Cause Principle Unity

Cause, principle and unity
them, nor by the inspiration of good or bad demons, like the prophets, nor,
finally, under the effect of melancholic enthusiasm, like poets or other
contemplatives), or by instituting laws and reforming customs, by practising
medicine, or even by becoming acquainted with and leading a blessed
and more divine life. That is why no well-organized philosophy exists that
does not contain some special quality not found in the others. I understand
the same of medicine, which derives from principles that presuppose a
fairly good philosophical outlook, as the function of the hand or foot presupposes
that of the eye. Thus, it is said that there cannot be good medical
principles where there is not a good point of departure in philosophy.
DICSONO. You please me greatly, and I praise you in equal measure, for
just as you are not as vulgar as Aristotle, you are neither as pretentious nor
offensive as he, devoting himself to belittling the opinions of all other
philosophers as well as their manner of philosophizing.
TEOFILO. Of all the philosophers, I know none more reliant upon fancies
and more remote from nature than he. Even if he says excellent things
at times, it is recognized that they are not derived from his own principles,
but are always propositions borrowed from other philosophers, such as
those divine things we see in the books On Generation, Meteors and On
Animals and Plants.
DICSONO. Coming back to the matter at hand, do you hold that one can
give different definitions of matter, without error or contradiction?
TEOFILO. Yes, just as different senses may judge the same object and
the same thing may reveal itself in diverse ways. In addition (as we have
already mentioned), the same thing may be understood from different
points of view. The Epicureans have said some good things, although they
have not risen beyond the material quality. Heraclitus has shown us some
excellent things, even though he has not gone beyond the soul. Anaxagoras
manages to make progress in the study of nature, claiming to recognize,
not only within nature but also outside and perhaps above it, an intellect
which is the same as what Socrates, Plato, Trismegistus and our theologians
call God. Thus, those who begin from an experimental analysis of
simple elements (as they call them) 16 make as much progress in discovering
the secrets of nature as those who start from a rational theory. And,
among them, those who start from the study of physiological structure
progress no less than those who begin from humours, and they, in turn, do
16 I.e. the materialists: on one hand, Anaxagoras (who speaks of ‘parts’), and on the other, the followers
of Democritus and Epicurus (who speak of ‘atoms’).
64