1. Camille Taylor
PHIL110: Human Nature
Prof. Vallega; GTF Shannon Hayes
Journal 2
December 2, 2013
1. During the week of 10/28 we discussed aspects of the soul and the three
parts that comprise the soul: Reason, Desire, and Spirit. Reason is our logos
and guides our decision making in a rational way, while desire does the
opposite and rules our wants and emotions. Spirit is the mediator between
the two as it provides “temperance” in order to be the motivator and doer in
a decision making process. Spirit is the balance between Reason and Desire
as well as the action that unites the two. Poetry is a form of Desire because it
contains “music and images that move people without reason”. Poetry is an
“aesthetic sense” that gives people who are educated in it the ability to detect
lies and notice truth in beauty. Although poetry is necessary for expressing a
component of the soul (Desire), philosophy is necessary because it shows us
knowledge—not just what seems to be. We discussed how Reason (logos) is
both internal and external: the internal part is made up of the soul, or ‘inner-
life’. Each individual soul has purpose, reflection, desire, reason, and spirit.
We briefly went over how reflection is what causes the soul to experience
suffering because if one is a perpetrator or causes harm to someone they are
forced to live with that knowledge internally. In addition to the individual
soul, the city tells a “noble lie” to protect its citizens; it is a lie intended to
keep order, cooperation, and patriotism alive. The city’s guardians or
warriors are immediately taught the noble lie and base their protective
strategies on it. We talked about the comparison of Knowledge and Opinion:
Opinion is how people see things (what appeals to the senses) and
Knowledge is the result of “the good”. The Theory of Form explains this
difference. The good is the “cause of existence and reality: it makes it possible
for us to think.” While light/the sun “makes it possible for us to
see/perceive.” However, the good cannot be thinking in itself, otherwise our
thoughts would be the objective reality.
2. The first theory about the three parts of the soul is highly debatable because
how does this explain people who lack a soul or who lack certain parts of the
soul? People labeled psychopaths and sociopaths are said to not have a soul; I
would argue that regarding this theory of the soul they do have a soul, but
they have deficiencies in Reason and/or their Spirit is purely guided by their
Desire. Even a person with a sound mind cannot guarantee that their spirit
will always mediate or resolve the conflict between their Reason and Desire.
What if they never move? Therefore, the soul does not operate identically for
each individual. If poetry has the strong power of moving us emotionally,
then even though it is an important part of education it still manipulates our
decision making because it’s not based on reason. Again, there is no sure way
of knowing that each soul reflects on what they have done—let alone that

2. their actions even bother them in the first place. Some people are capable of
causing great harm and they do this in part because their soul doesn’t keep
them up at night. Concerning the city’s “noble lie”, how can this lie be noble if
it is a lie in itself? The term is an oxymoron; telling the citizens of a city a lie
to maintain order is not honorable and only benefits the city, not its citizens.
3. I found the three components of the soul to be the most interesting theory we
discussed. Although I disagree with how it claims to apply to each individual,
I think how it is said to operate is beautiful and an optimal way to make
decisions: there are two opposing forces that conflict and one’s spirit is
meant to make the compromise and ‘move’ this individual to make the best
choice possible. This resolve creates peace within the individual because they
are no longer stewing about what to do.
1. During the week of 11/4 we laid out the four steps of The Divided Line:
Imagination, Belief, Thought, and Understanding. The Divided Line is a
succession of steps beginning from birth all the way to mature adulthood.
Young children are first able to imagine things—that is, making up images
and things as if they were actually present in reality. For example, a child
may have imaginary friends. As the child grows more, he/she is capable of
belief, or faith without proof. He may believe that his parents are right about
something just because they say so. He is “given the perception of a truth and
takes it”. Next, humans are able to create thought, or ideas such as ‘if I do this,
that will happen’. They are able to formulate plans using logic and
practicality. The final stage is one that few reach in their lifetime—most
people are only capable of thought without true knowledge or
understanding. Understanding “moves beyond objectification of forms” and
actually questions and looks into established principles and truths. Then, we
discussed the Allegory of the Cave and its structure. The physical aspects of
the cave are made up of a wall with a screen in front projecting images
moving in various directions. There are people in the cave, but they are stuck
looking at the same images on the screen. Behind the wall are beings with
puppets, and behind the puppets is a fire that projects the images. The
allegory of the cave is that the people forced to look at these images are
prisoners like how advertising agencies and the government psychologically
imprison citizens. In our society, we can only look at things from the way
they are framed/presented to us; we do not know what is actually behind the
wall or what truths lie there because we are blocked from seeing it. Our
education system is another method of imprisonment: growing up, we are
given certain ways of viewing and interpreting the world. In addition, we are
taught to be defensive and to only learn as much as it will take to achieve a
certain amount of success. Because we are lost in The Great Lie (believing we
know something we really don’t), we become prisoners. The prisoners in the
cave look at the images on the screen and are emotionally moved by them so
we think “they tell us something true about the universe”.
2. From a more logical perspective on The Divided Line, belief should come
after thought. Children are perhaps the most logical and truthful beings,

3. while many adults have rigid religious beliefs not based on facts or truth. It
makes more sense that humans would develop the capacity for thought
before belief, especially because children are not clouded with value systems
or belief systems: when you ask them what happened or who said what they
will explain factually because they don’t have any incentive not to. The
symbolism used in the cave is generally accurate to how modern individuals
are deceived by people in positions of power, yet there are those who
challenge nearly everything that’s thrown at them. Another word for these
people are non-conformists/rebels: they think for themselves, or at least
don’t take everything they see at face value. Even if they grew up in
traditional society and were educated the same way, they don’t allow
themselves to be prisoners of mind manipulation and consumerism. The
government doesn’t trap us; we imprison ourselves.
3. The most interesting topic to me is The Divided Line. It reminds me of the
psychologist Jean Piaget’s cognitive development theory, which is a sequence
of mental stages every human being supposedly goes through. It begins with
infants at the Sensorimotor stage, then the Preoperational stage, Concrete
Operational stage, and Formal Operational stage. Like Imagination, the
Sensorimotor stage is all about perceiving things with the senses as a way to
make sense of the world. The Preoperational stage is similar but involves
language and the use of symbolic thought without the ability to use logic yet.
In the Concrete Operational stage, children and pre-pubescents acquire logic
and process what goes on around them in a purely matter of fact fashion.
This is very similar to the Thought stage in The Divided Line. The Formal
Operational stage is the final stage of cognitive development where young
adults learn how to thing abstractly. They can now imagine the possible
consequences of someone’s actions, as well as knowing how to solve a
problem using a stratagem. I related The Divided Line to this because I was
always curious whether everyone reaches the Formal Operational stage or
not; and if not, how the city suffers because of this. I equate the stage of
Understanding with this final stage because I know not everyone achieves it
in his or her lifetime.
1. During the week of 11/11, we discussed the essence and purpose of The
Leviathan and the Natural Condition of Mankind. In order for humans to live
within reason they need to construct a Leviathan, which is a monster or a
machine that is designed to restrain humans from their natural inclinations
for violence and destruction. The Leviathan is bigger and more powerful than
humans, but is meant to protect us from ourselves. This Leviathan will be
what humans cannot be internally: rational, reasonable, and just. It is also
called the sovereign because it decides what the law will be without being
subject to the law. The Leviathan opposes human nature by controlling while
understanding its faults: violence, lack of harmony, thievery, and
competition. The Leviathan (or government system) does this by
implementing justice through the Social Contract; set up for the purpose of
order and peace because every human has a fear of death, a desire for

4. comfortable living, and an interest in work. The Natural Condition of
Mankind is characterized by what is mentioned above: the tendency for
violent behavior and thoughts because of the strong urge to survive.
According to Hobbes, violence is what defines humans and is what is “behind
our desire and intelligence”. Violence arises because of Competition,
Diffidence, and Glory. The very reason humans are perpetually against one
another is because we are identical in mind and body—when it comes to
making good choices about our lives we think we know best/are the
smartest. In lecture we discussed the Epistemic Box; it is the “space that
situates our knowledge.” We learn how to think, expect, and interpret the
world around us as children. The Epistemic Box then directs our thoughts
and behavior, not unlike The Cave. Human beings are violent toward each
other because they want the same things and pursue them similarly.
According to lecture, the anticipation of attack is the only security humans
have. In addition, the “natural condition of man is a permanent state of war.”
Instead of Plato’s 3 parts to the soul, Hobbes defines the soul as a dichotomy
between two conflicting forces: rational and desire. The “spirit” or
intermediate force has to come from outside (the government). The remedy
for this natural state of violence is government because without it “there
would be no culture, learning, history, society, nor time for art and
knowledge.”
2. The way Hobbes defines and describes human state at its core is limiting
because I can think of several instances when humans are altruistic and not
self-gratifying. Even though Hobbes claims that no human does anything
without considering his best interest, this leaves out non-European culture.
As talked about in lecture, Native American culture was regarded by Hobbes
as savagery. This is very ironic because the Native Americans were perhaps
the most civilized, wasteless, spiritual, and harmonious group of humans.
European culture places value on capitalism and self-serving behavior, so it is
no wonder that Hobbes viewed humans this way. There is some truth to his
theory on human nature; because humans have complex mental functioning
and a unique way of relating to the world, we are able to manipulate others
easily for our personal gain. But, this is only one way of using our mental
capacity and gifts—we are capable of altruistic acts that promote social
harmony and decrease thanatos. Also, the structure of the soul that Hobbes
talks about is not entirely true; just like Plato’s theory of the soul, there is no
way to test this. Additionally, what happens when the government (which is
supposed to be the benevolent spirit of the violent people) turns corrupt? If
humans don’t have a spirit or any good within them to start with, then how
do they even have the desire to create a Leviathan to improve their world?
Again, the flaw with the Leviathan is that it is made by and comprised of
humans; therefore, if humans lack reason and justice then how do they create
it (and maintain it) in something else?
3. The topic I find most interesting is The Leviathan: it is described as a
monster and a machine. This means that its end result could unfold in two
ways: either it can function the way humans design it to function (it can act

