Talk:Alchemy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alchemy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Article policies
Featured article star Alchemy is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 1, 2005.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Curious omission

Now it seems that no one has noticed the lack of Jewish alchemists in the article. While I will not contribute to this, I will point out that there is a veritable wealth of material in the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud of examining properties of materials and their mixing, as well as mathematical concepts and other aspects later introduced into Alchemy. This is completely absent from early Greek literature (completely mythological). The etymological origin attributed to Arabic is curious because Arabs did not have this body of knowledge either, or indeed any reason to have it outside of their trading activities. However there were large Jewish communities residing in the areas conquered by Islam after Muhammed, including the nodern Iraq which had some of the oldest Jewish educational institutions in the Diaspora. Interestingly in Hebrew the word Kammah means 'how much', and Kimmah 'to quantify' which seems to very precisely define the basic idea in Alchemy, the determination of proportions in mixing, the concept central to science even today. Its interesting that IF alchemy was of Arab origin, that the Arabs did not go on to develop into a great scientific culture, but Islamic rulers would often employ Jewish doctors and astrologers for their knowledge (before alchemy evolved), and Jews still hold the record for the number of Nobel Prizes awarded to a single ethnic group while I think there are only two Islamic winners and only in recent times.--59.101.79.70 22:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the goals of Alchemy relevant to Bacon

When it comes to the goals of alchemy, specifically as pertaining to Bacon, it may appear that they are one in the same with the goals of modern Chemistry. But, from a purely Alchemical point of view, one must understand that, while the ideals might be the same, the means, and definitely the end, are not. --201.224.189.85 01:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alchemy in Video Games/Anime

Note to self: add references to Fullmetal Alchemist and Secret of Evermore, both of which revolve around alchemy

[edit] Alchemy in Film/TV

What about mentioning The Lawnmower Man (1992 film)? There, the main character(Jobe) briefly says the re-activation of the "archaic" sides of the human psyché was the real goal of the alchemists. signed: KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.1.33 15:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greek or Greeks

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=greek

Greek ( P ) Pronunciation Key (grk)
n.
1.

a. The Indo-European language of the Greeks.
b. Greek language and literature from the middle of the eighth century B.C. to the end of the third century A.D., especially the Attic Greek of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.

2.

a. A native or inhabitant of Greece.
b. A person of Greek ancestry.

3. Informal. A member of a fraternity or sorority that has its name composed of Greek letters.
4. Informal. Something that is unintelligible: Quantum mechanics is Greek to me.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Greek is singular or an adjective form......... Greeks is the plural.

I know you don't speak English natively, but there are very few words which are the same in singular and plural, Greek is not one of them. Moose is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

KV 20:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Jorge was probably building a (false) analogy to ethnonyms like "the English", "the French", "the Swiss", "the Japanese" etc. -- I think it is just the final sibilant that prevents these from marking the plural. dab () 20:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed I am not a native speaker. The funny thing is that as a Portuguese speaker I would naturally write "the Greeks" (as I have always written "The Romans", "the Germans", etc.). That is, I have actually learned that mistake... 8-(
Jorge Stolfi 21:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the sections appears to have been renamed to "like ptatoes and leeks too" or some such. I do not know what the original title was and so cannot repair it.

[edit] Modern alchemy

I would like to comment on the phrase "In modern times, progress has been made toward achieving the goals of alchemy using scientific, rather than alchemic, means." To me an alchemist would not call these means "scientific" as to "alchemic". Alchemist also had a a name for a fast and slow way of the process. What here is called "scientific" would be called the "dry way" it is a fast way to make a transformation, but is also very dangerous. For example :kabbalistic (not enough space to explane this here)views have more or less led to the creation of the atom bomb, a fast transformation of hydrogen into helium, a very fast and dangerous transformation. But to alchemical beliefs their is a "wet way" to achieve transformation, a slower and safer way. Is it possible to incorporate this into the article? 217.136.171.130 14:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Since no one wants to reply to my question I'm going to place it in the article myself, and face the critisism after the edit 217.136.171.130 08:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No mention of Fulcanelli in the Modern Alchemy section? :-) ThePeg 22:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Alchemsitry - New section proposition

I have read an article of a known french magasine: Science & Vie meaning Science & Life. This article (in the book N°1040, May 2004, page 48- 66) is very complete and says that some alchemy-scientist actually succeeded to create a nuclear reastion at room temperature, in other words, they transformed one element into another one like in a nuclear reaction but without any heat being created.

