Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gianfranco (talk | contribs) at 11:25, 23 May 2002. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The previous talk, about Copernicus' nationality, is now at talk:Copernicus' nationality

Removed quote:

In Padua both , his uncle, the Prince-Bishop and Copernicus had enrolled as student from the ...German Nation (Full name was at that time Holy Roman Empire of German Nation).

Removed quote:

Poland had parts of Prussia occupied, tried to annex and wanted to have Polish coins in Prussia. The cities of Elbing, Danzig and Thorn did not want to give up their individual sovereign rights and continued coining money. In 1519, 1522, and 1529 Copernicus published Money Reform Memoranda. His 1529 writings stated in part :

" Woe to you, unfortunate Prussiland, that you should have to suffer for such a bad money management!.. If we do not have relief here soon, then Prussia is soon going to have only coins left, which contain nothing but copper. Then all trade with foreign countries would stop. Which foreign tradesman would want to sell his merchandise for mere copper?... Such a break-up of Prussiland is silently observed by the big powers; they let our beloved fatherland, to which we owe everything, to which we owe life itself, from day to day collaps miserably.." (excerpt from Hermann Kesten, Copernicus, describing Prussia during the civil wars leading to the Reformation, transl by H. Jonat).

I'm really sorry, but this is just another attempt to throw in the Poland-Prussia debate in another guise. The manner in which the quote is presented, as well as the translation (there really is no such thing as Prussiland in English, and fatherland is doubtful at best), are simply unacceptable. Moreover, if this is a translation of someone's Latin-German translation, than I think that fatherland is simply the Latin patria -- VERY different than the context Helga would like us to accept. Again, there has been so much time spent on this, that it's bordering on the ridiculous. Still, as a professional historian, I cannot sit by and allow this blatant misrepresentation. People in Copernicus' time really didn't understand ethnicity and nationality in the same way that you want to believe, Fr. Jonat. And, contrary to what you may believe, i don't care if Copernicus is Polish, German, or even Thornisch! Gianfranco is correct about placing the man's accomplishments first. What I do care about is that the debate and the entire issue of nationality are framed within the proper context: that context is one of people with an ideological interest allowing that interest to shape a view of history that is in fact inaccurate. J Hofmann Kemp, Tuesday, May 21, 2002

PS: Hermann Kesten's undoubted brilliance as a dramatist and author aside, he was doubtless a man of his time. He was educated at a period when ethnic nationalism permeated the teaching of history, and when it was not only acceptable, but normal, to write history with underlying motives. Today, historians are expected to take the biases and background of the author into consideration. Moreover, we are expected to be more critical of historians who do seem allow their viewpoints to shape their presentation of history. I'm sorry, but all authors are not equal, and some scholarship is better than others. We should try to keep this in mind.

What is this?

Of course, this was very far from what officially accepted in dominant culture. And even farther from the actually ruling religious influence on science was the following conclusion that an infinitive reality rendered de facto impossible the hypothesis of an external "engine", an entity that from outside could give a soul, a power and a life to the World and to Human beings. No transcendence, the most evident inspiring theme of philosophy at that time, could find an explanation in such a cosmic system, none of the most basic dogmas of Christianism (but of other religions too, the same way) could be compatible with such a revolutionary theory; besides, this opened a way to immanence and immanentism, which remained and developed in modern philosophy.

Given that immanentism is the logical foundation of subjectivism, that finds inside the Man the principles that rule thought, history and reality, some find that Copernicanism demolished the foundations of medieval science and metaphysics, therefore giving a start to a general movement that would have brought modern thought to rebel against the objectivism and the authoritarism of traditional thought.

Correctly, his innovation has been quite unanimously defined as a real revolution (despite the unwanted calembour).

Immanuel Kant, for instance, caught the symbolic character of Copernicus' revolution (of which he put in evidence the trascendental rationalism) underlining that, in his vision, human rationality was the real legislator of the phenomenical reality; Copernicanism was in a winning opposition against the scientific and philosophical Aristotelism, a quite subjective position (in a Kantist sense) meant to fight against the ruling dogmatism.

More recent philosophers too have found in Copernicus a still valid and valuable philosophical meaning, properly used to describe the position of the modern man in front of cultural traditions. A so-called Homo Copernicanus was then by some described like that modern man whose central themes are to be found in ordinary human problems, as a general cultural reference.

What some consider Copernicus important for. --Gianfranco