Platonism or Aristotelianism? : a contribution to the history of medicine and science / by Ludwig Edelstein.

  • Ludwig Edelstein
Date:
1940
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Platonism or Aristotelianism? : a contribution to the history of medicine and science / by Ludwig Edelstein. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    4/18 page 758
    In science and its history, then, just as in philosophy and in politi¬ cal theory, Aristotelianism is likely to be represented, and to be believed in, as the truth. The Aristotelians are winning the day, and since “ every man is born an Aristotelian or a Platonist,” as Cole¬ ridge holds,3 one is inclined to conclude that nature has somehow decided the issue. Yet there is still a slight chance left for stemming this predominant trend of thought. The Aristotelians as Aristotel¬ ians and scientists are wont to cherish facts. A restatement of facts, showing that Platonism is not, and has never been, the antithesis of science, may therefore help in bringing about a change of heart in the Aristotelians. Even Coleridge, though he was “ sure that no born Platonist can ever change into an Aristotelian,” went only as far as not to “ think it possible that anyone born an Aristotelian can become a Platonist.” But what may become possible or impossible one can¬ not foretell, potentiality being, so to say, a function of actuality. No doubt, the facts to be recounted have been pointed out before, and many times too. Yet truth and knowledge, no matter how firmly established, are bound to perish, says Aristotle; but, so he adds, they can be recovered again and again. It is therefore with some hope at least that I dare take up the subject once more. Plato and physic are incompatible; Plato has a lowly opinion of physicians—the one assumption is apparently based on the belief, not proved but rather presupposed, that Plato lives in a “ twilight of abstractions” and is motivated by a real “ hatred of a fact”; the other is elaborated on with various reasons.4 Only the first conten¬ tion, however, is, I think, important; the second, even if correct, would be quite irrelevant. Nevertheless, in order to dispose of the argument and its possible consequence, I must state that in my opinion Plato never disparages the merit of physicians and that can afford to disregard this paper of Shorey’s who, being a philologist and his¬ torian, expressly writes for scientists and carefully considers the scientific problems of today. 3 S. T. Coleridge, The Table Talk and Omniana, July 2, 1830. 4 Silvette, loc. cit., pp. 1014 ff.; the whole argumentation as given in this para¬ graph refers to statements of Silvette, who, in his general thesis, shares the point of view held by N. Douglas, Old Calabria, ch. 38, The Sage of Croton.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3