I'm hungry, therefore i am?

I’m Hungry, Therefore I Am?

Self is an abstract concept because it cannot be seen. We only know it’s there because as humans we share the connection of having an identity, a distinct sense and definition of who we are, which may or may not change over time (of course, this self-perception is subjective, thus the need for “objective” philosophy). Throughout the discourse of defining what selfis, philosophers of the past have tried to determine where the physical body ends and where the soul begins. The answer to this question reveals the map to the self. It is clear that two ancient philosophers, Plato and Socrates, saw the two as distinct but they and future philosophers did not agree on how the two combined or even whether the two combined to form the self.
To begin with, it isimportant to define the “body” and “soul” distinction for the purposes of examining Socrates, Plato, and Descartes’ arguments about self. One aspect of our universal sense of self is that our thoughts and decisions feel separate from our physical bodies. Our bodies can become diseased or broken without our permission and it can have needs beyond our control, whereas we control our thoughts,questions, and decisions.
According to Socrates the body is our physical realm, which is changeable, transient, and imperfect while the soul is unchanging, eternal, and immortal. The physical realm is seen as animalistic, savage, and against what the self needs to achieve. Here, the physical state or self makes decisions that may not be beneficial to the self. It can trap us or make us do things thatare considered immoral.
The soul works to free us from the animal, to achieve “reason,” because reason allows the soul to be free from the shameful and imperfect of the physical realm (body). We the soul exists in a separate place from the body and analyze our choices.
But there is no soul without a body. Socrates in fact feels the soul is attached to the body, the way a garden is attached to aflower. This is interesting because he also believes the soul is independent of the body. This could be why we do bad things, because of the difficult natural relationship we have with our physical selves. Our body morally bogs down the soul. It can even overcome free will. But Socrates also believes the soul is released from the body when we die. Socrates hinted at the idea of an interdependentrelationship between the body and the soul, where you cannot have one without the other. After all, is the body not the vessel that delivers the soul and the only thing with which the soul was ever witnessed?
Socrates would go in a more spiritual direction. When we die, the soul leaves the body and the “reasoned” ones would be allowed to join the Gods. But if the soul becomes detached, what doesthis look like? Are we still ourselves and is the soul the same as the self when Socrates’ vision of the “high knowledge” state is achieved?
Plato, whose views are quite similar to Socrates, does account for the physical as part of the self. He said that things like physical appetite or sexual desire is one third of the self. I am hungry, therefore I am? What about animals who only look for foodand breed? Do they have selves? They must have some sense of understanding that they are separate from what’s around them.
Plato goes on to say that the other two parts of course are reason which enables us to think, make the “right” choices, and understanding of “eternal truths” and Spirit or Passion: our emotions like “love, anger, ambition, aggressiveness, empathy.” In other words what makesus human rather than animal.
Nearly two thousand years later, Descartes would take Plato and Socrates views even further. Descartes believed that there is a huge difference between mind and body. The body could be cut in pieces but not our mind or soul. “When I consider the mind, that is, when I consider myself in so far only as I can distinguish in myself no parts, but I very clearly...