Opinion paper-I wouldn't mind some feedback...

[HappytheStripper]

Hi all ..

 

Okay.. I have a question because I've been reading a bit of Plato's original work and I decided to do a thesis paper.. However I wouldn't mind an opinion from someone else before I begin..

 

You see, there is a section of Plato that goes into relationships and the basis of them, and the formation of them. So, I concluded the reading with this.

 

Relationships are based on the desire of one of the three aspects of a human being-mind, body, or soul.

 

There's a lot more to it, and when I have the time, I will post the majority of it. Like I said, it's a paper that I'm writing, but I wouldn't mind some firsthand opinions on it.

 

So, the question is, do you agree, or disagree, with my statement? And in both cases, why? I'd like to factor that into the paper to make it better-I'll have it evaluated and then I'll probably post it on another forum that deals with philosophical questions.

 

Any feedback is appreciated-thanks in advance!

 

Ashley

[Kriminal99]

Sorry I misunderstood your question

[Turtle]

Hi all ..

 

Okay.. I have a question because I've been reading a bit of Plato's original work and I decided to do a thesis paper.. However I wouldn't mind an opinion from someone else before I begin..

 

You see, there is a section of Plato that goes into relationships and the basis of them, and the formation of them. So, I concluded the reading with this.

 

Relationships are based on the desire of one of the three aspects of a human being-mind, body, or soul....

 

Any feedback is appreciated-thanks in advance!

Ashley

 

Which 'section' of Plato? It is difficult to evaluate your statement without knowing what it refers to. :confused: :) :)

 

PS If you are reading in The Republic, here's an online version to refer to:

The Republic by Plato - Read Online - The Literature Page

[CraigD]

[According to Plato] Relationships are based on the desire of one of the three aspects of a human being-mind, body, or soul.

…

So, the question is, do you agree, or disagree, with my statement?

I’m not sure – my Plato is very rusty.

 

What I remember most clearly of Plato’s views on relationship comes from a story he attributes to Aristophanes in Symposium, in which the most noble of humans are descended from a no longer existent third sex that was a physical combination of male and female, joined back-to-back.

… the primeval man was round, his back and sides forming a circle; and he had four hands and four feet, one head with two faces, looking opposite ways, set on a round neck and precisely alike; also four ears, two privy members, and the remainder to correspond. He could walk upright as men now do, backwards or forwards as he pleased, and he could also roll over and over at a great pace, turning on his four hands and four feet, eight in all, like tumblers going over and over with their legs in the air; this was when he wanted to run fast

These androgynes are so superior to ordinary humans that they threaten and anger the gods, who solve the problem by cutting them each in half, into ordinary men and women. It follows from this that heterosexual relationships among superior people (Plato was very interested in the idea of superior people) are driven by their longing to return to the distantly remembered state of physical oneness with their gender-opposites. Much more elaboration on this theme ensues.

 

I thoroughly enjoyed an animated video version of this story I saw in the 2001 movie Hedwig and the Angry Inch.

[HappytheStripper]

Hi all ..

Relationships are based on the desire of one of the three aspects of a human being-mind, body, or soul.

 

This is the statement .. the questions is do you agree or disagree..??

 

Ashley

[HydrogenBond]

I think relationships can be based on 1, 2 or three of these things, in all possible combinations. Coldblooded animals relate mostly by the body's natural instincts, without feeling or thinking. Warm blooded critters use both the body's instincts and animal soul, i.e.,impulses and feelings. Humans can use all three.

 

When humans date in modern times, it may be initially biological or the body, i.e., male's generic desire. Feelings begin to develop if the male and female spend time together, bringing the feelings/fantasies of the soul into play. The spirit is added in marriage as one begins to plan into the future for chidren, retirement, even a funeral, etc..

 

There are also shades in the middle. Between the body and soul is the animal soul and the beast. Sexuality can go from pure animal to the bizzare and perverse (beast), to use one example. The soul and spirit can also form hybrids. For example, one can marry out of duty. This sort of involves limited emotions mixed with conscious planning that are more ego-centric than pure spirit. Pure spirit is more collective or common to all humans. That is why the spirit in religion is more of a group thing.

 

Relative to the brain and the three aspects of consciousness, i.e., body, soul and spirit, the "body" is centered at the hypothalamus, which meters out our instinctive potentials, and affects the blood supply. The soul is centered at the limbic system which meters out emotional potentials into the cerebral spinal fluid and ventricles. The spirit is more centered in the cerebral but also has a wired connection to the thalamus in the center of the brain. The latter is normally attributed to God (inner self), while the latter has more of a conscious connection to the ego.

[InfiniteNow]

I disagree with the distinction of the human into three parts, mind/body/soul. Mind and body are part of the same unified whole, and the concept of soul is beyond easy definition.

 

Relationships have evolved, and are a method of increasing survival of self and proginy. They are the outcome of nature and nurture, and vary across individuals.

 

Not sure if that helps or hinders at all, but that's what comes to mind when viewing your question outright. :confused:

 

 

Good luck. :)

[CraigD]

Relationships are based on the desire of one of the three aspects of a human being-mind, body, or soul.

This is the statement .. the questions is do you agree or disagree..??

If you are asking if this is an accurate summary of Plato’s views on relationships, I’d have to review before rendering an opinion.

 

If you are asking if I think the statement, on its own, is correct, my answer is no.

 

The archaic division of a human being into mind, body, and spirit is not, to the best of my understanding, supported by objective data, or an accurate description of objective reality.

 

Human relationships are, to the best of my understanding, the result of neural structures and action potentials in the brains of the humans, which are strongly effected by cognition, acquired experience, and many largely unconscious, atavistic influences, such as scent and visual pattern recognition.

 

Attempting to describe human relationships as the interaction of actual, objectively real stuff categorized as mind, body, or soul is not, IMHO, based in reality. Attempting to describe the actual underlying physical effects pertaining to relationships metaphorically using the ideas of mind, body, and soul does not, I strongly suspect, provide an accurate model of human relationship behavior.

 

Plato and other Greek philosophers were smart and creative, but had appallingly little concrete, objective data against which to test their ideas. As a result, I think, while interesting, many of them are terribly wrong.

 

From personal experience, however, I strongly suspect that such conclusions are not the kind that one would write for a class, or publish in a journal of philosophy and humanities.

[rocket art]

Plato and other Greek philosophers were smart and creative, but had appallingly little concrete, objective data against which to test their ideas. As a result, I think, while interesting, many of them are terribly wrong.

 

Plato's androgynes that you mentioned, and other data may be part of the knowledge known all over the acient world during his time, that are now forgotten or supressed. I personally did research about it and deviated from mainstream limitations, and discovered there's a parallel history intricately linked and very consistent that co-exists with how we view history in the surface. Majority of the people don't know about this (as intended), but secret societies do, and they are deviously in the process of controling world governments due to such unawareness.

 

There is need to broaden perspective and be Aware of various factors (including knowledge buried from Past) and not be limited to cold logic alone, especially pertaining to human relationships because the human mind works more complexly than that. Many people intuitively believe in such concepts as 'soul mates,' and such should not be discounted merely because the limited tools in Science cannot explain it. Otherwise it will only widen the rift between Science seen as detached and cold by most of people, who may in turn see such cold Science as a threat to what makes them thinking, feeling, emotional Human, in contrast to a Science that is relative to Living Realities and dynamic in dealing with Mystery. Such Mystery (Culturism XIV) that holistically perceives the Humans as sentient beings (both Seen and Unseen) and not as mechanisms (only the Seen), is what will enable Humanity to continually evolve and exist.

[InfiniteNow]

Rock tart,

 

Your post above is so horribly off topic I do not even know where to begin. Please try to understand the context of the thread you are in prior to posting. Thanks ever so much,

[rocket art]

Rock tart,

 

Your post above is so horribly off topic I do not even know where to begin. Please try to understand the context of the thread you are in prior to posting. Thanks ever so much,

 

If you're able to explain the phenomenon of 'soul mate' in the context of Plato's writing about once ancient ancestors that mainstream knowledge doesn't teach, you may.

 

you may also not make fun at other's username just because you didn't get it, as moderators are expected to behave.

[Boerseun]

If you want to romanticise the whole idea of 'Mind, Body or Soul', then, yes, I guess you could give it any attributes you want.

 

I personally don't think, however, that relationships are based on any particular desire at all, be it from any of these three entities. In my opinion, Man is a social animal, and relationships and alliances and mutual understandings are key to his survival. Man is, after all, not specialised in anything (apart from having an awesome brain and opposable thumbs). Man can't run fast, doesn't have a good nose, isn't particularly strong, can't swim for longer than a few minutes before coming up for air, can't fly, but he still managed to overrun the Earth as the most populous big animal species, simply because he's a Master of Communication.

 

I think Man's insistence on relationships is more a spin-off from his communication abilities than it is because of any one specific need. After all, you have to speak to people. Some are nice, some aren't. When you have to speak to them again, you're gonna pick the nice ones. Boom - a friendship is born. No specific need, though.

 

But then, that's just me, not Plato.:(

[CraigD]

Plato's androgynes that you mentioned, and other data may be part of the knowledge known all over the acient world during his time…

I’m unclear what you mean, RA. Are you suggesting the possibility that anatomically modern humans, or even early forms like H.Erectus, were once conjoined back-to-back, as Plato describes, and that ancient people passed down knowledge of actually having seen (or been) such beings?

… that are now forgotten or supressed.

I don’t see how one can consider the androgynes in described Plato’s Symposium (point of accuracy: Plato writes that “androgyne” is not the correct name for such a being, but that the name used when they existed had been forgotten) to have forgotten or suppressed. Although for a long period in Europe (the “dark ages”), the writings of Greek philosophers were little known, due to a severe reduction in literacy rates, later and now, they are among the most well-known stories in existence, and are required reading in all but the most introductory or specialized college Philosophy classes. Even among people with little or no formal education in Philosophy, this particular story is not unknown, appearing in television documentaries and popular fiction. Although many commentators, particularly followers of the Abrahamic religions, considered this and other stories evidence of moral corruption among Greek and other ancient societies, these commentators seem to have been content to repeat them as example of this alleged immorality, not suppress them.

There is need to broaden perspective and be Aware of various factors (including knowledge buried from Past) and not be limited to cold logic alone, especially pertaining to human relationships because the human mind works more complexly than that.

I agree. It doesn’t appear to me, however, that most people, even people with scientific, materialistic worldviews, have much difficulty with or need to enhance their ability to exceed the limits of what can be explained, predicted, and assisted with formal logic. Many of the people who I consider most knowledgeable and enthusiastic about myths and mysteries are also those I consider most capable in mathematical and scientific formalism.

 

In several of his other works, Plato discusses (it’s difficult to say any of the Socratic philosophers “assert”, “say” or “claim” anything, since their method was to fairly speak from all sides of a question, leaving definite conclusions (or lack thereof) to the reader) the idea that the goodness of a myth is independent of its factual truth – an idea of which the reader is wise to be mindful when reading seemingly factual stories about 2-faced, 8-limbed androgynes, angry gods, Atlantis, or the many other strange topics the Greeks enjoyed. The Socratic concept of “truth” is, I think, a more flexible one than that of most 20th century people.

[HydrogenBond]

One needs to look at body, soul and mind as symbols. The ancients, such as Plato, didn't have the benefit of modern science, but nevertheless was a good observer of human nature, at a time when things were far more fluid. The body was understood as meaning instincts like an animal. The soul gave the body a distinct personality, beyond instinct, could be equated with the ego. The idea of the Divine soul sort of implied one's unique personality continuing after the death of the body. The spirit was something more than the individual. For example, math was from the spirit since it existed apart from soul or ego-centricity, because it was a universal truth everyone could reach, independantly.

 

The words body, soul and spirit have been given a mystical significance so science dismisses this without looking beyond its Knose. But Plato's observations were as good or better than modern ones, because it occurred at a time when there was much more data to observe. One just needs to substitute the symbols with modern terms and use the data.

[HydrogenBond]

Happy, you can use whatever you like.

 

If we apply body, soul and spirit to males and females, two situations arise, which define the difference in men and women. The body of a male is masculine. This is obvious. The soul of a man is female. While the spirit of a man is masculine. The cross-gender soul of a male has to do with DNA. Male are composed of male and female genes, both of which are part of the brain. The female aspect's of the genes from the mother are not brain dead, but is what imparts the female nature to the male's soul.

