Lafcadio

Buridan, don't even try to argue with spin, pigheaded arguments are classics from him. Just tell me which passages in Italian you want translated and I will try to help you.

spin

Post 279 of this thread. The passage that starts "io tengo un infinito universo". Note that the final accented /a/ is represented by a "?*".

And for you:

adzzy

Holy moly, that's so far off base it's ridiculous.

It was the rise of protestantism and the Catholics own politicizing that got Gallileo, they'd never had issues with science proving details like universe or earth models from abstract bible verses wrong. They had no issue with the world being round (despite the myth purported by Washington Irving) either, as they were already using celestian navigation at the time, which of course doesn't work on a flat world.

What happened with Gallileo is the Catholic church sort of sat back, the reformists like Luther started to make a song and a jump about it, and the Catholics fearing more converts turned political and forced him to withdraw his claims. From then on, and for quite some time a lot of the issues with science/philosophers was political concerns on the Catholics side vs the literalist reformers, understandable since churches are there for their own power, right?

Go 100 years into the future and the debates had settled down, and the catholic/protestant world had pretty much finalised itself, and you had Kepler and Copernicus, Kepler being in Lutheran territory and Copernicus in Catholic, whilst the Catholic church stayed silent on Copernicus' work, the Lutherans excommunicated Kepler for his work, it was really the rise of the literal-if-I-translate-it-that-way reformists that made the church seem antagonistic towards science, before the reformation, they'd generally just sat back and let scientists go on their merry way provided they didn't outwardly support some distinct heretical view, like unitarianism or judaism.

Buridan

Thanks for the advice.

And for your willingness to translate. Take the time you need, I am in no hurry here.

Ciao:Cheeky:

Bobinius

This is really fun. A guy who was trying to insert the perfect Pythagorean harmony into the Celestial Spheres was among the "few europeans ... who dared not to be Greek". Can you see how absurd this is? A guy driven by Pyhtagorean ideas,[ Pythagoras was a GREEK, and a mystical one ], was trying all his life to be greek.



Above is his 'scientific, reasonable and original' idea rooted in Plato (another Greek), that of inserting the five Platonic solids in the spaces between the Celestial Spheres.

Here are the five Platonic solids which Kepler tryied to use in order to explain the movement of the six known planets. The perfect Pythagorean or Platonic solids would account for the irregular motion of the planets.



A very original and scientific view. Published in Mysterium Cosmographicum, 1596. But his Pythagorean influence does not stop here. He will remain under the greek idea of 'Harmony' and will publish Harmonice Mundi-Harmony of the Worlds in 1619.This book containes his 'scientific' insights about the music of the sphere of Mercury, but also, his very important Third Law.

Hold your horses. This is just autobiography.

Bruno reached this idea in a whole different way. Anyway, modern astronomy should be accused of holding a Greek concept too?

He was not a neoplatonist, and you seem to have some false prejudices about him. Of course he is situated in a tradition of thought, but he brings his
contribution to his view.

By you? Based on your emotionalism I see. It is worthless to try to debate emotionalism since it does not respond to reason or evidence.

Embarassing. Kepler held a lot of opinions about things he couldn't prove: see his GREEK ideas about the solids, the musical harmony of the spheres, Astrology. What he was, was an excellent mathematician who struggled to fit
Brache's very good observation in equations, but based on metaphysical reasons.

This is Arguing from Imagination. To try to ignore what the very writings and ideas of a man tell you about him, and create a malformed image about what you want him to be is just emotionalism again.

He was an advocate of Astrology, pythagorean harmony between his laws. Someone who holds such ideas can hardly be called 'reasonable'. And what he did can hardly be called Science: he was trying for 20 years to fit Tycho's observations into equations. He had the data and through a process of trial and error, he managed to formulate his famous Laws. He brought no explanation about its mechanism, he made no experiment. Actually, the explanation was more metaphyical and theological than scientific. But his discovery strenghtened the position of the Copernican system and gave Newton the possibility to develop his theory of universal attraction.

On the other hand, Bruno too defended the Copernican system: his book Cena de la Cerneri - The Ash Supper, is describing his public debate and defense of the Copernican system. He attacked the ideas of Aristotle, which were held dogmatically in that age as an Absolute truth (a thing which Copernicus or Galileo also did, directly or indirectly).Bruno's thinking attacks directly the biblical geocentric view of those ages. He advocates for an infinite universe, but most important, for the fact that there is no reason to believe that there is a difference between the aristotelic sublunar and supralunar spaces, that it is the same substance everywhere, without any privilege for the one on our world. He de-centralized the view of Scholasticism. An idea kept to this day: the universe has no center, and there is no privileged point from where to start going.

But, the difference between the two is that Kepler lived in Germany, and was outside the reach of the arm of the Roman Inquisition. Kepler's book also arrived on the Index of Forbidden Books.

Arguments from future? You discovered something new? How about arguments from the past?

You give us the perfect example. Preaching is fallacious too. It is called Argument from assertion. Or from Imagination as we have seen in this thread.

Yes, the Papacy gave us our martyrs. Probably you are taking care of the Circus part.

adzzy

Meh, I get the names Copernicus and Gallileo mixed up timeframe from time to time like my above post.

umm hello?

The catholic church never issued any official position for or against Gallileo, this is considered and quite plausibly be because the Pope at the time was his friend and kept the church from stating any official position which of course didn't stop clergy from making a song and a dance, but after all, he was the Pope.

Kepler on the other hand, was a deeply religious man, far moreso than Gallileo and was excommunicated as a heretic for his views (you know, eternal damnation and all that) and was always deeply troubled by this.

The Catholic Church may have been over politicized and corrupt, Martin Luther fell into the same trap (you know, how he denied the scriptural truth of the trinity, then later denied it for political reasons?) and died what he had attempted to break the shackles of, whilst Zwingli was a monster, and Calvin, if there was ever an anti christ, John Calvin was that man.

Kepler wasn't protected by being in Germany, he suffered because of it, he would have been better served to be under the more liberal Pope that was in Rome at the time, than under the auspices of the Augsburg Synod.

As for the reformists and Copernicus, would you like me to quite Luther's comments about Copernicus and what happened to the people within Luther's region when he pronounced them heretics? how about early Baptists who only found respite in Russia or ironically due to the invasion of Transylvania by Suleiman the Magnificent? The muslim who saved the unitarian christians from the reformists, yeah....the reformists really weren't like Rome at all...

It was the irony of it all, somehow the Spanish inquisition, a secular inquisition performed at the condemnation of the Pope managed to be worse than any religion inquisition, combined with the fact that the reformers, somehow, managed to actually be worse than the Catholics. Just when one would have thought that nothing could be more corrupt or brutal than the Catholic Church, they jumped up and proved us wrong :rolling:

Bobinius

You have no idea what you are talking about. The condemnation of Galileo in 1633 was not official? The prohibition of the Dialogue concerning two new sciences was not official? The imprisonment of Galileo was not official?

Check what Pope Urban VIII, his friend decreed:

Galileo was not condemned for heresy and executed like Bruno was, because unlike Bruno, Galileo abjured, renounced his 'heretical' teachings.

What has this to do with the fact that he was not under the jurisdiction of the Roman Inquisition? Red Herring.

I don't care about your considerations regarding the Devil and his incarnations. Anyway, all this is irrelevant to the point being made.

Kepler refused to go and teach in Italy, after being invited by Galileo, especially after he saw what happened with him in 1616.

In the very liberal atmosphere that dominated Italy, Galileo was condemned for teaching Copernicanism, his book and Copernicus' book arived on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, Bruno was burned at stake in 1600. The only thing that kept Kepler safe while being a suporter of Copernicanism was that he was out of the jurisdiction of the Roman Inquisition, in Germany.

What the fuck does Luther have to do with anything?

The 'secular' Spanish Inquisition was torturing people to convert to atheism and copernicanism. Riiight.

Chris Weimer

Aye it was. Acknowledged.

I didn't see anything in the article relating to the Inquisition one way or another, unless I missed something. The article talks about his pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and doesn't focus too intently on his life at all. So far, nothing contradicts what I have said.

I always figured it to mean the history of the Bible, not Christians. But I suppose the mods know best.

Lafcadio

Bobinus, cut the strawmen assault and stop bringing shallow googled arguments. How is any of your objections showing that an ellipse was a Greek concept? How was I claiming that everything Kepler held was not Greek? Address the arguments being made if you ever try to make a point.

Show me the Greek heritage of Kepler's laws and you'll make a point. Otherwise you'll have to hide behind spin's shadow as he made the same arguments and I refused to address them because the strawman I just mentioned. You had this chance because it's your first reply here. Don't waste it

Which different way? Please emphasize the reasoning of Bruno (you can start from spin's quotes in this thread, if you have no material at hand) and show it different from his Greek or Greek-influenced (I'm thinking of neoplatonists here) forerunners.

Modern astronomy is 100% based on observations. And the universe is not infinite as an effect of god's almightiness and omnibenevolence (try read this thread few hours later when I'll translate that passage in Italian, now I'm just passing by and giving you a brief reply). So what Greek concept are you talking about?

For your own sake, please come back in this thread after you did your homework.

You have an entire discussion in this thread to use and to back up this accusation. To prove that my arguments spring solely from my emotions and that my opponents brought evidence and used reason.

Can't you see the irony from your own remarks? How about enumerating two ideas makes that a lot? Also please do a comparision between Bruno and Kepler, just to avoid the strawman you created when you stripped Kepler from a phrase that started with "unlike".

I also said in this thread once, but for the narrowminded I will repeat it: Kepler said about astrology that it's the dumb daughter of astronomy, but without it the astronomers would starve. Beyond that, just take a read at Kepler's work and show that he was no natural philosopher (scientist). If you're unable to do so, you should drop this cheap rhetoric because it won't serve any good, nor to you, nor to your position.

What?? Kepler observed data. Analysed empirical data. Formulated a theory. And predicted astronomical events. This is science.
To set a claim in discovering mechanism x is not science but wishful thinking. An astronomer could not discover gravity without commiting a fallacy. Gravity could be discovered only here on Earth. Which happened.

If you'd stop turning that blind eye you could see my argument in this thread: Bruno supported Copernican view, Bruno supported whatever view, Bruno did not support science.
The value of Kepler is not that only supported Copernican view, but that he supported it with evidence. Bruno just wove his literary style around it.
As for the infinite universe and for the lack of center, Bruno provided it because his theological view forces him to do so. His view is not his own, but Cusanus' and other dudes' as I previously shown in this thread. He did not decentralized Scholasticism because it was already obsolete. Your knowledge gaps in the history of thought are not an excuse.

Beyond the irrelevance of this rhetoric, let me give you a hint about time: it goes only one way.

If you fail to do your homeworks you will find only assertions around you. This is no History of Science 101 class. <edit>

Of course,
<edit>

Be prepared next time.

adzzy

Bruno found the best way to get yourself killed in Europe at the time, pronounce disbelief in trinitarian doctrine and other core doctrines, it got Severus killed by Calvin, it got the Baptists killed by the Germans, and it certainly wasn't short on targets in Catholic land, really it was probably the best way to get yourself killed no matter what part of western Europe you were in.

Urban had been a close friend of Gallielo, he knew what he'd been writing for years after the Bellamine cease and desist and never did anything, along 17 years later and the book was published, they put on what was not much more than a political save face trial, a byroduct of the entire Reformation/Counter reformation crap that plagued Europe for years, which at the end he issued a recant which he never really stuck too and was placed under house arrest (yeah, the blind old man was banished to be stuck in and around his house of Florence even though he had said he was becoming too ill to go anywhere) and continued to study and teach, but not produce books (he was blind....)

He was never going to be executed, had he refused to recant, the worst they would have done to him was excommunicate and house arrest him permanently, excommunication was as big a deal as anything though, his case wasn't even remotely similar to Bruno's, who denied some of the most basic core tenets of the religion.

Had either Gallileo or Kepler pronounced disbelief towards the trinity and such, they too would have gotten executed, Kepler though was excommunicated (technically, though they didn't use the word, but it was in the same effect) long before by the Lutherans for refusal to accept the Augsburg Synod, and since he kept to himself, never said anything about religion and he wasn't officially part of their religion anymore anyway, they just looked the other way.

As for his refusal to go to Catholic territory, it probably had more to do with him being raised Lutheran and the counter reformation, which had precisely dick to do with science anyway. He could have been nothing more than a peasant farmer and he wouldn't wanted to have been in catholic country, it wasn't exactly safe in the german heartland of Lutheranists to be a Catholic either.

Just about everything, the entire shift in the political climate was due to the reformists, prior to the reformation the Catholic Church had turned a blind eye to science, the bible states pretty obviously the world is flat, yet they never had any issues with a round world theory, in fact they complete ignored it as it was further developed, after the Reformation, and the assault on Copernicus by the reformists, Luther and Calvin, the Catholic church kinda woke up, and did what it did best, turned political even though it didn't seem to care until it realised it might lose even more followers to the reformers, this leading to the counter reformation; really the reformists and Catholics took turns for many decades at who could be the most intolerant. The greatest irony was that those "islamic infidels from Turkey" were about 500x more religiously tolerant than anything in Western Europe,

The spanish inquisition was secular, really the test for "christianity" at times wasn't much more than having your pants pulled down to check for circumcision or your clothes, it wasn't even church officials, it was normal everyday soldiers or guards, who probably couldn't even read half the time, at least when the religious inquisitions took place, it was people who had read the bible checking for inerrancies. Despite condemnations, orders to stand down and excommunications from the Vatican, it continued unabated, and it continued for one reason. The royal family were trying to ethnically cleanse Spain to stop it from being invaded again. It had absolutely nothing at all to do with "infidel" religions, and was everything to do with the secular government trying to consolidate their own power through ethnic cleansing, Hitler pulled the same shit, promoting and paying lip service to Christianity in Mein Kampf.

It's the in thing to bash the Catholics for anything and everything, sure they were and still are a corrupt organisation, but they weren't anywhere near as bad, nor alone while the "Reformists saved the world". The reformists out of Germany, Austria, Switzerland, or England were as bad and worse at times, in some see-saw back and forth game of "Who wants to screw humanity". And what was even worse was when the secular authorities took control of previously religious injustices, and turned them into something far worse, the spanish inquisition being a prime example.

The only thing worse than religion with secular authority, is the secular with religious authority.