In La Géométrie (1637) I found Descartes' writing distilled and his mathematical demonstration lucid. I read the translation in English which alongsidIn La Géométrie (1637) I found Descartes' writing distilled and his mathematical demonstration lucid. I read the translation in English which alongside each page has a facsimile of the original French edition with a mid-17th century typeface design.
Descartes employs his avant-garde method of reasoning in the field of mathematics to display the method's versatility. In this unabridged edition, he presents an alternative system on how to approach, evaluate and think about mathematics. Descartes takes the ancient geometry that was constricted to a ruler and compass and transforms it into modern geometry. A geometry for which it was not necessary to draw lines, but enough to designate a letter for them. He appoints the letters a, b, and c for know values and x, y, and z for the unknown values which we use even now.
With this work, Descartes founded analytic geometry and laid the foundation for the development of calculus. His coordinate system we still use today to translate geometrical shapes into algebraic equations and vice versa, at last linking arithmetic and geometry into one....more
Even though the Two Treatises of Government was published anonymously in the year 1689, the Editor of this book's edition, Peter Laslett, argues that Even though the Two Treatises of Government was published anonymously in the year 1689, the Editor of this book's edition, Peter Laslett, argues that the two Treatises were written between the years of 1679-1683, well before the publishing and The Glorious Revolution of 1688-89. Furthermore, Laslett claims that the Second Treatise was written first, and the First Treatise, second, while there remains a possibility of a missing, third part. Challenging times for writers and freethinkers.
The First Treatise is devoted to refuting Sir Robert Filmer's defense of monarchy and patriarchalism, in which property, women, and children are subjects of a father, and the father's subjects of the King. This is all in line with Filmer's central argument, loosely based on Scriptural writings, that God created Adam and the world at his disposal, which makes Adam our first king and the sole proprietor of everything, and all rights can only be inherited through his lineage, namely through a male descendant.
However, in Locke's view, all men and women are born free and lived before the first established civil societies in accord with the laws of nature, in what John Locke (1632-1704) refers to as the State of Nature. Where by he believes that the only reason the people are to enter, by mutual consent, into a political community is to better preserve their liberty and secure their property as the property is insufficiently regulated in the State of Nature. Nevertheless, these Civil Societies should be in harmony with the natural rights enjoyed in the State of Nature. Locke goes on further to discuss the necessity of the separation of the legislative and executive powers, the people's rights to retain instruments to overthrow governments, and that an individual's "labor of his body and the work of his hands" are to remain in their possession.
Locke, a philosopher, and a physician began studying and writing about government and politics once he came under the influence of the first earl of Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley Cooper).
Spinoza's and Descartes' impact on Locke's philosophy is evident but his philosophy remains original. A great book with a lengthy biographical introduction of John Locke who is today commonly known as the Father of Liberalism. Worth reading....more
Human understanding all begins with the elementary particles and grasping how these mindless elements of matter formed our bodies to become conscious Human understanding all begins with the elementary particles and grasping how these mindless elements of matter formed our bodies to become conscious of themselves and their existence.
Even though Locke, a staunch proponent of empiricism, believes our minds to be a tabula rasa that are equipped with no inborn ideas or principles and that can only be filled by experiences, also recognizes our mind's intuitive knowledge, which is sufficient to deduce, amongst other things, our existence. Intuitive knowledge, or self-evident knowledge, is Locke's first, clearest, and most certain type of knowledge (e.g. white is not black and a triangle is not a circle).
Locke goes on to discuss the two other forms of knowledge: demonstrative and sensitive. Where the former is not self-evident but is derived from axioms and through which meditation we acquire the existence of God, and the latter knowledge is our experience of the existence of external objects detected by our senses.
Locke claims that all of our knowledge is derived from experience by way of our senses (sight, being the most comprehensive of our senses). This knowledge comes in by way of impressions our minds receive through our senses and through this process of reflecting upon these impressions we create our perceptions or the equivalent: ideas. Consequently, the mind going through this repetitive process becomes furnished with a great number of simple ideas and these simple ideas are the very limits of our knowledge beyond which we know nothing. We can only utilize these simple ideas as ingredients to formulate complex ideas. For all these ideas humans have created sounds (words) to distinguish one from the other, hence, we've developed a close connection between these words and ideas keeping in mind that many of these words we begin to use prior to understanding their meanings and many of these words are minted and derived from the illiterate humans of the distant past.
