4 ms·

To me, the only odd thing here is that people think Isaac Newton is/was odd because he was interested in religion, alchemy, etc. Being a scientific "genius," is

To me, the only odd thing here is that people think Isaac Newton is/was odd because he was interested in religion, alchemy, etc. Being a scientific "genius," isn't mutually exclusive with being interested in other things that weren't scientific.

truculation 9y ago
Yes. Also the assessment of parts of his non-scientific work as being 'almost entirely fruitless' might be mistaken. We don't and can't understand how his great mind worked. Could it be that an apparently strange obsession was vital to its functioning?
- gameswithgo 9y ago
  And, to an extent we only know that alchemy is "non scientific " because a lot of people like him worked hard on it and figured that out. Until then it was scientific. So too can religious research be scientific even if it turns out there isn't really a supernatural being. A negative result is still a result.
unimpressive 9y ago
As Lawrence Principe points out in his Secrets Of Alchemy, Alchemy was in fact the precursor to our modern notion of 'Chemistry'. The alchemists had theoretical foundations for their work which were inspired by and often incorporated 'unscientific' notions of divinity. At the same time however it's very important to remember that in contemporary terms this wasn't unusual, it's only in hindsight that we can say Newton's mathematical work was more scientific than his theological or alchemical work. (Having read this scholarly book on the subject which spares the bullshit, I quite recommend it.) To people with the 'Magicians Mindset' as Keynes might put it, the world has a rational soul underlying it which can be teased out by careful study of all things. If you're a Christian and start with this prior belief, then it makes perfect sense that you should expect your theological studies to inform your understanding of the natural world and your understanding of the natural world to inform theological studies. This is a mindset where metaphors and abstract connections are not of the human mind. Rather, they represent features of the territory showing us God's divine authorship of the world. Another good book that outlines some of this is Hall's The Secret Teachings Of All Ages, which discusses the essentially Aryan (Indo-Iranian) thesis that all theological traditions discuss the same underlying esoteric doctrine which itself descends from one civilization. Having been written in 1928, Hall speculates Atlantis. (Naturally, you should take this text with perhaps more than just a grain of salt.) As far as I know the modern version of this thesis usually places the ultimate originating civilization in India. https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Alchemy-Lawrence-M-Principe/dp/022610379X https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Alchemy-Lawrence-M-Principe/d... https://archive.org/details/The_Secret_Teachings_Of_All_Ages_-_Manly_P_Hall https://archive.org/details/The_Secret_Teachings_Of_All_Ages...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jdtang13 9y ago
  These alchemical principles you mention are probably derived from the Neoplatonic philosophy of Plotinus and Proclus, which is a pretty fascinating school of metaphysics with a significant mystical component. These Platonic influences are highly visible in Catholic and Orthodox churches today, having been transmitted through Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, and Origen. Hundreds of years ago, it made perfect sense for one person to be both a scientist and a theologian. Also, "The Secret Teachings Of All Ages" sounds quite similar to the perennial philosophy.
IntronExon 9y ago
I think he was odd because of what he did to his eyeball, and his treatment of other poeple. I’d go so far as to suggest that “odd” doesn’t even begin to cover it. His interest in religion and alchemy don’t even register, given the period.
saas_co_de 9y ago
It is more than just a passing interest. There would be no Newtonian physics without religion. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is just the golden rule restated as a physical law. Newton starts from the assumption that the physical world follows a moral law because it was created and is animated by god and everything else follows from and is in accordance with that belief.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is just the golden rule restated as a physical law. No, it's closer to lex talionis stated as a physical law. Which I guess is also religious.
  - V2hLe0ThslzRaV2 9y ago
    "Lex talionis" sounds a lot like "an eye for an eye" - which I might be wrong, but that phrase/idiom has religious origins.
    - NotSammyHagar 9y ago
      I always find these claims not persuasive, where some modern laws of physics can supposedly be aligned or derived from some historical religious concepts that no one ever used to make any predictions that could be verified by science until we started working backwards. There are some brilliant and lovely ideas in the historical texts that have survived to this day, but.... I just don't see that god passed on ideas to the authors of those texts.
  - saas_co_de 9y ago
    Newton's third law is: "Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion Translation from google: "To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction" If the golden rule is: do unto others as you would have them do unto you and you restate that as if it has force of law then you get: Whatever you do to others will be done to you. And then that moral law is generalized to all things to make the physical law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Also, it could be argued that the use of actio (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/actio https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/actio) implies a rational agent, not an abstract principle. It could also be pointed out that the "law" itself is just metaphysical twaddle. There is no empirical basis for this "law" and it makes no sense at all unless taken as a principle based on established authority. The modernized version of the law is "When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body." The extent of revision required to make the "law" even vaguely scientific demonstrates how unscientific the original was.
racl101 9y ago
Agreed. The guy was a Renaissance Man through and through. It would be weirder if a guy with his level of genius and accomplishments wasn't interested in such a wide range of subjects and only was interested in a few subjects. And by interest I don't necessarily mean that he has to excel at everyone one of them the way he did with physics and mathematics, but rather, to be intrigued enough to study them.

truculation 9y ago

Yes. Also the assessment of parts of his non-scientific work as being 'almost entirely fruitless' might be mistaken. We don't and can't understand how his great mind worked. Could it be that an apparently strange obsession was vital to its functioning?

gameswithgo 9y ago
And, to an extent we only know that alchemy is "non scientific " because a lot of people like him worked hard on it and figured that out. Until then it was scientific. So too can religious research be scientific even if it turns out there isn't really a supernatural being. A negative result is still a result.

unimpressive 9y ago

As Lawrence Principe points out in his Secrets Of Alchemy, Alchemy was in fact the precursor to our modern notion of 'Chemistry'. The alchemists had theoretical foundations for their work which were inspired by and often incorporated 'unscientific' notions of divinity. At the same time however it's very important to remember that in contemporary terms this wasn't unusual, it's only in hindsight that we can say Newton's mathematical work was more scientific than his theological or alchemical work. (Having read this scholarly book on the subject which spares the bullshit, I quite recommend it.) To people with the 'Magicians Mindset' as Keynes might put it, the world has a rational soul underlying it which can be teased out by careful study of all things. If you're a Christian and start with this prior belief, then it makes perfect sense that you should expect your theological studies to inform your understanding of the natural world and your understanding of the natural world to inform theological studies. This is a mindset where metaphors and abstract connections are not of the human mind. Rather, they represent features of the territory showing us God's divine authorship of the world. Another good book that outlines some of this is Hall's The Secret Teachings Of All Ages, which discusses the essentially Aryan (Indo-Iranian) thesis that all theological traditions discuss the same underlying esoteric doctrine which itself descends from one civilization. Having been written in 1928, Hall speculates Atlantis. (Naturally, you should take this text with perhaps more than just a grain of salt.) As far as I know the modern version of this thesis usually places the ultimate originating civilization in India. https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Alchemy-Lawrence-M-Principe/dp/022610379X https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Alchemy-Lawrence-M-Principe/d... https://archive.org/details/The_Secret_Teachings_Of_All_Ages_-_Manly_P_Hall https://archive.org/details/The_Secret_Teachings_Of_All_Ages...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jdtang13 9y ago
These alchemical principles you mention are probably derived from the Neoplatonic philosophy of Plotinus and Proclus, which is a pretty fascinating school of metaphysics with a significant mystical component. These Platonic influences are highly visible in Catholic and Orthodox churches today, having been transmitted through Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, and Origen. Hundreds of years ago, it made perfect sense for one person to be both a scientist and a theologian. Also, "The Secret Teachings Of All Ages" sounds quite similar to the perennial philosophy.

IntronExon 9y ago

I think he was odd because of what he did to his eyeball, and his treatment of other poeple. I’d go so far as to suggest that “odd” doesn’t even begin to cover it. His interest in religion and alchemy don’t even register, given the period.

saas_co_de 9y ago

It is more than just a passing interest. There would be no Newtonian physics without religion. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is just the golden rule restated as a physical law. Newton starts from the assumption that the physical world follows a moral law because it was created and is animated by god and everything else follows from and is in accordance with that belief.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is just the golden rule restated as a physical law. No, it's closer to lex talionis stated as a physical law. Which I guess is also religious.
- V2hLe0ThslzRaV2 9y ago
  "Lex talionis" sounds a lot like "an eye for an eye" - which I might be wrong, but that phrase/idiom has religious origins.
  - NotSammyHagar 9y ago
    I always find these claims not persuasive, where some modern laws of physics can supposedly be aligned or derived from some historical religious concepts that no one ever used to make any predictions that could be verified by science until we started working backwards. There are some brilliant and lovely ideas in the historical texts that have survived to this day, but.... I just don't see that god passed on ideas to the authors of those texts.
- saas_co_de 9y ago
  Newton's third law is: "Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion Translation from google: "To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction" If the golden rule is: do unto others as you would have them do unto you and you restate that as if it has force of law then you get: Whatever you do to others will be done to you. And then that moral law is generalized to all things to make the physical law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Also, it could be argued that the use of actio (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/actio https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/actio) implies a rational agent, not an abstract principle. It could also be pointed out that the "law" itself is just metaphysical twaddle. There is no empirical basis for this "law" and it makes no sense at all unless taken as a principle based on established authority. The modernized version of the law is "When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body." The extent of revision required to make the "law" even vaguely scientific demonstrates how unscientific the original was.

racl101 9y ago

Agreed. The guy was a Renaissance Man through and through. It would be weirder if a guy with his level of genius and accomplishments wasn't interested in such a wide range of subjects and only was interested in a few subjects. And by interest I don't necessarily mean that he has to excel at everyone one of them the way he did with physics and mathematics, but rather, to be intrigued enough to study them.