Its starting-point was universals, the very existence of which was a matter of faith, and from these it descended to particulars, or details.

Aristotle, on the contrary, rose from particulars to universals, advancing to them by inductions.
Plato, therefore, trusted to the imagination, Aristotle to reason.
The former descended from the decomposition of a primitive idea into particulars, the latter united particulars into a general conception.
Hence the method of Plato was capable of quickly producing what seemed to be splendid, though in reality unsubstantial results; that of Aristotle was more tardy in its operation, but much more solid.

It implied endless labor in the collection of facts, a tedious resort to experiment and observation, the application of demonstration.

The philosophy of Plato is a gorgeous castle in the air; that of Aristotle a solid structure, laboriously, and with many failures, founded on the solid rock.
An appeal to the imagination is much more alluring than the employment of reason.

In the intellectual decline of Alexandria, indolent methods were preferred to laborious observation and severe mental exercise.