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
17. We are now entering on a disquisition neither ignoble nor useless:
it is this, whether the number of things predicated essentially of a
subject is finite, or whether things in a continued series run on to
infinity. For instance, let us suppose some ultimate subject, which
is not the predicate of any thing besides; and let _c_ represent such
a subject, of which _b_ is the first and immediate predicate; and in
the same manner _d_ of _b_, and _e_ of _d_: the query is, Whether or
not this extraction must necessarily stop, or will admit of an immense
progression, so that _f_ may be predicated of _e_, and _g_ of _f_,
and so on infinitely; the power of the predicates, which supplies the
common identity, still remaining inexhaustible and undiminished? The
second query is this, Supposing some general subject, which we call
_a_, of such a nature as to be no longer the subject of any farther
predication, but to be itself the supreme and primary predicate; and
supposing that it is immediately inherent in _f_, and _f_ in _e_,
and _e_ in _g_, whether or not the process must stop, or extend to
infinity, and no subject be found which is not directly predicable of
another? There is a remarkable difference in the two considerations;
for, in the former we enquire whether any ultimate subject can supply
an infinite ascent of predicates; in the latter, whether any first
predicate can exist in an infinite descending series of subjects. The
third question is, supposing two extremes constituted from a first
predicate and last subject, whether it is possible an infinite number
of mediums can intervene? And this is no other than to enquire whether
demonstrations admit of an infinite progression, so that whatever is
assumed in proof of another, must be proved itself? Or whether it
is not more agreeable to truth, that there should be some immediate
propositions and ultimate terms, whose discovery may give respite to
enquiry, and stay the elaborate process of demonstration? The same
question occurs in negatives. But that some of these are immediate, the
instance lately alledged sufficiently evinces. The solution of this
enquiry is not so difficult in subjects which mutually reciprocate;
for in these, when the ultimate subject is given, no one can doubt the
existence of their primary predicate; nor when the primary predicate
is admitted, can there be any doubt of the existence of some ultimate
subject. For, in things which mutually reciprocate, whatever is
enquired of the one, is immediately questioned of the other; and
wherever there is a last subject, there must be a first predicate;
for by the conversion of the ultimate subject you effect the primary
predicate.