Does Reason rule the soul?

The soul is like a family - reason does not rule anymore than will or desire does. They work in conjunction. The desires are like chaotic, screaming and jumping children - they want many things, and they have no self-control. The reason is like a wise and overseeing mother; in control, beyond wise, all knowing, all seeing, "eyes in the back of her head", can read exactly what you mean or did simply by the look on your face; she decides which few of the many desires is good for the family to undertake (to ultimately silence the children; but to also please them in the way she knows is best whether desire currently wants it or knows it now). Once she has decided the matter is over, she now leaves it for the father (will) to enforce (as she goes on to consider other matters) - silent, unrelenting, unmoving except when he wills it, will pushes through the decision to act upon, until it is done. No discussion, no equivocation. The matter has been decided. Reason agrees and desires submit. If reason was correct in her judgement, desires are happy that they got their way (but in a way that was the best for the whole family/soul). Desire must always get its way - or none of the soul is happy.

If Will is reasonable or virtuous, reason persuaded him merely by speech. If he is unreasonable, then reason becomes an advisor, the woman behind the throne, subtly advising will without will realizing it is being persuaded.

Which facet rules? Reason does not, she merely decides to do the best thing desire tells her they want, and the best way to do it and when. Will does not rule, although he is strong, even stronger than reason or will (if he succeeds), and pushes the decision through to completion, it is not his decision to make.

For happiness to occur in the soul or the family, all parts must play their role. None rules too much - all parts must act in harmony.

Rebelliousness vs. Conformity

There seems to be a contradiction at the heart of the philosopher. On one hand the philosopher is supposed to rebel against any authority; they are to question everything, and take nothing on authority as being true or good.

On the other, they are supposed to conform to the authority of Reason, to the authority of the Truth. For , as being lovers of wisdom, one cannot find wisdom unless they find knowledge. One who is wise who knows all there is to know about a particular topic. One cannot have knowledge unless they have true justified belief. And thus, we are left with the dilemma, that the philosopher is always rebelling against truth claims but simultaneously seeking to find knowledge to which they acquiesce.


There are two possible outcomes then: 1) the philosopher will always be in a higher state of doubt than certainty. Constantly rebelling against, unsure of, and doubting truths as they come to him/her, even ones that were previously believed or "proven" true. These ones are too sceptical, too much the "haters of hypocrisy". 2) The philosopher succumbs to some truth, or system thereof and holds on to it and never examines it again. These people are the "lovers of truth" and they only submit to what reason tell s them is true - BUT this only leads them to accepting the first truth system that seems sufficiently good enough (and corresponds with their bias that the truth is good and ought to be so). This is as much biased as the first group. Now matter how much they may call themselves philosophers.

There seems to be this divide, a constant battle, between the two primary tenets of a philosopher - their love of truth, and their hatred of hypocrisy. A person's own inclinations allows them to slide off into one or the other camp over time.

But perhaps there is a third option? Perhaps knowledge is not a persistent state, but only comes when one is forced to give an account (either by their own doubt in their own mind, or by a persistent outer questioner). As such, no one knows anything until such time they are forced to - and the process of rehashing old arguments becomes so familiar to them after repetition that one can ramble off an argument without even thinking, thus satisfying their doubt nearly immediately - intuitively, instead of calculatively as it must have been when forming these relational matrices. In this way, one can maintain their freedom of thought, their potential doubt of any truth claim, until such time they are forced by said doubt to prove to themselves again something is indeed true.