DOCSLIB.ORG

PROCLUS and HEGEL Introduction Although System-Building In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PROCLUS and HEGEL Introduction Although System-Building In [31] THE RATIONALITY OF THE REAL: PROCLUS AND HEGEL Introduction Although system-building in philosophy has fallen into disrepute in this century, it is not because the perennial temptation to systematise has been nally overcome by something de nitive like Gödel’s incompleteness proof in mathematics. On the contrary, it is usually when some attempt to construct a system has failed that philosophers become temporarily disenchanted with the whole systematic approach, only later to resume their eforts from a new direction.1 In view of this historical pattern, I think it is legitimate to wonder about the philosophical attraction of systems. Thus, taking Proclus and Hegel as ancient and modern systematisers respectively, I want to consider some questions about their motivation for constructing systems. For instance, why does Proclus systematise the metaphysical tradition stemming from Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus, given that these were aporetic rather than systematic thinkers.2 Arguably, his concept of system is drawn from mathematics, as evidenced by his Commentary on Euclid and by his Elements of Theology, so perhaps he wished to construct a de nitive science based on this Greek model. But I want to suggest that religion was also a motivating factor, since we know from the Life written by his follower Marinus that Proclus zealously practised cult worship and theurgy. Thus, he may be completing the Iamblichean project of justifying pagan theology against the Christian faith, or he may be constructing a systematic science of theology as his own unique project. 1 For instance, one could take the Vienna Circle to be reacting against Hegelian system- atising, though one of the goals of their ‘unity of science’ project was to assemble a uni ed encyclopaedia of the sciences. 2 Despite persistent attempts to reconstruct Plato’s ‘unwritten doctrine’, it is clear that his extant dialogues are unsystematic in the sense that each constitutes its own dialogical space which is not systematically related to other dialogues. Although Aristotle does develop a body of doctrine in his own name, he cannot be said to have constructed a philosophical system in any modern sense, because he sharply diferentiates the sciences from each other and adopts an aporetic approach in all of his inquiries. While one could reconstruct some kind of Neoplatonic system from the writings of Plotinus, his so-called Enneads are unsystematic in that they were written in response to speci c questions rather than as a means of setting out any systematic doctrine. 544 history of philosophy From the philosophical point of view, however, he seems to be searching [32] for some ultimate ungrounded hypothesis from which to deduce all of reality in a consistent fashion. Although Proclus represents his work as the completion of a Platonic project, it seems that he is pushing too far Plato’s search for some adequate hypothesis grounded in language. Not even in the Parmenides, which was taken by Neoplatonists to exemplify dialectical theology, does Plato construct the sort of demonstrative science that Proclus presents in his Elements of Theology. So we must raise a question about what philosophical problems are being resolved through the construction of such a systematic science. But perhaps we should also entertain the possibility that Proclus had lost sight of the traditional problems of metaphysics, since his system seems to contain petri ed answers to the old problems about the one and the many, cause and efect, prior and posterior. Thus, if one wishes to rehabilitate Proclus as an original thinker, one must show how he contributed to the Neoplatonic tradition by systematising it.3 There are some clear parallels with Hegel, who resurrected systematic philosophy in the nineteenth century after the scepticism of Hume and the critical philosophy of Kant seemed to have buried it forever. In the Introduction to his Encyclopaedia, for instance, he suggests that system satis es the desire of reason for completeness through the progression from and return to rst principles as a genuine ground. According to him, philosophy cannot be a scienti c production without being systematic in such a way as to include all particular principles of the empirical sciences.4 Like Plato before him, Hegel criticises these special sciences for their lack of self-reection and, on the basis of this critique, he makes rather sweeping claims for the superiority of reason. But Hegel’s critique of Newton in his Dissertation on the planets also tells us something about his own conception of Nature as an objective embodiment of Absolute Spirit.5 His major criticism is that such notions as gravity and inertia had not been properly deduced in a systematic way, so that they appear to be accidental rather than essential characteristics of natural bodies. Perhaps this critique is also motivated by Hegel’s desire to justify metaphysics as a science, in view 3 The typical view about Proclus’ lack of originality is to be found in A.C. Lloyd’s contribution to the Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, where he claims (311) that generally the concepts and hypostases of Proclus are not original but are derived from predecessors like Plotinus, Iamblichus and Syrianus. For spirited defences of Proclus as an original thinker one should consult W. Beierwaltes 1965, and J.M.P. Lowry 1980. 4 G.W.F. Hegel 1971a: 24. 5 G.W.F. Hegel 1986..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plato As "Architectof Science"
    Plato as "Architectof Science" LEONID ZHMUD ABSTRACT The figureof the cordialhost of the Academy,who invitedthe mostgifted math- ematiciansand cultivatedpure research, whose keen intellectwas able if not to solve the particularproblem then at least to show the methodfor its solution: this figureis quite familiarto studentsof Greekscience. But was the Academy as such a centerof scientificresearch, and did Plato really set for mathemati- cians and astronomersthe problemsthey shouldstudy and methodsthey should use? Oursources tell aboutPlato's friendship or at leastacquaintance with many brilliantmathematicians of his day (Theodorus,Archytas, Theaetetus), but they were neverhis pupils,rather vice versa- he learnedmuch from them and actively used this knowledgein developinghis philosophy.There is no reliableevidence that Eudoxus,Menaechmus, Dinostratus, Theudius, and others, whom many scholarsunite into the groupof so-called"Academic mathematicians," ever were his pupilsor close associates.Our analysis of therelevant passages (Eratosthenes' Platonicus, Sosigenes ap. Simplicius, Proclus' Catalogue of geometers, and Philodemus'History of the Academy,etc.) shows thatthe very tendencyof por- trayingPlato as the architectof sciencegoes back to the earlyAcademy and is bornout of interpretationsof his dialogues. I Plato's relationship to the exact sciences used to be one of the traditional problems in the history of ancient Greek science and philosophy.' From the nineteenth century on it was examined in various aspects, the most significant of which were the historical, philosophical and methodological. In the last century and at the beginning of this century attention was paid peredominantly, although not exclusively, to the first of these aspects, especially to the questions how great Plato's contribution to specific math- ematical research really was, and how reliable our sources are in ascrib- ing to him particular scientific discoveries.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Two Democritus and the Different Limits to Divisibility
    CHAPTER TWO DEMOCRITUS AND THE DIFFERENT LIMITS TO DIVISIBILITY § 0. Introduction In the previous chapter I tried to give an extensive analysis of the reasoning in and behind the first arguments in the history of philosophy in which problems of continuity and infinite divisibility emerged. The impact of these arguments must have been enormous. Designed to show that rationally speaking one was better off with an Eleatic universe without plurality and without motion, Zeno’s paradoxes were a challenge to everyone who wanted to salvage at least those two basic features of the world of common sense. On the other hand, sceptics, for whatever reason weary of common sense, could employ Zeno-style arguments to keep up the pressure. The most notable representative of the latter group is Gorgias, who in his book On not-being or On nature referred to ‘Zeno’s argument’, presumably in a demonstration that what is without body and does not have parts, is not. It is possible that this followed an earlier argument of his that whatever is one, must be without body.1 We recognize here what Aristotle calls Zeno’s principle, that what does not have bulk or size, is not. Also in the following we meet familiar Zenonian themes: Further, if it moves and shifts [as] one, what is, is divided, not being continuous, and there [it is] not something. Hence, if it moves everywhere, it is divided everywhere. But if that is the case, then everywhere it is not. For it is there deprived of being, he says, where it is divided, instead of ‘void’ using ‘being divided’.2 Gorgias is talking here about the situation that there is motion within what is.
    [Show full text]
  • Proclus and Artemis: on the Relevance of Neoplatonism to the Modern Study of Ancient Religion
    Kernos Revue internationale et pluridisciplinaire de religion grecque antique 13 | 2000 Varia Proclus and Artemis: On the Relevance of Neoplatonism to the Modern Study of Ancient Religion Spyridon Rangos Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/1293 DOI: 10.4000/kernos.1293 ISSN: 2034-7871 Publisher Centre international d'étude de la religion grecque antique Printed version Date of publication: 1 January 2000 ISSN: 0776-3824 Electronic reference Spyridon Rangos, « Proclus and Artemis: On the Relevance of Neoplatonism to the Modern Study of Ancient Religion », Kernos [Online], 13 | 2000, Online since 21 April 2011, connection on 01 May 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/1293 ; DOI : 10.4000/kernos.1293 Kernos Kernos, 13 (2000), p. 47-84. Proclus and Artemis: On the Relevance of Neoplatonism to the Modern Study of Andent Religion* Imagine the situation in which contemporary philosophers would find themselves if Wittgenstein introduced, in his Philosophical Investigations, the religious figure of Jesus as Logos and Son of God in order to illuminate the puzzlement ofthe private-language paradox, or if in the second division of Being and Time Heidegger mentioned the archangel Michael to support the argument of 'being toward death'. Similar is the perplexity that a modern reader is bound to encounter when, after a highly sophisticated analysis of demanding metaphysical questions about the relationship of the one and the many, finitude and infinity, mind and body, Proclus, l in ail seriousness and without the slightest touch of irony, assigns to some traditional gods of Greek polytheism a definitive place in the structure of being.
    [Show full text]
  • PROCLUS on HESIOD's WORKS and DAYS Patrizia Marzillo
    PERFORMING AN ACADEMIC TALK: PROCLUS ON HESIOD’S WORKS AND DAYS Patrizia Marzillo Abstract From Socrates onwards orality was the favoured means of expression for those wholaterlovedtocallthemselves‘Platonic’.Theyusedtodiscussphilosophical issues in debates that turned into academic lectures and seminars. According to Plato’s original teaching, these talks should have not been “fixed” in written compositions, yet Plato himself put most of his doctrine into fictive “written dia- logues”.His followers intensified their connection with writing, above all for the purposes of teaching. On the one hand, they made notes on the lessons of their teachers; on the other, they enlarged their own talks in written compositions. Neoplatonists’ commentaries are often an amplification of their academic talks. The lessons held in the school of Athens or in Platonic circles coalesced into texts that mostly constitute Neoplatonic propaganda intended for the outside world. When Proclus directed the school in Athens, Plato and Aristotle were taught, but also theologian poets such as Homer, Orpheus, Hesiod. As the Suda reports, Proclus wrote commentaries on all of these poets, but the only onepreservedisthecommentaryonHesiod’sWorks and Days.Througha comparison of some passages from this commentary, I show how Proclus’ commentary on Hesiod is not only a good example of an oral lesson that has become a written commentary, but also, importantly, of a text that aimed at the diffusion of Neoplatonic ideas among an audience of non-adherents. As his biographer and disciple Marinus of Neapolis relates, the neo- Platonist Proclus was accustomed to write about lines a day.1 Besides being a very prolific author, he was also an indefatigable teacher since in addition to his writing he held several classes during the day and also gave evening talks.2 What I propose to show in this paper is the profound interaction between the oral communication in his school and the written performance of his commentaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Neoplatonic Asclepius: Science and Religion at the Crossroads of Aristotelian Biology, Hippocratic Medicine and Platonic Theurgy
    Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica 23(2): 333–349 Neoplatonic Asclepius: Science and religion at the crossroads of Aristotelian biology, Hippocratic medicine and Platonic theurgy Eugene AFONASIN1 Abstract. In the first part of the paper, I will briefly discuss certain peculiarities of the medical profession in antiquity. In his Philosophical History (fr. 80–84 Athanassiadi) Damascius narrates about a philosopher, named Asclepiodotus, whose interests ranged from Platonic philosophy to Aristotelian natural sciences. Asclepiodotus’ instructor in medical matters, a son of a doctor from the island of Rhodos, Iacobus, is pictured by Damascius as an exemplary figure (fr. 84), who, unlike many of his contemporaries, always tested the opinions of others and gained a reputation of an extremely successful physician, although the methods of treatment, ascribed to him by Damascius, are highly reminiscent of those presented as the Pythagorean by Iamblichus (On the Pythagorean way of life 244). In this respect both Iacobus and Asclepiodotus are conformed to the best standards of medical ethics, and pass the test set by Galen in his “On examination by which the best physicians are recognized”, except perhaps by the fact that they preferred to base their activities on such authorities as Aristotle and the Methodist Soranus rather than on a list of the “dogmatists” proposed by Galen. In the second part of the paper, dedicated to the cult of Asclepius in Late Antiquity, I will look at various kinds of evidence taken from the Neoplatonic philosophers. Having discussed first the principal philosophical interpretations of Asclepius found in Apuleius, Aelianus, Macrobius, Julian, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus, Damascius, etc., we turn to Proclus’ attitude to Athena and Asclepius as reflected in Marinus’ Vita Procli and finally discuss the cult of Eshmun as found in Damascius.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy in Ancient Greek Biography. Turnhout: Brepols, 2016
    Revista Classica, v. 30, n. 2, p. 137-142, 2017 137 BONAZZI, Mauro; SCHORN, Stefan. Bios Philosophos: Philosophy in Ancient Greek Biography. Turnhout: Brepols, 2016. 313p. ISBN 978-2-503-56546-0 Gustavo Laet Gomes* * Mestre em Filosofia Bernardo C. D. A. Vasconcelos** pela Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. guslaet@ gmail.com Bios Philosophos. Philosophy in Ancient Greek Biography (Brepols, 2016), organized by Mauro Bonazzi and Stefan Schorn, delivers a ** Mestre em Filosofia pela both deep and wide tour through the philosophical aspects of Greek Universidade Federal biographical production. On one hand, it does not concentrate only in de Minas Gerais. the later periods of Greek philosophy, when biographical production bernardovasconcelos abounded, but goes all the way back to the fourth century BCE, when @gmail.com biographical texts were fragmentary and mingled with other styles. On the other, it tries to unveil the philosophical motives in the works of authors who tend to be disregarded as historians, biographers, hagiographers or even as mere fans of the most prominent figures of their own schools. In our review, we will attempt to give a brief account of the ten articles that make up this volume, which, in turn, will hopefully provide an overview of the different connections between the biographies and biographers and their philosophical motives. Thomas Bénatouïl’s Pythagore chez Dicéarque: anectodes biographiques et critique de la philosophie contemplative (p. 11-36) proposes an inversion of the traditional interpretation regarding the testimony of Dicaearchus of Messana about the life of Pythagoras. Since antiquity, Dicaearchus’ reports tend to be seen as positive, because they present a Pythagoras devoid of mysticism and apparently more interested in practical matters.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Porphyry's Reaction to Plotinus's Doctrine of The
    HeyJ LII (2011), pp. 1–10 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2265.2011.00686.x PORPHYRY THE APOSTATE: ASSESSING PORPHYRY’S REACTION TO PLOTINUS’S DOCTRINE OF THE ONE SEAMUS O’NEILL Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John’s, Canada In an article in the first volume of Harris’s Studies in Neoplatonism, Patrick Atherton described what he saw as a radical difference between the trinitarian and Neoplatonic first principles. The distinction he draws is seminal: because the first principle, or , produces all things, all that follows from it is determined by its nature. Whereas the unity of what Atherton describes as the ‘Neoplatonic One’ transcends all relation and difference, The trinitarian , by contrast, appears as an attempt to reconcile the requirement of unity with that of difference within the principle itself: is now recognised as a moment within the unity, as belonging to the principle as unity. Such a position requires a very different interpretation of the relation between the principle and its derivatives than that found in Neoplatonism.1 Recent scholarship on Porphyry, however, suggests that the important distinction Atherton adverts to is not resolvable into distinctly Neoplatonic and trinitarian camps. What Atherton describes as ‘Neoplatonism’ is more diverse, as scholars debate the subtle differences between the doctrines of Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Augustine, and Proclus, among others. For example, John Dillon and Steven Strange have recently argued that Porphyry’s doctrine of the first principle is in fact – as Atherton describes the two positions – ‘trinitarian’ rather than ‘Neoplatonic’. Atherton’s characterization of the Neoplatonic describes more narrowly the Plotinian One, for Plotinus is the only Neoplatonist who maintains the absolute transcendence of the first principle beyond all relation and difference.
    [Show full text]
  • Naming the Principles in Democritus: an Epistemological Problem
    apeiron 2017; 50(4): 435–448 Enrico Piergiacomi* Naming the Principles in Democritus: An Epistemological Problem DOI 10.1515/apeiron-2016-0058 Abstract: It is well known that Democritus posited two principles of reality, i. e. atoms and void, and that he gave them many names. Synonyms of atom include the terms “body”, “form” and “thing” or δέν, while void was also called “space”, “infinite” and “no-thing” or μηδέν. What usually escapes the attention of scholars is the problematic outcome that this apparently plain mode of expression raises at the epistemological level. Indeed, according to Proclus (In Plat. Crat. 16 = fr. 68 B 26 DK), Democritus believed that names are not established by nature, but by convention, which may imply that they do not express the true nature of the object named. Proclus gives four proofs on his behalf, among which we find the ἰσορροπία argument. Names do not have a natural link with the objects they refer to and, therefore, do not express their inner essence, since thesamethingwillreceivedifferent designations and meanings, none of which fully expresses its real φύσις. Now, I will argue that, if we apply this idea to the principles, it follows that Democritus may have acknowledged that they are not fully comprehensible to human beings. The fact that both the atom and the void are assigned different names/meanings shows that their nature escapes human under- standing.Atthesametime,Iwillalso briefly suggest that the “ἰσορροπία argument” does not lead to skepticism. Instead, it leads to a rational dog- matism, which recognizes that atoms and void exist, are known and can be expressed through language, although no mind can fully comprehend their essence.
    [Show full text]
  • MATH 520 Fall 2007 Historical Background
    MATH 520 – Foundations of Geometry Historical Background The word geometry is derived from the Greek words meaning “earth measure” implying that geometry involves measuring earthly things. Ancient geometry in part has its beginnings in the practical need necessary for the agriculture of the Babylonians (modern region is southern Iraq from around Baghdad to the Persian Gulf) and Egyptians, civilizations “known for their engineering prowess in marsh drainage, irrigation, flood control, and the erection of great edifices and structures” (Eves, 1969). There is evidence from clay tablets that the Babylonians (~ 1900 BC) were familiar with Pythagorean Triples long before Pythagoras lived. 1 The Egyptians used the formula ++= dbcaA ))(( to calculate the area of an arbitrary quadrilateral with 4 successive sides a, b, c, and d. This formula proves correct for rectangles but not for quadrilaterals in general. Not until the 6th century B.C. did mathematicians begin to question whether such empirical results were always true. The contemporary study of geometry bears little resemblance to its historical beginnings in that it does not necessarily require that we measure anything or even restrict ourselves to the earth. People/Characters Thales of Miletus (ca. 640 – 546 B.C.) Greek Most often credited with initiating the formal study of demonstrative geometry as a discipline – The Father of Demonstrative Geometry; A Wise Man of Antiquity Well traveled throughout Babylonia, Egypt, and the Middle East. Thales knew the work and culture of the regions. He began to generalize and demonstrate geometric propositions by using logical reasoning to argue in favor of propositions rather than simply going with the “it works so use it” method.
    [Show full text]
  • To Find the Maker and Father. Proclus' Exegesis of Plato Tim. 28C3-5
    Études platoniciennes 2 | 2006 Le Timée de Platon To find the maker and father. Proclus' exegesis of Plato Tim. 28c3-5 Jan Opsomer Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/etudesplatoniciennes/1074 DOI: 10.4000/etudesplatoniciennes.1074 ISSN: 2275-1785 Publisher Société d’Études Platoniciennes Printed version Date of publication: 16 June 2006 Number of pages: 261-283 ISBN: 978-2-251-44310-2 Electronic reference Jan Opsomer, « To find the maker and father. Proclus' exegesis of Plato Tim. 28c3-5 », Études platoniciennes [Online], 2 | 2006, Online since 11 August 2016, connection on 19 April 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/etudesplatoniciennes/1074 ; DOI : 10.4000/ etudesplatoniciennes.1074 Études Platoniciennes est mis à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International. TO FIND THE MAKER AND FATHER. PROCLUS’ EXEGESIS OF PLATO TIM. 28C3-5* JAN OPSOMER The maker and father of this universe it is a hard task to find, and having found him, it would be impossible to declare him to everyone. to;n me;n ou\n poihth;n kai; patevra tou'de tou' panto;" euJrei'n te e[rgon kai; euJrovnta eij" a{panta" ajduvnaton levgein (Tim. 28C3-5) The ab ove quotation from Plato’s Ti m a e u s is for Pro clus the occasion to insert into his C o m m e n t a ry on the Ti m a e u s (1.299.13-319.21) an e l ab o rate discussion of the ontological status of the demiurge and of his predecessors’ views concerning this matter.
    [Show full text]
  • Anaxagoras on the Composition of Matter
    Binghamton University The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB) The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter 12-1975 Anaxagoras on the Composition of Matter David Sider New York University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons, Ancient Philosophy Commons, and the History of Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Sider, David, "Anaxagoras on the Composition of Matter" (1975). The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter. 72. https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp/72 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). It has been accepted for inclusion in The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter by an authorized administrator of The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). For more information, please contact [email protected]. Anaxagoras on the composition of Matter David Sider JACK: You always want to argue about things. ALGERNON: That is exactly what things were originally made for. -- The Importance of Being Earnest There is, it is true, not much in the way of things in Anaxagoras• fragments and their ancient commentaries that cannot and has not been argued over. Only when we speak of a sizable object (i.e. perceptible) grosso mode do we all agree on what Anaxagoras meant: Gold, say, is only predominantly gold. There is some small remainder, in unknown proportion to the whole, of everything else, that is, of all the other homogenous things we could have chosen as examples in place of gold (bone, hair, (finger)nails, etc.).
    [Show full text]
  • Democritus 8
    THREE DEMOCRITUS 8 1. His character can be seen from his writing. (DL 9.38) δηλν δεκ ακ των συγγραµµα των ις ην . 2. Men remember one’s mistakes rather than one’s successes. (fr. 265) θρωπι µεµνεαται µαλλν ητω νευ πεπιηµενων . Research into the life and work of Democritus, best known of the Greek atomists, is sadly hampered by the one-sided nature of his extant writings; a fair amount of his ethical work remains, but his scientific theories are known only from secondhand sources.1 The relationship between his work and his biography, therefore, can only partially be recovered, although the secondary sources do, in many cases, amply reveal the biographical mind at work. We begin with his early life. 94 Democritus 95 DATE, TEACHERS, AND PHILOSOPHICAL RELATIONSHIPS Democritus himself gives us some indication of his age and era. In his Lesser World System, Democritus says he was forty years younger than Anaxagoras, giving himself a birth date of about 460–57 BCE. This agrees with the Eightieth Olympiad birth date given by Apollodorus and is generally accepted.2 Democritus is almost universally regarded as a native of Abdera,3 and his father’s name is given as either Hegesistratus, Athenocritus, or Dama- sippus.4 From the biographies, we can infer that, as usual, his father was a man of wealth and influence, further said to have entertained Xerxes (DL 9.34–36). Traditionally, it was through his family friendship that Democri- tus received his early training; the biographers tell us that Xerxes left behind Magi and Chaldaeans who taught Democritus astronomy and theology.
    [Show full text]