{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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 \r\nheavens from the fifth element, the aether. Proclus argues for the Platonic view (Timaeus \r\n40a) that the heavenly bodies are composed of all four elements, with fire predominating. \r\nI think that his discussion exhibits all the methodological features that we find admirable \r\nin Aristotle\u2019s largely a priori proto-science. Proclus\u2019 treatment of the question in his \r\ncommentary on Plato\u2019s Timaeus also provides the fullest statement of a neoplatonic \r\nalternative to the Aristotelian theory of the elements. As such, it forms a significant part of \r\na still largely underappreciated neoplatonic legacy to the history of science. [authors abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M34EGiOeJdMYBkH","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"]}