Science and Speculation Studies in Hellenistic theory and practice edited by Cambridge University Press Ceminige Condon New York New Rese Melbourne Sydney Eivons de ls Maison des Sciences de Homie ParisIndy hon Sy he set of ae Contents {© Mason dos Sens eon : ind in Gr Br ee ta Pes Ba Pus Victor Goldechmide pr Lika of Congres algo cd amber 82-021 Inunuction Jonathan Barnes Bibliographies nore a ih Lary Caen ao Date Chronos table = theory and peice ‘The method ofthe so-called Methodial schoat of 1 Rim ona Michael Frode Pin soran ae 2 Mane, experienc and loge 3 Geomeery and sep 4 Forcect science de machines , Francois De Gande CNS, Pos * 45 Obserentional err in ates Grck scence Inatitate GER Lloyd King Cale, Cobre a Mist. ed, (6 Astlogy-arguments pond contra, AA. Long Unies of Lvepa! 6s 17 Thecrigin of nondeducive inference MP Burnyes Robina Calege Contre ws David Sedey Cris Calle, Cambie ae 9 Confematon et diconimation JeancPaat Dumont Unvene DeLte a 1 Ta thtori pcaienne droit | ‘Victor Golda Unies Pit x Indexes) Passages 32, (8) Gene index 3, (ip index nd onary of Crock terms 349In memoriam VICTOR GOLDSCHMIDT (1924-1981) Ce volume était sous presse lorsque nous avons appris a brusque dispartion de Vitor Goldschmide, le 2s septembre 19st. Ce tmatre discret etcelebre, dont chage live a fait date en France dak crept, aver breccoup de splice et de gentile, de patronner” ev travaux de notte Conférence, e¢ dy participer sevivement, En prenant connaissance de textes gi avait bien ‘oul nous confer, nos lecteurs pourtont voir guele place iy sit rene. Ce qui ne postront pas mesirer ase directement, est Peffne ieligence et amie qui avait su fourm, pour omprendreet pour se fire comprendte, par dl les differences ‘Tage, de Langue, deformation, de style intlecsel patos. De ‘méme, et pls généralement, on pet laser paler pou ell-méme fon ower, dans son shondanee et civersté Ils Get sor Phton, sur les Stoiciens, sur Epicure, mais aussi sur Mentesquie, Rowssca, beavcoup dates; a wele de 4 mort, asi res § son éditeur le manuscrit d'un livee sur Aristoe, Ces cavan enigents et subtls,ob la densité ali la rgueur, sont comme les ests dune méthode qu'il n'a pas cesé de mesiter td sppro= fonui: Mais il appartien 4 ceux qui ont commu et aimé ce penseur probe et sccrirement passonng, cet homme intatable ee qs Sait Gre exguis, Phonorer ss mémoire et de temoigne, sis Te peuvent, de Texeiple qui leur hisse bs. ye. MED. Ms.Préface Le regain d'intrée pour Ia poséehellnistique pourrait sexpli- aqet de prime abord par des esisons modestement philologigues {Quand H. Usener, en 1887, publi ses Epes i prend son, ds In premiére page dela preface, de nous arte que ce nes pas "admiration de ly philosophic épcurinne™ qui a motivé son travail, mais seulement, "sine gil arrive 3 us grammaccn Tobscarté et les dlficulés qu'il avait renconttees chee Diogene Liste, C'est instigation d Usener que). vom Armin entreprend ‘collection des fragments stleens et, son tour, nous prevent (ui sest surtout atagué 3 Cheysippe “qui avait té néglige tuparavant. Cet intr pilologigue-pour des textes insuiisamn- sent Edits se manifeste de nos jours das les enteprises, encore fn cours, de refonte dees dou recosil, et dans des Aitons nouvelles, comme elles de Palystate, de Philodéme. de Diogene ‘TOsnoanda, de Panctis, de Posidon, es I n'y surat done tien qui excéderait le taigences de Térudiion, pts pls, par exemple, que dans Ia curtsité que suscent, depuis quelque temps, les texes de base Epoque, comme la Seconde Sophstiqu, avec Libaniue et Ais Arttde, ou encore pope tative, avec {Quintus de Smyme os Nonnos de Panopolis, ‘Cate explication, recevable en un sens, serait maniferement incompltse: Catenion accordéeaujourd hui la pense helens= qe et bien ordre doctrinal, et cest de cea gl fut esayer de rendre compte. Sagissant de philosophic, on pourrait y_ voir bord ne reaction conte le jugement de Hegel qos avai ‘isquli edogmatane ee xpicame comme dex doce dea “conscience de 0, comme on “Tormalivme de Tentendement” yr ave trouve un dela certain pur apport 3 Fanistotlsme glx Prete Iu, et une “pilosophie du concept”. Ce jugement a && ints pre, plore que diseuté, par Marx, dans sa dissertation sur La iirence de la phdsophi de la matte dee Dimocte et Epowe (@84o)- Mare essie décaizer, i la lumiére de la plosophie rseque, son propre risen, Comme apres more Aistot, om Sssiste, apres h more de Hegel, apparition dune "mddiocrte™ 4 Tenerée en sce de “demsspie”(polemigque conte les jeunes higdben, en particulier, Ruge). Mai autre pat, les doctrines hellnistigues "ne sontelles pas les prototypes de esprit romain [Hegel Paved dtl forme sous lnguele La Gre emigre 3 Rome?” (come rAdhines de Thémistocl a change elements sagt awtrement di, de ransplanter ls philosophie (i, em tant aque tele, est aus indépassable aprés Hegel quelle Pa apres ‘Anstote) de son element tradisonnel (a pensée pure) dans xt ‘lement nouveau quest lr "prans poliague et économique’ (Lawith, On ne saurst donc invoquer Is distention de 1840 pour seormer le verdict hégich et pour wouver un antécédent ‘entable de Is favcur aciclletemoignee ls philosophic post 2stoficeane. Tout au plus, dans cet ordre des, poreacon tentionner des auteurs marristes miners gi essen de trouver ther Epicure de quo! conforter le matérlisme ce Tathesme, et tentent de ier du cinguieme chant de Luctéce une philosophic du progrds et du sens de Fhistoite. Rien de tout cla ne conceme, Fépicurisme, i Pacualite de la pense hellensique De fig, Pinte renansant, snon pour cette pense en général, du moins pour cele des Stoicens, est bien due une réaction, non pas contre Hegel directement, mais conte un de ses lives, Phistoren de laogigue C. Prat. Cee réction, comme on doit le noter par parenthise, ext ailleurs beascoup mieux fondéc alors que appreciation héglienne des Ecoles heléistiqus garde tne portée philosophique ceraine ema du reste Jamas ee propremene refute, le jugement que Pan a por su ls logge Stoicenne temoigne d'une remarguable incomprehension et ne onsite plus gucre qu'une curont historique. Or Finisar de fe revitement est le logicien polomais J. Eukaiewice. Dans une ‘evi Warticles, 3 partir de 1920 (ris dans les Sele Works) et dhns son ouveage de 1951 sue La sllgistigue @ Arise d point de ued a lagu frmlle made, is cr tower chez les Stociens [Ethise de bivalence, un calc propositonne] avee des variables, des conncteursbinsies es résultats ont 6 confimés et earge Price (par une confrontation, en parce, del sémantigue soiiense vec calle de Frege) par H. Scholz, 1M. Bochenski pis dans les fades de Benson Mates (Stic Logi (Berkely, 1953), de W. et M. Kneale (The Development of Logie (Oxford, 1962). t faut essayer de comprendee I signification et la portée de er eavatx thins histoire ds stoeisme et de som exits. Le soicme, sans dout, avait pis besoin d'tre découvert CGicéron et Sénésue en ont asiré fn transmission a travers le moyen age occidental le XVle site voit renalre um néor Stoicsme, physique avec Pomponaza éthique avec Juste Lise, Grallaume du Vatr, Charron; pis tard les ides de droit naturel et deeligion natutllesappuien sur le sticsme, et laboration de Inconscince morale moderne, de Descartes 3 Kast, em pasar par Spinors, ze congitdificlement sans Timpulson stoksenn; cet flan ne est gure rales depois lors: om em trouverie dex témoignages chez Schopenhauer et Niewsche. chez Taine et Renan, cher Emerson etjusque chee A. Malraux Mai ce est pas du tout de cela quil Sagi ‘Ge que découvre et naugure la date de 19st ~ date prise ich syimboliquement = c'est quelque chose d'enttrement difzen: ‘ahabiitationscentiigue da srolisme, cest-i-dire Punique label Sq pussegacantir st valeur actuelle ct st mrt stention de a Fensée contemporaine. On savat bien que dept du jagement de Kant ls lopigue avait progress depuis Arstote. Ce qu'on croysit oir maintenant, c'est que ces progets avaient dé ee, sinon compli, ds moins cbauchés et anskipés parla logiguesticen- he, a ecemiment ts vivement ena en magpie. Autrement dt a Philosophie scientifique contemporaine, peu interesée, en tant fe tlle,histoite del philosophic, vent daccorder ce seus fystime son dinar fare le Huron seat fit son entrée dans la Soci