JuhaHimanka HusserlPre-CopernicanEarth

Husserl's Argumentation for the Pre-Copernican View of the Earth Author(s): Juha Himanka Source: The Review of Metaphysics,
Vol. 58, No. 3 (Mar., 2005), pp. 621-644 Published by: Philosophy Education Society Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20130496 . Accessed: 09/07/2013 02:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of Metaphysics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.223.174.25 on Tue, 9 Jul 2013 02:05:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FORTHE ARGUMENTATION HUSSERL'S

PRE-COPERNICAN VIEWOF THE EARTH JUHAHIMANKA
I
Jjjdmund lope usual Husserl's NACHLASS includes a text of The enclosed in an enve in theory not does earth,
on which
is written:
"Overthrow view.
the Copernican
move."1 cations
interpretation This text was of Husserl.
of a world chosen editor,
to be one however,
The
ark, original of the first posthumous publi to use a less controver chose
sial title:
"Foundational
of the Spatiality move. Husserl
of the Phenomenological Investigations The title nevertheless does not of Nature." a statement
change
Origin the
radicality of the text itself; it boldly claims that the earth does not
knew that with such he risked becoming a stock. For the Western laughing view of the earth's movement over common The Should text it be sense on taken views the earth and the Copernican community is the symbol of the victory of science scientific for Husserl researchers. with know names that as the that
religion. is a hot potato Or is Husserl
seriously?
he presents the unmoving Sometimes earth moves?2
just playing he must Ur-earth although commentators feel a need
to explain
Correspondence
land.
to: PO Box
3, FIN-00014,
University
of Helsinki,
Fin
1 of the Phenomenologi Edmund Husserl, "Foundational Investigations in Husserl, Shorter cal Origin of the Spatiality of Nature," trans. Fred Kersten, of and Frederick A. Elliston Works, ed. Peter McCormick (Indiana: University zum Notre Dame Press, 222-33; Untersuchungen 1981), "Grundlegende der Natur," in Philosophical Ursprung der r?umlichkeit ph?nomenologischen ed. Marvin Farber in Memory Husserl, Essays of Edmund (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940), 307-25. 2Roberto in the Phenomenology of Motion," Casati, "Formal Structures in Naturalizing ed. Jean Francisco J. V?rela, by Petitot, Phenomenology, Bernard Pachoud, and Jean-Michel Roy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), 372-84.
The Review Metaphysics
of Metaphysics
58
(March
2005):
621-644.
Copyright
2005
by The Review
of
622
Husserl some ever, really distance is also French Levinas, his view more ward rising on was aware of scientific extreme theories3 position.
JUHAHIMANKA
or at Husseri's least view, to take how from Husseri's seriously. commentators
taken
Maurice the
Emmanuel especially4?for example, and Derrida?have taken Merleau-Ponty, Jacques earth The French translation further thoughtfully. it in the title: La terre ne se meut pas.5 world to Also, has paid philoso on interest there has
dares the
to state
phers the ethical
turn of the millenium, the German-speaking to Husseri's manuscript.6 Anglo-American but lately there has been have been more reserved, attention and ecological aspects of Husseri's view.7
Yet,
to Edmund Husserl, "Editor's Preface" "Notizen zur Schulz, 1 (1940): and Research Phenomenological Raumkonstitution," Philosophy in Edmund Husserl, Shorter Works. "Introduction" 21-3; Fred Kersten, 4 refers to the text already in Ph?nom?nologie Maurice Merleau-Ponty de la Perception (Paris: Gallimard, 1945), 85. As he uses the other title ("Um struz der kopernikanische Lehre: die Erde bewegt sich nicht") and notes that, of the the text is in?dit, it is obvious that he was not aware of the publication text is to be found in "Husseri's text in 1940. A longer exposition of Husseri's Concept of Nature," trans. Drew Leder, in Text and Dialogues (New Jersey: also Atlantic and His 162-8; Compare "Philosopher 1992), Highlights, in Signs, trans. Richard C. McClearly (Evanston: Northwestern Shadow," at the Coll?ge the Lectures University Press, 1964) 149-81; and Themes from de France Northwestern 1952-1960 University Press, (Evanston: 1970), 121; in Edmund Husserl, "Introduction," of Geometry, Jacques Derrida, Origin On Levinas's trans. John P. Leavey (Hays: Stone Brooks, and 1978), 23-154. Levinas earth compare, John Llewelyn, Emmanuel Husseri's (London: Rout the French-speaking world, Hannah Arendt took ledge 1995), 89-90. Outside view seriously from the beginning. See her The Human Condition Husseri's is John of Chicago Press, 1958). Another exception (Chicago: The University with in his who has dealt Double Truth York: State the theme (New Sallis, of New York Press, University 1995), Force of Imagination (Bloomington: the Indiana University Press, 2000) and "Beyond the Political: Reclaiming in of the and Phenomenology of Interculturality Earth," Community Life "Does world (M?nchen: Alber, 1998), 192-208. Compare also Juha Himanka, 31 (2000): 57-83. the Earth Move?" inPhilosophical Forum 5Edmund ne se meut terre de La pas Husserl, (Paris: Les ?ditions minuit, 1989). 6 Here the work and teaching of Klaus Held has had its influence. (Com pare the articles of John Sallis, Raphael C?lis, and Dean Komel inDie Erchei von Heinrich and Peter H?ni nende Welt, Herausgegebenen Trawny 2002); Klaus Held, "Sky and Earth as Invariants (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, in Phenomenology and Life of Natural Life-World," of Interculturality "On the Archaeology of the also Stephan G?nzel, World, 21-41. Compare 12 (2003): 148-169. Earth, Body and Life-world," Phainomena
3Alfred
HUSSERL'S ARGUMENTATION
been little discussion valid. essay states that Husseri's argument in of whether Husseri's view is actually
623
phenome
nologically This
"Foundational
Investigations
of Nature" Husseri's
of
is
the Phenomenological
so
Origin
solid. faithfully
of
The
the Spatiality
text that follows it can be
phenomenologically reflections methodological
as an example of phenomenological presented research does not have phenomenological narrow erful sense of the word,
procedure.8 Although to be argumentative in the a this text of Husserl contains pow actually have overlooked
philosophical this argumentative It is clear the earth have views ends and
Earlier commentators argument. text. side of Husseri's that the there is a tension views there theories. science of is between our a time.
Husseri's This does
views not,
on
scientific that
however, Husseri's
to mean and scientific
contradiction
between phe
According begins.9 It aims
to Husserl,
nomenology aims to be more tween reality
where original
objective than the sciences. and task the
Phenomenology to be the link be and experimental in Husseri's in
our experienced reality of modern science. This of the earth.
theoretical
is strongly
present
vestigation
II The schaft, an ideal of Husserlian view that is that Wissen It can be
immediate it is never follow
phenomenology covers all reach
strenge
appears.
that argued that Husserl not, however, that motivated Husseri's with
impossible actually that the
to
succeeded ideal over itself again confuse
a goal, such and it is clear in reaching this aim. It does is meaningless. It is this ideal and again. the ideal o? strenge sciences. Actually, and most radical Wissen the ideal
Husserl readers
to start sometimes
the starting point of the exact shaft has the opposite effect. clearest Husseri's
exposition
7 to the Earth Itself, ed. Charles S. Back Compare Eco-Phenomenology, Brown and Ted Toadvine State of New York Press, 2003). (Albany: University in Robert Frodeman, The theme is present Geo-Logic (Albany: State Univer sity of New York Press, 2003). 8Juha Tammi 2002). Himanka, Se ei sittenk??n py?ri (Pieks?m?ki: 9 Edmund The Idea of Phenomenology, trans. Lee Hardy Husserl, (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999), 43.
624
of the relation his lectures At between phenomenology and science on the Idea of
JUHAHIMANKA
is to be found in
the end
of Phenomenology. the first lecture, Husserl
first
states
that
from
the
or philosophy is no difference there of phenomenology perspective is He writes: "Exact levels of different between knowledge knowing. no less than no less enigmatic scientific than non-exact knowledge, this further: A little he elaborates later prescientific."10 and mathematical The most forms of mathematics rigorous over any here have not the slightest ral science advantage or alleged knowledge to common experience.11 belonging This achievements as a model field does not mean that Husserl did not respect saw natu actual
the
ferent to
it He actually mathematics. of, for example, a dif does have for a science. Philosophy, however, to follow. In order to cover and different method this one and has to start from a radical split between his continues ex rad
reach
isting science:
sciences
phenomenology.
Husserl
ical setting
of
the
initial boundaries
between
philosophy
and
. . . lies in a to all positive philosophy knowledge, a there corresponds and to this new dimension new method with "natu which is to be contrasted fundamentally .... who denies this has failed to under ral" method Anyone the problems of the critique of level at which stand the peculiar to understand must thus has and be posed, failed knowledge ac wants to accomplish?and should what actually philosophy as opposed to all positive what complish?and gives philosophy, its proper character and authority.12 and science, knowledge In comparison new dimension; For a philosopher, it is tempting to take the highest mathematical forms of
knowing?formal cognitive reflection. starting ginning.
physics, logic, higher mathematics, a starting for philosophical and so forth?as point science, Instead of this possibility denies Husserl categorically.
from
pernican hand evidence
one should start from the be the highest achievements, a to with the Co start also it is With such possible disagree to do so from the ground of first view of the earth?and and philosophically solid argumentation.
10 Husserl, The Idea of Phenomenology, 11 Ibid., 21. 12Ibid.
20.
When the methods and results of the sciences are set aside, with the absolute
625
what
is there left to begin with?

