Out of the later Neo-Platonists (i.e. post Plotinus), I think that Proclus is probably the most interesting and the most systematic and novel. I say "probably" because a number of the works of Iamblichus and Porphyry are no longer extant, so it is difficult to reach an absolute conclusion as to what their systems consisted of. There is no question that Proclus was influenced by both of them, but he seems to have been more systematic than either.

Proclus has been regarded by scholars as having had an indirect affect on Christian mysticism, so I have had an interest in reading him for some time. He is regarded as the ultimate source behind the system of the Pseudo-Dionysius. After reading this, I can definitely see that being the case to a degree. In truth, though, Christian mysticism has always utilized the language of Platonism. It would be a mistake to say that there weren't differences, however. Differences are notable even in this work. While Christian mysticism accepted the negative theology (i.e. apophaticism) of Neo-Platonism, it's in the positive theology (i.e. kataphaticism) of Christian mysticism where one finds the most pronounced differences. One of the factors that plays into this is Platonism's theology of the One. In both Platonism and Neo-Platonism, the One is transcendent and above being, and thus, a purely negative theological component. This is in contrast to Christianity where the New Testament has set the standard of the One as being imminent and also synonymous with "being" (Greek: to on) in it's essence (ousia). It's also one of the differences I have personally had with Platonism. I feel that for a One to be a sign of all consequent unity, it must also be imminent and an actual component of being. I think Platonism's focus on the negativity of absolute transcendence seems to relate more to Zero than to One. This does bring up the interesting discussion of what exactly the theological relationship is between Zero and One. I won't explore that here though. Suffice it to say that this question relates to Christianity's insistence on a Divine Trinity.

What was nice about this edition of Proclus' Metaphysical Elements (also called Elements of Theology in the Dodds edition) is that the editor/translator has provided a very helpful diagram for reference. Proclus' theosophy (I think one can legitimately call it that) seems to have a strong similarity to Kabbalah (one can hardly doubt Kabbalism's dependence on Neo-Platonism, Hermeticism and Gnosticism anyway). The break down of Proclus' system of emanations is a triadic aggregation. The system of emanations has it's hyparxis in the One ultimately, although the One can not be the source of direct participation. After the One is where the triadic model begins. Subsequent to the One is the unfolding of plurality. "Being" is at the top most rung of the triadic system, followed by "beings" and "life"; then proceeds "lives" and "intellect"; then "intellects" and "soul"; then "souls" and "body"; and then "bodies" and "matter." It seems that the forms (eidos) unfold from an undifferentiated unity somewhere in the hyparxis, but where exactly I don't think Proclus addressed directly in this work.

It seems fairly plain that no composite being can have any kind of relationship with Proclus' One. The best they can hope for is a relationship with the cosmic deities (e.g. Zeus, Apollo, etc). In the end, Proclus' negative theology wins out and the One God remains absolutely transcendent and unreachable. While the Pseudo-Dionysius does contain a lot of those apophatic elements, Christian mysticism is the most valid (not to mention Christian) only when it seeks to balance apophatic with kataphatic theology. The best Christian mystics did this successfully. Pseudo-Dionysius still struggled with this; Tauler, Ruusbroec, Suso, etc, were superior in this regard.

This edition is based on the translation of Thomas Taylor--although Thomas Johnson (a notable follower of Taylor's and a theosophist also) made some emendations of the text of Taylor's. Johnson also provided the fragments of Ammonius Saccas and also provided a useful diagram, as I mentioned above. He also provided some notes from Taylor and others that are elucidative. I don't have any complaints about the edition.

To sum up, I think this work of Proclus is incredibly interesting. I've mentioned some of my main issues with it, and if one keeps those in mind, I have no problem recommending Proclus as a noteworthy philosopher. He is also probably the most important Neo-Platonist after Plotinus. ( )