A Brief Essay on the Soul

How many treatises have been written on this topic throughout the ages! Such a thought came to mind naturally enough when I considered joining the ranks of those who had digressed on the subject. Most of the classical expressions on the soul have sunken deep into Western culture and theology and directly impact anyone who dares to add his or her own two cents. Awareness of this venerable heritage was daunting at first because the subject is so vast and challenging. On top of it all, some of the most brilliant minds of Western Civilization have set the tone for any definitive treatment of the soul starting with Plato and Aristotle. To make matters worse, I felt a vague obligation that somehow I would have to delve into more technical concepts and terms: psuche, pneuma (Greek) and nephesh, ruach (Hebrew). This ground has been covered thoroughly in more technical resources, and the reader can have access to them if so desired. Over the years I have become familiar with the various shades of meaning of these key biblical words in the original languages. While certainly rich in their own right, I wanted to avoid a list-type mentality. That is to say, I did not wish to draw up a column of biblical references and proceed to comment upon them. If I had taken this route, I would feel that I was going over ground already covered. I’d then have to make the list palatable for modern sensibilities, a kind of top-to-bottom approach with the emphasis upon definition. Nothing wrong with that, but I felt inclined to set down more personal and direct observations. Although this document is short, it includes a more lengthy appendix. Perhaps it will set the stage for more reflections or a complete overhaul. Regardless, the main intent is to have enjoyed myself and share it with others.

By way of simple observation, frequently we utilize the word “soul” when speaking about matters dear to us. Awareness of such a fact points to how we perceive our essential personality which entails our use of language. “Soul” is an intangible yet familiar concept; barely do we give the reality behind it serious thought. Because Plato is the first philosopher to seriously consider the nature of the soul, I decided to include by way of supplement a fairly lengthy appendix his Dialogues. I recommend a careful reading of them, noting their language, tone and context. Also most excerpts have emerged from the context of concrete discussions which give them a striking modern tone.

What impelled me to jot down these thoughts on such a vague though persistent notion as the soul? For some time now today’s society seems to lack the ability of articulating spiritual matters, the Catholic Church included. Nobody in particular is to blame for this; maybe it’s something we all inherited from more recent generations in an unwitting fashion. Obviously the situation is complex, and this document is not the place to explore the sources. I simply wish to state the current malaise and leave it at that for the moment. Perhaps as we move along some of the symptoms might come into clearer light. While the Church has never lost sight of its mission expressed through its creed and dogmas–amongst the richest traditions by any objective standard–quite a few of her representatives are at a loss to communicate this tradition. I believe the last thing people want is to have their heads filled with definitions because they are automatically turned off by this approach, finding it too impersonal and coming “down from above.”

Instead of getting into an historical analysis, it might be better to begin with a concrete example and see where it goes. Although the following circumstances are accurate, I use it as a take-off point to make a few observations about the soul. Earlier this year I had visited a family which I’ve know for many years. The parents are religious in the best sense of the word; the husband may be characterized as a traditional Catholic and the wife as an evangelical Protestant. Despite the differences, they get along admirably. Over the years the parents had attempted to instill religious values into their children, and the two older ones naturally rebelled against their best attempts. It’s too early to see what will happen with the youngest child though most likely he will follow the same path. The teenager son and daughter didn’t reject their parents–far from it–which is testimony to this family’s faith-based love. Nevertheless, they remain “unchurched,” to borrow a familiar word. So here we have two young people going about their business with a lack of direction concerning spiritual matters, quite typical for our modern times. As far as I know, both haven’t engaged in anything like drugs nor extra-marital sex which is admirable in itself.

One day when the older son happened to be home I was over for a visit. You could pick up his rebellious behavior and resistance to his parents’ advice; nothing aggressive nor arrogant, just the typical teenage attitude manifest in his bearing. While no religious matter was brought up, there was a tacit sense of it in the air, that is to say, unconsciously you could feel the mother wishing to impart her strong religious values to her son. Then for a brief moment...say five minutes, not longer...I suddenly found myself alone with this teenager. I gently kidded him about his exposure to religion which elicited an immediate smile. This was a sign that I could get at him, albeit briefly, and see what he had to say. I asked him if he knew that he had a soul. No religious jargon here, a plain question which he grasped without hesitation. For approximately three minutes I recounted how Socrates posed a similar question in order to get people a-thinking. Obviously the same held true for this teenager, for he instinctively knew what a soul was although he lacked the right words to express its reality. How did I know he “had a soul?” By the sudden attention he was willing to share with me along with a thoughtfulness you normally don’t see in teenagers talking with adults. It was an amazing few minutes which restored my faith in humanity! Actually, I took this approach by way of experiment, having wanted to try it out for a long time. I desired to see if a young person really did have a spiritual sense despite the defensive layers that have gradually crept over him. As he made his way out the door I quickly yelled out something like, “Why not read Plato?” I didn’t expect a response but maybe he’ll remember the question a few years down the line.

When this young man left for points unknown, the mother quickly chimed in about some religious topic in an attempt to get my take on the matter. She was totally oblivious to the conversation I had with her son, so it was kind of fun to turn from that to what was on her mind. I forget the details but do recall that she recounted something about her relationship with Jesus Christ. It was moving in and by itself, although her terms and expressions were of an evangelical nature which were essentially alien to me. In the course of the discussion the father made his own contributions but was more hesitant due to a self-conscious fear of not being able to articulate his faith. Although different in their orientations, both parents’ observations came from an unconscious, automatic response to how they had been trained. While the mother continued to digress in a lively fashion–with occasional interventions from the more taciturn father–I couldn’t help but note that much of her vocabulary was freighted with the usual Christian catch-words and phrases. It clearly had set the tone for the children’s upbringing who were exposed to it early on. Now that they’re on their own, they are impervious as a brick wall to their views. Certainly both mother and father were left wondering how their very flesh and blood could not concur with the principles they hold dearly even while taking into account the normal teenage rebellious attitude.

For a moment I was sorely tempted to let them in on the five minute conversation I had with their son but decided against it. I thought it best to let both parents vent their frustrations as a means to see where they were coming from and where they were here and now. I suspected that they were so overlaid with religion that posing the question as to a soul might be taken as an insult. However, their sincere attitude offered an unexpected though oblique window into their children’s apparent rejection of religious values. In the process they appeared to be questioning their own upbringing which led to a disconcerting perception of their innate unworthiness. Again nothing unusual, but I suspect the children were aware of it and could use this inferiority to their own advantage should the occasion arise. While some of this unconscious unworthiness may have crept into how my two friends dealt with daily events and circumstances, it wasn’t as strong as when talk turned to religion. Reason? Although religious convictions are deeper than the ones we normally have, deeper still is that nagging sense of unworthiness that can creep over you. Astonishment overtook them when they realized that they had been communicating it not only to me in subtle, unintentional ways but to friends and relatives. I had the advantage of being a close friend as opposed to a relative, so feelings could be exchanged more freely and without embarrassment.

