Abstract

Rachel Barney proposes that Plato’s theory of the tripartite soul is plausibly compared to scientific theories today. I depart from Barney by proposing that the tripartite soul is a model and that its status is hypothetical. And I raise four questions: What follows from the Plato-science comparison, as Barney conceives of it? Which questions emerge if science is looked at in the sophisticated mode that Barney employs in her discussion of Plato? Current science invokes a multitude of subsystems relevant to motivation. Why compare it with tripartition? Stoic psychology may share more fundamental ideas with current science, including the premise that all goings-on in the soul are physiological movements. If tripartition is a model, why would one expect it to account for all dimensions of epistemic activity?