Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Galen’in Element Teorisi ve Acı Argümanı Bağlamında Antik Atomcu Teoriye Getirdiği Eleştiriler

Year 2021, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 673 - 709, 30.06.2021
https://doi.org/10.47424/tasavvur.915913

Abstract

Bu makale, Galen’in element teorisi üzerinden atomcu nazariyelere getirdiği eleştirilerin bir değerlendirmesini sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Özellikle doğa felsefesi bağlamında metafizik bir tartışmaya girişildiğinde doğada yer alan indirgenemez karmaşıklık meselesi Galen’e göre atomcu bir teoriyle açıklanamaz. Zira kendisine göre değişim meselesi atomcu filozoflar tarafından açık bir şekilde formüle edilememiştir. Galen’in bir çıkmaza girdiğini düşündüğü bu teoriye Aristoteles ve Hipokrat felsefesini mezcederek bir çözüm sunmaya çalıştığı dikkat çekmektedir. Benzer elementler arası bir ‘sıçrama’ fikri ve değişimi mümkün kılan krasis anlayışı üzerinden hissedebilme yetisinin temellendirilmesi yapılmakta, insan bedeninin acı hissetmesini mümkün kılan bir mekanizmadan bahsedilebilmesi ve bu durumun açıklanabilmesi için atomculuk gibi kapalı bir teorinin değil; Aristoteles ve Hipokrat felsefesin bir potada eritilmesi sonucu elde edilen daha geçişken bir element teorisinin benimsenmesi gerektiğine dikkat çekilmektedir. Bu durum Galen’i -doğa felsefesi açısından bakıldığında- mekanik bir nedenselliği değil, teleolojik bir nedensellik fikrini benimsemeye götürmüştür. Bütün bunlar birleştiğinde, Galen’in atomcu teoriye medikal-felsefe projesini temel alarak ciddi eleştiriler getirdiği görülmektedir.

