27 responses to “W5: Kepler & Galileo”

1. 25:45– 28:00.

   What stood out to me about this scene from the movie was that they discussed how God fits into all of this. No longer was the argument about how the stars and planets move, but how God can exist in the new heliocentric system. I found this particular interesting, especially with how Galileo answered that questioned, that being “inside us”(27:42). That answer as of a contemporary standpoint is generally the most accept truth as to the location of God. He is everywhere in all of creation, however the beliefs at the time was that God had an actual physical existence in the “heavens”, located in space.

   This idea puts him in grave danger, especially with where he lives. Essentially claiming God doesn’t exist to everyone around him, and that they’re all stupid for believing so. That is a death sentence, not only would he be burned at the stake, but all of his ideas would be discarded as well. He is on the edge of razor of scientific discovery and blasphemy. This ultimately is what was at stake during his scientific inquires. Despite having proof to back up his claims he is ultimately hounded by the possibility of death.

   Reply ↓

2. What was at stake in changing from an earth-centered to a sun-centered universe from Brecht’s perspective? Humanity’s entire understanding of its place in the universe. Whilst Galileo’s breakthrough was scientific, it was also deeply philosophical… as challenging the geocentric model meant rebelling against authority, tradition, religion, and social order.

   A scene that demonstrates this is when Galileo presents his telescope to the scholars, asking them to look at the moons of Jupiter for themselves (around 30:00–40:00 minutes in). Instead of accepting the evidence they can see, the scholars reject it because it contradicts Aristotle’s ideology of the universe. Galileo’s frustration highlights that he’s not simply challenging a scientific theory, but an entire system of authority and knowledge that society continues to cling to. In asking people to believe what they observe, opposed to what they’ve been taught it meant to undermine societies perception of truth.

   Reply ↓

3. The most impressive scene in the film, in my opinion, occurs between 26:13 and 27:02, when Galileo argues with another scholar about the nature of the sky. Galileo declares, “There’s no scaffolding in the sky! There’s nothing holding the universe up!” (26:13–27:02). The scholar, however, fears the implications of Galileo’s ideas: “When you say that there’s another sun, with other Earths revolving around it, that this Earth is a planet and not the center of the universe, and that it’s nothing but a star, no difference between Earth and Heaven, no Heaven at all, where is God then?” (26:13–27:02). This scene struck me because it shows that what was at stake in the shift from an earth-centered to a sun-centered universe was not merely a change in astronomical knowledge. It also threatened people’s entire worldview and the authority of the theocracy.
   More specifically, Galileo’s theory was dangerous not because it was scientifically incorrect, but because astronomy was closely tied to the religious beliefs shared by society. The theocracy used those beliefs to justify its superiority and authority over ordinary people. If the traditional understanding of the universe were challenged, then the people’s deeply held beliefs would also be destabilized. At the same time, the authority and supremacy of the theocracy would be threatened, since its power depended partly on controlling how people understood the universe and humanity’s place within it. So, what Galileo proposed was not only a subversion of the people’s common sense, but it was also an unstable element that would waver the authority of the political ruling classes at the time

   Reply ↓

4. From 2:08:10 to 2:09:17, Galileo and Andrea Sarti are having a conversation after Galileo publicly takes back his findings because of the pressure of torture from the Church. This scene is very important in understanding the psyche and insight into Galileo’s mind, and the stake of science prevailing in a religion-led society.

   In trying to understand Galileo’s decision, Sarti says, “The others would have run” if he had been punished and saw the misfortune that would’ve been placed upon them too. This line alone demonstrates how much pressure, not just from the Church, but from the scientific world as well, that Galileo was under. He’d set an even bigger precedent, made from the fear of death, to keep your ideas a secret. Instead, he chose to live another day and copied his books. It was bigger than him.

   But then again, at timestamp 2:08:42, Galileo says “No it was not”, after Sarti asked if surrendering was part of the plan. While he admits he didn’t want to suffer physical pain, and seemingly making the “stake” seem smaller by choosing himself, it isn’t so simple. It’s the fact that despite his fear, he still picked himself up, and with the help of Sarti, smuggles his writings to preserve the truth. That fear is human nature. And his willpower to go against everything, both by “betraying science” by denouncing his work, and by ultimately going against the church by spreading his truth, speaks bounds about the stake of his life’s project.

