The philosophical and mathematical commentaries of Proclus on the first book of Euclid's elements (Vol. 1 of 2) : $b To which are added, A history of the restoration of Platonic theology, by the latter Platonists: And a translation from the Greek of Proclus's Theological elementsProclus
Philosophy
The philosophical and mathematical commentaries of Proclus on the first book of Euclid's elements (Vol. 1 of 2) : $b To which are added, A history of the restoration of Platonic theology, by the latter Platonists: And a translation from the Greek of Proclus's Theological elements
Proclus
Euclid. Elements; Platonists
[21] Lest the superficial reader should think this is nothing more than
declamation, let him attend to the following argument. If the soul
possesses another eye different from that of sense (and that she does
so, the sciences sufficiently evince), there must be, in the nature
of things, species accommodated to her perception, different from
feasible forms. For if our intellect speculates things which have no
real subsistence, such as Mr. Locke’s ideas, its condition must be much
more unhappy than that of the sensitive eye, since this is co-ordinated
to beings; but intellect would speculate nothing but illusions. Now, if
this be absurd, and if we possess an intellectual eye, which is endued
with a visive power, there must be forms correspondent and conjoined
with its vision; forms immoveable, indeed, by a corporeal motion, but
moved by an intellectual energy.
[22] The present section contains an illustration of almost all the
first book of Aristotle’s last Analytics. I have for the most part
followed the accurate and elegant paraphrase of Themistius, in the
execution of this design, as the learned reader will perceive: but I
have likewise everywhere added elucidations of my own, and endeavoured
to render this valuable work intelligible to the thinking mathematical
reader.
[23] See the twenty-eighth proposition of the first book of Euclid’s
Elements.
[24] We are informed by Simplicius, in his Commentary on Aristotle’s
third Category of Relation, “that though the quadrature of the
circle seems to have been unknown to Aristotle, yet, according to
Jamblichus, it was known to the Pythagoreans, as appears from the
sayings and demonstrations of Sextus Pythagoricus, who received (says
he) by succession, the art of demonstration; and after him Archimedes
succeeded, who invented the quadrature by a line, which is called
the line of Nicomedes. Likewise, Nicomedes attempted to square the
circle by a line, which is properly called τεταρτημόριον, or _the
quadrature_. And Apollonius, by a certain line, which he calls the
sister of the curve line, similar to a cockle, or tortoise, and which
is the same with the _quadratix_ of Nicomedes. Also Carpus wished
to square the circle, by a certain line, which he calls simply formed
from a twofold motion. And many others, according to Jamblichus, have
accomplished this undertaking in various ways.” Thus far Simplicius.
In like manner, Boethius, in his Commentary on the same part of
Aristotle’s Categories (p. 166.) observes, that the quadrature of
the circle was not discovered in Aristotle’s time, but was found out
afterwards; the demonstration of which (says he) because it is long,
must be omitted in this place. From hence it seems very probable,
that the ancient mathematicians applied themselves solely to squaring
the circle geometrically, without attempting to accomplish this by an
arithmetical calculation. Indeed, nothing can be more ungeometrical
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account