Royale Tes consésuences de cete promotion sont considerable, Essayons dem indiquer seulement ex plus apparenes, ‘Le stolcisme, fe vei, le scieniiquement valabe ct gui, seu avait benéfice de cette rehabilitation, «eat a logique. Du coup. fon etait debarasé de sa. physique archaiqu, avec 5 theses ‘ncceptables, tlles le ftalisme (le "Germinisme™, avait dit Uakanewice) of le Retour emel, Débaerassé aussi des monte peste: on pouvait enfin avoucrfanchement ue cll de 'épo- {gue imperil ne surat engender qu'un "ennui monumental” ei Pee ‘suicide raisonnable” de Zénon ne passsi gute raison ‘Da point de vue de Texégés: psc la logique stoicenne fours une Confimation da cles! proposonnel et de la sémantique fregéenne, cst donc qu'il état lege, en retour appliquer 3 la lecture des textes stofciens les tequsitons see ttigues moderne, c'ese-die, par suite ane cononction dont i faudrait debrouller les orgies diverse: logigue symbligue, Philosophie analytigue et aussi la linguissque. L'acwalte di Stoiismte confrmit donc ce disciplines, no pas sulement tant que tells, mais en ant instruments exagetiques, I n'est is lonnant qu's partie de ly Tapplicition on at te ite & des En ce qui concer Vhistote de It philosophic: deux ides semblient se dégager de ces wavaux. Celle de progrés, abot ‘ar malgré tous set mites, lt Togiguestoceune n'égale pas en perfection b ndere. Mais ide dé wert cerned tout aan il n'y 2 pas eu progression continue, du Porsigue aux ceoles contempo- ‘anes, ef cependant!'un et les tres temo de la meme vee (Cee done ql ya, comme om a pale dre, une lag pernisqu pourrait scvir, a gre des auteurs, i fonder tne. pilsophie owns. Uhistire, pat li, si elle est pas bilfee comme tlle oppose done aucune objection préjudicille 2 une lecture im miétiate, directs, des textes antiques, et nous astrie 3 ger eux apres notre standard de went My aa come un eur AThistoriograpie tellequele cat praiqace @ Arto 4 Hegel: epuis le postivisme et Te développement des disciplines histor ques e¢ philologigues, il avait fll, en face une doctane du pussé, ¢ demander @abord ce quiavait woul dire Tauter fuparavant, et maintenant de nouven i list dese demander slelle dat vrac, Cete entieprise est belle, sans dowte lle mest pas sins pis ‘Ce seri une question de savoir st le mot de wei se pred, de parece d'autee dans wn sens univaque, et si notre fonction de ‘été peut saecorder avec ee queles oles hellenstiques spelen. trite de la verte. On sintrrogert de mee sur Tide que nous nous fisons,aujourdhs. dla pilosophi par rapport al "are de vivre" eta Tidal da sage: on encore sur le septcieme qu, certs, rows part immédiatemene accesible dans les gros tates de Sextus, mais qu, 'abord, + €t un mode de ve pour Python et NS Préfiee is {qui sera tansposé dans coe Gpicurenne comme une technic en vue de seis des dirs. On pourri se demander encore tle ttutementauqeel nous soumettons souvent les divers theses des docernes ne renouvele pas Te procédé de a doxographie ate {gui conssat 3 découper chague doctrine en tranches bien datne= tes, en dogma, alors que les soicienssvaient cone let piles sophie comme un ensemble organique, commun vet dont {eutes les thisesrontenchalngs les unc au ates pat Teaigenee 4e implication réipogue. Ines ps st nom pls que leur logge pulse étre comprise isolément et en clleméme, ce gui tak peut-te Tavs de "hércgue” Herilus de Carthage, alors que Forthodovie de Ecole ne esse dfirmeremphatiguetnent gue la logiguc est une pari (et non un ogeon préalable edtachable) de la philosophie; on peut douter, enfin, qe le formalism moderne sok bien propre 3 interpreter une logsque qui “place av come ‘mencement br theove de a repréenaton et de a sensation” (DL ma). {es travaux de Lukasiewice ont plac I logiquestoiciemne dans lecolimateur de actualté. Le regain d'nttet pout la philosophie hellnistgue en général ex dt d'autres causes encore, moins alsémene deelables (négligeane ii dex causes contingentes, com ine ls découverte des papyrus dont on benefice surtout les Eudes écaiennes). On ne peat guere hasarder Indesit que des eonjecire, 1G generation qui, sprés lk more de Hegel, sat demande coment i it possible de philosopher encore, ex recone on Ua rappelé tout a There, dans les efforts de la. pensce postarisodlicenne. Il semble qu't nous aust, Is philosophic hellénstigue tende un mivie, méme snows ite prenons, pas toujours phisie 1 nous regarder, Nous aussi sommes partages entre le dogmatisme ele seepicsme, comme entre deux proper sions qu'il ne sufi ps de délaeecomplémentstes, parce gules ne déinssent plus, comme che les Gres, des postions philo- Sophiques chairs elles se joignent souvent et parts se confident thee un méme auteur, mis elles resent en cut de guerre permanence parce que, pls que la reflexion sceptigue quien un Sens, est la plilosophie meme, le dogmatisme est "la chose di monde Ia miewx partagée", encore qu'il soit rarement aveue hi imme reconnu par les dogmatistes-mémes. Plus précsément encore iy a deus eondances das a pilosophic hlleistique,qutiv Pitice ne épanouiront gue phos tard, mais qui y sont ds Tabord pent: le syncretism (ben avant qu'Antiochus ne Te mete en Eystime), 3 quoi correspond cher nous un certain oecuméaisme {hl aes pas sculement ordre ehologigue; et le mouvement prepare pil propagande ca large ouvermure des Ecoles, qui shouria ils philosophic popuaie (dont Seneque, pls tar, era le represenant le pls émisent, comme Tetait, 4 notre cpogue Surat), Hy 4 autre chose encore, L'époque hellnistique, par opponiton 4 la patode précédente, offre un tit paradowal: alors que se metten en place échelle mondiale (mais égionale aus then i Athénes, cm particulier) den régimes monarchigues et sutocratigues(dictatrtau, si Ton péfere, on "presidente, on Bsn (ce oi eat pa encore le cs, dans cs proportions, ds Temps dex sophistes) 2 une véritable democratisation de Ta pilo~ sophie: dune autre manite que Academie et le Péxpato, ex fcoles bellnistigues (et cynigus) astiment, se népandent das toute Fikoumend, et procament sve ln philosophic ex I afaire de tows. Par conto-coup, Is plosaphie risque de omber au vest des mieux of elle pretend milter: elle hit parte de [a culute iénérale, prend la defense ds “opinions dela foule™ (Polysteate) et meme, dans Ia Rhvorigue de Philodéme, professe son enter ftcord avee ces “opinions”; Plutarque traaforme let “notions communes” de Chrysippe en sne pilosophie du sens commun, Ten réslke fon depit ds penchant de cote cpogue pour It spécialisaton et pout Térudtion) une espece de’ promotion de Trsager, poor ne pas dire di roommater nimporte uy 3 Ik limite, peut avoir ds ides sur des questions philosophies et la shtorique aidan, ls exposer sans encourit lerdal, discuter de Plainpied avec les grands ancetres comme svce des collégues Ignares:Plton avait redouté le combat avec Parménide comme un ftnde", mais Epicure irate sans figons Demonte. de ‘avard” ct Pyerhon de "vaste ignorant” Quant aus genie créateurs qui pas plus que de notte temps, ne sone des philo= sophes, suis Fappelent Eucide, Archimde, Apollonia, ils prennent leurs distances, et Eratosthene revendique le ate de Savant philogr), de pee ere confonds dans ce que Rowsseat devaiappeler la “Youtbe philosopesgue Pourguoi ce brusque imterét pour ls philosophes hllnisiques? Si cest pour y reuouver notre propte verte ~ qui devai se nourir dellezméme et w!svoir pas besoin de se chercher des Pife 0 Ves En rent et ete ext hemi Fon pout die tndete. ee méme visement nr. ans quan le vot es ‘fos instants pou pester ce hiosophs comme le dan {de prsenter I “omtologie” @’Anisow comme one ébasche ant Sipe, encore que malhsbl, de bs philosophic malig). Comme on Tx dt sil: "En dala Te Portia 3 (Ecole FAs, ok lavant ds reproche de decadence, nos geome ena notte propre apologe , pr une analog ace, enone de tote pester que spate du Xe sie Gist pourra le $a treue pi out | ft indigne des grands noms ul Tow prion” Tes echerches au I scence ct a philosophic eénitigues peovent done se comprendre comme un df lneé 3. Hegel: FProvvr qve is mort Parson's pas ar eprops plo- TGphigu, sel more de Hegel (Se Huser t de ssl ne {ide ps nous emptcher favor onfanceen mote prope o= fophe. Ce fe ps la ponte ds Gree ul exe ate! Cent consents "En ce snn, le thimeappaemment hiorique de notre ellogue pours proces dune tg autheniquementphioophigee ‘Vitor Goldschmige‘Acknowledgements This book isthe fruit of conference on Hellenistic philosophy ain! science bed in Pai tthe CallegeFranco-Britanmige inthe Gite Universitaire ffom 2-10 September 1980. The conference vets a successor tothe mosting in Oxford whose proceedings were published in Dowie and Degmation, ed. Schofield, Burnvest and Barnes (Oxford, 1980). Prolesor Victor Goldschmide presided ‘over the dscsions ofthe parsiipans Jonathan Barnes, Jacques Brunschwig, Myles Burnyeat, Maurice Caveing, Frangois De Gande, Jen-Paul Dumont, Ferrocio Franco Replin, Michal Fred, Lorene Reiger, Andeé Laks, Geoliey Loyd, Tony Long, Mano Mignace, Ian Mueller, Martha Nussbaum, Ek vom Sevigny, Malcolm Schofield, David. Sedley. Richard. Sori Heinrich von Staden, Gisela Striker and Mario Veget All the chapters ofthe book were presented originally a papers atthe ‘conference and have been revised in the ight of the discuston, formal and informal, and ofthe subsequent correspondence which they provoked, TE fea plesute ro thank all whose help made the occasion 2 succes, in parsicalar the College Franco-Britanaigue for is Ihospiaiy, and the Contre National de la Recherche Senin Which give most munficent nancial suppor 9 the conference We are ako gratefil to CONICS, and 10 the Joweet Trust for grants towards secretarial costs incurred in reparation of tis 1B 1B. MEB Ms.Introduction JONATHAN BARNES In he five hundred years from 300 #.¢, 0 4. 200 Grek science nade spectacular advances and. Greck philosophy underwent Gramate changes. Philosophy and science, which merge a thet limit, present one another with mutes! challenge scientific discoveries provide philosophers with new problems or add new ‘dimensions to old problems (ss modern physic as sorely compli ‘ated the teaional philowophy of space and tne), philosophical issues may bese ~or at any ert appear to bese ~ upon the work of the practtng sient (a scepial doubte shout explanation have affected research in economics). And again, questions broxdly ‘haraceriable a5 "methodologscal are of equal importance, in thei diferent ways, to philosophers and co scents How extensive and how important were suc intrconnesions between science and philosophy in the Hellenistic period (those five hundred Greck yeare may be labelled)? That sea the general {question which underlay the Pars Conference whose proceedings 2 printed on the following pages. Any general answer to that [general quertion seould beat Best wzewous: he question must be Sivided and subdivided into ever more specific imerrogadives before any worthwhile answers can propery be expected and its ain thatthe specific questions are vastly more merous than the {Shapers in the present volume, These chapters sck to pose and £9 Snswer afew of thor speci questions: we hope that the sample ienot wholly uneepreentative; but we ae well aware and, total the ert, wel pletsed~that very much more work remains to Be done “Medicine isnot today closely alli to philosophy death, no dont, offer similar problems to metaphyicians and to physxx Induct ‘ans and there is subject called “media etic’ but by and large tnerlen medical men donot scem fo nfisence or be inuenced by movin philosophy. Things were otherwise in the Hellenistic fetid All the eminent doctors of Greece, a8 Galen's weitings Thundanty testify. were Keenly concerned over philosophical isues, and especialy over isis in metaphysics and in epistemo~ logy. Their concern was not merely an acidental piece of intllc= tual svacty it was at dactor that they cared about philosophical problems and thee philosophical Beliefs hada direct effec wpon the ways in which they treated eer paints, The long and titi disputes among che thre great ‘school’ of medicine =the Empires: che Rationalist, andthe Methodsts= were aeone and the same time philosophical and practi. “the doctors are dscised in two of the following papers. Michael Frede gives. an account of the Methodist school of medicine and shows how its adherens attempted 0 discover a ‘hird way" alongside the older pats of Empiricism and Rational ism, Frede stresses the Methodists’ search fr simpli and thet Glico Fd thet are ofthe baggage which, sn their view, it had tele aecumulated. (Bue s should noe be thought tha the ‘Methovdsts were unsophisticated as physicians) The Methodists ‘ew of heir pratce has evideneafinsties with certain parts of Pyrthonian seeps; and st might be said that they used hilwoply son themseves of philosophical balls. "Jonathan Barnes discusses one episode inthe argument between the Empircists and the Rational: medial knowledge, accond- ing to the Empitcsts, purely a matter of experience’, cs based fairly on observation and not stall on theory. But how does Sbservation yield experience? and, more particularly, how mony fbservatons ae foquted to give rie 10 experience? Those SGuestons ~ which have Fanlar descendant ~ mast be answered By the Empiicst; yet, acconding to the Ratonalist, they are timanswicrble~ and to prove thir vnansweraility he addues from the standard philosophical repertoire, a version ofthe Srites "Maaler philosophers perhaps find more to interest them in the hard" or uthematieseences than in the att of medicine problems in logic andthe foundations of mathematics, sues in ‘tology and the nature of resity, questions about the aeibues Of space and time, ll are raised by the hard sciences. And We Intodution x right wonder if the eapid development of the mathematical Sciences inthe Helens evi hada simile stmolating effet ‘spon pilosophy” "Auto mathematics sel het, of course, nothing to compare to the workgof a Frege ors Hilber and the comment by Sextus Enmpiicus of mathematics appear a first sight june lan Mueller args, however, that Sent won ~ oF 3 leat didnot lose =the ‘barle he wat engaged in: the mathematicians of the time were mathematically gifed bot philosophically confused ar were Frege's mathematical contemporaries) and Sextit™ctiticims, mage exchsvely from a philosophical point of view and de- ‘eloped in an a! hominem fashion. cleaely expose some af that confusion. The ancient Scepis didnot offer a “philosophy of mathematics, as Aristotle and the Phtonists bad done: but they id produce’ some pertinent eitcisms of the foundations of ‘contemporary mathematics "Frangois De Gundt is concerned primarily with mechanics and with the crac concept of Tore’ as ie used im he pscudo~ Aristotelian Mechanics and by Hero of Alexandria. He finds the ‘origin of that nosion ~ and hence the origin of mechanics ~ in an tarher philosophical teats: Aristotle's Phys: develops what De Gande calle a "topics" of motion, and then ies that ogico- Philosophical construction ae the basis for some rudimentary thoughts sbour mechanics, Iw hor ind pilosophy influencing hard scence, we mut, als, record that the snluence was Nat benign “Th hard science of astronomy rsshed a peak with the work of Prolemy, at the end af Our peod. Astzonomy touches on piilosopiny at ewo places: a its highest level of generlicy it Ierges with philosophical cosmalogy (a merging most lmiar from Arstole’s de Cadi); at is most humble level ~ the level of| the collection of empirial data ~it comes into contact with the philosophy of perception. Geoflrey Lloyd discusses that second point of contac he dels some of the abserestonal problems ‘which faced ancient scientists in guneral and ancient astonomets in parila, he shows to what extent they wee aware of such problems, and he indicates the various ways in which they tempted to solve them, How does that bear on philosophy? According! to Lloyd, relasvely litle. AS philosophers, we might expect Prolemy abdseit uration his fllows to have shown some interest in developing a general ‘theory of error” to determine their dealings with wnrehable dat turin fact they do no such hing, Again, the astronomers — and the writers on optic ~ offen rete to various puzzles illusions and the like) which the sepicl philosophers had used for dir own fis; yet the sities show no awareness that there were pilosophical matters a stake, and he Seeptcs do not rer to the ietifereolution of thir puszies. (There mora in that) ‘uk astronomy does bear upon philosophical ssues in anther and more surprising aston. Tony Long rehearses some scenes in {he long teag-comedy of astrology. Although he ares thatthe farly Sioies did not have that passion for astrology that 3s somtimes credited them, he recognises that astrology became 3 topic of philosophical discussion from the fist century hc. ‘onwards; and he gives some account of the standaed arguments tied by sceptical philosophers agsinst the pretensions of the ‘Chaldacans ut then we find that Prolemy was an astrologer his scientific atronomy, empirically sound and mathematically sophisticated, iat the same time the bass for a subvle and vanced astfologicl system, Ptolemy defends atrology against Philosophical stack in his Terabe: Long urges that the defence Be adequate agains is historical enemies; but he fears that Prclemy’s victory may be Pyrthi, iPnot Pyeehonian, "Questions of soentfie method are more often discussed by philosophers than by scientists scientists do science, they do not Udacues how ¢ do it) Most of che ancient mater on what may broadly be termed methodology i, smi, tobe found inthe Philosophers writings. One central question was the issue of what tre cll non-edactive inference: onthe one hand, st seemed plan ‘onto mose thinkers that scientific advance depended n part leas, upon the me of reason ~ upon argument from data t0 theory. fou the evident to the vnseen; om the other hand ‘riniry deductive loge ~ loge like Aristoue'ssllogstic othe Stoic caeulus~ was apparenty inpproprate for such + Function Whit was required war an account of non-deductive argument; andthe main slement ofthat acount was the theory of "ig "Thige ofthe papers in this book are closely connected 0 the theme of now-leductive logic. Myles Bumyest diacovers the ‘origins of on-dedicive login Aristotle's account of sigs’. He Stresses the importance of signs” in Stic theory, and dscuses Invedcion it their refusal wo accepe any logic that is not deductive. His {xaminaton of the logical form of sign-inferenceconclades that ‘heir ofa is closely connected with the fac tha the Stoies wete fever perfectly clear abou the reltionship Betweon an argument findan assertion David Sedley takes up certain hemes in the Epicurean Phic lodemus' treaise Or ‘Sign. Pilodemus contrasts the Stoic ‘method of testing sign-infeenccs, which appears to suppose 3 logical or analytiealconnexion beeween sigh and sigaiate, with the Epicurean metho, which aplissaninconecivabiity text that ‘snontheless based upon empiri observation of similares. (t fight be mentioned that thee ate close connexions between the Epicurean method advocated by Philodemus and she practices of ‘he Empineal doctors) ‘Acthe end of his pup, Seley discoscs the Epicure of “confirmation” oF “attestation” and ‘dsconfirmation” of “con- Testation” Thore notions ate subject to special scrutiny by Jean Pal Dumont. Dumont starts from Sextus presentation of the Epicurean view, and then compares it with the Epicurean texts themselves; he ends by suggesting that confirmation and ciscon- Firmation were intended to govern investigation of the ‘middle aes" of realy, an area hounded om one side by "monovalent perceptual dats and onthe oer by "polyvalent sates of fies emote in time or space The book conelndes with a paper by Victor Goldschmidt on another anpect af Epicurean epistemology, or rather on is applica fon to the concepts of law and justice. Goldschmidt attacks the traditions) picture of Epicurus as a cride conventonabst and ttltartan politieal philosopher. He argues that Epicurus founds his theory of justice onthe common man's concept of fies and abhorrence of violent bloodshed; and so om principles Grmly ooted in human nature. Positive In is accorded valiity only inasmuch ar He passes the test oF conformity #0 such prlepri, “prénotions’ of “preconceptions. The quirement of such atest fowever, provides a more powefil defence of positive a than is availible in the absolutst and objecvise theories of lw prope funded by Plto andthe Stois. The contributors to this volume are not always in agreement swith one another: and none Would claim fohave ad thelist word ‘nis subjct. The volume isnt a tidy, homogeneous, report onxiv Inodcton a completed project of research rather, it 63 set of pilot sais, Unified by a common theme and a common purpose: together, they hap to give some ides ofthe riches eo be foul in ths area, tne to anicate the exciting and challenging work which remains tobe done Bibliographical note Texts and cansations of the philosophical authors who are discussed ot whom reference requenly made inthis Book are for the most par readily avalable. The Loc Chssial Library foffers editions, wih orginal text and facing English version, of Aristotle, Augustine's City of Gad, Cicero, Diogenes Laces, picts, Favorinus (in Auli Geliua), Lucretius, Plosinas (Ex asm), Phare, Seneca and Sextus Empircus, Some of tens ‘writers ae ali aeilable in French eanslation in the simile Buse Series. For Phitodemus. On Matiods af noe, see the edition ‘with English translation by Philip and Estee de Lacy (Naples, ‘Original texts ofthe scientific authors discussed in the Book are mostly avallable in good modern cxtial editions. Inthe Lepoig Teubner sercs are tobe found, for example, Archimedes, Acsar= hus, Cleomedes, Eucid, Firmicus Materns, Geminas, rocks Hiporyposs and commentary on Euchd, and Prolemy's Sytase anid ‘Terablon, and among the medical writers Cachus.Aue= Hanus, Celsus, Galen (various short teats) and Soranus (bat ost of Galen has stilt be consulted in the old edition of CG. Kah (1821-33), despite continuing addons to the Cos Med canum Groton series, published in Leipzig and i progress since 1ol4)- OF the main scientific works analysed in these pages the following are available in English translation: T. L. Heath, The Works of Arkimedes (Cambridge, 1912) “TL. Heath, Anstarcus of Samos (with text; Oxtord, 1913) R. S. Mactan, Aritonens, The Hamonis (with texte Oxford, 1903)xvi Bilingraphil nore W. G. Spencer, Cela, On Modine, 3 vols. (Loeb edition ‘Cambraige, Mass, and London, 1935-8) 1. E. Drabkin, Carla ureliams, On Aawe and Chronic Diseases (ith text Chis. 1950) 1.L. Heath, The Thiten Books of Euli's Elomens, 3 vol. (Cambridge, 1908) R. Walzer, Glen, Ov Medial Experience includes Arabic text and fragments ofthe Greek; Oxford, 1944) G. Re Morrow, Prous, Commentary on the Fit Book of Eli's ements (Prineeton, 1970) R. Catesby Talsterr, Palm, The Almaget (Chicago, 1952) FE, Robbins, Pslemy, Tuailles (Loeb edion: Cambridge, ‘Mas. and London, 1940) “The surviving Latin version of Prolemy"s Opis is ete by: A Lejeune, L’Opriqu de Claude Prolene (Loweain, 1956) In French translation is Hero's Mechanic: Carrade Vai, Lis Méchonqus of Eeotourde Hiroe dAlesontie in Jounal Alatgu rx" sie, 1 (1893), 386-472 and 2 (189), seat, 420-514 finchudes Arabic tex) Note aso the tonsations of Archimedes (C. Mugler, 1970-2) nd Geminae (. Aujac, 1975) n the Bude sees, and of Manis (G. P. Goold, 1977) 1m the Loeb sel slecions of texts ip tanslation may be found in 1 Thoms, Grck Mathomaial Werks, 2 vos. (Loeb edition: 1939 41) TL, Heath, Greck Adronomy (London, 1933) A. G. Drach- fans, The Meshal Technology of Gree sud Roman Anigity (Copenhagen, 1963): M. R. Cohen and I.E. Drabkin, A Soune Book iv Greck Science (Cambridge, Mass. 198), which also includes «fly fll (but now ageing select bibliography ‘Aselet bibliography of secondary Iertote on the epsteao= fy ofthe Hellen schools may’ be found sn Dowbr od Dogwat fom, ed. Schofield, Buenyeat and Barnes (Oxford, 198). Abbrevisted references to wotks by Greck and Latin authors are given in common forms, mostly those adopted in LidelScou~ Jones? Gre Lexicon and Lewis and Shorts Latin Dicionery (or alkematively the Oxford Latin Dictionary) CHRONOLOGICAL Sse gals Bas Areonens eat Boone ‘ens Arwen $208 sire ss ees jews Srapon Hen Hips Fee hee! Byes iy bos ed of Sox TABLE fetes Bemetie aon ji. itm Monn 130 Seve Epi HS Fem Mate 98 Seay Gos1 The method of the so-called Methodical school of medicine! MICHAEL FREDE 1 Inraducion Laer antiquity a6 rule, distinguishes three schools of medicine the Rationalsts, the Empires, and the Methodists (et Galen 3 Sea. ing chs tan 6; ps.