Tripartite Soul Theory site banner

Tripartite Human Nature
and the Flows of History

Honesty, manhood and good fellowship tripartism

Poets utter great and wise things which they do not themselves understand.

Where Shakespeare gave a vain, boastful and corrupt character named Sir John Falstaff the line which includes these words:
"There’s neither honesty, manhood, nor good fellowship in thee ..."
it was not set in any philosophical context but was part of an address challenging a teenage Prince Henry, (to induce his participation), after one of their young companions in misadventure had suggested way-laying some Canterbury-bound pilgrims and London-bound rich merchants in order to steal their 'rich offerings' and 'fat purses'.

We are given cause for further thought about partially understood wisdom by the realization that Indian holy men have attempted to emphasise their personal spiritualities by "enduring storms of desire and of wrath."

Because the peace of God is with them whose mind and soul are in harmony, who are free from desire and wrath, who know their own soul.
Bhagavad Gita 5:26

It may well be the case that such considerations can be placed in more practically worthwhile philosophical context by the content of some Socratic dialogue from Plato's The Republic:

Plato, who lived some four centuries B.C., was a pupil and friend of the Greek philosopher Socrates. Amongst the many works attributed to Plato's authorship is his "The Republic" wherein is set out a series of discourses that allegedly took place between Socrates and a number of other persons who variously arrived and departed as the discussions continued.

It is in this record, made by Plato, of Socrates' philosophising that most intriguing themes are developed:

...can we possibly refuse to admit that there exist in each of us the same generic parts and characteristics as are found in the state? For I presume the state has not received them from any other source. It would be ridiculous to imagine that the presence of the spirited element in cities is not to be traced to individuals, wherever this character is imputed to the people, as it is to the natives of Thrace, and Scythia, and generally speaking, of the northern countries; or the love of knowledge, which would be chiefly attributed to our own country; or the love of riches, which people would especially connect with the Phoenicians and the Egyptians.


This then is a fact so far, and one which it is not difficult to apprehend.

No, it is not.

But here begins a difficulty. Are all our actions alike performed by the one predominant faculty, or are there three faculties operating severally in our different actions? Do we learn with one internal faculty, and become angry with another, and with a third feel desire for all the pleasures connected with eating and drinking, and the propagation of the species; or upon every impulse to action, do we perform these several actions with the whole soul.
Socrates' teaching from Plato's Republic Book 4

page content divider


In the later part of the ninth century A.D., Alfred the Great, an “Anglo-Saxon” king who ruled in southern England, authorised, and may have personally contributed to, a translation of Boethius’ work “The Consolations of Philosophy.”
Whilst this translation is not today held to be fully accurate it did, as published under the royal authority of Alfred as King of Wessex, include this passage:

“… you know that desire for and possession of earthly power never pleased me overmuch, and that I did not unduly desire this earthly rule, but that nevertheless I wished for tools and resources for the task that I was commanded to accomplish, which was that I should virtuously and worthily guide and direct the authority which was entrusted to me. You know of course that no-one can make known any skill, nor direct and guide any enterprise, without tools and resources; a man cannot work on any enterprise without resources. In the case of the king, the resources and tools with which to rule are that he have his land fully manned: he must have praying men, fighting men and working men. You know also that without these tools no king may make his ability known.” …
Alfred the Great: Asser’s Life of King Alfred and Other Contemporary Sources

[King Alfred ruled over Christianized Anglo-Saxon peoples whose free existence was seriously threatened by ‘heathen’ Viking peoples who had fairly recently established a formidable presence in more northerly territories of England and had proved only too capable of launching sizeable raiding parties up the river Thames and establishing settlement there.]

