The word soul is no longer frequently mentioned today, replaced by a scientific psychological description, which is also the consequence of the disenchantment of modernity, although the soul carries a theological meaning of eternal reincarnation, but also gives man a divine nobility, while the psychology of the heart is slightly mechanical and boring.
The soul, or the psyche, even if it takes on different flavors in different discourse systems, undoubtedly confirms one thing—the kind that Descartes has deeply imprinted in the civilization common to mankind—that is, that man has a clear distinction between inside and outside.
In layman's terms, people's externality is just like they seem, but at the same time there are many external conditions, such as blood, upbringing, occupation, interpersonal relationships, etc., which constitute a person's visible factors can be regarded as "this person".
But most of the time, there's a revolt that "I'm not like that." A lot of strife stems from the stereotyping of others, from dissatisfaction with someone's external perceptions. The opposite here is that people in the modern world generally think that they are not the sum of external conditions, but that there is an inner "me", and that I am to a large extent a more authentic, dictatorial self to the external self.
Following this understanding, if for the time being the inner self is called the soul, then the soul I am not only as a representation of my existence, but also has a function, that is, the ability to think and give instructions to action.
So, the next question is, what kind of pattern will this kind of thinking and action be issued? Or intuitively, how many categories can souls be divided into?
In Plato's Republic, there is a dialogue between the philosopher Socrates and two young Athenian aristocrats, the two brothers Ademantos and Glaucon, which basically clarifies the connotation of the soul in the universal sense.
Socrates pointed out that the desire part of the soul will seek, for example, food and water, but sometimes the thirsty person will not drink water, because he knows that the water is polluted and will get sick if he drinks it. Socrates asked: Is there something in their soul that makes them want to drink, and another force that forbids them to drink, and this different force controls the desire to let them drink?
Both Groucon and Socrates believed that the second part of the soul, distinct from desire, was reason, which could function for purposes contrary to the irrational desire part of the soul. So is the soul made up of desire and reason?
Socrates also points to another act, using the story of the Athenian Leontius passing by the pile of dead bodies at the execution ground. Leontius wanted to see the dead, and at the same time wanted to avoid doing so; after some internal struggle, he went to see it, and as he looked at it, he said: Look,, look at this beautiful view. While indulging his desire to see dead bodies, he knew it was despicable to do so; his submission to greed inspired his anger and self-loathing.
Socrates asked: In many other cases we have not also observed that when a man's desires trump his reason, he blames himself, and his passions are aroused against what is forcing him in him; and, as if there are two schools of thought opposing, the man's passion becomes an ally of the word?
Socrates used a new word, passion, to refer to this part of the soul that is angry with itself. Socrates asked Groucon whether the part of the soul that did not want to see the dead body was just another desire, or another aspect of the rational part, which, after all, was in the same direction as reason.
Then Socrates said, "Our present understanding of this passion is contrary to what has just been said." We have just said that it is related to the desire part of the soul; now we say that in the division of the soul it is on the side of the rational part. So, is it also different from the rational part, or is it just a specific kind of rationality? If it is only a particular kind of reason, then there is no third part in the soul, but only two: the rational part and the desire part. Or is it that just as the city-state has three classes of merchants, auxiliaries, and plotters, it unites it, and the soul has a third passion? If it is not corrupted by bad upbringing, it is inherently a complement to reason? ”
Glaucon immediately agreed with Socrates, arguing that passion was neither another desire nor an aspect of reason, but a separate part of the soul, and that passion was where anger and pride lay: Leontius was proud, he believed that he had a better self, that he could resist the temptation not to look at the dead body, and that when he succumbed to desire, he would be angry for failing to meet that criterion.
In fact, there is no need to go back so far, as long as everyone looks back at their own experience, it is not difficult to find these parts that make up the soul. Among them, desire and reason are very clear to be observed, a large part of people's daily life, a large part is driven by desire, but at the same time there will be reason, on the one hand, to limit some untimely desires, on the other hand, through planning, so that desires can be more satisfied in the future.
Even the slightly ambiguous part of passion is not difficult to detect. I still remember when I was in school, I was originally very cowardly, but in a fight, I blocked a board with nails for others, watching the nails penetrate deep into my body, in addition to pain, there is also a little pride, which is not the feeling that desire and reason are enough to breed.
Magnified, those who fight to defend the country, the martyrs who sacrifice for a certain idea, the benevolent people who pay for the happiness of more people, these are all acts beyond desire and reason, in addition to physiological desire and repeated consideration of reason, pride, anger, fearlessness, sympathy, love, etc. are all a passionate existence.
If desire is the animal side of man, and reason is the logical side of man, then passion is the more vivid side. Although Sartre once judged that man is a bunch of useless passions, it is this passion that makes people more like people, and it is also the opposite of people's external living conditions, constructing the internal characteristics of people, and more importantly, reason can only represent the internal commonality, and passion is a special label that characterizes each person's differences.
At the same time, the good use of this part of the soul will eventually forge an extremely important symbol of the individual in society - dignity. Passion can make people not bend over for five buckets of rice, and give people another kind of freedom on top of succumbing to the desire for survival and rational calculation, which, although often contrary to desire, can arouse greater satisfaction in the depths of people's hearts - the satisfaction of dignity.
If desire is the force that keeps people alive and reason is the force that makes people achieve greater development, then passion is the power that makes people gain dignity, and it can also be said that it is an important means to live a rich moral life. When we use desire, reason, and passion to complete the puzzle of the soul, the code of life that can be obtained is survival, development, and dignity.