References

  • Adamson, Peter. “Galen on Void”. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement 114 (2014), 197-211.
  • Althusser, Louis vd. Reading Capital: The Complete Edition. London ; New York: Verso, 2016.
  • Aristoteles. On the Parts of Animals. çev. William Ogle. London: K. Paul, French & co, 1882.
  • Aristoteles. “Physics”. çev. R.P Hardie - R.K Gaye. Complete Works of Aristotle, Volume 1: The Revised Oxford Translation. Princeton University Press, 1984.
  • Barnes, J. The Presocratic Philosophers. London and New York: Routledge, 1982.
  • Berryman, Sylvia. “Ancient Atomism”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016). Erişim 14 Nisan 2021. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/
  • Bulğen, Mehmet. Kelâm Atomculuğu ve Modern Kozmoloji. Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları, 2. Basım, 2018.
  • Caston, V. “How Hylomorphic Can You Get? Comment on D. Charles, ‘Aristotle’s Psychological Theory”. Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 24 (2008), 30-49.
  • De Lacy, Philip. “Galen’s Platonism”. The American Journal of Philology 93/1 (1972), 27-39.
  • El-Melâhimi, Rükneddin ibn Muhammed. Kitâb’ul Mûtemed fi Usûli’d-din. nşr. Wilfred Madelung. Londra, 1991.
  • Fine, Gail. “Plato and Aristotle on Form and Substance”. The Cambridge Classical Journal 29/ (1983), 23-47.
  • Furley, David. The Greek Cosmologists: Volume I, the Formation of the Atomic Theory and its Earliest Critics. Cambridge University Press, 1987.
  • Galen. De elementis ex Hippocrate (Elements According to Hippocrates). ed. Philip De Lacy. çev. Philip De Lacy. 1 Cilt. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1914.
  • Galen. De Facultatibus Naturalibus (On the Natural Faculties). çev. Brock A.J. London: William Heinemann, 2013.
  • Galen. De Placitis Hippocratis et Platonis (The Doctines of Hippocrates and Plato). ed. Philip De Lacy. çev. Philip De Lacy.
  • Galen. “De Sectis ad Eos qui İntroducuntur (Sects for Begginers)”. çev. Ric-hard Walzer - Michael Frede. Three Treatises on the Nature of Science. Massachusetts, Inidanapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1985.
  • Galen. Galen On Hippocrates’ On the Nature of Man. çev. J.W Lewis. Londra, ts. Erişim 10 Mart 2021
  • Galen. Galen on the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body. çev. M May. 2 Cilt. Ithaca, NY: Cornel University Press, 1968.
  • Galen. In Hippocratis de natura hominis (Commentary on Hippocrates). ed. J Mewaldt. çev. J Mewaldt. 9.1 Cilt. Berlin, 1914.
  • Galen. Kitāb Ǧālīnūs fī l-Usṭuqussāt ʿalā raʾy Abuqrāṭ (De elementis ex Hippocrate). thk. Muhammed Selîm Sâlim. çev. İshak b Huneyn. V Cilt. Kahire: al-Hayʾa al-miṣrīya al-ʿāmma li-l-kitāb, 1986.
  • Galen. “Kitâb’ul Câlinûs fî ennehû yecibû en yekûne et-tabîb el-fâdıl feyle-sûfen (Erdemli bir hekimin filozof olması gerekir)”. çev. Huneyn b.İshâk - Mübahat Türker Küyel. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi V/I (1988), 501-524.
  • Galen. Menâfi’ul ’azâ. çev. Huneyn b. İshâk el-İbâdî. Paris: Fonds Arabe, 2853.
  • Galen. “Quod animi mores corporis temperamenta sequantur (The capacities of the Sould Depend on the Mixture of the Body”. Galen: Selected Works. ed. I Mueller. Corpus Medicorum Graecorum. Supplementum Orientale. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997a.
  • Galen. Three Treatises on the Nature of Science. çev. R. Walzer - Michael Frede. Indianapolis, Ind: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1985.
  • Gökberk, Macit. Felsefe Tarihi. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 12. Basım, 2000.
  • Grant, Edward. A History of Natural Philosophy: From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  • Hankinson, R. J. “Galen’s Theory of Causation”. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römsichen Welt II/37.2 (1994), 1757- 1774.
  • Hankinson, R. J. “Philosophy of nature”. The Cambridge Companion to Galen. ed. R. J. Hankinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
  • Huneyn b. İshâk. “Risâle ilâ Alî b. Yahyâ f’i zikri mâ türem min Kitâbi Câlinûs bi-ilmihi ve b’adi mâ lem yütercem”. Uber die syrischen und arabischen Galen-Ubersetzungen. nşr. Gotthelf Bergsträsser. 1-53. Leipzig: Leipzig, In kommission bei F.A. Brockhaus, 1925.
  • Johnston, Harold J. “Three ancient meanings of matter: Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle”. Journal of History of Ideas 28/1 (1967), 3-16.
  • Karadaş, Cağfer. “Atomcu Düşünceler ve Kelam Atomculuğu”. Kelam Araş-tırmaları Dergisi 1/2 (2004).
  • Karl H., Marx. Demokritos ve Epikouros’un Doğa Felsefelerindeki Ayrım. çev. Saffet Babür. Ankara: Bilgesu Yayıncılık, 2001.
  • Konstan, David. “Atomism and its Heritage: Minimal Parts”. Ancient Philo-sophy 2/2 (1982), 60-75.
  • Kupreeva, Inna. “Aristotelian dynamics in the 2nd century school debates: Galen and alexander of aphrodisias on organic powers and movements”. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 47/ (22 Şubat 2011), 71-95.
  • Kupreeva, Inna. “Galen’s Theory of Elements”. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement 114 (2014), 153-196.
  • Kuşlu, Harun - Aydın, Metin. “Galen Düşüncesinde Mizacın Ahlâka Tesiri”. ed. M. Zahit Tiryaki - Kübra Bilgin Tiryaki. 9-31. İstanbul: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık, 2016.
  • Lange, Friedrich Albert. The History of Materialism. New York: New York: Routledge, 1879.
  • Langermann, Y. Tzvi. “Islamic Atomism and the Galenic Tradition”. History of Science 47/3 (01 Eylül 2009), 277- 295. https://doi.org/10.1177/007327530904700302
  • Louanna, J. “La lecture du treaite Hippocratique de la Nature de L’homme par Galen”. Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. ed. M.O Goulet-Caze. 273-299. Paris, 2000.
  • Lucretius. Lucretius on the Nature of Things. çev. Cyril Bailey. London: Oxford University Press, 1948.
  • Mahmud, Rami. Fâtimîler Döneminde Siyasî ve İdeolojik Bir Yapılanma: Kelamî Açıdan İsmâilî İnanç Sistemi. İstanbul: Post Yayın Dağıtım, 2020.
  • Meyerhof, Max. “New Light on Hunain Ibn İshâq and his Period”. Journal of the History of Science Society VIII/ (1926), 685-724.
  • Milić, Lavinia Galli. Galien Et La Philosophie: Huit Exposés Suivis de Discussions. Librairie Droz, 2003.
  • Opsomer, Jan. “In Defence of Geometric Atomism:: Explaining Elemental Properties”. Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature Section: Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature. ed. James Wilberding - Chritoph Horn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
  • Özturan, Hümeyra. Ethostan Ahlaka: Antik Yunan Ahlak Literatürünün İslam Dünyasına İntikali ve Alımlanışı. İstanbul: Klasik Yayınları, 2020.
  • Pines, S. “A study of the impact of Indian, mainly Buddhist, thought on some aspects of Kalam doctrines”. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 17 (1994), 182-203.
  • Platon. Parmenides. çev. Saffet Babür. İmge Kitabevi Yayınları, 2018.
  • Platon. Theaitetos. çev. Birdal Akar. Bilgesu Yayıncılık, 2017.
  • Râzi, Ebû Bekir. eş-Şükûk ʿalâ Câlînûs. thk. Mehdî Muhakkık. Tahran: M’ahad el-Âli el-Âlemî lil Fikr ve’l Hadârati’l İslâmî, 1993.
  • Sarton, George. Galen of Pergamon. Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1954.
  • Schiefsky, Mark (ed.). Hippocrates On Ancient Medicine (Translated with Intro-duction and Commentary). çev. Mark Schiefsky. Brill, 2018.
  • Schwarb, Gregor. “Early Kalām and the Medical Tradition”. Philosophy and Medicine in the Formative Period of Islam. ed. Peter Adamson - Peter E. Pormann. 104-170. London: The Warburg Institute, 2017.
  • Sedley, David N. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
  • Singer, P.N. Galen: Selected Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
  • Staden, H. von. “Teleology and Mechanism: Aristotelian biology and early Hellenistic medicine”. Aristotelische Biologie: Intentionen, Methoden, Ergebnisse. ed. W Kullmann - S Föllinger. 183-208. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1997.
  • Taylor, C. “Nomos and Phusis in Democritus and Plato”. Social Philosophy and Policy 24/ (01 Temmuz 2007), 1- 20.
  • Türker Küyel, Mübahat. “‘Bilimin Felsefeye Dayandığı Görüşünün Bir Timsali Olarak Galenos’”. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi IV/I (1988), 501-524.
  • Vinkesteijn, Robert. “Mixing body and soul: Galen on the substance of soul in QAM and De Propriis Placitis”. Phronesis 65 (2019), 224-246.
  • Weber, Alfred. Felsefe Tarihi. çev. H. Vehbi Eralp. İstanbul: Sosyal Yayınları, 1998.

