Introduction:
Vitalism is “a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part self-determining” (Merriam-Webster, 2014). This doctrine also states “the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from physicochemical forces” (Merriam-Webster, 2014). The vital force principle is the great divide between alternative and biomedicine health care systems, as biomedicine rejects the theories that alternative medicines have suggested.
Although it has previously been rejected in biomedicine, vitalism can be found in biomedical principles. By looking into the history of the separation of health care and alternative theories/ criticisms, it is evident where biomedicine differs in opinion. The analysis of how vitalistic theories apply to biomedical principles suggests that there is vitalism present in Western medicine. By unveiling some of the principles of vitalism that are present in biomedicine, it becomes more evident how biomedical healing can occur through some of these principles, bridging the gap between the two health care systems.
Literature Review:
The history of vitalism.
There has been a long history in the theories and criticisms attached to vitalism. In the ancient times, the “vital force was widely identified with breath” (Stenger, 1999). Many cultures had different names for this same concept, as eventually, material substance was related to breath (Stenger, 1999). The spirit became a nonmaterial entity that gave life to all living things. This concept remained prominent for some time during the Greek and Roman empires.
Hippocrates was the first Western theorist to write on the topic of vitalism. He assumed that the “...
... middle of paper ...
...n referred to as a bioenergetic field, which originated with Mesmer’s theories.
Building on Mesmer’s beliefs of force, William Crookes and Oliver Lodge “sought for evidence on what they called the ‘psychic force’ that they believed was responsible for the mysterious powers of the mind” (Stenger, 1999). This theory made no scientifically proven strides, but the idea of “parapsychology” (Stenger, 1999) continued to be studied for another one hundred years following.
There were many more psychologists, scientists, and theorists who attributed their views to vitalism. Unfortunately, vitalism has become a very broad term whose specific details vary among each avenue of contemporary and alternative medicines. These divergent pathways made it very difficult to grasp a proper history of theories because vitalistic concepts spread among many continents and healing groups.
Twenty four centuries ago, Hippocrates created the profession of medicine, for the first time in human history separating and refining the art of healing from primitive superstitions and religious rituals. His famous Oath forged medicine into what the Greeks called a technik, a craft requiring the entire person of the craftsman, an art that, according to Socrates in his dialogue Gorgias, involved virtue in the soul and spirit as well as the hands and brain. Yet Hippocrates made medicine more than a craft; he infused it with an intrinsic moral quality, creating a “union of medical skill and the integrity of the person [physician]” (Cameron, 2001).
The science and history of the heart can be traced back as far as the fourth century B.C. Greek philosopher, Aristotle, declared the heart to be the most vital organ in the body based on observations of chick embryos. In the second century A.D, similar ideas were later reestablished in a piece written by Galen called On the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body. Galen’s thesis was that the heart was the source of the body’s essential heat and most closely related to the soul. Galen made careful observations of the physical properties of the heart as well. He said “The heart is a hard flesh, not easily injured. In hardness, tension, in general strength, and resistance to injury, the fibers of the heart far surpasses all others, for no other instrument performs such continues, hard work as the heart”(Galen, Volume 1).
Langholf, Volker. Medical Theories in Hippocrates: Early Texts and the Epidemics. New York: de Gruyter, 1990.
This radical separation of mind and body makes it difficult to account for the apparent interaction of the two in my own case. In ordinary experience, it surely seems that the volitions of my mind can cause physical movements in my body and that the physical states of my body can produce effects on my mental operations. But on Descartes's view, there can be no substantial connection between the two, nor did he believe it appropriate to think of the mind as residing in the body as a pilot resides within a ship. Although he offered several tenatative suggestions in his correspondence with Princess Elizabeth, Descartes largely left for future generations the task of developing some reasonable account of volition and sensation, either by securing the possibility of mind-body interaction or by proposing some alternative explanation of the appearances.
Hippocrates believed that macrocosms, often designated the universe and environment, could influence and effect microcosms, like that of the human body. The Hippocratics reasoned this was because all things in the macrocosms and microcosms derived from the same materials. Empedocles, a Greek philosopher, communicated the first four-element theory of matter which delineated the four essential building block to be air, water, fire, earth. All of these elements corresponded with the four humors that, in conjunction with the theories of the contraries (hot, cold, wet, dry), formed Hippocrates’s practice and concept of humoralism (Lecture 3, [FIND DATE]). Hippocrates asserted that each human being contained unique combinations of the four distinctive humors, being yellow bile, black bile, phlegm, and blood, which shaped individuals’ temperaments. Patients fell ill when the balance between these humors was compelled to shift out of equilibrium. Thus, Hippocrates, and his students like Galen, understood that physicians had to have a full understanding of the patient and must subsequently tailor their treatments to achieve the highest form of care (Airs, Waters, Places, 90-91). Consequently, physicians practiced healing with a counterbalance therapy which returned the individual
I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalize and mythologize their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, a belief in us, (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the Enemy [i.e., God]. The "Life Force," the worship of sex, and some aspects of Psychoanalysis, may here prove useful. If once we can produce our perfect work -- the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshipping, what he vaguely calls "Forces" while denying the existence of "spirits" -- then the end of the war will be in sight. (1)
Deborah Lupton, 2012. Medicine as Culture: Illness, Disease and the Body. Third Edition Edition. SAGE publication Ltd.
Steinbock, Bonnie, Alex J. London, and John D. Arras. "The Principles Approach." Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine. Contemporary Readings in Bioethics. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2013. 36-37. Print.
In modern medicine when an ailment arises it can be quickly diagnosed, attributed to a precise bacteria, virus, or body system, and treated with medication, surgery or therapy. During the time before rational medical thought, this streamlined system of treatment was unheard of, and all complaints were attributed to the will of the multitude of commonly worshiped Greek gods (Greek Medicine 1). It was during the period of Greek rationalism that a perceptible change in thought was manifested in the attitudes towards treating disease. Ancient Greece is often associated with its many brilliant philosophers, and these great thinkers were some of the first innovators to make major developments in astrology, physics, math and even medicine. Among these academics was Hippocrates, one of the first e...
...ct of bad health and no exercising. Hippocrates has magnificently reinvented aspects and views of many minds, which resulted in various new modern day medicines. To this day, his works and documents inspire many physicians and scientist to go beyond the average mind- truly thinking outside the box.
Physicalism, or the idea that everything, including the mind, is physical is one of the major groups of theories about how the nature of the mind, alongside dualism and monism. This viewpoint strongly influences many ways in which we interact with our surrounding world, but it is not universally supported. Many objections have been raised to various aspects of the physicalist viewpoint with regards to the mind, due to apparent gaps in its explanatory power. One of these objections is Frank Jackson’s Knowledge Argument. This argument claims to show that even if one has all of the physical information about a situation, they can still lack knowledge about what it’s like to be in that situation. This is a problem for physicalism because physicalism claims that if a person knows everything physical about a situation they should know everything about a situation. There are, however, responses to the Knowledge Argument that patch up physicalism to where the Knowledge Argument no longer holds.
Johnstone, M., Primmer, J. (2014). [Lecture]. The Mind-Body Problem. PHILOS 1E03, Problems of Philosophy. Hamilton, ON, Canada: McMaster University.
...d physical events can cause physical events but the mind and body never interact with each other. This theory fails just as the Epiphenomenalism theory does because parallelism does not answer the question about when a person’s deep feelings do lead them “mental decisions and intentions” (Morris p161).
While the great philosophical distinction between mind and body in western thought can be traced to the Greeks, it is to the influential work of René Descartes, French mathematician, philosopher, and physiologist, that we owe the first systematic account of the mind/body relationship. As the 19th century progressed, the problem of the relationship of mind to brain became ever more pressing.
Hippocrates, often called the “father of medicine” was one of the earliest contributors to modern science. He was called the father of medicine because through his medical school, he separated medical knowledge and practice from myth and superstition basing them instead of fact, observation, and clinical ...