Talk:Pythagorean astronomical system

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Ancient Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics
	Ancient philosophy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Orte9905. Peer reviewers: Stopsign123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-sun

I find this whole page very puzzling, taking its central thesis from a 5th century AD Christian philosopher, Stobaeus who is admitted to be rather muddled.

The views of Aristotle in the 4th Century BC (De Caelo II 13) are not even mentioned:

It remains to speak of the earth, of its position, of the question whether it is at rest or in motion, and of its shape.

As to its position there is some difference of opinion. Most people–all, in fact, who regard the whole heaven as finite–say it lies at the centre. But the Italian philosophers known as Pythagoreans take the contrary view. At the centre, they say, is fire, and the earth is one of the stars, creating night and day by its circular motion about the centre.

This seems to be a very clear description of a heliocentric system and is often taken to be an account of the views of Philolaus as the main inheritor of Pythagorus. It is clear that Aristotle doesn't agree with this and his further discussion brings in a number of confounding issues, including the counter-earth, which Stobaeus seems to further confuse with a counter-sun.

The reason I put this on the talk page rather than make changes to the article is that many modern scholars appear to continue with the same confusion. e.g. Burch (The Counter Earth, 1954) argues from Philolaus's supposed belief in a flat earth to a denial of the possibility that a heliocentric system is posited. This is repeated in a 1998 book by C.A. Huffman "Philolaus of Croton" published by C.U.P.

Even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which I normally have great admiration for) article on Philolaus repeats this confusion:

Copernicus referred to Philolaus as his precursor in the preface to his De Revolutionibus (see Kahn 2001, 26 for references). Unlike Copernicus, however, Philolaus did not replace the geocentric with a heliocentric universe. The central fire rather than the sun is at the center of Philolaus' cosmos.

Can anyone explain to me why these peculiar views still get scholarly support? Is there any reason not to suppose some Pythagoreans had conceived of a heliocentric universe? Are there better modern citations? Chris55 (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic centre

This view of a central fire (whether an accurate description of Philolaus’ writing or not as the commenter above mentions) is interesting from a revolution around the galactic centre viewpoint. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]