Some questions to get you thinking:
- What is the role of "balance" in Hippocrates' theory of disease and health, and in Plato's theory of justice?
- What is the role of god, the gods, or the divine, as opposed to the human or the natural in these two texts? How are they similar or different on this point?
- Compare the rhetorical strategies used in these two texts, and comment on which one is more convincing for you.
In the Hippocrates reading, he mentions different gods that are involved with certain illnesses and impurities. I found it rather interesting that they would in a way blame a specific god for someone having night terrors or behaving in strange ways. Then, to fix the human, they visit the temple of that god in hopes that the sick human would be cured. I know in some religions, people praise many gods, each involving an element or a god a certain attribute like love or war. I guess it is easy to blame something else or someone else for an illness. Hippocrates says that it is "their own inability to of their own inability to afford any assistance." This statement is rather confusing, but basically, they can't afford medicines, so they would hope that the gods would take the cure away, avoid certain articles of food (as mentioned later in the passage) and not wear a black robe. It is rather strange to read of these practices, but it was how they saw diseases and that they were sacred. Also, I found it interesting that they thought placing a "foot upon another, or one hand upon another" would become "hindrances to the cure." It was normal for these people Hippocrates spoke about.
ReplyDeleteI found Plato's reading a little hard to follow. I kept having to go back to the beginning of the reading to remember what exactly the argument is about and what Socrates is expected to clarify to Adeimantus and Glaucon. Since my Rhetorical Analysis was over this paper, it required me to pay special attention to the details of analogy of the just city and figure out how each "step" corresponds to the topic of justice and injustice. I can't say that I understood all of it, but I found the last six pages very interesting. Socrates says that the "guardians" should not be taught some of the greatest stories because they tell lies. For example, such stories tend to blame the gods for evil things that happen when a god should always be "a source of happiness". What he is referring to is the roots of justice and injustice, which is essential to the argument.
ReplyDeleteThe term “balance”, discussed in the articles, is considered two completely different entities for the authors. Hippocrates considered balance to be stability between the four humors – blood, black bile, yellow bile and phlegm (hot, moist, dry, and cold). Furthermore, Hippocrates believed that living without disease, otherwise stated as to be in good health, was not a divinity decided on by the Gods. Instead, any disease including the “sacred disease” of epilepsy was caused by natural occurrences and could be explained through an imbalance of the four humors. He was against blaming the Gods when disease struck a patient and considered this practice unholy. He believed that instead of engaging in superstitious practices, people needed to accept that poor health could be explained through observation and reason.
ReplyDeleteIn The Republic, Socrates believed there needed to be laws governing what is taught as good and evil within education in order to create balance within the community. He explains that what a child learns early in their education shapes how the child thinks and acts at they grow older. Socrates proposed a law that stated God’s must be always be presented as good while denying anything suggesting God as evil. This will deter children from believing acts such as murder or deceit is acceptable, thus maintaining a healthy balance in the community without revenge. The second law he offered was a God should not be presented as a “Wizard,” or someone who changes themselves into different people or beings to trick others. This would bestow a belief that truthfulness and integrity should be held at a high value. Socrates implies that education is what determines if someone is in good or bad health. In both articles, balance is directly related to the divine power, but it is interpreted differently by the two philosophers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn "On the Sacred Disease", Hippocrates structures his argument by first describing this disease considered sacred for mystical and divine reasons. He then takes these reasons and creates counterarguments for them using his own scientific knowledge, logic, and reasoning. He believed that the human body was afflicted with diseases due to natural causes, age, and genetics. As such, he made these claims in every paragraph and used anatomical facts as evidence. In "The Republic" by Plato, Plato challenges Socrates to define justice and injustice in relation to how each is good or bad for the human soul, and what their origins are. The rest of the reading was over Socrates having a discussion with Adeimantus in order to address Plato's challenge. He did this by creating an example of a "just city" in which he uses hypothetical reasoning and metaphor to gradually explain what the origin of justice is. I did not feel that this method was as effective as Hippocrates' method, because it was solely based on initially objective observations and ideas about what a city is made up of to gradually more subjective ideas. For example, towards the end he compared the "guardians" of the city to a breed of dog considered "noble" and "philosophical". He began to imply that the origin of justice came from the gods, but he wanted the city to believe that the gods were only good and never evil. It became more subjective and hypothetical, did not completely address Plato's challenge in respect to the human soul. It also did not make very many strong claims, nor did it provide very strong evidence. The structure of the paper by Hippocrates and his specific counterarguments that he backed up with scientific facts was more convincing to me.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Hippocrates' argument, he states how the diseases cannot be blamed on the gods for the gods provide purification rather than illness. Therefore, those who consider disease as something divine and something cursed by the gods, were considered impious. In "The Republic", the argument made by Socrates states that certain stories of the gods should be censored if education was the best method of creating a just world. However, he also points out how god should not be bestowed the title "wizard," one who deceits and tricks other. If so, people will begin to believe in a world of deceit and trickery modeled after the title placed on the gods. People should be cautious in what they educate the younger generations, even in the context of gods.
