Talk:Philosopher's stone
|
|
The article is too science-centric and does not discuss the alchemist's views, thus it is not NPOV. philosopher's stone is symbolical, not mythical :) Optim 23:14, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Added the symbolic meaning, as well as I could, and deleted the NPOV notice. Jorge Stolfi 02:08, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This article doesn't look like a stub to me (at least not anymore), so I thought it'd be better to remove the message. Mackeriv 13:57, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Summaries of other notable claims are needed, e.g. Nicolas Flamel (more important than Kelley). Also, more details are needed on the concept itself:
- Is there a connection between the philosopher's stone and the legend of Craesus?
- Could an alchemist have manufactured solid gold chloride in those times?
- The spanish page claims that many (most?) alchemists believed that the philosopher's stone would specifically allow the union of sulphur and mercury. If I recall my chemistry correctly, the two are united in the natural mineral cinnabar, which is easily decomposed by heat; and the process cannot be easily reversed. (One could prepare mercury sulphide by wet chemistry, but that is rather tricky and it would yield a black powder, which cannot be melted without decomposition).
Was there actually such belief? Perhaps this theory was inspired by the fact that both cinnabar and gold chloride are red powders?
Jorge Stolfi 14:48, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
The article Nicolas Flamel redirects to Nicholas Flamel.
Brianjd 06:22, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)
| Contents |
The stone in fiction
The moment I saw that heading I thought of the novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.
Is it really necessary? Can any other fiction involving the stone be mentioned?
Brianjd 06:19, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)
- Who is this Harry Potter guy? 8-)
Jorge Stolfi 07:52, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Find out by reading the first novel or watching the first movie in the series, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (renamed to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the US).
Brianjd 06:47, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)
- I suppose the "8-)" was too subtle...
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 09:24, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Cleanup needed
The following paragraph reads like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo:
- It should also be added that Alchemy, as it is an Esoteric art, makes extensive use of analogy, symbolism, and so forth to relate mystical truths and observations. The concept of a "stone," therefore, is the most tangible and dense crystalization, or condensation, of a subtle substance. The "Philosophers' Stone" is that tangible manifestation or actualization of the inner potential of the spirit toward the highest, most abstract state. The idea that such a "stone" may convert base metals into gold is indicative of the true goal of the Great Work, which is the purification of the spirit and the transformation of its base, instinctual vices into those virtues which stem from higher reason. Thus, the spirit tends toward the highest state of spiritual evolution, which is symbolically represented by gold. Just as the spirit is the most subtle and intangible aspect of man, so must we cause its faculties and potentials to manifest themselves downward into tangible, physical existence so that our minds, which is the emanation from the spirit into the material realm, and our bodies may be rejuvenated and restored to their original purity. Hence, the idea of the "Philosophers' Stone" is born, and has been quite misunderstood from this time onward.
Can someone clean it up, or should it just be deleted? Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 20:26, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
- In the absence of any response, I have deleted the offending paragraph. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 17:03, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Mushroom
The paragraph about the mushroom should not be in the article between two paragraphs about the mythological stone. I have moved it back to the bottom. If you think that gives the mushroom short shrift, then spin the mushroom off to its own page, and put a disambiguation message in italics at the top of this article that says something like This article is about the mythological stone. For the mushroom, see Philosopher's stone (mushroom). Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 17:09, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Position of the Apostrophe
I have one minor query. Shouldn’t the term be “Philosophers’ Stone” - i.e. genitive plural ( note the position of the apostrophe ), as in the stone of the philosophers? My Pocket Oxford Dictionary supports this view. If you do a search for the original Latin for the two options you get “Lapis Philosophorum” ( Gen. Plur. ) 4,540 times and “Lapis Philosophi” ( Gen. Sing. ) only 72 times - and most of those refer to the translation of the Rowling book. I suspect the confusion has arisen as a result of the novel written by that ignorant working class housewife.
In fiction
Along these lines: can we make a somewhat arbitrary rule which will narrow down references to things which are interesting/useful? I would say that "In fiction" should refer only to books and maybe cinema. Not cartoons, TV shows, or video games. Would anybody support this? I get so annoyed seeing decent articles degrade into discussions of the thousands of video games they appear in. (other things of this nature include nuclear weapon and mad scientist (which eventually sprouted List of mad scientists) as it became too unmanageable. Am I alone in this? --Fastfission 04:14, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Arsenic
Arsenic is not a metal --83.103.132.96 12:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)