   Reply ↓

5. I think the trial and recantation scene shows clearly what was at stake in the change from an earth-centered to a sun-centered universe. Around 1:35:18, Galileo is forced to take back his ideas. To me, this shows that the debate was not only about astronomy. It was also about who had the power to decide what people should believe. Galileo’s ideas challenged the traditional view of the universe, so they also challenged the authority connected with that view.

   After this scene, the movie moves into Galileo’s exile and final period of his life (1:41:01). I think this makes the cost of the new scientific idea even more clear. The sun-centered model was not just a new way to explain the planets. For Galileo, supporting it could affect his freedom, his reputation, and his whole life. Brecht seems to show that changing people’s understanding of the universe can also change the relationship between knowledge and power.

   Reply ↓

6. From Minutes 39-40, where the church is talking about Galileo’s discoveries and questionings about the center of the universe, he is mentioned as an “enemy to mankind”. This is a brutal reminder that although his science may make sense to the current modern audience, it certainly felt as if he was trying to upheave the church itself during his era. The idea that humans were not the center of the universe, let alone the center of the solar system, was inconceivable. The dangers and horrors of upsetting the church are great, and although Galileo downplays the risks very casually in conversation, that scene was a grim reminder of the fates of those that went against the norm.

   Reply ↓

7. For me, the final scene is the most impactful. From 1:52:00 and onward, we see the complete breakdown of Galilieo’s mind. He is imprisoned within it, for he is so smart, yet unable to share his ideas. His guilt is there to behold, his regret over how he “betrayed his calling”. He feels that he could have made a much more impactful difference had he shared his ideas right when he had them. More than any other scene, this one demonstrates the toll the high stakes of sharing his findings took on Galileo. The stakes don’t just apply to the people, but mostly to himself. It’s also cool how he really valued reason when discussing science. (That was from an earlier bit though…). It really is truly unfortunate that he died feeling like he didn’t do enough.

   Reply ↓

8. The first scene that truly revealed the strong sense of ignorance for “the truth” is when Galieo noticed”The fourth, must have moved around behind Jupiter” “There’s another sun with other Earths revovling around it” 0:26:43 “This earth is a planet and not the center of the universe”. This gave Galieo the motivation to prove science and mathematics right as he is convinced that the earth is more than just a planet. However, his friend argues that dismissing God’s existence and the creation of the Earth can get Galieo killed as religion was taken as a huge part in explaining the truth. This belief of humans having the need to believe in the old earth centered picture is further emphasised when the Little monk is talking to Galieo 1:01:30 about despite his family’s poverty, the fundamental needs of a human is having a “sense of stabilty” and from believing that motivation is gifted by God. This really indicates and reveals that even if the holy scripture is shown to full of error, humans choose to seek comfort and “delusion” over the truth about the Earth and science of the existence of planets as they seek “false reality” over knowing that their suffering lacks meaning. In return, Galieo tells the monk that the new science could free them despite it being so controversial.

   Reply ↓

9. The scene from (2:10–2:15) outlines Andrea visiting Galileo while he is imprisoned for spreading knowledge that challenges the traditional teachings of the Church. Galileo sends Andrea away from this meeting with two of his works, collectively called the Discorsi, and Andrea ultimately reaches Holland with the forbidden books. This scene demonstrates that the shift away from geocentrism and toward heliocentrism did more than challenge scientific understanding; it challenged authority. Before Galileo’s influence, the Church was an established authority in Italy and therefore held significant power over what counted as “truth.” The public was expected to accept the teachings of the Church largely without question.

   Galileo is punished and confined for challenging this authority, yet he continues his pursuit of knowledge despite the consequences. In doing so, he prioritizes what he sees as humanity’s advancement over his own self-preservation. When he gives the manuscript to Andrea, knowledge quite literally has to travel outside of the institution suppressing it in order to survive. Through this exchange, its shown that what was at stake in the shift toward a sun-centered universe was not simply a new understanding of the cosmos, but the ability to question established authority and determine truth through human observation and reason.

   Reply ↓

10. I think the scene from 1:15-1:18 speaks to why the Church fears Galileo’s work: a sun-centered universe implies that other fixed orders, such as rulers over ruled and rich over poor, might also be questioned and changed. It highlights how much resistance there was to the idea of the earth going around the sun. The friction is clear when the man in the blue shirt dismisses it as “this earth going around the sun nonsense” (1:15). Just as telling is the moment when, with the pope on his deathbed, someone proposes Barberini, a scientist, as the next pope, and everyone laughs and treats it like a joke (1:16). I think this speaks to the tension between science and religion, and to how deeply religion was rooted in the culture at the time. Even the suggestion that a man of science could lead the Church is absurd to them. Then at 1:17, they propose that the sun turns too, hopping around to act out the movement. The face on the man in the blue shirt is in dismay as if nonsense is being spoken.

    Reply ↓

11. Much of what was at stake was the risk of a shift in power if Galileo’s findings were accepted, as there was no way to reconcile his findings with church teachings. Early on he is asked, “Where is God in your system of the universe”? (27:26) in response to his statements that “there is no scaffolding in the sky. There’s nothing holding the universe up”.
    At 30:38 the question is asked, “How can those in power leave a man in charge who tells the truth?” The religious leaders of the time were not going to relinquish their power easily. They were not interested in truth or proof, even when the papal astronomer, Christoper Clavius, acknowledged “He is right” (41:59). In the scene starting at 39:50 we hear the pope refer to Galileo as an “enemy of mankind” because he “transfers mankind from the center of the universe to somewhere on the outskirts”. He goes on to state that he “won’t be a nobody on some non-descript star” and that the “earth stands still and is the center of the universe and I am in the center, and the eye of the creator is upon me”. These religious leaders and men of authority did not want these teachings which were frowned upon by the church “unsettling the minds of the peasants” who were considered by some to be “nothing but animals” and who needed to be “reminded to keep their place” 1:20:58 – 1:21:10. The All-Fools Day scene 1:25:20 – 1:32:45 depicts through song the chaos that could ensue if Galileo’s teachings were to spread, challenging Genesis 1, and people could do as they pleased.
    Early in the movie, Galileo states “I believe in man, and that means I believe in reason” 25:52. In the end, he put his faith in some of the wrong people, resulting in his final years being spent as a prisoner of the Inquisition. How different the world might be today had Andrea not paid him one last visit, ensuring his teachings could be shared with the world.

    Reply ↓

12. What stood out to me was Brecht’s continual exploration of the tension between curiosity and fear of the unknown that surrounded the idea of a sun-centered universe. Within the first few minutes of the film (3:40-4:40) Galileo describes the current “millennium of doubt” he lives in. He is nervous about the destruction of faith that inevitably comes along with de-centering the Earth, but his thirst for knowledge and desire to improve the world makes the risks worth the potential rewards. However, when meeting with Medici (32:12-36:00) and the Excellences (40:00-40:44), it is clear they believe the opposite. They understand that Galileo is likely correct in his observations, but they are unwilling to completely upend the widespread understanding of the world. They refuse to observe the evidence that could change their minds, even when Galileo brings it straight to them. Brecht shows that exploring frightening change poses a great threat to comfortable certainty in a way that fits very well with the Copernican debate, but could also reflect Brecht’s thoughts on science and society as broader fields.

    Reply ↓

13. The conversation between Galileo and Fulganzio stood out to me because it shows that, for Brecht, the change from an earth-centered to a sun-centered universe threatened much more than an old scientific theory. Fulganzio tells Galileo about his parents, poor farmers who have spent their entire lives working incredibly hard and accepting their suffering because they believe there is a larger order to the universe (1:00:20). What struck me most about this scene is that Fulganzio is not really arguing that Galileo is scientifically wrong. In fact, he basically admits that he understands Galileo’s evidence. This fear is about what happens to people once the Earth is no longer at the center of creation. For his parents, believing that everything has a proper place gives their difficult lives meaning. If the Earth is just another body moving through space, then they might begin to wonder why their own place in society should be treated as fixed, too.

    I think this is what Brecht sees as truly being at stake in the change from an earth-centered to a Sun-centered universe. Galileo’s discovery challenges the idea that there is a natural, permanent order to things. When Galileo responds to Fulganzio, he refuses the idea that poor people need comforting explanations for their suffering rather than the truth (1:02:48). That response made the scene feel surprisingly political to me. Brecht seems to be saying that once people learn to question what they have been told about the heavens, they can also begin questioning what they have been told about life on Earth. Poverty, hierarchy, and obedience might stop looking like things that are simply “meant to be” and start looking like human arrangements that can be changed. So, the shift to a sun-centered universe matters because it moves humanity from a comfortable center.

