Humanities Core Course                        Spring 2011                        Instructor: Bencivenga

 

READING QUESTIONS

 

Galileo

 

  1. On pp. 10-15 Simplicio and Salviati argue for the same conclusion. What is this conclusion, and how are their arguments different?
  2. What problems do Sagredo and Salviati bring up against Aristotle’s conception of motion in the universe (pp. 15-20)?
  3. On pp. 22-24 Salviati explains the continuity of motion, and implicitly addresses some old paradoxes such as this one: However fast Achilles runs, before he reaches his destination he has to reach the midpoint to it, and the midpoint to that midpoint, and so on forever. Therefore Achilles must reach infinitely many points, and will never reach his destination. How does Salviati resolve this paradox?
  4. Doesn’t Salviati argue for celestial movements being circular (on p. 36) in a way that is strangely similar to the way Simplicio argues?
  5. How do Salviati and Sagredo argue on pp. 37-41 that Aristotle assumes precisely what he intends to prove?
  6. How differently do Simplicio and Salviati describe Aristotle’s method on pp. 57-58? Why does Salviati think that Aristotle would come to a different conclusion today (p. 57)? Why does Salviati even think that he thinks more highly of Aristotle than Aristotle’s own followers on pp. 128-129?
  7. What is the difference between the natural sciences on the one hand, law and the humanities on the other according to Salviati on p. 61?
  8. What is better Aristotelian philosophy according to Salviati on p. 63?
  9. What is the point of Sagredo’s story on p. 70?
  10. What similarities between the earth and the moon does Salviati bring out on pp. 71-78?
  11. How does Simplicio explain some of the same appearances as Salviati on pp. 78-81?
  12. How do Simplicio and Salviati explain the reflection of light coming from the moon on pp. 82-91?
  13. What differences does Salviati find between the earth and the moon on pp. 114-116?
  14. What is the distinction between intensive and extensive understanding made by Salviati on p. 118?
  15. Where do we need guides, according to Salviati on pp. 130-131?
  16. What seven difficulties does Salviati find with the Ptolemaic system on pp. 133-140?
  17. What difficulties does Salviati bring up with the Copernican system on pp. 146-154? How are they addressed on pp. 194-218? What role does experimental error play in this discussion?
  18. What does Sagredo think is a point of superiority for the supporters of Copernicus over those of Ptolemy on pp. 148-150?

 

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

 

Galileo

 

  1. What makes the dialogue form more appropriate for Galileo than, say, the essay or the lecture form? How does Galileo use the greater freedom this form allows?
  2. How different is it to conceive of the universe as having, or not having, a definite center?
  3. On p. 19 Salviati contrasts “arriving at a goal previously established in [one’s] mind” with “going wherever [one’s] steps lead [one].” How do you understand this contrast, and what do you think of it?
  4. Aristotle regards the infinite as imperfect (p. 20), and Salviati seems to agree, at least as far as claiming that an infinite straight motion would not be appropriate for something as perfectly in order as the universe (p. 21). How do you see this matter?
  5. What do you think of the claim that “nature does not move whither it is impossible to arrive” (p. 36)?
  6. Which of the two conceptions of perfection and nobility contrasted by Sagredo on p. 67 do you find more plausible?
  7. Starting on p. 82 the dialogue becomes more animated: there is more than just words; there is also action. Why do you think this is?
  8. Comment on Salviati’s line about “how carefully and with what reserve one must proceed in giving assent to what is shown by argument alone” (p. 87).
  9. Comment on Sagredo’s line “It always seems to me extreme rashness on the part of some when they want to make human abilities the measure of what nature can do” (p. 116).
  10. Comment on the anecdote on p. 125.
  11. What kind of interpretation do Sagredo and Salviati ridicule on pp. 126-127? What do you think?
  12. Do you agree that nature “does not act by means of many things when it can do so by means of few” (p. 135)?