DOCSLIB.ORG

PHILOLAUS and the CENTRAL FIRE Carl Huffman

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PHILOLAUS and the CENTRAL FIRE Carl Huffman PHILOLAUS AND THE CENTRAL FIRE Carl Huffman (DePauw University, Greencastle, Indiana) I. Introduction Philolaus’ decision to posit an unobserved and unobservable central re in the middle of the cosmos is one of the most puzzling moments in early Greek cosmology.1 The consequences of this decision were, eventually, epoch-making. Once the central re takes over the central position, the earth becomes a planet for the rst time in human thought. The innovation did not catch on immediately; most ancients continued to believe in a geocentric universe. Some two thousand years later, however, Copernicus, dissatised with the traditional geocentric cosmology which he had inherited, reports that he pored over the texts of his predecessors in order to nd alternatives and in (pseudo-) Plutarch (Diels 1958 378) encountered the system of Philolaus who “held that the earth moved in a circle . and was one of the planets” (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres I. 5, tr. Wallis). Copernicus was thus led by Philolaus, as he reports to Pope Leo, “to meditate on the mobility of the earth” (Preface to On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres).2 Copernicus focused on the mobility of the earth and ignored 1 Aristotle does not assign the central-re cosmology to Philolaus by name but rather to the Pythagoreans as a group. He clearly dates these Pythagoreans to the time of the atomists or [a little] before, i.e. 420 (the oruit of Democritus) or 450. Aristotle’s use of the expression “so-called Pythagoreans,” which shows both that this was the common name for these thinkers and that Aristotle had some reservations about it, along with this dating makes clear that he is not assigning the system to Pythagoras himself (ca. 570–ca. 490 BC). Aristotle appears to have found the systems of fth-century Pythago- reans such as Philolaus and Eurytus similar enough that he chose to refer to them as a group. His pupil, Theophrastus, however, in his collection of Tenets of Natural Philosophy, which forms the basis for the later doxographical tradition, assigned the central-re cosmology to Philolaus and to no one else (see Philolaus DK 44 A16). Fragments 7 and 17 of Philolaus’ book also refer to that cosmology. Thus, we can assign the central-re cosmology to Philolaus with some condence. 2 Copernicus also noted that Nicetas (Hicetas), Ecphantus and Heraclides of Pontus, while not making the earth a planet, had made it revolve on its axis at the center of the world (On the Revolutions of the Spheres I. 5). 58 carl huffman the fact that, in Philolaus’ system, it was not the sun but the central re around which the earth orbited. The evidence suggests, however, that Philolaus’ focus was more, or at least as much, on the central re as the now mobile earth; the central re is after all in the center and it was with the central re that Philolaus began his cosmogony (DK 44 B7). In this essay, then, I will restore Philolaus’ emphasis and reexamine the signicance of the central re in his cosmogony and cosmology. This reexamination is inspired by Peter Kingsley’s provocative analysis of Philolaus’ central re in Chapters 13 and 14 of his book, Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic. Kingsley argues that, although Philolaus was also inuenced by “a planetary awareness inherited from Babylonia,” . “the single most important factor in the genesis of the scheme as a whole” was Philolaus’ interpretation of a line from Homer’s Iliad (VIII. 16), which describes the location of Tartarus: “as far under Hades as heaven is from earth” (1995 191). In Kingsley’s view, the central re is Tartarus, where Zeus imprisoned the Titans, and this in turn explains the names which the Pythagoreans, according to Aristotle, gave to the central re, i.e., in Kingsley’s translation, “prison of Zeus” ([# '&) and “defense-tower of Zeus” (]# !" #). According to Kingsley, Philolaus inherited a view common in Greek Italy and Sicily, in which there were great res under the earth, a view inspired by the volcanic activity in the region (e.g. Mt. Etna and the Phlegraean elds). Homer’s verse leads Philolaus to associate these res with Tartarus below the earth, and the planetary awareness inherited from Babylonia, along with the great distance of Tartarus below the earth in the verse, led Philolaus to project the ery Tartarus outside the earth and place it at the center of his cosmos. Hades, which the Homeric verse places between the earth and Tartarus, is also projected outside the earth and becomes that second puzzling feature of Philolaus’ system, the counter-earth, which like the central re and Hades itself, according to the traditional etymology (% `c# -Plato, Gorgias 493b), is invisible to those on earth (185–187). It has been recognized since Aristotle that the introduction of the central re and the counter-earth and the concomitant moving earth had nothing to do with trying to save the phenomena but was based on a priori considerations of some sort. Kingsley rejects Aristotle’s account of those considerations and proposes the startling conclusion that the Philolaic cosmology was a product of Philolaus’ meditation on and interpretation of what were for him “inspired texts” (1995 189), the poems of Homer..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Philosophical and Historical Analysis of Cosmology from Copernicus to Newton
    University of Central Florida STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2017 Scientific transformations: a philosophical and historical analysis of cosmology from Copernicus to Newton Manuel-Albert Castillo University of Central Florida Part of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARS Citation Castillo, Manuel-Albert, "Scientific transformations: a philosophical and historical analysis of cosmology from Copernicus to Newton" (2017). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 5694. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/5694 SCIENTIFIC TRANSFORMATIONS: A PHILOSOPHICAL AND HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF COSMOLOGY FROM COPERNICUS TO NEWTON by MANUEL-ALBERT F. CASTILLO A.A., Valencia College, 2013 B.A., University of Central Florida, 2015 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the department of Interdisciplinary Studies in the College of Graduate Studies at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2017 Major Professor: Donald E. Jones ©2017 Manuel-Albert F. Castillo ii ABSTRACT The purpose of this thesis is to show a transformation around the scientific revolution from the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries against a Whig approach in which it still lingers in the history of science. I find the transformations of modern science through the cosmological models of Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton.
    [Show full text]
  • The Presocratic Philosophers 16
    II Anaximander on Nature (a) Pantological knowledge Anaximander was a younger contemporary and a fellow-citizen of Thales; we need not accept the conventional statement that they were teacher and pupil, in order to believe that the younger man knew and was stimulated by his senior’s excogitations. Anaximander became ‘the first Greek whom we know to have produced a written account Concerning Nature’ (Themistius, 12 A 7).1 Of that work barely a dozen words have survived; but the doxography enables us to judge its scope and pretensions. It was vast: there was a cosmogony, or account of the original formation of the universe; a history of the earth and the heavenly bodies; an account of the development of living organisms; descriptions of natural phenomena of every sort, and infant studies of astronomy, meteorology and biology; and a geography illustrated by a celebrated mappa mundi. Nature, phusis, embraces every object of experience and every subject of rational inquiry except the productions of human contrivance; and the Presocratic systems of thought were generally spoken of as accounts Concerning Nature (PeriPhuseôs). An account concerning nature would begin with cosmogony, and proceed to a description of the celestial universe. It would investigate the development of the earth, of terrestrial life, and of the human animal; it would describe the clouds, the rains, and the winds, the rocky structure of the land, and the salt sea. It would rise from the inorganic to the organic, treating of topics botanical and zoological; it would look at the typology of species and the anatomy of individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Astronomical & Astrophysical Transactions
    This article was downloaded by:[Bochkarev, N.] On: 7 December 2007 Access Details: [subscription number 746126554] Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Astronomical & Astrophysical Transactions The Journal of the Eurasian Astronomical Society Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713453505 Comparison and historical evolution of ancient Greek cosmological ideas and mathematical models Antonios D. Pinotsis a a Section of Astrophysics, Astronomy and Mechanics, Department of Physics, University of Athens, Athens, Greece Online Publication Date: 01 December 2005 To cite this Article: Pinotsis, Antonios D. (2005) 'Comparison and historical evolution of ancient Greek cosmological ideas and mathematical models', Astronomical & Astrophysical Transactions, 24:6, 463 - 483 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/10556790600603859 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10556790600603859 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cosmological Ideas of the Greeks*
    46 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SUPPLEMENT No. 2115 Ju�y 15,1916 The Cosmological Ideas of the Greeks* Philosophy Which Aimed to Comprehend the World In a Natural Way Hector MacPherson, M.A., F.R.A.S. (I) THE SPECULATIVE PERIOD. beings is moist and that heat itself is generated from earth was considered to be flat, and the sun and moon were To THE ancient Greoks belongs the honor of separating, moisture, and persists in it (for that from which all supposed to be composed of similar matter-a consider­ for the first time, cosmology from t.heology. ,fust as the things spring is the first principle of them) and getting able advance in thonght. Anaxagoras also held the some­ genius of th� Hebrew people was religious, that of the this idea also from the faet that the germs of all beings are what absmd view that the 'Milk} Way represented the Hellenes was in the direction of philosophy and art. of a moist nature." Thales, at all events, has the dis­ shadow of the earth. And just as the Hebrews developed the religious view of tinction of being the first scientific philosopher. Empedocles-working from his idea of four primary the world, it fell to the Greeks to develop the philo­ Anaximander, the second philosopher of the Ionian elements, fire, air, water and earth, swayed to and fro sophic view. As ]<jucken remarks: "Philosophy which, school, abandoned the view of Thales. He found the by love and hate, attraction and repulsion-believed the in the case of the Greeks, does not Rtart from man and first principle not in water nor in any other substance, universe to be spherical and the earth to be flat.
    [Show full text]
  • Tensorial Description of Non-Minkowskian Manifolds for Understanding Deflection of Electromagnetic Radiation : a Mathematical Approach
    Tensorial Description of non-Minkowskian manifolds for understanding deflection of electromagnetic radiation : A mathematical approach A Einstein Introduction Methodology • Assume a geodesic of the form The special theory of relativity presents an alternative to traditional Newtonian approaches to mechanics by assuming a Minkowskian space-time geometry, where time is represented by an imaginary axis. Crucially, this approach assumes a limiting, frame dependent, velocity for all particles of • Assuming solutions to Poisson’s equation However, it is clear that such an approach is limited to applications within inertial reference frames. This paper will • Solving – extend this assumption to non-inertial frames and investigate solutions of the resulting tensorial equations with regards to in-vacuo propagation of radiation in regions of high energy- density • This clearly implies a deviation of electromagnetic radiation in the vicinity of a massive object equal to Figure 1 : An example of a 1+1d Minkowskian space-time geometry Application to CMB The amplitude of the gravitational potential is shown as a function of different angular scales on the sky, starting at ninety degrees on the left side of the graph, through to the smallest scales on the right hand side. The multipole moments corresponding to the various angular scales are indicated at the top of the graph. This graph was compiled by analysing the tiny distortions imprinted on the photons of the CMB by the gravitational lensing effect of massive cosmic structures How can we avoid the
    [Show full text]
  • Copernicus and the Origin of His Heliocentric System
    JHA, xxxiii (2002) COPERNICUS AND THE ORIGIN OF HIS HELIOCENTRIC SYSTEM BERNARD R. GOLDSTEIN, University of Pittsburgh The introduction of a heliocentric system by Copernicus (d. 1543) is often considered to be a major blow to the traditional cosmology of his time and an epoch-making event in the history of science. But what was the question for which heliocentrism was the answer? For astronomers in the late Middle Ages cosmic distances were based on Ptolemy’s nesting hypothesis that was originally described in his Plan- etary hypotheses and transmitted to the Latin West through Arabic intermediaries. Copernicus specifically rejected this hypothesis inDe revolutionibus, i.10, although he might have expressed himself more clearly. It will be my goal here to understand the reasons why Copernicus rejected this tradition of cosmic distances and the geo- centric system in which it was embedded. First, it is important to distinguish astronomical issues, such as the use of the equant, from cosmological issues, such as the location of the centre of planetary motion and the order of the planets in space. Ptolemy had motion on a planet’s deferent move uniformly about the equant point, a point other than the centre of the deferent, in violation of the principle of uniform circular motion stated in Almagest, ix.2 (see Figure 1). Indeed, at the beginning of the Commentariolus Copernicus argued that FIG. 1. An equant model: T is the Earth, D is the centre of the deferent circle whose radius is R, and Q is the centre of uniform motion for C that lies on the deferent.
    [Show full text]
  • London Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
    L O N D O N S O C I E T " F O R P R O M O T I N G C H R I S T I A N K N O W L E D G E N EW "O RK : TH E MACM ILL AN CO M PAN" CO NT ENT S PART I G RE E K AS T RO NO M " T O A RIS TARC H US T HALE S ANA"I M A NDER ANA"I M EN E S P"THAG ORA S PAR M ENI DE S ANA"A G O RA S E M PED OC LE S TH E P"THAG OREAN S (E N OP ID E S O F (am o s PLAT O E O" S CALL IPP S A R IST OTLE UD U , U , H E RA C LID E S O F PON S TU . PART II ARIS TARC H US O F SA M O S TH E HELIOCE NTR IC H"POTH ES I S O N T H E APPARE NT DIA M ETE R O F T H E S UN O N TH E S I Z E S AND DIST AN C E S O F T H E S UN AND M O O N O N T H E "EAR AND “ G R EAT "E AR ’ L ATER I M PR OVEM E NT S O N ARI STARC H US S FIG URE S B IB LI OG RAPH" C HRO NOLO G" PA RT I.
    [Show full text]
  • Pythagorean Communities: from Individuals to a Collective Portrait 311
    Hyperboreus Vol.16-17 (2010-2011) “VARIANTE LOQUELLA” Pythagorean Communities: From Individuals to a Collective Portrait 311 Leonid Zhmud PYTHAGOREAN COMMUNITIES: FROM INDIVIDUALS TO A COLLECTIVE PORTRAIT* In the middle of his doxographical discussion of the Pre-Socratic theories, Aristotle makes an interesting psychological remark: It is what we are all inclined to do, to direct our inquiry not by the matter itself, but by the views of our opponents. (De caelo 294 b 5). I think one can hardly fi nd a better motto for the Pythagorean studies of the last two centuries. Most books on Pythagoras and early Pythago- reanism are highly polemical. This includes even such a paragon of objec- tive research as Zeller,1 for he, too, had his own target to attack. This was Röth’s History of Western Philosophy,2 which accepted the entire ancient tradition on Pythagoras as historically reliable. Zeller’s critical approach to the sources razed Röth’s construction to the ground, so that very little remained of Pythagoras. Incidentally, what has remained – the philosophical doctrine that “all is number”, the astronomical theory of the spheres, and the concept of the Central Fire – has nothing in common with Pythagoras. Admittedly, Zeller’s approach per se is sound and his distinction between the classical and the later sources is crucial, indeed. The problem is, however, that the classical authors did exactly what Aristotle said: they were guided not by the matter itself, but by the views of their opponents. Aristotle’s own opponents were the Academics, and this fact had a great impact on his treatment of the Pythagoreans.
    [Show full text]
  • Pythagorean Philolaus' Pyrocentric Universe
    PYTHAGOREAN PHILOLAUS’ PYROCENTRIC UNIVERSE: ITS SIGNIFICANCE AND CONTRIBUTION TO ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS YIORGO N. MANIATIS Hellenic Open University [email protected] ABSTRACT. In this work, first, I reexamine the pyrocentric universe of the Pythagorean, Phi- lolaus, who emphatically propounded that the center of the cosmos is neither the earth nor the sun, but a central fiery hearth that stands in the middle of the spherical universe. Second, I attempt to demonstrate the value and significance of this pyrocentric cosmic model by elaborating its novel revolutionary elements and its contribution to astronomy. Third, by underlining the diachroneity and timeliness of this cosmic model, I try to establish as to how the model served as a precursor to not only the ancient and modern heliocentric models, as widely believed, but also as much to the contemporary cosmic models and theories of astro- physics. KEYWORDS. Philolaus, Pythagoreanism, cosmology, universe, astronomy, astrophysics Introduction Pythagoreans were the first, in the history of philosophy and science, to conceive that the earth does not form the center of the universe, but is an orbiting planet, a fact that is closer to the scientific truth. However, most of the historical accounts of science today wrongly project that astronomical revolution started from the 17th cen- tury onwards with the Copernican Revolution, by pioneers like Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and others. Only when there is a reference to other associ- ated ancient Greeks, the names of a few astronomers such as Aristarchus and Ptolemy are mentioned. The true pioneers of the astronomical revolution — Py- thagoreans and the other Presocratics — find little or no mention in these accounts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Complete Pythagoras
    THE COMPLETE PYTHAGORAS INDEX INTRODUCTION VOLUME ONE Biographies Iamblichus i) Importance of the Subject ii) Youth, Education, Travels iii) Journey to Egypt iv) Studies in Egypt and Babylonia v) Travels in Greece, Settlement at Crotona vi) Pythagorean Community vii) Italian Political Achievements viii) Intuition, Reverence, Temperance, Studiousness ix) Community and Chastity x) Advice to Youths xi) Advice to Women xii) Why he calls himself a Pythagorean xiii) He shared Orpheus’s Control over Animals xiv) Pythagoras ’s preexistence xv) He Cured by Medicine and Music xvi) Pythagorean Aestheticism xvii) Tests of Initiation xviii) Organization of the Pythagorean School xix) Abaris the Scythian xx) Psychological Requirements xxi) Daily Program xxii) Friendship xxiii) Use of parables in Instruction xxiv) Dietary Suggestions xxv) Music and poetry xxvi) Theoretical Music xxvii) Mutual political Assistance xxviii) Divinity of Pythagoras xxix) Sciences and Maxims xxx) Justice and politics xxxi) Temperance and Self-control xxxii) Fortitude xxxiii) Universal Friendship xxxiv) Nonmercenary Secrecy xxxv) Attack on Pythagoreanism xxxvi) The Pythagorean Succession Porphry Photius Diogenes Laertius i) Early Life ii) Studies iii) Initiations iv) Transmigration v) Works vi) General Views on Life vii) Ages of Life viii) Social Customs ix) Distinguished Appearance x) Women Deified by Marriage xi) Scientific culture xii) Diet and Sacrifices xiii) Measures and Weights xiv) Hesperus Identified with Lucifer xv) Students and Reputations xvi) Friendship Founded
    [Show full text]
  • COPERNICUS and the HELIOCENTRIC SYSTEM
    1 COPERNICUS and the HELIOCENTRIC SYSTEM We have seen the great importance attached by late mediaeval philosophers, and by the Church, to the cosmology of Aristotle. It is mainly for this reason that the work of Copernicus and Kepler had such a large impact- it directly challenged the prevailing orthodoxy, and thereby opened the way for the far more radical challenges to the mediaeval worldview which came later on. In what follows we look at both the life and achievements of Copernicus. (1) LIFE of COPERNICUS (1473-1543) Mikolaj Kopernik, or Nicolaus Koppernigk, was born on the 19th Feb 1473 in Torun, Poland; nowadays his latinized name Nicolaus Copernicus is used. His father, also called Nicolaus Koppernigk, had lived in Krakow before moving to Torun, where he set up a business trading in copper. Nicolaus Koppernigk Sr. married Barbara Waczenrode, who came from a well off family from Torun, around 1463. They had four children, two sons and two daughters, of whom Copernicus was the youngest. Copernicus's father died when he was 10 yrs old, and his uncle Lucas Waczenrode, a canon at Frauenburg Cathedral, became guardian to the four children. In 1488 Nicolaus was sent to the cathedral school of Wloclawek, where he received a standard Catholic education; 3 years later he began studies at the University of Krakow. He studied Latin, mathematics, astronomy, geography and philosophy, learning his astronomy from the "Tractatus de Sphaera", by Johannes de Sacrobosco (written in 1220). In these courses Copernicus learnt the conventional Aristotelian and Ptolemaic theories of the universe, and also much about what today we call astrology, ie., the calculation of horoscopes.
    [Show full text]
  • 4Reek Philosophy
    OUTLINES OE THE HISTORY OF 4reek philosophy BY Dr. EDWARD ZELLER TRANSLATED WITH THE AUTHOR'S SANCTION BY SARAH FRANCES ALLEYNE AND -ABBOTT tJNlVEBSITi t NEW YORK HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 1S86 IN' MEMORIAM SARAH FRANCES ALLE7NE AUTHOR’S PREFACE. F or some years it has been my intention to respond to a request arising from various quarters, and add to my larger work on the Philosophy of the Greeks a short sketch of the same subject. But until the third edition of the History was brought to a conclusion I had not the leisure for the work. Sketches of thi3 kind will proceed on different lines according to the aim which is held in view. My object has been primarily to provide students with a help for academical lectures, which would facilitate preparation, and save the time wasted in writing down facts, without interfering with the lecturer’s work or imposing any fetters upon it. Hence I have made it my task to give my readers a pic­ ture of the contents of the philosophical systems, and the course of their historical development, which should contain all the essential traits— and also to put into their hands the more important literary references and sources. But as in the last points I have not gone beyond what is absolutely necessary, so in the historical account I have as a rule indicated the parts very briefly with which historical considerations of a general kind or special explanations and inquiries are connected, or in viii AUTHOR'S PREFACE. which, it seemed proper to supplement my earlier work.
    [Show full text]