
Aristotle's Lost Book on Magic (2018) - benbreen
https://www.ancientmedicine.org/home/2018/3/11/aristotles-lost-book-on-magic
======
simonebrunozzi
> 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.

~~~
User23
Also medicine and magic used to be synonymous until quite recently. See for
example the American Indian medicine men.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> 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.

~~~
Nasrudith
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.

------
wahern
> 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.

~~~
ngold
I sometimes wonder if humanity will veer off into scientific priesthood that
will control humanity.

That eventually forget why they are worshipping a language they no longer
understand.

~~~
MengerSponge
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.

~~~
eru
> 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!

------
082349872349872
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."

[https://existentialcomics.com/comic/344](https://existentialcomics.com/comic/344)

------
ctdonath
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Clarke may have enunciated it, but Aristotle may have been first to recognize
it.

~~~
ARandomerDude
> Aristotle may have been first to recognize it

It's truly amazing how many concepts fit that description.

------
peter_d_sherman
>"Diogenes reports that Aristotle thought _magic wasn 't sorcery, but
philosophy or wisdom_.

This is confirmed by the Suda."

