This debate, I shall argue, has everything to do with Aristotle. Aristotle raises the charge of epiphenomenalism himself against a theory that seems to have close affinities to his own, and he offers what has the makings of an emergentist response. This leads to controversy within his own school. We find opponents ranged on both sides, starting with his own pupils, several of whom are stout defenders of epiphenomenalism, and culminating in the developed emergentism of later commentators. Aristotle’s theory and (...) the debate that ensued are thus quite relevant to contemporary discussions. But first we need to get clear on terms. (shrink)

Galen's æuvre presents a remarkably varied body of texts–varied in subject matter, style, and didactic purpose. Logical tracts sit alongside tomes of drug–lore; handbooks of dietetics alongside anatomical investigations; treatises of physiology alongside ethical opuscula. These differences in type have received some, though as yet insufficient, scholarly attention. Mario Vegetti demonstrated the coexistence of two ‘profili’ or images of the art of medicine: Galen presents the art as an Aristotelian deductive science, on the one hand, and as a technician's craft, (...) on the other. The former image, offering an ambitious elevation of the doctor's cultural status, has medicine as a philosophical episteme analogous to the mathematical sciences, exercised above all to provide causal accounts and logical demonstrations, and centred on the knowledge of anatomy. The second image is that of the clinician, concerned with the body in its pathological manifestations and using as its prime model the ‘pre-anatomical’ theory of the humours. And the content of the treatises shifts in relation to this dual image: ‘profilo alto’ and ‘profilo basso’ are reflected in different types of work. Polemical writings such as the Protrepticus, as well as the great treatises of anatomy and physiology, De usu partium and De naturalibus facultatibus, present medicine in the former light, while works like De temperamentis or Quod animi mores base themselves on humoral pathology and accord with the earlier, artisan-like image. (shrink)

Galen's æuvre presents a remarkably varied body of texts–varied in subject matter, style, and didactic purpose. Logical tracts sit alongside tomes of drug–lore; handbooks of dietetics alongside anatomical investigations; treatises of physiology alongside ethical opuscula. These differences in type have received some, though as yet insufficient, scholarly attention. Mario Vegetti demonstrated the coexistence of two ‘profili’ or images of the art of medicine: Galen presents the art as an Aristotelian deductive science, on the one hand, and as a technician's craft, (...) on the other. The former image, offering an ambitious elevation of the doctor's cultural status, has medicine as a philosophical episteme analogous to the mathematical sciences, exercised above all to provide causal accounts and logical demonstrations, and centred on the knowledge of anatomy. The second image is that of the clinician, concerned with the body in its pathological manifestations and using as its prime model the ‘pre-anatomical’ theory of the humours. And the content of the treatises shifts in relation to this dual image: ‘profilo alto’ and ‘profilo basso’ are reflected in different types of work. Polemical writings such as the Protrepticus, as well as the great treatises of anatomy and physiology, De usu partium and De naturalibus facultatibus, present medicine in the former light, while works like De temperamentis or Quod animi mores base themselves on humoral pathology and accord with the earlier, artisan-like image. (shrink)

"The 'Geschichte des Aristotelismus' (3 Bände, 1971-2001), which is the product of Paul Moraux's many decades of research on Aristotle and the Aristotle archive he founded, is a masterpiece of the history of philosophy that serves to set standards." Prof. Dr. Bernd Seidensticker.

RésuméCet article se propose de reconstruire une partie du livre IV du traité perdu Sur la démonstration de Galien à partir des témoignages transmis par Abū Bakr al-Rāzī dans les Doutes sur Galien, et d'une source encore jamais exploitée, la Solution aux Doutes sur Galien de Abū al-ʿAlāʾ ibn Zuhr. L'hypothèse à laquelle nous sommes parvenue est que, dans le livre IV, Galien revient sur le caractère indécidable de la question de l’éternité du monde, et critique la démonstration donnée par (...) Aristote dans le traité Du Ciel, I. Seul un des arguments d'Aristote, qui occupe le court passage I, 3, 270b12–17, lui semble pouvoir être sauvé, car il est fondé sur des indications empiriques. C'est sur ce passage que se concentre al-Rāzī. Cette reconstruction permet de réduire les contradictions entre les fragments du livre IV transmis par Philopon dans Contre Proclus sur l’éternité du monde et le compte rendu d'al-Rāzī. Enfin, cet article montre que si al-Rāzī porte autant d'intérêt à ce passage chez Galien, ce n'est pas seulement à des fins polémiques, mais afin de servir ses propres objectifs philosophico-théologiques. Les objections d'al-Rāzī montrent qu'il considère que la téléologie galénique est adossée à un arrière-fond éternaliste qui ne lui permet pas de reconnaître la primauté de la théodicée pour la cosmologie comme pour la biologie. (shrink)

What, for Galen, are powers, and how are they to be properly individuated? The notion of a power or capacity does a great deal of work in Galen. As in Aristotle, the concept of a dunamis is tightly linked with that of an energeia, but these are not simply logical abstractions. Rather the natural energeiai are the basic functional activities of the animal body and its parts, and just as health consists in proper functioning, so disease is defined as ‘damage (...) to one of the natural energeiai of the body’, and these activities are damaged when something interferes with its related dunamis. Here I try to make sense of the apparently very different things Galen says regarding dunameis. For example, he says that they do not inhabit our bodies as we do our houses; that is, presumably, they are not substantial or hypostasized; rather they are properties of us. Equally, he is perfectly clear that they are relational items: a power is a power for affecting something determinate in some determinate way. They. (shrink)

This debate, I shall argue, has everything to do with Aristotle. Aristotle raises the charge of epiphenomenalism himself against a theory that seems to have close affinities to his own, and he offers what has the makings of an emergentist response. This leads to controversy within his own school. We find opponents ranged on both sides, starting with his own pupils, several of whom are stout defenders of epiphenomenalism, and culminating in the developed emergentism of later commentators. Aristotle’s theory and (...) the debate that ensued are thus quite relevant to contemporary discussions. But first we need to get clear on terms. (shrink)

Bd. 1. Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im 1. Jh. v. Chr.

In this work, new light is thrown on the philosophical method of the great Stoic Chrysippus on the basis of the fragments preserved by Galen in his De Placitis books II-III. Included is a study of Galen's aims and methodologies.