Locke also discusses our innate yearning for happiness, aversion to misery, and the pursuit of happiness being the greatest good.
This is an essay mostly on epistemology and an attempt to refute the a priori rationalist philosophers such as Rene Descartes even though Locke utilizes many of Descartes's ideas as a foundation for his own....more
The Theological-Political Treatise provides an in-depth critique of the Old and New Testament along with how reli"No book is ever free from faults..."
The Theological-Political Treatise provides an in-depth critique of the Old and New Testament along with how religion and the various system of governments have worked and function alongside each other.
I found Baruch Spinoza's (1632-1677) scrutiny of the Scriptures quite persuasive and brave for the time and setting in which they were written. Spinoza formulates bold arguments, such as, that it was a single historian Ezra who wrote the Torah and that faith is merely based on history and language derived from scriptures and revelations. Spinoza argues that the Prophets derived their claims from their vivid imagination, human's lowest level of cognitive development, and not reasoning, man's greatest cognitive gift. Spinoza contends that the human's power of reasoning is superior to any theological work: "The domain of reason, as we have said, is truth and wisdom, the domain of theology is piety and obedience". He equates God to nature as he sees the processes of nature and God as one, yet, "nobody knows by nature that he has any duty to obey God".
This was a captivating read. I enjoyed Spinoza's interpretation and examination of the Scripture language and his method of demonstrating how the various texts are contradicting and are opposed to reason or the laws of nature. Spinoza also elaborates on his support for a democratic secular state with each individual's right to freedom of expression. This edition comes with a well-written introduction (sometimes reading a great introduction to a non-fiction book feels like examining the topic of the book twice). All in all, I look forward to reading more from this Dutch (Jewish) philosopher....more
Rene Descartes claims that a trustworthy correspondence does not exist between our sensations and that what is causing them. Therefore, our five exterRene Descartes claims that a trustworthy correspondence does not exist between our sensations and that what is causing them. Therefore, our five external senses can often deceive our internal common sense which will consequently affect how we perceive things and as a result lead us to draw faulty conclusions. Hence, Descartes replaces the unreliable method of deducing truth through our physical senses, with rationalism.
Descartes' universe is mechanistic and the human body a machine. He asserts that the universe plays by the rules of his Three Laws of Nature which are surprisingly similar to Newton's Three Laws of Motion published 50 years later. In Descartes' universe, everything is comprised of matter made of tiny particles called corpuscles that are similar to atoms. He believes that the universe is a perfect solid in which motion is conserved with no empty spaces, anywhere, not even between the particles as previously (and now) thought. Just as we are unable to observe the air around us that doesn't mean the space we're surrounded by is empty. Therefore, Descartes claims that emptiness is filled with some type of matter as well. Perhaps he was referring to what we call today dark matter or dark energy?
The World and Other Writings (1629-1633) is written in a simple and approachable language with comprehensible everyday life examples. Thus, not as densely written as his Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. This book covers several subjects: cosmology, physics, anatomy, physiology, and more. I found his chapters on the phenomena of reflection and refraction of light most original through the example of the rainbow. Descartes also correctly assumes the existence of other planetary systems and that they border one another and our Solar system. Of course, some of the science is dated as the book was written 400 years ago, same as the science we rely on today will perhaps be dated 400 years in the future, but that should not stop us from reading it....more
The Epitome of Copernican Astronomy (1621) has a slight textbook feel and format in which, Kepler, simulates a discussion with the reader, where the rThe Epitome of Copernican Astronomy (1621) has a slight textbook feel and format in which, Kepler, simulates a discussion with the reader, where the reader poses the questions and Kepler presents his answers and explanations of celestial mechanics.
