I just finished Auron’s book last night and after reading this I am struck by a quote from C.S. Lewis near the end:
"We reduce things to mere nature in order that we may 'conquer' them," Lewis continues. "We are always conquering nature because 'nature' is the name for what we have, to some extent, conquered. The price of conquest is to treat a thing as mere nature. Every conquest over nature increases her domain. The stars do not become nature till we can weigh and measure them: the soul does not become nature till we can psychoanalyze her. The wresting of powers from nature is also the surrendering of things to nature. As long as this process stops short of the final stage we may well hold that the gain outweighs the loss. But as soon as we take the final step of reducing our own species to the level of mere nature, the whole process is stultified, for this time the being who stood to gain and the being who has been sacrificed are one and the same."
And I think that speaks for itself and I’ll leave it there. Great post sir!
Thank you for this! I like the idea you form of Newton as the last magician, but there is a problem that CS Lewis points out that comes to mind. And I wonder how you would take it into account… In the Abolition of Man and especially in the introduction to his masterpiece “English Literature in the 16th Century”, Lewis explains that ‘magicians’ and ‘scientists’ were two sides of the same coin. Both desired to control nature, albeit using somewhat different methods. He points out that magicians were like scientists because they both wanted power over nature. The two camps were thus at odds like two rivals trying to win the same prize. He also points out that magicians were not nearly as popular or numerous in the medieval period as in the ‘enlightenment’ (take Doctor Dee of England for example). So Newton being the ‘last magician’ may not be right. (There were many more after him. ) He certainly seems to have been a magician or scientist that believed in God and had traditional Christian principles. Rather than being the last, he may have simply been the greatest magician.
Hello Miguel, great questions to raise! My response would be that the reason I use "magician" here is because of John Maynard Keynes' statement. Keynes seemed to use it as a way of describing Newton's religious and metaphysical beliefs. He was not the 20th-century rationalist Keynes had hoped to find, so he labeled him in a tongue-in-cheek way by calling him a "magician." However, on a more objective level when considering the term "magician" more broadly, I agree with you and C.S. Lewis. I think there are indeed a lot of similarities that C.S. Lewis points out between "magician" and "scientist." Especially when defining what each is, one can make a convincing argument that the ideas are similar. Hope that made sense. Great insights to bring up, thank you again Miguel!
The difficulty you find looking the next magician, is the fact that the western world has been completely divorced from religion. If that had been the case with Newton himself i.e. that he been raised with no religion, Would he have come to the conclusions he did?
There, indeed, lies the challenge. Is it even possible to build that kind of worldview again? I hope so, but I ultimately do not know. I try to instill this way of seeing the world in my students to some degree, but it is quite a Herculean task.
A truly fascinating post! Isaac Newton is one of my favourite historical figures, so it's always great to read more about him.
I just finished Auron’s book last night and after reading this I am struck by a quote from C.S. Lewis near the end:
"We reduce things to mere nature in order that we may 'conquer' them," Lewis continues. "We are always conquering nature because 'nature' is the name for what we have, to some extent, conquered. The price of conquest is to treat a thing as mere nature. Every conquest over nature increases her domain. The stars do not become nature till we can weigh and measure them: the soul does not become nature till we can psychoanalyze her. The wresting of powers from nature is also the surrendering of things to nature. As long as this process stops short of the final stage we may well hold that the gain outweighs the loss. But as soon as we take the final step of reducing our own species to the level of mere nature, the whole process is stultified, for this time the being who stood to gain and the being who has been sacrificed are one and the same."
And I think that speaks for itself and I’ll leave it there. Great post sir!
What an excellent quote! Thank you for sharing that!
Thank you for this! I like the idea you form of Newton as the last magician, but there is a problem that CS Lewis points out that comes to mind. And I wonder how you would take it into account… In the Abolition of Man and especially in the introduction to his masterpiece “English Literature in the 16th Century”, Lewis explains that ‘magicians’ and ‘scientists’ were two sides of the same coin. Both desired to control nature, albeit using somewhat different methods. He points out that magicians were like scientists because they both wanted power over nature. The two camps were thus at odds like two rivals trying to win the same prize. He also points out that magicians were not nearly as popular or numerous in the medieval period as in the ‘enlightenment’ (take Doctor Dee of England for example). So Newton being the ‘last magician’ may not be right. (There were many more after him. ) He certainly seems to have been a magician or scientist that believed in God and had traditional Christian principles. Rather than being the last, he may have simply been the greatest magician.
Hello Miguel, great questions to raise! My response would be that the reason I use "magician" here is because of John Maynard Keynes' statement. Keynes seemed to use it as a way of describing Newton's religious and metaphysical beliefs. He was not the 20th-century rationalist Keynes had hoped to find, so he labeled him in a tongue-in-cheek way by calling him a "magician." However, on a more objective level when considering the term "magician" more broadly, I agree with you and C.S. Lewis. I think there are indeed a lot of similarities that C.S. Lewis points out between "magician" and "scientist." Especially when defining what each is, one can make a convincing argument that the ideas are similar. Hope that made sense. Great insights to bring up, thank you again Miguel!
The difficulty you find looking the next magician, is the fact that the western world has been completely divorced from religion. If that had been the case with Newton himself i.e. that he been raised with no religion, Would he have come to the conclusions he did?
There, indeed, lies the challenge. Is it even possible to build that kind of worldview again? I hope so, but I ultimately do not know. I try to instill this way of seeing the world in my students to some degree, but it is quite a Herculean task.