ginnings of the sciences,
Instead of beginning with the relative be

begins I. be
phenomenology 24 of Ideas
ginning, with the principle of principles.

in the well-celebrated chapter
This principle
It claims
is introduced
source is a legitimizing intuition [T]hat every originary presentive to that everything its in of cognition, originarily speak, (so "personal" is to be accepted simply as what it offered to us in 'intuition' actuality) as being, but also only within is presented the limits in which it is there.13 presented
It might
on the vice all a sentence
at first seem that Husserl

that is so actually general trying sentence the passage to says that very it does out
has put a lot of emphasis

little. not what The seem formulation to work as of ad is at
principle for someone about. turns
If the to is
tention
inally exemplified given seiner [in leibhaften Wirklichkeit]. we vice: when investigate something, phenomenological study only or presence. later, that
carefully, in parenthesis. as given "in its Here we which we
figure is read
phenomenology one's however, That which
is orig
'personal' actuality" a piece have of ad accept given in into its our per is
should
lively actuality sonal, About fifteen years reformulated the the first methodological
in Cartesian
phenomenological principle.
Meditations, now principle, to this principle:
Husserl calling it
According
. . . that I I. . . must neither make nor go on accepting any judgments have not derived from evidence, from "experiences" inwhich the affairs are present and affair-complexes in question to me as "they them
selves"^
Imust of them self. lowed The
those things experience themselves. The investigated principle itself
faithfully sults?as Husseri's
is simple it does lead to interesting and text on the earth exemplifies.
I investigate in the presence as it thing must be experienced and almost obvious but if it is fol even surprising re
that
13 to a Pure Phenomenology Edmund Husserl, Ideas Pertaining and to a Phenomenological First trans. Fred Kersten Philosophy, Book, (The in original). Publishers, Hague: Kluwer Academic 1983), 44 (emphasis 14 Edmund Husserl, An Introduction Cartesian to Phe Meditations, trans. Dorion Cairns (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, nomenology, 1960), 13.
626
Husseri's investigations. on the ment nomenologically ence to each Husseri's
Parts."15
JUHAHIMANKA
principles give a starting in order to see the Yet, earth we relate other. Logical to also those For this need for phenomenological point full power of Husseri's argu to understand how we should phe in experi of point of Wholes and
objects
that appear originally we outline the main purpose "On the Theory as wholes illuminate this and what
Third
Investigation, each other is are. to For
aim tions
Objects in the these
relate
parts. kind of Husserl
Husseri's connec distin
Investigation relations
two of parts; are Pieces types guishes pieces kinds of parts that are separable from their wholes. A door is a but as there is no problem in separating it from part of a house, are kind of parts the house, it is a piece. Moments that are in separable Sokolowski engage from gives brightness it within seeing see that one us another some and from their wholes. Robert dis of moments: consider I cannot "I cannot color
purpose, and moments.
from a
examples I cannot color,
without sur
thing."16 From this the moments are rigorously example relationships among determined: cannot be immediately blended with "Brightness surface, itmust be mediated color."17 by we are of little interest. the philosophical perspective pieces to see moments to and the and or necessities By contrast, recognize der within them plays an essential role in philosophical investigations. From From the Husserlian are failures point of view, many in this respect. of the shortcomings of phi
locating face without
surface, it as a moment of an extended
certain
and
consider
losophies
Ill
In the De C?elo Aristotle states:
vol. 2, trans. J. N. Findley Husserl, Logical Investigations, (London: Routledge, 2001), 1-176. 16 in Husseri's Robert Sokolowski, "The Logic of Parts and Wholes In and Phenomenological Research 37 (1967-68): Philosophy vestigations," 537-53. 17 Ibid, 540.
15 Edmund
627
or rest of the in which the movement There are many different ways to every The difficulty must have occurred earth has been conceived. one .... into a commonplace The difficulty then, has naturally passed of philosophy.18 After ment different considering the sun?Aristotle around possibilities?including states his conclusion: double move
"It is clear, then, From the phe and immovable."19 be at the center that the earth must to Aristotle considers that view it is essential of point nomenological at the and position of the earth's movement the possibilities gether
center.
This elaborated ond century
view further A.D.
of
the
earth
as
the
immobile
center
was
then sec for
in the in his Almagest20 Ptolemy by Claudius of geocentric His formulation theory prevailed the Nicolaus tradtional of work the earth De
the next 1400 years. Although Leonardo da Vinci and Nicholas of Cusa
had already moving questioned it was center, we would to the position as an un Copernicus's to think that revolutionibus
orbium coelestium
Today in comparison ginning. on ancient
(1543) that really challenged the Ptolemaic

