Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

326 Late antiquityis treated by diet and drugs rather than by surgical measures, which wouldsuggest that it is a loose state rather than a wound; secondly, he gives theargument quoted here: its state of looseness presents itself clearly to theeyes, whereas to label it as a wound, though not false, requires a mentalactivity.In this surprisingly revealing passage, we read, first of all, an explicit statementto the effect that the generality, in this case a loose state, presents itselfto the eyes: one can clearly see that haemorrhage is a solutio. But we also readthat apprehension by the mind – ratio atque intellectus mentis – is a meansof knowing that it is an internal wound. Caelius commits himself here tothe existence of a state which can only be apprehended by reason – theprinciple of logotheōrētos which is familiar from Erasistratus and especiallyAsclepiades. Indeed, another passage states this principle explicitly:(37) Sin uero occulta fuerit solutio, quam Graeci adelon appellant, aut mente sensasigna uideantur, quae Graeci logotheoreta uocauerunt, sequitur debilitas pulsusaegrotantis . . . (Chron. 3.2.19)But if the state of looseness is invisible, which the Greeks call adelos, or if signs [ofit] seem to be perceived by the mind, signs which the Greeks call logotheoreta,itisfollowed by a weakness of the pulse of the patient . . .These passages clearly indicate that Caelius does not regard physiologicalspeculation as wholly unacceptable, and that he believes that mental apprehensioncan lead to knowledge about internal states that can be reliedupon for treatment. Thus it is simply not true that the Methodists do notwish to commit themselves to the existence, or the occurrence, of unobservableentities or processes, and there is no indication that they believethat knowledge about the invisible is impossible. It is rather that they prefernot to build their therapy on such speculations or commitments; but thisis a matter of preference, based on the criterion of relevance, 99 rather thana matter of unqualified rejection based on the belief that such commitmentswould necessarily be uncertain. For the most part, the Methodistswill claim that as long as it is not necessary to build one’s therapy on suchcommitments, one should do without them. However, in cases in whichreference to unobservable entities is unavoidable or even desirable, for examplebecause such reference provides relevant distinctions (as in the case99 See Chron. 5.10.105, where Caelius comments on the dispute about ‘passages in the body that are“rational, irrational or hidden”’ (rationales . . . irrationales ...latentes uiae): ‘But one should not arguetoo much about these, for it is sufficient for the purpose of giving an account of the symptoms toconsider only what is manifest’ (sed non oportet de his plurimum disputare, sufficit enim ad disciplinamsignificationis faciundae manifesta comprobare).