Me and Proclus

3 December 2022

Me and Proclus

When I look at the Platonic tradition, I see two great Platonic Sages who are my primary resources and guides for walking the Platonic Path; these two are Plato and Plotinus.  What I have observed is that for many contemporary Platonists the two great Platonic Sages seem to be Plato and Proclus.  My relationship to Proclus is ambivalent.  Here are a few comments about me and Proclus:

1.  Years ago I read Proclus: An Introduction by Radek Chlup.  In this book Chlup, at times, differentiates Proclus and Plotinus.  Every time Chlup makes such a differentiation I found myself favoring Plotinus. 

2.  It’s not that I have strongly negative feelings about Proclus or that I don’t find inspiring passages in his work.  It has more to do, I think, with style and method.  Perhaps it’s unfair to compare Proclus’s style to that of Plato because at the level of literary technique Plato is simply unsurpassed.  But if I compare the style of Proclus to that of Plotinus, I find Plotinus more accessible, less analytical, or perhaps less ‘academic’ is closer to what I am getting at. 

3.  To be honest, there are secondary Platonic writers whom I turn to for insight and understanding before I turn to Proclus; I am thinking in particular of Maximus of Tyre, Porphyry, and Boethius.  Maximus wrote orations and his works were written to be understood by a public audience (as opposed to a classroom).  This gives his writing a certain charm and poise.  Regarding Porphyry, in general I think he has been underrated.  His writings have a clear grasp of the nature of virtues and purifications and the centrality of asceticism for the Platonic path that I find refreshing.  And I have written about Boethius before; I think The Consolation of Philosophy is one of the great works of the Platonic tradition, a great treasure.

4.  A long time ago, when I was diligently studying Buddhism, I spent time with Abhidhamma (particularly the Dhammasanghani) and Abhidharma (particularly the Abhidharmakosa by Vasubandhu).  In some ways I think of Proclus as Platonic Abhidharma.  There is the same emphasis on categories and their relationships, the same emphasis on completeness and definitiveness, and a consequent lessening of emphases on contemplative practice.

5.  I don’t get a sense of the centrality of asceticism when I read Proclus like I do when I read Plotinus and Porphyry.  This may be due to the fact that I haven’t read everything by Proclus, but I’m inclined to think that Proclus favored insight over way-of-life commitments and consequent purifications.

6.  My favorite book by Proclus is On the Eternity of the World.  Interestingly, this book is rarely mentioned by contemporaries rooted in a Proclean interpretation of Platonism; I don’t recall it appearing in the book by Chlup.  I found On the Eternity of the World inspiring and its emphasis on the role of love in the eternal cosmos uplifting.

7.  When I read The Elements of Theology I run into difficulties.  First, there are logical difficulties.  For example, Proclus uses an analysis of the infinite regress to refute views that are contrary to his own: That is to say that Proclus treats infinite regresses the same as a contradiction, he regards an infinite regress as a contradiction, and thinks that demonstrating that if a particular view generates an infinite regress then this is sufficient to prove that the view should be rejected.  I disagree with that, I mean that I don’t concur that an infinite regress is automatically a contradiction and is therefore grounds for rejecting a particular argument that results in an infinite regress.  In order to reject an infinite regress, it must also be demonstrated that the argument is vicious; that is to say self-referentially refuting.  That isn’t always easy to recognize or obvious, but the point is that Proclus does not make the effort to show this and I suggest that in at least some cases the infinite regress he analyzes is not vicious.  This is a big topic and I may post more about it in the future.

The second difficulty is that though Platonism uses logic, I wouldn’t say that Platonism is a logical system in the way that Euclid’s Geometry is such a system.  What I’m getting at is that Plato writes in allegories, metaphors, comparisons of all kinds, to present his vision.  It seems to me that things like allegories and metaphors, etc., are actually primary means of communicating Plato’s understanding; I say this because I think the use of logic is in the service of unpacking the allegories rather than propositional logic being explained by metaphors and allegories.  This makes sense to me because the ultimate, The One, in Platonism is beyond predication.

The third difficulty is the emphasis that Proclus places on the henads.  It’s not clear to me that the introduction of the henads into Platonic cosmology is helpful.  I mean that I do not see a lack in the tri-partite depiction of The One, The Intellect/Being, and Soul, and their unfolding and returning such that it requires the henads in order to be coherent.  In some ways the way Proclus uses the henads strikes me as an add-on.  But that may be due to a lack of my own understanding as to what Proclus is trying to accomplish.

8.  I don’t have an ax to grind.  I’m not opposed to people using Proclus as a primary Platonic resource for their own journey back to The One.  But speaking for myself, and for others I have discussed this with, I’ll continue to think of Plato and Plotinus as the two great wings of wisdom in the Platonic tradition.