Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

Aristotle on divine movement and human nature 255This interpretation may seem over-subtle, but the interpretations inwhich is taken as ‘not only . . . but’ involve the difficulty thatthe structure of the sentence ( ) wouldmark a contrast between the two forms of divination to be distinguished,whereas such a contrast is lacking in the actual contents of the sentence: forboth experience () and habituation () seem to belong tothe rational form of divination, a capacity based on some sort of inductiveprocess of repeated observation and registration. To this it could be objectedthat perhaps they do not really belong there, and (1) we might have to classifyexperience and habituation under the irrational form of the divination:then we would have the contrast, marked by , with (sc. ). However, on that interpretation (i) the connectionwith the previous sentence, marked by , remains awkward, and (ii) it ishard to imagine how and can be regarded as irrationalactivities, for they result in (‘technical skill’) whereas eutuchia is notfounded on technical skill but on natural talent () and on irrationalimpulses (). Alternatively, one might consider (2) that is therational form, the irrational form of divination; but objection(i) would remain, and the word seems peculiar to rationaldivination; moreover it seems impossible to regard irrational eutuchia,based on natural impulses, as identical or comparable with . 60The interpretation of as ‘almost’ and of and as forms of rational divination is at any rate consistent with the followingsentence. In we must understand a form of ,and is the of line 32 (and of 23, 25 and 27). It is unnecessaryto emend this to , as Verdenius (1971), following Spengel, proposes.61 refers to the two types of divination 62 or to the two sub-typesof rational divination, and ; the first alternative seems60 Habit is explicitly distinguished from nature by Aristotle in what is plainly a reference to atEth. Nic. 1179b 21ff.: (cf. Eth. Nic. 1148 a 30, 1152 a 29; Eth. Eud. 1214 a 16–21). Moreover, as is implicitlyrejected as a possible cause of in 1247 a 7–13, it is unlikely that , which is closelyconnected with (cf. Rh. 1354a 7: ), is identical with the psychophysiologicalmechanism on which is based (see on Dirlmeier (1962a) 480 and Mills(1981) 253–6). Finally, it appears from Eth. Nic. 1181 a 10ff. that and cannot beregarded as opposites: .61 For the is not , but . Cf.Huby(1979) 57 and Dirlmeier (1962a) 491–2,contra Verdenius (1971) 291 n. 14. For the neuter cf. my note 37.62 See von Fragstein (1974) 377.