In his most famous, and historically widely influential work - The Republic, Plato attributes dialogue to Socrates, and others,
surrounding the possibilities of achieving Justice so that people could hope to live in an ideal state or society.
Such an ideal situation, as it seemed to Plato, very much required that the aspirations, and behavioral tendencies, of the
inhabitants of that state or society should be accommodated and fulfilled, rather than denied or repressed.
Plato's Tripartite Theory of the Soul holds that individual people differ as to their being ruled by desires, by being spirited and
courageous, or by being open to what foresight and knowledge can follow from the exercise of reason. Any would-be just or ideal state or
society, then, must accommodate and fulfill, rather than deny or repress, appropriate expressions of desires, spiritedness and
reason by its inhabitants.
Plato's Ideal State was to be one for people to live fulfilled lives, and justly.
Where society is held to be "for people" Plato's Tripartite Theory of the Soul might be held to offer a degree of theoretical
preparedness to view Human Beings as variously endowed with desires, spiritedness and reason - which perhaps better allows for
a degree of realism as to what form of society Human Beings might find appealing, and how it is to be brought about (and maintained).
Plato's Tripartite Theory of the Soul is rather hesitantly introduced in some Socratic Dialogue in Book 4 of Plato's The Republic:
...can we possibly refuse to admit that there exist in each
of us the same generic parts and characteristics as are found in
the state? For I presume the state has not received them from any
other source. It would be ridiculous to imagine that the presence
of the spirited element in cities is not to be traced to
individuals, wherever this character is imputed to the people, as
it is to the natives of Thrace, and Scythia, and generally
speaking, of the northern countries; or the love of knowledge,
which would be chiefly attributed to our own country; or the love
of riches, which people would especially connect with the
Phoenicians and the Egyptians.
And more fully asserted in some Socratic Dialogue in Book 9 of Plato's The Republic:
This then is a fact so far, and one which it is not difficult
No, it is not.
But here begins a difficulty. Are all our actions alike
performed by the one predominant faculty, or are there three
faculties operating severally in our different actions? Do we
learn with one internal faculty, and become angry with another,
and with a third feel desire for all the pleasures connected with
eating and drinking, and the propagation of the species; or upon
every impulse to action, do we perform these several actions with
the whole soul…
...As there are three parts, so there appear to me to be
three pleasures, one appropriate to each part; and similarly
three appetites, and governing principles.
According to us, one part was the organ whereby a man learns,
and another that whereby he shews spirit. The third was so
multiform that we were unable to address it by a single
appropriate name; so we named it after that which is its most
important and strongest characteristic. We called it appetitive,
on account of the violence of the appetites of hunger, thirst,
and sex, and all their accompaniments; and we called it
peculiarly money-loving, because money is the chief agent in the
gratification of such appetites.
Yes, we were right.
Then if we were to assert that the pleasure and the affection
of this third part have gain for their object, would not this be
the best summary of the facts upon which we should be likely to
settle by force of argument, as a means of conveying a clear idea
to our own minds, whenever we spoke of this part of the soul? And
shall we not be right in calling it money-loving and
I confess I think so, he replied.
Again, do we not maintain that the spirited part is wholly
bent on winning power and victory and celebrity?
Certainly we do.
Then would the title of strife-loving and honour-loving be
appropriate to it?
Yes, most appropriate?
Well, but with regard to the part by which we learn, it is
obvious to everyone that its entire and constant aim is to know
how the truth stands, and that this of all the elements of our
nature feels the least concern for wealth and reputation.
Yes, quite the least.
Then shall we not do well to call it knowledge-loving and
Of course we shall.
Does not this last reign in the souls of some persons, while
in the souls of other people one or other of the two former,
according to circumstances is dominant?
You are right.
And for these reasons may we assert that men may be primarily
classed as lovers of wisdom, of strife, and of gain?
Plato's Tripartite Theory of the Soul is something of "a means to an end;" by attempting to take account of Human motivations and
dispositions the route towards Justice in an Ideal State or Society can hope to more clearly discerned.
Plato goes on to endorse a state of affairs where a class of Artisans, who are personally particularly motivated by their desires,
engage principally in economic activity, a class of Auxiliaries, who are personally particularly spirited and courageous, are
engaged in defending the state against external threats and internal disorders, and a class of Philosopher-rulers, lovers of truth,
who, after processes of selection, and a period of training that can be all of five decades long, are held to be capable of applying
foresight and knowledge to the direction of the functioning of the state.
Key sources supportive of Tripartite Theory of Soul