For a brief instant during our conversation we were all astounded and didn’t know what to say. In an attempt to understand their situation–they knew they could talk with me as a friendly, neutral person–these dear friends related how often they were frustrated in discussing religious matters. Although you hear a lot about how secularized society has become, there are quite a few people who center their lives around religious values. Clearly my friends fall into this category. Having a chance to vent their perplexity was an opportunity not just for them but for me. En route home I tried to envisage their conversation which surely must have continued after I had left. Somehow I got the suspicion that the language they use was inadequate not just among themselves but for their children. I also knew this unexpected encounter with the teenager was going to bear fruit later than sooner since talk about the soul transcended my own slant on the matter. An experience as this can’t be verified but has two unmistakable ways which are their own proof: some inner sense which said this wasn’t an ego trip on my part and the attentive expression on the kid’s face. Young people have an uncanny way of telling a phoney, so I had passed the test!

As far as we know, the divide between generations as represented by this encounter is unique. On one side we have middle-aged people who have navigated the rebellious ‘60s...in other words, aging baby-boomers. Despite their rebellion, they were exposed to more traditional values just by reason of being sons and daughters of those who did. Their parents had slogged through the Great Depression, World War II and the Cold War. Although they may have disagreed with their parents, the traditional values associated with them were present and could be traced backwards to their grandparents and so forth. This uninterrupted family line remained a strong link with the past and continued to spill over. However, with their children this vital link seemed to have dried up in fairly dramatic fashion. Earlier generations never had experienced the conflict between two incredibly disparate world views or the one between an ageless tradition and the current one which is generally ignorant of the past and its value systems. This is especially true when it comes to matters of religion which always were taken for granted. Somewhere along the line a breech had occurred. Quite a few people whom I know well are old enough to attribute this breech to the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. Not that everything fell apart that day, but looking back, many sensed it forebode the rebellion to come. When the generation which recalled that event matured, they passed onto their children the full flowering of the rebellious ‘60s to their children as represented by the teenager whom I had encountered during my visit.

In other place on this Home Page I touched upon a few notions related to the current malaise of ignorance and pinpointed part of it to the disappearance of the classical tradition of Greece and Rome within the educational system. Although that might sound abstract and inconsequential compared with weightier matters, it has long-term ramifications. Besides, the classical tradition’s demise is part of a larger erosion of forgetfulness that happened approximately two generations ago; i.e., those parents whom I just noted are part of it. While they may have been completely unaware of its disappearance, enough of the classical tradition remained relatively fresh in society’s collective memory to approximately around the end of the Viet Nam War. That memory wasn’t enough to continue into the future, for as the years rolled by roots of our Western heritage gradually faded into forgetfulness washed over by a flood of images which I term videography. Now take that generation’s children (and their children). It seems the further out we go from then–let’s say from Kennedy’s assassination–the greater the forgetfulness. To a large extent the rise of more modern means of communication contributed to this alienation of society’s collective memory. The more sophisticated the presentation of images and “special effects,” the less sophisticated became the minds exposed to them. Little room is left for creative participation as in a more orally-based society. Certainly that society had severe limitations, yet all its members knew where they came and where they were going.

So if we contrast this collective forgetfulness (chief casualty among which is the classical tradition) with what we might call videography or the pre-eminence of images as the primary means of depicting reality, what do we have? A society where the continuous flow of images not only dominates but militates against what is truly worth retaining, of remembering. I might add here that “remembering” is closely akin to knowing how to read in a slow, thoughtful manner. At the same time we encounter people who are aware of this onslaught in their attempt to hold onto values from the past. It is especially true concerning religion. The unfortunate thing is that inadvertently some folks have become conservative; by hanging onto to noble values, they have ended up repeating these values without understanding their content. We could call this the Radio Shack mentality. Not long ago I heard on the radio the motto of that retail chain of stores, “You got questions? We got answers.” In this scenario answers are given automatically as if the questioner had pushed a button and out popped the answer like a soda can from a vending machine. Such a mentality is quick to offer a definitive answer for every aspect of human existence which makes the excesses of scholasticism pale in comparison. It’s convenient to have an array of ready-made answers for anyone posing religious or moral questions. It saves the pain of deeper inquiry. Religion is boiled down to its essentials (a distortion of the term ‘conservative’) and are repeated parrot-like while the people uttering them are completely unaware of what they’re doing. This mentality which is at home with pre-ordained answers is stymied when confronted with persons who disagree with it, even more so, with those willing to engage in dialogue.

So if we have a society where information is imparted chiefly through images (which come through the eyes), emphasis upon one sense alone makes you wonder what impact it might have upon our recollective faculty over the long run. If you have input from this one sense to the neglect of the other four, you’re bound to end up with a lopsided view of reality despite the primacy of sight over the others. The same would happen with hearing; we get an indirect idea of this from a blind person. This person’s sense of hearing can become so highly developed that it assumes “various flavors” as one blind friend told me a few years back. I asked him to spell this out. He said that because hearing is his chief means of getting around in the world, it assumes characteristics of the other senses. For him taste was the obvious choice; he could literally taste various sounds impacting him, claiming it was easy to transfer the content of one sense from one to another.

I wonder how many young people who are assailed by the invasive presence of images as they parade by (i.e., videography) are aware of their lopsided outlook on reality. I suspect they feel something is wrong yet can’t quite put their fingers on it. Maybe a clue to this lies in that all-pervasive, irksome habit of the word “like” which appears in virtually every sentence they utter. It is a relatively new phenomenon and couches everything they say. I have a personal theory about this. Kids seem to have lost the ability to make analogies which implies the proper use of language for making associations. Again, this is partly due to the overwhelming stress upon images or videography. So when they communicate with each other (which primarily involves the invisible sense of hearing), they can’t make the proper relationships between things. Such an ability is done abstractly, that is, without relying upon concrete objects out there on which to fix one’s gaze. The constant parade of images takes up too much attention to allow little if no reflection on what’s going on...and for reflection to arise, you need to put some distance between you and these images. The first step is to become aware of this assault, especially upon your sense of sight. Then you better understand that they impact the other four senses, notably hearing. It’s also fun (albeit scary) to wonder what kind of society these young people will produce when they reach maturity.

When considering how we process experiences, someone (or something) is both engaged with the outside world and has some kind of receptacle which receives that stuff coming within us. Actually a grasp of this of receptacle is the most important point I’m trying to get at here. We all have the experience of “carrying around something” which we can’t shake. It’s especially noticeable when alone, are dissatisfied or experience some form of distress; in brief, instances when we have become overcome by the assault of images. The distinction is so basic and little reflected upon with the result that the two–we as receptacle and stuff that goes into it–become blurred easily. It’s especially true in the new world of videography. Here’s were we need distance which allows us to make such a simple distinction. At least awareness of hard-to-define malaise or dissatisfaction with what’s assailing our senses is a starter even if we enjoy the parade of images.

This leads to the second response, a natural desire to withdraw from such a continuous assault. It assumes taking practical steps: shutting off the television, radio and minimizing other forms of media. Given the nature of today’s society, withdrawal is almost akin to death, for what are we going to do when stuck with just the “receptacle,” not to mention the extra time on our hands? At first we have to structure our input. This can be done by reading...and the choice of reading here is critical, usually of a religious and/or philosophical nature. When embarking on this ambitious project, it’s wise to consult someone who is better informed than you, so the choice of an adviser or even spiritual director is crucial so you won’t be wandering out there all alone. After all, the territory into which you have just stepped is terra incognita. In times not so long ago this territory was more familiar; the world was more populated with folks who were in touch it. Now the territory is becoming increasingly foreign, even alien in the worst sense.

