Plato in his philosophy gives a valuable place to the idea of justice and soul. For justice,
he used the word Dikaisyne. This translates to morality, which properly includes the whole duty of man. It also covers the whole area of the individual’s conduct in such a way that it affects others. This brings forth a connection with his theory of justice to the soul.
Plato contended that justice is the quality of soul, in virtue of which man set aside irrational urges to taste every pleasure and to get a selfish satisfaction out of every object and accommodated themselves to the discharge of a single function for the general benefit. Justice is once a part of human virtue and the bond, which connects man together in society. It is the order and duty of the parts of the soul. It is to the soul as health is to the body.
In his work Phaedo, he questions the meaning of soul. He questions whether the soul has some form of existence after a person has died. So he concludes that the soul is most like the intelligible being and that the body is most like the perceptible and perishable being.

To compare with Aristotle, it is clear that the soul is not a body or a corporeal thing. He agrees with Plato’s claim that souls are very different from bodies. But, he thinks that all the abilities that are constitutive of the souls of plants, beasts and humans are such that their exercise involves and requires bodily parts and organs. It is certainly not part of his theory that the soul is specially and directly responsible for mental functions by performing them on its own. It is less directly responsible for the performance by the living organism of other vital functions such as growth. He rejects both the Pre-Socratic materialist assumption that the soul is simply non-organic matter, and the Platonic dualist claim that it must be something entirely non-bodily. He argues that soul is substance because it is the form of a natural body, and that the body is the matter informed by the soul. Although the soul is a substance distinct from the non-organic body, it is not immaterial (if being immaterial excludes being composed of matter), nor is it independent of some non-organic body or other. Soul must, therefore, be substance as form.
Aristotle’s theory of justice is described in a general and special sense. In its general sense it is equivalent to the observance of law. As such it is similar to virtue. It differs only as virtue exercises the disposition simply in the abstract, and justice applies it in dealings with people. First, distributive justice hands out honors and rewards according to the merits of the recipients. Second, corrective justice takes no account of the position of the parties concerned, but simply secures equality between the two by taking away from the advantage of the one and adding it to the disadvantage of the other.

Epicurus’ view on justice is like an agreement. It’s different from the previous philosophers. Society believes it to be based on what is useful in mutual attractions. He says the main reason not to be unjust is that one will be punished to keep oneself away from trouble. Although justice should exist where there is an agreement about how to behave, it does not entirely have to be conventional by particular laws and society. It can vary from place to place and time to time.

His theory on soul could be compared easily to Plato, in the vein of immortality. Since he is an empiricist, he is an atomist and consistently explains all natural phenomena in terms of the movement and combination of particles. He says that souls are made from atoms, and gods possess souls, but their souls adhere to the bodies without escaping. In the case of humans we do have the same kind of souls, but the forces between our atoms do not possess the fortitude to hold the soul forever. Epicurus broaches the notion that atoms sometimes inexplicably swerve. As atoms fell downward through the void, some of them swerved from their paths and collided with other atoms, setting off a chain reaction that eventually led to the world as we know it. Epicurus goes on to
explore the implications of this theory for perception and knowledge. So basically, the swerve of the soul results in its free will.

Heroclitus, a Pre-Socratic philosopher, attributes wisdom to the soul, provided that it is in the right state or condition. He was different by thinking of a connection between soul and motor functions. He talks of a dry soul and the moistness of a soul. In contrast, he thought the soul was bodily, but composed of an unusually fine or rare kind of matter. This would possibly be air or fire for example.
His approach on justice would be different. Heroclitus believes that there would be no justice if there were no injustice. It is to be associated with the stability we find in the universe. He believes that justice is strife. If people feared the law or what is socially accepted, then justice would have much more meaning bringing what is wrong to right.

In conclusion, all of these philosophers’ definitions of soul and justice vary to each other. Some have influenced each other in finding answers to their thoughts or have proved their predecessors wrong, like Aristotle with Plato.

Registered Members, login
Join now, it's free

Property of EssaySwap.com