A Textual Note on Galen, On the Powers of Foodstuffs I 1.3 (P. 202.17 Helmreich)

Abstract

In De alimentorum facultatibus, Book I, Ch. 1, Galen begins his discussion of the powers of foodstuffs by a rough sketch of the opinions of earlier physicians on this subject. He says that according to some of them these powers are only known (γνσθαι) on the basis of experience (πεῖρα), according to others on the basis of a combination of experience and reasoning (λογισμς), whereas a third group gave priority of importance to reasoning (202.4–6 Helmreich). Galen proceeds to say that there is considerable disagreement between these physicians on the topic in question and that, consequently, an unbiased testing of their opinions is necessary; this testing should operate by means of argumentation (πδειξις). Now there are two different starting-points for argumentation, i.e. perception and ‘distinct thinking’ (ἢ γρ ξ αἰσθσεως ἢ κ νοσεως ναργος). Then the text printed by Helmreich runs as follows: κα μς ναγκαῖν στιν ἢ θατρῳ τοτων ἢ μφοτροις χρσασθαι πρς τν το προκειμνου σκμματος εὕρεσιν: ‘It is necessary for us, too, to use either one of these (i.e. either perception or thinking) or both of them in order to find the question under discussion.’

Towards a Virtual General Meeting: ‘I accept’ or ‘I decline’?

“…74 Boros states that the unpopularity of the VGM in Delaware is caused by the fact that the DelGCL does not set concrete procedural requirements for a virtual shareholder meeting. 75 Delaware law does not require a web forum to provide an electronic analogy to the social confrontation of a physical meeting.…”

“…Van der Krans lists three other possible causes for the apparent low attractiveness of the VGM. 76 First, there is no supervision of the posting and removal of electronic contributions by shareholders. Secondly, the board offers no guarantees 173 that questions will indeed be answered.…”