In the 5 th and 6 th B.C, the Greek explanation of things had a basis in faith. Faiths that existed were Olympian religion and the Dionysiac-Orphic. The Olympian faith had its basis in the belief of Olympian deities. In religion, the belief was that, after a person’s death, the soul survived; however, it did not have recollections or character of the being whose body it had occupied (Hergenhahn, 2008). Dionysiac-Orphic was the major alternative to the Olympian faith. Unlike the Olympian faith which was most favored by the upper class, the Dionysiac-Orphic religion was a faith for the peasants. In this religion, the basic concept was the trans-migration of the soul. Two of the philosophers who contributed to the debate about the soul are Aristotle and Plato. The two philosophers conferred to the soul a wide range of psychological and emotional attributes. Nevertheless, they differed on a variety of issue regarding the soul. Plato envisioned the soul as having three distinct parts; as expressed by Pythagoras. These parts included the thymos , nous and the id (Bennett, 2007). The thymos was concerned with emotions, reason and the Id with appetites. The attributes associated with the soul were linked to varied parts of the body, that is, the mind, chest and the liver. This further meant that the platonic soul was not in one part of the body; it was distributed in the different organs of the body. This further implied that the soul was distinct substance from the body, it could flow, in and out of organs and ultimately out of the body at the end of life. Aristotle, however, was inclined towards life sciences and believed the soul was not separate from the body. Aristotle’s description of the soul occurs in the De Anima and is significantly more comprehensive that the description by Plato. In Aristotle’s account, the soul is a form of nature, a law that accounts for variation and the rest in living bodies. Aristotle evaluated the characteristics of living things of considerable complexity. He noted such activities as metabolism and reasoning. He then described the soul as the coordination of active abilities to carry out the important functions that living things engage (Hergenhahn, 2008). It is, therefore, not a body or a corporeal object, but he is non-indicate of its roles in thinking in humans. He treats mental activities like the rest of bodily activities in that, beings of proper structure and intricacy perform them. Unlike the platonic soul, Aristotle considered the soul to be the actuality of the corporeal. It is the matter that has the potentiality to form the body. In his work, Metaphysics , the philosopher draws a parallel between the yolk of an egg and its potential to develop into a chick, and the soul’s potential to develop into a body (Smith, 2010). In the De Anima, Aristotle described the soul as the “whatness” of a living body. A living body has an essence which makes it what it is, this essence if removed, the body ceases to be what it is. This essence is the soul. It is only in the living where it is able to initiate motion, growth and decay. Additionally, contrary to the divisions of the platonic soul, Aristotle defined three different souls. These fitted into the three classes of living things, the plants, animals and humans. The first