Once we’ve established a daily discipline of reading, reflection and perhaps even weekly consultation with a person more experienced than ourselves, we can use our new-found time to ponder. In many ways I favor this word over “contemplation” because it embraces both religion and philosophy . Such pondering is more than having realized your new-found freedom from the assault of videography. At this initial stage of the game it involves a crisis. You are in the process of moving from (visual) images to hearing as a means of obtaining information. By hearing I don’t mean the auditory variety but as listening to what another person has to say, texts included. This can pose problems all its own because our “eyes” are still restless, and our “ears” need training in order to hear properly. Perhaps we can alternate between hearing a text with hearing various sounds in nature, for the latter provides excellent opportunities to train ourselves for the former.

Once this initial adjustment has been made , we find that there is more to our own self than just awareness of that receptacle in the passive sense. Hearing has a more transformative way than seeing because it operates within as opposed to without; it’s also invisible and requires more attentiveness. Then again, a time may come when we’ve had enough of reading, praying and direction. We remain “stuck” with ourselves or the subject which had absorbed all that transpired beginning with the fascination with videography. At this juncture we run into a brick wall which seems virtually impenetrable. Once we have bounced off it, all we have is awareness of this “subject” within us which accompanies us no matter where. However, this “subject” shouldn’t be viewed as a kind of parallel self set in opposition to us who are carrying it about. Since this “thing” remains constant whether at rest or in activity, it may be worth our while to focus in on it a little more. At this juncture we might profit by briefly considering how people talk about the soul. When you listen to their words it’s often phrased in “having” a soul, not “being” a soul. Maybe this is a peculiarity of the English language, yet it points to how we view a reality which is incorporeal. The “we” who “have” the soul has an ambiguous meaning. “We” is either superior to soul or inferior to it; never have I heard of something like “We are soul.” Obviously the grammar is awkward which may reflect the equal awkwardness of how we deal with the soul.

Focusing attention upon the soul or at least making stabs at it are best understood in terms of a dialogue . Although we may not have access to another sympathetic person as much as we would like, it is possible to dialogue with ourselves in a meaningful fashion, a kind of self-examination. This also may involve a text, for often we can be in sympathy with an author as though her or she were physically present. After probing our likes and dislikes, we discover that much of what we cherish falls under the heading of opinions. In more extreme cases these opinions are prejudices, but for now we’re more concerned with the milder forms because they are more pervasive and comprise much of the content of that receptacle we carry around all day and identify with. So if you want to carry out any project of finding your soul, immediately these opinions hit you in the face. They resemble those images mentioned above obtained from the sense of sight even though we may receive the bulk of them from listening to other persons. Furthermore, we feel uneasy with them in that they crowd in upon that receptacle. Should we look more closely, we’d rather have this receptacle “empty” which would allow us examine its nature more thoroughly.

Therefore the primary way of discerning opinions from us who maintain them is some type of withdrawal from their source. A fairly broad statement but one that can be narrowed down to something more manageable. This is a natural follow-up once we have realized that videography had absorbed all our attention and that the opinions we’ve garnered from it reveals our enslavement to them like nothing else. Generally speaking, opinions are more negative and act as defensive barriers to define our lives. They contain an approximation to truth, neither here nor there. It is difficult...more difficult than at first glance...to shake ourselves free of them which is another way of saying that our defenses are down and we’re subject to every whim and fancy (i.e., opinion) that crosses our path. Maybe this is the hardest thing to accept, hence the value of withdrawal as not to be vulnerable and overwhelmed both by our opinions and the fear of letting them go. As to the details of withdrawal, that will depend on each person’s circumstances. Some will make a radical break with their environment–go dwell in the woods or a mountaintop, whatever–while the majority of us will adopt a less radical form such as setting aside quiet time in order to get a handle on this situation.

I’m not particularly concerned with the outward mechanics of withdrawal (they vary according to personalities and circumstances, a huge range of options). Instead, I prefer to center upon the task of distinguishing between being ensnared in our opinions and that mysterious, unidentified receptacle which carries them around day and night. For example, recently I spent some time in a cabin in the woods, a nice and safe environment, yet remote enough to provide a borderline experience of being in the wild. In a situation like this–admittedly tame–you get a feeling of both security and insecurity. Secure in that you know nothing (hopefully) dramatic will happen and insecure in that you’ve stepped outside the realm of human society. This society, by the way, is less than a mile away. There’s something about standing apart from the daily flow of life and being in a lovely surrounding that sets the mind at peace. Then you return and are hit with all that stuff from your normal routine. Reflecting upon the contrast is helpful because you are better able to understand what tradition terms as the soul. You know it isn’t to be found exclusively in human relationships; similarly, it isn’t to be found in isolation. Therefore the solution is a balance between the two. Here is where a person wiser and more experienced than yourself is most helpful in order to discern the right relationship between solitude and social interaction.

Thus the contrast (dialectic might be a better word) offers insight into where one’s intention lies. Here is a clue to the existence of the soul which in the final analysis be something not subject to analysis or even reflection. “Soul” might just be a word we use to designate the “deeper (or true) self;” however, I prefer to avoid these catch-words. I’d rather stick with the older Greek term–psuche–and leave it untranslated. The distinction between our opinions and that which views them, i.e., our so-called constant companion viewing these opinions, comes into starker light when left alone as I recounted from my experience of out in the woods. At the same time I realized almost immediately that to get at the psuche, we require being in touch with people. That’s why Socrates felt uncomfortable away from the city because there he could ask people questions about the soul. Incidentally, it is interesting to contrast him with Henry David Thoreau. The latter preferred being alone yet had his cabin by Walden Pond sufficiently close to Concord and thus to human interaction. The two men are in many ways similar yet dissimilar, a point that might be worth pursing at another time.

Standing apart from society is an outward form of standing apart from our opinions. We’re not dealing with anything visual here but a different slant on awareness. Visual terminology can creep in which isn’t bad, provided we’re conscious of the fact that we don’t become dependent upon it. Better put, this apartness can be perceived not so much on the horizontal or lateral plane but of being “up” looking at things “down below.” You don’t get into your soul as boarding an airplane and fly over the terrain looking down, although that might be one gross way of putting it. Such an up/down imagery accent has a definite visual slant, almost unavoidable. After all, the faculty of sight excels at positing space between us and the object in our view, and it is the one we favor most of all. Perhaps that’s why videography can have such a sway over our minds. Thus it’s tempting to transfer sight to that distinction between us with our opinions and us being aware of them. Even this verb“aware” implies sight, so we have to be equally careful not to necessarily think in visual terms. Still, we are compelled to articulate how we distinguish between ourselves as tangled up in opinions and as the subject which holds them. Being a prisoner might be an accurate figure, not unlike Plato’s cave where people were fascinated with the images against the wall which prevented them from exiting the cave and seeing the sun.

Because opinions are garnered over a lifetime, it can be next to impossible to get a handle on them because all our friends (and society) ascribes to them. Not all are bad, to be sure, yet they contribute to our identity and constantly change, especially in the process of speaking with other people, not to mention influence from the media. When we get out into the woods as I had done recently where everything is so peaceful, opinions don’t stay at home but come along and keep me company. After the initial enthrallment with natural beauty, they make themselves felt with even more vigor than back in society. They crowd in on you with the same force as on a busy downtown street, only experience of the crowds is within your head, not outside. The reason is simple. Exteriorly it’s peaceful, thereby allowing interior noise to come to the surface more readily. Some concerted effort is required to keep opinions firmly at bay, even for a short period of time. Nevertheless, being alone for a while lets you better grasp their influence; now you can at least situate them as being clearly “outside” yourself.

