Aristotle vs Galileo: Review of Galileo's Dialogue by Maurice Finocchiaro

For two thousand years, Aristotle's worldview held sway for Western civilization. Aristotle believed that the Earth was geostatic (unmoving) and geocentric (the focal and central point of the universe). As to whether the earth was flat or round, this was something that was actually beyond debate in those times.

In fact, only the uneducated and primitive people believed the earth to be flat. This issue about the shape of the earth had already been settled by philosophers and scientists, and they did not think the earth to be flat. It may come as a surprise that certain people would insist otherwise despite evidence to the contrary, but we do not need to look too far today, i.e. intelligent design to find similar strains of foolishness floating around.

The whole Copernican controversy was more about the earth's location, whether it had a geocentric or heliocentric position, and its behavior, whether it was static or moving. As mentioned, the Aristotelian worldview of the earth as motionless and geocentric stood firm for two thousand years until the heliocentric Copernican revolution toppled it over.

According to the Aristotelian worldview and philosophy, there are fundamental pairs of physical opposites of hot and cold, humid and dry in the universe. These pairs are then combined to create the four elements, where earth consists of cold and dry; water is a mixture of cold and humid; air a combination of hot and humid, while fire was thought to be made of hot and dry.

Depending on its materials, each element would have a specific given and natural direction. For example, earth and water would generally move straight downwards, while air and fire would move straight upwards. This underscores the reasoning behind and concept of natural motion. Bodies tend to move toward their natural and proper resting place. And, in fact, motion is the opposite of rest since once bodies have found their place, they will not budge unless moved by others, that is an external agent.

So we can see Aristotle believed that earth and water have weight (gravity) and are hence “heavy bodies.” The natural state of bodies is that they remain at rest. Hence in such a worldview a rotating earth did not make much sense.

Moreover, it is important to note that bodies on earth do no emit light much unlike the stars that are in the heavenly spheres. Even fire does not emit its own light but only does so when it is escaping from the lower regions to find its own proper place upwards, that is in the heavenly spheres.

While the heavy bodies tend to be at rest on our planet, air and water have levity and are light bodies; these light bodies are helped to travel via the fifth (and most mysterious) element called aether, which was supposed to be luminous, this being one of its most significant properties or characteristics.

Now nothing moves on its own as all bodies prefer to reach the natural end state of motion, which is its opposite, namely rest. They would remain so because that is their internal state. Once they have found this state, they can be moved only externally, that is by an external agent, which can be a person, for example, picking up a pebble from the beach and throwing it, or the wind that is blowing the leaves about.

So if the heavenly spheres are rotating around the center of universe, they must be started by some mover, in fact, the sublimely mysterious unmoved mover. This motion is referred to as primum mobile, meaning simply the first body in motion. It is these constantly moving spheres that carry planets and stars with them in continuous circular motion.

Where the earth's natural state is bodies at rest, the important characteristic of the heavens is motion. (In fact, in the heavenly sphere, there are both fixed and wandering stars. Only seven of these stars were considered to be wandering and hence they were called planets, which means, yes, wandering star.)

Not bad, Aristotle, but in comes Copernicus to shake things up a little and to put things upside down. Copernicus proposed a heliocentric model and that the earth was not static but moving. In fact, the ideas of Copernicus were not new but had already been proposed by ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras and others; what Copernicus did was merely reinterpret the available information.

One of the strong points of Copernican theory was that his explanation was simpler, more elegant and more systematic because instead of having the heavenly spheres with thousands of stars moving about, there is only one body moving, namely the earth.

This heliocentric theory was approached like any body in motion, that is, with resistance and opposition. This resistance occurred due to biblical objections. The Protestants who had a more literal approach and interpretation of the Scripture tended to object the most and strongest.

When it came to the Catholics, they referred, when in doubt, to the Church Fathers for guidance and illumination. And it turned out that pretty much all of these noteworthy fathers put Aristotle on a pedestal and believed that the geostatic system was the correct one to be espoused, while anything that was otherwise ought to be officially declared as heretical. That also became the Church's official position until rather recently when the Church in 1992 accepted that Galileo was right after all, more than 350 years later!

