75 - The Joy of Sects: Ancient Medicine and Philosophy
The ancient relationship between medicine and philosophy culminates in Galen, who passes judgment on the three main “sects”: rationalism, empiricism and methodism.
Themes:
• For works by Galen see P.N. Singer (trans.), Galen: Selected Works (Oxford: 2002).
• For translation of works by Galen on the sects, see R. Walzer and M. Frede (trans.), Galen: Three Treatises on the Nature of Science (Indianapolis: 1985).
• P. Adamson, R. Hansberger and J. Wilberding (eds), Philosophical Themes in Galen (London: 2014).
• J. Barnes and J. Jouanna (eds), Galien et la Philosophie (Vandoeuvres: 2003).
• L. Edelstein, “The Relation of Ancient Philosophy to Medicine,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 26 (1952), 299-316.
• V. Nutton (ed.), Galen. Problems and Prospects (London: 1981).
• V. Nutton, Ancient Medicine (London: 2004).
• P. van der Eijk, Medicine and Philosophy in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge: 2005).
Comments
Mind and heart and how we hear thoughts
In going back through your earlier episodes, I was struck with an iinteresting thought as I listened that wasn't brought up:
For those who thought the heart was the seat of cognition, where did they think they "heard" their thoughts?
Maybe my philosophy of mind professor would be better suited to answer why I intuitively believe my thoughts are located inside my head - but was this discussed among Galen and his contemporaries?
In reply to Mind and heart and how we hear thoughts by Colin
"Hearing" thoughts
Yes that is a great question and one I have often thought about. In the debate over heart vs brain they don't seem to have thought that it is "obvious" where we are thinking; indeed if it were there would be no debate. I often wonder whether we have this intuition only because we grew up in a brain-centered-theory culture?
In reply to "Hearing" thoughts by Peter Adamson
Rebecca R.M. on August 31, 2024
I have also thought quite a bit about this. I believe (and I didn't come up with this) that we think we think in our head because our senses are mostly located there. We also feel like our consciousness is behind our eyes because vision is so central to experience. I think only part of it is that we grew up in a brain-centered culture. I have come to believe, however, that our consciousness doesn't really exist as a "thing" anywhere. It is no more in our head than in our heart nor in our toe. I am a mere beginner at nondualistic thinking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism), but it has dramatically changed how I look at the world. Thinking happens in our head because that's where our brain is, but where is our awareness of thinking? I don't know if I made any sense at all.
Galen and Philosophy
I was pondering Galen's statement, "the best doctor is also a philosopher" after listening to an interview of a neurosurgeon who has discovered all kinds of things about the brain with apparent worldview implications. I was particularly insterested in his conclusion that conscious mind does not exist independently of the physical brain. His argument seemed to hinge on our conscious mind being more or less along for the ride and not an independent agent of decisions made by the physical brain without our conscious consent. I don't have a ready to go argument for "mind" independent of "brain" but I thought the metaphor of being "along for the ride" inconsistent with his theory of brain, all brain and nothing but the brain. We could be, in Stoic fashion, very much along for the ride, but still have a conscious and independent mind that comtemplates the significance of the ride and what our attitude towards the ride should be. Additionally, it occured to me, "does freewill and decision making have to follow the linear view of time?" Must our consciousness of decision making and an observable prior unconscious brain decsion be judged by a directly clockwork like system of causation? Not being a neurosurgeon and just an armchair/lap top/paper back philospher, I'll submit my thoughts to more advanced analysis.
In reply to Galen and Philosophy by Philip Riske
Galen and neuroscience
Yes I think Galen would feel that his ideas were confirmed by modern medicine, at least when it comes to the soul (he was also the kind of guy who would very quickly feel that his ideas had been confirmed, in general), because of his treatise on the states of the soul following those of the body. I tend to think that people who infer metaphysical claims about consciousness from findings in neuroscience illustrate the adage “when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.” At this point it should be uncontentious that mental states somehow correlate to brain states, but that doesn’t tell us much if anything about the metaphysical relation between the two: one can accept that there is such a correlation while being a dualist, reductive materialist, or anything in between. Not that neuroscience is irrelevant to philosophy, but I don’t think the question “what is consciousness?” could ever be answered (purely) empirically, any more than the question “what is morality”?” could be.
Add new comment