Making this distinction between opinions and ourselves isn’t as easy at first glance, especially when you buckle down to doing it. The battle may be articulated in terms of “having” opinions and “being” that receptacle which holds them. From this point of view opinions tag along and plague us against our will. Instinctively we know there’s a distinction yet have one titanic struggle on our hands to effect it. Perhaps this distinction parallels the one made above between “having” a soul and “being” a soul. If we “have” a soul we’re constantly on the lookout not to lose it. If we “are” a soul we don’t have to be so attentive or attentive in the neurotic sense of fearing its loss. Regardless, we’re engaged in a genuine battle. From time to time we may have a truce, but the intensity doesn’t decrease with time and experience. At the same time we gain strength and understanding that we’re engaged in perpetual warfare. There’s comfort in realizing that we aren’t alone, that people have undergone the same struggles before us. For example, take St. Benedict’s Rule where he cautions the monk who wishes to become a hermit. Obviously Benedict frames his council in religious terms, but the experience is pretty much the same vis-a-vis dealing with opinions. The aspiring hermit must engage in single-handed combat against his own thoughts as well as the devil. This isn’t done right off the bat but only after many years of having been tested within the community. It’s also comforting to know that all spiritual literature, Christian and otherwise, deals with the problem of distractions which can be another way of saying opinions. Even St. Anthony the Great of Egypt, patriarch of Christian monks, was plagued by temptations well into his career. He withdrew further away from society, a move which paralleled a move to deeper interiority.

When we set out to make this distinction, a kind of identity split comes upon us. The territory is unfamiliar and fraught with difficulties just like that would-be hermit whom St. Benedict has in mind. Nevertheless, we can exploit the struggles at hand in order to obtain a clearer understanding of what I’ve come to call that receptacle, the receptacle subject to being filled with opinions which afflict us. Yes, affliction is an accurate word, for we are bearing mental images mostly against our will. More accurately, these images assault us unceasingly. Instead of trying to wipe them out or somehow making our minds go blank, the best option seems to come to a truce with them. In other words, let them be, which gives us a modicum of peace. “Peace” is a word bantered about when speaking of the soul, for we all want it. Let’s say you’ve come to a certain inner truce with your opinions which comes after having explored their nature and sway over you. This awareness hearkens back to what I’ve said earlier, namely, to a kind of being “up” looking at them (opinions) as “down.” At least you’re not led around by the nose, even if temporarily.

Depiction of this receptacle can be likened to the heart encased within the shelter of muscle and breastbone. It beats away mostly unnoticed yet as we all know, should it stop, we’re dead on the spot. Thus a heart is out of sight by reason of its importance and can’t be visualized easily. At the same time we are aware of its presence by reason of this beating. Thus we might liken the soul to the physical heart. It’s tucked away yet constantly in motion. To become aware of the soul, we must quiet down to a sufficient degree. Once we’ve taken notice of this invisible organ we acknowledge that yes, it is an essential component of our being; all the other stuff–physical and otherwise–is added on and therefore secondary. The sense of feeling might be the most accurate way (analogously speaking) of recognizing the soul, for when we wish to notice our hearts the easiest way is to feel it. Yes, we can hear our heartbeat but such hearing is intimately linked to actually feeling its pulsating motion.

Focusing upon a sense other than our eyes throws everything else into perspective. Should we center upon the sense of feeling (which is akin to touch) we can project it onto other senses by which we perceive ourselves and the world. I’d say that feeling leads more naturally to the sense of hearing...and hearing transformed into awareness of the soul is listening. When you play around with this a bit, you gradually set aside reliance upon visual perception. Not that it ceases to be important but becomes relativized and not as dominant as it had when were caught upon by the assault of images, i.e., videography. I don’t think that our faculty of sight can really “feel” anything with real accuracy simply because it posits a distance between us and objects. Now if you take awareness of your heartbeat (which is felt) and project it onto the power of your vision, we can say it goes out while remaining in its own protective encasing. There’s a beauty to the repose feeling involves as well as a harmony between the heart’s beating and to that it reaches out. Distance is abolished yet at the same time proper distance is maintained, for after all, the heart is well-protected.

I believe getting the proper analogy for the soul, a reality so much discussed yet hidden, is a crucial step in understanding this elusive faculty. We can start by adopting the physical image of the heart as discussed above. The sense of feeling is ideally suited in order to recognize something which is safely tucked away beyond our comprehension. Feeling is akin to touch and involves a more universal ability to grasp things even though obviously we can’t touch our hearts. However, is it possible to posit an analogy between our physical hearts and something non-physical akin which it may resemble and not have proof of this reality? Or is this wishful thinking, even a contrivance of our imaginations, for something we’d like to exist? Lurking behind these questions is that word “proof” which smacks of visual demonstration, a product of the scientific method. We’re so accustomed to it that we rarely give it a second glance.

Gently putting aside this intrusion from the scientific realm, one way of starting to see if the physical heart is analogous to anything beyond itself is by paying close attention to its activity; i.e., feeling its presence. Being present to the heart’s secret pulsation leads to knowledge that everything rises and falls, comes into being and passes away. Perception of something so small and vital has an ability to spill over into other areas of existence. It is a poetic appreciation of life without taking things so literally. Through it all, the mystery remains: attention to the heart instinctively reveals a human tendency not to be content with reality as commonly perceived. It may sound like trying to gloss over something, but the “proof” of that which transcends daily experience is right there for anyone to try out. In other words, the recognition itself in the proof. We know for certain that this larger reality indirectly sheds light on all other experiences, making them seem vain. Our attentiveness may ebb and flow due to circumstances, yet this perception that “all things are vanity” (to quote Ecclesiastes) is enough to encourage us in darker moments.

By way of conclusion almost always following upon the realization of this mysterious reality, that is, after we’ve seen the vanity of earlier pursuits, there spontaneously arises a disposal to practice virtue. At first this term seems as broad and nebulous as the soul. However, the impulse to practice virtue invariably comes to light and is a sure sign that we’re on the right path. After all, virtue is a characteristic evident to other people (you might call it a proof as noted above) who confirm what’s going on within us. Virtue is something we all admire and wish to practice, and seeing it concretely realized in another person makes it all the more attractive. This leads us to the excerpts below from Plato’s Dialogues which speak far more eloquently than what I’ve been trying to communicate here. Many neatly tie in the soul with virtue as well as sense of beauty. Some excerpts take the familiar path of contrasting the soul with the “body.” However, one should expect this distinction because discovery of this hitherto unrealized feature invariably makes you want to center in upon it. However, a closer read of these texts in Greek never disparages the body as some spiritual traditions did later one. Maybe it’s more typical of Plato’s successors to make harder distinctions, not being as sensitive to the original impulses which inspired him. Such a tendency is found among the disciples of any master. However, it’s very important to realize that most excerpts come from give-and-take situations between Socrates and people whom he questioned...was in dialogue with...concerning the soul. They don’t provide answers but raise more questions than solve them. And that is perfectly fine.

Pleas note: After the excerpts I made an abstract of the word “soul” from these same excerpts to describe it in a nutshell. These descriptions lend themselves to be memorized or at least be recalled provided one has slogged through the texts themselves.

