{"title":"Il male in sé e il nulla in Proclo","authors":"V. Napoli","doi":"10.14746/pea.2020.1.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In his reflection on the nature of evil, the Neoplatonic philosopher Proclus affirms that evil itself (to autokakon) is “also beyond the absolute non-being” (epekeina kai tou mēdamōs ontos). With this assumption, he intends to reinforce the thesis of the non-existence of absolute evil, conceived as totally separate from good, and contrasted with the collateral and parasitic existence of evil mixed with good. He thus maintains a distinction between absolute evil and relative evil, conceived with reference to the distinction between absolute non-being (i.e., nothingness) and relative non-being. In Proclus, the thesis of the non-existence of absolute evil is presented as a necessary consequence of the non-dualist theory of evil in the sphere of a protology that identifies the first Principle of all things in the primary Good (identical to the supra-essential One), and which aims to reconcile the absolute primacy of the latter with the presence of evil in some orders of reality.","PeriodicalId":36201,"journal":{"name":"Peitho","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Peitho","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/pea.2020.1.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In his reflection on the nature of evil, the Neoplatonic philosopher Proclus affirms that evil itself (to autokakon) is “also beyond the absolute non-being” (epekeina kai tou mēdamōs ontos). With this assumption, he intends to reinforce the thesis of the non-existence of absolute evil, conceived as totally separate from good, and contrasted with the collateral and parasitic existence of evil mixed with good. He thus maintains a distinction between absolute evil and relative evil, conceived with reference to the distinction between absolute non-being (i.e., nothingness) and relative non-being. In Proclus, the thesis of the non-existence of absolute evil is presented as a necessary consequence of the non-dualist theory of evil in the sphere of a protology that identifies the first Principle of all things in the primary Good (identical to the supra-essential One), and which aims to reconcile the absolute primacy of the latter with the presence of evil in some orders of reality.
在他对邪恶本质的反思中,新柏拉图主义哲学家普罗克劳斯肯定了邪恶本身(对autokakon来说)“也超越了绝对的非存在”(epekeina kai tou mēdamōs ontos)。有了这个假设,他打算加强绝对邪恶不存在的论点,认为绝对邪恶与善完全分离,并与恶与善混合的附带和寄生存在形成对比。因此,他坚持绝对恶和相对恶的区别,这是根据绝对非存在(即无)和相对非存在的区别来理解的。在《普罗克罗斯》中,绝对邪恶不存在的命题,是作为一种非二元论邪恶理论的必然结果,在本体论的范围内,将所有事物的第一原则确定为初级善(与超本质的一相同),其目的是调和后者的绝对首要地位与邪恶在某些现实秩序中的存在。