THE INFLUENCE OF PLATO’S TRIPARTITE SOUL

ON FREUD AND MODERN PSYCHOLOGY

Kyle A. Scarsella
 I. INTRODUCTION
Beginning with Book IV of the Republic, Plato establishes his theory of the tripartite

soul. Plato presents several different arguments to distinguish each of the three distinct elements

that make up his tripartite soul theory. He also details the significance of each separate element

in regard to their function and purpose. Plato’s fundamental theory of the soul has been

profoundly influential in the field of psychology. Many theories and models in psychology,

including some that are still relevant today, have underlying roots that can be traced back to

Plato. Sigmund Freud, one of the most prominent figures in modern psychology and

psychoanalysis, established his own tripartite division of the human psyche during the early parts

of the 20th century. Freud’s structural model of the mind, which is still relevant in the modern

understanding of inner psychological conflicts, contains many similarities to that of Plato’s

model. While there are also differences among Freud and Plato’s tripartite theories, the strong

similarities suggest that Freud’s theory was heavily influenced by that of the theory earlier

established by Plato.

Before examining Plato’s influential impact on the modern understanding of psychology

and comparing his tripartite theory to that of Freud’s, it is essential to first gain a better

understanding of Plato’s fundamental theory of the soul. I will briefly discuss the arguments

Plato presents in Book IV of the Republic to support his tripartite theory. I will also provide an

outline containing the importance of each of the three distinct elements that make up Plato’s

soul. I will then examine Freud’s tripartite theory and discuss both its similarities and differences

in relation to Plato’s theory. I will argue that Plato’s theory had a fundamentally influential

impact in the development of Freud’s own theory.

 II. PLATO’S TRIPARTITE SOUL

In the Republic Book IV, Plato uses the character of Socrates in dialogue with Glaucon to

present his argument for the tripartite soul. Earlier in the Republic, Socrates establishes three

classes of citizens that make up his ideal city. In Book IV, Socrates argues that these classes of

society which include the ruling class, the auxiliaries, and the producers (merchants/farmers),

must each perform their own specific duty to produce a just and ideal city (434c-d). He then

extends this taxonomy of the city’s three distinct classes to that of the individual, arguing that the

same classification is needed in an individual’s soul in order to have justice (435b-c). Socrates

argues that there must be three separate elements in an individual’s soul, and just like the classes

of the city, each different element must perform their distinctive purpose properly in order to

establish a harmonious and just soul.

Plato presents several different arguments throughout Book IV to support his theory of a

tripartite soul. Plato’s initial premise, known as the Principle of Conflict or the Principle of

Opposites, attempts to lay the groundwork for many of the forthcoming arguments. This

principle, used to separate the distinct elements of the soul, states, “it is clear that the same thing

cannot do or undergo opposite things; not, at any rate, in the same respect, in relation to the same

thing, at the same time” (436b). The dialogue continues with Socrates using an example of a

drinking man who feels thirsty yet decides not to drink to distinguish a difference between the

first two elements of the soul (439b). The part in which desires the drink stems from appetite,

thus being the appetitive element of the soul. The other element, in which is adverse to drink, is

distinguished as the rational element of the soul.

Socrates continues with his argument to distinguish a third element, in which is referred

to as the spirited part of the soul. This element is separated from the rational part by first using
the argument of a child being unable to sustain the rational portion of the soul until later in life,

and yet being full of spirit, thus giving indication of separate elements (441b). Another argument

is provided using a character from the Odyssey. This argument offers additional support to

separate the spirited and rational elements of the soul (441c). In the example, the character

Odysseus experiences both something that pulls him toward battle and something that pushes

him away from battle at the same time. These contradicting elements therefore must pertain to

separate parts of the soul, with the spirited part being that of which is pulling Odysseus towards

battle and the rational part being that which pushes him away from battle.

Finally, an argument is set forth to distinguish the spirited element from the appetitive

element. This argument gives the example of Leontius, who holds a strong desire to look at

corpses while at the same time is disgusted by this desire (440b-d). With desire and disgust being

contradictory states, it is clear that these states are produced by distinct elements of the soul. The

appetitive element is responsible for the desire that Leontius feels to look at the corpses and the

spirited element provides the disgust that is simultaneously felt.

 III. PLATO’S ELEMENTS OF THE SOUL

The appetitive element of the soul is that of which desires “the pleasures of food, drink,

sex, and the others that are closely akin to them” (436a). Plato relates this part of the soul to the

love of money-making (553c). The next division of Plato’s soul is the spirited element, which he

considers the natural supporting factor for the rational element (441a). This spiritive element is

commonly associated with anger and aggression (436a). However, it is important to understand

that the spirited element of Plato’s soul is more than just being prone to anger. Lorenz states,

“Equally crucially, it involves an awareness of one’s own worth and level of accomplishment. If

things go well, spirited characters will take pride in who they are and what they have done.”

The remaining component that constitutes Plato’s tripartite soul is the rational element.

This portion of the soul is our element of reason and calculation (439c). The rational soul is a

lover of wisdom and is responsible for making wise decisions in accordance with its love for

goodness. In order to sustain proper psychological functioning, these three elements must

constitute a harmonious relationship to one another. A proper establishment of order, with the

rational element on top and in charge, must also be met for proper functioning of Plato’s soul. In

Phaedrus, Plato uses the allegory of a charioteer driving two horses to depict a better

understanding of his tripartite soul (246a-254e). The charioteer represents the rational soul, while

one horse, described as black and ugly represents the appetitive soul, and the other horse, white

and noble, symbolizes the spiritive soul.

 IV. FREUD’S TRIPARTITE THEORY

Before exploring the possible connections between Plato and Freud’s tripartite divisions, I will

outline Freud’s basic theory and discuss the functions of each separate element. Freud’s three

elements, which are known as the id, the ego, and the superego, work together to create the complex

behaviors that form a person’s personality. These three elements are interconnected in one’s mind

and work together to function as a whole.

The first component, the id, includes instinctive, physiological, and primitive behaviors. The id

acts entirely unconsciously and is the only component of personality that is present at birth. This

system is driven by what Freud calls the pleasure principle, which strives only to find pleasure and

avoid or reduce pain. The id seeks immediate gratification for one’s desires, wants, and needs.

The next component, the ego, develops from the id and operates under the reality principle.

The ego ensures that the impulses of the id are acted on in a socially acceptable and appropriate way.

“It is the function of the ego to test reality, to plan, to think logically, and to develop plans for

satisfying needs” (Sharf).

The third component, the superego, represents internalized moral standards that are acquired

from an individual’s surrounding society. Freud suggests that an individual’s parents play the most

influential role in development of the superego. This component gives us our sense of right and

wrong and provides internal guidelines for making judgments. According the Freud’s theory, the

socially influenced superego doesn’t begin to develop until age five.

These three components work together, with the ego actively mediating between both the id’s

desires and the superego’s socially established standards. A proper balance between the id, the ego,

and the superego is essential in the development of a fully functioning psyche and healthy

personality.
 V. COMPARING PLATO AND FREUD

One of the first similarities between Plato and Freud extends beyond either of their

theories. The term psyche is commonly associated with the works of Freud, where he frequently

uses this term in relation to the mind or brain. This term can be traced back to its Greek roots

where it is better known as psuche, and is considered a central concept of Plato’s philosophy.

Freud’s frequent use of the term psyche reveals the first connection that can be made to suggest

that his work gained essential underlying influence from that of Plato’s work.

Another easily recognizable similarity is the distinct number of divisions that make up

both Plato and Freud’s theory. Each theory consists of three separate elements, thus allowing

each to be appropriately defined using the term tripartite. More similarities become evident when

comparing each of the distinct divisions and their associated functions.

Plato’s appetitive element is easily comparable to Freud’s id component. Both are

considered the lowest portion of the tripartite and are comprised of primitive desires, instinctive

actions, and aspects of greed. Both are identified with the stomach (food and water desires) and

the genitals (sexual desires). Perhaps the most convincing similarity is found when examining

this lowest division as it relates to the other divisions in each respective theory. In both theories,

this lowest level of the tripartite (appetitive/id) must be controlled by the other two levels to

enable proper functioning. This indicates that both theories depend on an interconnected

relationship between the separate divisions to correctly perform as a whole.

The next divisions, Plato’s spiritive element and Freud’s superego, also share many

similar qualities and functions. Both are strongly influenced by social interaction and are

responsible for acquiring one’s sense of what types of behavior are acceptable and what types are

not. In further comparing Plato’s spiritive element to that of Freud’s superego, Askay and
Farquhar add, “both saw their respective elements as nonrational, yet serving as the ally of

reason and opposing appetites/instinctual impulses, and offering it a way to achieve good

behavior.” One additional similarity can be made when comparing the consequence that occurs

in both elements when one decides to go against its better judgment. Joplin states, “When denied,

both of these elements punish the self with anger and shame.”

The final divisions, Plato’s rational element and Freud’s ego, are both depicted as the

principal portions of the soul. Plato and Freud both claim that this element is responsible for

controlling the desires of the two previously discussed divisions. Both Plato and Freud believed

that for an individual to be healthy, they must rely most heavily on this specific division. Both

the rational element and the ego are thought of as the components of reason in relation to their

respective theories.

There are also similarities that exist in examining how each theory works as a functioning

whole. Both Freud and Plato considered the establishment of a harmonious relationship between

each theory’s respective elements as the key factor in an individual’s psychological well-being.

Both theories suggest one’s psychological condition is directly impacted when an imbalance or

conflicted relationship arises among its three existing elements. Both Plato and Freud make

arguments to suggest that a failure to resolve the inner conflict between the elements that

organize the mind can result in later neurosis.

When an imbalance exists between either theory’s elements, maladaptive behaviors arise.

According to Freud’s model, when the id gains too much control an individual becomes

impulsive, uncontrollable, and self-indulgent. In a similar manner, Plato describes an individual

who is ruled by his appetitive element as “money-loving” (553d) and unresponsive to the rational

and spiritive elements (553c). These attributes that Plato attaches to an appetitive ruled soul
mirror those that Freud uses to describe a mind overpowered by the id (impulsive,

uncontrollable, and self-indulgent).

When an individual’s superego becomes too strong, it may result in the establishment of

unrealistically high moral standards. This will then lead to an individual developing a sense of

incompetence or failure. Plato makes a similar claim in suggesting that highly spirited

individuals tend to develop a strong sense of worth and self-esteem. This in return makes them

highly vulnerable and sensitive to insults or any sign of failure.

VI. CONTRASTING PLATO AND FREUD

Although the many similarities discussed provide a strong a resemblance between Plato

and Freud’s theories, it is important to recognize that these theories are not identical. There are

several key differences that can be found to distinguish these two tripartite theories. One of the

most significant differences that separates the two models is their physical organization. As

mentioned earlier, Freud’s model depicts the ego as the element of reason that mediates between

the urges of the id and the standards of the superego. This depicts Freud’s ego in the middle, with

the id on one side and the superego on the other. This differs from the theory set forth by Plato

who describes the elements of the soul as existing in a stacked formation, “lowest, highest, and

middle”, with the lowest pertaining to appetite, the middle being spirit, and on top in the highest

position is rationality (443d-e).

One can argue that the individual divisions compared earlier each contain vital

differences to distinguish the theories put forth by Plato and Freud. Freud’s id contains a more

detailed and elaborate set of desires, which includes repressed urges as well as appetites that

arise subconsciously. Plato’s theory does not contain an understanding of subconscious desires
as intricate as that developed by Freud. One possible reason for this is because, while Freud’s

primary focus was solely on developing a deeper understanding of the psyche, Plato’s focus was

far more extensive. Plato’s tripartite soul argument is just one of many other arguments that he

sets forth throughout the Republic in hopes of successfully defining justice (dikaiosune). Perhaps

if Plato were to of dedicate his entire focus exclusively on developing a more elaborate depiction

of his tripartite soul theory, then a better understanding of how he viewed the subconscious

would have been established.