+

References to “Soul” in Plato’s Dialogues

NB: Excerpts are taken from Jowett’s translation of the Dialogues of Plato or from a website on the Internet. Although this translation has been superceded by more contemporary ones, Jowett’s is the only one that is in the “public domain” and therefore makes it easier to search for a term as “soul.” This listing is not exhaustive; it is simply a fairly representative sampling of what Plato means when speaking about the soul.

Apology

O my friend, why do you who are a citizen of the great and mighty and wise city of Athens, care so much about laying up the greatest amount of money and honor and reputation, and so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul which you never regard or heed at all? Are you not ashamed of this?

For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons and your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the

greatest improvement of the soul. I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue come money and every other good of man, public as well as private.

Let us reflect in another way, and we shall see that there is great reason to hope that death is a good, for one of two things: either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the soul from this world to another.

Phaedo

I should say the true philosopher would despise them. Would you not say that he is entirely concerned with the soul and not with the body? He would like, as far as he can, to be quit of the body and turn to the soul.

In matters of this sort philosophers, above all other men, may be observed in every sort of way to dissever the soul from the body.

Then when does the soul attain truth?–for in attempting to consider anything in company with the body she is obviously deceived. Yes, that is true. Then must not existence be revealed to her in thought, if at all? Yes.

And thought is best when the mind is gathered into herself and none of these things trouble he–neither sounds nor sights nor pain nor any pleasure–when she has as little as possible to do with the body, and has no bodily sense or feeling, but is aspiring after being? That is true. And in this the philosopher dishonors the body; his soul runs away from the body and desires to be alone and by herself? That is true.

And he attains to the knowledge of them in their highest purity who goes to each of them with the mind alone, not allowing when in the act of thought the intrusion or introduction of sight or any other sense in the company of reason, but with the very light of the mind in her clearness penetrates into the very fight of truth in each; he has got rid, as far as he can, of eyes and ears and of the whole body, which he conceives of only as a disturbing element, hindering the soul from the acquisition of knowledge when in company with her-is not this the sort of man who, if ever man did, is likely to attain the knowledge of existence?

And when they consider all this, must not true philosophers make a reflection, of which they will speak to one another in such words as these: We have found, they will say, a path of speculation which seems to bring us and the argument to the conclusion that while we are in the body, and while the soul is mingled with this mass of evil, our desire will not be satisfied, and our desire is of the truth.

Moreover, if there is time and an inclination toward philosophy, yet the body introduces a turmoil and confusion and fear into the course of speculation and hinders us from seeing the truth: and all experience shows that if we would have pure knowledge of anything we must be quit of the body, and the soul in herself must behold all things in themselves: then I suppose that we shall attain that which we desire, and of which we say that we are lovers, and that is wisdom, not while we live,

but after death, as the argument shows; for if while in company with the body the soul cannot have pure knowledge, one of two things seems to follow–either knowledge is not to be attained at all, or, if at all, after death.

And what is purification but the separation of the soul from the body, as I was saying before; the habit of the soul gathering and collecting herself into herself, out of all the courses of the body; the dwelling in her own place alone, as in another life, so also in this, as far as she can; the release of the soul from the chains of the body?

Then, Simmias, as the true philosophers are ever studying death, to them, of all men, death is the least terrible. Look at the matter in this way: how inconsistent of them to have been always enemies of the body, and wanting to have the soul alone, and when this is granted to them, to be trembling and repining; instead of rejoicing at their departing to that place where, when they arrive, they hope to gain that which in life they loved (and this was wisdom), and at the same time to be rid of the company of their enemy.

But in what relates to the soul, men are apt to be incredulous; they fear that when she leaves the body her place may be nowhere, and that on the very day of death she may be destroyed and perish-immediately on her release from the body, issuing forth like smoke or air and vanishing away into nothingness. For if she could only hold together and be herself after she was released from the evils of the body, there would be good reason to hope, Socrates, that what you say is true. But much persuasion and many arguments are required in order to prove that when the man is dead the soul yet exists, and has any force of intelligence.

Cebes added: Your favorite doctrine, Socrates, that knowledge is simply recollection, if true, also necessarily implies a previous time in which we learned that which we now recollect. But this would be impossible unless our soul was in some place before existing in the human form; here, then, is another argument of the soul’s immortality.

But when did our souls acquire this knowledge?-not since we were born as men? Certainly not. And therefore previously? Yes. Then, Simmias, our souls must have existed before they were in the form of man-without bodies, and must have had intelligence.

I think, said Simmias, that Cebes is satisfied: although he is the most incredulous of mortals, yet I believe that he is convinced of the existence of the soul before birth. But that after death the soul will continue to exist is not yet proven even to my own satisfaction. I cannot get rid of the feeling of the many to which Cebes was referring-the feeling that when the man dies the soul may be scattered, and that this may be the end of her. For admitting that she may be generated and created in some other place, and may have existed before entering the human body, why after having entered in and gone out again may she not herself be destroyed and come to an end?

Very true, Simmias, said Cebes; that our soul existed before we were born was the first half of the argument, and this appears to have been proven; that the soul will exist after death as well as before birth is the other half of which the proof is still wanting, and has to be supplied.

And is the soul seen or not seen? Not by man, Socrates. And by “seen” and “not seen” is meant by us that which is or is not visible to the eye of man? Yes, to the eye of man. And what do we say of the soul? is that seen or not seen? Not seen. Unseen then? Yes. Then the soul is more like to the unseen, and the body to the seen? That is most certain, Socrates.

And were we not saying long ago that the soul when using the body as an instrument of perception, that is to say, when using the sense of sight or hearing or some other sense (for the meaning of perceiving through the body is perceiving through the senses)–were we not saying that the soul too is then dragged by the body into the region of the changeable, and wanders and is confused; the world spins round her, and she is like a drunkard when under their influence? Very true. But when returning into herself she reflects; then she passes into the realm of purity, and eternity, and immortality, and unchangeableness, which are her kindred, and with them she ever lives, when she is by herself and is not let or hindered; then she ceases from her erring ways, and being in communion with the unchanging is unchanging. And this state of the soul is called wisdom?

I think, Socrates, that, in the opinion of everyone who follows the argument, the soul will be infinitely more like the unchangeable even the most stupid person will not deny that. And the body is more like the changing? Yes. Yet once more consider the matter in this light: when the soul and the body are united, then nature orders the soul to rule and govern, and the body to obey and serve.

And which does the soul resemble? The soul resembles the divine and the body the mortal–there can be no doubt of that, Socrates. Then reflect, Cebes: is not the conclusion of the whole matter this?–that the soul is in the very likeness of the divine, and immortal, and intelligible, and uniform, and indissoluble, and unchangeable; and

the body is in the very likeness of the human, and mortal, and unintelligible, and multiform, and dissoluble, and changeable. Can this, my dear Cebes, be denied? No, indeed.

And are we to suppose that the soul, which is invisible, in passing to the true Hades, which like her is invisible, and pure, and noble, and on her way to the good and wise God, whither, if God will, my soul is also soon to go-that the soul, I repeat, if this be her nature and origin, is blown away and perishes immediately on quitting the body as the many say? That can never be, dear Simmias and Cebes. The truth rather is that the soul which is pure at departing draws after her no bodily taint, having never voluntarily had connection with the body which she is ever avoiding, herself gathered into herself (for such abstraction has been the study of her life). And what does this mean but that she has been a true disciple of philosophy and has practiced how to die easily? And is not philosophy the practice of death? Certainly. That soul, I say, herself invisible, departs to the invisible world to the divine and immortal and rational: thither arriving, she lives in bliss and is released from the error and folly of men, their fears and wild passions and all other human ills, and forever dwells, as they say of the initiated, in company with the gods. Is not this true, Cebes?

But the soul which has been polluted, and is impure at the time of her departure, and is the companion and servant of the body always, and is in love with and fascinated by the body and by the desires and pleasures of the body, until she is led to believe that the truth only exists in a bodily form, which a man may touch and see and taste

and use for the purposes of his lusts-the soul, I mean, accustomed to hate and fear and avoid the intellectual principle, which to the bodily eye is dark and invisible, and can be attained only by philosophy-do you suppose that such a soul as this will depart pure and unalloyed? That is impossible, he replied. She is engrossed by the corporeal, which the continual association and constant care of the body have made natural to her.

I will tell you, he said. The lovers of knowledge are conscious that their souls, when philosophy receives them, are simply fastened and glued to their bodies: the soul is only able to view existence through the bars of a prison, and not in her own nature; she is wallowing in the mire of all ignorance; and philosophy, seeing the terrible

nature of her confinement, and that the captive through desire is led to conspire in her own captivity (for the lovers of knowledge are aware that this was the original state of the soul, and that when she was in this state philosophy received and gently counseled her, and wanted to release her, pointing out to her that the eye is full of deceit, and also the ear and other senses, and persuading her to retire from them in all but the necessary use of them and to be gathered up and collected into herself, and to trust only to herself and her own intuitions of absolute existence, and mistrust that which comes to her through others and is subject to vicissitude)-philosophy shows her that this is visible and tangible, but that what she sees in her own nature is intellectual and invisible. And the soul of the true philosopher thinks that she ought not to resist this deliverance, and therefore abstains from pleasures and desires and pains and fears, as far as she is able; reflecting that when a man has great joys or sorrows or fears or desires he suffers from them, not the sort of evil which might be anticipated-as, for example, the loss of his health or property, which he has sacrificed to his lusts-but he has suffered an evil greater far, which is the greatest and worst of all evils, and one of which he never thinks.

And first of all let me be sure that I have in my mind what you were saying. Simmias, if I remember rightly, has fears and misgivings whether the soul, being in the form of harmony, although a fairer and diviner thing than the body, may not perish first. On the other hand, Cebes appeared to grant that the soul was more lasting than the body, but he said that no one could know whether the soul, after having worn out many bodies, might not perish herself and leave her last body behind her; and that this is death, which is the destruction not of the body but of the soul, for in the body

the work of destruction is ever going on. Are not these, Simmias and Cebes, the points which we have to consider?

But, rejoined Socrates, you will have to think differently, my Theban friend, if you still maintain that harmony is a compound, and that the soul is a harmony which is made out of strings set in the frame of the body; for you will surely never allow yourself to say that a harmony is prior to the elements which compose the harmony. No, Socrates, that is impossible. But do you not see that you are saying this when you say that the soul existed before she took the form and body of man, and was made up of elements which as yet had no existence? For harmony is not a sort of thing like the soul, as you suppose; but first the lyre, and the strings, and the sounds exist in a state of discord, and then harmony is made last of all, and perishes first. And how can such a notion of the soul as this agree with the other? Not at all, replied Simmias.

But does the soul admit of degrees? Or is one soul in the very least degree more or less, or more or less completely, a soul than another? Not in the least. Yet surely one soul is said to have intelligence and virtue, and to be good, and another soul is said to have folly and vice, and to be an evil soul: and this is said truly? Yes, truly. But what will those who maintain the soul to be a harmony say of this presence of virtue and vice in the soul?-Will they say that there is another harmony, and another discord, and that the virtuous soul is harmonized, and herself being a harmony has another harmony within her, and that the vicious soul is inharmonical and has no harmony within her? I cannot say, replied Simmias.

But we have already acknowledged that the soul, being a harmony, can never utter a note at variance with the tensions and relaxations and vibrations and other affections of the strings out of which she is composed; she can only follow, she cannot lead them? Yes, he said, we acknowledged that, certainly. And yet do we not now discover the soul to be doing the exact opposite–leading the elements of which she is believed to be composed; almost always opposing and coercing them in all sorts of ways throughout life, sometimes more violently with the pains of medicine and gymnastic; then again more gently; threatening and also reprimanding the desires, passions, fears, as if talking to a thing which is not herself.

Socrates proceeded: I thought that as I had failed in the contemplation of true existence, I ought to be careful that I did not lose the eye of my soul; as people may injure their bodily eye by observing and gazing on the sun during an eclipse, unless they take the precaution of only looking at the image reflected in the water, or in some similar medium. That occurred to me, and I was afraid that my soul might be

blinded altogether if I looked at things with my eyes or tried by the help of the senses to apprehend them. And I thought that I had better have recourse to ideas, and seek in them the truth of existence.

Cratylus

Soc. You want me first of all to examine the natural fitness of the word psuche (soul), and then of the word soma (body)? Her. Yes. Soc. If I am to say what occurs to me at the moment, I should imagine that those who first use the name psuche meant to express that the soul when in the body is the source of life, and gives the power of

breath and revival (anapsuchon), and when this reviving power fails then the body perishes and dies, and this, if I am not mistaken, they called psuche. But please stay a moment; I fancy that I can discover something which will be more acceptable to the disciples of Euthyphro, for I am afraid that they will scorn this explanation. What do you say to another? Her. Let me hear. Soc. What is that which holds and carries and gives life and motion to the entire nature of the body? What else but the soul?

Note also, that he will have nothing to do with men while they are in the body, but only when the soul is liberated from the desires and evils of the body. Now there is a great deal of philosophy and reflection in that; for in their liberated state he can bind them with the desire of virtue, but while they are flustered and maddened by the body, not even father Cronos himself would suffice to keep them with him in his own far-famed chains.

Theaetetus

And what of the mental habit? Is not the soul informed, and improved, and preserved by study and attention, which are motions; but when at rest, which in the soul only means want of attention and study, is uninformed, and speedily forgets whatever she has learned? Theaet. True. Soc. Then motion is a good, and rest an evil, to the soul as well as to the body? Theaet. Clearly.

Sophist

And as to your question concerning the name which was to comprehend all these arts of purification, whether of animate or inanimate bodies, the art of dialectic is in no wise particular about fine words, if she maybe only allowed to have a general name for all other purifications, binding them up together and separating them off from the purification of the soul or intellect. For this is the purification at which she wants to arrive, and this we should understand to be her aim.

Str. Then there are these two kinds of evil in the sou–the one which is generally called vice, and is obviously a disease of the soul...Theaet. Yes. Str. And there is the other, which they call ignorance, and which, because existing only in the soul, they will not allow to be vice. Str. Let us grant, then, that from the discerning art comes purification, and from purification let there be separated off a part which is concerned with the soul; of this mental purification instruction is a portion, and of instruction education, and of education, that refutation of vain conceit which has been discovered in the present argument; and let this be called by you and me the nobly-descended art of Sophistry.

