普罗克洛斯对……第一卷的哲学与数学注疏
- 语言:
- 英语
- 状态:
- 完整作品
- 作者归属:
- 作者本人所著
- 文本状况:
- 未检测到扫描噪点 (对全文的自动评估,未经人工核对)
- 篇幅:
- 约 130,000 词 · 599 个段落
引用本作品
- APA普罗克洛斯. (n.d.). The philosophical and mathematical commentaries of Proclus on the first book of [普罗克洛斯对……第一卷的哲学与数学注疏]. Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/zh/works/proclus/the-philosophical-and-mathematical-commentaries-of-proclus-on-the-first-book-of
- MLA普罗克洛斯. The philosophical and mathematical commentaries of Proclus on the first book of [普罗克洛斯对……第一卷的哲学与数学注疏]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/zh/works/proclus/the-philosophical-and-mathematical-commentaries-of-proclus-on-the-first-book-of.
- Chicago普罗克洛斯. The philosophical and mathematical commentaries of Proclus on the first book of [普罗克洛斯对……第一卷的哲学与数学注疏]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/zh/works/proclus/the-philosophical-and-mathematical-commentaries-of-proclus-on-the-first-book-of.
本条目引用所收录的版本。SigPhi 是数字复制平台。已知的年份、出版者和译者均列出;“n.d.”表示年份未知。
内容简介
普罗克洛为欧几里得《几何原本》第一卷所作的注:它既是一部数学哲学,也是我们所有的关于希腊几何学史的主要史料。
背景与流传
普罗克洛写于公元五世纪,比欧几里得晚八百年;其价值有两重。作为哲学,它主张一个至今仍在争论的立场:数学对象既非世间之物,也非约定;它们存在于想象之中,是灵魂本已具有的那些“理”的投射。作为文献,它含有“几何学家名录”——欧几里得之前几何学史的一份提要,源出欧德谟斯已佚的著作;而这几乎就是我们关于希腊数学发端的全部所知。若无这几页,作为数学家的泰勒斯与毕达哥拉斯将比现在更加晦暗不明。译者为托马斯·泰勒,一七八八年。
这是编辑性背景,不是可引用的来源:与作品本身的段落不同,这些说明无法在语料库中核对。
conceptions. “For, in the first place (says Syrianus[7]), there are no ideas of things evil and base, because these subsist in nature rather by a privation and absence of ideas. And, on this account, they are said to exist contrary to nature. Nor, secondly, of negations, for these are destructive of the bound and limitation which is attributed to every thing from the unifying and comprehending nature of ideas; and hence, separation is rather the result of material infinity than of that which is formal or ideal. Nor again, are there any ideas of things which at different times receive a variety of conditions. For these participate of transmutation from a moveable cause, but not from the immoveable and stable illustration of ideas. Nor again of parts, such as the hand, head, fingers, and the like. For the causes of things existing entire, produce whole species and forms; not divided about the parts of these, like the reasons of nature. But neither did these wise men place in intellect the determinate causes of accidents in bodies, such as sweetness and whiteness. For they considered that natural reasons were sufficient for the production of accidents. Nor again, of composites, as of a wise man. For since ideas are simple, they preside over the simple essence of every thing. But the composition and division of things is the business of our intellect; ideas, at the same time, and that intellection which is co-ordinate to ideas, being exempt from all these, on account of superlative simplicity. Neither, therefore, must we establish ideas of things generated from dissimilars, such as mules; nor of fruit produced by engrafting from different trees. For all these have a posterior and adventitious generation, and are not the work of nature alone, nor of nature proceeding according to her own reasons, but, as it were, compelled to labour contrary to her own determinations.…