So after Copernicus the grounds were set for Galileo to enter the scene. Galileo following his father's footsteps used the experimental approach for his findings and discoveries. In fact, one of his greatest and most revolutionary deeds of the times was to point the telescope upwards to watch the skies. His new and improved lenses made leaps and bounds in astronomy and added precision since his observations ended up being much more reliable than naked-eye observations.

But alas, Galileo was not given free reign in his discoveries. He was considered a heretic by the Inquisition who deemed his proposed theories on the earth's motion as false and as a dangerous threat to Catholicism as a whole. Galileo had lost his general support in the Vatican and was threatened with torture on the basis of “vehement suspicion of heresy.” However, he managed to escape a lengthy prison sentence and it all lead to house arrest instead.

Why was the Church so obsessed with the earth's position and motion and so opposed to the new science? One of the reasons apart from scriptural authority was that the world was seen as a perfect embodiment created by God, or rather His unique masterpiece. This led to a view of teleological anthropocentrism, which means that the whole universe exists merely for the sake and benefit of humankind.

This is also related to Aristotle's view regarding heavenly bodies, which are closer to God and are perfect in themselves because they do not change and hence are eternal like its Creator. On the other hand, the earth is far from perfect. We find that the earth changes and that life and things down here are corrupt and dirty; they die and decompose and thus have transitory existence.

It is through pure mathematics that we can reveal God's works since mathematics as opposed to the sciences gives us the same objective certainty that God has. There is no - or much less resistance to - doubt, whereas in other fields we must be aware of our senses, which can, according to Plato, deceive us in various ways.

Yet it is important to note that Galileo is not using one method but rather relies on logic (apart from physics naturally) in his arguments, logic not in the sense of a theory of reasoning but which also includes theories of knowledge, as method as well as science. He combines his observations of moving ships and gunshots (all of which went beyond my own head and my limited reasoning capacities) with detailed logical analysis.

As a result, his Dialogue becomes a synthesis of astronomy, physics, and epistemology. It is, in fact, a fascinating work and it is presented in detail and with clearly presented arguments and reasons in The Routledge Guidebook to Galileo's Dialogue written and expounded expertly by Maurice A. Finocchiaro, albeit the book is at times too complicated and complex for this scientifically and logically untrained mind of mine. 

My only caveat is that those who would like to read this guidebook to better understand Galileo's work and theory be better equipped with some physics and mounds of logic, and thus they will reap even more benefits than I was able to unearth for myself.  

The Dancing Chicken: A Movie Review of Herzog's Stroszek

(Redundant preamble: Although spoilers abound, this is one of those rare movies where it makes almost no difference if you know what happens in it or not. It needs to be seen and experienced. And my spoilers will hopefully not spoil the movie, but have the opposite effect of enticing you to watch it! If you want to get to the dancing chicken first, please disregard all the scribbles and look it up on YouTube. I will not be offended because it is the chicken that really counts here and is the meat of the matter!)

In the past, I had always been somewhat weary when approaching the films of Werner Herzog. His generally acclaimed movies are good but nothing seriously outstanding. It was the documentary Grizzly Man that first raised my eyebrows and the director's standing with me, but it was really Woyzeck (1979) that blew me away.

Now the similar-sounding title of Stroszek (1977) – our intents and purposes here - is intentional. Herzog who had previously worked with Bruno S. in the Enigma of Kaspar Hauser (1974) had initially wanted him to play Woyzeck as well. Yet since it did not work out since Herzog backed out of his promise, that particular role was given to Klaus Kinski instead (a wise choice indeed). So to compensate for it, Herzog decided to make another movie and wrote the script for Stroszek in merely four days.

