreover, everyone ultimately desires good (even though that may be a different good from another person) so there cannot be any conflict within the soul as it is all parts of the soul are trying to reach the greatest good. Consequently, it could be said that the simple soul, is less allowing than one with multiplicity as it is rather one sided and less able to reason than a composite one. In the Republic, the soul shows more intellectual capabilities as it is able to use the different parts of the soul to come to a just decision. However, the Republic soul would have more internal conflict or imbalance ultimately, as some parts of the soul may disagree in the decision making, a problem that the simple soul does not face. Although the thirst analogy seems to support complex soul, it presents a problem, why do desires, such to drink, happen in the soul, when the soul does not, and will not, need to drink once it is free of the body. Additionally, the simple soul does not have any imbalance, as there is only one component to the soul, intellect, therefore any imbalance is the bodies fault. This suggests that the souls in the Phaedo are more equal when compared to each other, whereas complex souls can be predisposed to vices when say their desires outweigh their reason.
Balance within the soul is an issue when comprehending the Republic. We are introduced to the tripartite soul, as because the soul can do opposed things at the same time then there must be multiple parts (493b). These parts are labelled as reason, desire and spirit, all working commutatively to create a ‘just’ being which also allows individuality. Human nature allows this to make sense, as when having to face some decisions, people react differently according to what their soul is telling them to do. Therefore, some people may act more on rationality/morality/impulses. This leads to more individuality, as there are a multitude of thoughts and different choices that go into making a decision and a composite soul allows this. This appears as a convincing argument as because in the city analogy you can see how the citizens are different, which would not necessarily be true if the soul was simple and lacking internal variety. However, while at first these separate parts seem like a convincing argument, we see that Plato’s definition of these change throughout the Republic. In book 4 when we are introduced to these parts, they appear to be skills, or powers; whereas later they seem more like drives. They are working towards an ultimate satisfaction for each separate part, perhaps the four virtues: justice, wisdom, courage, moderation. With accepting that the soul is composite, it allows for akrasia and more faults that are actually the persons fault, rather than the body. But because this is possible proves there must be more than one part to the soul. Yet, weakness of will could still be owing to your body’s natural drives and desires, so we cannot dismiss the simple soul theory. Additionally, it could be argued that the simple soul theory is more plausible as it is easier for a person to have a just soul. In contrast to the Republic, the citizen would have to understand what the greatest good for each part of their soul is, so they can reach inner harmony, whereas the simple soul, the end goal is clearer. This makes the theory appear more plausible as it would be near impossible for anyone with a complex soul to reach harmony as they would have to balance each part. Whereas the simple soul gives people a fairer chance of becoming a just being, which we know can be possible.
Self-development in the Phaedo seems almost impossible to achieve, as it is stated that a philosophical person is trying to rid themselves of their bodily desires throughout life so their soul can live harmoniously (82c). Whereas in the Republic, as both reason, desire and spirit are located in the soul, this gives the person the ability to develop their vices and change, whether this be for the better so worse. This appears as a more convincing argument than the one in the Phaedo as people do change their personalities through time. If the soul remained in the same state through life, it implies only the bodies’ desires and rationality alters. So, in the Republic, because the battle to be just is only within the soul, the person can actually progress as a person in regard to self-development. Whereas in Phaedo, the person would be battling to escape their body, as the source of all internal conflict. But as the soul is immortal, once it is free of its body it will be free of the sources of wrongdoing. However, this would suggest that all human being’s souls are equal, it is just their body that limits their progression in society. So it could be said that the tripartite souls allow for a more just soul. Moreover, it is of interest that the soul is called a tripartite, as this implies that the pieces of the soul are equal in worth. However, with the analogy of the city, it is told that the justice, the ruling part, is more powerful. Thus, some of our soul is not worth as much. Meaning some people are pre-disposed to being part of the ruling elite. Yet this causes confusion, as citizens role within the polis was very strict, and people could not easily social climb, even if their soul was particularly rational. But with a simple soul all souls have to be equal, as all vices come from the bodily desires rather than unequal balances in the soul, but people were not in society. Although it may seem like the city state analogy is a good way to explain the parts of the soul working together, it is not completely transferable , as people’s definition of happiness and peace will differ as it will in the soul. As people may find that a different ratio of the three parts would suit their lives better. However, it has been argued that goodness in an individual is the same as goodness in the state, as there is a clear link between social and individual psychology . In addition, it begs the question of whether when we decide to do something, is this choice made with just one part of our soul or multiple, so perhaps with a complex soul, people prone to wrongdoing do not use all the correct parts of their soul. The analogy of the city state clearly shows that if the three types of people, and by extension the three parts of the soul, interact then this (injustice) is where great evil can occur (434d-e). And yet we have already seen the different parts interacting, in regard to the thirst analogy, and evil did not happen there. It is interesting that Plato uses this analogy to prove that there are multiple parts of the soul but then suggest that those three parts should not interact. This presents a problem as some decisions you need both reason and desire. Consequently, it could be argued that the Phaedo soul is more plausible as it is easier to become a just being, and self-development is not as necessary as when your body dies your soul will live harmoniously.
In conclusion to this essay, we have seen how Plato’s view on whether the soul is simple or composite changed through time, with both opinions in the Phaedo and the Republic facing inconsistencies in their arguments. Overall, however, it has been argued that the Phaedo’s composition of the soul, being a simple, is more plausible. This is as blaming wrongdoings on the body means, means all souls are equal and once free of their bodies will always be so. It additionally makes more sense for the irrational desires to be part of the body, as seen with the thirst analogy, as thirst is a bodily need, whereas what stopped the person taking the water was their soul. In the Republic, it suggests that thirst is linked to the soul, which does not make sense as the soul being immortal will not always need to drink Meaning that in the Phaedo out of control desires are not a fault of character, and everyone’s souls will eventually live in harmony. Moreover, we have seen how the Phaedo allows for an immortal soul, as it cannot be broken by anything such as illness, whereas the Republic presents a weak argument suggesting that despite the soul being composite it does not mean that what damages the body will necessarily damage the soul. The Republic’s argument is overall weaker, as although it allows for more individuality and self development, it does not allow immorality and has more internal conflict.