ReplyDeleteIn Plato's reading "The Republic" the argument of what a republic is and what is the defines what is just and unjust is between Socrates and Adeimantus. They start this creation from the beginning with the idea that each man has his own job or task that he needs to fulfill and can only do so when concentrating on one task. this then leads them to needing more people for all the necessities they need for them to have a functional city that they can control. They believe that "one man is best suited to one particular occupation and another to another." this is true because if someone is focused solely on one task he will fulfill it better than he would if he split his time into multiple tasks. They compared man to the city and realized that the "origin of every city is a human necessity." With this in mind they started to create a society and republic that made sense to them and that was fully functional. This city was then turned into a luxurious one which led them to believe that a "luxurious city that we are more likely to discover the roots of justice and injustice." They believe that living this relish and luxurious lifestyle would in turn lead them to live longer as well as their children. The republic started out small but as it grew it became more complicated with occupations, trade, war, and education.
ReplyDeleteI thought the different portrayals of gods in the Hippocrates and Plato's readings were very interesting. Hippocrates states that if any magic or supernatural activity is involved in godly events such as "bring[ing] down the moon, and darken the sun, and induce storms or fine weather," then there was no divinity involved, and it was the work of humans, not gods. He goes on to list various diseases that are blamed on gods, such as "if they speak in a sharper and more intense tone, they resemble this state to a horse, and say that Poseidon is the cause." He mentions various diseases in with gods are associated (almost blamed?) for the symptoms. However, Hippocrates, I think, does not believe this diseases to be caused by god, but, as he mentions, are "hereditary" and therefore caused by humans.
ReplyDeletePlato spoke about the impact of gods in his writing "The Republic," as well, where he spoke of the differences between just and unjust. As Plato brings up the question of upbringing for education for the children in this place, he defines fables as "whenever they tell a tale that plays false with the true nature of gods and heroes." He mentions stories including the Hesiod, Uranus, Cronos and Zeus and mentions that these stories "ought not to be told indiscriminately to young and thoughtless persons" due to their "malevolent lies." He hides the ideas that gods create war among themselves and even try to attack each other, in order to keep the guardians innocent of these types of thoughts.
Reading Hippocrates' article made me feel like if I was back in my anatomy class learning about the brain and the functions of the respiratory system. I'm writing my rhetorical analysis on Hippocrates argument, and in my opinion I though Hippocrates argument should of included some research that showed numerical proof to his argument but I still think his logical opinion of his argument made since and found it convincing because he described how the brain is affected by a diseases and he explained it is not a god that injures the body, but diseases.
ReplyDeleteI found Hippocrate's On the Sacred Disease very hard to read and comprehend. I had to look up a lot of vocabularies in the dictionary, but anyways, I figured out that Hippocrates' main idea was that diseases do not originate from the gods. It is human beings themselves that have the reason and factors of the diseases that humans possess. In both of Hippocrates and Plato's writings, divinity was presented to be the source of good things only.
ReplyDeleteHippocrates' "On the Sacred Disease" counters the popular attitudes of the 4th century B.C., when most people still believed afflictions were generated by the Gods as punishment for mortal sins. Hippocrates is willing to explore the radical view that these people have an unhealthy idea of affliction and attempts to enlighten the readers with a detailed explanation of the respiratory and circulatory systems. He suggests that considering diseases "Sacred" creates an imbalance in health because people need to see illness for what it really is. By explaining simple afflictions Hippocrates allows these people to consider an alternative explanation and bring balance into their health through understanding of the root causes of common illnesses.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete