What do you think?
Rate this book
The Elements of Theology
Proclus' Elements of Theology is a concise summa of the Neoplatonic system in its fully developed form; and for the student of late Greek thought, second in importance only to the Enneads of Plotinus. Dodds has provided a critical text based on a personal examination of some forty manuscripts, together with an English translation and a philosophical and linguistic commentary. This second edition includes an Appendix of Addenda et corrigenda and is still widely regarded and respected as the definitive edition of the text today.
398 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 470
10 people are currently reading
822 people want to read
About the author
Proclus
258 books54 followersProclus Lycaeus (/ˈprɒkləs ˌlaɪˈsiːəs/; 8 February 412 – 17 April 485 AD), called the Successor (Greek Πρόκλος ὁ Διάδοχος, Próklos ho Diádokhos), was a Greek Neoplatonist philosopher, one of the last major Classical philosophers (see Damascius). He set forth one of the most elaborate and fully developed systems of Neoplatonism. He stands near the end of the classical development of philosophy, and was very influential on Western medieval philosophy (Greek and Latin).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
August 8, 2016
It is hard-going but if you want to know the way pagan philosophers thought then and especially about neoplatonist thinking at the fag end of paganism, this book is a must. I was looking for what it had to say about the soul, not much more really than that you can't be a living animal without what is regarded as an entity in itself and, it is insisted, with a principle of life for, being platonists, they're mad keen on forms and, being philosophers, on cognition. They're also keen on its self-animation, other than that it animates the body, because they want it to exist apart from the body. Thus reincarnation. It's immaterial, therefore cannot be subject to destruction. The problem with their thinking is the wishful thinking of the mortal for immortality and putting that latter first and trying to reconcile the corporeal with it. It becomes all airy fairy when they impute souls to the sun and planets which are considered self-motivated.
My own soul qua receptive soul is not that up to moving me. What they'd call the spirited part of the soul, however, and not only moves me but being peripatetic can move others. It is my unconscious will but if it can act separately from my body there's no reason it should itself die. I think it must, whatever it thinks. Ah, it does think, in fact better than I do except it informs my mind, so noncorporeal and cognitive, hmm, and possibly indiscerptible, and, being peripatetic, able to possess the sun and planets, hmm, they weren't far wrong - except for forms.
My own soul qua receptive soul is not that up to moving me. What they'd call the spirited part of the soul, however, and not only moves me but being peripatetic can move others. It is my unconscious will but if it can act separately from my body there's no reason it should itself die. I think it must, whatever it thinks. Ah, it does think, in fact better than I do except it informs my mind, so noncorporeal and cognitive, hmm, and possibly indiscerptible, and, being peripatetic, able to possess the sun and planets, hmm, they weren't far wrong - except for forms.
October 2, 2018
This is a metaphysical description of the universe beginning from basic ideas and shapes in the style of Euclid’s Elements. Proclus defines the Aristotleian/Platonic ideas of being, life, and intellect, and defines the nature of the soul and how it is composed. Great book, it’s a wonderful trip through the ideas of Aristotle and Plato. Five stars, simply for the diligence, precision, and powerful insights this man had into metaphysics.
December 18, 2008
Man this book is difficult. Really. But if what you're after is vintage systematic neo-platonic thought, then dive right in.
April 24, 2024
I had heard that Proclus gave the first truly systemic presentation of Plotinian neo-platonism, and that his doctrine of henads (lesser divinities which are truly One but not the One-Itself) was an important predecessor to ideas of divine names or attributes in later Christian and Islamic philosophy. But it felt like the henads rendered an otherwise elegant doctrine of procession from, and return to, the One, rather incoherent.
I also found it quite difficult to tell whether his use of "psuche" (soul) referred to an active principle imbuing all things with movement (from the planets down to the animals), a vital principle inhering to organic life, or something that only is attached to rational animals such as humans. My sense, at least from the editor's useful commentary, is that it's the last of these, although perhaps animals participate in the principle of Soul without having a distinct entity of the dignity of soul attached to them. Regardless, this is pretty far from Aristotle's soul as the form of a living thing.
Overall a rather eclectic doctrine. I wonder if Plotinus is actually less eclectic or if the fact that I only read an abridgement of his Enneads spared me some of the frustration I found here. Either way I wish I had read more of the Enneads to see more of what this era of neo-platonism looked like without the henads.
I also found it quite difficult to tell whether his use of "psuche" (soul) referred to an active principle imbuing all things with movement (from the planets down to the animals), a vital principle inhering to organic life, or something that only is attached to rational animals such as humans. My sense, at least from the editor's useful commentary, is that it's the last of these, although perhaps animals participate in the principle of Soul without having a distinct entity of the dignity of soul attached to them. Regardless, this is pretty far from Aristotle's soul as the form of a living thing.
