We certainly know of philosophers like Cratylus who revived Heraclitus' doctrine at the very the period when 'On Nutriment ' was being composed. It is possible that the author simply adapted aspects of this Heraclitean revival in order to construct his medical theory. As we have seen, both he and Heraclitus use the same philosophical principle of cyclical flux, expressed in the same epigrammatic, non-sequential style. It is true that Diller finds fault with this term as late, but it is difficult to believe that it emerged only in the Hellenistic period. Moist blood is good, moist blood is bad.
Solid blood is good, solid blood is bad.
The tradition that he follows was not only influenced by philosophy, it also influenced it in its turn. We may then assume that the power of nutrition is prior even to the four elements of heat, cold, moisture and solid that are fed by it. This hypothesis is totally different from that of On Ancient Medicine, where it is assumed that the four elements are corporeal powers in themselves. Aristotle's standard example is that of a seed that has the potentiality to grow into a tree. However, in this case, it can be argued that the medical use of these terms followed that of earlier fifth century philosophical discussion.