    Reply ↓

14. While the pope is being dressed for his announcement on June 22nd, 1633 a cardinal is talking to him about the importance of the announcement and deciding on whether or not to let Galileo’s discovery be judged as true. It was indeed a private event with no audience, but the decision of the Roman Inquisition will impact how people think about, not only the structure of the universe, but the structure of religion and their control. The cardinal states, “And your Holiness is really going to tell them the Bible can no longer be regarded as the alphabet of truth” (Losey, 1975, 1:41:00). He reminds the pope that their society is heavily influenced by the Bible and the official standing of religion is influenced by what the Bible says. If the Bible is no longer regarded as complete truth, what else could be disregarded or seen as untrue? Although in current times it is debated that scientific discovery is important and people are influenced to always look for the truth, back then looking for the truth meant challenging the fundamental powers of religion and the church. Another important quote from the cardinal is, “Can society stand on doubt instead of on faith?” (Losey, 1975, 1:41:50). This struck as very important to what is at stake when changing into a heliocentric universe. The hierarchy, church, societal norms, myths, and culture were surrounded by a fixed idea of truth set by the Bible. The cardinal makes a fair point that people may not be ready to challenge the truth of what the Bible says because so much of their society was based on the ultimate truth of the Bible. People are also naturally doubtful and not one society will entirely switch minds based off of a scientific proclamation by Galileo, no matter how correct it is. Everything is seemingly at stake according to Brecht, not only Galileo’s reputation, but the status of the church and the culture surrounding the importance of the Bible are all judged and questioned.

    Reply ↓

15. The final scenes of the movie are very powerful and capture the inner turmoil Galileo feels, against the Church and the scientific community, and himself. His conversation with Sarti toward the end is about whether it was worth it for Gailelo to recant his own work. Galileo contemplates the significance of his work as he replies, “there is no scientific work that only one man can write” (2:08:14). He knows he is just one small piece in a long scientific history. He admits that he recanted his own work because he was afraid of physical pain. I think this admission is interesting because it contrasts the significance of Galileo’s work (literally larger than life) against his own humanity and imperfections. Beyond what was at stake for the scientific community, it is important to recall that Galileos own life, was at stake. Galileo’s life, to him, may be just as important as the universe itself. Even when Sarti says “you have contributed more than any man in 100 years” (2:08:55), Galileo expresses doubt, worrying that he doesn’t know who he has helped. His inner turmoil is that his work which was meant to serve humanity, may have been undermined by his own human weakness, and he cannot tell whether his contribution outweighs his failure to stand by it.

    Reply ↓

16. A scene that specifically stuck out to me was when Galileo uses his telescope to prove Copernican System (0.19.36 – 0.29.00). This scene is particularly important because it is the first time they discuss the severity of punishment for proving this theory. The two men discuss how this discovery will disprove everything that has been taught the past two thousand years. People will accuse him of lying and there is even the possibly of being killed. This discovery would change the way the people thought of religion. If God is not in the sky then where is he? This discovery essentially would completely change and disprove so much of what was taught at the time and what people believed. It was risky to share these finding for the fear of Galileo’s own life.

    Reply ↓

17. The scene that best answers the question for me is Fulganzio’s conversation with Galileo (1:00:18-1:00:47), read against Galileo’s earlier claim that “there’s no scaffolding in the sky” (26:13). When Galileo says the heavens have nothing holding them up, he means it astronomically, but Fulganzio shows what it means socially. He describes his parents, poor farmers who spend their lives in grinding labor and endure it because they believe the universe has a larger order in which their suffering has a place (1:00:22). Fulganzio never argues that Galileo’s evidence is wrong. His fear is about what happens to people when the Earth, and the fixed order that seems to come with it, is taken away. The scene shows that the old cosmos worked as a story that made hierarchy and hardship feel natural.
    This is why I think Brecht sees the stakes as political rather than just scientific. Galileo refuses to treat the poor as people who need comforting explanations instead of truth (1:02:48), which implies that if the heavens have no fixed order, neither do poverty, obedience, and rank. The powerful clearly understand this. The Pope’s insistence that “the earth stands still and is the center of the universe and I am in the center” (39:50) shows that the old model supported his own importance, not just Scripture. According to Brecht, then, what was at stake in moving from an earth-centered to a sun-centered universe was whether social order is natural and permanent or a human arrangement that can be questioned and changed.

    Reply ↓

18. The scene from 0:57 to 1:03 struck me. The scene, a conversation between Galileo and the Little Monk, sees the Monk tell Galileo about his parents, the strength religion gives them, and the fear that astronomy will make ordinary people question their faith. If people learn the Church has been wrong about the universe, they may start asking what else the authorities have been wrong about. “They’ve been told the eye of God was on them and the whole pageant of the world was written around them so they might be saved. What would they say if [he] told them they were living on a chunk of stone spinning in empty space around a second-rate star?” Would they grow to believe life is meaningless? According to Brecht, heliocentrism threatened not only the Church’s scientific beliefs but also the established social order and people’s sense of security.

    Reply ↓

19. The scene that answers this best is around 39:50, where the church leaders talk about what Galileo has done. The objection is never that his math is wrong but rather that he moves mankind out of the center and off toward the edge. One of them says outright that he won’t be a nobody on some nondescript star, and that the earth stands still with the eye of the creator on him (39:50). This has nothing to do with astronomy and is instead just a man describing his seat and refusing to give it up.
    The same cosmology shows up pointed downward at 1:20:58, where peasants are called animals who need to be reminded to keep their place. If the universe has a fixed center and everything sits where it belongs, then the cardinal belongs on top and the farmer belongs in the field and neither is up for argument. That’s what Brecht thinks is at stake. Galileo says there’s no scaffolding holding the universe up (26:13), and once that’s true of the planets it’s true of the social order too, which is why the church can’t let it stand.

    Reply ↓

20. One scene that really stood out to me was Galileo’s conversation with the young monk about his family. The monk talks about how his parents are poor peasants and how religion helps them make sense of their difficult lives. They believe that God is watching over them and that everything has a reason. He worries that if Galileo proves that Earth is just one small part of a much larger universe, his parents might start questioning more than just astronomy. They could also begin to wonder why they are supposed to accept poverty and suffering as part of God’s plan (1:01:40–1:02:33). To me, this scene shows that the debate over heliocentrism was about much more than where Earth was located in the universe.
    Galileo makes this even clearer when he tells the monk that the real issue is not the moons of Jupiter, but the peasants themselves (1:02:55–1:03:05). I think Brecht is showing that the new view of the universe was dangerous because it could make ordinary people start questioning the things they had always been told were true. If the Church could be wrong about the universe, then people might start wondering what else could be wrong too. Galileo also says that people should learn to think for themselves instead of simply accepting the lives they were given (1:05:32–1:06:01). Because of this, the change from an earth-centered universe to a sun-centered one was not only a scientific change. It was also a challenge to authority and to the idea that people should just accept the world as it is.

    Reply ↓

21. (37:26–42:40)
    In Life of Galileo, Brecht presents the change from an Earth-centered to a Sun-centered universe as a threat to humanity’s sense of importance and the Church’s authority to define truth. In the scene where Clavius confirms Galileo’s observations, members of the clergy react with ridicule and outrage because removing Earth from the center seems to undermine mankind’s privileged place in God’s creation. Their resistance is especially clear when a monk cites the biblical command for the Sun to stand still and asks, “Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou, Moon, in the valley of Avalon. Can the sun come to a standstill if it doesn’t ever move? Does the Bible ever lie?” These questions frame Galileo’s findings as a challenge to Scripture rather than evidence to be examined. I read this scene as Brecht showing that more than an astronomical model was at stake: accepting Galileo’s observations would mean allowing evidence to challenge established religious interpretations. The reading of the Bible and God’s word shows that they see the sun standing still when God commands it to, which gives the perception that the Earth is at the center. As we now know, the Earth circulates the sun. The argument for change therefore threatens both a comforting understanding of humanity’s place in the universe and the authority of those who defend it.

    Reply ↓

22. In this movie, Brecht shows that there is more than one factor, besides astronomy, when determining the movement from an Earth-centered to a sun-centered universe. This isn’t just about science, but about power. It was also about authority, and the costs of challenging that power. Galileo’s story was a prime example. Originally, the church’s word was what I would interpret as “law”. When Galileo is requested by the church to take back his findings, the church is not only defending their science but also views it as a threat in their power of authority. Galileo’s persistence cost him his freedom and the rest of his life. However, he did not plan to surrender. Though he gave in due to the fear of physical pain, he passed his writings to Andrea to be smuggled out. All in all, Brecht suggests that the concept of new knowledge could help change society, but under the condition that someone can take accountability of the consequences.

    Reply ↓

23. The most obvious answer of what was at stake when Galileo’s findings were publicized was the power and authority of the church and its relation to science as a doctrine. However, a subtler answer is also present. The imagination, and by extension the creativity, of science is in jeopardy should Galileo’s findings not be upheld. A scene that demonstrates this is when Galileo’s daughter, Virginia, talks to the Cardinal Inquisitor, starting with 55:53-56:00. Here, the Cardinal states that “God has blessed our modern astronomers with imagination. Oh, it’s getting quite alarming.” This indicates that the contemporary church body found Galileo’s findings as not only threatening to the church’s leadership, but also a threat to their traditional rhetoric. This is through the spread of curiosity and imagination, the insatiable drive to discovery, that flies in the face of thousands of years of religious stability. The Cardinal’s reasoning for this is quite clear. Delving into the beauty of the universe through art, much like how Galileo drew the moon’s rockiness or Jupiter’s moons, can make the church “get lost in such enormous spaces. The Almighty might even lose sight of the Pope himself” (56:19-56:25). The church’s fear is that the imagination bred from true study of the cosmos leads people away from the church and from religion, pursuing the truth for themselves rather than the truth as interpreted by the church. It is imagination, art, and curiosity that is at stake should Galileo’s findings be drowned out by the church, threatened by the latter’s static and uncreative theology.

    Reply ↓

24. For Brecht, the dispute is never just an abstract astronomical debate, but rather it is fundamentally political, social and an ideological crisis. So, the scene that most directly demonstrates what was at stake in the transition from an earth-centered to a sun-centered universal thinking occurs during the dialogue between Galileo and the Little Monk, Fulganzio (53:11). Fulganzio explains why the Church supressed the Copernican view by describing his own peasant parents in the Campagna. In the geocentric universe, their grueling poverty and unceasing labor were dignified by the belief that “the eye of God is on them and that the whole pageant of the world was written around them that they might be saved” (55:33). To demote the Earth to a rock or stone that simply spins around in an empty space around a small star takes away from this justification that their labor means something, and someone is looking out for them in return for their obedience. As Fulganzio warns, if the scriptures and the divine cosmic hierarchy are proven to be false, the lower classes will realize their misery is neither sacred or ordained, leaving them to recognize that their hunger and never-ending labor is merely starvation and exhaustion subjugated by the more rich and powerful.

    Galileo’s rebuttal dismantles this pious defense of the status quo, exposing the ideological mechanism Brecht viewed as the true stake of the revolution (56:45). He explains that the economic reality is truth and the center of this ideology, that “the crux of the matter is not the satellites of Jupiter, but the peasants of the Campagna”. Brecht uses Galileo to attack the ruling class’s romanticization of the peasant suffering, mocking the idea that misery produces spiritual value and standing by comparing it to a pearl inside an afflicted oyster. By showing that cosmic centrality was weaponized by church and feudal authorities to pacify the oppressed, the dialogue shows that shifiting to a heliocentric universe threatened to dismantle the already established feudal system, which would in turn awaken the working population to be skeptical, and demand reason and justice. Thus, the true stake of the shifting ideology being the dismantling of an oppressive power system that benefited the wealthy and powerful.

    Reply ↓

25. The scene that most clearly answered the question for me was Galileo’s conversation with the Little Monk (59:09 – 1:12:05). The monk is actually an astronomer himself and had seen the moons of Jupiter. So he is not disputing Galileo’s evidence. Instead, he gives an example of his parents, peasant farmers, who toil in the fields, and how they endure their hunger because they believe they live at the center of creation, with God watching them. If we are just another rock circling the sun, then this means that no one is watching us, and hence our toil is pointless. The monk gives this example because he is not disputing astronomy, but what kind of meaning does a poor person give to their life.

