Galen was with no doubt a great authority in ancient medicine rivalled only with "the father of medicine" Hippocrates His medicine inherited not only Hippocratic tradition which is characterized by dynamic pathology but also Alexandrian medicine which made a great contribution to anatomy He did not generalize all the pathological phenomena according to one dogmatic theory His medicine was open to all kinds of medicine but he was quite selective in receiving different medical traditions Galen defined disease as impairment of bodily activities Whatever that impairs the bodily activities is the cause of disease Galen's pathology is built upon two heterogeneous medical traditions 1) Dynamic pathology of the Hippocratic medicine but which ignored anatomy 2) Anatomical pathology of Alexandrian medicine Galen integrated these two different traditions by his concept of disease His definition of disease impairment of bodily activities made it possible to harmonize these two different traditions otherwise which would have been conflictual It is Galen's great contribution to Western medicine to have laid a foundation of pathology by combining physiological and anatomical point of view.
*Disease ; Greek World/*history ; History, Ancient ; Philosophy, Medical/*history ; Rome

The identity of the author's opponents of On Ancient Medicine is an attractive and problematic question. In 1963, Lloyd suggested that the author was attacking Philolaus or medical thinkers influenced by him. In 1998, Vegetty argued that the author's attack was directed at Empedocles himself. But Lloyd's hypothesis need to solve Philolaus' paradox and there is a strong evidence that the author is not criticizing a specific text or thinker at all, but rather a general trend or tendency in the medicine of his time. It is that the author regularly refers to the opponents in the plural(chh. 1, 13, 15, 20). Jouanna in his introduction Bude edition(p. 18) supposes that the author means to say that he has completed his discussion of his initially announced opponents and that he is now launching an independent criticism of philosophical medicine in general, as if there is no essential connection between the two groups. But the distinction between the polemic of chh 1-19 and that of chapter 20 is largely a matter of emphasis. In chh 1-19 the author focuses on the aspect of the opponents' causal reductionism, i.e. reduction of the causes and cures of disease to a few factors. And in chapter 20 he steps back to discuss more general physis theory on which such a position was based. At any rate, We can readily see that initial opponents and the thinkers of chapter 20 at least belong the same intellectual milieu. The answer to the question "Who is attacked in On Ancient Medicine?" is not a specific thinker or different groups, but all those who attempted to reduce the cause of disease to a few factors, and to base their medical practice on a theory of the human physis. An opinion that this work attacked a special thinker involves some of the same pitfalls as the traditional Hippocratic question.
Authorship/*history ; History, 19th Century ; Humans ; Philosophy, Medical/*history

The purpose of this paper is to show the influence of Early greek medicine on Plato's Cosmology. Alcmaeon holds that health depends on proportion (equality; isonomia) or proportioned mixture of opposing factors. This notion dominated nearly all greek medicine, and also influenced Plato's cosmology greatly. Generally early greek doctors believed that man consisted of opposing factors, though these are designated differently. Alcmaeon takes powers - hot and dry, cold and hot, vitter, sweet and the rest as those factors. On the other hand, Philistion of Locri adopts the four element theory of Empedocles. He conceives that human body as a mixture of the four elements, and health consists in proportion of these opposing four element, basically as Alcmaeon. This notion is accepted by Plato. Only Plato differs from Philistion in that he does't consider the four elements as the ultimate factors. In Timaeus Plato explains that the Demiourgos constructed the four elements through introducing 'proportion' into the primitive materials (the oppositives) by means of shapes and mumbers. And Plato thinks that the cosmic body and soul was constructed basically in the same way as the four elements. This is true of the human body and soul. Also Plato explicates diseases from standpoint of proportion or symmetry. Moreover according to Philebus, the good states (i.e. 'health', 'music', 'seasons' etc) in the cosmos arises out of the right mixture of the limit and the unlimited. In other word this mixture is proportioned mixture of the oppositives by aid of ratios. In short Plato believes that both the cosmos itself and the good states is proportioned mixture of the oppositives. Thus Plato' cosmology is fundamentally based upon Alcmaeon's or Philistion's concept of Health.
English Abstract ; Greece ; History of Medicine, Ancient ; *Medicine ; Philosophy/*history

