Did Galileo read St. Thomas?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Geremia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Geremia

Guest
Did Galileo at least read St. Thomas Aquinas’s commentaries on Aristotle? Thanks
 
Now that is a fascinating question. If you look up Fides et Ratio of John Paul 2nd somewhere towards the middle, (haven’t got it by me now) you will find a reference to Galileo. In it he points out that the scientist had little difficulty in distinguishing between what he knew through science and what he knew through theology. So he must have read St. Thomas. His problem was the discovery of a universe that was not centred on this tiny world. This overwhelmed him in ways. He was faced with clergy who knew little about philosophy and sometimes less about theology. This often happens. It is a fact of life. But when you read St. Thomas you realize every day more clearly that there are limits to all kinds of knowledge. Science has its limits, philosohy has its limits. Even theology has its limits! That is what makes the bounderies of knowledge so interesting. Since God made all things, Galileo says, then there cannot be a contradiction between the various levels of knowledge. It is only the human mind that longs for total certainties that limits knowledge to what can be seen and touched. Philosophy leads beyond that. And theology leads farther beyond again. All that area of the limits and bounderies of human knowledge are very interesting indeed. Try Benedict 16th Spe Salvi, par 46-47 and see how he deals with the limits of human knowledge in present day Hegelians.
 
WalterM said:
Now that is a fascinating question. If you look up Fides et Ratio of John Paul 2nd somewhere towards the middle, (haven’t got it by me now) you will find a reference to Galileo. In it he points out that the scientist had little difficulty in distinguishing between what he knew through science and what he knew through theology. So he must have read St. Thomas. His problem was the discovery of a universe that was not centred on this tiny world. This overwhelmed him in ways. He was faced with clergy who knew little about philosophy and sometimes less about theology. This often happens. It is a fact of life. But when you read St. Thomas you realize every day more clearly that there are limits to all kinds of knowledge. Science has its limits, philosohy has its limits. Even theology has its limits! That is what makes the bounderies of knowledge so interesting. Since God made all things, Galileo says, then there cannot be a contradiction between the various levels of knowledge. It is only the human mind that longs for total certainties that limits knowledge to what can be seen and touched. Philosophy leads beyond that. And theology leads farther beyond again. All that area of the limits and bounderies of human knowledge are very interesting indeed. Try Benedict 16th Spe Salvi, par 46-47 and see how he deals with the limits of human knowledge in present day Hegelians.
Click to expand...
Well said!

The quote from Fides et Ratio is this:
“[Galileo] declared explicitly that the two truths, of faith and of science, can never contradict each other, ‘Sacred Scripture and the natural world proceeding equally from the divine Word, the first as dictated by the Holy Spirit, the second as a very faithful executor of the commands of God’, as he wrote in his letter to Father Benedetto Castelli on 21 December 1613. The Second Vatican Council says the same thing, even adopting similar language in its teaching: ‘Methodical research, in all realms of knowledge, if it respects… moral norms, will never be genuinely opposed to faith: the reality of the world and of faith have their origin in the same God’ (*Gaudium et Spes, *36). Galileo sensed in his scientific research the presence of the Creator who, stirring in the depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his intuitions”: John Paul II, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (10 November 1979): *Insegnamenti, *II, 2 (1979), 1111-1112.
Click to expand...
 
Geremia said:
Did Galileo at least read St. Thomas Aquinas’s commentaries on Aristotle? Thanks
Click to expand...
St. Thomas’s commentaries on Aristotle are even today considered the best, so, because Galileo taught Aristotle, he must have read St. Thomas’s commentaries on him.
 
opusaug said:
Does it matter? It’s a great question, regardless.
Click to expand...
Obviously I am not cut out for this ‘philosophy’ business where great questions are asked for no reason. Yes is the answer. Wow, I feel good now, a great question answered with a great reply. Am I a philosopher now?
 
cassini said:
Obviously I am not cut out for this ‘philosophy’ business where great questions are asked for no reason. Yes is the answer. Wow, I feel good now, a great question answered with a great reply. Am I a philosopher now?
Click to expand...
My answer is no. 😃
 
opusaug said:
My answer is no. 😃
Click to expand...
No what? No you do not know why you asked if Galileo read St Thomas? No Galileo did not read St Thomas? No yes is not the answer? No I am not cut out for this philosophy business, a double negative that means I am cut out for this philosophy business? No I am not a great philosopher?

