Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

The Methodism of Caelius Aurelianus 319This ban is also expressed in the following passage:(24) sed superfluum est causas adicere, cum passionem diffinimus, quibus fueritconfecta defluxio. item alii defluxionem esse dixerunt uentris turbationem celeremuel acutam, quae fit ex corruptione ciborum. sed etiam nunc habet quaedamsuperflua diffinitio; dehinc etiam sine corruptione ciborum aut simili causa possedefluxionem fieri praeuide[a]mus. (Acut. 3.22.221)But it is useless, when we are giving a definition of the disease, to add the causesthrough which diarrhoea is brought about. Others have said that diarrhoea is arapid or acute disturbance of the belly taking place as a result of food that has goneoff. Yet even now the definition contains superfluous elements; moreover, we canperceive that diarrhoea also occurs without corruption of food or a similar case.These very interesting passages show the compatibility of the variousMethodist attitudes towards definitions and causal explanations that wefind in Caelius. The reason why the definitions Caelius rejects here (definitionsof cholera and of diarrhoea given by Asclepiades and other anonymouspeople) are unsatisfactory is that in their references to causes they are misleading(because the cause stated does not necessarily lead to the disease inquestion), incomplete (because there may be other causes as well) and factuallyinaccurate. The reason is not the alleged general reason why Methodistsrefuse to give definitions, namely that a definition would commit them toviews about the essence of diseases, essential and accidental characteristics,and suchlike – which would amount to the kind of commitment they donot wish to make – this also being the reason for their reluctance to useother instruments of Dogmatist dialectic such as genus, species, accidens, andso on. On the contrary, passage (23) shows, first, that Caelius (and Soranus)have no difficulty with giving a definition, provided that it is a proper definition– in this case, a concise statement of the generality (coenotes), ofthe affected parts, and of the acuteness of the disease – where propernessis determined not only by factual correctness but also by the relevance ofthe components of the definition to diagnosis and treatment. 77 Secondly,the passage indicates that Caelius has no qualms about speaking about thenature or essence of the disease (id, quod ex causis conficitur, ornatura, orquae sit distentio, also referred to as the genus passionis or just passio). Indeed,we also see Caelius at a number of occasions using concepts such as genus,species and accidens,asin:(25) at si omnes partes fuerint solutione laxatae, similiter haec omnibus sunt adhibenda,in illis etiam, quae occulta diaphoresi contabescunt. differentia etenimaccidentium mutata uidetur, genus autem passionis idem manet. (Acut. 2.37.217)77 Cf. Acut. 2.1.5 for criticism of the definition of lethargy as given by Alexander of Laodicea.