Skip to main content

GALILEO GALILEI, FROM SIDEREUS NUNCIUS, VENICE, 1610



Though it has been in the sky for a while, for most of human history, no one was especially interested in looking very much — or at least very closely — at the moon. The Ancient Summerians took a quick look and decided that the moon was a God of wisdom called Nanna; for the Ancient Egyptians, it was a fertility god called Khonsu and for the Ancient Greeks, it was self-evidently a goddess called Selene, daughter of the Hyperion and Theia and sister of the goddess of dawn Eos and of the sun god Helios. Despite these conflicting certainties, the one thing that all traditional cultures were united on was the need not to study the subject any further. It is therefore hard to overestimate the significance of what happened on the night of the 30th of November 1609, when a hitherto obscure professor of mathematics at the university of Padua pointed his telescope up at the moon — and had the first open minded scientifically ego-less look at our earth’s natural satellite. Galileo Galilei had heard about the then astonishing new instrument called a telescope that had been produced in the Netherlands the year before and had found a way to grind lenses and produce a version with a 20x linear magnification. Through this optical marvel, he quickly realised that the old stories about the moon were nonsense. This was not the flawless marble like orb evoked in the Old Testament’s Song of Songs, nor the pearl evoked by Dante, nor the spiritual counterpart to the Virgin Mary dear to Catholicism. What Galileo’s telescope told him indisputably was that the surface of the moon was pitted and mottled. He concluded that the uneven waning of the moon must be caused by light occlusion from some very high mountains and extremely wide craters, which he assiduously drew with an accuracy that impresses to this day (he also estimated for the first time that the moon’s radius was 1,600km — not far off the 1,740km we know of now).  It must have been tempting for Galileo to imagine that he was wrong. Everyone — from the Pope to his fellow academics to members of his own family — were sure that he was, and told him so with force. But Galileo went ahead and published a small book, Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger) in which he insisted on his ideas — and also (to further consternation) threw in the suggestion that Jupiter had four moons rather than the presumed three. The story continues to speak to us because — though we may have little interest in astronomy — it mirrors a conflict that we all face between what the world insists is normal and true, and the sometimes diverging evidence of our own senses and suppositions. Galileo might have flouted public opinion in relation to the planets; we are more likely to run into opposition around marriage, work or politics. The issues will be different, but the strength of character the challenges demand will be identical.  Much about social life conspires to keep us cowed and timid. Without being a crank or obsessive, by trusting reason and deduction, one of the iconic figures of early modern Europe prompts us to imagine how much madness and error might lie within what is innocently called common-sense.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AGAINST SKIING HOLIDAYS

It’s a truth universally acknowledged that a normal person in search of a holiday will enjoy skiing; they will delight in bracing mountain air, thrill at going down mogul dotted slopes and feel pleasantly exhausted after a day of parallel turns. This assumption about pleasure joins a host of others proposed by the modern world. Normal people will equally enjoy white wine, the Amalfi coast, the novels of Margaret Atwood, dogs, high heels, small children, Miami beach, oral sex, Banksy, marriage, Netflix and vegetarianism. We may legitimately delight in all of these elements; the issue lies in the immense pressure we are under to do so. The truth about ourselves may, in reality, be a great deal more mysterious than the official narrative allows. Whatever our commitments to decorum and good order, we may in our depths be far more distinctive than we’re supposed to be. We may — once we become sensitive to our faint tremors of authentic delight and boredom — hate the idea of jogging, the the...
Post a Comment
Dive In »

CLASSICISM

At present, our culture is dominated by a Romantic outlook; its predecessor, and in many ways its more deserving alternative, is a Classical view of life. Classicism is founded upon an intense, pessimistic awareness of the frailties of human nature and on a suspicion of unexamined instinct. The Classical attitude knows that our emotions can frequently over-power our better insights, that we repeatedly misunderstand ourselves and others, and that we are never far from folly, harm and error. In response, Classicism seeks via culture to correct the failings of our minds. Classicism is wary of our instinctive longing for perfection. In love, it counsels a gracious acceptance of the ‘madness’ inside each partner. It knows that ecstasy cannot last, and that the basis of all good relationships must be tolerance and mutual sympathy. Classicism has a high regard for domestic life; it sees apparently minor practical details as deeply worthy of care and effort; it doesn’t think it would be degrad...
Post a Comment
Dive In »

IMPOSTER SYNDROME

 PHILOSOPHY  In many challenges, both personal and professional, we are held back by the crippling thought that people like us could not possibly triumph given what we know of ourselves: how reliably stupid, anxious, gauche, crude, vulgar and dull we really are. We leave the possibility of success to others, because we don’t seem to ourselves to be anything like the sort of people we see lauded around us. The root cause of impostor syndrome is a hugely unhelpful picture of what other people are really like. We feel like impostors not because we are uniquely flawed, but because we fail to imagine how deeply flawed everyone else is beneath a more or less polished surface. The impostor syndrome has its roots in a basic feature of the human condition. We know ourselves from the inside, but others only from the outside. We are aware of all our anxieties, doubts and idiocies from within. Yet all we know of others is what they happen to do and tell us – a far narrower and more edited...
Post a Comment
Dive In »