The article is copyright protected but I won't be copying anything they say or use any of the pictures. I will just read and translate in my own words and in a wiki style.

If I get to write this section, it will be my first sub-article.

Josellis 10:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs work

On a first read, I'm surprised that this article made it to featured article status. Let me begin where I'm most familiar, in the Middle Ages.

The section begins with four paragraphs discussing Gerbert of Aurillac, Adelard of Bath, Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Abelard, Albertus Magnus, and Thomas Aquinas. Only one of them (Albertus Magnus) can be associated with alchemy. The only quotations are to Hollister's introductory textbook on Medieval History. Certainly we can find more specific references dealing with the history of medieval alchemy.

Another surprise in the article was the failure to discuss Isaac Newton's work on alchemy in any detail. Here there is an extensive body of secondary literature, but none of it is cited.

I think I'll add it to the History of Science Project list of articles in need of heavy copy editing. --SteveMcCluskey 22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alchemy in the Bahá'í Faith

I wrote a draft on this subject, please let me know if and where it could be included in this article:

Bahá'u'lláh, founder of the Bahá'í Faith, promised the realisation of the discovery of a radical approach to the transmutation of elements as one of the signs of the coming of age of humanity. He prophesied, as well, that after this discovery a great calamity would overcome the world, unless mankind would accept his Faith.(Taherzadeh p.268) Bahá'u'lláh also refers to the elixir and the philosopher's stone, but states that these are spiritual in nature, and refer to the Word of God.(Bahá'u'lláh p.200)(Lambden)

Wiki-uk 12:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As there has been no reaction on this, I have taken the liberty to add the passage to the article. Wiki-uk 16:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The topic is "Alchemy in History", throughout this section, when moving from subtopic to subtopic each and every civilisation has contributed and discovered something new with respect to alchemy. Yet when the reader comes to this point, with all due respect Bahá'u'lláh did not discover, invent or contribute anything original to the History of Alchemy. As this is the situation I advise the creator of this subtopic to do one of two things. Either remove it completely, or remove and insert in a different more appropriate area. To repeat, this is a discussion about the history of alchemy not an opinion provided by a prophet. If others were to take this line of thought, there would be hundreds of quotes from the respectable prophets of all religions. If you are against removing it, please provide a reason why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.244.222.133 (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
In the meanwhile, the section has been moved to the end of the article. Wiki-uk 18:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film and Television section

In the film and television section it stated the replicator and holodeck in Star Trek as alchemical plot elements, saying that they rearranged matter on the molecular level to create food and even people. This is incorrect the devices such as the replicator and transporter use materialization, the proccess of converting energy into matter to create food, and people. The holodeck uses projections of light and forcefields to create people and settings, there is nothing physical about them, they are just energy. The part of the section has been removed.

The edit described above (by User:74.108.19.137) was incorrectly reverted as vandalisim, I've reworded the passage to reflect the concerns mentioned. Upholder 04:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing the point?

Maybe I'm wrong but this article seems to completely miss the point of Alchemy. All the great Alchemists insisted that the idea that Alchemy was anything to do with finding a LITERAL Philosopher's Stone/Elixir of Life or even transformation of Lead into Gold was nonsense. It was a myth put about to sift the real searchers from the materialists. Genuine Alchemy was a mystical tradition aimed at transforming the base material of human nature (lead) into something transcendent (gold). Alchemists found out who was a genuine searcher by examining peoples' motives. If someone took the aim literally and hoped to become wealthy the Alchemists knew he was unsuitable for the path. You can read this in, for instance, the Rosicrucian manifestoes. The scientific lingo was all metaphor. The Lead and Gold were in the human soul. ThePeg 22:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that alchemy's goal was the actual transmutation of metal. The highly spiritual Rosicrucian Order used the principles of alchemy in a metaphorical sense, but they originally practiced it in laboratories, and the notion of metal transmutation was widely accepted as a possibility until the final stages. In any case, this article is meant to reflect the practice of alchemy as a whole, not just the opinions of the so-called "great" alchemists, who dealt with the philosophical aspects. And you completely discounted the alchemists who developed the precursor to chemistry, such as Abdul Al-Jabir.Tsochar 21:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[User:Tsochar|Tsochar]] said "The highly spiritual Rosicrucian Order..." Which Rosicrucian group? There are quite a few. The only one that I know of that had practiced physical alchemy was AMORC. (I believe there was one Rosicrucian group in France that was into plant alchemy. Dont qoute me on that one.) The others I know of practiced mental or spiritual alchemy.

Bill (Feb 5, 2007)

I've since met someone who studied alchemy at university as part of his science course and he said that the aims of alchemy were primarily spiritual but that the scientific side was to do with the idea that the processes of nature reflected the processes of Man's inner nature (something Quantum Science is starting to find). The imagery of Gold etc WAS metaphorical,\not literal, as shown by the Emerald Tablet, which dates back to ancient Egyptian times. Chinese Alchemists definitely saw it as a spiritual journey to immortality. I think that'smuch closer to the truth. ThePeg 22:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alchemy from a Metaphysical Perspective

I think such a section would ease some of the tension here.

I would add that Alchemy from a metaphysical perspective was (in part) symbolic and does not neccessarily mean literal physical transmutation (with a few exceptions like Rasayāna- medicinal substance alchemy etc).

Keep in mind there are different types of alchemy like plant alchemy (spagyrics), internal alchemy or sexual alchemy, mental or psychological alchemy, spiritual alchemy etc.

Bill (Feb 5, 2007)

Some references: "Practical Handbook of Plant Alchemy" by Manfred M. Junius

"The secret of the golden flower" trans. by Richard Wilhelm

"The secret of everlasting life: the first translation of the ancient Chinese text of immortality" trans. Richard Bertschinger

etc.

[edit] Alchemy in the 20th century

A well known 20th-century alchemist was known as Fulcanelli, real identity being unknown if it existed, masterworks "Les Demeures Philosophales" (Philosophal Mansions) and "Le Mystère de Cathédrales" (The Mistery of Cathedrals), his only known disciple Eugène Canseliet ("Quand sel y est", when salt is present) might be the real Fulcanelli. (See those works, namely Canseliet's many prefaces). It his unknown if Fulcanelli reached his objectives or not.

I was surprised to find a "Treatise on Alchemy" by some Solazareff, "Introitus as Philosophorum Lapidem", 1989, stenciled. Xyzt1234 21:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Physical and spiritual alchemy

There exists a controversy between partisans of physical (material) methodologies and those who defend strictly psychological methodologies. The latest viewpoint was begun with the supposition that the end of alchemy would be the transformation of the alchemist. The psychological current bases itself in excerpts of alchemical texts that suggest, more or less -- usually less) clearly that the seat for transmutation is in the operator's head, and that the pseudochemical descriptions are allegories of deep psychological phenomena, and lately the work of Carl-Gustav Jung -- who used alchemichal literature as a source for non-personified examples of his theory. The partisans of physical alchemy are absolutely against this stand of mind-only alchemy and insist on the absolute need of physical operations. Xyzt1234 21:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On viewpoints and goals

I'm quite afraid that people with a moderate interest in alchemy would find the concept of achieving alchemy's goals (whichever they are) by technology a misunderstanding, as science and alchemy share different viewpoints of the universe and the person altogether, although quantum mechanics theory of knowledge, as well as more recent viewpoints in Physics, seem to converge, though not to the letter, of course. It is not impossible to say that alchemy sprouted out science; it is possible to say that alchemy, being a very complex and rich cultural and psychological phenomenon, has not been replaced by science, in the same way religion hasn't and the religious attitude didn't disappear with the scientific method. Xyzt1234 22:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points Xyzt1234. Bob March 19,2007

[edit] Alchemy and Modern Science

I think in the scientific section something should be said about the fact that modern science has its roots in Alchemical studies and that the embaressement and ridicule felt by modern science is like a child being embaressed by its hippie parents. Newton was an Alchemist and based many of his ideas on Alchemy. Many of the Rennaissance scientists were interested in alchemical ideas. Elias Ashmole, who founded the Royal Society was an Alchemist.