He confesses that only a few copies of his Astronomia Nova (1609) were sold as the content was wearisome and the book came with a hefty price tag. So he ended up taking the advice of friends and wrote this book that can be considered a summary of his previous works and a supplement to Aristotle's On the Heavens. Therefore, in order to reach a wider reading audience he simplifies the language used and excluded all the heavy geometrical calculations.
Kepler developed his astronomy on Copernicus' hypotheses, Tycho Brahe's observations, and William Gilbert's philosophy of magnetism, even though he barely mentions Copernicus’ work in this summary. He also inspired and provided a foundation for, Newton, to devise his law of universal gravitation. The term gravity is not used, yet he refers to it as an inborn force and an immaterial form, but the term inertia was first introduced in this book.
He frequently brings up and compares his theories with those of the ancient Greek mathematicians and compares his astronomical findings with the ones of his contemporaries, especially with the observations that were ”made with the help of the Belgian telescope”.
During the time he wrote this book, Kepler, was frequently forced to leave his residence due to the consequences of what came to be known as The Thirty Years' War, but he did not now allow this, and other life struggles, to prevent him from continuing his research and writing. So it's Kepler's perseverance that is equally inspiring as his discoveries. This is my third book by Kepler and I think it's time for me to move on to other thinkers of the scientific revolution....more
Being a morally virtuous leader will increase the probability of your failure, which can lead you to your downfall, but adhering to your intellectual Being a morally virtuous leader will increase the probability of your failure, which can lead you to your downfall, but adhering to your intellectual virtues and vices (when necessary) will in all likelihood bring you well-being and prosperity. It's that simple, Machiavelli says!
Niccolò Machiavelli's (1469-1527) The Prince (1513) is a rulebook for rulers or those who aspire to be one. He dedicates and gifts this little book to Lorenzo de Medici the young new ruler of Florence who likely never read the book.
Machiavelli in The Prince uses the a posteriori method, along with the examples of historical events, and deduces that in order to be a successful political leader, one has to be pragmatic, calculating, manipulative, and to emulate a role of a genuinely moral person, but not be one. He advises that it's better for your citizens to fear you than to love you, although you must confine and limit your brutality and cruelness, so they don't hate you, as this hatred can jeopardize your political function and safety. Machiavelli goes on in several details on how to organize a state, system of government, military, and how to choose your battles and pick your sides.
A great short read, although, many leaders throughout history, before and after Machiavelli's work, have mastered this art of unscrupulous pragmatism and were able to structure stable governments and nations and lead sustainable military ventures and struggles without having read the book. ...more
The universe is an embodiment of symmetrical patterns and rhythmical movements, where the celestial bodies stroke against the sky to conduct a cosmic The universe is an embodiment of symmetrical patterns and rhythmical movements, where the celestial bodies stroke against the sky to conduct a cosmic harmony of musical sounds.
Kepler proposes that the five regular solid figures are in a proportional distance relationship with the six, then known, planets and behave as a structure for our solar system.
Kepler also explores the audio space of our planetary system in which the Sun is the composer and the source of musical harmony amongst the planets. He finds that the ratio between the two extremes motions of an elliptical orbit (perihelion and aphelion) correlate to a different harmonic interval and that a pair of any two planets will always strive for a perfect consonance. Where the "movements of the heavens are nothing except a certain everlasting polyphony" orchestrated by the Creator.
While reading Harmonices Mundi you get the sense that, Kepler, vision of the universe is an idealistic one, and his approach to philosophy is more Platonic or Pythagorean, rather than Aristotelian, even though his laws of planetary motion were derived from observations by the senses, therefore, are based on empirical evidence i.e. which is more Aristotelian. At times it felt like I was reading about an esoteric science that is substantiated by mathematics expressions. Although, the numerous propositions discussed have not been confirmed or are incorrect, except for one, that is mentioned at the end of the book: the time it takes any one of our planet’s to revolve around the Sun, squared, is proportional to the planet’s average distance from the Sun, cubed. This came to be known as Kepler’s third law of planetary motion. The book is too dense in content and not as clear as I would like it to be, therefore, somewhat difficult to follow but that should be expected when indulging into the mystical realm of the cosmos....more
Spinoza claims that God loves or hates no one, nor that He can be impacted by sadness or joy, and that we should not expect our love for Him to be retSpinoza claims that God loves or hates no one, nor that He can be impacted by sadness or joy, and that we should not expect our love for Him to be returned in any way. Nevertheless, God exists. He is the single and first cause of all things, the eternal truth, and the reason things came to exist and continue to persist.
The most useful virtue of Spinoza's Ethics is an individual's persistence to preserve itself which is best achieved by living in moderation and by their guidance of reason and that the only evil in the world is anger, envy, sadness, hate, and the like. While they can all be overcome or destroyed by love, peace, kindness; the good. Spinoza asserts that the power of the mind is defined solely by its understanding, where the greatest virtue of the mind is to understand God, while the greatest satisfaction one can experience is joy.
Throughout the book, Spinoza utilizes the Euclidean method of proof to deduce and demonstrate his philosophy which was challenging to follow as it's based on a set of axioms, propositions, and theorems at the beginning of his chapters. Therefore, I did not find this geometrical method sufficiently adaptable to prove ethical principles, but he has this capability to pin-point and get to the core of things. The method of reasoning Spinoza utilized to critique the Old and New Testament in the Theological-Political Treatise was simpler to follow....more
How do we know for certain that our perception of reality is true? How do we know that this reality is actuality, as we perceive it, and is not just oHow do we know for certain that our perception of reality is true? How do we know that this reality is actuality, as we perceive it, and is not just our imagination? What are our limits on comprehension? Does absolute and certain knowledge exist? If it does, how can we differentiate the correct form of knowledge from the incorrect, and how do we go about acquiring this knowledge?
These, and other questions, left Descartes contemplating for years before he arrived at his method of reasoning, or better yet, his method of doubt.
Descartes claims that if we wish to arrive at a fact or truth we must initially free ourselves of all childhood prejudices, such as a misconception that the night sky is lit by tiny candle lights, but instead these lights are stars larger than our Sun. Next, we must eradicate all other false judgments from our memory and any other erroneous preconceived perceptions. Furthermore, we are to doubt the existence of all material things we are surrounded by including our physical bodies.
Descartes starts from scratch in order to attempt at proving anything, but is reluctant to solely depend on sense-perception due to their unreliability as our senses are often deceived. Therefore, Descartes decides to utilize his mind through its capacity of conceiving and imagination and humans' power of reasoning to arrive at a truth.
Before Descartes begins his process of reasoning he is uncertain if this state of what we refer to as reality is not some form of a dream? As he recalls his dreams feeling real in his sleep, only to realize they were dreams when he awoke. So, how do we know that this state of awakeness is not some form of illusion? Descartes further goes on to question: what if a demon takes over me and manipulates my mind and as a result, I am convinced of fallacious reasoning and reach wrong conclusions? All of this leads Descartes to go to the extremes and to doubt his own existence, as he cannot be certain of anything, only to realize that "we cannot doubt our existence without existing while we doubt". Therefore, every thought, no matter right or wrong, is proof of our existence. This is how Descartes arrived at his famous phrase "I think, therefore I am" and thus became his principal and fundamental knowledge and verification that our knowledge goes beyond our senses.
Descartes additionally argues that our sense of infinity cannot be achieved independently, without assistance, since we are a finite being with a finite mind composed of finite thoughts. Nonetheless, we can conceive this idea of infinity. How? Well, someone, something infinite, must have placed it in our minds. Who? A God, Descartes argues. Descartes' God is neither corporeal nor the originator of sins, malice, or weakness. He is a benevolent God that has equipped us with a good healthy mind and common sense and when we make a mistake it is due to a fault in our method of reasoning, as our freedom to act is indeterminate, and not a defect in our nature.
Descartes also states that our consciousness and thoughts are immaterial substances. Where our mind is an immaterial self and unquantifiable and distinct from our body which is measurable like all physical space. Therefore, thoughts cannot be mathematically expressed or measured. Hence, there is a clear distinction between the mind and the body.
