8090 copertina_826-9 copertina 27/03/15 12:48 Pagina 1

A11

Fragio Gistau Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos
hroughout his life Hans Blumenberg [1920-1996] maintained a unin-
T terrupted interest in astronomy. First as a historian of modern scien-
ce and member of the Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur
zu Mainz, then as an amateur astronomer and finally as a theorist of world-
time and “astronoetiker”. Blumenberg was an exceptional witness of the
Space Race and the subsequent landing on the Moon. From 1955 Blu-
menberg undertook research into Copernican astronomy and published
many papers during the 50’s and 60’s, later collected in Die kopernika-
nische Wende [1965]. Blumenberg also prepared preliminary studies on
Galileo Galilei’s Sidereus Nuncius [1965] and Cusa’s De coniecturis. All
this work culminated in Blumenberg’s Die Genesis der kopernikanischen
Welt [1975], Lebenszeit und Weltzeit [1986], and in the posthumous Die
Vollzähligkeit der Sterne [1997]. This essay deals with Blumenberg’s me-
taphorology of cosmos and history of astronomy, including a review of
current metaphors in contemporary astronomy and physical cosmology. Alberto Fragio Gistau
lberto Fragio is professor in the Department of Humanities at the Univer-
A sidad Autónoma Metropolitana de México, Unidad Cuajimalpa. He earned
his PhD in Philosophy (2007) from the Universidad Autonoma of Madrid and in PARADIGMS
Cultural Science (2011) from Scuola Internazionale di Alti Studi di Modena (Italy).
He is a member of the Zentrum für Kulturwissenschaftliche Forschung (ZKFL Lü-
beck) and the research group HIST-EX “History and Philosophy of Experience”
at the CCHS-CSIC (Madrid). On Hans Blumenberg, he has also published Destrucción,
FOR A METAPHOROLOGY
cosmos, metáfora. Ensayos sobre Hans Blumenberg (Milan 2013), and co-edited
the multilingual monography Hans Blumenberg. Nuovi paradigmi d’analisi (Rome
2010).
OF THE COSMOS
In copertina: HANS BLUMENBERG
Sara Tierz Fragio e Diego Solano Royo
ISBN 978-88-548-xxxx-x AND THE CONTEMPORARY
METAPHORS OF THE UNIVERSE
ARACNE

euro xx,00
A
 Alberto Fragio Gistau
Paradigms for a Metaphorology
of the Cosmos
Hans Blumenberg and the Contemporary
Metaphors of the Universe
 Copyright © MMXV
ARACNE editrice int.le S.r.l.

www.aracneeditrice.it
info@aracneeditrice.it

via Quarto Negroni, 

 Ariccia (RM)
() 

 ----

No part of this book may be reproduced

by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche, or any other means,
without publisher’s authorization.

I edition: April 

 Unter freiem Himmel in einer Landschaft
in der nichts unverändert geblieben war als die Wolken.

Walter B, Der Erzähler

And when what we know changes

the world changes and with it, everything.

James B, The Day the Universe Changed

 Contents

 Preface

 Chapter I
Ad astra per nulla aspera. Hans Blumenberg and th Century
Astronomy
.. Introduction,  – .. Solvitur ambulando,  – .. Ad astra sine
asperibus, .

 Chapter II
Hans Blumenberg’s Metaphorology of the Cosmos
.. Hans Blumenberg’s Metaphorology and History of Astronomy:
An Introduction,  – .. The Metaphorology of the contemplator
caeli,  – .. Cosmological–Existential Metaphorology,  – .. The
Cosmological Metaphorology of Truth, .

 Chapter III
Existential Paradigms in Hans Blumenberg’s History of Modern
Astronomy
.. The Unavailability of the Firmament: the Starry Sky as an Exis-
tential Paradigm,  – .. The Two Chief Astronomical–Existential
Paradigms,  – .. The contemplator caeli,  – .. The contemplator
caeli loses his Position: the Fall,  – .. Images and Metaphors of
Unavailability, .

 Chapter IV
A Chapter on Astronoetics. Blumenberg’s Phenomenology of the
Life–World from a Cosmological Point of View
.. Einstein and Husserl in ,  – .. Blumenberg’s Doctrine of
Life–World,  – .. An Astronoetical Husserl,  – .. The Astronoet-
ical Glosses as a Cosmological Phenomenology of the Life–World, .


 Contents

 Chapter V
Prospects for a Metaphorology of the Contemporary Universe
.. The Cosmological Reoccupation of Metaphysics,  – .. Metaphorol-
ogy of Contemporary Universe as a Metaphysical Essay, .

 Chapter VI
Cosmological Apocalypse
.. The Universe as Gas of Stars: Einstein’s First Cosmological Model, 
– .. The Cosmological Reoccupation of Eschatology: Models of Non–
Static Universe,  – .. Abominable Mysteries: the Expansion of the
Universe and the Cosmological Reoccupation of the creatio ex nihilo, 
– .. Eschatology and Apocalypse in Cosmological Perspective, .

 Chapter VII

Hans Blumenberg meets Stephen Hawking
.. And What does the Other Half of Humanity do?,  – .. Hawk-
ing in Blumenberg’s Nachlass,  – .. Lebenszeit und Weltzeit and A
Brief History of Time,  – .. Astronoetical Glosses on Hawking’s
Cosmology and Life–World, .

 Abbreviations
 Preface

Throughout his life Hans Blumenberg [–] maintained a un-

interrupted interest in astronomy. First as a historian of modern
science and member of the Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Li-
teratur zu Mainz, then as an amateur astronomer and finally as a
theorist of world–time and “astronoetiker”. Blumenberg was an
exceptional witness of the Space Race and the subsequent landing
on the Moon. One of the main areas of his works, i.e. the history
of astronomy, has received little attention. From  Blumenberg
undertook research into Copernican astronomy and published many
papers during the ’s and ’s, later collected in Die kopernikanis-
che Wende []. Blumenberg also prepared preliminary studies on
Galileo Galilei’s Sidereus Nuncius [] and Cusa’s De coniecturis. All
this work culminated in Blumenberg’s Die Genesis der kopernikanis-
chen Welt [], Lebenszeit und Weltzeit [], and in the posthumous
Die Vollzähligkeit der Sterne [].
Based on both published sources and unpublished materials be-
longing to his Nachlaß at the Deutschen Literaturarchiv Marbach, this
essay deals with Blumenberg’s metaphorology of cosmos and history
of astronomy, including a review of current metaphors in contempo-
rary astronomy and physical cosmology.
In the first chapter, entitled “Ad astra per nulla aspera: Hans
Blumenberg and XXth Century Astronomy”, I deal with Blumen-
berg’s extensive collection of newspaper articles on astronomy and
cosmology that he excerpted from German, Swiss and French news-
papers over more than three decades (–). I suggest that this
heterogeneous set of materials preserved in his Nachlaß presents Blu-
menberg as a well versed connoisseur of contemporary astronomy,
and it can actually serve to clearly illustrate the cosmological turn
that this new astronomical knowledge produced in Blumenberg’s
later work.
In the second chapter, entitled “Hans Blumenberg’s Metaphoro-
logy of Cosmos”, I reconstruct the relationships between Blumen-
berg’s metaphorology and his history of modern astronomy. In


 Preface

particular, I deal with the two main paradigms in Blumenberg’s

metaphorology of cosmos, the existential paradigm and the paradigm
of cosmological truth, which are specified in the metaphorology of
the contemplator caeli, geocentrism and heliocentrism as existential–
cosmological metaphors and the metaphorology of the cosmological
truth. In my view it is here that we find the clearest articulation of
Blumenberg’s metaphorology of cosmos, as developed through his
works.
In the third chapter, entitled “Existential Paradigms in Hans Blu-
menberg’s History of Modern Astronomy”, I focus on the presence
of certain Heideggerian motifs in Blumenberg’s history of astronomy.
My claim is that in his history we can find a metaphysics of existence
in the Heideggerian tradition as a set of astronomical–existential
paradigms. That is to say, that Blumenberg lays the historical and
philosophical foundations of a cosmological hermeneutics of facticity.
In the fourth chapter, entitled “A Chapter on Astronoetics: Blu-
menberg’s Phenomenology of Life–world from a Cosmological
Point of View”, I argue that Blumenberg’s astronoetics we not only
find a convergence with anthropological topics, but also with the phe-
nomenological. In my opinon, the unexpected convergence of philo-
sophical enquiry into the cosmos and phenomenological thought
occurred precisely because of astronoetics. Specifically, I suggest an
interpretation of Blumenbergian astronoetics as a phenomenology of
the life–world complementary to Blumenberg’s phenomenological
anthropology.
In the fifth chapter, entitled “Prospects for a Metaphorology of
the Contemporary Universe”, I identify some evidence of the cosmo-
logical reoccupation of metaphysics through the use of metaphors
in contemporary physical cosmology, whose prevailing metaphorics
give rise to the image of an evolving Universe. Moreover, the standard
cosmological model includes what I shall refer to as “evolutionary
cosmological metaphors”, which are intimately related to the new
metaphorical–cosmogonic myths of the beginning and end of the
Universe.
The sixth chapter, entitled “Cosmological Apocalypse”, is de-
voted to the latter topic. Discoveries in observational astronomy and
extragalactic astrophysics made during the XXth and XXIst centuries
and the subsequent proliferation of the specialties and subspecial-
ties found in contemporary astronomy — such as radio astronomy,
planetary geology, astronometry or X–ray astronomy, among many
 Preface 

others — have allowed both the survival of the myth and its con-
tinual renewal. The sensational discoveries made by contemporary
astronomy has re–mythologized the cosmos, producing new myths
both of the origins of the Universe and it’s end while remaining
consistent with the cosmological tradition within which it falls. I
suggest that both eschatological cosmology and the cosmological
apocalypse have introduced an (astronomical) reoccupation of myth
and metaphor.
The seventh chapter, entitled “Hans Blumenberg meets Stephen
Hawking”, focuses on Blumenberg’s collection of newspaper articles
related to Stephen Hawking’s contributions to cosmology and the
study of black holes. The claim I make in this last chapter is that, in the
two years between Lebenszeit und Weltzeit [] and A Brief History
of Time [], there occurred a shift from a genetic phenomenology
of life–world time (Blumenberg) to the history of the world–time
(Hawking).
I would like to express my gratitude to the Schillergesellschaft for
having granted me an einmonatiges Postdoktorandestipendium at the
Deutsches Literaturarchiv Marbach and to the Gerda Henkel Stiftung for
the award of a Postdoctoral Scholarship (Marie Curie Fellowship
MHUMAN programme), allowing me to undertake this research
project on Blumenberg at the Institut für Medizingeschichte und Wis-
senschaftsforschung der Universität zu Lübeck. I would also like to thank
the Chair for Science Studies members at the ETH–Zürich, the Research
Group HIST–EX of History and Philosophy of Experience at the Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (Research Project “Cultural His-
tory of Well-being: -”, FFI–) and the Departamento
de Humanidades at the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana de México
DF (Unidad Cuajimalpa) for their helpful comments and suggestions.
I am especially grateful to Cornelius Borck, Andrea Borsari, César
G. Cantón, Pedro García–Durán, Michael Hagner, Francisco Jarauta,
Javier Moscoso, Faustino Oncina, Javier Ordóñez, Josefa Ros, Nuria
Valverde, José Luis Villacañas and Comunidad Yacatas. The quota-
tions from Hans Blumenberg’s Nachlaß have been published with
the express permission of Bettina Blumenberg and DLA Marbach.
This essay is dedicated to Changuita: « Es que yo lancé a la Luna ».
 Chapter I

Ad astra per nulla aspera

Hans Blumenberg and th Century Astronomy

All well and now let it be ended, Seni. Come,

The dawn commences, and Mars rules the hour;
We must give o’er the operation. Come,
We know enough.
– Your highness must permit me
Just to contemplate Venus. She is now rising
Like as a sun so shines she in the east.

F. S, The Death of Wallenstein

Dicen que hay enanas blancas, enanas rojas

cuyas masas etc., etc.

E. P, Por los hijos lo que sea

.. Introduction

Like theology, cosmology was for centuries small, ugly and not to
be seen. It has often been pointed out that the period of greatest
flowering in the natural sciences — between the seventeenth and
nineteenth centuries — was also marked by a clear decline in cosmo-
logical thinking . It is for this reason that the revival of cosmology in
the early twentieth century was an unexpected and striking event .

. See for example Jacques Merleau–Ponty’s classic study: La science de l’Univers a l’âge
du positivisme. Étude sur les origines de la cosmologie contemporaine, Vrin, Paris, . A general
history of cosmology in R.C. B, Discovering the Cosmos, University Science Books, Sausalito,
California, .
. Jacques M–P, Sur la science cosmologique. Conditions de possibilité et problèmes
philosophiques. Textes organisés et présentés par Michel Palty et Jean–Jacques Szczeciniard, EDP
Sciences, Les Ulis, , p. . For a still–valuable and useful synthesis of the first half of the
twentieth century see Jacques M–P, Cosmologie du XXe siècle. Étude épistémologique


 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

As is well known, this revival was linked — on the theoretical side

— to the development of Einstein’s theory of relativity and — on
the practical side — to advances in the technologies of astronomical
observation.
Relativistic cosmology created a new and fabulous domain for
physical–mathematical speculation, which in the years which im-
mediately followed would be explored by authors such as de Sitter,
Eddington or Friedman . The latter suggested the model of a dy-
namic Universe denoted by a scale factor variable over time, antici-
pating in theory « the most prodigious astronomical phenomenon
ever observed » : the expansion of the Universe. In this first phase of
twentieth century cosmology, the Universe was investigated through
highly mathematical analysis within the framework of the general
theory of relativity and its axioms .
The definitive consolidation of cosmology as a scientific disci-
pline took place some years after the introduction of the theory
of relativity, when independent astronomical observations provided
unexpected support for the physical–mathematical analysis of the
Universe , bringing with it a new awareness of both its vastness and
its temporary dimension . The discovery of nebulae light redshift
and the subsequent determination of the recessional velocity rate of

et historique des théories de la cosmologie contemporaine, Éditions Gallimard, Paris, , p. .
For everything else see Malcolm L, The Cosmic Century. A History of Astrophysics and
Cosmology [], Cambridge University Press, .
. Albert E, “Kosmologische[n] Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätsthe-
orie”, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, , pp.
–. In his famous “Kosmologische[n] Betrachtungen”, Einstein suggested a theoretical
model of the Universe in which the space–time metric was established under the assumption
of a large–scale, homogeneous distribution of mass and energy.
. Jacques M–P, Sur la science cosmologique, op. cit., p. ; A summary of the
formation of the general theory of relativity, Einstein’s Universes, de Sitter, Friedman and the
subsequent Einstein’s “conversion” to a non–stationary model following his visit to Pasadena
is provided on pp. –; see also Cosmologie du XXe siècle, op. cit., pp.  ff.
. Jacques M–P, Cosmologie du XXe siècle, op. cit., p. .
. Jacques M–P, Sur la science cosmologique, op. cit., p. . Relativistic cosmo-
logy, promoted by Einstein, was received with no little skepticism by the scientific community.
Against it operated centuries of sincere and conscientious disregard for what could only be
considered risky and arbitrary speculations.
. Jacques M–P, Cosmologie du XXe siècle, op. cit., pp. –.
. Jacques M–P, Sur la science cosmologique, op. cit., p. .
. Blumenberg’s book Lebenszeit und Weltzeit [] (LW) could be interpreted thusly.
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

galaxies involved an unforeseen coincidence between the emerging

field of relativistic cosmology and the new extragalactic astronomy ,
which subsequently resulted in the discovery of the expanding Uni-
verse. A milestone in this process were the observational findings of
Hubble [–] in  and . Hubble published a series of
papers with the results of his astronomical observations through the
Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory, demonstrating the
extragalactic nature of spiral nebulae and, therefore, the existence of
other galaxies outside the Milky Way . In  he also formulated
the remarkable connection between the distance and recessional
velocity of the spiral nebulae — known as the Hubble–Humason law
— , which established that galaxies are receding from each other at a

. The first discovery, in , of the redshift of light from a nebula belongs to Vesto
Slipher, who in  — the same year that Einstein suggested his cosmological solutions to
the field equations — determined the radial velocities of  nebulae, almost all of them with
redshift. A brief summary of these milestones can be found in Helge K and Robert W.
S, “Who discovered the expanding Universe?”, History of Science, vol. , , pp. –.
. The literature on the subject is vast. For the issue of island Universes, the cataloging
of nebulae and extragalactic astronomy, see Malcolm L, The Cosmic Century, op. cit. pp.
–, a summary of the “Great debate”, the matter of Cepheids and details of the Mount
Wilson Observatory, on pp.  ff. On the “Great debate” can also be seen in Ana R and
Javier O, Teorías del universo, Editorial Síntesis, Madrid, vol. , , pp.  ff. See also
the papers compiled in C. C and A. M (eds.), Astronomy and Astrophysics in Italy
in the Second Half of the XX Century, Italian Physical Society, Bologna, , especially G. B,
“Extragalactic Astrophysics”, pp. –, and G. C, “Cosmology of Galaxies”, op. cit,
pp. –. Bertin describes the further evolution of extragalactic astronomy thus: « Following
the “discovery” of galaxies by means of the determination of the distance to nearby nebulae,
such as M , galactic structure and galactic dynamics have rapidly grown as one of the major
research areas in astrophysics, especially through the work, among others, of Jeans, Eddington,
Lindblad, Oort, Chandrasekhar, de Vaucoulers, and Sandage », op. cit. p. .
. It is described by Donald E. Osterbrock as follows: « [In , Hubble] published his
long paper on M, “a spiral nebula as a stellar system”, giving evidence from the Cepheid
variables that it is “an isolated system of stars and nebulae far outside the limits of the galactic
sistem” (Hubble ). [. . . ] Later that year Hubble published his definitive paper on NGC 
that included the light curves of several Cepheids in it, which, by their apparent magnitudes,
made it “the first object definitively assigned to a region outside the galactic system” »; Donald
E. O, “The Observational Approach to Cosmology: U.S. Observatories Pre–World
War II”, in: B. B, R. B, S. B and A. M (eds.), Modern Cosmology in
Retrospect, Cambridge University Press, , p. . About Cepheids, clarifying remarks are
provided by Paul M, Secrets of the Universe: How We Discovered the Cosmos, The University
of Chicago Press, , chap. , “Cepheid Variable Stars”, pp. –, p. : « Henrietta Leavitt
discovered the period–luminosity law for Cepheids, on which basis astronomers still measure
the distance scale of the Universe ».
. E. H, “A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra–Galactic
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

relative speed proportional to the distance between them . These

decisive results culminated in the establishment of the expansion of
the Universe as a scientific fact. However, only the relativist tradition
could provide the proper cosmological interpretation that was still
needed.
Einstein had already made important contributions to the study
of light from the perspective of the structure and dynamics of the
Universe, stating that its propagation was to be considered as part of
the spacetime metric . In this respect, the results of astronomical ob-
servations carried out with large American telescopes appeared to be
a verification of non–stationary relativistic cosmological models like
those of Friedmann and Lemaître . The latter, Georges Lemaître,
suggested a cosmological interpretation of these observations by
presenting a model of an expanding Universe able to explain both
the redshift and the recessional velocity of galaxies, which resulted
in the evolutionary understanding of the cosmos based on the Big
Bang theory and, ultimately, the standard model of contemporary
scientific cosmology .
Broadly speaking, this is the background from which Blumen-
berg’s collection of newspaper articles on astronomy and cosmology
— excerpted from German, Swiss and French newspapers during
more than three decades (–) —, arose. The materials col-
lected in Blumenberg’s Nachlass not only contain the echoes of some

Nebulae”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, , , .

. E. H and M.L. H, “The Velocity–Distance Relation among Extra–Galactic
Nebulae”, Astrophysical Journal, , , ; E. H, “The Law of Red–Shifts”, Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, , , .
. Jacques M–P, Cosmologie du XXe siècle, op. cit., p. .
. Hubble’s original data interpretation was made, however, according to de Sitter model:
« The de Sitter Universe provided a characteristic property, which could be tested observation-
ally: the redshift. This explains the success of the de Sitter over the Einstein model, in spite of
the unrealistic requirement of the Universe being massless. Also, the former could account
for the disturbingly large redshifts of nebulae, the latter could not. Observational cosmology
between  and  meant the interpretation of data in terms of the Sitter model ». W-
 C. S and H W. D, “Carl Wilhelm Wirtz – a pioneer in observational
cosmology”, in: B. B et alt., Modern Cosmology in Retrospect, op. cit., pp. –. See also
Helge K and Robert W. S, “Who discovered the expanding Universe?”, op. cit., pp.
–.
. Erhard S, “The Standard Model of Contemporary Cosmology”, in: Jürgen R
(ed.), Albert Einstein. Chief Engineer of the Universe. One Hundred Authors for Einstein, WILEY–
VCH, Berlin, , pp. –.
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

of the major debates of this groundbreaking phase of scientific cos-

mology and its later avatars — including controversies over the red-
shift , the Big Bang and steady state theories , and subsequent
revisions of relativity — but they also reflect the proliferation of
studies and researches in the fields of astronomy and astrophysics.
The arguments made in those newspaper articles are closely related
to what has become known as the “opening up of the electromag-
netic spectrum” . The successive improvements in observational
technologies and the launch of satellites and space telescopes meant
that unexplored regions of the electromagnetic spectrum were finally
accessible. Their systematic study revealed a large number of scien-
tific discoveries and with them an entirely new view of the Universe.
. Kurt R, “Zweifel an der kosmischen Rotverschiebung”. Absurde astronomis-
che Konsequenzen aus Beobachtungen an Doppelgalaxien”, [FAZ?], . Juni , Nr. , S.
– (DLA Marbach); H.J. F, “Die zweite kopernikanische Wende? Neue Beobachtungen
über die Rotverschiebung im Licht ferner Galaxien im Widerpruch zum geltenden Weltbild”,
. Januar , Nr. , S. – (DLA Marbach).
. H.Z. [Hans Zettler?], “Kosmische Mikrowellen ein Relikt des Urknalls”. Deutung
als ‘schwarze Strahlung’ bestätigt. Messungen mit einer Ballonsonde in  Kilometer Höhe”,
[FAZ?], circa  (DLA Marbach). The latter summarizes the state of the art in relation to the
Big Bang theory, and includes references to Gamow and the discovery of cosmic background
radiation. It also deals extensively with evolutionary cosmology, paying special attention to the
early phase of development of the Universe.
. K. R, “Ungelöstes Rätsel Kosmos. Fortschritte der Astronomie – neue Fragen.
Spekulationen über das Weltall”, FAZ,  November  (DLA Marbach). This article discusses
some of the open questions that confronted contemporary astronomy, including the cosmogo-
nic and cosmological speculations of the time. In fact, almost all hot cosmological topics of the
moment were mentioned, such as the formation of the chemical elements, the debate on the
age of the Universe or the confrontation between the Big Bang theory and the Steady State
theory, together with many references to their leading proponents, George Gamow and Fred
Hoyle, respectively. To this last topic was also devoted [Unknown author], “Welt–Enstehung.
Schwarzes Loch”, Der Spiegel, Nr. , , S.  (DLA Marbach). Further details on these
issues appear in Helge K, Cosmology and Controversy. The Historical Development of Two
Theories of the Universe, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, .
. Werner B, “Wie steht es um Einsteins Gravitationstheorie?”, FAZ, . Februar
 (DLA, Marbach); W. B, “Neue Prüfung der Allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. Am
Merkur reflektierte Radarstrahlen im Schwerefeld der Sonne”, FAZ ... (DLA Marbach);
W. Braunbek, “Einsteins Theorie exakt bestätigt. Satellitenmessungen über  Millionen
Kilometer Entfernung”, FAZ, . Februar , Nr. . It also includes an article by Günter Haaf,
“Hat Einstein sich verrechnet? Fortschritte und Rückschläge in der Relativitätstheorie”, ZEIT,
 Juli , Nr. , S.  (DLA Marbach).
. Malcolm L, The Cosmic Century. A History of Astrophysics and Cosmology [],
Cambridge University Press, , Part III, “The opening up of the electromagnetic spectrum
and new astronomies”, pp. –.
  Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

In light of this, the second half of the twentieth century is usually

referred to as “the golden age” of astronomy and cosmology, while
the whole of the twentieth century is also known as the “cosmic
century” . Blumenberg lived in precisely this century and it is to
this period that the astronomical articles preserved in his Nachlass in
Marbach belong. The patient and arduous preparation of his work
on the history of modern astronomy (kW; GkW) certainly gave
him a peculiar sensitivity — informed by history — required to
understand the reach and significance of these new astronomical
achievements. As a result of both his intellectual education and his di-
rect contact with leading physicists and mathematicians of the time —
such as Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker and Pascual Jordan — Blumen-
berg was an exceptional witness of the development of twentieth
century astronomy, to which he attempted to provide philosophical
meaning. Hence, the content of the “astronoetical glosses” edited in
his posthumous book Die Vollzähligkeit der Sternen [] . In this
regard, further elements to support a cosmological interpretation of
Blumenberg’s works are therefore readily available.

. Ibid.
. Further details in A. F, “‘Das Überleben der Übergänge’. Nuevos paradigmas de
análisis de la obra de Hans Blumenberg”, in: A. F and Diego G (eds.), Hans
Blumenberg: Nuovi paradigmi d’analisi, Aracne Editrice, Roma, , pp. –.
. Perhaps it was for this reason that, in his posthumous Die Vollzähligkeit der Sterne,
Blumenberg felt able to refer contemptuously to Carl Sagan [–] — at that time known
as “the astronomer of the people” — in these terms: « Die propagandatüchtigen Forscher vom
Typ des Carl Sagan [. . . ] » (VS ). Among the collection of newspaper articles, the following
by Carl Sagan is also preserved: “Wenn Viking fündig würde”, ZEIT, Nr. ,  Juli , S. 
(DLA Marbach).
. We can consider Blumenberg’s collection of newspaper articles as the “empirical mate-
rials” of the astronoetical glosses contained his posthumous book. The issue of “astronoetics”
goes back to one of Blumenberg’s brief texts preserved in his Nachlass, dated , entitled
“Zerebrale Purifikation durch Sus familiaris marcipanis, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung
der Möglichkeiten astronoetischer Anwendung”. Further details in Rüdiger Z, “Zu den
Sternen und zurück. Die Entstehung des Weltraums als Erfahrungsraum und die Inversion
des menschlichen Erwartungshorizonts”, in: Michael M (ed.), Erinnerung an das Hu-
mane. Beiträge zur phänomenologischen Anthropologie Hans Blumenberg, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen,
, pp. –. See also Matthias F and Petra G, “Die Kränkung der Venus.
Astronomie zwischen Wissenschaftsgeschichte und Astronoetik”, Journal Phänomenologie, n.º
, Hans Blumenberg, , pp. –.
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

.. Solvitur ambulando

It is withouth doubt that the European scientific tradition — and

specifically the Anglo–Saxon and German traditions — contributed
heavily to the astronomical findings of the first decades of the twen-
tieth century. Nevertheless, a singular phenomenon of scientific
patronage — exclusive at that time to the United States — enabled
the construction of large astronomical observatories and the launch
of ambitious research programs . Moreover, two World Wars made
a greater European role utterly impossible. However, I shall contrast
the ambiguous figure of the American millionaire philanthropist —
to whom Blumenberg devoted one of his best astronoetical glosses
— to the distinguished European “marauder”, if I may employ this
expression. In this regard, a number of Germans astronomers and
astrophysicists such as Carl W. Wirtz, Paul ten Bruggencate, Otto
Struve or Albrecht Unsöld could also be mentioned; all of them
closely linked to the University of Kiel, which — as is well known —
was Hans Blumenberg’s alma mater. We must recall that from the sec-
ond half of the nineteenth century the University of Kiel was a point
of reference for physical sciences, and it was there that leading scien-
tists such as Heinrich Hertz [–], Max Planck [–]
or Walther Kossel [–] were trained. Strictly concerning

. Donald E. O, “The Observational Approach to Cosmology: U.S. Observa-

tories Pre–World War II”, in: B. B et alt., Modern Cosmology in Retrospect, op. cit., pp.
–, especially. p. .
. Blumenberg has referred to the figure of the millionaire philanthropist in a memorable
text on Boltzmann’s visit to the United States, see H. B “Ein Grab am Fuße des
Fernrohrs” (VS –).
. Hertz studied in Berlin with Helmholtz and Kirchhoff and qualified in Kiel in .
Some years later, in , he discovered electromagnetic waves, previously postulated by James
Clerk Maxwell. Further details on Hertz in Kiel see Albrecht U, “Heinrich Hertz in Kiel.
Zum hundertsten Geburtstag des Entdeckers der elektromagnetischen Wellen am . Februar
”, in: Sterne und Menschen. Aufsätze und Vorträge, Springer Verlag, Berlin, , pp. –; and
“Heinrich Hertz, Prinzipien der Mechanik. Versuch einer historischen Klärung”, Ivi, pp. –.
. On Planck in Kiel, see Albrecht U, “Max Planck. Rede zur Enthüllung des
Kieler Max–Planck–Denkmals am . April ”, Sterne und Menschen, op. cit., pp. –, in p.
: “[Planck] hatte er – als Professor der Theoretischen Physik an der Christian–Albrechts–
Universität gewirkt bis zu seiner Berufung an die Universität Berlin, wo ihm dann  die fundamentale
Entdeckung des ‘Elementarquantum h gelang”.
. Albrecht U, “Walther Kossel (–)”, in: Sterne und Menschen, op. cit., pp.
–. Kossel was rector of the University of Kiel during the course / and ordinary
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

astronomy, I should also take care to mention Carl W. Wirtz [–

] who, as a professor at the University of Kiel between  and
, made important astronomical observations related to the radial
velocity of spiral nebulae. Wirtz has often been considered a pioneer
in the understanding of cosmological redshift and — together with
Knut Lundmark [–] and Gustaf Strömberg [–] —
was a clear antecedent to (if not a discoverer of ) — to the detriment
of Hubble and Humason — the aforementioned velocity–distance
relation . That is to say: the radial velocity of spiral nebulae increases
with distance . Soon after his disqualification from teaching for po-
litical reasons and before his death in Hamburg in  he had the
opportunity to undertake a research project in the United States ,
initiating the tradition of short scientific visits to the great Americans
observatories by German astronomers and astrophysicists.
From this perspective, I should also recall the contributions of
Paul ten Bruggencate [–], who spent several months in late
 at the Mt Wilson Observatory in Pasadena (California) and the
Harvard Observatory in Cambridge (Mass.) as part of his predoctoral
training. In  he became professor and principal investigator of the
Einsteinturm (“The Einstein Tower”), an astrophysical observatory
built in Potsdam in the ‘s under the supervision of the astronomer
Erwin Finlay–Freundlich [–] which was destined to play

professor of theoretical physics –. He studied in Heidelberg with Philipp Lenard — his
Ph. D. thesis supervisor —, with C. Röntgen, A. Sommerfeld and M.V. Laue, among others.
His contributions focused on the physics of X–rays in the crystal structure, the physics of the
atom, in spectroscopy and chemistry.
. Sidney van den B, “Discovery of the Expansion of the Universe”, Physics.hist–ph,
arXiv:.v, . See also Helge K and Robert W. S, “Who discovered the
expanding Universe?”, History of Science, vol. , , pp. –.
. Waltraut C. S and Hilmar W. D, “Carl Wilhelm Wirtz – A Pioneer in
Observational Cosmology”, in: B. B et alt., Modern Cosmology in Retrospect, op. cit., pp.
–.
. A result that Wirtz interpreted in the context of the de Sitter cosmological model.
In , « Wirtz realized that Willem de Sitter’s theoretical paper on expanding cosmology
required that radial velocity increases with the distance. Wirtz [. . . ] concluded that de Sitter’s
cosmology was confirmed », in: B. B et alt., Modern Cosmology in Retrospect, op. cit., p.
. On the same page: « Only after the mental barrier against the expanding Universe was
broken down, was the theoretical work of Friedmann, Lanczos and Lemaître accepted and the
investigations of Wirtz, Lundmark and Hubble evaluated as strong observational support ».
Waltraut C. S and Hilmar W. D, op. cit., p. .
. Ivi, p. .
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

host to the astronomical observations and experiments that would

corroborate the theory of relativity. It was there that a key group of
young German astrophysicists that included Albrecht Unsöld — to
whom I will refer below — was established.
I should also mention the astronomer Otto Struve [–],
whose familial origins were rooted in the Holstein region and whom
during the ‘s conducted several research projects at the main Ame-
rican observatories, such as Lick, Mt Wilson and Palomar observato-
ries. Most of his career was spent at the Yerkes Observatory at the
University of Chicago, where he earned numerous awards for his
contributions to the understanding of the spectra of stars and nebulae
and also leading to an honorary doctorate from the University of
Kiel .
However, when approaching the topic of Blumenberg and astro-
nomy, Albrecht Unsöld [–] is the most relevant figure of
them all. From  until his retirement in , Unsöld was a profes-
sor at the University of Kiel where he also held the positions of Dean
of Philosophischen Fakultät between  and  and rector from
 to  , the same time as Blumenberg started his academic
career at the same university . During the war, Unsöld organized
the movement of the invaluable old Schumacher library, which was
transported by a military truck to a small town located  miles from
Kiel. The library was returned to Kiel after the war and deposited
in the striking new location of the Institut für Theoretische Physik und
Sternwarte — an old factory —, since the Kiel Observatory had been
destroyed by bombing .

. Albrecht U, Sterne und Menschen. Aufsätze und Vorträge, Springer Verlag, ,
Berlin, p. .
. In the same year, on December  , Blumenberg presented his doctoral thesis at the
Philosophischen Fakultät. H. B, “Sinn und Zweck meiner der Hohen Philosophischen
Fakultät der Christian–Albrechts–Universität zu Kiel vorgelegten Dissertation Beiträge zum
Problem der Ursprünglich-keit der mittelalterlich–scholastischen Ontologie” (DLA Marbach).
. Bodo B, “Nachruf ”, op. cit., p. .
. From September ,  Blumenberg was a scientific assistant in the Philosophischen
Seminar and on June   obtained his qualification. From March   he served as
“Diätendozentur” and from August ,  as “apl. Prof.” (Lebenslauf, DLA Marbach). It
was likely the end of July  when he became professor at the University of Hamburg.
Further details about Blumenberg’s life in Kiel are provided by Georges–Arthur G,
“Blumenberg à Kiel”, Cahiers Philosophiques, Blumenberg, n.º , e trimestre, , pp. –.
. Volker W, “Albrecht Unsöld (–)”, Publications of the Astronomical Soci-
ety of the Pacific, vol. , n.º , , pp. –. It seems that a new astronomical observatory
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

In Blumenberg’s Nachlass is preserved a newpaper article about

Unsöld concerning a conference on physics held in Berlin, presu-
mably in the context of the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft . It
is plausible that Blumenberg could have met Unsöld through the
ordinary activities in the Philosophischen Fakultät or in any of his
public tributes and ceremonies that were often organized by the
University, such as those held on the occasion of the inauguration of
the monument to Max Planck in Kiel or Unsöld’s rectorial address
entitled “Physics and History” which he delivered on May ,  .
Unsöld himself was another of these distinguished “marauders” .
After studying physics at the Universities of Tübingen and München
and a short stay in Potsdam in the aforementioned Einsteinturm, Un-
söld obtained a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation for a research
stay between – in Mt Wilson Observatory, Pasadena . On

was built in the Fachhochschule at Kiel University. With some probability, Blumenberg is refer-
ring to the latter in the following sardonic remark: « Wie ‘in unseren Kreisen’ üblich, haben
sich auf der Kieler Sternwarte, auf der alle Kometen und Supernovae im voraus beklatscht
werden (meistens kommen sie dann gar nicht) [. . . ] ». Letter from Blumenberg to Alfons
Neukirchen, dated January ,  (DLA Marbach).
. Robert G, “Quarks, Sterne und Kristalle. Vorschlag für neuartigen Ionen–
Beschleuniger. Von der Physikertagung in Berlin”, FAZ,  Oktober , Nr.  (DLA Mar-
bach).
. Albrecht U, “Max Planck. Rede zur Enthüllung des Kieler Max–Planck–
Denkmals am . April ”, in: Albrecht U, Sterne und Menschen, op. cit., pp. –.
. Albrecht U, “Physik und Historie. Kieler Rektoratsrede vom . Mai ”,
Veröffentlichungen der Schleswig–Holsteinischen Universitätgesellschaft. Neue Folge, n.º , Kiel,
F. Hirt Verlag, edited in Sterne und Menschen, op. cit. pp. –. It is possible, however, that
Blumenberg was already in Hamburg when Unsöld gave his lecture on science and research in
modern society in the “Kieler Universitätwoche”, see U, “Wissenschaft und Forschung
in der modernen Gesellschaft. Zur Kieler Universitätswoche im Januar ”, Auszugsweise
veröffentlich in ZEIT vom . Februar , edited in Sterne und Menschen, op. cit., pp. –.
. Further details about Unsöld’s life and scientific contributions can be found in the
obituaries by Volker W, op. cit.; and Bodo B, Mitteilungen der Astronomischen
Gesellschaft, vol. , pp. –. See also O.C. Wilson’s and Sir Harold Jeffreys’ texts on the
occasion of the gold medal awarded by the Royal Astronomical Society, Publications of the
Astronomical Society of the Pacific, vol. , n.º , April, , pp.  and ; and Monthly Notices
of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. , pp. –, respectively.
. « On his way back home he visited Harvard and gave a talk about stellar spectra with
Milne, Shapley, and Eddington attending. Eddington was skeptical — as Unsöld told me — but
nevertheless invited him to tea and dinner when he came to Cambridge. Unsöld felt this was
too much of an honor for a  years old ». V. W, op. cit., p. . Eddington belonged
to the first generation of great theorists of relativity. He provided an astronomical proof for
the validity of the theory of relativity, and was also one of the architects of the modern theory
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

his return and after his accreditation in München for his work on the
abundance of hydrogen in the solar spectrum, which showed that the
presence of this chemical element is greater than any other , he was
appointed assistant at the Institut für Theoretische Physik in Hamburg
and in September , at only  years of age, obtained a position as
full professor and director of the Institut für Theoretische Physik at the
University of Kiel. He earned the recognition of the international sci-
entific community for his contributions both to the theory of stellar
atmospheres and to the study of the solar spectrum from the point of
view of the atomic physics — something he learned during his years
as a student of Arnold Sommerfeld —, particularly following the pu-
blication of his voluminous monograph Physik der Sternatmosphären
in  in which he developed a complex mathematical–physical
analysis of spectroscopy that, in turn, became a reference manual in
astrophysics for decades , even including in the second edition ()
a section devoted to the emerging field of radio astronomy . In ,
on the eve of World War II, Unsöld was invited as a visiting professor

of the stars. Further details in Jacques M–P, Conditions, op. cit. p. . Between
 and , Hubble established the extragalactic nature of the spiral nebulae at the Mount
Wilson Observatory. See Helge K and Robert W. S, “Who discovered the expanding
Universe?”, op. cit., pp. –.
. A. U, “Über die Struktur der Fraunhoferschen Linien und die Quantitative
Spektralanalyse der Sonnenatmosphäre”, Zeitschrift für Physik, , , pp. –. Further
details in M. L, The Cosmic Century, op. cit., p. .
. Albrecht U, Physik der Sternatmosphären. Mit besonderer Berücksichtung der Sonne,
Verlag von Julius Springer, Berlin, . The Aristotelian–Galilean recidivism in p. III is re-
markable: « Die größte Schwierigkeit einer Einführung in die neuere Astrophysik liegt in der
Abgrenzung gegen die “terrestrische” Physik ».
. Unsöld’s book Der neue Kosmos: Einführung in die Astronomie und Astrophysik, published
for the first time in , remains today a valid introductory university manual in astronomy
and astrophysics in the version reworked and extended by Bodo Baschek, which has been
translated into several languages (see for instance the English version: The New Cosmos. An
Introduction to Astronomy and Astrophysics, Springer, Berlin, ). The title of this book was
chosen by Unsöld in reference to the Humboldt’s famous Kosmos, on which many pages would
devote Blumenberg himself.
. Until  the University of Kiel also had a radio astronomy observatory. See V. W-
 “Albrecht Unsöld (–)”, op. cit., p. ; and Bodo B, “Nachruf ”, op. cit., p. .
Unsöld suggested the radio stars could be low–mass dwarfs with low optical luminosity, but
very active and even generating cosmic rays. See U, “Über den Ursprung der Radiofre-
quenzstrahlung und der Ultrastrahlung in der Milchstrasse”, Zeitschrift für Astrophysik, , ,
pp. –; and “Origin of the Radio Frequency Emission and Cosmic Radiation in the Milky
Way”, Nature, , pp. –. Further details in M. L, The Cosmic Century, op. cit., p. .
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

to the Yerkes Observatory at the University of Chicago, where he

would work with the aforementioned astronomer of German origins
Otto Struve. Here Unsöld obtained the first detailed spectral analysis
of the atmosphere of a star other than the Sun, the star Tau Scorpii
BO . After the war, he made further visits to the United States in
 and  that restored contact with his American colleagues
and consequently reestablished the flow of German researchers and
students to the key American observatories. During his years in Kiel,
above all during the s, Unsöld also conducted research into the
formation of the chemical elements and their relative abundances in
the composition of the stars .

. Hubble was trained as a professional astronomer in this same observatory in . See
Helge K and Robert W. S, “Who discovered the expanding Universe?”, History of
Science, vol. , , pp. –.
. A summary of stellar evolution during the first half of the twentieth century and after
the Second World War is provided by Vittorio C and Cesare C, “L’evoluzione
stellare”, in: C. C and A. M (eds.), Astronomy and Astrophysics, op. cit., pp. –,
in p. : « La teoria della struttura ed evoluzione stellari si sviluppò [. . . ] sotto il continuo
progredire della conoscenza del comportamento fisico della materia, dalla fisica classica alla
meccanica quantistica, dalla relatività alle interazioni forti ed alle interazioni deboli ».
. Harold J, op. cit., p.: : « The most direct quantitative result from a study of
stellar line intensities is a determination of the number of atoms in the stars’ atmosphere and
thence the chemical composition ». In the newspaper article by Thomas v. R, “Myste-
riöse blaue Punkte. Quasars geben neue Rätsel auf – Trügt die Rotverschebung?”, ZEIT,  März
, Nr. , S.  (DLA Marbach), the fundamentals of spectral analysis and chemical identi-
fication of the elements through their emitted light were explained. In the aforementioned
article by Robert G, “Quarks, Sterne und Kristalle”, op. cit. a comprehensive overview
of Unsöld’s contributions regarding their significance for astronomy and cosmology is given:
« Der Kieler Professor A. Unsöld unternahm bei der Physikertagung in Berlin den Versuch,
die heutigen Vorstellungen von der Entstehung der chemischen Elemente im Rahmen eines
Plenarvortrags zu beschreiben. Durch die Auswertung der Spektren von Sternen kann man
Aussagen über die Häufigkeit der chemischen Elemente in den verschiedenen Sterntypen
machen. Auf Grund der Häufigkeitsverteilung der chemischen Elemente lassen sich dann
theoretische Modelle konstruieren, die erklären, wie es durch eine Folge von kernphysikalis-
chen Prozessen zur Bildung der verschiedenen Atomkernarten gekommen ist, die die in der
Natur vorgefundenen  chemischen Elemente repräsentieren. Die ursprüngliche Vorstellung,
dass die verschiedenen Atomarten bis hin zu den schwersten chemischen Elementen bei
dem grossen ‘Urknall’ zu Beginn der Expansion unseres Weltalls entstanden sind, musste in
den letzten Jahren aufgegeben werden. Man beobachtet gerade in sehr jungen Sternen einen
besonders hohen Anteil schwerer Elemente. Diese müssen also wohl im Inern von Sternen
gebildet werden. Die Entstehung der chemischen Elemente ist also keineswegs ein in sich
abgeschlossener Prozess. Doch allein reicht das Innere der Sterne wiederum nicht aus, die
heute beobachtete Häufigkeitsverteilung der chemischen Elemente zu erklären. Vor allem die
Häufigkeit des Heliums lässt sich auf dieser Basis nicht verstehen. So neigt man heute dazu,
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

In truth, Unsöld contributed both actively and discretely to the de-

bate surrounding the origin of the chemical elements in the stars , an
issue that leads us directly to another outstanding German scientific
personality, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker , with whom Blumen-
berg had an intense academic and intellectual relationship during his
final years in Kiel and particularly, as we shall soon see, during his
brief period at the University of Hamburg.
After the discovery in  that stars are powered by nuclear
reactions by Fritz Houtermans [–] and Robert Atkinson
[–], astrophysicists began to face the issue of the formation of
the chemical elements and their relative abundance in the Universe .
Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker [–] and Hans Bethe [–
] independently explained the transformation of hydrogen into
helium through a cycle involving the production of carbon, nitrogen
and oxygen . The question, therefore, was not only how to explain
the origin of hydrogen but also to elucidate the order of the creation
die vor zehn Jahren zu den Akten gelegte Urknall – Theorie wieder herauszuholen und in
gemässigter Form erneut einzuführen. Es sollte in der Anfangszeit unseres Kosmos, als dessen
Materie noch ziemlich auf engem Raum konzentriert war, zumindest ein grosser Feuerball
wirsam gewesen sein, in dem Wasserstoff in grossen Mengen zu Helium verbrannt wurde ».
. A. U, “Abundance Distributions and Origin of the Elements”, Naturwiss., , ,
. See also “Die chemische Zusammensetzung der Sterne”, Sterne und Menschen, op. cit., pp.
–.
. Unsöld makes reference to Weizsäcker and Bethe in different parts of his work. See,
for example, Sterne und Menschen, op. cit., p.  and p. .
. For more on stellar evolution and nuclear physics, see Jacques M–P, Condi-
tions, op. cit. p. . See also M. L, The Cosmic Century, op. cit., “Early theories of stellar
structure and evolution”, pp.  ff.
. C. F. von. W; “Über Elementumwandlungen im Innern der Sterne I”,
Physikalische Zeitschrift, , , pp. –; and “Über Elementumwandlungen im Innern der
Sterne II”, Ibid., , , pp. –.
. H. B, “Energy production in stars”, Physical Review, , , pp. –.
. M. L, The Cosmic Century, op. cit., p.  y p. . There is an explicit reference to
this issue in the newspaper article by K. R, “Ungelöstes Rätsel Kosmos. Fortschritte
der Astronomie – neue Fragen / Spekulationen über das Weltall”, FAZ,  November  (DLA
Marbach). In this article Bethe and Weizsäcker mentioned the nuclear processes in the stars:
“Kernphysik [. . . ] fundierte Vorstellungen über die Energieprozesse und über den energiehaushalt der
Fixsterne. [. . . ] Diese Vorstellungen verdanken wir von allem den Physikern Hans Bethe, der dafür
jetzt mit dem Nobelpreis für Physik ausgezeichnet wurde, und Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker”. In
an other earlier article, K. Rudzinski also made extensive reference to the formation of the
chemical elements and specifically to hydrogen: “Das Alter der Milchstraße”. Rechnung mit
vielen Unbekannten / Vor der . Astronomentagung. . Oktober , Nr. , S. . [FAZ?]
(DLA, Marbach). This article also includes an epigraph on Copernicus and Melanchthon,
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

of the chemical elements involved in the production of helium and

to clarify whether all these elements were synthesized in stars.
In a famous  paper, Ralph Alpher [–], Hans Bethe
— in absentia — and George Gamow [–] suggested that the
origin of the chemical elements was a single production process
from simple nuclear structures that dated back to the early stages of
formation of the Universe . In this theory, hydrogen — the simplest
chemical element — was synthesized in the first place and, through a
mechanism of successive addition of neutrons, the heavier atomic nu-
clei of other chemical elements were then produced. However, while
the theory could explain the origins of lighter chemical elements,
it could not explain the existence of elements heavier than lithium.
In  Fred Hoyle [–], nuclear physicist and cosmologist,
provided a satisfactory explanation of the nuclear reactions involved
in this process and in , together with William Fowler [–],
Margaret Burbidge [n.] and Geoffrey Burbidge [–] pro-
vided a description of the nucleosynthesis of heavy chemical ele-
ments in supernova explosions . This resulted in a passionate debate

referring to the following book highlighted by Blumenberg: “Philipp Melanchthon und das
kopernikanische Weltsystem zeigte K. Müller, Godesberg”. Blumenberg’s emphasis.
. Jacques M–P, Cosmologie, op. cit., pp.  ff.: « George Gamow [. . . ] exploitant
l’audacieuse hypothèse de Lemaître, il supposa que la genèse des atomes qui ne pouvait se faire
entièrement dans les étoiles, s’était produite dans les minutes suivant la singularité cosmique ».
See also pp.  ff and pp.  ff.
. In the newspaper article K.R. [K. Rudzinski?], “Sturz eines Weltall–Modells. Begrenzte
Materie–Hierarchie / Keine Super–Galaxienhaufen im Universum”, [FAZ?], . Januar  (DLA
Marbach), also made reference to Geoffrey Burbidge’s and A. M. Wolfe’s contribution to the
study of local variations of X–rays and X–radiation background sources: « Untersuchungen von
A. M. Wolfe (Universität von Kalifornien) und G. R. Burbidge (Universität von Cambridge),
über die beide in “Nature” (. ) berichten, haben ergeben, daß die beobachteten minimalen
lokalen Unterschiede in der Röntgen–Hintergrunstrahlung signifikant niedriger sind, als sie
sein müßten, wenn die Röntgen Strahlungsquellen die gleiche Verteilung hätten wie die
Galaxien ». Blumenberg’s emphasis.
. A summary of these issues can be found in Paul M’s Secrets of the Universe: How
We Discovered the Cosmos, The University of Chicago Press, , chap. , “The Origin of
the Elements”, pp. –. The landmarks of the formation of the chemical elements in stars
are explained in the following undated newspaper article by Hans Jörg F, “Kosmische
Elementenzeugung in Zehntelsekunden? Explosionsphasen der Sternentstehung – eine neue
Hypothese für kosmische Materieschöpfung”, FAZ (DLA Marbach): « Die vielen komplizierten
chemischen Elemente, die das Weltall in sich birgt, können nicht von Ewigkeit an existiert
haben, sondern müssen irgendwann in kosmogonisch früher Zeit aus den Kernen des Wasser-
stoffs aufgebaut worden sein ». This article is devoted to a review of Arnett’s and Clayton’s
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

between advocates of the steady state theory — which postulated the

continuous creation of matter — energy ex nihilo — and advocates
of what became known as the Big Bang theory . In this last debate,
Pascual Jordan’s contributions are especially significant. Jordan was
a mathematician and theoretical physicist whom Blumenberg had
met in the context of the Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur
zu Mainz. However, before referring to Jordan, I wish to briefly pay
attention to Blumenberg’s relationship with Weizsäcker.
Weizsäcker was born in Kiel in  to an influential and wealthy
family. His father held the posts of diplomat and Secretary of State in
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs during the Second World War, whilst
his brother reached the presidency of the German Federal Republic
in the ‘s. Weizsäcker studied physics, astronomy and mathematics
in Berlin, Göttingen and Leipzig with Werner Heisenberg and Niels
Bohr among his professors. In the early ‘s, he made significant con-
tributions to the study of the binding energies of atomic nuclei and
on the aforementioned processes of nuclear power generation in the
interior of stars. In , he was appointed Professor of Theoretical
Physics at the University of Strasbourg and was involved in the Ger-
man project to build an atomic bomb — as Einstein later denounced
in his famous letter to Franklin D. Roosevelt, then President of the
United States —. After the war, however, he was allowed to return
to Germany and in  became Director of the Theoretical Physics
Department of the Max Planck Institute in Göttingen. Between 
and  he was appointed Professor of Philosophy and Director of
Seminars für Philosophie at the University of Hamburg, and it is at pre-
cisely this time and in this context that his intellectual and personal
relationship with Blumenberg took place .
paper published in Nature, entitled “Explosive Nucleosynthesis in Stars”, on the formation
of nuclei during the explosion of stars: « Die höheren Elemente aus einer Explosion eines
Nichtgleichgewichtsplasmas des Sternzentrums hervorgehen, die von entarteten Elektronen
herbeigeführt wird und in Sekundenschnelle aufgebaut wird ». In this article Hoyle, Burbidge
and Fowler were also mentioned.
. Helge K, Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of
the Universe, Princeton University Press, , pp. –. See also M. L, op. cit., Part
V “Astrophysical cosmology since ”, pp.  ff. Further details about nucleosynthesis see
B E. J. P, Nucleosynthesis and the Chemical Evolution of Galaxies [], Cambridge
University Press, . In the line of an evolutionary cosmology is Unsöld’s popular book
Evolution kosmischer, biologischer und geistiger Strukturen [], . Auflage, Wissenschaftliche
Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart, .
. Further details about Weizsäcker’s period in Hamburg are provided by Ulrich G,
  Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

Besides his contributions to understandings of the role of stars in

the formation of the chemical elements , Weizsäcker also proposed
a theory for the formation of the solar system based on the Kant–
Laplacian nebular hypothesis . According to his view of the cosmos,
both the Sun and the planets of the solar system were evolved from
a gas cloud composed mostly of hydrogen and helium .
It is probable that Blumenberg had the opportunity to meet
Weizsäcker in Kiel during the late ‘s. In the notes for his first
university lectures, Blumenberg had already incorporated references
to some of Weizsäcker’s works. For example, devoted to the concept
of history in the Vorlesung IV manuscript . Among the documents
included in this lesson is a summary dated May   — and I
can say with some certainty that it was written by one of Blumen-

“Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker als Profesor am Philosophischen Seminar der Universität
Hamburg”, in: Stephan A, Ulrich B, Reiner B (eds.), Zur Verantwortung
der Wissenschaft – Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker zu Ehren, Lit Verlag Dr. W. Hopf, Berlin, , pp.
–. This monograph contains a collection of papers in honor of Weizsäcker. Further details
on Weizsäcker’s life and his scientific and philosophical contributions in Dieter H, Carl
Friedrich von Weizsäcker. Physiker und Philosoph, Primus Verlag, Darmstandt, .
. Weizsäcker had the opportunity to discuss this issue with Gamow: « A significant
part of Gamow’s work in the latter half of the s dealt with astrophysical problems. They
covered a wide range of issues, from stellar energy over supernovas to galaxy formation, but
soon Gamow focused on the formation of the chemical elements in stellar and, eventually,
cosmological processes. He was well acquainted with Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker’s idea of
element formation in a prestellar, highly compact state of the Universe, a scenario that he had
discussed with von Weizsäcker in the summer of  before it appeared in print » (Weizsäcker
). Helge K, “George Gamow and the ‘Factual Approach’ to Relativistic Cosmology”,
in: A. J. K and J. E (eds.), The Universe of General Relativity, Series: Einstein Studies,
Vol.  , Birkhäuser, Boston, chap. , p. . A brief review of Weizsäcker’s contributions
appears in H. K, Cosmology and Controversy, op. cit., pp. –.
. See Carl Friedrich von W, Die Entstehung des Planetensystems [], Wis-
senschaftliche Vorträge gehalten auf der akademischen Jahresfeier der technischen Hochschule
München, , pp. –. See also Jacques M–P, Conditions, op. cit. p. .
. Jacques M–P, Conditions, op. cit. pp. –.
. In The Relevance of Science, Weizsäcker summarized his conception in the following
terms: “One of the most active investigators of our days, G. Kuiper at Yerkes Observatory,
thinks that some denser parts of the nebula condensed further under the influence of their
own gravity; this is precisely what Kant thought. I have proposed a slightly different theory in
which the planetary bodies were formed out of dust that originated by chemical condensation
of the heavier elements within the nebula”. Carl F. v. W, The Relevance of Science:
Creation and Cosmogony, Gifford Lectures –, Harper and Row, New York and Evanston,
, p. .
. “Der Begriff der Geschichte”, Vorlesung IV (DLA Marbach).
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

berg’s students — concerning a seminar on Kant and Herder with

an explicit reference to Weizsäcker’s book Die Geschichte der Natur
[] . Also in the Vorlesung XVI on “Elementarbegriffe des wis-
senschaftlichen Denkens” [“Basic Concepts of Scientific Thought”]
were two more references to the same work by Weizsäcker as well as
his article “Das Experiment”, published in  in Studium Generale ,
a journal in which Blumenberg himself published some papers in
the same period. Also in the Vorlesung XXIX, entitled “Philosophis-
che Weltmodelle” [“Philosophical Models of World”] , Blumenberg
made reference — without specifying the title — to a  work of
Weizsäcker’s — probably Die Geschichte der Natur —. Both in this and
the previous lesson, it is possible to detect Blumenberg’s attempt to
further the philosophical–metaphysical enquiries into cosmology

. Protokoll der Siminarsitzung vom .. (DLA Marbach).

