The third part of the soul, contrary to the other two parts (the calculation and the appetitive part of the souls), Socrates carries out the desires that reason orders. Socrates, then, attempts to show that spirit cannot be the object of reason because it sometimes acts when reason is non-apparent. For example, he says “for that much one can see in children, that they are from their very birth chock-full of rage and high spirit, but as for reason, some of them… never participate in it...” – he states that children have desires of the third part without the reasoning part of the soul (AGP, 477, 441A,B). Because of his argument and example, Socrates shows that the third part is not the same as the rational part of the soul; the third part of …show more content…
Socrates first states that a physical object cannot be stationary and in motion simultaneously; Socrates explains that if a part is the same part, it cannot exercise its opposite functions, which he then further explains with two counter examples. In his first counterexample, he presents a person standing while moving his hand and head. The person is the one body; his hand is a part of the body and his head is a separate part of his body. While they are different parts of the body, neither the hand nor the head are at the exact same location on the body. In his second example, he presents a spinning top standing still while changing its location by continuously moving. While the top looks like there is only one apparent object, there are actually two objects that are apparent: the top itself, and the axis in which the top is spinning upon. While the axis is physically non-existent, the axis and the top itself are two distinguished objects. These factors may seem to be opposites, but they are actually occurring at the same time, not just as the actions of a ruler who rules and someone who earns money at the same