There are two characteristics that are part and parcel of almost any Herzog movie. Apart from a stark realism that permeates pretty much all of his films, he is most interested in extreme characters who find themselves in even more extreme situations. Whether it is Fitzcarraldo lifting a ship up a mountain in Peru or the “Grizzly Man” Timothy Treadwell living with grizzlies in the backlands of Alaska and suffering a gruesome death for it, it is the extraordinary that attracts the German director.

Bruno S. was one such person. An abandoned and abused child of a prostitute, this man who was generally deemed insane (but not by Herzog nor his standards) has gone through hell and then some. In fact, the first half of the movie set in Germany mirrors facts and events from Bruno's personal life.

His acting is fully natural because he is basically reenacting parts of his own life. In that sense, it has the feel of a documentary and to add to this, Herzog not only gave all the characters the same given names as their respective actors, but he even chose seasoned criminals to play the criminals who harass poor Bruno.

The first half of the movie is brilliant film-making indeed. It takes Herzog merely minutes to create sympathy for the main characters, mostly Bruno of course but also the accompanying prostitute Eva and the old man Scheitz. Something that James L. Brooks does not achieve in its entirety when it comes to the highly overrated Terms of Endearment (1983), for example.

We see this interesting and odd trio's daily life and their desires and dreams for escape. The generous and kind old man has little to look forward to except a possible trip to the US to visit his American nephew. Bruno has just been released from prison and a caring but stern prison ward gave him a long lecture on the vicissitudes of alcohol. Stay away from bars and if you find yourself there only buy coffee, Bruno is told. It is the drink that has brought him there, and the prison guard wishes him well and does not wish to ever see him on those prison grounds again.

So when Bruno leaves the prison with nobody waiting for him where does he go first? Straight to the adjacent bar to order a beer. When Eva asks him where he has been all this time, he responds with his deadpan yet naive face that he has been “on vacation.”

To protect Eva from her pimps, Bruno puts himself selflessly in danger. He makes money by playing his accordion and singing songs in back alleys. After a humiliating visit by the criminals who make fun of him and threaten him, Bruno finds some comfort with a doctor friend who cannot give him advice per se but who shows him premature babies gripping onto his fingers or, more symbolically, the desperate grip on life by the underprivileged. Life must go on even if one does not get a head start.

Enough is enough, so this unlikely trio Bruno, Eva, and the old man Scheitz decide to leave for the new continent that promises riches and happiness, in short, the elusive quest for the often sought-after American Dream. So far I was very moved by the characters as each of them (minus the criminals of course) were compassionate and complex beings.

Yet when they end up in the States, not only does the landscape change but so do the people. The Americans are portrayed as simple farm folk, as kind but mainly driven by sex and lust for money. Most of the second half deals with having and not having money, including a banker who means well but ends up taking or repossessing all of their possessions. For me, the movie lost some of its emotional drive because very little happens thereafter.

Since the trio finds it hard to adapt to the new lifestyle, they are driven into deep and irretrievable debt. So much so that Eva, the only one of the three who speaks English, picks up prostitution again and leaves with a couple of shady truckers further up north to Vancouver. The old man becomes increasingly paranoid of all Americans and both he and Bruno decide to rob money at gunpoint so that they can get by and be able to buy daily necessities.

When they are about to make those purchases, the old man gets arrested so we have Bruno left with a shotgun and a frozen turkey under his arm. The truck breaks down (after circling inexplicably around the shotgun and turkey, don't ask) in a no-good town (sorry Cherokee, North Carolina). And it all culminates and ends with a rabbit riding a fire truck, a chicken playing the piano, and, most importantly, the dancing chicken.

Ah, the dancing chicken! Now apparently Herzog's crew was unanimously and unequivocally offended by it, and they did not want to have any part of it. Hence they abstained and Herzog had to shoot the scene himself, which he, by the way, considers some of his most poignant film-making. Even he is not entirely sure what the dancing chicken stands for, but he claims it could be seen as a metaphor for life that somebody somewhere is putting in coins, and we all dance to those tunes just like that chicken.

It is silly, surreal, poignant, and unforgettable all in one! What better way to finish up a year and start a brand-new one than with a dancing chicken. Hope you enjoyed this bit, dear reader, and all the best for the holidays and a Happy New Year to you!