. They discussed, among other texts, H’s Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der
Menschheit. In relation to Kant, Blumenberg wrote: « Unser Verfasser hebt damit an, die Aussicht
zu erweitern, um dem Menschen seine Stelle unter den übrigen Planetenbewohnern unserer
Sonnenwelt anzuweisen [. . . ] ». Vorlesung IV (DLA Marbach).
. This book includes a series of  lectures delivered by Weizsäcker in Göttingen in
 and was published by Hirzel, Leipzig/Stuttgart/Zürich, in  (there is a new edition
by the same publisher Hirzel, Stuttgart ). The book comprises the following chapters:
I. Einleitung; II Rückgang in die Geschichte der Erde; III Die räumliche Struktur des Kosmos; IV
Die zeitliche Struktur des Kosmos; V Unendlichkeit; VI Sternsysteme; VII Sterne; VIII Die Erde; IX
Das Leben; X Die Seele; XI. Der Mensch. Äußere Geschichte; XII Der Mensch. Innere Geschichte. It
also included several striking photographs of spiral nebulae [“Spiralnebel”], cloud of gas and
dust [“Gas– und Staubwolken”], of a stellar cluster [“Kugelförmiger Sternhaufen”] and the
Magellanic Cloud [“Magellansche Wolke”]. In the aforementioned summary, Weizsäcker’s
book was presented in the following terms: « Ein Beweis dafür, wie Dinge, wie sie Herder
Beschäftigen, im geistigen Leben immer wieder zum Problem werden, ist ein modernes
Buch Karl Friedrich von Weizsäckers mit dem Titel “Geschichte der Natur”, das Göttinger
Vorlesungen enthält und aufs das der Herr Seminarleiter besonders hinwies ». A review of Die
Geschichte der Natur in Dieter H, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, op. cit., pp. –.
. In his lesson notes Blumenberg made reference to his “Technik und Wahrheit”, pu-
blished as the proceedings of a conference held in Brussels in , where he also mentioned
Weizsäcker. See Hans B, “Technik und Wahrheit” (TuW –). In p. : « Die Wirk-
lichkeit, mit der es die Physik zu tun hat, läßt sich definieren als der ‘Bereich der Möglichkeiten,
Phänomene der Wahrnehmung willkürlich hervorzubringen’ » (C.F.v. Weizsäcker).
. Carl Friedrich von W, “Das Experiment”, Studium Generale, , , pp. –.
. Vorlesung XXIX (DLA Marbach).
. An example of this: « Integration von Erkenntnissen über die physische Realität zu
einem kosmologischen Weltmodell ist etwas anderes als die Vorstellung der Summierung
bekannter Teile des physischen Alls. Die kosmologische Integration setzt immer schon an,
obwohl der Verdacht oder die Gewissheit besteht, dass wesentliche Teile des Universums
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

that he had already begun in his PhD and post–doctoral thesis work ,
but with the important difference that it would now be guided by an
eminently epistemological approach, which includes some historical
notes and where Blumenberg showed a remarkable knowledge of
the astronomy of the time:

Ich brauche nur darauf hinzuweisen, dass im Verhältnis zu den Größenord-

nungen, mit denen wir heute in der Astronomie und Kosmologie rechnen,
bei der Beobachtungsgenauigkeit der frühen Neuzeit dafür relativ beschei-
dene Maße der Entfernung der Fixsterne von der Erde genügen konnten;
erst mit zunehmender Meßgenauigkeit wurden jeweils auch die erforder-
lichen Entfernungen größer. Die rapide Ausdehnung des Weltalls, die durch
die verschiedensten Tatsachen und Beobachtungen erforderlich wurde,
wurde im . Jahrhundert ergänzt durch die zeitliche Ausdehnung der
kosmogonischen Prozesse. Wir können noch heute in der Astronomie
beobachten, dass dieser Prozess noch nicht abgeschlossen ist, dafür ein
Beispiel. Noch  gab Bohlin die Entfernung des Andromedanebels von
der Sonne mit zwanzig Lichtjahren an. Bis etwa  war diese Entfer-
nung in der Forschung allgemein auf etwa achthunderttausend Lichtjahre
angewachsen. Seit  ist nochmals eine Verdreifachung dieser Distanz in
der forschung akzeptiert worden auf heute etwa , Millionen Lichtjahre.
Ein Lichtjahr hat etwa die Größenordnung von  Kilometern oder 
Zentimetern. Die Zeiträume, die die Kosmologie für das Alter der Erde, des
Sonnensystems, der Milchstraße oder des gesamten von ihr vorausgesetzten
Weltalls in Anspruch nimmt, sind zwar nicht streng parallel, aberdoch mit
schöner Regelmäßigkeit gewachsen. Auch das ist nicht eine weit zurückge-
hende historische Feststellung, sondern etwas, was sich noch gegenwärtig
von Jahrzehnt zu Jahrzehnt beobachten lässt. Das mutmaßliche Alter der
Erde wurde noch kurz vor  mit drei Milliarden Jahren angegeben, das
geschätzte Gesamtalter der Welt mit etwa fünf Milliarden Jahren; diese
Zahlen haben sich bis heute verdoppelt und es scheint, dass sie sich noch
weiter vergrößern werden. [. . . ] Wenn  der hypothetische Radius der
Welt mit drei Milliarden Lichtjahren, das Alter der Welt mit vier Milliarden

nicht bekannt sind, vielleicht nie oder in einer allzu fernen Zukunft bekannt werden können »
(PMWM ––). In one of his lecture notes Blumenberg wrote: « “Weltmodell” ist ein term.techn.
der Kosmologie ». Vorlesung XXIX (DLA Marbach). Blumenberg further developed this topic
both in his inaugural speech on July   at the University of Gießen and in the third section
[] of Die Legitimität der Neuzeit []. On this issue, see A. F, “‘Das Überleben der
Übergänge’. Nuevos paradigmas de análisis de la obra de Hans Blumenberg”, in: A. F and
Diego G (eds.), Hans Blumenberg: Nuovi paradigmi d’analisi, Aracne Editrice, Roma,
, pp. –.
. A. F, “La ontología cosmológica en la obra temprana de Hans Blumenberg: las
Beiträge y Die ontologische Distanz”, Res publica, n.º , Murcia, , pp. –.
. In the Vorlesung XXIX there is a brief excursus on the plurality of worlds (PMWM ––
to ––), which Blumenberg further developed in Die Legitimität der Neuzeit [].
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

Lichtjahren angenommen wurde, so bedeutet dies, dass an keinem Punkte

der Welt gegenwärtig auch bei stärksten Instrumentarien alle Informationen
über das Weltall verfügbar sein könnten. Es ist dies eine der absoluten Un-
sichtbarkeiten, die entgegen den Erwartungen in der Neuzeit aufgetreten
sind.

However, despite these early references, Blumenberg could barely

hide a certain element of suspicion and contempt toward Weizsäcker,
whom he described in  as « a neophyte of philosophy and atomic
bomb technician through pure logic » . For his own part, Weizsäcker
himself recognized his “dilettantism” . Anyway, it seems that the
mediation of Weizsäcker was decisive in the appointment of Blumen-
berg as Professor Extraordinaire at the University of Hamburg at the
end of . In Blumenberg’s Nachlass is preserved an exchange of
letters between them, which began with a letter from Weizsäcker
dated November   in which he complimented Blumenberg for

. Hans B, (PMWM –– y ––) (DLA Marbach). In this same passage it is
possible to identify a remote anticipation of Lebenszeit und Weltzeit []: “Die Lebenszeit des
einzelnen ist gleichsam die Basis, von der aus er die Wirklichkeit zu vermessen imstande ist”
(PMWM ––). Blumenberg also made reference to anthropology from a cosmological point of
view: “‘Philosophisches Weltmodell’: eine Gesamtvorstellung, die ihre anthropologische Motivation
(Neugierde, Sorge) und ihre anthropologische Effizienz (Furcht, Fremdheit, Verlorenheit etc) nicht
ausklammert, sondern ausarbeitet. Funktion von Weltmodellen: das atomistische (c/Furcht, Hoffnung)
das manichäische (Flucht)”. Vorlesung XXIX (DLA Marbach).
. « Philosophischer Neophyt und Atombomentschärfer durch reine Logik ». A letter
from Blumenberg to Alfons Neukirchen, dated January   (DLA Marbach). On the ques-
tion of the atomic bomb see B “Atommoral. Ein Gegenstück zur Atomstrategie”
[], in: Helga R (ed.), Strahlungen: Atom und Literatur. Marbachermagazin, /, ,
pp. –. In his commentary on this text, Marcel Lepper made reference to Weizsäcker:
“Kommentar”, Strahlungen, op. cit., p. . See also W Die Verantwortung der Wis-
senschaft im Atomzeitalter. Zwei Vorlesungen (gehalten in Bonn  bzw. Göttingen /),
Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, Göttingen ; and “Mit der Bombe leben. Die gegenwärtigen Aus-
sichten einer Begrenzung der Gefahr eines Atomkrieges”. Sonderdruck ZEIT, Hamburg .
Further details in W. F, “Hoffnung und Gefahr – Physik im Diskurs der Gesellschaft”,
in: Werner M, Dieter Röß (eds.), Physik im . Jahrhundert, Springer, Heidelberg,
, pp. –.
. “Meinen Dilettantismus”, in the letter from Weizsäcker to Blumenberg dated Decem-
ber ,  (DLA Marbach). In Das Lachen der Thrakerin [], Blumenberg made reference to
Weizsäcker in the following terms: « Mir schwebt der junge Physiker vor, der in den späten
dreissiger Jahren ein einziges Mal eine Vorlesung bei Heidegger zu hören Gelegenheit findet,
deren Thema ‘Logik’ hiess und in der tatsächlich von Heraklit die Rede war. Er habe, ent-
nimmt man seiner veröffentlichten Erinnerung, den Atem angehalten, und seine Reaktion sei
gewesen: “Das ist Philosophie. Ich verstehe kein Wort aber das ist Philosophie” » (LdT ).
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

his papers on the history of modern astronomy and invited him to

give a lecture at the University of Hamburg . In his response, Blu-
menberg suggested one of the following as a topic for the conference:
Aufgabe und Umrißeiner Geistesgeschichte der Technik , Melanchthons
Stellungnahme zu Kopernikus and Kopernikus im Selbstverständnis der
Neuzeit . Finally, the agreed topic was Kopernikus im Selbstverständnis
der Neuzeit and Blumenberg held the conference in January   .
Some years later, on April  , on the occasion of his appoint-
ment as an Ordinary Member of the Akademie der Wissenschaften und
der Literatur zu Mainz , Blumenberg addressed a conference on the
same subject in a ceremony chaired by Pascual Jordan, then director
of the Akademie. Weizsäcker once more invited Blumenberg — on
July   — to participate in a conference on Nicholas of Cusa, at
a time when Blumenberg was working on Die Legitimität der Neuzeit
[] (LdN) and the famous contraposition between the Cusan —
pre–Copernican — and the Nolan — post–Copernican —.

. Blumenberg sent his early works to Löwith, Gadamer, Rothacker or Weizsäcker,
among many others. Throughout his life Blumenberg kept the habit of sending his work to
colleagues and friends.
. « Sie waren so freundlich, mir in der letzten Zeit gelegentlich Sonderdrucke Ihrer
Arbeiten zu schicken. Zeitmangel hat verursacht, daß ich nicht alles mit der gleichen Sorgfalt
gelesen habe. Ihr Aufsatz über Kopernikus hat mich aber naturgemäß besonders interessiert
und in einigen Punkten bei mir lebhafte Zustimmung hervorgerufen ». Letter from Weizsäcker
to Blumenberg, dated November ,  (DLA Marbach).
. The most substantial material on this topic has been edited in Blumenberg’s posthu-
mous book Geistesgeschichte der Technik [] (GdT).
. H. B, “Melanchthons Einspruch gegen Kopernikus” (MgK –).
. Letter from Blumenberg to Weizsäcker dated November   (DLA Marbach): « Ihr
freundliches Interesse an meinen Arbeiten verbindet mich Ihnen sehr zu Dank, zumal ich
kaum noch Grund hatte, es vermuten zu dürfen ».
. In Blumenberg’s Nachlass is preserved a typescript dated  and entitled “Kopernikus
im Selbstverständnis der Neuzeit”. Perhaps this document served as a support for his confer-
ence in Hamburg.
. Hans B, “Kopernikus im Selbstverständnis der Neuzeit” (KSN –). Fur-
ther details on Blumenberg’s membership at the Akademie, see A. F, Das Überleben der
Übergänge, op. cit., pp. –.
. Letter from Blumenberg to Weizsäcker dated November   (DLA Marbach).
In  Blumenberg edited a selection of Cusa’s writings and prepared a comprehensive
preliminary study: Nicolaus von C, Die Kunst der Vermutung. Auswahl aus den Schriften,
Bremen, Schünemann, . As is known, Cusa also had a strong presence in Die Legitimität
der Neuzeit where Blumenberg quoted Weizsäcker’s paper on Cusa, entitled “Philosophische
Fragen der Naturwissenschaften”, Merkur, XII, . Blumenberg also prepared an introduction
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

The convergence of historical and philosophical interest between

Weizsäcker and Blumenberg is clear and draws not only from mo-
dern astronomy and cosmology , but also the works of Hans Jonas,
above all his monumental Gnosis und spätantiker Geist [] . Blu-
menberg also sent Weizsäcker a copy of his first book, Paradigmen zu
einer Metaphorologie [] (PM), from which sprang a lively exchange
of letters dealing with the status of concepts and metaphors, mo-
dern physics and especially the Cartesian ideal of exactness . On the
latter issue, Weizsäcker sent to Blumenberg his speech on “The lan-
guage of physics” [Die Sprache der Physik] which he delivered at the
Joachim–Jungius–Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften — a scientific academy
founded in  in Hamburg —, warning him that « from my experi-
ence with exact science I find the Cartesian ideal more or less like
an absurd dream » [Hirngespinst] . Weizsäcker had devoted his 
speech for the beginning of the academic year at the University of
Hamburg to the topic “Descartes and the modern science of nature”,
which also made extensive reference to Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo,
Newton and the theory of planetary system . Meanwhile, Blumen-

to Giordano B’s, La Cena delle Ceneri, entitled “Das Universum eines Ketzers”, in: Giordano
B, Das Aschermittwochsmahl, Insel, Frankfurt am Main, , pp. –; reprinted in Insel
Taschenbuch, , pp. –.
. In connection with cosmogony, in a letter dated December  , Weizsäcker informed
Blumenberg he was reading a book entitled Geschichte der Kosmogonie. It has not been possible,
however, to identify the complete bibliographic reference.
. In October  , Weizsäcker sent a letter to Blumenberg from the Max Planck
Institut für Physik und Astrophysik, in which he informed him that he was reading the first
volume of Jonas’s book on Gnosis. In Blumenberg’s reply, dated October  , Blumenberg
encouraged to Weizsäcker to take a break from his work on physics to read Blumenberg’s own
review of Jonas’ book. See H. B “Epochenschwelle und Rezeption” (EuR –).
Besides admiring his work, Blumenberg had a great friendship with Jonas. He unsuccessfully
tried to help Jonas to get Landgrebe’s position when the latter left Kiel University. In ,
Blumenberg and Weizsäcker invited to Jonas to deliver a conference at the University of
Hamburg. There is of course an extensive correspondence between Blumenberg and Jonas.
. See especially the letter from Weizsäcker to Blumenberg dated December  ; and
Blumenberg’s letter to Weizsäcker dated January  .
. Edited in Carl F. v. W, Die Einheit der Natur [], Deutscher Taschenbuch
Verlag, München, , pp. –.
. « Ich finde also gerade aus meiner Erfahrung in der exakten Wissenschaft das carte-
sische Ideal mehr oder weniger ein Hirngespinst ». Letter from Weizsäcker to Blumenberg,
dated December  . Blumenberg’s emphasis.
. Carl Friedrich von W, Descartes und die neuzeitliche Naturwissenschaft. Rede
gehalten anlässlich der Feier zum Beginn des neuen Amtsjahres des Rektors der Universität
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

berg had already dealt with Descartes and the problem of method
in his  paper “Technik und Wahrheit”, which, incidentally, also
made reference to Weizsäcker . However, I would like to emphasize
that of far greater significance and scope was the discussion between
Blumenberg and Weizsäcker about the hermeneutics of modernity
and secularization. In this brief dispute the deep differences that sepa-
rated the two authors are spelt out clearly. Once more Blumenberg
sent to Weizsäcker a series of papers , amongst which was possibly
included “Säkularisation”. Kritik einer Kategorie historischer Illegitim-
ität . In his reply, dated December  , Weizsäcker raised doubt
over whether he had learned the term “secularization” from Blu-
menberg , while informing him that he had dealt with this issue
in the Gifford Lectures — a series of lectures held at the Univer-
sity of Glasgow between the years –— which were partially
published in English under the title The Relevance of Science: Cre-
ation and Cosmogony [] and in German as Die Tragweite der
Wissenschaft [] . The peculiarity of the Gifford Lectures was
that they were designed to promote and spread the study of “natural
theology”; that is, the knowledge of God through the research of

Hamburg am . November , Im Selbstverlag der Universität Hamburg, , pp. –.
. Hans B, “Technik und Wahrheit” (TuW ).
. Letter from Weizsäcker to Blumenberg, dated December ,  (DLA Marbach).
. Edited in Helmut K and Franz W (eds.), Die Philosophie und die Frage nach
dem Fortschritt (VII. Deutscher Kongress für Philosophie, Münster, ), Pustet, München, pp.
–.
. « Ich glaube, daß ich von ihm den Terminus Säkularisierung gelernt habe ». Letter
from Weizsäcker to Blumenberg dated December   (DLA Marbach).
. About Weizsäcker’s opinions on secularization see Dieter H, Carl Friedrich von
Weizsäcker, op. cit., pp.  ff.
. Carl F. v. W, The Relevance of Science: Creation and Cosmogony, Gifford Lectures
–, Harper and Row, New York and Evanston, . This text includes ten lectures: .
Science and the Modern World; . Cosmogonical Myths; . Creation in the Old Testament; .
Greek Philosophy and Cosmogony; . Christianity and History; . Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo;
. Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Kant; . The Evolution of Life; . Modern Astronomy; . What
is Secularization?
. Carl F. v. W, Die Tragweite der Wissenschaft, Hirzel, Stuttgart, . The full
edition containing both conference series is dated : mit dem bisher unveröffentlichten
. Teil in autorisierter Übersetzung und mit einem neuen Vorwort des Verfassers. There is
also a  edition. A review of this work can be found in Dieter H, Carl Friedrich von
Weizsäcker. op. cit., pp. –; D. Hattrup himself has produced a sequel in his Die Tragweite
der Wissenschaft. Kölner Vorträge, Paderborn, , pp. –.
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

nature. Weizsäcker’s Christian confession that permeated the pages

of The Relevance of Science insidiously reproduced, according to Blu-
menberg, the theological misunderstanding of modernity, which he
would so ardently fight in Die Legitimität der Neuzeit. In this regard,
for Blumenberg, as in the case of Carl Schmitt, Weizsäcker’s book
was another canonical example of hermeneutical misunderstanding
connected to the concept of secularization . Weizsäcker’s case was
aggravated further by his naïve approach to such historically complex
issues as the creation of myth, Greek philosophy, modern astronomy
and the notion of “secularization”.
In a substantial letter from Blumenberg to Weizsäcker on April 
, he anticipated some of the topics that would later constitute Die
Legitimität der Neuzeit, such as the reoccupation thesis, the modern
self–affirmation against theological absolutism and eschatology. In
Die Legitimität der Neuzeit, Blumenberg quoted Weizsäcker several
times to illustrate precisely the position he addressed his criticism
to: « The modern world can largely be understood as the result of a
secularization of Christianity » .
In this context I am particularly interested in the broad reference
to Weizsäcker’s discovery of carbon cycle and the exhaustibility of
the energetic processes in the cosmos. Indeed, in Die Legitimität der
Neuzeit, Blumenberg provides an anecdote of a bitter dispute be-
tween Weizsäcker and Walther Nernst [–] concerning the
finite age of the world, which he detailled in The Relevance of Science,
the very lecture that Weizsäcker had devoted to contemporary as-
tronomy. In this lecture Weizsäcker reviewed the main astronomical
findings of the time, such as the discovery of the expanding Universe,
the internal dynamics of galaxies, redshift, the stellar nucleosynthesis
of chemical elements, and the Big Bang theory . More specifically,
Weizsäcker also recounted the anecdote of his disagreement with

. Alberto F, “La destrucción blumenberguiana de las comprensiones teológicas

de la Modernidad”, ÉNDOXA: Series Filosóficas, n.º , Madrid, , pp. –; on the role
played by the notion of “cosmos”, see Die Legitimität der Neuzeit (LdN –, –).
. Carl F. v. W, Die Tragweite der Wissenschaft, op. cit., p. , quoted by H.
Blumenberg (LdN , ).
. “Exploding bomb–shell”, ibid., p. . Weizsäcker also addressed the issue of the
beginning of the Universe and the possibility of a cyclic Universe: « I think there are good
reasons for thinking that there are no strictly periodic solutions to the cosmological problem.
These reasons are connected with the second law of thermodynamics, which I have discussed
at length in my History of Nature [Die Geschichte der Natur] ». Ibid., p. .
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

Walther Nernst apropos his commentary on Fred Hoyle’s Steady

State Theory and the processes of the spontaneous creation of matter
postulated by this theory, particularly in relation to the problem of
the age of the sun and of the Universe:
In  when I was a young theoretical physicist in Berlin, I gave a paper in
the Physikalische Kolloquium of the University of Berlin on the transmutation
of elements in the sun. I had then just devised a particular nuclear reaction
chain that could serve as source of energy for the sun. It was the so–called
carbon cycle which was found independently and worked out in detail
far more precisely by Bethe in the same year; from our present point of
view it is the right type of reaction but not the one that actually plays the
main rôle in the sun. In any case I was quite proud of my discovery and
in order to show its plausibility I stressed the point that it gave the sun
a possible age which would fit in very well with the age of the Universe
defined by redshift, which at that time was a rather recent idea. On this
point, however, I met the violent opposition of the famous physico–chemist
Walther Nernst who belonged to an older generation and who then held
the Chair of Physics in the university. He said the view that there might
be an age of the Universe was not science. At first I did not understand
him. He explained that the infinite duration of time was a basic element
of all scientific thought and to deny this would mean to betray the very
foundations of science. I was quite surprised by this idea and ventured the
objection that it was scientific to form hypotheses according to the hints
given by experience, and that the idea of an age of the Universe was such
a hypothesis. He retorted that we could not form a scientific hypothesis
which contradicted the very foundations of science. He was just angry and
thus the discussion, which was continued in his private study, could not lead
to any result; Professor F. Debye in whose institute I was then working and
who had accompanied us to Nernst’s room finished it by the Salomonic
remark: « Look, Herr Geheimrat. Dr. von Weizsäcker is interested in the
particular problem of the energy sources of the sun, and you are intereseted
in the problem of the Universe as a whole; thus there is no contradiction
between your views. Give him time. He is a young man, and if you are right,
he will come to share your views in the end ». Thus we still arrived home in
time for dinner. What impressed me about Nernst was not his arguments,
in which I am afraid I still think there was no substance; what impressed
me was his anger. Why was he angry?

Blumenberg’s summary is as follows:

Thus, Newton would not have understood why the Berlin physicist Walter

. W, The Relevance of Science, op. cit. pp. –. See also Helge K, Matter
and Spirit in the Universe: Preludes to Modern Cosmology, Imperial College Press, London, , p.
; Helge K and James M. O, The Weight of the Vacuum: A Scientific History of Dark
Energy, Springer, New York,  pp. –.
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

Nernst became irate at the idea, proposed to him by the young physicist
Weizsäcker, that for reasons to do with energy the world might have only a
finite duration. Weizsäcker interpreted the physicist’s ire as the expression of
his alarm « in the face of the thought that this world might come to an end ».
Absolute time, differently than for Newton, had become a characteristic of
the worid itself. Weizsäcker sees in this experience evidence of a « deeply
irrational trait of scientism »: For Nernst the world had « taken the place
of God, and it was blasphemy to deny it God’s attributes ». This was a sort
of prototypical experience of the evidence of the concept of secularization:
Weizsäcker noticed here for the first time that « scientism contained an
element that I now would call the secularization of Christian religion ».
The reported scene took place in , when Weizsäcker the theoretical
physicist had discovered the “carbon cycle” as the source of the energy
of the stars; the exhaustibility of the energetic processes in the cosmos
immediately presented itself to him as an obstacle to the infinite nature
of the world and as an authoritative standpoint from which to criticize a
“secularized” science whose result had been that in the “frame of mind”
of the physicist of the previous generation « the everlasting Universe had
taken the place both of the eternal God and of the immortal soul ». As a
biographical hypothesis, this cannot very well be denied. However, when
Nernst, according to Weizsäcker’s report, objected that the idea of the
Universe having a finite duration was no sort of natural science because the
infinite duration of time was a fundamental element of scientific thought, he
did not need to secularize anything Christian for this purpose. He needed
only to have read Aristotle [. . . ]. Aristotle too would have become irate
at the idea of the end of the world because that would involve what he
regarded as the self–contradictory and consequently unthinkable end of
time. Newton was able to think differently on this subject because for him
the end of the world did not carry with it the end of absolute time, which
was independent of the world (LdN –, ).

Blumenberg sent to Weizsäcker a copy of his book Die Legitimität

der Neuzeit , and received a very short letter of thanks dated January
  . Weizsäcker also received a copy of Blumenberg’s edition of

. In this passage, Blumenberg made reference to his paper “Die kopernikanische Konse-
quenz für den Zeitbegriff ”, Coloquia Copernicana, I, Varsovia, , pp. –. On this topic, see
also Die Genesis der kopernikanischen Welt [] (GkW).
. On Die Legitimität der Neuzeit mailing list, see A. F, Das Überleben der Übergänge, op.
cit., pp. –, footnote .
. « Die “Legitimität der Neuzeit” ist bei mir eingetroffen und mahnt mich, die neuzeitliche
Hektik des Semesterbetriebs einzuschränken, damit ich zur Muße des Lebens zurückfinde. So
bleibt mir zunächst nur der Dank ohne eine sachliche Stellungnahme. ich denke immer noch, es
wäre schon, einmal zu einem mündlichen Gespräch über die Sachen zu kommen ». Letter from
Weizsäcker to Blumenberg dated January   (DLA Marbach).
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

the writings of Galileo . Nevertheless, although Weizsäcker appeared

in the mailing list prepared by Blumenberg on the occasion of the pub-
lication of Die Genesis der kopernikanischen Welt [] , the end of the
epistolary exchange arrived with a brief letter dictated to Weizsäcker’s
secretary and dated July  , in which he laconically thanked to
Blumenberg for sending him what I believe is “Wirklichkeitsbegriff und
Staatstheorie” [] (WbS –) . It seems that from that point their
relationship was henceforth interrupted and would not be resumed.
The final scientist of this period that I want to briefly discuss is
Pascual Jordan [–]. Jordan studied mathematics, physics and
zoology at the Technische Hochschule in Hannover and the University
of Göttingen, where he studied with mathematicians David Hilbert
and Richard Courant and physicists Werner Heisenberg and Max Born.
Under the supervision of the latter he obtained his Doctorate in .
During those years he also worked with Born and Heisenberg in a
famous series of papers on matrix quantum mechanics. In spite of his
pioneering contributions to the mathematical formulation of the then
nascent quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, I shall instead
highlight his works on cosmology and astrophysics.
Jordan’s interest in cosmology dates back to the late ‘s and
the years immediately preceding the Second World War . Jordan
suggested a heterodox theory inspired by the British cosmological
relativistic tradition, a view closely related to Eddington’s and Dirac’s
controversial cosmological proposals . Jordan’s cosmology com-

. Galileo G, Sidereus Nuncius (Nachricht von neuen Sternen). Dialog über die Weltsysteme
(Auswahl). Vermessung der Höhle Dantes. Marginalien zu Tasso. Insel, Frankfurt am Main, .
Edited, with an introductory study by H. B: « Das Fernrohr und die Ohnmacht der
Wahrheit » (FuO –). In the letter from Weizsäcker to Blumenberg dated December   (DLA
Marbach): « Die freundliche Zusendung Ihrer Ausgabe der Schriften von Galilei gibt mir einen
willkommenen Anlaß, Ihnen ein paar Zeilen zu schreiben ».
. A. F, Das Überleben der Übergänge, op. cit., pp. –, footnote .
. See also the letter from Weizsäcker to Blumenberg dated July   (DLA Marbach):
« Ihre Überlegungen zur politischen Theorie ausführlicher unterhalten ».
. See particularly P. J, “Zur empirischen Kosmologie”, Die Naturwissenschaften, ,
, pp. –; and “Bemerkungen zur Kosmologie”, Annalen der Physik, , , pp. –.
. H. K, “From Quantum Theory to Cosmology: Pascual Jordan and ‘World
Physics’”, in: Pascual Jordan (–). Mainzer Symposium zum . Geburtstag, Max Plack Insti-
tute for the History of Science, preprint , pp. –; in the p. : In , in his important
monograph Schwerkraft und Weltall, he could look back on the past  years and conclude, largely
rightly: « I am the only one who has been ready to take Dirac’s world model seriously, which
even its originator has partly abandoned, and to reconsider its more precise fomulation ». He
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

bined Eddington’s concept of a finite Universe and its expansion

with what Jordan himself called the “Dirac’s hypothesis” [“Der Dirac-
sche Gedanke”]; that is, the variation over time of the gravitational
constant . He also adopted James Jeans’ and Dirac’s idea of a
spontaneous creation of matter , not in the manner of Dirac’s —
as a soft and homogeneous production of hydrogen atoms in the
deep Universe — but rather according to the stance of Albrecht Un-
söld , postulating that violent and spectacular supernova explosions
were presumably responsible for the generation of stars, nebulae
and new chemical elements by following the Alpher–Bethe–Gamow

added, « I must admit that in this idea of Dirac’s, I recognize one of the great insights of our
time and consider it an important task to develop it further ». On Jordan’s cosmology, see
Helge K, Matter and Spirit in the Universe, op. cit., pp. –; and Jacques M–P,
Cosmologie du XXe siècle, op. cit., pp.  ff.
. Jacques M–P, Cosmologie du XXe siècle, op. cit., p. : “[Jordan] « avait
présenté l’hypothèse de l’Univers fini comme seule capable de résoudre la paradoxe d’Olbers ».
. In one of the newspaper articles preserved in Blumenberg’s Nachlass the discussion of
the constants of nature was mentioned, with specific reference to the question of Dirac and
the decrease of gravity over time: K. R, “Ungelöstes Rätsel Kosmos. Fortschritte der
Astronomie – neue Fragen / Spekulationen über das Weltall”, FAZ,  November  (DLA
Marbach). On Jordan and the constants of nature see Helge K, Higher Speculations Grand
Theories and Failed Revolutions in Physics and Cosmology, Oxford University Press, , chap.
 “Varying Constants of Nature”, pp. –; see also Jacques M–P, Cosmologie
du XXe siècle, op. cit., pp.  ff: « [. . . ] entre  et  d’autres auteurs — suivant encore
une idée d’Eddington, à leur yeux mal exploitée par son inventeur — P.A.M. Dirac, P. Jordan,
abordèrent le problème cosmologique en prenant comme un fait fondamental l’existence de
relations remarquables et particulièrement simples entre toutes les constantes numériques de
la Physique ».
. Jacques M–P, Cosmologie du XXe siècle, op. cit., p. , footnote .
. It was explained by Max Born thusly: « The same strange conclusion has, during
recent years, been formulated by Prof. Pascual Jordan, but with an important modification,
whereby the conservation law is not violated. This is achieved by taking account of the loss
of gravitational energy connected with the creation of particles ». Max B, “Introduction”,
Nature, , , p. .
. « Seit zehn Jahren habe ich, einen Gedanken Unsölds aufgreifend und radikalisierend,
die Vorstellung ausgeführt, daß die Supernovae I neugeborene Sterne seien »: Pascual J,
Schwerkraft und Weltall. Grundlagen der theoretischen Kosmologie [], Zweitere, erweiterte
Auflage. Bearbeitet unter Mitwirkkung von E. Schücking, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braun-
schweig, , p. . The chapter V of the third book is devoted to the creation of matter,
supernovae, and the theory of star formation and chemical elements: . Buch, Die Hypothese
der Materieerzeugung, Kapitel V: “Embryonale Sterne”, pp. –; §  “Die Hypothese der
Sterngeburten”.
. H. K, “From Quantum Theory to Cosmology”, op. cit., p. .
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

scheme and Bethe–Weizsäcker’s carbon cycle .

After the Second World War, Jordan published several books
and papers in which he widely expanded his ideas on cosmology
and astrophysics. These included Die Herkunft der Sterne [] ,
Schwerkraft und Weltall [] , Atom und Weltall [] and Über
die Wolkenhülle der Venus [] as well as a paper published by
Nature [] in which he presented his ideas to an English–speaking
audience public , and a paper that marks the encounter with the
steady state theory, in that time also in development .
Jordan’s affinities with Weizsäcker go beyond the creation of

. « In der Materie der Supernova bei de Explosion eine Neubildung von Elementen nach
dem Schema Alpher–Bethe–Gamow stattgefunden hat. Pascual J, Schwerkraft und Weltall,
op. cit., p. . See also Pascual J, Atom und Weltall. Einführung in den Gedankeninhalt
der modernen Physik, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, , especially, “Kernphysik und
kosmische Geschichte”, pp. –.
. Pascual J, Schwerkraft und Weltall, op. cit., pp.  ff.
. P. J, “Über die Entstehung der Sterne”, Die Naturwissenschaften, , , pp.
–.
. P. J, Die Herkunft der Sterne, Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart, .
In this brief essay Jordan summarized the essence of his theory of the formation of stars, novae,
supernovae and the creation of matter.
. P. J, Schwerkraft und Weltall, op. cit.
. P. J, Atom und Weltall: Einführung in den Gedankeninhalt der modernen Physik, (.
Auflage, zugleich . neugest. u. erw. Auflage d. Physik des . Jahrhunderts) Friedr. Vieweg &
Sohn, Braunschweig, , especially, “Kernphysik und kosmische Geschichte”, pp. –.
. P. J, Über die Wolkenhülle der Venus, Steiner, Wiesbaden, .
. P. J, “Formation of stars and development of the Universe”, Nature, , , pp.
–.
. H. K, “From Quantum Theory to Cosmology”, op. cit., p. : « [Jordan] judged
the steady–state theory in a favourable light and tended to emphasize its resemblance to his
own theory. Apparently he hoped that his old view of matter creation might now receive
the serious attention that it deserved. On the other hand, the steady–state theorists would
have nothing to do with Jordan’s theory and did their best either to ignore or stress the
dissimilarities, such as Gold did in a sharp reply to Jodan’s  [English] paper ». See also
Jacques M–P, Cosmologie du XXe siècle, op. cit., p. : in Hermann Bondi’s and
Thomas Gold’s cases the « creation continue et uniforme dans tout l’espace, et non, comme
dans la théorie de Jordan, par processus spasmodiques et strictement localisés ». In one of the
articles preserved in Blumenberg’s Nachlass was mentioned the idea, linked to Hoyle, that
the explosion of the quasar is the sign that it is producing a new act of creation of matter:
[unknown author], “Welt–Enstehung. Schwarzes Loch”, Der Spiegel, Nr. , , S.  (DLA
Marbach).
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

chemical elements inside stars or even their shared religious and

political commitments. Jordan also suggested a cosmology which
described the formation of the Earth and the phenomenon of con-
tinental drift within the hypothesis of a progressive decrease of the
gravitational constant over the history of the Universe. In Schwerkraft
und Weltall, Jordan discussed Weizsäcker’s theory of planet forma-
tion and outlined the geological consequences of this hypothesis.
In Die Expansion der Erde [] he suggested that Earth may have
increased in size to its current size from an initial field of far smaller
diameter. However, both his cosmogony and his cosmology were
plagued by anomalies, including an estimate of the age of the Uni-
verse that was less than that of the Earth itself. Jordan proposed a
closed model of the Universe, uniformly expanding at the speed of
light . However, the creation of matter would have involved a mo-
dification to the field equations of the general theory of relativity, a
problem that the proponents of the kinematic cosmology and steady
state theory would also encounter . Jordan was one of the first
scientists to accept a version of the Big Bang theory, at a time when
this theory was little more than speculation .

. Jacques M–P, Cosmologie du XXe siècle, op. cit., pp. –.
. Der Naturwissenschaftler vor der religiösen Frage: Abbruch einer Mauer [], . Auflage,
Stalling, Oldenburg/Hamburg, ; Schöpfung und Geheimnis, Stalling, Oldenburg/Hamburg,
.
. P. J, Schwerkraft und Weltall, op. cit., p. .
. P. J, Die Expansion der Erde: Folgerungen aus der Diracschen Gravitationshypothese,
Friedrich Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, . See also H. Kragh, Higher Speculations, op. cit.,
p. , footnote .
. See H. K, “From Quantum Theory to Cosmology”, op. cit., p. : « Jordan
believed that the Universe had come into existence some ten billion years ago, but not in an
explosive event, such as in Lemaître’s scenario, for initially there was no matter in the Universe
– no fireworks to explode. Matter, he explained was formed along with the expansion ».
. Ibid., p. .
. Ibid, p. : « Jordan was one of the very first scientists before the Second World War
to subscribe to a version of the big–bang Universe, an idea which in the s was generally
considered highly speculative, if not a flight of fancy, a jeu d’esprit. Jordan’s world model was
clearly inspired by Lemaître’s fireworks model of , and like his Belgian source it was finite
in space as well in time. However, contrary to Lemaître (but following Dirac), Jordan preferred
to put the cosmological constant equal to zero. Although Jordan was strongly influenced by
Dirac, he ended up with a world model that differed in important respects from that of his
British colleague: Whereas Dirac argued in  from the Large Number Hypothesis that
space was flat and infinite, according to Jordan it was finite, that is, with a positive space
curvature [. . . ]. Jordan’s picture of the creation of the material Universe also differed from the
  Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

As I had anticipated, Blumenberg met Jordan in the context of the

Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur zu Mainz. In addition to
the ceremony marking Blumenberg’s appointment as an Ordinary
Member, Jordan also chaired the tribute to Erich Rothacker upon his
death on August   in which Blumenberg delivered the eulogy
(Nruf –) . In Blumenberg’s Nachlass there is an extensive report
from a local newspaper on the Akademie, which includes a brief article
by Jordan on radio astronomy . As such, the brilliant beginning of
Die Genesis der kopernikanischen Welt [] on the cosmic habitat is
not in the least bit surprising. No doubt Blumenberg’s membership
in a scientific institution served as a stimulus for further work in
the history of modern science and astronomy. However, considering
Jordan’s personality and his commitment to the Nazi party , a fully
sympathetic relationship with Blumenberg cannot be assumed .
In fact, Blumenberg’s Nachlass also includes an article published
in Der Spiegel [], entitled “Pascual Jordan. Überall Front” [“From
all fronts”], which echoed a controversy aroused by an invitation
made to Jordan by the Evangelisch–Kirchlichen Vereins der Schweiz in
late  to speak in Zürich about God and theoretical physics . The

theory that George Gamow and his collaborators began to develop at the same time; a theory
that in a qualitative sense relied on Lemaître’s and which eventually would become accepted
as the basis of the correct theory of the early Universe. [. . . ] After the standard big–bang
model had been firmly established in the s, the Haas–Jordan idea of a Universe with
zero net energy came to play an important role in the first generation of quantum creation
cosmologies that eventually led to the modern view of the inflationary Universe ». For more
on Jordan’s review of Hubble’s findings, see Schwerkraft und Weltall, op. cit., pp.  ff; and his
Atom und Weltall, op. cit. pp.  ff: « Eine Entdeckung des amerikanischen Astronomen Hubble
läßt uns nun erkennen, daß diese zahllosen Spiralnebel im Begriff sind, in einer gewaltigen
“Fluchtbewegung” auseinander zu laufen und sich immer weiter zu trennen ».
. Further details in A. F, “‘Das Überleben der Übergänge’”, op. cit., p. .
. Pascual J, “Radio–Astronomie”, Rhein–Main–Nahe,  Februar , S.  (DLA
Marbach).
. D. H y M. W, “Der gute Nazi: Pascual Jordan und das Dritte Reich”,
Pascual Jordan (–). Mainzer Symposium zum . Geburtstag, Max Plack Institute for the
History of Science, preprint , pp. –.
. Blumenberg’s remarks on Jordan’s cosmology in Die Vollzähligkeit der Sterne (VS 
and –).
. [Unknown author], “Pascual Jordan. Überall Front”, Der Spiegel, , , p. : « Ende
November vergangenen Jahres sollte Jordan, der mit Nobelpreisträger Werner Heisenberg
und dem Göttinger Physiker Max Born zu den Vätern der Quantenmechanik gehört, auf
Einladung des Evangelisch–Kirchlichen Vereins der Schweiz in Zürich einen Vortrag über
“Naturwissenschaften und christlicher Glaube” halten. Jordans vor drei Jahren erschienenes
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

pastor and Swiss scientist Heini Gränicher denounced the “‘deep

relationship’ between the ‘spiritual attitude’ of this scholar and Na-
tional Socialism” , initiating a controversy that transcended the Ger-
man and Swiss press. Der Spiegel accompanied his article — where
Weizsäcker was mentioned as signatory of the “Göttinger Mani-
festo” — with a photograph of Jordan alongside the following cap-
tion: « Gottforscher Jordan. Wille zur Macht » [« Jordan, researcher of
God. Will to power »].

.. Ad astra sine asperibus

Most of the newspaper articles on astronomy and cosmology pre-

served in Blumenberg’s Nachlass are excerpted from the German
newspapers Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) and ZEIT. Only a few
come from newspapers and magazines such as the Swiss Neue Züricher
Zeitung (NNZ), the French L’Express or the German Der Spiegel.
The collection of materials taken from the FAZ includes articles
written in the late ‘s and ‘s by the scholars Werner Braunbek
[–] and Hans Jörg Fahr [b.]. The former was professor
of theoretical physics at the Technische Hochschule Stuttgart and the
Universität Tübingen and published a number of popular books on
physics, such as Vom Lichtstrahl zum Neutrino. Eine moderne Strahlen-
physik für alle [], Wenn selbst Atome einfrieren — Physik der tiefsten
Temperaturen [] and Die unheimliche Wachstumsformel [] .
Hans Jörg Fahr, on the other hand, was professor of astrophysics in

Buch Der Naturwissenschaftler vor der religiösen Frage hatte die Kirchenmänner auf ihn aufmerk-
sam gemacht ».
. « Tiefe Verwandtschaft’ zwischen der “seelischen Haltung” des Gelehrten und dem
Nationalsozialismus », ibid. «  entdeckte er in seinem Buch Die Physik des . Jahrhunderts
— im Exemplar der Hamburger Staatsbibliothek sind zahlreiche Seiten überklebt — den Führer
Adolf Hitler in der Natur. Im mikrophysikalischen Steuerungszentrum der Zellen sah Jordan
das Prinzip “der autoritären Führung” in der gesamten Natur verwirklicht ». Ibid.
. « Im Jahre  das ‘Göttinger Manifest’  bekannter Atomwissenschaftler, wie Otto
Hahn, Werner Heisenberg und Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, gegen eine Atombewaffnung
der Bundeswehr als Ausdruck schlichter “Unkenntnis der weitpolitischen Lage” verworfen
hatte ». Ibid.
. Werner B, Vom Lichtstrahl zum Neutrino. Eine moderne Strahlenphysik für alle,
Kosmos, Stuttgart, ; Wenn selbst Atome einfrieren — Physik der tiefsten Temperaturen, Kosmos,
Stuttgart, ; Die unheimliche Wachstumsformel [], List Paul Verlag, , among other
books.
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

the Institut für Astrophysik und Extraterrestrische Forschung at the Uni-

versität Bonn and was also the author of several books on astronomy
and cosmology aimed at the general public, such as Die zehn fetten
Jahre der Weltraumforschung [] and Raumzeitdenken, Zwangsvorstel-
lung Unendlichkeit [] . The ‘s and ‘s also saw numerous
articles published by Robert Gerwin –a nuclear energy specialist
and Press Chief at the Max Planck Gesellschaft — Kurt Rudzinski
[b.] and Hans Zettler [d.], all of whom were scientific
editors at the FAZ.
Moreover, as recently as the ‘s, there were many articles writ-
ten by Günter Paul [b.], Doctor in Physics at the Universität Bonn,
expert in astronomy and space exploration, member of the editorial
board of the “Natur und Wissenschaft” section of the FAZ and author
of the books Die dritte Entdeckung der Erde [], Unsere Nachbarn im
Weltall [] and Aufmarsch im Weltall [] .
From ZEIT, we can find numerous articles by Günter Haaf [b.],
a science journalist and ZEIT science editor between  and ,

. Hans Jörg F, Die zehn fetten Jahre der Weltraumforschung, Wissenschaftliche Buchge-
sellschaft, Darmstadt, ; Raumzeitdenken, Zwangsvorstellung Unendlichkeit, Fromm Druckhaus
A, . Among his publications: Zeit und kosmische Ordnung, Carl Hanser, ; Universum ohne
Urknall. Kosmologie in der Kontroverse, Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, ; and Der Urknall
kommt zu Fall. Kosmologie im Umbruch, Franckh Kosmos, Suttgart, .
. Robert G, Die Welt — Energieperspektive. Analyse bis zum Jahr , (Vorgelegt von
der Max Planck Gesellschaft nach dem IIASA — Forschungsbericht “Energy in a finite world”),
Goldmann Sachbuch, ; So ist das mit der Kernenergie, Econ, München, . Prometheus wird
nicht sterben. Energie für heute und morgen, Econ, München, . He is also the author of a book
on Guillermo Marconi: Marconi. Ein Erfinderleben in unserer Zeit, Oppermann, .
. Manfred K, “Geschichte der Atomenergie. Aufbruch ins Wunderland”, ZEIT,
. September, : « Robert Gerwin, später Pressereferent der Max–Planck–Gesellschaft
und ebenfalls strammer Verfechter der Atomkraft, unterstützt den Vorschlag sowjetischer
Wissenschaftler, die strahlenden Hinterlassenschaften per Rakete ins All zu schießen. Dies
sei der »zweifellos zuverlässigste Weg«, schreibt er im Februar . Und noch  glaubt
der Physiker Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker nach einem Besuch im Kernforschungszentrum
Karlsruhe, dass der gesamte Atommüll des Jahres  »in einen Kasten« passe. Wenn man
den »gut versiegelt, verschließt und in ein Bergwerk steckt, dann wird man hoffen können, daß
man das Problem gelöst hat ».
. Further details on K. Rudzinski in [unknown author], “Murren und Mauscheln”, Der
Spiegel , , pp. –.
. Further details on H. Zettler in the obituary FAZ, .., Nr. , S. .
. Günter P, Die dritte Entdeckung der Erde, Econ, München, ; Unsere Nachbarn im
Weltall. Auf der Suche nach außerirdischen Intelligenzen, Econ, München, ; and Aufmarsch im
Weltall. Die Kriege der Zukunft werden im Weltall entschieden, Keil, Bonn, .
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

as well as the mathematician Thomas von Randow [–] ,

author of popular books such as Der Mensch und die Energie. Von den
Pyramiden bis zur Kernspaltung [] . There are also some articles
by Adalbert Bärwolf [–], one of the great German chroniclers
of space exploration , scientific editor and historian of techno-
logy ; and by Joachim W. Ekrutt, research scientist and director of
the Hamburg Planetarium between  and  and contributor to
the magazine Stern .
I should also mention a few articles from the early ‘s by science
writer Hoimar von Ditfurth [–] and the ‘s by the physicist
Rainer Kayser [b.]. In other newspapers and magazines, such as
Der Spiegel, the articles are either anonymous or written by isolated
authors. In other cases, what you can find are mere cuttings in which
only the title and body text are made available.
As already mentioned, these articles demonstrate the prolifera-
tion of studies and research in the fields of astronomy and astro-
physics. More specifically, they show scientific results derived from
successive improvements in observational technologies and from the
launching of artificial satellites and space telescopes . Which ulti-

. Further details in the obituary by Karsten Polke–M, “Thomas von Randow –
Visionär seines Fachs”, ZEIT,  Juli . On Randow see also H. B (VS ).
. Thomas von R, Der Mensch und die Energie. Von den Pyramiden bis zur Kernspaltung,
Delphin, Zürich, .
. A. B, Brennschluß– Rendezvous mit dem Mond. Ein Erlebnisbericht der amerikanis-
chen Raumfahrt mit  Farbtafeln, Ullstein Buchverlag, ; Es begann in Peenemünde. Bauten im
Weltraum, Heitkamp, ; Die Marsfabrik: Aufbruch zum roten Planeten, Herbig Verlag, München,
.
. Klaus M, “Adalbert Bärwolf. Verdienstvoller Reporter der Wissenschaft gestor-
ben”, ZEIT, ...
. A. B, Die Geheimfabrik: Amerikas Sieg im Technologischen Krieg, Herbig Verlag,
München, .
. To this journal belongs J. W. Ekrutt’s article preserved in Blumenberg’s Nachlass:
“Jupiter lässt Grüssen”, Stern, pp. –. Ekrutt also wrote, among others, the following
books:  Jahre Zeitberechnung – Der Kalender im Wandel der Zeit, Kosmos Bibliothek, ;
Die Kleinen Planeten. Planetoide und ihre Entdeckungsgeschichte, Kosmos Verlag, ; Die Sonne.
Die Erforschung des kosmischen Feuers, Gruner & Jahr, ; Sterne und Planeten. Bestimmen.
Kennenlernen. Erleben, Gräfe & Unzer, .
. Anatol J, “Das Weltall ist ganz anders. Amerikanischer Super–Satellit OAO
brachte überraschende Ergebnisse”, ZEIT, . Mai , Nr. , S.  (DLA Marbach); [un-
known author], “Zu Weihnachten ein künstlicher Komet”, FAZ,  Dezember  (DLA
Marbach); [unknown author], “Hubbles bislang tiefster Blick ins All. Weltraumteleskop nahm
das schwache Licht von  Galaxien auf ”, [no date nor identified source]. The article in-
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

mately made previously unexplored regions of the electromagnetic

spectrum available for investigation . In this respect, the articles
preserved in Blumenberg’s Nachlass bear witness to the move from
optical astronomy , based on the visible light spectrum that reaches
the surface of the Earth, to the “new astronomies” — both elec-
tromagnetic and non–electromagnetic — , which are nowadays
used in high–energy astrophysics. The opening up of the electromag-
netic spectrum revealed spectacular and unexpected astronomical
phenomena such as radio galaxies, quasars, pulsars, neutron stars
or black holes . The ability to make observations from above the

cludes a photograph with the following caption: « Zwei Teilbilder des Himmelsfeldes, in
dem das Hubble–Weltraumteleskop Galaxien in zehn Milliarden Lichtjahren Entfernung
entdeckte ». This article also makes reference to the famous Cosmic Background Explorer
(COBE), launched in .
. Ester A, “Research on Solar Activity in the Last  Years: The Space Era”,
in: C. C and A. M (eds.), Astronomy and Astrophysics in Italy in the Second Half
of the XX Century, Italian Physical Society, Bologna, , p. : “The pioneering discoveries
of the ultraviolet and X–ray radiation from astrophysical sources date back to the period
immediately following the Second World War when military rockets also became used for
scientific purposes to explore the Universe out of the ozone layer of the Earth atmosphere”.
. « Until , astronomy meant optical astronomy », Malcolm L, The Cosmic
Century, op. cit. p. .
. M. L, The Cosmic Century, op. cit., chap. , “The opening up of the electromag-
netic spectrum and the new astronomies”, pp. –.
. Hans Z, “Haben die Neutrinos eine Masse?. Stetige Umwandlung zwischen
verschiedenen Formen / Konsequenzen für die Astrophysik?”, FAZ, .. (DLA Marbach).
This article, on the cosmological significance of neutrinos and the expansion and/or contrac-
tion of the Universe, was highlighted by Blumenberg. For instance, the following passages:
« Unterliegen nur der sogenannten “schwachen” Kraft; können selbst den Erdball praktisch un-
behindert durchdringen; Als Wolfgang Pauli  das Neutrino postulierte, war er überzeugt,
daß man es nie finden werde ». On neutrinos it is also devoted H. J. F, “Die Neutrinos
und die ‘weißen Zwerge’. Die Astronomie erschießt die Möglichkeit eines neuen Elemen-
tarprozesses”, FAZ, (DLA Marbach). On Joseph Weber and gravitational wave astronomy, see
[unknown author], “Schwerkraft. Äußerst wild”, Der Spiegel, Nr. , , S.  (DLA Marbach);
Robert G, “Gravitationswellen aus dem Milchstraßenzentrum”, op. cit.; and Joël de
Rosnay’s interview with Hubert Reeves, “Enquête sur nos origines. L’univers, avec Hubert
Reeves”, L’Express,  Août , pp. – (DLA Marbach).
. Thomas von R, “Das Blinken erschüttert die Pulsar–Theorie”, [ZEIT?] . März
 (DLA Marbach); F. B., “Pulsare – Quelle der kosmischen Strahlung? Eine neue Deutung
der Ursache der Pulsarwirkung”, FAZ, . Februar , Nr.  (DLA Marbach); H. J. F,
“Spinare wirken wie Antimasse. Die Relativitätstheorie und die schnell rotierenden Neutron-
sterne”, [FAZ?], .. (DLA Marbach); [unknown author], “Welt–Enstehung. Schwarzes
Loch”, Der Spiegel, Nr. , , S.  (DLA Marbach); Rainer K, “Zwerg statt Monster.
Das ‘Schwarze Loch’ im Zentrum der Milchstraße ist kleiner als angenommen”, ZEIT [?]
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

atmosphere — preventing the absorption of radiation in the upper

layers of Earth’s atmosphere — opened entirely new domains for
astrophysical and cosmological research and provided an even more
complex and wider view of the Universe .The newspaper articles
collected in Blumenberg’s Nachlass describe the major astronomi-
cal discoveries of the ‘s, ‘s and ‘s, variously associated with
the emergence of radio astronomy , gamma ray and X–ray as-
tronomies , infrared and ultraviolet astronomies .

/ (DLA Marbach).

