Of course he knows. But so what? Lecture notes or no lecture notes, they are intellectual tours de force. (And not all of them are notes -- the Rhetoric, Poetics and Nicomachean ethics aren't.) As Heidegger pointed out, the Rhetoric contains the first known systematic theory of the emotions (Heidegger actually uses Aristotle's definition of fear in Being and Time). De Anima is great.
The Roman world was perfectly aware that there were deep contradictions between Plato and Aristotle. Check out the controversies the Aristotelians had with the Neo-Platonists (not to mention the tremendously more interesting Stoics and Sceptics). It was only the Arabs, who hardly knew that there were two different people, who thought they were congruent. They also thought Plotinus' Enneads were by Aristotle (!).
If you want fuzzy mysticism and beautiful writing, go with Plato. If you want sharp, detailed and pain-staking analysis, Aristotle is The Man. Even the now totally discredited biological writings are fascinating to read. What a mind that man had.
But, more importantly, who would win in a fight, Plato or Aristotle?
Chris Doss
The Russia Journal
---------------------------
>I'm with you, Joanna. Plato is overrated. Give me Aristotle any day. jks
Aren't you aware that A was P's pupil, that our A is mostly students' lecture notes, that virtually all of A's published writings have disappeared forever, that for more than a millennium no philosopher saw an antagonism between the two, and that many of A's seeming criticisms of P'tonic doctrines are taken directly from P's own works (cf. the "third man argument" in Metaphysics which is found word for word in the Parmenides)?
Shane Mage