Statesman

In the fulness of time, when the change was to take place, and the earth-born race had all perished, and every soul had completed its proper cycle of births and been sown in the earth her appointed number of times, the pilot of the universe let the helm go, and retired to his place of view; and then Fate and innate desire reversed the motion of the world. Then also all the inferior deities who share the rule of the supreme power, being informed of what was happening, let go the parts of the world which were under their control. And the world turning round with a sudden shock, being impelled in an opposite direction from beginning to end, was shaken by a mighty earthquake, which wrought a new destruction of all manner of animals.

Philebus

Soc. And whence comes that soul, my dear Protarchus, unless the body of the universe, which contains elements like those in our bodies but in every way fairer, had also a soul? Can there be another source? Pro. Clearly, Socrates, that is the only source.

Soc. And wisdom and mind cannot exist without soul? Pro. Certainly not. Soc. And in the divine nature of Zeus would you not say that there is the soul and mind of a king, because there is in him the power of the cause? And other gods have other attributes, by which they are pleased to be called.

Soc. Let us imagine affections of the body which are extinguished before they reach the soul, and leave her unaffected; and again, other affections which vibrate through both soul and body, and impart a shock to both and to each of them. Pro. Granted. Soc. And the soul may be truly said to be oblivious of the first but not of the second? Pro. Quite true.

Soc. Let us imagine affections of the body which are extinguished before they reach the soul, and leave her unaffected; and again, other affections which vibrate through both soul and body, and impart a shock to both and to each of them. Pro. Granted. Soc. And the soul may be truly said to be oblivious of the first but not of the second? Pro. Quite true. Soc. And the union or communion of soul and body in one feeling and motion would be properly called consciousness? Pro. Most true.

Soc. I think that the soul at such times is like a book.

Phaedrus

But he who, having no touch of the Muses’ madness in his soul, comes to the door and thinks that he will get into the temple by the help of art-he, I say, and his poetry are not admitted; the sane man disappears and is nowhere when he enters into rivalry with the madman.

The soul through all her being is immortal, for that which is ever in motion is immortal; but that which moves another and is moved by another, in ceasing to move ceases also to live. Only the self-moving, never leaving self, never ceases to move, and is the fountain and beginning of motion to all that moves besides. Now, the beginning is unbegotten, for that which is begotten has a beginning; but the beginning is begotten of nothing, for if it were begotten of something, then the begotten would not come from a beginning. But if unbegotten, it must also be indestructible; for if beginning were destroyed, there could be no beginning out of anything, nor anything out of a beginning; and all things must have a beginning. And therefore the self-moving is the beginning of motion; and this can neither be destroyed nor begotten, else the whole heavens and all creation would collapse and stand still, and never again have motion or birth. But if the self-moving is proved to be immortal, he who affirms that self-motion is the very idea and essence of the soul will not be put to confusion. For the body which is moved from without is soulless; but that which is moved from within has a soul, for such is the nature of the soul. But if this be true, must not the soul be the self-moving, and therefore of necessity unbegotten and immortal? Enough of the soul’s immortality.

Of the nature of the soul, though her true form be ever a theme of large and more than mortal discourse, let me speak briefly, and in a figure. And let the figure be composite–a pair of winged horses and a charioteer. Now the winged horses and the charioteers of the gods are all of them noble and of noble descent, but those of other

races are mixed; the human charioteer drives his in a pair; and one of them is noble and of noble breed, and the other is ignoble and of ignoble breed; and the driving of them of necessity gives a great deal of trouble to him. I will endeavor to explain to you in what way the mortal differs from the immortal creature. The soul in her totality has the care of inanimate being everywhere, and traverses the whole heaven in

in divers forms appearing–when perfect and fully winged she soars upward, and orders the whole world; whereas the imperfect soul, losing her wings and drooping in her flight at last settles on the solid ground–there, finding a home, she receives an earthly frame which appears to be self-moved, but is really moved by her power; and this composition of soul and body is called a living and mortal creature. For immortal no such union can be reasonably believed to be; although fancy, not having seen nor surely known the nature of God, may imagine an immortal creature having both a body and also a soul which are united throughout all time. Let that, however, be as God wills, and be spoken of acceptably to him. And now let us ask the reason why the soul loses her wings!

The reason why the souls exhibit this exceeding eagerness to behold the plain of truth is that pasturage is found there, which is suited to the highest part of the soul; and the wing on which the soul soars is nourished with this. And there is a law of Destiny, that the soul which attains any vision of truth in company with a god is preserved from harm until the next period, and if attaining always is always unharmed. But when she is unable to follow, and fails to behold the truth, and through some ill-hap sinks beneath the double load of forgetfulness and vice, and her wings fall from her and she drops to the ground, then the law ordains that this soul shall at her first birth pass, not into any other animal, but only into man and the soul which has seen most of truth shall come to the birth as a philosopher, or artist, or some musical and loving nature.

The soul of a man may pass into the life of a beast, or from the beast return again into the man. But the soul which has never seen the truth will not pass into the human form. For a man must have intelligence of universals, and be able to proceed from the many particulars of sense to one conception of reason;–this is the recollection of those things which our soul once saw while following God–when regardless of that which we now call being she raised her head up towards the true being. And therefore the mind of the philosopher alone has wings; and this is just, for he is always, according to the measure of his abilities, clinging in recollection to those things in which God abides, and in beholding which He is what He is. And he who employs aright these memories is ever being initiated into perfect mysteries and alone becomes truly perfect. But, as he forgets earthly interests and is rapt in the divine, the vulgar deem him mad, and rebuke him; they do not see that he is inspired.

For, as has been already said, every soul of man has in the way of nature beheld true being; this was the condition of her passing into the form of man. But all souls do not easily recall the things of the other world; they may have seen them for a short time only, or they may have been unfortunate in their earthly lot, and, having had their hearts turned to unrighteousness through some corrupting influence, they may have lost the memory of the holy things which once they saw. Few only retain an adequate remembrance of them; and they, when they behold here any image of that other world, are rapt in amazement; but they are ignorant of what this rapture means,

because they do not clearly perceive.

The followers of Zeus desire that their beloved should have a soul like him; and

therefore they seek out some one of a philosophical and imperial nature, and when they have found him and loved him, they do all they can to confirm such a nature in him, and if they have no experience of such a disposition hitherto, they learn of any one who can teach them, and themselves follow in the same way. And they have the less difficulty in finding the nature of their own god in themselves, because they have been compelled to gaze intensely on him; their recollection clings to him, and they become possessed of him, and receive from him their character and disposition, so far as man can participate in God.

Now when the charioteer beholds the vision of love, and has his whole soul warmed through sense, and is full of the prickings and ticklings of desire, the obedient steed, then as always under the government of shame, refrains from leaping on the beloved; but the other, heedless of the pricks and of the blows of the whip, plunges and runs away, giving all manner of trouble to his companion and the charioteer, whom he forces to approach the beloved and to remember the joys of love.

And when his feeling continues and he is nearer to him and embraces him, in gymnastic exercises and at other times of meeting, then the fountain of that stream, which Zeus when he was in love with Ganymede named Desire, overflows upon the lover, and some enters into his soul, and some when he is filled flows out again; and as a breeze or an echo rebounds from the smooth rocks and returns whence it came, so does the stream of beauty, passing through the eyes which are the windows of the soul, come back to the beautiful one; there arriving and quickening the passages of the wings, watering. them and inclining them to grow, and filling the soul of the beloved also with love.

