Set out Plato’s “argument from conflict” for the existence of any two elements of the soul. Summarize one possible criticism of the argument.
Having already defined the city as being comprised of three distinct parts, Plato developed the “argument from conflict” theory to demonstrate that the soul was also made up of distinctly separate elements. The three elements he identified were reason (logistikon), spirit (thumoeides) and appetite (epithumeia), and Plato argued that these elements combine in the form of psychological inputs to dictate our actions. These elements are not independent of one another and the conflict between them can easily be seen. For example, the appetitive desire thirst can be seen as a base instinct; however, there are many instances where our reason or logic dictates that despite desiring to drink it would not be in our best interest to do so.
The alcoholics desire to drink is one of the strongest desires imaginable, yet often there will be a conflict as their logistikon conflicts with their epithumeia to recognize that it would be more beneficial to override their desire and stop drinking. Critics argue that Plato’s theory is far too simplistic and that he simply settled on dividing the soul into three parts to support his already tentative theory on what comprises a city. It can also be seen that often it is not as simple as having elements directly opposed; sometimes our motivations can come from mixed, compounded and combined elements in a reality far different to Plato’s rather simplistic theory....