Andrew+Week+3

The description of Giordano Bruno in John Kessler's article intrigued me to both the man and the spread of his story. Bruno seems to have been a thinker that was far ahead of his time but the real issue for him was that he was not afraid to show it. His conflicts and their end illustrate the mind set of society at the time and the power of the Church in the Europe. They also can be used to show how the intellectual world stage has changed. As well as bringing up the question of what is the basis of science, at least in my view.

Bruno according to this article was a man who did not seem bothered by what society desired him to be and to think. He was radical and looked at the world differently, he had an open mind. The Church at the time had most believing they were special in a world and universe that was small, orderly, and made specifically for them. Everything was how it should be and the Bible told all. Bruno rejected this in favor of an infinite theory and that the universe was too big for even the Church's God to exist. At the time where the Church was the supreme it was obviously pure heresy to speak so contradictory against it's teachings and for it he was put to death. Interestingly though this conflict has not changed much to this day but who has the upper hand has. Today the Church would still in principle denounce such a man that contradicts it so much but it no longer has the power and hand to grab and crush him. So somehow through though the intervening centuries the same battles are being fought but the power of the two sides has balanced or even switched. A thought I find intriguing as to how and why this could occur.

The battle between Bruno and Aristotle brings up yet another idea and shows another change. During the Middle Ages apparently Aristotle was in essence science. What he said was taken as truth and defended no matter what opposing and more recent studies showed. Reading Bruno's ideas of infinity, question, and philosophy he seems normal and acceptable in what one might consider science today. He may have not done any actual research and worked purely in philosophy and the mind but he was a proponent of open and changing science. An idea that we use as science in a sense today. Theories and ideas change, build, grow, and sometimes, are disproved and discarded. Science during his period however was nothing like this. There seems to always have been edifices such as “the Church” and “the State” throughout human history that were fairly consistent. But Science is something that has no solid base. In the eyes of a single generation it seems to be unchanging as well but as Bruno and this time show, it is a morphing hard to define thing. Bruno fought with Science at the time but Science now would be on his side. It becomes hard to decide what the name entails.