A Commentary on the Sceptical Chymist of Robert Boyle Vol. 2 of 2

A Commentary on The Sceptical Chymist of Robert Boyle Vol. 2 of 2 by Conleth Patrick Loonan, M.Sc., M.Litt. Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy to Maynooth University Presented to: The Department of Philosophy 31st October, 2014 Supervisor and Head of Department: Dr Michael Dunne TABLE OF CONTENTS TO VOL. 2 Page no. The Commentary: The Fourth Part Introductory Remarks 1 The Fifth Part Introductory Remarks 100 The Sixth Part Introductory Remarks 173 The Conclusion Introductory Remarks 240 Discussion and Conclusion 251 Discussion 252 Authority and Autopsia 252 Boyle’s Water Hypothesis 260 Growth of Minerals and Metals 264 Clarity and Distinctness 272 Boyle’s use of Humour 281 Conclusion 289 Suggestions for Further Research 290 Biographical Information 292 The Dialogists: Carneades, Eleutherius, Philoponus and Themistius 293 Carneades 293 TABLE OF CONTENTS TO VOL. 2 Eleutherius 294 Philoponus 295 Themistius 295 Three Atomists: Leucippus, Democritus and Epicurus 296 Leucippus 296 Democritus 297 Epicurus 299 Three Philosophers of great relevance to Boyle: Aristotle, Paracelsus and van Helmont 302 Aristotle 302 Paracelsus 304 Van Helmont 306 Bibliography 310 A Commentary on The Sceptical Chymist of Robert Boyle: The Fourth Part Introductory Remarks The principal theme of this long chapter is, in the words of Boas (q.v.), ‘that substances separated by fire are not always elementary.’ Various chemical processes are described in which materials are separated by means of heat, and Carneades argues that the resulting decomposition products are not elementary. He offers the simple examples of burning wood, which decomposes into smoke and ashes and not into its elemental constituents, as smoke can be further decomposed into several separate substances. Wood ash, containing as it does potassium carbonate may, at a high temperature, be permanently combined into glass. This latter example demonstrates that heat may as well combine materials as decompose them (220-221). Carneades offers further experimental evidence in support of the initial proposition by relating that further compounded bodies on heating are decomposed into products that are neither elementary, nor into the compound bodies constituting them, citing as examples: soap, lead acetate and iron sulphate (213-214). He presents a Cartesian critique of the Paracelsians’ understanding of the tria prima by arguing that they lack clear and distinct notions of them (202-203), and later presages Hume’s Fork by advising that those Paracelsians who wish to write should either produce books that may teach the reader something, or else refrain from writing altogether (206-207). 1 COMMENTARY: The Fourth Part The Sceptical Chymist The Fourth Part Carneades, having finished his discussion of the ‘Number of the Distinct substances from mixt Bodies by the Fire’ (199.2-4), now proceeds to consider ‘the nature of them, and shew [show] you, That though they seem Homogeneous Bodies, yet have they not the purity and simplicity [i.e. they do not have the purity and simplicity] that is requisite to Elements’ (199.5-9). However, before moving on to do this, he must take issue with the Paracelsians and their lax use of language, when speaking of the elements. And this ‘Confidence wherewith Chymists [Paracelsians] are wont [accustomed]’ (199.12-13) to call substances sulphur, mercury or the other ‘of the Hypostatical [elemental] Principles [i.e. salt]’ (199.15-200.1), and also ‘the intollerabln1 Ambiguity they allow themselves ie2 their writings and Expressions’ (200.1-3) causes him both to avoid being mistaken by his interlocutor, or to prevent him from thinking that ‘I mistake the Controversie [dispute]’ (200.6-7) that he will ‘take Notice [mention specially] to you and complain of the unreasonable Liberty they give themselves of playing with Names at pleasure’ (200.7-10). He elaborates on this by saying that the above would cause him such confusion that he would hardly ‘know how to dispute nor which way to turn my self’ (200.18-19) if he were ‘oblig’d [committed] in this Dispute, to have such regard to the Phraseology of each particular Chymist’ (200.10-13) as to refrain from writing anything which such authors ‘may not pretend, [allege esp. falsely] not to contradict this or that sence’ (200.14-16) which they are liable to give to their ‘Ambiguous Expressions’ (200.17-18). 1 Corrected to ‘intolerable’ in the Errata. 2 Corrected to ‘in’ in the Errata. 