Interestingly, many of the ideas of the Rennaissance Alchemist-Hermeticists are increasingly being borne out by modern Quantum discoveries. In Fludd, for instance, you will find many paralells between Alchemical/Hermetic ideas and Quantum Physics. Similarly, Einstein's study of the Kaballah furnished him with many theories about the Universe.

This should be in the article too. The notion that Alchemy is just a lot of period Mumbo Jumbo is pretty outdated now. ThePeg 23:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

though there is much to what you say (though i've neither heard of Einstein studying Kabbalah, nor think that Kabbalah has all that much to do with Alchemy), that's more appropriate to a specialty source regarding Alchemy than it is to an encyclopedia article. Whateley23 23:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
No, ThePeg is right. It should at least be mentioned, not necessarily diving into detail. This article contains a lot of detailed information about Alchemy; why not that bit? Sazielt c 10:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
well, then, someone write it up. if it makes sense, then it's a good thing. if it doesn't, we can always revert it. Whateley23 06:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] scientific research on enlightment

Please elaborate on your revert, you state that the section is not about alchemy, although the subject is enlightment, the philosofers stone and the holy grail (three very relevent subject connected to alchemy). The sources are indeed not independent, as they are means to express a view, it is not stated as a general accepted truth, it sources cleary state they are a certain point of view. This is indeed a controversial subject, so neutral sources will be very scarce. Please reconsider this edit.

Teardrop onthefire 14:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't agree that this belongs in the article.
  • After looking at the web pages cited I note that they make no mention of the influence of alchemy on the thought of Gopi Krishna (except for a vague assertion that the alchemists were seeking enlightenment through the kundilani energy at the base of the spine). There is no documentation provided to support the assertions that alchemists believed "kundilani energy" existed and were seeking to employ it.
  • The cited web pages are all produced by the Kundalini Research Foundation, an organization described as having been organized "at the request of Gopi Krishna." Thus they cannot be considered independent, reliable sources. --SteveMcCluskey 15:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The pages were indeed a quick glimps. Gopi Krishna however wrote several books in wich he explains (according to his experiences) different connections between old mystics, serpent symbols in history and alchemical symbols such as the staff of Hermes. They will however all be sources al being writen by gopi krishna. But I do consider someone own work being the best reffernce to ones view. If you would want to express a statement made by einstein, you would use his works to, no? Teardrop onthefire 07:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • At the risk of being labelled as "pseudo-intellectual" and/or "troll", I only would like to point out that, generally speaking, the sources on which the Wikipedia article about Alchemy is based are far from being realistic, unbiased, or reliable (not to say "NPOV-ed", which, IMNSHO, is nothing but a "myth" --- not much different from the whole "pre-historic cavemen" ``scientific´´ mumbo-jumbo). signed: KSM-2501ZX, IP address := 200.143.1.33 14:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HTH

In the book "La Tradizione Ermetica", Julius Evola explicitly states not only that the actual goal of the actual alchemists was essentially of "spiritual nature", but also that "miraculous" or "preternatural" capabilities would come as a consequence of the spiritual development achieved through alchemic techniques or procedures; *one* of such new capabilities would be the power to transmutate metals(and not only, or necessarily, lead) into gold. Besides, René Guénon, by using other words, and either more or less explicitly than his Italian colleague, also affirmed the relationship and/or equivalence among the "Holy Grail", the "Philosopher's Stone", the "Sacred Heart" and the "soma"/"ambrosia".

P.S.: The "proto-scientists" who took part in giving birth to the materialist science of today were in fact the alchemists who interpreted the symbolic language of the real alchemy texts in a literal way; such false alchemists were derogatorily called <span lang="pt-BR">"assopradores"</span> by the authentic ones.


KSM-2501ZX — IP address:= 200.143.1.33 02:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

tweaked by: KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.1.33 14:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)