In ancient times, long before the advent of common medical practices (and Christ, for that matter), true understanding of the human body and medicine was lacking. Many theories existed from many backgrounds, all with clashing ideas. Frustrated at the theories of the time, ancient Greek physician, Hippocrates of Cos, took a stand in his The Nature of Man. Touted as the ‘founding father of modern medicine,’ Hippocrates’ ideals would inevitably go and revolutionize the field of medicine and its practice.
He begins with an analysis of the flaws in current theories of the human constitution, while taking the time to lampoon the theorists, in the process. At the time, some theorists believed humans to be composed of air, fire, earth, or water. Invariably, they deduced the same theory, but in a different form: the human body is constituted by only one substance. Hippocrates blatantly argues that by conferring the same theory and yielding different conclusions, this demonstrates “that [the theorists] do not know what they are talking about.” He obviously rejects non-observable notions that try to describe nature.
Hippocrates continues along similar lines, but instead arguing against physicians whom deem that a “basic unity of substance” explains human constituency. He explains that if man were of a single substance, then he would be unable to feel pain because a single substance has nothing to hurt. Additionally, if pain were to arise, then only a single remedy should suffice. This is obviously unfounded, as Hippocrates makes known. He posits that generations could not exist from a single entity, because it lacks copulation and, therefore, diversity to proliferate. This argument bolsters his view that the human constitution cannot exist as a singularity.
Hippocrates provides his take on the human constitution and its relation to pain and health. Primarily, he suggests, “The human body contains blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile.” He believes these constituents to be observable and testable, and evidence for this exists from observation. When these constituents are in harmony, without any deficiency or excess, it is indicative of health. Pain and disease is, therefore, associated with the lack or excess of any constituent and its effect on the body as a whole. He believes that the coexistence of these distinct constituents is essential for life, that their balance is the premise of health, and that their maintenance is the chief concern of medicine.
I agree with Hippocrates when he mentions how man is not made of just one substance. It makes perfect sense that if "if man were of a single substance, then he would be unable to feel pain because a single substance has nothing to hurt. Additionally, if pain were to arise, then only a single remedy should suffice." I've never believed man was made of one substance nor did I know people believed that so this was interesting.
ReplyDeleteI think Hippocrates' idea of the different humors that constitute the body such as bile, blood, and phlegm is an interesting concept. Namely because much of ancient and medieval medicine focused heavily on the maintenance of humors and their balance for health. Although this is obviously far from the truth in terms of physiology, it does however show that the ideas held by Hippocrates, even when not entirely correct, have stretched beyond his own time period.
ReplyDeleteI interpreted the text differently because you said generations could not exist as a single entity because of the lack of copulation. However, I don't think this was the cause. His reasoning for not composing of single entity was because of the "diversity" (that you were talking about) of human beings, for example, in how they are composed of many different elements because each human is individually unique. Not because of the "diversity to proliferate", but more "proliferate to establish diversity is the reason why humans should be composed of many substances, and not just one" (simply because they are unique). Sorry about my repetitiveness, but trying to make sure I illustrated my point.
ReplyDeleteIt's very interesting to think that in the past people believed humans were composed of one of the elements: air, earth, water, or fire. Today, we realize how ridiculous it sounds for a human to be made up of one of these elements, but I really do wonder why theorists believed that it would be possible for a person to live composed of something that could burn flesh or drown someone. If we lived in the past, I wonder if we would have thought the same things since we now know that it wouldn't be possible.
ReplyDelete