Johannes Kepler. I. Permanence des traditions platoniciennes et aristotéliciennes. En 1635, parut dans la même ville de Prague, appauvrie et désolée intellectuellement par la Contre-Réforme, un ouvrage touffu intitulé Idearum operatricium ...

Nach einer kurzen Erinnerung an einige von Keplers Hauptwerken, in denen traditionelle und moderne Elemente eingehen (Abschnitt 1), wird zwei Beispielen die Differenz zwischen diesen beiden Elementen näher untersucht. Das erste Beispiel, Keplers Naturbegriff, dient zur Diskussion der Kritik qualitativer Unterscheidungen. Hierbei stehen Keplers Verhältnis zur aristotelischen Naturauffassung und die Relevanz dieser Relation für die moderne Wissenschaftsauffassung im Mittelpunkt (Abschnitt 2). Das andere Beispiel befasst sich mit dem absoluten Wahrheitsanspruch von Keplers Wissenschaft und rückt damit exemplarisch eine Differenz zur modernen (...) Wissenschaftsauffassung in den Vordergrund (Abschnitt 3). Anschließend werden umfassender traditionelle Elemente der frühneuzeitlichen Wissenschaft, wie sie Kepler vertrat, dem modernen Wissenschaftsverständnis gegenübergestellt. Nachdem damit die Entfernung Keplers zur Gegenwart gleichsam maximiert ist, wende ich mich den Wissenschaftsauffassungen von Wolfgang Pauli und Werner Heisenberg zu, die in bemerkenswerter Nähe zu Keplers vormodernen Ansichten stehen und doch ganz im Kontext der Moderne entwickelt wurden (Abschnitt 4). Obwohl also in jüngster Zeit ganz differente Einstellungen zu Keplers Verhältnis zur modernen Wissenschaft vertreten wurden, lässt sich doch eine Tendenz zur Abstandsvergrößerung in dieser Relation ausmachen (Abschnitt 5). (shrink)

CASPAR: JOHANNES KEPLERS WISSENSCH. PHIL. STEL. SC 13 E-BOOK.

The article presents the results of the authors’ research on the cosmological views of Johannes Keppler in his Latin treatise Harmonices Mundi. The authors discuss the background of composing the treatise concerning the philosophical, religious, and cultural contexts of that period, and give a brief overview of the structure of the treatise, Kepler’s theory and his third law of harmony. The paper demonstrates the connection and reception of philosophical ideas on the harmony of the world in Kepler’s (...) treatise and ancient philosophers, such as Pythagoras, Plato, and Proclus. This shows that Kepler’s philosophical and scientific views largely depended on his theological background. The authors discuss the perception of ancient cosmological ideas in Kepler’s Harmonices Mundi relating to Pythagorean tetractys, five Platonic solids or regular polyhedral, and cosmic harmony as well as Proclus’ theoretical mathematics. (shrink)

This completes what I think one may state and defend on physical grounds concerning the foundations of Astrology and the coming year 1602. If those learned in matters of Physics think them worthy of consideration, and communicate to me their objections to them, for the sake of eliciting the truth, I shall, if God grants me the skill, reply to them in my prognostication for the following year. I urge all who make a serious study of philosophy to engage in (...) this contest. For it concerns our worship of God and the welfare of the human race. Meanwhile, I pray from the depths of my soul, through Christ our mediator, that for all and for each the coming year may be a very happy one. (shrink)

In 1616, the Holy Congregation for the Index prohibited the printing and reading of Copernicus’s On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres on the grounds that heliocentrism contradicted the Holy Scriptures. According to Johannes Kepler, “To study the heavens is to know God as creator.” Moreover, “Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above else, (...) of the glory of God.” There is some precedent for such claims in John Calvin’s conception of the creation as a “Theatre of God’s glory” with its corollary of the so-called “two books”. Kepler’s defence of Copernican heliocentrism relies upon the distinction between the Book of Nature from the Book of Scripture. Building upon the soteriological foundations laid by Martin Luther, Kepler the astronomer-theologian also seeks to sharpen the distinction between a “visible” and an “invisible” heaven, with significant consequences for astronomical physics. The new astronomy is profoundly implicated in sixteenth-century theological controversies. (shrink)