Galen’s Criticism of Ancient Atomist Theory Based on His Theory of Elements and Argument from Pain

Year 2021, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 673 - 709, 30.06.2021
https://doi.org/10.47424/tasavvur.915913

Abstract

This article is an attempt to present the critics that Galen made against ancient atomist theory based largely on his theory of elements. For Galen, the problem of irreducible complexity in nature can’t be explained by the atomist theory, especially when the issue is concerned with a metaphysical discussion in the context of philosophy of nature. Yet for him the subject of change in nature was not explicitly formulated by proponents of atomism. For this being the case, by criticizing atomism, Galen tries to formulate a syncretic theory which is mostly an amalgamation of Aristotle and Hippocrates’ views. His theory is a frame in which like-elements affect the likes through a presupposed ‘leap’ between them that is largely related to krasis; which eventually makes the change, bodily sensibility and lastly the pain possible. Therefore, it is imperative that one embraces a transient theory like that of the combination of Aristotle-Hippocrates’s, instead of a closed-theory such as atomism. Taken into consideration from the point of philosophy of nature, Galen would come to the terms with a teleological causality instead of mechanical one. All combined, Galen’s mentioned understandings has led him to bring serious criticism against the atomist theory which can be seen as the extension of his medical-philosophy project.

References

  • Adamson, Peter. “Galen on Void”. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement 114 (2014), 197-211.
  • Althusser, Louis vd. Reading Capital: The Complete Edition. London ; New York: Verso, 2016.
  • Aristoteles. On the Parts of Animals. çev. William Ogle. London: K. Paul, French & co, 1882.
  • Aristoteles. “Physics”. çev. R.P Hardie - R.K Gaye. Complete Works of Aristotle, Volume 1: The Revised Oxford Translation. Princeton University Press, 1984.
  • Barnes, J. The Presocratic Philosophers. London and New York: Routledge, 1982.
  • Berryman, Sylvia. “Ancient Atomism”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016). Erişim 14 Nisan 2021. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/
  • Bulğen, Mehmet. Kelâm Atomculuğu ve Modern Kozmoloji. Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları, 2. Basım, 2018.
  • Caston, V. “How Hylomorphic Can You Get? Comment on D. Charles, ‘Aristotle’s Psychological Theory”. Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 24 (2008), 30-49.
  • De Lacy, Philip. “Galen’s Platonism”. The American Journal of Philology 93/1 (1972), 27-39.
  • El-Melâhimi, Rükneddin ibn Muhammed. Kitâb’ul Mûtemed fi Usûli’d-din. nşr. Wilfred Madelung. Londra, 1991.
  • Fine, Gail. “Plato and Aristotle on Form and Substance”. The Cambridge Classical Journal 29/ (1983), 23-47.
  • Furley, David. The Greek Cosmologists: Volume I, the Formation of the Atomic Theory and its Earliest Critics. Cambridge University Press, 1987.
  • Galen. De elementis ex Hippocrate (Elements According to Hippocrates). ed. Philip De Lacy. çev. Philip De Lacy. 1 Cilt. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1914.
  • Galen. De Facultatibus Naturalibus (On the Natural Faculties). çev. Brock A.J. London: William Heinemann, 2013.
  • Galen. De Placitis Hippocratis et Platonis (The Doctines of Hippocrates and Plato). ed. Philip De Lacy. çev. Philip De Lacy.
  • Galen. “De Sectis ad Eos qui İntroducuntur (Sects for Begginers)”. çev. Ric-hard Walzer - Michael Frede. Three Treatises on the Nature of Science. Massachusetts, Inidanapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1985.
  • Galen. Galen On Hippocrates’ On the Nature of Man. çev. J.W Lewis. Londra, ts. Erişim 10 Mart 2021
  • Galen. Galen on the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body. çev. M May. 2 Cilt. Ithaca, NY: Cornel University Press, 1968.
  • Galen. In Hippocratis de natura hominis (Commentary on Hippocrates). ed. J Mewaldt. çev. J Mewaldt. 9.1 Cilt. Berlin, 1914.
  • Galen. Kitāb Ǧālīnūs fī l-Usṭuqussāt ʿalā raʾy Abuqrāṭ (De elementis ex Hippocrate). thk. Muhammed Selîm Sâlim. çev. İshak b Huneyn. V Cilt. Kahire: al-Hayʾa al-miṣrīya al-ʿāmma li-l-kitāb, 1986.
  • Galen. “Kitâb’ul Câlinûs fî ennehû yecibû en yekûne et-tabîb el-fâdıl feyle-sûfen (Erdemli bir hekimin filozof olması gerekir)”. çev. Huneyn b.İshâk - Mübahat Türker Küyel. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi V/I (1988), 501-524.
  • Galen. Menâfi’ul ’azâ. çev. Huneyn b. İshâk el-İbâdî. Paris: Fonds Arabe, 2853.
  • Galen. “Quod animi mores corporis temperamenta sequantur (The capacities of the Sould Depend on the Mixture of the Body”. Galen: Selected Works. ed. I Mueller. Corpus Medicorum Graecorum. Supplementum Orientale. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997a.
  • Galen. Three Treatises on the Nature of Science. çev. R. Walzer - Michael Frede. Indianapolis, Ind: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1985.
  • Gökberk, Macit. Felsefe Tarihi. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 12. Basım, 2000.
  • Grant, Edward. A History of Natural Philosophy: From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  • Hankinson, R. J. “Galen’s Theory of Causation”. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römsichen Welt II/37.2 (1994), 1757- 1774.
  • Hankinson, R. J. “Philosophy of nature”. The Cambridge Companion to Galen. ed. R. J. Hankinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
  • Huneyn b. İshâk. “Risâle ilâ Alî b. Yahyâ f’i zikri mâ türem min Kitâbi Câlinûs bi-ilmihi ve b’adi mâ lem yütercem”. Uber die syrischen und arabischen Galen-Ubersetzungen. nşr. Gotthelf Bergsträsser. 1-53. Leipzig: Leipzig, In kommission bei F.A. Brockhaus, 1925.
  • Johnston, Harold J. “Three ancient meanings of matter: Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle”. Journal of History of Ideas 28/1 (1967), 3-16.
  • Karadaş, Cağfer. “Atomcu Düşünceler ve Kelam Atomculuğu”. Kelam Araş-tırmaları Dergisi 1/2 (2004).
  • Karl H., Marx. Demokritos ve Epikouros’un Doğa Felsefelerindeki Ayrım. çev. Saffet Babür. Ankara: Bilgesu Yayıncılık, 2001.
  • Konstan, David. “Atomism and its Heritage: Minimal Parts”. Ancient Philo-sophy 2/2 (1982), 60-75.
  • Kupreeva, Inna. “Aristotelian dynamics in the 2nd century school debates: Galen and alexander of aphrodisias on organic powers and movements”. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 47/ (22 Şubat 2011), 71-95.
  • Kupreeva, Inna. “Galen’s Theory of Elements”. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement 114 (2014), 153-196.
  • Kuşlu, Harun - Aydın, Metin. “Galen Düşüncesinde Mizacın Ahlâka Tesiri”. ed. M. Zahit Tiryaki - Kübra Bilgin Tiryaki. 9-31. İstanbul: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık, 2016.
  • Lange, Friedrich Albert. The History of Materialism. New York: New York: Routledge, 1879.
  • Langermann, Y. Tzvi. “Islamic Atomism and the Galenic Tradition”. History of Science 47/3 (01 Eylül 2009), 277- 295. https://doi.org/10.1177/007327530904700302
  • Louanna, J. “La lecture du treaite Hippocratique de la Nature de L’homme par Galen”. Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. ed. M.O Goulet-Caze. 273-299. Paris, 2000.
  • Lucretius. Lucretius on the Nature of Things. çev. Cyril Bailey. London: Oxford University Press, 1948.
  • Mahmud, Rami. Fâtimîler Döneminde Siyasî ve İdeolojik Bir Yapılanma: Kelamî Açıdan İsmâilî İnanç Sistemi. İstanbul: Post Yayın Dağıtım, 2020.
  • Meyerhof, Max. “New Light on Hunain Ibn İshâq and his Period”. Journal of the History of Science Society VIII/ (1926), 685-724.
  • Milić, Lavinia Galli. Galien Et La Philosophie: Huit Exposés Suivis de Discussions. Librairie Droz, 2003.
  • Opsomer, Jan. “In Defence of Geometric Atomism:: Explaining Elemental Properties”. Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature Section: Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature. ed. James Wilberding - Chritoph Horn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
  • Özturan, Hümeyra. Ethostan Ahlaka: Antik Yunan Ahlak Literatürünün İslam Dünyasına İntikali ve Alımlanışı. İstanbul: Klasik Yayınları, 2020.
  • Pines, S. “A study of the impact of Indian, mainly Buddhist, thought on some aspects of Kalam doctrines”. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 17 (1994), 182-203.
  • Platon. Parmenides. çev. Saffet Babür. İmge Kitabevi Yayınları, 2018.
  • Platon. Theaitetos. çev. Birdal Akar. Bilgesu Yayıncılık, 2017.
  • Râzi, Ebû Bekir. eş-Şükûk ʿalâ Câlînûs. thk. Mehdî Muhakkık. Tahran: M’ahad el-Âli el-Âlemî lil Fikr ve’l Hadârati’l İslâmî, 1993.
  • Sarton, George. Galen of Pergamon. Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1954.
  • Schiefsky, Mark (ed.). Hippocrates On Ancient Medicine (Translated with Intro-duction and Commentary). çev. Mark Schiefsky. Brill, 2018.
  • Schwarb, Gregor. “Early Kalām and the Medical Tradition”. Philosophy and Medicine in the Formative Period of Islam. ed. Peter Adamson - Peter E. Pormann. 104-170. London: The Warburg Institute, 2017.
  • Sedley, David N. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
  • Singer, P.N. Galen: Selected Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
  • Staden, H. von. “Teleology and Mechanism: Aristotelian biology and early Hellenistic medicine”. Aristotelische Biologie: Intentionen, Methoden, Ergebnisse. ed. W Kullmann - S Föllinger. 183-208. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1997.
  • Taylor, C. “Nomos and Phusis in Democritus and Plato”. Social Philosophy and Policy 24/ (01 Temmuz 2007), 1- 20.
  • Türker Küyel, Mübahat. “‘Bilimin Felsefeye Dayandığı Görüşünün Bir Timsali Olarak Galenos’”. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi IV/I (1988), 501-524.
  • Vinkesteijn, Robert. “Mixing body and soul: Galen on the substance of soul in QAM and De Propriis Placitis”. Phronesis 65 (2019), 224-246.
  • Weber, Alfred. Felsefe Tarihi. çev. H. Vehbi Eralp. İstanbul: Sosyal Yayınları, 1998.
There are 59 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Religious Studies
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Tugay Taşçı 0000-0002-8094-2238

Publication Date June 30, 2021
Submission Date April 14, 2021
Acceptance Date May 17, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 7 Issue: 1

Cite

ISNAD Taşçı, Tugay. “Galen’in Element Teorisi Ve Acı Argümanı Bağlamında Antik Atomcu Teoriye Getirdiği Eleştiriler”. Tasavvur / Tekirdağ İlahiyat Dergisi 7/1 (June 2021), 673-709. https://doi.org/10.47424/tasavvur.915913.

Flag Counter