Proclus on the Two Causal Models for the One’s Production of Being: Reconciling the Relation of the Henads and the Limit/Unlimited

In: The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition
Author: Jonathan Greig1
View More View Less
  • 1 Austrian Academy of Sciences (Institute for Medieval Research)

Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

€29.95$34.95

Abstract

In Proclus’ metaphysics, the One produces Being through a mediated set of principles which are the direct causes of Being. While the henads (ἑνάδες) feature prominently as these principles, Proclus posits a second set of principles, the Limit and Unlimited, to explain the aspects of unity and plurality found in all beings. Initially there seems to be a tension in these two sets of principles: Proclus does not immediately clarify how they interact with each other or their relationship to each other. In Elements of Theology Prop. 159, he even seems to say that the Limit/Unlimited produce the henads—which contradicts the henads’ nature as pure ‘ones’. This article analyzes this issue by surveying three contemporary solutions that have been posed to address the tension, while also offering a new alternative: the Limit and Unlimited, as the first henads to emerge from the One, causally determine all subsequent henads according to their respective unique character (ἰδιότης), while both sets are ultimately derived from the One according to their subsistence (ὕπαρξις)—preserving the henads’ natures as simply ‘one’ like the One-itself.

  • Butler, E. P. 2003. ‘The Metaphysics of Polytheism in Proclus’. PhD diss., New School for Social Research.

  • Butler, E. P. 2005. ‘Polytheism and Individuality in the Henadic Manifold’. Dionysius 23: 83-104.

  • Butler, E. P. 2008a. ‘The Gods and Being in Proclus’. Dionysius 26: 93-114.

  • Butler, E. P. 2008b. ‘The Intelligible Gods in the Platonic Theology of Proclus’. Méthexis 21: 131-143. https://doi.org/10.1163/24680974-90000534.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Butler, E. P. 2010. ‘The Second Intelligible Triad and the Intelligible-Intellective Gods’. Méthexis 23: 137-157. https://doi.org/10.1163/24680974-90000567.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Butler, E. P. 2012. ‘The Third Intelligible Triad and the Intellective Gods’. Méthexis 25 (1): 131-150. https://doi.org/10.1163/24680974-90000600.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chiaradonna, R. 2014. ‘Substance’. In The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism, edited by S. Slaveva-Griffin and P. Remes, 216-230. Abingdon: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chlup, R. 2012. Proclus: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Combès, J. 1996. ‘Proclus et Damascius’. In Études Néoplatoniciennes, second edition, 245-272. Grenoble: Editions Jérôme Millon.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • D’Ancona Costa, C. 1992. ‘Proclo. Enadi e ἀρχαί nell’ordine sovrasensibile’. Rivista Di Storia Della Filosofia 47: 267-295.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dodds, E. R. 1963. Proclus, The Elements of Theology. Edited and translated by E. R. D. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Gersh, S. 2014. ‘Proclus as Theologian’. In Interpreting Proclus: From Antiquity to the Renaissance, edited by S. Gersh, 80-107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lankila, T. 2010. ‘Henadology in the Two Theologies of Proclus’. Dionysius 28: 63-76.

  • MacIsaac, D. G. 2007. ‘The Origin of Determinism in the Neoplatonism of Proclus’. In Divine Creation in Ancient, Medieval, and Early Modern Thought, edited by M. Treschow, W. Otten, and W. Hannam. Leiden: Brill.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • O’Meara, D. J. 1989. Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Opsomer, J. 2013. ‘Syrianus, Proclus, and Damascius’. In Routledge Companion to Ancient Philosophy, edited by J. Warren and F. Sheffield, 626-642. New York and London: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Perl, E. D. 2010. ‘Neither One nor Many: God and the Gods in Plotinus, Proclus, and Aquinas’. Dionysius 28: 167-192.

  • Sheppard, A. D. R. 1982. ‘Monad and Dyad as Cosmic Principles’. In Soul and the Structure of Being in Late Neoplatonism: Syrianus, Proclus, and Simplicius, edited by H. J. Blumenthal and A. C. Lloyd, 1-17. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Steel, C. 1994. ‘Ὕπαρξις chez Proclus’. In Hyparxis e Hypostasis nel Neoplatonismo, edited by F. Romano and D. P. Taormina, 79-100. Firenze: L.S. Olschki.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Steel, C. 2002. ‘Neoplatonic Versus Stoic Causality: The Case of the Sustaining Cause (« Sunektikon »)’. Quaestio 2 (1): 77-96. https://doi.org/10.1484/j.quaestio.2.300460.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Strange, S. K. 1992. ‘Plotinus’ Account of Participation in Ennead VI.4-5’. Journal of the History of Philosophy 30 (4): 479-496. https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.1992.0068.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Trouillard, J. 1977. ‘Les Degrés du ποιεῖν chez Proclos’. In Recherches sur la Tradition Platonicienne (Platon, Aristote, Proclus, Damascius), edited by J. Pépin, 101-117. Paris: J. Vrin.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van Riel, G. 2001. ‘Les hénades de Proclus sont-elles composées de limite et d’illimité?Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 85 (3): 417-432. https://doi.org/10.3917/rspt.853.0417.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van Riel, G. 2002. ‘« N’essayons pas de compter l’intelligible sur les doigts ». Damascius et les principes de la limite et de l’illimité’. Philosophie Antique 2: 199-219.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van Riel, G. 2016. ‘The One, the Henads, and the Principles’. In All from One: A Guide to Proclus, edited by P. d’Hoine and M. Martijn, 73-97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 264 206 6
Full Text Views 32 22 0
PDF Views & Downloads 44 35 1