2 COMMENTARY: The Fourth Part Continuing with his diatribe, he explains what exactly the malefactors are doing by complaining that even ‘Eminent Writers (such as Raymund Lully,3 Paracelsus and others) do so abuse the termes they employ’ (200.20-22) as sometimes they ‘give divers [many] things, one name’ (200.23-24) and frequently ‘give one thing, many Names’ (200.25), some of which may ‘much more properly signifie some Distinct Body of another kind’ (200.27-28). They even, he rails, take this ‘Confounding [confusing] Liberty’ (201.1-2) ‘in Technical Words or Termes of Art [technical terms]’ (200.29). He has seen that they will even ‘call the same Substance, sometimes the Sulphur, and Sometimes the Mercury of a Body’ (201.3-5). And having mentioned mercury, he ‘cannot but take Notice [point out] that the Descriptions they give us of that Principle or Ingredient of mixt Bodies, are so intricate’ (201.6-9) that even those ‘that have Endeavour’d to Pollish and Illustrate the Notions of the Chymists [Paracelsians]’ (201.10-12) are ‘fain [willing]’ (201.12) to admit that they do not know what it means, ‘either by Ingenuous [clever] Acknowledgements [recognition of claims], or Descriptions that are not Intelligible’ (201.13-16). Eleutherius now makes an interjection in which he remarks on the ambiguity of Paracelsus, and speculates as to its purpose. He says that in his reading of ‘Paracelsus and other Chymical Authors’ (201.18-19), he has ‘been troubled [perplexed] to find, that such hard Words and Equivocal Expressions’ (201.19-21), even when writing of ‘Principles, seem to be studiously affected by those Writers’ (201.23-24). 3 Ramon Lull/Llull (1232-1315/16) Catalan or Majorcean philosopher and Christian missionary to the Moors, and to whom a number of works on alchemy have been attributed. 3 COMMENTARY: The Fourth Part He surmises that there are two possible reasons for this: one is to inflate the importance of their work, the second concerns the withholding of valuable information from their readers. As Eleutherius puts it, ‘whether to make themselves to be admir’d by their Readers, and their Art [technical skill] appear more Venerable and Mysterious’ (201.24- 27), ‘or (as they would have us think) to conceal from them a knowledge themselves judge inestimable’ (201.27-30). Carneades goes on to make a disparaging interjection regarding both the writers of such works and their readers. He states that in order to find approval among the uneducated, the writers are willing to risk being despised by the educated. He says that these writers ‘may promise [commit] themselves from a Canting [jargon-laden] way of believing the Principles of Nature’ (202.2-4), they can take advantage of the majority of the ‘Knowing [learned] Men so vain’ (202.5), when they do not understand what they are reading, that such readers ‘conclude’ (202.7) that the writers are to blame, and not themselves. He then considers the writers ‘that are so ambitious to be admir’d by the Vulgar [ignorant], that rather then [than] go without the Admiration of the Ignorant they will expose themselves to the contempt of the Learned’ (202.9-13). This favouring of the approval of the uneducated over that of the learned Carneades dismisses contemptuously by saying that he will allow such writers to ‘freely enjoy their Option’ (202.14-15). He goes on to pass critical judgement on ‘the Mystical [of hidden meaning] Writers scrupling [hesitating] to Communicate their Knowledge’ (202.15-17), of whom he says that ‘they might less to their own Disparagement [discredit] and to the trouble of their 4 COMMENTARY: The Fourth Part Readers, have conceal’d it’ (202.17-19) by writing no books, instead of bad ones. He continues by making an argument against the Paracelsians on behalf of Themistius by saying that ‘if Themistius were here,4 he would not stick [hesitate] to say, that Chymists write thus darkly [obscurely], not because they think their Notions too precious to be explain’d’ (202.21-25), but rather that ‘they fear that if they were explain’d’ (202.25-26) the readers would see that ‘they are farr from being precious’ (202.27-28). Carneades now employs a phrase undoubtedly borrowed from Descartes in which he discusses the clarity of the Paracelsians’ notion of their three principles of salt, sulphur and mercury. He bluntly states his fear that ‘the chief Reason why Chymists [Paracelsians] have written so obscurely of their three Principles, may be, That not having clear and Distinct Notions5 of them themselves, they cannot write otherwise then [than] Confusedly of what they but Confusedly Apprehend’ (202.28-29 – 203.6). He continues in this vein by making another comment critical of the work of his adversaries by suggesting another reason why they do not wish to deliver a clear expression of their teachings. He says that ‘divers [many] of them, being Conscious to the Invalidity of their Doctrine’ (203.6-8), realise that the only way to prevent it ‘from being confuted [refuted]’ (203.10) is by ‘keeping themselves from being clearly understood’ (203.10- 12). 4 This is a clear indication that Themistius has already parted company with Carneades and Eleutherius. 5 The French philosopher René Descartes (1596 - 1650) argued that people often go wrong in their thinking because they rashly give their assent to propositions whose truth is not clear.

Load more