In the Timeaus, Plato explains the teleological explanation of the constitution of the material universe. To this end, he describes creation as the interaction between circles whose counter-movements affect the imperceptible soul and enable it to be affected by and in turn affect the material universe. These do not fit within the general scope of my own argument, but a basic understanding of the movements of the Circles of Same, Different and Being is absolutely essential to grasping the most extractable ideas from Plato's cosmology, but will not be addressed in any meaningful way. detail now. The circum locomotion (circular movement) and the rectilinear movement (movement caused by two forces opposing each other) of these cosmological circles affect the soul in such a way that, according to Plato, it leads to an understanding of the model eternal of the soul. the Forms must be lost to the soul. Only through intense rational conditioning can human beings realign the soul to gain insight into them (the forms) again. In his insightful work, Edward N. Lee investigates the exact meaning of Plato's attributing rotational motion to the human soul, as well as to the soul of the world, addressing what he sees as a misinterpretation of how understand circular thinking. In his article, Reason and Rotation: Circular Motion as a Model of the Mind (nous) in Later Plato, Lee argues that this model proposed by Plato should not be understood as a literal movement of the soul, but rather as a metaphor. He offers Aristotle's critique in De Anima and Physics in response to Plato's assertion, and boldly claims that through his interpretation, Aristotle's ancient critiques can be better understood and actually support his own interpretation.... .. middle of article.. ....if it were to be such and have such movements, it still seems far-fetched to explain with any real certainty how such movements could be understood. Although Lee failed to convince me of what I therefore took to be the “According to the circular soul theory, he makes a number of interesting points. The distinction between how we understand encirclement seemed very logical to me and seems to be a striking element of his argument. He points out how it may be that the Aristotelian response to the theory appears to be leveled and makes it a point to go further and make clearer sense of why the attack is being carried out in this particular way. Although this makes the circular soul theory a little more plausible, it seems too interesting to me. As such, I have rejected his thesis, but I still consider much of Lee's engagement with the Timaeus to be very insightful..