Plato’s view of the soul is more coherent than that of Aristotle.’ Discuss. [40 marks]
Plato’s view of the soul, which (in ‘the Phaedo’ and ‘the Republic’) attempts to argue that our soul is immortal,
unchanging and the ‘Form’ of us, is much less coherent than Aristotle’s view, who posits in ‘Deanima’ that our soul is the
principle of life, and therefore does not live on when we die. Although Plato and Aristotle are both dualists, they present
contrasting and conflicting arguments, with Plato positing the first idea of reincarnation, while Aristotle separating souls
into three distinct groups. However, due to the complex and conflicting nature of Plato’s argument, as well as the fact
that Aristotle’s theory is simplistic yet convincing, as well as it being easier to understand, Aristotle’s theories are more
coherent, successful and convincing.
Plato established his theories on the soul in ‘The Phaedo’ and ‘The Republic’, wherein he argues that “The body is a
prism, and the soul is released upon its death”. This is one of the first instances of the idea of reincarnation, where the
psyche is eternal, unchanging and distinct (Platonic dualism), and has the ability to surpass death in a way that our
bodies, part of the empirical world and contingent beings, cannot. Additionally, for Plato, the body and senses are not a
reliable guide to the truth, and therefore his argument is a rational, a priori one, as it references the psyche as the
‘Form’ of us, the ‘concept’ of our being which allows us to access knowledge and understanding of the Forms. Plato also
uses his Chariot Analogy as a symbolic representation of our psyche, illustrating that while Reason guides our soul (the
chariot), our Appetites and Virtues try to change the direction of the chariot, due to embodying conflicting forces.
On the one hand, some would argue that Plato’s theory is convincing and coherent, such as when he argues that the
soul and body are two separate beings, as well as in his Chariot Analogy. However, this is a false claim, especially in the
Analogy of the Chariot, as Plato often states many ideas that come into conflict with each other, as well as the fact that
his argument often does not align with Christian teaching, and therefore is unconvincing and incoherent for religious
believers. Both Gilbert Ryle (“ghost in the machine”) and Peter Geach (“it is a savage superstition to suppose that a man
consists of two pieces, body and soul”) argue that the idea of a soul separate from the body is absurd and unconvincing,
and therefore they disagree with Plato’s theories. They would argue that by believing that the soul and body are two
separate, distinct entities, you are discounting the importance of the body. Furthermore, by arguing for reincarnation,
some may treat this life and body as unimportant and not special, which does not align with the Christian teaching that
we were given this sacred life by God, and only he has the power to give or take it away, making it a precious thing.
Plato’s theory is also incoherent due to the conflicting ideas he presents, such as in the analogy of the Chariot. In this, he
suggests that the soul is made up of three parts, Reason, Appetites and Virtues, which does not align with his previous
point that the soul is one distinct thing, separate from the body. Some would argue that Plato’s views do align to
Christian teachings, as in the case of the Realm of the Forms which seems to be similar to the Christian idea of heaven,
however this is a weak claim. For example, his analogy does not align with Christian teaching, as argued by John Hick
who denounced the Platonic view of the soul as ‘un-Christian’, as Plato suggests that our souls are unaffected by the
death of the physical, contingent body, which does not align with the idea that they are sacred gifts from God, and
therefore not eternal. This means that for Christians especially, Plato’s theories on the soul are incoherent and
unconvincing.
Aristotle established his theories on the psyche in his work ‘Deanima’, wherein he argued that the soul is the principle of
life and could be separated into three distinct categories: ‘vegetative’, ‘appetitive’ and ‘intellectual’, thus creating a
hierarchy. ‘Vegetative’ souls are the lowest form of souls and are shared in all basic lifeforms such as plants. ‘Appetitive’
souls are held in beings which are directed by desire and need, such as cats. The highest form of a soul are ‘intellectual’
souls, which we as humans have. This is as we are rational and directive and are not directed just by our basic needs for
food and water. This idea links to the Christian idea of in imago dei (in his image), which argues that our souls were given
to us by God, and we are humans were modeled on some of the qualities of God, due to being the ‘highest’ beings.
Aristotle disagrees with Plato on the idea of reincarnation, as he believes that the soul also dies upon the death of the
physical body, due to being the principle of life.
Aristotle’s theories on the soul are very coherent and convincing in comparison to Plato’s, due to their simplicity and
alignment to Christian teaching. John Hick agrees with Aristotle’s theories, as they align with the Christian teaching that
