One of the hardest questions to answer for a (Neo)platonist is to what extent and how the changing and unreliable world of sense perception can itself be an object of scientific knowledge. My dissertation is a study of the answer given to that question by the Neoplatonist Proclus (Athens, 411-485) in his Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus. I present a new explanation of Proclus’ concept of nature and show that philosophy of nature consists of several related subdisciplines matching the ontological stratification (...) of nature. Moreover, I demonstrate that for Proclus philosophy of nature is a science, albeit a hypothetical one, which takes geometry as its methodological paradigm. I also offer an explanation of Proclus’ view of what is later called the mathematization of physics, i.e. the role of the substance of mathematics, as opposed to its method, in explaining the natural world. Finally, I discuss Proclus’ views of the discourse of philosophy of nature and its iconic character. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 177 - 204 This article presents a synoptic account of the faculties of rational soul in the philosophy of Proclus and an interpretation of the unity which this soul constitutes despite the plurality of its faculties and objects of its attentions. It seeks to demonstrate that Proclus, through his conceptual construction of a rational soul grounded in an objective and cosmic framework, accounts for at least some of the subjective aspects of selfhood which (...) many contemporary philosophical theories take to be necessary for a concept of self, but that he does so on his own terms. This means, among other things, that Proclus posits each rational soul as a subjective entity with its own perspective on the world, but a perspective which is always grounded, more or less, in an objective knowledge of the world which belongs to it essentially and eternally. Despite grounding the subjective in the objective, Proclus is able to account for the individuality and uniqueness of souls within the limits of his objective framework. (shrink)

The present paper focuses on some aspects of the Neoplatonist literary-metaphysical theory, which has clearly been expressed in the anony­mous Prolegomena to Plato’s philosophy and further confirmed in Proclus’ exegesis of the Timaeus. Thus, this contribution, examines and compares several passages from the Prolegomena and from Proclus’ Commentary on the Timaeus with a view to showing that it is legiti­mate to speak of a certain cosmogony of the Platonic dialogue that is analogous to that of the macrocosm. Moreover, the analogy (...) between macrocosm and microcosm makes it possible to further investigate the similarity between the λόγος-ζῷον of the Demiurge and that of Timaeus, on the one hand, and the reality which the λόγος expresses, on the other. This similarity turns out to be both structural/morphological and content-related/semantic. Thus, by combining the natural and theo­logical science, the analysis of the “generation” of the macrocosm and microcosm brings out the strongly analogical nature of Plato’s dialogues, which is particularly visible in the Timaeus. (shrink)

Resumen En la 5ª y 6ª disertación del Comentario a la República de Platón Proclo se centra en rescatar tanto a los "forjadores de mitos", Homero y Hesíodo, como a sus críticos, Sócrates y Platón (República III y X). En este trabajo analizaremos la correspondencia que Proclo establece entre los cuatro grados del discurso poético -poesía inspirada, científica, de reproducción y de apariencias- con un género de vida determinado. Ahora bien, las características que Proclo asigna a los mitos no se (...) aplican a todos llos mitos, ya que es preciso diferenciar dos tipos: los educativos y los divinamente inspirados, que se corresponden con dos tipos de oyentes: los que conciernen a los jóvenes y los que se dirigen a aquellos que son capaces de elevar su alma a través de todas las clases divinas. Los poetas y Platón imparten la misma enseñanza sobre las mismas cosas.In the 5th and 6th essays of Commentary on Plato's Republic, Proclus focuses on rescuing both "myth-makers", Homer and Hesiod, as well as their critics, Socrates and Plato (Republic III and X). In this paper we analyze the relationship that Proclus states between the four grades of poetic discourse -inspired poetry, scientific, of reproduction and of appearances-, and a certain way of life. The features Proclus assigns to the myths do not apply to all of them, as it is necessary to distinguish between two types of myths: the educational ones and the divinely inspired, which correspond to two types of listeners: those concerning the young people, and those whose target are the ones who are able to raise their soul through all divine grades. Poets and Plato teach the same lesson on the same things. (shrink)

The present article is concerned with Proclus’ highly original and profoundly influential account of the symbolic function of poetry, the pedagogic as well as the hieratic value of myths and the soteriological power of allegorical interpretation. Thus, the paper begins with a brief discussion of Plato’s dismissal of poetry as μέγιστον ψεῦδος. Subsequently, Proclus’ theory of three kinds of poetry is examined, upon which attention is paid to his revolutionary idea that σύμβολα rather than μιμήματα are the tools of the (...) highest kind of poetry. Then, Proclus’ views on the difference between Plato’s and Homer’s μυθοποιΐα are considered. While the article concludes with an analysis of Proclus’ conviction about the functional similarity of symbols in myths and those in magic rites, allegoresis is shown to have the same salvational role that Proclus ascribes to theurgy. (shrink)