In this essay, I address Descartes’ medical thought, starting from the years of Le Monde and focus- ing especially on the “ontological” explanation of the dropsy in the Sixth Meditation. I especially consider Descartes’ attempt to ‘reform’ physiology according to the universal methodology of geometrical reasoning, as well as with the importance given by Descartes’ epistemology to the re- lationship between medicine and the mind-body union. The possibility of a coherent explanation of all the embodied phenomena, including illness and passions (...) is, in fact, a strategic opportunity to show the existence of an inner regularity in God’s Creation and so, to reconnect any ‘practical’ order (including medicine) to His essence. This leads Descartes to implicitly face the problem of the monstrous births, retracing what he could find in Toledo’s and Conimbricenses’ Commentaria. (shrink)

The central question: "What is the Human?" is since Platon till today not answered. Kant distinguishes a physiological and a pragmatic anthropology: The Human knows the nature by senses, but himself by "pure apperception... from physical determinations independently personality (homo noumenon)..., different to... (homo phenomenon)". Kant's idea of the anthropology according to R. Brandt is a holistic totality with three spheres: phenomenal, pragmatic and moral-teleological. The philosophical (Gelen, Scheler), pedagogical (Roth, etc.), medical (V. von Weizsäcker, etc.), also the new anthropology (...) of Gadamer/Vogler considers the human multidimensional, but not enough holistic [Lit.: Michailov, Neu: Soc. Resp. Philos. In: Proc. 21st World Congr. Philos. Istanbul. Press FISP279‐280, 2003; J. Psychosom. Res. 58/6, 85‐86, 2005]. CONCEPTION: Philosophy as "the unique science, which considers a systematic interdependence and gives all other sciences a systematic unity" (Kant) in co-operation with the anthropological sciences could create an integral anthropology, i.e. a general - philosophical (normative), pedagogical (educative), medical (prophylactic/curative), based on a special anthropology (from biological to theological). The last oneshall consider the human [with his "spheres" somatic, psychical, mental/logical, philosophical (epistemology, ethics, aesthetics), spiritual/theological-metaphysical: individual] as well as his interaction with environment and society (natural, social anthropology) on the last level of knowledge, also under consideration of the big cultures – Brahmanism, Buddhism, Christianism, Confucianism, Mohammedanism. CONCLUSION: An integral anthropology could give the way for a transformation of the "false programmed" (Steinbuch) "homo actualis" (Binswanger) by society, i.e. "zoon politicon" (Aristoteles), into a homo sanus, humanus et spiritualis (in context of illumination and perfection/Kant). Scientific and political support of anthropological research is conditio sine qua non for realization of UNO-Agenda 21, which aims are better health, education, ecology, economy in all countries. (shrink)

Agenda 21 of United Nations demands better situation of ecology, economy, health, etc. in all countries. An evaluation of scientific contributions in international congresses of fundamental anthropological sciences (philosophy, psychology, psychosomatics, physiology, genito-urology, radio-oncology, etc.) demonstratesevidence of large discrepancies in the participation not only of developing and industrial countries, but also between the last ones themselves. Low degree of research and education leads to low degree of economy, health, ecology, etc. [Lit.: Neu, Michailov et al.: Physiology in Agenda 21. Proc. (...) Int. Un. Physiol. Sci. San Francisco, Faseb J. 19/5, A1355, 2005; Agenda 21 in Psychol. 28th Int. Congr. Psychol. Beijing, 1028.62/3028.96, 2004]. CONCEPTION: The science is leading in the social and economic development of humanity, but the misuse of science causes disastrous repercussions (ecological and self-destruction). New models for scientific education, beginning with philosophy, followed by philosophical, pedagogical, medical, theological anthropology, and research are necessary tosupport Agenda 21 and prevent misuse of science. According to proposals on foundation of experimental schools (Immanuel Kant) and international universities (Bertrand Russell) the International Academy of Science/ICSD supports these ideas and initiated the creation of first (interdisciplinary) International Faculties forAnthropology as paradigm for humanization, higher effectiveness and pluralistic internationalization of science, leading to better education ("Erziehung und Ausbildung") and research in all countries, i.e. decrease of the gap between industrial and developing countries. CONCLUSION: Foundation of international institutes for general (philosophy, pedagogy, medicine) as well as for special anthropology (theology, informatics-logic-mathematics, culture, biology, (bio-) physics/chemistry) in context of an integralanthropology via networks of national ones from selected countries of Africa, America, Asia, Australia, Europe can permit the necessary implication of philosophy in education of anthropological sciences as well as research and education (post graduate) by common international research and educational programmes, lecturers, students, etc. in one country. This project needs political and financial support by UNO, European Union, governments, banks, industries to support the education of a homo sanus, humanus et spiritualis for the future humanity. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Only a Wet Dream? Hope and Skepticism in Horace, Satire 1.5Kenneth J. ReckfordLong enjoyed as an entertainment piece, Horace’s “Trip to Brundisium” has continued to baffle its readers by recounting trivialities while ignoring politics. A brief, tactful hint at great affairs is quickly abandoned:huc venturus erat Maecenas optimus atque Cocceius, missi magnis de rebus uterque legati, aversos soliti componere amicos. hic oculis ego nigra meis collyria lippus illinere. interea (...) Maecenas advenit...(S. 1.5.27–31)In his first hic ego (7), Horace missed dinner because of stomach trouble. In the second (30), he misses Maecenas’ arrival—and its meaning—because of eye trouble. Is he unable to see what is going on around him? 1Horace’s persona in Satires 1.5 is well crafted: the naive, good-humored traveling companion, concerned primarily with his own intrusive comforts and discomforts. He likes good food, drink, and sleep, good health and good company, and he especially enjoys his friends: nil ego contulerim iucundo sanus amico (44). He was taken along, it would appear, rather passively from the first (egressum magna me accepit Aricia Roma), on a mission that had something to do with “reconciling [End Page 525] friends” who had fallen out. That is all he knows, and all he needs to know. 2We may well suspect that Horace was keeping a diplomatic silence, that Maecenas confided in him, here and elsewhere, precisely because he did not have a “leaky ear.” 3 He would be teasing, then: teasing prospective readers who would suspect that he was withholding privileged information with intent to annoy, and (rather beyond his intent?) teasing modern scholars who cannot even take the satire’s date for granted, let alone follow the diplomatic maneuvers of Octavian and Antony in 38-37 B.C. 4 If we follow Horace’s lead, all those amusing particulars that render the political picture so opaque convey us insistently into the “little world” of poetry, friendship, and simple human satisfactions. It is tempting to confine our attention to this “little world,” accepting Horace at face value as an amiable entertainer, with brief excursions, perhaps, into comparing the esthetics of his narrative with the reconstructed narrative of the casually autobiographical Lucilius—an attempt that, from insufficient evidence, must also end in frustration. But there is more. I propose here that the poem is both more public and more private than it seems. Reading between the lines, though without abusing allegory, we find Horace deeply implicated in issues of war and peace. Through the distorting lens of the satiric and comic imagination he portrays how a sensitive and thoughtful person might waver between hope for a peaceful, even “friendly” resolution of conflict and skepti-cal awareness of the gap between personal wish-fulfillment (the “wet [End Page 526] dream” of my title) and political reality. Yet this same wavering, and Horace’s consequent, very human vacillation between emotional involvement with Rome and Epicurean disengagement, are the stuff of which genuine poetry—and, consistently over time and through different genres, Horatian poetry—is made.My argument focuses on three aspects of Satire 1.5: the theme of amicitia, private and public; the agon, or insult-match between Sarmentus the scurra and Messius Cicirrus; and the “wet dream” and “failed miracle” sequences toward the end. But first, because Horace’s satires are in part exploratory, like all good poetry, and because meanings notoriously shift as a work progresses in time and is made available to different audiences or circles of readers, I begin with a hypothetical framework consisting of (1) the occasion and first plan, (2) the sketching-out and refining of the satire, (3) its first reading(s) to friends, and (4) its first publication in book form. Further questions of reader reception and the organization of the libellus are deferred until the close of the essay.Hypothetical Stages Of Composition And Reception(1) The poem is conceived. We begin with the happy conjunction of two opportunities (kairoi), Roman and Horatian. The larger kairos involves the diplomatic mission of 37, a renewed attempt to prevent (or postpone) conflict between Octavian and Antony, to settle their differences, and to provide... (shrink)