 

The female body is feminine. The female soul is masculine. This was traditonally equated with Satan (male). This is not true but shows how it was equated with a masculine image. The spirit if a female is feminine usually Mother Nature. The male genes in the female, which she gets from her father, impart a male characteristic to her soul.

 

In traditon the masculine aspects are the active principle and the female aspects are the passive or reactive principle. Relative to males, the male body and male spirit are active principles, which cause a reaction in his female soul. A good example of both in action is "Lady Liberty". She is a projection of the male's soul. A projection from the female soul of a male is why the church, country, boat, ocean are all female. On the one hand, there was an instinctive desire that drove the soul of the Patriots to fight and die for her like a lover. While at the same time, his masculine spirit animated the universal truth of liberty and justice in his soul, which she also symbolizes.

 

Relative to a female, she has one masculine principle, her soul, that animates two passive principles, i.e., the female body and female spirit. For example, all the prep to look beautiful, to show grace, style, etc., is her soul animating her animal body into something more. Her soul animating her spirit essentailly amounts to utilizing social laws to help create a type of natural eco-system within culture. Just like in nature, there are strong and weak, that all exist as part of an integrated eco-system. Females are often better able to accommodate differences in personality, because her mother nature spirit sees one integrated eco-system.

 

When male and females get together in relationships, there are now three active principles and three reactive principles that create a criss-cross of affects between both their bodies, souls and spirits. For example, the male body wants to animate the passive female body. The females masculine side can animate her body to add to the desire. Or she can override the male's lower active principle, because her masculine soul is higher in hierarchy, i.e, not now. Her masculine side can also animate his female soul and control his heart, i.e, you good for nothing so and so. That is why many men will joke that the wife is the boss. Her masculine soul is above his soul and body in the natural hierachy.

 

But the male's soul has a few tricks of her own, fueled by the masculine active principle of the body. This what creates the desire illusions needed for sensual charm in a male's soul. The higher level of the male's female soul can influence the female's feminine body. Her masculine side can step in and take over control since it tops the bottom four. (you full of crap and only want one thing). The only principle that supersede the female's masculine soul is the masculine spirit of the male. This is most obvious in religious circles. The wife can be the family dynamo, but she will listen to her husband's insights.

 

One extreme case of relationship is where the two masculine principles in the male can be working his own soul, at the same time, the female masculine principle can be working her two passive principles. When the two come together there can be six layers going on. For example, the Patriots preparing themselves to go war to fight for "lady liberty" while their wive's soul search to come to terms with the unthinkable. On that faithful day, the male spirit of the husband would be confronted by his wife's natural concern for his life and the needs of her own family, while she also realizes the needs of the future of her culture. There may have been six elements integrating in the tearful dynamics.

[rocket art]

Are you suggesting the possibility that anatomically modern humans, or even early forms like H.Erectus, were once conjoined back-to-back, as Plato describes, and that ancient people passed down knowledge of actually having seen (or been) such beings?

 

From what I probed, they were a very ancient race. The biblical creation was very much a recent version of attempt to explain our origin. If we are to base it on arceological evidence, the pyramids in Egypt (presently dated at 10500 BC) and in the america's could provide proofs of the existence of a lost continent in the middle of these areas, which Plato referred to as "Atlantis". This race however were dated older than the Atlantis myth, as the latter were their supposed distant cousins after the 'gods' separated them. They were known as Lemurians from a similarly sunken continent in the Asian region. I met an Indian historian and he said their ancient writings still documented the existence of such a sunken continent.

[HydrogenBond]

One last thing that needs to be address with respect to the body, soul and spirit of male and females, are the underlying motivations. What makes males and females most different are the motivations associated with sexuality. One needs to go back in time to before civilization to look at natural motivation with respect to sexuality.

 

If you look in practical terms, the migratory prehumans, before civilization, coming off the last ice age (good global warming) were groups on the move. With respect to female sexuality the underlying motivation was connected to anxiety. The way to look at this, is that sex for a women is more than the pleasureable act. It implies pregnancy and babies. During pregnancy the women gain weight, are often sick (morning sickness), have higher food demands, etc. With respect to a migratory group this made them prime targets for larger predictor type animals. In other words, preditors can sense weakness, sickness and stragglers. A women 6-9 months along would stand out to a predictor.

