Plato believed that human self has two constituent parts: the intellectual soul, which hankers for knowledge and enlightenment and the beast, which is driven only by the desire. According to him, our task is to hold this beast in leash. The soul (mind) must always prevail upon the beast (body). To some extent, his beliefs remind Buddhist philosophy, arguing that the source of our sufferings is the desire. Platos theory finds reflection in works of many other philosophers (Plato, p. 122). Platos pupil, Aristotle modified his theory. According to him, a human being is the combination of three animals (conjugal, political, and mimetic). The conjugal animal is the part of a human being, which hankers for coupling. The “political animal” represents the desire of a human being to form communities. As regards, the “mimetic animal” Plato means that we are inclined to imitate and create. Aristotle explored this issue mostly within the context of political science(Aristotle, 300). If we speak about Platos approach we have to answer the question, how it is possible to conquer this “beast” in other words desire. Aristotles theory seems to be very prudent, but what are the relationships between these parts of “human self”
Rene Descartes was convinced that “human self” has dual nature, mind, and body. To a certain degree, it reminds Platos point of view. In his opinion, these are two separate notions. Soul (mind) is immortal, whereas body is temporal. It stands to reasons that body is subservient to mind which embodies intellect, intelligence, reason, whereas body mostly represents emotion (Descartes, p. 55). Descartes believed that a human being must conquer emotions. However, some controversy arises in connection with this idea, for example, should we really set aside our emotions, because they actually make us alive.
Hume viewed human being as a creature that trying to keep balance between different elements such as reason and desire. He also explored this issue as the conflict of mind and body. Mind represents reason whereas body represents desire. Although, his views are reminiscent of those ones of Plato, Hume believed that it is necessary to attain equilibrium between these two parts of human self (Hume, p. 211). The philosophical dilemma is how to do it, because in the overwhelming majority of cases, a human being is driven by the desire.
Karl Marx did not pay extra attention to the conflict of mind and body. He believed that a human being is a blank sleet (tabula rasa), therefore the behavior of a human being entirely depends on his social experience. The essence of his theory boils down to the idea that a better society will be able to produce better people (Wheen, p. 54).
Jean-Paul Sartre thought that a human self has three peculiar features, individual freedom, individual existence, and choice. In his opinion, the society (any society) suppresses our individuality; therefore making us to conform In addition to that, Sartre was convinced that a human existence does not have to be purposeful (Sartre, p. 69).
Among these philosophers, I would like to single out Plato and his views as to the human nature. The conflict between body (we may also call it beast or desire) seems me the most crucial in our life. Now we live in the society, when a human being is driven by his desire. This issue is explored in the film “Fight Club” It mostly focuses on consumerism, which certainly originates from desire. It seems to me that Platos ideas are very palpable in the movie.
Bibliography
- Aristotle. Aristotle, Harold Percy Cooke, Longinus, Demetrius. “Aristotle: In Twenty- three Volumes” Harvard University Press, 2000
- David Hume, Ernest Campbell Mossner. “A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning Into Mor”. Penguin Classics, 1986.
- Jean-Paul Sartre. “Critique of Dialectical Reason” Verso, 2004.
- Francis Wheen. “Karl Marx: A Life” W W Norton & Co Inc, 2001.
- Plato, Benjamin Jowett. “The Republic” Plain Label Books, 1996.
- René Descartes, John Cottingham, Bernard Williams. “Meditations on First Philosophy: With Selections from the Objections and Replies”. Cambridge University Press, 1996.