In this paper, the philosophy and the content of medicinal philosophy of Lee Jae-Ma were illuminated through the history and philosophy of the late Choseon times from 1837 to 1900. Some conclusions were as follows: 1. Lee Jae-Ma was a philosopher as well as a doctor, and his philosophical background was well appeared in the book of . 2. Although the philosophy of Lee Jae-Ma and its terms were derived from the Kyunghakseol of Confucianism, the concept of these terms was different from the Neo-confucianism of Song Dynasty in China. 3. The four phases of the philosophy of Lee Jae-Ma was originated from the four important trigrams, however, he did not take the meanings of the changes and development of the trigrams in , but also took the four components of construction of cosmos similar to the Western theory of four component. 4. It is unreasonable that he is categorized in the group of the scholars of anti-Chu-tzu and neo-confucianist since the theory of the four phases was originated from the Kyunghakseol of Confucianism and also neo-Confucianism. 5. Dong Mu took the dualistic theory of mind and body in Ho Chun's as the core of his thought, but Dong Mu's method of the explanation was not based on the Taoism, the key of the thought of , but based on the Kyunghakseol of Confucianism. 6. Dong Mu wrote the two medicinal books and based on the thought of regimen of . But the philosophy of his books was based on the thought of Confucianism, not on of the nature of Taoism.
English Abstract ; History of Medicine, 19th Cent. ; Korea ; Philosophy, Medical/*history

Choe Han-Ki was a philosopher of the 19th century who resided in Seoul. He accumulated vast amount of knowledge of Western science and on the basis of them he built his own philosophical system different from those of the philosophers before him. Not only has he wrote books on philosophy, but many books on science as well. Among them Shin-Ki-Chon-Hum is a very unique medical book which reveals his original medical philosophy. He acquired medical knowledge through the medical books put into Chinese by missionary doctor Hobson and on the basis of them he criticized traditional medicine. He criticized traditional medicine because it explained vital phenomenon through the reductionist theory, such as Oh-Haeng(theory of five phases). And he also criticized it because it lacked in exact anatomical knowledge and that the exact origin of the disease was not known and it had limitations on treatment. He also criticized Western Medicine because it supposed God as a creator. He saw the possibility of communication between Western Medicine and traditional medicine. He didn't regard medicine as concerning disease and health only, but it included everything in it. His philosophy of medicine is just a part of his original system of science, Ki-Hak.
English Abstract ; History of Medicine, 19th Cent. ; Korea ; Philosophy, Medical/*history

The correlation of medicine and evolutionism was negligent in history of science. This article analyzes the correlation of medicine and evolutionism in Metchinikov's medical thought. Metchinikov was concerned about the correlation of medicine and evolutionism. In the late nineteenth century when Metchinikov was engaged in his work, the evolutionism grew up with physico-chemical biology and ecology after The Origin of Species by Darwin. At that time, the evolutionism was pitted against the neo-darwinism and the neo-lamarckism. Metchinikov agreed with the neo-lamarckism because their biological methodology was non-discriminatory. The point of his problem was on the inflammation theory. Metchinikov accepted the theory of a struggle for existence by Darwin, but blamed the theory of a struggle in species. After all, he accepted the theory of a struggle in individual life by neo-lamarckism.
English Abstract ; *Evolution ; History of Medicine, 19th Cent. ; History of Medicine, 20th Cent. ; Philosophy, Medical/*history ; Science/*history

Dong-Eui-Bo-Kam is a medical book of Korean traditional medicine, which is of encyclopedic characteristics. Its contents imply almost every field of medicine. There are also descriptions of human parasites in this book under the title of 'Worms'. Worms described in the book are Sam-Shi-Choong, Ku-Choong(nine worms) the Oh-Jang-Choong(worms of five oragns). Among these Sam-Shi-Choong are not real worms, but quite mythological ones which have been mentioned in the religious Taoism. It is well-known that Dong-Eui-Bo-Kam has Taoistic characteristic. We can verify this characteristics by the fact that it mentions Sam-Shi-Choong on the top of the title 'Worms'. Dominant pathologic theory in the traditional medicine is a kind of balance theory, which defines the healthy state as the harmonious equilibrium of body elements. On the contrary parasitic diseases suppose real agents as the causes of diseases. This point of view appears to be quite different from traditional pathologic view.
English Abstract ; History of Medicine, Modern ; Human ; Korea ; Medicine, Oriental Traditional/*history ; Parasitic Diseases/*history ; Philosophy/*history