Descartes with his distilled writing in the Principles of Philosophy (1644) introduces us to his principles of epistemology and natural philosophy in a textbook format. He covers a range of other topics which mostly reminded me of his Discourse on Method (1637), Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), and The World and Other Writings (1629-1633)....more
The father of modern philosophy, Rene Descartes, was left intellectually unfulfilled after receiving one of the finest educations available in the 17tThe father of modern philosophy, Rene Descartes, was left intellectually unfulfilled after receiving one of the finest educations available in the 17th century. The result of this, and his inexhaustible curiosity, led him to travel throughout Europe, frequently changing his place of residence in search for a higher knowledge, while only to realize that the knowledge of the truth is best to be found within.
The Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) is composed of six meditations, in which, Descartes, applies his method of reasoning introduced in the Discourse on the Method, which can be considered this book's prequel.
Beginning the meditations required, Descartes, to release his mind from: all emotions, any convictions previously derived at from his senses and thoughts, and belief in the existence of his body and the material surrounding. This way, Descartes, clears his mind and brings it to a zero state and then works his way up to arrive at conclusions using his method.
In these meditating sessions, that were portrayed to have lasted for six days, Descartes, implemented his method of doubt, and proves, once again, as he did in Discourse on the Method, the existence of himself and his thoughts - a thinking thing. But now he has taken on a task to prove the existence of something outside of himself that is material in nature and another being. He goes on to prove that a perfect God exists, and that he is even surer of God's existence than the existence of his own body. The closer we approach the end of the book, Descartes, ends up "proving" the reality and existence or many material things and other metaphysical beliefs. These numerous proofs watered down his, once, stringent method of doubt.
Nevertheless, this was a captivating read for me and I was completely absorbed by, Descartes, thoughts and contemplations. They had a strong impression on me and left me pondering his ideas after my daily dose of reading. I even felt the next day an anticipation to continue with the following meditation (chapter). Perhaps, one way of judging the quality of a book is the feeling it gives you while you're not reading it.
The writing in the book is very accessible and the language used comprehensible, yet the content is dense with a deep insightful meaning. The DiscoursThe writing in the book is very accessible and the language used comprehensible, yet the content is dense with a deep insightful meaning. The Discourse on the Method (1637) is written by the revered French mathematician and philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650).
Descartes claims that the capacity of having a good sense is equally distributed among humans, and the capability to make sound judgments is a natural ability that all people possess. But it's not enough to just have this ability; we have to use it properly. In order to advance as individuals the key is to implement a proper method of thought so we can form better opinions and arrive at the right conclusions.
It seems that Descartes only finds limited knowledge in all the different fields of study, such as philosophy, medicine, mathematics, history, law, and others. This leaves him unsatisfied and drives him to look elsewhere, and in the end, he decides to look within and study himself in seeking the real truth.
Descartes procedure of thought initially requires him to doubt everything in order to free his mind of any previous convictions and assumptions. By following a set of steps and principles, Descartes, clears his mind by doubting all earlier held beliefs other than his own existence, because the act of being able to doubt ones existence, proves the existence of ones mind, therefore ones existence. This is how Descartes arrives at his conclusion "I think, therefore I am" which he considers an important and necessary truth.
Descartes believes that the method he prescribes will lead us to properly differentiate truth from falsity and will result in arriving at other truths about the natural world.
He has formulated this method for himself, for his own use, and others are welcomed to use it if they desire. Descartes doesn't want to be intrusive and force his method of reasoning upon anyone. He also presents himself as just an ordinary individual. There is this sense you get that the modesty he employs in his writing at times seems sincere, but occasionally it comes off a bit exaggerated.
