Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

Diocles of Carystus on the method of dietetics 81This interpretation has the advantage that the referent of phusis is immediatelysupplied by the context; moreover, as we shall see below, it has somesupport from what follows in section 8. A second possible interpretationis that ‘the whole nature’ refers to the sum of natural factors that play apart in the production by a certain substance of a certain dietetic effectwith a certain patient. Indeed, a number of such factors are mentionedby Galen in the pages following on the Diocles fragment: not only the‘peculiar essence’ ( ) of the substance itself, but also climate,geographical area, season, a patient’s natural constitution, his way of life (), his age, particular characteristics of the stomach and theintestines determine the effect a foodstuff produces in a particular case. 16Yet it may be objected against this interpretation that the words ‘are used tooccur’ ( ) indicate that Diocles is here concerned with thegeneral rather than with the particular – although the very use of ‘used to’(), in combination with the words ‘least fail to hit the truth’ ( ) in section 7, suggests an awareness on Diocles’part that the effect a substance produces cannot be predicted for all cases. Athird interpretation of ‘the whole nature’ has been proposed by Jaeger, whoargued that the nature of the consuming organism is meant, that is, theconstitution of its body, its age, and so on. 17 This interpretation introducesan element which is not provided by contextual evidence, for the consumeror his body is nowhere mentioned in the fragment. It therefore seems bestto interpret the words ‘the whole nature’ as referring to the nature of thefoodstuff.In section 8 Diocles criticises a third claim, which is, like the first, presentedas a view which is actually being held by a certain group (‘thosewho believe...’, ...). The claim seems to be that in every particularcase, one should state the cause why a thing (again we may thinkof a foodstuff) has a certain dietetic power. At first sight, this claim looksrather different from the ones discussed earlier, for what is at issue is notthe identity or the kind of causes sought for but the search for causes itself.Moreover, there is a shift of attention from the universal (‘all’, insection 5) to the particular (‘each’, in section 8). Diocles’ refutationof it calls for close consideration. His first argument seems ratherobvious: for practical purposes, causal explanation is not often ‘necessary’.For instance, when we know that a certain foodstuff is profitable for people16 Galen, De alim. facult. 1.1.16ff. (pp. 207ff. Helmreich, 6.462ff. K.).17 Jaeger (1938a) 29; in the sequel to Galen’s argument, this is referred to as ‘the body of the livingbeing that takes in the nourishment’ , see, e.g., 1.1.27, p.210,13Helmreich, 6.469 K.), but there is no indication for this in Diocles’ words themselves.