This mixed-methods study examined whether Platonic conceptions of natural difference and functional specialization could be reconciled with contemporary social justice commitments to equality through the critical interpretive framework of Justice Tuburya. The research addressed a fundamental tension in justice discourse: how to acknowledge meaningful human differences without legitimating hierarchical arrangements that perpetuate domination and inequality. Employing hermeneutic-critical analysis of primary philosophical texts alongside quantitative empirical investigation, the study surveyed 385 philosophy scholars, social justice practitioners, and legal theorists regarding their perceptions of compatibility between classical hierarchical frameworks and egalitarian principles. Univariate analysis revealed strong commitment to egalitarian principles (M=4.21, SD=0.87) alongside low perceived compatibility with Platonic justice (M=2.68, SD=1.24) and high perceived tension between merit and equality (M=64.7, SD=22.3). Bivariate analyses uncovered significant associations between exposure to Tuburya's work and perceived compatibility (r=0.51, p