Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

The Methodism of Caelius Aurelianus 315the disease is always the same; and conversely the same causes may lead todifferent diseases, as is stated in the following passage:(20) sciendum igitur, quia haec passio ex iisdem causis antecedentibus fiet, quibusaliae quoque passiones efficiuntur, indigestione, uinolentia, carnali cibo et horumsimilibus rebus. (Acut. 2.10.65, more fully quoted under no. 12 above)One should know, then, that this disease [sc. catalepsy] originates from the samepreceding causes by which the other diseases are brought about, indigestion, drunkenness,the eating of meat and things similar to these. 65This does not come as a surprise, for the lists of antecedent causes ofvarious diseases that Caelius offers, are always roughly the same: the takingof certain foods or drinks, drunkenness, a cold, indigestion, and suchlike.Hence in the majority of cases, the relevance of antecedent causes is verylimited (because they are not peculiar to the disease), and the reason whyCaelius discusses them altogether may be that they have the same status assigns: 66 they may constitute information that is relevant for the diagnosisand thus for the identification of a disease – and as such indirectly for thetreatment 67 – but in the majority of cases this is not so.However, as we have seen, there are cases in which a reference to the cause(or causes) is relevant, and in these cases it is perfectly all right to engagein causal explanations, for example in cases where the causes constitutethe relevant criteria or differentiae for treatment as, again, in the case ofhaemorrhage, and it does not come as a surprise that in such cases theyappear also in the definition of the disease.3 definitionsClosely related to the subject of causal explanation is the role of definitions.Again, a similar pattern may be detected. We are told that the Methodistsrefused to give definitions or to make use of other epistemological or logicaltools derived from ‘Dogmatist’ dialectic, such as arguments based ondemonstration, analogy or inferences. 68 The reason for this is assumed tobe that the use of such Dogmatist logical tools would commit them to assumptionsabout the essence of diseases, whereas, for the reasons mentionedwhat tetanus is’ (Sed his omnibus [sc. Asclepiadis sectatoribus . . . aliis . . . aliis nostrae sectae] communiterrespondendum est, quomodo causa a passione plurimum differt. dicendum est igitur, non quae causa sitdistentionis, sed quae sit distentio).65 Cf. Acut. 1.1.23. 66 This is suggested by Chron. 1.4.105.67 For the requirement of completeness in the symptomatology of the disease see Acut. 1.1.22.68 Galen, De meth. med. 1.1 (10.5 K.); 1.3 (10.30 K.); 2.5 (10.109 K.); see Frede (1987a) 276.