Graduate studies at Western
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 14 (3):237 – 256 (2000)
|Abstract||This paper outlines a new interpretation of an argument of Kant's for the existence of absolute space. The Kant argument, found in a 1768 essay on topology, argues for the existence of Newtonian-Euclidean absolute space on the basis of the existence of incongruous counterparts (such as a left and a right hand, or any asymmetrical object and its mirror-image). The clear, intrinsic difference between a left hand and a right hand, Kant claimed, cannot be understood on a relational view of space - for in terms of the spatial relations of their parts, there is no difference to be found. Kant's argument has been interpreted by, among others, Graham Nerlich (in 1973, Hands, Knees and Absolute Space, The Journal of Philosophy). I briefly discuss Nerlich, and then offer a different reconstruction of the argument, one that appears to be closer to Kant's text. The reconstruction, however, essentially involves ascription of primitive identity to parts of space. Comparing the Kantian absolutist account of incongruous counterparts using primitive identity to the correct relationist account, I conclude that the absolutist account pays a heavy metaphysical price, without buying any genuine explanatory advantage over the relationist. I go on to examine recent suggestions that parity-non-conservation phenomena in quantum physics allow a stronger version of Kant's challenge to relationism. On closer examination, it turns out that here too the absolutist or substantivalist must be appealing to space parts with primitive identity in order to claim an advantage over relationists; and here too, I argue the substantivalist story really has no advantage over the correct relationist account.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Randy Wojtowicz (1997). The Metaphysical Expositions of Space and Time. Synthese 113 (1):71-115.
Lisa Shabel (2003). Reflections on Kant's Concept (and Intuition) of Space. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 34 (1):45-57.
Nick Huggett (2000). Reflections on Parity Nonconservation. Philosophy of Science 67 (2):219-241.
Graham Nerlich (2005). Can Parts of Space Move? On Paragraph Six of Newton's Scholium. Erkenntnis 62 (1):119--135.
Peter Woelert (2007). Kant's Hands, Spatial Orientation, and the Copernican Turn. Continental Philosophy Review 40 (2):139-150.
Scott Jenkins (2011). Hegel on Space: A Critique of Kant's Transcendental Philosophy. Inquiry 53 (4):326-355.
Nick Huggett (2008). Why the Parts of Absolute Space Are Immobile. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (3):391-407.
Oliver Pooley (2003). Handedness, Parity Violation, and the Reality of Space. In Katherine Brading & Elena Castellani (eds.), Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections. Cambridge University Press.
Graham Nerlich (2009). Incongruent Counterparts and the Reality of Space. Philosophy Compass 4 (3):598-613.
Carolyn Brighouse (1999). Incongruent Counterparts and Modal Relationism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 13 (1):53 – 68.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads86 ( #10,623 of 740,703 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,452 of 740,703 )
How can I increase my downloads?