Tuesday, March 1, 2016

GWW vs Plato, HGL vs GWW

1) New blog on the kid : GWW got Aristotle and St Thomas wrong. · 2) HGL's F.B. writings : What Mechanism? Are "Angelic Movers Outside Natural Sciences"? · 3) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : GWW vs Plato, HGL vs GWW · 4) New blog on the kid : Was There No Celestial Mechanics for Tychonian System? Oh, yes! · 5) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : One More Quote, if I May, Please! · 6) HGL's F.B. writings : Sungenis Countering Flat Earthers - with Some Lacks in his Argument · 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Any Fathers NOT Supporting Round Earth? Any Authorities that DO support Angelic Movers? · 8) HGL's F.B. writings : Debating with Sungenis, Mainly

Same format as on GWW's take on Aristotle.

Copernicus studied in Bologna under the Platonist Novara; and Copernicus’ idea of placing the sun rather than the Earth in the center of the universe was not the result of new observations but of a new interpretation of old and well-known facts in the light of semi-religious Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideas. The crucial idea can be traced back to the sixth book of Plato’s Republic, where we can read that the sun plays the same role in the realm of visible things as does the idea of the good in the realm of ideas. Now the idea of the good is the highest in the hierarchy of Platonic ideas. Accordingly the sun, which endows visible things with their visibility, vitality, growth and progress, is the highest in the hierarchy of the visible things in nature.…Now if the sun was to be given pride of place, if the sun merited a divine status…then it was hardly possible for it to revolve about the Earth. The only fitting place for so exalted a star was the center of the universe. So the Earth was bound to revolve about the sun. This Platonic idea, then, forms the historical background of the Copernican revolution. It does not start with observations, but with a religious or mythological idea.

[Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, p. 187. Popper is referring to Dominicus Maria da Novara, a mathematician and astronomer in Italy. Indulging in a bit of anachronistic evaluation, Popper goes on to defend him, suggesting that even though Copernicus’ idea came before the observation, he was nevertheless correct and “not a crank.” More of Popper’s a-posteriori thinking appears later in the book: “The Copernican system, for example, was inspired by a Neo-Platonic worship of the light of the Sun who had to occupy the ‘centre’ because of his nobility. This indicates how myths may develop testable components. They may, in the course of discussion, become fruitful and important for science” (ibid., p. 257).]

p. 56

Popper, being a supporter of the heliocentric revolution, couches his critique of Copernicus in rather polite terms, but essentially he is saying that Copernicus’ brainchild had all the earmarks of originating from pagan sun-worship.

Er, no. One can be, and there have been, Christian Platonists who agreed well enough with Plato on this one, but who, nevertheless, cannot be considered Pagans.

Take St Francis who said:

Citing Cantico delle creature
"Altissimu, onnipotente, bon Signore,

tue so' le laude, la gloria e 'honore et onne benedictione.

Ad te solo, Altissimo, se konfàno et nullu homo ène dignu te mentovare.

Laudato sie, mi' Signore, cum tucte le tue creature, spetialmente messor lo frate sole, lo qual è iorno, et allumini noi per lui. Et ellu è bellu e radiante cum grande splendore, de te, Altissimo, porta significatione. ..."

HGL again
Confer how many lines there are between God and Sun-and-Moon in another canticle of similar thematics:

Citing Benedicite:
Daniel 3:[52] Blessed art thou, O Lord the God of our fathers: and worthy to be praised, and glorified, and exalted above all for ever: and blessed is the holy name of thy glory: and worthy to be praised, and exalted above all in all ages. [53] Blessed art thou in the holy temple of thy glory: and exceedingly to be praised, and exceeding glorious for ever. [54] Blessed art thou on the throne of thy kingdom, and exceedingly to be praised, and exalted above all for ever. [55] Blessed art thou, that beholdest the depths, and sittest upon the cherubims: and worthy to be praised and exalted above all for ever.

[56] Blessed art thou in the firmament of heaven: and worthy of praise, and glorious for ever. [57] All ye works of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [58] O ye angels of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [59] O ye heavens, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [60] O all ye waters that are above the heavens, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all for ever.

[61] O all ye powers of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [62] O ye sun and moon, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. ...

HGL again
Compared to Shadrach, Mesach and Abed-Nego, St Francis was clearly agreeing with Plato (and perhaps with King David too), and some Puritans would, for this reason, probably accuse him of sunworship in a Pagan way.

Their Bibles (I think?) often have shorter versions of Daniel chapter three. But will they say the same thing of King David?

Citing Caeli enarrant
Psalm 18:[6] He hath set his tabernacle in the sun: and he, as a bridegroom coming out of his bride chamber, Hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way: [7] His going out is from the end of heaven, And his circuit even to the end thereof: and there is no one that can hide himself from his heat.

HGL again
So was King David agreeing with Plato? Or was it rather Plato who agreed with King David?

But in that case, perhaps Plato wasn't wrong.

Note, Plato was not a Heliocentric. Saying the Sun is the HIGHEST does not make it IMMOBILE.

Actually, when Newton makes Sun most relatively immobile part of "our Solar System" and this because Sun has "most mass" (i e is heaviest), very far from making Sun the noblest part, he is making Sun LOWER than Earth.

That is my own objection to Heliocentrism of the Newtonian variety.

It makes us look "up" in terms of solar system only at night, and it makes us get our daily light from below.

However, of this ghastly fault, Copernicus was as such not yet guilty. Nor was Kepler.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Tuesday after III Lord's Day in Lent

PS, on God as mover of daily movement:

This very question had troubled the Greeks and Romans over two thousand years ago. Seneca, for example, writes a description very similar to what Born, Hoyle, or Hawking write today, only back then he didn’t have anyone to provide him a scientific answer:

It will be proper to discuss this, in order that we may know whether the universe revolves and the Earth stands still, or the universe stands still and the Earth rotates. For there have been those who asserted that…risings and settings do not occur by virtue of the motion of the heaven, but that we ourselves rise and set. The subject is worthy of consideration…whether the abode allotted to us is the most slowly or the most quickly moving, whether God moves everything around us or ourselves instead.

Seneca, Nat. Quaest. vii. 2, 3. Cited in Aristarchus of Samos: The Ancient Copernicus, Sir Thomas Heath, 1913, p. 308.

p. 79

A God who moves the whole universe around us, as we observe (unless assuming we could correct our observations from some other place of rest which we cannot) is the God who is Lord over all of the universe.

The God who turns only US around might be some only local God of this Earth.

Which is of course a kind of Satanism to presume. This is why philosophy is best if sticking to face value of observations, unless they are really proven wrong. Which they aren't./HGL