like Ptolemaic one, superior in mind that Copernicus's from
theory.
theory was, be the very
bear should Yet, we and that he also observations
insisted Copernicus to his "new" model conceived
the data from ancient authors.21 interpret of the work the advantage the publication over the Ptolemaic one was not and problematic. fall toward to prefer with change been views was Because
at the time of Furthermore, of the Copernican theory were at all obvious. Both theories was not able to Copernicus even of the earth, it would The Galilei situation and in Isaac
complicated
explain why be more reasonable this did
bodies
the center
respect Newton. Yet, it has maic and Copernican ence. Fred Hoyle
view. the geocentric the work of Galileo that never
claimed
the dispute between solved within really Copernicus
the Ptole natural that sci
states
in his book Nicolaus
18 trans. J. L.. Stocks De C?elo, Press, Aristotle, (Oxford: Clarendon 2.13.294a. 1930), 19 Ibid, 2.14.296b. 20 Claudius trans. G.J. Toomer Ptolemaeus, Almagest, (London: Duckworth, 1984). 21Nicolaus De Revolutionibus Copernicus, (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg 4. Verlag, 1984),
628
JUHA HIMANKA
[t]oday [1973] we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and Ptolemaic in sense. The two any theory 'wrong' meaningful physical theories are ... physically to one another.22 equivalent The two views are really two different ways of the arranging enters into the
same
data. of the
gates the Western Ptolemaic Martin
In fact, by acknowledging this, one actually of from the point of view of theory relativity. However, the triumph of the Copernican view over the worldview, Luther who table did was not one of the those new made earth before of In scien this
is clear. contemporaries heliocentric view. fun moves." the of a new Although
Copernicus one of his tist "who
wanted in
talks, to prove
accept Martin Luther that the
happened Copernicus's whose model that
a 1539, main work, was already be as
few Luther
years
"this would
being if someone
of publication in mind certainly Copernicus, in Wittenberg. Luther said taught were a or a in cart riding ship and had the earth and the trees were ridiculous, the relativity of views from for the which seem
imagined
that he was
Although moving."23 out that the whole it points motion. The from point mous the situation scientific between
standing Luther's
still while comment
dispute
might today is finally all about and
the Ptolemaic
of view
of view, more point of the Western worldview. between Galileo and
Copernican than complicated The same holds the Catholic 1633.
is, the fa
confrontation
led to the condemnation
of Galileo
in 1616 and
Church, It is sometimes
that the Church was thought simply dogmatic the obvious truth of Copernican view. Modern sees the situation differently. Pierre Duhem
and did not want
to see
philosophy writes:
of science
The physicists of our day [1908], having gauged the worth of the hypoth eses employed in astronomy and physics more minutely than did their illusions dissipated that previously predecessors, having seen so many for certainties, have been compelled to acknowledge and pro passed claim that logic sides with Osiander, and Urban VIII, not Bellarmine with Kepler and Galileo?that the former understood the exact scope of the experimental method and that, in this respect, Kepler and Galileo
were mistaken.24
22 Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus (Suffolk: Heinemann, 1973), 79. 23 Martin Luther, Table Talk, Luther's Works, Vol. 54 (Philadelphia: For tress Press, 1967), talk 4638.
Duhem the limits here of on points natural out that Galileo did not see
629
Bellarmine
the appearances
and acknowledge Hannah Arendt Cardinal science. quotes . . . saves "to prove that the hypothesis the same point: is not at all the same thing as to demonstrate the real
of the earth."25 Cardinal Maffeo Barberini ity of the movement (the fu in a meeting ture Urban VIII) pointed after the con this out to Galileo was written In place of an answer, the following demnation of 1616. si down: these words, the great scientist remained "Having heard if the Cardinal have asked about would situation lent."26 However, within ation had had much Galileo would certainly physics, in this respect took a decisive step forward with One was same the of the main of of the We to earth often to say. Newton's The situ Prin
cipia in 1687.
problems objective problem movement that setting movement. In others, who order to movement perceive a view the of
movement lation
in re I explain is inside a ship and not looking on the shore, to out and to someone else standing the ship appears move at different movement in if the is understood rela Yet, speeds. In the tion to the earth, we share an understanding of the movement. to the earth. To someone first Scholium of Principia, Newton first explains this everyday view:
differently. I share with
present a movement
If the earth is truly at rest, a body that is relatively at rest on a ship will move the ship is mov truly and absolutely with the velocity with which ing on the earth. After this he turns to a scientific view:
But if the earth is also moving, the true and absolute motion of the body will arise partly from the true motion of the earth in unmoving space and partly from the relative motion of the ship on the earth.27 As antee the earth the objective "absolute is set we need to a motion, of movement. description unmoving Newton space called to guar this kind
of entity
space."
on the Idea of a An Essay Duhem, To Save the Phenomena, to Galileo, trans. Edmund Doland and Chaninah Physical Theory from Plato of Chicago Press, 1969), 113. Maschler (Chicago: The University 25 Hannah Arendt, Human 260. Condition, 26Pierre Duhem, To Save the Phenomena, 111. 27 Isaac The Mathematical Principia, Newton, Principles of Natural trans. I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman Philosophy, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 409.
24pierre
630
Newton's theory Although gained view of the earth as moving body?against
JUHAHIMANKA
the relatively quickly, ground our own senses?was diffi
cult to acknowledge.
writes "the belief
In his The Origin
of Species
on
(1859) Darwin
axis was un
in the revolution
of the earth
its own
til lately supported Darwin by hardly any direct evidence."28 probably has in mind Foucault's in with the pendulum conducted experiment 1851. It was this experiment that made the final step toward the es of the Copernican view. tablishment for the Yet, the scientific ground Newtonian According lute theory already to Newton's be had to shake. begun own principles, in scientific this. to do to even time) the of abso concept terms. The Prin point Hegel's to explain the natural science:
space explained did not manage cipia, however, was of view, mistake Newton's concepts of metaphysics efforts is not (space,
should
From
attempt within
physics
tried to do without
thinking (Hegel) or metaphysics