. See M. L, The Cosmic Century, op. cit., pp.  ff. Thus, it is described by K.
Rudzinski: « Mit der Radioastronomie hat sich erstmals in der Geschichte der Menschheit
eine neue Tür zum Universum geöffnet [. . . ] ganz neuartige Forschungsobjekte [. . . ] wie die
“Röntgenstrahlungsquellen” », K. R, “Ungelöstes Rätsel Kosmos” Fortschritte der
Astronomie – neue Fragen / Spekulationen über das Weltall. FAZ,  November  (DLA
Marbach). In this article the connection between astronomy and nuclear physics was also
suggested.
. See also W. B, “Neue Prüfung der Allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. Am Merkur
reflektierte Radarstrahlen im Schwerefeld der Sonne”, FAZ, .. (DLA Marbach); Kurt
R, “Zweifel an der kosmischen Rotverschiebung. Absurde astronomische Konse-
quenzen aus Beobachtungen an Doppelgalaxien”, [FAZ?], . Juni , Nr. , S. – (DLA
Marbach). An overview of radio astronomy can be found in Woodruff T. S, “The entry
of radio astronomy into cosmology: radio stars and Martin Ryle’s C survey”, in: B. B
et alt., Modern Cosmology in Retrospect, op. cit., chap. , pp. –.
. Hans Z, “Astronomie mit Gammastrahlen. Pulsare, Milchstraße und Sterne als
Strahlenquellen / Erfolgreiche Messungen mit Satelliten”, FAZ, circa  (DLA Marbach);
G. P. [Günter Paul?], “Satelliten stören Gamma–Astronomie. Kernreaktoren an Bord als
Strahlungsquellen / ‘Unrechte’ Signale”, [FAZ?], .. (DLA Marbach).
. H. J. F, “Universum ohne Anti–Welt. Zuwenig heiße Röntgenstrahlung / Keine
Materiesymmetrie im Weltall”, [FAZ?] (DLA Marbach).
. Robert G, “Astronomie mit infrarotem Licht. Eine neue Galaxie nahe der Milich-
straße / Arbeiten des MPI für Astronomie an der Calar–Alto–Sternwarte”, FAZ, .. (DLA
Marbach): “Man kann im infraroten Licht auch dort noch etwas sehen”; Rainer K, “Zw-
erg statt Monster”, op. cit. See also A. P., “Zwei neue Nachbargalaxien endeckt”. Maffei I und II
in nur drei Millionen Lichtjahren Abstand / Die lokale Milchstraßen–Familie ist größer, FAZ,
.. (DLA Marbach); Robert W, “Der zehnte Planet als Geburtshelfer für Komenten.
Wandelstern in der Wolke”, ZEIT,  (DLA Marbach).
. Anatol J, “Das Weltall ist ganz anders”, op. cit.; Robert G, “Astronomie
mit Satelliten. Ultraviolett — und Gamma —Astronomie im Weltraum / Das Korona–Leuchten
des Sonnensystems”, [FAZ?], . August , Nr. , S.  (DLA Marbach). See also [unknown
author], “Hubbles bislang tiefster Blick ins All”, op. cit. According to Longair « unlike the other
new astronomical wavebands, the astrophysical objectives of ultraviolet astronomy were well
defined », M. L, The Cosmic Century, op. cit., p. .
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

Blumenberg as contemplator caeli

In my opinion, one may recognize in the journalistic reception of

these astronomical findings an “epochal threshold” and an unex-
pected revival of the contemplator caeli. The sudden “transparency”
of the sky became an object of experience that had hitherto been
completely inaccessible. The journalistic chronicles display this his-
torical shift in the astronomical experience. The Universe — the
supreme and critical object of the theoretical faculty of man and his
world — was now “present–at–hand” and available in all realms
of experience. The reception of astronomy by journalists allowed
for « an ideal of reality perception in the realm of the inaccessible
and, therefore, in ‘pure’ admiration » (LdT ). That is to say, it made
possible the restoration of the spectator mundi. With the loss of the
opacity of the sky, the revival of contemplator caeli was somehow a
necessary consequence.
As we will see in chapter , Blumenberg dealt with the history of
the contemplator caeli; to the extent that an individual looking at the
starry sky remained the most persistent figure throughout his works
on the history of astronomy. Considering the collection of journalis-
tic reports preserved in his Nachlass, the conclusion is unavoidable:
Blumenberg himself became a contemplator caeli . However, the
historical peculiarity of this contemporary contemplator caeli, the “as-
tronoetiker” (VS), as newspaper reader (and TV viewer), was the
neutralization of the persistent threat of the fall. This was a safe spec-
tator, who did not need to visit astronomical observatories, but could
instead simply wait for the arrival of the morning newspaper. The
astronoetiker had taken the place of the old Sorge with the stars and
his curiosity in celestial phenomena, albeit with the unprecedented
condition that his “Sorge des Sehens” (LdT ) did not involve an
existential counterpart in relation to the life–world and its demands.

. Emanuela M, “I pensieri astronoetici come laboratorio per un’antropologia speri-
mentale: la riflessione di Hans Blumenberg sull’impresa spaziale”, in: A F and D. G-
 (eds.), Hans Blumenberg: Nuovi paradigmi d’analisi, op. cit., p. .
. In this respect, it has been pointed out that « the astronoetiker is a late form of the
contemplator caeli: Der Astronoetiker ist eine letzte Form des contemplator caeli ». Oliver
M, Die Sorge um die Vernunft. Hans Blumenbergs phänomenologische Anthropologie, Mentis
Verlag, Paderborn , p. . See also E. M, “I pensieri astronoetici”, op. cit., p. :
« L’astronautica segna, quindi, l’emergere dell’astronoetico quale ultima figura di contemplator
caeli, osservatore del cielo [. . . ] ».
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

The Sorge with the stars is now comfortably managed through the
newspapers: ad astra sine asperibus.
From our point of view, the “astronoetical glosses” in Die Voll-
zähligkeit der Sterne [] (VS) are actually the philosophical out-
workings of Blumenberg’s interest in astronomy; a Sorge that he
kept alive for more than three decades. Blumenberg’s “glosses” are
a monument to his own admiration for the astronomical findings
of the second half of the twentieth century. These achievements
and discoveries gave renewed substance to « the formation of the
cosmic background of the history of human consciousness » as
they offered new possibilities for human self–understanding (EmS).
Consequently, we can understand Blumenberg’s astronoetics as an
exercise in the enquiry into human existence from a cosmological
perspective: « the Universe would be just one of the long and tortu-
ous roads that the man walks to get light on himself as a being with
the ability to know [. . . ] » .
Moreover, the astronoetiker as contemplator caeli also included the
telos of bourgeois utopia and its ideal of a world fully available to con-
templation. Contemporary astronomy encouraged curiosity in the
stars, while spreading aesthetic pleasures of « the beautiful truths on
the Universe » . Elective affinities between bourgeois utopia and the
“cosmological pathos” are a clear issue. For Blumenberg, within
this lies yet another crucial feature: the transposition of astronomy
into a sphere of privacy. Astronomy had not ceased to increase the
« gap between theory and life » (SdP ) insofar as a vanishing point
to the life–world was now open .
I believe that Blumenberg turned astronomy into a sphere of
privacy following a bitter incident which contains echoes of the
Thracian maid’s laughter. As such, we could perhaps refer to per

. I will discuss Blumenberg’s “astronoetics” in Chapter .

. “die Formierung des kosmischen Hintergrundes der menschlichen Bewußtseins-
geschichte” (GkW , ).
. H. B, Tempo della vita e tempo del mondo, op. cit., pp. –. Quoted by E.
M, “I pensieri astronoetici”, op. cit., p. . My translation.
. “die schönen Wahrheiten über des Weltall”. H. B, UNF –– (DLA Mar-
bach).
. “Kosmologisches Pathos” (VS XI).
. See E. M, “I pensieri astronoetici”, op. cit., pp. –: « [l’] aumento di “visibilità”
offerto dall’impresa del viaggio spaziale deriva anche dal fatto che essa consente di osservare la
terra e la condizione umana dal di fuori e da lontano ».
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

aspera ad astra, which would make the stars the legitimate source
of Sorge and astronomy as a whole into an act of self–defense or
even cosmic self–defense [“kosmische Notwehr”] . In my opinion, the
incident, — which dates back to the years of Poetik und Hermeneutik
— drove Blumenberg to abandon the aforementioned research group
of which he was one of the founding members in . In fact, he
was active within the group until , precisely the year of the
incident .
I refer here to Blumenberg’s essay “Der Sturz des Protophilosophen.
Zur Komik der reinen Theorie – anhand einer Rezeptionsgeschichte
der Thales–Anekdote” [], which he prepared for what would be
his final contribution to Poetik und Hermeneutik, as a highly–refined
culmination of his great work on the history of modern astronomy, Die
Genesis der kopernikanischen Welt [], which was just then at the point
of being finished. Many years later Blumenberg decided to further re-
work and improve “Der Sturz des Protophilosophen” — published as
Das Lachen der Thrakerin. Eine Urgeschichte der Theorie [] —, which
gives us an idea of the value that Blumenberg placed upon this text.
However, his essay was not as well received as he had expected, nor as
it most certainly deserved: « One becomes aware of the history of the
reception after any of his presentations, and then undertakes a posi-
tion on it [. . . ] » (LdT , ) . Although Blumenberg’s exchange
of letters with the founding members of Poetik und Hermeneutik
shows his progressive disenchantment with the group, the point of
no return was most certainly marked by a disagreement with the
philologist Harld Weinrich who later joined the group. Weinrich’s
response was: « Ich kann die Geschichte von Thales und der schaden-
frohen thrakischen Magd sowie die Geschichte von Erfolg dieser
Geschichte bei den Philosophen von Plato bis Heidegger nur mit
einem gewissen Unbehagen lesen, das sich stellenweise bis zu einem
Gefühl der Peinlichkeit steigert. So etwa, wenn Heidegger seine
Version der Geschichte mit der selbstgerechten Sentenz beschließt:

. “Einen Akt der Notwehr”. H. B, “Kosmische Notwehr” UNF –– (DLA
Marbach).
. H. B, “Kosmische Notwehr” UNF –– (DLA Marbach).
. See the papers on Poetik und Hermeneutik edited in Internationales Archiv für
Sozialgeschichte der deutschen Literatur, , .
. In Das Lachen der Thrakerin Blumenberg reviewed the historical reception of the anecdote
of Thales’s falling into a well while he was watching the stars. I will deal with this in Chapters 
and .
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

Und was eine rechte Dienstmagd ist, muß doch auch etwas zum
Lachen haben” (vgl. Vorlage Blumenberg). Mich irritiert hier und
andernorts die Beflissenheit, mit der diese Geschichte gerade von
denjenigen Personen weitererzählt wird, die eigentlich vom Lachen
der Magd mitbetroffen sein sollten. Welch eigenartiger Masochismus
treibt nur die Theoretiker, “das Lachhafte an der reinen Theorie”
(Blumenberg) oder die “innige Verwandtschaft zwischen dem Komis-
chen und der Theorie” (Marquard) so sorgfältig herauszupräparieren
und so nachthaltig dem Gedächtnis der Nachwelt einzuschärfen? » .
Blumenberg’s pained reply can be found at the end of Das Lachen
der Thrakerin, however, I will not go through it here. With an un-
mistakable bitterness, Blumenberg requested to Iser that his name
should not be employed again to represent Poetik und Hermeneutik .
Blumenberg, who had belonged to the « old core of former members
of Poetik und Hermeneutik » , seems to have decided definitively
to leave the group after the incident with Weinrich. More than a
mere “disappointment” , the poor reception of his work on the
history of the Thales’ anecdote was, I believe, related to this rup-
ture; an unexpected “reversal of laughter” that would henceforth
make astronomical issues an intimate intellectual sphere. In this re-
gard, Blumenberg was able to witness first hand the new chapters
of work on myth being produced by twentieth century astronomy,
but from his own personal, private sphere. As a contemplator caeli,
Blumenberg was also able to witness the astronomical reoccupation
of myth and metaphor by contemporary astronomy. The astronom-
ical and astrophysical discoveries that occurred during the second
half of the century not only allowed the survival of the myth, but

. « Wir wollen, wie es sich bie einer Forschungsgruppe für Poetik und Hermeneutik
gehört, auf die literarische Gattung achten ». Harald W, “Thales und die thrakische
Magd: allseitige Schadenfreude”, in: W. P and R. W (eds.) Poetik und
Hermeneutik. Arbeitergebnisse einer Forschungsgruppe, VII, München, , pp. –. My empha-
sis.
. « Daß meine Name nicht mehr in der Darstellung der Forschungsgruppe erschein ».
Letter from Blumenberg to Iser dated .. (DLA Marbach).
. “Mitglieder der alten Kerngruppe von Poetik und Hermeneutik”. Letter from Blumen-
berg to Iser dated .. (DLA Marbach).
. Julia W: Anfangen. “Zur Konstitutionsphase der Forschungsgruppe ‘Poetik und
Hermeneutik’”, in: Internationales Archiv für Sozialgeschichte der deutschen Literatur, , , pp.
–, footnote .
. “Die Umkehrung des Lachens – Wie man Zyniker wird” (VS –).
  Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

also led to its renewal. Through their sensational findings astronomy

and astronautics re–mythologized the cosmos. Undoubtedly, this
re–mythologization of cosmos — apart from the endowment of
mythical nomenclatures to celestial bodies — was closely linked to
both the proliferation of cosmological metaphors and the exploration
of the solar system with probes and satellites. A substantial number
of newspaper articles preserved in Blumenberg’s Nachlass, such as
his astronoetical glosses, are related to the achievements of Ameri-
can and Soviet probes (VS ) . These new “sidereal messengers”
revealed sensational reports about Jupiter and its high–temperature
seas of liquid hydrogen and the volcanic landscapes of Io with hills
as high as those on Earth; detailed images of the surface and atmo-
sphere of Mars , of the ridges and valleys [“Bergrücken und Täler”]
of Venus , and the pale blue north pole of Neptune [blaßblauen Nep-

. Günter P, “Ein Ereignis, wie es noch nie ein Mensch gesehen hat. Der zerbroche-
ne Komet Schoemaker–Levy stürzt auf den Jupiter / Riesige Trümmer / Hoffnung auf
Erkenntnisse über den Planeten”, [FAZ?], . Juli , Nr. , S.  (DLA Marbach).
. Joachim W. E, “Jupiter lässt Grüssen”, op. cit. This article also mentioned the U.S.
space probes Voyager  and  and Pioneer  and , and included fabulous images of Jupiter.
. H. Z. [Hans Zettler?], “Ist der Planet Jupiter eine ‘verhinderte Sonne’? Erkundung
mit ‘Pioneer ’ / Geschwindigkeitsrekord:   km/st”, FAZ,  November , Nr.
, S.  (DLA Marbach): « Unter der Wolkendecke verbirgt sich vielmehr ein Meer aus
flüssigem Wasserstoff, der in grosser Tiefe so stark komprimiert ist, dass er sogar metallische
Eigenschaften annimmt. Im Zentrum, in dem man einen kleinen Gesteinskern vermutet, soll
eine Temperatur von. . . ». This article — by Blumenberg — made reference to Jupiter as a
failed star that could not reach its Klassenziel, in other words, becoming a small Sun: “Eine
kleine Sonne zu werden”. Besides this passage, Blumenberg also highlighted the speed records
of Pioneer  probe.
. Kurt R, “Ungelöstes Rätsel Mars”, op. cit. On Mariner probes  and , see
also Thomas v. R, “Fahndung nach Leben auf dem Mars”, ZEIT, Nr. ,  Juli , S.
 (DLA Marbach). The same page includes an article by Carl S, “Wenn Viking fündig
würde”, op. cit.; Adalbert B, “Viking landete auf dem Punkt, und ihre Väter staunten
und weinten”, WELT, . Juli , Nr. , S.  (DLA Marbach); H. Z, “Noch kein
eindeutiger Nachweis von Mars–Leben. Sehr aktiver Marsboden mit hohem Eisengehalt /
Vermutlich anorganische Reaktionen”, [FAZ?], .. (DLA Marbach); Adalbert B,
“Noch leugnet das Chemie–Labor ein Leben auf dem Mars”, WELT, .. (DLA Marbach).
. G. P. [Günter Paul?] “Sowjetische Sonden zum Halley–Kometen”, [FAZ?],  August
. Nr. , Seite  (DLA Marbach). See also the newspaper photograph with the following
caption: “Neue Venus–Bilder so deutlich wie noch nie”, .., by G.P. [Günter Paul?],
an image of Venus captured by the Magellan probe: « So deutlich wie noch nie sind auf
dieser Radaraufnahme der amerikanischen Sonde “Magellan” Bergrücken und Täler auf dem
Planeten Venus erkennbar ».
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

tuns] ; the methane snow [“Methanschnee”] of Triton , the rings

of Uranus and Titan « comme une sorte de Terre primitive » .
However, at the same time, together with the deployment of this
celestial spectacle, came the by–product of an insidious regeneration
of the world’s enigmas and the revival of the cosmological specu-
lation . While providing the ultimate projectivity horizon , the

. [Unknown author], “Erfolgreiche Nasa–Mission zum Neptum. Entdeckung weiterer

Monde”, NZZ, / August , Nr.  (DLA Marbach): « Nachdem sie  den Jupiter,
 den Saturn und  den Uranus passiert hatte, brachte die  gestartete amerikanische
Raumsonde Voyager  »; Gilbert C, “Voyager : un radeau pour Neptune”, L’Express, 
Septembre , pp. – (DLA Marbach); Horst R, “Nach dem Rendezvous in den
Schatten des Neptuns”. Voyager  entdeckt zwei neue Monde des Planeten / Erfolgreicher
Abschluß der Reise an den Rand des Sonnensystems, FAZ,  August , Nr. , Seite 
(DLA Marbach).
. Horst R, “Aus den Vulkanen fließt Eis statt Lava” Voyager–Fotos von
Neptunmond Triton begeistern die Wissenschaftler / Methanschnee / Wieder Ringe am
Planeten entdeckt, FAZ, . August , Nr. , Seite . This article displayed spectacular
photographs of Triton. See also [Horst Rademacher?] “Abschied von der Welt der Planeten
und Monde”, FAZ, . September , Nr. , S.  (DLA Marbach). This article is highlighted
abundantly by Blumenberg, for example: “minus  Grad Celsius”; “auf dem Planeten Pluto
und dessen Mond Charon”; “Einbrüche der Eisoberfläche”; “Eisvulkanismus”; “Eislava”;
“Einschlagkrater”; “Grenze des Sonnensystems dynamischer”.
. [Unknown author], « Die Bögen am Neptun und eine Theorie. Aufnahmen von Voy-
ager  verändern das Bild des Sonnensystems Vorbeiflug », .. (DLA Marbach). On the
discovery of Jupiter and Uranus’ rings. It includes photographs of Neptune and its surround-
ings.
. Gilbert C, « Espace: les temps nouveaux. La première retombée de Voyager
 relancer les projets d’exploration spatiale. Une vingtaine de “missions” sont déjà program-
mées », L’Express, September , , p.  (DLA Marbach). Among other passages, Blumenberg
highlighted the following: “le projet Cassini Craf ”; « Le départ du second engine, Cassini,
est prévu pour . Objectif: étudier en détail les anneaux de Saturne. . . »; « . . . Titan, la plus
grosse lune de Saturne, considérée comme une sorte de Terre primitive ».
. K. R, “Ungelöstes Rätsel Kosmos”, op. cit.: « Das ignorabimus in der Kos-
mologie unser Schicksal sein wird »; See also Thomas v. R, “Mysteriöse blaue Punkte.
Quasars geben neue Rätsel auf – Trügt die Rotverschebung?”, ZEIT,  März , Nr. , S. 
(DLA Marbach); [unknown author], “Rätselsterne. Kleine grüne Männer”, Der Spiegel, /,
.. (DLA Marbach): « Seit empfangsstarke Radioteleskope und weitblickende Raum-
sonden in den letzten Jahren mehr und mehr Kunde von Rätselsternen und merkwürdigen
Strahlungsquellen im Weltall einfangen, können die Sternforscher nur mehr mit Spekulationen
die Welt erklären ». See also K.R. [Kurt Rudzinski?], “Das Rätsel des Radiohimmels — Die
–Grad Kelvin — Strahlung im Kosmos kein Überbleibsel des Urknalls”, [FAZ?] (DLA Mar-
bach); Eugen H, “Ein Rätsel der Neutronensterne gelüftet. Das stärkste Magnetfeld
im Kosmos / Ballonsonde untersucht Röntgenblitze”, FAZ, . April , Nr. , S.  (DLA
Marbach).
. On this issue, see Alexander C.T. G (ed.), Imagining Outer Space: European As-
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

Universe was unfolding as a native background of inconceivability,

the place for metaphor. Blumenberg has expressed this in Die Genesis
der kopernikanischen Welt [] in the following terms: « The insuffi-
ciency of the intuitive presence of the Universe, at any given time, to
the concept became the occasion for the construction of the history
of the Universe as the dimension in which totality is conceivable »
(GkW , ).
We have become accustomed, however, to thinking of this irrep-
resentability as a natural feature of cosmic distances [“Unvorstellbare
Entfernungen”] or cosmic time and not as the genuine background
resistant to conceptualization that underlies the representation of as-
tronomical objects . In the transcript of an interview concerning
the beginning of the Universe with the Canadian astrophysicist Hu-
bert Reeves [b. ] — published by L’Express in  — Blumenberg
underlined precisely those passages that pointed to the abandon-
ment of common sense in contemporary cosmological theories,
when « nos théories ne s’appliquent plus [. . . ] [et] nos notions tradi-
tionnelles d’espace et de temps n’ont plus de sens » . Blumenberg
also underlined Reeves’ answer to the question of how we should
imagine the moment before the Big Bang: « Il préparait l’enfer pour
ceux qui posent cette question » .
Newspaper articles collected by Blumenberg are, in short, a
paradigmatic case of what he described as a “context of weak de-
termination” [“im Kontext die schwache Determination”] (TdU ).
Its ultimate reference is a sort of cosmic fata morgana [“eine kosmis-

troculture in the Twentieth Century, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke/New York, ; and
Post–Apollo: Outer Space and the Limits of Utopia, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke/New York,
.
. [Unknown author], “Das Lotteriespiel bei der Suche nach den Außerirdischen. Un-
vorstellbare Entfernungen, wenig Geld / Geben aber muß es sie eigentlich”, FAZ, . November
, Nr.  (DLA Marbach).
. K.R. [K. Rudzinski?], “Sturz eines Weltall–Modells. Begrenzte Materie–Hierarchie /
Keine Super–Galaxienhaufen im Universum”, [FAZ?] . Januar  (DLA Marbach): « Solche un-
vorstellbar großen Materieanhäufungen müßten sich aber, weil sie die im ganzen vollständige
Kontinuitä der Materieverteilung im Weltall durchbrechen würden, durch lokal feststellbare
höhere Röntgen–Hintergrundstrahlung verraten ». Blumenberg’s emphasis.
. Joël de Rosnay’s interview with Hubert Reeves, “Enquête sur nos origines. L’univers,
avec Hubert Reeves”, L’Express,  Août , pp. – (DLA Marbach), p. .
. Ibid, p. . See also Hubert R, “On cherche toujours les clefs du cosmos”, L’Express,
 Avril , pp. – (DLA Marbach). Blumenberg highlighted: “C’est la théorie elle–même
qui est malade”.
 . Ad astra per nulla aspera 

che Fata Morgana”] a mysterious large–scale mirage. Indeed, it is

possible to see a certain hermeneutical intentionality in a newspaper
clipping preserved in Blumenberg’s Nachlass concerning the “black
stone”. In this cutting, the author described the sacred meteorite
worshipped by Muslims in the Kaaba (a cubic building designed to
protect). The cutting was accompanied by the following caption:
« Vor seiner Reise nach Gaza unternahm Arafat eine kleine Pilger-
fahrt nach Mekka. Das Foto zeigt ihn vor dem scharzen Stein, der
von den Muslimen als Zeichen des Himmels verehrt wird » .

. [Unknown author], “Rätselsterne. Kleine grüne Männer”, op. cit.: « Eine kosmische
Fata Morgana schliesslich wähnte eine dritte Gruppe amerikanischer Sternforscher zu erken-
nen, als sie die immer geheimnisvollere Vielfalt der Erscheinungen analysierte. Das ganze
Universum, so die These von Dr. Vahé Petrosian und Dr. Edwin Salpeter, jüngst vorgetragen
im Astrophysical Journal, wirke wie eine überdimensionale optische Linse ».
. See also Paul M, Secrets of the Universe: How We Discovered the Cosmos, The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, , chap. , “Meteors and meteorites”, pp. –, especially p. :
“Kaaba. Muslims at a religious rite centred on a meteorite once owned by Hohammed, which
is kept in the black cubic building. [. . . ] In the Masjid al–Haram mosque in Mecca, the Hadschar
al–Aswald is a sacred ‘Black Stone’ kept in the Kaaba, a cubic building, the axis of the Islamic world.
Although the stone has never been examined scientifically, it is said to be a meteorite, given to Abraham
by the archangel Gabriel and at one time possessed by the prophet Mohammed”. Joachim W. Ekrutt’s
article, “Jupiter lässt Grüssen”, Stern, p. – (DLA Marbach), was followed by a report on
pilgrimages to Mecca, which included spectacular panoramas of large masses of pilgrims.
 Chapter II

Hans Blumenberg’s Metaphorology

of the Cosmos

“Der Anblick der Sterne ist der Ausblick auf die

Zurückholung der Metapher”.

Hans B
Der Sturz des Protophilosophen

.. Hans Blumenberg’s Metaphorology and History of Astro-

nomy: An Introduction

Two manuscripts by Blumenberg are, in my view, important if we

are to reconstruct the relationships between Blumenberg’s early
metaphorology and modern astronomy: his doctoral dissertation
Beiträge zum Problem der Ursprünglichkeit der mittelalterlich–scholastisch-
en Ontologie []; and his Habilitationsschrift, Die ontologische Distanz:
eine Untersuchung über die Krisis der Phänomenologie Husserls []. In
my conception, in these two unpublished works Blumenberg elabo-
rates a cosmological interpretation of both Heidegger’s ontology and
the crisis of Husserl’s phenomenology , that is full of insights towards
a better understanding of Blumenberg’s own history of astronomy
and metaphorology of cosmos.
At the time of his doctoral dissertation, Blumenberg undertook a
review of the several stages of the history of ontology and provided a
thorough critique of Heidegger’s understanding of being in ancient
Greek philosophy. Here we can already detect the roots of Blumen-
berg’s interest on astronomy and history of science. The very first of
. A. F, “La ontología cosmológica en la obra temprana de Hans Blumenberg: las
Beiträge y Die ontologische Distanz”, Res publica, n.º , Murcia, , pp. –, also in A. F,
Destrucción, cosmos, metáfora. Ensayos sobre Hans Blumenberg, Lampi di stampa, Milano, , pp.
–.


 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

Blumenberg’s insights in this direction are linked to his criticism of

Heidegger’s evaluation of the history of traditional ontology .
Specifically, Blumenberg reassessed the originality of the funda-
mental ontological categories of the Greeks from a cosmological
perspective. That is to say, in contrast with Heidegger’s claim that the
basis of the ontological originality of Greek thinking is exclusively
the ancient exegesis of being in the horizon of time, Blumenberg
suggested an alternative perception that is crucial to his critique and
subsequent re–appropriation of Heidegger’s early philosophy as well
as to the formulation of his view on Scholasticism. According to
Blumenberg, ancient Greek ontology must be understood on the
basis of its “cosmological approach” [“kosmologische Orientierung”]
(BPU ). It is here that the originality of thought peculiar to ancient
Greece resides .
The cosmological approach, allied to the hermeneutical horizon
of time, allows Blumenberg to suggest a quite different image of
Greek metaphysical thought and, especially within the history of
ontology, of the stage of medieval scholastic ontology. His contri-
butions to the latter were — in my view — also able to provide a
cosmological interpretation of Scholasticism .
This early metaphysical approach, together with the phenomeno-
logical approach of the “Metakinesen des geschichtlichen Sinnhori-
zontes” (oD ; PM  and ,  and ), was employed by Blumen-
berg as a general theoretical framework not only in his first works on
the history of modern (Copernican) astronomy and metaphorology,
but also his hermeneutics of Modernity .
Concerning the history of modern astronomy, Blumenberg pu-
blished three early papers whilst at Studium Generale:

a) “Der kopernikanische Umsturz und die Weltstellung des

Menschen. Eine Studie zum Zusammenhang von Naturwis-
senschaft und Geistesgeschichte” [] (kUW –);
b) “Kosmos und System. Aus der Genesis der kopernikanischen
Welt” [] (KuS –);

. Ibid.
. Ibid.
. Ibid.
. A. F, “La destrucción blumenberguiana de las comprensiones teológicas de la
Modernidad”, ÉNDOXA: Series filosóficas, n.º , , pp. –.
 . Hans Blumenberg’s Metaphorology of the Cosmos 

c) “Melanchthons Einspruch gegen Kopernikus. Zur Geschichte

der Disoziation von Theologie und Naturwissenschaft” []
(MgK –).

In addition to these three papers, I must also draw attention to

two later publications: “Kopernikus im Selbstverständnis der Neuzeit”
[–] (KSN –), a presentation delivered at the Akademie der Wis-
senschaften und der Literatur zu Mainz on April   which expand
on an early version in his Nachlaß from  and Blumenberg’s In-
troduction to a selection of Galileo’s writings with the title: “Das
Fernrohr und die Ohnmacht der Wahrheit” [] (FuO –) . Blumen-
berg’s main contribution to the history of astronomy was then fully
revealed in three books: Die kopernikanische Wende [], Die Genesis
der kopernikanischen Welt [] and Das Lachen der Thrakerin [].
With regard to Blumenberg’s metaphorology, his first contribu-
tions were also made during the ’s and ’s before culminating in the
books Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie [] (PM) and Die Lesbarkeit
der Welt [] (Leg). I should also make reference to the final chapter
of Die kopernikanische Wende [], entitled “Metaphorische Kosmolo-
gie–Kosmologische Metaphorik” (kW –); the foundational paper
of metaphorology from , “Licht als Metapher der Wahrheit. Im
Vorfeld der philosophischen Begriffsbildung” [] (LaM –); and
finally “Das dritte Höhlengleichnis” [] (DdH –) which should
also be acknowledged as another important work.
For the purpose of clarity, I would like to introduce a distinction
when dealing with the trove of materials and insights left by Blu-
menberg: between the “cosmological paradigms” in Blumenberg’s
metaphorology and the “paradigms for a metaphorology of cosmos”
that Blumenberg developed — albeit not systematically — in others
of his works.
The first, “cosmological paradigms” in metaphorology, concerns
those cosmological metaphorics that give structure to some of the
key paradigms in Blumenberg’s very first metaphorology, namely

. Published in the Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz. Abhandlungen der
geistes und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang , n.º , Mainz , pp. –. There is
also a short version published in the Jahrbuch der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in
Mainz, , pp.  ff.
. Included in Galileo G: « Sidereus Nuncius (Nachricht von neuen Sternen). Dialog
über die Weltsysteme (Auswahl). Vermessung der Höhle Dantes. Marginalien zu Tasso », Insel
Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, , pp. –.
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

that of his  paper “Licht als Metapher der Wahrheit“ as well as
in his Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie. Here, we can identify five
“cosmological paradigms” in Blumenberg’s metaphorology:

a) the cave as a metaphor of cosmos in the metaphorology of

light and shadows (LaM –);
b) the “‘incomplete Universe’ as a metaphor of the modern
relationship to the world” [“das ‘unvollendetes Universum’
als Metaphern neuzeitlichen Weltverhaltens”] (PM , );
c) “metaphorized cosmology” [“die Metaphorisierte Kosmolo-
gie”] (PM , ); ) “explosive metaphors” [“Sprengmeta-
phorik”] (PM , ; LdN –, –) and ) the book as
a metaphor of the world (Leg).

In the second case, that of “paradigms for a metaphorology of

cosmos” we can identify two main paradigms, each of them accom-
panied by several metaphorics: I) the “paradigm of the cosmological
truth”; and II) the “existential paradigm” that includes what I shall
call, in a Heideggerian way, the “cosmological hermeneutics of fac-
ticity”, the fundamentals of which I will attempt to outline in the
next chapter.
My main claim here is that this quite singular cosmological
hermeneutics of facticity — that is to say, an hermeneutics of Dasein
in a cosmological sense — was developed by Blumenberg in his
early papers on the history of modern astronomy, particularly within
the context of what Blumenberg calls “die kopernikanische Reform
der Astronomie” (GkW , ), and later continued in his “astro-
noetical glosses” in Die Vollzähligkeit der Sterne [] and Lebenszeit
und Weltzeit [].
Both the “cosmological paradigms” in Blumenberg’s metaphoro-
logy and the “paradigms for a metaphorology of cosmos” are — in
my view — the clearest articulation of Blumenberg’s metaphorology
of cosmos, which he developed throughout his works, albeit not
systematically. It may suffice to recall “die Zeitschere” in Lebenszeit und
Weltzeit [] or any of the various metaphorical representations of
the cosmos as the “Weltinsel”, the “workclock” or “wie das Gewebe
einer Spinne” (TdU , ).

. “Cosmological phenomenology of life–world” should also be added, as I will discuss

in Chapter .
 . Hans Blumenberg’s Metaphorology of the Cosmos 

In this chapter, I will deal with the two main paradigms governing
Blumenberg’s metaphorology of cosmos: the existential paradigm
and the paradigm of the cosmological truth, both of which are
present in the metaphorology of the contemplator caeli; geocentrism
and heliocentrism as existential–cosmological metaphors and the
metaphorology of cosmological truth. In the next chapter I will then
undertake a thorough analysis of the historical and philosophical
foundations of the cosmological hermeneutics of facticity.

.. The Metaphorology of the contemplator caeli

The most prevalent figure in Blumenberg’s works on the history of

astronomy — i.e. an individual looking at the starry sky — implies
his own set of metaphorics, which I shall call the “metaphors of
the contemplator caeli”. In the Late Middle Ages, it is precisely these
metaphors that are openly contrasted with the emerging period
of Modernity. The figure of the contemplator caeli crystallizes the
Leitmotiv of Blumenberg’s history of astronomy inasmuch as it is
an attempt to understand the evolution of astronomical theories
as a history of human self–consciousness. However, the very first
metaphors of the contemplator caeli date back to the episode of Thales
of Miletus, whose curiosity about the stars led to him falling into
a well. From the symbolic value of this fall, which represents the
troubled relationship between “astronomical truth” [“astronomische
Wahrheit”] (FuO ) and the life–world, arise the key metaphors of
the astronomer as an observer of the skies: the “hero reformer”; the
astronomer as a “perpetrator” or “criminal”; and the “martyrs” of
astronomy.
The metaphor of the heroic reformers of the Universe (KSN )
is embodied by Cusa and above all by Copernicus (PM  ff, 
ff ) . According to Blumenberg, Cusa is one of the anticipators of
Modernity. He helped to prepare the ground for the “Copernican

. An overview of Blumenberg’s approach to Copernican astronomy can be found in

Jean–Claude M, Hans Blumenberg, Paris, Belin, , Chapter , “Histoire des effets et
symbolisation: le malentendu copernicien”, pp. –; Jean S, “Hans Blumenberg,
lecteur et interprète de l’œuvre de Copernic”, Revue de Métaphysique et de Moral. Blumenberg:
Les origines de la modernité, janvier, n.º , , pp. –; Pini I, “On Hans Blumen-
berg’s Genesis of the Copernican World”, in: Cornelius B (ed.), Hans Blumenberg beobachtet.
Wissenschaft, Technik und Philosophie, Verlag Karl Alber, Freiburg, , pp. –.
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

revolution” [“kopernikanischen Wende”] (KSN ; kW) as he was

able to introduce the modern astronomical perspectivism and the
factual position of man into an infinite cosmos (KdV ,  and ;
KdV  and ). In contrast, Copernicus provided the “interpretive
paradigm of Modernity” (kW ) thanks to which “a new form of
self–understanding of man in the world” (kW ), i.e., a new self–
consciousness based on the cosmic immanence (kW  and ), was
established. According to the cosmological hermeneutics of Moder-
nity suggested by Blumenberg, both Cusa and Copernicus dignified
human reason and paved the way to modern self–assertion (KdV ,
 ff and ; MgK ; LdN). Thus, much of Blumenberg’s work on
the history of astronomy was devoted to grasping why Copernicus
became so significant to Modernity (KSN ; kUW ; kW; GkW).
Blumenberg tried to clarify precisely how the Copernican revolution
–the introduction of the heliocentric system– played such a crucial
role in the formation of modern consciousness (kUW ).
Blumenberg dealt with the “genesis of the Copernican reform”
(kW ; KuS  and ) and the historical and intellectual conditions
that made it possible. In carrying out this task he showed an unusual
erudition and remarkable interpretive skills, which led him to sug-
gest a whole new theory of Modernity. Blumenberg proposed that
Copernican reform was a result of the tension between the medieval
Christian tradition — meaning the creation doctrine, Nominalism,
Protestantism and Aristotelian derivations — and the Stoic and Pla-
tonic traditions, which led to to the peculiar creation, in Copernicus,
of an humanist (KSN –; KuS ; GkW , ). Thus, Blumenberg
developed an intellectual history of modern astronomy, describing
Copernican reform as a triumph for humanism from which stemmed
the modern image of man and of the world. However, it should be
noted that, unlike Thomas S. Kuhn in the same period, Blumenberg
presented Copernicus as a “reformer” and not as a “revolutionary”
—. According to Blumenberg’s approach, many medieval assump-
tions were necessary in order to achieve a reformulation of the cos-
mos like that of Copernican astronomy. Blumenberg made reference
to this issue as the “ambiguity” of Copernicanism. Despite the me-

. Further details in A. F, “«Das Überleben der Übergänge»: la supervivencia de los
tránsitos: nuevos paradigmas de análisis de la obra de Hans Blumenberg”, in: Alberto F
and Diego G (eds): Hans Blumenberg. Nuovi paradigmi d’analisi, Aracne Editrice, Roma,
, pp.  ff.
 . Hans Blumenberg’s Metaphorology of the Cosmos 

dieval background and equivocal nature of this overhaul, the heroism

of the astronomical reformer has nevertheless been symbolized by
the monument to Copernicus in Thor accompanied by a motto of
biblical resonance: Terrae Motor, Solis Caelique Stator [“Mover of the
Earth, Holder of the Sun and the Heavens”]. (PM , ; KSN –
; BaM –; GkW  ff, ; Leg  ff, ). It is not surprising that,
besides being a heroic reformer, Copernicus was also considered as
a kind of liberator [“als Befreiung des Menschen”] (KdV ).
The second predominant metaphor linked to the contemplator
caeli is that of the “perpetrator” or “criminal” (aP –; BaM –;
GkW  ff,  ff ). It is in fact closely linked to the metaphor of
the astronomical reformer, as it deals with the act of Copernican
reform and its most important consequence: the ruin of medieval
understandings of the cosmos together with the privileged position
of man in it. Thus, in Blumenberg’s approach the “cosmological re-
form of Copernicus” [“die kosmologische Reform des Kopernikus”]
(MgK –) is the starting point of the “process of destruction of the
Middle Ages” (kW –) and, as such, the heliocentric doctrine was
perceived as a serious threat to the continuity of the medieval pers-
pective on Universe and its anthropological prerogatives. However,
for Blumenberg this transformation from “reform” to “subversion”
(kUW –; kW ) was not made by Copernicus himself, but
rather by his heirs and successors. Thus, work on the astronomical
theory was considered a transgression and was associated with the
crime metaphor, according to which the astronomer would be a
perpetrator and his crime was astronomical knowledge . As is well
known, Blumenberg placed such cosmological transgression within
the history of curiosity, which made astronomical observations a
concupiscentia oculorum « for an age that is no longer quite so sure
that every truth — and even truth for its own sake — is good for
mankind » (PM , ; LdN  ff, ; NuW) . The contemplator caeli’s
criminal transgression was therefore to contain a new astronomical
truth; a truth about the cosmos capable of to shaking the medieval
life–world. Thus, the demonization of Copernicus (aP  and )
began and with it the metaphorics of the “martyrs” of astronomy,

. “Metaphorik des Theoretikers als Täter” (BaM –; GkW, –; aP  and ).
. In Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie, Blumenberg outlined a history of this curiosity
(PM  ff,  ff ), which he later developed extensively in Die Legitimität der Neuzeit (LdN –,
–).
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

whose number include Giordano Bruno, burned at the stake (KSN

), and Galileo, who had to abjure his astronomical beliefs. Thus,
while Copernican reform brought about a new astronomical truth,
Bruno and Galileo had to suffer as martyrs for that very truth.

.. Cosmological–Existential Metaphorology

Upon the foundations laid by the prevalent metaphor of the con-

templator caeli, it is possible to recognize in Blumenberg’s history
of astronomy a hermeneutics of facticity through what I will call
“cosmological–existential metaphors” ; specifically concerning the
processes of metaphorization of conceptions of the cosmos reported
by Blumenberg; and geocentrism and heliocentrism in particular.
In my view, this cosmological–metaphorical hermeneutics of facti-
city can be categorised into topos of the “metaphoric cosmology —
cosmological metaphoric” [“Metaphorische Kosmologie — Kosmol-
ogische Metaphorik”] (kW –; KSN –; kW ). The anthro-
pological premise of this cosmological–existential metaphorology
states that the cosmos is able to draw the attention of the contemplator
caeli as far as it relates to human existence, otherwise it would be
completely devoid of interest. Particularly because the position of
man in the cosmos tells us something about our own existence (KSN
). In my opinion, this is the final key to all of the cosmological–
existential metaphorizations identified by Blumenberg. I suggest that
Blumenberg’s metaphorology of cosmos is also — simultaneously —
a tool of existential analysis. Consequently, the history of astronomy
involves a cosmological hermeneutics of facticity, insofar as it also
describes the existence and status of man in the Universe.

The Geocentrism and Heliocentrism as Absolute Metaphors of Existence

According to Blumenberg, geocentrism and heliocentrism under-

went two separate processes of existential metaphorization:

. Blumenberg made reference to the “Existenzialmetaphorik” in relation to Galileo (VdN

). I should mention here the “Daseinsmetapher” in (SZ –, –). In the working materials
of “Der archimedische Punkt des Celio Calcagnini” (aP –), Blumenberg pointed out that
the image of the “shipwreck with spectator” is originally a cosmological metaphor dating back
to Epicurean philosophy: « Der unbetroffene Zuschauer des Schiffbruchs auf der Meere ist
ursprünglich eine kosmologische Metapher » (BMT ––).
 . Hans Blumenberg’s Metaphorology of the Cosmos 

One therefore cannot understand the metaphorization of the Copernican

world, and with it the assumption of its formative influence on the modern
mind, without analyzing the structurally analogous process by which the
ancient geocentric cosmos, described above by Aristotle, was transformed
into a metaphor by the Stoics (PM , ).

In both cases, the fundamental point to those processes consisted

in converting the spatial distribution of the stars into an existential con-
dition of man . The Geocentric cosmos, especially in the Stoic and
Christian understandings of the cosmos, were a metaphor of man’s
privileged status since he represents its centre. Stoic geocentrism was
a metaphor of the subject as it symbolized both the anthropocentric
teleology and benevolent, divine providence (kW – and –; MgK
; KdV ; SB, ). For medieval Christianity, geocentrism would
have been a metaphor of the intentionality of creation and the the-
ology of grace. While the “geocentric metaphoric” [“geozentrische
Metaphorik”; kopernikanischen Metaphorik] (kW ) symbolizes a world
that can be used by man at will (kUW – and ), the “Copernican
metaphor of the eccentricity of man” [“kopernikanischen Metapher
der menschlichen Exzentrizität”; “kopernikanischen Metaphorik”] (kW
– and ) addressed the absence of teleology (kW ; UeK ); the
fact that man is not at the “centre” of the cosmos has implications for
man’s self–understanding and the understanding of his existence: « The
Copernican world became a metaphor for the critical disfranchisement
of the teleology principle [. . . ]. The Copernican metaphor formed the
basis of a new self–consciousness, tied to man’s cosmic eccentricity,
which first allowed the process of deteleologization to make itself felt
in all its pathos » (PM –, ; Tlg ; GkW  ff, ; Lt –). More
generally, Blumenberg made reference to the “metaphorization of the
Copernican reform” [“die Metaphorisierung der kopernikanischen Re-
form”] (kW –; MgK ; GkW  ff,  and ), providing the
image of pure facticity and of thrownness [“Geworfenheit”] .

. On the Aristotelian cosmological metaphor, see also (PM  ff, ; SB, –; Tlg ).
. With regard to the metaphorization of the Copernicanism, Blumenberg made reference to
the “the realism of the Copernican metaphor” (kW –; KSN ; (PM  ff,  ff), which could be
attributed to the aforementioned spatial distribution of the stars, that is to say a metaphorization of
the eccentric position. Blumenberg also described the “Copernican metaphorics” as an “explosive
metaphoric” (KSN ).
. “Dieselbe kosmische Unendlichkeit, die im Effekt der Reform des Kopernikus die Kontin-
genz der Natur aufhebt, steigert die Kontingenz der menschlichen Selbsterfahrung bis zur puren
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

Thus, geocentrism and heliocentrism are two absolute cosmologi-

cal–existential metaphors, since they credited man with quite differ-
ent positions in the world (kW  and –; BdM –; VdN ) .
With regard to geocentrism: « Man was placed both in the centre
of the cosmos and at the origin of the meaning of nature, he was
postulated definitively as the key reference for the natural knowledge
and the sciences » (WW , ). On the other hand, « the Coperni-
can reorganization of the cosmos was seen to provide an orienting
model for the answer to a question that has never yet been answered
by purely theoretical and conceptual means: the question of man’s
place in the Universe » (PM , ; kW –). In short, in both cases
an existential self–understanding of man through a cosmological
metaphor is introduced (PM , ).
In my opinion, Blumenberg’s approach to the absolute cosmologi-
cal–existential metaphor improved on the initially narrow frame-
work of the history of concepts because it introduced the historical
and cultural background that made possible the emergence of both
geocentrism and heliocentrism, namely the tension between the
medieval–Christian understanding of the cosmos and the new un-
derstanding of the cosmos that signified the arrival of Modernity.
However, it also marked a step forward with regards to Heidegger’s
hermeneutics of facticity, since it was no longer posing abstract ques-
tions about the sense of the being through the analysis of the human

Faktizität und ‘Geworfenheit’” (K ). In his commentary on Nietzsche and Copernican astron-
omy, it was thus that Blumenberg described the existential dimension of the Copernican reform:
[« For Nietzsche] “the self–diminution of man” begins with Copernicus: “his faith in his dignity,
uniqueness, irreplaceableness in the rank–ordering of beings” has gone; through the “defeat
of theological astronomy”, human existence has become “still more arbitrary, peripheral, and
dispensable in the visible order of things” » (PM , ; kW ).
. Loretta M, “‘Il cielo come caverna’. L’antitesi tra metafora copernicana e tolemaica
nel processo di legittimazione dell’età moderna”, Discipline Filosofiche, Anno XI, numero
, Hans Blumenberg e la teoria della modernità, Quodlibet, Macerata, , pp. –, in
p. : « L’antitesi tra metafora tolemaica e copernicana non rappresenta l’opposizione tra
il principio di legittimità dell’antichità e quello dell’età moderna, ma una dialettica tutta
interna alla modernità. A ragione Blumenberg afferma che la rivoluzione è l’unica metafora
assoluta prodotta nell’epoca moderna, al suo interno entrambe le metafore cosmologiche
coesistono come le due facce di una moneta ». On the Copernican astronomy as absolute
metaphor see Remo B, “Navigatio vitae. Métaphore et concept dans l’oevre de Hans
Blumenberg”, Archives de philosophie, , p. ; Thus, J–C. M made reference to the
matter: « L’interprétation métaphysique est restée attachée à la métaphorisation de la place de
l’homme dans le cosmos ». J–C. M, Hans Blumenberg, op. cit., pp. – and pp. –.
 . Hans Blumenberg’s Metaphorology of the Cosmos 

existence, but rather historical questions concerning the cosmos and

man’s position in it .

.. The Cosmological Metaphorology of Truth

From my point of view, the metaphorology of the contemplator caeli

and the history of cosmological–existential metaphors are comple-
mented by the metaphorology of the astronomical truth. This topic
is closely related to the metaphorical analysis of truth launched by
Blumenberg in the founding paper of his metaphorology, “Licht als
Metapher der Wahrheit. Im Vorfeld der philosophischen Begriffs-
bildung” (LaM –), and in Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie
(PM). In Blumenberg’s approach, the history of astronomy and the
respective modifications of human self–understanding are always
related to a history of the astronomical truth, which includes its own
metaphorics. It is here that we can locate the point of convergence
between the cosmological–existential metaphors and the metaphors
of astronomical truth, whose last articulation is what I will call the
“Milesian dilemma” and runs as follows: the availability of the cos-
mos makes the life–world unavailable, whilst the availability of the
life–world makes the cosmos unavailable . This dilemma — as we
will see in the next chapter — is manifested in the existential condi-
tion of the contemplator caeli, since he carries an astronomical truth
that he has generated through his observations of the sky, but this
truth reveals itself to be in conflict with the life–world. Thus, I sug-
gest a double metaphorization of the (un)availability of the cosmos
in relation to the life–world, which is based on the processes of the
symbolization of the difficulties in accessing the cosmos and the
transmission and integration of their epistemological outcomes —
particularly astronomical truth — in the life–world. In this context,
Thales of Miletus’s falling into a well is a paradigmatic case which not
only acts as a representation of the astronomical truth at the bottom
of a well, but also its historical transformation into a metaphor of
. With regard to the history of modern astronomy as a history of man’s existential fac-
ticity, Blumenberg stated Copernicus’ conservative intention was to preserve the intelligibility
of being (PM , ).
. As we will have opportunity to see in the next chapter, Blumenberg developed this
question in his work on the reception of the anecdote of Thales’ fall (LdT –, –; SdP –,
–).
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

the accessibility of the cosmos (GkW  ff and  ff,  ff and  ff;
SdP, –; LdT –, –) or even an astronomical instrument
for observation (SdP  ff, ; LdT  ff, ; VS ).
However, based on Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie, light and
power as metaphors of truth are of especial interest for the metaphoro-
logy of astronomical truth described by Blumenberg. The history of
both metaphors in the context of astronomy is complex and their
development will take us too far away from our focus . I would
simply like to point out some of these milestones in the context of
Blumenberg’s metaphorology of cosmos.
Perhaps the most relevant episode is the aforementioned case
of modern astronomy (UeK –). The theoretical reformer — as a
hero and liberator — was committed to his new truths about the
cosmos and able to illuminate and affect the order of the medieval
life–world. Thus, light and power became suitable metaphors for
the Copernican astronomical reform and its new truths about the
cosmos. Blumenberg dealt with this topic by establishing a connec-
tion between Copernicus and Galileo. In both cases, Blumenberg’s
historical reconstruction points out a new sensational astronomical
truth that threatened and challenged the life–world order, since the
new order of the cosmos imposes a new life–world order . However,
while Galileo was initially convinced that the light of the truth of the
new heliocentric doctrine would have such a compelling persuasive
power so as to be able to assert its certainty, Copernicus was much
more cautious and suspicious about the worldly effects of the new
astronomical truth. In fact, his concern went so far that it is possible
to refer to an “astronomical pact” with the life–world, or at least to
an awareness of the destabilizing potential of the new astronomi-
cal truth about the life–world, hence his precautions at the time in
propagating his doctrine. However, while Copernicus was aware of
supporting a conflictive cosmological truth, he did not renounce the
fact that he considered his heliocentric doctrine as absolutely true
despite the loss of man’s central position in the cosmos.
Blumenberg made reference to this issue as the “claim of truth of
the Copernican reform” [“der Wahrheitsanspruch der kopernikanis-

. See, for instance, (SB –, VdN ; VS ; KSN ; NuP –; Q ).
. On the anthropological–theological–metaphysical commotions associated with the
loss of man’s centrality in the Universe as a result of the heliocentric astronomy see (KdV  ff ).
 . Hans Blumenberg’s Metaphorology of the Cosmos 

chen Reform”] (FuO ) . In contrast to the initial reception of

heliocentrism and the attempts at epistemological neutralization,
Copernicus resisted the instrumentalist considerations of his findings
as a mere astronomical hypothesis of practical utility. According to
Blumenberg, the instrumentalist consideration of the Copernican
doctrine was an attempt to eradicate his claim of truth. However,
with his astronomical reform, Copernicus believed he had obtained
a new truth about the cosmos (kW  and ); a truth « divorced
from the salvational necessity of old and subordinated to a new ideal
of human determination » (PM , ). Blumenberg devoted many
pages to the discussion of Copernicus with the leading representa-
tives of the “nominalist paradigm of astronomy” [“das nominalistis-
che Paradigma der Astronomie”] (FuO ), especially Osiander and
Melanchthon (KuS  and  ff; MgK –). From these historical
analyses, Blumenberg retrieves some of the most important pieces
of the puzzle of his hermeneutics of Modernity, such as the process
of the dignification of human reason and modern self–awareness as
opposed to the doctrine of creation and the experience of time in
relation to the cosmos .
On the other hand, Galileo, as well as Bruno (UeK –) , suffered
the gravest of misfortunes under the spotlight of Copernicanism
(UeK –; LW ) and its unavailability in relation to the life–world,
through what Blumenberg described as « the bitter experience of the
impotence of truth into the at least partial empowerment of reason »
(GkW , ; FuO –,  ff and –; RS ; Marg ) . Althoough

. « die kopernikanischen Reform mit ihrem kosmologischen Wahrheitsanspruch »] (kW

). On the ethics of the claim of truth see (GkW ,  ff ).
. See (FuO ; kW ; SB –; GkW  ff and  ff,  ff and  ff; KSN ; FuO ;
kK –; KPV –; LW). Perhaps we should also add the ideology of progress in relation to
cosmological truths, as suggested by J–C Monod: « Le progrès [. . . ], tel que le conçoivent les
grandes philosophies de l’Histoire modernes, voit dans le temps un facteur d’accroissement
des savoirs et/ou des pouvoirs de l’homme, une amélioration immanente des rapports avec la
Nature, des rapports sociaux. . . L’une des conditions de possibilité d’une telle représentation
a été la valorisation du rôle du temps dans la découverte de verités nouvelles, notamment au
plan astronomique: la découverte de planètes nouvelles grâce à la lunette astronomique, et le
progrès dans la représentation du cosmos grâce à la révolution copernicienne ». J–C. M,
Hans Blumenberg, op. cit., p. 
. Blumenberg described Bruno as the « the highest martyrdom for the truth » (LdN ,
).
. Blumenberg also made reference to Galileo and the impotence of truth in a letter he
sent to Taubes on . IX.  (DLA Marbach). See also B “Das Fernrohr und die
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

in Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie, Blumenberg described the pow-

erful metaphor of a truth that shines with irresistible light (PM ,
 and ; LaM  ff, –; GkW  ff,  ff; TdU, ) , Galileo’s
experiences with astronomical truth represent just the opposite: the
cosmological paradigm of the de–potentiation of truth. From the
profound observational impressions provided by the telescope — « a
diabolical instrument of demiurge astuteness » (KSN ; GkW  ff,
) — Galileo believed that the powerful truth emanating from it
(FuO ) would be enough to persuade his contemporaries, in spite of
the « risk of turning visibility into the latest instance of truth » [« dem
Risiko der Sichtbarkeit als der letzten Instanz der Wahrheit »] (FuO
; LaM  ff, –). However, Galileo’s experiences were ultimately to
the contrary: the impotence of the cosmological truth — a truth pre-
served in the lonely contemplator caeli — and the aggressive defence
of the life–world against these new astronomical discoveries. On
the one hand, Copernican astronomy made the Universe accessible
to human reason –i.e. an achievable Universe–, whilst on the other
hand it also showed the ineffectiveness of astronomical truth in rela-
tion to the life–world (FuO ; GkW , ) as a now neutralized and
powerless astronomical truth . The news from the sidereal gazette
and its messenger did not persuade everybody, as if they were devoid
of a binding force . Finally, curiosity about the stars was once again
heavily punished (FuO ; LdN –, –).

