From Influence to Inhabitation by James E. Christie

Author:James E. Christie
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9783030221690
Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Just like that, the conjecture that Jupiter was inhabited became an assertion that each planet had its own inhabitants. Not only that, he also concluded that each must have moons ministering to it, even though none of these had as yet been observed. There is an interesting parallel here to Benedetti’s theories (see Sect. 2.​5), except that whereas he had seen the planets as moons and posited the existence of other earths to accompany them, Kepler sees the planets as earths and grants each of them moons. The belief in ET life was influencing the interpretation of celestial phenomena and also informing predictions about the reality of the cosmos beyond the limits of observations.

As with the nova of 1604, talk of ET life went hand in hand with considerations of celestial influence. Just as the influence of the new star would be more significantly felt by an audience somewhere other than on the earth, the exclusion of the new moons from terrestrial astrology led to the conclusion that they were intended to influence the non-human inhabitants of Jupiter. The benign influence provided by orbiting lunar servants became an indication of life. Then, by a process of induction, it became a necessary condition thereof. This of course presents a seeming inconsistency in Kepler’s pluralism. If moons or satellites were intended for the benefit of the inhabitants of their respective planet, where do Kepler’s lunar inhabitants fit in? This is indicative of the different methodologies which Kepler applies to the earth’s moon on the one hand, and the larger solar system on the other. But perhaps there is no inconsistency. The same globes could be both sources of influence and dwelling places for ET life. Though Kepler never mentioned the possibility of life on the Jovian moons as well as the globe of Jupiter itself, there is no reason to think he would have denied the possibility. Kepler’s cosmology thus shares a certain commonality with Bruno’s vision of binary planetary opposites. The difference is one of complexity and indicates that Kepler preferred a finite cosmos defined by diversity rather than the repetitious uniformity implied by an infinite universe.

The existence of life on the other planets raised for Kepler the religious and philosophical question of its implications for the importance of mankind in the universe. This is a question which has dominated pluralist philosophy ever since, and its relevance is still felt today.45 How can we be sure, Kepler asked, that we are the most noble of all creatures? How can we be sure that we occupy the central role in God’s providence? We have seen already in the Mysterium cosmographicum that part of Kepler’s answer was that the earth, occupying a middle position between the planets and the two classes of solids, represented the most prestigious location in the cosmos. It had a temperate climate and afforded a view of all the planets. At the same time, Kepler felt that the four moons given to the Jovians served as compensation for their distance from the sun and their inability to see the inner planets.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.