Galen and the Arabic Reception of Plato’s Timaeus, by Aileen R. Das

Abstract

That philosophy and medicine provide complementary forms of knowledge of the same subject is attested several times, by many authors, in various ways. For example, at the beginning of De sensu et sensibilibus, the first treatise of the collection of writings entitled Parva naturalia, Aristotle says that the investigation of the first principles of health and disease pertains to the natural philosopher (φυσικός) since these states concern the living body, which is the subject matter of natural philosophy. Therefore, just as the investigation of most of the natural philosophers results in issues concerning medicine (τὰ περὶ ἰατρικῆς), that of the physicians who practise their art more philosophically (τῶν ἰατρῶν οἱ φιλοσοφωτέρως τὴν τέχνην μετιόντες) begins with issues concerning nature (ἐκ τῶν περὶ φύσεως) (Sens. 1, 436 a17-b1). This brief remark implies that, according to Aristotle, philosophical principles, especially those concerning nature, have to be assumed as points of departure in the art of medicine, whose boundaries are more restricted than those of natural philosophy. A similar consideration is found in the prologue to De anima. There, Aristotle contrasts the universal approach of the natural philosopher to all the activities and affections of the living body with the limited interest in some of them (περὶ τινῶν) displayed by craftsmen such as the carpenter or the physician (De an. I, 1, 403 b7-14). This passage contributes to refining the relationship between the natural philosopher and the physician: though sharing the same subject, the former investigates the whole, whereas the latter focuses on some selected parts.