The notion of harmony between the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle is one of the most this modernity, e in Western philosophical exegesis. In nduringly controversial topicscontroversy has been blunted by twin assumptions; the widespread acceptance of a fundamental opposition between Plato and Aristotle, premised on the widespread dismissal of the thesis of harmony (as proposed by the Neoplatonic commentators). This dissertation aims to re-assess the hegemony of reading Aristotle as anti-Platonic, by investigating the ancient, modern and contemporary discussions surrounding the topic. In each case, three major aspects of the debate are investigated; Aristotelian versus Platonic metaphysics; conceptions of form/Form; and psychological doctrine. The Neoplatonic commentators turn out to be ingenious in their efforts at harmony, and far less philosophically misguided than modern commentators often contend. Furthermore, the key strategy of constructing an anti-Platonic Aristotelianism in modernity (i.e. developmentalism), is shown to be based largely on spurious or circular assertions. Finally, key issues of contention in the contemporary milieu are investigated, illustrating the enduring questions surrounding the topic. A proper grasp of the harmony debate and its significance for philosophy at large is shown to be of paramount relevance not only to advanced scholars, but also to those new to the discipline. The investigation of Plato versus Aristotle has for too long been beleaguered under the weight of unquestioned assumptions of fundamental opposition. This dissertation aims to work towards remedying this unfortunate state of affairs, and revivifying one of the most significant debates in the history of Western philosophy.