The Works of Benedictus de Spinoza

hidden in the occult. Thus, wine gladdens, and it is familiar to man: it assumes gold and quicksilver original: "argentum viuum", and with it is extended for gilding, etc. Goldsmiths know these things, not the Aristotelians, who cannot provide the reasons for these from the Acroamatic esoteric/oral teaching works of Aristotle. What follows from this? Is the philosophy of Aristotle therefore to be adorned with shorter feathers? We deny that it follows. For even if military discipline cannot be learned from the philosophy of Aristotle, it should not for that reason be despised. This is a ridiculous argument: goldsmiths in their art know that which the Aristotelians do not. Therefore, they have eyes and an illuminated mind.

47. As it pertains to Plato, Democritus, Pythagoras, and Hermes, it is false that they saw with celestial and angelic eyes, unless you take demons for angels, since they were wicked magicians and idolaters, whose entire wisdom is folly before God in divine matters. In human affairs, however, they are so teeming with vices and absurdities that they have been reproached by many, and the Hermetic dialogues in particular are full of errors. That there are foundations of impious magic in the dialogues of Plato, and the acatalepsy incomprehensibility of the Pyrrhonians, is evident both in itself and is testified to by the writings of the Platonists, Iamblichus, Proclus, Mirandola, Pistorius, Marsilio, etc. But whence is it proved that they acknowledged a seminal virtue in all things? Whatever they knew, they either received through discipline, or learned from familiar spirits original: "spiritibus Parhedris", or in a natural way through sense, reason, and experience. If you look at discipline, Aristotle does not yield to them. If at magic, they were wicked: if at the ordinary way, the Peripatetics leave them behind by long strides, as the matter itself and the controversies prove.

48. The examples that are brought forward do not prove that for which they are used. For regarding the magnet, the Paracelsians have a most false opinion, namely that iron is attracted by it because of an iron spirit, which pulls more strongly in a foreign body than in its own. If there is even a spirit, which the Peripatetics and Galenists willingly concede, those new philosophers must say why it attracts. Is it because it is sulfurous? But why does sulfur attract? Because it is familiar. Why? Is it not because of such a crasis mixture/constitution and an inexplicable property? In the same, nay, in deeper mud, the Paracelsians are stuck. For what is said to be from heaven, they are also bound to prove, since it is not true just because it seems so to them. Regarding garlic, it is said falsely. Regarding the scorpion, the Paracelsians cannot give a better reason than the Galenists. In both cases, ,, sympathy and similarity have reasons in the occult. That a man loves gold is particular and accidental. The same man also loves girls, glory, estates, and many other things he thinks are good and pleasant to him, and this often not in themselves, but by accident. Therefore, many have despised gold who have been quite famous in the name of wisdom. If pebbles had value in commerce, gold, silver, and the like would be quite worthless. Wine is so familiar to human nature that it sometimes becomes poison, whether you provide the whole or its essence. But was this unknown to the ancients? Do the Paracelsians not beg the question when they say the spirit of wine is the cause? For why is this the cause? You will say heaven. But I ask for the principle of this too. Thus, the Galenists can argue better about the familiarity of gold and quicksilver than the Paracelsians, although the nature of mercury was unexplored by Galen.

49. From his own impotence, that man estimated the power of the high. If he had correctly understood the Acroamata of Aristotle, he could have also discussed the nature of gold and quicksilver physikos naturally: he could have taken the particulars from the books on origin, and the 4th book of the Meteors, and the declarations of other Peripatetics. Tell me, chemists, why do gold and quicksilver love each other? Is it not because they are of the same root, and differ only in imperfection and perfection, solution and coagulation, cooking and rawness, just as water and ice? Why this? Is it not because such is the constitution and the whole nature? But who are those Aristotelian philosophers ignorant of friendship or sympathy? They knew from particular nature, and regarding gunpowder and fulminating gold, they can provide reasons from Aristotle. Therefore, the Peripatetics see much more sharply than the Paracelsians, who appear to themselves to see what they do not see at all. I would like the Paracelsian to hear the cause of these from an Aristotelian philosopher. But you, little know-it-alls, who are sharper than Aristotle, speak first. We read Crollius on the hostility of Tartaric salt and sal ammoniac, but it does not satisfy.

50. If the chemical art does not provide it, the causes of all things cannot be declared from the philosophy of Aristotle. Indeed, I say, not even if the chemical art does provide it, as far as special and proper causes are concerned. We hold only as much regarding general causes as can be proved. However, we have seen various writings of the Paracelsians on the causes of things. But we have not found wisdom and truth in all of them.

So much for this.
End of the Harbinger on Vital Philosophy.
EX