Cargando…

아리스토텔레스 vs 갈레노스: 고대 생명발생론의 중세적 수용과 변용 -13세기 실체적 형상의 단/복수성 논쟁에서 중세의학의 역할(*)

In their embryology, Aristotle and Galen greatly disagreed on the role of human derived materials like menstrual blood and vaginal secretion (called by them female sperm or semen). This gap made those two ancients also disagree on their understanding of mother’s role in the generation of the human b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society for the History of Medicine 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10568165/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31092808
http://dx.doi.org/10.13081/kjmh.2019.28.239
_version_ 1785119299817439232
collection PubMed
description In their embryology, Aristotle and Galen greatly disagreed on the role of human derived materials like menstrual blood and vaginal secretion (called by them female sperm or semen). This gap made those two ancients also disagree on their understanding of mother’s role in the generation of the human body in her womb.<br> During the Middle Ages, especially during the thirteenth century, the scholastics drew on those two ancient thoughts for some rational underpinnings of their philosophical and theological doctrines. However, the manners of adoption and assimilation were varied. For example, Albert the Great strived to reconcile the two in the image of Avicenna, one of the main and the most important sources of Galenist medicine in the thirteenth Century. By contrast, those scholastics who played an important role in the controversy over plurality/unicity of the substantial form, drew on their disagreements. For example, pluralists like Bonaventure, William of la Mare, and Duns Scotus appealed to Galenist medical perspective to underpin their positions and paved ways to decorate Virgin Mary’s motherhood and her active contribution to the Virgin birth and to the manhood of her Holy Son. in contrast a unicist like Thomas Aquinas advanced his theory in line with Aristotelian model that Mary’s role in her Son’s birth and manhood was passive and material. Giles, another unicist, while repudiating Galenist embryology with the support of Averroes’s medical work called Colliget, alluded to some theologically crucial impieties with which might be associated some pluralists’ Mariology based on the Roman physician’s model.<br> In this processus historiae, we can see not only the intertwining of medieval medicine, philosophy, and theology, but some critical moments where medicine provided, side by side with philosophy, natural settings and explanations for religious marvels or miracles such as the Virgin birth, the motherhood of Mary, the manhood of Christ, etc. Likewise, we can observe two medieval maxims coincide and resonate: “philosophia ancilla theologiae” and “philosophia et medicina duae sorores sunt.”
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10568165
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher The Korean Society for the History of Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105681652023-11-07 아리스토텔레스 vs 갈레노스: 고대 생명발생론의 중세적 수용과 변용 -13세기 실체적 형상의 단/복수성 논쟁에서 중세의학의 역할(*) Uisahak Article In their embryology, Aristotle and Galen greatly disagreed on the role of human derived materials like menstrual blood and vaginal secretion (called by them female sperm or semen). This gap made those two ancients also disagree on their understanding of mother’s role in the generation of the human body in her womb.<br> During the Middle Ages, especially during the thirteenth century, the scholastics drew on those two ancient thoughts for some rational underpinnings of their philosophical and theological doctrines. However, the manners of adoption and assimilation were varied. For example, Albert the Great strived to reconcile the two in the image of Avicenna, one of the main and the most important sources of Galenist medicine in the thirteenth Century. By contrast, those scholastics who played an important role in the controversy over plurality/unicity of the substantial form, drew on their disagreements. For example, pluralists like Bonaventure, William of la Mare, and Duns Scotus appealed to Galenist medical perspective to underpin their positions and paved ways to decorate Virgin Mary’s motherhood and her active contribution to the Virgin birth and to the manhood of her Holy Son. in contrast a unicist like Thomas Aquinas advanced his theory in line with Aristotelian model that Mary’s role in her Son’s birth and manhood was passive and material. Giles, another unicist, while repudiating Galenist embryology with the support of Averroes’s medical work called Colliget, alluded to some theologically crucial impieties with which might be associated some pluralists’ Mariology based on the Roman physician’s model.<br> In this processus historiae, we can see not only the intertwining of medieval medicine, philosophy, and theology, but some critical moments where medicine provided, side by side with philosophy, natural settings and explanations for religious marvels or miracles such as the Virgin birth, the motherhood of Mary, the manhood of Christ, etc. Likewise, we can observe two medieval maxims coincide and resonate: “philosophia ancilla theologiae” and “philosophia et medicina duae sorores sunt.” The Korean Society for the History of Medicine 2019-04 2019-04-30 /pmc/articles/PMC10568165/ /pubmed/31092808 http://dx.doi.org/10.13081/kjmh.2019.28.239 Text en © 대한의사학회 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Article
아리스토텔레스 vs 갈레노스: 고대 생명발생론의 중세적 수용과 변용 -13세기 실체적 형상의 단/복수성 논쟁에서 중세의학의 역할(*)
title 아리스토텔레스 vs 갈레노스: 고대 생명발생론의 중세적 수용과 변용 -13세기 실체적 형상의 단/복수성 논쟁에서 중세의학의 역할(*)
title_full 아리스토텔레스 vs 갈레노스: 고대 생명발생론의 중세적 수용과 변용 -13세기 실체적 형상의 단/복수성 논쟁에서 중세의학의 역할(*)
title_fullStr 아리스토텔레스 vs 갈레노스: 고대 생명발생론의 중세적 수용과 변용 -13세기 실체적 형상의 단/복수성 논쟁에서 중세의학의 역할(*)
title_full_unstemmed 아리스토텔레스 vs 갈레노스: 고대 생명발생론의 중세적 수용과 변용 -13세기 실체적 형상의 단/복수성 논쟁에서 중세의학의 역할(*)
title_short 아리스토텔레스 vs 갈레노스: 고대 생명발생론의 중세적 수용과 변용 -13세기 실체적 형상의 단/복수성 논쟁에서 중세의학의 역할(*)
title_sort 아리스토텔레스 vs 갈레노스: 고대 생명발생론의 중세적 수용과 변용 -13세기 실체적 형상의 단/복수성 논쟁에서 중세의학의 역할(*)
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10568165/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31092808
http://dx.doi.org/10.13081/kjmh.2019.28.239
work_keys_str_mv AT aliseutotelleseuvsgallenoseugodaesaengmyeongbalsaenglonuijungsejeogsuyonggwabyeonyong13segisilchejeoghyeongsanguidanbogsuseongnonjaengeseojungseuihaguiyeoghal