Wahrheit. Zum Neuerscheinen von Galileis Nachricht von neuen Sternen” (BT –). Blumen-
berg also made reference to Galileo in a letter he sent to Unseld . V.  (DLA Marbach).
See also Blumenberg’s unpublished work, “Ankündigung: Galileo Galilei, Sidereus Nuncius”
(DLA Marbach). In Blumenberg’s letter to Gerschmann, dated ./.., he made reference to
the “false moments of truth” (DLA Marbach).
. It is worth recalling here the moon map of light developed by Galileo and included in
his Sidereus Nuncius.
. Blumenberg pointed out the absence of a “paratheory” to explain resistance to the
telescope. Unlike Copernicus and Galileo, Freud provided a theory to explain the difficulties
in accepting psychoanalytic truths (GkW , –). On Blumenberg and Freud see Rüdiger
Z, “Zwischen Affinität und Kritik. Hans Blumenberg liest Sigmund Freud”, in: Cornelius
B (ed.), Hans Blumenberg beobachtet, op. cit., pp. –.
. Blumenberg also made reference to Husserl’s Galileo, phenomenology and modern
science. See particularly (FuO  ff and ; PM –,  ff; LW  ff ).
 Chapter III

Existential Paradigms in Hans Blumenberg’s

History of Modern Astronomy

The way of being of these beings is one of

‘handiness’. But this must not be undestood
as a mere characteristic of interpretation; as if
such ‘aspects’ were discursively forced upon
the ‘beings’ which we initially encounter; as
if an initially objectively–present entities were
‘subjectively colored’ in this way [. . . ] But care-
ful association does not simply come up against
unusable things within what is already at hand.
It also finds things which are missing, which
are not only not ‘handy’, but not ‘at hand’ at all.

Martin H
Being and Time, §§ –

Ihre Begeisterungsfähigkeit für die Natur ist

begrenzt, lieber Herr Blumenberg. Jedenfalls
für die irdische. Die Sterne bleiben intakt. . . die
Astronomie hat den Weg der Ausnüchterung
schon länger und weiter beschritten als die
Physiologie. [. . . ] Sie wissen so gut wie ich, dass
ich den Menschen bewundere. Nur eben ger-
ade nicht seine Störanfälligkeit.

Hans B
“Kreislauf ”, Begriffe in geschichten.

.. The Unavailability of the Firmament: the Starry Sky as an

Existential Paradigm

We live on the Earth and are able to see stars. This is an existential
condition that is common to both astronomy and anthropogenesis


 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

(GkW , ). The first anthropoid necessarily came to a point where he
put on hold his concern about what was near — that which ensured
his survival — and redirected it to the immense starry sky above his
head, abandoning for a moment “the usual way” and interrupting
“profitable contact with the world” (LdT , ). By raising his gaze
to the highest and farthest, he had to hide, even just for a moment,
the lowest and the nearest (SdP , ). The first necessary condition
of observing the sky — the very basis of astronomy — is the disregard
of the solid ground under one’s feet: a dangerous disregard for that
which is close (LdT , ). This new “Sorge des Sehens” (LdT ,
) — in Heidegger’s terminology — introduced a paradox with
anthropological meaning: it turned « the far away, that which can
only be perceived, into something close to man » (LdT , ).
This Sorge with the stars encouraged an immoderate concern
addressed towards the distant and the useless; the insidious worry
for that shining on high « which is not within reach par excellence »
(LdT , ), preventing, in turn, “the permanence of the near”
(LdT , ). Moreover, the fascination with the remote — the
anthropological foundation of astronomy — invited passivity; the
« not–having–to–intervene as a mere being–entertained by the world »
(LdT , ).
From the perspective of the existential–anthropogenic paradigm,
the starry sky is marked out by the fact that it remains inaccessible
and unreachable (GkW  and ,  and ; SdP  and –,  and
–). The stars are « intangible entities, purely optical, manifested to
the eye just as light as purely spiritual, superhuman, divine beings or
rather as entities of fantasy » . Therefore, the starry skies under which
anthropogenesis unfolded were charged with ambiguity (GkW –,
–), since their unavailable nature preserved the doubt as to whether
they were hiding the essential (SdP , ) or something eternally
irrelevant to man (SdP , ). In any case, one could have concluded
that not everything can become an object of experience and that
precisely there, at the very top, one could locate the scandalous
sphere of the undetermined (SdP , ; GkW , ), like a diffuse
horizon able to enlarge « the distance to that which we cannot explore
at all » (LdT , ).
From the point of view of the terrestrial life–world, the sky is

. Ludwig F, Die Unsterblichkeitsfrage vom Standpunkt der Anthropologie [], in:
Sämtl. Werke, vol. , p. , quoted by Blumenberg (SdP –, ).
 . Existential Paradigms in Hans Blumenberg’s. . . 

something radically unavailable and unattainable to man (GkW ,

); it establishes the natural and insurmountable limits of human
action as an uncomfortable presence barely available to conceptualiza-
tion: « The Universe’s reality is experienced as resistance to concepts »
(GkW , ). Moreover: « The only reason the totality of nature can-
not be conceptualized is that it did not originate in concepts » (GkW
, ). That is to say, in the steppes of anthropogenesis the striking
inhumanity of the sky was genuinely visible and remarkable as the
unbridgeable ontological distance between the vastness of the starry
sky and the modest perception of the muddy terrestrial soil: « The
insufficiency of the intuitive presence of the Universe, at any given
time, to the concept became the occasion for the construction of
the history of the Universe as the dimension in which totality is
conceivable » (GkW , ). However, while reality is not originally
conceptual, the question of the justification of the Universe is by no
means any less intense (GkW  ff.,  ff ). The “paradigm of the
starry heavens” [“Paradigma des gestirnten Himmels”] (GkW ,
) demonstrates its consistency as the irremovable remnant that
survived « after the failure (and in the consciousness of the failure) of
efforts extending over centuries to justify God and His work [. . . ],
above the abyss of the unanswered and unanswerable question of
the reason for being » (GkW , ).
In my opinion, Blumenberg’s history of astronomy relies on
just such an existential–anthropological background; i.e. on the set
of hopes, fears and expectations the starry sky aroused in the life–
world, including the unexpected “and still” [“Und doch”] (GkW ,
) associated with the gain of reality achieved by the historical
displacement of the astronomical experience. Thus, the history of
astronomy and its ambivalent achievements constitute a model of
privileged knowledge — perhaps together with biology (dem ; GkW
, ) — since they demonstrate the facticity of human existence;
the marginal position of man in the Universe. Astronomy, unlike
other scientific disciplines, suggests a peculiar self–consciousness of
man. The immensity of reality — its absolutism — is shown most
clearly in the brutal disproportionality between the limited Earth on
which we walk and the vast, starry sky suspended over us .

. Odo M, who popularized the interpretation of Blumenberg’s work as the

“absolutism of reality”, suggested in his contribution to the volume on the occasion of Blu-
menberg’s th birthday, that by looking far away we get rid of the absolutism of what is
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

.. The Two Chief Astronomical–Existential Paradigms

In Blumenberg’s history of astronomy we can detect two prevailing

astronomical–existential paradigms: the “astrological paradigm” and
the “paradigm of the indifference of the Universe”, which are both
of clear anthropological and metaphorological value. The first one
denotes an inherently significant and helpful cosmos which sends
signals to man and is represented by astrology. In the astrological
vision of the world celestial movements « clearly assume the value
of a sign » [« der Himmel konnte noch einmal im Zeichen deutlich
werden »] (SdP , ) that prefigures the good or bad fortune unique
to man. Thus, in order to take possession of the determining con-
ditions of his existence, man must decipher the concrete existential
meaning hidden in the stars and behave accordingly: « Astrology
relates the Universe to man, makes it the sum of signs for him and
thus makes him the reference point of all physical processes » (GkW
, ). Astrology is the expression of an anthropological desire for
the whole of existence — and especially for individuals’ lives — to
obey an underlying order that is both understandable and benevo-
lent. Thus, human destiny is governed by reason and not by arbi-
trary, casual, chains. Astrology is therefore expected to answer any
possible question (SdP –, –), although that may itself provide
many different and bizarre answers (LdT –, –). As such, the
astrological–existential paradigm is based on an anthropomorphic
cosmos that is supposed to care about man is linked to deepest hu-
man hopes and is consistent with the duration of life (LW –,
–); a cosmos in which everything remains available at will and is
subjected to the “tyrannical rule of the spirit” [“Tyrannenherrschaft
des Geistes”] (GkW , ; GdT ). Therefore, astrology is not
merely “a degenerate form of astronomy”, but « the model for the
degree of involvement between man and the world » (GkW , )
that, in its most perfect expression, matches the course of the stars
with human history (SdP , ).
To the contrary, the existential paradigm of the indifference of the
Universe is an exact inversion of the astrological paradigm described
above: the starry sky is not involved in any way in the happiness of

under our feet. See Odo M, “Lebenszeit und Lesezeit. Bemerkungen zum Œuvre von
Hans Blumenberg” in: Michael K (ed.), Akzente. Hans Blumenberg zum . Geburtstag, 
Jahrgang, Heft , Juni , p. .
 . Existential Paradigms in Hans Blumenberg’s. . . 

man; it does not conspire to his advantage nor provide appropriate

responses that only he has the privileged satisfaction to hear (GkW
–, ). The “symbolic potential of the stars” [“Neutralisierung der
Anfälligkeit für Zeichen”] (SdP , ) is completely neutralized and
their apparent motion — strictly mechanical — loses any significance
for the progress of human affairs. The heavenly bodies are foreign
to the particular interests of man. As with Thomas Moro’s, Geoffrey
Chaucer’s or Samuel Richardson’s astrologue cocu, in this paradigm
the observer with astrological vocation is not able to discover in the
stars “his own marital misfortune” (LdT –, ; SdP –, –).
On the surface of the sky one can instead appreciate the flagrant
« disregard of nature about man and his fate » (SdP –, ). In short,
we get an image of a Universe that is « cold, impassive, insensitive,
maliciously brilliant and contemptuous to the luck of man » (SdP
–, –). The heavenly bodies of this Universe are completely
deprived of an empathetic nature, turning into cold and shining
ghosts crossing the Earth’s night sky (GkW , ).
The historical basis of the existential paradigm lies in what Blu-
menberg calls “the Copernican reform” [“die kopernikanische Re-
form der Astronomie”] (GkW , ). Such an astronomical overhaul
is dramatically emphasized by the Copernican worldview, which
clears the way for Modernity. Given that his Universe involves a
renovation of the late ancient Greek cosmos — that is to say, an
understanding of the Universe as an ordered and safe reality that is
available to the epistemological capacities of man — the new cosmos
will no longer inspire confidence, but rather become the object of all
kinds of suspicion aroused by the scandal of its silence (GkW –,
).
According to Blumenberg, the Copernican worldview preserved
reminiscences of the Ancient Greek and Roman anthropocentric
teleology and — despite Copernicus’ heliocentrism — is full of
ambiguities. The main issue is that the human being is granted an
eccentric position in the still finite machina mundi (GkW –, –).
Moreover, the Copernican system was unable to remove “apoca-
lyptic fears” [“apokalyptische Ängste”] from the equation (GkW ,
); fears such as that of the destruction of the terrestrial world by
the effect of the rotational motion, which could potentially cause
its contents to fly off into space (GkW  –, –). Whilst the
Copernican astronomical maneuver “saved” the Greek cosmos from
its complete dissolution, the newly revived cosmos no longer sent
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

man benevolent “signals for his self–comprehension” (GkW , ).

Instead, it introduced a vertiginous, nihilistic impetus (GkW , )
which was amplified by the intolerable devaluation of the human in a
peripheral world. It was described by Nietzsche thusly: « Copernicus
got man onto an inclined plane on which he rolls faster and faster
away from the center into nothingness, or who (more precisely) gave
man the consciousness of this nihilistic process and displaced him
“into a penetrating sense of his nothingness” » .
Within this new understanding the Universe remains open to
human reason. However, it will no longer take care of the welfare of
humanity (GkW –, –), since a huge part of the Universe — if
not all — has “nothing to do with man’s happiness” (GkW , )
and above all because “the magnitude of the empirically accessible
Universe” (GkW , ) was believed to be very limited.

The Anthropological Semantics of the Cosmos

In my opinion, Blumenberg’s history of astronomy does not focus

on the gradual establishment of a scientific discipline, but rather on
astronomy as the key contribution to the historical understanding
of man and his position in reality. That is to say, it constitutes « the
formation of the cosmic background of the history of human con-
sciousness » [« die Formierung des kosmischen Hintergrundes der
menschlichen Bewußtseinsgeschichte »] (GkW , ). Thus, Blumen-
berg’s historical–philosophical analysis pays special attention to the
epochal transformation of the relationships between the world and
human consciousness through successive astronomical achievements
that move from geocentrism to heliocentrism and onwards again
towards post–Copernican astronomy. In this regard, I would argue
that Blumenberg’s history of astronomy constitutes “the anthropo-
logical semantics of cosmology” [“die anthropologische Semantik
der Kosmologie”] (GkW , ). The history of understandings of
the stars correlates with the history of man’s self–understanding
(GkW , ), the inflection point of which is directly informed
by the existential paradigm of indifference. In a cold, hostile and

. Friedrich N, Sämtliche Werke, vol. , Munich, , p. , quoted by Blumen-
berg (GkW –, ). See also Blumenberg’s Introduction to Nicolaus von C, Die Kunst
der Vermutung. Auswahl aus den Schriften (edited by Hans Blumenberg), Bremen, Schünemann,
, p. .
 . Existential Paradigms in Hans Blumenberg’s. . . 

rapidly expanding Universe cosmology addressed the observer of the

stars to himself and towards anthropological knowledge. Thus, the
« indicative role of cosmology for man’s self–consciousness » (GkW
, ) was translated into human action by the act of building a
world made for man as an exercise of his freedom.
According to Blumenberg, this process was launched by modern
astronomy and the self–constitution of man. The accumulation of
intolerable disappointments from the exploration of the Universe —
particularly the discovery of the peripheral position of Earth in re-
lation to other celestial bodies — encouraged modern man to rely
on the limited scope of what was closer and more familiar to him
— i.e. himself and the soil under his feet — which would become
the most important thing of all and the object of self–affirmation. Af-
ter the loss of the “anthropocentric meaning of the world” (GkW ,
) and the unexpected discovery of its eccentricity, modern man re–
mythologized both the Earth and himself (GkW – and ,  and
). As a result, the means of mitigating the impact of the Copernican
disappointment consisted in rehabilitating compensatory anthropocen-
tric mechanisms (GkW , ): appealing to the universality of reason
and the independence of its achievements; enabling, in short, a new
self–understanding of man and his immediate reality (GkW –, ).
Faced with such difficulties in the justification of the contingency of his
position in the cosmos, modern man found that the self–intensification
of his own being and the results of his action on the world — that is
to say, in the “anthropological absolutism” [“anthropologischen Abso-
lutismus”] (GkW , ) — offered a convenient palliative response to
the nothingness displayed in the Universe.
Thus, Blumenberg’s history of astronomy is somehow the con-
tinuation of the history of ontology, especially in the successive pro-
cesses of « legitimizing human self–consciousness with the aid of a
physical schema » (GkW , ), and most specifically in the meta-
physical and anthropological implications derived from each his-
torical image of the world (GkW –, ). It does not produce
the same concept of reality as an indestructible, reliably–ordered
cosmos or a Universe inclined towards eschatological collapse or
the production of new and disturbing celestial bodies such as stars,
comets and planets (GkW , ). In the fall of the geocentric system
— the « most closed dogmatic system of world–explanation » (GkW
, ) — is found the great metaphysical transformation that made
Copernicanism possible: « The ‘prehistory of the Copernican reform
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

does not present itself as the gradual consolidation and convergence

of sets of motives into what is finally an irresistible historical neces-
sity. [. . . ] The exciting historical problem of this epochal turning is
precisely not the explanation of the fact of Copernicus’s accomplish-
ment, or even the affirmation of its necessity, but rather finding the
basis of its mere possibility » (GkW , ). Such a possibility can
result in nothing other than the radical change in the underlying
concept of reality and its specific epistemological access. According
to Blumenberg, without the crisis of Scholasticism that sanctioned
the natural philosophy employed by Copernicus in his astronomical
reform and without the humanist tradition that renewed the clas-
sical anthropocentric teleology dignifying human reason; such a
profound modification of the geocentric image of the world — as
it was operated by Copernicus (GkW , ) — would have been
impossible: « The change that was brought about by Copernicus in
mankind’s historical consciousness of itself is conceivable, in its radi-
cal quality, only against the background and as a consequence of the
prior history — a history with no designatable beginning, and one
that was never interrupted — of the human relation to the cosmic
environment » (GkW –, ).

.. The contemplator caeli

As I already mentioned, an individual looking at the starry sky is a

persistent figure in Blumenberg’s works on the history of astronomy
(CC; GkW; SdP; LdT; SZ). This contemplator caeli defines human kind
as possessed by strong curiosity, penetrating into the darkness of the
night with the purpose of observing the sky despite the fact that
his bizarre behaviour raises the suspicions of his contemporaries.
Thus, the astronomer is a sort of theoros: an unproductive spectator
mundi (LdT , ; SZ) free from any worldly concerns and inclined to
the unprofitable pursuit of the stars. Dominated by an ardent Sorge
concerning the starry sky, he focuses all his energies on that brilliant
suspension, ignoring current human interests and assuming all kinds
of risks and dangers. His Sorge with the stars continuously provokes
a self–exposure (GkW , ) to the extent that he becomes the
“victim of his own drive” (SdP –, ). The « rarity of the nocturnal
spectator of the world » (LdT , –) emphasizes the well–known
existential conditions that support and make the theory plausible.
 . Existential Paradigms in Hans Blumenberg’s. . . 

Moreover, although the basis of the nocturnal spectator’s behavior

is not visible by itself, his existential condition is, in contrast, the
consequence of his curiosity, provoking scandal in those who witness
it: « Theoretical behavior consists of actions that are subject to inten-
tional rules and it produces complex of statements under regulated
connections, but only from the outside could these actions be inter-
preted as “executions” of something. To someone unfamiliar with
such an intentionality, which is not able to guess them belongs to the
“theory”, should find them enigmatic and it may seem shocking and
even ridiculous » (LdT , ).
The observation of the stars and its corresponding “theoretical
nocturnal efforts” (SdP , ) become an inexhaustible source of
« tensions and misunderstandings among life–world and theory »
(LdT , ), as it is hard to understand from outside what there could
be in those enigmatic objects that makes them able to absorb a full
lifetime of work (LdT , ). Nowadays nobody perceives anything
strange in the activity of astronomers, since their very expensive
observational instruments preclude the need to wander blindly into
the night while others sleep with well–deserved tranquility. Only
belatedly, however, has such a reconciliation with the “terrestrial
life–world” (GkW , ) been possible, since the « asceticism of
a professional code and has to deliver what might be called “values
for life” » (GkW , ) was incorporated. In the background still lies
the long and eventful history of the contemplator caeli and his perpe-
tual confrontation with the life–world; indispensable in the effort to
overcome the incongruences among the clear, well–known and mun-
dane intuitions as well as the challenging subtleties of astronomical
rationality (GkW , ).
The achievements of astronomy have required the gradual aban-
donment of the common perception of phenomena as « the initial
basis for and as the norm of accomplished knowledge of nature »
(GkW , ), thereby undermining — in Husserl’s terminology
— « the meaning–fundament’ of all theoretical processes in the intu-
itional sphere of the “life–world” » (GkW , ). For the life–world
everything should be available to perception and must be experi-
enced — as well as testable — there. On the contrary, astronomy
has continued to enlarge the “gap between theory and life” (SdP ,
), making the « reduction of cosmology to the state of innocence
of a pretheoretical life–world » (GkW , ) unviable. This has pre-
vented the pacification of its perennial conflict with the everyday
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

life. Astronomy was unable to reduce the distance from its original
motivations, which are located precisely in that life–world:

The renunciation of intuition is a precondition of science; the loss of intu-

ition is a necessary consequence of any theory that systematizes itself, that
is, that consolidates and arranges its results in such a way that, by virtue of
their heterogeneous order, they place themselves in the way of access to
the original phenomena and finally take the place of these. Results of sci-
ence have, to an ever–increasing degree, the characteristic that they contain
knowledge as a terminal state that can no longer be related to any sort of
previously familiar object (GkW , ).

Astronomical knowledge refers back to the life–world only when

it can provide definitive answers to questions previously raised in it
(GkW , ); i.e. when it is able to augur abundant harvests, predict
eclipses or eliminate fears provoked by unexpected celestial bodies.
However, the life–world demands its value as its fundamental basis
(SdP –, –), emphasizing not only the gap between the unlimited
requirements of the theoretical drive and the finite nature of life (SdP
–, ), but also drawing attention to « the difference between the
demands of theory and the moderation of practice » (SdP , ).

The contemplator caeli in Historical Perspective

I would like to point out some of the various stages of development

of the contemplator caeli in Blumenberg’s history of astronomy. The
ancient Greek tradition is considered remarkable, especially the Stoic.
According to the Greek observer, « everything that is not directly ac-
cessible to man’s faculty of perception » (GkW , ) is excluded
from reality. This assumption is based on what Blumenberg calls the
“postulate of visibility” (GkW , ), according to which the cosmos
is essentially coordinated by man so that no inconsistency is to be ex-
pected between his physical constitution and the general architecture
of the world: « The postulate of visibility follows from the symmetrical
construction of the geocentric Universe and man’s central position
in it » (GkW , ). Within such a scheme, the sky is configured by
fixed stars equidistant from Earth and it is impossible that any other
hidden stars are beyond the capacity of human perception: « If any
fixed star at all can be perceived, then all of them can be » (GkW ,

. See also (oD, Erster T §§ – and Dritter T §§ –).
 . Existential Paradigms in Hans Blumenberg’s. . . 

). This postulate demands that no additional means are necessary

to achieve optimal vision beyond the naked eye, given that the starry
sky perfectly coincides both with the cognitive possibilities of man
and with his intellectual abilities. Moreover, the magnificence of the
cosmos requires the presence of the spectator mundi, otherwise its
greatness would be vain « because the beautiful evidently cannot be
conceived without someone whom it pleases » (GkW , ).
This is the paradigmatic version of the contemplator caeli who, like
Diogenes Laertius’ Anaxagoras, finds the ultimate reason for his exis-
tence in the open possibility of « the observation of the sun, the moon,
and the heavens » (GkW , ). He derives a greater pleasure from the
contemplation of nature than in the polis public affairs (GkW , ).
Thus, the Greek spectator of the sky considers the firmament of the
fixed stars as the means of access to a higher reality, « with a purest
reality, with the part of nature closest to the thought » (LdT , ).
This is why the perfect symmetry between the cosmos and its under-
standing is occasionally replaced by « an ideal of perception of reality in
the realm of the inaccessible and, therefore, in “pure” admiration » (LdT
, ), making the sky an exemplary object increasingly unreachable
(SdP , ), as in the cases of Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s (GkW , ).
The ancient Greek observer of a geocentric and generally anthro-
pocentric cosmos is converted into the Gnostic observer of the world,
for whom the display of the starry sky is, after all, misleading and
disappointing (GkW , ). The bombastic spectacle of the heavens
obscures the true position of man in the world. The naïve observer
is confused by the dazzling splendour of the heaven. He believes he
is in the right place at the right time and that everything is prepared
to please and dignify him, while reality is a nefarious trick executed
by hidden and evil powers that is performed to keep man far from
God and perpetuate his subjugation on Earth. The Gnostic spectator
incredulously finds a demonized cosmos that is inherently wrong and
tries to seduce him with its misleading appearance of familiarity (GkW
–, ). Thus, the Gnostic contemplator caeli would be an antecedent
of the Christian believer and his skepticism concerning the sky, since
he would ignore celestial idols in order to discover the hidden Creator
behind them (SdP , ). Despite the apparent centrality of man, he
should not forget that he does not belong to the cosmos and his salva-
tion will come, in effect, from the destruction of the world (GkW –,
). Therefore, Gnosticism prefigures Christian eschatology to the
extent that personal salvation is negatively conditioned to the stability
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

of the cosmos (GkW –, ); after its imminent ruin the true splendor
of paradise will follow.
In contrast, the Christian contemplator caeli oscillates between
« the extreme initial values represented by Stoicism and Gnosticism »
(GkW , ). He is cautious in his admiration for the sky but at
the same time considers himself to be the centre of creation. The
Christian observer refuses to accept his point of view as wrong or
contingent. Thus, he « systematically move[s] to the observation
point assigned to him: in the centre of movements » (SdP , ),
where he can be oriented towards transcendence. The Christian
contemplator caeli learned from Gnosticism to moderate his eagerness
to know; to guide his astronomical curiosity; preserving, however,
the anthropocentric teleology (GkW , ; SdP –, ). The sky is
certainly “the place of divine things” (GkW , ) and man can not
hope to intrude on them at will. Therefore, the Christian spectator
should « choose between two possible and opposite directions of
gaze » (SdP , ), either towards the “achievable whole knowledge”
[“das erreichbare Ganze der Erkenntnis”] (LdT , ) or towards
« the natural secret and the respective inaccessibility of the divine
will » (LdT , ). The alternative choice was between a God who
has no obligations towards man but would ensure the cognitive
accessibility of the world (GkW –, ), and an inscrutable God
both in his designs and the ultimate aims of his creation. It was not
easy to decide, in short, whether « the orbits described in heaven
are the result of an inaccessible will » (SdP , ), or rather that they
are the proof of God’s omnipotence. The figure of the Christian
astronomer falls into this « mismatch between the philosophical–
ancient element and biblical–theological element » (SdP –, ).
Christian astronomy « believes [itself] to be able to clearly establish
the reliability of the cosmic order and its laws, but cannot claim it
to be above any “superior” intervention and mediation if it wants to
prove the indefectibility of its claims » (SdP –, ). The medieval
observer struggled with the consistency of its results and the insistent
appeal to transcendence. The crisis of the Middle Ages, especially with
Nominalism, would eventually result in the suppression of the last
remnants of cosmic anthropocentric teleology, bringing into question
the possibility of a guaranteed and accomplished knowledge of the
Universe (GkW –, –).
Nevertheless, the ancient idea of the centrality of man in the
cosmos would later be rehabilitated during the Renaissance (GkW
 . Existential Paradigms in Hans Blumenberg’s. . . 

, ), albeit deprived of the providentialism of the teleological an-

thropology. The main consequence of this view affects the dignity
and autonomy of man in relation to the world: the metaphysical
centrality of man is a proof of the rationality of the world (GkW ,
). According to Blumenberg, this Renaissance humanism and its
Platonic heritage is the basis of Copernican astronomical reform and
the heliocentric contemplator caeli, insofar as the epistemological cos-
mic privileges of man could only be guaranteed within this tradition
without appealing to a very questionable anthropological innocence,
like that of Stoic naturalism (GkW  and –,  and ; KuS
–). This tradition allowed for the avoidance of the skepticism of
the Nominalism and the late theology of salvation (GkW , ).
That is to say, the Humanism of the Renaissance and its Platonic
heritage made the “rational anthropocentrism” [“rationale Anthro-
pozentrik”] (GkW , ), later assumed in Copernicanism (GkW
–, –), ultimately possible. A world made for man guarantees
its accessibility to human reason (GkW , ). All this preserved
the ancient postulate of visibility (GkW  ff.,  ff.): the perfect
correspondence between what is seen in the heavens and what is
actually in them, even though the Copernican observer certainly lost
his stillness [“Am Ende des ruhenden Betrachters”] (GkW , ).
However, the eccentric position proposed by Copernican he-
liocentrism further complicated the postulate of visibility since its
terrestrial perspective turns the perception of the stars into an “acci-
dental consequence of heterogeneous sequences of physical events”
(GkW , ). The Copernican perspectivism of astronomical re-
form, along with the disturbing questions as to whether or not the
connection between the observer and the observed was purely con-
tingent and accidental (GkW –, ), paved the way for the exact
reversal of the postulate of visibility: « The invisible has occupied the
position for which, in the metaphysical tradition, the visible seemed
to possess the sanction of being the access to reality » (GkW , ).
Moreover, the contemplator caeli lost his aesthetic sensibility and his
astronomical works began to focus instead on the dark cabinet where
the post–Copernican astronomer would spend much of his time ab-
sorbed in the endless digressions of his mathematical calculations.
While the complex machinery of the night sky continues to move
around outside, the astronomer was inside trying to understand it
(GkW –, –).
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

.. The contemplator caeli loses his Position: the Fall

The anecdote of Thales’ falling in the well is representative of the

paradigmatic case of the contemplator caeli’s loss of his position as the
spectator. Blumenberg dealt extensively with this anecdote. It tells of
the falling of Thales of Miletus into a well while he was watching the
stars, consequently provoking the laughter of the Thracian maid who
accompanied him. The anecdote not only involves the dichotomy
between the “being–present–at–hand” and the “unavailable being”
from an astronomical point of view, but also the “being–present–at–
feet” and its variations: « lose the ground under one’s foot », « keep
ones feet on the ground », etc. This is an “existentiell” — undetected
as such by Heidegger — that Blumenberg demonstrated with great
eloquence in his two great works on the history of the reception of
the Thales’ anecdote, Der Sturz des Protophilosophen [] and Das
Lachen der Thrakerin []. I shall quote a passage from the former:
the late Heidegger no longer remembers [. . . ] the elemental conclusion
of his existential analysis of Sein und Zeit, which can be defined as the last
radicalization of the original philosophical experience, symbolized in the
anecdote of Tales. Indeed, for the philosopher of Miletus, the closest —
that in front of his feet — was so far as to fall within, but it is precisely the
realism of the fall and the laughter it provokes which hides and mutes the
existence of something farther but shown as closest to cause the falling into
a well. Heidegger defined it as the result of the hermeneutical structure
of his early ontology: « The entity we are at any time, is ontologically the
farthest » (SdP , ).

Trapped between the apparent unavailable and the hidden available

and blinded to the most immediate, the Milesian ventured into the
darkness of the night believing that objects of high rank were achie-
vable (SdP , ) and with the aim of examining each of the heavenly
bodies « in their universality, without ever descending to anything
concrete and closer [. . . ] or discuss what is present at foot » (SdP ,
). Thus, Thales fell into a well right in front of him. Hence, in the
Platonic tradition of the anecdote, the Thracian maid’s recrimination:
the Milesian wanted to know the things of heaven, ignoring what
he had “under his nose and feet” [« was ihm vor der Nase und den
Füßen läge »] (SdP , ).
The state of affairs “at foot” is completely absent from the Sorge
of the astronomer, who turns his attention towards the remote and
unavailable (SdP , ). According to the Thracian maid, these astro-
 . Existential Paradigms in Hans Blumenberg’s. . . 

nomical concerns are suddenly interrupted by « the tangible realities

extended under his feet » (SdP , ) that imperiously demanded
his attention as the legitimate content of the Sorge. In his vigilant
eyes, Thales falls simply because while « scrutinizing the phenomena
of the sky, it is the hidden that remains close to his feet » (SdP –,
). The Thracian maid then feels authorized to warn to his master,
referring to « the tangible and binding reality of the practicalities of
everyday life » (SdP –, ) , while discussing his inability to reach
the stars (SdP –, ) and his unacceptable disinterest towards the
terrestrial world.
Thales remains foreign to the objects of the world, which are as
strange and distant to him as the celestial bodies to the Thracian
maid (SdP , ). The proto–philosopher’s curiosity about the stars is
clearly incompatible with low, terrestrial matters, for « on the thinker
falls everyday’s laughter, absorbed in its own concerns » (LdT –,
). The laughter involves « consequences not only for what we
consider to be remote to man, but also for all that should be close to
him » (SdP –, –). Thales had forgotten that « the soil he walks
on is not exactly that of a star » (SdP –, ), thus he ended up “in
the dirt of the soil” (SdP –, ). Thales’ concerns led him to lose
the soil under his feet:
The ground under one’s feet is the most handy metaphor for regretting
the loss of reality and realism; when it should be described as the abandon-
ment of the life–world; the ground under the feet metaphor turns into a
metaphor of the unnoticed securities that constitute the syndrome of the
vital worldliness (LdT , ).

.. Images and Metaphors of Unavailability

I want to conclude this chapter by examining some of the metapho-

rical representations of the “unavailable being” as an existential condi-
tion, as suggest by Blumenberg in his history of astronomy. Perhaps
the most emblematic is the Aristotelian distinction between sublu-
nary world and supra–lunar world, which Blumenberg seems to hold
. Reinhart Herzog has drawn attention to the fact that in all the history of the reception
of Thales’ anecdote, an answer by the fallen astronomer to the Thracian maid is never recorded:
“Die Frage nach Thales’ Antwort”. Further details can be found in his “Das Schweigen des
Thales”, in: Michael K (ed.), Akzente. Hans Blumenberg zum . Geburtstag,  Jahrgang,
Heft , Juni , pp. –.
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

as the paradigmatic case of astronomical resignation. This distinction

of worlds not only thematises the incongruence between human
intellect and the heavens, but also, when considered metaphorically
(GkW , ), symbolizes the gap between the near–at–hand and
the unknown, unreachable far–away that cannot be conceptualized.
The supra–lunar world sets up the fuzzy sphere of that which is
unavailable to man, who cannot intervene in nor appropriate it. It
is not possible to venture even its most general features, since « the
attributes of the heavenly bodies cannot be expressed in concepts
derived from terrestrial ones » (GkW , ). Moreover, the supra–
lunar world arises as « the criterion of the utmost ambiguity of the
heavens » (GkW , ); the « the scandal of man’s fixation on the
unalterability of his situation in the world » (GkW , ). It is also a
world devoid of any providence (SdP , ).
We can associate this particular metaphor of unavailability with
the tradition of cosmological metaphors of majesty (GkW –, –
), according to which an undetermined portion of the sky belongs
to the « inaccessible space reserved to God » (GkW –, –).
These metaphors, with their clear existential content, are aimed
mostly at showing « that not everything in the world concerns man »
(GkW –, ), especially not that which is high and worthy of
being regarded with admiration, respect and reverence.
In this context, Kierkegaard’s metaphor of the carriage is also note-
worthy. Blumenberg placed it within the tradition of the “metaphors
of light” (GkW , ), with the particularity that is employed to
describe the one who, under the excessive light that blinds him,
tries to darken his situation in order to see better: « It was probably
Kierkegaard who first found an image for this form of self–darkening
by means of one’s own light » (GkW , ). In  Kierkegaard
described in his diary the scene of a wealthy man driving in the
darkness of the night guided by the lights of his carriage. The rich
man could therefore see an extremely small area much better than
the poor man who, due to driving without lights, can see nothing
in front of him but can see the vast panorama of the sky. The rich
man orientates himself according to the most immediate, losing the
perception of distance that the poor man may contemplate at will but
on the risky condition of not being able to see that which is closest:
« The “rich man” here is not a social but a religious category. It is
the person who relies on his means, on his realism, with what is
nearest at hand, and his light is unquestionably that of rationality:
 . Existential Paradigms in Hans Blumenberg’s. . . 

it does indeed enable him to see better, but it hides the stars from
him » (GkW , ). Kierkegaard could not have anticipated, unlike
Simmel (H , ), that the lights of the city would turn the night
into day, obscuring both the landscape and the starry sky. Modern
cities prevent that upwards gaze towards « something inaccessible,
unconvertible, nonnegotiable, that is of that limiting value of every
culture at which the “relation to practice” fades out » (GkW , ).
This was the existential condition of Tycho Brahe, « who be-
lieved he could find the shortest way to his carriage by looking to
the stars » (LdT , ). However, his coachman, in the manner
of Kierkegaard’s rich man and Tales’ Thracian maid, answers him:
« Lord, maybe you well understand the heavens, but here on Earth
you are crazy » (LdT , ). Blumenberg argues that such an answer
is not a censure but « an assessment of a conflict of jurisdictions »
(LdT , ). The simultaneous recognition and disavowal by the
coachman resides in the illegitimate manoeuver to attempt to make
available the terrestrial world by observing the celestial worlds. The
knowledge of the position and kinematics of the stars is then sanc-
tioned as an useless and counterproductive in relation to finding the
shortest path on the surface of the Earth.
Perhaps the richest image of this carriage metaphor is introduced
by the anecdote of Voltaire and Madame du Châtelet. During a trip to
Cirey in , Voltaire’s carriage breaks, throwing out its occupants.
The secretary who accompanied them was sent to the nearest town
to ask for help and, on his return, he « saw a scene full of a ridiculous
lack of realism and contempt for harsh earthly realities » (SdP , ).
Voltaire and Mme. du Châtelet were sitting next to each other on
the carriage cushions, which had been removed and arranged on
the snow from where they observed the beauty of the starry sky:
« Captured by the greatness of the spectacle, they talked, shivering in
the cold though the furs, on the nature and the orbits described by
the stars, on the fate of countless celestial bodies in the infinity space »
(SdP , ). For their complete happiness, they would only have
required, according to the testimony of the secretary, the appropriate
optical instruments to scrutinize the depths of heaven, « not realizing
their sad situation on Earth » (SdP , ). Only the arrival of aid could
interrupt the joyous « cosmic contemplation and the colloquium
about the Universe » (SdP , ).
Among the many other metaphors of unavailability, such as the
organic metaphor of Idealism (GkW –, –), the Tower of Ba-
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

bel (GkW , ) or metaphorization of invisibility (GkW , ),

I would like to refer only to the ambiguous metaphor of the “full
accounting of the stars” [“Die Vollzähligkeit der Sterne”] (VS ) that
should perhaps be properly placed alongside existential metaphors
of availability. I am referring to Hans Carossa’s poem “The old well”
[“Der alte Brunnen”], which Blumenberg calls a “nocturnal song”
[“Nachtlied”] (VS ) or a lullaby. In this poem is described the scene
of a guest being hosted for the first time in a modest cottage, located
near a lonely well that also serves as a fountain: « He had first to
become accustomed to the soft murmur, but then becomes so accus-
tomed to it that he then wakes up when the sound is interrupted »
[“wenn der Ton aussetzt”] (VS ). The landlord then has to calm him:
« A night walker has interrupted the stream with his empty hand to
try to drink » (VS ). This is, Blumenberg says, « an experience in soli-
tude, which is not definitive » [« Erfahrung in der Einsamkeit, daß sie
nicht endgültig ist »] (VS ). More night–walkers will come to drink,
indicating their passage with the occasional brief silence interrupting
the murmur, before they then keep walking on (VS ). In further
versions of the poem, the startled sleeper would find reassurance in
the “complete accounting” [“vollzählbar”] (VS ) of the stars in the
sky, that the sleeper finds right there when they awake. While the
fountain may be disturbed, and thus his sleep, not so the order of the
world as symbolized by the unequivocal stability of the starry sky.
The sky itself remains unchanged and serves as a reference point
for those who emerge disoriented into the world after the abrupt
interruption of their rest. Moreover, it is possible to count the stars
in the sky in order to fall asleep again: « It is not important that this
accounting actually occurs, but that it may be made » (VS ).
I mention this passage as an image of unavailability, since its am-
biguous formulation also denotes an unreachable Universe. As in the
popular song that inspired Carossa’s poem, doubt soon arrives: « Do
you know how many stars we have counted? » [“Weißt du wieviel
Sternlein gehen?”] (VS ). Given that the actual task of counting
every star is unachievable, it must insist solely on the mere possibility
of counting them. As demonstrated by stellar cartography — an
endeavor whose fulfillment must always be postponed for future
generations (LW –, –; VS –) — the starry sky remains as
remote and unavailable as ever, though its brilliant and accountable
appearance helps us to sleep while we lie on an eccentric Earth that
turns impassively on its empty orbit.
 Chapter IV

A Chapter on Astronoetics
Blumenberg’s Phenomenology
of the Life–World from a Cosmological Point of View

Jetzt ist klar geworden, dass man zuvor As-

tronom gewesen sein musste, um sich endlich
mit der Lebenswelt des Menschen beschäftigen
zu können.

Hans B,
Vollzähligkeit der Sterne

Water and glass, dress and closet, are both “in”

space “at” a location in the same way. This re-
lation of being can be expanded; that is, the
bench in the lecture hall, the lecture hall in the
university, the university in the city, and so on
until: the bench in “world space”.

Martin H
Sein und Zeit, § 

.. Einstein and Husserl in 

In one of his astronoetical glosses, “Keine Lebenswelten” [“There are

not life–worlds”] (VS ), Blumenberg recalled the proximity in time
of Einstein’s formulation of relativistic cosmology and Husserl’s most
important intellectual achievement — according to Blumenberg —:
the introduction in philosophy of the concept of “life–world” (TLW
). The posthumous publication of Volume XXXIX of Husserliana,
dedicated precisely to the “life–world”, has revealed to what extent
this assessment is correct . The beginning of relativistic cosmology

. E. H, Die Lebenswelt. Texte aus dem Nachlass (–), edited by Rochus Sowa,
Gesammelte Werke, Band , Springer Verlag, Berlin, .


 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

is usually dated back to February  , when Einstein presented

his famous “Kosmologischen Betrachtungen zur Allgemeinen Rela-
tivitätstheorie” at the Berlin Academy . At the same time, Husserl
began to shape his concept of “Lebenswelt”, which reached its fullest
expression around  with his equally famous series of lectures in
Vienna and Prague that form the core of his Die Krisis der europäischen
Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie . This coinci-
dence of two of the most important milestones in the theory of
relativity and transcendental phenomenology, respectively, reveals
a deeper affinity, as Blumenberg so insightfully pointed out. The
affinity concerns the basic assumptions of the formulation of rela-
tivity, that we can properly denote as a “Urstiftung” [“originative
foundation”] (LW –). One of the distinctive features of the theory
of relativity that makes it the consummation of modern physics is
the inclusion of the observer as a key element in the study of the
physical processes being described: an observer, fatally immersed
in the centre of intricate kinematic and dynamic processes, appears
as one of the stand–out figures in the new physical theory. Thus,
Einstein’s relativity was peculiarly consistent with transcendental
phenomenology.
Blumenberg made reference to all of this apropos the anecdote
of the roofer, commonly associated with Einstein’s early conception
of relativity (VS IX) . According to this anecdote, Einstein witnessed
how a roofer fell from a roof and was, luckily, left unhurt after the fall.
Einstein then took the opportunity to ask him: “Wie war das?” [“How
was it?”] .
Not without reason, Blumenberg pointed out that if Einstein had
instead asked the more expected question — “Are you okay?” —,
this anecdote would not have entered into the history of science and,
perhaps, Einstein would not have developed a new conception of
gravity. The basic connection between relativity and phenomenology
can be found in the description of the double “original experience”

. On this issue, see the Chapter VI “Cosmological Apocalypse” in this book.

. E. H, Die Krisis der Europäischen Wissenschaften und die Transzendentale
Phänomenologie, Martinus Nijhoff, Den Haag, .
. Further details on this anecdote see Albrecht F, Albert Einstein, Surkamp Verlag,
Frankfurt am Main, , “Ein Mann fällt vom Dach – Auf dem Wege zur Allgemeinen Relativitäts-
theorie”, pp.  ff.
. “Er fragte ihn: Wie war das?”. B, “Drohender Verlust einer Anekdote” (VS ).
 . A Chapter on Astronoetics 

[“Urerlebnis”] — someone who falls and whose testimony should be

recovered, and someone who witnesses the fall —, as, ultimately, it
forms the primary intuitive basis of the new interpretation of gravity.
Einstein’s peculiar « experiential capacity for a cosmological pro-
blem » [“Erlebnisfähigkeit für ein Weltallproblem”] (VS ) has been
compared by Blumenberg to Newton’s apple anecdote (VS –) .
In both cases, it would be the change from a more or less common
experience into a unique and individual experience [“Einzelerlebnis-
sen”] (VS ) that subsequently found its consumption as a scientific
“achievement” [“Ergebnis”] (Lt –; VS –). The anecdote of the
roofer’s fall and its speculative performance defines, in short, « the
paradigm of an exclusive experience » [« das Paradigma eines exklu-
siven Erlebnisses »] (VS ) that only transcendental phenomenology
was able to analyse. Moreover, it was from the systematic analysis of
precisely these kinds of “original experiences” that phenomenology
aspired to be constructed . As is well known, Einstein developed his
theory of relativity from a series of thought experiments involving
men in free–falling elevators and walking through moving trains, the
detailed analysis of which allowed him to glean conclusions relevant
to the understanding of gravity and spacetime . In this regard, the
bizarre and surprising affinity between Einstein’s thought experi-
ments of relativistic physics and Husserl’s phenomenological analysis
of movement, which also allows a specific connection to the topic of
the life–world, must be emphasized . In fact, as I shall demonstrate,
Husserl employed thought experiments of a “cosmological” kind to
arrive at epistemological conclusions for his genetic phenomenology.
Conversely, the theory of relativity, with its conceptual paradoxes and
time travels, could be considered as a sort of “incommensurability”
among “life–wolds”.
A few splendid studies have emphasized the presence of anthro-
pological topics in Blumenberg’s astronoetics . In this chapter I will

. Blumenberg has also related this anecdote to that of Tales: “Die Geschichte unserer
Theorie vom Weltall beginnt mit einem Sturz und endet mit einem Sturz”. That of Tales and
the well, in the first case, that of Einstein and the roofer, in the second: « Tales und Einstein:
zwei komplementäre Anekdoten von theoretischen Elementarereignissen ». H. B,
“Einstenium” (VS ).
. See also H. B, “Takt und Methode” (VS ).
. Jordi C, Cosmología física, Barcelona, Ediciones Akal, , pp.  ff.
. Some examples in this regard can be found in (TLW  and ; VS ; ZdS ).
. Bruno A, “Vestigium umbra non facit. Astronoetica, ostilità e amicizia in Hans
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

argue that Blumenberg’s astronoetics converge not only anthropo-

logical topics but also phenomenological ones. In my opinion — and
this is my claim — the unexpected convergence between the philo-
sophical enquiries into the cosmos and phenomenological thinking
was a direct result of astronoetics. In particular, I will suggest an
interpretation of astronoetics as a phenomenology of the life–world
that complemented Blumenberg’s phenomenological anthropology
outlined in Beschreibung des Menschen (BdM). I will then argue that
the Blumenberguian phenomenology of the life–world, introduced
in the posthumous Theorie der Lebenswelt (TLW), is also a chapter of
astronoetics.

.. Blumenberg’s Doctrine of Life–World

Although Blumenberg’s works already included phenomenological

topics from the very beginning — constantly reworked and extended
in successive stages of his thought —, only after the publication of
his posthumous books have his affinities with the phenomenological
tradition become clear and, thus, acquired a new significance. This
is certainly the case with Zu den Sachen und zurück [], Beschrei-
bung des Menschen [] and Theorie der Lebenswelt []; all of them
edited by Manfred Sommer — Blumenberg’s former assistant, him-
self a phenomenologist —. In this respect, I may cautiously refer to
the “epochs of Blumenberguian phenomenology”. No doubt the
first one would be Blumenberg’s early metaphorology taken as a
« metakinetics of the historical horizons of meaning » [“Metakinesen
des geschichtlichen Sinnhorizontes”] (oD ) that, under the influ-

Blumenberg”, Daedalus. Le digressioni del male da Kant a Blumenberg, Milano, Mimesis, , pp.
–; Emanuela M, “De la tierra al cielo y regreso. La reflexión de Hans Blumenberg
sobre la posición del hombre en el cosmos después de la empresa astronáutica”, « Revista
Anthropos », n.º , Barcelona, ; E. M, “I pensieri astronoetici come laboratorio
per un’antropologia sperimentale: la riflessione di Hans Blumenberg sull’impresa spaziale”,
in: Alberto F and Diego G (eds): Hans Blumenberg. Nuovi paradigmi d’analisi,
Aracne Editrice, Roma, , pp. –; Rüdiger Z, “Die Entstehung des Weltraums als
Erfahrungsraum und die Inversion des menschlichen Erwartungshorizontes”, in Michael
M (ed.): Erinnerung an das Humane. Beiträge zur phänomenologischen Anthropologie Hans
Blumenbergs, Tübingen, , pp. –.
. See also Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie []: « Der historische Wandel einer
Metapher bringt die Metakinetik geschichtlicher Sinnhorizonte » (PM  and ). A. F,
« Das Überleben der Übergänge: la supervivencia de los tránsitos: nuevos paradigmas de
 . A Chapter on Astronoetics 

ence of the Begriffsgeschichte, evolved towards a phenomenology of

history and a theory of experience . In this process, Blumenberg
applied the Husserlian free variation to history (TLW ). However,
despite such a historicized phenomenology — and besides the “phe-
nomenological glosses” edited in Zu den Sachen und zurück — we
should also take into account the aforementioned phenomenologi-
cal anthropology and phenomenology of the life–world, defined in
Beschreibung des Menschen and Theorie der Lebenswelt respectively.
Following this line of reasoning, we could also consider many of
Blumenberg’s contributions as a reception of various phenomenolog-
ical arguments, especially that of the “life–world”. Thus, for instance,
I shall refer to Blumenberg’s in–conceptuality (SZ –, –; TdU)
that we can understand as the confluence between the “life–world”
and the Begriffsgeschichte; Blumenberg’ series of essays on Thales
of Miletus (LdT –, –; SdP –, –); and those edited in
Die Sorge geht über den Fluss. The “life–world” was also crucial in
Lebenszeit und Weltzeit [] (LW –) where Blumenberg pre-
sented the history of astronomy as the preeminent place for the
historical–phenomenological objectification of the experience of
time . However, it is in the posthumous book Theorie der Lebenswelt
that « the core of the Blumenberguian doctrine of the life–world »
has found its most explicit and precise formulation.

análisis de la obra de Hans Blumenberg », in: Alberto Fragio and Diego Giordano (eds): Hans
Blumenberg. Nuovi paradigmi d’analisi, op. cit, pp. –.
. A. F, “Hans Blumenberg and the Metaphorology of Enlightenment”, in: Cor-
nelius Borck (ed.), Hans Blumenberg beobachtet. Wissenschaft, Technik und Philosophie, Verlag Karl
Alber, , p. , footnote .
. In particular, see Blumenberg’s analysis on “life–world” in “Das Lebensweltmißver-
ständnis”, the first part of Lebenszeit und Weltzeit [] (LW –). See also “Lebenswelt und
Technisierung unter Aspekten der Phän-omenologie” (LT –, –; TdL).
. See especially the section “Zur genetischen Phänomenologie der Weltzeit”, in: Leben-
szeit und Weltzeit (LW –). We should consider this section as a fabulous reworking of
some of the topics of Husserl’s famous book on the phenomenology of internal consciousness
of time, to which Blumenberg devoted several seminars. On this subject see A. Fragio, “Hans
Blumenberg and the Metaphorology of Enlightenment”, op. cit., footnote .
. César González C, “Hans Blumenberg, Theorie der Lebenswelt”, « Revista Anthro-
pos », n.º , Barcelona, .
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

Characterization of the Blumenberguian Phenomenology of the Life–World

The posthumously released book Theorie der Lebenswelt consists of a

collection of essays which are quite digressive and sometimes even
redundant with regard to the subject of life–world. The “Lebenswelt”
concept was not only « an important piece of the phenomenological
architecture », but « an important element of Blumenberg’s philo-
sophical overcoming of Husserlian’s thought. More than important:
crucial, since the life–world condenses the Blumenberguian pro-
posal of a phenomenological anthropology » . As in Husserl’s phe-
nomenology, in which a kind of Kehre to the subject of the life–world
can be detected — something which widely attracted Blumenberg’s
interest —, it is also possible to recognize a Kehre towards anthro-
pology in Blumenberg’s own works through the phenomenology of
the life–world. In fact, in Blumenberg’s review of phenomenological
analysis of the life–world, he also incorporated anthropological argu-
ments and further developed them in Beschreibung des Menschen.
From a historical point of view, perhaps the most important in-
sight offered by Blumenberg in his reconstruction of the origins of
the concept of the “life–world” lies in its connection with Kantian-
ism. According to Blumenberg, Husserl introduced the “life–world”
concept as opposed to the original factum of science, the starting
point of the philosophical stance of Neo–Kantianism (TLW  and
–). Through such a transposition, Husserl would have concluded
« his secret engagement with the Neo–Kantianism » [« seiner heim-
lichen Verbindung mit dem Neukantianismus »] (TLW ), which
obscured the problem of life in the theory of knowledge .
From this initial historical approach, I can identify the distinctive
feature of Blumenberg’s characterization of the life–world in the
tension between indeterminacy and obviousness. According to Blu-
menberg, the “life–world” is an “undefined concept”; a “reserve of
inaccuracies” . Nevertheless, Blumenberg tried to outline possible

. Ibid.
. See especially B, “Selbstverständlichkeit, Selbstaufrichtung, Selbstvergleich”
(TLW III).
. Blumenberg referred to the historical aspects of this question in reference to the neo–
Kantian tradition and the famous meeting in Davos (TLW ). He also reemphasized that
Heidegger was not so much one of Husserl’s disciples but rather one of the neo–Kantian
Rickert, who wrote a very sharp criticism against Simmel’s philosophy of life (TLW –).
. “Ein unbestimmter Begriff ” (TLW I ); “Lebenswelt als ein Reservat von Unge-
 . A Chapter on Astronoetics 

alternative definitions. Perhaps the definition with greatest meta-

physical significance is the following: « The “life–world” should be
described as the set of consequences of the stabilization of life in real-
ity » . In this sense, Blumenberg has also understood the concept
of “Lebenswelt” as the starting point of history or even as a kind of
world–“fata morgana” .
In any case, these and other definitions converge in the view of the
life–world as the “irrational original factum” [“irrationales Urfaktum”]
(TLW I.) through a basic and unfounded ambiguity that is never-
theless able to support and stabilize derived human realities such as
the reason or science . At the same time, the life–world is presented
by Blumenberg as the “universe of the obvious” [“das Universum der
Selbstverständlichkeit”] . From this point of view, the “life–world”
tends to go unnoticed since it is the very sense of human experience:
its “soil”; the place where the evidence is established .
In this initial approach, Blumenberg was not very far from the
Husserlian characterization of the “life–world” and Blumenberg
himself also undertook the ambiguous task of “understanding the
obvious” [“das Selbstverständliche verstehen”] (TLW ). In his com-
mentary on the Husserlian “Lebenswelt”, Blumenberg has empha-
sized how the life–world should be taken as an horizon which re-
duces and organizes the flow of experiences. Thus, Blumenberg
articulated the tension between the dynamic of obviousness and the
dynamics of the unknown through the notion of “horizon”. The
“life–world” is then the horizon of changing experiences that could
be extended indefinitely by shifting its boundaries: « The life–world is

nauigkeit”. (TLW ).

