The Earth is the Same as the Celestial Bodies
Table of Contents
I give 2 powerful demonstrations proving the earth to be very different from celestial bodies.
- Bodies that are generable corruptible, alterable, etc. are different from those that are ingenerable, incorruptible, inalterable, etc.
The earth is generable, corruptible, alterable, etc., while celestial bodies are ingenerable, incorruptible, inalterable, etc.
Therefore, the earth is very different from the celestial bodies.
With your first argument, you bring back to the table what has been standing there all day and has just now been carried away.
Formerly the minor premise was proved a priori, and now I wish to prove it a posteriori.
I shall prove the minor, because the major is obvious.
On earth there are continual generations, corruptions, alterations, etc., the like of which neither our senses nor the traditions or memories of our ancestors have ever detected in heaven. Hence:
- heaven is inalterable, etc.
- the earth alterable, etc. and therefore different from the heavens.
On earth I continually see herbs, plants, animals generating and decaying; winds, rains, tempests, storms arising; in a word, the appearance of the earth undergoing perpetual change.
None of these changes are to be discerned in celestial bodies, whose positions and configurations correspond exactly with everything men remember, without the generation of anything new there or the corruption of anything old.
My second argument is that naturally-dark bodies, devoid of light, are different from luminous bodies.
- The earth is dark
- The celestial bodies are full of light
If your basis is these visible experiences, then China and America are celestial bodies since you have never seen in them these changes which you see in Italy. Therefore, in your sense, they must be inalterable.
Even if I have never seen such alterations in China and America, there are reliable accounts of them.
Those counties are a pan of the earth like ours. So they are also alterable.
But why depend on the tales of others? Why not see it with your own eyes?
Because those countries are far from my view. They are so distant that our sight could not discover such alterations in them.
You have inadvertently revealed the fallacy of your argument.
You say that alterations which are near on earth cannot be seen in America because of the great distance.
So the same should apply to the moon which is far more distant.
If you believe in alterations in Mexico on the basis of news from there, what reports do you have from the moon to convince you that there are no alterations there?
You are unable to see alterations in heaven.
- Their distance prevents their news from reaching us.
But you cannot deduce that there are no news from them.
Among the changes that have taken place on earth I can find some so great that if they had occurred on the moon they could yen well have been observed here below.
In the distant past, the Straits of Gibraltar, Abila and Calpe were joined together.
- This held the ocean in check
But these mountains being separated by some cause, the opening admitted the sea, which flooded in so as to form the Mediterranean.
When we consider the immensity of this, and the difference in appearance which must have been made in the water and land seen from afar, there is no doubt that such a change could easily have been seen by anyone then on the moon. Just so would the inhabitants of earth have discovered any such alteration in the moon; yet there is no history of such a thing being seen. Hence there remains no basis for saying that anything in the heavenly bodies is alterable, etc.
I do not make bold to say that such great changes have taken place in the moon, but neither am I sure that they could not have happened.
Such a mutation could be represented to us only by some variation between the lighter and the darker parts of the moon, and I doubt whether we have had observant selenographers on earth who have for any considerable number of years provided us with such exact selenography as would make us reasonably conclude that no such change has come about in the face of the moon.
Of the moon’s appearance, I find no more exact description than that some say it represents a human face; others, that it is like the muzzle of a lion; still others, that it is Cain with a bundle of thorns on his back. So to say “Heaven is inalterable, because neither in the moon nor in other celestial bodies are such alterations seen as are discovered upon the earth” has no power to prove anything.
This first argument of Simplicio’s leaves me with another haunting doubt which I should like to have removed. Accordingly I ask him whether the earth was generable and corruptible before the Mediterranean inundation, or whether it began to be so then?
It was without doubt generable and corruptible before, as well; but that was so vast a mutation that it might have been observed as far as the moon.
If the earth was generable and corruptible before that flood, why may not the moon be equally so without any such change? Why is something necessary in the moon which means nothing on the earth?
A very penetrating remark. But I am afraid that Simplicio is altering the meaning a bit in this text of Aristotle and the other Peripatetics. They say that they hold the heavens to be inalterable because not one star there has ever been seen to be generated or corrupted, such being probably a lesser part of heaven than a city is of the earth; yet innumerable of the latter have been destroyed so that not a trace of them remains.
I thought otherwise, believing that Simplicio distorted this exposition of the text so that he might not burden the Master and his disciples with a notion even more fantastic than the other. What folly it is to say, “The heavens are inalterable because stars are not generated or corrupted in them.” Is there perhaps someone who has seen one terrestrial globe decay and another regenerated in its place? Is it not accepted by all philosophers that very few stars in the heavens are smaller than the earth, while a great many are much bigger?
So the decay of a star in heaven would be no less momentous than for the whole terrestrial globe to be destroyed! Now if, in order to be able to introduce generation and corruption into the universe with certainty, it is necessary that as vast a body as a star must be corrupted and regenerated, then you had better give up the whole matter; for I assure you that you will never see the terrestrial globe or any other integral body in the universe so corrupted that, after having been seen for many ages past, it dissolves without leaving a trace behind.
But to give Simplicio more than satisfaction, and to reclaim him if possible from his error, I declare that we do have in our age new events and observations such that if Aristotle were now alive, I have no doubt he would change his opinion.
This is easily inferred from his own manner of philosophizing, for when he writes of considering the heavens inalterable, etc., because no new thing is seen to be generated there or any old one dissolved, he seems implicitly to let us understand that if he had seen any such event he would have reversed his opinion, and properly preferred the sensible experience to natural reason. Unless he had taken the senses into account, he would not have argued immutability from sensible mutations not being seen.
Aristotle first laid the basis of his argument a priori, showing the necessity of the inalterability of heaven by means of natural, evident, and clear principles. He afterward supported the same a posteriori, by the senses and by the traditions of the ancients.