Alchemy

[EPR_97]

I was wondering about the Medieval practice of Alchemy. In medieval times it was considered to the left of witchcraft and other arts that would fall under the category of ‘magic’, which I know is grievously morally wrong. But many people today consider the practice the predecessor to modern chemistry.

So my question is, Is ‘Alchemy’ Morally Wrong?
(Also, I am not planing on trying anything, I was just a question that has bothered me for a while)

Thanks!

 

[dshix]

I was wondering about the Medieval practice of Alchemy. In medieval times it was considered to the left of witchcraft and other arts that would fall under the category of ‘magic’, which I know is grievously morally wrong. But many people today consider the practice the predecessor to modern chemistry.

So my question is, Is ‘Alchemy’ Morally Wrong?
(Also, I am not planing on trying anything, I was just a question that has bothered me for a while)

Thanks!

Yes, alchemists were often enmeshed with the world of magic and witchcraft, because they were trying to make gold out of common metals, for the purpose of getting rich.

However, they did lead to modern chemistry, in that the methods they uncovered for manipulating various elements contributed to chemistry.

Alchemy itself, however, was the sole pursuit of riches, and due to that selfish motive, I would say it was not a particularly moral. I wouldn’t say it was intrinsically morally wrong, but the way (and purpose for which) it was used probably was.

 

[PseuTonym]

But many people today consider the practice the predecessor to modern chemistry.

I think that is a very important point. Now, I imagine that we could expand upon that statement so that we would refer not merely to a practice, but to a whole constellation of goals, methods, written works, materials, equipment, etc.

I find myself tempted to distinguish between research that goes beyond some paradigm and practice within some paradigm. However, it might be a mistake to try to make a strong distinction there. After all, what does not survive in some form is gone permanently unless it is rediscovered. So, if some level of theory and practice of pre-chemistry had value, then it had to be passed on from generation to generation for that value to be maintained in existence. A researcher cannot stand on the shoulders of giants if all memory of the giants has been erased.

There is an important difference between survival of books containing theory and survival of living practitioners. For example, imagine if nobody alive could play a piano, and to even see a picture or diagram of a piano you had to consult an ancient manuscript. In that case, learning to play piano would be much more difficult than it is today.

I don’t have an answer to your question, but I think that your question is very good, and I doubt very much that the responses in this thread will provide a definitive answer. I think that your question might be a good replacement for some popular topics of discussion.

 

[AyJSimon]

I was wondering about the Medieval practice of Alchemy. In medieval times it was considered to the left of witchcraft and other arts that would fall under the category of ‘magic’, which I know is grievously morally wrong. But many people today consider the practice the predecessor to modern chemistry.

So my question is, Is ‘Alchemy’ Morally Wrong?
(Also, I am not planing on trying anything, I was just a question that has bothered me for a while)

Thanks!

No, not in principle, nor in practice.

 

[mikekle]

From what Ive come to understand, Alchemy is the art of turning lead into gold, as far as I know, this has only been done once, for the life of me I cannot remember who it was, but I do know it was a long time ago, and it was someone who had a well known name…I wish I could remember this, I read an article about this some time ago, it mentioned this person and said he had succeeded, and the only difference in what he did and all the others was some very simply step/ procedure…anyone know who Im referring to?

This is going to bug me now! LOL

I dont think its sinful, but it could be, I mean, if we could learn a way to quickly turn lead into gold, the world is suddenly going to see alot more very wealthy people, so that would probably lead to alot of greed, fighting, etc.

This makes me wonder if it hasnt been accomplished in modern times, but of course they would not want anyone having the ability to make gold at home!

 

[dshix]

From what Ive come to understand, Alchemy is the art of turning lead into gold, as far as I know, this has only been done once, for the life of me I cannot remember who it was, but I do know it was a long time ago, and it was someone who had a well known name…I wish I could remember this, I read an article about this some time ago, it mentioned this person and said he had succeeded, and the only difference in what he did and all the others was some very simply step/ procedure…anyone know who Im referring to?

Heh, I don’t think that’s quite correct. To my knowledge, no one in history has ever successfully turned lead to gold. It would take a heck of a fission reaction to remove those three protons from the lead atoms!!

 

[thistle]

catholic.com/encyclopedia/alchemy

 

[DavidFilmer]

To my knowledge, no one in history has ever successfully turned lead to gold.

No, but we have turned platinum, mercury and bismuth into gold. But it’s very expensive, and is thus not commercially cost effective.

There’s nothing immoral about wanting to turn something into gold, even if the motive is profit. Profit is not immoral. We turn one thing into another thing for profit all of the time - it’s called manufacturing. We turn rocks (ore) into cars, and trees into houses.

We can create synthetic diamonds and gemstones. Synthetic rubies were instrumental in the development of LASER technology because they are flawless. There’s nothing immoral about making diamonds and rubies (and diamonds are FAR more valuable than gold).

Where we have problems is when people place their faith in “magic,” which was usually part of ancient alchemy. There’s nothing immoral about the basic science, but we get ahead of ourselves when we think we can harness occult powers for our own use. Of course, a particle accelerator would surely seem like magic to a Sixteenth Century man of science.

 

[mikekle]

No, but we have turned platinum, mercury and bismuth into gold. But it’s very expensive, and is thus not commercially cost effective.

There’s nothing immoral about wanting to turn something into gold, even if the motive is profit. Profit is not immoral. We turn one thing into another thing for profit all of the time - it’s called manufacturing. We turn rocks (ore) into cars, and trees into houses.

We can create synthetic diamonds and gemstones. Synthetic rubies were instrumental in the development of LASER technology because they are flawless. There’s nothing immoral about making diamonds and rubies (and diamonds are FAR more valuable than gold).

Where we have problems is when people place their faith in “magic,” which was usually part of ancient alchemy. There’s nothing immoral about the basic science, but we get ahead of ourselves when we think we can harness occult powers for our own use. Of course, a particle accelerator would surely seem like magic to a Sixteenth Century man of science.

Personally, I think that ‘magic’ part is something that was lost to the ages, I think at one time, people did actually know how to access and use occult and/or black magic…From what Ive read it was part of the forbidden knowledges, supposedly taught to mankind by the fallen angels, others were root cutting (pharmacology), beautification of the eyes/face (makeup), there are a few others, but I cant think of what they are right now, I believe there was 9 or 10 of these ‘forbidden knowledges’.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)