지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
목차
1. 머리말
2. 아리스토텔레스와 갈레노스
3. 의학과 철학, 그리고 신학
4. 맺음말
참고문헌 REFERENCES
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
A Review of Recent Developments and the Future of Goryeo History Research: A Look Back into the History of the Goryeo Dynasty from the Perspective of the 21st century by the Korean Medieval History Society
THE REVIEW OF KOREAN STUDIES
2019 .06
-
[중세] 연구주제의 다변화와 시대별 균형: 2021∼2022년 서양 중세사 연구 동향
역사학보
2023 .09
-
독일 중세 도시민 교육의 전개과정과 사회변화
역사교육논집
2016 .01
-
보나벤투라의 복수 실체적 형상론에서 인간의 통일성의 문제
현대유럽철학연구
2015 .01
-
중세학과 동아시아학의 만남: 행복한 결합일 수 있는가?
서양중세사연구
2019 .01
-
양식론의 입장에서 바라본 가톨릭개혁기 이탈리아 회화의 상승지향성
서양중세사연구
2018 .03
-
토마스 아퀴나스의 윤리교설의 구조와 방법은 아리스토텔레스적인가?
건지인문학
2020 .01
-
L'art medieval au milieu des debats philosophiques du XIIe au XIVe siecle: Le Corps du Christ dans les peintures religieuses
서양중세사연구
2020 .01
-
중세 이슬람철학자들의 부활 이해와 우의적 해석 -아비첸나, 알가잘리, 그리고 아베로에스-
가톨릭철학
2021 .10
-
Hildegard of Bingen’s Embryology: Enabling Women’s Reproductive Power without Seed
의사학
2024 .12
-
한국 중세고고학 연구와 문헌사료의 활용
한국중세고고학
2017 .12
-
토마스 아퀴나스의 ‘행복(beatitudo)’의 아리스토텔레스적인 성격에 관한 연구- 토마스 아퀴나스의『윤리학 주해』를 중심으로 -
동서철학연구
2017 .01
-
아리스토텔레스의 저작과 그의 철학
철학연구
2017 .11
-
Galen on the Brain as the Seat of the Rational Soul
철학
2025 .02
-
중세 아서 왕 문학에 나타난 상처와 치유에 대한 고찰
고전중세르네상스영문학
2024 .08
-
“OUR TRUE MOTHER JESUS” AS SPIRITUAL THEOLOGY IN THE SHOWINGS OF JULIAN OF NORWICH
장신논단
2019 .11
-
중세 대학의 설립과 발전 - 학문의 자유를 지키기 위한 보루 -
가톨릭철학
2016 .01
-
13세기 중세 영혼론의 맥락에서 본 단테의 영혼 이해
중세철학
2019 .01
-
최초, 그리고 최고의 서양 중세 그리스도교 개론서-박흥식(2024), 『중세와 그리스도교: 중세는 신앙이 지배한 시대였는가?』, 홍성사, 535쪽
인문논총
2024 .02
-
토마스 아퀴나스의 ‘즐거움’에 관한 연구 : 『윤리학 주해』와 『신학대전』을 중심으로
철학논총
2018 .10
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0