DOCSLIB.ORG

HPSC 326 Aristotelian and Medieval Cosmology 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HPSC 326 Aristotelian and Medieval Cosmology 1 HPSC 326 Aristotelian and Medieval Cosmology 1. The cosmos of Aristotle. Aristotle. Aristotle's cosmos is based around the ideas of natural place and natural motion. There is a centre to the cosmos. Earth and water have their natural place there and their natural motion is towards the centre. Fire and air have a natural motion away from the centre. Aether, making up the heavens, has a natural motion around the centre. Inherently geocentric physics and cosmology. Aristotle is the classic expression of a centrifocal cosmology. Not only are the heavens arranged around a central, focal point (as in Plato). The central point is also key to the physics of motion. Heavens are entirely unchanging (according to Aristotle). No change recorded by Babylonians/ Egyptians. Heavens are therefore suitable for mathematical astronomy, and all change (comets, meteors etc.) are sub-lunar phenomena. Aristotle - Physical heavens. Aristotle accepts Callippus on astronomy. He uses four and five sphere models. Aristotle not actually very up on astronomy - accepts what experts say. Cosmological move - each of the circular motions in Callippus is now a sphere of aether. The motions combine together to move the object, be it sun, moon or planet. Note difference to Plato, Eudoxus or Callippus who considered the spheres to be mathematical analyses of a planet's motion. Aristotle - each sphere of aether passes its motion on to the next one. In order that the system for one planets does not interfere with that of another, there are 'unwinding' spheres to. So for each motion of each planet, there is a counteracting sphere, except for the moon, as it is next to the earth and borders only the fiery part of the terrestrial realm. Callippus - four and five sphere models. HPSC 326 Aristotelian and Medieval Cosmology 2. Some Aristotle difficulties. Apart from the hideous complexity of the system. It is not clear how the heavens can interact with the terrestrial realm (though it is clear that they do as the sun is the key source of heat and light). Aristotle - the motion of each heavenly body stirs up the terrestrial realm directly below it, and what we see is not the heavenly body but a patch of ignited fir in the fiery part of the terrestrial realm. Problem - counteracting spheres should stop this. Further problem. Consider eclipses of sun and moon. If the moon produces its own light, as this theory suggests, why should there be lunar eclipses ? And what happens when the moon is in front of the sun for solar eclipses ? Cosmos - end of antiquity. How the ancients spaced orbits. Note the slightly different order to The epicycles touch, but do not overlap, giving the Aristotle spacing. Ptolemy (C2 AD). A new astronomy within the Aristotelian cosmology - epicycles, eccentric and equants take the place of the concentric spheres, giving a more accurate description of heavenly motions. Technically geostatic rather than geocentric due to the use of eccentrics and equants. Need to rethink the nesting spheres of aether. More complex model required. Note the tension between astronomy and cosmology in the Aristotelian tradition. The cosmology can be represented in a relatively simple, earth centred diagram. The astronomy cannot - it is far too complex. Problem that runs through astronomy/ cosmology up to Kepler. Scholasticism. Grafts a Christian conception of God onto the Aristotelian world view. Key figure, St. Thomas Aquinas c1250, this is the system that the Copernican revolution will have to try to displace. Christian hierarchies of perfection (God, angels, humans, earth, hell, etc.) fit well with Aristotle’s notion of greater perfection due to greater actuality. The dominant system - accepted by the church and taught by the universities. Highly coherent system, difficult to alter part without altering whole, and thus difficult to replace. No replacement as a whole until around 1640/50 (note; century after Copernicus !). There are serious problems with the acceptance of the Copernican view that everything orbits the sun - such a view requires a new physics of motion and a new explanation of why and how the planets move. Renaissance and neoplatonism. Plato's views revived by neoplatonists. Keen to assert mathematical, geometrical and harmonic aspects of the heavens. General view - a geometer God has created the best possible cosmos, using maths, geometry and music (harks back to the Pythagoreans). Much struggling to understand how maths, geometry and music relate to the heavens. What is clear to us is how to use maths in physics. Has not always been clear and our conception had to be conceived, honed and fought for. So no great surprise that disciplines related to maths (music, aspects of numerology) were experimented with - was this how the cosmos was put together ? Durer's angel - how do we use all these possibilities to put together the best possible cosmos ?.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plato As "Architectof Science"
