Philosophy Diaries, Volume II: The Mind in Plato's Theory of Immortality

Moral Ambivalence in the Body and the Mind: a Refutation of Platonic Holy Mind

    The concept of pleasure in ancient philosophy is commonly depicted as some sort of yielding of the soul to the body, an erasure of the spirit, a complete abandonment of the self to the senses, a latching onto earthly matters, an ode to the ephemeral. As the soul waddles on a lengthy, skinny string inside the body, ordinarily oscillating up to the brain and down to the feet, it rises more to the mind in a philosopher, and drops below the ground in a hedonist; according to Plato, it all comes down to a the will to undertake a quest toward absolute truth, thus conduct a mildly ascetic life by living virtuously, meaning disengaging from bodily pleasures altogether and fueling the soul by dedicating to philosophy. But reducing the experience of pleasure to simple bodily sensations and cravings is wrong and superficial, as ecstatic bliss may especially originate from sole mental, intellectual urges and wrongdoings.

“Liberation from the tyranny of the body contributes to greatness, but just as much to greatness in sin as to greatness in virtue” (Russell, 135)

    According to Plato, pleasure can only be experienced in the body, most likely referring to sins such as gluttony, lust and laziness. In his History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell provides a brilliant explanation of his contradictory thesis, proving why pleasure isn’t solely bodily but most importantly mental. Russell claims that envy, cruelty, and love of power are all manifestations of mental pleasure, mentioning examples of figures who engaged in chaste lifestyles but nonetheless indulged in impure, immoral mental pleasures, among which are Milton’s Satan, Hitler and various historical ecclesiastics. The author’s thesis debunks Plato’s claim that all evils in the world originate from bodily whims, which is a statement that would support his theory of the soul’s immortality; the statement reads as such:

“Whence come wars, and fightings and factions? Whence but from the body and the lusts of the body? Wars are occasioned by the love of money, and money has to be acquired for the sake and in service of the body.” (Plato, Phaedo)

Plato’s argument relies on three premises: 1. All evil can be traced back to the body; 2. The mind is holy and pure in itself; 3. By being holy and pure, the mind may only be tainted by the body’s needs. These premises, which are not only implied by this statement, but also taken from his ideals and previous arguments, show how Plato thinks of the body and the mind as two very distinct, separate forms of identity of one being, endowed with a conflicting nature. While cultivating the mind, home of the intellect, may bring us to a wiser, holier, mystical way of life (mild Orphism), wallowing in grounding, sense-stimulating pleasure may lead us toward a life of delusion and stupidity. Subsequently, the individual’s afterlife will look different according to their chosen path on earth: while a philosopher will pass eternity in company of the gods in the world of ideas, the hedonist will either become a ghost, destined to roam the earth desperately, or reincarnate as an animal.

I find the idea of treating the body and the mind as two entities of different nature (one pure, one sinful) simply untrue. This may not only be demonstrated by Russell’s enlightening claim, but also by a series of behaviors of the human mind and body; my claim would like to refute the ideal of the mind as a sole highly mystical entity, present it as a container of ‘humanity’, and discuss the existence of a moral dualism in both entities, which may coincide or present discrepancies.

    The first error I would like to take into consideration is believing the mind to be pure and holy. According to Plato’s ideals, the mind is a sacred place which may bring one to absolute truth if worshiped; in other words, intellect is to be stimulated and incentivized through the study of mathematics, philosophy, logic, music (...); in exchange, it will guarantee wisdom and an immortal soul. The mind was thought to be close to God, a gateway to the world of ideas, divine and flawless, but if tempted and corrupted by the body, it could lead to a miserable afterlife. This claim raises the question: if the mind is considered holy (in its denotative and Platonic sense) then why should it possess the weakness of yielding to the body? If good and inherently right, why should the mind partake in such a wrong act such as that of surrendering to the body’s temptations? The tentative answers to these questions cannot fulfill them logically in any way. Since the argument functions both Platonically and in regards to the Catholic doctrine, one may address human imperfection, free will and original sin, but these concepts would still imply a choice of good and evil residing in the mind, rather than it being holy and flawless. The individual’s ability to choose concerns the choice to use the intellect positively, to use the moral dualism rightly (according to the doctrine, because otherwise, what would we classify as good?), and not whether to let the intellect win instead of the body. Even if it did refer to this last statement, one would wonder why the mind, as pure and holy, should even possess in itself the possibility of losing to the body. These answers fundamentally do not correlate to the questions at all. Sure, an individual may have the choice of being evil, but that renders the mind impure regardless.

    As a consequence of the acceptance of the mind’s tendency to surrender to the body, it can be stated that the mind contains a moral dualism, it is not inherently and absolutely good, but it is also capable of desiring strife and inciting contempt, and most importantly it is capable of selfishly yielding to the body. In fewer words, not every action of the mind can be attributed to a biological purpose, it does not yield for the body, but rather it yields for its own pleasure. As Russell said, the mind’s whims can exist outside of the body’s cravings, and because of this they can often result in contrasting reactions from both elements; this demonstrates the equal amount of evil present in both the mind and the body, which does not only manifest itself through abstract thoughts but also through concrete human behaviors. The most banal biopsychological example would be sexual arousal and pleasure, specifically the phenomenon of kinks. Masochism is a broad umbrella term which refers to a part of BDSM that concerns itself with taking pleasure in the infliction of pain to oneself. It would seem contradicting that the mind would take pleasure in something that physically hurts the body, and it is. It clearly shows the mind’s capability of acting counterintuitively to the body’s needs. Although one might argue that pain play contributes in some way to the arousal of the body, it is not the act itself that procures that reaction (as it provides genuine harm to the body) but the idea of it, the mind’s distorted conception of such an act; this not only confirms that the two entities both possess impure sides, but also demonstrates the mind’s capability of manipulating the body. 

Another common fault is that of mistakenly confounding sexual arousal with sexual pleasure. Firstly, it is illogical to make such a statement, because sexual arousal is not a demonstration of pleasure, but a mere response to a physical stimulus, which can be independent from mental desire. In fact, it has been studied and reported that oftentimes victims of rape or sexual assault experience arousal despite the traumatic event solely because it is a direct response to a stimulus; for this reason, victims are often blamed and shamed. This demonstrates thoroughly that the mind can override the body and hold conflicting positions.

    Through the argument presented I refute Plato’s conception of the mind as devoid of flaws and faults. In turn, I offer a new view on the mind as a container of an individual’s ‘humanity’, here meaning a tendency to commit ethical/moral errors. As the mind is stripped of its divine quality due to logical incoherence, it becomes the host of a dualism, which is a vessel of good and evil intentions. In light of this, I would add to Plato’s general advice of living with temperance, to exercise virtue to its highest and most noble form: emotional intelligence and moral wisdom.

Works Cited

Russell, Bertrand. History of Western Philosophy. Psychology Press, 2004.

Plato. Plato’s Phaedo. MacMillan Publishing Company, 1955.

Meston, Cindy M., and Amelia M. Stanton. “Understanding Sexual Arousal

Subjective–genital Arousal Desynchrony in Women.” Nature Reviews Urology, vol. 16, no. 2, Jan. 2019, pp. 107–20.

Vandervoort, Mariève et al. “Victim Sexual Arousal During Nonconsensual Sex: A Scoping Review.” Archives of sexual behavior vol. 53,6 (2024)

Kamping, Sandra et al. “Contextual modulation of pain in masochists: involvement of the parietal operculum and insula.” Pain vol. 157,2 (2016)