The views on the life in the early modern period(the 17th and 18th centuries) with their socio-cultural backgrounds and their meanings at that time were discussed in this paper. Those views discussed here were the dualistic, mechanistic one of Rene Descartes(1596-1650), the animistic, vitalistic one of Georg Ernst Stahl(1660-1734), and the monistic, mechanistic one of Julien Offray de La Mettrie(1709-1751). Author stressed that the processes of their view formation were influenced by the wide range of the various political and religious factors as well as the scientific, medical facts and opinions at that time, and that not only the contents of the views but also their historical contexts should be pursed in the study on the medical thoughts.
English Abstract ; Europe ; History of Medicine, 17th Cent. ; History of Medicine, 18th Cent. ; Philosophy, Medical/*history ; Vitalism/*history

It is a one-sided view to find the greatness of Hippocrates just in seeking after scientific medicine(medicina scientia) and sublating superstitious treatment. The scientific medicine did not begin with him, and the succeeding generations of him were not one and the same in opinions. For example, there were the confrontations between the school of Kos and that of Knidos in the very age of Hippocrates, as well as the opposition of rationalism and empiricism. The school of Kos was alleged to succeed the tradition of Hippocrates, taking into consideration individual physical conditions and being based on the principle of various clinical methods of physical therapy assuming chronical extension. On the contrary, the school of Knidos tended to define the diseases in simple aspects, paying no much attention to the difference of physical conditions and developmental stages of illness. Futhermore, the latter grasped the diseases rather in the point of individual organs than the disorder of physical state of the body. It can be said that the anatomical knowledge was more useful for the school of Knidos. The difference between the two schools can also be found in what purpose the medicine sought after. While Hippocrates attached much importance to physical therapy and made the people including the poor as object of medical treatment. there were doctors in no small number, we can suppose, in pursuit of money, power, worldly glory. As time passed, however, the two schools gradually got similar to each other, the difference of them reduced as well as the tradition of Hippocrates faded. The opposition between rationalism and empiricism in the Hellenistic Age shared, in some aspect, the difference of Kos and Knidos. According to Celsus, the conflict between rationalism and empiricism did not refer to pharmacy or anatomy, but just to diet. The rationalism materialized various methods of therapy considering environmental elements as well as individual physical conditions, but the empiricism in reality tended to expedite simplification of treatment. This tendency of simplification of the latter corresponded to the contemporary need of society, that is, speedy and effective treatment for the wounded in war or for epidemic in the army, farms of collective labour or much crowded cities. The bigger the groups were, the more the methods of treatment got simplified, individual conditions not much accounted. Then, the empiricism came to be united with anatomy, as the anatomy, being much developed in the process of curing the wounded in war, goes with simplification of medical treatment in the hospital of large scale. It can be said that the origin of simplified definition of diseases goes back far to the school of Knidos. On the other hand, in Hippocrates the drugs were in contrast to the diet. While the diet was to help health and rehabilitate physical conditions, the drugs were to result in strong effects of change. The drugs like as poison, eye-salve, ointment were to be made use f for rapid, effective change of physical state or for the treatment of a concrete, limited part of the body, These drugs were also much developed in the Hellenistic Age of the state of chronic war. In initial stages, the toxical drugs as well as the anatomy and surgical operations must have been developed on peaceful purpose, such like as 'theriaca' detoxicating(antidoting) animal's poison, or for easing childbirth. With the increasement of social inequality and unexhausted human desire, however, the toxical drugs or anatomical knowledges got to be used for undesirable purposes. Thus, we can not estimate Hippocrates simply in the point whether he developed scientific medicine or not. The great fame of Hippocrates could be found rather in his method of medical treatment as well as the principle of medicine, as he believed that the medicine should not be exploited for worldly power or wealth but for the convenience of all the people. He pursued healthy life matching to natural state(physis) and took much account of different physical states of individual to embody various methods of treatment, which presupposed chronic delay. The opposite to the Hippocratic medicine is called for the wounded by war, or the collective labourer of large farm with intensive labour exploitation. The medical treatment for them assumed anatomical surgery and drugs of rapid, strong effect.
Greek World/*history ; *History, Ancient ; Humans ; Philosophy, Medical/*history ; Physical Therapy Modalities/history

