Plato’s division of the characteristics which define humans and society are very fascinating when examined in relation to the many other similar theories throughout history that appear to somewhat model this. In Plato’s attempt to define what he considers an ideal just society he states that humans should be divided into three categories: rulers, warriors, and producers. Each group must work to benefit the others and by doing so they will help maintain a necessary balance. The goal of this balance is to have equal divisions of necessities and luxuries between everyone.
Plato then goes on to define, on the individual level as opposed to the political, what makes a healthy and just person. According to Plato humans can also be divided into three parts: rational, spirited, and appetitive. The rational is that which loves knowledge and truth. The spirited part is that part within our soul seeks honor. The appetitive part is based on our primal urges such as food and sex. Obviously certain traits must be given priority in certain circumstances, but they all fit together and balance one another, given that they are healthily maintained.
Plato’s division of human traits and roles into three branches on both the political and individual level is intriguing. Historically the theme of three has been emphasized repeatedly by both philosophers and theologians. The theme of threes is very evident when looking at society. The American government is made up of three branches that are ideally accountable to a system of ‘checks and balances.’ While there is no clear parallel between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches and the appetitive, rational, and spirit based parts of the human, it is clear that the division of powers into three separate balancing forces is a strong self-checking structure (or at least has the potential to be). In the political sense one could say that the legislative branch correlates with the worker (producing laws), the executive with the warrior (enforcing the law), and the judicial with the ruler (creating the law).
Plato’s theories also have striking resemblance to that of Sigmund Freud. Freud’s work within the psychoanalytical realm was very ground shaking and forged many new paths in science that undeniably helped shape modern psychology/psychiatry. One of Freud’s fundamental theories was that the human psyche can be divided into three parts: the ego, super-ego, and the id. The id is almost identical in a sense to Plato’s definition of the appetitive part of the soul: an urge driven, primal, instinctual part of the brain. In a political sense the id is like the producer, dealing specifically with the most basic of human needs. Also similar to Platonic thought, Freud believed that reason was used to help control these appetites. The super-ego is similar to Plato’s definition of the rational. Freud believed that many of our rational decisions are reflections of external influences such as parents and social values. It is this influence that creates the super-ego. The super-ego would then correspond to Plato’s ruling class which has the job of dealing out reason and values. Freud defines the ego as the kind of go-between-man between the id and super-ego: looking at reality and running back and forth trying to weigh out the reason versus primitive emotion in terms of happiness and survival. The ego is much like the spirited side of humans, taking on a role much like the will. The ego is what Plato would consider the auxiliary or the warrior who does in the field decision making that is a mediation between the needs/producers and the rational/rulers.
Another very similar parallel with Plato’s theory is the Christian notion of a triune God. The common belief among Christians is that God has three modes of existence: the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and the Father. The Holy Spirit is the intercessor between the human and the Father. The Holy Spirit is supposed to help with human interpretation of scripture and serve as a spiritual guide. Jesus was the immanent form of God, entering into temporal existence as a means to bridge the gap between the infinite, perfect God and fallen human sinfulness. God the Father is the infinite form(?) of Jesus, yet He is only reached by those who come to Him through Jesus. According to Christian beliefs God created man in His image. Therefore, each human bears qualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would obviously correspond (not saying that Plato would agree….but…) with Plato’s notion of the spirit. Jesus would correspond with the rational side of the soul because it was His descent from the infinite, which is rationally impossible to understand, to the finite that reconciled temporal human existence with eternal Godly existence. God the Father would somewhat correlate with the appetitive side of the human soul in the sense that we, being completely opposite (understatement) of the infinite God, have basic human needs. Human needs are purely physical and earthly. To become one with the completely transcendent God would be the satisfaction of all of these…in a way He is the anti-instinctual primitive desire…He is the answer to the needs according to Christianity.
