Abstract
A question which the scientist as well as the philosopher not infrequently asks concerns the function of philosophic thought about the sciences. One direction in which answers to a question of this kind sometimes tend is indicated by Weyl’s remarks upon Kant’s speculation on mirror images. Kant noted that the right and left hands are not interchangeable, yet they reflect each other. He asked how this curious difference could be more exactly understood. In an early writing, being unaware of the mathematics of the problem, he drew the conclusion that the two hands differ with relation to absolute space; later he rejected the doctrine of absolute space and reflected that the difference between the two hands is non-conceptual and hence must depend only upon intuition. He returned to the question in his Prolegomena and used the same curious phenomenon as a proof that space is nothing in itself but is a consequence of our way of perceiving. Thus, he took the problem out of mathematics and put it into his metaphysics of experience. Weyl, however, notes that the problem has a mathematical solution; although, out of reach of the mathematics available in Kant’s time. And he adds an unfavorable comment upon the metaphysician’s handling of a mathematical problem.1
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
In his The Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949), p. 84.
“Physics and Reality,” in Out of my Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 61.
Cf. “Autobiographical Notes,” op. cit. p. 12 and “Reply to Criticisms,” ibid., p. 669.
“Einstein’s Theory of Knowledge,” op. cit. p. 366.
A. Einstein, “Clerk Maxwell’s Influence on the Evolution of the Idea of Physical Reality,” Essays in Science, trans, from Mein Weltbild (Amsterdam, 1933) by A. Harris, (New York: Philosophical Library, 1934), p. 40.
“Reply to Criticisms,” op. cit., p. 79.
Cf. G. Martin, Kant’s Metaphysics and Theory of Science, trans. P.G. Lucas (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1961), chap. I.
G. Martin “The Problem of Space,” in Essays in Science, Op. cit. p. 61–77.
G. Martin “Reply to Criticisms,” Essays in Science, op.cit., p. 678.
G. Martin “Physics and Reality,” Essays in Science ibid. p. 62.
A. d’Abro, The Evolution of Scientific Thought, 2nd. ed. (New York: Dover, 1950), p. 134f. I do not refer to that variant of the ether hypothesis which is compatible with the Special Theory and required by the General Theory, cf. Einstein, “Relativity and the Ether,” Essays in Science, p. 89–111; also cf. note 6 above.
The Meaning of Relativity, A. Einstein (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1946), p. 55.
This derivation is adapted from one given by R.B. Lindsay and H. Morgenau in Foundations of Physics, 2nd ed. (New York: Dover Publications, 1957) p. 335ff. I choose it rather than Einstein’s derivation (e.g., in The Special and the General Theory, trans. Robert W. Lawson (New York: H. Holt & Co., 1920), pp. 115–120, since it makes with more succinctness the point which I wish to emphasize.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1989 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ballard, E.G. (1989). Is Modern Physics Possible within Kant’s Philosophy?. In: Philosophy and the Liberal Arts. Contributions To Phenomenology, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2368-3_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2368-3_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7566-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-2368-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive