{"_index":"sire","_id":"962","_score":null,"_source":{"id":962,"authors_free":[{"id":1444,"entry_id":962,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What goes up: Proclus against Aristotle on the fifth element","main_title":{"title":"What goes up: Proclus against Aristotle on the fifth element"},"abstract":"In this paper, I consider Proclus\u2019 arguments against Aristotle on the composition of the heavens from the fifth element, the aether. Proclus argues for the Platonic view (Timaeus 40a) that the heavenly bodies are composed of all four elements, with fire predominating. I think that his discussion exhibits all the methodological features that we find admirable in Aristotle\u2019s largely a priori proto-science. Proclus\u2019 treatment of the question in his commentary on Plato\u2019s Timaeus also provides the fullest statement of a Neoplatonic alternative to the Aristotelian theory of the elements. As such, it forms a significant part of a still largely underappreciated Neoplatonic legacy to the history of science. [author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tOMemjPbvEoCytl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":962,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Australasian Journal of Philosophy","volume":"80","issue":"3","pages":"261-287"}},"sort":["What goes up: Proclus against Aristotle on the fifth element"]}