What's Your Account of the Soul?
On Fukuyama and Thymos
Francis Fukuyama writes in Identity that most modern economic theories typically have a dichotomous view of the soul—there’s desire (short term thinking; marshmallow now) and reason (long-term, calculative thinking; more marshmallows later).
Plato, by contrast, had a tripartite account. The soul is constituted not just by instinct and reason, but also by (self-)judgment or thymos, the part of the self that feels pride and shame—at itself.
Freud, likewise, has a tripartite view of the self—id, ego, superego—that roughly corresponds to the Platonic view. Freud was drawing on German idealist thinkers like Fichte and Hegel who understood the self to be constituted not just by an original drive (ego) and an obstacle to that drive (object; “not-I”), but by self-consciousness or reflexivity.
Kabbalah—which influenced German romantics, including Hegel—also uses a triadic model (e.g., Chochma, Bina, Daat; Hesed, Gevura, Tiferet; Netzach, Hod, Yesod; Keter; Tiferet; Malchut). And let’s not forget Christianity’s trinitarian theology. Is the Holy Spirit the analogue to God’s thymos?
For those who follow a tripartite account, as Fukuyama does, the meaning of life—and the challenges of political life—take place in the world of thymos. We aren’t going to make the world better simply by being more rational (Cf. “new atheists”), or by quashing our desire (Cf. Buddhists and ascetics), or by finding ways to better satisfy our desires (Cf. techno-utopians). Only a world in which thymos is well-tempered will we thrive.
One’s account of the self has implications for how one thinks the world works. Perhaps you have a four-part view of the soul, or a five part view. Nietzsche thought the self was a “parliament of drives.” Even so, it seems that thymos (self-consciousness), is the sovereign. (A self that is stuck might be one that is filibustered, or in which there is neither coalition nor sovereign).
I agree with Fukuyama, Plato, Freud, Fichte, and Hegel, that the self is tripartite. Therefore, I think the struggle for recognition born from thymos—and not simply the pursuit of material self interest—has the most explanatory power.
If the tripartite account is wrong, why? What’s the alternative? What are the implications? And what real world examples confirm it?
What is Called Thinking? is a practice of asking a daily question on the belief that self-reflection brings awe, joy, and enrichment to one’s life. Consider becoming a subscriber to support this project and access subscriber-only content.
You can read my weekly Torah commentary here.
some notes for he casual reader: generally most people have neither the consciousness, being or self awareness to utilize these ideas. In general without specific conscious work on the self in order to raise being and learn objective facts about the organization of the human machine one will live in the imaginary world. In this world these ideas can and will be coopted by unscrupulous "leaders" who will misuse them to confuse and then manipulate the sleeping hypnotized masses to do their bidding. And this is just the least bad outcome.
It would make a wonderful project to make a list of all the different attempts to divide and explain the parts of self and soul. Some additions to your list come to mind from Kant who tended to divide things into 3 as well: so we have the 3 forms of a priori knowledge, the 3 stages of apprehension, and so forth.