The Human Face of Addiction

Last week, I had the opportunity to witness a panel discussion on the issue of addiction at St. Paul's Hospital. I was somewhat interested in the topic of addiction, but mainly went because it included heavyweights in the field, particularly Alfried Längle whom I had seen previously expound on logotherapy and whom I personally consider the "Dalai Lama of psychotherapy" as well as Gabor Maté who is a bestselling author and the equivalent of a medical superstar. 

Some of Maté's articles I had read online, and I had been impressed by his humanity as well as gutsiness. Finally, there was also Bruce Alexander whom I had not heard of but who proved also quite knowledgeable and who showed serious concern for the environment in both senses of the word, physical surroundings as well as nature.

And so the discussion commenced ten minutes later than planned in front of a filled auditorium with constant heavy rain outside. Längle opened up the panel with his definition of addiction, and I was already baffled. 

He started off showing us that addiction is indeed a very human activity. To be addicted means to be human, to have desires, and to look for their fulfillment. Everyone is addicted to something to some extent. There is essentially nothing wrong with it except when it is done specifically to fill a certain void or used as an escape that eventually causes more harm than good. Immediately, we could feel the warmth and humanity of his view and his focus on existential matters.

Then Maté picked up where Längle had left off yet with a caveat. He mainly agreed with Längle's definition, and he pointed out that most of us are addicted to something or some kinds of repetitive and addictive behavior for different reasons, namely to get a sense of calm, relief, assurance, or what-have-you. 

Yet the issue is whether we do it to escape alienation. In modern times, we have more than ever cases of addiction, but historically there were phases where and when addiction was not a major issue or not much of a problem. It was Bruce Alexander who would elaborate more on this phenomenon and the external influences on addiction.

In the meantime, the main disagreement of Maté was that addiction was according to the actual meaning of the word, a type of slavery. People become enslaved to something and find it very hard to control. They become automatons, thoughtless machines that only exist to gratify those needs and pleasures. 

Maté read a quote from Victor Frankl's book, Längle's teacher and mentor on how there is the stimulus and a response and that the gap in-between is what is called free will, reason, or an operating agent/ego. Although most of us most of the time do respond to situations via reflection, in the case of addicts that response is immediate (he snapped his fingers at this point) and does not include any type of will or decision on the part of the subject.

This observation was the main source of conflict or rather disagreement between Längle and Maté. Längle insisted that we still do have an albeit at times feeble voice of reason between the stimulus and the response among addicts. The idea or goal of therapy would be to give empowerment and strength to that voice so that the afflicted addict can gradually break the habit and manage to break free from those shackles.

In fact, in most cases people do not become addicted right away, but it builds up perhaps with a drink or two leading to increased amounts over time. At all times, there is a decision, a voice saying yes (or no) to certain actions; rarely is there an automatic reaction from the onset. It is more a case of losing control than a complete loss of control.

There were some interesting observations about genetic as well as environmental factors that were brought up as well. Certainly, some have genetic predispositions, but most of the addicts have had some kind of trauma in their past leading them towards addictive behaviors. In Längle's words, this was trauma that has not been integrated creating the need for escape by various means. Maté pointed out that most of the addicts had experienced sexual abuse.

But one of the main conflicts of the night was whether addicts do have a still operating will or decision-making process. The danger or the downside of such a view was according to Maté that people could accuse the addict of somehow or other being responsible for their addiction. 

That is when the white-haired Austrian Längle with the calm, measured, and soothing voice surprised me. Längle said if people were to construe his words in this manner, he would drop his perspective and theory altogether. To blame the addicts for their plight was definitely not his intended meaning; in fact, he meant the exact opposite. Here we see his humanitarian concern over simply being right and that he was even ready to sacrifice his own views for the benefit of others.

At that point, it seemed that the outspoken Maté had won the debate. But Längle would still not leave without a fight. Maté had challenged him to give a definition of free will. Längle gave the fact that despite constraints and strong forces from both within and without, there was a singular and personal voice regarding that situation. 

