How Did Plato Respond To Socrates

In Plato’s The Republic, Socrates argues that the appetitive part of the soul is distinct from the rational part of the soul. It is apparent to me that he provides objections for each of the statements he makes and then provides counterexamples to diminish the objections. In order to support this view, I will first provide a reconstruction of Socrates’ argument, then provide an explanation for the justification Socrates provides for each of the premises. Following these two steps, I will raise two objections of my own, and will consider how Socrates might respond to these objections. Socrates presents a strong argument for his position that the individual is like the city in which it has three elements, he argues in particular that two of these three elements (appetite and reason) are
He uses words such as “assent”, “impulse”, and “assent” and their opposites to prove that these words are used to detail that desires form a particular class (437b). For example, you would say that a man has an impulse to what he desires. If you were to say that he has an aversion to what he desires, you would be bleeding into the rationale behind the fourth premise. Accordingly, the fourth premise outlines that reason is a part of the soul. Socrates implies, if there is one element in their minds which controls appetite or desire, and a second which prevents them and masters the first (440c). This second element is the one we now know to be the rational part of the soul. Premise five is the final premise that really provides the distinction between the appetitive part and rational part of the soul. If we look back to premise one, then reconsider premise five, it is obvious at the idea Socrates is trying to get at. A man’s desires and a man’s reason are two contradicting forces where their completely opposite functions and actions provide the distinction between these parts of the soul