This paper is being carried out to compare and contrast the definitions of soul and justice in the works of Plato, Aristotle, and Epicurus. This paper purports to examine each philosopher chronologically to possibly reveal evolution of views between them. …
Download file to see previous pages...
This essay discusses that Plato (428-347 BC) defined the soul’s parts as appetite, spirit, and reason. A just society would also have this structure: the productive (worker) class (appetite part of the soul); the protective (warrior) class (spirit part of the soul); and the governing (ruling) class (reason part of the soul). Individual justice would consist of the appetite part of the soul obeying the reason part, with the aid of the spirit part of the soul. Any deviation from this order would result in an unjust individual or society. Justice to Plato meant harmony with each fulfilling his role. Plato’s ideal city was meant as a model for an individual to set up the government of their soul. Aristotle (384-322 BC), a student of Plato, presents his theory of the soul in “De Anima”. Soul is the incorporeal essence or life-force of a living thing, inseparable from the body and existing as the cause of the body’s movement and of its end. Souls have different parts that different kinds of souls may contain. Plants have souls providing them with nourishment and reproduction. Animals have souls that also enable motion and differing numbers of senses. Humans have all this plus rational soul, which has two parts: the possible intellect, holding all the possible thoughts; and the agent intellect, bringing actual thoughts into act. The mind (agent intellect part of the soul) is immaterial and cannot be corrupted; therefore the mind is immortal. Justice to Aristotle was a character trait or virtue (Aristotle, trans. 1934, Book V). Just people are those who seek their fair share and follow the law. Aristotle distinguished between two types of justice: distributive justice, where resources must be distributed equally; and rectificatory justice, where personal transactions must be fair and equal. Whereas Plato based his ideas of justice on the ideal city and good, Aristotle viewed justice more practically as being equality in transactions. Plato offered us one ideal vision of a perfect city and justice; in contrast, Aristotle thought some rules of justice were ordained by nature, but those made by men varied between places. Both Aristotle and Plato viewed justice as harmony in societal interactions. Epicurus (341-270 BC) takes the soul and everything except the void to be made of atoms moving in an infinite universe. His “Letter to Herodotus” (Epicurus, trans. 1996) explains mental function as a result of movement of specialized neural atoms. The soul is corporeal; nothing is incorporeal except empty space. Epicurus taught that the soul ends with death of the body and no longer has sentience. To Epicurus, justice is an agreement to neither harm nor be harmed, an agreement that people deem useful. Usefulness,
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Cite this document
(“Soul and Justice in the works of Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/philosophy/1395364-philosophy
(Soul and Justice in the Works of Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus Essay)
“Soul and Justice in the Works of Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/philosophy/1395364-philosophy.
Justice or Moral Uprightness of Human Rights. Plato’s Republic is one of the foremost philosophical texts of the ancient world. While the text examines a broad array of philosophical issues, one of its primary considerations is the nature of morality. In the second book of the Republic, Glaucon argues that morality is only a socially constructed concept that individuals follow because it is to their advantage to do so.
This paper will look at two dissimilar arguments about the human function and evaluate the dissimilar objectives of each.
Aristotle disproves Plato's Theory of Ideas on three essential bases that are the reality of ideas disagrees with itself by refuting the prospect of cancellations, his pictures of ideas are just empty descriptions and the hypothesis uses temporary concepts to generate illustrations of awareness.
Plato's arguments were based on supposition; with an abstract form of deductive reasoning, one formulated a premise then sought confirmation of that premise in the material world. He was highly suspicious of empirical thought and observation and he dismissed the notion that anything of value in terms of truth could be found in the material world.
Socrates did not write down his ideas. We owe it to Plato who wrote down Socrates' Apology to the jury to learn about his views.
Also in the Dialogues, Plato set down the discussions he and others had with Socrates which reveal how Socrates elicited profound ideas from his interlocutors by gently questioning them in such a way that they were forced to accept the conclusions finally arrived at.
Thus, the answer to the question on the extent of difference in terms of an ethical and practical ways man lead their lives can be based on the concepts and views presented by the two philosophers.
In Plato’s Allegory