Some decades after King Alfred’s suggestions about kingship two churchmen based in continental Europe both separately proposed that men could be identified by whether they primarily pray, fight or work:

… they portrayed society as an accumulation of communities. Soon after the year 1000 Bishop Adalbaro of Laon and Bishop Gerard of Cambrai described the existence of humankind as an interaction of three estates, namely of praying men, peasants, and warriors. Gerard pointed out that this threefold partition originated from the creation of humans by God himself. The unknown chronicler of the Bishops of Cambrai paraphrased Gerard’s doctrine in the following words:

He taught that humankind was divided from the very beginning in a threefold way, in praying men, in peasants, and in warriors. He clearly outlined that these three parts supported one another …

… Adalbero presented the unique house of God as a mutual entanglement of different parts:

The threefold house of God at once appeared as a unity. One part prays, the second fights, the third labours. But these parts are joined together without any disjunction. The efforts of two parts stand for the office of one. They give comfort to each other by mutual change, because this threefold combination is in fact unitary. As long as this law shines the world rests in peace.
Potency of the Common: Intercultural Perspectives about Community and Individuality, Gert Melville and Carlos Ruta, p. 173

page content divider


Should we regard it as being a coincidence that this sort of societal tripartism is potentially in accordance with “spirituality, desire and wrath” as suggested of by several of the major World Religions and “honesty, manhood and good fellowship” as suggested of by Shakespeare?

Is it perhaps more reasonable, all things considered, to strongly suspect that the underlying tripartism suggested by religion, and various philosophical and literary figures, is to a greater or lesser extent, “The Cause” of “An Effect.”
This effect being no less, no more, and no other, than contributing very considerably to the ways in which feudal societies wherein -

“some men worked, some men fought and some men prayed”

- presented themselves to the world of their day!

Such feudal societies being peopled by a church clergy that was often supported by considerable wealth largely accumulated through donations, bequests and the revenues earned by selling produce from the vast estates of the church, a numerous feudal nobility complete with their armed “retainers,” and a much wider society composed of lay persons who worked in a variety of roles hoping to earn their livings and, through their actions and their skills, providing for the material wants and needs of society as a whole.

page content divider


The administrative life of the French kingdom came to feature royally sponsored assemblies, both at provincial level and kingdom-wide, where representatives associated with a “First Estate” of Churchmen, a “Second Estate” of Nobles, and a “Third Estate” of everyone else, were typically present.
Such kingdom-wide assemblies came to be referred to as Estates General.

Similarly the administrative life of the English state featured a Parliament where an “Upper House” was comprised of Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal and there was a “Lower House” comprised of influential “Commoners”.

page content divider


George Washington, serving as an officer in the Virginia militia, was involved in an incident on the frontiers of the "British" and "French" presences, (as colonising powers), in the interior of the North American continent in 1754.
A period of active hostility, known in North America as the French and Indian War, was an early engagement in conflicts that went on to be actually contested widely by Britain and France across the globe as a Seven Years War between 1756 and 1763.
Sometimes spoken of by historians as a “world war”, it featured many deaths and injuries and was very, very, draining of financial resources.

France had expensively participated in the Seven Years War, had engaged in an extensive modernisation of her naval forces and provided substantial and notably costly aid to the ‘American Patriots’ in events associated with an American War of Independence, (before and after 1776 A.D.), - all of which led to a most burdensome accumulation of debt on the part of the French royal state.

It so happened that crops and herds in France were adversely affected by extreme weather in the seventeen-eighties, that was itself very possibly a result of significant volcanic activity in Iceland. Such lessening of agricultural production raised food prices and depressed the ability of the French population to feed and clothe themselves let alone pay their taxes.

A financial crisis ensued where the king eventually accepted the necessity of convening an Estates General.

No such an Estates General had been convened for more than one hundred years previously and this one was only being called to assemble because of the depth of the crisis in the finances of the kingdom.
It was accepted by the Royal authority that the upcoming Estates General would follow historical precedent in featuring voting "by Order" where each of the three historically recognised "Estates", would consider issues separately and advise the king’s ministers of the majority positions reached within that Estate.