If the better elements of the mind which lead to order and philosophy prevail, then they pass their life here in happiness and harmony–masters of themselves and orderly–enslaving the vicious and emancipating the virtuous elements of the soul; and when the end comes, they are filling the soul of the beloved also with love, having conquered in one of the three heavenly or truly Olympian victories; nor can human discipline or divine inspiration confer any greater blessing on man than this.

The rhetorician, who teaches his pupil to speak scientifically, will particularly set forth the nature of that being to which he addresses his speeches; and this, I conceive, to be the soul.

Then clearly, Thrasymachus or any one else who teaches rhetoric in earnest will give an exact description of the nature of the soul; which will enable us to see whether she be single and same, or, like the body, multiform. That is what we should call showing the nature of the soul.

Oratory is the art of enchanting the soul, and therefore he who would be an orator has to learn the differences of human souls.

Gorgias

The soul and body being two, have two arts corresponding to them: there is the art of politics attending on the soul; and another art attending on the body, of which I know no single name, but which may be described as having two divisions, one of them gymnastic, and the other medicine. And in politics there is a legislative part, which answers to gymnastic, as justice does to medicine; and the two parts run into one another, justice having to do with the same subject as legislation, and medicine with the same subject as gymnastic, but with a difference. Now, seeing that there are these four arts, two attending on the body and two on the soul for their highest good; flattery knowing, or rather guessing their natures, has distributed herself into four shams or simulations of them; she puts on the likeness of some one or other of them, and pretends to be that which she simulates, and having no regard for men’s highest interests, is ever making pleasure the bait of the unwary, and deceiving them into the belief that she is of the highest value to them.

For if the body presided over itself, and were not under the guidance of the soul, and the soul did not discern and discriminate between cookery and medicine, but the body was made the judge of them, and the rule of judgment was the bodily delight which was given by them, then the word of Anaxagoras, that word with which you, friend Polus, are so well acquainted, would prevail far and wide: “Chaos” would come again, and cookery, health, and medicine would mingle in an indiscriminate mass. And now I have told you my notion of rhetoric, which is, in relation to the soul, what cookery is to the body.

Meno

And they say–mark, now, and see whether their words are true–they say that the soul of man is immortal, and at one time has an end, which is termed dying, and at another time is born again, but is never destroyed. And the moral is, that a man ought to live always in perfect holiness.

The soul, then, as being immortal, and having been born again many times, and having seen all things that exist, whether in this world or in the world below, has knowledge of them all; and it is no wonder that she should be able to call to remembrance all that she ever knew about virtue, and about everything; for as all nature is akin, and the soul has learned all things; there is no difficulty in her eliciting or as men say learning, out of a single recollection -all the rest, if a man is strenuous and does not faint; for all enquiry and all learning is but recollection. And therefore we ought not to listen to this sophistical argument about the impossibility of enquiry.

And if the truth of all things always existed in the soul, then the soul is immortal. Wherefore be of good cheer, and try to recollect what you do not know, or rather what you do not remember.

Next, let us consider the goods of the soul: they are temperance, justice, courage, quickness of apprehension, memory, magnanimity, and the like.

And is not this universally true of human nature? All other things hang upon the soul, and the things of the soul herself hang upon wisdom, if they are to be good; and so wisdom is inferred to be that which profits-and virtue, as we say, is profitable?

Ion

And the soul of the lyric poet does the same, as they themselves say; for they tell us that they bring songs from honeyed fountains, culling them out of the gardens and dells of the Muses; they, like the bees, winging their way from flower to flower. And

this is true. For the poet is a light and winged and holy thing, and there is no invention in him until he has been inspired and is out of his senses, and the mind is no longer in him: when he has not attained to this state, he is powerless and is unable to utter his oracles.

The rhapsode like yourself and the actor are intermediate links, and the poet himself is the first of them. Through all these the God sways the souls of men in any direction which he pleases, and makes one man hang down from another. Thus there is a vast chain of dancers and masters and undermasters of choruses, who are suspended, as if from the stone, at the side of the rings which hang down from the Muse. And every poet has some Muse from whom he is suspended, and by whom he is said to be possessed, which is nearly the same thing; for he is taken hold of.

Republic

Well; and has not the soul an end which nothing else can fulfil? For example, to superintend and command and deliberate and the like. Are not these functions proper to the soul, and can they rightly be assigned to any other? And has not the soul an excellence also? Yes. And can she or can she not fulfil her own ends when deprived of that excellence? She cannot. Then an evil soul must necessarily be an evil ruler and superintendent, and the good soul a good ruler? Yes, necessarily.

No one has ever adequately described either in verse or prose the true essential nature of either of them abiding in the soul, and invisible to any human or divine eye; or shown that of all the things of a man’s soul which he has within him, justice is the greatest good, and injustice the greatest evil. Had this been the universal strain, had you sought to persuade us of this from our youth upwards, we should not have been on the watch to keep one another from doing wrong, but every one would have been his own watchman, because afraid, if he did wrong, of harboring in himself the greatest of evils.

And what shall be their education? Can we find a better than the traditional sort? And this has two divisions, gymnastic for the body, and music for the soul.

The reason is, I replied, that you attribute some profound meaning to my words; but I am only saying that deception, or being deceived or uninformed about the highest realities in the highest part of themselves, which is the soul, and in that part of them to have and to hold the lie, is what mankind least like;–that, I say, is what they utterly detest.

Let our artists rather be those who are gifted to discern the true nature of the beautiful and graceful; then will our youth dwell in a land of health, amid fair sights and sounds, and receive the good in everything; and beauty, the effluence of fair works, shall flow into the eye and ear, like a health-giving breeze from a purer region, and insensibly draw the soul from earliest years into likeness and sympathy with the beauty of reason.

And therefore, I said, Glaucon, musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated graceful, or of him who is ill-educated ungraceful; and also because he who has received this true education of the inner being will most shrewdly perceive omissions or faults in art and nature, and with a true taste, while he praises and rejoices over and receives into his soul the good, and becomes noble and good, he will justly blame and hate the bad, now in the days of his youth, even before he is able to know the reason why.

And when a beautiful soul harmonizes with a beautiful form, and the two are cast in one mold, that will be the fairest of sights to him who has an eye to see it? The fairest indeed.

Gymnastic as well as music should begin in early years; the training in it should be careful and should continue through life. Now my belief is,–and this is a matter upon which I should like to have your opinion in confirmation of my own, but my own belief is,–not that the good body by any bodily excellence improves the soul, but, on the contrary, that the good soul, by her own excellence, improves the body as far as this may be possible.

And he who mingles music with gymnastic in the fairest proportions, and best attempers them to the soul, may be rightly called the true musician and harmonist in a far higher sense than the tuner of the strings.

The meaning is, I believe, that in the human soul there is a better and also a worse principle; and when the better has the worse under control, then a man is said to be master of himself; and this is a term of praise: but when, owing to evil education or association, the better principle, which is also the smaller, is overwhelmed by the greater mass of the worse–in this case he is blamed and is called the slave of self and unprincipled.

Then we may fairly assume that they are two, and that they differ from one another; the one with which man reasons, we may call the rational principle of the soul, the other, with which he loves and hungers and thirsts and feels the flutterings of any other desire, may be termed the irrational or