to discover
(New
Nevertheless, ton). for movement that After
the earth
an objective reference point after Hegel's continued critique.
a went of mathematics time, the science Hegel's through turn of At the of the nineteenth period century rapid development. ex to serve for more there were more advanced mathematical models act like formulations of relativistic views of physics. Also experiments? to the to measure that failed
the Michelson-Morley Experiment of the earth in space?prepared the way to a new understand velocity It turned out that after we gave up our original view of ing of physics. was no movement in to relation the there scien earth, understanding tific way The serve one to point candidates?the to a new, common reference sun, absolute space, to show for movement. point of the stars?that landscape a unique as nature Natural science the ac
as a possible reference, and final reference point
failed
for all movement.
of movement the relativity and formulated it as the cosmologi cepted serve as a cal principle: each point of the universe could equally well reference point for movement. What view does this mean Our from culture that of the earth? the point of view of the Copernican convinced by Foucault's pendu the earth rotates. If this holds abso was
lum, which
demonstrated
28 Charles Darwin, The Origin or The Preservation of Favoured Senate, 1994), 421.
of Species Races in
Selection by Means of Natural the Struggle for Life (London:
631
motion. In fact, "rotation is that there is absolute lutely, it also follows . . . the in Newton's It is motion of absolute mechanics."29 paradigm a an "seri motion of rotation of absolute that the view clear presents ous are relative."30 The chal for any claim that all motions challenge was to in of the Einstein the form of absolute rotation presented lenge rotation in 1916-17 of this by Willem De Sitter.31 We will not enter into set the details aside the views for our purposes, to it is enough the more sophis
earth's
controversy;
of view, point was Science Ernst Mach's of physics by of already opened an absolute rota "If the earth is affected with Mechanics. He writes: . . . the . . . rotates. tion about its axis of Foucault's pendulum plane case we start ab initio is the if from the idea of absolute This, indeed, ticated the field space. have But if we take our start on the basis spaces only of relative of Galileo and of Newton science. turned At in many of facts, we and motions."32 turned of toward shall find we
oversimplified of the natural
of popularizations sciences. From this
knowledge The physics in natural views physics point of instead
the beginning respects
against Aristotelian the twentieth century, Aristotle.33 The main
in the interim become view had, however, the Copernican in that that the earth is a body. the Western worldew; is, firmly and not the actual of natural It is this aspect of the worldview theories rooted science does that Husserl not mention least in his manuscript. Husserl questioned Although or Einstein in the manuscript, the theory of relativity on the philo to some the debate extent?followed
he had?at
or cosmological wrote of physics. Oscar Becker his sophical aspects zur Habilitationschrift der Beitr?ge ph?nomenologische Begr?ndung Geometrie under Hus und ihrer physikalishe Anwendung (1922-23) The final sections of Becker's work aim to seri's guidance. (??18-21) explicate those principles behind the Einsteinian theory regarding
The Invented The Einstein-De Sitter Universe, Kerszberg, and the Rise Controversy (1916-17) of Relativistic Cosmology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 104. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid, 119-35. 32 A Critical Ernst Mach, The Science and Historical Ac of Mechanics: count of its Development, trans. Thomas J. McCormack (La Salle: University of Illinois Press, 1960), 283. 33Oscar zur ph?nomenologischen der Becker, Beitr?ge Begr?ndung und ihrer physicalische Geometrie Anwendung (T?bingen: Max Niemeyer, 1973), 156.
29Pierre
632
that of which plicitly The aware.34 physics as a positive science is not,
JUHA HIMANKA
and cannot be, ex
to challenge has not been the authority point of this section as on comes our of physics. the of view earth from Yet, background to take a distance it is important natural from the oversimpli science, and popularized versions Copernicanism.
fied
IV Husseri's manuscript
begins:
of their many and corrections, the following repetitions Regardless for a phenomenological pages are, in any case, foundational theory of in the sense of the natu the origin of spatiality, Nature corporeality, sci ral sciences, and therefore for a transcendental theory of natural sets up particularly The beginning entific cognition. high expectations: not only for the phenome Husserl claims that this text is foundational but also that it opens up a nological view on spatiality and corporeality, view of the conditions of natural science.35 for the possibility The the actual text or opens with explications the Although of how we understand world
environment
without ritories. my clude up with
space. opens surrounding an end, as infinite, of ter this openness does have a structure I start from As I think of the existence of the infinite world, environment. and I can the continent the border reached to in this territory enlarge on which I end I am. Ultimately where the whole scope of nature then the point where human cultures continues Husserl
immediate
the country the earth. Here
Is this we
is presented? of different with the view We
have
and different ages disagree. places and our time: of our culture
we moderns say: the earth is not the "whole of na Copernicans, The earth is a ture"; it is one of the stars in the infinite world-space. all at not perceivable in its wholeness body, certainly globe-shaped
once and by one person .... Yet, it is a body.36
34 text on the earth as an reads Husseri's Pierre Kerszberg convincingly See his "The Phenomenological to the theory of relativity. alternative Analy 48 and Phenomenological Research sis of the Earth's Motion," Philosophy 177-208. (1987): 35 in original). 222 (emphasis "Foundational Husserl, Invesigtations," 36Ibid.
For movement of Copernicanism the essence Husserl, of the earth but the view behind this approach When we is not the
633
double as a also
In the phenomenological body. has a way of appearing originally. ical study we investigate should follow in their
theory, all that which conduct
the earth
things in perception. originally or rests. and either moves tice that its mode
