> The title either refers to the art practised by the Magi (the Zoroastrian priests from Persia), or it refers to the fact that the discussion is a discussion about the Magi
In Aristotle's time, Magic / Magi refers mostly to priests and/or healers, not the "sorcerers" that we might have in mind today.
The way that occultists all claim that all of the other occultists are clueless posers is one of the things that makes the whole lot look rather silly.
The OECD suggests [1] that there are about three nurses for every doctor. Complain about doctors as much as you like, but most nurses have lots of useful and relevant practical experience.
(I think most doctors are probably fine. But I don't need to win that argument to deny the 90% claim.)
Not sure why you linked to that page, as it doesn't mention magic at all, unless I missed it, apart from this in the first paragraph:
"The Ebers papyrus is an ancient recipe book dated to approximately 1552 BC. It contains a mixture of magic and medicine with invocations to banish disease and a catalogue of useful plants, minerals, magic amulets and spells."
Materia medica was the old term for what is now pharmacology.
"It contains a mixture of magic and medicine with invocations to banish disease and a catalogue of useful plants, minerals, magic amulets and spells."
So it doesn't, except when it does.
I'd also argue a lot of medicine employed 'magical thinking' such as efficacy from similarity. Herbs were recommended based on their physical similarity to organs or parts of the body. I don't think it's pejorative of early practitioners to point this out. Until empiricism and experimentalism there was no way to reliably clarify what worked and why.
> "It contains a mixture of magic and medicine with invocations to banish disease and a catalogue of useful plants, minerals, magic amulets and spells."
The sentence you seem to be saying I missed is one of the two I quoted.
> Also medicine and magic used to be synonymous until quite recently.
Not at all. Under Roman law, "magic" was forbidden, and healing magic was considered "not magic" precisely because it was helpful instead of harmful. (As we can see by the fact that people wrote about the question at all, they were well aware of the conceptual similarity.)
Compare WWII terminology in which the difference between a submarine and a U-boat is that the submarine is good and the U-boat is evil.
Really they all seem to have had roughly common roots and then engaged in speciation over time by culture. "Witch" essentially meaning poisioner or "bad pharmacology/herbalism" ans posioned and cursed as essentially synonymous. Given that dose and application make the poison this ends up being a very dangerous look for any herbalist even before any cynical power grabs because they would always look guilty of carrying poison even if the foxglove was to steady the heartbeat instead of stopping it.
The split from Philosopher to Natural Philosopher which later split to Scientest and Philosophy of Science essentially are a more "modern" version of the same process.
> It seems to me as if all these testimonies could be referring to a discussion of wise philosopher kings [EDIT: e.g. Persian Zoroastrian kings] who are able to predict the future through their understanding of the heavens and the science of nature.
Makes me wonder if that is the particular sort of "philosopher king" Plato had in mind, rather than a more general smart guy with the final say-so. The former would resonate, at least a little more, with modern desires to apply empirical methods to sociological and political problems.
That's what tends to happen with pandemics. Established religion loses authority, and scientists who can heal people gain authority.
Then scientist take their newfound authority and invent world destroying super weapons and tell humanity they are insignificant, which tends to swing authority somewhere else.
We have plenty of scientism already, but scientists are only listened to when it's convenient. See: vaccines, nuclear energy, starlink, and climate change. Besides, the interesting questions that drive politics aren't scientific ones.
Science rarely speaks authoritatively on moral questions.
> Science rarely speaks authoritatively on moral questions.
At least they aren't allowed to. Even if you don't allow to derive 'ought' from 'is', facts and reasoning can transform some simple 'oughts' into interesting consequences.
Ie 'ought' plus 'is' can derive you another 'ought'.
You still have to pick your initial 'oughts', of course.
That seems unlikely in several ways - first off the controling humanity part as a whole has failed whenever it has been tried regardless of means.
Second the "scientific priesthood" tropes get it so backwards. A priesthood in the sense depends upon trust and secrets jealously guarded within. Instead they are anti-priests in that they try to promote and want to see understanding spread and progress to more advanced and nuanced areas.
Not to mention I have seen it most invocations as what seems a lot like psychological projection. Dogmatics encounter something science contradicts, no matter how peripheral to their dogma's core and encounter cognitive dissonance. Rather than admit their assumptions may need to shift they then accuse scientests of being the priesthood and trying to take control. There were a number of willful ignorants claiming that math and text based programming were just gatekeeping for a "computer priesthood" back roughly around the dot com bubble when they were feeling envious despite every notion being patently ridiculous - the programming languages made it more accessible and the math is domain fundamental.
The closest apparent thing to a "science priesthood" would be authoritarians wearing science's skin as a clothing but well that is frankly isn't unique as that is what authoritarians have always to every ideology. See every dictator claiming to be a god-king, theocract, first citizen, "president for life", or similiar mask.
Plato counterposed reason to emotion. I think he said, emotions corrupt reason. That's why he wanted to send poets to exile. He opposed bards who used to tell stories by going from place to another. Ancient Skeptics (both Pyrrhonian and Academic) and Ancient Cynics supported bards; btw, these Skeptics were not like modern (epistemic) skeptics. Epistemic skepticism is all about infinite regress, whereas Ancient skeptics were saying something different: practices don't need foundation in reason.
To be fair "among the other things he predicted about Socrates, was that he will have a violent end" could have been predicted by pretty much anyone who had grown up among primates. A contemporary phrase: "στέργει γὰρ οὐδεὶς ἄγγελον κακῶν ἐπῶν."
25 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 58.0 ms ] threadIn Aristotle's time, Magic / Magi refers mostly to priests and/or healers, not the "sorcerers" that we might have in mind today.
(I think most doctors are probably fine. But I don't need to win that argument to deny the 90% claim.)
[1] https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/health_glance-2017-5... suggests
"Magic" and "medicine" have been distinct for thousands of years in Europe.
Medicine and magic have been intertwined throughout human history, all over the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materia_medica
"The Ebers papyrus is an ancient recipe book dated to approximately 1552 BC. It contains a mixture of magic and medicine with invocations to banish disease and a catalogue of useful plants, minerals, magic amulets and spells."
Materia medica was the old term for what is now pharmacology.
"It contains a mixture of magic and medicine with invocations to banish disease and a catalogue of useful plants, minerals, magic amulets and spells."
So it doesn't, except when it does.
I'd also argue a lot of medicine employed 'magical thinking' such as efficacy from similarity. Herbs were recommended based on their physical similarity to organs or parts of the body. I don't think it's pejorative of early practitioners to point this out. Until empiricism and experimentalism there was no way to reliably clarify what worked and why.
> "It contains a mixture of magic and medicine with invocations to banish disease and a catalogue of useful plants, minerals, magic amulets and spells."
The sentence you seem to be saying I missed is one of the two I quoted.
> So it doesn't, except when it does.
Please don't do that on HN.
Not at all. Under Roman law, "magic" was forbidden, and healing magic was considered "not magic" precisely because it was helpful instead of harmful. (As we can see by the fact that people wrote about the question at all, they were well aware of the conceptual similarity.)
Compare WWII terminology in which the difference between a submarine and a U-boat is that the submarine is good and the U-boat is evil.
The split from Philosopher to Natural Philosopher which later split to Scientest and Philosophy of Science essentially are a more "modern" version of the same process.
Makes me wonder if that is the particular sort of "philosopher king" Plato had in mind, rather than a more general smart guy with the final say-so. The former would resonate, at least a little more, with modern desires to apply empirical methods to sociological and political problems.
That eventually forget why they are worshipping a language they no longer understand.
Then scientist take their newfound authority and invent world destroying super weapons and tell humanity they are insignificant, which tends to swing authority somewhere else.
Science rarely speaks authoritatively on moral questions.
At least they aren't allowed to. Even if you don't allow to derive 'ought' from 'is', facts and reasoning can transform some simple 'oughts' into interesting consequences.
Ie 'ought' plus 'is' can derive you another 'ought'.
You still have to pick your initial 'oughts', of course.
I agree with your first paragraph!
Second the "scientific priesthood" tropes get it so backwards. A priesthood in the sense depends upon trust and secrets jealously guarded within. Instead they are anti-priests in that they try to promote and want to see understanding spread and progress to more advanced and nuanced areas.
Not to mention I have seen it most invocations as what seems a lot like psychological projection. Dogmatics encounter something science contradicts, no matter how peripheral to their dogma's core and encounter cognitive dissonance. Rather than admit their assumptions may need to shift they then accuse scientests of being the priesthood and trying to take control. There were a number of willful ignorants claiming that math and text based programming were just gatekeeping for a "computer priesthood" back roughly around the dot com bubble when they were feeling envious despite every notion being patently ridiculous - the programming languages made it more accessible and the math is domain fundamental.
The closest apparent thing to a "science priesthood" would be authoritarians wearing science's skin as a clothing but well that is frankly isn't unique as that is what authoritarians have always to every ideology. See every dictator claiming to be a god-king, theocract, first citizen, "president for life", or similiar mask.
Clarke may have enunciated it, but Aristotle may have been first to recognize it.
It's truly amazing how many concepts fit that description.
This is confirmed by the Suda."
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/344