And yet, there were people who did not want to leave their addiction and that was fine. He had one particular patient who would see him on a regular basis saying that he did not want to drop his addiction.

Maté asked him why was that man going to see a psychotherapist in the first place. To that Längle responded that it was because that person enjoyed the human contact, the fact that he could reach out to another person, a human being who did not immediately judge or scold him for his actions.

Längle also said that if people followed their addictive behavior with mindfulness, then it was not as bad. For example, if a smoker enjoys their cigarettes, this is all right. It should not become a mere and thoughtless habit. People should be and become aware of their actions, and only if they sincerely and genuinely wish to quit their addiction, should they do so.

Then Maté argued what about people with obsessive-compulsive behavior. They would rather not choose to wash their hands a hundred times before leaving the building. Längle responded by saying that unhealthy habits would manifest themselves in different ways in different people. 

Since the person feels isolation and a certain perceived lack of power in situations, they would either seek an escape through addiction or their body would respond with different defense mechanisms to stressors, such as diseases like cancer or mental health issues like depression or at its worst even suicide.

In fact, the word dis-ease shows that the body and/or mind are not at ease, not balanced and that it is in many cases simply a natural response of the body. Such undigested traumas would also lead towards aggressive and dangerous behaviors both towards others as well as oneself. 

At one point, psychotherapist Längle was, in fact, counseling Maté, and it was then that Maté shifted his position and conceded that there was a miniscule moment or gap between the stimulus and the response. So Längle eventually won the debate and claimed that he did not know that Maté was an existentialist to which Maté shrugged and said "whatever that means."

Now I have left out an important voice here, the thoughts and ideas of Bruce Alexander. Although he was not as forceful in his opinions or in this discussion, he had indeed important and significant views on addiction and moreover our modern and alienated life-styles. 

At one point, Alexander said he was not going to blame all the pain and isolation on capitalism (to which Längle retorted, why not, which drew an impromptu applause from the audience). Yet it is capitalism that often creates gaps between people and has more often than not harmful effects on social and personal relationships.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of native people. Historically, they did not have problems or issues with addiction, but in modern times they have been feeling isolated from both their culture as well as the rest of society. 

Also turning people into money-making economic units causes conflicts in the fabric of relationships. As Maté claimed in places like Turkey, people did not merely go to stores to buy things and return home; instead they were often offered tea or coffee in the neighborhood stores.

In fact, neighborhood stores, which are a source of meeting and greeting people within the community have become more a thing of the past due to big impersonal superstores like Wal-Mart. We have lost touch with personalized service and instead are dealing with mass-produced commercial items for mass consumers like us. 

Maté also noted with regret that Fisher-Price was selling car seats for one-year-olds that came integrated with an iPad holder. People are becoming and have become enslaved to technology at the expense of relationships with nature and with real people.

On the issue of nature, Bruce Alexander had more to say. We exploit nature, but it is us who have become impoverished as a result. We have lost touch with our core and principal values and live in a materialistic world filled with voids. We have become globalized and are dealing with significant amounts of anxiety and depression. 

All of this has not made our life more convenient or happy, but quite to the contrary. It comes as no surprise that substance abuse has increased in addition to health issues, both physical as well as mental.

Life is filled with pain, and we have to find our way through it without getting too bruised and damaged by it. This may sound rather pessimistic, but the hope is that we can manage to have healthier lives if we face ourselves and the issues that confront us head-on. Even when situations seem hopeless and there is no way out, there is a small ray of hope that can get us out of the prison we have essentially created (for) ourselves.

In some cases, psychotherapy can help us, but generally, it is both about accepting oneself in one's precious and invaluable uniqueness and accepting and caring about others around us. Once we realize that it was merely our own faulty perception or illusion that we have a void within us and that, in fact, we have and always had what we needed most at our own hands and disposal, then issues like addiction or diseases may become easier to control and deal with.