Commentary on the Beginning of Damascius' De Primis Principiis

36[28] The interpretation given to this crucial clause (1092a14) by Ps. Alexanderseems to me very weak – though, no doubt, there is truth in it, if properly construed.[29] The danger lies not (according to the Neoplatonic viewpoint) in our subtleconceptual operations overstepping, as it were, reality and operating in vacuum (touse Kant ’s formulation), but rather in our faculties and apparatus, oversubtle andhairsplitting as they can be, not being really sufficiently sensitive and varied to copewith the wonderful richness of articulation in reality. Reason, when correctly followed,cannot possibly overpass reality substantiating and projecting his figments unto her;so marvelously and inexhaustibly delicate reality is. Mind cannot outwit reality .The real problem is that it all too often cannot cope with it.This very important view, implicit as it is in the Neoplatonic methodology, isexplicitly stated by Simplicius in his <strong>Commentary</strong> on Epictetus (p. 99 Didot) withreference to the crucial for Neoplatonism ascent towards the first Principles: οὐδὲ γὰρεὐλαβητέον μὴ κενεμβατῶμεν (a word much employed by D.) μείζονά τινα καὶὑπερβαίνοντα τὰς πρώτας ἀρχὰς περὶ αὐτῶν ἐννοοῦντες. Οὐ γὰρ δυνατὸν τηλικοῦτονπήδημα πηδῆσαι τὰς ἡμετέρας ἐννοίας ὡς παρισωθῆναι τῇ ἀξίᾳ τῶν πρώτων ἀρχῶν,οὐ λέγω καὶ ὑπερπτῆναι.We feel here the healthy breeze of pure Hellenic Rationalism blowing. Themorbid and checkered thinking of those who are continuously afraid lest thoughtoverpass reality in its innate drive towards the ultimate had not yet then infestedmankind. The view is that of reality possessing riches beyond measure, over there forReason to appropriately express them by identifying itself to the essence of existence– not that of a poverty-stricken reality shamefully overstepped by Reason in almos tany one of his bolder enterprises.[30] διπλόη: The Neoplatonic technical term for any possible distinction whichsomething is capable of suffering , a subdivision within itself . The first distinction is abifurcation.[31] The reason why, will become clear in the immediate sequel.[32] This was the outcome of the discussion of the initial question whether thePrinciple of Everything can be anything (i.e. something or other of those which intheir totality make up the extent of ‘everything ’). And this will also be more directlyargued for in the sequel (5.17 sqq.).