5. as a machine, with a specific method of action that is predictable and
controllable), or, it can spin out of control and become a monster, unable to
behave rationally because humans are the ones who created it. Like I
mentioned in the above paragraph, The Leviathan is a precarious invention
because it is manipulated and regulated by man—the very creature who is
the source of the problem and the reason The Leviathan needs to be
invented. Even in mass numbers, how is it possible for humans to establish a
system that works to protect against their own dangerous behavior?
1. During the week of 11/18, we finished the last of Hobbes writings about
Natural Law, liberty, and “lay[ing] down” one’s right. We also began
discussing Foucault’s writings on Biopolitics/power. Beginning with Hobbes,
Natural Law (or the law of nature) is that every individual is entitled to
everything, including other individuals; this means that individuals can take
whatever necessary actions to defend themselves, perpetuate their lives, and
get what they desire. There are no conditions or limitations to the natural
law, because in anarchy it is ‘every man for himself’. Liberty is how
individuals in this kind of society (or lack thereof) exercise the natural law.
Liberty grants people the permission to pursue what they want and need.
The selfless act of giving up one’s right to their liberty means that they
contribute to the resolution of anarchy, violence, and destruction. An
individual can “lay down” their right to be entitled to everything and
everyone by giving it to someone in particular or a random person. It is then
the relinquisher’s duty to not interrupt or disturb that person’s right to
practice their liberty. This act creates peace and is a remedy to the previous
natural state of being. In opposition to Hobbes’ theory of the sovereign’s
power to take life at will, Foucault believes that Western nations have moved
toward establishing a sovereign power that regulates, “optimizes”,
“monitors”, and promotes life through the existence of schools, universities,
medical care, and militias. Instead of setting death as a priority to protect the
sovereign and control the violent masses, Foucault talks about how the
sovereign’s ultimate job should be advocating life to better the society. In
discussion, the huge distinction between Hobbes’ and Foucault’s theories is
that the latter believes people are worth more alive than dead.
2. One error I found with Hobbes’ theory of relinquishing one’s right to liberty
is that it would never realistically function to promote peace. If one person
decides to give up their right to another, it only perpetuates the system of
taking for oneself; now this new person has access to that power and can
easily execute another for his/her personal gain. How does this exchange of
power work for the progression of peace? It would only work if all
individuals did this, and no one would. In addition, Foucault discusses how
wars and conflict have become less pervasive and bloody since the adoption
of this new type of sovereign power—capitalism has in fact caused more
governments to believe they are entitled to pursue what they want for their
national benefit, even if it isn’t in the interest of their people or if it harms
outside victims. Even though sovereign power has invested much more in the

6. betterment and value of life, its practices often contradict what Western
society stands for. Foucault’s claim that now wars are done in the best
interest of people worldwide simply is not true; these struggles have not
disappeared just because our Constitution says it respects, values, and
protects each human’s rights.
3. The topic I thought was most interesting was Hobbes’ definition of liberty.
Most Americans would probably say that liberty is freedom—freedom to
access happiness. Some would even use liberty and right interchangeably
because they believe liberty is a right to explore life and get the most out of it.
Hobbes, on the other hand, emphasizes liberty in a dark way; it is merely the
unlimited power of humans to take whatever action they think is necessary
to survive. In modern society, there are obvious barriers when people
exercise their liberty. People still have the permission and even the
obligation to pursue happiness with their freedom, but stealing and killing
can no longer be a means to this end. If it were, happiness would not be a
possibility for all.