New Philosophy Development - Heliocentrism, Galileos Role - Research Paper Example

New Philosophy: Truth Rebooted The seventeenth century marked the beginning of the age of science. This period saw the radical changes in the way manperceived himself and his surroundings thanks to the revolutionary and “wild” theories of Nicolas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei and the fantastic science of Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton and Georg Stahl, among other thinkers. Suddenly, a theory that the world is round emerged. The increased observation of the cosmos also revealed that the world may not be unique and special after all. A flurry of speculative science ensued and they contributed to the growth of rational thought that launched a religious upheaval among other changes to human knowledge and way of life. It was not unlike a world turned upside down. As the scramble for the new truth set in, the new philosophy was introduced. For thinkers and those who introduced new ideas, it was a necessary change and a tool. For ordinary people who came to be acquainted with it and eventually accepted the new theoretical paradigm, it was a way of coping with the changes around them. This paper explores this new philosophy development and determines its causes and impact, especially its inevitable link with new science. Underpinning Science There is an interesting school of thought that figures prominently in the manner by which new philosophy was accepted. The position is that philosophy is critical in validating science. Therefore, these two variables are within a symbiotic relationship wherein one is crucial in the acceptance of the other. Earlier, this was the case with Aristotle’s physics and natural science. They became legitimate when it was backed by Aristotelian philosophy. Several years later, this would be cemented further when Thomas Aquinas reconciled his thoughts with Catholic theology, effectively making Aristotelian science the foundation of European philosophical and intellectual worldview. The position is that new philosophy also functioned the same way. It became inextricably linked with new science. The new philosophy was called for in order for people to accept new science as the new truth or to establish it as valid as opposed to the classical authorities. This is perhaps the case because any pursuit of truth requires a degree of rhetorics and persuasion in order for it to be recognized. There is a great deal of perception involved here wherein the truths cannot merely exist objectively. There was a philosophical statement about whether a tree makes any noise when it falls in the forest when no one could hear it. There is noise, true. But without human confirmation, it is outside of human understanding. There is a need for human confirmation especially when previously held views are erroneous and have to be changed. One need not go further and cite contemporary cases in science. A new medical discovery, despite its validity, is not immediately accepted. It must undergo a process beyond research. Particularly, it has to be published so that its findings are articulated into acceptability. It must be communicated so that the scientific community and the wider public accept it as truth. There is a system that depicts a process. This was also demonstrated in Copernicus’ introduction and defense of heliocentricism. In order for it to be accepted, he had to draw from various sources that criticize Aristotelian science. He also had to construct a philosophy that is compatible to the concept. There is another dimension to this issue. Social and cultural variables determine how people accept truths. To put this in another way, one could say that the science and knowledge are affected by beliefs and assumptions that are social in nature. A new truth is accepted only to be rejected later. There is, therefore, a need to go beyond scientific facts, numbers, statistics and methods. These variables appeal to the mind. Philosophy, on the other hand, appeals to the heart. The new philosophy was able to pave the way for the acceptance of new science. In the process, it was also able to establish a philosophical paradigm, one that would eventually be the basis of modern philosophical thought. Heliocentrism When Copernicus introduced the revolutionary heliocentrism idea, new scientific thought officially began. While it was not a truly Copernican innovation as the idea has been proposed since the Middle Ages, Copernicus was the one who truly brought it forward as a valid scientific truth. This breakthrough has undermined the foundation of classical science and philosophy singlehandedly, triggering an explosion of developments that would collectively give birth to new philosophy. It effectively destroyed both old science and old philosophy by challenging the notion that the world is the center of the universe and the cosmos as some space composed of divine substance. Copernicus has laid the groundwork for new paradigm, an alternative to the previous belief that nature is made of several substances that are differentiated according to quality. Copernicus, with heliocentrism, was able to demonstrate that nature is composed of a uniform substance that varied according to quantity and structure. This then underpinned the emergence and development of scientific method, speculative science and the mechanistic worldview, which was developed further by the likes of Galileo and Kepler. Particularly, these two thinkers were responsible for making Copernican science more credible. The former’s work validated Copernican physics whereas the latter supported Copernican astronomy. Galileo’s Role Even without Galileo, new science and, thereafter, new philosophy would have proceeded on. There are other thinkers to carry the development further. The fact, however, is this: the evolutionary development of the new scientific age was facilitated by his works. He was highly regarded by his contemporaries. His experiments and observations is widely known. His reputation lent credibility to the position that the Earth and man are not the center of the universe. He was one of those who argued that since this was the case, all previous rules, beliefs and knowledge about the world and of physics must be changed. In one of his letters, he depicted his agitation and support for heliocentrism and its impact. He said, “It follows therefore that either the motions of the heavens are not as Ptolemy says, or we must change the sense of the words of Scripture” (Galilei: 42). He was jailed because of his radical innovations, an evidence that demonstrate the fear on the part of religious authorities, whose power are founded on an understanding of a world and a universe driven by the divine. Specifically, Galileo’s works such as his published astronomical observations, his discovery of the phases of the planet Venus, new stars and comets, among others has cast doubt on Aristotelian science. His works has paved the way for the gradual acceptance that the cosmos is not merely divided into regions. Rather, people came to understand that the world we live in is just a part of a universe that is uniform. The Call for Clean Slate Earlier, Copernicus’ attempts at validating his science with philosophy were cited. They were not very successful. However, thinkers who came later succeeded, establishing the new philosophy in the process. The philosophy of Descartes is a case in point. His thoughts became the basis of new philosophy particularly because it called for a clean slate, a total rejection of previous explanations about truth and the natural world. In the first part of the Discourse on the Method published in 1637, Descartes introduced the philosophical argument for establishing an entirely new system of knowledge and of truth. He began, for instance, with an allusion to his education in classical studies. He cited an early eagerness to acquire this knowledge but found himself questioning many errors at the end (Descartes: 51). Here, he began to extol the validity of mathematics and of mechanical science. The latter is particularly important because Descartes used it to explain all the phenomena of the natural world. For example, he turned to his mechanical philosophy in order to help Galileo’s work on mechanics and his mathematical view with respect to the new philosophy. Descartes built his mechanical philosophy of nature by distinguishing the psychic and spiritual world from the physical and material realms. As an admirer of new science, which for its part is yet to be accepted, Descartes worked for it to be recognized by helping establish new philosophy. Certainly, Descartes was not in the position to back his science and philosophy with empirical evidences and this understandable. He did not have the tools to experiment and investigate the natural world. But his theorizing contributed to the emergence of speculative science. Since he lacked resources for experimentation, he used reason instead to explain phenomena. There are many other philosophers who have contributed to the validation of new science. There is Hobbes who had increasingly drawn from the works of Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus in his natural and political philosophies. His theories further contributed to the speed by which new philosophy gained attention and recognition. All in all, the emergence of new philosophy was inevitable because of its links to the flourishing of new science. It was the most effective way to validate new scientific discoveries as truths. This is depicted, for example, in the relationship between Copernicus and Descartes, particularly the link between their works and the advancement of the new science. New philosophy provided the framework in which science is reconciled with the divine and the metaphysical, which were still very important social and political forces during the sixteenth century onwards. Read More