phenomenological A body appears original way of appearing. a body is situated In perception in a place we turn our attention to earth we no
appears a phenomenolog we should principles,
When
to that of the perception of appearing is not similar of a body. The earth as we quite normally "see" it is not situated in a a or not movement rest. and does horizon of include place The phenomenological point of Husseri's starting argumentation is to see not move that the earth a thing: or does originally, "In conformity with not see rest."37 in the first its original level of its constitution, idea, the earth does is not do that
not originally the Copernican is not
All of us, the earth as a body. is wrong.
Copernicus himself, including From this it does not follow
theory
a legitimate of the earth. The culture from
acknowledge only that it a for starting point investigation phenomenological or our the path of Copernicus aim, then, is to follow
At first we
or primitive to a more the original devel point starting as a we we If succeed in this have reached oped view of earth thing. the sense of the Copernicanism. The levels are following: (B) The Copernican view of the earth as a planet, a body that moves.
(A) The original view of the earth, in relation to which things can move but which itself is not a thing and therefore cannot move. Although nomenological and primitive we are normally satisfied to start from level B, the more the phe
us to start from principles obligate original now is the transition level A. The problem from level A, of the experienced view. In other earth, to level B, of the Copernican we a to need find how "the earth constitutive way accep words, gains tance as body."38 From sider with way we the phenomenological what kind of whole the danger of its essential context. now of view, we should point we are dealing with. and pieces investigating From Husseri's a moment con This
avoid
without
as a piece, a part we find a list manuscript
37Ibid., 223. 38Ibid.
634
of moments tuition belonging of space, the From
JUHA HIMANKA
"the intuition of single bodies, the in together: intuition of time, the intuition of the causality of the point of view of Husseri's the argument impor separate of space the Coperni and time. At
Nature."39
tant point is to understand not that we should can worldview from the intuitive considerations the intuitive
a consideration of space means of level, an investigation We have to begin by considering the earth rest, and movement. place, a with the in intuition of together place. single body or perception Husserl considers intuition paragraph, move or could move of a single body. The result is that bodies in an to the earth-basis relation For bodies there is open ho [Erdboden]. are rizon of possible and these horizons open movements, deeply In the next seated in our actual world. This [wirklich] the worldview, which constitutes The following ends with paragraph is the theme of the next according to the world a result:
paragraph: horizons.
here: rest is given as something decisive and absolute, and Obtaining that is to say, they are given at the first level in itself of likewise motion: of the earth as basis.40 constitution Rest as a basis. sult there and movement are given before immediately in relation to the earth absolutely this Husserl writes that in this re is still not decided."41 If we that This
undecided earth to be other enter
Yet, in which is "an aspect everything is the Copernican view. aspect a world-body," Motion and if we it follows rest
becomes absolute.
it and "the accept cease "rest and motion relative."42 will necessarily In
words, accept into a relative view Could there
become necessarily the earth is a body we of motion and rest. that
over this? Could someone be a dispute deny the rela answer tive view and rest? is that this dispute Husseri's could take place in the level of "modern of the only apperception as world the world of infinite Copernican If there could horizons."43 on motion be a dispute this dispute a body between should rest, over the question be a dispute whether the earth is Ifwe accept that the earth is a body, the dispute is over relative and absolute views on motion and
or not.
39Ibid. 40 Husserl, 41Ibid. 42Ibid. ?Ibid.
"Foundational
Investigations,"
224.
is the only remaining and the theory of relativity the Copernican is whether tion to be asked, then, is valid. Is the view sis of the theory of relativity only alternative. worldview of the earth The
635
ques in the ba
a theory, or has the earth really constituted itself of view, the constitutions From the phenomenological point to claim that that it is strange the earth and body are so different reach In what is a body. such a strange follows view and Husserl then will give
as a body to us as a body? of the
earth can
first explicate how one the result of the phenom
study. enological Husserl has rest?and In order
already an earth-basis
to understand
or a body?a thing that can move or stay still. in relation to which bodies move was born, we need a third how Copernicanism introduced Husseri's is a railway example inside the railway Something I see like a tree which exactly the tree stays still. On this way explains when childhood had first of contex the differ occurred to
between these: basis-body. possibility me and moves. a carries that car, body car might move in relation to my I know of this? a window, but through what ground am I aware tualization ences him. of movement earth-basis, between Here
body that actually Husserl to his
in reference basis-body,
and body
Husseri's "I know
children: motion
exposition the reversal
of toy wagon As a result of phenomenological to movement sic fields in relation E: earth-basis BB: basis-body B: body to this animate there bodies,
gives ontological weight of experiencing of the ways I have so often jumped from which investigation and rest: we now
to the play of the rest and on and off."44 have three ba
In addition self, and other themselves.
is my
animate
of which
body, I know
that that
I can move they
my can move
to Luther the mistake According the earth is like a ship or a car, that body. ism. body, This It does is also how Husserl sense not make appears
was to think that of Copernicus is that an earth-basis is a basis the origin of Copernican that earth-basis is a directly one might imagine that earth
understands to claim Yet,
as it never
as a body.
44Ibid.
636
basis
JUHAHIMANKA
in universe. that moves Instead of is like a railway car, a vehicle asserts E-BB and that that directly E=B, "Copernicus" claiming a is the Copernican view E=B. Is this The result BB-B. phenomeno
logically valid constitution? In section 21 of the Third Logical

"A content
Investigation
Husserl writes:
of the species A is founded of the species upon a content in virtue of its specific (i.e. legally, nature) B, if an A can by its essence a B also exist."45 earth-basis Is the relation between not exist, unless and moving bodies similar kind of essential The title of the relation? . . that a ."?suggests "The earth and all rest . . . as
manuscript?"Foundational relation plays founding Near makes mode the end
Investigations an essential role.
or rests and that either moves A body is something Exist its state of motion. the earth that a body receives it is through or rests is founded on the ex ence of a body as something that moves istence of and the could earth. move From only receive this it follows would its sense could that be the earth could in relation be a to if there an earth
possible of motion."
Husserl of the manuscript writes: in the first place the sense of all motion
body which
this earth would
that to earth, the earth as a body sense. also with The same holds come in relation
as a body. If there is no earth or rest does not have move something can earth. be
Al existing basis-body only this to understand the earth first as a basis-body, it is easier though from the point of view of the argument. the difference does not make Husseri's Maurice point: Merleau-Ponty explains there is by no means In prescientific any "earth," or earth in experience The But neither is it resting. is manifest. movement. Its immobility it is on this side of originary earth is neither at rest nor in movement, to a type of being that includes all further rest and movement, according of real It is something of initial, a possibility experience. possibilities ity, the earth as a pure fact, the cradle, the basis and the ground of all this onto has affected all this, it has forgotten experience. Knowledge [openness]."46 logical relief, the open horizons of the Offenheit original tends knowledge the ogy, original knowledge. The The earth that neither rather moves nor rests that is something terminol In Husseri's
the basis-body: to an already
to cover earth task
than uncover. under
is sedimented
the
of the phenomenologist
layers of ever-new is then to dig into the
45 Husserl, Logical 46 Merleau-Ponty,
vol. 2, 34. Investigations, "Husseri's Concept of Nature,"
166.
these origin through level of constitution. The one crucial point or whether layers of sedimentation and to reach
637
the original there is only consider consti
in Husseri's
Before earth. there could earth, or has been earth could be constituted another ing whether we will the summarize argument. tuted, Husseri's argument concerning the earth has the following
argument be another
is whether
stages:
(1) Following
from (2) Body
phenomenological
principles,
the investigation begins
the primitive
together. ies are founded a difference earth
earth. level of original, pre-Copernican experienced must and and earth be considered rest, place) (movement, order between earth and body: bod is an essential (3) There as bodies in relation (4) It does not make to claim that the of the argument to the earth.
from the point of view "the earth is a is a basis-body instead of the direct equation, sense as a body there must be body." (5) In order for the earth to have to which the earth will receive its sense as a another earth in relation body.
V Husserl about writes: the was earth an self-critical attacks writer. his His own
extremely severe contains Is not
"Objection:
the difficulty
against of the constitution is a very will then
manuscript view. He of the earth reaction best to
as a body hopelessly exaggerated?"47 culture. for anyone within Western show the We from whole move. invalidity know that that of his own
This Husserl
natural try his Does
this
"any part hence "motion, Husserl does
exposition of the earth
of earth. could move."48 it follow
of earth?
the manuscript We can
clearly see how
is meaningful for the corporeality"49 not answer this directly but the rest of denies the possibility that the earth could can overcome this critique by imagin In relation to what could we be moved only in relation
Husserl
ing the last part of earth to be moved. move the very last piece of earth? It could to another earth.
47 Husserl, 48 Ibid. 49Ibid.
"Foundational
Investigations,"
225.
638
In the second
JUHAHIMANKA
assumes Husserl that he is a bird and can objection can fly could fly "so high that the earth seems who like a fly. Someone a therefore discover that it is globe-I large globe-body."50 Yet, one to what might still has to ask in relation this globe move? Husserl rad icalizes chine to which the counterexample is a basis-body, but the earth by could imagining it function Can one a flying machine. as a basis-earth transform the sense This ma in relation of earth
could move?
to a basis-body, if one can see the earth as a globe and a a in for time? Husserl had to imagine stay basis-body long this; to of other human beings. day we can rely on the experience never experienced Husserl the earth other than through horizons. After some human have seen the earth as a Husserl, however, beings seen and has such of the earth. Did this everyone pictures globe, seems so: the situation? Astronaut William Anders to think change all this way to explore the moon, and the most important we we is that discovered the Did earth."51 reach another thing really level of constitution, in other did mankind or, words, really take a de terminative was seen in our intentional step from the space? history, Urstiftung, as the earth "We came
as a basis-earth
pret
If I jump up and move Imight away from the earth, try to inter this as a movement of the earth. How does the experience of the and cinkanauts told us, from this? According an to see the it is quite experience a horizon: the earth through in the the horizon the moon of the moon. Does into an earth-basis? the situation as a rota differ
astronauts, cosmonauts, to what astronauts have earthrise. moon one
we experience Normally sees the earth rising from a difference answer of is no. a movement that I can
this make Husseri's
transforms
still understand I cannot as a movement
tion movement must
the moon.
interpret concludes: Kerszberg axis or around
a situation I where imagine of the earth. As Pierre
man
of the earth, as it revolves "The motion about its as such."52 the sun, is never perceived own objection, is even more radical Husseri's than a however, on the moon. on All astronauts have been born earth and have to situate movement in relation to the earth. It is natural for
learned
50Ibid. 51 Andrew Chaikin, 1994), 119. 52 Pierre Kerszberg, tion," 196.
A Man
on
the Moon
(New York: Viking Analysis
Penguin,
"The Phenomenological
of the Earth's Mo
us earthborn that to do so. Husserl, also considers however, vessel. That vessel would I am born on a flying home."53 primitive the situation. My of humankind to Husserl, According connect parents would If this connection me
639
the possibility then be "my that would to the primi the disappears,
'earth,' my not change tive history connection
even
on earth.
no con to humanity A creature would also vanish. with to the original earth as a primitive home of humans is not a hu nection no we ever man being, that could and there is understand guarantee such would a being. Merleau-Ponty be two earths: I cannot think two earths: comments on the possibility that there
they are two pieces of the same earths, one in communicative For human experience. single humanity, grasped If I enter into communication kind, there is nothing except humankind. with another planet, it is a double, a variant of the earth; its inhabitants, ifwe recognize them, are variants of humanity.54 After enters Husserl objections, one humanity and one earth."55 As these into his there conclusion: "There in re
is only lation to which does
is no earth-basis
not move."56 a second
the original earth could move, it follows that "the earth of the earth to be first and It is a part of the essence earth could stretches seems not be his the earth. in testing omission. We saw the result Why above by does that
original:
Although counterexamples, he not consider for Husserl from this
Husserl there
imagination to be an obvious of natural sciences?
the evidence
it is crucial
phenomenology are nowhere radical separation on earth. the manuscript Husserl understood to believe that after because
to separate natural attitude and natural science and philosophy. The radical of consequences in Husserliana as present as in
for others
"it would that we
ing to want of the world clear seen for him as
'merely that in the scientific unbelievable down from
Copernicus by accident
amus be well-nigh the earth is the midpoint live on his it.'"57 It was would also be
community
exposition
"the most not back
"we would of necessities
philosophical this, hybris."58 Despite the consequences for the clarification of sense for what exists."59
pertaining
to all bestowal
53 "Foundational 228. Husserl, Investigations," 54 "Husseri's Concept of Nature," Merleau-Ponty, 55 "Foundational 230. Husserl, Investigations," 56 225. Ibid, 57 Ibid, 229. 58 Ibid, 230. 59Ibid.
162-8.
640
Husserl mental claim is convinced than that the viewpoint of view of natural of constitution science. science truth
JUHA HIMANKA
is more also funda dares to
the point it is the point of view believes it has acquired naively theories."60 that It is possible the only point is a central theme to argue of view
Husserl that
of natural absolute
about
is na?ve, the world
as "it in its
not
that the point of view to consider from which
of natural the earth:
science the earth
is
in poetry and the arts and also in religion and my a to it is omission leave the evidence Nevertheless, thology. strange a out of natural science of to be consideration that claims completely scientific. Furthermore, rigorously have acquired the absolute truth, the absolute in the name results does not that foundation. of science, are open with Although scientists to critique generally scientists they there do not do not claim state that have they found
are all kinds are
themselves and
