
A Google-generated definition of inorganic as something not derived or consisting of living matter—a false dichotomy (as “living matter” is a vacuous concept, i.e. life does not exist)—or compounds not containing carbon.

A Google-generated definition of inorganic as something not derived or consisting of living matter—a false dichotomy (as “living matter” is a vacuous concept, i.e. life does not exist)—or compounds not containing carbon.

In science, inorganic (TR=112), as compared to organic (TR=983), is an obsolete 18th century historical categorizational term, generally introduced by Jacob Berzelius (c.1826), albeit still in semi-active vague colloquial usage, meant to distinguish or characterize matter associated with minerals or the mineral kingdom, i.e. the so-called "non-living" classification, in the 1735 Linnaean three kingdom classification scheme, as compared to those chemicals and compounds associated with animals and plants, i.e. the animal kingdom or plant kingdom, grouped together in the so-called "living" classification.

Etymology
In 1735, Swedish polymath Carl Linnaeus published his System of Nature: Through the Three Kingdoms of Nature, in which he systematized nature into three divisions or kingdoms: mineral, plant, and animal, aka Linnaean classification. [8]

In the 18th century, several thinkers, amid the French enlightenment, including Pierre Maupertuis (1698-1759) and Denis Diderot (1713-1784), promoted a non-supernatural duality theory, according to which two types of matter existed: organic and inorganic, though it remains to be discerned what terms (in what language) they used in particular. [1]

The term “inorganic”, meaning “without organized structure”, supposedly, was in use in 1794. [4]

In 1808, Swiss chemist Jacob Berzelius had coined the term “organic chemistry”. [5]

In circa 1826, or before, Berzelius seems also to have coined—or at least popularized or introduced—the term “inorganic”, in the context of organic chemistry, being that in the English translation (1833) of his The Analysis of Inorganic Bodies, he was defining things as follows: [6]

“In the class of inorganic bodies, I arrange air those that are not formed by animals and vegetables, and that do not result from their destruction by fire, putrefaction, or the action of acids, alkalies, etc., I comprehend under the term, the fossils, properly so called, the mineral waters, and the artificial products of bodies whose origin is not organic.”

In this period, as outlined by Berzelius here, inorganic was being used as a synonym from those compounds obtained from the so-called “mineral kingdom”, as contrasted with organic or compounds obtained from the plant kingdom or animal kingdom, per the three-divisional kingdom ideologies of the early 19th century. [5]

In 1842, German physician Robert Mayer published “Remarks on the Forces of Inorganic Nature”, wherein he gave one of the first published values for the mechanical equivalent of heat—namely that “the warming of a given weight of water from 0˚C to 1˚C corresponds to the fall of an equal weight from the height of about 365 meters”, meaning that the fall of a weight, e.g. a volume of water, falling through a distance, via the force of gravity, and transforming into heat or an increase in molecular collisions, frictions, and or agitations, e.g. water at the bottom of a waterfall or water in a tub being turned by a paddle wheel, as evidenced by a rise in temperature of the water, the electromagnetic force being under discussion in the latter case—the title of which evidences the apparent or seeming duality thought to exist between the forces of inorganic nature as compared to organic nature. [2]

In 1862, inorganic was being employed to mean “not arrived at by natural growth”. [4]

In the early 21st century, the division of compounds into organic and inorganic was considered somewhat arbitrary, e.g. a compound that contains both carbon and a metal, such as chlorophyll or hemoglobin, may be considered either organic or inorganic, depending on the interests of the person who is studying it. [5]

Inorganic life | Organic life


A discussion of so-called "inorganic life" as being silicon-based. [7]

A discussion of so-called "inorganic life" as being silicon-based. [7]

In 1995, as shown adjacent, silicon was being referred to as an example of "inorganic life", just as carbon, historically, has been associated with "organic life", the argument being that we, supposedly, do not recognize silicon-based animate forms as being "alive" being that carbon-based animation reactions, e.g. in reaction with oxygen, have a greater "variety and speed of biochemical reactions". [7]

Quotes
The following are related quotes:

“I am sure you will forgive me my fault,” [Charlotte] said, “when I tell you what it was this moment which came over me. I heard you reading something about affinities, and I thought directly of some relations of mine, two of whom are just now occupying me a great deal. Then my attention went back to the book. I found it was not about living things at all, and I looked over to get the thread of it right again.” “It was the comparison which led you wrong and confused you,” said Edward. “The subject is nothing but earths and minerals. But man is a true Narcissus (see: ECHO); he delights to see his own image everywhere; and he spreads himself underneath the universe, like the amalgam behind the glass.” “Quite true,” continued the Captain. “That is the way in which he treats everything external to himself. His wisdom and his folly, his will and his caprice, he attributes alike to the animal, the plant, the elements, and the gods.”
— Johann Goethe (1809), Elective Affinities (P1:C4)

“Vitalists resist on principle the pretensions of those scientists who foresee the ultimate prospect of a capacity to break down the boundary between organic and inorganic matter, and who disregard the plausibility of supra-material factors in the existence of life. As a result, concepts like ‘life force’ or ‘immanent energy’ are presented by vitalists not only to fill in the areas of mystery left by the incomplete advances of biology, but also to explain why biology’s advances will always be incomplete.”
— Michael Foley (1990), Laws, Men and Machines [3]

References
1. (a) Pullman, Bernard. (1995). The Atom in the History of Human Thought (translator: Axel Reisinger) (pgs. 146-51). Oxford University Press, 1998.
(b) Stenger, Victor J. (2013). God and the Atom: from Democritus to the Higgs Boson: the Story of a Triumphant Idea (pg. 76). Prometheus Books.
2. Mayer, J. Robert. (1842). “Remarks on the Forces of Inorganic Nature”, Annalender Chemie und Pharmacie, Justin von Liebigs’ journal.
3. Foley, Michael. (1990). Laws, Men and Machines: Modern American Government and the Appeal of Newtonian Mechanics (pg. 84). Routledge, 2014.
4. Inorganic – EtymOnline.com.
5. Hornback, Joseph. (2005). Organic Chemistry (pg. 2). Cengage Learning.
6. Berzelius, J. Jacob. (c.1826). The Analysis of Inorganic Bodies (translator: G.O. Rees) (pg. 1). Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green & Longman, Paternoster-Row, 1833.
7. Wiberg, Egon and Ilbert, Nils. (1995). Inorganic Chemistry (pg. 822). Academic Press.
8. Systema Naturae – Wikipedia.

External links
● Inorganic compound – Wikipedia.