Why should we prefer Aristotle’s Physics to Plato’s Timaeus? Simplicius’ response to Proclus

In this paper, I argue that Simplicius’ prologue to his Commentary on the Physics constitutes a deliberate response to the criticisms Proclus directed at Aristotelian physiologia in the prologue to his Commentary on the Timaeus. In the first part of the paper, I examine three main critiques raised by Proclus against Aristotle: (1) Aristotle’s physiologia is inferior to that of Plato because it does not account for the true and higher causes; (2) Aristotle was an imitator of Plato; and (3) Aristotle’s conception of nature is inadequate. In the second part, I show how Simplicius offers precise responses to each of these critiques. For Simplicius, Aristotle’s physiologia, no less than Plato’s, serves as a path to theologia. More than that, he holds that Aristotle surpasses his teacher Plato in five key respects. Aristotle’s superiority is primarily didactic: his greater clarity and precision ensure that those embarking on the philosophical path are not led astray. This is particularly significant for Simplicius, who writes in a time of profound crisis for paganism. Finally, I underline how Simplicius, unlike Proclus, believes that a defense of paganism can only be effective if Aristotle is included – without exception – alongside Plato as a guide for both pagan philosophy and religion.