Comparison between Platonic Theory of Human Nature and Existentialist's Theory of Human Person (Essay Sample)

Comparison between Platonic Theory of Human Nature and Existentialist’s Theory of Human Person
Name:
Institution:

Abstract
Platonic and existentialist’s theory of human nature are among the many theories that expound on the topic of human nature. Generally, human nature is the predisposition and traits that humans exhibit naturally. According to Plato (2002), human nature is defined by reason and soul. For him, what a person becomes depends on what type of a soul he has. Further, he argues that for humans to live a life of happiness, they should embrace reasoning rather than supernatural thinking, myths or superstition. Plato also asserts that people act unethically because they lack the knowledge of good. He further posits that for a state to be governed adeptly, highly educated personalities should be at the helm. Finally, Plato asserts that humans are social beings who depend on each other for their existence. On the other hand, existentialist’s theory of human nature basically believes that existence precedes essence and human nature is not predetermined but dependent on personal choices, will and decisions (Sartre, 1946).
Platonic Theory of Human Nature
In Platonic theory of human nature, Plato tries to identity human nature with reason and soul. According to him, the soul is divided into three parts: reason, appetite and will/spirit (Plato, 2002). For Plato, it is natural for one part to have dominance over the other (Plato, 2002). This dominance of one part of the soul is what defines human nature, that is to say, human nature is determined by what kind of soul one has. The main duty of the soul is to seek knowledge. However, the body acts to impede the soul from attaining its goal (Plato, 2002).
According to Plato (2002), genuine knowledge is based on reasoning not opinion or perception. For an idea to be deemed as knowledge, it should correspond to something real. The world perceived by our senses is not actual world but illusion or appearance. The real world is changeless and eternal. Plato believes that if a man knows what is good, he will strive to attain it. He argues that, in order for one to discover the nature of good life, one must be subjected to intellectual training in subjects such as, mathematics; astronomy; music and philosophy. Through such, they can attain knowledge of the good and once they have it, they will understand the nature of good and try to attain it (Plato, 2002). The import of this statement is that, goodness is an independently existing entity, to be discovered by an act of rational exercise in the same way as the truth of one plus one equals to two. Plato posits that people act immorally because they lack knowledge of good, in this case knowledge of ethics. This notion is debatable since not everyone who acts immorally does it out of ignorance but some, out of their pleasure (Plato, 2002).
Another aspect of this theory is that humans are social beings. Each of them is born with basic biological needs (Plato, 2002). For one to carter for his or her needs, one is expected to specialize in an occupation and also engage in exchange of goods and services with others. He also states that humans live in groups and cannot survive solely. This Living in groups, labor division and specialization, and engaging in trade, is what enables man to rise above an animal existence and become fully human (Plato, 2002).
Lastly, Plato’s Republic is based on ethics. For him, virtue is the ultimate good and should be attained in human society. The virtue of wisdom is pivotal for the functioning of a good state and also helps it to attain happiness (Plato, 2002). Plato divides the ideal government into three arms, namely, the ruling class which according to him should be the philosophers; warriors who should provide security to the state; and producers who supply the state with goods and services (Plato, 2002). The ideal state for Plato should provide education to children, regulate marriage, and prepare its intelligent citizens for leadership in government.
Epistemological View of Plato
Plato argues that if knowledge is derived from senses, then sophists are correct to say that there is no genuine knowledge (Plato, 2002). According to him, opinion or perceptions does not reveal the true reality of things, but, genuine knowledge is based on reason. He continues to argue that, the world perceived by our senses is not the true world but illusion. The true world is changeless and eternal (Plato, 2002).
Metaphysical View of Plato
For Plato anything which is material is temporal and not real. The material things are just perceived by our senses. According to him, the unseen is real, eternal and unchanging. For anything to be considered as real, it should have a form. To him, knowledge is of forms just as in mathematics we have geometry (Plato, 2002).
Ethical View of Plato
According to the philosopher, moral principles such as equality and justice are objective rather than subjective. Just as we have physical and mathematical forms, so are moral principles and in this case, they are prominent of all (Plato, 2002). Plato (2002) posits that, if a man knows what is good, he will strive to attain it. He further says that, one has to be trained in subjects such as philosophy and mathematics so as to attain the knowledge of goodness. Once this knowledge is acquired, one will comprehend the nature of the good and will seek to attain it. For the philosopher, people act immorally because they lack the knowledge of the good (Plato, 2002).
Comparison between Plato’s Theory of Human Nature and Existentialist’s Theory of Human Person
Platonic theory of human nature identifies human nature with reasoning and soul. According to Plato (2002), reasoning is a guideline for a good living. He portrays the soul as being immortal and existent prior to our existence and after death (Plato, 2002). For Plato, the essence of a person is determined by the kind of soul one possesses. On the other hand, Jean Paul Sartre, a renowned existentialist of 20th century, argues that, there is no human nature. In putting his argument into perspective, Sartre asserts that, existence precedes essence. For him, human exist first then they create their essence through the choices and decisions they make in their lives, hence there is no human nature in this respect. Looking at these two arguments regarding human nature, it is clear that, for Plato, human essence precedes existence. This is so because, for him, what someone becomes is predetermined. On the other hand, Sartre refutes this strain of thought and asserts that, a man is what he makes of himself (Sartre, 1946). Therefore it is blindingly obvious that these two theories contrast on the idea of human nature.
Secondly, Plato argues that people act immorally because they lack knowledge of the good (Plato, 2002). According to him, knowledge is attained through training in subjects such as mathematics, astronomy and philosophy. It follows then that, one is not held responsible for his mistakes just for the mere fact of ignorance. However, Sartre believes that one attains knowledge through personal will and choices, experiences, and beliefs (Sartre, 1946). Unlike Plato’s theory, one is responsible for his or her choices and decisions. For Sartre, the choices and decisions one makes are unique since they don’t rely on an objective form of truth. Therefore, it is right to say that according to Plato, knowledge is objective while for Sartre, it is subjective.
Thirdly, Plato asserts that humans are social beings and not self-sufficient hence, we rely on each other so as to address our biological needs such as food and shelter (basic needs). Existentialists also agree that even though humans have freedom to make their choices and decisions, they are faced with some limitations that are beyond their control. For instance, there is the need to work, to exist and to live together with others (Sartre, 1946). Therefore, we can rig...