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.