In The Logic of Life (1970), Francois Jacob (1920~ ), Nobel Prize laureate in Physiology or Medicine (1965), proclaimed the end of vitalism based on the concept of life. More than two decades before this capital sentence condemning vitalism was pronounced, Georges Canguilhem (1904~1995), a French philosopher of medicine, already acknowledged that eighteenth-century vitalism was scientifically retrograde and politically reactionary or counter-revolutionary insofar as it was rooted in the animism of Georg Ernst Stahl (1660~1734). The negative preconception of the term 'vitalism' came to be established as an orthodox view, since Claude Bernard (1813~1878) unfairly criticized contemporary vitalism in order to propagate his idea of experimental medicine. An eminent evolutionary biologist like Ernst Mayr (1904~2005) still defended similar views in This is Biology (1997), arguing that if vitalists were decisive and convincing in their rejection of the Cartesian model (negative heuristics), however they were equally indecisive and unconvincing in their own explanatory endeavors (positive heuristics). Historically speaking, vitalists came to the forefront for their outstanding criticism of Cartesian mechanism and physicochemical reductionism, while their innovative concepts and theories were underestimated and received much less attention. Is it true that vitalism was merely a pseudo-science, representing a kind of romanticism or mysticism in biomedical science? Did vitalists lack any positive heuristics in their biomedical research? Above all, what was actually the so.called 'vitalism'? This paper aims to reveal the positive heuristics of vitalism defined by Paul.Joseph Barthez (1734~1806) who was the founder of the vitalist school of Montpellier. To this end, his work and idea are introduced with regard to the vying doctrines in physiology and medicine. At the moment when he taught at the medical school of Montpellier, his colleagues advocated the mechanism of Rene Descartes (1596~1650), the iatromechanism of Herman Boerhaave (1668~1738), the iatrochemistry of Jan Baptist van Helmont (1579~1644), the animism of Stahl, and the organicism of Theophile de Bordeu (1722~1776). On the contrary, Barthez devoted himself to synthesize diverse doctrines and his vitalism consequently illustrated an eclectic character. Always taking a skeptical standpoint regarding the capacity of biomedical science, he defined his famous concept of 'vital principle (principe vital)' as the 'x (unknown variable)' of physiology. He argued that the hypothetical concept of vital principle referred to the 'experimental cause (cause experimentale)' verifiable by positive science. Thus, the vital principle was not presupposed as an a priori regulative principle. It was an a posteriori heuristic principle resulting from several experiments. The 'positivist hypothetism' of Barthez demonstrates not only pragmatism but also positivism in his scientific terminology. Furthermore, Barthez established a guideline for clinical practice according to his own methodological principles. It can be characterized as a 'humanist pragmatism' for the reason that all sort of treatments were permitted as far as they were beneficial to the patient. Theoretical incoherence or incommensurability among different treatments did not matter to Barthez. His practical strategy for clinical medicine consisted of three principles: namely, the natural, analytic, and empirical method. This formulation is indebted to the 'analytic method (methode analytique)' of the French empiricist philosopher Etienne Bonnot de Condillac (1714~1780). In conclusion, the eighteenth.century French vitalism conceived by Barthez pursued pragmatism in general, positivism in methodology, and humanism in clinics.
Biology/history ; Evolution ; History, 18th Century ; History, 19th Century ; History, 20th Century ; Humans ; Male ; Nobel Prize ; Philosophy/history ; Vitalism/*history