. « Die “Lebenswelt” muss beschrieben werden als der Inbegriff von Erfolgen der Sta-
bilisierung des Lebens in der Realität » (TLW ). It is also possible to translate “Inbegriff ” as
“essence” and the expression “Erfolgen der Stabilisierung des Lebens” as the “successes of life
stabilization”.
. « Die Lebenswelt kann nur definiert sein als terminus a quo der Geschichte » (TLW
); « Die Lebenswelt ist dann die Fata Morgana einer Welt » (TLW ).
. Further details on “original fact” see also (BdM  ff,  ff).
. « Die Lebenswelt ist eine unbegründete Totalität » (TLW ); « In der Selbstauslegung
des Lebens ist das Ich–lebe radikaler als das Ich–denke » (TLW ).
. Blumenberg employed this expression many times. See for example (TLW ; ; ; ;
; ).
. “In der Lebenswelt gibt es die Sinnfrage nicht” (TLW ).
. E. H, Die Krisis, op. cit. §  a–f.
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

thus a limit concept, but it is for this reason that does not have in itself
determining or determined limits » . Additionally, the understanding
of life–world as an horizon expresses the essential mismatch between
“the complex of horizons” that constitutes the world and its existen-
tial translation as « the integrated life–world horizons » . The point
of convergence of these horizons is the Husserlian–Cartesian cogito
that Blumenberg reconsidered from an anthropological perspective
in Beschreibung des Menschen . The inconstancy and uncertainty of
the limits of the life–world horizon — that is to say, the ever present
possibility of an alternation between obviousness and uncertainty —
makes the process of integrating the unknown into the life–world
inevitable . However, unlike Husserl, Blumenberg considered that
the life–world shows a rationality based on human self–preservation,
which arises from the anthropological need to face the essential in-
security of the life–world horizon: « The preventive constitution of
man is related to the inconstancy of the horizon of his life–world » ;
which is a result of the fear aroused by the unknown in the periphery
of the life–world .
In this context, Blumenberg also made reference to Heidegger,
suggesting the existence of affinities between the phenomenological
analysis of life–world and the hermeneutics of facticity (TLW ).
Blumenberg thereby anticipated his own existential–anthropological
analysis of the primitive consciousness later developed in Beschreibung
des Menschen, in which the phenomenological genesis of human
subjectivity from animal consciousness was introduced (TLW III; ;
–; –).

. « Lebenswelt ist zwar ein Grenzbegriff, aber die durch ihn bestimmte oder zu bestim-
mende Lebenswelt hat selbst keine Grenzen » (TLW ).
. « Die Welt ist die Gesamtheit der Horizontkomplexe » (TLW ). « Der Begriff Welt ist
ein Grenzbegriff. Welt ist der Horizont der Horizonte » (TLW ). We should bear in mind
that the notion of “horizon” is also crucial in Husserl’s description of the life–world, see Die
Lebenswelt. Texte aus dem Nachlass (–), op. cit. In Lebenszeit und Weltzeit, Blumenberg
has emphasized the time horizon of the life–world; that is to say, time as a dimension of the
life–world horizon.
. A. F, “Hans Blumenberg and the Metaphorology of Enlightenment”, op. cit.
. « Zwischen ihrer konstanten Selbstverständlichkeit und den Inversionen von Unbekan-
ntem » (TLW ).
. « Die präventive Konstitution des Menschen steht im Zusammenhang mit der Inkon-
stanz der Horizontes seiner Lebenswelt » (TLW ).
. « Die hinter ihrer Peripherie liegende Herkunftszone des Unbekannten » (TLW ).
 . A Chapter on Astronoetics 

With regard to the phenomenology of the life–world, Blumen-

berg’s main claim states that from the life–world arises an “endoge-
nous rationality” [“endogener Rationalität”] (TLW ) that is closely
related to the evolutionary process of anthopogenesis and hominiza-
tion. In other words, a rationality grounded in the natural history of
man as a living creature on Earth and, to a large extent, based on the
principle of self–preservation (TLW I) .
The final aspect of Blumenberg’s Lebenswelt characterization that I
wish to briefly discuss is related to the famous formula that Wittgen-
stien employed to define the world, which Blumenberg inverted in
these terms: « Die Lebenswelt ist nicht alles, was der Fall ist: The
life–world is not everything that is the case » (TLW ). We can under-
stand this formula as an indication that the life–world does not end
with strict immediacy, but also includes all concomitant assumptions
and beliefs; the aforementioned “universe of the obvious” [“das Uni-
versum der Selbstverständlichkeit”] applicable in each case, which
forms the ultimate life–world horizon in that same sense. In my view,
the significance of the amendment of Wittgenstein’s formula is itself
also condensed in another formula introduced by Blumenberg: « Die
konstruktive Beschreibung des Uneinsehbaren: the constructive des-
cription of the incomprehensible » (TLW I). Through this formula,
I believe that the argument for the plurality of life–worlds is antici-
pated and which clearly admits the Blumenberguian phenomenology
of the life–world (TLW  ff.) . This leads us directly into the territory
of astronoetics.

. See César González C, “Hans Blumenberg, Theorie der Lebenswelt”, op. cit. Blu-
menberg has also referred to the anthropologization of the “Universe of the obvious” as
self–preservation: « Das Universum der Selbstverständlichkeiten ist auch anthropologisch
sinnvoll extrapoliert: Die Lebenswelt ist als solche eine lebensdienliche Welt, die verdeckte
Selbstgegebenheit steht im Funktionszusammenhang der Selbsterhaltung » (TLW ).
. In “Keine Lebenswelten”, Blumenberg argues that Husserl did not employ “free vari-
ation” to analysis of the “life–world”: « Denn es gab keinen Weg von einer Lebenswelt zur
anderen, keine Vergleichbarkeit zwischen ihnen, da keine Zuschauerposition ausserhalb ihrer »
(VS ). Blumenberg points out that each “life–world” would be like a “prison” (“Gefangen-
schaft”). As I will try to show concerning the “experiential soil”, Blumenberg’s assessment of
Husserl is not completely accurate. Moreover, in Blumenberg’s case we may come to consider
a phenomenological reoccupation of the plurality of life–worlds.
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

.. An Astronoetical Husserl

A Husserlian Proto–Astronoetics

It is not exactly a coincidence that two previously mentioned ele-

ments converge in Blumenberg’s astronoetics: phenomenology of
the life–world and phenomenological anthropology. In Husserl’s
thought, we already find a sort of “astronoetics” — what one might
call a « cosmological proto–phenomenology of life–world » — that
was further developed by Blumenberg in his Die Vollzähligkeit der
Sterne [].
In Husserl’s late manuscript entitled Grundlegende Untersuchungen
zum phänomenologischen Ursprung der Räumlichkeit der Natur, usually
known by the short title The Earth Does Not Move [“Die Ur–Arche
Erde bewegt sich nicht”] , we can recognize an astronoetical insight
avant la lettre . In this manuscript dated , immediately prior to
the partial publication of Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften, I
find sufficient ground to argue for a “cosmological” foundation of
Husserl’s conceptualization of the life–world, especially in relation to
the Copernican worldview and the Galilean science .
On the envelope where this small text was drafted, Husserl left
the following explanatory note: « Reversal of the Copernican doctrine
in the interpretation of the current worldview. The primordial ark
of the Earth does not move. Fundamental investigations into the

. Edmund H, “Grundlegende Untersuchungen zum phänomenologischen Ur-

sprung der Räumlichkeit der Natur”, in: Marvin F (ed.), Philosophical Essays in Memory of
Edmund Husserl, Cambridge (Mass.), , pp. – (reprinted by Greenwood Press in ).
English translation by Fred K: “Foundational Investigations of the Phenomenological
Origin of the Spatiality of Nature”, in: Peter MC and Frederick A. E (eds.),
Husserl. Shorter Works, University of Notre Dame Press, Indiana, , pp. –. Some vari-
ations and further developments of the arguments addressed by Husserl in his manuscript
can be found in the posthumous Die Lebenswelt. Texte aus dem Nachlass (–), op. cit.
On Husserl’s manuscript, see Guido D. N, “Earth and Sky: An Analysis of Husserl’s 
Manuscript on ‘The Spatiality of Nature’”, Telos, n.º , New York, , pp. –. According
to Neri, Ludwig Landgrebe transcribed Husserl’s manuscript in the late s.
. Blumenberg made reference to this manuscript in Beschreibung des Menschen (BdM 
ff,  ff and  ff ) and the unpublished “Weltmodell und Lebenswelt. Vierter Teil: Der Erde
als Lebensboden und Erfahrungspol” (DLA Marbach). Rüdiger Zill summarized the content
of this unpublished Blumenberg text in “Die Entstehung des Weltraums”, op. cit., pp. –.
. On modern physics and life–world see (ZdS  ff ). In his Die Krisis, Husserl developed
the concept of “life–world” precisely regarding modern physics, in particular Galilean physics.
 . A Chapter on Astronoetics 

phenomenological origin of corporeality, spatiality and nature reveals

the primary sense of the natural sciences » . It is therefore possible
to summarize the main argument of this manuscript as the outline
of a phenomenological analysis of the motion of bodies on Earth
through the genetic phenomenology of the life–world. Husserl stu-
died « bodies moving in the original intuitional function of the Earth
as “soil” » [« das Sichbewegen von Körpern in der ursprünglich
anschaulichen Funktion der Erde als B »] . In Husserl’s analysis
some additional developments regarding the “Lebenswelt” were also
presented, although he did not employ this expression himself.
The precise starting point of Husserl’s analysis was the under-
standing of the Earth as a successive expansion of horizons: « The
openness [of the world] is not given as perfectly conceived or as
made objective, but as horizon already implicitly formed » . Since
« the experiential fields of a single person are unified in continuous
and combined experience » , the resulting sum of fragmentary ex-
periential horizons of the world is the representation of the Earth
as “synthetic whole” or “system of places” [“synthetische Einheit”,
“Ortssystem”]; the final and total synthesis of “actual experiential
fields” [“aktuellen Erfahrungsfelder”] . From a phenomenological
point of view, therefore, the representation of the Earth as synthetic
whole is the final aggregate of the different horizons. In this context,
Husserl then employed the metaphor of the Earth as “experiential
soil” [“der Erfahrungsboden”]: « In the experiential genesis of our
idea of the world, [the Earth is] for us the experiential soil » .

. H, « Umsturz der kopernikanischen Lehre in der gewöhnlichen weltan-

schaulichen Interpretation. Die Ur–Arche Erde bewegt sich nicht. Grundlegende Untersuchun-
gen zum phänomenologischen Ursprung der Räumlichkeit der Natur im ersten naturwis-
senschaftlichen Sinne. Alles notwendige Anfangsuntersuchungen ». op. cit., p. ; English
translation, op. cit. p. . See also Agustín S  H, “Introducción”, in: H,
La Tierra no se mueve. Investigaciones básicas sobre el origen fenomenológico de la espacialidad de la
naturaleza (), Editorial Complutense, Madrid, , p. .
. In the aforementioned English version, “Boden” is unsatisfactorily translated as “basis”.
I consider it is more appropriate to translate it as “soil”.
. H, Die Ur–Arche Erde bewegt sich nicht, op. cit., p. ; Engl. trans. p. .
. Ibid, p. ; p. : « Die Offenheit als nicht vollkommen ausgedachte, vorstellig
gemachte, aber implizit schon geformte Horizonthaftigkeit ».
. Ibid, p. ; p. : « In fortgesetzter und verbundener Erfahrung die einzelmen-
schlichen Erfahrungsfelder zur Einheit eines Erfahrungsfeldes kommen ».
. Ibid, p. , p. .
. Ibid, p. ; p. : « Die Erde ist nicht die “ganze Natur” [. . . ] Doch ein Körper!
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

The “soil” and the “horizon” became the two dominant metaphors
— with cosmological resonances — in Husserl’s genetic phenomeno-
logy of life–world:
I can always go farther on my Earth–soil [“Erdboden”] and, in a certain
way, always experience its “corporeal” being more fully. Its horizon consists
of the fact that I go about on the Earth–soil, and going from it and to
everything on it I can always experience more.

In this sense, the relationship between the soil and the horizon
was crucial in the phenomenological analysis of the movement and
its two main conclusions:

a) the “original ark” Earth does not move [“Die Ur–Arche Erde
bewegt sich nicht”];
b) the original genesis of the intuition of terrestrial movement
lies in our condition as born on Earth. According to Husserl,
it is only because we were born and live on the Earth–soil that
we can understand terrestrial movements, although we have
no original intuition of the Earth’s movement as a whole.

Through such an approach, Husserl converted the Earth–soil into

some sort of transcendence of human experience; both a formal and
material instance that makes it possible to conceive the movements of
other bodies but not that of the movement of the Earth itself, since it
can not be the original intentional object of the terrestrial experience.
According to Husserl « in conformity with its original idea, the Earth
does not move and does not rest; only in relation to it are motion and
rest given as having their sense of motion and rest » . Any movement
« is nonetheless directly related to the soil of all relative soil–bodies, to
the Earth–soil » . Through « the first level in itself of constitution of

Obschon für uns der Erfahrungsboden für alle Körper in der Erfahrungsgenesis unserer
Weltvorstellung ». Despite Blumenberg’s aforementioned astronoetical gloss, in his manuscript
Husserl also referred to “den Wechsel der Böden” [“the exchange of soils], ibid, p. ; .
. Ibid, p. ; pp. –: « Ich kann auf meinem Erdboden immerfort weitergehen und
sein “körperliches” Sein in gewisser Weise immer voller erfahren; er hat seinen Horizont
darin, dass ich auf ihm eben gehen und gehend von ihm und allem, was darauf ist, immer
mehr erfahren kann ».
. Ibid, p. ; p. : « Erde selbst in der ursprünglichen Vorstellungsgestalt bewegt sich
nicht und ruht nicht, in bezug auf sie haben Ruhe und Bewegung erst Sinn ».
. Ibid, p. ; p. : “Aber es ist doch alles zunächst auf den Boden aller relativen
 . A Chapter on Astronoetics 

the Earth as soil » , it is possible to get « the sense of all motion and
all rest as mode of motion » . In other words, from the perspective
provided by genetic phenomenology there is no experience of the
Earth–soil as a body, « but [this Earth–“soil”] becomes a soil–body
at higher levels of constitution of the world by virtue of experience
and that nullifies its original soil–form. It becomes the total–body:
the vehicle of all bodies [. . . ] » . However the truly original intuition
is that the Earth does not move, since, phenomenologically, in its
original soil the Earth can not be experienced as body.
The Spanish philosopher Agustín Serrano has clearly summarized
Husserl’s argument:

Husserl distinguishes three stages in the genesis of Earth representation

[. . . ].
a) “the original figure of Earth representation” the Earth is “the” expe-
riential soil of the bodies, the point of rest and model of all move-
ments; the Earth is not “a” body like other bodies, nor is conceivable
its denial. In the second stage;
b) the Earth is itself a body rather than a soil for other normal bodies:
it is “the” universal body. In the third stage;
c) when the celestial bodies appear as normal bodies — and not as mere
points of light —, the Earth becomes “one body among other bodies”
and directs the experience of bodies, although it could equally be
directed by the other [bodies]”.

This brings us to what I consider both the main premise of astro-

noetics and the very first phase of a life–world phenomenology from
a cosmological point of view: « The Earth becomes a world–body in
the open plurality of surrounding bodies » .

Bodenkörper, auf den Erdboden bezogen”.

. Ibid, p. ; p. : « ersten Stufe der Konstitution der Erde als Boden ».
. Ibid, p. ; p. : « Sie [die Erde] ist Arche, die erst den Sinn aller Bewegung ermöglicht
und aller Ruhe als Modus einer Bewegung ».
. Ibid, p. ; pp. –: « Dieser “Boden” wird zunächst nicht als Körper erfahren, in
höherer Stufe der Konstitution der Welt aus Erfahrung wird er zum Boden–Körper, und das
hebt seine ursprüngliche Boden–form auf. Er wird zum Totalkörper: zum Träger aller bisher
voll (normal) allseitig empirisch zureichend erfahrbaren Körper [. . . ] ».
. Agustín S, footnote , in: H, La Tierra, op. cit., p. . My translation. See
also “Inventario cosmológico en la perspectiva intencional originaria”, ibid., footnote , pp.
–.
. H, Die Ur–Arche Erde bewegt sich nicht, op. cit., p. ; p. : « Sowie Erde zum
Weltkörper geworden ist in der offenen Manningfaltigkeit umgebender Körper ».
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

As is well known, this is indeed the foundation of modern as-

tronomy and its revolution. However, Husserl’s intuitive–geocentric
tenet claimed quite the opposite: any “extra–terrestrial” or cosmo-
logical soil for human life can be nothing more than an « accidental
substitute of the absolute soil, [. . . ] whose sense and validity refers
to the process of experiential constitution of the world from the
Earth » . Thus, Husserl introduced the phenomenological amend-
ment of Copernicanism as Copernicus considered the Sun as the
experiential “soil”, although it was not the real, intuitive support for
the life–world. The heliocentric hypothesis transferred the condi-
tion of original, absolute soil from the Earth to the sun, but lacked
the intuitive support necessary to justify such conceptual change .
Through this objection — and similar to his later Krisis with Galilean
physics — Husserl intended to reestablish the original, intuitive,
earthly life–world as a phenomenological reconfiguration, amend-
ing the scientific deviation. Nevertheless, in this manuscript, the
phenomenological reconfiguration exclusively focused on the Coper-
nican astronomical experience. It is to this topic that Husserl’s ad-
dressed his theoretical work on the life–world developed within the
framework of genetic phenomenology.
One might say, therefore, that Husserl’s criticism of the Coper-
nican worldview was made from the point of view of a sort of
“cosmological life–world proto–phenomenology”: « We Coperni-
cans, we moderns say: The Earth is not the ‘whole of Nature’;
it is one of the stars in the infinite world–space. The Earth is a
globe–shaped body, certainly not perceivable in its wholeness all
at once and by one person; rather it is perceived in a primordial
synthesis as a unity of mutually connected single experiences. Yet,
it is a body! » .
However, immediately following the Husserl’s death, space ex-
ploration and its associated visual productions arrived, allowing for

. Agustín S, footnote , in: H, La Tierra, op. cit., p. . My translation.
. Ibid., footnote , p. . Agustín Serrano clarifies Husserl’s position on the Copernican
worldview as follows: « The Copernican view of the world, however, could not arise from an
inspection and explicit perceptual horizons ». Ibid, footnote , p. . My translation.
. H, Die Ur–Arche Erde bewegt sich nicht, op. cit., p. ; p. : « Wir Kopernikaner,
wir Menschen der Neuzeit sagen: Die Erde ist nicht die ‘ganze Natur’, sie ist einer der Sterne
im unendlichen Weltraum. Die Erde ist ein kugelförmiger Körper, freilich nicht auf einmal
und von Einem wahrnehmbar in seiner Gänze, aber in einer primordialen Synthesis als
Einheit aneinandergeknüpfter Einzelerfahrungen. Doch ein Körper! ».
 . A Chapter on Astronoetics 

a comprehensive perception of the Earth which was so masterfully

described by Blumenberg in one of his most remarkable aphorisms.

Phenomenological Thought Experiments for a New Sense of the Earth

Husserl’s cosmological proto–phenomenology of the life–world

was embodied in a series of thought experiments conceived in his
manuscript. The first imagines the existence of “flying arks” or “space
ships” — “air ships” — as a sort of spatial Lebenswelt in an extended
terrestrial life–world. In one of these spaceships

I can fly so high that the Earth seems like a globe [. . . ]. I therefore discover
that it is a large globe–body. But the question is whether and how I would
arrive at corporeality in the sense that the Earth is “astronomically” just
one body among others among which are the celestial bodies.

Here Husserl alllowed a reformulation of the intuitive–geocentric

thesis from that of the distinction between the “primitive–body”
[“Stamm–‘körper’”] and the “primitive–soil” [“Stammboden”]:

The people on the flying–machine [. . . ] experience the Earth as a primitive–

“body”, as a soil–“body”. But cannot the flying–machine function as “soil”?
[. . . ]. Must I not conceptually transfer to the flying–machine what the Earth
as my soil and as the soil of my animate organism, universally presents in
constitutive acceptance (with respect to form)?

. I am refering to Blumenberg’s aphorism entitled “Sichtbarkeit” [“Visibility”]: “Ein

angehender Philosoph schreibt  in seiner Habilitationsschrift: Es hat vielleicht niemand
recht verstanden, was ich will, der nicht einsieht, dass die Sichtbarkeit der Dinge nur vor dem
absolut Negativen eigentlich zu erleben ist. Es mag sein, dass man dies im Jahre  seinen Lesern
nicht zutrauen konnte. Ein halbes Jahrhundert später weiss jeder, was gemeint sein konnte, der nur
flüchtig Notiz genommen hat von den Anblicken, die die Erde aus dem Weltraum bietet. Sie war für
ihre Bewohner immer das Unsichtbare schlechthin. Man hatte sie unter den Füssen, nicht vor den
Augen, als das Selbstverständliche und Unauffällige. Da eben fehlte es an Negation als Bedingung von
Auffälligkeit. Der Blick aus dem Raum lässt die Erde, wenn es so zu sagen erlaubt ist, in einem Meer
von Negativität erscheinen: eine Insel im Nichts. Das macht sie sichtbar in einem eminenten Sinne:
schmerzhaft deutlich” (dS , ).
. H, Die Ur–Arche Erde bewegt sich nicht, op. cit., p. ; p. : « Ich könnte so hoch
fliegen, dass die Erde als Kugel erscheinen würde. [. . . ] Ich entdecke also, dass sie ein grosser
Kugelkörper ist. Aber das ist eben die Frage, ob und wie ich zur Körperlichkeit käme, in
dem Sinne, dass die Erde “astronomisch” eben ein Körper unter den anderen, darunter den
Himmelskörpen wäre ».
. H, Die Ur–Arche Erde bewegt sich nicht, op. cit., p. ; p. : « Für den Menschen
auf dem Flugzeug, sofern er die Erde als Stamm–“körper”, Boden–“körper” in Erfahrung
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

Husserl resolved the dilemma of this thought experiment by

reflecting on the celestial bodies considered in the astronomical ex-
perience. His solution can be connected to the phenomenological
analysis of the motion of bodies on Earth, thanks to which he sug-
gested the following conclusion: « In order to be able to ‘experience’
the stars as bodies in indirect apprehending, I must already be a
human being myself with the Earth as my primitive–soil » .
What would happen then — Husserls asks — if instead of being
born on Earth we were born on one of those spaceships? In this
second thought experiment, Husserl imagines an extension of the
terrestrial soil in order « to understand that in space my first Earth–
soil are large vessels of flight travelling in it for a long time: I am
born on one of them and my family lives on one of them. It was my
being–soil until I learned that we are vessels on the larger Earth, etc.
Thus a plurality of soil–places, of home–places, is unified into a soil–
place » . These spaceships « depart from the Earth and then return
inhabited and guided by human beings who have made their home
on the ark as their Earth–soil in accord with their last generation and,
for “they themselves”, historical origins » . Therefore, this thought
experiment did not leave itself open to an important objection since,
as in the first thought experiment, « all of that is relative to the Earth–
soil ark and “earthly globe” and to us, earthly human beings » .

hat. Aber kann nicht das Flugzeug als “Boden” fungieren? [. . . ]. Müsste ich nicht all das auf
das Flugzeug übertragen denken an konstitutiver Geltung (der Form nach), was der Erde als
meinem Boden, als Boden meiner Leiblichkeit überhaupt Sinn gibt? ».
. Ibid, p. ; p. : « Die Schwierigkeit wiederholt sich bei den Sternen. Um sie als
Körper “erfahren” indirekt auffassen zu können, muss ich schon Mensch auf der Erde als
meinem Stammboden für mich sein ».
. Ibid, p. ; p. : « Es ist aber auch möglich, dass der Erdboden sich erweitert, etwa in
der Art, dass ich verstehen lerne, dass in Raum meines ersten Erdbodens grosse Luftschiffe
sind, die in ihm längere Zeit fahren: auf einem bin ich geboren, lebt meine Familie, es war
mein Seinsboden, bin ich lernte, dass wir nur Schiffer sind auf der grösseren Erde, etc. So kann
eine Vielheit von Bodenstätten, Heimstätten zur einheit einer Bodenstätte kommen ».
. Ibid., p. ; p. : « Die Möglichkeit von fliegenden Archen [. . . ], die sich herausstellen
in der “Erfahrung” [. . . ] als blosse “Luftschiffe”, “Raumschiffe” der Erde, von ihr ausgegangen
und wieder zurückkehrend, von Menschen bewohnt und geführt, die nach ihrem letztlichen
generativen und für sie selbst historischen Ursprung auf dem Erboden als ihrer Arche behei-
matet sind ».
. Ibid., p. ; p. : « Alles das ist auf die Arche Erdboden und ‘Erdkugel’ relativ und
auf uns, die irdischen Menschen ».
 . A Chapter on Astronoetics 

As such, Husserl formulated a third thought experiment: what

would happen if there were two Earths that could serve as soils? In
such case, one might fly from one to another and “in this way the
one body would be the soil for the other” . Husserl responded to
this objection by asserting that it would be actually one Earth that
had been fragmented in two parts:

But what do two Earths mean? Two pieces of one Earth with a humanity.
Together, they would become one soil and, at the same time, each would
be a body for the other. Surrounding them would be a common space in
which each, as a body, would potentially have a moveable place, but motion
would always be relative to the other body and nonrelative to the synthetic
soil of their being together.

However, he added: « Only ‘the’ Earth–soil can be constituted

originaler with the surrounding space of bodies » .
However, the resolution of this experiment introduced the possi-
bility of a « plurality of soil–places, of home–places » , and therein
lies the fourth and final thought experiment formulated by Husserl in
his manuscript: the existence of a plurality of “home–places” [“Heim-
stätten”] other than the Earth. In contrast to the Blumenberg’s afore-
mentioned gloss , Husserl seemed willing to admit the possibility
of this pluralism: « I can naturally conceive that ‘points’ becoming
visible are distant bodies coming closer and now approaching until
they reach the Earth–soil, etc. But now I can also conceive that they
are home–places » . Thus, the Earth appears as the original ark, our

. Ibid., pp. –; p. : « [. . . ] wenn ich und wir fliegen könnten und als Bodenkörper
zwei Erde hätten, von denen wir die je andere durch Flug erreichen könnten. Eben dadurch
würde der eine Körper für den anderen Boden ».
. Ibid., p. ; p. : « Aber was heisst zwei Erden? Zwei Stücke einer Erde mit einer
Menschheit. Beide zusammen würden zu einem Boden und wären zugleich Körper jeder
für den anderen. Sie hätten um sich den gemeinsamen Raum, in dem jeder als Körper ev.
beweglichen Ort hätte, aber die Bewegung relativ immer auf den anderen Körper und irrelativ
auf den synthetischen Boden ihres Zusammen ».
. Ibid.: « Ursprünglich konstituiert sein kann nur ‘der’ Erdboden mit umgebendem
Raum von Körpern ».
. Ibid.: « So kann eine Vielheit von Bodenstätten, Heimstätten zur Einheit einer boden-
stätte kommen ».
. B, “Keine Lebenswelten” [“There are not life–worlds”] (VS ).
. H, Die Ur–Arche Erde bewegt sich nicht, op. cit., pp. –; p. : « Ich kann mir
natürlich vorstellen, dass sichtbar werdende ‘Punkte’ ferne Körper sind, die herangekommen
sind und sich nun nähern können, bis sie den Erdboden erreichen, etc. Nun aber auch: ich
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

ark, but at the same time its condition as a celestial body among
other celestial bodies has been revealed: « We think of our stars as
secondary arks with their possible humanities » . Thus, « the Earth
is only one of the accidental world–bodies, one among others, and
it would be nigh–on amusing to want to believe after Copernicus
that the Earth is the midpoint of the world “merely because — by
accident — we live on it”, favoured even by its “rest” in relation
to which everything moveable moves » . In that case, « each of us
always has his “historicity” with respect to his ego made at home in
it » and, consequently, his “primitive soil” [“Stammboden”] or his
“original home–place” [“Urheimat”].
Husserl’s answer is quite surprising and certainly goes far be-
yond what is allowed by a phenomenological analysis in the strictest
sense. Again Husserl made reference to the original phenomeno-
logical nature of the terrestrial experience, but he also appealed to
the historicity and radical contingency of the terrestrial experience.
As Agustín Serrano remarked, Husserl assumed the historicity of
life on Earth as a unique essence with apodictic value . The same
radical contingency of life on Earth, its “original historicity” — if I can
call it that —, would be contingent on the basis of the transcendental
constitution of the experience of the Universe. As a result: « All beings
whatever, only have being–sense by virtue of my constitutive genesis
and this has “earthly” precedence » . Or, in other words:

Everything comes to this: we must not forget the pregivenness and constitu-
tion belonging to the apodictic Ego or to me, to us, as the source of all actual
and possible sense of being, of all possible broadening which can be further
constructed in the already constituted world developing historically ».

kann mir vorstellen, dass es Heimstätten sind ».

. Ibid., p. ; p. : « Erst wenn wir unsere Sterne als sekundäre Archen uns vorstellen
mit ihren ev. Menschheiten ».
. Ibid., p. ; p. : « Und auch das gilt für selbstverständlich, dass Erde nur einer der
zufälligen Weltkörper ist, einer unter anderen, und fast wäre es lächerlich, nach Kopernikus
meinen zu wollen, dass die Erde, ‘bloss weil wir zufällig auf ihr Leben’, Mittelpunkt der Welt
sei, bevorzugt sogar durch ihre ‘Ruhe’, in bezug auf welche alles Bewegte bewegt sei ».
. Ibid., p. ; p. : « Jede hat ihre ‘Historizität’ vom jeweiligen Ich aus, das in ihr
beheimatet ist ».
. Ibid., p. , footnote .
. H, Die Ur–Arche Erde bewegt sich nicht, op. cit., p. ; p. : « Alles Seiende überhaupt
hat Seinssinn nur von meiner konstitutiven Genesis und diese “irdische” geht voran ».
. Ibid., p. ; p. : « Aber worauf alles ankommt ist: nicht die zum apodiktischen Ego, zu
 . A Chapter on Astronoetics 

After all, it was the phenomenologist who conceived thought

experiments and they would only make some sense if referred to
his respective terrestrial experience. However, this result was not
fully conclusive and Husserl recognized that, unlike the terrestrial
horizons, « making celestial distance homogeneous even by iteration
generates phenomenological questions » .
Among these “phenomenological questions” should be included,
of course, the reworking of life–world phenomenology from a cos-
mological point of view, since the thought experiments conceived by
Husserl opened the possibility of a new plural typology of Lebenswelt,
at least those of the terrestrial life–world: the spaceship life–world
and the “secondary arks” life–world.
From this point of view, Blumenberg’s astronoetics may be con-
sidered as the accomplishment of Husserl’s peculiar cosmological
thought but with the new points of reference of the twentieth–
century space race and subsequent human moon landing, events to
which — I insist — Husserl had no opportunity to pay testament.
Thanks to these memorable achievements, what might be called “the
original factum of astronoetics” was established; i.e. its terminus a quo,
whose terminus ad quem would be the emergence of the astronoetical
Lebenswelt and the phenomenological anthropology of the cosmos.

New Episodes for the Sense of the Earth: Feet on the Moon

One might say that the first man on the moon and the exchange of
experiential soils that it involved was not only one small step for a
man, but one giant leap for the phenomenology of the life–world.
As I demonstrated in the previous chapter, Blumenberg focused on
the conflictive relationship between astronomical theory and the
Lebenswelt, in what we could consider another of the fundamental
arguments for a phenomenology of the life–world in cosmological
perspective (LdT –, –; SdP –, –). However, it was one
thing to observe the moon through a telescope and another quite
different to put feet on its surface. The key issue was the histori-

mir, zu uns gehörige Vorgegebenheit und Konstitution zu vergessen, als Quelle alles wirklichen
und möglichen Seinssinnes, aller möglichen Erweiterungen, welche in der in Gang stehenden
Historizität schon konstituierte Welt sich weiter ausbauen kann.
. Ibid., p. ; p. : « Die Homogenisierung der Himmelsferne sogar unter Iteration
bringt ihre phänomenologischen Fragen mit sich ».
  Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

cal conversion of the terrestrial Lebenswelt of the contemplator caeli

into the lunar Lebenswelt of the astronaut, that involved not only a
factual expansion or extension of the human life–world but a real
transfiguration of the Earth sense . The moon landing was an effec-
tive overcoming of the terrestrial life–world “threshold” and, thus,
a paradigmatic case of the integration into the human Lebenswelt
of both the cosmic soil and the astronomical horizon. It was not
merely a conflict between the terrestrial (practical rationality) and
the astronomical (theoretical rationality), but a conflict at the heart of
the very meaning of human experience on Earth. The first man on
the moon made real what, until that moment, was only conjecture.
In Husserl’s words:
When I “conceive” the Earth as a moved body, I use a soil to which all
experience of bodies and, hence, all experience of continuing to be at rest
and in motion is related. I do so in order to be able, indeed, to conceive
the Earth at all, as a body in the original sense, i.e., to acquire a possible
intuition of the Earth in which its possibility as being a body can be directly
evident . But as long as I do not have a presentation of a new soil as a
soil from which the Earth can have sense in interconnected and returning
locomotion as a selfcontained body in motion and at rest, and as long as an
exchange of soils is not presented such that both soils become bodies, to
that extent just the Earth itself is the soil and not a body .

And this is precisely what happened when man stepped on the

lunar soil. Now, as on Earth, to walk and keep walking on the soil
of the moon was possible and, thus, to expand the experience of its
horizon just to see rising the body of the Earth in the sky of the

. Further details on Blumenberg’s astronoetical glosses on the moon see Die Vollzähligkeit
der Sterne [], especially “Unter dem Mond” (VS VI) and “Mondphysik” (VS XIX). See also
“Was die Mondlandung brachte” (VS ), focused on Cassirer and the mythification of the
human landing on the moon.
. H, Die Ur–Arche Erde bewegt sich nicht, op. cit., p. ; p. : « Wenn ich nun die
Erde als bewegten Körper “denke” – dann brauchte ich, um sie als das, ja überhaupt als einen
Körper denken zu können, im ursprünglichsten Sinne, d.i. für sie eine mögliche Anschauung
gewinnen zu können, in der ihre Möglichkeit des Seins als ein Körper direkt evident werden
kann, einen Boden, auf den alle Körpererfahrung, und damit alle Erfahrung von verharrendem
Sein in Ruhe und Bewegung bezogen ist ».
. Ibid., p. ; p. : « Solange ich keine Vorstellung habe von einem neuen Boden, als
einem solchen, von wo aus die Erde im zusammenhängenden und in sich zurückführenden
Gehen als ein geschlossener Körper in Bewegung und Ruhe Sinn haben kann, und solange ich
keine Vorstellung gewinne von einem Austausch der Böden und einem dadurch zum Körper
Werden beider Böden, solange ist eben die Erde selbst Boden, aber kein Körper ».
 . A Chapter on Astronoetics 

moon. In the lunar horizon the effective integration of the terrestrial

Lebenswelt, now as an hallucinated extension of the lunar Lebenswelt,
actually occurred. In Aristotelian terms: the distinction between sub-
lunary and supralunar worlds was transformed into the distinction
between subterrestrial and supraterrestrial worlds. If the Copernican
maneuver consisted in imagining an observer placed « in the sun to
“see” Earth rising in the horizon, Armstrong, from the moon, really
could see rising the Earth in the lunar horizon » . Thus, the first
man on the moon allowed the occasional overcoming of the Earth as
the exclusive support for life, a complete externalization of the terres-
trial life–world that started the astronoetical process of integration
of cosmological horizons. Here I only wish to emphasize that the
moon landing and the subsequent astronoetical enquiries entailed a
factual amendment of « the original intuitional function of the Earth
as “soil” » and, thus, an amazing cosmological phenomenology of
the life–world was also inaugurated as the fourth stage in the genesis
of the Earth sense.

.. The Astronoetical Glosses as a Cosmological Phenomeno-

logy of the Life–World

My aim, then, is to interpret Blumenberg’s phenomenology of the

life–world as a chapter of astronoetics. In other words: in astronoet-
ics we can recognize the outline of a cosmological phenomenol-
ogy of the Lebenswelt. Consequently, the “astronoetical glosses”
posthumously collected in Die Vollzähligkeit der Sterne [] could
be considered not only as “phenomenological glosses”, but also as
“astronoetical glosses for a cosmological phenomenology of the
life–world”. From this perspective, Blumenberg’s amendments to
Husserl’s phenomenology of the Lebenswelt may be considered as a
kind of “astronoetical phenomenology”, able to provide foundations
for a “phenomenological anthropology of the cosmos”. Herein lies
the speculative core of Blumenberg’s thought on the contemporary
Universe, in the triple convergence of astronoetics, phenomenology

. José Luis M, “Husserl, : La Tierra no se mueve”, Fundación Canaria
Orotava de Historia de la Ciencia, , p. .
. H, Die Ur–Arche Erde bewegt sich nicht, op. cit., p. ; p. : « in der ursprünglich
anschaulichen Funktion der Erde als “Boden” ».
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

and anthropology. In my opinion, the culmination of the Blumen-

bergian work on the concept of “life–world” — in line with the
historical displacement of the astronomical experience that occurred
during the twentieth century — would be the emergence of the
astronoetical Lebenswelt.

The Cosmological Horizon and Soil of the Life–World: the Astronoetical

Lebenswelt

An astronoetical phenomenology should pay attention to the en-

capsulation of the life–world from a cosmological perspective. Blu-
menberg made reference to the possible proliferation of life in the
Universe as a sort of “organic expansionism” [“organischen Expan-
sionismus”] that requires protection and shelter: « Das Leben geht
in den Raum mit seinen Gehäusen » (VS ). In the astronoetical
gloss “Der Lebensweltboden – eine treibende Scholle” [“The soils of
the life–world – a driving piece of land”] (VS ), Blumenberg also
emphasized the human need to have a solid soil. The solidity and
reliability of the soil under foot is a basic requirement for human life:
« Any of his adventures always assume that is possible to find a piece
of solid soil somewhere » . It is precisely in the assumption of a solid
soil that « the phenomenological theory of life–world has rediscov-
ered and deposited the limited knowledge that man has of his world,
in the immediate and worldly awareness of the conditions that make
his life possible, and which can not be taken for granted » . From this

. « Alle Weltabenteuer des Menschen setzen voraus, dass er sich immer wieder und
irgendwann wieder auf ein Stück festen Bodens stellen kann » (VS ).
. « [. . . ] für die Festigkeit und Zuverlässigkeit des Bodens unter seinen Füssen immer
schon voraussetzte. An diesem Punkt hat die phänomenologische Theorie der Lebenswelt
angesetzt und widerentdeckt, wie wenig das Wissen, das der Mensch von seiner Welt erworben
hat, sich verträgt mit dem unmittelbaren und lebensweltlichen Bewusstsein, das er von den
Bedingungen seines Lebens besitzt und gar nicht preisgeben kann. Die Theorie der Lebenswelt
ist immer auch eine von der geringen Eindringtiefe der Theorie in das Bewusstsein » (VS ).
The continuation of the passage is of great interest: « Seine Rückkehrfähigkeit wird bestärkt
dadurch, dass alle irgend bekannten Ziele im Weltall keine Daueraufenthalte sein können,
weil sie dem Menschen zu langweilig wären. Für den Differenzierungsgrad der menschlichen
Sinnlichkeit und die Leistungsfähigkeit der Sprache sind die kosmischen Gegenstände einfach
zu öde, zu kompakt, zu eintönig, zu unergiebig. Die Sinnlichkeit des Menschen ist nicht zu
arm, wie die Aufklärung gern vermutete, sonder zu reich, um an den kosmischen Gegen-
ständen Befriedigung zu finden. Die astronautische Geotropie ist auch ein rein seinsorisches
Phänomen » (VS ).
 . A Chapter on Astronoetics 

perspective, astronoetics as a cosmological phenomenology of the

life–world shows both the peculiar encapsulation of the life–world
and its essential impugnability, the vulnerability of the conditions
that support life and make such an encapsulation possible. The great-
est conceptual achievement of astronoetical phenomenology consists,
then, in recognizing the factual exchange of experiential soils as a
normative fact of human existence reconsidered from its cosmic
background. After the original astronoetical factum brutum — having
walked on a soil other than the terrestrial one — it followed the orig-
inal foundation of the astronoetical Lebenswelt, which assumes the
reality of new bodies and new soils: i.e. the cosmological exchange
of experiential soils and, therefore, the possible integration of their
horizons into a new synthesis.
Nevertheless, space exploration has revealed the uniqueness of
the Earth as a cosmic oasis for life, imposing an unexpected re-
newal of geocentrism which Blumenberg conceptualized through
the notions of “geotropism” or “geotropic perspective” . However,
geotropism is primarily the inclusion of the cosmological horizon in
the terrestrial life–world and is based precisely upon the exchange of
the cosmological experiential soils. It is perhaps here that we may
find the best definition of the astronoetical Lebenswelt: the recovery of
the extended terrestrial life–world by the integration of cosmological
horizons and soils.

Towards an Astronoetical Life–World Analysis: the Phenomenological An-

thropology of Cosmos

The program of a phenomenological analysis of the Lebenswelt from

a cosmological perspective should also pay attention to the historical
evolution of human curiosity, its projection onto the Universe and
the subsequent overcoming of the terrestrial life–world. In this re-
gard, it is possible not only to conduct a review of the main topics
contained in Blumenberg’s astronoetical glosses, but also on his later
phenomenological anthropology. Simply put, a “phenomenology of
the theoretical attitude” [“eine Phänomenologie des theoretischen
Verhaltens”] (TLW ; ) from a cosmological perspective may
help us to explain, for example, that the « most striking trace left

. The reader can find an overview of geotropism in E. M, “De la tierra al cielo y
regreso”, op. cit.
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

by [man] in the soil of the moon is the sign of his desire to return
home, the proof that it is not necessary to be sought, since he is no
longer there » . However, according to Blumenberg’s doctrine of
the life–world the ultimate foundation of the Sorge with the celes-
tial bodies is simply human self–preservation. Phenomenological
anthropology reveals that curiosity is a source of rationality aimed
towards human self–preservation and, therefore, the same would
be expected of a curiosity specifically addressed to the surrounding
Universe. The astronoetical Lebenswelt is nothing but the result of this
expansion of the horizon through the “integration of the unknown”
[“Integration des Unbekannten”] (TLW ) that interrupted the obvi-
ousness of the terrestrial life–world in order to explore the Universe
as a challenging “constructive description of the incomprehensible”
[“Konstruktive Beschreibung des Uneinsehbaren”] (TLW I). It is
not right, therefore, as Blumenberg points out, to say « that man
would behave in space just like at home » . This is why astronoetical
phenomenology is able to reveal the peculiarities of the terrestrial
life–world and to collaborate on a cosmological hermeneutics of
facticity; because it shows the inconstancy and uncertainty of the
limits of the terrestrial life–world horizon. In this sense, the Universe
appears as the dimension in which almost everything is conceivable
and, therefore, it is able to incessantly expand the horizon of the
life–world . Consequently, I can identify the leitmotif of the astro-
noetical phenomenology of the life–world in the following question
addressed to the Universe: « Genau wie bei uns – oder ganz anders? »
[« Exactly like in our home or completely different? »] (VS XIII). As is
well known, in Die Vollzähligkeit der Sterne Blumenberg related this
topic to extraterrestrial communication , the encounter with the

. « Seine auffälligste Spur auf dem Boden des Mondes ist das Zeichen seines Willens zur
Heimkehr – der Beweis dafür, dass nach ihm dort nicht gesucht zu werden braucht, dass er
nicht mehr dort ist » (MvM , –). See, for example, Blumenberg’s “Stern ohne Neugierde”
(VS ); “Raumlust – Vor dem Abheben” (VS VIII). There is an overview of this issue in B.
Accarino, “Vestigium umbra non facit”, op. cit.
. « Nein, die Prognose war nicht richtig, dass der Mensch sich im Weltall genauso
benehmen würde, als ob er zuhause wäre. Das nämlich war das einzige, was er nicht war »
(MvM , ).
. « Was wirklich ist, ist möglich; und was möglich ist, ist auch hierorts möglich. Das is
schon die halbe Astronoetik » (VS ).
. “Auf Sendung und auf Empfang” (VS IV).
 . A Chapter on Astronoetics 

“other Others” [“andere Andere”], the problem of intersubjectivity ,

and the cosmological status of reason . I should also add the key
issue of the “genetic phenomenology of the time–world” in relation
to the time of the life–world . All of this, in short, constitutes the
core of a phenomenological anthropology of cosmos, focusing on
« the connection between cosmology and anthropology » . With-
out going through all of these complex issues . I merely wish to
point out — as a provisional conclusion — that the astronoetical
analysis of the life–world transforms man, first of all, into a “zoon
astronomikon”.

. “Hoffnung auf andere Andere ohne Furcht vor ihnen?” (VS ). See also “Mit
geschlossenem Visier” (VS ) and “Unverwehbare Spuren” (VS ).
. “Im Zentrum der Vernunft” (VS XX).
. “Zur genetischen Phänomenologie der Weltzeit” (LW –).
. « Die Verbindung von Kosmologie und Anthropologie » (BdM ). The extension of
anthropogenesis to astronoetics plays a predominant role in Blumenberg’s anthropological
reflections from a cosmological perspective. Bruno Accarino summarized this insight in his
“Vestigium umbra non facit”, op. cit. in these terms: Blumenberg « se si traspone nell’universo
la situazione originaria degli incontri tra uomini primitivi nella libera savana e il loro significato
per la vita e per la morte ».
. Further details see the aforementioned papers by B. A and E. M.
 Chapter V

Prospects for a Metaphorology

of the Contemporary Universe

Vielleicht muss in einem Zeitalter, dessen Grösse

wie Gefährdung auf Erfahrungserkenntnis zu-
rückgehen, der Metaphysiker im Gewande des
Empirikers auftreten. Spekulation, einst die hö-
chste Aufzeichnung der Geister, geniesst kein
Zutrauen mehr; die exakte Beschreibung legit-
imiert allein die Erkenntnis.

Hans B
Der Mann vom Mond

Metaphysik erwies sich uns oft als beim Wort

genommene Metaphorik; der Schwund der Me-
taphysik ruft die Metaphorik wieder an ihren
Platz.

Hans B
Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie

.. The Cosmological Reoccupation of Metaphysics

What happened to the grandeur of metaphysics? The history of meta-

physics has indeed acquired all the stigma of a dubious tradition. Its
truncated aspiration, to provide the ultimate meaning of reality and
to establish a definitive and convincing discourse through which to
find the explanation of each fundamental questions, is often referred
to as the making of an example of the deviations produced by philo-
sophical enquiry. Thus, the history of metaphysics became one of
the saddest possible stories about the wandering and the mistakes
of human reason. However, without decreasing the intensity of its
claims, the now stigmatized metaphysics adopted a new face and


 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

looked for other places to resume its task. Thus, it came to hide in the
quiet backwaters of cosmological speculation. While the last great
metaphysicians vainly strove to renew the ambitious project of a fun-
damental philosophical ontology , the cosmologists, sometimes with
discretion and sometimes with greater clamour, became the true
heirs to the millennial endeavour of understanding reality. Physical
cosmology introduced a new grand narrative about the nature of
the world and its genesis, in which the highest philosophical specula-
tions were replaced by the highest astronomical and cosmological
speculations . With the triumph of cosmology as a scientific disci-
pline, the giants of science were also transformed into the giants of
metaphysics on whose shoulders others wanted to stand in order to
see the borders of the world .
The ever–increasing proliferation of sidereal messengers has been
proportional to the increase in the “appetite for cosmic testimonies”
[“Hunger nach kosmischer Zeugenschaft”] (VS ). Among these
new messengers of the stars Stephen Hawking is perhaps the most
distinguished (and certainly the most popular in the media) . Many
others could be mentioned, but Hawking has embodied the will to
be both a messenger and a giant of scientific metaphysics like nobody
else ; he has been a successful sidereal gazettes writer and promoter
of ventured astronomical conjectures, without becoming tangled up

. Blumenberg recalls the amusing anecdote of Heidegger and the bee sting (MvM –).
While Heidegger had no basis upon which to give such a pretentious meaning to his sting,
cosmology has always had more than enough reasons and sufficient legitimacy for such
pretension.
. Helge K, Higher Speculations. Grand Theories and Failed Revolutions in Physics and
Cosmology, Oxford University Press, .
. Blumenberg already claimed this with regard to modern science: « Newton’s Universe
of gravitational mechanics soon became the leading scheme. [. . . ] The philosophers began to
scrutinize over the shoulders of the researches on nature, in order to extract normative images
for metaphysics out of their models » [« Newtons Universum mechanischer Gravitation wurde
alsbald zum Leitschema [. . . ]. Dies alles fixiert die geschichtlich folgenreiche Erscheinung,
dass die Philosophen begannen, den Naturforschern über die Schulter zu spähen, um an ihren
Modellen metaphysische Leitbilder zu gewinnen »] (WW , ). My translation.
. Michael W and John G, Stephen Hawking. A Life in Science, Viking, New York,
. I will deal with Blumenberg and Hawking in Chapter VII.
. Stephen H, On the Shoulders of Giants: The Great Works of Physics and Astronomy,
Running Press, Philadelphia, , p. IX: « If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the
shoulders of giants », wrote Isaac Newton in a letter to Robert Hooke in . As is known, for
Newton the giants were Pierre Fermat and Isaac Barrow.
 . Prospects for a Metaphorology of the Contemporary Universe 

in the scandal of what Blumenberg called the “overestimated self–

consideration of the world enigmas solvers” [“die Welträtsel und die
Selbstüberschätzung ihrer Löser”] (VS –). With great difficulty,
Hawking was able to conquer new cosmological truths. Despite
the discomfort his popular books arouse even today in the scientific
community, Hawking is a paradigmatic case of indulding in both the
risky arbitrariness of astronomical speculation and the metaphysical
impetus of the contemporary physical cosmology. The first is a feature
of the history of metaphysics, while the latter is further evidence of
the cosmological reoccupation of metaphysics. The metaphysical fate
of contemporary cosmology turned the “astronomical concept of
reality” (Lt  ff ) into the ultimate concept of any reality.
In my opinion, the cosmological reoccupation of metaphysics
was started by Einstein’s relativistic cosmology, which opened a
fabulous new domain for scientific speculation through a physical–
mathematical representation of the “large scale structure” of the Uni-
verse ; a representation in which the “metaphysical ethos” of relativis-
tic cosmology oddly contrasted with Einstein’s anti–eschatological
pathos . The transformation of relativistic cosmology into evolutio-
nary cosmology, by Friedman and Lemaître among others, in-

. To our knowledge, Einstein was the first to use this expression in his famous “Kos-
mologische[en] Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie”, Preußisiche Akademie der
Wissenchaften, Sitzungsberichte, , pp. –. See also the classic Stephen H and
George E, The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime, Cambridge University Press, ; and
Phillip James Edwin P, Large–Scale Structure of the Universe, Princeton University Press,
.
. Further details in the Chapter VI “Cosmological Apocalypse”.
. Ibid. See also Georg S, “Die Kontroverse zwischen Alexander Friedmann und
Albert Einstein um die Möglichkeit einer nichtstatischen Welt”, in: Hilmar W. D
and Wolfgang R. D (eds.), Einsteins Kosmos. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Kosmologie,
Relativitätstheorie und zu Einsteins Wirken und Nachwirken, Verlag Harri Deutsch, Frankfurt am
Main, , pp. –; Kurt R, “Georges Lemaître, das expandierende Universum und
die kosmologische Konstante”, in: ibid, pp. –. Thus, it has been described by Jean–Pierre
Luminet: « Einstein a crée la théorie de la relativité générale et écrit les équations gouvernant
les propriétés physico–géométriques de l’Univers; Friedmann a découvert les solutions non
statiques de ces équations, décrivant la variation temporelle de l’espace, et entrevu son possible
commencement dans un singularité; Lemaître a relié l’expansion théorique de l’espace au
mouvement observé des galaxies, jeté les bases physiques du Big Bang et anticipé le rôle
fondamental joué par la mécanique quantique et l’énergie du vide; Gamow a montré comment
les éléments légers se sont formés dans l’Univers chaud des origines, et prédit l’existence du
rayonnement fossile; Hubble, enfin, a prouvé la nature extragalactique des nébuleuses spirales,
et assis expérimentalement la loi de proportionnalité entre leur vitesse de récession et leur
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

creased the efficiency of scientific cosmology in the production of

representations of the whole Universe, thus contributing to the pro-
cess of cosmological reoccupation of metaphysics. While the theory
of relativity allowed a description of the large–scale structure of the
Universe, the subsequent evolutionary cosmology offered the myth-
ical image of a cosmos evolved as a whole from an initial instant .
Thus, it is not surprising that “cosmological metaphysics” [“kosmolo-
gische Metaphysik”] (kW ) resided in a new episode of the theories
of everything and the grand unification theories to which the late
Einstein also tried to contribute , namely with « a complete, consis-
tent, unified theory in which all physical interactions are described
by one set of equations » . The full analysis of these and other issues
related to contemporary physical cosmology would be very complex
and far beyond the ambition of this chapter. Far more modestly, my
aim is to identify some evidence of the cosmological reoccupation of
metaphysics through the use of metaphors in contemporary physical
cosmology.

distance ». J.–P. L, L’invention du Big Bang [], Éditions du Seuil, Paris, , p. .
. It has been described by Étienne Klein thusly: « Au cours des années , des physiciens
rigoureux ont établi que l’univers lui–même, l’objet univers avait lui aussi une histoire. [. . . ]
L’univers est bel et bien un objet physique, conceptuellement saisissable en tant que tel, et il a
une histoire propre qui ne se réduit pas à celle de ses constituants ». Étienne K, Discours sur
l’origine de l’univers, Flammarion, Paris, , p. . In p. : « C’est seulement depuis le début
du XXe siècle, depuis qu’elle dispose d’un cadre relativiste, que la physique a pu vraiment se
saisir, de façon cohérente, de l’univers en tant que tel, et que la question de son origine a été
posée au sein même du corpus théorique ». On the transformation of the “Universe” into a
scientific object under the theory of relativity, see ibid., pp.  ff.
. See, for example, Jordi C, Cosmología física, Ediciones Akal, Barcelona, , pp.
–.
. M. W and J. G, Stephen Hawking, op. cit., p. . It is possible to recognize the
cosmological reoccupation of metaphysics in the speculations on the constants of nature. Thus,
we might consider the determination of physical and astrophysical constants (i.e., the deter-
mination of cosmological parameters) as a key dimension of the cosmological metaphysics.
For instance, Artur D. Chernin asks: « Why the physical constants have these numerical values
and not others? The answer to this question does not yet exist. But if their values differed
only slightly from the known values , the physical world would be catastrophically different ».
Artur D. C, La naturaleza física de las estrellas [], Editorial URSS, , pp. –. My
translation. On the constants of nature see also Helge K, Higher Speculations, op. cit., pp.
–.
 . Prospects for a Metaphorology of the Contemporary Universe 

.. Metaphorology of Contemporary Universe as a Metaphysical

Essay

An Evolutionary Cosmological Metaphorics

In the groundbreaking paper of his metaphorology, “Licht als Meta-

pher der Wahrheit. Im Vorfeld der philosophischen Begriffsbildung”
[] (LaM –, –), Blumenberg argued that metaphysical
categories were related to the production of both metaphors and
myths. In my opinion, an exemplary case in this respect is given by
physical cosmology and contemporary cosmogony, the prevailing
metaphorics of which introduce an evolving Universe. In particular,
the standard cosmological model includes what I shall call “evolu-
tionary cosmological metaphors”, which are closely related to the
new metaphorical–cosmogonic myths of the beginning and end of
the Universe. At once scientific and mythological, “contemporary
cosmogony” or “modern cosmogony” come to describe the for-
mation of the Universe, including the beginning and subsequent
transformation of the heavenly bodies and their organization into
planetary systems, stars, galaxies and clusters and superclusters of
galaxies .
As with any other cosmogony, contemporary cosmogony is struc-
tured through the “idea of a cosmogonic development” [“kosmogo-
nischen Entwicklungsidee”] (VS ), namely the distance from the

. A brief description of the standard model can be found in Erhard S, “The
Standard Model of Contemporary Cosmology”, in: Jürgen R (ed.), Albert Einstein. Chief
Engineer of the Universe. One Hundred Authors for Einstein, WILEY–VCH, Berlin, , pp. –.
See also Jordi C, Cosmología física, op. cit., pp.  ff.
. See, for example, E. A. P, A Theory of the Origin and Development of the Solar
System, Editorial URSS, , p. ; Artur D. C, La naturaleza física, op. cit. p. . Thus, it
has been described by Jean–Pierre L: « L’ambition de la cosmologie est [. . . ] l’évolution
et le destin de l’Univers dans son ensemble. Au–delà des mythes et élucubrations que l’homme
s’est toujours forgés pour construire un Univers compréhensible et rassurant, le cosmologiste
moderne dispose de faits observationnels qui, moyennant des interprétations cohérentes
avec les acquis de la physique théorique, lui permettent de reconstituer l’histoire passée de
l’Univers et de calculer son futur. La fuite des galaxies, l’abondance relative des éléments légers
(hydrogène, deutérium, hélium, qui ne se sont pas formés dans les étoiles) et la détection d’un
rayonnement cosmologique uniforme sont autant d’indices suggérant que l’Univers est en
expansion depuis  milliards d’années à partir d’une phase très condensée et très chaude, le
Big bang ». J.–P. L, Le Destin de l’Univers. Trous noirs et énergie sombre [], tome II,
Gallimard, Paris, , pp. –.
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

beginning. In the new scientific–cosmogonic myth of the beginning

it is assumed that « the form of an inverted development proceeds
towards a zero point in space and time, or to the almost zero of the
universal matter. A beginning, therefore, from which the flow of
galaxies and the º Kelvin cosmic background radiation take place,
but not a beginning in which something has been created » . Ac-
cordingly, the new myth of the end of the Universe, or rather the
new scientific myths of the end, represent « the sinking as the price
that every beginning [must pay] in origin » . Thus, it is not surprising
that contemporary cosmogony has produced absolute cosmologi-
cal myths and metaphors of the beginning and the end, in order
to deal with a genuine problem of non–conceptuability. In particu-
lar, among the myths and metaphors of the beginning and the end
of the Universe, contemporary cosmology has extended a dense
organicistic–biologistic metaphorics to conceive the formation and
evolution of the Universe in which the metaphorics of the birth and
the ages of the Universe are particularly dominant.

