In a previous essay we presented evidence that a set of nine types of profession, nine souls ordered in terms of ‘who has seen the most’, is a key underlying Platonic idea as demonstrated by his using it to pattern nine speeches on Eros across the Phaedrus and Symposium dialogues.
Below is a table showing five other Soul analogies from Plato (four from the Republic and one from the Phaedrus) . They are listed down the rows in their presumed normative order.
We can show that these five analogies don’t quite harmonise with each other.
On close inspection, the 'Charioteer' here doesn't seem to be the same functionally as the 'True Pilot' or the 'Philosopher King'. The 'Charioteer' seems to have more mundane concerns than the lofty concerns of those two. It seems to be more in common with 'Man' in the Many Headed Beast analogy.
And when we look at the second row above, 'Ship Owner' doesn’t seem to be functionally the same as the 'Auxiliary warriors' or the 'Good horse'. It seems to have more in common with 'Oligarchic Man'.
But what if we put these alongside our new set of nine psychological types (which also correspond to inner parts)?
What we find is we can harmonise the other five analogies with this one - every part of the five match to one of the nine parts very naturally and so now also to each other. - the gaps here also have natural fill-ins that we can supply to complete that picture in a Platonic way.
So going into more detail starting with the top row in table 2
The Philosopher-kings, True Pilot, Aristocratic man and Philosopher from the top row are all symbols for that part of the self that is the source of true rationality - Nous - it deals with timeless patterns and is unconcerned with the cut and thrust and change of day to day life! [Jung called this part Self with the capital ‘S’ - like a Sun that all the other parts like planets are drawn around]
What about the gaps now in this top row. In the Chariot Analogy, what can fill this role (in the green gap) of Nous? We propose that Plato would have added a god who sits there as Lord of the Chariot. This is like in the Chariot analogy of Vedic culture - the Lord of the Chariot that sits in the back carriage of the chariot is not the driver that holds the reigns and is constantly trying to wrestle with the horses (which is our ordinary ego-consciousness).
In the Many Headed Beast analogy - the gap in yellow could also be thought of as our higher, semi-divine self. Not man but the divine in man. In the Symposium Socrates is compared to a figure that opens to reveal a little god inside.
Consider the second row in table 2
The second row the Warrior, Auxiliaries, the Good Horse, the Lion and Timocratic man all symbolise the inner fighting man (Thumos), valuing bravery, honour and victory. The gap here in blue in the Ship of Fools we can easily speculate being filled by a ship's guards or soldiers, to complete or flesh out this analogy.
Consider the third row in table 2
The third line we see also has a great harmony - the Statesman/businessman is functionally the same as the Charioteer, the Ship-owner, Man, and Oligarchic man - they all have practical intelligence - logositon - and involved with the creation or control of money.
The gap here in grey is only in the Tripartite Soul/City model. How can we fill in this gap?
Let's revisit how the three sections of the city are created through divisions:
The city is divided first into two - the protectors (Guardians) and the rest - then the protectors are divided again into two - the philosopher-kings and their auxiliaries. Hence we now have three parts. However Plato does not go back to the first division and further divide the rest (the non-guardians) into its parts in a systemic way - but there are hints of how he would do this from the Republic itself:
“But what, in heaven's name,” said I, “about business matters, the deals that men make with one another in the agora— [425d] and, if you please, contracts with workmen and actions for foul language and assault, the filing of declarations, the impanelling of juries, the payment and exaction of any dues that may be needful in markets or harbors and in general market, police or harbour regulations and the like, can we bring ourselves to legislate about these?” “Nay, ‘twould not be fitting,” he said, “to dictate to good and honourable men. For most of the enactments that are needed about these things [425e] they will easily, I presume, discover.”
The above class that deals with these "business matters" is never defined or discussed further in the Republic but we can now propose it corresponds to the Statesman/businessman in our nine part soul analogy! This is the “Chariot driver” that is holding the reigns of state trying to control markets, and the disputes that arise.
The next question then is how can we find out how Plato generated these nine soul types. How can we group them perhaps in such a way to bring out the similarities and differences between them?.