While not a philosopher in the conventional sense, I believe that Johannes Kepler deserves a spot on the syllabus because he breaks convention. The idea of a philosopher, or scientist, did not exist in the premodern period as it does today. This is because universities and access to higher education in general was reserved for the wealthy and the clergy, as much of the education system was integrated into the church. As such, the traditional curriculum relied on a wide variety of subjects much like a liberal arts education today. Specialization was a thing of the future, and most academics were involved with religious studies most prominently, as educators were almost exclusively part of the clergy. Out of this system the academic figures that emerged were adept at a wide variety of subjects, and often made connections between these in order to gain a more holistic understanding of the natural world. Kepler is the epitome of a multidisciplinary academic who united his love for astronomy, music, and mathematics with his ambition for understanding God’s design of the universe. Although not specialized in any one subject, Kepler made significant contributions to the field of astronomy while still serving as the imperial mathematician for the Holy Roman Empire. I think that he should replace Newton on the syllabus, as Kepler’s arguments for harmony among the heavenly bodies as well as his early innovations in astronomy that Newton directly built on are more philosophically substantive than Newton’s arguments on nature and God. Kepler also has a more compelling argument for unifying philosophy with natural science and religion in his works, as he attempts to justify his discoveries at a grander scale than that of Galileo or Newton. Finally, as an advocate for multidisciplinary study myself, I find that Kepler’s harmony between science, philosophy, and religion perfectly embodies the spirit for attaining knowledge in order to make the world a better place.
home
biography
bibliography
philosophy
compare/contrast
closing argument