According to Plato, the soul and body were two distinct entities with distinctive
natures. This is the infamous “mind-body dualism.” The soul is
naturally opposed to the body and its appetites. The ancient Greeks gave preference to
the soul over the body, which was considered to be merely a distraction,
annoyance, and fetter to the pursuit of the Truth. Plato compares the body to a
cage that traps the soul. The body is greedy and selfish because of its needs
and desires; as soon as the body's desire is quenched (hunger, for example),
the body gives rise to another desire. Simmias summarizes this view while talking with
Socrates, “The body keeps us busy in a thousand ways because of is need for
nurture” (Plato 66c). The body constantly begs for attention: it must be fed,
bathed, and rested. The Greeks do not consider the body evil. The body -- its
desires and functions – are viewed as natural. The bodily pleasures, because
they are natural and part of the human, are to be controlled with proper rules,
practice, and discipline. The body, Plato notes, is material, visible, and
finite.
In contrast
to the body, Plato argues that the soul is invisible, eternal, and unchanging.
The soul is the true self. Through the act of philosophical contemplation the
soul can make contact with eternal Truths, or the Forms. (Plato believes
learning is an act of “recollection” because the soul is recounting what it
knew before birth but then forgot.) Plato argues that the purpose of the
philosophical way of life is to free the soul from the body, since the body is
merely a hindrance. At death, the soul is released from the body, and if it is
light enough, the soul will float up to be with the forms. Furthermore, the
soul should exercise reason to control the body because by dissociating oneself
from the body one becomes closer to the Forms (Plato 67).
However,
this relationship of control between the true-self (the soul) and the body is
not an easy one to attain. The relationship between the soul and body is one of
“agon” (the Greek word for struggle). Foucault, in the The History of
Sexuality: Vol 2, argues that the central idea of Greek ethics is self-mastery.
This idea is clear not only in Plato's mind-body dualism, but also in his
chariot analogy. Plato likens the body's appetites, desires, and pleasures to
the horses in a chariot race. The horses seek to go their own way, symbolizing
the conflict. Reason is analogous to the person in charge of the horses. Reason
must be in control of the reigns, and it must control and tame the wild beast
that is desire. To give into appetites is to surrender one's true self or true
nature.
Tied to the
notion of self-mastery is the notion of moderation. Moderation is an expression
of self-control. The Greeks highly respected men who could control their
passions and desires. The ideal ethical action is “to treat them [passions]
with disdain and orderliness” (Plato 68d). Moderation, however, is not valued
for its own sake. For Plato, self-mastery and moderation are of value insofar as they allow one to contemplated the
Forms or seek the Truth. For earlier Greeks self-mastery and moderation are
good in themselves. Plato tells us that “the philosopher more than other men
frees the soul from association with the body as much as possible” (Plato 67d).
For Plato, the ideal person who represents self-mastery and who is closest to
the Forms is the philosopher.
For the
Greeks giving into desires wantonly is to give control to a part of you that is
lesser and non-essential. It is a form of obedience: this notion is present in
the common turn of phrase “a slave to one's desires.” Foucault argues that in
Greek sexual behavior there was one role that was intrinsically honorable: “the
one that consisted in being active, in dominating, in penetrating, in asserting
one's superiority” (Foucault 215). Passivity was looked down upon by the
Greeks. The active male is one who struggles and obtains victory or who takes
action. The pre-Socratic Heraclitus expresses this attitude in his 53rd
fragment, “War
is both the father of all and the king of all: it reveals the gods on the one
hand and humans on the other, makes slaves on one hand, the free on the other”
(Fried 21). The struggle for victory and the preference for masculine activity
can be seen in several aspects of the Greeks life: dietary habits, politics,
marital/sexual relations, and sex, among others.
Self-mastery
and the preference for active roles leads to the problem of the “antinomy of
the boy.” The word antinomy simply means a contradiction, tension, or conflict.
In Greek society it was common practice for an older man to have sexual
relations with young boys, but there was more to this relationship than just
sex. The boy was to be educated by the older man. The relationship with the
older man serves the purpose of teaching the boy how to become an active,
autonomous citizen. Yet the boy's sexual relationship with an older man
is at odds with the masculine ideal the boy is to become: the boy, while being
mentored, is treated as a passive object of pleasure. Foucault explains,
“When one played the role of subordinate partner in the game of pleasure
relations, one could not truly dominate in the game of civic and political
activity” (Foucault 220). In other words, if the boy is the one being penetrated
in the sexual act he is assuming a passive role. Foucault argues that
the “relationship that the boy was expected to establish with himself in order
to become a free man, master of himself and capable of prevailing over others,
was at variance with a form of relationship in which he would be an object of
pleasure for another” (Foucault 221). By assuming this passive role, the boy is
not learning how to be active, which is a necessary prerequisite for assuming
the role of an active citizen of the polis.
According to
Foucault, Plato solves the “antinomy of the boy” by displacing the focus of the
relationship. The relationship is no longer centered on the adult male's
courtship of the boy, or on who one loves. Plato solves the conflict by
removing the sexual element completely. The sexual relation is to be replaced
with the search for Truth (the Form of Love). Foucault argues that the
questions of who to love are replaced by the question “What is love in its very
being?” (Foucault 233). The adult male's job is now to help the boy achieve
self-transformation, to help him learn to exercise reason in subduing desire.
Just as
Plato argues that the soul should rule the body by exercising reason to achieve
moderation for the purpose of pursuing knowledge, so too is it the case that
the older man should mentor the boy to teach him how to be a good citizen,
while ignoring the bodily aspect of love. By making this move, Plato preserves
the honor of both the older man and the boy. The older man is no longer a slave
to his desires to penetrate the boy; the boy no longer has to worry about his
own honor being lost in the act of being penetrated since he will be engaged in
the pursuit of Truth.
We can see
in Plato's discussion in Phaedo support for Foucault's interpretation.
Plato writes “if we are ever to have pure knowledge, we must escape from the
body and observe things in themselves with the soul by itself” (Plato
65e-66a).The soul can only become virtuous by ignoring the body. The same views
are expressed in relation to love between a man and boy. The man and boy can
only become virtuous if they ignore the bodily aspect of love, and both
contemplate the Forms. They both share a love of wisdom.
A similar
dualistic thought process can be seen in the Gnostic thinker Valentinus'
thought. Valentinus attempted to incorporate certain aspects of Platonism into
early Christian thought. Following Plato, Valentinus argues that the body was
of little value: the spirit is the most important thing. Peter Brown
writes, “The body... was of little value... An unnecessary and deceptive
covering compared with the spirit deep within it” (Brown 110). For Valentinus
and the Gnostics the world had fallen. Only through cultivating the spirit by
enjoining it to God could redemption be achieved. Valentinus' thinking
parallels Plato's. Plato argues that through contemplation, the soul can catch
glimpses of the Forms. Only when death occurs, does the soul float up to the
Forms. For Valentinus, on the other hand, through worship, faith, and learning
of the Christian doctrine, the spirit can capture the wisdom of God. Upon death
the spirit becomes one with God. Valentinus keeps the dualistic structure
of Plato's thought, while changing certain key phrases: soul becomes
spirit, Forms becomes heaven, etc.
Valentinus
has a dualistic conception of the male/female that has much in common with the
Greek conception of active/passive roles. However, there are important
differences. The woman, in Valentinus' thought, is fluid, weak, and passive.
The feminine is “open, aimless, lacking in shape and direction” (Brown 112).
The male, on the other hand, is structured, dominant, and strong. For Plato, these
features reflect one's true nature. However, for Valentinus these qualities are
merely qualities of the body, not the spirit. Valentinus is noted for his fluid
conception of the body (Brown 109-110). The body is merely a passing moment in
the process of redemption and reunification with God. With Plato we remain
stuck in the polarity, with Valentinus comes an attempt to overcome the dualism
through unity with God.
Works Cited
Brown, Peter. The Body and Society:
Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press,
2008.
Foucault, Michel. The Use of
Pleasures: The History of Sexuality-- Vol. 2. New York: Vintage Books (Random House), 1990.
Plato, Five Dialogues. Translated by G.M.A. Grube.
Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2002.
Heraclitus. Translated by
Gregory Fried in Heidegger’s Polemos,
From Being to Politics. Yale University Press, 2000.
Comments
Post a Comment