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 — Plato — John Shaqi
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
Plato · en
“the ancients never attempt to lead us into knowledge, by a continued
chain of reasoning; on the contrary, they write in such a manner,
as to force us to think for ourselves.” And, previous to this, he
remarks, “that there are certain truths acquired by a long exercise
of reason, both in _particular_, and likewise in those subjects
that are most _general_, as much, perhaps, out of the reach of the
greatest mathematician, as Sir Isaac Newton’s speculations are above
the capacity of some that are now called mathematicians.” The truth of
this observation is sufficiently evinced, in Plato’s definition of a
philosopher (in his Sophista), “The philosopher (says he) is the man
who sufficiently sees one idea every way extended through many, every
one of them lying apart; and many ideas different from one another,
externally comprehended under one.--And farther, one idea, throughout
all manys, wrapt up in one; and many ideas, every way separate or
discreet. This is to have the knowledge to discern how ideas, as they
are general, agree and disagree.” Now, he who thinks that a perception
of this kind may be acquired by barely reading an accurate discourse
on the nature of ideas, composed in intelligible terms, without, at
the same time, employing a long course of profound meditation, and
patient thought, knows but little the difficulty of the task, and
until he changes his opinion will never be the wiser. But the folly
and presumption of men, with respect to this sublime philosophy, is
really unpardonable; for there are very few who conceive that much
previous instruction is requisite to its acquisition; but almost
every man decides peremptorily on the most abstract speculations, and
reckons himself sufficient for the most profound investigations. In the
sciences and arts they are willing to proceed to perfection by gradual
advances; but they consider philosophy as easy, of instant access, and
hastily approach to her embraces with an assured confidence of success.
Though, like unhappy Ixion, through their presumption, instead of a
goddess, they grasp nothing but an empty cloud. Plato was so sensible
of this truth, that, in his seventh epistle to Dion, he expressly
affirms, that he neither has written, nor ever will write explicitly
concerning these sublime speculations; “For a thing of this kind (says
he) cannot be expressed by words, like other disciplines, but by a
lasting familiarity, and conjunction of life, with this _divine
object_, a bright light[20] on a sudden, as it were leaping from
a fire, will illuminate the soul, and there preserve and nourish its
splendor. He adds, that a publication of such concerns, is alone
useful to a few of mankind, who from some small vestiges previously
demonstrated, are sufficiently sagacious to their invention. But it
will fill others partly with a base contempt, and partly with a rash
and vain confidence, as if they had now learned some very excellent