The king seems to have expected that the Estates General would be obligingly endorse increases in taxation to meet the financial crisis.
Many Third Estate representatives, (at that time the Third Estate actually comprised some ninety eight per cent of the population), hoped for, or even expected, some degree of political reform which would allow the broader population of France more of a voice in affairs.
In the event the higher Clergy and the Nobility proved to be reluctant to consent to such reforms preferring that the First, Second and Third Estates should each continue to be able to advise the royal administration of the results of their own Estates' independent processes of deliberation.

In the lead-up to the selection of representatives to the Estates General the king had authorised the selection of about as many individual representatives on behalf of the Third Estate as would be selected to represent the First and Second Estates combined. From the initial convening of the Estates General in early May, 1789, "Third Estate" representatives had declined to comply with official procedures of accreditation which were intended to be followed by the various Estates meeting separately and voting "by Order".
By mid-June most of the Third Estate representatives had accepted the idea that the traditional proceedings of an Estates General should be replaced by an inclusive Assembly where all representatives, regardless of “Estate”, would participate in deliberating together, and voting jointly on issues "by head," in efforts to settle upon a majority position.

[It came about that the formation of such a “National” Assembly was reluctantly assented to by King Louis XVI after, (given the impasse over such things as accreditation), most of the representatives of the "lower" clergy, (who typically had "Third Estate" family backgrounds), and a number of "reform-inclined" nobles, (including the Marquis de Lafayette who had been prominent in the recent French involvement in North America), joined in with the Third Estate in supporting the formation of such an assembly].

The financial crisis continued, those who sought reforms considered that the king might suspend the Estates General / National Assembly and seek to impose his own measures - with the backing of the army.
The situation moved towards more revolutionary change after Parisians stormed a fortress-prison known as the Bastille, and tore down a customs wall in Paris, (where taxes and duties were routinely imposed on key commodities such as salt entering the city), in July, 1789.

France was declared to be a Republic "One and indivisible". King Louis XVI was required to undertake to uphold a Constitution that was to be devised in relation to the future governance of France.

Whilst initially seeming to be on a course towards "Constitutional Monarchy" events subsequently took a more "revolutionary" turn and a French Revolutionary Era ensued in France and subsequently spread widely across Europe.

The sovereignty of the people was proclaimed in France and legislation was passed authorizing that elections of representatives to future “National” assemblies were to be held on the basis of a clear majority of adult males qualifying as having voting rights.

Before many years had passed, (and after experiencing a “Reign of Terror” under Robespierre and a “Committee of Public Safety”), France became less revolutionary as "liberal-constitutional" interests gained power.
France, and much of Europe, subsequently spent some fifteen years under the leadership of a successful general, who also showed considerable political and administrative talents, named Napoleon Bonaparte.

Napoleon was sent into exile on the Island of St. Helena in 1815, after an extensive coalition of European opponents brought about his downfall.

These European powers supported the restoration of the pre-Revolution Bourbon dynasty to kingship in France.

page content divider


Due to the irresistible strength of wider public opinion on such matters Britain began, as the nineteenth century proceeded, to undergo slow processes of transformation towards being more democratically representative.
Historic parliamentary constituencies, known as "rotten boroughs," (because depopulated-over-time), or "pocket boroughs", (because they were typically under the decisive influence of local magnates), were abolished in the eighteen-thirties whilst new parliamentary constituencies were established in relation to a number of towns and cities which had appeared as a result of Britain's Industrial Revolution.
Voting rights were extended slightly more widely to property owners and to those who contributed relatively strongly to the local or national economy.

These reforms had been sponsored by a liberal "Whig" administration and had been blocked by the firm opposition of many Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal in the House of Lords.
In the event a critical logjam was dismantled as many such members of the House of Lords, including the Duke of Wellington who had been a commanding officer at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, reluctantly felt practically obliged to opt to abstain from continuing to vote to block these proposed reforms as it became evident that the "mood of the country" was unmistakeably in favour of their becoming approved by Parliament.
It was also known that the then king had, also reluctantly at this time of real crisis, agreed to raise a sufficient number reform-inclined persons to qualify for participation in the proceedings of the House of Lords if it was necessary in order to ensue the approval of such electoral reform.

page content divider


Something of a step-change was occurring in much of Western Europe during these times.

Prior to the French Revolutionary turmoils, (after 1789), and the subsequent Napoleonic Wars, (which lasted until 1815), traditional dynastic, clerical and noble elites monopolised socio-politico-economic power and initiative and had found it possible to contain such popular socio-politico-economic movements as might arise.
Such movements had, in fact, been very occasional and even then had tended to be prompted by famine and or other forms of widespread want and privation.

A Congress of conservatively-inclined European powers held at Troppau late in 1820, where proceedings were principally influenced by the Austrian Empire, the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia, authorised direct Austrian interventions in the affairs of the Italian peninsula to suppress Liberal-Constitutional-National "movements" which had recently been active.
It made a request for a sizeable Russian army to be based in Poland in case a future Congress might call on its assistance in relation to the affairs of more southerly parts of Europe.

The so-called "Troppau Protocol", was a main pronouncement of the Troppau Congress :
"States, which have undergone a change of government due to revolution, the result of which threaten other states, ipso facto cease to be members of the European Alliance, and remain excluded from it until their situation gives guarantees for legal order and stability. If, owing to such alterations, immediate danger threatens other states the powers bind themselves, by peaceful means, or if need be, by arms, to bring back the guilty state into the bosom of the Great Alliance."
Mack Walker, Metternich’s Europe, p. 127

As the nineteenth century proceeded, notable concessions to liberalism, constitutionalism and nationalism were made in relation to Greek and Belgian statehood, and in relation to extensions of democracy in France and Britain.
It was becoming clear that traditional elites were finding it advisable, or necessary, to make concessions to popular opinion.
"Rulers, Statesmen, Nations, are wont to be emphatically commended to the teaching which experience offers in history. But what experience and history teach is this - that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it. Each period is involved in such peculiar circumstances, exhibits a condition of things so strictly idiosyncratic, that its conduct must be regulated by considerations connected with itself, and itself alone."
G. W. F. Hegel
page content divider

Circa 1750 most European societies featured what might be called a stable “pre-modernity” by 1850, however, there were pressures for socio-political and economic “movement”.
Such things as Capitalism, Liberalism, Constitutionalism, Nationalism and Socialism had recently, and in cases newly, become widely evident as forces with the potential to bring about, or continually press for, diverse change.
Dynastic sovereignty was being challenged by increasingly potent calls for the Sovereignty of Peoples.
Napoleon called a new power into existence by attacking nationality in Russia, by delivering it in Italy, by governing in defiance of it in Germany and Spain. The sovereigns of these countries were deposed or degraded; and a system of administration was introduced which was French in its origin, its spirit, and its instruments. The people resisted the change. The movement against it was popular and spontaneous, because the rulers were absent or helpless; and it was national, because it was directed against foreign institutions. In Tyrol, in Spain, and afterwards in Prussia, the people did not receive the impulse from the government, but undertook of their own accord to cast out the armies and the ideas of revolutionised France.
Lord Acton on Nationality

After the fall of “Napoleonic” Europe in 1815 both the Italian Peninsula and the Germanic lands had returned to featuring a number of locally or regionally sovereign dynastic or clerically-ruled states.
Popular pressures towards change built up after 1815 and much of continental Europe featured serious liberal-constitutional, national and social forms of turmoil from the spring of 1848 into the late summer of 1849.

Radical socialist reformers sought justice for the "disinherited" classes, the peasants and the factory workers, while more moderate political reformers were concerned with protecting and increasing the influence of the middle classes, the bourgeoisie and the professional groups. The radicals in general favoured a republican form of government while many moderates were prepared to accept constitutional monarchy as a satisfactory substitute... ...Many of the revolutionaries, especially in the German Confederation and Italy, wanted to transform their homeland into a strong and united country, but their aims contradicted the nationalist aspirations of minority groups.
Geoffrey Brunn, Revolution and Reaction 1848-1852, Chapter I

By late spring 1848, the Habsburg Empire looked like a hopeless case: the monarchy's northern Italian possessions in revolt, invaded by a Piedmontese* army and largely cleared of Austrian troops; three different "national" governments in Vienna, Budapest and Zagreb each claiming sovereign authority; Polish, Romanian, Slovenian, Serb, Czech, and Slovak national movements aspiring to a similar sovereign status; a mentally incompetent monarch and his court in flight from the capital to the provinces; a state treasury completely bare.
Jonathan Sperber, The European Revolutions, 1848-1851, p. 203

*These forces were authorised by the Kingdom of Sardinia which maintained its Royal court at Turin in Piedmont.

page content divider


During the earlier years of the French Revolution the leadership of that movement, which aspired to bring Liberty, Egality and Fraternity to the French people, began to impose the French language, (as spoken in Paris and its environs, and, as such, the everyday medium of communication for only about one in ten of the population of France), on the whole country despite the fact that many other tongues and dialects had previously flourished, and had regionally become everyday mediums of expression, across the French realms over several centuries of dynastic rule.
In pre-modern, dynastic, times such linguistic diversity, (in circumstances of minimal geographical or social mobility and very limited availability of formal education and mass media), did not unduly disrupt or complicate the existence of the state.
In revolutionary times such regional languages and dialects as Occitan, Breton, Basque, Franco-Provençal, Corsican, Alsatian and Catalan were increasingly stigmatised by the governing authority as forms of patois and were linked to potential survivals of feudalism and were condemned as being obstacles to the progress being promoted by would-be societal reformers based in Paris.

page content divider


As the potentially transformative events of 1848-1849 unfolded it became apparent, in relation to a would-be independent Kingdom of Hungary, (which seemed to be emerging from out of the Austrian Empire, in which it had been incorporated due to a dynastic marriage centuries earlier), and elsewhere, that emergent "national" movements were potentially capable of endorsing such linguistic centralism in their own would-be state-building.
Linguistic centralisms, indeed, that gave every appearance of being similarly capable of dismissing the existence of other tongues and dialects within the territories they could claim as belonging to their would-be states.

Representatives of several Slavic peoples gathered together in Prague in a brief Pan-Slav Congress of June, 1848, which issued a Manifesto on its outlook for the future of the Slavic peoples of Europe.

The Slavic Congress in Prague is something unheard of, in Europe as well as among the Slavs themselves. For the first time since our appearance in history, we, the scattered members of a great race, have gathered in great numbers from distant lands in order to become reacquainted as brothers and to deliberate our affairs peacefully. We have understood one another not only through our beautiful language, spoken by eighty millions, but also through the consonance of our hearts and the similarity of our spiritual qualities. The truth and sincerity that have guided all our deliberations have persuaded us to make our demands known before God and the world....

...In the belief that the powerful spiritual stream of today demands new political forms and that the state must be reestablished upon altered principles, if not within new boundaries, we have suggested to the Austrian Emperor, under whose constitutional government we, the majority, live, that he transform his imperial state into a union of equal nations, which would accommodate these demands no less fully than would a unitary monarchy.
We see in such a union not only salvation for ourselves but also freedom, culture, and humanity for all, and we are confident that the nations of Europe will assist in the realization of this union. In any case, we resolve, by all available means, to win for our nationality the complete recognition of the same political rights that the German and Hungarian peoples already enjoy in Austria....

Whilst Germans and Magyar Hungarians had historically enjoyed favoured status as "Peoples of State" within the extensive territories of the Austrian Empire that empire, and not least its "Hungarian" lands, had a majority Slavic population of Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Serbs, Slovenes, Poles, Ukrainians and others - hence the phrase "we, the majority, live," in the above selection.
Hence, also, the aspirations for an Austrian-backed "union of equal nations" where the several Slavic peoples could find an acceptable future.

page content divider


In February 1948, the British historian Lewis Namier delivered a lecture commemorating the centennial of the European Revolutions of 1848. In this lecture Namier presented facts about the historical developments, themes, and events evident in 1848 and reached the conclusion that:

"1848 remains a seed-plot of history. It crystallized ideas and projected the pattern of things to come; it determined the course of the following century."

page content divider


Whilst German and Italian liberal, constitutional and national opinions supported greater unifications in 1848-1849 they were not enduringly brought about.
Just as Tsarist Russia, the Austrian Empire, and the Kingdom of Prussia, had been prominent in returning continental Europe to conservative socio-political modes of existence after 1815 so also these three powers contributed significantly to rolling back most of the ‘revolutionary’ changes that occurred in 1848-1849.

page content divider


French disappointment with their “Bourbon” Dynastic rulers after a restoration of conservatively-inclined monarchy in France in 1815 provided context to Louis Napoleon, a nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, ascending to the Presidency of a (second) French Republic in the aftermath of the turmoil of 1848-1849.
After an “Italian” patriot’s attempt on his life Louis Napoleon found it politic to undertake “to do something for Italy”.
(Louis Napoleon had actually personally engaged in “Italian” causes, along with his brother, as a much younger man! Said older brother had actually fallen ill and perished during this participation.)

page content divider

After Napoleon's fall several Kingdoms, Grand Duchies and Duchies were restored
as were the States of the Church - under Papal sovereignty.

Large scale French military interventions, in ‘Wars of Italian Unification’, contributed to the establishment of a Kingdom of Italy.

page content divider

Italy ceased to be "merely a geographical expression" being increasingly reconstituted
as a Kingdom based upon the slightly constitutional, and patriotic, Kingdom of Sardinia.

These developments prompted some Germanic rulers and diplomats, not least a wily, and deeply conservative, Prussian diplomat named Otto von Bismarck, to take thought as to how their own states might be territorially extended with a degree of popular support, (as had been the case with “Italy”).
In the event a "slightly constitutional" (second) German Empire was proclaimed in 1870 after wars of “German” unification - brought about by Bismarck's diplomatic machinations!

(The Italian Kingdom - as an associate of Prussia in struggling against Austria - acquired Venetian and (historically) Papal, lands – including the city of Rome - in these times).

As had been the case with the Kingdom of Sardinia the Kingdom of Prussia lay at the core of this similarly expanded polity and was qualified to do so, in the opinion of its supporters in that role, as being open to being perceived as a relatively constitutional, patriotic, powerful and progressive German state.
A hundred years ago a man's political likes and dislikes seldom went beyond the range which was suggested by the place of his birth or immediate descent. Such birth or descent made him a member of this or that political community, a subject of this or that prince, a citizen - perhaps a subject - of this or that commonwealth. The political community of which he was a member had its traditional alliances and traditional enmities, and by those alliances and enmities the likes and dislikes of the members of that community were guided. But those traditional alliances and enmities were seldom determined by theories about language or race. The people of this or that place might be discontented under a foreign government; but, as a rule, they were discontented only if subjection to that foreign government brought with it personal oppression or at least political degradation. Regard or disregard of some purely local privilege or local feeling went for more than the fact of a government being native or foreign. What we now call the sentiment of nationality did not go for much; what we call the sentiment of race went for nothing at all. Only a few men here and there would have understood the feelings which have led to those two great events of our own time, the political reunion of the German and Italian nations after their long political dissolution.
Edward Augustus Freeman, Race and Language, (1879)

"Why on earth does it matter what happened long ago? The answer is that History is inescapable. It studies the past and the legacies of the past in the present. Far from being a 'dead' subject, it connects things through time and encourages its students to take a long view of such connections. All people and peoples are living histories. To take a few obvious examples: communities speak languages that are inherited from the past. They live in societies with complex cultures, traditions and religions that have not been created on the spur of the moment. People use technologies that they have not themselves invented. So understanding the linkages between past and present is absolutely basic for a good understanding of the condition of being human. That, in a nutshell, is why History matters. It is not just 'useful', it is essential."
Penelope J. Corfield, Professor Emeritus, University of London.

History is not the story of strangers, aliens from another realm; it is the story of us had we been born a little earlier."
Stephen Fry

Across historic time people have shown capacities to behave in line with forms of “desire” and of “wrath” as well as Spirituality. In relatively modern times the complexities of human nature in changing societal circumstances have often given rise to the “side-lining” of dynastic rulers, clerical hierarchies and systems of titled nobility.
Capitalism, Liberalism, Constitutionalism, Nationalism, Socialism and Communism - operating in circumstances of steady population growth, and economic growth, facilitated by application of new technologies to agriculture, public health, and industrial production - have transformed how human lives are to be lived.
"History is for human self-knowledge ... the only clue to what man can do is what man has done. The value of history, then, is that it teaches us what man has done and thus what man is."
R. G. Collingwood

Our assessment of “Human Nature” must be one which accepts that capacities for Spirituality are more or less relative to those for Desire and for Wrath. Capitalism, Liberalism, Constitutionalism, Nationalism, Socialism and Communism must also be held to be consistent with any credible view of Human Nature. Similarly consistency must plausibly allow for the discovery, invention and application of new technologies to such things as food production, disease control, and industry.

What is the business of history? What is the stuff of which it is made? Who is the personage of history? Man : evidently man and human nature. There are many different elements in history. What are they? Evidently again, the elements of human nature. History is therefore the development of humanity, and of humanity only; for nothing else but humanity develops itself, for nothing else than humanity is free. ... Moreover, when we have all the elements, I mean all the essential elements, their mutual relations do, as it were, discover themselves. We draw from the nature of these different elements, if not all their possible relations, at least their general and fundamental relations.
Victor Cousin
Introduction to the History of Philosophy

Is Human Being more truly Metaphysical than Physical?

Darwin and Metaphysics


Readers comments welcome to bri060new @t
[Please be aware that replies are not guaranteed, however]

Man is explicable by nothing less than all his history. Without hurry, without rest, the human spirit goes forth from the beginning to embody every faculty, every thought, every emotion which belongs to it, in appropriate events. But always the thought is prior to the fact. All the facts of history pre-exist in the mind as laws. Each law in turn is made by circumstances predominant, and the limits of nature give power to but one at a time.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, History
Where this could, possibly, lead ...

graphical speculation on individual Human Nature shaping Society

N. B. The page mentioned in the graphic ~ roots.asp ~ has been replaced,
(on our partner site, by this page

This 'knot of roots' insight features in:

Ralph Waldo Emerson's famous essay ~ 'History'

"Whatever concept one may hold, from a metaphysical point of view, concerning the freedom of the will, certainly its appearances, which are human actions, like every other natural event, are determined by universal laws. However obscure their causes, history, which is concerned with narrating these appearances, permits us to hope that if we attend to the play of freedom of the human will in the large, we may be able to discern a regular movement in it, and that what seems complex and chaotic in the single individual may be seen from the standpoint of the human race as a whole to be a steady and progressive though slow evolution of its original endowment."
Immanuel Kant, Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View

It may be that a greater appreciation of our common, individual, “Existences” as Human Beings variously capable of Honesty, Manhood, Good fellowship, (and Rationality), and of the close similarities of the Inner-most Spiritual Teachings of the Great Faiths of the World, (as suggested of on our Home Page), will hopefully better allow for the harmonious functioning of society in those countries that have become peopled by diverse ethnic and confessional communities since the Second World War.

page content divider


More detailed consideration of the European Revolutions of 1848, the Unification of Italy and German Unification are available on our partner site: Age of the Sage.

The European Revolutions of 1848

The Unification of Italy

Bismarck and German Unification

page content divider


Several truly notable authorities
endorse Tripartite Soul Theory

Key Socratic Dialogues from
Book 4 and Book 9 of Plato's Republic

Plato's Ideal State       Plato's Chariot allegory      

Philosophy - Eastern and Western & 'Tripartite' Human Nature

FIVE major World Religions & 'Tripartite' Human Nature