On Galileo’s Platonism, Again



Several decades ago Alexandre Koyré’s interpretation of Galileo as a Platonist of a specific sort was the dominant view, but today it is largely out of fashion. In this paper I argue that, if wrong regarding the experimental side of Galilean science, Koyré’s interpretation was substantially correct as to its crucial ontological and epistemological components. In this light I defend the view that Galileo should be seen as an advocate of a physico-mathematical version of Platonism.


Galileo Platonism Scientific Revolution 



I am grateful to Antonio Clericuzio , Stefano Gattei, Merry White , and an anonymous referee for several useful comments on a previous version of this article. My thanks also go to Michele Camerota , Marco Romani Mistretta , George Smith , and to the audiences of Tufts University, University of Notre Dame, Harvard University, and Università Roma Tre for some very useful discussions on the issues dealt with in this article.


  1. Baldini U (1992) Legem impone subactis. Studi su filosofia e scienza dei Gesuiti in Italia, 1540–1632. Bulzoni, Roma.Google Scholar
  2. Banfi A (1949) Galileo Galilei. Ambrosiana, Milano.Google Scholar
  3. Beller M, Fine A (1994) Bohr’s Response to EPR. In Faye J, Folse H (eds). Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
  4. Bucciantini M, Camerota M (2005) Once More on Galileo and Astrology: A Neglected Testimony. Galileana: Journal of Galilean Studies 2:229–232.Google Scholar
  5. Burtt EA (1932) The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science: A Historical and Critical Essay. Routledge–Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  6. Butts RE, Pitt JC (1978) (ed) New Perspectives on Galileo. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  7. Camerota M (2004 ) Galileo e la cultura scientifica della Controriforma. Salerno editrice, Roma.Google Scholar
  8. Camerota M (2008) Galileo, Lucrezio e l’atomismo. In Beretta M, Citti F (eds). Lucrezio. La natura e la scienza. Olschki, Firenze, pp. 141–175.Google Scholar
  9. Cassirer E (1906) Das Erkenntnisproblem in der Philosophie und Wissenschaft der neueren Zeit. I. Verlag von Bruno Cassirer, Berlin, pp. 289–324.Google Scholar
  10. Cassirer E (1927) Individuum und Kosmos in der Philosophie der Renaissance. Teubner, Leipzig.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cassirer E (1946) Galileo’s Platonism. In Ashley Montagu MF (ed). Studies and Essays in the History of Science and Learning Offered in Homage to George Sarton in the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Schuman, New York, pp. 277–297.Google Scholar
  12. Clagett M (1964–1984) Archimedes in the Middle Ages. Madison-Philadelphia, Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society. 5 Vols., 10 Tomes. The Clarendon University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. Crombie A (1959) Medieval and Early Modern Science. Doubleday Anchor, Garden City.Google Scholar
  14. Crombie A (1975) Sources of Galileo’s Early Natural Philosophy. In Rignini Bonelli ML, Shea WR (eds). Reason, Experiment, and Mysticism in the Scientific Revolution. Science History Publication, New York, pp. 157–175.Google Scholar
  15. De Caro M (1993) Galileo’s Mathematical Platonism. In Czermak G (ed). Philosophy of Mathematics. Holder–Pichler–Tempsky, Wien, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
  16. De Caro M (1996) Sul platonismo di Galileo. Rivista di filosofia 82:25–40.Google Scholar
  17. De Caro M (2012) Galileo e il platonismo fisico-matematico. In Chiaradonna R. (ed). Il platonismo e le scienze. Carocci, Roma, pp. 119–138.Google Scholar
  18. De Pace A (1993) Le matematiche e il mondo. Franco Angeli, Milano.Google Scholar
  19. Dijksterhuis EJ (1987) Archimedes. The Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  20. Dollo C (2003) Galileo Galilei e la cultura della tradizione. Rubettino, Soveria Mannelli.Google Scholar
  21. Drake S (1957) Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo. Doubleday & Co., New York.Google Scholar
  22. Drake S (1978) Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  23. Favaro A (ed) (1890–1909) Le opere di Galileo Galileo: Edizione nazionale sotto gli auspici di sua maestà il re d’Italia. Favaro A (ed), Barbèra, Firenze [1968: reprinted by Giunti Barbera, Firenze].Google Scholar
  24. Feldhay R (1998) The Use and Abuse of Mathematical Entities. In Machamer 1998a, pp. 80–145.Google Scholar
  25. Feyerabend PK (1975) Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. Verso, London.Google Scholar
  26. Finocchiaro M (1994) Galileo and the Art of Reasoning: Rhetorical Foundations of Logic and Scientific Method. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  27. Finocchiaro M (1997) Galileo on the World System: A New Abridged Translation and Guide. The University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  28. Finocchiaro M (2010) Defending Copernicus and Galileo. Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs. Springer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  29. Galilei G (1597) Lettera a Jacopo Mazzoni. In Favaro 1890–1909, II, pp. 197–202.Google Scholar
  30. Galilei G (1613), Lettera a Benedetto Castelli. In Favaro 1890–1909, V, pp. 279–288.Google Scholar
  31. Galilei G (1623) Il Saggiatore. In Favaro 1890–1909, VI, pp. 197–372. [English (partial) Translation: Drake 1957, pp. 231–280].Google Scholar
  32. Galilei G (1632) Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo. In Favaro 1890–1909, VII, pp. 21–520. [English Translation: Galilei 1967]Google Scholar
  33. Galilei G (1637) Lettera a Pietro de Carcavy del 5 giugno. In Favaro 1890–1909, XVII, pp. 88–93.Google Scholar
  34. Galilei G (1638), Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno a due nuove scienze. In Favaro 1890–1909, VIII, pp. 39–318. [English Translation: Galilei 1914].Google Scholar
  35. Galilei G (1640) Lettera a Fortunio Liceti del 15 settembre 1640. In Favaro 1890–1909, XVIII, pp. 247–251.Google Scholar
  36. Galilei G (1914) Dialogues concerning Two New Sciences by Galileo Galilei. Translated by de Salvio H and S. Dover, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Galilei G (1953) Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems: Ptolemaic and Copernican. Translated by Drake S. The University of California Press, Berkeley–Los Angeles–London.Google Scholar
  38. Galluzzi P (1973) Il Platonismo del tardo Cinquecento e la filosofia di Galileo. In Zambelli P (ed). Ricerche sulla cultura dell’Italia moderna. Laterza, Roma–Bari, pp. 37–95.Google Scholar
  39. Galluzzi P (2011) Tra atomi e indivisibili: la materia ambigua di Galileo. Olschki, Firenze.Google Scholar
  40. Geymonat L (1957) Galileo Galilei. Einaudi, Torino.Google Scholar
  41. Girill TR (1970) Galileo and Platonistic Methodology. Journal of the History of Ideas 31:501–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hankins J (2000) Galileo, Ficino and Renaissance Platonism. In Kraye J, Stone MWF (eds). Humanism and Early Modern Philosophy. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  43. Hatfield G (2004) Metaphysics and the New Science. The Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 93–166.Google Scholar
  44. Høyrup J (1990) Archimedism not Platonism. In Filosofi og videnskabsteori på Roskilde universitetscenter 3, Preprints og reprints. Roskilde Universitet, Roskilde.Google Scholar
  45. Husserl E (1929) Formal and Trascendental Logic. Versuch einer Kritik der logischen Vernunft. In Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung 10:77–166. [English Translation: Id. (1969) Formal and Transcendental Logic. Nijhoff, The Hague].Google Scholar
  46. Husserl E (1936) Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie: Eine Einleitung in die phänomenologische Philosophie. Philosophia. Belgrad. 1:77–176. [English Translation: Id. (1970) The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy. Northwestern University Press, Evanston].Google Scholar
  47. Jammer M (1974) The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  48. Koyré A (1939) Études galiléennes. 3 vols. Hermann, Paris.Google Scholar
  49. Koyré A (1943) Galileo and Plato. Journal of the History of Ideas 5:400–428.Google Scholar
  50. Koyré A (1968) Metaphysics and Measurement: Essays in Scientific Revolution. The Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  51. Laird W (1991) Archimedes among the Humanists. Isis 82:628–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Linnebo Ø (2013) Platonism in the Philosophy of Mathematics. In E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Via
  53. Lloyd GER (1987) Saving the Appearances. The Classical Quarterly 28/1:202–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Machamer P (1998a) (ed) The Cambridge Companion to Galileo. The Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  55. Machamer P (1998b) Galileo’s Machines, His Mathematics, and His Experiments. In Machamer 1998a, pp. 53–79.Google Scholar
  56. Massimi M (2010) Galileo’s Mathematization of Nature at the Crossroad between the Empiricist and the Kantian Tradition. Perspectives on Science 18/2:152–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mazzoni J (1597) In Universam Platonis et Aristotelis Philosophiam Praeludia, sive de comparatione Platonis et Aristotelis. Venezia.Google Scholar
  58. Olschki L (1927) Galileo und seine Zeit. Max Nyemeyer, Halle.Google Scholar
  59. Palmerino CR (2005) The Mathematical Character of Galileo’s Book of Nature. In van Berkel K, Vanderfjagt AJ (eds). The Book of Nature in Modern Times. Peeters Publishers, Leuven, pp. 27–45.Google Scholar
  60. Palmieri P (2008) Reenacting Galileo’s Experiments: Rediscovering the Techniques of Seventeenth–Century Science. Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, NY.Google Scholar
  61. Randall JH (1961) The School of Padua and the Emergence of the Modern Science. Antenore, Padova.Google Scholar
  62. Redondi P (1983) Galileo eretico. Einaudi, Torino.Google Scholar
  63. Shapere D (1974) Galileo: A Philosophical Study. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  64. Shea WR (1972) Galileo’s Intellectual Revolution. Science History Publications, New York.Google Scholar
  65. Stabile G (2003) Lo statuto di ‘Inesorabile’ in Galileo Galilei. In Hamesse J, Fattori M (eds). Lexiques et glossaires philosophiques de la Renaissance. Fédération Internationale des Institute d’Études Médiévales, Louvain–La Neuve, pp. 269–275.Google Scholar
  66. Valleriani M (2010) Galileo Engineer. Springer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Walker, DP (1973–1974) Some Aspects of the Musical Theory of Vincenzo Galilei and Galileo Galilei. Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 100:33–47.Google Scholar
  68. Wallace WA (1974) Galileo and the Reasoning Ex suppositione. The Methodology of the Two New Sciences. In Cohen S (ed). PSA 1974: Proceedings of the 1974 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 79–104.Google Scholar
  69. Wallace WA (1981) Prelude to Galileo: Essays on Medieval and Sixteenth–Century Sources of Galileo’s Thought. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 62. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  70. Wallace WA (1984) Galileo and His Sources: The Heritage of the Collegio Romano in Galileo’s Science. The Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  71. Wallace WA (1991) Galileo, the Jesuits and the Medieval Aristotle. Collected Studies Series, CS346. Variorum Publishing, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  72. Wallace WA (1992a) Galileo’s Logic of Discovery and Proof: The Background, Content, and Use of His Appropriated Treatises on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 137. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  73. Wallace WA (1992b) Galileo’s Logical Treatises. A Translation, with Notes and Commentary, of His Appropriated Latin Questions on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 138. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  74. Wallace WA (1998) Galileo’s Pisan Studies in Science and Philosophy. In Machamer 1998a, pp. 27–52.Google Scholar
  75. Whitehead AN (1925) Science and the Modern World. McMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  76. Wisan WL (1978) Galileo’s Scientific Method: A Reexamination. In Butts RE, Pitt JC (1978) (ed) New Perspectives on Galileo. Dordrecht, Reidel, pp. 1–58.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dip. di FilosofiaUniversità Roma TreRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy, Tufts UniversityMedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations