A Goethe-Adler depiction of relationship formation defined as a purely human chemical reaction, first done by German writer Johann Goethe in 1809. [3] |
A + B → C
In 1718, English physicist Isaac Newton penned his last and final famous Query 31, wherein he gave a verbal hierarchy of single displacement reactions by power of displacement. That same year, French chemist Eteinne Geoffroy made the world's first affinity table based on Newton's verbal displacement descriptions. This is said to mark the start of the chemical revolution and the to seed the need for "chemical equations" diagrams. |
See main: History of chemical equationsThe first verbal precursors to the concept of the chemical reaction in diagram or process form came from English physicist Isaac Newton's famous Query 31 appended to his 1718 Opticks. That same year, during a translation into French of this work, French chemist Eteinne Geoffroy, stated the first law of affinity: ‘whenever two substances are united that have a disposition to combine and a third is added that has a greater affinity with one of them, these two will unite, and drive out the other.’ Using this law, he published the first every affinity table. [12] More affinity tables were constructed in the years to follow, by other chemists. [13]
In which, for instance, as diagrammed above, if chemical species A and B are attached in a weakly bonded chemical union, signified by the bonding bracket “{“, ordered such that if species C were introduced into the system, the greater affinity preference of A for C would cause A to displace B and to thus form a new union with C. In modern terms, this equates to:
In 1657, Scottish chemist William Cullen (left) originated of the affinity reaction diagram; his student Joseph Black (center) expanded on these reaction diagrams. In 1775, Swedish chemist Torbern Bergman (right), while using variants of the Cullen-Black diagrams, introduced the A, AB, notation for single vs bonded species. In 1808, Johann Goethe (1749-1832): first to use chemical reaction diagrams as archetypes for human interactions. |
See also: Goethe's human affinity table; See main: EA|IAD: Reaction deciphermentIn 1808, German writer Johann Goethe used the reactions in Bergman's chemistry textbook as a basis to model each of the human chemical reactions in the various 36-chapters to his soon-to-be novella Elective Affinities. Specifically, a year before publication (1809) Goethe, who had been studying chemistry for a period of forty-years, told his friend Riemer that ‘his idea for the new novella was to portray social relationships and their conflicts symbolically’, as in a, b, ac, abd, abcd, etc. (these letter combinations first employed in chemistry by Bergman), and that furthermore, according to Goethe, ‘the moral symbols used in the natural sciences were the elective affinities discovered and employed by the great Bergman’. In his preparatory notes, either in mind or on paper, then, Goethe would likely drawn out the world's first human chemical reactions using diagrams. The fact that he destroyed all of his notes and manuscripts to this novella leaves the question of whether Goethe actually drew out human reactions on paper open for debate.
Sixteen years later, Goethe employs a reaction between limestone, i.e. calcium carbonate (CaCO3), and sulfuric acid (H2SO4), which upon contact yields gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O), in the form an aqueous crystal, and carbon dioxide (CO2) gas, to compared and contrasted with the reactions that are occurring between the main characters in the novel: Charlotte (carbon dioxide), Edward (lime), Captain (sulfuric acid); as conceptually shown below:
In generic symbol notation, the reaction Goethe was experimenting here, in his notebook, was the following: In modern terms, equates to the following:AB + CD → CA + BDAbove: Goethe's notes on Double elective affinity (1793), i.e. double displacement reaction, of Berlin-blue liquor.
A portion of Goethe's human affinity table, from which he conceptualized each chapter reaction. |
“Provided it does not seem pedantic,’ the Captain said, ‘I think I can briefly sum up in the language of signs. Imagine an A intimately united with a B, so that no force is able to sunder them; imagine a C likewise related to a D; now bring the two couples into contact: A will throw itself at D, C at B, without our being able to say which first deserted its partner, which first embraced the other’s partner.”This is shown below, in modern reaction terms:
‘Now then!’ Eduard interposed: ‘until we see all this with our own eyes, let us look on this formula as a metaphor from which we may extract a lesson we can apply immediately to ourselves. You, Charlotte, represent the A, and I represent your B; for in fact I do depend altogether on you and follow you as A follows B. The C is quite obviously the Captain, who for the moment is to some extent drawing me away from you. Now it is only fair that, if you are not to vanish into the limitless air, you must be provided with a D, and this D is unquestionably the charming little lady Ottilie, whose approaching presence you may no longer resist.’
