The Beginning (Neoplatonism)

"Tripertitam animam idem dicit: primam eius rationabilem esse partem,aliam excandescentiam vel inritabilitatem, tertiam adpetitus; eadem cupiditatem possumus nuncupare."

This initially had me confused, since Latin uses "partem excandescentiam", which I think really should be the emotional area. Anyway, there is a division of the mind into (1)logic, (2) emotion (3) desire. I prefer to apply psychology here, so intellect, emotion and the ego, I think, fit well.
Platonists teach the regio rationalism "must" dominate emotion and desire (or ego). It teaches how emotion can bias the intellect, so that decision making is blurred by emotions, and not analytical.
In clinical psychology, delusion is caused when rational thinking is dominated by a preferred, desired reality. Reality is what I want it to be, not what cold logic deduces.
Most people don't dominate thought via the regio rationalis and, in fact, modern culture stresses emotion over logic, via "likes" and "reputation".
I should stress, I have found some short-comings in this tripertitam philosophy, since in practice it doesn't include complex neurological pathologies. Put simply, we can't just "cure" personality disorders by the stress of logic and reason. However, this platonic system does offer something of value and seems to have found it's way into Eastern martial arts.
This does become far more complex as Platonism develops the initial basis of the philosophy.
 
Spelling was altered and was originally( as it should be regio rationalis.)

It then continues:

"Sed tunc animanti sanitatem adesse, vires, pulchritudinem, cum ratio totam regit parentesque ei inferiores duae partes concordantesque inter se iracundia et voluptas nihil adpetunt, nihil commovent, quod inutile esse duxeri[n]t ratio. Eiusmodi ad aequabilitatem partibus animae temperatis, corpus nulla turbatione frangitur."

Here, we can see how physical and psychological health were viewed as connected.
 
This took me a long time to understand but the value of the statement is awesome:

"Tres quapropter partes animae tribus dicit vitiis urgueri: prudentiam indocilitas inpugnat, quae non abolitionem infert scientiae, sed contraria est disciplinae discendi"

Plato divided the entire mind into three areas. Pars rationabilis, pars irritabilis, cupiditas (adpetitus). So, that's (1) reason, (2) emotion, (3) desire or ego (quod cupimus)
After this, we get into the virtues. Three virtues are attributed to each area of the mind, with wisdom (Prudentia) typically being what we would choose as an ideal for the logical area of the mind.
However, above we meet the term "indocilitas" which actually means the ability to be taught. Here, I suggest the state of being taught (docilitas) isn't simply doing well in a class or being a good student. Or "indocilitas" not being a good student. For me, being taught involves observing nature, adapting to external experience and remaining open to education. Not dogma or blind acceptance of imposed ideas.

quae non abolitionem infert scientiae.... So, being unable to be taught isn't a blockade against knowledge, which can be rote learning facts, car number plates, or dogma. Millions of people can absorb knowledge but millions of people may not learn in the process.
Conclusion? Being able to be taught is a very important life skill and the best teacher is nature and our often untapped innate potential to pinpoint reality ( beyond just opinion)
 
"However, above we meet the term "indocilitas" which actually means the ability NOT to be taught."

This corrects the mistake above, so
Docilitas = teachableness
Indocilitas = unteachableness.

The three virtues are, Sapientia, Fortitudo and Continentia.
Sapientia is the virtue for pars rationabilis (logic)
Fortitudo is the virtue for pars irritabilis (emotional region)
Continentia matches cupiditas, the desire region or ego of the mind.

This is only Plato's theory and is open to debate.
 
Top