    Plato as "Architectof Science" LEONID ZHMUD ABSTRACT The figureof the cordialhost of the Academy,who invitedthe mostgifted math- ematiciansand cultivatedpure research, whose keen intellectwas able if not to solve the particularproblem then at least to show the methodfor its solution: this figureis quite familiarto studentsof Greekscience. But was the Academy as such a centerof scientificresearch, and did Plato really set for mathemati- cians and astronomersthe problemsthey shouldstudy and methodsthey should use? Oursources tell aboutPlato's friendship or at leastacquaintance with many brilliantmathematicians of his day (Theodorus,Archytas, Theaetetus), but they were neverhis pupils,rather vice versa- he learnedmuch from them and actively used this knowledgein developinghis philosophy.There is no reliableevidence that Eudoxus,Menaechmus, Dinostratus, Theudius, and others, whom many scholarsunite into the groupof so-called"Academic mathematicians," ever were his pupilsor close associates.Our analysis of therelevant passages (Eratosthenes' Platonicus, Sosigenes ap. Simplicius, Proclus' Catalogue of geometers, and Philodemus'History of the Academy,etc.) shows thatthe very tendencyof por- trayingPlato as the architectof sciencegoes back to the earlyAcademy and is bornout of interpretationsof his dialogues. I Plato's relationship to the exact sciences used to be one of the traditional problems in the history of ancient Greek science and philosophy.' From the nineteenth century on it was examined in various aspects, the most significant of which were the historical, philosophical and methodological. In the last century and at the beginning of this century attention was paid peredominantly, although not exclusively, to the first of these aspects, especially to the questions how great Plato's contribution to specific math- ematical research really was, and how reliable our sources are in ascrib- ing to him particular scientific discoveries.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander Jones Calendrica I: New Callippic Dates
    ALEXANDER JONES CALENDRICA I: NEW CALLIPPIC DATES aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 129 (2000) 141–158 © Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn 141 CALENDRICA I: NEW CALLIPPIC DATES 1. Introduction. Callippic dates are familiar to students of Greek chronology, even though up to the present they have been known to occur only in a single source, Ptolemy’s Almagest (c. A.D. 150).1 Ptolemy’s Callippic dates appear in the context of discussions of astronomical observations ranging from the early third century B.C. to the third quarter of the second century B.C. In the present article I will present new attestations of Callippic dates which extend the period of the known use of this system by almost two centuries, into the middle of the first century A.D. I also take the opportunity to attempt a fresh examination of what we can deduce about the Callippic calendar and its history, a topic that has lately been the subject of quite divergent treatments. The distinguishing mark of a Callippic date is the specification of the year by a numbered “period according to Callippus” and a year number within that period. Each Callippic period comprised 76 years, and year 1 of Callippic Period 1 began about midsummer of 330 B.C. It is an obvious, and very reasonable, supposition that this convention for counting years was instituted by Callippus, the fourth- century astronomer whose revisions of Eudoxus’ planetary theory are mentioned by Aristotle in Metaphysics Λ 1073b32–38, and who also is prominent among the authorities cited in astronomical weather calendars (parapegmata).2 The point of the cycles is that 76 years contain exactly four so-called Metonic cycles of 19 years.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cosmos and Theological Reflection: the Priority of Self-Transcendence Paul Allen
    Document generated on 09/30/2021 12:09 p.m. Théologiques The Cosmos and Theological Reflection: The Priority of Self-Transcendence Paul Allen Les cosmologies Article abstract Volume 9, Number 1, printemps 2001 In this article, I argue that the primary significance of cosmology for theology is through a notion of self-transcendence. It is an inherently theological notion URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/005683ar arising within cosmology. It points to the realm of interiority claimed by DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/005683ar contemporary theology. Employing the thought of Ernan McMullin in particular, I claim that self-transcendence emerges within cosmological See table of contents inquiry when it becomes philosophy, and when extrapolation is involved. A theological thrust to cosmology is confirmed when one understands the limits of cosmology as an empirical discipline amidst the existential questions that can be posed about the meaning of the universe, a development well illustrated Publisher(s) by the anthropic principle. Faculté de théologie de l'Université de Montréal ISSN 1188-7109 (print) 1492-1413 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Allen, P. (2001). The Cosmos and Theological Reflection: The Priority of Self-Transcendence. Théologiques, 9(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.7202/005683ar Tous droits réservés © Faculté de théologie de l’Université de Montréal, 2001 This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit.
    [Show full text]
  • Claudius Ptolemy: Tetrabiblos
    CLAUDIUS PTOLEMY: TETRABIBLOS OR THE QUADRIPARTITE MATHEMATICAL TREATISE FOUR BOOKS OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE STARS TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK PARAPHRASE OF PROCLUS BY J. M. ASHMAND London, Davis and Dickson [1822] This version courtesy of http://www.classicalastrologer.com/ Revised 04-09-2008 Foreword It is fair to say that Claudius Ptolemy made the greatest single contribution to the preservation and transmission of astrological and astronomical knowledge of the Classical and Ancient world. No study of Traditional Astrology can ignore the importance and influence of this encyclopaedic work. It speaks not only of the stars, but of a distinct cosmology that prevailed until the 18th century. It is easy to jeer at someone who thinks the earth is the cosmic centre and refers to it as existing in a sublunary sphere. However, our current knowledge tells us that the universe is infinite. It seems to me that in an infinite universe, any given point must be the centre. Sometimes scientists are not so scientific. The fact is, it still applies to us for our purposes and even the most rational among us do not refer to sunrise as earth set. It practical terms, the Moon does have the most immediate effect on the Earth which is, after all, our point of reference. She turns the tides, influences vegetative growth and the menstrual cycle. What has become known as the Ptolemaic Universe, consisted of concentric circles emanating from Earth to the eighth sphere of the Fixed Stars, also known as the Empyrean. This cosmology is as spiritual as it is physical.
    [Show full text]
  • 94 Erkka Maula
    ORGANON 15 PROBLÊMES GENERAUX Erkka Maula (Finland) FROM TIME TO PLACE: THE PARADIGM CASE The world-order in philosophical cosmology can be founded upon time as well as .space. Perhaps the most fundamental question pertaining to any articulated world- view concerns, accordingly, their ontological and epistemological priority. Is the basic layer of notions characterized by temporal or by spatial concepts? Does a world-view in its development show tendencies toward the predominance of one set of concepts rather than the other? At the stage of its relative maturity, when the qualitative and comparative phases have paved the way for the formation of quantitative concepts: Which are considered more fundamental, measurements of time or measurements of space? In the comparative phase: Is the geometry of the world a geometry of motion or a geometry of timeless order? In the history of our own scientific world-view, there seems to be discernible an oscillation between time-oriented and space-oriented concept formation.1 In the dawn, when the first mathematical systems of astronomy and geography appear, shortly before Euclid's synthesis of the axiomatic thought, there were attempts at a geometry of motion. They are due to Archytas of Tarentum and Eudoxus of Cnidus, foreshadowed by Hippias of Elis and the Pythagoreans, who tend to intro- duce temporal concepts into geometry. Their most eloquent adversary is Plato, and after him the two alternative streams are often called the Heraclitean and the Parmenidean world-views. But also such later and far more articulated distinctions as those between the statical and dynamic cosmologies, or between the formalist and intuitionist philosophies of mathematics, can be traced down to the original Greek dichotomy, although additional concepts entangle the picture.
    [Show full text]
  • Plotinus on the Soul's Omnipresence in Body
    Plotinus on the Limitation of Act by Potency Gary M. Gurtler, S.J. Boston College The limitation of act by potency, central in the metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas, has its origins in Plotinus. He transforms Aristotle’s horizontal causality of change into a vertical causality of participation. Potency and infinity are not just unintelligible lack of limit, but productive power. Form determines matter but is limited by reception into matter. The experience of unity begins with sensible things, which always have parts, so what is really one is incorporeal, without division and separation. Unity is like the esse of Thomas, since it is the act that makes a thing what it is and has its fullness in God. 1. Introduction Over fifty years ago Norris Clarke, S.J., published “The Limitation of Act by Potency: Aristotelianism or Neoplatonism,” The New Scholasticism, 26 (1952) 167–194, which highlighted the role of Plotinus in formulating some of the fundamental distinctions operative in medieval philosophy. He singled out the doctrine of participation and the idea of infinity and showed how they went beyond the limits of classical Greek thought. At the same time, his work challenged some of the basic historical assumptions of Thomists about the relation of scholastic philosophy, especially St. Thomas’s, to Plato and Aristotle. I have appreciated more and more the unusual openness and self critical character of Fr. Clarke’s historical method, and am pleased to have the chance in this response to Sarah Borden’s paper to explore some of the issues raised by Fr. Clarke’s seminal article in light of my own work on Plotinus.
    [Show full text]
  • Parmenides' Theistic Metaphysics
    Parmenides’ Theistic Metaphysics BY ©2016 Jeremy C. DeLong Submitted to the graduate degree program in Philosophy and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ________________________________ Chairperson: Tom Tuozzo ________________________________ Eileen Nutting ________________________________ Scott Jenkins ________________________________ John Symons ________________________________ John Younger Date Defended: May 6th, 2016 ii The Dissertation Committee for Jeremy C. DeLong certifies that this is the approved version of the following thesis: Parmenides’ Theistic Metaphysics ________________________________ Chairperson: Thomas Tuozzo Date Defended: May 6th, 2016 iii Abstract: The primary interpretative challenge for understanding Parmenides’ poem revolves around explaining both the meaning of, and the relationship between, its two primary sections: a) the positively endorsed metaphysical arguments which describe some unified, unchanging, motionless, and eternal “reality” (Aletheia), and b) the ensuing cosmology (Doxa), which incorporates the very principles explicitly denied in Aletheia. I will refer to this problem as the “A-D Paradox.” I advocate resolving this paradoxical relationship by reading Parmenides’ poem as a ring-composition, and incorporating a modified version of Palmer’s modal interpretation of Aletheia. On my interpretation, Parmenides’ thesis in Aletheia is not a counter-intuitive description of how all the world (or its fundamental, genuine entities) must truly be, but rather a radical rethinking of divine nature. Understanding Aletheia in this way, the ensuing “cosmology” (Doxa) can be straightforwardly rejected as an exposition of how traditional, mythopoetic accounts have misled mortals in their understanding of divinity. Not only does this interpretative view provide a resolution to the A-D Paradox, it offers a more holistic account of the poem by making the opening lines of introduction (Proem) integral to understanding Parmenides’ message.
    [Show full text]
  • Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece
    Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Ancient Greek Philosophy but didn’t Know Who to Ask Edited by Patricia F. O’Grady MEET THE PHILOSOPHERS OF ANCIENT GREECE Dedicated to the memory of Panagiotis, a humble man, who found pleasure when reading about the philosophers of Ancient Greece Meet the Philosophers of Ancient Greece Everything you always wanted to know about Ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask Edited by PATRICIA F. O’GRADY Flinders University of South Australia © Patricia F. O’Grady 2005 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Patricia F. O’Grady has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identi.ed as the editor of this work. Published by Ashgate Publishing Limited Ashgate Publishing Company Wey Court East Suite 420 Union Road 101 Cherry Street Farnham Burlington Surrey, GU9 7PT VT 05401-4405 England USA Ashgate website: http://www.ashgate.com British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Meet the philosophers of ancient Greece: everything you always wanted to know about ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask 1. Philosophy, Ancient 2. Philosophers – Greece 3. Greece – Intellectual life – To 146 B.C. I. O’Grady, Patricia F. 180 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Meet the philosophers of ancient Greece: everything you always wanted to know about ancient Greek philosophy but didn’t know who to ask / Patricia F.
    [Show full text]
  • Objective Beauty and Subjective Dissent in Leibniz’S Aesthetics
    Zlom1_2018_Sestava 1 23.3.18 11:39 Stránka 67 Carlos Portales OBJECTIVE BEAUTY AND SUBJECTIVE DISSENT IN LEIBNIZ’S AESTHETICS CARLOS PORTALES According to the classical view, beauty is grounded on the universe’s objective harmony, defined by the formula of unity in variety. Concurrently, nature’s beauty is univocal and independent of subjective judgement. In this paper I will argue that, although Leibniz’s view coincides with this formula, his philosophy offers an explanation for subjective dissent in aesthetic judgements about nature. I will show that the acceptance of divergences on aesthetic value are the result of a conception of harmony that includes qualitative variety and dissonance. I. INTRODUCTION Leibniz’s aesthetics fall within the Pythagorean tradition in so far as he agrees that the beauty of the universe is an objective value grounded on the harmony of the cosmos. In this view, harmony is a property of systems, defined as unity in variety, which is univocal and indifferent to subjective judgement. In this paper I argue that, despite Leibniz’s complete adherence to this formula, his interpretation explains and justifies the subjective dissent in aesthetic judgements. I show that the possibility of valid divergences regarding the aesthetic value of nature is the result of a Leibnizian conception of the universe’s harmony, which includes qualitative variety and dissonance. The secondary objective of this paper is to present some aspects of the underrepresented views of Leibniz on beauty and aesthetics in general. Even though aesthetics as a discipline was baptized by a Leibnizian philosopher – namely, Alexander Baumgarten –, few papers and book chapters explain Leibniz’s own views on the topic.
    [Show full text]
  • Nicolaus Copernicus: the Loss of Centrality
    I Nicolaus Copernicus: The Loss of Centrality The mathematician who studies the motions of the stars is surely like a blind man who, with only a staff to guide him, must make a great, endless, hazardous journey that winds through innumerable desolate places. [Rheticus, Narratio Prima (1540), 163] 1 Ptolemy and Copernicus The German playwright Bertold Brecht wrote his play Life of Galileo in exile in 1938–9. It was first performed in Zurich in 1943. In Brecht’s play two worldviews collide. There is the geocentric worldview, which holds that the Earth is at the center of a closed universe. Among its many proponents were Aristotle (384–322 BC), Ptolemy (AD 85–165), and Martin Luther (1483–1546). Opposed to geocentrism is the heliocentric worldview. Heliocentrism teaches that the sun occupies the center of an open universe. Among its many proponents were Copernicus (1473–1543), Kepler (1571–1630), Galileo (1564–1642), and Newton (1643–1727). In Act One the Italian mathematician and physicist Galileo Galilei shows his assistant Andrea a model of the Ptolemaic system. In the middle sits the Earth, sur- rounded by eight rings. The rings represent the crystal spheres, which carry the planets and the fixed stars. Galileo scowls at this model. “Yes, walls and spheres and immobility,” he complains. “For two thousand years people have believed that the sun and all the stars of heaven rotate around mankind.” And everybody believed that “they were sitting motionless inside this crystal sphere.” The Earth was motionless, everything else rotated around it. “But now we are breaking out of it,” Galileo assures his assistant.
    [Show full text]
  • The Planetary Increase of Brightness During Retrograde Motion: an Explanandum Constructed Ad Explanantem
    Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 54 (2015) 90e101 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Studies in History and Philosophy of Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsa The planetary increase of brightness during retrograde motion: An explanandum constructed ad explanantem Christián Carlos Carman National University of Quilmes/CONICET, Roque Sáenz Peña 352, B1876BXD Bernal, Buenos Aires, Argentina article info abstract Article history: In Ancient Greek two models were proposed for explaining the planetary motion: the homocentric Received 5 May 2015 spheres of Eudoxus and the Epicycle and Deferent System. At least in a qualitative way, both models Received in revised form could explain the retrograde motion, the most challenging phenomenon to be explained using circular 17 September 2015 motions. Nevertheless, there is another explanandum: during retrograde motion the planets increase their brightness. It is natural to interpret a change of brightness, i.e., of apparent size, as a change in Keywords: distance. Now, while according to the Eudoxian model the planet is always equidistant from the earth, Epicycle; according to the epicycle and deferent system, the planet changes its distance from the earth, Deferent; fi Homocentric spheres; approaching to it during retrograde motion, just as observed. So, it is usually af rmed that the main ’ Brightness change reason for the rejection of Eudoxus homocentric spheres in favor of the epicycle and deferent system was that the first cannot explain the manifest planetary increase of brightness during retrograde motion, while the second can. In this paper I will show that this historical hypothesis is not as firmly founded as it is usually believed to be.
    [Show full text]
  • “Point at Infinity Hape of the World
    “Point at Infinity hape of the World Last week, we began a series of posts dedicated to thinking about immortality. If we want to even pretend to think precisely about immortality, we will have to consider some fundamental questions. What does it mean to be immortal? What does it mean to live forever? Are these the same thing? And since immortality is inextricably tied up in one’s relationship with time, we must think about the nature of time itself. Is there a difference between external time and personal time? What is the shape of time? Is time linear? Circular? Finite? Infinite? Of course, we exist not just across time but across space as well, so the same questions become relevant when asked about space. What is the shape of space? Is it finite? Infinite? It is not hard to see how this question would have a significant bearing on our thinking about immortality. In a finite universe (or, more precisely, a universe in which only finitely many different configurations of maer are possible), an immortal being would encounter the same situations over and over again, would think the same thoughts over and over again, would have the same conversations over and over again. Would such a life be desirable? (It is not clear that this repetition would be avoidable even in an infinite universe, but more on that later.) Today, we are going to take a lile historical detour to look at the shape of the universe, a trip that will take us from Ptolemy to Dante to Einstein, a trip that will uncover a remarkable confluence of poetry and physics.
    [Show full text]