Commentary on the Beginning of Damascius' De Primis Principiis
Commentary on the Beginning of Damascius' De Primis Principiis Commentary on the Beginning of Damascius' De Primis Principiis
40being immersed in it, handling it with one ’s own hands as it were; supreme power iswielded only when one “governs” and “causes” by doing nothing in particular inthe relevant respect . This all important Neoplatonic notion, will be fully analysedlater on. It, of course, connects with the Neoplato nic theory of Causality. And itmarvelously coincides with a basic doctrine of Taoism, esp. in its primary applicationto the ultimate ground of all reality.[51] “Higher”: in the sense delineated in the Preliminary Note.[52] Since we cannot really say that that principle is “higher” than the One, inany positively conceived sense.[53] For a systematic metaphysical analysis and proof of this last point, consultthe two last chapters of my “Things and Predication”.[54] We commit a simplification here in that there can be distinguished twodifferent ways of that “both X and Y” corresponding to what D. terms ἡνωμένον andδιακρινόμενον (the latter as distinct from the διακεκριμένον), or to what Proclus callsμονὴ and πρόοδος. But of this later, in sections three and four.[55] My parentheses are intended to explain the difference in the aspect underwhich the One on the one hand, and the ἡνωμένον on the other, are both πάντα.[56] Chaignet fails to understand the point completely – v. p. 11 n. 3.[57] Of co urse metaphysical dependence , priority and posteriority is heremeant. Temporal priority is not applicable even in the productions of principles f arbelow the Ineffable Ground.[58] Cf. Plato, Phaedo 95b.[59] Cf. in this connection Simplicius, In Physica Commentaria, ed. Dielsp. 795.[60] With the exception of Iamblichus whose articulated exposition has notunfortunately survived to us. It is possible to reconstruct his views from what Proclusand Damascius argue in connection with , and in reference to, them; such areconstruction will be attempted in the third section.[61] Chaignet, expectedly, fails to see the point. V. p. 13, n. 2.[62] Cf. also the well known passages of the VII th Epistle, esp. 341a-342a.[63] The Sophist was one of the Platonic dialogues in the Iamblichean Canon.V. Prolegomena to Plato ’s Philosophy c. XXVI. Westerink ’s reconstruction of the
corrupt passage (“Anonymous Prolegomena etc.” p. XXXIX-XL) is the correct one41(excepting some doubts concerning Politicus).
- Page 2 and 3: 2GENERAL REMARKThe first section is
- Page 4 and 5: 4Four reasons are, in aporematic fa
- Page 6 and 7: 6ὐθύς, i.e. without any prior
- Page 8 and 9: 8ἀμερές). Thus nothing is mi
- Page 10 and 11: 10separate them. Basically, as Aris
- Page 12 and 13: 12produced by, it; the principle in
- Page 14 and 15: 14the fashion of its one-ness, i.e.
- Page 16 and 17: 16[36] it may be. Now the def inite
- Page 18 and 19: 18found, and (there found) in accor
- Page 20 and 21: 20in its elf (apart from the orderi
- Page 22 and 23: 22something whose immediate product
- Page 24 and 25: 24clearer, as the system is further
- Page 26 and 27: 26ἡνωμένον, which generate
- Page 28 and 29: 28We find in this here a good insta
- Page 30 and 31: 30fully see his point, and to take,
- Page 32 and 33: 32NOTES[1] Not quite “given” th
- Page 34 and 35: 34forget that, for the time being,
- Page 36 and 37: 36[28] The interpretation given to
- Page 38 and 39: 38[39] It can be shown that there c
corrupt passage (“An<strong>on</strong>ymous Prolegomena etc.” p. XXXIX-XL) is <strong>the</strong> correct <strong>on</strong>e41(excepting some doubts c<strong>on</strong>cerning Politicus).
Change language