Can a soul really be corrupted, or is corruption already within one’s soul? Does the soul start off in a pure state? While I think that the soul can be corrupted, I argue that as a child one is generally without corruption. The soul, to me, starts out in somewhat of a pure state that can be modified with guidance.
Plato
argues there are three parts to the soul; the mind, the spirited, and the
appetitive parts. These parts of the soul are within every individual, but each
person leans towards one of the three parts more heavily than the other two
parts. I agree that each individual leans towards one part of the soul more
than the other parts, but I do not agree with Plato’s societal hierarchy.
I
feel that although a person may be categorized by Plato as someone with a
rational soul, that same person is not limited by that categorization, but
instead, that person may choose his or her own destiny. To me, Plato is saying
that if you are a spirited person, you will end up as a soldier and if you are
an appetitive person, you will be a worker.
I
believe that a person can shape their own destiny, and the soul that people are
born with does not necessarily define them. A person’s actions will mold their
soul, and a person’s actions will mold their own destiny.
I feel like you have touched on some important questions that have been argued and discussed since the beginning of time. According to some Christians we are born into sin, original sin because of Eve's decision in the Garden of Eden, and only through Christ can that sin be wiped clean. Also, your inquiry brings up the idea of nature vs. nurture. Are we destined to be a good or bad person or is it solely due our environment that we turn out a certain way? Or despite our environment, whether it be positive or negative, can we turn out differently? I think that these questions are all ones that would have to be considered if one were to devise the plans for a utopia. I also think they must be considered when deciding whether or not a utopia is possible or not.
ReplyDeleteHi Jesus,
ReplyDeleteYour first sentence in particular reminds me about the conflict with Catholic Christianity and the Pelagian heresy in the fifth century. The two main players in the conflict was Saint Augustine (the same one who wrote the City of God) and Pelagius, a British monk (from which we get the name Pelagianism).
Essentially, the conflict boiled down to two questions: Do we sin because we are sinners, or are we sinners because we sin? Augustine affirmed the first question, whereas Pelagius affirmed the second. Essentially, as McKinsey pointed out, this debate had to do with original sin (affirmed by Augustine, denied by Pelagius) and its role in the salvation of mankind.
Augustine pretty much won that conflict.