Overall a rather eclectic doctrine. I wonder if Plotinus is actually less eclectic or if the fact that I only read an abridgement of his Enneads spared me some of the frustration I found here. Either way I wish I had read more of the Enneads to see more of what this era of neo-platonism looked like without the henads.
September 29, 2019
This was good, a really interesting and concise look at a lot of things. Very grounding to read after Proclus' commentary on the PARMENIDES. The only off comment I have is that Dodds made some passive aggressive remarks in the notes about Proclus' system that really came off weird to me.
December 14, 2024
Finishing the year by reading Proclus’ Elements of Theology was certainly not on my bingo card. However, a discussion with my good friend Syamil Khalis about whether it is appropriate or logical for a person to identify as an “Islamic Neoplatonist” sparked my interest in perusing this invaluable primary text and conducting a firsthand examination of the premises of Neoplatonism.
Reading al-Attas’ works has a distinct benefit: his straightforward, lucid writing style provides a clear dividing line between the metaphysics of Islam and those of non-Islamic traditions. When expounding on the idea of Archetypes, it becomes crystal clear that Prof. al-Attas explicitly states, “…this is not akin to the Platonic Forms.” His vivid insistence that the revelation of Islam represents an ex nihilo breakthrough in the history of religion and ideas underscores his argument that no simile or genetic comparison can be drawn between Islamic and non-Islamic concepts. Even Prof. Toshihiko Izutsu, through his semantic analysis in God and Man in the Quran, has demonstrated the singular uniqueness of Islamic thought.
The concept of the One in the Neoplatonic scheme, despite its monotheistic overtones, must be understood within its historical and theological context. Many religions claim adherence to monotheism, likely because it is intuitively compelling to conclude that all things must originate from a single principle. However, there is a critical difference between the “quasi-monotheism” of other religions and the monotheism introduced by Abraham, which renders them eternally mutually exclusive: the dynamic nature of the Absolute. Other religions, including the naturalistic religions of primitive peoples like the Navajo (the deity Begochidi) and certain African communities (Olodumare in Yoruba traditions), conceive of a singular Source that is inert and distant from its creation.
This conception is often termed deus otiosus—the Most Isolated God. To bridge the gulf between this absolutely transcendent deity and the rest of creation, intermediary divinities are introduced. Various mechanisms are used to resolve this paradox, including the dismemberment of a primordial being (as in the cases of Purusha and Ymir) and the separation of Heaven and Earth (as in the mythologies of Tiamat and Gaea-Ouranos). A more sophisticated expression of intermediary mythology can be found in Proclus’ henadology. The commentator of Elements of Theology points out that Proclus’ idea of henads—intermediary gods that serve as a transcendent complement to the One—likely emerged from interactions with early Christians. Thus, Proclus can be seen as a continuer of the mythology of intermediaries, similar to naturalistic religions.
In contrast, the monotheism introduced by Abraham denies the subsistent existence of such intermediaries and provides them with no reality whatsoever. Abraham insisted that the Absolute is not merely an isolated Prime Mover acting as a final cause but also a dynamic, perpetual efficient cause, intimately involved with creation. The Deity Abraham expounded created the universe ex nihilo, directly through His will, rather than indirectly or passively via the emanative scheme of the Neoplatonists. This marks a radical break between Abrahamic monotheism and other traditions.
The distinction between naturalistic religions and Abrahamic monotheism becomes evident when perusing works like Mircea Eliade’s History of Religious Ideas or Joseph Campbell’s Masks of God. Only through deliberate perennialist efforts can these distinctions be blurred, in my opinion.
A further departure is articulated by Prof. al-Attas in The Covenant Fulfilled and echoed by Prof. Izutsu: the Quran introduces an entirely new worldview (Weltanschauung). With the revelation of the Quran, the Divine introduces Himself with the greatest Name, Allah, and His followers as Muslims—an identity made possible only through the prophethood of Muhammad. Earlier adherents of the Abrahamic tradition cannot retroactively be called Muslims, as their worldview was rendered obsolete by the advent of Muhammad’s prophethood. If figures like the Hanifs, or by extension “early Christians” or Jews, could also be called Muslims, why did one of the most pious Hanifs of the time, Umayyah bin Abi Salt, emerge as an antagonist to the Prophet?
In conclusion, while linguistic similarities (e.g., most cultures have a word for "cat") or logical similarities (e.g., the laws of non-contradiction) can be noted, theological similarities with other religions cannot be claimed. From the history of ideas, it is evident that the Neoplatonic scheme—especially Plotinus’—was constructed as a revival of Hellenic paganism against the encroachment of Christianity.
As for Elements of Theology itself, it is beautifully and symmetrically structured. The book consists of 208 propositions, progressing from basic expositions to more complex ideas. Proclus’ ontological worldview comprises multiple pantheons of symmetrical triadic and dyadic structures:
1. The dyad of Unity and Manifold: Proclus observed that everything belongs to a unity. If all things were infinitely disparate, no common link could exist between entities, making understanding impossible. The One generates the Manifold, which exists as potential that the One, as the most fecund principle, must actualize. Note the inherent “necessity” in the Neoplatonic scheme.
2. The ontological triad of Remained, Procession, and Reversion: To connect Unity and Manifold, a mechanism is proposed. Since all Manifold is connected to Unity as its parts, it follows that what proceeds from Unity consists of like terms with varying gradations. Multiplicity emerges through this procession, and reversion occurs as terms move back toward the superior. These perpetual processes constitute the systole-diastole of the universe.
3. The dyad of Immanence and Transcendence in Procession-Reversion: What of the Remained? If the cause is inserted into the effect, the cause itself must also be caused, leading to infinite regress. Thus, there must be a transcendent Remained principle that bestows existence on the second term without being subsumed into it. Yet it remains immanent insofar as the second term retains likeness to its cause.
4. The triad of Unmoved, Self-sufficient, and Moved: If the Remained itself causes motion, it must also be moved, leading to another infinite regress. There must therefore be an intermediary term—the Self-sufficient—that directly initiates motion in the universe, distinct from the One itself.
Finally, some readers of Proclus may compare his henads to the Archetypes in Islamic metaphysics. However, as the book’s commentator repeatedly emphasizes, Proclus intended henads as corollaries of the One, assuming divine forms and actions. They were meant to represent the Olympians, rationalized and systematized as a philosophical alternative to Christianity. We must avoid self-hypnotizing into the Orientalist belief that Islam and its scholars could not develop a worldview independently of other civilizations. Islam begins with the revelation of Surah Al-‘Alaq, no sooner than that, and everything arises from that very moment.
Reading al-Attas’ works has a distinct benefit: his straightforward, lucid writing style provides a clear dividing line between the metaphysics of Islam and those of non-Islamic traditions. When expounding on the idea of Archetypes, it becomes crystal clear that Prof. al-Attas explicitly states, “…this is not akin to the Platonic Forms.” His vivid insistence that the revelation of Islam represents an ex nihilo breakthrough in the history of religion and ideas underscores his argument that no simile or genetic comparison can be drawn between Islamic and non-Islamic concepts. Even Prof. Toshihiko Izutsu, through his semantic analysis in God and Man in the Quran, has demonstrated the singular uniqueness of Islamic thought.
The concept of the One in the Neoplatonic scheme, despite its monotheistic overtones, must be understood within its historical and theological context. Many religions claim adherence to monotheism, likely because it is intuitively compelling to conclude that all things must originate from a single principle. However, there is a critical difference between the “quasi-monotheism” of other religions and the monotheism introduced by Abraham, which renders them eternally mutually exclusive: the dynamic nature of the Absolute. Other religions, including the naturalistic religions of primitive peoples like the Navajo (the deity Begochidi) and certain African communities (Olodumare in Yoruba traditions), conceive of a singular Source that is inert and distant from its creation.
This conception is often termed deus otiosus—the Most Isolated God. To bridge the gulf between this absolutely transcendent deity and the rest of creation, intermediary divinities are introduced. Various mechanisms are used to resolve this paradox, including the dismemberment of a primordial being (as in the cases of Purusha and Ymir) and the separation of Heaven and Earth (as in the mythologies of Tiamat and Gaea-Ouranos). A more sophisticated expression of intermediary mythology can be found in Proclus’ henadology. The commentator of Elements of Theology points out that Proclus’ idea of henads—intermediary gods that serve as a transcendent complement to the One—likely emerged from interactions with early Christians. Thus, Proclus can be seen as a continuer of the mythology of intermediaries, similar to naturalistic religions.
In contrast, the monotheism introduced by Abraham denies the subsistent existence of such intermediaries and provides them with no reality whatsoever. Abraham insisted that the Absolute is not merely an isolated Prime Mover acting as a final cause but also a dynamic, perpetual efficient cause, intimately involved with creation. The Deity Abraham expounded created the universe ex nihilo, directly through His will, rather than indirectly or passively via the emanative scheme of the Neoplatonists. This marks a radical break between Abrahamic monotheism and other traditions.
The distinction between naturalistic religions and Abrahamic monotheism becomes evident when perusing works like Mircea Eliade’s History of Religious Ideas or Joseph Campbell’s Masks of God. Only through deliberate perennialist efforts can these distinctions be blurred, in my opinion.
A further departure is articulated by Prof. al-Attas in The Covenant Fulfilled and echoed by Prof. Izutsu: the Quran introduces an entirely new worldview (Weltanschauung). With the revelation of the Quran, the Divine introduces Himself with the greatest Name, Allah, and His followers as Muslims—an identity made possible only through the prophethood of Muhammad. Earlier adherents of the Abrahamic tradition cannot retroactively be called Muslims, as their worldview was rendered obsolete by the advent of Muhammad’s prophethood. If figures like the Hanifs, or by extension “early Christians” or Jews, could also be called Muslims, why did one of the most pious Hanifs of the time, Umayyah bin Abi Salt, emerge as an antagonist to the Prophet?
In conclusion, while linguistic similarities (e.g., most cultures have a word for "cat") or logical similarities (e.g., the laws of non-contradiction) can be noted, theological similarities with other religions cannot be claimed. From the history of ideas, it is evident that the Neoplatonic scheme—especially Plotinus’—was constructed as a revival of Hellenic paganism against the encroachment of Christianity.
As for Elements of Theology itself, it is beautifully and symmetrically structured. The book consists of 208 propositions, progressing from basic expositions to more complex ideas. Proclus’ ontological worldview comprises multiple pantheons of symmetrical triadic and dyadic structures:
1. The dyad of Unity and Manifold: Proclus observed that everything belongs to a unity. If all things were infinitely disparate, no common link could exist between entities, making understanding impossible. The One generates the Manifold, which exists as potential that the One, as the most fecund principle, must actualize. Note the inherent “necessity” in the Neoplatonic scheme.
2. The ontological triad of Remained, Procession, and Reversion: To connect Unity and Manifold, a mechanism is proposed. Since all Manifold is connected to Unity as its parts, it follows that what proceeds from Unity consists of like terms with varying gradations. Multiplicity emerges through this procession, and reversion occurs as terms move back toward the superior. These perpetual processes constitute the systole-diastole of the universe.
3. The dyad of Immanence and Transcendence in Procession-Reversion: What of the Remained? If the cause is inserted into the effect, the cause itself must also be caused, leading to infinite regress. Thus, there must be a transcendent Remained principle that bestows existence on the second term without being subsumed into it. Yet it remains immanent insofar as the second term retains likeness to its cause.
4. The triad of Unmoved, Self-sufficient, and Moved: If the Remained itself causes motion, it must also be moved, leading to another infinite regress. There must therefore be an intermediary term—the Self-sufficient—that directly initiates motion in the universe, distinct from the One itself.
Finally, some readers of Proclus may compare his henads to the Archetypes in Islamic metaphysics. However, as the book’s commentator repeatedly emphasizes, Proclus intended henads as corollaries of the One, assuming divine forms and actions. They were meant to represent the Olympians, rationalized and systematized as a philosophical alternative to Christianity. We must avoid self-hypnotizing into the Orientalist belief that Islam and its scholars could not develop a worldview independently of other civilizations. Islam begins with the revelation of Surah Al-‘Alaq, no sooner than that, and everything arises from that very moment.
July 2, 2021
The Elements of Theology reads like a catechism of Neoplatonism. Here, Proclus does not give the same carefully-reasoned, comprehensive arguments he gives in the Platonic Theology. Neither does he provide the soulful, inspiring review of basic principles like Plotinus did in the Enneads. Rather, Proclus explicitly lays down the fundamental assumptions he believes true Platonists should make (assumptions concerning the one and the many, emanation, and the like) in doing theology or philosophy.
This book is probably not a good first exposure to Neoplatonism. For that, you'd go to Plotinus, or perhaps Iamblichus. However, after reading a great deal of Neoplatonic thought, it can be useful to turn back to the Elements of Theology in order to get a clearheaded, explication of the basic Neoplatonic principles. There are subtle differences between Proclus's thinking and the other Neoplatonists, but there are far more commonalities. The great benefits of Proclus over the other Neoplatonists are that; (1) he has far more surviving literature; and (2) his work has been less Christianized than Plotinus. In Proclus, especially in the Platonic theology, we have a rigorous, detailed religious/spiritual system, untethered to any of the mainstream religions of the present era. It's really worth reading, if only as a curiosity.
Sidebar: This applies more to the Platonic Theology, but if you're getting stuck trying to understand Proclus's thinking, Radek Chlup has a wonderful introduction to the subject ("Proclus: An Introduction"), published on Cambridge University Press. That book gives a no-nonsense rundown of all of the basic concepts you'll find in Proclus's primary works.
This book is probably not a good first exposure to Neoplatonism. For that, you'd go to Plotinus, or perhaps Iamblichus. However, after reading a great deal of Neoplatonic thought, it can be useful to turn back to the Elements of Theology in order to get a clearheaded, explication of the basic Neoplatonic principles. There are subtle differences between Proclus's thinking and the other Neoplatonists, but there are far more commonalities. The great benefits of Proclus over the other Neoplatonists are that; (1) he has far more surviving literature; and (2) his work has been less Christianized than Plotinus. In Proclus, especially in the Platonic theology, we have a rigorous, detailed religious/spiritual system, untethered to any of the mainstream religions of the present era. It's really worth reading, if only as a curiosity.
Sidebar: This applies more to the Platonic Theology, but if you're getting stuck trying to understand Proclus's thinking, Radek Chlup has a wonderful introduction to the subject ("Proclus: An Introduction"), published on Cambridge University Press. That book gives a no-nonsense rundown of all of the basic concepts you'll find in Proclus's primary works.
July 31, 2018
Naprijed
Zagreb, 1997.
Preveo s grčkoga Antun Slavko Kalenić
Uvod i komentar E.R.Dodds
Prijevod uvoda i komentara (s engleskog): Nives Zenko
Djelo je izvorno objavljeno u davno minulom petom stoljeću.
Izdanje posjeduje i izvornik na starogrčkome koji je uvijek sučeljen nasuprot tekstu prijevoda na način da svaki tekst posjeduje svoju stranicu.
Doddsov uvod i komentar nisu nešto. Uvod je pomalo srednjoškolski i u sadržajnom i u formalnom smislu. Jako je zanimljiva filološka strana Doddsova uvoda u kojoj Dodds navodi preko četrdesetak različith verzija ovog Proklovog teksta. Dodds je objedinio sve te verzije s ciljem da stvori nekakav sinkretizam koji bi bio najbliži orginalu. Najstariji prijepis Prokla je iz dvanaestog stoljeća. Dakle, najbliže Proklu što postoji je prijepis koji je nastao sedam stoljeća nakon njegove smrti. No, pročitavši ovaj tekst, a i prema Doddsu, nisu puno prepravljali i mijenjali Prokla. Doddsov komentar nisam čitao, ponajviše zato jer sam bez većih problema prolazio kroz Proklov tekst, a ono što pročitah letimice mi se čini kao puko prepričavanje samog Prokla.
Stilski je tekst ujednačen, čak se može reći da je i ritmičan. Tipična antička logičkolika konstrukcija teksta koja je oštri kognitivni rafal silogizama. U tom vidu je ovaj tekst čisti antički đir pisanja. Nisam čitao srednjovjekovnu filozofiju (no kao što je očigledno začeh taj pravac), vjerujem, ipak, da je i sama srednjovjekovna filozofija užasno antička u svome štihu. Platon i Aristotel su bili stijene koje su i u srednjovjekovlju bile cilj svakog uspinjanja.
Sadržajno se tekst može svrstati u rano srednjovjekovlje, no Spengler je daleko bolje posložio povijest i po Spengleru ovaj tekst pripada kaldejskoj kulturi. Zašto? Ukratko jet je pun mističkih i magičkih stvari, govori užasno puno o duši, o reinkarnaciji (bez da se sam taj leksem spominje). Što je točno kaldejska kultura? Svi oni koji su čitali Spenglera će znati. Samo ću reći da se ugrubo može konstatirati da je kaldejska kultura supostojala (i vremenski i prostorno) s magičkom kulturom. Pojednostavljeno rečeno kaldejska je iranska kultura, a magička je kultura islama i pravoslavlja.
Po meni danas su ostaci kaldejske kulture religije Yazida, Druza i zoroastrianstvo (koje i danas postoji). Iran je bio kul i prije, ne samo danas.
Bacam citat da se vidi kako je Proklo bacao riječi:
"Ono, naime, u čemu se nema dijela- jer ima vrijednost monade kao vlastito biće, a ne drugoga, i kao izuzeto od bića koja imaju u nečemu dijela- rađa od sebe bića što su sposobna da se u njima ima dijela. Ili će, naime, to ostati neplodno, samo za sebe- a u tom smislu ne bi imalo nikakve časti- ili će dati nešto od sebe, i primalac je postao dionikom, a ono što je dato se našlo tu na taj način da se u tome ima dijela.
Sve pak ono o čemu se ima dijela, jer je palo u dio onomu što u njemu ima dijela, je drugo od onoga što je prisutno jednako u svim bićima ispunilo svojim vlastitim bićem. Ono, naime, što se nahodi u jednom biću, toga nema u drugima; ono pak što je prisutno u svima na isti način, da sja iz svih bića, ne nahodi se u jednom biću, nego jest prije svih bića...."
O čemu ovdje Proklo govori? Zašto bacih baš ovaj fragment teksta?
Ovdje Proklo prvi puta spominje koncept Jednog (Boga, Dobra, Prapočela). Proklo u biti nasljeduje više Aristotelovog "nepokretnog pokretača" nego Parmenidovo "Jedno". "Ono u čemu se nema dijela" je takvo jer je nadbivstveno, probilo je drugu stranu i oduvijek je bilo na drugoj strani (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3iXE...), to je izvorno prapočelo od kojega sve proistječe, svi oblici bića, sve promjene, cijeli ovaj svijet sa svi svojim dušama, bićima, vremenom i beskonačnošću. Leksem "biće" se primjenjuje u čisto filozofskoj furci, ne u djetinjastoj materijalističko-znanstvenoj baljezgariji. Proklo parmenidovski raščlanjuje to "Jedno", ono je nužno savršeno jer je "plodonosno", stvara sve i unosi u svemu težnju za savršenošću, za dobrim. Zato sve stvoreno, i sve postojeće time, teži za povratkom u "Jedno". Proklo time izravno spominje krug, Proklo tu poseže za najvećim filozofom- HERAKLITOM EFEŠKIM. Čitah njegove "Fragmente" (http://161.53.142.7/cgi-bin/wero.cgi?...)- najbolji filozofski tekst ikada napisan. Heraklit je bio otkriven od Nietzschea, preko Friedricha ga je naša faustovska kultura ponovno pronašla. No, neću dalje u digresije.
Heraklit Efeški spominje "diakozmezis" i "ekpirosis", "diakozmezis" je sama univerzalnost- vrijeme kada je sve bilo Jedno, "ekpirosis" je niz partikulariteta (sva bića, bivstvovanja, promjene, duše, ljudi,stvari...). Heraklit je smatrao da je vrijeme beskonačna izmjena ovih dvaju koncepata, i zato je Heraklit otac dijalektike. Vrlo slično govori i Proklo.
Uistinu sam guštao čitajući ovo. Prava hrana za um. Naglašavam opet, radi se o sjajnim silogizmima u stilu antičke filozofije, ali baš one petog stoljeća prije Krista, a ovo je napisano u petom stoljeću poslije Krista.
Nerazumljiv mi bješe koncept bogova, Proklo je bio poganin, želio je dokazati nadbivstvujuću prirodu bogova i tu sam se izgubio dosta. No, vraćat ću se ovom djelu.
Umoran sam i znojan (ranokolovoška vruća kasna vura u mediteranskom podneblju). Ispričavam se radi možebitnih nezgraponsti u pisanju.
Nema smisla da detaljno razlažem ovo djelo. Ono što mi je prvo palo na pamet uzgredno bacih u ovaj komentar. Pročitajte Prokla ako volite imalo filozofiju!
Hasta luego!
Zagreb, 1997.
Preveo s grčkoga Antun Slavko Kalenić
Uvod i komentar E.R.Dodds
Prijevod uvoda i komentara (s engleskog): Nives Zenko
Djelo je izvorno objavljeno u davno minulom petom stoljeću.
Izdanje posjeduje i izvornik na starogrčkome koji je uvijek sučeljen nasuprot tekstu prijevoda na način da svaki tekst posjeduje svoju stranicu.
Doddsov uvod i komentar nisu nešto. Uvod je pomalo srednjoškolski i u sadržajnom i u formalnom smislu. Jako je zanimljiva filološka strana Doddsova uvoda u kojoj Dodds navodi preko četrdesetak različith verzija ovog Proklovog teksta. Dodds je objedinio sve te verzije s ciljem da stvori nekakav sinkretizam koji bi bio najbliži orginalu. Najstariji prijepis Prokla je iz dvanaestog stoljeća. Dakle, najbliže Proklu što postoji je prijepis koji je nastao sedam stoljeća nakon njegove smrti. No, pročitavši ovaj tekst, a i prema Doddsu, nisu puno prepravljali i mijenjali Prokla. Doddsov komentar nisam čitao, ponajviše zato jer sam bez većih problema prolazio kroz Proklov tekst, a ono što pročitah letimice mi se čini kao puko prepričavanje samog Prokla.
Stilski je tekst ujednačen, čak se može reći da je i ritmičan. Tipična antička logičkolika konstrukcija teksta koja je oštri kognitivni rafal silogizama. U tom vidu je ovaj tekst čisti antički đir pisanja. Nisam čitao srednjovjekovnu filozofiju (no kao što je očigledno začeh taj pravac), vjerujem, ipak, da je i sama srednjovjekovna filozofija užasno antička u svome štihu. Platon i Aristotel su bili stijene koje su i u srednjovjekovlju bile cilj svakog uspinjanja.
Sadržajno se tekst može svrstati u rano srednjovjekovlje, no Spengler je daleko bolje posložio povijest i po Spengleru ovaj tekst pripada kaldejskoj kulturi. Zašto? Ukratko jet je pun mističkih i magičkih stvari, govori užasno puno o duši, o reinkarnaciji (bez da se sam taj leksem spominje). Što je točno kaldejska kultura? Svi oni koji su čitali Spenglera će znati. Samo ću reći da se ugrubo može konstatirati da je kaldejska kultura supostojala (i vremenski i prostorno) s magičkom kulturom. Pojednostavljeno rečeno kaldejska je iranska kultura, a magička je kultura islama i pravoslavlja.
Po meni danas su ostaci kaldejske kulture religije Yazida, Druza i zoroastrianstvo (koje i danas postoji). Iran je bio kul i prije, ne samo danas.
Bacam citat da se vidi kako je Proklo bacao riječi:
"Ono, naime, u čemu se nema dijela- jer ima vrijednost monade kao vlastito biće, a ne drugoga, i kao izuzeto od bića koja imaju u nečemu dijela- rađa od sebe bića što su sposobna da se u njima ima dijela. Ili će, naime, to ostati neplodno, samo za sebe- a u tom smislu ne bi imalo nikakve časti- ili će dati nešto od sebe, i primalac je postao dionikom, a ono što je dato se našlo tu na taj način da se u tome ima dijela.
Sve pak ono o čemu se ima dijela, jer je palo u dio onomu što u njemu ima dijela, je drugo od onoga što je prisutno jednako u svim bićima ispunilo svojim vlastitim bićem. Ono, naime, što se nahodi u jednom biću, toga nema u drugima; ono pak što je prisutno u svima na isti način, da sja iz svih bića, ne nahodi se u jednom biću, nego jest prije svih bića...."
O čemu ovdje Proklo govori? Zašto bacih baš ovaj fragment teksta?
Ovdje Proklo prvi puta spominje koncept Jednog (Boga, Dobra, Prapočela). Proklo u biti nasljeduje više Aristotelovog "nepokretnog pokretača" nego Parmenidovo "Jedno". "Ono u čemu se nema dijela" je takvo jer je nadbivstveno, probilo je drugu stranu i oduvijek je bilo na drugoj strani (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3iXE...), to je izvorno prapočelo od kojega sve proistječe, svi oblici bića, sve promjene, cijeli ovaj svijet sa svi svojim dušama, bićima, vremenom i beskonačnošću. Leksem "biće" se primjenjuje u čisto filozofskoj furci, ne u djetinjastoj materijalističko-znanstvenoj baljezgariji. Proklo parmenidovski raščlanjuje to "Jedno", ono je nužno savršeno jer je "plodonosno", stvara sve i unosi u svemu težnju za savršenošću, za dobrim. Zato sve stvoreno, i sve postojeće time, teži za povratkom u "Jedno". Proklo time izravno spominje krug, Proklo tu poseže za najvećim filozofom- HERAKLITOM EFEŠKIM. Čitah njegove "Fragmente" (http://161.53.142.7/cgi-bin/wero.cgi?...)- najbolji filozofski tekst ikada napisan. Heraklit je bio otkriven od Nietzschea, preko Friedricha ga je naša faustovska kultura ponovno pronašla. No, neću dalje u digresije.
Heraklit Efeški spominje "diakozmezis" i "ekpirosis", "diakozmezis" je sama univerzalnost- vrijeme kada je sve bilo Jedno, "ekpirosis" je niz partikulariteta (sva bića, bivstvovanja, promjene, duše, ljudi,stvari...). Heraklit je smatrao da je vrijeme beskonačna izmjena ovih dvaju koncepata, i zato je Heraklit otac dijalektike. Vrlo slično govori i Proklo.
Uistinu sam guštao čitajući ovo. Prava hrana za um. Naglašavam opet, radi se o sjajnim silogizmima u stilu antičke filozofije, ali baš one petog stoljeća prije Krista, a ovo je napisano u petom stoljeću poslije Krista.
Nerazumljiv mi bješe koncept bogova, Proklo je bio poganin, želio je dokazati nadbivstvujuću prirodu bogova i tu sam se izgubio dosta. No, vraćat ću se ovom djelu.
Umoran sam i znojan (ranokolovoška vruća kasna vura u mediteranskom podneblju). Ispričavam se radi možebitnih nezgraponsti u pisanju.
Nema smisla da detaljno razlažem ovo djelo. Ono što mi je prvo palo na pamet uzgredno bacih u ovaj komentar. Pročitajte Prokla ako volite imalo filozofiju!
Hasta luego!
December 30, 2019
I can thoroughly recommend this edition of Proclus's E. T. as it is painstakingly set out and translated by Professor Dodds, who dots every i and crosses every academic t. However, I found Dodds's footnotes and comments to not always be helpful, as Dodds is a bit of a modern day rationalist who therefore can't fully enter into the Neoplatonist spirit of things. Still, if you want to read the Elements of Theology by Proclus, this is the edition for you. As for the E.T. itself, it is modelled on Euclid's Elements of Geometry, being a succession of propositions with their commentaries and corollaries, etc. It is, in short, a system of theology stripped down to its basic propositional statements. It's tough going, and I certainly didn't understand much of it on this my first reading, but it clearly represents a coherent and systematic world-view that is very much worth the effort required to understand it. I hope to understand it a lot more on my second reading of it.
June 27, 2019
Much of what Proclus does "is but the hardening into an explicit law of what is implicit in Plotinus." -Dodds.
Dodds' commentary is rich. I was expecting less of Proclus. His chief concern or one of his main concerns seems to me to be coming to terms better with participation.
Proclus is important for the Pseudo-Dionysus and for having a handle on Platonism as it slips from late antiquity into the early medieval period. Understanding Renaissance Platonism requires some familiarity with Proclus.
Dodds' commentary is rich. I was expecting less of Proclus. His chief concern or one of his main concerns seems to me to be coming to terms better with participation.
Proclus is important for the Pseudo-Dionysus and for having a handle on Platonism as it slips from late antiquity into the early medieval period. Understanding Renaissance Platonism requires some familiarity with Proclus.
December 29, 2024
The most systematic explication of Neoplatonic metaphysics. Although Proclus begins with propositions of insight (noesis) to arrive at the principle of knowledge, the principle of knowledge is itself not an object of insight (noema). The One (principle of individuation/unity) is known by embodying oneness.
Read
January 6, 2026I only understood about half of this, but that half was pretty cool. I would like to return to it with a good teacher or commentary. It makes sense that he started out doing a lot of mathematics. There are beautiful ideas here of a crystalline, abstract sort, and it often seems quite plausible as well.
Read
January 28, 2020I HAVE READ IT ONCE, TO UNDERSTAND IT AGAIN I MUST RE-Read
April 24, 2020
Sometimes felt like reading John Scotus Eriugena. Will definitely need to read a digestion of this in Ficino's Platonic Theology...
March 30, 2023
Very difficult, but worth it.
April 10, 2023
Starting with a few Neoplatonic axioms, Proclus makes over 200 propositions about the world, the One/Good/God, metaphysics and man.
Written in a style that feels like he is trying to punish his readers, it is as dry and tough as leather.
Written in a style that feels like he is trying to punish his readers, it is as dry and tough as leather.
November 24, 2024
We don't usually talk about Proclus. Plotinus gets more airtime, which makes sense considering that Proclus is significantly more difficult to read. As far as neo-Platonists go, he's neither poetic (Plotinus), nor mathematical (Middle Platonism). His work covers many topics, but the contribution that guarantees he will forever be engraved on the historical record is his construction of the concept of what we would today call the Trinity. In the Christian translation, causation was rendered as Father, hyparxis was rendered as Son, and participation was rendered as Spirit. In this respect, Proclus is one of the most modern thinkers in antiquity, and it's not surprising that Hegel was considered to occupy the same position with respect to the Lutheran community of his day that Proclus did with respect to the Platonic Academy.
It's frustrating how restricted Proclus' monism is. Plotinus is certainly more fun. Why march through the inversions spirit undergoes? Proclus' answer is original and persists today: the 3 steps of causation, hyparxis, participation tell us more in combination than any would on its own.
It's frustrating how restricted Proclus' monism is. Plotinus is certainly more fun. Why march through the inversions spirit undergoes? Proclus' answer is original and persists today: the 3 steps of causation, hyparxis, participation tell us more in combination than any would on its own.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews