The Impact of Philosophy on
the Progress of Medicine

Charles Kassardjian

When one thinks about ancient Greece, the first names that come to mind are most likely Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. These three men defined ancient philosophy. It is therefore not surprising that the his­tory of ancient Greece and its various accomplishments are forever associated with the progress of philosophy. One achievement that has been attributed to the Greeks is the creation of a scientific method of observation and conclusion based on rational explanations. It is undoubt­edly this philosophy that spawned the separation of medicine from religion and, therefore, the birth of ŌmodernÕ medicine. More specifi­cally, this transformation is attributed to the work of one man: Hip­pocrates, the Father of Medicine. It was the adoption by Hippocrates and his followers of the Ionian philosophy of rational explanations that allowed the formation of scientific medicine. Philosophy thus freed medicine from the restraints of religion and superstition. A few hundred years later, during the age of the Roman Empire, philosophy would once again influence medicine, but in an altogether different manner. It was during the first century ad that Galen became the authority on ancient medicine. Galen held the belief that to study med­icine one had to have knowledge of philosophy. For Galen, medicine was the study to understand the perfection of God, and so once he elucidated a certain question, there was no reason to further experi­ment. This philosophy hindered the progress of medicine for almost fifteen hundred years (Nuland: 45). By providing the basis for the creation of modern medicine in Greece, and then inhibiting its advance­ment through to the Renaissance, philosophy has played a dual role in the progress of medicine.

           It was the philosophy adopted by Hippocrates and his contempo­raries that allowed for the creation of a rational medical science. Greek medicine before Hippocrates was very similar to what was prac­ticed in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia (Loudon: 25). These two ancient civilizations viewed disease as the work of evil demons and supernat­ural forces that could not be controlled by man. The Greeks also believed that disease had divine origins, except that it originated from the wrath of their anthropomorphic gods. Since they could not rationally understand their gods, there was no scientific way to explain the cause and effect of illnesses. Logically, if a supernatural force cre­ated the disease, then only that same force can restore health. This was the theurgical philosophy of the cult of Aesculapius around the fifth and fourth centuries bc (Nuland: 7). Hippocratic medicine, on the other hand, based its teachings on scientific rationality. A disease was a natural phenomenon that had a natural treatment, and therefore man could discover the cure.

           What allowed Hippocrates and his followers to adopt this rational view of medicine? In the sixth century bc, philosophers of the Ionian city of Miletus were the first group to try and explain nature in terms of scientific facts alone (Loudon: 28). They did not resort to claim­ing that environmental occurrences, such as lightening and thunder, were the result of the Gods. These philosophers sought rational answers, and so they originated the scientific method as a way of accounting for their observations. It is this rational philosophy that paved the way for Hippocrates to devise what is considered the first attempt at rational medicine. The philosophical influence is clear, since the texts of the Hippocratic Corpus were written in Ionian, even though the city of Cos, where Hippocrates lived and taught, was Dorian (Loudon: 29). The importance of the rational medicine was immense, allowing a separation of religion from medical healing for the first time in history. James Longrigg expresses this vital connection in saying that all that differentiated Hippocratic medicine from ear­lier and contemporary medicine was derived from its philosophical background (Loudon: 29). In contrast to the Aesculapian, the Hippo­cratic view concluded that since disease was natural, then natural cures existed. This is not to say that religion and superstition disappeared, since many Greeks still believed highly in the healing power of the gods (Loudon: 29). It was the Ionian way of thinking that created the science of medicine, and allowed its progression to the time of Galen.

           Philosophy was the base upon which modern medicine was founded, and later in history philosophy acted just as powerfully as an obstacle to its progress. It was during the second century ad that Galen practiced medicine in Rome and became the most important physician of his time. Galen believed in a Ōmedical philosophyÕ that sought to integrate those two fields. For Galen, to be a good doctor, one had to master philosophy and natural sciences (Loudon: 39). It is not surprising that Plato, Aristotle and Hippocrates were GalenÕs greatest influences. It was, however, GalenÕs personal philosophy that both advanced medicine and held it back. Galen did not have absolute faith in a Cre­ator, but instead believed that the natural laws that governed the world were unbreakable, even by God (Nuland: 33). It was thus his goal to understand the workings and actions of God by trying to explain the natural phenomena around him. This was the motivation that led Galen to the study of medicine and anatomy.

           GalenÕs devotion to his philosophy made him one of the most important contributors to medicine. It was Galen who introduced anat­omy as a viable source for explaining disease, and he was the first phy­sician to propose that an understanding of the body is necessary in order to treat illness. His skill and experimentation were meticulous and accurate, since he thought of his work as learning the perfection of God Himself (Nuland: 34). Although Hippocrates freed medicine from the shackles of religion, Galen was the one who truly transformed it into a science, which he considered could be rationalized by learning how nature worked. GalenÕs conclusive way of writing and sense of pre­cision were also the result of his philosophy. When he discovered or explained something, further experimentation was not needed because of the perfection with which God created it. The fact that he made his solutions seem absolute, compounded by his arrogance and reputation, combined to impede the progress of medicine for almost fifteen hundred years (Nuland: 35). From the time of his death up until the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries his experimentation was accepted as fact, since it seemed redundant to repeat it. This was especially devastating since he often drew incorrect conclusions, once again due to his philosophical beliefs. For Galen there was nothing dishonest in surrounding what he did know with made-up information, as long as it showed the greater plan of nature and thus of God (Nuland: 45). The influence of GalenÕs work was so strong that it prevented scientists and physicians from advancing the field of medicine until the Renaissance.

           The influence of philosophy upon any field present among the ancient Greeks is undeniable. It may be hard for one to imagine the critical impact of philosophy on medicine, however. After all, is not medicine based on science and fact, in order to heal people struck with illness? Without the Ionian philosophy of the sixth century b.C.E. to guide Hippocrates, modern medicine may have developed along a very different path, or more likely would only have begun hundreds or thou­sands of years later. Philosophy must be credited with the honor of being the catalyst for the conception of scientific medicine. It is also phil­osophy that prevented the advancement of scientific medicine five hundred years later. GalenÕs beliefs were so strong that until the fifteenth century his writings were medicine. The overall effect of philosophy was therefore twofold, although in very opposite ways. It would be interesting to compare these philosophical impacts with those (if any) upon later times, such as the Middle Ages, the Renais­sance, and modern Western medicine. This is even applicable to present-day medicine, since the advent of new technology, especially surrounding DNA, has raised a vast array of ethical and moral ques­tions. How does our current philosophy impact the increasingly fast progress of medicine?

References

Loudon, Irvine, ed. 1997. The Oxford Illustrated History of Western Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nuland, Sherwin B. 1988. Doctors: The Biography of Medicine. New York: Random House.