Week+the+Third+(Wait,+I'm+supposed+to+be+studying+5-6+hours+A+DAY?!)

=Thoughts on the Style and Content of John J. Kessler's "Giordano Bruno: The Forgotten Philosopher"= John J Kessler writes of Giordano Bruno, a fascinating philosopher to say the least. Kessler constructs a rational and positive summary of Bruno’s life, highlighting his greatest campaigns, ideas and influences. But in the closing paragraphs of the essay, Kessler’s enthusiasm replaces rationality and he begins lauding Bruno with euphoric flattery and direct contradiction to his own previous statements. In the more factual section of the piece Kessler states, “…his books became rare. They never obtained any great popularity” and “His works are not found in American libraries.” In Kessler’s closing paragraphs, however, he descends into incoherent raving about martyrdom and sacrifice. He exaggerates Bruno’s fame in direct contradiction to the obscurity he references earlier in the passage. “He suffered a cruel death and achieved a unique martyr's fame” Kessler writes, using the term ‘martyr’ or its derivatives four times in two paragraphs. He ends the piece with a dramatic statement, excessive in grandeur and enthusiasm. “The "Church" will never outlive him.” I agree entirely that Bruno is a philosopher worth respecting. Kessler’s infatuation, however, is immature. Upon completing the essay my trust turned to skepticism; the well structured and researched account of Bruno’s life was obviously motivated by opinions about him that are in direct conflict with the author’s research.

=A Generic Response to Galileo Galilei's Demeanor, of No Particular Significance= Perhaps I am overly enamored with his work, but I believe that Galileo’s intelligence is underrated, as respected as he is. This argument could be made for many philosophers or physicists who shone beacons of reasoning and logic through the mirky haze of ignorance and dogmatic myths. But the tenacity with which Galileo held to his ideas, as revolutionary and unsupported as they were, is a special attribute even amongst the great forward-thinkers. One of the greatest advances in modern physics is Michelson and Morley’s 1887 experiment disproving the luminiferous aether. These physicists, however, set out to prove the existence of the aether, not disprove it. They were so entrenched in the erroneous beliefs of the day that they reattempted their experiment multiple times, attempting to correct the error that was not there. Galileo’s beliefs in the mid 15th century were unique and distrusted by the authorities of the time, namely the church. He was committed to them through thick and thin, trusting the fruit of his own mind above all else. Not to say that he was without fault. I find myself much more enthralled with his incorrect theories than those that would prove themselves scientifically sound. He incorrectly interpreted surface tension of water as a curious effect of air on the density of objects. He believed that the tides were results of the combination of the inertias of the planet’s orbit and rotation. But given a curious phenomenon like either of the aforementioned examples, one could draw any number of conclusions as to why they occur. Galileo had the confidence to choose the most likely option based on his medieval (I use the term metaphorically, not historically or chronologically) knowledge and defended it. He also witnessed sunspots and comets, both phenomenon with little empirical evidence to work with, and developed correct or close to correct theories as to the nature of the occurrence. Of course, the natural progression of this thought process is like any consideration of history; what questions (or answers) does it bring up about the present? There are few who would argue that the human race has reached the culmination of our knowledge, so there are inherently gaps and errors in our current system of understanding. And here, my mind starts to race. What could be incorrect? Astronomy? Biology? Certainly genetics and neurology, but perhaps more basic laws of the world like physics and chemistry? What have we yet to discover and what dogmatic beliefs are we holding onto that have no basis in truth?