An Opinion on Plato's Middle Dialogues

Plato theorized that the soul consisted of three parts: rational, spirited and appetite with justice to balance the three portions. This theory is reiterated with Freud's idea of the subconscious. There a portion of the soul/brain that is responsible for the goodness in life. It is this part that is the moral compass, the part that helps a person navigate through the muddy waters of the everyday to find the right path to take. It is the rational portion that mirrors that of the external world of Freud, as it dictates the self-esteem of man. With the spirited, it is this portion that revels in honor and victory of the every day life. Here is the superego, which maintains the emotional attachment to the every day, the masculine essence of spirit. It is this aggressive masculine sense that epitomizes the spirited portion of Plato, as honor and victory are traditionally masculine emotional, though the centuries have proven otherwise in this case. The appetite is the id of the brain, the pleasure principle. It is the raw, primal instincts that Plato addresses. It is the most basic fundamental behaviors of man. With these three portions, it is the justice of Plato's theory, and the ego of Freud that maintains the balance of a man's spirit.

While these theories are insightful, applying them to my personal being is not likely. In the last few years, I have started on a spiritual journey, much like the Tibetan monks, where the moral psychology of Plato and Freud has no room. Though I do have an "ego," it is not the same ego of either man's philosophy. It is what I call "emotional guidance overload." Or Ego, for short. To me, the ego is that little voice, the devil and angel sitting on your shoulders, telling you what to do. However, it is my ego that hinders me the most. Following the psychology of Dr. Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra, and the many contributors to the Secret, the ego is what holds most people back. It is the one thing that keeps a person from their true happiness. It is the self-fulfilling prophecy. The ego is doubt, fear, resentment; it is every negative in one tiny voice. To me, Plato and Freud's psychology is akrasia. It is the moral weakness that I strive to remove from my life and allow the cosmos to guide me to the ideal life.

Considering that my personal philosophy is exact opposite of that Plato, I wonder what exactly he would think of it? Would he claim that my appetite is not being balanced by my justice? Would he be open enough to consider what I have to say? Or would he be so narrow minded and focused on his moral psychology that he would not be able to rationalize it? Would this debate expose his own imbalance? Most of what Plato and Freud deal with is in terms of lack: the appetite focuses on the lack of food/drink/sex; the spirit focuses on the lack of truth and the spirited, the lack of notoriety. However, by focusing on the lack, it simply creates more lack. My philosophy focuses on all that I have in my life and the gratitude I have for that one simple thing. I wonder what Plato would say about that. Did he ever think about gratitude? How would he fit it into his moral psychology? He spent his entire life striving to obtain more and more knowledge and truth; in essence, he spent his entire life living in lack. I don't plan on living like that.