The Commentaries on the Timaeus of Plato — trans. Thomas Taylor

For receiving from sense or conjecture the ors, or (hata thing is, it thus explains causes. But these kinds of knowledge, have much of the confused and unstable. Hence Sucrates in the Phado reprehends sense in many respects, because we neither hear nor see any thing accurately.

How, therefore, can the knowledge which originates from sense possess the accurate and the irreprehensible? | For the powers which use science alone, comprehend the whole of the thing known with accuracy ; but those that energize with sense, are deceived, and deviate from accuracy, on account of sense, and because the object of knowledge is unstable. For with respect to that which is material, what can any one say of it, since it is always changing and flowing, and is not naturally adapted to abide fora moment, But that which is celestial, in consequence of being remote from us, is not casily known, nor to be apprehended by science, but we must be satistied in the theory of it, with an approximation to the truth, and with probability [instead of certainty}. For every thing which is in place, requires the being situated there, in order to a perfect knowledge of its nature. The intelligible, however, is nota thing of this kind; since it is not apprehended by us in place. For wherever any one establishes his dianoetic energy, there, truth being every where present, he comes into contact with it. But if it is possible to assert any thing firm and stable about that which is celestial, this also is possible so faras it participates of being, and so far as it can be apprehended by intelligence. For if any thing necessary ean be collected concerning it, it is alone through geometrical demonstrations which are universal. But so far as it is sensible, it is difficult to be apprehended, and difficult to. be surveyed. And thus much concerning there particulars. .

Some one, however, may doubt, how it can be any longer said to be difficult to discover the Demiurgus, and impossible when found to speak of him to all men, since we are able to employ stable, immutable, and irreprehensible language about the paradigm? Or is not that which.is said about the Demiurgus, in a much

p. 292

Or is not that which.is said about the Demiurgus, in a muchp. 292 greater degree adapted to the paradigm itself? For it is much more difficult to discover the latter than the former, and when found to speak of it to all men. Neither, however, does Plato deny that scientific language may be employed about the Demiurgus, nor about any other of the natures that subsist always invariably the same. For in what does Plato differ from other physiologists, except in exhibiting the science pertaining to divine natures? But if he particularly reminds us of this in the Demiurgic cause, that itis difficult to find it, we ought not to wonder. For he knew, as it appears to me, that other physiologists tronsfer the effective cause to physical powers. Hence that we may not be affected in’ the same way as they were, he shows that the Demiurgic principle is difficult to be found, and difficult tobe known. And this much in answer to the doubt.

Plato however in many places admits the truth of beings, conformably to theologists. For aniform truth (or truth characterized by unity] is of one kind, and is the light proceeding from the good, which, as he says in the Philebus, imparts purity, and as he says in che Republic, union to intelligibles. The truth proceeding from intelligibles, is of another kind, and illuminates the intellectual orders, which the essence that is without figure, without colour, and without contact primarily receives, where, also, as itis written in the Phadrus, the plan of truth is situated. Another kind of truth is that whichis connarcent with souls, which comes into contact with being through intelligence, and is) conjoined through science with the objects of science. For the psychical hight, may be said to be as in the extension of breadth the third from = the intelligible; the intellectual breadth being filled from the intelligible, but the psychical from the intellectual. This truth, therefore, which is in souls, is that, which must now be assumed, since we likewise assume this faith, and not that which is irrational, and separated from all rational animadversion, The one also must be conjoined to intelligibles, but the other to sensibles.

“ You must not wonder, therefore, O Socrates, if asserting many things about many concerning the Gods, and the generation of the universe, I should not be able to employ language in every respect accurate and consistent with itself.”

Timeus first exhibits the hypotheses of the whole of physiology, and collects the lemmas pertaining to the theory of it; the latter being three, but the former five. In the second place, he defines the mode of the discussion. And in theΠΟΟΚ 41.} TIM.EUS OF PLATO. 293 - third place, he prepares the auditor to receive in a proper manner the discourse which he is about to make. For it is necessary that he should not expect to

In the second place, he defines the mode of the discussion. And in theΠΟΟΚ 41.} TIM.EUS OF PLATO. 293 - third place, he prepares the auditor to receive in a proper manner the discourse which he is about to make. For it is necessary that he should not expect to hear perfectly accurate arguments in’ physical discussions, nor sach as are truly scientific, but such as are assimilated to them. 11 is besides this requisite he should know, that as the world is mingled from physical powers and an intellectual and divine essence; for “ physical works, as the Oracle says, co-subsist with the intellectual light of the father = thus also the disenssion of it, makes a commixture of faith and trath, Por things which are assumed) from sense participate largely of conjectural discussion; but things which commence from intelligibles possess that which ds irreprehensible, avd cannot be confuted. For when we say of the Demiurgus himself, that he consults, that he energizes dianoetically, and that he makes these things prior to those, we relingtish the trath ofthings. So thatif when speaking of eternal beings, and showing how they provide for the universe, we are compelled to divide that which is impartible, and to inake that which is eternal temporal, much more will the assertions res specting sensibles themselves be deficient in accuracy [and truth]. What then, someone may say, do we not speak accurately concerning the heavens when we say, thatthe circles inthe bisect each other? Butdo we notfall off from accuracy, when we are satisfied, not with the accurate, but with an approximation to it, in consequence of our tmbecility, and not on account of the nature of the thing? Or, also, when we receive indeed, principles from sense, yet is it not from universal reasons? ‘The assertions therefore, respecting the heavens, as in intelligibles, exhibit the irreprehensible; bat as in objects of belief, they also are reprehended through immaterial forms. Consider then this very thing which is now asserted, that the greatest circles in the Heavens bisect each other. [sy it not necessary that the section should be according to points? But a point isimpartible. What, therefore, is there of this kind ina partible nature? What is there without inter yal in a nature distended with interval?) For every thing which subsists in a physical body, is co-divided with its subject. What, then, is there not likewise a physical point? This however relinquishes that which is truly impartible, and is a point indeed, in physical substances, but is not simply a point. So that what is said of a point, is not accurately adapted to a thing of this kind. In short, as the assertions concerning intelligibles, are not adapted to dianoetic objects, so neither is what is said of scientific objects adapted to sensibles. For intelligibles are the paradigms of dianoetic natures, and dianoetic natures of sensibles. For

p. 204