Abstract

This paper treats van Helmont's attack on Aristotle as an example of the difficulty of accounting for one author's attack on another by simply comparing the texts of the two authors. The Aristotle that van Helmont is attacking is the Aristotle represented in contemporary textbooks, and the attack on his authority is closely connected to the attack on the importance of verbal disputation in education. The importance of knowledge of Aristotle and of argumentative skills means van Helmont displays them to claim competence in them, while arguing they are worthless, and states many of his own doctrines as denials of Aristotelian doctrines. After a brief account of van Helmont's cosmology, three texts of his are examined: the conclusion of Causae et initia naturalium, where van Helmont demonstrates the worthlessness of Aristotelian method, by giving an example of his own method's greater success, the beginning of Physica Aristotelis et Galeni ignara, where he argues in Aristotelian terms against an Aristotelian definition of nature, and his general attack on Aristotelian method and on verbal disputation in Logica inutilis