Aristotle and Plato

[Tous_Logous]

Which Greek philosopher should I begin reading first: Plato or Aristotle? From what I know, both philosophers were influential in western Christian philosophy/theology during the Middle Ages.

I had to read a few of Plato’s dialogues when I was in college (I forgot what they are called but I remember them involving the trial and death of Socrates); his works always seemed more accessible and understandable. Aristotle seems more complex and delves into mathematics and other deep subjects, not really my forte. What is a good “beginner’s” work to start out with in reading Aristotle (Organon, Physics, On the Heavens, On the Soul, etc?)?

I feel like anything I read of Aristotle’s will downright destroy my brain because I will not understand what I am reading. Perhaps Plato is the better choice to begin reading?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Which Greek philosopher should I begin reading first: Plato or Aristotle? From what I know, both philosophers were influential in western Christian philosophy/theology during the Middle Ages.

I had to read a few of Plato’s dialogues when I was in college (I forgot what they are called but I remember them involving the trial and death of Socrates); his works always seemed more accessible and understandable. Aristotle seems more complex and delves into mathematics and other deep subjects, not really my forte. What is a good “beginner’s” work to start out with in reading Aristotle (Organon, Physics, On the Heavens, On the Soul, etc?)?

I feel like anything I read of Aristotle’s will downright destroy my brain because I will not understand what I am reading. Perhaps Plato is the better choice to begin reading?

Neither on your own. You should start with Aquinas by Edward Feser ( and follow his blogspot ), then read his newest book which comes ouit in May.

You can’t read either P or T without reading Thomas Aquinas first or at least his Commentaries on A’s Physics and Metaphysics… Thomas will teach all you need to know about Both. But don’t try either without going to Thomas first. But don’t even read him until you have read Feser. If you don’t follow my advice, you will probably give up.

Linus2nd
Linus2nd

 

[oldcelt]

Neither on your own. You should start with Aquinas by Edward Feser ( and follow his blogspot ), then read his newest book which comes ouit in May.

You can’t read either P or T without reading Thomas Aquinas first or at least his Commentaries on A’s Physics and Metaphysics… Thomas will teach all you need to know about Both. But don’t try either without going to Thomas first. But don’t even read him until you have read Feser. If you don’t follow my advice, you will probably give up.

Linus2nd
Linus2nd

I hate to disagree, but as a historian I only go to the secondary source when the original doesn’t exist.

To the interested party:
Try Plato’s Phaedo, 360 B.C. Many good conversations in the re-Christian era. You don’t need anyone’s commentary or take on what is being said. See what it means to you.

 

[J_Peterson]

Neither on your own. You should start with Aquinas by Edward Feser ( and follow his blogspot ), then read his newest book which comes ouit in May.

You can’t read either P or T without reading Thomas Aquinas first or at least his Commentaries on A’s Physics and Metaphysics… Thomas will teach all you need to know about Both. But don’t try either without going to Thomas first. But don’t even read him until you have read Feser. If you don’t follow my advice, you will probably give up.

Linus2nd
Linus2nd

Though I really don’t like the tone he takes in it, I thought the Last Supestition was a better overview. It felt like he gave himself more time to explain Aristotle. He comes off as smug as the authors he’s refuting but he knows his stuff and explains it very well.