When I first got to read both Plato and Aristotle in depth in graduate school I discovered how different their writings and philosophies are. Plato is rhapsodic and thoughtfully deep while Aristotle is more systematic and analytic. At first I enjoyed reading Plato more, but had to admit that at times he seemed to wander and get stuck trying to fully explain his line of reasoning. Aristotle initially struck me as boring and too detailed in his reasoning.
However, as the years of teaching both went bye my feelings about the two changed. Aside from his wonderful descriptions and explanations in his allegory of the cave, Plato’s writings eventually came to seem too scattered and overly creative to be of real philosophical use. Moreover, the basis for his ideal state, the Republic, as well as the ultimate result, seems tenuis at best. I do agree that wisdom is what is needed in governmental leadership, but the extreme measures included in Plato’s design are far too narrow and subject to extortion and misuse.
By the same token, some of Aristotle’s political beliefs and would-be practices surely seem rather naïve and subject to misunderstanding. Nevertheless, on the whole I think Aristotle is more realistic in his estimation of the limits of human political practice. Moreover, his careful and concrete analysis of various extant constitutions strikes me as a more realistic place to begin than does Plato’s idealized Republic. While Aristotle offers no “ultimate solution”, his approach was concrete rather than abstract, as was Plato’s.
I will admit that when it came to metaphysical concerns, Aristotle was every bit as abstract and speculative as was Plato. Indeed, it was Plato’s approach and systematic analysis, focused in the work of Augustine, that eventually guided the theologians of the Middle Ages and Protestant thought, while it was the more analytic and empirical approach that inspired the Roman Catholic vision, focused in the learning how to think of Thomas Aquinas, in the modern era.
In the end I must admit that Plato and Aristotle have had equal influence in Western thought, but it seems to me that there is something more concrete and realistic about Aristotle’s approach. Yet I am sure that this debate will not end here. In the end it’s the discussion about such issues that really matter, not the particular conclusions each one comes to embrace. Tracing the arguments each of these great thinkers offer is the very heart of learning about philosophy, learning how to think for oneself.
While Plato enjoyed a certain amount of freedom and popularity throughout his career, in spite of the fate of his master Socrates at the hands of the Athenian government. Aristotle, on the other hand, felt he had to leave Athen for various reasons “lest it sin against philosophy a second time”, and thus had to carry on his studies in several places in what is now Turkey. Nonetheless, he managed to make many discoveries and invented a number of classification systems that are still of use today.
One puzzle and unfortunate fact is that he seems to have had little actual influence on the young and great Alexander for whom he was he tutor for several years. Nonetheless, the latter seems to have been quite faithful in sending specimens of rare and even unique life forms gathered from his wide ranging travels throughout Egypt even India back to his great teacher. It is amazing to speculate what Alexander, this greatest student of Aristotle, might have accomplished had he not died so young, at the age of 33.

BLIND BARTIMAEUS, THREE TIMES
When I was a senior in high school I began dating a girl who was a Christian. She took me to Young Life meetings every week where I was exposed to a very fundamentalist brand of Christianity, although the local leader was very “soft sell.” I, quite literally, had never heard any Bible stories. The leader read and told the story of blind Bartimaeus whom Jesus healed. I was very moved, and several months later, having come to see myself as prefigured in Bartimaeus, I became a Christian. That, to be sure, was the most crucial turning point of my entire life.
One of the more interesting aspects of the story of Bartimaeus is that it is told three times in the Gospels, which given the duplication of many of the stories in the Gospels is not unusual. The story is told in Mark 8:46-52, Matthew 20:29-34, and Luke 18:35-43. What is a bit unusual and quite interesting is the fact that the stories differ on several key points of fact. This is a clearcut instance of the way the Gospel writers altered or adumbrated the texts upon which they relied when writing their own version. This story is not included in the Q version of the Gospel.
First off, two versions say that Jesus’ meeting with Bartimaeus took place as he and his disciples were “nearing” the town of Jericho while the other says it took place as Jesus was leaving Jericho. Incidentally, this is the same Jericho that Joshua and his troops leveled when they captured Jericho and brought its walls “tumbling down.” Secondly, one of the versions, Matthew’s, says there were two men that were healed in this episode. (20:29) Perhaps one of the later copyists along the line transferred the number two from the following story into this one.
This possibility calls attention to a peculiar fact in the Matthew text, which says that for Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem “They brought two donkeys to him, laid their cloaks on them, and Jesus mounted.” (21:6) At the very least, it is difficult to imagine how Jesus mounted both animals. Clearly Jesus must have rode the mother of the foal while the latter followed along behind. The whole wild scene of the Triumphal Entry suggests the possibility for confusion and mistakes. For me it is difficult to imagine Jesus taking all this hoopla seriously. He left and spent the night in nearbye Bethany, presumably with Mary and Martha.
Incidentally, I do not apologize for the spelling of “nearbye” in the above sentence. It stands as a protest against the standard confusion of conflating the reference to “means” (by) with “location” (bye). It is a confusion against which I wish to bear witness. It happens all the time and should be guarded against ;O) I have always identified with this fellow Bartimaeus, partly because his was the first story about Jesus that I had ever heard, and partly because of his insistence on being helped by Jesus.
In spite of the fact that I have long since departed from the fundamentalism of my high school conversion, I do acknowledge that my first encounter with the story of Jesus it has continued to have a significant influence on my life and thought. There is something about this person Jesus that continues to draw my attention and commitment. I guess I am most touched and impressed by his recorded insistence on being a “person for others”, one who listens to and seeks to help those in need.
Whatever else he may have been, Jesus clearly taught, and to a very large extent lived, a life dedicated to the good of other people, especially that of the disadvantaged and persecuted. Once again I recommend to my readers what is called “The Sermon on the Mount” found in Matthew five through seven. This passage makes up the majority of the so-called the lost “Q Manuscript” of Jesus’ main teachings. It can be found in Marcus Borg’s little book The Lost Gospel of Q.