I did notice that there are some similarities of Descartes method to Galileo Galilei's scientific method. On another note, there is evidence that Descartes was frightened for his own life when he received the news of Galileo's imprisonment for heresy. As a result, Descartes proves, in the last one third of the book, God’s existence, and that the theological teachings are correct. This part was less argumentatively convincing than the first two thirds of the book. All in all, the method is brilliant and revolutionary. It's a must read for all....more
I've heard so much of him, but never from him, so I decided to read Nicolaus Copernicus's (1473-1543) own book On the Revolutions of Heavenly SpheresI've heard so much of him, but never from him, so I decided to read Nicolaus Copernicus's (1473-1543) own book On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres and hear his thoughts and findings at first hand.
Copernicus, an astronomer and mathematician, comprehensively presents his heliocentric theory in which the Earth and other planets revolve around the Sun. This heliocentric model ended up replacing the geocentric model. Essentially, Copernicus, a Polish Catholic clergyman, with substantiated mathematical calculations and observations, swapped Earth's and Sun's position, and initiated the Scientific Revolution.
We are given precise measurements of duration, dimensions, positions and movements of Earth's precession, axial tilt, equinoxes, solstices, rotation, and revolutions. Furthermore, the Moon's and other planets (except Uranus and Neptune) of the solar system precise position, shape and path of their orbits. Copernicus compares his finding with renowned astronomers, such as, Claudius Ptolemy (c.100-170 CE) and Muhammad Al-Battani (c.858-929 CE). Copernicus, does say that Sun is at the center of the universe (it's not), and the Sun and stars do not move (they do) but this does not diminish anything, as science is a work in progress, and he paved a clear path for future generations to continue where he left off.
This book is heavy on Euclidean geometry. I am not sure if I would recommend it, unless you're into this stuff or this is where your curiosity is at the moment. The book is well written, but reading it requires you to constantly bounce back-and-forth from the textual part to the geometrical diagrams. This can be tiring, and at times, reading it, felt like a chore.
Since the book was written 500 years ago, it was fun for me read how he divides the radius of a circle in 1,000, 10,000 or 100,000 parts for calculation purposes. Today we mostly use the metric units (some imperial) which essentially derived for the 'parts' approach. Also, Copernicus states that the north hemisphere has a total of 360 stars, with the Zodiac having 346 stars, and the Southern hemisphere 316 stars. It was rather interesting to see how an astronomer, in their academic work, gives the Zodiac a category of its own and a section of the sky, where in modern astronomy books, astronomers assign no significance to the Zodiac, but it was fun to read about it.
Copernicus mentions a couple of times the astronomer and mathematician Aristarchus of Samos (c.310-230 BCE) and his calculations and findings, but does not mention that it was, Aristarchus, that is first known to present the heliocentric model. Perhaps, Copernicus wasn't aware? Maybe, we'll never know.
Copernicus also uses, for some of his scientific calculations of time, Alexander the Great death as a point of reference for his year notations (instead of only using BC and AD), and also makes use of the Egyptian calendar, as he says is very suitable for calculating uniform motions. But this can also be seen as a rebellious act against the Church, which it probably was, or a step in the direction of separating science from religion. All in all, Copernicus, with this book, corrects our view of the universe, and the perspective of our significance in it. ...more
It must have been unnerving and exhausting to write a book with the Inquisition watching over your shoulder. Under such conditions, an Italian inventoIt must have been unnerving and exhausting to write a book with the Inquisition watching over your shoulder. Under such conditions, an Italian inventor and astronomer, Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), an individual of unwavering determination, courage, and intelligence wrote the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632).
The book is structured as a four day discussion, where each day represents one chapter. The story is narrated through a trialogue between: (i) Salviati, a friend and follower of Galileo, and a strong proponent of Copernicus's and Aristarchus’s heliocentric model (planets orbit the Sun), (ii) Sagredo, who is also Galileo's friend and maintains a neutral but open-minded stance to new ideas, and (iii) Simplicio, who is an advocate of Aristotle's and Ptolemy's teachings and a missionary of the geocentric model (Sun and other planets orbit the Earth).
I imagined these characters as an embodiment of Galileo's personal journey through knowledge, moments of doubt, and discoveries. I saw, Simplicio, as a metaphor for Galileo in his youth, who studied Aristotle's, Euclid's, and Ptolemy's teachings when he began his science education. Sagredo, as a metaphor for Galileo during his process of learning new ideas while questioning and doubting the old. Lastly, Salviati, the main character, as a metaphor for the older Galileo that has formulated his own revolutionary ideas, discoveries, and redefined the scientific method by introducing experimental and measurement-based testing with rigorous skepticism of what is observed. As Salviati says "what has a beginning, a middle, and an end can and must be called perfect".
The book reads like the Socratic dialogues, and at times it feels like you're in an ancient comedy play. Many branches of science are discussed, with an emphasis on celestial bodies and their characteristics, positions, and movements. The books discusses and proves that objects fall at the same acceleration regardless of their mass and that Earth and its atmosphere rotate simultaneously. We also see how Galileo's lens and magnification improvements to the already existing telescope aided him to first discover the moon craters, sun's sunspots, and the four moons of Jupiter. Galileo's work would have at least earned him a Nobel Prize today, but in his time, the Inquisition found him guilty of heresy and sentenced him to life imprisonment for writing this book. The only “reward” he received was to serve his imprisonment under house arrest.
Why the missing star? Galileo is brilliant, but the narrative was a bit unvaried and repetitive, and I think that only those interested in geometry and astronomy could truly enjoy the read, as I did! The book did leave me curious why Johannes Kepler's three laws of planetary motion, that were publish 13 years prior to this book, were not presented, even though Kepler was mentioned a couple of times in the book, although, not related to his elliptical orbits and equations.
This was a relaxing read for me and I am going to stick around this period for a while researching it through other books. I am fascinated being able to visit the past and personally witnessing a new approach to reasoning and method of acquiring knowledge....more
Rather than just reading about the Scientific Revolution (1543-1687), I chose to experience it through some of the books that initiated, shaped, and cRather than just reading about the Scientific Revolution (1543-1687), I chose to experience it through some of the books that initiated, shaped, and crystallized the scientific method. My reading journey began with Copernicus' On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (1543), followed by Kepler's Astronomia Nova (1609), Harmonies of the World (1619), and Epitome of Copernican Astronomy (1621), down south to Galilei's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632), then to Descartes' Discourse on the Method (1637), and finally here, the crown jewel, The Principia (1687).
What makes this book one of the greatest scientific works of all time is that Isaac Newton (1643-1727) presents in it the mathematical language that is capable of revealing the marvels of the cosmos. Newton has crafted mathematical expressions that can decipher the behavior of the universe. He has discovered simple formulas and a new branch of mathematics, calculus, that can even predict the time, position, and rate of change of celestial bodies in motion and certain objects on Earth that are set in motion. I can't help but notice that it took a proper interpretation of the behavior of the heavens to initiate a Scientific Revolution here on Earth.
Reading The Principia we see how the fabric of space is governed by a rhythmical pulse; where the invisible, to the naked eye, phenomena such as time, forces, and resistances are in varied proportional (mathematically expressible) relationships to the visible characteristics of space; such as the mass of celestial bodies and other objects, their motions, and the distances between them. We live in a clockwork universe of consistent symmetry.
The Principia is composed of 3 books. In the 1st and 2nd book, Newton presents his mathematical principles of nature through his theories, countless calculations, and experimental results which felt like reading a textbook, but the 3rd book reads like an astronomy science book and was more of an enjoyable read with the last few pages of the book being a real treat.
In my view, Newton's, mathematical approach to codifying the celestial mechanics of the solar system is considerably Keplerian. It's clear that Johannes Kepler's three laws of planetary motion inspired Newton to devise his three laws of motion and possibly laid the foundation for Newton's law of universal gravitation. Although to my surprise, Newton, does not give Kepler any recognition for it, other than briefly mentioning Kepler's laws of planetary motions.
Even though, Newtonian mechanics were considered, for over 200 years, to reflect an accurate interpretation of the behavior of the physical space around us, but with the introduction of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, at the turn of the 20th century, Newton's laws became great approximations for everyday life purposes. All in all, this was a short and insightful journey, and I look forward to revisiting this period to fulfill other reading aspirations.
Loading...
