Abstract

The relationship between philosophy and medicine in antiquity has been extensively discussed by commentators and scholars. The objective of this article was to determine if it is possible to assert that the Hippocratic treatise De prisca Medicina is a criticism directed at Philolaus and, if possible, in what terms it could be stated. With this in mind, the work concentrates on the characterization of the position of the opponent of the author of said treatise in DM § 1. 15-21. Particular emphasis will be placed on the terms “hypothesis” and “principle”. Thus, from four possible proposed interpretations of the first of these terms, namely: a proposition postulated but not affirmed sharply, a proposition whose veracity is supposed, a proposition that must be proved, and an object put to discussion or a purpose, the criticisms that could be at stake in DM in each of these will be outlined and then contrasted with the doctrine of the Pythagorean philosopher that can be reconstructed from the fragments attributed to him as authentic, as well as some testimonies about his medical and epistemological approaches. Finally, it was stated by way of conclusion that the Hippocratic treatise that is thematized in it can be, in various ways, conceived as a criticism of Philolaus. However, it is necessary to emphasize that this inquisition on this subject is not intended to be conclusive; rather, it seeks to provide relevant elements to this debate.