کلی و جزئی در فلسفۀ پروکلوس بر اساس کتاب اصول الهیات

پروکلوس اصطلاحات «کل»و «کلی»و نیز «جزء»و «جزئی»را تقریباً به یک معنا و ملازم یکدیگر به کار میبرد و هریک از مبادی را کل و کلی یا جزء وجزئی میخواند. علت آن است که هریک از این مبادی در واقع یک مفهوم است که نسبت به مفاهیم پایینی کلی و نسبت به مفاهیم بالایی جزئی است. پروکلوس رابطۀ کلی و جزئی را همان رابطۀ کل وجزء میداند و از این رو هریک از این مفاهیم کلی را یک کل و مفاهیم جزئی را اجزاء آن میشمارد. درنتیجه در نظر او هریک از مبادی نسبت به مبادی پایینتر کل و کلی و نسبت به مبادی بالاتر جزء وجزئی است. ازآنجا که این مفاهیم در عین حال سلسله‌ای از علل است، پروکلوس این اصطلاحات را به این علل نیز تعمیم میدهد و هریک از این علل را نسبت به معلولهای خود کل و کلی و نسبت به علل خود جزء و جزئی میخواند.

universal and particular in proclus: an analysis based on the elements of theology

proclus broadly uses the terms universal and particular as well as whole and part almost interchangeably, without making a clear distinction based on their fundamental meanings. universal (καθόλου) and particular (κατὰ μέρος) are derived from whole (ὅλον) and part, (μέρος) but they are used independently of those terms in meaning. the meanings of whole and part are quite obvious and well-defined: a whole is something composed of parts, while a part is something that, when combined with other parts, forms a whole.the terms universal and particular, however, have two different common meanings. in the first sense, universal refers to a term or concept like human that can be applied to more than one individual, as opposed to a particular which applies only to a single individual, such as socrates. in the second sense, universal is a broader concept that includes other concepts, and, conversely, particular is a narrower concept within universal. for example, animal is a universal with respect to human, and human is a particular within the broader concept of animal.initially, it might seem that there is no direct connection or correlation between whole and part and universal and particular in any of the meanings mentioned above. however, there may be some relationship between them. generally, it is believed that universal and particular relate to concepts, while whole and part pertain to physical objects. today, we often use universal and particular to compare two concepts and in relation to their instances. among these two, a universal is a term that applies to all instances of a concept, whereas a particular applies only to some instances of that concept.for example, animal is a universal, and human is a particular, since animal applies to all instances of human, but human does not apply to all instances of animal. nonetheless, the relationship between instances of human and animal is one of whole and part, because a collection of animals forms a whole that is larger than and includes the collection of humans. in other words, the set of humans is a part of the broader set of animals, which, combined with other species, makes up the entire collection of animals. based on this, perhaps, in the next stage, the relationship between animal and human could be viewed purely as whole and part, disregarding their instances — meaning that animal could be considered a whole, with human and other species as parts within it.it's important to note that this is, in fact, a kind of analogy; the relationship between concepts is not literally one of part and whole. it's possible that the reason behind the names universal and particular and their derivation from whole and part is precisely this — i.e., the idea that a concept containing other concepts has been likened to a whole, with those concepts as its parts, thus earning the names.it seems that proclus also regards whole and universal as nearly synonymous and often uses the term wholeness (ὁλότης) to refer to both meanings. he employs these terms in relation to principles and forms. he considers principles to be universal and particular because, at their core, these principles are a series of concepts with varying degrees of universality, where each level is more universal than the lower level and more particular than the higher level. for example, unit is a more universal concept than being, and being is more universal than life. conversely, life is particular relative to being, and being is particular relative to unit.he also views each of these concepts as a whole composed of parts, considering them as whole or parts in relation to each other. for instance, being already includes life and intellect, and can be seen as a whole constructed from these parts. for this reason, even when life and intellect appear as independent principles at lower levels, it can still be said that being is a whole relative to them, and they are parts relative to being.on the other hand, proclus considers these concepts as a hierarchy of causes, where each level is the cause of the lower levels and the effect of the higher levels. in this view, all four terms are generalized to causes, which are also called whole and universal, as well as parts and particulars. although these terms are originally characteristics of concepts, applying them to natural or metaphysical causes seems unwarranted.thus, each cause is considered universal relative to its subsequent causes—its effects—and particular relative to its higher causes—its own causes. as a result of this generalization, each cause is a whole composed of parts, which are, in fact, its effects.