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
Again, we may demonstrate the existence of ideas as follows: if the
Deity, in fabricating the universe, operated essentially (and there
is no other way in which we can conceive him to operate), he must
fabricate the universe, an image of Himself. But, if this be the case,
he contains in himself, in the manner of an exemplar, the causes of
the universe; and these causes are no other than ideas. Besides, this
consideration is not to be omitted, that the perfect must necessarily
antecede and preside over the imperfect; unity over multitude; the
impartible over the partible; and that which is perpetually the same,
over that which admits of variation and change. From whence it may be
inferred, that things do not originate from baser natures, but that
their gradual processions end in these; and that they begin from the
most perfect, best, and most beautiful natures. But let us pursue this
reasoning more minutely, as it affords the strongest arguments for the
existence of ideas.
When the Deity fabricated the various species of animals, and bestowed
on them the different senses, it was doubtless with a view to the
benefit of their possessors, as he foresaw, that without these, the
animal could neither provide for its own support, nor defend itself
from surrounding dangers. But may we not enquire from whence this
previous perception originated? For it is not to be supposed, that he
first made animals destitute of senses, and so, being admonished by
their sudden destruction, afterwards assigned them to their nature.
Shall we say, this foreknowledge was the result of a reasoning process?
But then, we again ask, What were the principles of this ratiocination?
For if they originated from other reasonings, it is necessary, at
length, to arrive at something prior to these discursive operations,
on which they ultimately depend; since all reasoning must be founded
on indemonstrable principles. Was sense, then, or intellect the
principle of this previous perception? But, sense, in the present
instance, had not then a being, for it could not exist prior to the
animal nature: it was, therefore, intellect. But if intellect be the
repository of certain propositions, and the conclusion be science, it
must follow, that there could not then be a consultation of any thing
sensible. For the principle and the conclusion must both depend on
something intelligible. Besides, may we not ask, how such a habit of
thought arose before the existence of a sensible nature! It is absurd
in the extreme, to say from chance, and to resolve it into a sudden
volition of the Deity, is an assertion that may, indeed, satisfy vulgar
minds, but can by no means quiet the restless spirit of philosophical
investigation. Since, to suppose the cause of the universe, actuated by
sudden volitions, is to place him on a level with the vilest natures,
and subject him to the irrational impulses of the brute. Hence we
infer that the formation of animals, and by the same arguments of