Abstract
What do we mean, from a philosophical point of view, when we compare physics and art? This is, in its most general form, the issue which I shall address here. Clearly, contemporary philosophy gives much credit to the idea that science and art are not essentially different activities. For instance, for Goodman and Elgin the affinities between art, science and perception make their respective philosophies appear as different guises of a “general theory of knowledge” in which the concept of symbol plays a crucial part;1 van Fraassen repeatedly hints at the similarities between the “joint enterprises of philosophy of art, of law, of religion and of science”;2 and Hacking has recently suggested that the idea of “styles of reasoning” can be developed in new ways in the philosophy of science.3 The idea of an essential affinity between physics and art is undoubtedly attractive, and closely involved with contemporary shifting conceptions of the nature of physics and the nature of art. Yet its presuppositions and implications are not obvious: What conception of knowledge do we implicitly have in mind when we make a comparison between art and science? More particularly, what conception of science and what of art?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Baltrusaïtis, J., Anamorphoses ou Perspectives Curieuses. Second edition (Paris: O. Perrin, 1955).
Barnouw, J., ‘Goethe and Helmholtz: Science and Sensation’, in F. Amrine et al. (eds.), Goethe and the Sciences. A Reappraisal [Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 97] (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1987), pp. 45–82.
Bohr, N., ‘Über die Wirkung von atomen bei stoßen’ [1925], in L. Rosenfeld et al. (eds.), Niels Bohr’s Collected Works V (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1975), pp. 175–206.
Bohr, N., ‘The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory’, Nature 121: 580–590, 1928.
Cassirer, E., The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. I (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953).
Cassirer, E., Wesen und Wirkung des Symbolbegriffs (Oxford, 1956).
Chevalley, C., ‘Physique quantique et philosophie’, Le Débat (Novembre) 72 (Paris: Gallimard, 1992).
Chevalley, C., ‘Niels Bohr’s words’, in H. Folse and J. Faye (eds.), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy [Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 153] (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher, 1994), pp. 33–57.
Chevalley, C., Introduction and glossary to N. Bohr, Physique atomique et connaissance humaine (Paris: Gallimard, 1991), pp. 480–502.
Chevalley, C., ‘La physique de Heidegger’, Etudes philosophiques 3: 289–311, 1990.
Chevalley, C., ‘La physique quantique et les Grecs’, in B. Cassin (ed.), Nos Grecs et leurs modernes (Paris: Le Seuil, 1992), pp. 151–187.
Chevalley, C., ‘Rationalité de l’anamorphose’, XVIIe Siècle (July-September) 124: 289–296, 1979.
Darrigol, O., From C-numbers to Q-numbers. The Classical Analogy in the History of Quantum Theory (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992).
Dürer, A., Instructions sur la manière de mesurer avec la règle et le compas les lignes, plans et solides [1525], French trans, and introd. by J. Peiffer (Paris: Le Seuil, 1995).
Dussort, H., L’Ecole de Marbourg (Paris: Puf, 1963).
Fink, K. J., Goethe’s History of Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
Goethe, J. W., Die Schriften zur Naturwissenschaft, R. Matthaei et al. (eds.) (Weimar: Böhlau, 1947).
Goodman, N., Ways of Worldmaking (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishers, Co., 1978).
Goodman, N. and Elgin, C, ‘Interpretation and identity: Can the work survive the world?’, in Reconceptions in Philosophy and other Arts and Sciences (London: Routledge, 1988).
Goodman, N. and Elgin, C, ‘Changing the subject’, in R. Shusterman (ed.), Analytic Aesthetics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989).
Hacking, I., ‘Styles for historians and philosophers’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 1(23): 1–20, 1992.
Heisenberg, W., Ordnung der Wirklichkeit, in H. Rechenberg (ed.) (Münich: R. Piper, 1989).
Heisenberg, W., ‘Interview of February 11, 1963’, Archive for the History of Quantum Physics.
Heisenberg, W., Physics and Philosophy (Gifford Lectures 1955) (New York: Harper & Row, 1958).
Heisenberg, W., ‘Das Naturbild der heutigen Physik’, in Max-Planck Gesellschaft Jahrbuch, 1953, 32–54, English translation: The Physicist’s Conception of Nature (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1958).
Heisenberg, W., ‘Die Plancksche Entedeckung und die philosophischen Grundfragen der Atomlehre’, in Max-Planck Gesellschaft Jahrbuch, 1958, 26–52, English translation: Across the Frontiers (New York: Harper & Row, 1974).
Heisenberg, W., ‘Die Entwicklung der Quantenmechanik’ (1933), English translation in Nobel Lectures, Physics 1922–1941 (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1965).
Heisenberg, W., ‘Wandlungen in den Grundlagen der Naturwissenschaft’, in Die Naturwissenschaften 40, 1934, English translation in Philosophic Problems of Nuclear Science (New York: Pantheon, 1952), pp. 11–26.
Jung, C. G. and Pauli, W., Naturerklärung und Psyche (Zurich: Rascher, 1952).
Kant, I., Kritik der Urteilskraft. 1790.
Kant, I., Kritik der reinen Vernunft. 1781–1787.
Kant, I., Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik. 1786.
Kepler, J., Paralipomena ad Vitellionem [1604], French trans, and introd. by C. Chevalley (Paris: Vrin, 1980).
Laurikainen, K. V., Beyond the Atom (Berlin: Springer, 1988).
Marion, J. L., Sur la théologie blanche de Descartes (Paris: Puf, 1981).
Marion, J. L., Réduction et donation (Paris: Puf, 1989).
Panofsky, E., ‘Das Problem des Stils in der bildenden Kunst’, Zeitschrift für Aesthetik und Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft X: 460–467, 1915.
Panofsky, E., ‘Zum Problem der Beschreibung und Inhaltsdeutung von Werken der bildenden Kunst’ (1931), Logos xxi: 103–119, 1932, French translation: La Perspective comme Forme Symbolique (Paris: Minuit, 1975), pp. 183–196.
Panofsky, E., ‘Die Perspektive als symbolische Form. Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg 1924–25’, Leipzig-Berlin, 258–330, French translation: La Perspective comme Forme Symbolique (Paris: Minuit), 1975, pp. 37–182. English translation: Perspective as Symbolic Form (New York: Zone Books, 1991).
Paqué, R., Das Pariser Nominalistenstatut. Zur Entstehung des Realitätsbegriffs der Neuzeitlichen Naturwissenschaft (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970).
Pauli, W., ‘Letter to M. Fierz (1947)’, in K. V. Laurikainen, Beyond the Atom (Berlin: Springer, 1988), p. 193.
Pauli, W., ‘Letter to M. Fierz (1948)’, in K. V. Laurikainen, Beyond the Atom (Berlin: Springer, 1988), p. 193.
Philonenko, A., L’Ecole de Marbourg (Paris: Vrin, 1989).
Ryckman, T., ‘Conditio sine qua non? Zuordnung in the early epistemologies of Schlick and Cassirer’, Synthese 88: 57–95, 1991.
Seidengart, J., ‘La physique moderne comme forme symbolique privilégiée dans l’entreprise philosophique d’ E. Cassirer’, Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 4: 491–515, 1992.
van Fraassen, B., The Scientific Image (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980).
van Fraassen, B., Laws and Symmetry (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).
van Fraassen, B., Quantum Mechanics. An Empiricist View (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991).
von Helmholtz, H., ‘Die Tatsache in der Wahrnehmung’ [1878], English translation (‘The Facts in Perception’) in Epistemological Writings, Introduction by R. S. Cohen and Y. Elkana [Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 37] (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1977), pp. 115–145.
von Helmholtz, H., ‘Goethe’s anticipation of subsequent scientific ideas’ [1892], in R. Kahl (ed.), Selected Writings of H. von Helmholtz (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1971).
von Humboldt, W., Über die Verschiedenheiten des menschlichen Sprachbaues [1836], English translation in On Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).
Vuillemin, J., L’Héritage Kantien et la Révolution Copernicienne (Paris: Puf, 1954).
Wölfflin, H., Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe (Münich: F. Bruckmann, 1915), English translation: Principles of Art History (London: G. Bell & Sons, 1932).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1996 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chevalley, C. (1996). Physics as an Art: The German Tradition and the Symbolic Turn in Philosophy, History of Art and Natural Science in the 1920s. In: Tauber, A.I. (eds) The Elusive Synthesis: Aesthetics and Science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 182. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1786-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1786-6_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-4763-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-1786-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive