Kepler on Patrizi, Ancient Wisdom, and Astronomical Hypotheses

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11310%2F22%3A10487599" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11310/22:10487599 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=2DKGe_i.4L" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=2DKGe_i.4L</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Kepler on Patrizi, Ancient Wisdom, and Astronomical Hypotheses

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

This study offers a detailed and comprehensive comparison of certain ideas of Francesco Patrizi and Johannes Kepler. They wrote in the late 16th and early 17th century, at a point when the previously dominant Aristotelean cosmology was crumbling and although they shared some important concepts and presuppositions, they reacted to this situation in different ways. Kepler confronted Patrizi most notably in his Contra Ursum, a work written after he was asked to defend Brahe. Patrizi unjustly accused him of preserving the idea of celestial spheres. Kepler used this opportunity to launch a broader attack on Patrizi and his denial of the validity and utility of astronomical hypotheses. He also rejected Patrizi&apos;s concept of planets as living beings that move in the space according to their will and claimed that astronomers must instead focus on search for mathematical laws that would explain their motion. But Kepler also made use of Patrizi&apos;s Nova de universis philosophia when discussing the history of astronomy. In contrast to Patrizi, who accepted the arrangement of planets proposed in the Corpus Hermeticum, Kepler ascribed a key role to the ancient Pythagoreans and to the heliocentrism of Philolaus and Aristarchus of Samos. One can conclude that the Platonic tradition, especially Proclus, formed the background of both Patrizi&apos;s and Kepler&apos;s thoughts, but they adapted it each to his own purposes. Patrizi focused on the spontaneity of individual souls of celestial objects, while Kepler emphasised the general order of the world where the universal animation of the cosmos and magnetic force responsible for planetary motions were assigned key roles.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Kepler on Patrizi, Ancient Wisdom, and Astronomical Hypotheses

Popis výsledku anglicky

This study offers a detailed and comprehensive comparison of certain ideas of Francesco Patrizi and Johannes Kepler. They wrote in the late 16th and early 17th century, at a point when the previously dominant Aristotelean cosmology was crumbling and although they shared some important concepts and presuppositions, they reacted to this situation in different ways. Kepler confronted Patrizi most notably in his Contra Ursum, a work written after he was asked to defend Brahe. Patrizi unjustly accused him of preserving the idea of celestial spheres. Kepler used this opportunity to launch a broader attack on Patrizi and his denial of the validity and utility of astronomical hypotheses. He also rejected Patrizi&apos;s concept of planets as living beings that move in the space according to their will and claimed that astronomers must instead focus on search for mathematical laws that would explain their motion. But Kepler also made use of Patrizi&apos;s Nova de universis philosophia when discussing the history of astronomy. In contrast to Patrizi, who accepted the arrangement of planets proposed in the Corpus Hermeticum, Kepler ascribed a key role to the ancient Pythagoreans and to the heliocentrism of Philolaus and Aristarchus of Samos. One can conclude that the Platonic tradition, especially Proclus, formed the background of both Patrizi&apos;s and Kepler&apos;s thoughts, but they adapted it each to his own purposes. Patrizi focused on the spontaneity of individual souls of celestial objects, while Kepler emphasised the general order of the world where the universal animation of the cosmos and magnetic force responsible for planetary motions were assigned key roles.

Druh

J_SC - Článek v periodiku v databázi SCOPUS

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

60301 - Philosophy, History and Philosophy of science and technology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2022

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Acta Comeniana

ISSN

0231-5955

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

36

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

60

Stát vydavatele periodika

CZ - Česká republika

Počet stran výsledku

31

Strana od-do

105-135

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85188236111