This electronic edition is funded by the National Library of Medicine History of Medicine Division. This text has been proofread to a high degree of accuracy. It was converted to electronic form using Data Entry. (Medical Information Disclaimer:
It is not the intention of NLM to provide specific medical advice but rather to provide users with information to better understand their health and their diagnosed disorders. Specific medical advice will not be provided, and NLM urges you to consult with a qualified physician for diagnosis and for answers to your personal questions.)
ON THE NATURAL FACULTIES Book I
PART 12
[p. 45]among those who have made any definite pronouncement regarding Nature. I speak, of course, of such of them as know what they are talking about, and who realize the logical sequence of their hypotheses, and stand by them; as for those who cannot understand even this, but who simply talk any nonsense that comes to their tongues, and who do not remain definitely attached either to one sect or the other- such people are not even worth mentioning.
What, then, are these sects, and what are the logical consequences of their hypotheses?
Here follows a contrast between the Vitalists and the Epicurean Atomists. cf. p. 153 et seq.
The one class supposes that all substance which is subject to genesis and destruction is at once continuous
A unity or continuum, an individuum.
and susceptible of alteration. The other school assumes substance to be unchangeable, unalterable, and subdivided into fine particles, which are separated from one another by empty spaces.
All people, therefore, who can appreciate the logical sequence of an hypothesis hold that, according to the second teaching, there does not exist any substance or faculty peculiar either to Nature or to Soul,
Lit. to the physis or the psyche; that is, a denial of the autonomy of physiology and psychology.
but that these result from the way in which the primary corpuscles,
Lit. somata.
which are unaffected by change, come together. According to the first-mentioned teaching, on the other hand, Nature is not posterior to the corpuscles, but is a long way prior to them and older than they; and therefore in their view it is Nature which puts together the bodies both of plants and animals; and this she does by virtue of certain faculties which she possesses- these being, on the one hand, attractive and assimilative of what is appropriate, and, on the other, explusive of