    As for Brecht, he is actually in agreement with Galileo. The monk’s argument is what actually enrages Galileo. Brecht believes that if the monk’s parents think their condition of poverty and hunger is part of a greater design of God’s scheme, then they will not question the social order of the universe which gives them a just meaning of their social order, as peasant farmers. By defending an earth-centered universe, Brecht believes that we are actually defending the injustice and social order of the current Feudal structure of the universe. This is why the social order of the time fought so hard to retain an earth centered universe.

    Reply ↓

26. It is not a matter of astrophysics, but one of who dictates the order of things, as seen in the dialogue between Galileo and the Little Monk (53:20). Although the Little Monk himself is a physicist, he admits he cannot disprove the discoveries made by Galileo, but he goes on to say that both of his parents come from peasantry of the Campagna (54:19), and even when he was watching the phases of Venus, he could think only of his parents (54:27). What enables them to endure the hard life that they have is their belief in the order in which God takes care of them, and their sufferings do mean something (55:11). But once they knew that they lived on a small ball of rock flying through the void of space (55:46), the feeling of comfort will be shattered, and they will feel cheated (56:09). Little did the Little Monk know the essence of the matter; geocentric universe and social stratification mutually support one another.

    Galileo jumps on this and tells the Monk that the important thing about the problem is not Jupiter’s moons but the peasants (56:49). Galileo refutes the monk’s theory about the development of virtue through suffering with the image of an oyster which almost dies trying to produce a pearl out of the grain of sand (57:07), saying that with prosperity the peasants would be able to cultivate virtues (57:39). In the end Galileo asks whether he wants the truth from him or lies to his people (57:46). In this play Brecht presents science as a political tool: the new astronomy is important in the sense that it teaches the people that they are poor through the divine providence and their condition can be changed. That is why the recantation of Galileo is so destructive for him. In his last confession to Andrea Galileo says that he had enough strength to resist but still he gave away his knowledge to the ruling forces (1:55:59) and concludes that he betrayed his mission (1:56:16).

    Reply ↓

27. In the movie Life of Galileo I used the dialogue of the monk and Galileo from 57:42 {I don’t come from the great city} to 01:01:11 {Do you want me to lie to your people?}. The monk suggests that the change from an earth-centered to a sun-centred universe will change views of his family and other people, and put their trust in religious authority at stake. He explains his parents belief that God watches over them and has arranged the world around their salvation, which gives them comfort in their difficult, poor lives (58:32-59:04). The monk worries that if they learn that they live on a small rock “spinning in empty space around a second-rate star” could make them feel insignificant and cheated, questioning the purpose of their patience and suffering (59:09–59:46). This reminded me of how people today can react differently to the thought that we are one of billions of humans on a rock floating through space. Some might feel insignificant and wonder why they are needed, while others find it very unique and special that they are alive at this particular moment. For me, this shows how a change in our understanding of the universe, and how we feel changes our views and thoughts, it can take some people’s sense of purpose while also opening up other ways to find meaning. What struck me is that their beliefs both comfort them and make them accept their poverty. Galileo explains and challenges the idea that suffering is necessary for a good life, saying, “Virtue is not the monopoly of poverty,” and explaining that they could also develop virtues through happiness and prosperity (1:00:58–1:01:05). When Galileo asks, “Do you want me to lie to your people?” suggests that protecting their comfort is not a good reason to hide the truth, and maybe it is worse to live a life of lying (1:01:11). I read this exchange as showing both the negative/painful and positive/hopeful sides of the change of knowledge. People might lose the beliefs that made them feel important and gave their suffering meaning, but it might also change their views, but could also question whether that suffering was necessary. Galileo’s suggestion that the monk’s parents could develop virtues in happiness and prosperity offers another way of finding meaning in life (1:00:58–1:01:05). Brecht shows how the new understanding of the universe could be painful because it threatened the beliefs they knew and felt familiar, but could also allow people to question the social order, the truth and imagine lives through a different perspective and a new way, that might be worse or better, and how living with the truth can sometimes be better or worse. (this was a great dialogue, and the film had great ideas to think about and how much knowledge was changing things back then)

    Reply ↓