Abstract
In this paper I show that Proclus is an adherent of the Classical Model of Science as set out elsewhere in this issue (de Jong and Betti 2008), and that he adjusts certain conditions of the Model to his Neoplatonic epistemology and metaphysics. In order to show this, I develop a case study concerning philosophy of nature, which, despite its unstable subject matter, Proclus considers to be a science. To give this science a firm foundation Proclus distills from Plato’s Timaeus the basic concepts Being and Becoming and a number of basic propositions, among others the quasi-definitions of the basic concepts. He subsequently explains the use of these quasi-definitions, that are actually epistemic guides, in such a way that he obtains a connection between a rational and an empirical approach to the natural world. A crucial task in establishing the connection is performed by the faculty of doxa and by geometrical conversion. The result is that Proclus secures a universal, necessary and known foundation for all of philosophy of nature.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Aristotle. Analytica posteriora. W. D. Ross (Ed.) (1986), Oxford: Clarendon Press. J. Barnes (Trans.). (1994). Posterior analytics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Beierwaltes W. (1979) Proklos. Grundzüge seiner Metaphysik. Frankfurt am Main, Klostermann
Buzzetti D. (1997) On Proclus’ comparison of Aristotelian and Parmenidean logic. In: Cleary J.J. (eds) The perennial tradition of Neoplatonism. Leuven University Press, Leuven, pp 331–346
Chiaradonna R. (2002) Sostanza, movimento, analogia Plotino critico di Aristotele. Bibliopolis, Napoli
Cornford, F. M. (1937). Plato’s cosmology. The Timaeus of Plato translated with a running commentary. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
de Haas F.A.J. (2001) Did Plotinus and Porphyry disagree on Aristotle’s Categories?. Phronesis 44: 492–526
de Jong, W. R., & Betti, A. (2008). The Classical Model of Science: A millennia-old model of scientific rationality. Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-008-9417-4.
Dillon, J. (1993). Alcinous. The handbook of Platonism (Trans., Intro. & Commentary). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ebert T. (1991) Von der Weltursache zum Weltbaumeister: Bemerkungen zu einem Argumentationsfehler im platonischen Timaios. Antike und Abendland 37: 43–54
Festugière, A.-J. (1963). Modes de composition des commentaires de Proclus. Museum Helveticum, 20, 77–100. Reprinted in Études de Philosophie Grecque, 26 (1971), 551–574.
Festugière A.-J. (1966–1968) Proclus commentaire sur le Timée. Vrin, Paris
Gerson L.P. (2005) Aristotle and other Platonists. Cornell University Press, Ithaca
Hathaway R. (1982) The anatomy of a Neoplatonist metaphysical proof. In: Harris R.B. (eds) The structure of being. A Neoplatonic approach. State University of New York Press, New York, pp 122–136
Heath, T. L. (1956). Euclid. The thirteen books of the Elements. Vol. 1. (Trans., Intro. & Commentary). New York: Dover.
Helmig, C. (2008). Proclus’ criticism of Aristotle’s theory of concept formation in Analytica Posteriora II 19. In F. A. J. de Haas & M. E. M. P. J. Leunissen (Eds.), Interpreting Aristotle’s Posterior analytics. Leiden: Brill (in press).
Lautner P. (2002) The distinction between phantasia and doxa in Proclus’ In Timaeum. Classical Quarterly 52: 257–269
Lernould A. (1987) La dialectique comme science première chez Proclus. Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 71: 509–536
Lernould, A. (2001). Physique et théologie. Lecture du Timée de Platon par Proclus. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Septentrion.
Leunissen M.E.M.P.J. (2007) The structure of teleological explanations in Aristotle: Theory and practice. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 33: 145–178
Lloyd A.C. (1990) The anatomy of Neoplatonism. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Lohr C.H. (1986) The pseudo-Aristotelian Liber de causis and Latin theories of science in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. In: Kraye J., Ryan W.F., Schmitt C.B. (eds) Pseudo-Aristotle and the Middle Ages. Warburg Institute, London, pp 53–62
Longo A. (2005) Siriano e i principi della scienza. Bibliopolis, Napoli
Longo A. (2006) La présence d’Aristote et son assimilation originale de la part de Plotin dans l’‘Enneade’ VI.5 [23]. Etudes Platoniciennes 3: 155–173
Lowry, J. M. P. (1980). The logical principles of Proclus’ Stoicheiosis theologike as systematic ground of the cosmos. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Martijn M. (2006) The eikôs mythos in Proclus’ Commentary on the Timaeus. In: Tarrant H., Baltzly D. (eds) Reading Plato in antiquity. Duckworth, London, pp 151–167
Martijn, M. (2008). Proclus on nature. Philosophy of nature and its methods in Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus. Dissertation, Leiden University.
Mignucci, M. (1975). L’argomentazione dimostrativa in Aristotele. Commento agli Analitici secondi. Padova: Antenore.
Mourelatos A.P. (1991) Plato’s science: His view and ours of his. In: Bowen A.C. (eds) Science and philosophy in classical Greece. Garland, New York, pp 11–30
Nikulin D. (2003) Physica more geometrico demonstrata: Natural philosophy in Proclus and Aristotle. Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 18: 183–221
O’Meara D.J. (1986) Le problème de la métaphysique dans l’antiquité tardive. Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 33: 3–22
O’Meara D.J. (1989) Pythagoras revived. Clarendon Press, Oxford
O’Meara D.J. (2000) La science métaphysique (ou théologie) de Proclus comme exercise spirituel. In: Segonds A., Steel C. (eds) Proclus et la théologie Platonicienne. Leuven University Press, Leuven, pp 279–290
Plato. Platonis Opera I–V. J. Burnet (Ed.) (1900–1907). Oxford: Oxford Classical Texts.
Porphyrius, Isagoge sive quinque voces. Busse, A. (Ed.) (1887). Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. iv 1. Berlin: Reimer. Barnes, J. (Trans.) (2003). Porphyry. Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Proclus. In Platonis Timaeum Commentaria. E. Diehl (Ed.) (1903–1906). Leipzig: Teubner.
Proclus. In Platonis Cratylum Commentaria. G. Pasquali (Ed.) (1908). Leipzig: Teubner.
Runia D.T. (1997) The literary and philosophical status of Timaeus’ proœmium. In: Calvo T., Brisson L. (eds) Interpreting the Timaeus-Critias. Proceedings of the IV Symposium Platonicum selected papers. Academia Verlag, Sankt Augustin, pp 101–118
Runia, D. T. (2000). Timaeus, logician and philosopher of nature. In J. Spruyt & M. Kardaun (Eds.), The winged chariot. Collected essays on Plato and Platonism in honour of L. M. de Rijk (pp. 105–118). Leiden: Brill.
Scholz, H. (1930/1975). Die Axiomatik der Alten. In J. Barnes, M. Schofield, & R. Sorabji (Eds.). (1975). Articles on Aristotle 1: Science (pp. 50–64). London: Duckworth.
Siorvanes L. (1996) Proclus. Neo-Platonic philosophy and science. Yale University Press, New Haven
Sorabji R. (2004) The philosophy of the commentators 200–600. AD A sourcebook. Volume 3: Logic & metaphysics. Duckworth, London
Steel C. (1997) Breathing thought: Proclus on the innate knowledge of the soul. In: Cleary J.J. (eds) The perennial tradition of Neoplatonism. Leuven University Press, Leuven, pp 293–309
Steel C. (2004) Definitions and ideas. Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 19: 103–121
Taylor, A. E. (1928). A commentary on Plato’s Timaeus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Vlastos G. (1975) Plato’s universe. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Whittaker J. (1990) Alcinoos. Enseignement des doctrines de Platon. Les Belles Lettres, Paris
Zeyl D.J. (2000) Plato. Timaeus. Hackett, Indianapolis
Acknowledgements
Work on this paper was funded by NWO, PhD-project 350-20-005. It incorporates material from the third chapter of my dissertation Philosophy of nature and its methods in Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus. I would like to thank Frans de Haas and an anonymous referee for commenting on earlier versions of this paper.
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Martijn, M. Proclus on the order of philosophy of nature. Synthese 174, 205–223 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9418-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9418-3