Deconversion and some doubts

[vulcanlogician]

In Phaedrus, Plato likens the human soul to a chariot with three parts: two horses and a charioteer. One horse is stubborn and disobedient. This horse is desire. The other horse is dutiful and responsive. This second horse is emotion. The third part... the weakest and smallest part... is reason/logic, the charioteer. We need our desire and emotion to carry us forward in our lives. The charioteer cannot pull the chariot, right? But also, we need to be mindful that these spirited beasts have no business steering the chariot. Reason needs to be in charge of steering the chariot this way or that. Emotion and desire ought to do nothing but pull the chariot forward. But, alas, Plato diagnoses most souls as being steered by desire or emotion. Only a special few souls are reasonable. It is these souls who are truly capable of living righteously. That is how the Good "works inwardly in the soul." 

I wonder if it's a bit misleading to stop the myth here. Though I understand this version will be more popular on this forum.

In the original, the chariot isn't aiming for a nice balanced life. It's aiming to look above, to the world of Forms. Exactly the place where the Good is "located." If you do a good job and guide your horses, you get a longer look at the Forms. A good life results from direct vision of the Forms, including the Good. The result will be a good life -- the best life being, of course, that of a philosopher -- but this good life comes as a result of a vision of the Forms.

I disagree with Plato that the "best" life is that of a philosopher. Even though, that is the life to which I myself am hopelessly predisposed. That would be too convenient a truth. I rather like the way I've put the myth here. I think I said what Plato was trying to say in Phaedrus (and the Republic). I might have left out that the "goal" of the chariot's journey is to arrive at the Forms. But who cares? I like to say that the chariot ascends to a good vantagepoint, by being reasonable. 

I don't think I have to hit every one of Plato's notes to communicate his harmony adequately. To say it super precisely, I'd lose some folks along the way. I kind of like the way I put it, tbh. If people want more, I've given them the source material too. So they can learn all about the allegory of the chariot if they wish.

Isn't the key thing, though, that reason ought to steer the soul?

[Belacqua]

I disagree with Plato that the "best" life is that of a philosopher. Even though, that is the life to which I myself am hopelessly predisposed. That would be too convenient a truth. I rather like the way I've put the myth here. I think I said what Plato was trying to say in Phaedrus (and the Republic). I might have left out that the "goal" of the chariot's journey is to arrive at the Forms. But who cares? I like to say that the chariot ascends to a good vantagepoint, by being reasonable. 

I don't think I have to hit every one of Plato's notes to communicate his harmony adequately. To say it super precisely, I'd lose some folks along the way. I kind of like the way I put it, tbh. If people want more, I've given them the source material too. So they can learn all about the allegory of the chariot if they wish.

Isn't the key thing, though, that reason ought to steer the soul?

I honestly think that the Phaedrus is one of the very best books in existence. And my passion comes back when I get a chance to talk about it. So if my left horse pulls out ahead for a moment, please forgive me. 

The whole thing with the chariots divides into two parts, I think. 

The first part, Stephanus 246a - 250c, is about how the gods live in their realm. They make revolutions around heaven in their chariots, which have two well-behaved horses. As they go around, they can see into the even higher region, where the Forms are located. They get knowledge through direct vision of "true being." As you know, people on this forum will hate the whole idea of true being as unchanging and immaterial Forms, but it's crucial to Plato, as the world of change is not true being. Anyway, we lesser souls follow along in our chariots with our less obedient horses, and our glimpses of true being -- of the Good, of Beauty Itself, etc. -- are far less complete. 

That's mostly the first part. 

Then in the second part he's talking (as he so often does) about older men lusting after boys. (about 251a and following)

When the older guy (the erastēs) is hot for the younger boy (the erōmenos) his natural desire is of course to jump him and have sex. The right-hand horse of the chariot, being ambitious but also concerned with self-control and respect for others, hesitates, but the left-hand horse wants to get to it. 

When the chariot gets close, the driver gets a really good look at the erōmenos, who is of course extremely desirable. What holds the driver back from just raping him is not logic or forethought but the fact that the beauty of the boy recalls to him his vision of the Form of Beauty, which he had in his pre-birth life up there driving after the gods. In our own material world, of course, a hot boy is the nearest thing to Beauty Itself -- unembodied Beauty. As always in Plato, one virtue (Beauty) is closely allied to other virtues (Self-Control) and so the driver can remember to control himself, rein in the more passionate horse (i.e. hold his horses) and go about things in a more virtuous manner. He spends a little time seducing the boy, helps the boy with his career, etc. This makes it all OK. 

This is all in the discussion of a certain kind of madness, which is seen as totally necessary to our advance toward true knowledge. What pulls the lover forward is passion for beauty, what controls him is memory of Beauty. 

And we can think of all of this as metaphorical, and not only about hot boy sex. Certainly the Christians have read it this way. 

Anyway, I don't think that Plato writes of the charioteer as working through logic at all. He is mad with desire, which is good. He takes a more virtuous path due to memory of the Forms. 

Like all myths, there is no true and final interpretation, and I'm certainly not going to tell you that you shouldn't read it however you wish. One of the great things about Plato, however, is how STRANGE it all is, how challenging to modern people, how vastly more imaginative it is than any sci fi novel. So I am eager to preserve its strangeness, among other things. 

[GrandizerII]

I don't really have much familiarity with Plato's work (aside from the minor stuff I was taught in psychology) so it's good to read clear posts about what it is and is not (with no God agenda).

Ok, that was a little unclear. By "it", I meant "Platonism", for anyone wondering.