The Birth of the Universe: the Void, the Singularity and the Wall

Georges Lemaître offered the metaphor of the “quantum birth

of the Universe” later included in the Big Bang theory and the
standard model of modern cosmology. As is well known, Lemaître
suggested a cosmogonic hypothesis according to which the Uni-
verse would have resulted from the subsequent fragmentation of an
initial quantum, that he called the “primeval atom”: « Si nous remon-
tons le cours du temps, nous devons trouver toujours moins de

. « Kosmologische Modelle der Welt–entstehung retrokonvergierend geworden sind:

nach rückwärts auf einen Nullpunkt in Raum und Zeit, auf ein Quasinull der Weltmaterie
verweisen. Ein Anfang also schon, seit es die Flucht der Galaxien und die kosmische Hin-
tergrundstrahlung von º Kelvin gibt – aber kein Anfang, an dem etwas geschaffen worden
wäre » (PsM ). My translation. On the myths of the beginning see Étienne K, Discours sur
l’origine, op. cit., pp. –.
. « Untergang ist von allem Angang an der Preis für seinen Ursprung (VS ). Here
Blumenberg clearly recalls Anaximander’s famous sentence ».
. Georges L, “The Beginning of the World from the Point of View of Quantum
Theory”, Nature, vol. , p.  ( mai ); G. L, “L’hypothèse de l’atome primitif”,
Actes de la Société helvétique des sciences naturelles, , pp. –, edited in: Jean–Pierre
L, L’invention, op. cit., pp. –. See also G. L, L’Hypothèse de l’atome primitif:
essai de cosmogonie, Neuchâtel et Bruxelles, . Further details in J.–P. L, L’invention,
op. cit., p. .
 . Prospects for a Metaphorology of the Contemporary Universe 

quanta, jusqu’à ce que nous trouvions toute l’énergie de l’Univers

concentrée en un petit nombre, ou même, en un seul quantum » .
Lemaître considered the progressive fragmentation of this primitive
quantum as a disintegration process similar to that of the radioac-
tive substances. He introduced the idea of a constantly evolving
Universe through a chain of subsequent phases of transformation:
« La totalité de la matière dans l’Univers doi avoir été présente dès
le commencement, mais l’histoire qu’elle nous raconte peut être
écrite étape par étape ». He added, however: « Il n’est pas nécessaire
que l’histoire entière de l’Univers ait été inscrite dans le premier
quantum, comme une mélodie sur le disque d’un phonographe » .
In the double metaphor of the primeval atom and the quantum
birth of the Universe, Lemaître symbolically suggested the conver-
gence of atomic physics, studies on radioactivity, the then–incipient
quantum mechanics and observational astronomy, in order to cre-
ate the image of a cosmos whose beginning would have been very
different from its current state and from which one would still
expect further transformations. Additionally, this metaphorics was
able to deal with the large–scale structure of the Universe together
with the smaller structures. Hence, atoms and nebulae would have
a common exceptional and detectable beginning.
Lemaître has remained as one of the founding fathers of the
Big Bang theory, and his metaphor of the birth of the Universe was
inextricably linked to the « cosmological argument of the instability
of nothing » [« das kosmologische Argument aus der Instabilität
des Nichts »] (VS ). Moreover, Lemaître’s cosmogony also in-
troduced the metaphorical tradition of the “initial singularity” or
“cosmological singularity” that refers to the “quantum vacuum”
— also known as false vacuum — from which the Universe would

. Georges L, “L’expansion de l’espace”, Revue des questions scientifiques, Novem-
ber : e année, e série, t. XX, , pp. –, edited in: J.–P. L, L’invention, op.
cit., pp.  ff.
. Ibid.
. É. K, Discours sur l’origine, op. cit., p. : « Un océan rempli de particules virtuelles
capables, dans certaines circonstances, d’accéder à l’existence. Le vide apparaît ainsi comme
l’état de base de la matière, celui qui contient sa potentialité d’existence et dont elle émerge
sans jamais couper son cordon ombilical. La matière et le vide quantique sont de fait liés de
façon insécable ». Further details in pp. –. It has been described by J.–P. Luminet in the
following terms: « Le vide quantique n’est pas le néant; il doit être pensé comme une mer
fluctuante d’où peuvent émerger et disparaître des particules virtuelles. La caractéristique
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

have self–generated as a sort of “wound of the nothingness” (TdU ,

); a “pure contingency” [“reine Kontingenz”] (VS ) , which
resulted in the « episode of the expansion of the world » (VS ) .
The “sea of potentialities” in the concept of the quantum vacuum
and the positivity of its fluctuations produced the initial cosmologi-
cal singularity, the dynamic antigravitational effect of which — a
repulsive force — caused the cosmic expansion . This overlapping
of absolute metaphors also expresses the difficult relationship be-
tween quantum physics and the theory of relativity, as well as the
further problem of finding a valid unifying theory, i.e. a relativistic
quantum theory.
In my opinion, this is a remarkable case of the overcoming of
non–conceptuability through metaphor: « We know that our Uni-
verse was born from a singularity » . The “singularity”, a physical–

principale de cet état est d’être celui d’énergie minimale ». J.–P. L, Le Destin, tome II,
op. cit., p. ; in p. : « En mécanique quantique, le vide est défini comme l’état d’énergie
minimale d’un système physique »; in p. : « Représentons le vide comme une mer agitée
de clapotis; des vaguelettes naissent à la surface, mais toujours de sorte que le niveau moyen
de la mer reste le même ». See also A. D. C, La naturaleza física, op. cit., pp.  ff.
. Blumenberg added: « Etwas aus Nichts (oder: fast Nichts) zu machen, hat nun einmal
das immanente Risiko der Unvorhersehbarkeit dessen, was damit verbunden ist » (MvM );
« das Nichtige muss bis zur extremen Konsequenz des reinen Nichts forciert werden, um
es schliesslich über die Linie zu zwingen, auf der es in das Sein umschlägt » (MvM ). The
“singularity” has been described by Blumenberg thusly: « Singularität: das Mögliche, wenn
nicht alles Möglich sein darf » (GlF ); « [. . . ] einer Anomalie des Nichts, die Kosmogonie
auf seiner Pathologie; seiner nackten Existenz » (VS ). It has been described by S. Hawking
as follows: « One cannot predict what would come out of the singularity. [. . . ] This means
that one might as well cut any events before the big bang out of the theory, because they
can have no effect on what we observe ». S. W. H, The Theory of Everything. The Origin
and Fate of the Universe [], Phoenix Books, Beverly Hills, , p. .
. In this very passage, Blumenberg makes reference to the singularity (VS ; ).
On the expansion of the Universe, see (VS ). On the singularity and the beginning of the
expansion see Mijaíl V. S, Cosmología moderna [], Span. trans. by Aldo L. Malca,
Editorial URSS, Moscú, , pp. –.
. « We do not know how the Universe began. Science can only say that it was self–
generated from the sea of potentialities we call the quantum vacuum, whose properties we
do not fully understand ». Jordi C, Cosmología física, op. cit., p. . My translation.
. « Quantum fluctuations in the vacuum, which usually occur only at microscopic
scale, rapidly increase their length and breadth in the expanding Universe, becoming sig-
nificant fluctuations from a cosmological point of view. For this reason, we can say that the
clusters of galaxies and the galaxies themselves are macroscopic manifestations of quantum
fluctuations ». Mijaíl V. S, Cosmología moderna, op. cit., p. . My translation.
. M. V. S, Cosmología moderna, op. cit., p. . My translation.
 . Prospects for a Metaphorology of the Contemporary Universe 

mathematical concept, was indeed transformed into a cosmological

metaphor by Lemaître’s contributions .
However, Einstein had already faced the problem of singulari-
ties in the formulation of the classical relativistic cosmology as
it was a problem inherited from the Newtonian theory of gravity,
being the result of the hypothetical overlapping of successive masses
that would create points of infinite gravitational density . Lemaître
proved that the production of singularities was an inevitable result
of general relativity and appointed singularity as the ontological
metaphor to describe the beginning of the Universe. The standard
Big Bang model eventually incorporated it in the terms of an ini-
tial cosmological singularity with an infinite temperature, infinite
energy density, and infinite space–time curvature: « Un sorte de si-
tuation théorique monstrueuse » , « La catastrophe ultime au–delà
de laquelle nous ne pouvons poursuivre la généalogie cosmique » .
From a metaphorological point of view, one can say that the initial
. J.–P. L, Le Destin, tome II, op. cit., pp. –.
. It was precisely in order to prevent the gravitational collapse of the entire Universe that
Einstein introduced the famous cosmological constant. See also A. E, “Autobiographical
Notes”, in: Paul A. S (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher—Scientist [], The Library of
Living Philosophers, volume VII, Carbondale, Illinois: Sothern Illinois University (rd ed. ),
pp. f. Further details in J.–P. L, Le Destin, tome II, op. cit., p. –.
. « En conclusion, les singularités se révèlent être une conséquence incontournable de la
propriété attractive et “auto–accélérée” de la gravitation », J–P. L, Le Destin, tome II, op.
cit., pp. . See also Berthold S, Die Stabilität der Welt. Eine Wissenschaftsphilosophie der
kosmologischen Konstante, Mentis, Paderborn, , pp. –.
. Ibid., pp. –. Arthur S. E, “On the Instability of Einstein’s Spherical World”,
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. , , pp. –.
. Erhard S, “The Standard Model of Contemporary Cosmology”, in: Jürgen R
(ed.), Albert Einstein. Chief Engineer of the Universe. One Hundred Authors for Einstein, WILEY–
VCH, Berlin, , p. ; see also L, Le Destin, tome II, op. cit., p. : « Des singularités
apparaissent aussi dans le contexte plus général de la cosmologie, branche de l’astrophysique
qui traite de l’évolution de l’Univers dans son ensemble. La théorie du Big Bang, selon laquelle
l’Univers serait né d’une singularité il y a  milliards d’années, est fortement corroborée
par l’observation de l’expansion de l’Univers et celle du rayonnement cosmologique, verstige
refroidi de sa naissance ».
. É. K, Discours sur l’origine, op. cit., p. .
. L, Le Destin, tome II, op. cit., p. –. It has been described by Jordi Cepa as
follows: « The presence of a singularity is based on the existence of the scale factor, defined by
the metric of a homogeneous and isotropic Universe, and its evolution, determined by the
relativity general equations of state. [. . . ] The extrapolation of the actual Universe to the initial
instant indicates that, if the scale factor can vanish at the origin of cosmological time, there
will be a material singularity because both energy density and spacetime curvature diverges,
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

metaphor of singularity is itself a cosmological paradigm of non–

conceptuability.
In the s, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose introduced their
famous theorems about singularities, showing that relativity involves
space–time singularities which Penrose attributed to the presence
of “black holes” . Here, once more, the metaphorical density also
tended to infinity: the initial singularity originating the Universe was
a “naked singularity” (Hawking) , while the enclosed singularities
in black holes were “censored singularities” (Penrose): “Nature ab-
hors a naked singularity” . Thus, all singularities are hidden within
black holes except the singularity of the Big Bang at the beginning
of time. While Penrose suggested the “cosmic censorship hypoth-
esis” , Hawking pointed out that such a censorship was not total
since the black holes singularities emitted radiation. The problematic
connection between the theory of relativity and quantum physics
could find in black–hole physics a new metaphorics.
The “cosmology of singularity” [“Kosmologie von der Singular-
ität”] (MvM ), produced further absolute metaphors of the begin-
ning of Universe based on quantum mechanics. Among the most
important are “foam”, “bubbles”, “strings”, “membrane”, “branes“
or “seeds” . A full review of the entire metaphorical spectrum would

unless the latter is zero ». J. C, Cosmología física, op. cit., p. . My translation.
. L, Le Destin, tome II, op. cit., pp. –.
. See, for example, S. H and J. S, “Naked and Thunderbolt Singularities
in Black Hole Evaporation”, Nucl.Phys., B, , ().
. M. W and J. G, Stephen Hawking, op. cit., p. .
. Roger Penrose suggested « the cosmic censorship hypothesis, which might be para-
phrased as “God abhors a naked singularity”. In other words, the singularities produced by
gravitational collapse occur only in places like black holes, where they are decently hidden
from outside view by an event horizon ». S. H, The Theory of Everything, op. cit., p. ;
see also p. : « There was a lot of opposition to our work, [. . . ] people who felt that the whole
idea of singularities was repugnant and spoiled the beauty of Einstein’s theory ». J.–P. L,
Le Destin, tome II, op. cit., pp. –: “Roger Penrose a émis en  l’hypothèse selon laquelle
la natur interdirait aux singularités d’être nues. Selos lui, l’effondrement gravitationnel devrait
toujours habiller la singularité d’un horizon des événements. Cette conjecture porte le nom
de censure cosmique”.
. The American physicist John Wheeler introduced the “foam” as a metaphor of the
space–time quantum vacuum, a type of spatiotemporal turbulence, in his attempt to find
« une analogie entre la dynamique de la géométrie de l’espace–temps et celle des fluides
turbulents. Il imagina ainsi que la géométrie de l’espace–temps microscopique pouvait être
en perpétuel changement, agitée de fluctuations quantiques ». L, Le Destin, tome II, op.
 . Prospects for a Metaphorology of the Contemporary Universe 

lead us too far off track. I shall just point out that they represent, in
my opinion, several attempts to overcome what could be called the
“horizon of singularity”, an unexpected and insidious “Aristotelian
recidivism” in contemporary cosmology: the physics of the early
Universe — when the fundamental interactions were not yet sep-
arated — is substantially different from the physics governing the
Universe today. In Blumenberg’s words:

When recent cosmology refers to the “singularity”, which is a state where,

in the cosmogonic beginning, the mass was concentrated at one point,
cosmology is referring precisely to something that negates the natural laws
of the emerged world from that state, making even the emerged world a
denial of its beginning.

cit., pp. –, and pp.  ff. It is described by Mijaíl V. Sazhin as follows: « The general theory
of relativity associates the geometry of space–time with the properties of matter. Therefore,
the construction of quantum gravity is equivalent to the construction of a quantum geometry
of space–time ». Mijaíl V. S, Cosmología moderna, op. cit., pp. –. My translation. The
“bubbles”, however, revive the question of the plurality of worlds, Universes or Multiverses,
which could eventually be governed by different physical properties. See, for example, Étienne
K, Discours sur l’origine, op. cit., pp. –; Georg S, “Die Kontroverse zwischen
Alexander Friedmann und Albert Einstein”, op. cit., p. ; L, Le Destin, tome II, op. cit.,
pp. –. Blumenberg made reference to the metaphor of the cosmic seed in Gnosis, which
would then have to germinate (panspermia) (TdU , –). Jordi Cepa mentions “hadronic
bubbles” and “nuggets” in Cosmología física, op. cit., p. . On string theory and its derivatives
see Leonard S, The Cosmic Landscape, Little, Brown and Co., . On the branes see J.
C, Cosmología física, op. cit., p. ; É. K, Discours sur l’origine, op. cit., pp. –; L,
Le Destin, tome II, op. cit., pp.  ff, and pp.  ff.
. « Wenn die jüngste Kosmologie von der Singularität spricht, die den punktuellen
Massenzustand am Anfang einer Kosmogonie ausmacht, so behauptet sie gerade das, was
die Naturgesetze der aus diesem Zustand hervorgehenden Welt negiert, aber auch die nach
dem ersten Augenblick entstehende Welt zur Negation ihres Anfangs macht » (MvM ). My
translation. Blumenberg added: « Niemand kann dabeigewesen sein, wie die Welt entstand »
(MvM ). There are many similar cosmological testimonies. See, for example, Mijaíl V. S,
Cosmología moderna, op. cit., p. ; J–P. L, Le Destin, tome II, op. cit.: « Dans la cosmologie
standard, les galaxies de notre univers observable ont toutes pour origine un point infinitésimal,
situé à un moment fini dans le passé: la singularité du Big bang. La notion de temps perd toute
signification à cet instant ». É. K, Discours sur l’origine, op. cit., p. : « L’instant zéro qu’on
persiste à accoler au Big bang ne peut donc avoir été un instant physique, le premier instant
par lequel l’univers serait passé: c’est un instant fictif inventé par l’extrapolation abusive d’une
théorie incapable de décrire de façon adéquate un univers très chaud et très dense. toutes
prodigieuses qu’elles sont, les descriptions des différentes phases de l’univers par les modèles
de Big bang exclusivement construits sur la théorie de la relativité générale n’incluent donc
jamais le commencement de l’univers proprement dit, et encore moins quoi que ce soit qui
l’aurait précédé ou qui pourrait en être la cause »; J. C, Cosmología física, op. cit., p. :
« It is largely unknown how the physics should apply to the high energies of the very early
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

Therefore, it was necessary to develop the appropriate represen-

tations in order to understand the “instant” in which an unknown
physics was transformed into the ordinary physics describing the
behaviour of the current Universe. The question was how far the
known physics could be extrapolated, and how to represent the do-
main of the unknown physics. Thus, another absolute metaphor
made its appearance: i.e. a new cosmological paradigm of non–
conceptuability, the “Planck wall”. Such a metaphor was meant to
express

un moment particulier de l’univers, une phase par laquelle il est passé

et qui se caractérise par le fait que les théories physiques actuelles sont
impuissantes à décrire ce que s’est passé en amont de cette phase. L’énergie,
la longueur et la durée qui lui sont associées, dites de Planck elles aussi,
valent respectivement  GeV, – mètre et – seconde.

The Planck wall describes a further evolution of the initial singula-

rity immediately before the separation into the fundamental interac-
tions, in which gravitational and quantum phenomena were still im-
plied :

Le mur de Planck est ce qui nous barre l’accès à la connaissance de l’origine

de l’univers, si origine il a eu. Il encarne en effet la limite de validité ou
d’opérativité des concepts de la physique que nous utilisons: ceux–ci convi-
ennent pour décrire ce qui s’est passé après lui, pas ce qui a eu lieu avant lui
(ainsi, nos représentations habituelles de l’espace et du temps perdent toute
pertinence en amont du mur de Planck).

Ambiguous Explosions: the Big Bang, Relict Radiation and Redshift

Few metaphors are so awkward and extended as that of the “Big

Bang”, the “great explosion” . Once more, this metaphor refers to

Universe ». My translation.
. É. K, Discours sur l’origine, p. .
. Ibid., pp. –.
. Ibid., pp. –. The text goes on: « Attention, cela ne revient pas à dire que l’univers
a ‘ressenti’ quelque chose de particulier au moment de son passage par ce fameux rempart
théorique: figuration symbolique de la zone à partir de laquelle nos concepts se mettent à
flageoler, le mur de Planck est moins un mur proprement physique qu’un mur pour notre
physique »
. It is remarkable how the Big Bang metaphor has been employed in biology, in parti-
cular in the category of panspermia: Chandra W (ed.), The Biological Big Bang.
 . Prospects for a Metaphorology of the Contemporary Universe 

Lemaître’s cosmological hypothesis, which, although at first tended

to consider a slow evolving Universe, he soon shifted — in line with
the new findings of astronomical observation — towards a rapid
cosmology of explosive beginning: « L’atome–Univers a explosé et la
pluralité a surgi » . Although this is usually attributed to Fred Hoyle,
one of the main proponents of the steady state theory — a model of
static Universe —, ironically it was Hoyle who addressed Lamaître as
“the Big Bang man” and popularized the term in a radio broadcast
on the BBC in  . The term was stripped of its negative and even
pejorative connotations by George Gamow, developer of a model of
the non–stationary Universe.
Nevertheless, it has often been remarked that this cosmological
metaphor, despite being very intuitive, can lead to misunderstandings.
According to Lemaître’s cosmology, in the initial singularity the no-
tions of space and time made no sense because they originated in it
during the exponential increase of the scale factor of the metric , and
there cannot be, strictly speaking, something preceding it. While in
a conventional explosion a heterogeneous distribution of substance
occurs from the given centre of the explosion, « there is no such a thing
concerning the Universe. Matter is uniformly distributed. It does not
exist a point that can be identified as a centre » . The onomatopoeic
“Big Bang” metaphor suggests a specific beginning and the possibility
of an observer witnessing it from “outside”. Furthermore, and what is
worse from an astrophysical point of view, to « talk about a “Big bang”
induces one to consider redshift as a cinematic effect, while referring
to the “expanding Universe” invites one to consider it as an evolution
of the metric in the framework of general relativity » . Therefore, the
great explosion was actually an expansion and did not occur at any site,
but was the source of all “places” and all “times”.

Panspermia and the Origins of Life, Cosmology Science Publishers, Cardiff, .
. J.–P. L, L’invention, op. cit., pp. ,  and .
. Ibid., p. ; J. C, Cosmología física, op. cit., p. , footnote ; É. K, Discours sur
l’origine, op. cit., p. .
. J. C, Cosmología física, op. cit., p. , footnote : « [. . . ] The cosmic scale factor represents
the size of the Universe when curvature is positive. When the curvature is zero or negative, the
scale factor is only a measure of the characteristic distance between objects whose separation will
be determined primarily by the expansion of the Universe and not by peculiar motions ». My
translation.
. Mijaíl V. S, Cosmología moderna, op. cit., pp. –. My translation.
. J. C, Cosmología física, op. cit., p. . My translation.
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

Despite the confusion and imprecision associated with it, this

cosmological metaphor still preserves the mythical reminiscences of
destruction and fire of a primeval absolute metaphor (SZ , ; VS
), “the furor of a ‘fire world’” [“das Wüten der Feuerwelt”] (MvM
) , now recovered in a cataclysmic explosion:

Les physiciens ont fini par comprendre que le Big Bang ne correspond
nullement à la création proprement dite de l’univers, mais simplement à
un épisode particulier qu’il a traversé: il leur est en effet apparu que les
prétendu premier instant que produisaient les premiers modèles n’a pas eu
de réalité physique, au sens où il ne correspond à aucun moment effectif du
passé de l’univers.

If God does not play dice, neither does he explode worlds (VS ).
Thanks to the discovery of cosmic background radiation, the
metaphorics of the birth of the Universe in a primitive explosion
becomes much more than an epistemological anecdote historically
associated with Lemaître’s cosmogony . Cosmic background radia-
tion was predicted by Ralph Alpher, Hans Bethe — in absentia — and
George Gamov in their theory of the primordial nucleosynthesis
of chemical elements — which postulated a hot and dense early
Universe — and was discovered accidentally by Arno Penzias and
Robert Wilson. Such radiation — an electromagnetic radiation in the
frequency range of microwaves — has been considered as a memory
of the beginning of the Universe, a residue of the singular event
of its birth. Cosmic background radiation was distinguished from
other types of radiation through the “fossil radiation” metaphor .

. Special emphasis should be given to the peculiar affinity between the Big Bang
metaphor and one of the cosmological paradigms in Blumenberg’s early metaphorology,
i.e. the explosive metaphors (PM –,  ff; LdN –, –).
. É. K, Discours sur l’origine, p. , see also, pp. –; in pp. –: « En général, le
terme Big bang est employé telle une métonymie de l’origine, comme si les modèles de
Big bang avaient directement accès à l’instant zéro, présenté comme l’instant marquant le
surgissement simultané de l’espace, du temps, de la matière et de l’énergie. Dans le langage
courant, l’expression Big bang en est même venue à désigner grosso modo la création du
monde, pour ne pas dire le fiat lux originel ».
. A technical description of this issue appears in J. C, Cosmología física, op. cit., chap. .
The Big Bang metaphor is also present in the ekpyrotic Universe.
. The “fossil radiation” metaphor was invented by Gamow, see J.–P. L, L’invention,
op. cit.., pp. –. Luminet quotes Gamow on the “dark pre–galactic past”: « Les “donnés
archéologiques” relatives à ce passé lointain ont du disparaître entierement dans l’ecrasement
des masses cosmiques ». Ibid, p. . However, “fossil radiation” would be “archaeological
 . Prospects for a Metaphorology of the Contemporary Universe 

Such a biological–evolutionary metaphor has ultimately provided

the preeminent astrophysical meaning to contemporary physical
cosmology. As with fossils in paleontology, cosmic background ra-
diation offers an empirical support for the conceptualization of the
past of the Universe and its subsequent transformation. However, in
contrast to organic remains preserved in sedimentary rocks — which
by definition are deposited in a particular place, here or there — the
relic radiation is denoted by its very ubiquity: it is not « emitted by
a specific source, but it has existed in the Universe from the very
beginning of its expansion. It has been preserved over the time when
the planets, stars and galaxies were in the primary state of hot, dense
plasma, which in homogeneous form filled all the space. This residual
radiation is called background radiation (of relics, or residual) » . The
fossil radiation — a sort of new ether — supported, on the one hand,
the hypothesis of spatial homogeneity and isotropy employed in rela-
tivistic models of the Universe and, on the other hand, it provided a
material basis to conceive of a macrocosmic Universe evolving over
time with a variable scale factor . Furthermore it provided valuable
information in the determination of cosmological parameters in the
different models of Universe . That fossilized trace, in short, was
the incandescent shining of the early Universe; a mythical light that
due to both the increase of the scale factor of the spacetime metric
and the redshift of electromagnetic radiation, is now reaching us in
the form of microwave radiation . Thus, fossil radiation provides

remains” that avoided disappearing “dans l’ecrasement des masses cosmiques”.

. A. D. C, La naturaleza física, op. cit., pp.  ff and pp.  ff. My translation. See
also E. S, “The Standard Model of Contemporary Cosmology”, op. cit., p. : « In the
standard picture this cosmic microwave background is interpreted as the redshifted relict of a
high–temperature state of the Universe a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang ». M.
V. S, Cosmología moderna, op. cit., pp.  ff and  ff. My translation. J. C, Cosmología
física, op. cit., pp. –.
. A. D. C, La naturaleza física, op. cit., p. .
. J. C, Cosmología física, op. cit., pp. –.
. Ibid., p. ; and Malcolm S. L, Galaxy Formation, Springer, , pp. –.
. It described as follows by S. H in The Theory of Everything, op. cit., p. :
« [According to Gamow] the early Universe should have been very hot and dense, glowing
white hot. Dicke and Peebles argued that we should still be able to see this glowing, because
light from very distant parts of the early Universe would only just be reaching us now. However,
the expansion of the Universe meant that this light should be so greatly red–shifted that it
would appear to us now as microwave radiation. Dicke and Peebles were looking for this
radiation when Penzias and Wilson heard about their work and realized that they had already
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

empirical evidence of the expansion of the Universe and is concor-

dant with the observed energy distribution in the spectral analysis
of the light from distant galaxies, which also shifts towards longer
wavelengths than the nearby galaxies .

The Ages of the Universe: Eras, Epochs and Structure Formation

The evolutionary and biological metaphors have continued to prolif-

erate and diversify in contemporary cosmology. In some cases they
have even been taken literally, thus, for instance, we find “mother
Universes”, “baby Universes”, “stellar nurseries”, and “embryonic
galaxies” . All of these, however, refers to the same metaphorics of
the ages of the Universe: « We can say that, as many properties of
human character are formed during childhood, the main properties
of our Universe are a consequence of its “period of infancy” » .
Thus, the expansion of the Universe and its different stages of de-

found it ».
. This expansion is accelerated: « The most important observational advance in cosmo-
logy since the early studies of cosmic expansion in the ’s was the dramatic and unexpected
discovery, in the waning years of the twentieth century, that the expansion rate is accelerating.
This was first announced in February , bases on the concordance of two groups’ data on
Supernovae Type A ». Amien A. E, Paul H. F, George F. S, “Entropic
accelerating Universe”, Physics Letters B, , , p. . On the types of supernovae see,
for example, Harald L and Jörn M, Sterne. Wie das Licht in die Welt kommt [],
Goldmann Verlag, München, , pp.  ff. Mijaíl V. Sazhin has expressed the expansion
and acceleration of the Universe in terms of kinematic magnitudes: « A. Filippenko, A. Riess,
S. Perlmutter, P. Challis [claimed] their measurements were evidences of the accelerated
expansion of our Universe. After the discovery of the expansion of our world, in , this is,
after the specific speed of Universe expansion (the Hubble parameter) was measured for the
first time in  it was measured the following kinematic magnitude: the specific acceleration
of our world ». M. V. S, Cosmología moderna, op. cit., p. . My translation. See also É.
K, Discours sur l’origine, op. cit., pp.  ff.
. J. C, Cosmología física, op. cit., pp.  ff. For redshift as the evolution of the metric and
not as a cosmic Doppler effect, see pp.  ff. Also in M. L, Galaxy Formation, op. cit., p.
: « Redshift is a measure of the scale factor of the Universe when the radiation was emitted
by the source ».
. S. H, Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays, Bantam, ; See also J.
C, Cosmología física, op. cit., pp. –; J.–P. L, Le Destin, tome II, op. cit., p. : « On
peut aussi imaginer un “bebé–univers” formé par un trou noir et connecté à son univers
‘parent’ par un trou de ver ombilical »; Helge K, Conceptions of Cosmos. From Myths to the
Accelerating Universe: A History of Cosmology, Oxford University Press, , chap. ; Mijaíl V.
Sazhin, Cosmología moderna, op. cit., p. .
. Mijaíl V. S, Cosmología moderna, op. cit., p. . My translation.
 . Prospects for a Metaphorology of the Contemporary Universe 

velopment have been understood as a “growth” from an initial

embryonic singularity .
While everything was decided in the first  seconds — as Blu-
menberg points out in reference to Steven Weinberg’s famous book
— cosmologists thought it was useful to establish a partitioning of the
history of Universe into eras and epochs, denoted by the “physical
sense of what happened” and « crucial facts that mark crossroads in
the history of the Universe » . Here, once more, the employment of
metaphors — temporary ones — has a destabilizing effect: « It can
hardly be called ‘era’ at time intervals that are often much shorter
than a blink » . In any case, the need to organize and describe the
major events that occurred during the formational phase of the Uni-
verse has led to a classification of its evolutionary development that I
wish to briefly recall .
The different energy densities ruling the Universe over time allow
one to distinguish between a “radiation–dominated era” — domi-
nated by radiation or relativistic matter —, a “matter–dominated era”
— dominated by non–relativistic matter —, and a “dark–energy–
dominated era” — dominated by an energy of unknown origin
called “dark energy” producing an antigravity effect of accele-
rating expansion of the Universe —. Each era is subdivided into
epochs of unequal duration. They are worthy of being mentioned:
the “radiation–dominated era” includes the Planck epoch, the grand
unification epoch (GUT), the electroweak symmetry breaking and
the quark epoch, hadron, lepton and photon epochs; the “radiation–
dominated era” consists of the plasma, atomic, stellar, galactic and
clusters epoches; the “dark–energy–dominated era”, however, is
comprised of only a single period, the supercluster epoch . From
a phenomenological point of view, the “radiation–dominated era”

. Ibid., pp. –, in p. . See also M. L, Galaxy formation, op. cit., pp. –.
. Steven W, Die ersten drei Minuten [The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the
Origin of the Universe], München, . Quoted in (VS  and ).
. Mijaíl V. S, Cosmología moderna, op. cit., chap. , pp. –. My translation.
. J. C, Cosmología física, op. cit., p. . My translation.
. Ibid., p. . My translation.
. Here I am following Jordi C’s Cosmología física, op. cit..
. Further details on the history of dark energy in Helge K, and James M. O,
The Weight of the Vacuum: A Scientific History of Dark Energy, Springer, New York, .
. J. C, Cosmología física, op. cit., pp.  and –.
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

defines the very early Universe or the Universe of transitions, the

“matter–dominated era”, the early Universe or the Universe of parti-
cle formation; and the “dark–energy–dominated era”, the Universe
of large–scale structure formation .
It is worth noting that among the most important events that oc-
curred during these eras and their corresponding epochs, one must
also include many other births, such as those of spacetime, hadronic
matter, the excess of baryons (matter–antimatter asymmetry) and
chemical elements, together with the subsequent development and
growth of cosmic bodies and structures. Even the astronomical
images of objects with high redshifts are usually considered as be-
longing to the infancy of the Universe, a sort of album of the life of
the Universe.
In Gamow’s Ylem cosmology , the heavenly bodies would have
been, to some extent, nuclearly–“cooked” in the large “cosmic oven”
of primordial nucleosynthesis . The basic ingredients were the
chemical elements synthesized in the early Universe, whose relative
abundances were described by Gamow’s “divine creation curve” .
The question of the origin of the chemical elements resulted in a
famous dispute between supporters and opponents of evolutionary
cosmology: « Le débat entre les deux écoles d’astrophysiciens nu-
cléaires, celle conduite par Alpher et Gamow militant pour la création
de tous les élements dans l’Univers primordial, et celle conduite par
Fred Hoyle militant pour la créations de tous les éléments dans le
coeur des étoiles dans le cadre d’un Univers stationnaire, est finale-
ment tranché par Hoyle et Tayler » . Without going into the details
of the controversy, I only wish to point out that the solution — a dou-
ble nucleosynthesis of a primitive one for light chemical elements
and a stellar one for heavy elements — extended and consolidated
cosmological evolutionary metaphorics of the stars, now considered
able to be born, to live, and to die .

. Ibid., p. .

. On Gamow and his cosmogony see J–P. L, L’invention, op. cit., pp. –.
. Ibid., pp. –: “période lointaine de ‘cuisson nucléaire’”. Gamow’s terminology. Artur
D. C, La naturaleza física, op. cit., pp.  and ; Mijaíl V. S, Cosmología moderna,
op. cit., pp.  and .
. J.–P. L, L’invention, op. cit., p. .
. Ibid., p. .
. See, for example H. L and J. M, Sterne, op. cit., pp. –: “Die Geburt der
 . Prospects for a Metaphorology of the Contemporary Universe 

Following the growth of the primordial density perturbations

and the nucleosynthesis of light chemical elements, the first genera-
tion of stars — known as “population III » — was born, which in
turn formed the “embryos of galaxies”. In this « first generation of
stars, formed from a material without metals and therefore of lower
opacity, there was no restriction for the formation of very massive
planets. These stars, which produced the first metals in the Universe,
have a very short life of a few million years » . With the “death” of
these stars in supernova explosions, heavier chemical elements —
metal — are ejected into cosmic environment enriching the gas that
will produce further generations of stars in which degree of metalli-
city determines the type of “population”. Thus, both the life and
death of stars and the stellar nucleosynthesis of chemical elements
were crucial processes in the formation of planets and planetary
systems. In this metaphorics the nebulae are considered “stellar nurs-
eries” or “stellar incubators” and, in relation to the proto–planetary

Sterne – Phasen einer Geburt”. A description of the birth and death of a star is available in
Artur D. C, La naturaleza física, op. cit., pp.  ff.
. It is described by Jordi Cepa thusly: « We know that the observed structures were
generated by gravitational instability of primordial density perturbations. [. . . ] The anisotropies
of the background radiation show the heterogeneities that through gravitational instability
produced the matter structures we observe today in the Universe ». J. C, Cosmología física,
op. cit., p. ; in p. : « The structure formation is a process originated at the end of inflation
when it is conjectured that the quantum fluctuations of the scalar inflationary field generated
the primordial perturbations. The structure formation still continues today. [. . . ] Once created,
these fluctuations in gravitation, the only purely attractive interaction, are able to act on a large
scale, it causes the amplification in a process known as gravitational instability »; in pp. –:
« sowing the seeds from which structures can grow further by gravitational instability »; in p.
: « Seeds of future structures that will form the Universe. My translations.
. Ibid. pp. –.
. Ibid. My translation.
. Eddington made reference to this process as « the majestic drama of stellar evolution »,
quoted by J–P. L, Le Destin, tome I, op. cit., p. . For the theory of the structure and
evolution of stars I shall refer the reader to pp. –. Naturally, the metaphor of the life
and death of stars has been associated with other metaphors like “stellar agony”, “cataclysmic
deaths”, “stellar corpses” or “rebirths”. Neutron stars and black holes are usually considered as
“corpses” of a dead star. From the point of view of Heidegger’s existential analysis, one would
speak of a stellar “Sein zum Tode”.
. J–P. L, Le Destin, tome I, op. cit., pp. –: « Une de ces belles pouponnières
d’étoiles, lieu de prédilection pour la naissance de jeunes étoiles, est la nébuleuse Trifide, située
à plus de  années–lumière dans la constellation du Sagittaire. Imagée en infrarouge, elle
dévoile quatre “incubateurs stellaires”, concentration de matière comprenant une treintaine
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

nebulae, they are the “mother stars” or even “families” . Some of

these stars were earlier expelled from the “kindergarten” — isolated
or associated in binary systems — and would later help form the
“heavenly bodies”, including, in particular, the terrestrial and gaseous
planets or, rather, they were captured and taken as “prisoners” .

d’étoiles à l’état embryonnaire. Cette nébuleuse possède en son centre une seule étoile massive
âgée de  ans, dont les vents et les émissions de radiations avec leurs ondes de choc ont
donné à la nébuleuse son aspect caverneux et créé les embryons ». In p.  he made reference
to “viviers de jeunes étoiles”; in p.  “L’enfance des étoiles”; and in p. : « La fusion de
l’hydrogène marque ainsi le passsage de l’étoile à l’âge adulte, appelé séquence principale ».
. Artur D. C, La naturaleza física, op. cit., pp. – and .
. On the classification of different types of cosmogonical hypotheses, “celestial bodies”
and their evolution, see E. A. P, A Theory of the Origin and Development of the Solar
System, op. cit. Parshakov suggests a theory for the mechanism of growth of the heavenly
bodies through “cosmic rain” and “galactic seasons” (for example, “galactic winter”). On the
topic of terrestrial and gaseous planets see, for example, H. L and J. M, Sterne, op.
cit., pp.  ff. On planetary physics and the formation of planets see the Stephen G. B
classic, A History of Modern Planetary Physics,  vols., CUP, .
. Parshakov made reference to “wandering ‘homeless’ celestial bodies”. E. A. P,
A Theory, op. cit., pp. –.
 Chapter VI

Cosmological Apocalypse

Einstein pflegte so oft von Gott zu reden, dass

ich beinahe vermute, er sei ein verkappter Theo-
loge gewesen.

Friedrich D
Albert E

I received your letter of June th . I have never

talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am
astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about
me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am,
of course, and have always been an atheist.

Letter from Einstein to Guy H. Raner

July , 

On the occasion of the th birthday of Albert Einstein [–],

Paul A. Schlipp edited a homage book in the collection The Library
of Living Philosophers, entitled Albert Einstein: Philosopher—Scientist
[] . Some of the most prominent physicists and thinkers of the
time — among them the Belgian priest and astrophysicist Georges
Lemaître — contributed to the book. Einstein also contributed to
this volume with an essay entitled “Autobiographical Notes” . The
dramatic overture of his essay runs as follows: « Here I sit in order to

. Paul A. S (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher—Scientist [], The Library of Living
Philosophers, volume VII, Carbondale, Illinois: Sothern Illinois University (rd ed. ).
. Georges L, “Rencontres avec A. Einstein”, Revue des Questions Scientifiques,
, n.º , , pp. –, quoted by Kurt R, “Georges Lemaître, das expandierende
Universum und die kosmologische Konstante”, in: Hilmar W. D and Wolfgang R.
D (eds.), Einsteins Kosmos. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Kosmologie, Relativitätstheorie und
zu Einsteins Wirken und Nachwirken, Verlag Harri Deutsch, Frankfurt am Main, , pp. –.
. Albert E, “Autobiographical Notes”, in: Paul A. S (ed.), Albert Einstein, op.
cit., pp.  ff.


 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

write, at the age of sixty–seven, something like my own obituary » .

At that time, Einstein no longer favoured a model of a static Universe,
clearly incompatible with any eschatological understanding of the
cosmos, although he still preserved a “cosmic religious feeling”, as
he described it elsewhere . He made reference to this feeling as « the
strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who
realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without
which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are
able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such
work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue » .
From this point of view, « the serious scientific workers are the only
profoundly religious people » . Einstein also made reference to this
issue at the beginning of his “Autobiographical Notes”, in a passage
that certainly deserves to be quoted:

When I was a fairly precocious young man I became thoroughly impressed

with the futility of hopes and strivings that chase most men restlessly
through life. Moreover, I soon discovered the cruelty of that chase, which in
those years was much more carefully covered up by hypocrisy and glittering
words than is the case today [. . . ]. As the first way out there was religion,
which is implanted into every child by way of the traditional education–
machine. Thus I came — though the child of entirely irreligious ( Jewish)
parents — to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end
at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I
soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could
not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking
coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by
the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind
of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the
convictions that were alive in any specific social environment – an attitude
that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by
a better insight into the causal connections.
It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was
thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the ‘merely
personal’, from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive
feelings. Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently

. Ibid. In his monograph on Einstein, Jacques Merleau–Ponty pointed out that this very
statement was not an act of coquetry. Further details in his Einstein, Flammarion, Paris, , p.
.
. Albert E, “Religion and Science”, New York Times Magazine, November , ,
pp. –.
. Ibid.
. Ibid.
 . Cosmological Apocalypse 

of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at
least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation
of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man
whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and
security in its pursuit. The mental grasp of this extra–personal world within
the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously,
half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the
present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were
the friends who could not be lost. The road to this paradise was not as
comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has
shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it .

When a New York rabbi named Herbert S. Goldstein sent a tele-

gram to Einstein asking him whether he believed in God, Einstein
replied: « I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly
harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates
and actions of human beings » . Thus, the appeal to the mystery of the
world in the “Autobiographical Notes” can be understood as a partic-
ular form of religiosity, a cosmic religiosity , shaped by the objective
transcendence of the Universe: a proper escape from both the meta-
physics and the life–world. This kind of religiosity, related to Spinoza’s
Deus sive natura , rejected the topos of personal salvation and consid-
ered the eternity and immutability of the cosmos: the “huge world”
independent of mankind. Unsurprisingly, it has been stipulated that
Spinoza’s natural theology influenced Einstein’s early acceptance of the
static solutions of relativistic cosmology Moreover, these theological
presuppositions could be relevant in order to explain Einstein’s vehe-

. Albert E, “Autobiographical Notes”, op. cit.. See also Lorraine D, “A Short
History of Einstein’s Paradise beyond the Personal”, in: Peter G, Gerald H, Silvan
S. S (eds.), Einstein for the st Century, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, ,
pp. –.
. Quoted by Max J, Einstein und die Religion, Universitätsverlag Konstanz, Konstanz,
, p. : « Ich glaube an Spinozas Gott, der sich in der gesetzlichen Harmonie des Seienden
offenbart, nicht an einen Gott, der sich mit den Schicksalen und Handlungen der Menschen
abgibt ». See also Michael R. G, “Einstein’s God. Just What Did Einstein Believe About
God?” in: Skeptic Magazine, “The God Question”, vol. , n.º , , pp.  ff; and Friedrich
D, Albert Einstein, Diogenes Verlag, Zürich, .
. Max J, Einstein und die Religion, op. cit., pp. –.
. Ibid., p. ; and Jürgen A, “Vorwort”, in: Max J, ibid., p. . Further details
on the theological and religious background of modern cosmology in Helge K, Matter and
Spirit in the Universe: Preludes to Modern Cosmology, Imperial College Press, London, ; and
Entropic Creation. Religious Contexts of Thermodynamics and Cosmology, Ashgate, Aldershot, .
. J, Einstein und die Religion, op. cit., p. ..
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

ment rejection of the non–static solutions independently proposed by

the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann
[–], as well as by the aforementioned Belgian priest and as-
trophysicist Georges Lemaître [–], between – and in
, respectively . Within the quiet cosmic pantheism that Einstein
defended, the models of a non–static Universe ultimately involved an
“excess” of mystery.
Even though « the most beautiful and deepest experience a man can
have is the sense of the mysterious » , the eschatological implications
of Friedmann’s and Lemaître’s models were necessarily intolerable
for Einstein. Despite Einstein’s reluctance and peculiar cosmological
mysticism — and the associated classical Greek understanding of the
cosmos — , he could not avoid the fate that Friedmann and Lemaître
prepared for the relativistic cosmology: to turn it into an eschatological
cosmology. For this reason, the contemporary physical cosmology
also includes an eschatological understanding of the Universe. The
historical paradox amounts to the fact that the scientific cosmology
that started in the early twentieth century involved a cosmological
reoccupation of eschatology.

. Ana R and Javier O, Teorías del universo, Editorial Síntesis, Madrid, vol. , ,
p. : « Einstein introduced a set of equations that described the curvature tensor of space–time,
depending on the intensity of gravitational fields. According to the type of solutions obtained, the
cosmological implications of these equations would be of one kind or another; that is to say, the
resulting theoretical Universe would have different features ». My translation.
. This list should include Willem de Sitter. Further details in Ana R and Javier O,
op. cit., pp. –.
. Albert E, “My Credo”, in: Michael W and John G, Einstein, a Life in
Science, Simon & Schuster LTD., London, , p. : « He who has never had this experience
seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced
there is a something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only
indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these
secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all
there is ».
. Max J, Einstein und die Religion, op. cit., p. .
. See Alberto F, “La ontología cosmológica en la obra temprana de Hans Blumen-
berg: las Beiträge y Die ontologische Distanz”, Res publica, n.º , Murcia, , pp. –; and “La
destrucción de las comprensiones teológicas de la Modernidad”, ÉNDOXA: Series filosóficas, n.º
, , pp. –.
. For a still valuable overview on this period see Jacques M–P, Cosmologie du
XXe siècle. Étude épistémologique et historique des théories de la cosmologie contemporaine, Éditions
Gallimard, Paris, , pp. –. See also Malcolm L, The Cosmic Century. A History of
Astrophysics and Cosmology [], Cambridge University Press, .
 . Cosmological Apocalypse 

.. The Universe as Gas of Stars: Einstein’s First Cosmological

Model

As is well known, the introduction of relativistic cosmology dated

back to , when Einstein published his “Kosmologische[n] Betra-
chtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie” at the Royal Prussian
Academy of Sciences in Berlin . In this famous paper, Einstein pre-
sented a model of a static Universe, spatially closed and denoted
by a uniform distribution of matter , the so–called “static model
of classical relativistic cosmology” . In this first model, Einstein
applied the general theory of relativity to the Universe as a whole,
using Riemannian geometry to describe the metric of space–time
and showing the inextricable connection between gravity and the
structural properties of the Universe on a large scale . Thus, Einstein
described it as: « According to the general theory of relativity the
metrical character (curvature) of the four–dimensional space–time
continuum is defined at every point by the matter at that point and
the state of that matter » . Consequently, « the curvature of space is
variable in time and place, according to the distribution of matter » .
The key cosmological metaphor in this model of the Universe
— of great heuristic value — was the “gas of stars” . Einstein con-
sidered the Universe as a gas in equilibrium ruled by Boltzmann

. Albert E, “Kosmologische[n] Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätsthe-

orie”, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, , pp.
–; English translation by W. P and G. B. J: “Cosmological Considerations
in the General Theory of Relativity”, in: A. E et alt., The Principle of Relativity, Dover
Publications, New York, , pp. –.
. An overview of Einstein’s contributions to cosmology can be found in Tobias J,
“Einsteins Beitrag zur Kosmologie – ein Überblick”, in: Hilmar W. D and Wolfgang R.
D (eds.), Einsteins Kosmos. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Kosmologie, Relativitätstheorie
und zu Einsteins Wirken und Nachwirken, Verlag Harri Deutsch, Frankfurt am Main, , pp.
–.
. Ibid., p. .
. Erhard S, “Einstein–Weyl Models of Cosmology”, in: Jürgen R (ed.), Albert
Einstein. Chief Engineer of the Universe. One Hundred Authors for Einstein, WILEY–VCH, Berlin,
, p. .
. Jean–Pierre L, L’invention du Big Bang [], Éditions du Seuil, Paris, , pp.
 ff.
. A. E, “Cosmological Considerations”, op. cit., p. .
. Ibid., p. .
. Jean–Pierre L, L’invention du Big Bang, op. cit., pp. –.
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

distribution law . However, due to the lack of uniformity in the

distribution of the stars — i.e. the matter of the Universe, according
to this model — « the metrical structure of this continuum must ne-
cessarily be extremely complicated. But if we are concerned with the
structure only on a large scale, we may represent matter to ourselves
as being uniformly distributed over enormous spaces, so that its
density of distribution is a variable function which varies extremely
slowly » . Thus, the whole Universe may « roughly approximate [. . . ]
by means of a spherical space » . This spherical space would have a
fixed radius and would be uniformly filled with stellar gas in the man-
ner of an ideal fluid of constant mass and density . In order to ensure
that this sort of cosmic fluid remains in gravitational equilibrium, Ein-
stein introduced in the relativistic equations a repulsive force which
compensated the gravitational attraction among the point masses of
the stellar gas, the so–called “cosmological constant”. Since matter
was discretely distributed with peculiar disorderly movements in
this model, the absence of a force that could exactly compensate the
energy density of stellar masses at rest would produce an increasing
expansion or contraction and, therefore, a variation of the metric
of the Universe over time . Without the cosmological constant any
small variation of the matter density would produce an irreversible

. Albert E, “Cosmological Considerations”, op. cit., p. : « if we apply Boltz-
mann’s law of distribution for gas molecules to the stars ».
. Ibid, pp. –.
. Ibid, p. .
. Erhard S, “The Standard Model of Contemporary Cosmology”, in: Jürgen R
(ed.), Albert Einstein. Chief Engineer of the Universe, op. cit., p. .
. Jordi C, Cosmología física, Barcelona, Ediciones Akal, , p. : « Newton pointed
out that if the Universe were not uniformly filled with stars, it would collapse due to gravita-
tional attraction, beginning with the densest parts ». Ibid., p. . My translation. See also Ana
R and Javier O, Teorías del universo, op. cit., pp. – and p. : « Any attempt to
extrapolate [the Newtonian theory of gravitation] faced the following difficulty: if all existing
matter is concentrated in a finite region of infinite space, the system is unstable; if the matter
is uniformly distributed in space to infinity the gravitational field must be infinite in every
point ». My translation. Further details on the history of the cosmological paradox of gravity in
Newtonian mechanics in Berthold S, Die Stabilität der Welt. Eine Wissenschaftsphilosophie
der kosmologischen Konstante, Mentis, Paderborn, , pp. –.
. Jean–Pierre L, L’invention du Big Bang, [], Éditions du Seuil, Paris, , pp.
–; Jean–Pierre L, Le Destin de l’Univers. Trous noirs et énergie sombre [], tome II,
Gallimard, Paris, , pp. –.
 . Cosmological Apocalypse 

evolution of the cosmos: either beginning to expand or to contract .

That is to say, the Universe would have a beginning and an end,
hence acquiring a history.
Many years later, Einstein justified the main presupposition of this
first cosmological model by pointing out that there was no reason to
doubt the static nature of space . Although the introduction of the
cosmological constant may appear now arbitrary, when Einstein first
suggested this model of the Universe, nothing was known of some
spectacular cosmological objects such as supermassive stars, black
holes, galactic nuclei and quasars . In fact, it was not even established
whether or not there were other galaxies or extragalactic bodies of
any kind : « In these circumstances, and given the scarcity of data, it
was natural to assume a priori a static Universe » . However, Einstein
himself prudently concluded his “Kosmologische[n] Betrachtungen”,
pointing out that although his model was “logically consistent” and
“nearest at hand” to the general theory of relativity, he doubted
whether it was also « tenable [. . . ] from the standpoint of present
astronomical knowledge » .