Left: a 1996 film adaption of Goethe's 1809 Elective Affinities (with chemical equation overlay). [11] Right: 2012-launched working book project: Elective Affinities: Illustrated, Annotated, and Decoded, a fully-illustrated, annotated, decoded and de-formulated modern-day upgrade to Goethe’s self-defined "greatest work", in which he embedded, using hidden layers of gestalt, a physical chemistry based “principle” that he claimed was “true” (Nov 1809). |
“Suppose that this hypothetical experiment could be realized, which seems not unlikely, and suppose we could discover a whole chain of phenomena [evolution timeline], leading by imperceptible gradations form the simplest chemical molecule to the most highly developed organism [human molecule]. Would we then say that my preparation of this volume [Anatomy of Science] is only a chemical reaction [extrapolate up approach], or, conversely that a crystal is thinking [extrapolate down approach] about the concepts of science?”Lewis, humorously, defends his own position by commenting "nothing could be more absurd".
American physiologist Lawrence Henderson (1935) outlined a number of Willard Gibbs + Vilfredo Pareto equilibrium reaction based models of socioeconomic process change. |
“Gibbs considers temperature, pressure, and concentrations, so Pareto considers sentiments, or, strictly speaking, the manifestations of sentiments in words and deeds, verbal elaborations, and …”
“It is very unlikely that the general characteristics of Gibbs’ system had anything to do with Pareto’s construction of his social system. In other words, it is very probable, I thing certain, that Pareto did not keep Gibbs’ work in mind and a fortiori that he did not imitate it, when he worked out his social system; so that Pareto’s system is not the result of the application of the theories of physical chemistry to sociology.”
“This simple example illustrates [the] logical principles [physical chemistry] that find universal application in the physical, biological, and social sciences.”
2H2 + O2 → 2H2O + 293,000 J + X
Melko defines this in terms of a pin ball machine:
“[The mechanism] is rather like a pin-ball machine. The ball, when shot, has a universe of possibilities … but as soon as it passes through the first slot on its downward curve, the possibilities are narrowed. Thus, having reached FC, it can no longer return to PC. But the machine also has rubber bumpers, so that the ball can reverse its course. Having reached slot SC, it can no longer return to PC, the initial ejection slot, which has been closed off by a one-way valve.”
Jeremy Adler (1947-) |
"John McEvoy (later at Pittsburgh) and his supervisor, Satish Kapoor (Sussex), gave Adler assistance with the background to the history of chemistry. Satish was working on French chemist Claude Berthollet at the time, and suggested to Adler that he switch to the history of chemistry; and so Adler joined the outfit of historians of science in England that ranged from the old masters, such as Joseph Needham and Walter Pagel, to his colleagues, like Roy Porter, Nick Jardine and others, interested in linking literature and science. Adler also had good contact with English affinity chemistry historian Alistair Duncan, who was working on the history of affinity theory."
Mirza Beg (1932-) |
“The Captain then reduced the chemical process to an equation with letters: if compound AB comes into contact with compound CD, they may switch partners and end up in the new combination AC and BD. Here Eduard supplies the last and most ironic stage of anthropomorphizing by relating the letters to the people present: if A is Charlotte, then B is Eduard, C stands for the Captain, and D is the ‘Dämchen’ (little lady) Ottilie.”
Libb Thims (c. 1975-) |
Christopher Hirata (1983-) |
Karl Fink (c.1943-) |
A + B → AB
AB + C → A + BC
A + BC + D → AD + BC
AD +BC → AC + BD
AC + BD → AC + BD + P
David Hwang (c.1980-) |
Chanel Wood (c.1982-) |
Don Jorge (1988-) |
See main: Human reproduction reactionIn August 2007, a Swiss individual named Don Jorge, in what seems to be an attempt at using chemistry to explain sex humorously to his girlfriend, made a video entitled “Aufklarung: How to Learn about Sex with Chemistry”, in which he described the process of sex using the following reaction: [9]
♂ + ♀ ⇌ Baby
Surya Pati (1983-) |
Thomas Wallace (1937-) |
A + B → C + D
Romanian high school student Christine Kamla's 2011 poster presentation “If the Genes Are Not the Last Word: of Elective Affinities to Adoptive Families”, wherein she uses Goethe's human reaction theory models to theorize about "adoption". |
“Christine Kamla had the special topic "elective affinities" with the same group selected topic. She shared her brilliant lecture in "General", "Academic" and literary "(see poster image). Having discussed the conditions and the procedure for a child's adoption, she made an interesting trip into the chemistry and showed that even in this science some elements of their "Elective Affinities" pick, the finale was the reference to JWv Goethe's eponymous book, which also convert the fate of already existing relationships in the new Elective Affinities - The problematization resulted from the fact that when an adoption is an element of arbitrariness. must be excluded and you cannot adopt children how to shop goods in the supermarket.”
