|Budget Amount *help
¥2,900,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,900,000)
Fiscal Year 2003: ¥500,000 (Direct Cost: ¥500,000)
Fiscal Year 2002: ¥1,000,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,000,000)
Fiscal Year 2001: ¥1,400,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,400,000)
I did a detailed analysis about Galileo's dialogue form, specially around "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems"
First, there is a following expression about the theatrical characteristics of this work a character says that he himself proceeds the argument as an existence like an actor.
This proves that characters themselves just play each part (Aristotle school or Copernicus school), with explaining that this work is a thing in real imagination, and with inviting a reader to enjoy it as such a thing.
And in this work, generally, arguments proceed in the direction where Simplicio of Aristotle side is finally made to n notice that his own opinion contradicts. Galileo was probably conscious of the Dialogues of Plato, in opposition to Aristotles treatise form.
Then, arguments often digress and reach the topic that there is no relationship very much with the main subject.
In these cases, Galileo uses it as an opportunity to announce a theme (for example, about the infinity) that he only hit upon but hasn't develop fully yet. It is a function typical of the dialogue form. And then, Galileo sometimes mentions the attitude of the scholar to science while argument is being developed. This plays the part to tighten the whole flow of the work.