Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Reconsidering Reid's geometry of visibles.Gideon Yaffe - 2002 - Philosophical Quarterly 52 (209):602-620.
    In his 'Inquiry', Reid claims, against Berkeley, that there is a science of the perspectival shapes of objects ('visible figures'): they are geometrically equivalent to shapes projected onto the surfaces of spheres. This claim should be understood as asserting that for every theorem regarding visible figures there is a corresponding theorem regarding spherical projections; the proof of the theorem regarding spherical projections can be used to construct a proof of the theorem regarding visible figures, and vice versa. I reconstruct Reid's (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Conventionalism In Reid’s ‘geometry Of Visibles’.Edward Slowik - 2003 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 34 (3):467-489.
    The subject of this investigation is the role of conventions in the formulation of Thomas Reid’s theory of the geometry of vision, which he calls the ‘geometry of visibles’. In particular, we will examine the work of N. Daniels and R. Angell who have alleged that, respectively, Reid’s ‘geometry of visibles’ and the geometry of the visual field are non-Euclidean. As will be demonstrated, however, the construction of any geometry of vision is subject to a choice of conventions regarding the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Contemporary Arguments for a Geometry of Visual Experience.Phillip John Meadows - 2009 - European Journal of Philosophy 19 (3):408-430.
    Abstract: In this paper I consider recent attempts to establish that the geometry of visual experience is a spherical geometry. These attempts, offered by Gideon Yaffe, James van Cleve and Gordon Belot, follow Thomas Reid in arguing for an equivalency of a geometry of ‘visibles’ and spherical geometry. I argue that although the proposed equivalency is successfully established by the strongest form of the argument, this does not warrant any conclusion about the geometry of visual experience. I argue, firstly, that (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Who Placed the Eye in the Center of a Sphere? Speculations about the Origins of Thomas Reid's Geometry of Visibles.Hannes Ole Matthiessen - 2016 - Journal of Scottish Philosophy 14 (3):231-251.
    Thomas Reid argued that the geometrical properties of visible figures equal the geometrical properties of their projections on the inside of a sphere centred around the eye. In recent scholarship there are only a few suggestions of which sources might have inspired Reid. I point to a widely ignored body of early eighteenth-century literature – introductions into projective geometry, the use of celestial globes and astronomy – in which the model of the eye in the centre of a sphere was (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • A Reiding of Berkeley's Theory of Vision.Hannes Ole Matthiessen - 2022 - Journal of Scottish Philosophy 20 (1):19-40.
    George Berkeley argues that vision is a language of God, that the immediate objects of vision are arbitrary signs for tactile objects and that there is no necessary connection between what we see and what we touch. Thomas Reid, on the other hand, aims to establish a geometrical connection between visible and tactile figures. Consequently, although Reid and Berkeley's theories of vision share important elements, Reid explicitly rejects Berkeley's idea that visible figures are merely arbitrary signs for tangible bodies. But (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•
  • Thomas Reid’s geometry of visibles and the parallel postulate.Giovanni B. Grandi - 2005 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 36 (1):79-103.
    Thomas Reid (1710–1796) presented a two-dimensional geometry of the visual field in his Inquiry into the human mind (1764), whose axioms are different from those of Euclidean plane geometry. Reid’s ‘geometry of visibles’ is the same as the geometry of the surface of the sphere, described without reference to points and lines outside the surface itself. Interpreters of Reid seem to be divided in evaluating the significance of his geometry of visibles in the history of the discovery of non-Euclidean geometries. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Reid’s Account of the “Geometry of Visibles”: Some Lessons from Helmholtz.Lorne Falkenstein - 2016 - Topoi 35 (2):485-510.
    Drawing on work done by Helmholtz, I argue that Reid was in no position to infer that objects appear as if projected on the inner surface of a sphere, or that they have the geometric properties of such projections even though they do not look concave towards the eye. A careful consideration of the phenomena of visual experience, as further illuminated by the practice of visual artists, should have led him to conclude that the sides of visible appearances either look (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation