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
[85] Since number is prior to magnitude, the demonstrations of
arithmetic must be more intellectual, but those of geometry more
accommodated to the rational power. And when either arithmetic or
geometry is applied to sensible concerns, the demonstrations, from the
nature of the subjects, must participate of the obscurity of opinion.
If this is the case, a true mathematician will value those parts of his
science most, which participate most of evidence; and will consider
them as degraded, when applied to the common purposes of life.
[86] This division of the mathematical science, according to the
Pythagoreans, which is nearly coincident with that of Plato, is blamed
by Dr. Barrow in his Mathematical Lectures, p. 15. as being confined
within too narrow limits: and the reason he assigns for so partial a
division, is, “because, in Plato’s time, others were either not yet
invented, or not sufficiently cultivated, or at least were not yet
received into the number of the mathematical sciences.” But I must
beg leave to differ from this most illustrious mathematician in this
affair; and to assert that the reason of so confined a distribution
(as it is conceived by the moderns) arose from the exalted conceptions
these wise men entertained of the mathematical sciences, which they
considered as so many preludes to the knowledge of divinity, when
properly pursued; but they reckoned them degraded and perverted, when
they became mixed with sensible objects, and were applied to the common
purposes of life.
[87] That is, a right and circular line.
[88] I am afraid there are few in the present day, who do not consider
tactics as one of the most principal parts of mathematics; and who
would not fail to cite, in defence of their opinions, that great
reformer of philosophy, _as he is called_, Lord Bacon, commending
pursuits which come home to men’s businesses and bosoms. Indeed, if
what is lowest in the true order of things, and best administers to the
vilest part of human nature, is to have the preference, their opinion
is right, and Lord Bacon is a _philosopher_!
[89] By this is to be understood the art new called Perspective: from
whence it is evident that this art was not unknown to the ancients,
though it is questioned by the moderns.
[90] From hence it appears, that it is doubtful whether Plato is the
author of the dialogue called Epinomis; and I think it may with great
propriety be questioned. For though it bears evident marks of high
antiquity, and is replete with genuine wisdom, it does not seem to be
perfectly after Plato’s manner; nor to contain that great depth of
thought with which the writings of this philosopher abound. Fabricius
(in his Bibliotheca Græca, lib. i. p. 27.) wonders that Suidas should
ascribe this work to a philosopher who distributed Plato’s laws into
twelve books, because it was an usual opinion; from whence it seems,
that accurate critic had not attended to the present passage.
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