Language as the Embodiment of Geometry

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Contributions to Phenomenology book series (CTPH, volume 71)

Abstract

In his famous essay ‘The Origin of Geometry’ Husserl claimed that language is the embodiment (Sprachleib) of geometry. Husserl’s argument for this striking thesis starts from the question as to how the objectivity of geometry is to be understood, given that it is an abstract science dealing with ideal objects. His answer is that the existence of written demonstrations enables people to reactivate the fundamental experiences which formed geometrical practices and share the self-evidence of the ideal truths thereby grasped in a way which vindicates their objectivity. This answer is compared with positions advocated by Russell and Merleau-Ponty. Russell’s work shows that the conception of self-evidence Husserl employs is not tenable; but Russell’s emphasis on the importance of formal proofs in logic and mathematics provides an alternative vindication of the role of language as the embodiment of truth in mathematics and geometry. Merleau-Ponty offers a different approach which draws on the importance of language in upholding the traditions which sustain abstract sciences such as geometry, but since he downgrades the significance of formal proofs it is not clear what the role of language is supposed to be.

Keywords

Geometrical Proof Operative Language Intuitive Thought Geometrical Thought Geometrical Demonstration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aubrey, J. (1898). In A. Clark (Ed.), Brief lives, 2 vols . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  2. Derrida, J. (1978) Edmund Husserl’s origin of geometry: An introduction (J. Leavey, Trans.). London: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  3. Evans, G. (1982). In J. McDowell (Ed.), The varieties of reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Hacking, I. (1973). Leibniz and Descartes: Proof and eternal truths. Proceedings of the British Academy, 59, 175–188.Google Scholar
  5. Hopkins, J. (1973). Visual geometry. Philosophical Review, 82, 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hopkins, B. (2011). The origin of the logic of symbolic mathematics: Edmund Husserl and Jacob Klein. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Husserl, E. (1962). Die Frage nach dem Ursprung der Geometrie als intentionalhistoriches Problem, Beilage III in ed. W. Biemel, Husserliana VI. (2nd ed., 365–386). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  8. Husserl, E. (1970a). The origin of geometry, Appendix VI. In The crisis in European sciences and transcendental phenomenology (David Carr of Husserl (1962), Trans., pp. 353–378). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Husserl, E. (1970b). Logical investigations. (J. Findlay, Trans., Vol. I). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  10. Klein, J. (1968). Greek mathematical thought and the origin of algebra (E. Brann, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kline, M. (1972). Mathematical thought from ancient to modern times (Vol. I). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). Signs (R. C. McCleary, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible (A. Lingis, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1998). In R. Barbaras (Ed.), Notes de cours sur L’origine de la géometrie de Husserl. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  17. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002a). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002b). In L. Lawlor with B. Vergo (Ed.), Husserl at the limits of phenomenology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. (This includes a translation of Merleau-Ponty (1998))Google Scholar
  19. Russell, B. (1992). The theory of logical types, collected papers 6. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Russell, B. (1993). Recent works on the principles of mathematics, collected papers 3. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Strawson, P. (1966). The bounds of sense. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  22. Wittgenstein, L. (1978). Remarks on the foundations of mathematics (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations