“Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds” is a masterpiece book, originally written in French by Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle in 1686. This book revolutionized the way the general population interacted with and consumed scientific information. During this time, scientists such as Isaac Newton used technical language to explain scientific concepts, primarily meant for other scientists. However, De Fontenelle departed from this convention and wrote about the plurality of the world using simple language that the majority of populations could understand. This paper uses the contents of De Fontenelle’s book to explain the importance of imagining intelligent life on heavenly bodies beside the Earth and the relationship that it bears to scientific and philosophical ideas that the author is trying to explain. The book’s literary and pedagogical strategies are also discussed.
The Point of Imagining Intelligent Life on Heavenly Bodies
The human brain is a useful tool that, if used for the right purposes, could reveal the mysteries of life. De Fontenelle argues that surely “nothing out to interest us more than to know how our world is formed and whether there be other worlds similar to it, and inhabited the same way” (12). From this statement, I think the first point of imagining life, particularly intelligent life, on heavenly bodies is to quench the human curiosity about issues surrounding life on Earth. Second, the author makes an interesting observation about religion. He tells his hostess that when she hears that the “moon is peopled, you immediately figure to yourself men like ourselves, and then a variety of theological difficulties occur…it would be a difficult point in theology to account for the existence of men who had any other ancestor” (15). From this argument, I think imagining about intelligent life on other heavenly bodies is important as a way of questioning the arguments presented to human beings concerning their origin. For instance, if the moon is inhabited by intelligent people, but different from us, the theory of creation is invalidated. Therefore, imagination is crucial in understanding the origin of the universe and its inhabitants.
Relationship with De Fontenelle’s Scientific and Philosophical Ideas
Scientific and philosophical ideas are hinged on imagination and the willingness to question and critique the available knowledge. De Fontenelle argues that all philosophy is “founded on two things; an inquisitive mind, and defective sight; for if your eyes could discern everything to perfection you would easily perceive whether each star is sun, giving light to a number of worlds” (8). On the other hand, with less curiosity, “you would hardly take the trouble to inform yourself about the matter, and consequentially remain in equal ignorance” (8). The author raises two important points about the inquisitiveness of mind and the need to feed that curiosity. Therefore, the fact that people cannot discern everything, and they cannot afford to remain in ignorance, the desire to be acquainted with more than what can be seen is always present. Consequently, philosophers and scientists continue to disbelieve what they see and endeavor to conjecture what is concealed from them. This argument forms the basis of scientific and philosophical advancement that has characterized human evolution and civilization. Therefore, imagination, especially about the existence of human life in other heavenly bodies, is the source from which scientists and philosophers draw the inspiration to pursue their inquisitiveness.
Literary and Pedagogical Strategies
De Fontenelle writes for the general public – for anyone to understand its contents. This book was first published in 1686, when scientists at the time, including Newton, were only concerned with writing to their fellow scientists. However, De Fontenelle presents scientific knowledge for public consumption using a common language that could be understood by a wide audience. He also writes in a manner to encourage readers to engage in the learning process, while at the same time enjoying it. For instance, the book’s contents are presented as a succession of casual evening musings and conversations between a beguiling philosopher and a marchioness, his hostess, during their usual strolls through her moony gardens. In other words, De Fontenelle sought to make science comprehendible by cultural analogy. Pedagogically, the ideas that De Fontenelle put forward are abstract beliefs, stated as matters of principle as opposed to being speculative concerning the future. Additionally, he deliberately uses a female character to make the work interesting. He writes, “I’ve placed a woman in these Conversations who is being instructed, one who has never heard a syllable about such things. I thought this fiction would serve to make the work more enticing…” (13). Therefore, the author’s literary and pedagogical strategies are meant to encourage people outside the scientific community to start thinking and conversing about the plurality of the world.
Conclusion
De Fontenelle presents the scientific concept of plurality of the world using simple language for the non-scientific community to understand these otherwise technical ideas. From the arguments made in this paper, it is important to imagine the existence of life in other heavenly bodies apart from the Earth to quench human curiosity and critique the current theories on the origins of the world, especially the theory of creation. These arguments form the basis for scientific and philosophical advancement that has been experienced with human evolution and civilization.
Work Cited
De Fontenelle, Bernard. Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds. Translated by H. A. Hargreaves, California University Press, 1990.