Another more grounded difference exists in the comparison of Plato’s spiritive element

and Freud’s superego. As Joplin states, “Plato associates the spirited element with the military,

and with aggression”, which differs from Freud’s view of aggression. According to Freud,

aggression was perceived as the “manifestation of the instincts.” Therefore, unlike Plato who

viewed anger as capable of being a motivational factor to resist the appetitive element, Freud’s

theory suggests that anger is a result of unmet or overly aggressive drives expressed by the id.

The main difference that exists between the last two compared tripartite divisions, Plato’s

rational element and Freud’s ego, pertains to each respective element’s relationship to the other

elements contained in the soul. Plato argues that a just soul that acts in perfect unity is one where

the rational element successfully governs over the other elements and acts on the entire soul’s

behalf. Freud however, argues that a perfect unity between the id, ego and superego cannot exist.

According to Freud, the ego is unable to ever truly master the unconscious id and superego.

Freud’s theory contains a permanent inner conflict that exists between the three components. As

Ferrari states, “The Freudian soul, then, is a soul that suffers unremitting internal pressure.”
 VII. CONCLUSION

The differences presented above are enough to provide a strong argument against the

claim that tripartite souls presented by Plato and Freud are identical. However, these differences

do not suffice in disproving that the two theories share a clear underlying similarity. On a

fundamental level of understanding, the similarities between the two theories strongly out shine

any differences that may exist. The methodological similarities that Freud’s theory shares with

that of the theory previously established by Plato strongly suggests the implication that Plato was

a significant influence in Freud’s work.

In regard to Plato and Freud, Ferrari states, “the two thinkers are close kin in some

important respects, notably in their attention to the question of psychic health and in their

analysis of psychic health in terms of a command structure of desires.” As discussed earlier,

Plato uses the Principle of Conflict as the framework of his argument to distinguish the different

parts of his soul. Freud uses a similar appeal to conflict in his own attempt to differentiate the

separate parts of the soul. Freud mirrors Plato’s train of thought in identifying inner conflict that

occurs between the parts of the soul as the primary factor in developing psychological illnesses.

These similarities, along with those discussed earlier leave very little doubt that Plato played a

crucial role in influencing the theory that Freud would eventually develop.
 Bibliography

Anagnostopoulos, M. “The Divided Soul and the Desire for Good in Plato’s Republic.” In The
Blackwell Guide to Plato’s Republic, edited by G. Santas, 166-188. Maine: Blackwell
Publishing, 2006.

Annas, Julia. An Introduction to Plato’s Republic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.

Askay, Richard, and Jensen Farquhar. Apprehending the Inaccessible: Freudian Psychoanalysis
and Existential Phenomenology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2006.
Carducci, Bernardo. The Psychology of Personality: Viewpoints, Research, and Applications. 2nd
ed. Maine: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
Cherry, Kendra. "What Did Freud Really Believe about Personality and the Id, Ego, and Superego?"
About. http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/personalityelem.htm
(accessed December 2, 2014).
Cooper, John M, ed. Plato Complete Works. Indiana: Hackett Publishing, 1997.
Cooper, John M. "The Psychology of Justice in Plato." American Philosophical
Quarterly 14 (1977): 151-7.
Ferrari, G.R.F. “The Three-Part Soul.” In The Cambridge Companion to Plato’s Republic, edited by
G.R.F. Ferrari, 165-201. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Joplin, Katherine. “Dreams and the Psyche Through an Ancient Lens.” Electrum Magazine.
http://www.electrummagazine.com/2013/05/dreams-and-the-psyche-through-an-
ancient-lens (accessed November 25, 2014)
Lorenz, H. “The Analysis of the Soul in Plato’s Republic.” In The Blackwell Guide to Plato’s
Republic, edited by G. Santas, 166-188. Maine: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

Reeve, C.D.C, trans. Plato Republic. Indiana: Hackett Publishing, 2004.

Rowe, C. J. "The Argument and Structure of Plato's Phaedrus." Proceedings
of the Cambridge Philological Society 212 (1986): 106-25.
Santas, Gerasimos. Plato and Freud: Two Theories of Love. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988.
Sharf, Richard. Theories of Psychotherapy and Counseling. 5th ed. California: Cengage Learning,
2012.