A History of Philosophy | 07 God and Plato on the Human Soul
What this covers
A History of Philosophy | 07 God and Plato on the Human Soul
Source description (no synthesized summary yet).
Plato's cosmology and psychology present an integrated vision where the cosmos and human soul share the same body-soul structure, with eternal forms as the unchanging model for all becoming, grounding both metaphysics and ethics in the principle that all things should mirror divine reason and order.
- The cosmos is shaped by the demiurge according to an eternal archetype, not a changing one, making it a living unity ordered by a world soul analogous to human rational soul
- The human soul is eternal (pre-existent and immortal), immaterial, and operates as a life-giving unifying principle, mirroring the role of world soul in the cosmos
- Plato anchors belief in the soul's eternality with four distinct arguments (recollection, cyclical opposites, immaterial simplicity, and life-giving principle) rather than mere assertion
This asset isn't compiled yet
You're seeing its claims, ranked. Compile it to build the argument threads, weight them, and check each claim against your library — the full view.
Time is not a substance like a soul is a substance (where there can be material or immaterial substances); rather, time is a relationship between events, a moving image of the eternal, not a Newtonian conception of time as a vast empty duration like another receptacle.
“Well, time isn't a thing like a soul is a thing. You see? The notion of substance. You can have material substances, physical, immaterial substances. Time is not a substance. For Plato, time is um I think I'm inclined to say something of a relationship between events. It's a moving image of the eternal. You see? Yeah. Yeah. I don't see in Plato the Newtonian conception of time as a vast empty duration like another receptacle. No, it's not a Newtonian conception. It's more of a relational conception.”
The human soul can remember things and concepts from past lives or at least experiences, but Plato shows that in the cave allegory the prisoner is suffering from amnesia and does not remember where it was or what it was in previous existences—it remembers particulars but not where it was previously.
“As far as the consciousness of the soul, um obviously thinks that the soul can remember things as far as the The human soul? Right. Yeah, perhaps some animal souls. Yeah. As far as concepts from past lives, or experiences at least. Now, what would you say as far as remembering as far as the soul remembering where it was before it was in you or anything like No. No, there seems to be no recollection. I- I- In the cave analogy, the prisoner is is suffering from amnesia. Okay? He does not remember. He remembers particulars, but um I don't think Plato anywhere talks of the soul recalling where it was, what it was in previous existences.”
Plato is primarily concerned with eternality of the soul, meaning not merely that the soul survives death (immortality), but that the soul is uncreated and always was—pre-existence and immortality together—so the soul precedes physical conception and birth and survives physical death.
“Now, the one of the things that he gives most attention to is the eternality of the soul. And by eternality, I mean precisely that. Not just the notion that the soul survives death. That's not saying the soul is eternal, but only immortal. And there's more to eternality than to immortality. The eternal is uncreated and always was. So, to talk of eternality, you you have to talk of both pre-existence and immortality. The soul precedes physical conception, birth, and survives physical death.”
The cosmos has reason within soul and soul within body, so that the work might be as excellent and perfect as possible, meaning the physical cosmos itself has a rational soul (world soul) that orders its body the way a human rational soul guides bodily life, not merely a dead Newtonian mechanism.
“taking thought as a maker, the artificer, the demiurge...taking thought, the maker found among things that are visible no work that was without intelligence will ever be better than one that has intelligence. So, when he framed the universe, he fashioned reason within soul and soul within body to the end that the work accomplished might be by nature as excellent and perfect as possible. So, here's the notion that not only do humans have rational soul within body...but that the physical cosmos has with its physical body some sort of world soul. You see? A rational ordering principle that can govern the body of the cosmos.”
The cosmos as an ordered, unified whole has come into being and is not eternal, because while the material elements may be eternal, the ordered cosmos itself is a physical thing that came to be, and therefore belongs to the world of time and change, not the realm of being.
“Uh has it always been? Or does it have a some beginning? Has it come to be? Yes, it has come to be because it's a physical kind of thing. The cosmos as we know it. The material elements as the Greeks generally thought, may well be eternal. But the ordered cosmos as we know it is something that has come to be.”
That which comes to be must come to be by the agency of some cause, which is one of the very first formulations of a causal argument for the existence of a transcendent divine being who brought the cosmos into being.
“that which becomes must become by the agency of some cause. And um in in that you have if you like an one of the very first formulations of a causal argument for the existence of a transcendent divine being who brought the cosmos into being in the way we know it.”
The maker and father of the universe is hard to find, and having found him, it would be impossible to declare him to all mankind, echoing Protagoras' position that he had no way of knowing if God exists and if he did, it would be very hard to communicate.
“The maker and father of this universe is a hard task to find. And having found him, it would be impossible to declare him to all mankind." Uh sounds like an echo of Protagoras the Sophist uh who said he had no way of knowing if God is and if he did, it would be very hard to communicate.”
The demiurge is good and being without jealousy, desired that all things should come as near as possible to being like himself, so the cosmos was shaped in a way that would reflect the maker's perfection, a theme later picked up by Christian theologians who applied it to God creating a world to reflect his perfection and splendor.
“He was good, and in the good no jealousy in any matter can arise. So, being without jealousy, he desired that all things should come as near as possible to being like himself. The cosmos shaped in a way that would be like the maker. Now, that theme here in Plato's Timaeus, as you might anticipate, is one that was picked up by Christian theologians and carried throughout the Middle Ages. God created a world to reflect his perfection and splendor.”
The hypothesis that Plato read Moses during his time in Egypt (late 300s, early 300s BC, during the Jewish diaspora in Egypt) has not a shred of evidence; the similarity between Plato and Genesis must be explained by other means, such as the logos doctrine that the one logos enlightens every mind that comes into the world.
“Well, it's a beautiful ad hoc hypothesis, not a shred of evidence that he did. Um they therefore had to come up with other explanations of the similarity, and that gets to be exciting. They appeal to the logos doctrine to explain it. There is the one logos that enlightens every mind that comes into the world.”
The receptacle is space, a vast empty receptacle in which the elements are bonded together to provide a unified whole, encompassing the world of becoming, and is itself understood as empty spatial void.
“the receptacle as a whole encompasses the world of becoming, yes, but the receptacle is obviously space. A spatial world. So here his notions of space and time, space is a vast empty receptacle into which things can go.”
In recollection, the soul does not recall particular wheres or particular existences (since particulars are not objects of knowledge), but rather universal principles and forms—the ideals and essences—which are the true objects of knowledge.
“Well, what um the the thing we remember is not particular wheres. A previous existence would have been some particular thing. You don't recall in knowledge by recollection particular things. Particular things are not objects of knowledge. Okay? Objects of knowledge are universal principles, forms, those ideals, essences. That's what you remember.”
Before the cosmos received order and proportion from the demiurge, the elements (water, fire, earth, air) filled the receptacle without proportion or measure, in a state of disorder from which all things are made.
“Now, the nurse of becoming being made watery and fiery, two of the elements, receiving the characters of earth and for earth and air, the other two elements, and qualified by all these other affections that go with these, had every sort of diverse appearance to the sight because it was filled with the powers that were neither alike nor evenly balanced...So, it's from these three that things are made. Before that, all that was was without proportion, without measure.”
The cosmos is a visible living creature embracing all visible things, an image of the intelligible realm, a perceptible God supreme in greatness, excellence, beauty and perfection, single in its kind and one—the universe as a unified whole.
“This world has thus become a visible living creature embracing all that are visible and an image of the intelligible, a perceptible God supreme in greatness and excellence, in beauty and perfection, this heaven single in its kind and one. This universe.”
The soul can be translated simply as 'life,' so speaking of a 'living soul' is in one sense a tautology; what distinguishes soul from non-soul things is that the soul is the source of life, spontaneous motion, consciousness, and thought.
“Remember that I said the word soul can well be translated simply life. To speak of a living soul is in that sense a tautology. You see? ...the distinguishing thing for them is between that which has soul and that does not. And soul is the source of life, of spontaneous motion, as well as of consciousness and thought.”
The maker of anything that looks to what is unchanging and uses an eternal model in fashioning his work will accomplish something good, but if he looks to something that has come to be (something in the world of becoming), it will not be good.
“whenever the maker of anything uh looks to what is unchanging and uses a model um of that description in fashioning the form and quality of his work, all that he thus accomplishes must be good. But if he looks to something that has come to be, something in other words which um is not eternal...it will not be good.”
The forms and particulars relationship applies not only to particular instances like cats and dogs with their archetypal forms (catness, dogness), or equal-length sticks approximating the ideal of equalness, but also to the entire physical cosmos, which is a particular that participates in the eternal form of an ordered cosmos.
“And so this cosmos is shaped according to some eternal ideal, some archetype, some eternal form. Uh so um this business of forms and particulars applies not only to particular cats and dogs uh like the archetypal form of catness and dogness, um not only to uh two equal-length sticks, equal after the ideal of equalness, but it applies to the cosmos, this physical cosmos, a cosmos after the eternal ideal of an ordered cosmos, of some sort.”
There are two interpretations of Plato: (1) dualism, where the demiurge combines eternal forms with eternal material elements or primal matter, positing two eternal realities; and (2) idealism, where only the realm of forms (being) is real, and the physical world of becoming is merely a manifestation, shadow, or reflection of forms with no being of its own.
“The two interpretations I mentioned before are dualists and idealists. The dualist interpretation is that uh what the demiurge does is to take eternal forms and to combine them with eternal material elements or some eternal even more primal matter. About two eternal realities, form and matter. Okay? In making this cosmos. And certainly the Timaeus might be read that way...On the other hand, the the idealist interpretation um which is developed in both middle and neo-Platonism...The the idealist interpretation is that the only reality is what Plato calls being. The realm of forms.”
The third argument for the soul's eternality is that the soul is a simple rather than composite thing—immaterial, not composite of material parts—and what is immaterial is unchoppable (indivisible), what is unchoppable is indestructible, what is indestructible is immortal, therefore the soul is immortal by natural immortality, existing by its own nature.
“The third is that um the soul is a simple rather than composite thing...Um to be a simple is to be an indivisible unit...Now, the soul being immaterial is not a composite of material parts...What is immaterial is unchoppable. What is unchoppable is indestructible. What is indestructible is immortal. Okay?...If it's immaterial, it's indivisible. If it's indivisible, it's indestructible. If it's indestructible, it's immortal. So, the soul being immaterial is immortal. This is a natural immortality. In and of its own nature, it is immortal.”
Plato argues that it would be paradoxical to say personification is simply an abstraction if rational order and logos can be actual causal forces in the world, but the Greeks did not have clear categories to distinguish personification from metaphysical reality in the way moderns do.
“I'm not sure how clearly Plato distinguished um personification from the real thing. Now, we have no difficulty ourselves in distinguishing um a personification of nature when you write nature with a capital N and say she uh from um the notion that um there really is a personal being consciously engaging in rational activities.”
A paradoxical problem with the simplicity argument is that Christian writers, even Saint Augustine, used it to argue for the soul's natural immortality, but no consistent theist would want to argue that the soul is a self-sustaining, self-existing thing that exists by its own nature, since theism holds that God is the only self-existent being and sustains all other things in existence.
“Now, the paradoxical thing is that um Christian writers, even Saint Augustine, used that argument for the existence of the soul. While it seems to me that no um consistent theist would want to argue that the soul is a self-sustaining, self-existing thing that exists by its own nature. You see? Where the very essence of theism is that God not only brings things into being, but holds them in being. Continues to impart existence. God is the only self-existent being. Who shares existence with others.”
The body of the cosmos comes into concord through mathematical proportion, with the four elements (fire, air, water, earth) bound together by means of continued geometrical proportion, echoing Pythagorean principles and revealing the cosmos as a mathematically ordered universe.
“And on 255, just over halfway down, that which comes to be, which came into being, was body, visible, tangible. And that required the basic elements. But in order that it be a unified thing, it had to be bonded together in some way. And it's of the nature, at the bottom of the column, of a continued geometrical proportion. Aha, echoes of Pythagoras. This is a mathematically ordered universe.”
When it comes to political matters, Plato is treated both as the source of all ideological totalitarianism, fascism, and the like, and as the inspiration for the whole conception of a just society—a paradoxical and interesting characterization.
“But, Cicero had been influenced a bit by Plato. And Platonism was still an influence in Cicero's day. So, um, an interesting guy. And when it comes to political matters, you find Plato both blessed and cursed by the writers. He's, um, treated as the source of all ideological totalitarianism, fascism, and so forth. Uh, but he's also treated as the inspiration uh, for, um, the whole conception of a just society.”
The first argument for the soul's eternality is the argument from knowledge by recollection: the slave boy in the Meno who never studied mathematics can be brought by Socratic dialectic to express mathematical knowledge that must have been innate, so it must have been in the soul that came into the body, proving the soul pre-existed the body.
“one of them that you run into in the Meno and the Phaedo is an argument from knowledge by recollection. You remember Socrates' encounter with the slave boy who had never studied mathematics. And Socrates with his intellectual midwifery is able to bring to birth in that fellow's mind and bring it out into the open in verbalized form a mathematical knowledge that he had never learned. And um the conclusion is that it must be innate. It must have been in the soul that came into this body. So, the soul must have pre-existed the body and all its this world experiences.”
The cyclical recurrence argument entails the doctrine of transmigration/reincarnation, where moral development is not just in one life but across successive incarnations: if you progress in this life, you will have a better beginning next time with better bodily situation, but if you fail morally, you will end up with something worse in the next life.
“Um that cyclical process...The other thing of course is that what he's talking about is some notion of transmigration. Reincarnation. Um yeah, so that your moral development, which is what Plato is so concerned with. Uh your moral development is not just in this life. But forever and ever and ever. You see. And if you make progress in this life, you'll get a um a better beginning next time with a better bodily situation. But if you flub it in this life, you'll end up with something worse.”
The Greeks did not think of the universe as dead matter in the Newtonian sense; they thought of it as Thales said—the world is besouled and full of divinity, alive and animated with some driving force and power.
“You say that sounds mythological. Yeah, from our standpoint maybe. Because we are so indoctrinated with Newtonian science. This universe is a thing so dead, remember? But not for the Greeks. Thales The world is besouled and full of divinity. You see? Alive, besouled. Has some driving animating force, power.”
Traditionally Christian language, which may not be biblical language, holds that body and soul are two separate entities united as one being only in this life, whereas this language is influenced by Plato's shaping of theological readings of biblical language rather than emerging from the Bible itself.
“I say that sort of traditional Christian language. Um I said it that way carefully with intent. I'm not sure that's biblical language. In fact, I'm quite sure that's not biblical language. Though it may be typical Christian theology. Because of the influence of Plato on the shaping of theological readings of the biblical language. Okay?”
Plato, as a philosopher, does not simply assert beliefs without giving reasons; he wants his beliefs tethered to arguments, so he provides four distinct kinds of arguments for the eternality of the soul.
“Now, quite obviously, Plato is not the sort of writer, after all he is a philosopher, to simply assert something and take it for granted without giving reasons for believing it. He wants his beliefs tethered. So, what sort of arguments does he use to tether the belief in the eternality of the soul? And I've identified four arguments that I find in his writings.”
The cyclical recurrence argument relies on a pre-Socratic cyclical view of time processes where cycles are brought about by the conflict and separation of opposites drawn together then separated by alternating forces, as seen in Empedocles with opposite forces of attraction and repulsion, love and hate.
“Uh one, that he's playing with that cyclical view of time processes that a lot of the pre-Socratics had. Cyclical view of history. Cyclical view of nature's processes. Cycles brought about by the conflict and separation of opposites that are drawn together and then separated by alternating forces, as it seemed...Um that cyclical process Empedocles opposite forces attraction and repulsion love and hate as he calls them.”
While all souls share the basic characteristic of being life-giving forces, not all souls are rational: human souls have powers that cat and dog souls don't have, and animal souls have functions that vegetative souls (like plant souls) don't have, implying a hierarchy of soul types.
“Yes and no. Um they share some. All souls are life-giving forces. But not all souls are rational. In other words, human souls have powers that um cat and dog souls don't have. Uh let alone um the souls of flies and mosquitoes. You see? Um so yes, with regards to some of the most basic, no later.”
Plato's definition of time is that it is a moving likeness of eternity—a changing image of the eternal—because time is the realm of particulars while the eternal is the realm of forms, and particulars are the changing images of eternal forms, so what is time but a changing image of the eternal?
“Well, um the result is that the world that he made is, at the very bottom of 256, a moving likeness of eternity. And that becomes Plato's definition of time. A changing image of the eternal. Yes, because time is the realm of particulars. The eternal is the realm of forms. What are particulars? The changing images of eternal forms. So, what is time? But a changing image of the eternal.”
Plato's successors in later philosophy became increasingly clear about a conscious personal God, building on what Plato said, suggesting that Plato's ambiguity about personification versus personal being allowed his successors to develop more explicit accounts of divine personhood.
“certainly, Plato's successors became increasingly clear about a conscious personal God. Building on what Plato said. Okay, that's one uh reason.”
In Neoplatonism (3rd and 4th centuries), the answer is yes that everyone shares in one all-inclusive world soul, but in Plato himself, the answer is unclear whether individual souls are separate souls or parts of the world soul that he never explicitly states.
“Uh yeah, um Again, I'm inclined to say I wish I knew. Um Does everyone share in the one all-inclusive world soul? In Neoplatonism in the 3rd and 4th century, the answer becomes yes. In Plato, I think the answer is I don't think so, but he never says. Unless they're in the Timaeus, he wants that notion of other souls as parts of the world soul taken literally.”
The instructor notes that Plato is not interested in individuated particulars the way modern people are; he is interested in the essential nature of the human being and the ideal, so questions about individual personality traits may be outside the scope of his philosophical concerns.
“He's not interested in individuated particulars. You are, he's not. Uh he's interested in um the essential nature of the human being, the ideal. You see.”
In the Laws, Plato makes more explicit than anywhere else in his writings the concept of the shaper of the universe as the one supreme God and that this has profound moral implications—if we are to be like that one God by rationally ordering our lives, which is akin to justice, then those who do not believe in God (atheists) should have no place in Plato's ideal republic, as they would be treasonous beings.
“what he seems to be doing is reiterating further, but in the laws, he takes he makes more explicit than anywhere else, I think, in his writings uh one the concept of the shaper of the universe as the one supreme God. And that second, that this has profound moral implications. Because if we are to be like that one God, um rationally ordering our lives, which is akin to his concept of justice, being just, being good. Then says Plato, that those who do not believe in God, atheists, should have no place in his ideal republic. You see, if what you want is a just society, they would be treasonous beings.”
In the idealist interpretation, the entire physical side of the cosmos is a manifestation of eternal forms in the receptacle, which otherwise would be not just nothing in particular, but nothing at all—analogous to how an image on a screen has no reality of its own but is a visual manifestation of something that's producing it.
“You perceive an image on a screen when a video is playing. But it has no reality of its own, that image. It's a visual manifestation of something that's producing it. You see? And um in the idealist sense, um that's what the entire physical side of the cosmos is. It's a manifestation of the eternal form in the receptacle, which otherwise would be not just nothing in particular, but nothing at all.”
A student (Kristen) asks whether everyone shares part of the same large aspect of soul or whether everyone has their own individual soul.
“Is this soul that everyone Does everyone share part of the same one large aspect of soul?”
A student (David) asks whether the demiurge is self-conscious and whether Plato's demiurge is a personal god—a question about whether the demiurge has consciousness and self-awareness.
“David? I have a I have a question about Platonism. I guess the I I can't hear you. I have a question about Plato's concept of I mean, concept of God. Yeah. It seemed very clear that this demiurge has reason, or the principle of reason is working through him, but besides the personification that he uses, is there any any other indication that this demiurge is self-conscious?”
Plato sums up his cosmology as consisting of being, empty space (which is not anything), and becoming—three distinct things that existed even before the heaven came into being.
“He sums up um the new paragraph halfway down the second column, 261. Let this then be given as the tale summed up according to my judgment that there are being, space, which is not anything, and becoming. Okay? Being, empty space, becoming. Three distinct things even before the heaven came into being.”
For a personal god to exist, it would have to have consciousness and self-awareness, with self-awareness being present in the process of thinking rationally and thinking how to order the universe for good ends.
“Um and so you ask the the key question um if um we want to know if Plato's is what we might call a personal god, a personal being. It'd have to have consciousness, self-consciousness. So there is uh self-awareness in the process of um thinking rationally. Uh thinking how to order for good ends the universe. You'll see.”
The soul freed from the encumbrances of a body is able to think clearly and perceive with the eye of the mind the eternal forms, and it is this which is recollected under the stimulus of dialectic.
“So, the soul must have pre-existed the body and all its this world experiences. So, you get that argument from innate knowledge to a pre-existent state in which that innate knowledge was acquired. Uh that is to say the soul freed from the encumbrances of a body is able to think clearly, perceive with the eye of the mind, the eternal forms. And it's that which is recollected under the stimulus of dialectic.”
The demiurge has no role for the Greek pantheon (all the various Greek gods) in the universal cosmic order, and instead the demiurge plays the governing role, implying some kind of personal being analogous to a supreme deity, though this may be a naive reading.
“he plainly has no place in this scheme for the Greek pantheon, all the various Greek gods. Uh and in terms of running the universe, this god seems to take that place. Which seems to imply, if there is to be an analogy, some kind of personal being.”
Plato would likely have fared well in Nathaniel Hawthorne's New England, where Platonic influence was present in those days and parts, and while Calvin's Geneva might be thought likely to appreciate Plato, in fact Calvin was closer to Cicero than to Plato, though Cicero had been influenced somewhat by Plato and Platonism was still an influence in Cicero's day.
“Well, so much for Plato on God and cosmos. You might think he would have fared well in Nathaniel Hawthorne's New England. Um yeah, there was Platonic influence in those days and those parts. You might think that Calvin's Geneva would have appreciated Plato. Well, Calvin was closer to Cicero than to Plato. But, Cicero had been influenced a bit by Plato. And Platonism was still an influence in Cicero's day.”
The topic of Plato on the human soul is pervasive in the dialogues, appearing in the Republic, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Timaeus, Laws, and elsewhere.
“Um the this topic is um pervasive uh in the dialogues. In the Republic sure. In the Phaedo that you've been reading a portion of in the Phaedrus that you're reading this week, as well as in the Timaeus and the Laws and elsewhere.”
The instructor strongly recommends that students read the Republic, noting that it is essential for education—after the Bible, it is perhaps the most influential book in the history of Western civilization—and urges students not to make excuses for not reading it.
“You observe I keep referring to the Republic. Until you've read the Republic through, you're not educated. Um read the Republic. Um you can get paperback editions, real cheapies. No excuse. Read the Republic. Uh I mean it's uh it's classic. After the Bible, perhaps the most influential book in the history of Western civilization. Read the Republic. Get the message? Read the Republic.”
Although Anaxagoras's idea that there is a cosmic mind ordering the universe was germinal and undeveloped, Plato wants to develop it further by spelling out how this world soul functions in detail as a rational ordering principle.
“But obviously, he has to spell that notion out. It's a purely germinal idea in Anaxagoras, undeveloped. Plato wants to develop it a bit. And that's what he tries to do in the following segments.”
Nick Wolterstorff, well-known aesthetics philosopher who used to teach at Calvin College and now teaches at Yale Divinity School, has written several good books on aesthetics.
“Nick Wolterstorff is well known. He um used to teach at Calvin College. He's now at Yale Divinity School. And um has written a couple of books on aesthetics that are very good.”
The optional afternoon discussion session after the colloquium will be held in room 272 on the second floor, which is a little cozier for a small group than the main seminar room.
“And we said we'd have a optional discussion in the afternoon tomorrow. Um I'm suggesting room 272. It's a little cozier for a small group than this. So um see you down there. 272 is at that end. Okay, second floor.”
The colloquium tomorrow will continue discussion with Scott Chaden on aesthetics, where Chaden critiques Nicholas Wolterstorff's realist view of musical composition (holding there are objectively real universal aesthetic values) from a nominalist perspective (no objectively real universals).
“Couple of notes on the board to remind you the weekly colloquium tomorrow continues a discussion with Scott Chaden on aesthetics. Um last week you recall he was talking about a nominalist view of musical composition. And this week he's critiquing a realist view. Nominalist, there are no objectively real universals. [0:50] Uh realism, there are. So um universal aesthetic values. Um critiquing a realist view of musical composition. Nick Wolterstorff is well known. He um used to teach at Calvin College. He's now at Yale Divinity School.”