they of things done content to present If Husserl theories,
How
his duty could
agree to take
counterarguments. scientific acknowledged from
it is
the presented
evidence
escape phenomenology to declare the autonomy of philosophy in our age? way sponsible was seen as a general In Husseri's sometimes day, physics theory are we rest. to of movement and How understand the position of earth in this framework? There are three possibilities: the earth either (Copernicus), on how we for the does observe not move or its movement (Ptolemaios), it (Einstein). We notice that there is no
and argue against it. seriously this obligation? Is there a re
moves depends
position When Husserl
view within these possibilities. phenomenological in the manuscript writes that "we do not even touch means sense in not he that the earth the is sit upon physics"61 original or rest. of movement uated within these possibilities in space, although It is certainly not so that itmoves it could move, but rather as we tried to show above: the earth is the ark which makes pos sible in the first place the sense of all motion and all rest as mode of mo tion. But its rest is not a mode of motion.62 earth is not a matter of physics because it does not situ Original moves or in its field of objects where rests. everything Although are more in contemporary these much physics things complicated
ate
60 Ibid, 229. 61 "Foundational Husserl, 62Ibid.
Investigations,"
230.
then point a hundred can still years ago, Husserl they were the sciences of view of the worldview upon which We tend to situate argue from are built.
641
the
as my in a place. For example, all that appears a are own thoughts not situated in place but in the stream appear they we a strong tendency to as have of my inner time-consciousness. Yet, in my brain to these thoughts. the situation Nevertheless, sign a place on as of phenomenological constitution?that my thoughts no matter what in place?does not change, do not appear they appear us. we are also to un is how results This scientific experiments give the level Husseri's evidence of the earth. investigation the Copernican theories No matter gain, The how much do not set ex the
derstand perimental original
into motion. earth that I experience do not to "what and constitution the constitution, is, and is change belongs and final necessity. is everything absolute alone, Only on that basis to conceivable the constituted world be determined."63 concerning The na?vet? of the natural not want scientific attitude is not in its incorrect facts: Husserl lem does to deny the results refuses form, science of sciences. The prob to acknowledge that
they test results
is that, in its na?ve or primitive is a more level of constitution without original the scientific does not finally have sense or value. which enterprise cases In many there is no real problem the original connecting or phenomenology with theoretical views. level of experience For ex there ample, phenomenology is constituted number presence abstract number the earth built of number.64 number. Husseri's investigates in the act of counting, between Theoretical mathematics then result the absence deals with
is that a and more of and is not the equa convince of a jet and the Han
is a continuation but there from our experience levels, to these more theoretical levels. The case of movement is more our difficult because but denies the Copernican it. We might worldview stand on
upon experience no movement tor and experience us that the earth under our feet plane. life we nah It is this loss of connection that Husserl can point out
Yet, scientists might moves at the actually speed between scientific theories saw as a crisis are of science. "freed" from
at all.
experience we Arendt,
With
that we
the human
63 Ibid, 231. 64 J. in Presence and Absence, A Study Philip Miller, Numbers of Husseri's Philosophy of Mathematics (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publish ers, 1982).
642
condition we of being are freed from In our culture jects in space also convinced mogenized understand an inhabitant of the earth,
JUHA HIMANKA
"but this means also that
the given reality altogether."65 as ob to understand there is a tendency everything we are in the sense of natural sciences. As Copernicans that the earth is an object that has a place in the ho science. Is this answers to only way that "[i]n real and continues: the
of natural space our environment? to present
ity, it is not necessary
Merleau-Ponty things this way"
a whole in fact, introduces system of experience, Husserl, including The is different from the Umwelt quasi-objects. [surrounding world] of pure things. world constituted the world It is a lived by science, that cannot be derived from blosse Sachen. world Husserl deals with beings that are not yet objects. He describes what he calls the universe the ground of the earth, of primordial Not contact, [sol] of experience. the earth as K?rper, but the earth before the work of homogenization. into a thing and an object.66 The earth has since been converted The tion status of the earth as a quasi-object, mean not necessarily field we of our an object without that the constitution a posi of the
in physics, does earth is not real to us. This prescientific the theories
spite all This science. Derrida
learn
experience cannot become
on which
we
live de
is manifested
in the case
an object of a natural of the original earth. Jacques
writes:
an objective is possible, If an objective science of earthly things of the Earth science of these and foundation itself, the ground as that of transcendental is as radically sub impossible objects, The Earth is not an object transcendental and can jectivity.
never become one.67
Could earth? and
we There
accept
view
that earth Is
science sciences
cannot that do
study
the
objectively
are certainly valid work. earth? Are
their two
earth earths
different after all?
important from the
phenomenological
there
65 Hannah Arendt, Human Condition, 66 "Husseri's Concept Merleau-Ponty, 67 83, n. 4. Derrida, "Introduction,"
285. of Nature,"
166.
HUSSERL'S ARGUMENTATION VI
The science this. idence Copernican is correct view on the earth right, true another refute of natural attitude does not
643
and natural
in its own
and Husserl way
is also This, however, cannot of natural science
around:
try to deny ev experimental view. notice A
Foucault's watching phenomenologist than that it really moves differently slightly someone could also notice that this movement in relation that choose to the original earth. an explanation, if one wants from. Perhaps there
the phenomenological would pendulum one would is seen also
expect. and understood
only That
it should
even under Furthermore, as absolute. stand the movement of the pendulum Yet, our phenome some at return to will the natural attitude and also see point nologist are. and natural world how convincing the data of the natural sciences scientists The question of the earth but not is a dispute each of us. also within to the situation only would between science and
is certainly of our time do not
out be pointed more than one to
phenomenology The obvious
solution
be
to divide
the con
On the one hand, we have the earth cept of earth into two concepts. as a body, the Copernican earth. On the other hand, we have the orig which is not a body. The first concept is inal earth of our experience, we in the transcendental. Here should bear mind and second empirical that from stract the empirical What in this and sense is not derived from that, for Husserl, Husserl discovered transcendental but experience an not ab is ex of
experiments
is rather transcendental concept. that is and this division Does concrete.68 perience nonempirical fields of research the situation? resolve From any this or of the other the Copernican in the body point universe. of view, When the one to add earth the of as earth has is a body acknowledged
like
point, starting even poetical descriptions On the other humanity. right to that first point
it is not
a problem of the side of
phenomenological a primitive home
determination of view,
Husserl claims dispute, the earth. From the apparent"69 what is
phenomenological
it is "wholly
and Structure' of Phenomenology," "'Genesis Jacques Derrida, and Difference The University Jacques Derrida, Writing (Chicago: Chicago Press, 1978), 154-168. 69 29. Husserl, The Idea of Phenomenology,
68
in of
644
from the natural attitude. lacking tures on the Idea of Phenomenology: Husserl exemplifies
JUHA HIMANKA
this in the lec
A person born deaf knows what are tones, that harmonies are based on tones, and that a splendid art is derived from them. But such a person cannot understand how tones do such a thing, or how the tonal works . . . of art are possible. of existence would be of no help Knowledge and it would be to deduce the 'how' of music, absurd to propose to here; Itwill clarify its possibilities, by way of inference from such knowledge. not do to draw conclusions from the existence of things one merely knows but does not see.70 Natural it must first attitude be seen knows and the earth but does It starts not that acknowledge with the theoretical experienced also lose the
statement and experimental difference between bodies sense of earth
experienced. which abolishes and the earth.
With
the original this we
a human one."72 tween toward solution and
as a unique earth that binds us all together71 to original "I within which understand every community necessarily to communication As this is the case there must be a way be this as they link of communication and Husserl of science, are both A search earthly beings. is at the same time a search for a for the link between science
Einstein
for the crisis
a search
experienced
reality.
University
ofHelsinki
70 Ibid, 30. 71 to all humans rises some fundamen Earth as a unique earth common concerns. tal ethical and ecological Compare Arendt, Human Condition; Held, "Sky and Earth as Invariants of the Natural Life World"; Sallis, "Beyond the Political: Reclaiming the Community of the Earth"; Eco-Phenomenology,
ed. Bown and
72 Husserl,
Toadvine.
"Foundational
Investigations,"
226.

JuhaHimanka HusserlPre-CopernicanEarth

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

JuhaHimanka HusserlPre-CopernicanEarth

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Husserl's Argumentation for the Pre-Copernican View of the Earth Author(s): Juha Himanka Source: The Review of Metaphysics,

FORTHE ARGUMENTATION HUSSERL'S

interpretation This text was of Husserl.

of a world chosen editor,

of the Spatiality move. Husserl

religion. is a hot potato Or is Husserl

he presents the unmoving Sometimes earth moves?2

just playing he must Ur-earth although commentators feel a need

The Review Metaphysics

phers the ethical

phenomenologically reflections methodological

Husseri's This does

to mean and scientific

According begins.9 It aims

nomenology aims to be more tween reality

objective than the sciences. and task the

Phenomenology to be the link be and experimental in Husseri's in

our experienced reality of modern science. This of the earth.

II The schaft, an ideal of Husserlian view that is that Wissen It can be

immediate it is never follow

phenomenology covers all reach

impossible actually that the

succeeded ideal over itself again confuse

of Phenomenology. the first lecture, Husserl

knowing?formal cognitive reflection. starting ginning.

pernican hand evidence

10 Husserl, The Idea of Phenomenology, 11 Ibid., 21. 12Ibid.

is there left to begin with?

Instead of beginning with the relative be

ginning, with the principle of principles.

at first seem that Husserl

has put a lot of emphasis

principle for someone about. turns

carefully, in parenthesis. as given "in its Here we which we

phenomenology one's however, That which

Meditations, now principle, to this principle:

Imust of them self. lowed The

those things experience themselves. The investigated principle itself

faithfully sults?as Husseri's

is simple it does lead to interesting and text on the earth exemplifies.

Investigation, each other is are. to For

Objects in the these

parts. kind of Husserl

Husseri's connec distin

purpose, and moments.

examples I cannot color,

locating face without

surface, it as a moment of an extended

This elaborated ond century

view further A.D.

then sec for

(1543) that really challenged the Ptolemaic

theory was, be the very

bear should Yet, we and that he also observations

insisted Copernicus to his "new" model conceived

explain why be more reasonable this did

view. the geocentric the work of Galileo that never

the dispute between solved within really Copernicus

the Ptole natural that sci

in his book Nicolaus

gates the Western Ptolemaic Martin

is clear. contemporaries heliocentric view. fun moves." the of a new Although