According to a philosophical myth told by Aristophanes in Plato’s Symposium, humans were originally round-shaped beings with four hands and four feet, one head with two faces, which faced in opposite directions, four ears and two private areas. There are three types of human beings, and these are male-male, female-female and male-female. These beings were so powerful and proud that they began to challenge and threaten the gods with their strength and arrogance. Alarmed by this, Zeus split them in half to weaken and humble them. Since then, everyone has been in constant search of their other half to become whole once again.
In Symposium (189e-190d) it says:
(189e) The form of each person was round all over, with back and sides encompassing it every way; each had four arms and legs to match these, and two faces perfectly alike
(190a) on a cylindrical neck. There was one head to the two faces, which looked opposite ways; there were four ears, two privy members and all the other parts, as may be imagined, in proportion. The creature walked upright as now, in either direction as it pleased and whenever it started running fast, it went like our acrobats, whirling over and over with legs stuck out straight; only then they had eight limbs to support and speed them
(190b) swiftly round and round. The number and features of these three sexes were owing to the fact that the male was originally the offspring of the sun, and the female of the earth; while that which partook of both sexes was born of the moon, for the moon also partakes of both. They were globular in their shape as in their progress, since they took after their parents. Now, they were of surprising strength and vigor, and so lofty in their notions that they even conspired against the gods; and the same story is told of them as Homer relates of
(190c) Ephialtes and Otus, that scheming to assault the gods in fight they essayed to mount high heaven.
“Thereat Zeus and the other gods debated what they should do, and were perplexed: for they felt they could not slay them like the Giants, whom they had abolished root and branch with strokes of thunder—it would be only abolishing the honors and observances they had from men; nor yet could they endure such sinful rioting. Then Zeus, putting all his wits together, spoke at length and said: ‘Methinks I can contrive that men, without ceasing to exist, shall give over their iniquity through a lessening of their strength.
[190d] I propose now to slice every one of them in two, so that while making them weaker we shall find them more useful by reason of their multiplication; and they shall walk erect upon two legs. If they continue turbulent and do not choose to keep quiet, I will do it again,’ said he; ‘I will slice every person in two, and then they must go their ways on one leg, hopping.’ So saying, he sliced each human being in two, just as they slice sorb-apples to make a dry preserve, or eggs with hairs;
Symposium 190d makes it crystal clear that it is the body, not the soul, that was split by Zeus.
Notice that Aristophanes clearly describes the original human beings in 189e–190a as physically double-bodied, with four arms, four legs, two faces and so on. Then in 190d, humans began to attack or rise up against the gods, which were believed to be humans trying to dwell in the heavens, that is why Zeus decided to split them in half so that each would walk on two legs. He even warns that if humans continue to be arrogant, he will divide them again, making them walk on one leg. This detailed anatomical description leaves no room for interpreting the split as merely symbolic or spiritual. So, based on both the text itself and common sense, it’s accurate to say that it was the human body that was split in half.
Additionally, in Symposium 191a, during Aristophanes’ speech, it says:
[191a] For the rest, he smoothed away most of the puckers and figured out the breast with some such instrument as shoemakers use in smoothing the wrinkles of leather on the last; though he left there a few which we have just about the belly and navel, to remind us of our early fall. Now when our first form had been cut in two, each half in longing for its fellow would come to it again; and then would they fling their arms about each other and in mutual embraces
Aristophanes uses the phrase “cut into two” but he never says “soul.” Therefore, the “halves” refer to bodies that were physically split by Zeus.
*
Plato's real teachings about the soul are found in Phaedo, Phaedrus and Republic. Plato discusses the soul in many dialogues but these three are the core works of Plato’s philosophy of the soul. In these three, he never says that the soul is split. Instead, he clearly teaches that the soul is whole, indivisible and immortal.
Below is the clear summary of the themes of the three main dialogues of Plato that focus on the soul:
Phaedo (written on 385 BCE)
Short Introduction: Phaedo is a dialogue that takes place on the final day of Socrates’ life. It explores the immortality and simplicity of the soul, arguing that the soul is eternal, unchanging, and separate from the body. Socrates explains that true philosophers prepare for death by seeking to free the soul from bodily distractions and reunite it with the realm of pure forms.
These are the actual texts found in Phaedo 80b and 80d about the soul being divine, immortal and indissoluble:
[80b] that the soul is most like the divine and immortal and intellectual and uniform and indissoluble and ever unchanging, and the body, on the contrary, most like the human and mortal and multiform and unintellectual and dissoluble and ever changing. Can we say anything, my dear Cebes, to show that this is not so?”
Also in:
[80d] some parts of it, such as the bones and sinews and all that, are, so to speak, indestructible. Is not that true?”
“Yes.”
“But the soul, the invisible, which departs into another place which is, like itself, noble and pure and invisible, to the realm of the god of the other world in truth, to the good and wise god, whither, if God will, my soul is soon to go,—is this soul, which has such qualities and such a nature, straightway scattered and destroyed when it departs from the body, as most men say?
Phaedrus (written on 370 BCE)
Short Introduction: In Phaedrus, Plato presents a poetic and philosophical reflection on love, the soul, and the pursuit of truth. The soul is described as an eternal, self-moving entity that journeys between the heavens and the physical world. Using the allegory of a charioteer and two horses, Plato explains the internal struggle within the soul and how love (eros) can lead the soul toward divine beauty and wisdom.
Here is the exact passage in Phaedrus 245c where Plato said that the soul is moving and immortal:
[245c] is given by the gods for our greatest happiness; and our proof will not be believed by the merely clever, but will be accepted by the truly wise. First, then, we must learn the truth about the soul divine and human by observing how it acts and is acted upon. And the beginning of our proof is as follows: Every soul is immortal. For that which is ever moving is immortal but that which moves something else or is moved by something else, when it ceases to move, ceases to live. Only that which moves itself, since it does not leave itself, never ceases to move, and this is also
Republic (Book IV) (written on 375 BCE)
Short Introduction: In Republic, especially Book IV, Plato develops his political philosophy alongside a theory of the tripartite soul. He argues that the soul has three distinct parts: the rational, the spirited, and the appetitive. Justice in the soul, like in the ideal city, occurs when each part performs its proper role under the guidance of reason.
This is the direct wording in Republic 440e and 441a where Plato explains that the soul is not split into pieces nor separate. Instead, the single soul has three functions or aspects.
[440e] take note of this?” “Of what?” “That what we now think about the spirited element is just the opposite of our recent surmise. For then we supposed it to be a part of the appetitive, but now, far from that, we say that, in the factions of the soul, it much rather marshals itself on the side of the reason.” “By all means,” he said. “Is it then distinct from this too, or is it a form of the rational, so that there are not three but two kinds in the soul, the rational and the appetitive, or just as in the city there were
[441a] three existing kinds that composed its structure, the moneymakers, the helpers, the counsellors, so also in the soul there exists a third kind, this principle of high spirit, which is the helper of reason by nature unless it is corrupted by evil nurture?” “We have to assume it as a third,” he said. “Yes,” said I, “provided it shall have been shown to be something different from the rational, as it has been shown to be other than the appetitive.” “That is not hard to be shown,” he said; “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,
To summarize:
Plato’s Symposium is a symbolic and fictional dialogue, especially the story of Aristophanes (190d), which talks about human beings split in half. This story refers to the body, not the soul and is meant to explain the feeling of love and longing. On the other hand, Phaedo, Phaedrus and Republic are serious works where Plato teaches that the soul is whole, eternal and indivisible.
References:
Symposium of Plato:
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0174%3Atext%3DSym.
Phaedo
Phaedrus
Republic
