Accor­ding to the tra­di­tio­nal inter­pre­ta­tion of the Coper­ni­can revo­lu­tion, the old geo­cen­tric sys­tem was anthro­po­cen­tric and the new helio­cen­tric sys­tem anthro­po­pe­ri­phe­ric. The double assi­mi­la­tion is what this article wants to call into ques­tion. Although a geo­cen­tric sys­tem can be seen to be theo­cen­tric, a helio­cen­tric sys­tem can be inter­pre­ted as being dia­bo­lo­cen­tric and anthro­po­fi­na­list, but also unde­nia­bly anthro­po­pe­ri­phe­ric. The only way a helio­cen­tric sys­tem can be seen as anthro­po­cen­tric is as being anthro­po­con­cep­tua­list. Far from honou­ring man, this demons­trates an inca­pa­ci­ty to see things from a point of view other than man’s own. Although a helio­cen­tric sys­tem is oppo­sed to the ancient anthro­po­fi­na­li­ty and what was seen as anthro­po­cen­tra­li­ty, it is not neces­sa­ri­ly anthro­po­pe­ri­phe­ric. This is first­ly because the new sys­tem was far more preoc­cu­pied with the new cen­tra­li­ty of the sun than with the new posi­tion of the earth, and second­ly because the new sys­tem mana­ged to incor­po­rate many aspects of anthro­po­cen­tra­li­ty in her new vision.