PLATO OR ARISTOTLE ?
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 by 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 matters, not the particular conclusions 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 Athens for various “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. 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.

WHO WAS NIXOS KAZANTZAKIS ?
Nikos Kazantzakis (1878-1957) was a Greek writer who wrote novels in the mid-20th Century. His most well-known works are Zorba the Greek and The Last Temptation of Christ both of which were made into very popular films. Kazantzakis was born and raised on the island of Crete, studied at the University of Paris, and wrote literally dozens of books ranging from many first-rate novels to travel guides and political tracts. He was also occasionally and temporarily involved in representing Greece in various international situations.
While traveling in the far east Kazantzakis contacted a deadly disease and died on his way to Germany. His wife brought him to Crete to be buried in great honor even though the Greek Orthodox Church had excommunicated him for the questions he raised about the church and the Bible. Thousands of Cretan citizens gathered for his funeral in Heraklion, Crete where he was buried on the ancient Venetian wall that surrounds the city. His books continue to be popular all around the world. I actually had the opportunity to spend a day visiting with Helen Kazantzakis, Nikos’ wife, in Geneva years ago.
Kazantzakis’ creative autobiography, Report to Greco, is a fascinating account of his youth, years of study, and travels with friends. It also contains a number of his insights into world affairs and intellectual developments. The title for this book reflects its dedication to El Greco the artist who also came from Crete. Kazantzakis thought it appropriate for him to dedicate his autobiography to the other Cretan artist. The motto for this book is: “Reach What You Cannot”, focusing Kazantzakis’ belief that one should always be striving for something higher, more fulfilling than that which one has already achieved.
Perhaps Kazantzakis’ most profound book is his final effort to express the above motto in his magnum opus: The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel, wherein he undertakes to expand on the journey of Odysseus by accompanying him travelling around the world. Even here, Kazantzakis refuses to acknowledge that there is ever an end to the journey, indeed, the struggle, to go beyond whatever one has already achieved. Incidentally, this book consists of 33,333 lines of iambic pentameter in Greek.
The actual motto of Kazantzakis’ Odyssey is “I hope for nothing; I fear nothing; I am free.” In this way he sought to convey his belief that the only way to be absolutely free of all that would inhibit one’s growth is not to have any hopes or fears. Only then would a person be totally free. Then there would be no disappointments, no false sense of fulfilment. Rewards and punishments are then out of the question and one is free to pursue life for its own sake. Kazantzakis had this motto inscribed on his gravestone on the Venetian wall in Heraklion.
I have pondered these issues and mottos many times ever since I first encountered the writings of the “crazy Greek.” As Zorba says to “the Boss” in both the film and the novel: “Boss, you’ve got to learn to cut the string that ties you to the petty things of this world.” The big question here is not only whether this is at all possible, but whether it is in fact desirable. Does not such withdrawal sap life of its vital meaning? Clearly, neither Kazantzakis nor Zorba actually lived as if this were so. Is it not possible to live both postures at the same time?