-Galen, de Optima seta, 1118 Kho, but also cf ps.-Galen, Def med. rg-t7, xix 35) K). What kat issue between these schools isthe mare, erin, and scope of medical knowledge. Usually thet views on this mater ae based ‘on views about human knowledge it general: Rational Empiricits, and Methodists in medicine tend to be Rational Empircists, or Methodist concerning human knowledge and science quite generally (for the Methodints c. Galen, de Se in "4 Marguard), But ics only modicine they are immediatly «concerned with, and hence they oaly argue their case for medical knowledge, mn meicine the isue came to take the form of the question "How does the doctor, ina parila este, know how the patient '5 to be treated” And one particular way this question, was formulated was the following. ‘Which the corcet method of treatment” (f Galen's de Methodo melon). Obviously "method ‘of treatment’ here docs not mean the way one tens + patient, bat "rather the way in which one srives aa cetain estmets re: ie "way one comes to think, or arrives tthe colasion, that a eran treatment isthe right erestment. This i the sense in which what was at issue Was the method. And accordingly one talked of + eSFavional method and an empirical method. For dhe Empires ‘aimed tha iis ll matter of experince hit its by experience that we have che genetal knowlege we have, and tha i from txperience that We kaow shat ¢ do ina pattiulr case. The Rationastson the other hand claimed that test in pact, by reason that we have the general knowledge we have and ence now what todo ina pueicular ease (Gl de ee ing. t 1348 MD) In part they thoughe so because they assumed that professional redial practice had to be Based on scientific theory and that 4 Scientific theory necessary anvolved truths which could not possibly be Known by experience For they assed thit Ssentifedheory had eo account forthe phenomena term ofthe tuderlying realty and that shi reat included hidden nates, ‘auss, and acions, not pen to observation, but only accessible to reason, eg. atoms, invisible pores, fictions of organs, oF fssences. Thus the rational method involves the knowledge of tuts about non-abservable ems which cin only be obtained by revsom (Gal de Set ng. 4. 18H M). ‘Methodism arises inthe fist century 4. in reaction 9 both Empiricism and Rationalism. te s+ movement of radial reform, ‘The dispute becween Rasionalists and Empisicsts, atleast by this time, is somewhat academic: Galen sometimes even ells us (de Sect ingyt13: 7-16, 13-12) that they agree on the treatment, though they disagre on the method which lead o this retment We wil hesitate to accept Galen's daim that they agree om the treatment, For we know from Galen's own writings that there were significant dlfferences in thei approach to therapy. But presumably in ehe de Sete Galen ties ta minimise the practical Aitferencs berween the established schools f the Raionaists and the Empincsts in order to be in 3 positon eo characterse the innovations ofthe Methodists as wanton, unasked for, ieresponsi= De deparreffom the established, zespetble practice of tadi= sional medicine. In any eat, inthe de Sut he Bors on £0 cat fat the Methodists, on che other hand, do notjust disagree onthe method, bu also object the acts medical practice of Rationale iss and Empiriists de Set ngr 13. 130% 15.38f0). And they ‘object to their practice precisely because, in tit view, 8 Fandamentally msguided by a wrong method, basil flawed by the lick of the true method (Gal. bs. 12.9). They conceive of emslves 2 finally puting medical practice om firm, sold, The method ofthe Method shook 3 tclable basis by providing medicine witha safe, simple, seiemifc method. They just cll it 'the method” (Celsus, prooemy 59) and 'Wemselves ‘the methodical ones (Gal. de Ser in. 1295 de Meh ‘mol. 76.2 80.5 K). The following isan attempt to characterise the new method advocated by the methodical school at least fs rough outline Medicine, as conceived of by che Methodists, i supposed tobe very simple Lifeisfong, and the ar short, a matter abou ste oaths, they lke to sy. and dhs with «few words manage to ‘wtrage the representatives of traditional medicine im move chon fone way (Gal. de Sect ing 15.6; 24.23; de Meth, met. % $3 K). ‘Their definition of methodical mtaitne bears the seme chicaeter of provocative simplicity in expression and content, Medicine according tothe Methodist, amounts to no more than a “on, ledge of manifest generalities (ene phinomenan Konto), ns ‘of certain general recurrent features shove presence of absence an be determined by inspection (Gal. de Sein 19-24 33-1058 Mat med. x 206.11 K: ps Galen, de Opt set 17st 182-2 k) This characterisation obviously ie meat to emphasise the simple «ty and cant of medicine. once we have grasp the re method, and though at ist it seems unduly simple turns ot om cloner inspection, co amount to an admirably cles, concise deca. rmical summary ofthe Methodist postion Tes crue that some Methodi chiactesstions of methodical medicine at slightly more complex. But his sawing tothe fact that this very general charatrisition supposed to apply not jst ‘o medicine, butt any art whatsoever (Gl de Sec. te 41) thus elles the Methodist, as opposed to the Empiticae ot Raionlis, conception ofthe ae of mice a a tue art When the Methodiss want to distinguish medicine fom other ats they 20 on Co specify the generates which ate the pater concer ‘of medicine. Thus, stndaedly, ehey say that medicine know. ledge of manifest genealiies which are relevan tothe atm oF ‘medicine (Gal. de Seng. 14. 1-7) some of them, among thet Thessalus, 4 main exponent of the school, more restctively say that medicine i the knowledge of manifest generalities which te proximate to and necessary for health (bid. ty. nfs pCa. de Ope, seca 172.7 K: Def med. xox 5345 K) “More vencively bccause it seems that Thessalus wants to ns that although there also may be ll sors of general features which ae of more oF lessi remote relevance tothe presence or absence of health, the method eal doctor should ot. and does noe have to, occupy himself teth these. fore knows the crucial eaures which aremmedite- Ty relevant to he health of a paint. Bue since we ae concemed ‘vith the method, the Methodist conception of medicine 26 2 tnethodical at, we will concentrate on this very general charactet= sation of methodical medicine In fat, the following willbe no fore tha a fire ate eo elicidat dhe erm ofthis characte fextion im some deta, 1. dieton Before we star to consider the details ofthis general charactersa- tion, though, we have to ask ourselves how this possibly could mount tov characterisation of methodical medicine. ofthe tre Inethod, For as we si above, the method s whats supposed Cable usto find te righ treatment fora patient. Bue this general ‘haracterisaton doesnot com to tell us anything at ll aboot the svay in which we Find out how to eat a patient. The matter is ven more purling if we tke into account that the manifest fener the Methodints are thinking of when they give the ‘ery general characterisation, sem tobe the various affections and Adxcuesthemscives (Gal de Se er. 23.212). Bu it ifelt terse, unless one #3 philosopher, how the mere knowledge of a tisease by ite could provide one with a knowledge of is treatment And. yet this iv what che Methodists do. Wane € Inaintim, The very brevity and apparent deficiency of ther ‘haraterisation just serves to daw oUt atention tothe point that lV the doctor realy has to know are the nfetions and diseases themaelves; knowing them he will alo know cei ereatment and to know their treatment he doesnot have to know anything but the alfectons and disses themselves. ‘But how is knowledge of the disease by itself supposed to provide one with knowledge of te erestment? The Methodists ‘Shins thatthe disease im sel is indicative of is own treatment (Gal de Sec. inge ttf 15.1517 Ide Met med. 351-7 KE Med. nv 677.42 Ky ps-Galen, de Op. sc 135.28 164.1% K). ‘To see what is meant by this we have to consider the Methodist onecption of indication (ends). The notion of indication is hot of Methodist origin. I comes into use in Inter Hellenistic [ The method of the Method shoot § «pistemology, most commonly to distinguish kinds of signs and, ‘orrespondingly, kinds of conditonas. Roughly speaking, some thing A is a auggetive or commemorative sgn of something B, ‘we know from experienc chat B obtains A obtains, Ths, to we {rational example, the presence of smokes a suggestive sign of the presence of Bis, Something A, om the other hand, i= not 4 “ugestve, bat an indicative sgh of something B, if we know, not by experience, bur by reson that B obtains if A obtains, An ‘Atomst. for example, might regard the presence of metiom x 211 indicative sgh of the presence of void, The application of these rotons to conditional shoe be obvious (cE Sextus Emp. PHT roof) Tr then the Methodists claim thatthe disease itself indicative ofits treatment, they obvious mean to say tht iis net by Experience, a the Empriite clam, that we know tat certain tise needs 3 certain treatment (€C Gal. de Se ng. 14.10-12), ort alko umns out not to bea matter of reson in the way the Rationales asume, either (id. 1.191) fact this in a nthe sche ultimate source ofthe difeence between the three Schools, Tose this more clesly, we hae to take a closet lok at the Methodiae use of the notion of ination, Sextus Empirces (PH 1 24o) ells us: "The Methodist in an tundogmatic manner also makes use ofthe term “indication” t fete 0 the guidance which both natural and unaurs affections provide towards what seems to be (the) fiting (eatment) for tem, a8 pointed out in the cise of thirst, hunger, and the rest” He i refering Back here to what e had said few sentences cater in PH 1 238:'AS. the sceptics guided by thirst towards {tink by hunger towards ood, and dus with he rest, sn a silat fashion the methodial doctor is guided by che affections towards what i fiting for them, by constriction to dilation, jost as somebody tres to cecape from condensation due to intensified ‘old by geting to 3 warm spor A few line farther down Sextos {ges on to tefer to the example of a dog which, pricked by 2 thorn, moves todo whats sndiated and removes the thorn which is alien to it body. (Gn Sees’ aout, then, 2 disease i supposed tobe indicative ‘of is treatment sn the way in which hunger is indicative ofthe need for food, Where is relevant difference betwee affections Tike hist and hunger on the one hand and disease onthe othe,Sst scems to lie in the fic chit it ekes a doctor to know the Ueases inthe way im uich weal know hit an unger. There {Sto suggestion thi theres relevant diferene inthe way 0 ‘ch aflecsions snd diese re inestive of what zed 0 be done to emove them. The peully Methodist notion scm 0 {that once one ns recognised the affection or dice for what ‘sti immediately obvious what nods to be done: mediately Simater of nieces we know what nest be done once We dive recognised the. donde {c6 pu-Calen de Opting sco 1 ato K}. The Racal ehank th the mane state of the body doesnot mate it immediely obvious what neds to be lone, For them the manifesta i ince of = fen state Sich eases the alfecion or the dscne: Aditi ony i we kno Thshidden stat tat we Koo how to est he pte. Ths far the Ravnalst, knowledge of the appropriate teatment On the thsi of the manest condition a mater of inference and State: More special, hore aon the one hand the restion ‘tse she sanfese stat ofthe body and the drying, hidden Snort and onthe dhe the cation beeen ti den Se and he tretmen indeed yi and noe drely y the thane ste). ei te dtntively Ratonait positon tht fewson can gasp sich ecaons (cE Gal de Set ing 2-3 17 TOME), Like the Empineste oe Methodists te ch nf: ncs toa fom den state: according to the Methodists there honed forsuch detour the noma (Cad Seg. Too-i) The mif lfection makes timely evident trite sed o be don; "imeditly eden i theses tat we donor require te mediation of ssunpuons about hidden sate, ‘he prsaly aon the sot hat doesnot tke any cha oF feasons tose hat constriction segue aon and that aon Teyuine consriton. The point of Sexts" examples ces 0 Be thatthe connetion betwee» ste nd whats indcted by 0 immediatly vious that even dog knows immediately whats indice there no inference involved But the Methods in elming tat the afeton by ise i indice of ts restment, lo deny the Empires cli tha he Connexion benwcen dics sod approprite testhnt i ok 3 Sar of experince (Gl. de Sng ta t1-3). Te dey not T The method ofthe Method school 7 take experince to know that 3 site of constriction requires Alain. that depletion asks for replenishment. Thess, f properly liverpreted, ate tthe of reson. Bt we have tobe catful not £0 rush to unwarranted conclusions st the sense in which they 3te uppored to be erths of reason, Thee is no reason, for example fo think that the Methodists take them to be conecpually of amalyoally tue. Forall we know, the Methodists may jus insist that, whatever the explanation fort may be, i is immediately ‘obvious to common reason tat somebody whois suffering from onsrction sil find cht dlton, tht we do not fel any ned to justty such a lim by reference o past expen, that not only do not expect any counter-example, but infact do not See thaw there could be counterexample (¢. Cele, prover. 62-5 Gal de Meth mt, 308.108 K). Since Knowledge of what i indicted is not a matter of observation, nor a mater of experience, the Methods are willing to say thai isa mater of reason. Thus on this point the “Methodists do side with the Ratonalists against the Empisicists and grant that reason does play a consttative role im medical knowledge (ef. Celsus, prove, 63). ut athe same time they do not accept ube dogmatic Ratonalist conception ofthe role reson phys inthe aquistion of medical knowledge. Tey do no scope the Rationale claims that reson can, and as to, grasp hidden ‘tities to acquire the necesary medial knowledge, They reise to atribute to reson any obscure powers which we would nat have dreamt of ordinary ie. They are jase noting inthis ad ‘other contexts, wha seems to be an obvious Ft, but which the Enmpiricits in heir dagmatim do not want 9 secognise, that there are certain things which are obviows to rational creatures, though i does nor sem to be by observation or experience that they are obvious. To admit though, aguinet the Empirints, hat ‘eta things are obvious to reason i not to admit that they are ‘obvious on the basis of some scientific theory constricted in Sccordance with the canons ofthe rational method o logic, The “Methods ins that itis obvious ro etson chit somebody who's hungey needs some food prior to, and quite independently of any theory which would prove that and explain why this i 30. In ParGculr the Methodist doesnot se hove only a theory which ‘operates in terms of hidden, theoretical ens can make # realy ‘obvi, or evident, shit somebody who thirsty needs to drink.“The Methodist is conten to stay with what i obviously obvious rather than eally obvious “Thus, in taking the view on indication he does, the Methodist merely tiesto stay withthe phenomena. He dors accept tuts of Fesson, but he doesnot accep the Rational canons for tats of Teason, which would commit him tothe assumption of hidden, theoretical entities. This, according to our ancient commentators, Js the Fandamental source ofthe sifeences beteeen the Method ists om the one hand and the Empiriciss and the Rationalis onthe other (Gal de Set. ing 13-10 and 1.108; Celss, prover. 57: pa-Gal de Opt seat 19 K) ‘According to the Methodists, the, the disease itself is inicasive ofits treatment inthe sense that once we are awatc ofthe disease in the approprine way it wil ako be obvious tow howe ii 0 be treated. eis for this esson thatthe Methodists can characterise Incthodical medicine simply as knowledge of certain manifest generates With this in mind ht ut turn to the characterisation sel Mt Generis From what has been sid iis clear tha we have to pay particular attention to two features ofthis characterisation: (fees to Be Jmportane for an understanding ofthe method that diseases ace conceived of at generalities and that they are conceived of 3 ‘anit () obviously ies not any kindof awareness ofa disease which gives ts the knowledge of treatmes must be the ind (of awareness the Methodist doctor has, hence we have to find out ‘what kind of knotwledge the Methodist are referring t. Let st then frst consider why the Methodist insist that medial know- ledges knovledge of generalities. “General” (int) fate ‘of dogmatic metaphysis. refers 0 + common, general, re rent feature, As Sextus (PH t 240) tls us, the Methodists adopt this term, but use i, like all other term, in an undogiatc manner Le they ate ling to talk af generates, But they do not tean by this ga commie themselves to the assmptions involved inthe dogmacie use ofthis term. They do not commit dheslves to any particular metaphysical view concerning the nature of fevers, nor do they even commit themselves tO the mete Physical assumption thit there are such common properties oF The mithod of the Metholislxhol 9 qualities, Thins important, because t means tha the Methodists Inalking of diseases as generalities do not relly commie chem ~ selves othe existence of diseases a separate entities, The sensei ‘which they are wing to tlk of diseases as genelies is ¢ petfecly simple and straightforward one: we ontinatly say hat feo persons who suffer trom pncumonsa have the same diese, hint in saying the same diseee" we do not commit ourslve, It fone mean to commit ourselves, to the existence of 3 nversl fall “pacumoni' all we commie ourselves to is thi the 180 petsons in question in ertin rexpects are Wery muuch ake, 0 fc alike thar inthis vespect we do not cate to distinguish between them, Thus Methodist tll about generates is ently bsed om ordinary tlk about similarity. and likeness Between objects (cf ps-Calen, de Op. set 19148 K, where the poineis fxplicily made). On the other hand the Methodist also would not ‘want go Commit himself othe view that such common entities do hot realy exist; ie. when he explains his use of "generality" terms ofthe way we ordinarily elk about the similarity o likeness between objects he does not mean to commit himself to some form of nominalism. isi this non-commitl sense, then, that the Methodins all of "generalities With this in min let us een to our question: of what imporeance ist that disses shouldbe ‘conecived of a8 generaitics i this sense? "This question bus to be scen on the background of a long tradition in Greck medicine according to sehich tretmient has #0 be indvidaaised todo justice tothe individuality ofthe partcuar ‘uses to be treated, tone of which i exactly hike any other (ef inp. Epi tay; de Ver. med. 20). There ae a large number of| factors which ae supposed to make 2 televant difference to the particular case, and twhich hence have t0 be taken into account ‘when one tis to decide on the right ueatment for the particular case. Ravonaliss, especially chose under Stoic influence, tend t0 sume tht individuals have an inva nature or essence which Inseam effec om the frm and the course a disease take (cf. Galen, se Set ng, fs de Meth, me X 2094) nation, there be diferent and particularsing factors ike age, sex, com Seiution, and habits ofthe patent, the patt ofthe Body affected, soteceden causes, dhe place adits climate, the season ofthe year, tnd whatever ele may be relevant (cfg Galen, de Sec. ng chs). This ew tended to be combined with the view thatknowledge, at lest sinc Knowledge, is of the universal, ‘Shere the individual and is condition are ineliable, i. earmot the captored by general notions, however scientific they may be (ce Galen. de Meth. mod. x 309-7 Ki: de Loc. aff: vin 11760: Sfo-affK).and hence cannot be known siencifcaly. As result ie tended to be assumed that diagnosis and treatment, thowgh tse on scientific theory, cannot be more han a matter of artful Conjecture (ef Gal de Pont. vi s8t aK de Son wed vt Too atE Rede Ren xt 285.1007 Ki de Meth, med. x 181.17: on sf K), Hence the classification of medicine a6 2 conjectural "ite Methoits cai that medicine a 2 whole is a mater of fam knowledge (peal Med. x17 684 K) and thus deny that frevtment cannot but be conjectural, [medicine i to be sate and felable, treatment should bea matter of fem and ceeain know= iedge, And thi can bea matter of knowledge we se, once we have gtaped the true method. For she fact that traditional Imadicine does indeed proceed By mete conjecture and that its representatives think that cannot but be conjectural, is due 10.2 Inistaken conception ofthe method. According othe Methodists ST these eifferensiating and individlsing features are of m0 felevance in determining the appropriate treatment. There is no fee to ake ino account sere symptom fs -Cal. de Op. se Naf 163.12 164380; 170.18. K), sexs relevant (Soran. Gye p95, 4h, sare causes (Cals, prover. 54 ps-Galen, Med xiv 68s. 2 Ky Gal. a Px 278.11; 279.4 K: Cac), Aur. Ae 4s Two), whether hidden (Gal. de Sec. ing 17.4%; Cael Aurel Giron t4 8) or antecedent (Gl, de Sect nr 16.1213 Cae. Aue. ‘He 11 189) there sone to know dhe prt of the body aeted (Cael Aur Aes 1 55:11 148) oF 1 ake note ofthe age, constntion habits ofthe patient, the caso, dhe location ands ciate Gal te Se ing. 6.108; 3.14: 47-78 19.208 de Meth. med. x ‘om. talts On Med. Exp. py 893 Cach Aur. Ac 1 157; Cebus, Droocm. 6s). As Galen posi (de Meth. med. x 206.12 K), the Methodists talk as if shel paiene was noe am sndividual, but the tnversil man, The Methods eke the poston that hist isthe “ne, whatever the nature, age, Sex, constitution, and habits of the patient, theclime of the pace, theme ofthe year, and there it foe and the same. treatment which is aked for, namely the ministration of drink And since this aection i a generality, ‘The method ofthe Meth shoo! 11 doocere ave wary butt ran thr a can be Known sdeniicly nex en how wwe can opely oot fener Knowledge othe pacclar ie; we do not have worry that cur theorems only hold for he most pure, hscase some the general rule. The roles hold without exception, exactly became no acount need tobe keno the various diferenting snundiidsalsing features, Ths they array seni, fm ad stable (Gl de Meth med 206,165 208 10 Ki de Crt 657 18K Cant, pret. 62) Rational and Empricte jst confine rontrs by drvaging inl these relevant Ector. Hence ot ‘tring that ther shores should be opelesly unlabeAt there tine isnot sorpesing that their dctrine soul be cesively and neil complicated and cul 0 maser, ‘wheres thetic method shows mel Knowledge o beater Ser and scaighforward mate, Teh tobe ald, though, thst ~ as Galen poins ou (de ft ime 60 R) =the Methodists do take into acount diferent {ng feacres, afc, when comes to administering he ndcted treatment: the fleeting eure my eg ofr conte Indication o cera waye the eatment might be administered (GE Gal. de Ser nr. 308: 3046). Inf, tbe pres, Ser to deeming the approprnte Ging aod dosge of the Indicted erement, the Methodist doctor in addon the evecity sab supposed to know the stage ofthe disease sod ts Istenity (Gade Ste ing 1.1alls 36300; ps Gale, de Op. sts 116%; 1941311 Ki Cele, proven 5-1). 1, The manifest Some generates, eg. colours, clearly are manifest i.e open #9 inspection. There also may be hidden generalities, not open to iepecton, but acesible only t0 reason. And some of them may bbe relevant ro medicine in the ss that truths bout them may sail tthe about dcases and ther treatment. This is why “Thesslus, unlike mose Methodists, does not charicterise the generics medicine seancered with as those which ae relevant to the aim of medicine, but 36 those which are prosomate and recesary. The ones which one has co know in medical practice,the anes which immediately determine the teatment, ae maniest fgenetalies Though, then, the Methodist grant tit there may [biden gencraliies relevant tothe aim of medicine, he wil oaly rely on assumptions about obvious or manifest eniies, and more fatticularly only om those assumprions about manifest entities ‘hich themselves are obvious, But what does count 1 obvious or Tnanife? We might think thit those things ate obviows ot ‘aif which one can perceive or perceive tobe the case. And in {he de Sects Galen elk ef thi asthe Methods view (24.13 24.10). But we have already seen that the Methodists also take truths of reason to be obvious. Ath it seems that thre is some tanlrity in Galen's mind se whether they think hat generalities fam be pereived (de Meth. med. 36.5F: 38-5 K). The author of de ‘Opti vets quite unequivocal about this, He ells (0175.18, XK) shat by ‘manifest’ the Methodists here donot mean ‘grasped by perception But what then, distinguishes che Methodists gener- $i from the Raion hidden ents? The lain seems to be {har everybody can be tught co recognise these genctaltes by ‘are observation; one lars to sce’ then, develops am eye for fem, whereas no amount of waning will each one to recognise tm atom or a complex of stome 38 sch ‘But why does the Methodist insist dhat the doctor should restrict himself to the manifest? Ratonalist physicians have pos Slated the existence of al sorts of fdden entities, In each case hae armed out that there is some resonable doubt as to their fvintence, and there does not seem to be any cleat way to sete these doubhs, once and forall (Cael Aur Ac. 8). Moreover fren given their existence, aemptons about them ser to be a ‘matter of endless speculation and controversy, The Methodist Ades not deny that sch cnitice may exist and that one can have knowledge about them (Gal. de Sect ine. 1414: Cae. Aue. Act 9) But since he is determined to provide safe medial testent he refines #9 rely on such controversial and speculative assump ions, And since medical theories are characterised by such sumptions, he also quite generally refines to rely on such ‘eoris for his practice. Whereas the Rtionasts think tha its only in viewe of these theories that medical practice can have a ound, scentife asis, he Methods argue tht these theories El te provides rhable bass, Boesuse they themslves are contoves ral The meth of the Method shool 13 Foreumaely, according to the Methods, there is no need to rely om such assumptions and cheories. For our knowledge of ‘ohar i manifest ie ently sulcent to determine the correct Trentnent for a dvcie. Thus, even if these assumptions and ticories were ot controversial, but well eablishe, knowledge ‘of them would be redundant an sopetluos, 35 fra the im of tedicine i coucemed (Gal. dr See. gr. 1O.1fbs 18.0ffs de Meth med. x 268.19 Ks salen, de Opt sect 12364. K). Hence the Methodists eefise to accept physiology or anatomy s part of the ae of medicine (Gal, de Meth, med. 9.105 107-148 $10.17 $4916, 92k I. Ky Soran. Gym HE). They clam that other, in pursuing these subjects, go beyond the boundates of the at (Gal de Meh, med 1962 Ky ct Celts, prooem, 64). Tn this esa o ely on anything but the obvious ad manifest the Methodists ae taking the side of che Empires against the Ritionaliss, But the Methocist’ postion om the hidden and the brows is not quite the same as that ofthe Empiicit, To sat wth, as we have son, the absiows forthe Methodists includes truths of reason. In addition, the Methodists accuse the Empit= fone of doginatsm because of their attede towards hidden fms, The Fmpiicits tend to claim that such entities do not fst ad tht, even if they do exist nothing canbe known about them, The Methodist will nt commit himsel om these questions: hejust observes thin fae nothing seems tobe known about sich Te keeping with this, the Methodist doesnot ci that there are to tue theories, ofthat, even if thre were, they could not be Known, ln fact it seems thatthe Methodist takes 4. much more positive atinde towards theories, Tei true that he ees rely fn cheories fr his pracrc, bu tis docs not mean tha is intrest in medical theory w entiely negative o ei we look st Caclus Aurcians we seca Mths author who not infrequently gives cata accounts of dieses (€l AL- 133 (Cha 135, ¥ 105) and even tefers o hidden entities ike hidden Alssolutions (ef. Ae 172, aden diphrsn 21, ocala daphoeis {f-also Clon 19). Given chat he himself refers to them inthis ways We have co asume that he thinks that it ie im perfect agreement with his Methodism t0 consider such theoretical {Ssumplions with approval of some kind. That this is-not an herration on Cache pare we cin se Fm the Fat that evenSoranvs sate treatises om etiology and physiology. And from ‘varios passages in Caclvs Anemos (ef Ar 3447-8; Chom tv 13) clear that Soran thoughe eh there is nothing wrong vith having theoretical views, as lng as one keeps in mind that thy are purely speculative, and 3 long a8 one does no hae one's treatment on these views, Soran hist ls (Gy. 664. 1b) tha though anatomy is wiles, its good to know i: for otherwise people might thik that one is ejecting it out of ignorance. He also acknowledges that ‘Bere eral satomicl knowledge afterall anatomy in good pare ies mater of experience (Gyn, 6.8; 90.131 t2.3). We may also sume thatthe Methodists think that ie would be dogmatie to eject theories out of hand without having cacflly considered them: afterall one of them my turn out #9 be obviously tae Soranus aso ells us ofboth anatomy’ and physiology tht, chough they are usles, one should take acconnt of them “poy chix smthcon" (Cy. 4 MT Gf 1 te). This suggests that knowlege Of these theories satisfies lenmed curiosity, is. as it were, an Smenity of i, a decorative ornament af the educated person ‘Somehow. though, Tam inclined to think that there must be, according 10 the Methodists, + more positive counexion between Imedical theory and the art practised by the doctor. Celsus ibviously does assume that theres sch a positive connesion, and though he doesnot stenbute this view tthe Methodists, there is 2 lest some fine reason to suppore tht 3 dos valet the “Methouist positon. He says (provem. 74) “Though I think that medicine shouldbe rational Ils chink that one should take one's instructions from manifest cautes, all hidden matters being {seed not from the thought ofthe practioner, but from the are itself? The pont ofthese line seems ta be thi though the doctor inhis practice should only be guided by wha is evident, he also in thinking, as opposed to his practice, should engage in medial theory. Ceus dearly thinks that such theoretical acuity 8 of ‘more thin ommamenta vale or otherwise he would not say that inhi view medicine has to be atonal. But what season there to suppose thi these remarks reflect Methodial thought? It scems to tne thatthe contrat between the ariel and the thought ofthe pratitoncr, the restriction ofthe are, but not of the thought ofthe Practitioner to what evident, andthe insistence that testment Should be guided by the evident cannot but eemind one of the The method of the Method rbool 15 [Methoust postion, Moreover tao seems tha dee ae certain features of Methodism which ae most exsily understood, if we ssstme tat the Methodists allowed theoretical speclation have {postive inflcnce om the ae isl For if ane thks ofthe non-commital attitude ofthe Method ise towards theories, it does strike one that they would hardly have arved a their centealdacrine that all diseases are forms of fone of thes bisie gencralitie (constriction, dition, and the Combination of both) if they had not Been thoroughly influenced by Ascepiada rather speculative physiology. Asclepindes phy= slology was based om the assmption thatthe body constituted by atoms and invisible pores. He explsned many illnesses 35 ‘owing to the constriction of these inwsible pores, some as ong foam excessive low through them (et. Gal. de Tremor vi 615.3 Ki; Cac Aur, Ars 1 6s roof}, ie. a» due to dition. ‘The ‘Methodist position obviously i reached by two moves () they generalise the Aslepiadesn poston by assuming dst all ieses tea matter of constriction, dation, ora combination f both i) ‘hur constriction and ciation in Asclepiades’ account are hidden states postulated by the theory afte al, invisible pores and atoms te paraligns of hidden ences oly tobe grasped by resto thus the Methodist have to leave ian open question whether under Tying the phenomena there are hidden states of constriction and Alii ofthe kind posited by Asclepiaes:instend they assume that there ae manifest states of constriction and dation, whether fr not underlying these manifest states there aso are correspond Ing biden sates of constriion and dilation of the kind assumed by Asclepiades which ae the cause of che manifest dition oF