Why don’t you just answer my question. You could be surprised where this will lead. If Walter’s contribution is considered ‘well said’. then you need help badly with this philosophy yourself. NO?
 
This is a very interesting quote from a letter to Francesco Rinuccini, Arcetri, 29 March 1641, the year before his death:
The falsity of the Copernican system needs not be called into doubt, and especially by us Catholics, having the irrefragable authority of Sacred Scripture, interpreted by the supreme masters in Theology, whose concordant consensus renders us certain of the stability of the Earth placed in the center, and of the mobility of the Sun around it. The conjectures then for which Copernicus and his other followers have professed the contrary, are all lifted with that most solid argument of the Omnipotence of God, Who can do in diverse—rather, in infinite ways—that to our opinion and observation seem done in one particular way; we should not want to shorten the hand of God and tenaciously sustain that in which we can be deceived.
—Le opere di Galileo Galilei, vol. 7 edited by Vincenzio Viviani my translation]​
Click to expand...
 
ab75 said:
Too many uses of a negative in the first sentence leaves me confused.
Click to expand...
“The falsity of the Copernican system needs not be called into doubt” in the positive would be “One needs to doubt the truth of the Copernican system.”
 
cassini said:
Obviously I am not cut out for this ‘philosophy’ business where great questions are asked for no reason. Yes is the answer. Wow, I feel good now, a great question answered with a great reply. Am I a philosopher now?
Click to expand...
Please help me understand!
 
I cannot answer the OP’s original question, but I just found this interesting citation from St. Thomas. It pertains to the days of creation (and I was going to post it in that recent thread, but found it closed.) Still, the principles St. Thomas cites are pertinent and of course were taken up in Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus in treating scientific matters generally (sections 18-19):

I answer that, in discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.

We say, therefore, that the words which speak of the firmament as made on the second day can be understood in two senses. [he goes on to discuss various ideas of the heavens, Plato, Aristotle et al.] If, however, we take these days to denote merely sequence in the natural order, as Augustine holds, and not secession in time, there is then nothing to prevent our saying, whilst holding any one of the opinions given above, that the substantial formation of the firmament belongs to the second day.

(cited in What would St. Thomas say?, from ST, First Part, Question 68)
 
I cannot answer the OP’s original question, but I just found this interesting citation from St. Thomas. It pertains to the days of creation (and I was going to post it in that recent thread, but found it closed.) Still, the principles St. Thomas cites are pertinent and of course were taken up in Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus in treating scientific matters generally (sections 18-19):

I answer that, in discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.

We say, therefore, that the words which speak of the firmament as made on the second day can be understood in two senses. [he goes on to discuss various ideas of the heavens, Plato, Aristotle et al.] If, however, we take these days to denote merely sequence in the natural order, as Augustine holds, and not secession in time, there is then nothing to prevent our saying, whilst holding any one of the opinions given above, that the substantial formation of the firmament belongs to the second day.

(cited in What would St. Thomas say?, from ST, First Part, Question 68)
 
Here are two very interesting translations of Galileo on this topic. It appears that he was indeed familiar with St. Thomas, and mentions him frequently, because of his relationship with the Jesuits at the Collegio Romano:
  • Galilei, G., & Wallace, W. A. (1977). [Galileo’s early notebooks: The physical questions : a translation from the Latin, with historical and paleographical commentary (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/3239593). Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press.
  • Galilei, G., Wallace, W. A., & Galilei, G. (1992). [Galileo’s logical treatises: A translation, with notes and commentary, of his appropriated Latin questions on Aristotle’s Posterior analytics (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/25026938). Boston studies in the philosophy of science, v. 138. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top