[Sca-cooks] Ahhh...

[Phil Troy / G. Tacitus Adamantius]

On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 10:41  PM, <jenne at fiedlerfamily.net> 
wrote:

>>  I dont know....it would only be important if you know about the
>> historical reference. If you didnt then I dont think philosopher's 
>> stone
>> would make much sense, considering what most people think of as a
>> philosopher. At least the average american would probably expect a
>> sorcerer's stone to be magical.
>
> Not only that, but calling it the philosopher's stone right away gives
> away some of the plot to those who know what a philosopher is, right?

Um, no. Actually it has them wondering what the h**l all this has to do 
with Aristotle. Note that even among the luminaries in that field, 
neither Zosimus nor Paracelsus are considered famous philosophers. How 
about Roger Bacon? Albertus Magus? No? Even when you know what a 
Philosopher's Stone is, it doesn't alter the fact that it is, in 
itself, a misnomer, having much more to do with alchemy than with 
ontology.

Adamantius