The six books of Proclus, the Platonic successor, on the theology of Plato (vol. 2 of 2) : $b translated from the Greek, to which a seventh book is added, in order to supply the deficiency of another book on this subject, which was written by Proclus, but since lost, also, a translation from the Greek of Proclus' Elements of theology, to which are added a translation of the treatise of Proclus, On providence and fate, a translation of extracts from his treatise, entitled, Ten doubts concerning p — Plato — John Shaqi
The six books of Proclus, the Platonic successor, on the theology of Plato (vol. 2 of 2) : $b translated from the Greek, to which a seventh book is added, in order to supply the deficiency of another book on this subject, which was written by Proclus, but since lost, also, a translation from the Greek of Proclus' Elements of theology, to which are added a translation of the treatise of Proclus, On providence and fate, a translation of extracts from his treatise, entitled, Ten doubts concerning p
Plato · en
We must not, therefore, suppose that the genus of similitude is
something small, and extended only to a few things, since it is the
cause of perfection to the whole world, gives completion through
similitude to its first generation and self-sufficiency, and supplies
from itself, its entire comprehension of all things. But neither
must we admit that a production of this kind, is to be referred to
one certain intellectual form. For that which extends[5] to all the
superessential, essential, psychical, incorporeal, and corporeal
genera, exists prior to all forms and genera, and to incorporeal
and corporeal causes. For the Gods in the world, do not proceed
assimilated to their causes, on account of the intellectual form of
similitude. Nor on account of the paradigmatic idea of the dissimilar,
are the superessential unities of the Gods divided, the intellectual
nature separated from itself, and the psychical essences allotted
a progression in order; but, I think, that both similitude and
dissimilitude have their hypostasis analogous to intellectual sameness
and difference. And as they are primarily in the Gods themselves,
but secondarily in intellectual forms, being unfolded into light
together with the hyparxes of the Gods, thus also, this similitude and
dissimilitude, are allotted indeed a precedaneous hyparxis in the
superessential unities, but a successive hyparxis in the descending
progressions of beings. And on this account Parmenides, as he evinced
that _the one_ is moved and stands still, is same and different,
separate from being, thus also he demonstrates to us the similar and
the dissimilar in the uniform hyparxes themselves of the Gods. And
Socrates indeed presents to our view in the beginning of the dialogue,
the similar and the dissimilar, and defines each paradigm of these
to be separate, and exempt from the many similars and dissimilars.
But Parmenides recurring to the superessential hypostases of wholes,
produces beings from thence, according to the peculiarities of the
first causes.