CHAPTER THREE CHRYSIPPUS AND SCIENCE The physician Praxagoras of Cos (later 4th c. BCE) has been plaus­ ibly identified as one of the main influences on Stoic physical psychology.1 In PHP I Galen takes issue with Praxagoras' view of the arteries, primarily, he says, because Chrysippus referred to it (PHP I 7.1 = SVF II 897, fourth text). According to Praxagoras, the arteries end in what he called vEupa.2 There is an ambiguity involved here, because Praxagoras, like Aristotle, had not yet arrived at a distinct concept of nerves; for him, the concept of VEupa also covered sinews and ligaments.3 Galen draws a distinction between the structures concerned in his discussion of Aristotle's observation of vEupa on the heart (I 9): what Aristotle saw were not nerves but what Herophilus had called 'nerve-like strands' (I 10.1- 5). 4 In connection with Praxagoras' position, however, Galen is silent about the difference from later usage, presumably because he has no polemical interest in pointing it out here. On the other hand, he is generous in supplying information on the anatomy of the arteries according to Praxagoras. From this it is clear that they functioned as the means of communication through which volun­ tary movement is imparted to the body from the heart.5 In Chrysippus' lifetime, Praxagoras' doctrine may already have represented a traditional and fairly authoritative paradigm of human physiology, with many centuries of influence still ahead, but also under pressure from the more recent discoveries made in Alexandria. There is an interesting passage from the On the Passions (PHP IV 6.5-6 = SVF III 473) where Chrysippus remarks that the terms 'tovo~ ('tension'), a'tovo~ ('with weak tension') and I See supra, pp. 83 ff. 2 Cf. Foet. Form. IV p. 674 K. (SVF II 761): Ti no1' ol)v i::oo~e Xpucrinmp ... U7tO<pTJvaa6at 7t£pl. 1( a p 0 i a c;' roc; npc&tl) 't£ <pUE'tCXl 'tOOV t;cix>u JlOpirov, im' au'ti\c; 'tclAAa yiyvot'tO, Kal. roc; 'tip npc&troc; OtanA.aa6£vn Kat <pAE~OOV Kat v Eu p (J) v a v a y 1( at 0 v U1tUPX£lV apx~v; 3 Cf. De Lacy ad I 86.1-3; for Aristotle, cf. PA f 4.666b14., quoted supra, p. 48. 4 See supra, pp. 48 f. 5 PHP I 1.13-7.6; 7.10-20; 7.23-5; 8.1 printed as Praxagoras fr.ll Stecker!. See also fr. 75 and Stecker!' s discussion on p. 17 f. 190 PART TWO: CHAPTER THREE d5'tovo~ ('with good tension') refer to the veup&Oe~ ('sinewy') and the veupa ('sinews') in order to explain the common metaphorical use of these terms for psychological phenomena, especially for strength of will and its opposite.6 His description of the veupa and veup&Oe~ coheres with Praxagoras' view (fr. 11 St.) .7 However, the wording in this ethical context is rather general and hence the information concerning Chrysippus' use of Praxagorean physio­ logy to be gained from this passage is much less specific than the evidence forthcoming from PHP I-II. In the following pages, I shall review the relevant fragments and testimonia in PHP I-II, and, insofar as possible, reconstruct the overall picture that emerges from them. As a result, Chrysippus' use of current scientific insights and, in particular, his attitude towards the discovery of the nervous system will be clarified. Here certain epistemological doctrines which Chrysippus brought to bear on the general relation of philosophy to science are relevant, as becomes clear from a fragment from his Physical Questions (SW II 763; see below). The following texts should be considered: (1) PHP III 1.15 (SW II 885): Chrysippus' remark on the dis­ agreement among philosophers and physicians concerning the seat of the regent partS certainly implies that, in his view, no unequivocal and decisive scientific results are available. The scientific views he has in mind pertain to anatomy, especially to the structure and function of the Veupa. This passage, then, casts light on the scope of our next passage: (2) PHP I 7.1 (SW II 897, fourth text), which we have already referred to above. Chrysippus is said merely to have mentioned (EJ.L­ VllJ.LOVeUcre) Praxagoras and to have opposed him to the proponents of the head as the seat of the regent part. This strongly indicates that he did not draw on Praxagoras extensively and that his main point may have been that the issue was still undecided insofar as 6 On the metaphorical use of -r6vo~ and veupov see also Vegetti ( 1990), who however does not take account of Praxagoras' influence on Stoic conceptions; cf. Mansfeld ( 1992a). 7 Note esp. ( 1) the idea of -r6vo~ involved here; (2) Chrysippus' reference to av9e~et ('holding fast'), which recalls Praxagoras' emphasis on the evidence of the hands, cf. fr.l1 St. Yet the fact that this conception was similar to those of other authorities should warn us not to be too quick to speak here in terms of specifically Praxagorean influence on Chrysippus; cf. e.g. Aristotle's view. 8 See supra, pp. 148, 155; cf. 144. .
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages2 Page
-
File Size-