.. The Cosmological Reoccupation of Eschatology: Models of

Non–Static Universe

The eschatological shift of classical relativistic cosmology was in-

evitable and Einstein’s efforts to preserve the immutability of the
Universe were ineffective. Since the general theory of relativity al-
lowed to locally vary the curvature of space over time, it seemed
reasonable to assume that the metric of the Universe as a whole could
also change, resulting in the phenomena of contraction or expansion

. Mijaíl V. S, Cosmología moderna [], Span. trans. by Aldo L. Malca, Editorial
URSS, Moscú, , p. .
. Kurt R, “Georges Lemaître, das expandierende Universum und die kosmolo-
gische Konstante”, in: Hilmar W. D and Wolfgang R. D (eds.), Einsteins Kosmos, op.
cit., pp. –.
. Matthias S, “Gekrümmte Universen von Einstein: Karl Schwarzschilds kos-
mologische Spekulationen und die Anfänge der relativischen Kosmologie”, in: Hilmar W.
Duerbeck and Wolfgang R. Dick (eds.), Einsteins Kosmos, op. cit., p. .
. Jordi C, Cosmología física, op. cit., p. .
. Ibid. My translation.
. Albert E, “Cosmological Considerations”, op. cit., p. .
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

of the cosmos . As already mentioned, Alexander Friedmann and

Georges Lemaître soon proposed non static solutions to Einstein’s
equations that provided a model of dynamic Universe. Thus, relativis-
tic cosmology turned into an evolutionary cosmology , in which
the whole Universe displays its events in a linear or cyclic histori-
cal temporality. The Universe would have a history and, with it, an
eschatology.
In my opinion, the cosmological reoccupation of eschatology was
particularly operated in the debate on the cosmological constant ,
the mystery par excellence. While preserving the static world, the
cosmological constant had previously prevented any eschatological
understanding of the Universe, perpetuating the classical Greek un-
derstanding of the cosmos and its prerogatives of eternity, rationality
and security (VS –). Thus, the objective transcendence of the Uni-
verse had been ensured, and any messianic or apocalyptic visions on
cosmic time were rejected.
However, when Alexander Friedmann found the dynamic solu-
tions to Einstein’s equations, eschatology was introduced in cosmo-
logy as a form of mathematical support. In , Friedmann pub-
lished his famous paper “Über die Krümmung des Raumes” in the
German journal Zeitschrift für Physik, in which he claimed that the
metric of the Universe was able to vary over time . Friedmann’s
equations did not include the cosmological constant, and established
that the Universe is notstatic in general . Although there is not any
cause or reason why the Universe should expand or contract, once it
began to vary its metrics, it did not cease to do so.
Friedmann suggested two types of Universe: the stationary Uni-
verse and the variable Universe. In the first, the curvature of space
does not change over time, while it does in the second. Einstein did

. Jean–Pierre L, Le Destin de l’Univers, tome II, op. cit., pp. –.
. Ibid., p. . See also Kurt R, “Georges Lemaître, das expandierende Universum
und die kosmologische Konstante”, in: Hilmar W. D and Wolfgang R. D (eds.),
Einsteins Kosmos, op. cit., p. 
. Further details on the cosmological constant can be found in Berthold S, Die
Stabilität der Welt. Eine Wissenschaftsphilosophie der kosmologischen Konstante, op. cit., pp. –.
A short historical overview is available in Mijaíl V. S, Cosmología moderna, op. cit., pp.  ff.
. Two years later, in , he published in the same journal: “Über die Möglichkeit einer
Welt mit konstander negativer Krümmung”, Zeitschrift für Physik, , , p. .
. Jordi C, Cosmología física, op. cit., p. ; Jean–Pierre L, Le Destin de l’Univers,
tome II, op. cit., p. .
 . Cosmological Apocalypse 

not accept Friedmann’s solutions , which he considered erroneous,

and they soon fell into oblivion. However, a few years later Georges
Lemaître reintroduced the cosmological constant in a new model
of dynamic Universe and suggested a consistent cosmological under-
standing of Vesto Slipher’s [–] and Edwin Powell Hubble’s
[–] observational findings on the redshifts of the spiral ne-
bulae . According to Lemaître the recession velocity of extragalactic
nebulae was proof of an expanding Universe . The great crossroads

. Further details of Einstein’s reception of Friedmann’s works can be found in Jean–
Pierre L, Le Destin de l’Univers, op. cit. chap. , pp. –. See also Georg S, “Die
Kontroverse zwischen Alexander Friedmann und Albert Einstein um die Möglichkeit einer
nichtstatischen Welt”, in: Hilmar W. D and Wolfgang R. D (eds.), Einsteins Kosmos,
op. cit., pp. –.
. A short overview of Georges Lemaître’s life and scientific contributions in Jean–Pierre
L, L’invention du Big Bang, op. cit., chap. .
. It is described by Jordi Cepa as follows: « Between  and  Vesto Slipher measured
the emission lines in the spectra of  “nebular objects” for the first time. He found the
spectral lines [. . . ] were “redshifted”. This phenomenon affected all objects measured in
those years, except the Andromeda nebula. In that time, the nature of nebular objects such
as galaxies similar to ours was not established. The “nebular objects” or “nebulae” were a
category encompassing a wide variety of both galactic objects — consisting of emission or
reflection nebulae, planetary nebulae, bipolar nebulae, HII regions, etc. — and extragalactic
objects — consisting of galaxies of all kinds and morphological types —. The nebular objects
that Slipher studied belonged to the “spiral nebulae” type; i.e. what are currently known as
spiral galaxies. Subsequently, Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason [. . . ] extended Slipher’s
list to more galaxies belonging to different clusters and discovered that there were some
whose spectrum was shifted to the blue ». Jordi C, Cosmología física, op. cit., pp. –. My
translation. Hubble’s astronomical observations, made during the years  and , allowed
them to demonstrate that the spiral nebulae were actually whole galaxies independent of the
Milky Way and composed of millions of stars: « Hubble’s works resolutely opened the door
to a huge Universe populated by nebulae like ‘other Milky Ways’, thousands of millions of
light years away. The components of this Universe were not stars but “galaxies”, as Shapley
decided to name the extragalactic nebulae ». Ana R and Javier O, Teorías del universo,
Editorial Síntesis, Madrid, vol. , , p. . At p. : « there is a frontier that distinguishes
and separates the Universe of stars and the Universe of galaxies ». My translations.
. In late  Lemaître had the opportunity to attend the famous Washington meeting
in which Edwin Hubble demonstrated that the Milky Way was not the only galaxy in the
Universe. Further details in Jean–Pierre L, L’invention, p. : « À la fin de , [Lemaître]
assiste à une réunion à Washington restée célèbre, puisque y est annoncée la découverte
de Céphéides par Edwin Hubble dans les nébuleuses spirales, grâce à l’utilisation du gran
télescope du mont Wilson. Cela permet de prouver l’existence de galaxies extérieures à la
nôtre. Lemaître comprend aussitôt que cette nouvelle conception des “Univers–îles” aura des
conséquences pour les théories de la cosmologie relativiste ».
. Jean–Pierre L, L’invention du Big Bang, op. cit., pp. – and –.
  Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

of the moment has been described by Stephen Hawking:

At that time most people expected the galaxies to be moving around quite
randomly, and so expected to find as many spectra which were blue–shifted
as ones which were red–shifted. It was quite a surprise, therefore, to find
that the galaxies all appeared red–shifted. Every single one was moving
away from us. More surprising still was the result which Hubble published
in : Even the size of the galaxy’s red shift was not random, but was
directly proportional to the galaxy’s distance from us. Or, in other words,
the farther a galaxy was, the faster it was moving away. And that meant that
the Universe could not be static, as everyone previously thought, but was in
fact expanding. The distance between the different galaxies was growing all
the time.

The successive research stages of Lemaître in England — in ,

where he could collaborate closely with Arthur Eddington in Cam-
bridge — and in the United States — in , where he had the
opportunity to work with Harlow Shapley and get to know the
preliminary results of Vesto Slipher and Edwin Hubble in the Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) — allowed him to suggest
the theoretical framework in which the new observational findings
would acquire an unusual cosmological meaning, surely abominable
from Einstein’s point of view.

.. Abominable Mysteries: the Expansion of the Universe and

the Cosmological Reoccupation of the creatio ex nihilo

It is difficult to imagine the surprise the young physicist George

Lemaître, wearing his Catholic priest vest, would cause in Einstein
at the time they met for the first time . The meeting took place in

. Stephen W. H, The Theory of Everything. The Origin and Fate of the Universe [],
Phoenix Books, Beverly Hills, , pp. –.
. Jean–Pierre L, L’invention du Big Bang, op. cit., pp. –.
. Kurt R, “Georges Lemaître, das expandierende Universum und die kosmolo-
gische Konstante”, in: Hilmar W. D and Wolfgang R. D (eds.), Einsteins Kosmos, op.
cit., p. : « Die hier gezeigte Momentaufnahme ist bezeichnend für Einsteins gelegentlich
selbstherrliche Attitüde und sein misstrauisches Staunen über einen jungen Physiker im Habit
eines katholischen priesters, selbst wenn er ihm die mathematische Beherrschung der allge-
meinen Relativitätstheorie bescheinigen musste. Auch Eddington, der Lemaître von seinem
Gastaufenthalt in Cambridge im Jahr  viel besser kannte, äusserte zunächst das Verdikt des
“Theologischen” über dessen Ansatz ». Further details in Jean–Pierre L, L’invention du
 . Cosmological Apocalypse 

Brussels in , when Einstein visited the city for the Fifth Solvay
Congress, devoted to quantum mechanics. Lemaître recalled the
encounter in a late radio broadcast in commemoration of the two
years of Einstein’s death :
En se promenant dans les allées du parc Léopold, [Einstein] me parla d’un
article, peu remarqué, que j’avais écrit l’année précédente sur l’expansion
de l’Univers et qu’un ami lui avait fait lire . Après quelques remarques
techniques favorables, il conclut en disant que du point de vue physique
cela lui paraissait tout à fait abominable.

Despite the unexpected scorn, Lemaître thanked Einstein for

informing him of Friedmann’s works , which he actually ignored .
Since Lemaître seemed eager to continue the conversation, Einstein’s
companion, Auguste Piccard, invited him to join them and to visit
the laboratories of the University of Brussels. According to Lemaître,
in the taxi he would talk to Einstein on « des vitesses des nébuleuses
et j’eus l’impression qu’Einstein n’était guère au courant des faits
astronomiques » .
Einstein’s subsequent “conversion” into a dynamic model of
the Universe, that is, the acceptance of the physical and even theo-
Big Bang, op. cit., pp.  ff. See also Odon G and Michael H, “Einstein–Lemaître:
Recontre d’idées”, Revue des Questions Scientifiques, , , pp. –; Dominique L,
Un atome d’univers. La vie et l’oevre de Georges Lemaître [], Éditions Lessius, Bruxelles, .
. Kurt R, ibid., p. .
. Probably, Lemaître’s paper « Un Univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon
croissant, rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extra–galactiques », Annales de la
Societé scientifique de Bruxelles, série A, t. XLVII, avril , pp. – (–).
. It is believed that this friend could be Théophile De Donder, with whom Einstein
worked in Brussels during the preparation of the Fifth Solvay Congress. See Kurt R,
ibid., pp. –.
. Quoted by Jean–Pierre L, L’invention du Big Bang, op. cit., p. ; also by Kurt
R, “Georges Lemaître, das expandierende Universum und die kosmologische Kon-
stante”, op. cit., p. .
. Einstein himself reviewed it twice: Albert E, “Bemerkung zu der Arbeit von A.
Friedmann: Über die Krümmung des Raumes”, Zeitschfrift für Physik, , , p. ; “Notiz zu der
Arbeit von A. Friedmann: Über die Krümmung des Raumes”, Zeitschfrift für Physik, , , p. .
. Jean–Pierre L, L’invention du Big Bang, op. cit., p. .
. Quoted by Jean–Pierre L, L’invention du Big Bang, op. cit., p. . According to
Luminet « [. . . ] André Deprit (ancien élève de Lemaître) donne une version plus pittoresque et
légèrement différente de cette rencontre. Il affirme notamment que Lemaître ne connaissait
pas l’allemand, ce qui peut expliquer le fait que le savant belge n’ait pas cité le travail antérieur
de Friedmann das son article de  ».
  Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

logical implications of an expanding cosmos, occurred some years

later, when Einstein traveled to California and had the opportu-
nity to visit the California Institute of Technology, the Mount Wilson
Observatory, and to meet Edwin Hubble and Richard Chase Tol-
man [–], among other American astronomers . There, Ein-
stein observed the redshift of the extragalactic spiral nebulae, and
abandoned the cosmological constant . In the following years Ein-
stein suggested two models of expanding Universe, the so–called
“Friedmann–Einstein Universe” — in  — and the “Einstein–de
Sitter Universe” — in , in a co–authored article with the Dutch
mathematician and astronomer Willem de Sitter —. In both cases,
a model of Universe spatially closed without cosmological constant
was assumed .
That is why, the second time Einstein met Lemaître , in Pasadena
in , the encounter held a special significance for both of them.

. During his journey Einstein also visited La Habana. Further details in Angel Marqués
D, “Albert Einstein: treinta horas en La Habana”, Desde Cuba, July , .
. It is described by Einstein to his friend Michele Besso as follows: « Die Leute vom
Mount Wilson–Observatorium sind ausgezeichnet. Sie haben in letzter Zeit gefunden, dass
die Spiralnebel räumlich annähernd gleichmäßig verteilt sind und einen ihrer Distanz pro-
portionalen mächtigen Dopplereffekt zeigen, der sich übrigens aus der Relativitätstheorie
zwanglos folgern lässt (ohne kosmologisches Glied). Der Haken ist aber, dass die Expansion
der Materie auf einen zeitlichen Anfang schliessen lässt, der  , bezw.  Jahre zurückliegt »,
in: Pierre S, Albert Einstein–Michele Besso: Correspondence –, A. Hermann, Paris, p.
, quoted by Tobias J, “Einsteins Beitrag zur Kosmologie – ein Überblick”, in: H
W. D and Wolfgang R. D (eds.), Einsteins Kosmos, op. cit., p. .
. Tobias J, ibid., pp. –. At that time, Arthur Eddington demonstrated Einstein’s
Universe is in unstable equilibrium: A. S. E, “On the Instability of Einstein’s Spherical
World”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. , , pp. –.
. Albert E, “Zum kosmologischen Problem der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie”,
Sitzungber. Preuß. Akad. Wiss., , , pp. –.
. Albert E and Willem de S, “On the relation between the expansion and the
mean density of the Universe”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America, , , pp. –. Einstein’s contributions also included the so–called Einstein–
Weyl models. In these models a static Universe was mantained, trying to explain the redshift
phenomenon. See, for example, Erhard S, “Einstein–Weyl Models of Cosmology”, in:
Jürgen Renn (ed.), Albert Einstein. Chief Engineer of the Universe. Einstein’s Life and Work in Context,
WILEY–VCH, Berlin, , pp. –.
. Tobias Jung, op. cit., p. .
. Einstein and Lemaître also met serveral times. Further details in Kurt R,
“Georges Lemaître, das expandierende Universum und die kosmologische Konstante”, op. cit.,
pp.  ff.
 . Cosmological Apocalypse 

Not only because Lemaître had been correct to the detriment of Ein-
stein, despite his strong opposition — , not even because Lemaître
already enjoyed a considerable reputation , but because the abo-
minable cosmological reoccupation of eschatology had been consum-
mated and carried credentials and cutting edge science. Moreover,
Lemaître further developed it with the aforementioned hypothe-
sis of the primeval atom : « Instead of considering Einstein’s static
Universe as an initial state from which conceive the dynamic model,
Lemaître preferred to think the Universe began expanding from a
singular state » . According to Lemaître, not only was the Universe
expanding, but it had an exceptional and designable beginning.
In Pasadena, Einstein did not meet with « an unknown young
scientist either, but with a man whose ideas had been much talk,
[. . . ] promoting a cosmological model able to predict the Hubble
law » . On January , , Einstein attended a seminar taught by
Lemaître that somehow involved the official recognition of his theory
by the scientific community . In that seminar, Lemaître explained
his idea of the birth of the Universe from a “primeval atom”, as
he had recently suggested in three articles published in  titled
“The expanding Universe”, “The beginning of the World from the
point of view of quantum theory” and “L’expansion de l’espace”,
respectively . In his opinion, the very early Universe was quite dif-
ferent from its current state. If the Universe was now expanding, it

. Kurt R, ibid., p. .

. Jean–Pierre L, L’invention du Big Bang, op. cit., p. .
. It is described by Lemaître in  as follows: « L’hypothèse de l’atome primitif est
un hypothèse cosmogonique suivant laquelle le monde actuel a résulté de la désintégration
radiactive d’un atome ». Georges L, “L’hypothèse de l’atome primitif ”, Actes de la Société
helvétique des sciences naturelles, , pp. –, edited in: Jean–Pierre Luminet, L’invention du
Big Bang, op. cit., pp. –.
. Jean–Pierre L, L’invention du Big Bang, op. cit., p. . My translation.
. Ibid, pp. –. My translation.
. Kurt R, op. cit., p. .
. The first one, with plenty of technical details, was published in March  in the
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (vol. , , pp. –); the second and third
were versions intended for a wider audience, published in Nature (vol. , p. ), and Revue
des questions scientifiques, (e année, e série, t. XX, , pp. –), both of them on May and
November of the same year, respectively. Further details in Jean–Pierre L, L’invention du
Big Bang, op. cit., pp.  ff.
  Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

was because it had once been much more dense and condensed
a sort of single quantum , or gigantic atomic nucleus , whose sub-
sequent decay and further fragmentation produced the expansion
of the Universe. Thus, « si le monde a commencé par un quantum
unique, les notions d’espace et de temps n’auront absolument plus
de signification au commencement même; mais elles acquerront
progressivement quelque sens, quand e quantum originel se sera
divisé [. . . ] un nombre suffisant de quanta partiels » . That is to say,
« le début du monde a [eu] lieu un peu avant celui de l’espace et du
temps » .
Einstein’s protest was immediate. He considered the hypothesis of
the primeval atom as unsustainable from the point of view of physics,
a conjecture inspired by the Christian doctrine of creation: « Nein,
nicht so etwas. Das erinnert zu sehr an die Schöpfungslehre! » .
Einstein refused any further discussion of the hypothesis of the
primeval atom, claiming that concerning this point — as many others
— the Belgian priest was not being scientifically objective , as he
had been guided by the tenets of Christian theology. However, the
achievements produced in astrophysics and cosmology during the
following decades demonstrated, once again, that Einstein was wrong
and Lemaître was right. The execrable cosmological reoccupation of
the creation ex nihilo led to the Big Bang theory and to the so–called
“standard model of modern cosmology” .

. Jean–Pierre L, L’invention du Big Bang, op. cit., pp. –; Ana R and Javier
O, Teorías del universo, op. cit., pp. –.
. Georges L, “L’origine du monde du point de vue de la théorie quantique”
[] — original title: “The beginning of the World from the point of view of quantum theory”
—, edited in Jean–Pierre L, L’invention du Big Bang, op. cit., p. .
. Étienne K, Discours sur l’origine de l’univers, Flammarion, Paris, , p. , footnote
.
. L, “L’origine du monde du point de vue de la théorie quantique”, op. cit., p.
.
. Ibid.
. Ibid.
. Georges L: “Rencontres avec A. Einstein”, Revue des Questions Scientifiques,
, n.º , , p. , quoted by Kurt R, op. cit., p. . See also Jean–Pierre L,
L’invention du Big Bang, op. cit., p. 
. Jean–Pierre L, L’invention du Big Bang, op. cit., p. .
. Jordi C, Cosmología física, op. cit. pp. –; Erhard S, “The Standard Model of
Contemporary Cosmology”, in: Jürgen R (ed.), Albert Einstein. Chief Engineer of the Universe,
op. cit., pp. –; Ana R and Javier O, Teorías del universo, op. cit., pp. –.
 . Cosmological Apocalypse 

.. Eschatology and Apocalypse in Cosmological Perspective

I have tried to show the eschatological dimension of contemporary

astronomy is not limited to an accidental feature of some of its specu-
lations, but is rather an internal configuration, historically constituted,
of its disciplinary and epistemological order. That is why, for clarity, I
believe it is useful to distinguish between eschatological cosmology and
cosmological apocalypse.
With the first term, I understand the cosmological reoccupation of
eschatology is specified in the production of a mythical–scientific cosmogony
oriented to describe and explain the beginning of cosmic time, as well as
in the formulation of an eschatological promise that, in the form of
the scientific predictions, foresees that the end of the Universe will
necessarily occur. The notion of cosmological apocalypse refers to the
mythical–scientific representations of the end of the Universe, including
exceptional cosmic events — of cataclysmic nature — which may
affect some regions of the known Universe, previously denoted by
their significance to man. Thus, one could differentiate between
a cosmological apocalypse of small–scale and a cosmological apocalypse
of large–scale, although the latter meaning would prevail over the
former whenever mentioning to the cosmological apocalypse in
general.
In my opinion, both the eschatological cosmology and the cosmo-
logical apocalypse have introduced an (astronomical) reoccupation
of myth and metaphor. Findings in observational astronomy and ex-
tragalactic astrophysics produced during the twentieth and twenty–
first centuries, and the subsequent proliferation of specialties and
subspecialties of contemporary astronomy — including radio astro-
nomy, planetary geology, astronometry or X–ray astronomy, among
many others — allowed the myth to both survive and be renewed.
With its sensational discoveries, contemporary astronomy has re–
mythologized the cosmos, producing new myths of the beginning
and the end of Universe, in clear consistency with the cosmological
tradition within which it actually falls.
As we saw in the previous chapter, among its myths and metaphors
of the beginning and the end of cosmic time, contemporary astro-
nomy has employed, dense organicistic and biologicist metaphors
in order to account for the formation and evolution of the Universe.
The dominant metaphor of the age of the Universe allowed to articu-
late the “eschatological pathos” [“eschatologische Pathos”] (VS ) of
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

contemporary physical cosmology, making its “apocalyptic visions”

[“apokaliptischen Visionen”] (VS ) the materials for an eschatologi-
cal phenomenology of the cosmos . This demonstrates, once again,
the human need to have an image of the collapse of all things .

. I take the expression “eschatological phenomenology” [“phänomenologische Escha-

tologie”] from Philipp S, “Über die Grenzen der Metaphorologie. Zur Kritik der
Metaphorologie Hans Blumenbergs und den Perspektiven ihrer Fortschreibung”, in: Anselm
H and Dirk M (eds.), Metaphorologie. Zur Praxis von Theorie, Suhrkamp Verlag,
Frankfurt am Main, , p. .
. “Das Bedürfnis nach Untergangsvisionen, nach dem Erschrecken vor ihnen und mit
ihnen, erwies sich als unausrottbar” (VS ).
 Chapter VII

Hans Blumenberg meets Stephen Hawking

Il est toujours difficile de savoir quand un Anglais

parle sériusement ou non.

Hubert R

We can say that in Hawking’s case the metaphor

is materialized.

Hélène M

Look up at the stars and not down at your feet.

Stephen H

.. And What does the Other Half of Humanity do?

The diffusion and reception of his work was not a minor thing for
Blumenberg. It was already a clear issue at the time of the first trans-
lations of his books in the United States, to which followed the more
or less fortunate cases of France and Italy. The vicissitudes associated
with the translations of several of his main books were clearly a
matter of concern for Blumenberg. Blumenberg devoted some of the
documents preserved in his Nachlass and a few aphorisms and short
writings to this issue. I would like to refer to three examples. The
first is a small text on Edward Bulwer–Lytton, the author of The Last
Days of Pompeii, in which Blumenberg concluded with the following
remark on the writer: « His professional perspective forces him to
detect in the wide periphery the subject that should concern him,
i.e. the greatest number. A larger radius means a larger audience.
Thus it is better to print something rather than merely say it » . The
. « Seine Berufsoptik bedingt, in der weiteren Peripherie um sein Zentrum wahrzun-
hemen, worauf es ihm ankommen muss: die grössere Zahl. Je weiter der Radius, um so grösser
das Publikum. Erst dann lohnt es sich, etwas zu drucken, statt es nur zu sagen » (BiG )


 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

second example regards Blumenberg’s answer to a question included

in “Fragebogen”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Magazin: “Was möchten Sie
sein?” [“What would you like to be?”]: « My publisher, so I could do
more for one of his authors » . The last example I wish to mention,
perhaps the most expressive, can be found in a very late newspaper
article published in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on October ,  —
one year before Lebenszeit und Weltzeit — entitled “Sättigungsgrade”
[“Degrees of saturation”]. Blumenberg asked rhetorically: « When
one can afford, when an author should be satisfied by his radius of
action, the degree of saturation of his impact or by the extent of his
reception? ». He added: « Are  readers of a book a ‘little commu-
nity’? Are  buyers a “clientele worthy of attention”? Are , sold
copies indicative of a “remarkable success”? Are , copies the
beginning of an “audience”? , in  languages is therefore a
“global success”? ». Then Blumenberg imagined “a beautiful day of
megalomania” [“einen hübschen Tag der Megalomanie”] in which
he received a telegram that announced « half of humanity (currently
. billion) requested one of my books and, statistically guaranteed,
he also has read it: or he has asked someone to read it out loud ». At
the end of this text we can again recognize the peculiar Blumenberg’s
ironic style: « No doubt, my instant reaction would be: and, what, on
Earth, does the other half of humanity do? » .
In this sense, it is surprising that Stephen Hawking , with the
publication of his A Brief History of Time in  — one year after “Sät-

. H. B, “Fragebogen”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Magazin, .., Heft , S. :

« Mein Verleger, um für einen seiner Autoren mehr zu tun ».
. « Wann darf, wann muss ein Urheber von Werken zufrieden sein mit dem Radius seiner
Wirkung, mit dem Sättigungsgrad seiner Verbreitung, mit dem Volumen seiner Rezeption?
Sind  Leser eines Buches eine “kleine Gemeinde”? Sind  Käufer eine “bemerkenswerte
Klientel”? Sind  abgesetzte Exemplare Indiz für einen “schönen Erfolg”? Oder sind erst
  der Einstieg in ein “Publikum”?   in  Sprachen dann ein “Welterfolg”? [. . . ]
Die Hälfte der Menschheit (im Augenblick, da ich dies überlege, , Milliarden) habe eins
meiner Bücher erworben und, demoskopisch gesichert, auch gelesen – beziehungsweise sich
vorlesen lassen! Unfehlbar wäre meine Reaktion augenblicklich: Und bitte: Was macht die
andere Hälfte? » H. B, “Sättigungsgrade”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., Nr. , S.
.
. For the “official” biography of Hawking see Kitty F, Stephen Hawking: An
Unfettered Mind, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, . Nevertheless, perhaps the most ins-
tructive book on Hawking is Hélène M, Hawking Incorporated: Stephen Hawking and the
Anthropology of the Knowing Subject, University of Chicago Press, .
. Stephen H, A Brief History of Time. From the Big Bang to Black Holes, Introduction
 . Hans Blumenberg meets Stephen Hawking 

tigungsgrade” —, practically achieved what for Blumenberg was but

a funny and revealing conjecture. The most remarkable, however, is
that Blumenberg noticed the worldwide success of Hawking’s book
by an extensive reportage — preserved in his Nachlass at Marbach,
and profusely underlined — that the French magazine L’Express de-
voted to the famous British theoretical physicist and cosmologist
in . Hawking was able to apply to himself, almost in its literal-
ness, Blumenberg’s speculation about what makes the other half of
humanity that is not reading his book. Moreover, Hawking himself
offered retrospectively some calculations about it:
I don’t think anyone, my publishers, my agent, or myself, expected the book
to do anything like as well as it did. It was in the London Sunday Times best–
seller list for  weeks, longer than any other book (apparently, the Bible
and Shakespeare aren’t counted). It has been translated into something like
forty languages and has sold about one copy for every  men, women,
and children in the world.

As Malcolm Longair has pointed out, A Brief History of Time is

already part of the history of publishing , that is to say, it belongs
to the history of books. Blumenberg knew about the existence of A
Brief History of Time through the French scientific journalist Françoise
Harrois–Monin’s article “L’homme qui réinvente l’Univers” devoted
to Hawking, published in the aforementioned reportage in L’Express :
« Son livre Une brève histoire du temps, paru récemment chez Flam-
marion connaît un succès planétaire » — Blumenberg’s emphasis — .
The French translation, as the German one , was also published in
. Françoise Harrois–Monin’s article began by commenting on

by Carl Sagan, Bantam Dell Publishing Group, .

. Ibid., p. .
. Malcolm L (ed.), The Large, the Small and the Human Mind, Cambridge University
Press, , p. XI.
. Françoise H–M, “L’homme qui réinvente l’Univers”, L’Express,  avril ,
pp. – (DLA Marbach). L’Express had already devoted another report on Hawking in n.º
.
. F. H–M, “L’homme qui réinvente l’Univers”, op. cit., p. . [« His book,
recently published by Flammarion, has been successful worldwide »]. My translation.
. Hubert M, Stephen Hawking [], Rohwohlt Verlag, Reinbek bei Hamburg, ,
p. : « Deutschland katapultierte das grosse Interesse der Öffentlichkeit das im Rowohlt Verlag
erschienene Buch in kürzester Zeit auf Platz eins der “Spiegel”–Bestsellerliste, wo es mehr als
ein Jahr an der Spitze blieb ». And further below: « Es wurde mit über zehn Millionen weltweit
verkauften Exemplaren das mit Abstrand erfolgreichste Sachbuch des . Jahrhundert ». In p.
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

the commercial success of Hawking’s book and wondering on the

reasons of that success. It also pointed out the numbers of copies that
had been sold up until that point: more than , in the United
States, , in Britain and Spain, and , in Italy. « En France,
les . exemplaires distribués se sont volatilisés en six semaines.
Flammarion poussera le tirage jusqu’à . » — Blumenberg’s
emphasis — . But with a skeptical remark: « Sur les centaines de
milliers de personnes qui l’ont acheté de par le monde, combien
peuvent se vanter de l’avoir lu jusqu’à la dernière page? » . In any
case, Hawking was able to write “the new book on heaven” — using
an expression from Blumenberg’s Die Lesbarkeit der Welt [] —,
that is to say, the new sidereal gazette [“sidereus nuncius”], and he
enjoyed fabulous success.
Maybe nowadays Hawking’s sidereal gazette may seem some-
what banal, but at that time it had all the features of a genuine mes-
sage from the remoteness of the sky. Furthermore, and following the
best of modern traditions, the author — an unusual messenger from
the stars — seemed to provide a new meaning to the astronomical
epic, a renewed heroism according to the magnitude of the message.
Hawking’s battle against his degenerative illness contrasts with the
modern astronomical epic, an epic in dramatic tension between the
mundane life and the astronomical horizon: « Doté d’une volonté
d’acier, à son destin — à la fois tragique et unique — qui immobilise
son corps et permet à son esprit de jongler avec les théories les plus
abstraites, de consacrer tout son temps, toute son énergie à réfléchir
sur la naissance et l’avenir de l’Univers. L’image de Hawking, de son
fauteuil roulant, muni d’un ordinateur et d’un synthétiseur vocal, de
son visage tordu par la maladie frappe l’imagination ». And further
below: « Que cet homme–là ne songe qu’à refaire le monde, qu’à
mettre de l’ordre dans la machinerie intergalactique force, sans doute,
l’admiration et le respect [. . . ], les intuitions de Hawking — et celles

: « . Im April Veröffentlichung des Buches Eine kurze Geschichte der Zeit in den USA.
Im Sommer erscheinen die englische und die deutsche Ausgabe ».
. F. H–M, “L’homme qui réinvente l’Univers”, op. cit., p. . [« In France,
, copies were distributed and vanished in six weeks. Flammarion will publish up to
, »]. My translation.
. Ibid. On this issue see Kristine L, Stephen Hawking: A Biography [], Greenwood
Publishing Group, Westport, , pp. –. [« Of the hundreds of thousands of people in the
world who bought it, how many have read it until the last page? »]. My translation.
 . Hans Blumenberg meets Stephen Hawking 

de beaucoup d’autres — ont modifié nos conceptions de l’Univers » .

It seems that Blumenberg was not impressed by any of this, even
at a time when many sidereal gazettes were experiencing an amaz-
ing increase, some of them prior to the publication of Hawking’s
A Brief History of Time; for instance, Steven Weinberg’s book The
First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe []
or Jean Heidmann’s L’Odyssée cosmique. Quel destin pour l’univers?
[] . There is evidence that Blumenberg read Weinberg’s book;
in any case, he quoted it in Die Vollzähligkeit der Sternen (VS  and
). However, nothing makes us think that Blumenberg also read
Hawking’s famous book: as far as I know, he never made reference
to it, despite the fact that he underlined the following passage in
Françoise Harrois–Monin’s article: « N’empêche que son livre [A
Brief History of Time] vient de donner un puissant coup de projecteur
sur la cosmologie entiere. Une science en pleine évolution, qui flirte
en permanence avec la métaphysique » .

.. Hawking in Blumenberg’s Nachlass

In Blumenberg’s Nachlass, there are a few newspaper articles closely

related to Stephen Hawking’s contributions to cosmology and on the
study of black holes that remained preserved . To my knowledge,
. F. H–M, “L’homme qui réinvente l’Univers”, op. cit., p. . [« with an iron
will, his destiny — at once tragic and unique — immobilizes his body and allows his mind to
juggle the most abstract theories and to devote all his time and energy to thinking about the
birth and future of the Universe. The image of Hawking in his wheelchair with a computer
and voice synthesizer, his face contorted by the disease, strikes the imagination ». And further
below: « This man dreams to remake the world, to bring order to the intergalactic machinery,
he provokes admiration and respect [. . . ]. Hawking’s insights — and those of many others —
have changed our conceptions of the Universe »]. My translations.
. Quoted by F. H–M, “L’homme qui réinvente l’Univers”, op. cit., p. . The
bibliographic reference of this last book was highlighted by Blumenberg. I could also refer
to Hubert Reeves’s informative books Patience dans l’azur and Poussières d’étoiles”. On Jean
Heidmann, there is an edited dialogue in: Jacques M–P, Sur la science cosmologique.
Conditions de possibilité et problèmes philosophiques. Textes organisés et présentés par Michel
Palty et Jean–Jacques Szczeciniard, EDP Sciences, Les Ulis, , pp. –.
. F. H–M, « L’homme qui réinvente l’Univers”, op. cit., p. . Blumenberg’s
emphasis. [“his book [A Brief History of Time] has encouraged all cosmology. An evolving
science, which constantly flirts with metaphysics »]. My translation.
. “Black holes” are one of the most important “cosmological MacGuffins” of those years.
According to Paul Murdin: « The existence of black holes was predicted as early as the th
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

in addition to the aforementioned reportage in L’Express, four news-

paper articles are particularly relevant in this regard. On black holes,
there is a very early and unsigned text entitled “Welt–Enstehung.
Schwarzes Loch”, dated  and published in Der Spiegel . More-
over, we should also consider another article published in  —
probably published in the ZEIT — and written by Rainer Kayser,
entitled “Zwerg statt Monster. Das ‘Schwarze Loch’ im Zentrum der
Milchstraße ist kleiner als angenommen” . There are several texts
specifically regarding Hawking’s cosmological contributions: “Die
Wunder der ‘Schwarzen Löcher’”[], and “Sein oder Nichtsein
der Schwarzen Löcher” [], both signed with the abbreviation K.
R., plausibly belonging to Kurt Rudzinski, and most likely published
in the FAZ . Finally, the aforementioned special reportage edited by
Françoise Harrois–Monin for L’Express, dated April , , includes
several texts on Hawking and his cosmology, written by Hubert
Reeves, Brandon Carter, Jacqueline Remy and Françoise Harrois–
Monin himself . Hawking was also mentioned in the interview that
Dominique Simonnet made to Hubert Reeves, that was published
on August ,  in another issue of L’Express .
In several of these texts, Hawking was considered a particularly
important figure in the scientific scene of that time. Thus, for exam-
ple, in “Sein oder Nichtsein der Schwarzen Löcher”, which made
reference to Hawking as “eine Art ‘neuer Einstein’” ; or in “L’homme
qui réinvente l’Univers”, where Françoise Harrois–Monin stated:

century, but it was not until the s that it became possible for astronomers to observe
them ». Paul M, Secrets of the Universe: How We Discovered the Cosmos, The University of
Chicago Press, , chap. , “Black Holes”, pp. –, p. . Blumenberg made reference to
black holes in different parts of his work, see particularly (VS, BdM and TLW).
. [Unknown author], “Welt–Enstehung. Schwarzes Loch”, Der Spiegel, Nr. , , S.
 (DLA Marbach).
. Rainer K, “Zwerg statt Monster. Das ‘Schwarze Loch’ im Zentrum der Milch-
straße ist kleiner als angenommen”. ZEIT [?] / (DLA Marbach).
. K. R. [¿Kurt Rudzinski?], “Die Wunder der ‘Schwarzen Löcher’”. Ein Doppelsternsys-
tem und seine Deutung / Mini–Blackholes von der Tungustka–Katastrophe bis zum Proton”.
[FAZ],  Oktober  / Nr.  / S.  (DLA Marbach); K. R., “Sein oder Nichtsein der
Schwarzen Löcher” Gegensätzliche Hypothesen über ein kosmisches Rätsel. FAZ, .. (DLA
Marbach).
. L’Express,  avril , pp. – (DLA Marbach).
. Dominique Simonnet’s interwiew with Hubert Reeves, “Enquête sur nos origines.
L’univers, avec Hubert Reeves”, L’Express,  Août , pp. – (DLA Marbach).
. K. R., “Sein oder Nichtsein der Schwarzen Löcher”, op. cit.
 . Hans Blumenberg meets Stephen Hawking 

« Le professeur de Cambridge est fréquemment considéré comme le

“génie de la fin de ce siècle”. Un qualificatif un peu rapide [— Blumen-
berg’s emphasis —]. Selon la communauté scientifique, Hawking est
un brillant astrophysicien théorique, quelqu’un dont les réflexions
sont prises très au sérieux par l’ensemble de ses confrères » . How-
ever, Hubert Reeves pointed out in his “On cherche toujours les clefs
du cosmos”: « Le programme de Hawking n’est pas plus ‘ésotérique’
que les autres, et ses chances de succès ne sont pas plus faibles » —
Blumenberg’s emphasis — . In all these newspaper articles, a brief
summary of the current astronomical and cosmological findings was
also offered, as well as the theoretical and observational fundamen-
tals of what we now know as the standard Big Bang model. Their
content deserves a brief review.
In regard to newspaper articles prior to publication of A Brief His-
tory of Time [], I consider the text “Welt–Enstehung. Schwarzes
Loch” [] as the first antecedent documenting Blumenberg’s early
knowledge on black holes as well as the historical context in which
Stephen Hawking’s cosmology is framed. In this article the advances
and current controversies regarding the steady state theory (SST),
the Big Bang, radio astronomy and radio telescopes were described,
together with another issues such as the creation of matter, quasars,
pulsars and, in particular, black holes . Much of the article was de-
voted to Fred Hoyle’s astronomical and cosmological contributions :

. F. H–M, “L’homme qui réinvente l’Univers”, op. cit., p. . [“The Cambridge
professor is often considered as the ‘genius of the end of this century’. A qualifier a little
faster. According to the scientific community, Hawking is a brilliant theoretical astrophysicist,
someone whose thoughts are taken very seriously by all of his colleagues”]. My translation.
. Hubert R, “On cherche toujours les clefs du cosmos”, L’Express,  avril , p.
 (DLA Marbach). [“Hawking’s program is no more ‘esoteric’ than others, and its chances of
success are not lower”]. My translation.
. Some samples of this: « Der kosmische Flucht–Prozess zeitlos, ohne Anfang und
Ende ablaufe (“Steady State”–Theorie); das sich stetig leerende Universum werde durch neu
entstehende Materie gleichmässig wieder aufgefüllt. Die Materie–Dichte im Weltraum bleibe
so für alle Zeit im Gleichgewicht »; « . . . eine neue Art von Sternen am Himmel flackern sehen,
für die sie exotische Namen (“Quasars”, “Pulsars”), aber keine Erklärung haben »; « Der Stern
würde erlöschen und als “black hole”, als schwarzes Loch im Kosmos weiterexistieren, zeitlos
und unsichtbar ». There were also stated the difficulties of the steady state theory to explain
the origin of hydrogen. [Unknown author], “Welt–Enstehung. Schwarzes Loch”, op. cit., p. .
. Hawking applied to undertake his doctoral thesis under the supervision of Fred
Hoyle, but his request was refused. Instead Dennis Sciama [–] was appointed as his
supervisor. A posteriori Hawking considered this rejection as a lucky event. He also recalled it
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

« Kernpunkt der Hoyleschen Thesen: Die Erschaffung des Univer-

sums aus dem Nichts geht unablässig weiter. Aus geheimnisvollen
Ritzen im Kosmos strömt immer neue Materie ins Weltall, formt
sich zu Wolken und Spiralnebeln, aus denen schliesslich Gestirne
entstehen » . Hoyle’s famous science fiction novel The Black Cloud
[] — « schrieb er den vielgerühmten Science–fiction–Roman Die
schwarze Wolke » — was also mentioned .
The two articles properly referring to Hawking’s contributions
were “Die Wunder der ‘Schwarzen Löcher’” [] and “Sein oder
Nichtsein der Schwarzen Löcher” [], signed by K. R. Both fo-
cused on the issue of black holes and micro black holes. In the first
one, black holes were presented as the new and preferred cosmic
speculation — « die Lieblingskinder der neuesten astronomischen
Spekulation » — , and it was referred to Hoyle’s steady state theory.
Hawking’s contributions, including a brief description of black holes
— « einen Endzustand katastrophaler Materieaggregation » [“The fi-
nal state of a catastrophic aggregation of matter”] —, and the double
star systems were described as possible candidates for black holes,
in particular the double system Beta Lyrae. As it was then believed,
these dual systems could have a black hole associated to them —
“‘Schwarzes Loch’ soll der Partner des Doppelsternsystems” —,
which would explain why one of the two stars of the binary system
was brighter than the other . Importantly, this newspaper article
reviewed a scientific paper written by Dr. S. Kriz, member of the
Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, and published in New Scientist
on October , , in which he denounced the black hole attributed
to the Beta Lyrae system and described it as a fraud. Regarding these
topics, the “micro black holes”, introduced by Hawking in , were
also extensively mentioned. Blumenberg underlined both passages in
which, according to Hawking, the mini black holes involved .%
of the total mass of the cosmos — « Sie machen nach Hawking ,

in the conference “A Brief History of Mine”, held on the occasion of his th birthday, in The
State of the Universe. Stephen Hawking th Birthday Symposium, – January , Cambridge.
. [Unknown author], “Welt–Enstehung. Schwarzes Loch”, op. cit., p. . On Hoyle and
his contributions see Jane G, Fred Hoyle’s Universe, Oxford University Press, .
. [Unknown author], “Welt–Enstehung”, ibid.
. K. R., “Die Wunder der ‘Schwarzen Löcher’”, op. cit.
. For further details on the topic see Malcolm L, The Cosmic Century. A History of
Astrophysics and Cosmology [], Cambridge University Press, , pp.  ff: “X–ray binaries
and the search for black–holes”.
 . Hans Blumenberg meets Stephen Hawking 

Prozent der Gesamtmasse des Kosmos aus » — , and the Big Bang
energy could come from the fusion of mini black holes by gravity —
« soll auch die Verschmelzung von Mini–Schwarzlöchern unter Schw-
erkrafteinwirkung die Energie für den “Urknall” geliefert haben »
— . The controversial Jackson–Ryan hypothesis was also described,
according to which the famous Tunguska event — an enormously
detonation occurred in the vicinity of a Tunguska forest, near the Pod-
kamennaya river — was caused by the collision between the Earth
and a black hole: « Eine andere besonders mutige Hypothese über die
“Schwarzen Löcher” ist gerade jetzt in Amerika aufgestellt worde,
und zwar von zwei Physikern der Universität von Texas, Jackson IV.
und Ryan jr. Sie behaupten, daß es sich bei dem “Tunguska–Meteor”,
dem am .. in Sibirien explodierten Feuerball, um eine Kol-
lision der Erde mit einem “Schwarzen Loch” gehandelt habe » —
Blumenberg’s emphasis — . This article also explained other hy-
potheses on the Tunguska event, such as that stating antimatter as a
cause.
The second article, “Sein oder Nichtsein der Schwarzen Löcher”,
described once more the nature of black holes and micro black
holes , and Hawking was characterized as a sort of heir to Ein-
stein , who succeeded in combining quantum mechanics, theory of
relativity and thermodynamics: « Der Mathematiker Stephen Hawk-
ing von der Universität von Cambridge hat dargelegt, daß man durch
Kombination von Quantenmechanik, Relativitätstheorie und Ther-
modynamik doch zeigen könne, daß — vereinfacht — gerade außer-
halb des Horizonts von Schwarzen Löchern” paarweise energiepar-

. K. R., “Die Wunder der ‘Schwarzen Löcher’”, op. cit.

. Ibid.
. Ibid.
. K. R., “Sein oder Nichtsein der Schwarzen Löcher”, op. cit.: « Ein schönes Beispiel
liefern wieder einmal die “Schwarzen Löcher”, die sich aus theoretischen Überlegungen zu
Einsteins Allgemeiner relativitätstheorie ergeben. Es sollen Endzustände von gestirnen sein,
die sich im Laufe der Milliarden Jahre ihrer Existenz schließlich so extrem verdichtet haben,
daßdas Licht deren außerordentlich hohe Schwerkraft–Anziehung nicht mehr überwinden
kann. Sie verraten sich also durch keinerlei Lichtemission oder andere elektromagnetische
Strahlung und bleiben für immer unsichtbar – gleichviel, ob es sich nun um Schwarze Löcher
riesiger Masse oder “Mini–Schwarzlöcher” handelt ».
. As Martin R points out: « The discovery of black holes [. . . ] opened the way to
testing the most remarkable consequences of Einstein’s theory »; and « The distorted space
and time around black holes is described exactly by a solution of Einstein’s general relativity
equations », Martin R, Our Cosmic Habitat, Princeton University Press, , pp. –.
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

tikeln entstehen können » . Both Hawking’s new theoretical contri-

bution that black holes can emit radiation , and his controversy with
Franz Tipler, who had questioned the existence of black holes, were
mentioned: « Ein Theoretiker der Universität von Texas in Austin,
Frank Tipler, ist aber inzwischen zu einem weit katastrophaleren
Ergebnis gekommen, und zwar, daß es vielleicht überhaupt keine
Schwarzen Löcher gibt » .
Regarding Rainer Kayser’s article “Zwerg statt Monster. Das
‘Schwarze Loch’ im Zentrum der Milchstraße ist kleiner als angenom-
men” [] , Hawking was not mentioned; but some of his col-
leagues at Cambridge University were, particularly Donald Lynden–
Bell and Martin Rees who hypothesised that a supermassive black
hole existed in the centre of the Milky Way . New research on galac-
tic centres using radio astronomy and infrared astronomy indicated
that the black hole in the centre of the Milky Way was much smaller
than expected . This article also provided a good historical recons-
truction of recent astronomy, as well as the passage of conventional
optical astronomy to new astronomies based on other ranges of the
electromagnetic spectrum, along with studies on infrared sources by
Gary Eric Becklin and Neugebauer, Charles Towns and John Lacy,
who investigated the gas clouds near the centre of the Milky Way .

. K. R., “Sein oder Nichtsein der Schwarzen Löcher”, op. cit.
. « In diesem Augenblick würde es plötzlich zum sichtbaren Stern “aufbersten”. Das
allerdings gelte nur für die Minischwarzlöcher. Der Materieverlust verlaufe so langsam, daß
ein Schwarzes Loch von der Masse unserer Sonnen unendlich viel länger bestehen würde —
nämlich  Jahre — als das bisherige Alter unseres Universums, das man heute auf etwa 
Milliarden Jahre schätz ». Ibid.
. Ibid. The following paper by Franz Tipler: Physical Review Letters, Bd , S. .
. Rainer K, “Zwerg statt Monster. Das ‘Schwarze Loch’ im Zentrum der Milch-
straße ist kleiner als angenommen”, ZEIT [?] / (DLA Marbach).
. For further details on this issue see: M. L, The Cosmic Century, op. cit., pp.  ff
and  ff.
. « Neue Teleskope für den Empfang von Infrarot– und Radio–Strahlung wurden zum
Schlüssel zu den Geheimnissen des galaktischen Zentrums. [. . . ] Schon die ersten Untersuchun-
gen in den neuzugänglichen Strahlungsbereichen zaigten, dass im Zentrum der Milchstrasse
Aussergewöhnliches vorgeht ». Rainer K, “Zwerg statt Monster”, op. cit.
. Paul Murdin refers to them in these terms: « their built infrared photometer, before
mounting it on the telescope », « The first embryonic exoplanetary system was discovered
by Cal Tech astronomers Eric Becklin and Gerry Neugebauer in . They used a newly
developed infrared detector to conduct a laborious point–by–point scan of a region of the
Origion Nebula, where they found a strong source of infrared radiation. [. . . ] the infrared
 . Hans Blumenberg meets Stephen Hawking 

Among the newspaper articles collected after the publication

of A Brief History of Time, I shall analyse L’Express reportage on
Hawking and his cosmology, which opened with an extensive arti-
cle by Françoise Harrois–Monin, entitled “L’homme qui réinvente
l’Univers”. In this last article, Françoise Harrois–Monin described
Hawking as a man “plus célèbre que ses théories”; « un savant
supérieurement intelligent, terriblement malade », who tries to pro-
vide a new light « à la compréhension des origines du monde » .
While it appears that Blumenberg was not impressed by these and
another colorful and sensationalist remarks — « cet homme–cerveau,
cloué dans sa chaise roulante »; « toute son énergie à réfléchir sur la
naissance et l’avenir de l’Univers »; « son fauteuil roulant, muni d’un
ordinateur et d’un synthétiseur vocal » —, he underlined some of
Hawking’s concerns [“les préoccupations de Hawking”]: « Le devenir
du cosmos, l’existence d’autres mondes » . The article summarized
some of the main episodes and names of contemporary cosmo-
logy: Friedmann, Einstein, Hubble, Arno Penzias, Robert Wilson,
Schwarzchild, Penrose, Wheeler and Hawking himself, all of them
underlined by Blumenberg. Françoise Harrois–Monin also offered
in his article a statistical estimate that Blumenberg highlighted on
the percentage of cosmologists adhering to the theory of the Big
Bang — from % to % —: « Un long film, l’épopée de l’Univers.
Avec sa température qui décroît rapidement, ses particules qui se
matérialisent en quelques centièmes de seconde, ses noyaux qui se
constituent lors des minutes qui suivent et cette matière qui prend
corps au cours des millénaires. Belle théorie, vraiment » — Blumen-
berg’s emphasis — . Additionally, the theory of primordial black

source, which was named the “BN Object” after the discoverers’ initials, is the size of a
planetary system. The infrared radiation comes from dust surrounding a newborn star ». Paul
M, Secrets of the Universe, op. cit., p. .
. Françoise H–M, “L’homme qui réinvente l’Univers”, op. cit., p. . [“More
famous than his theories”; « a highly intelligent scientist terribly sick; to understanding the
origins of the world »]. My translation.
. Ibid. [“Man–brain, nailed in a wheelchair”; « all his energy to reflect on the birth and
future of the Universe »; « his wheelchair with a computer and voice synthesizer »; « the future
of the cosmos, the existence of other worlds »]. My translation.
. Ibid., p. . [« a long movie, the epic of the Universe. With its temperature decreasing
rapidly, the particles that materialize in a few hundredths of a second, which are materialized
in the next few minutes; this matter is embodied over millennia. Nice theory, really »]. My
translation.
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

holes was mentioned as another of Hawking’s inventions, together

with an allusion to Roger Penrose’s and Hawking’s attempt to ap-
ply quantum mechanics to the research of black holes. The main
result was the discovery « que des particules pouvaient fort bien
naître spontanément près des trours noirs » — Blumenberg’s em-
phasis — . A “théorie quantique de la gravitation” [TQM] seemed
capable of reconciling the general theory of relativity and quantum
mechanics: « A l’instar de ses pairs, pour bâtir un lien entre Einstein
et la TMQ, Hawking jongle avec les abstractions et les équations.
Pour les résoudre, il recourt à des artefacts mathématiques, qui rendent
le temps imaginaire et lui permettent d’inventer des formes possibles
de l’Univers » — Blumenberg’s emphasis — . The article was closed
with some references to Andrei Linde’s chaotic inflation and Alan
Guth’s inflationary model, as well as to the cosmic strings and walls .
Regarding Hubert Reeves’ short article, “On cherche toujours
les clefs du cosmos”, edited in the same reportage in L’Express, it
included some variations on Hawking’s recurring topics on and it
pointed out Hawking’s controversial hypothesis — that Blumenberg
underlined — according to which the average density of matter in
the Universe is large enough to close it. Perhaps it is revealing of
Blumenberg’s style that he underlined the passage on the observed
differences in the cosmic matter distribution: « Cette différence pour-
rait bien mettre en péril toute leur entreprise intellectuelle » .
L’Express reportage concluded with a brief and personal text by
Brandon Carter, Hawking’s friend and former colleague, entitled
“Stephen et Brandon: les ‘jumeaux’ savants”, and with Jacqueline
Remy’s short text on Stephen Hawking’s wife, Jane Hawking, that
Blumenberg did not underline: « Je suis ses mains, je suis ses jambes.
Jane Hawking, ou la vie ‘ordinaire’ d’une femme extraordinaire » .

. Ibid., p. . [« particles could be born spontaneously near black holes »]. My translation.
. Ibid., p. . [« asked by his colleagues to build a link between Einstein and TMQ,
Hawking juggled abstractions and equations. In order to solve it, he used mathematical artifacts
that make time imaginary and allowed him to invent the possible forms of the Universe »]. My
translation.
. Ibid., pp. –.
. Hubert R, “On cherche toujours les clefs du cosmos”, op. cit., p. . [“This
difference could jeopardize their entire intellectual enterprise”]. My translation.
. Jacqueline R, “Je suis ses mains, je suis ses jambes”, L’Express,  avril , p. 
(DLA Marbach). A sample of that: « De son mari, elle s’entête à parler comme une femme
banale, avec émotion, admiration, et une sorte de rage contenue: celle qu’on éprouve face à un
 . Hans Blumenberg meets Stephen Hawking 

My quick review of the journalistic sources on Hawking that have

been preserved in Blumenberg’s Nachlass ends with an interview
with Hubert Reeves by Dominique Simonnet, entitled “Enquête sur
nos origines. L’univers, avec Hubert Reeves”, and published in an-
other number of L’Express, dated August ,  . While this article
only alluded to Hawking, its interest lies not only in the astronomi-
cal knowledge it included, but in the introduction of several topics
that we typically associate with Blumenberg’s thought, particularly
in relation to the myth and metaphor, which here appeared in a
cosmological point of view. Thus, for example, two questions that
the interviewer made to Reeves: « Mais n’est–ce pas, après tout, le
propre de la science que de tuer des mythes pour en proposer de
nouveaux? » and « l’astrophysique voudrait–elle s’imposer comme
une nouvelle métaphysique? » — Blumenberg’s emphasis — . Blu-
menberg also underlined the passage in which Reeves stated that the
Big Bang, rather than representing the limits of the world, showed
the limits of our knowledge, and he concluded: « Le big–bang n’est
pour nous qu’une métaphore. Car, pour ce moment–là, nos notions
traditionnelles d’espace et de temps n’ont plus de sens » .

.. Lebenszeit und Weltzeit and A Brief History of Time

The claim I would like to make in this section is that in the two
years between Lebenszeit und Weltzeit [] and A Brief History of
Time [], a shift from a genetic phenomenology of life–world

homme qui vous résiste ». And quoting Jane Hawking: « Il a écrit ce livre [A Brief History of
Time] pour moi, pour que je comprenne ». According to M. White and J. Gribbin’s biography
the main motivation for writing that book was to get the money to cover the costs associated
with Hawking’s gradual deterioration in health. See M. W and J. G, Stephen Hawking:
A Life in Science [], Joseph Henry Press, Washington, , pp. –. After the divorce, Jane
wrote an autobiography on her experiences with Hawking: Travelling to Infinity: My Life with
Stephen [], Alma Books, Richmond, . In this sense, Hawking’s doubley misfortunate
marriage also takes him to Einstein’s case. On the latter, see Roger H and Paul C,
The Private Lives of Albert Einstein, St. Martin’s Griffin, .
. Dominique S interview with Hubert Reeves, “Enquête sur nos origines.
L’univers, avec Hubert Reeves”, L’Express,  Août , pp. – (DLA Marbach).
. Ibid, p. . [« But, after all, is not the essence of science to kill myths and to introduce
new ones? »; « astrophysics wants emerge as a new metaphysics? »]. My translation.
. Ibid, p. . [« the Big bang is a metaphor for us. Since for that moment, our traditional
notions of space and time have no meaning »]. My translation.
 Paradigms for a Metaphorology of the Cosmos

time (Blumenberg) to a history of the world–time (Hawking) oc-

curred. Although I cannot properly discuss Blumenberg’s reception
of Hawking’s famous book, I could consider this book as a significant
contribution to the “genetic phenomenology of the world–time”, i.e.
a kind of cosmological phenomenology of world–time. Hawking’s
bestseller was a history of world–time, i.e. precisely the part that
Blumenberg had not explored in his Lebenszeit und Weltzeit, where
he focused, after all, on life–world time from an astronomical point
of view. Blumenberg narrated the life–world time from a historical–
astronomical perspective, but Hawking was able to do the same
in relation to the world–time, somehow making it readily available.
Hawking was the first to make the history of the Universe as a history
of world–time, whose background included the terrestrial human
life time, accessible to everyone, hence providing a new episode
to the history of astronomy as a history of human consciousness.
Contemporary astronomy and cosmology was ready to narrate the
history of the world as a unique story; to put it in Hubert Reeves’s
words: « C’est sans doute l’une des plus grandes idées de ce temps: il
y a une seule histoire du monde » — Blumenberg’s emphasis — .
As in the history of astronomical observation outlined by Blu-
menberg in Lebenszeit und Weltzeit, not everything was accessible at
any time, and the same thing happened with the understanding of
world–time. In the late s, a story of world–time according to both
human temporality and his possibilities of understanding was finally
viable, and it was Hawking who successfully undertook the task
of providing a “short” narration. In this sense, he made the history
of world–time open and understandable for everyone as a possible
reconciliation between astronomical experience and life–world.
It is ironic that Blumenberg’s “incomplete” reception of A Brief
History of Time involves a further example of the topos — consid-
ered in Lebenszeit und Weltzeit — of getting to history too early or
too late . A Brief History of Time was published two years later than

. H. R, “Enquête sur nos origines”, op. cit., p. . [« It is probably one of the greatest
ideas of the time: there is only one history of the world »]. My translation.
. Actually it would be more a case of simultaneity because it seems that Lebenszeit
und Weltzeit and A Brief History of Time were written about the same time, although they
were published in different years. See for example: Hubert M, Stephen Hawking, op. cit.,
p. : « Zu Weihnachten  war Hawking mit dem Manuskript fertig ». In p. : « Die
Veröffentlichung von Eine kurze Geschichte der Zeit war jetzt für den April  vorgesehen.
Guzzardi hatte diesen Titel gegen Hawkings anfängliche Skepsis durchgesetzt ».
 . Hans Blumenberg meets Stephen Hawking 

Lebenszeit und Weltzeit, when Blumenberg had already offered the

main ideas of his understanding of the life–world time from an as-
tronomical point of view. When Blumenberg wrote Lebenszeit und
Weltzeit he ignored the fact that contemporary astronomy and cos-
mology were ready to narrate the whole world–time, assuming the
“brevity” of the life–world time; that is to say, making it suitable to
the positioned and temporal man to understand. However, Blumen-
berg did not read A Brief History of Time, and therefore the possible
contribution of contemporary astronomy and cosmology to the
“genetic phenomenology of the world–time” was unknown to him.
In this regard, it is remarkable that in Brandon Carter’s biographi-
cal article, Blumenberg underlined the passage on the progress in
computer science and in voice synthesizers where it was stated that
Hawking would not had the chance to communicate his findings if
he was born twenty years earlier: « S’il était né vingt ans plus tôt, il
aurait été emmuré dans le silence, incapable de communiquer ses
réflexions » .

.. Astronoetical Glosses on Hawking’s Cosmology and Life–

World

I would like to conclude this chapter by suggesting an analysis of the

“Hawking case” from the perspective of Blumenberg’s work. Clearly,
Hawking involves a new episode in the contemplator caeli‘s long and
eventful itinerary and his Sorge by the stars. I already mentioned the
passage underlined by Blumenberg in which Hawking was described
as concerned about the future of the cosmos and the existence of
other worlds . I can now add another topic, provided by Brandon
Carter’s article, in connection with the life–world and the work on
astronomical theory: « C’est vrai, aussi, qu’il ne pouvait pas participer
comme nous aux tâches familiales, jouer avec ses enfants, les changer
lorsqu’il étaient bébes, ainsi que nous le faisions tous. Il passait pra-
tiquement tout son temps, dans son fauteuil, à réfléchir » — Blumenberg’s

. Brandon C, “Stephen et Brandon: les ‘jumeaux’ savants”, L’Express,  avril ,
p.  (DLA Marbach).
. F. H–M, “L’homme qui réinvente l’Univers”, op. cit. p. .
 . Hans Blumenberg meets Stephen Hawking

emphasis — . In this light, Hawking’s case belongs to the Milesian

tradition, as it has the same “existential size” of Einstein’s or Tales’
one. This does not only concern the history of falling from Tales
to Einstein, such as Blumenberg suggested in Die Vollzähligkeit der
Sterne , but it is also possible to add Hawking’s case to the history
of the eternally renewed conflict between astronomical theory and
life–world. Thus, we can understand the Hawking “condition” as
a kind of life–world “impugnment”: « I was again fortunate in that
I chose theoretical physics, because that is all in the mind. So my
disability has not been a serious handicap » . Hawking’s case of
cruel irony made him the new astronomical hero, who made the
world–time available and suspended the conflict between astronomy
and the life–world, although he himself remained immobilized, as if
his body paralysis was a sordid geocentric recidivist.
Apart from the new problems of astronomy with life–world, I
conclude this last chapter by referring to the remarkable transfor-
mation of the well metaphor in Hawking’s cosmology. In Françoise
Harrois–Monin’s article “L’homme qui réinvente l’Univers”, Hawk-
ing’s radiation was described as if a dead star was radiating from the
bottom of a well. In this characterization of black holes as dead stars
in wells, we can recognize the occasional conversion of an existential
metaphor into an ontological metaphor: « Tout se déroulait comme
si l’étoile morte rayonnait du fond de son puits » .

. B. C, “Stephen et Brandon”, op. cit. [« It is also true that he could not participate
like us in family affairs, playing with his children, bathing them, as all of us did. He spent
almost his time in his chair, thinking »]. My translation.
. « Die Geschichte unserer Theorie vom Weltall beginnt mit einem Sturz und endet
mit einem Sturz ». In the first case on Thales and the well, in the second one on Einstein
and the roofer: « Tales und Einstein: zwei komplementäre Anekdoten von theoretischen
Elementarereignissen ». H. B, “Einstenium” (VS ).
. S. H, A Brief History of Time, Acknowledgements, p. vi. For further analysis of
these issues see Hélène M, Hawking Incorporated, op. cit.
. F. H–M, “L’homme qui réinvente l’Univers”, op. cit. p. . [« Everything was
going as if the dead star shone from the bottom of the well »]. My translation. Blumenberg did
not highlighted this passage, but rather this one on singularities enclosed in black holes: « ainsi
qu’Einstein l’avait prévu, l’espace environnant se déforme, se creuse comme un puits au fond
duquel cette boule de matière concentrée happe tout ce qui la frôle ». Ibid., p. .
 Abbreviations

I have partially employed César González Cantón’s La metaforología

de Blumenberg como destino de la analítica existencial (Universidad Com-
plutense de Madrid, , pp. –) for the choice of abbrevia-
tions of Blumenberg’s works titles. Regarding abbreviated references:
Hans Blumenberg’s published works are quoted with the title abbre-
viation and the original German pages in brackets and italics. After a
comma, the page of the employed English translation, or of another
available translation, is included. For instance: (H , ). When
only the original text was available, I translated it into English and
I quoted the original German page after the abbreviation, both in
italics and without comma. For instance: (Lt ). In the Bibliography
the employed translations are reported.
Hans Blumenberg’s unpublished documents, preserved in his
Nachlaß at the Deutsches Literaturarchiv Marbach, have not been re-
ferred to through abbreviations, but rather in a footnote with the
full title or description in the Nachlaß catalogue, followed by the ex-
pression “(DLA Marbach)”. For instance: “Stichwortwechsel” (DLA
Marbach), or “Letter from Blumenberg to Koselleck, ..” (DLA
Marbach).

(A) Atommoral. Ein Gegenstück zur Atomstrategie, .

(AA) Augustins Anteil an der Geschichte des Begriffs der theoretischen
Neugierde, .
(AAR) Anthropologische Annäherung an die Aktualität der Rhetorik, .
(AM) Arbeit am Mythos, .
(ÄmS) Ästhetische und metaphorologische Schriften, .
(Ap) Die Apfelgeschichte. Zur Ursprungslegende von Isaac Newtons Haupt-
werk, erschienen , .
(AT) Autonomie und Theonomie, .
(Aus) Ausblick auf eine Theorie der Unbegrifflichkeit, .
(aV) Der absolute Vater, /.


 Abbreviations

(BaM) Beobachtungen an Metaphern, .

(BdM) Beschreibung des Menschen, .
(Bed) Die Bedeutung der Philosophie für unsere Zukunft, .
(BeS) Besuch aus der Schweiz. Schopenhauer verteidigt seine Welt, .
(BiG) Begriffe in Geschichten, .
(BPU) Beiträge zum Problem der Ursprünglichkeit der mittelalterlich–scholastischen
Ontologie, .
(BSB) Hans Blumenberg – Carl Schmitt. Briefwechsel –, .
(BT) Hans Blumenberg – Jacob Taubes. Briefwechsel –, .
(CC) Contemplator Caeli, .
(CuV) Curiositas und veritas. Zur Ideengeschichte von Augustin, Confes-
siones X , .
(dem) Pierre Lecomte du Noüy: Die Entwicklung zum Menschen als gelstig–
sittlichem Wesen, .
(DdH) Das dritte Höhlengleichnis, .
(dS) Die Sorge geht über den Fluß, .
(dVA) Die Vorbereitung der Aufklärung als Rechtfertigung der theoretis-
chen Neugierde, .
(E) Einleitung, .
(EC) Ernst Cassirers gedenkend bei der Entgegennahme des Kuno–Fischer
Preises der Universität Heidelberg, .
(eF) Die erste Frage an den Menschen. All der biologische Reichtum des
Lebens verlangt eine Ökonomie seiner Erklärung, .
(EI) Eschatologische Ironie. Über die Romane Evelyn Waughs, /.
(EmS) Ein mögliches Selbstverständnis. Aus dem Nachlaß, .
(Eng) Die Weltzeit erfassen. Trilogie von Engeln, .
(Epi) Epigonenwallfahrt, .
(EuR) Epochenschwelle und Rezeption, .
(eV) Die essentielle Vieldeutigkeit des ästhetischen Gegenstandes, .
(Fb) Fragebogen, .
(fF) Im falschen Fell. Glossen zu Fabel, Phrase und Legende, .
(FuO) Das Fernrohr und die Ohnmacht der Wahrheit: introduction to Galileo
Galilei: Sidereus Nuncius (Nachricht von neuen Sternen), .
 Abbreviations 

(GA) Glossen zu Anekdoten, .

(GdT) Geistesgeschichte der Technik, .
(GG) Götterleere und Gottesbedarf: ein Konstrukt, .
(GkW) Die Genesis der kopernikanischen Welt, .
(GL) Geld oder Leben. Eine metaphorologische Studie zur Konsistenz der
Philosophie Georg Simmels, .
(GlF) Gerade noch Klassiker. Glossen zu Fontane, .
(GVZ) Gegenwart, vergiftet zwischen Vergangenheit und Zukunft, .
(GzB) Goethe zum Beispiel, .
(H) Höhlenausgänge, .
(HD) Helmo Dolch: Kausalität im Verständnis des Theologen und der Be-
gründer neuzeitlicher Physik. Besinnung auf die historischen Grundle-
gungen zum Zwecke einer sachgemäßen Besprechung moderner Kau-
salitätsprobleme, .
(Hy) Hylemorphismus, .
(Ind) Individuation und Individualität, .
(Jh) Jahrhundertgestalt, .
(K) Kontingenz, .
(KdV) Introduction to Nicolaus von Cues: Die Kunst der Vermutung. Auswahl
aus den Schriften, .
(KF) Kant und die Frage nach dem »gnädigen Gott«, .
(kK) Die kopernikanische Konsequenz für den Zeitbegriff, .
(KPV) Kopernikus und das Pathos der Vernunft. Das Denken der Neuzeit
im Zeichen der kopernikanischen Wende, .
(KSN) Kopernikus im Selbstverständnis der Neuzeit, .
(KuR) Kritik und Rezeption antiker Philosophie in der Patristik. Struktur-
analysen zu einer Morphologie der Tradition, .
(KuS) Kosmos und System. Aus der Genesis der kopernikanischen Welt,
.
(kUW) Der kopernikanische Umsturz und die Weltstellung des Menschen.
Eine Studie zum Zusammenhang von Naturwissenschaft und Geistes-
geschichte, .
(kW) Die kopernikanische Wende, .
 Abbreviations

(LaM) Licht als Metapher der Wahrheit. Im Vorfeld der philosophischen

Begriffsbildung, .
(lb) Letzte Bücher, .
(LdN) Die Legitimität der Neuzeit, .
(LdT) Das Lachen der Thrakerin. Eine Urgeschichte der Theorie, .
(Leg) Die Lesbarkeit der Welt, .
(Lich) Lichtenbergs Paradox, .
(Lin) On a Lineage of the Idea of Progress, .
(Löw) Löwen, .
(Lt) Lebensthemen. Aus dem Nachlaß, .
(LT) Lebenswelt und Technisierung unter Aspekten der Phänomenologie,
.
(LW) Lebenszeit und Weltzeit, .
(Marg) Marginalien zur theologischen Logik Rudolf Bultmanns, /.
(ME) Mythos und Ethos Amerikas im Werk William Faulkners, /.
(MgK) Melanchthons Einspruch gegen Kopernikus. Zur Geschichte der
Disoziation von Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, .
(Mp) Matthäuspassion, .
(MvM) Der Mann vom Mond, .
(Mw) Menschwerdungen, .
(Na) Nachdenklichkeit, .
(NdN) ‘Nachahmung der Natur’. Zur Vorgeschichte der Idee des schöpferi-
schen Menschen, .
(Nruf ) Nachruf auf Erich Rothacker. .
(nU) Das nachgeholte Urerlebnis. Bemerkungen über Jacob Burckhardt
zwischen Antike und Renaissance, .
(NuS) Naturalismus. I. Naturalismus und Supranaturalismus, .
(NuT) Das Verhältnis von Natur und Technik als philosophisches Problem,
.
(NuW) Neugierde und Wissenstrieb. Supplemente zu “Curiositas”, .
(nZ) Was tut der Geist über den Wassern? Zum Thema einer neuen Zürcher
Bibel, .
 Abbreviations 

(oD) Die ontologische Distanz. Eine Untersuchung über die Krisis der Phänomenolo-
gie Husserls. .
(OP) Optimismus und Pessimismus. II. Philosophisch, .
(OuS) Ordnungsschwund und Selbstbehauptung. Über Weltverstehen und
Weltverhalten im Werden der technischen Epoche, .
(P) Präfiguration – Arbeit am politischen Mythos, .
(Pa) Parallelaktion einer Begriffsbildung. Husserl, Hoffmannstahl und die
Lebenswelt, .
(PdM) Die Peripetie des Mannes. Über das Werk Ernest Hemingways, –
.
(Pg) Paradigma, grammatisch, .
(phE) Ist eine philosophische Ethik gegenwärtig möglich?, .
(phR) Im philosophischen Roman wird nicht philosophiert. Über Melchior
Vischers Miniaturroman »Der Hase«, .
(phU) Philosophischer Ursprung und philosophische Kritik des Begriffs der
wissenschaftlichen Methode, .
(PM) Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie, .
(PVA) Sokrates und das ‘objet ambigu’. Paul Valérys Auseinandersetzung
mit der Tradition der Ontologie des ästhetischen Gegenstandes, .
(Q) Quellen, .
(QSE) Quellen, Ströme, Eisberge – Beobachtungen an Metaphern, .
(Ra) Raucherlaubnis, .
(Räp) Repräsentant mit Sinn fürs Mythische. Texte aus dem Nachlaß: Tho-
mas Mann in seinen Tagebüchern, .
(RdW) Rigorismus der Wahrheit – « Moses der Ägypter » und weitere Texte zu
Freud und Arendt, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, .
(Rel) Religionsgespräche, .
(RF) Rose und Feuer. Lyrik, Kritik und Drama T.S. Eliots, /.
(RS) Das Recht des Scheins in den menschlichen Ordnungen bei Pascal,
.
(Ru) Rudolf Bultmann, “Geschichte und Eschatologie”, .
(Säk) “Säkularisation”. Kritik einer Kategorie historischer Illegitimität, .
(SB) Selbsterhaltung und Beharrung. Zur Konstitution der neuzeitlichen
Rationalität, .
 Abbreviations

(SdP) Der Sturz des Protophilosophen. Zur Komik der reinen Theorie –
anhand einer Rezeptionsgeschichte der Thales–Anekdote, .
(SP) Sprachsituation und inmanente Poetik, , –.
(sT) Sollte der Teufel erlöst werden? Kapitel einer Dämonologie, .
(SuT) Sekularisatiönsthese und Toposforschung: zur Substantialisierung
der Geschichte.
(Sv) Der Sinnlosigkeitsverdacht, .
(sW) Die sprachliche Wirklichkeit der Philosophie, /.
(SZ) Schiffbruch mit Zuschauer. Paradigma einer Daseinsmetapher, .
(Sz) Substanz, .
(TdU) Theorie der Unbegrifflichkeit, .
(TheL) The Life–World and the Concept of Reality, .
(TI) Transzendenz und Immanenz, .
(Tlg) Teleologie, .
(TuW) Technik und Wahrheit, .
(TLW) Theorie der Lebenswelt, .
(U) Das Unsagbare. Kompetenz, .
(UeK) Das Universum eines Ketzers. Introduction to Giordano Bruno: Das
Aschermittwochsmahl, .
(UgQ) Unernst als geschichtliche Qualität, .
(Unb) Unbekanntes von Aesop. Aus neuen Fabelfunden, .
(Urs) Die »Urstiftung«. Über den Unwillen, Autor von Vergänglichem zu
sein, .
(URW) Über den Rand der Wirklichkeit hinaus. Drei Kurzessays, .
(VdN) Die Vorbereitung der Neuzeit, .
(Vors) Vorstoß ins ewige Schweigen. Ein Jahrhundert nach der Ausfahrt der
»Fram«, .
(VPh) Die Verführbarkeit des Philosophen, .
(VS) Die Vollzähligkeit der Sterne, .
(VWb) Vorbemerkungen zum Wirklichkeitsbegriff, .
(WbM) Wirklichkeitsbegriff und Möglichkeit des Romans, .
(WbS) Wirklichkeitsbegriff und Staatstheorie, .
 Abbreviations 

(WbW) Wirklichkeitsbegriff und Wirkungspotential des Mythos, .

(Wdl) Wirklichkeiten in denen wir leben. Aufsätze und eine Rede, .
(Wg) »Wie geht’s, sagte ein Blinder zu einem Lahmen. Wie Sie sehen,
antwortete der Lahme«, .
(Ws) Wer sollte vom Lachen der Magd betroffen sein? Eine Duplik, .
(WuL) Wolf und Lamm und mehr als ein Ende, .
(WW) Weltbilder und Weltmodelle, .
(ZdS) Zu den Sachen und zurück, .

Hans Blumenberg’s Works

/
(sW) “Die sprachliche Wirklichkeit der Philosophie”, Hamburger Akademis-
che Rundschau, , , /, pp. –.

(BPU) Beiträge zum Problem der Ursprünglichkeit der mittelalterlich–scholastischen
Ontologie. Kiel, .
(RS) “Das Recht des Scheins in den menschlichen Ordnungen bei Pascal”,
Philosophisches Jahrbuch, , , pp. –.
Employed translation:
–“Le Droit de l’Apparence dans les Ordres humains selon Pascai”, Droits.
Revue française de Theorie juridique, , , pp. –.

 (oD) Die ontologische Distanz. Eine Untersuchung über die Krisis der Phäno-
menologie Husserls. Kiel, .

(NuT) “Das Verhältnis von Natur und Technik als philosophisches Pro-
blem”, Studium Generale, , , , pp. –.

(phU) “Philosophischer Ursprung und philosophische Kritik des Begriffs
der wissenschaftlichen Methode”, Studium Generale, , , , pp. –
.
/
(aV) “Der absolute Vater”, Hochland, , /, pp. –.

 Abbreviations

(phE) “Ist eine philosophische Ethik gegenwärtig möglich?”, Studium Ge-

nerale, , , , pp. –.
/
(TuW) Technik und Wahrheit, Actes du XI’me Congrés International de Philoso-
phie (Bruxelles, – aoút ),Vol. .f: Épistémologie, Amsterdam/
Louvain, , pp. –.
(EI) “Eschatologische Ironie. Über die Romane Evelyn Waughs”, Hochland,
, /, pp. –. Re–published in Karlhelnz Schmidthüs (ed.): Lob
der Schöpfung und Ärgernis der Zeit. Moderne christliche Dichtung in Kritik
und Deutung. Herder, Freiburg, , pp. –.

(KF) “Kant und die Frage nach dem »gnädigen Gott«”, Studium Generale, ,
, , pp. –.
(dem) “Pierre Lecomte du Noüy: Die Entwicklung zum Menschen als gelstig–
sittlichem Wesen”, Deutsche Universitätszeitung, , , , p. .
/
(Marg) “Marginalien zur theologischen Logik Rudolf Bultmanns”, Philosophis-
che Rundschau, , /, /, pp. –.

(kUW) “Der kopernikanische Umsturz und die Weltstellung des Menschen.

Eine Studie zum Zusammenhang von Naturwissenschaft und Geistes-
geschichte”, Studium Generale, , , , pp. –.
(HD) “Helmo Dolch: Kausalität im Verständnis des Theologen und der Be-
gründer neuzeitlicher Physik. Besinnung auf die historischen Grundle-
gungen zum Zwecke einer sachgemäßen Besprechung moderner Kau-
salitätsprobleme”, Philosophische Rundschau, , /, , pp. –.
/
(PdM) “Die Peripetie des Mannes. Über das Werk Ernest Hemingways”,
Hochland , –, pp. –.
/
(RF) “Rose und Feuer. Lyrik, Kritik und Drama T.S. Eliots”, Hochland, ,
/, pp. –.

(KuS) “Kosmos und System. Aus der Genesis der kopernikanischen Welt”,
Studium Generale, , , , pp. –.
 Abbreviations 

(NdN) “‘Nachahmung der Natur’. Zur Vorgeschichte der Idee des schöpferi-
schen Menschen”, Studium Generale, , , , pp. –. Re–published
in (NdN), pp. –.
(LaM) “Licht als Metapher der Wahrheit. Im Vorfeld der philosophischen
Begriffsbildung”, Studium Generale, , , , pp. –.
Employed translation:
–“Light as a Metaphor for Truth. At the Preliminary Stage of Philosophi-
cal Concept Formation”, David Michael Levin (ed.), Modernity and the
Hegemony of Vision, University of California Press, Berkeley, , pp.
–.
(KdV) Introduction to Nicolaus von Cues: Die Kunst der Vermutung. Auswahl
aus den Schriften. Edited by Hans Blumenberg, Schünemann, Bremen,
, pp. –.
(AT) “Autonomie und Theonomie”, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart
, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, , pp. –.
/
(ME) “Mythos und Ethos Amerikas im Werk William Faulkners”, Hochland,
, /, pp. –.
(EuR) “Epochenschwelle und Rezeption”, Philosophische Rundschau, , ,
pp. –.

(KuR) “Kritik und Rezeption antiker Philosophie in der Patristik. Struktur-
analysen zu einer Morphologie der Tradition”, Studium Generale, , ,
, pp. –.
(Hy) “Hylemorphismus”, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart III, Mohr
Siebeck, Tübingen, , p. .
(Ind) “Individuation und Individualität”, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegen-
wart III, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp. –.
(K) “Kontingenz”, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart III, Mohr Siebeck,
Tübingen, p. .
(Ru) “Rudolf Bultmann, «Geschichte und Eschatologie»”, Gnomon, , ,
pp. –.

(PM) Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie, Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte, , ,
pp. –. Re–published in Bouvier, Bonn,  and in Suhrkamp Ver-
lag, Frankfurt am Main, . See also Anselm Haverkamp’s edition
published in .
 Abbreviations

Employed translation:
–Paradigms for a Metaphorology, (Engl. translation with an afterword by Ro-
bert Savage), Cornell University Press, .
(MgK) “Melanchthons Einspruch gegen Kopernikus. Zur Geschichte der
Disoziation von Theologie und Naturwissenschaft”, Studium Generale,
, , , pp. –. Extended version in (kW), pp. –.
(DdH) “Das dritte Höhlengleichnis”, Filosofia, , , pp. –.
(NuS) “Naturalismus. I. Naturalismus und Supranaturalismus”, Die Religion
in Geschichte und Gegenwart IV, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, , pp. –
.
(OP) “Optimismus und Pessimismus. II. Philosophisch”, Die Religion in Ge-
schichte und Gegenwart IV, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp. –.

(AA) “Augustins Anteil an der Geschichte des Begriffs der theoretischen
Neugierde”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, , , pp. –.
(WW) “Weltbilder und Weltmodelle”, Nachrichten der Gießener Hochschulge-
sellschaft, , , pp. –.
(Bed) “Die Bedeutung der Philosophie für unsere Zukunft”, Die vorausse-
hbare Zukunft. Europa–Gespräch , Verlag für Jugend und Volk, Wien-
er Schriften, , pp. –.

(OuS) “Ordnungsschwund und Selbstbehauptung. Über Weltverstehen und
Weltverhalten ím Werden der technischen Epoche”, in Helmut Kuhn
and Franz Wiedmann (eds.), Das Problem der Ordnung (VI. Deutscher
Kongress für Philosophie, München, ), Hain, Meisenhelm am Glan,
, pp. –. Re–published in (GdT) Geistesgeschichte der Technik, Suhr-
kamp, Frankfurt am Main, , pp. –.
(CuV) “Curiositas und veritas. Zur Ideengeschichte von Augustin, Confes-
siones X ”, (Vortrag auf der Third International Conference on Patris-
tic Studies, Oxford ), in Frank Leslie Cross (ed.), Studia Patristica
 (Texte und Untersuchungen zur altchristlichen Literatur; ), Aka-
demie–Verlag, Berlin, , pp. –.
(VdN) “Die Vorbereitung der Neuzeit”, Philosophische Rundschau, , /,
, pp. –.
(Sz) “Substanz”, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart VI, Mohr Siebeck,
Tübingen, pp. –.
(Tlg) “Teleologie”, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart VI, Mohr Siebeck,
 Abbreviations 

Tübingen, pp. –.

(TI) “Transzendenz und Immanenz”, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegen-
wart VI, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp. –.

(LT) “Lebenswelt und Technisierung unter Aspekten der Phänomenolo-
gie”, Filosofia, , , pp. –. Re–published in Wirklichkeiten in
denen wir leben. Aufsätze und eine Rede, Reclam, Stuttgart, , pp. –.

(Säk) “‘Säkularisation’. Kritik einer Kategorie historischer Illegitimität”, in
Helmut Kuhn and Franz Wiedmann (eds.), Die Philosophie und die Frage
nach dem Fortschritt (VII. Deutscher Kongress für Philosophie, Münster,
), Pustet, München, , pp. –.
(PVA) “Sokrates und das ‘objet ambigu’. Paul Valérys Auseinandersetzung
mit der Tradition der Ontologie des ästhetischen Gegenstandes”, in
Franz Wiedmann (ed.), EPIMELEIA. Die Sorge der Philosophie um den
Menschen. Helmut Kuhn zum . Geburtstag, Pustet, München, , pp.
–. Re–published in Internationale Zeitschrift für Philosophie, , ,
pp. –.
(WbM) “Wirklichkeitsbegriff und Möglichkeit des Romans”, in Hans Robert
Jauss (ed.), Nachahmung und Illusion (Poetik und Hermeneutik, I), Fink,
München, , pp. –. Re–published in Bruno Hillebrand (ed.), Zur
Struktur des Romans, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, ,
pp. –; and in Klaus–Detlev Müller (ed.), Bürgerlicher Realismus. Grund-
lagen und Interpretationen, Athenäum, Königsstein/Taunus, , pp. –.
Employed translation:
“The Concept of Reality and the Possibility of the Novel”, in Richard E.
Amacher and Victor Lange (eds.), New Perspectives in German Literary
Criticism. A Collection of Essays, Princeton University Press, Princeton,
, pp. – (Engl. trans. by David Henry Wilson).
(KSN) “Kopernikus im Selbstverständnis der Neuzeit”, Akademie der Wis-
senschaften und der Literatur in Mainz. Abhandlungen der geistes und sozial-
wissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang , Nr. , Mainz, , pp. –.

(FuO) “Das Fernrohr und die Ohnmacht der Wahrheit”, Introduction to
Galileo Galilei: Sidereus Nuncius (Nachricht von neuen Sternen). Dialog über
die Weltsysteme (Auswahl). Vermessung der Höhle Dantes. Marginalien zu
Tasso, edited by Hans Blumenberg, Insel, Frankfurt am Main, , pp.
–. Re–published in Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft, Suhrkamp,
 Abbreviations

Frankfurt am Main, .

(kW) Die kopernikanische Wende, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, .
(–) “Bericht für die Kommission für Philosophie”, Jahrbuch der Akademie
der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, , p. .

(LdN) Die Legitimität der Neuzeit, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, .
Employed translation:
The Legitimacy of the Modern Age [], The MIT Press, Cambridge, .
(Engl. trans. by Robert M. Wallace).
(SP) “Sprachsituation und immanente Poetik”, in Wolfgang Iser (ed.): Im-
manente Ästhetik – Ästhetische Reflexion. Lyrik als Paradigma der Moderne
(Poetik und Hermeneutik; ), Fink, München, , pp. –. Re–
published in Wirklichkeiten in denen wir leben. Aufsätze und eine Rede,
Reclam, Stuttgart, , –.
(eV) “Die essentielle Vieldeutigkeit des ästhetischen Gegenstandes”, in Frie-
drich Kaulbach and Joachim Ritter (eds.), Kritik und Metaphysik. Heinz
Heimsoeth zum achtzigsten Geburtstag, Gruyter, Berlin, , pp. –.
Re–published in Actes du Cinquième Congrès International d’Esthétique, Paris.
(CC) “Contemplator Caeli”, in Dietrich Gerhardt, Wiktor Weintraub and
Hans–Jürgen zum Winkel (eds.), Orbis Scriptus. Festschrift für Dmitrij
Tschizewskij zum . Geburtstag, Fink, München, , pp. –.
(Nruf ) “Nachruf auf Erich Rothacker. Gehalten am . April  in der
Offentlichen Sitzung der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Liter-
atur”, Jahrbuch der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz,
, pp. –.
(–) “Bericht für die Kommission für Philosophie”, Jahrbuch der Akademie
der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, , pp. –.

(dVA) “Die Vorbereitung der Aufklärung als Rechtfertigung der theoretis-
chen Neugierde”, in Hugo Friedrich, Fritz Schalk (eds.), Europäische Aufk-
lärung. Herbert Dieckmann zum . Geburtstag, Fink, München, , pp.
–. Re–published as Rechtfertigungen der Neugierde als Vorbereitungen
der Aufklärung, in Peter Pütz (ed.), Erforschung der deutschen Aufklärung,
Athenäum, Königsstein/Taunus, , pp. –.
(–) “Bericht für die Kommission für Philosophie”, Jahrbuch der Akademie
der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, , p. .

 Abbreviations 

(WbS) “Wirklichkeitsbegriff und Staatstheorie”, Schweizer Monatshefte, ,

, , pp. –.
(–) “Bericht für die Kommission für Philosophie”, Jahrbuch der Akademie
der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, , p. .
/
(SB) “Selbsterhaltung und Beharrung. Zur Konstitution der neuzeitlichen
Rationalität”, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz. Ab-
handlungen der geistes– und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang ,
Nr. , Mainz , pp. –. Re–published in Hans Ebeling (ed.), Sub-
jektivität und Selbsterhaltung. Beiträge zur Diagnose der Moderne, Suhrkamp,
Frankfurt am Main, , pp. –. Re–published in Suhrkamp, Frank-
furt am Main, .
Employed translation:
–“Self–Preservation and Inertia. On the Constitution of Modern Rational-
ity”, Contemporary German Philosophy, , , pp. –.
(UeK) “Das Universum eines Ketzers”, Introduction to Giordano Bruno:
Das Aschermittwochsmahl, Insel, Frankfurt am Main, , pp. –.
Re–published in Insel–Taschenbuch, , pp. –.
(–) “Bericht für die Kommission für Philosophie”, Jahrbuch der Akademie
der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, , p. .

(NuW) “Neugierde und Wissenstrieb. Supplemente zu ‘Curiositas’”, Archiv
für Begriffsgeschichte, , , pp. –.
(–) “Bericht für die Kommission für Philosophie”, Jahrbuch der Akademie
der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, , p. .
(–) “Kurzfassung des Neoplatonismen”, Jahrbuch der Akademie der Wissen-
schaften und der Literatur in Mainz, , pp.  ff.

(AAR) “Approccio antropologico all’attualitá della retorica”, Il Verri. Rivista
di Letteratura, /, , pp. – (It. trans. by Vincenzo Orlando).
Re–published in Wirklichkeiten in denen wir leben. Aufsätze und eine Rede,
Reclam, Stuttgart, , pp. –.
Employed translation:
–“Una aproximación antropológica a la actualidad de la retórica”, Las real-
idades en las que vivimos, Paidós ICE/UAB, Barcelona, , pp. –.
(Span. trans. by Pedro Madrigal).
 Abbreviations

(WbW) “Wirklichkeitsbegriff und Wirkungspotential des Mythos”, in Man-

fred Fuhrmann (ed.), Terror und Spiel, (Poetik und Hermeneutik, ),
Fink, München, , pp. –.
(NuP) “Neoplatonismen und Pseudoplatonismen in der Kosmologie und
Mechanik der frühen Neuzeit”, P.M. Schuhl, P. Hadot (eds.), Le Néopla-
tonisme (Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique. Scienes humaines. Royaumont, – juin ), Editions
du Centre National de la Rechierche Scientifique, Paris, , pp. –
. Re–published as “PseudopIatonismen in der Naturwissenschaft der
Neuzeit”, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz. Ab-
handlungen der geistes– und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang ,
Nr. , Mainz, , –.
(BaM) “Beobachtungen an Metaphern”, Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte  (),
pp. –. The text “Paradigma, grammatisch” was republished in
Wirklichkeiten in denen wir leben. Aufsätze und eine Rede, Reclam, Stutt-
gart, , pp. –.
Employed translation:
(Pg) “El paradigma, gramaticalmente”, in Las realidades en las que vivimos,
Paidós ICE/UAB, Barcelona, , pp. –. (Span. trans. by Pedro
Madrigal).


(TheL) “The Life–World and the Concept of Reality”, Lester E. Embree
(ed.), Life–World and Consciousness. Essays for Aaron Gurwitsch, North-
western University Press, , pp. – (Engl. trans. by Theodore
Kisiel).
(SuT) “Sekularisatiönsthese und Toposforschung: zur Substantialisierung
der Geschichte”, in Peter Jehn (ed.), Toposforschung: eine Dokumentation,
Athenäum, Frankfurt am Main, pp. –.
(kK) “Die kopernikanische Konsequenz für den Zeitbegriff ”, Colloquia Co-
pernicana , Études sur l’audience de la Théorie heliocentrique. Con-
ferences du Symposium de I’UIHPS, Torun, , Studia Copernicana, ,
, pp. –.
(–) “Bericht für die Kommission für Philosophie”, Jahrbuch der Akademie
der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, , pp –.

(aP) “Der archimedische Punkt des Celio Calcagnini”, in Eginhard Hora,
Eckhard Keisler (eds.), Studia Humanitatis. Ernesto Grassi zum . Geburt-
stag, Fink, München, , pp. –.
 Abbreviations 

(KPV) “Kopernikus und das Pathos der Vernunft. Das Denken der Neuzeit
im Zeichen der kopernikanischen Wende”, Evangelische Kommentare, ,
, , pp. –.
(–) “Bericht für die Kommission für Philosophie”, Jahrbuch der Akademie
der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, , p. .

(VWb) “Vorbemerkungen zum Wirklichkeitsbegriff ”, Akademie der Wis-
senschaften und der Literatur zu Mainz. Abhandlungen der geistes–und so-
zialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang , Nr. , Mainz, , pp. –.
(Lin) “On a Lineage of the Idea of Progress”, Social Research, , , , pp.
– (Engl trans. by E.B. Ashton).
(EC) “Ernst Cassirers gedenkend. Rede bei der Entgegennahme des Kuno
Fischer–Preises der Universität Heidelberg im Juli ”, Revue Interna-
tionale de Philosophie , , pp. –. Re–published in Wirklichkeiten
in denen wir leben, pp. –.

(GkW) Die Genesis der kopernikanischen Welt, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main,
; .
Employed translation:
The Genesis of the Copernican World, MIT Press, Cambridge,  (Engl.
trans. by Robert M. Wallace). The chapter “Anachronism as a Need
Founded in the Life–World: Realities and Simulation” was published
in Annals of Scholarship, , /, pp. –.

(SdP) “Der Sturz des Protophilosophen. Zur Komik der reinen Theorie
– anhand einer Rezeptionsgeschichte der Thales–Anekdote”, in Wolf-
gang Preisendanz and Rainer Warning (eds.): Das Komische (Poetik und
Hermeneutik; ) Fink, München, , pp. –.
Employed translation:
–La Caduta del Protofilosofo o la Comicità della Teoria pura. Storia di una Rice-
zione, Pratiche Editrice, Milano, .
(KdP) “Komik in der diachronen Perspektive”, in Wolfgang Preisendanz
and Rainer Warning (eds.), Das Komische (Poetik und Hermeneutik; ),
Fink, München, , pp.  ff.
(Ws) “Wer sollte vom Lachen der Magd betroffen sein? Eine Duplik”, in
Wolfgang Preisendanz and Rainer Warning (eds.), Das Komische (Poetik
und Hermeneutik; ), Fink, München, , pp. –.
 Abbreviations

(UgQ) “Unernst als geschichtliche Qualität”, in Wolfgang Preisendanz and

Rainer Warning (eds.), Das Komische (Poetik und Hermeneutik; ), Fink,
München, , pp. –.
(GL) “Geld oder Leben. Eine metaphorologische Studie zur Konsistenz
der Philosophie Georg Simmels”, in Hannes Böhringer and Karlfried
Gründer (eds.), Ästhetik und Soziologie um die Jahrhundertwende. Georg
Simmel, Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, , pp. –.
Employed translation:
–“Denaro o Vita. Uno Studio metaforologico sulla Consistenza della Filoso-
fia di Georg Simmel”, Aut Aut, , , pp. – (It. trans. by Andrea
Borsari).

(–) “Versuch zu einer inmanenten Geschichte der kopernikanischen The-
orie”, Science and History, FSE. Posen, Studia Copernicana, , , pp.
–, also published in (GkW) Die Genesis.

(AM) Arbeit am Mythos, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, ; Suhrkamp,
.
Employed translation:
–Work on Myth [], The MIT Press, Cambridge,  (Engl. trans. by
Robert M. Wallace).
(SZ) Schiffbruch mit Zuschauer. Paradigma einer Daseinsmetapher, Suhrkamp,
Frankfurt am Main, ; Suhrkamp, 
Employed translation:
–Shipwreck with Spectator. Paradigm of a Metaphor for Existence, The MIT
Press,  (Eng. trans. by Steven Rendall).

(Na) “Nachdenklichkeit”, Jahrbuch der Deutschen Akademie für Sprache und
Dichtung, , , pp. –. Re–published in Neue Zürcher Zeitung, //
, Nr. , p. .
Employed translations:
–“Pensiveness”, Caliban, , , pp. – (Engl. trans. by David Adams).
–“Pensosità”, Elitropia, Reggio Emilia,  (It. trans. by Lea Ritter Santini).

(Wdl) Wirklichkeiten in denen wir leben. Aufsätze und eine Rede, Reclam, Stutt-
 Abbreviations 

gart, .
Contents:
(E) “Einleitung”, pp. –; (LT) Lebenswelt und Technisierung unter Aspek-
ten der Phänomenologie, pp. –; (NdN) “‘Nachahmung der Natur’.
Zur Vorgeschichte der Idee des schöpferischen Menschen”, pp. –;
(AAR) “Anthropologische Annäherung an die Aktualität der Rhetorik”,
pp. –; (SP) “Sprachsituation und inmanente Poetik”, pp. –;
(Pg) “Paradigma, grammatisch”, pp. –; (EC) “Ernst Cassirers ge-
denkend bei der Entgegennahme des Kuno–Fischer Preises der Univer-
sität Heidelberg”, , pp. –.
Employed translation:
– Las realidades en las que vivimos, Paidós ICE/UAB, Barcelona,  (Span.
trans. by Pedro Madrigal; Introduction by Valeriano Bozal).
(Leg) Die Lesbarkeit der Welt, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, ; Suhrkamp,
.
Employed translation:
– La legibilidad del mundo, Editorial Paidós, Barcelona,  (Span. trans. by
Pedro Madrigal).
(Sv) “Der Sinnlosigkeitsverdacht”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., Nr. ,
p. . Re–published in (dS): Die Sorge, pp. –.

(Mom) “Momente Goethes”, Akzente, , , pp. –.
(Fb) “Fragebogen”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Magazin .., p. .
(Mw) “Menschwerdungen”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., , Fernausg.
 (.., , Nr. ).

(Aus) “Ausblick auf eine Theorie der Unbegrifflichkeit”, in Anselm Haver-
kamp (ed.), Theorie der Metapher, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
Darmstadt, , pp. –. Also published in (SZ) Schiffbruch mit Zu-
schauer, pp. –.
(URW) “Über den Rand der Wirklichkeit hinaus. Drei Kurzessays”, Akzente,
, , , pp. –. The text “Nachdenken über einen Satz von Niet-
zsche”, pp. –, was re–published as “Die unerträgliche Unsterblich-
keit” (EmS) Ein mögliches Selbstverständnis, pp. –.
(GA) “Glossen zu Anekdoten”, Akzente, , , , pp. –. The chapter
“Wie die Matrosen Leibniz leben ließen”, pp. –, was re–published
in (dS) Die Sorge, pp. –.
 Abbreviations

(–) “Ein mögliches Selbstverständnis”, in Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., Nr.

, p. . Re–published in (EmS) Ein mögliches Selbstverständnis, pp. –
; and in (VPh) Die Verführbarkeit des Philosophen, pp. –.
(WuL) “Wolf und Lamm.Vier Glossen zur Fabel”, Akzente, , , pp. –
.
(–) “Ein Mythos für Schreibende”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., , Fer-
nausg. .
(–) “Das Erschrecken des Aufklärers vor dem vollstrecker der Revolution.
Zum . Geburtstag von Christoph Martin Wieland (. September)”,
Neue Zürcher Zeitung ..,  ff., Fernausg.  (= .., , Nr.
).

(–) “Verfehlungen. Glossen zu Anekdoten”, Akzente  () , –.
(–) “Vom Unverstand. Glossen zu drei Fabeln”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, ..,
, Fernausg.  (=.., , Nr. ).
(Urs) “Die ‘Urstiftung’. Über den Unwillen, Autor von Vergänglichem zu
sein”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., f, Fernausg.  (=.., ,
Nr. ).

(–) “Begriffe in Geschichten: Identität”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,
.., p. . Re–published in (BiG) Begriffe in Geschichten, pp. –.
(Unb) “Unbekanntes von Aesop. Aus neuen Fabelfunden”, Neue Zürcher
Zeitung .., pp.  ff., Fernausg.  (=.., , Nr. ).

(LW) Lebenszeit und Weltzeit, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, .
Employed translation:
– Tiempo de la vida y tiempo del mundo, Pre–Textos, Valencia,  (Span.
trans. by Manuel Canet).
(–) “Theorie als exotisches Verhalten. Aus dem Buch Das Lachen der Thrak-
erin. Eine Urgeschichte der Theorie”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .. , Nr.
, p. .
(–) “Das Abwesende am Löwen. Glossen zum Bestiarium”, Neue Zürcher
Zeitung .., , Fernausgabe  (= .., , Nr. ).
(Rel) Religionsgespräche, Akzente, , , pp. –.

(dS) Die Sorge geht über den Fluß, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, .
 Abbreviations 

Employed translation:
– La inquietud que atraviesa el río. Un Ensayo sobre la Metáfora, Península,
Barcelona,  (Span. trans. by Jorge Vigil).
(LdT) Das Lachen der Thrakerin. Eine Urgeschichte der Theorie, Suhrkamp,
Frankfurt am Main, .
Employed translation:
– La risa de la muchacha tracia. Una protohistoria de la teoría, Pre–Textos, Va-
lencia,  (Span. trans. by Teresa Rocha and Isidoro Reguera).
(–) “Begriffe in Geschichten – drei Sammelstücke: Intersubjektiv. Rhetorik.
Das Ich”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, .., p. .
(–) “Schnitzlers Philosoph. Fallstudie zu einem intellektuellen Risiko”, Neue
Zürcher Zeitung, .., Nr. , p. .
(–) “Das Sein – ein MacGuffin. Wie man sich Lust am Denken erhält”,
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, .., p. . Re–published in (EmS)
Ein mögliches Selbstverständnis.
(–) “Gipfelgespräche. Eine Verkehrsform, vom höheren Standpunkt betra-
chtet”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., Nr. , p. . The text “Proust
und Joyce” was re–published in (dS) Die Sorge, pp. –.
(Ap) “Die Apfelgeschichte. Zur Ursprungslegende von Isaac Newtons Haupt-
werk, erschienen ”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., f, Fernausg.
 (= .., , Nr. ).
(–) “Gleichgültig wann? Über Zeitindifferenz”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,
.., III. Re–published in (Lt) Lebensthemen, pp. –; and in (VPh)
Die Verführbarkeit des Philosophen, pp. –.
Employed translation:
– Does it Matter When? On Time Indifference, Philosophy and Literature 
()  (Engl. trans. by David Adams).
(nZ) “Was tut der Geist über den Wassern? Zum Thema einer neuen Zür-
cher Bibel”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., , Fernausg.  (= ..,
, Nr. ).
(–) “Sättigungsgrade”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung .., Nr. , .
(Pa) “Parallelaktion einer Begriffsbildung. Husserl, Hoffmannstahl und die
Lebenswelt”, en Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., Nr. , p. .
(–) “Seit wann bin ich?”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., Nr. , p. .

(Mp) Matthäuspassion, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, .
 Abbreviations

Employed translation:
– Passione secondo Matteo, il Mulino, Bologna,  (It. trans. by Carlo Gen-
tili).
(–) “Nächtlicher Anstand. Glossen zu Anekdoten”, Akzente, , , , pp.
–. The chapter “Auf der Flucht nach Ägypten”, pp. – was re–
published in (Mp) Matthäuspassion, pp. –.
(phR) “Im philosophischen Roman wird nicht philosophiert. Über Mel-
chior Vischers Miniaturroman Der Hase”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, ..,
, Fernausg.  (= ..,, Nr. ).
(–) “Freud vor und in Rom”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., , Fernaus-
gabe .

(H) Höhlenausgänge, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, ; .
Employed translation:
– Salidas de caverna, A. Machado Libros, Madrid,  (Span. trans. by José
Luis Arántegui).
(–) “Der Parteibeitrag. Im Hinblick auf eine ‘Neue Philosophie des Geldes’”,
Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., Nr. , p. . Re–published in (VPh) Die
Verführbarkeit, pp. –.
(fF) “Im falschen Fell. Glossen zu Fabel, Phrase und Legende”, Neue Zürcher
Zeitung .., f, Fernausg.  (= .., , Nr. ).
(BeS) “Besuch aus der Schweiz. Schopenhauer verteidigt seine Welt”, Neue
Zürcher Zeitung, .., Nr. , p. .
(Ra) “Raucherlaubnis”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, .., p. .
(–) “Glossen zu Schopenhauer”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., , Fernausg.
 (= .., , Nr.).
(–) “Die Höhlen des Lebens”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Magazin, .., Heft
, –. Re–published in (H) Höhlenausgänge, pp. –.
(–) “Husserls Höhlen”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., Nr. , p. . also in
(H) Höhlenausgänge, pp. –.
(–) “Worte und Sachen”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, .., p. .
(–) “‘Wir haben seinen Stern gesehen’. Von der Dunkelheit der Nacht und
der Sichtbarkeit der Gestirne”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., Nr. ,
p. . Re–published in (VS) Die Vollzähligkeit, pp. –.
(sT) “Sollte der Teufel erlöst werden? Kapitel einer Dämonologie”, Frank-
furter Allgemeine Zeitung, ...
 Abbreviations 

(–) “Wolf und Lamm und mehr als ein Ende”, Akzente, , , , pp. –.

(–) “Verlesungen. Zwei Glossen zu Montaignes Antike”, Neue Zürcher Zeit-
ung, .. , Nr. , p. . Re–published in (Lt) Lebensthemen, pp.
–.
(U) “Das Unsagbare. Kompetenz”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, ..,
N .
(–) “Ein Apokalyptiker mit Sicherungen. Glossen zur Langlebigkeit”, Neue
Zürcher Zeitung .., pp.  ff., Fernausg.  (= ..,  Nr. ).
(D ). Re–published in (MvM) Der Mann vom Mond, pp. –.
(–) “Der Mann vom Mond” re–published in (VS) Die Vollzähligkeit, pp. –
. Re–published in (MvM) Der Mann vom Mond, pp. –.
(–) “Ausgeträumte Träume. Über den ursprünglichen Realismus des Erwa-
chens”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., p. , Fernausg.  (= ..,
, Nr. ).

(Epi) “Epigonenwallfahrt”, Akzente, , , pp. –.
(–) “Hirt und Wolf. Die verlassene Nachtwache der Geburtsnacht Jesu”,
Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., , . Fernausg.  (= .., , Nr.
).

(–) “Die Welt hat keinen Namen”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .. , Nr ,
. Re–published in (EmS) Ein mögliches Selbstverständnis, pp. – .
(Lich) “Lichtenbergs Paradox”, Akzente, , , , pp. –.
(Gö) “Götterleere und Gottesbedarf. Ein Konstrukt”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung
.., Nr. , p. .
(Wg) “Wie geht’s, sagte ein Blinder zu einem Lahmen. Wie Sie sehen,
antwortete der Lahme”, Frankfurter Rundschau, .., ZB . Re–
published in J.–D. Kogel y.o., Lichtenbergs Funkenflug der Vernunft. Eine
Hommage zu seinem . Geburtstag, Frankfurt am Main, , pp. –.

(Vors) “Vorstoß ins ewige Schweigen. Ein Jahrhundert nach der Ausfahrt
der ‘Fram’”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., Nr. , pp. –.
(GVZ) “Gegenwart, vergiftet zwischen Vergangenheit und Zukunft”, Park.
Zeitschrift für neue Literatur, , /, , pp. –.
(GG) “Götterleere und Gottesbedarf: ein Konstrukt”, ...
 Abbreviations


(Jh) “Jahrhundertgestalt”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., Nr. , p. .
 Posthumous Works
(Eng) “Die Weltzeit erfassen. Trilogie von Engeln”, erster Teil: “Anfang,
Mitte und Ende der Geschichte; Die Botschaft vor aller spaltenden
Theologie. Trilogie von Engeln”, zweiter Teil: “Undeutlicher Chorge-
sang; Geschichtsbahn zwischen zwei Gartenereignissen. Trilogie von
Engeln”, dritter Teil: “Die Theologie der Buddenbrooks oder Der En-
gel nach dem Ende”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, .., N  ff.

(EmS) Ein mögliches Selbstverständnis. Aus dem Nachlaß, Reclam, Stuttgart,
.
Employed translation:
– La posibilidad de comprenderse, Síntesis, Madrid,  (Span. trans. by César
G. Cantón).
(VS) Die Vollzähligkeit der Sterne, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, .
(–) “Glossen zu Gedichten”, Akzente, , , , pp. –. The text “Erin-
nerung an das verlorene Ich”, pp. –, was re–published in (EmS)
Ein Mögliches Selbstverständnis, pp. –.
(–) “Für wen einer schreibt”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., Nr. , p. .
Re–published in (Lt) Lebensthemen, pp. –; also in (EmS) Ein mögliches
Selbstverständnis, pp. –.
(–) “Die unendliche Theorie”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, .., Nr. , p. .
(lb) “Letzte Bücher”, Marbacher Magazin, , , pp. –.
(nU) “Das nachgeholte Urerlebnis. Bemerkungen über Jacob Burckhardt
zwischen Antike und Renaissance”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, ..,
Bilder und Zeiten.

(GlF) Gerade noch Klassiker. Glossen zu Fontane, Hanser, München, . Re–
published as Vor allem Fontane, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, .
(Räp) “Repräsentant mit Sinn fürs Mythische. Texte aus dem Nachlaß: Tho-
mas Mann in seinen Tagebüchern”, Neue Rundschau, , , , pp.
–. The text “Andeutung Ulrikens” was partially re–published in (Lt)
Lebensthemen, as “Thomas Mann : Kein Tod am Lake Mohonk”, pp.
–.
(Lt) Lebensthemen. Aus dem Nachlaß, Reclam, Stuttgart, .
 Abbreviations 

(BiG) Begriffe in Geschichten, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, .

Employed translation:
– Conceptos en historias, Síntesis, Madrid,  (Span. trans. by Daniel Inner-
arity and César G. Cantón).

(GzB) Goethe zum Beispiel, Insel, Frankfurt am Main, .
(–) “Auf glühendem, erstem Wege. Wozu noch einmal Goethe?”, Frank-
furter Allgemeine Zeitung .., p. .

(VPh) Die Verführbarkeit des Philosophen, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main,
.

(Löw) Löwen, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main .
(eF) “Die erste Frage an den Menschen. All der biologische Reichtum des
Lebens verlangt eine Ökonomie seiner Erklärung”, Frankfurter Allge-
meine Zeitung .., p. .
(ÄmS) Ästhetische und metaphorologische Schriften, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am
Main, .

(ZdS) Zu den Sachen und zurück, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, .

(BdM) Beschreibung des Menschen, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, .
Employed translation:
– Descripción del ser humano, Fondo de Cultura Económica, Buenos Aires,
 (Span. trans. by Griselda Mársico and Uwe Schoor).

(TdU) Theorie der Unbegrifflichkeit, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, .
Employed translation:
– Teoria dell’inconcettualità, duepunti edizioni, Palermo,  (It. trans. by
Sandro Gulì).
(BSB) Hans B–Carl S. Briefwechsel –, Suhrkamp,
Frankfurt am Main, .
(MvM) Der Mann vom Mond, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, .
Employed translation:
 Abbreviations

– El hombre de la Luna. Sobre Ernst Jünger, Pre–Textos, Valencia,  (Span.

trans. by Pedro Madrigal).

(A) “Atommoral. Ein Gegenstück zur Atomstrategie”, Strahlungen. Atom
und Literatur. Marbachermagazin, /, , pp. –.

(GdT) Geistesgeschichte der Technik, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, .
Employed translation:
– Historia del espíritu de la técnica, Pre–Textos, Valencia,  (Span. trans. by
Pedro Madrigal).
(Q) Q. Herausgegeben von Ulrich von Bülow und Dorit Krusche, Deutsche
Literaturarchiv Marbach, Stuttgart, 

(TLW) Theorie der Lebenswelt, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, .
Employed translation:
– Teoría del mundo de la vida, Fondo de Cultura Económica, Buenos Aires,
 (Span. trans. by Griselda Mársico and Uwe Schoor).

(QSE) Q, S, E – Beobachtungen an Metaphern, Suhrkamp,
Frankfurt am Main, .

(BT) Hans B – Jacob T. Briefwechsel – und weitere
Materialen, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, .

(P) Präfiguration – Arbeit am politischen Mythos, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am
Main, .

(RdW) Rigorismus der Wahrheit – « Moses der Ägypter » und weitere Texte zu
Freud und Arendt, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, .


  – Maths and Information Technology

  – Physics

  – Chemistry

  – Earth’s Sciences

  – Biology

  – Medicine

  – Agronomy and Veterinary Sciences

  – Civil Engineering and Architecture

  – Industrial and Information Engineering

  – Antiquity, Philology, Literature, Arts

AREA  – History, Philosophy, Pedagogy, Psichology

  – Law

  – Economics and Statistics

  – Politics and Sociology

Aracne’s books are on

www.aracneeditrice.it