 

Even after giving birth, which itself can make pain noise to give away a good hiding position (wounded animal for scavengers), the females now had a little bundle of joy, that was now a prime target for preditors and scavengers. Her instincts would not let her abondon the child, making her continue in a state of vulnerability. Selective advantage would go to females who could keep up with the tribe, require less food (stay leaner) and maybe make minimal sounds of pain during childbirth.

 

Male sexuality was quite different. For the male, sexuality, would make a male more aggressive during the mating olympics with other males, making them lessvulnerable to preditors. At the same time, there are little after affects of having sex (beyond cigarette smoking and naps) that would diminsh his ability to continue on with the migratory tribe. Even in modern times, males that are getting it, on a regular basis, are usually more energetic and driven, because the regular sexuality helps amplifes the levels of male hornomes.

 

The bible sort of discribes the transition toward pre-culture. This has to do with Eve eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From the point of view of a female, knowledge of good and evil, provides means to circumvents some of her anxiety. In other words, if the females could change the group in a way to circumvents some of the risk she could help lower her anxiety due to her sexuality. This was probably indicative of a transition into matriarchies, where the women would organize the groups to help lower their anxiety associated with pregnancy and caring for children. For example, reorganization, that would require some of the strongest males linger at the back of the pack, would offer protection for the straggling 6-9 monthers. The law of good and evil animated the females masculine soul such that she superseded the natural impulse of the male body, changing the group in a progressive way.

 

What the bible says, is once you eat of this tree you shall surely die. The matriarchies were a short term fix. The longer term result was a situation that increased the anxiety of the entire tribe. In other words, laws of good and evil only work sif they is an element of fear to enforce the law. Eve gets Adam to eat the apple. In other words, the female masculine soul feeds the new laws to the body of the males.

 

Back in the old days, when the mating olympics occured, the drive was connected to male desire and aggression. The competitions were more like very rough sport, where male may get hurt, but that was not the goal of the game. It was a show of strength and force. But once the males begin to feel the anxiety needed to inforce the female laws, their desire became cross contanimated with the fear that became animated in their female soul.

 

This changed the dynamics, at the mating Olympics, changed sport into something with more fear association. The fear in some males made it harder to participate in the sport. While others, because of the fear, begin to see the sport as almost life and death, which means hate and rage. The result was the mating sport becoming far more brutal. The result was that the females not only had to worry about predictors but also had to worry about the more aggressive males in the group. The result was the end of matriarchies and a return to an aggressive male society.

 

At this point, we have female anxiety connected to her sexuality. We also have male desire connected to his body and sexuality and female type fear that begins to bring the female soul of the males to light. If one looks at a brutal dictator, his desire for wealth and power is evidence due to his male desire. But he is also paranoid due to the fear in his soul. So he begins to preemptively appease his fear with brutality and very strict laws intended to protect his from from fear and anxiety. This compounds the fear in other males, creating the need to esculate the brutality.

 

To complete the package of modern motivation, the female began to induce increased desire in their female bodies. The desire was there during breeding but was naturally modified with the long term prognosis of fear, to make it seasonal. But now the amplification of fear desire becomes a means to appease her fear in an aggressive male society. In other words, a sexy and provocative female can have a strong influence over a brutal and aggressive male (oldest profession) At first there were no limites to sexuality,, but eventually, the incest taboo and cross cousin marriages set a social dynamics that would allow progressive expression of the dual body-soul (desire-fear) within the males and females.

 

To this day male desire modified with fear and female anxiety modified with desire are the driving forces in males and females. The female anxiety or need for security will tend to supersede her desire. She may use desire as a means to an ends (security) but can express desire much easier when she feels secure.

 

Males desire will tend to supersede his anxiety. That is why men will have this drive to do crazy things at risk to themselves, or as the song goes "when a man loves a women he will spend his very last dime" He is not thinking of security when strong desire is active. But at the same time, he will use anxiety (to achieve security) as a means to satifiy his desire. The balance is achieved through the dynamics of marriage.