Proclus' Elements of Theology: Complete Summary of all 211 Propositions

Thanks for everyone who supports this channel: / aarvoll (join our Plato reading groups here)
Contact my on skype at: eorwoll1123

[@FreedomandRights4US]

Only a true mad lad could go through every proposition, this is awesome

[@therealmysteryschool]

This is excellent, thank you very much for taking the time to explain something that is absolutely critical to western philosophy and esotericism but literally no one takes the time to do. Thank you very much

[@bbnoblebright]

Fantastic introduction to the material. I'm working through the Thomas Taylor series volume by volume, and your paraphrases and insights have helped lay the foundation. Cheers!

[@sethshams]

Hi thank you for such a huge work you 've done !

[@zalanahara270]

This was Amazing. Thank you for doing this❤

[@Mrdeanop2]

Quality, thank you!

[@sethshams]

you lost me after the 50's propositions but you seem to understand very well and explain some propositions in a simple manner that makes them more understandable in today's words, you are also very handsome you must be participating in some manner in Beauty , this system is very close to kabbalah wher you have the four trees going from the first tree of numbers aka the henad then the tree of bariah ot intellects then yetsira or tree of souls and malkout the tree of fruits thank you again i will have to comeback many times to get some propositions through because im not an intellectual type of person gotta look to your other videos also that is a lot of work i have to go through omg

[@jasonzheng976]

Great job. Keep going! Hope more on Plotinus.

[@laurentius.dominus]

Quality. Thank you!

[@juliansnei96]

Incredible

[@mohammadyameen6539]

Excellent, can u please post the link of pdf u used, or the translation used...thanks

[@NeoCortexMonkey]

Thanks!

[@socraticsceptic8047]

Thanks for doing this.. Re proposition 66 ... any two things are related to each other either as part to whole (or whole to part) or they are the same or different! This is from Plato's parmenides 2nd deduction (i would argue 3rd deduction) of the One... However isnt this a general metaphysical principle?... as it applies to any two things... ?

[@Galactagroove]

Thank you for this! Great work. Is there any chance you could do a video explaining the Platonic six causes compared to Aristotle's four? Is the paradigmatic cause basically a higher-order version of the productive and final? Would the instrumental then encompass all the lower 'causes' like a thing's form and matter, and the whole order it is a co-member of? I've been having trouble understanding exactly how they map over each other. Thanks again.

[@ericorwoll]

In attempting that mapping bear in mind that each kind of causation participates of all the others to varying degrees. If you want to consider their natures pure and in themselves (in their proper hypostasis) then you'll find that their essences interpenetrate, since higher orders are more unific. That doesn't hinder classification of apparently separate causal roles though, since certain ratios of participatory influence between the causes persist.

[@thethinredline4714]

Maybe I ask of too much but some kind of graphic explanation would be very helpful at least to me

[@tatsumakisempyukaku]

The ONE is beyond Being, according to the republic, if we say it’s what the Good is.

[@sterrnerdeem4979]

The One isn't 'just' beyond being, it is beyond EVERYTHING. It is utterly, absolutely, simply, definitely beyond being, life, intellect, everything that it emanates. It is unspeakable, unutterable, unknowable, unseeable. It is simply just 'beyond'. Proclus equates The Good with The One though in these 211 propositions, but I forgot which one exactly.

[@thethinredline4714]

Great work Aarvoll , but maybe you should cut up in 20 or so parts to make it more digestible

[@therealmysteryschool]

What's the translation you are using for your video?

[@ericorwoll]

Taylor

[@therealmysteryschool]

@@ericorwoll Is that for any specific reason? Like do you prefer the Taylor translation as opposed to the new one produced by E. R. Dodds?

[@ericorwoll]

@@therealmysteryschool I think Dodds' still has a copyright. Also if you read Dodds' commentary, he's actually pretty hostile to Proclus, I'd rather read from a sympathetic translator.

[@therealmysteryschool]

@@ericorwoll thanks for letting me know, I thought it might be because the Taylor edition didn't have copyright, but I'm surprised to hear that about Dodds. I'm quite confused why someone would translate a book they aren't interested in, or for some reason is hostile to the ideas of the book. I just bought the Dodds translation and if it's as you say I'm going to return it and get the Taylor translation. Thanks again for the advice. In the future I'd love the opportunity to talk to you about Platonism and neoplatonism.

[@philalethes216]

@@ericorwoll What's the readability of Taylor like?

[@user-fw6gc8ls9w]

27:56 something f that imparts self motion to a body : anima psyche

[@Yakovlievich]

“Eric Orwell” Clever

[@bigbingo5837]

why doesn't the multiplicity that devolves from the one not go on forever? (hence devolving into nominalism). There are more souls than intellects and more bodies than souls.

[@understandingplato1134]

It sort of does since matter is infinitely divisible.

[@whit3rabb3t29]

Great effort Now try a different approach. Lege lege relege ora et labora

[@user-yo9pv1ni6t]

Man I do not like Proclus, Give me Iamblichus, But even more Plato. Proclus smacks too much of some sort of mysticism. I HATE all mysticism. Sure Iamblichus has hints of mysticism, but more substance = not as airy. After I complete my Plato studies we should do a YT session together. I am of Gnosis. Gnostic Paul New Orleans

[@kornelszecsi6512]

I love mysticism, I love theurgy, that is why Iamblichus is best.