“You may wonder if there is any correlation between the different forms of chemistry; well, the answer to this question is yes. Theories and studies have stated that there is a correlation between relationships and chemical reactions. Friendship, marriage, and even just a young love are based on the idea that people are “human molecules;” they form a basic equation that:A (boy) + B (girl) = AB (bond)
or vice versa for a break up, divorce, or lost friendship (humanchemistry.net). Therefore, despite the differences between these classes of chemistry, there is a major link between each; the science of chemistry sends chemicals throughout one’s body to create incredible relationships between two people.”
In 2012, Indian chemical engineer Vamshi Regalla and American mechanical engineer Ravi Vedula utilized a Pati-Thims reaction theory in their argument on love. [19] |
“A video was made by the authors on the same concept with the title as “A strange thing called love”. The plot of this video is that a man falls in love with nine girls and that day comes when he is supposed to make a decision on choosing ‘the one’. Surprisingly in the early 1800s, Johann Goethe published a book named Elective Affinities based on a similar concept of love and marriage relations among two couples. It is a pure coincidence and the current authors actually didn’t know about it until they started preparing this article.”
R → R*
R* → P
Forest Blind |
A selection of "objectors" to HCR theory, namely: Canadian theist chemist Stephen Lower (2007), American secular nuclear chemist Mitch Garcia and Polish analytical chemist Marcin Borkowski (2010), and Irish atheist biochemistry student Ryan Grannell (2011), viewing the premise of using chemical equations to describe reactions occurring between people as pseudoscience, crackpottery, or a the views of someone who is "nuts". |
See also: Detractors; Elective Affinities (enemies)The modelling of human-human interactions, processes, and social transformations in the language of chemical mechanism is not without criticism and many, such as Marcin Borkowski, Mitch Garcia, and Stephen Lower, consider the premise of “chemical reactions occurring between human molecules” to be a crackpot-subject, pseudoscience, and or a lunatic notion. To cite one example, in 2011 Irish openly-atheist biochemistry student Ryan Grannell spent a month blogging about human chemistry, commenting for example: [20]
“This is all just a horrendous analogy. Chemical laws apply to humans, but our behavior is more complex than something that can be modeled with a couple of thermodynamic equations. A + B → AB is just a pretentious way of stating something we already know; it tells us absolutely nothing new [and Goethe’s Elective Affinities is a 'nutty theory'].”
“Historians undertake to arrange sequences,—called stories, or histories,—assuming in silence a relation of cause and effect. These assumptions, hidden in the depths of dusty libraries, have been astounding, but commonly unconscious and childlike; so much so, that if any captious critic were to drag them to light, historians would probably reply, with one voice, that they had never supposed themselves required to know what they were talking about. Adams, for one, had toiled in vain to find out what he meant.
He had even published a dozen volumes of American history for no other purpose than to satisfy himself whether, by severest process of stating, with the least possible comment, such facts as seemed sure, in such order as seemed rigorously consequent, he could fix for a familiar moment a necessary sequence of human movement. The result had satisfied him as little as at Harvard College.
Where he saw sequence, other men saw something quite different, and no one saw the same unit of measure. He cared little about his experiments and less about his statesmen, who seemed to him quite as ignorant as himself and, as a rule, no more honest; but he insisted on a relation of sequence, and if he could not reach it by one method, he would try as many methods as science knew. Satisfied that the sequence of men led to nothing and that the sequence of their society could lead no further, while the mere sequence of time was artificial, and the sequence of thought was chaos, he turned at last to the sequence of force; and thus it happened that, after ten years’ pursuit, he found himself lying in the Gallery of Machines at the Great Exposition of 1900, his historical neck broken by the sudden irruption of forces totally new.”