Authors
Marco Giovanelli
Universität Tübingen
Abstract
The article attempts to reconsider the relationship between Leibniz’s and Kant’s philosophy of geometry on the one hand and the nineteenth century debate on the foundation of geometry on the other. The author argues that the examples used by Leibniz and Kant to explain the peculiarity of the geometrical way of thinking are actually special cases of what the Jewish-German mathematician Felix Hausdorff called “transformation principle”, the very same principle that thinkers such as Helmholtz or Poincaré applied in a more general form in their celebrated philosophical writings about geometry. The first two parts of the article try to show that Leibniz’s and Kant’s philosophies of geometry, despite their differences, appear to be preoccupied with the common problem of the impossibility to grasp conceptually the intuitive difference between two figures (such as a figure and its scaled, displaced or mirrored copy). In the third part, it is argued that from the perspective of Hausdorff’s philosophical-geometrical reflections, this very same problem seems to find a more radical application in Helmholtz’s or Poincaré’s thought experiments on the impossibility of distinguishing distorted copies of our universe from the original one. I draw the conclusion that in Hausdorff’s philosophical work, which has received scholarly attention only recently, one can find not only an original attempt to frame these classical arguments from a set-theoretical point of view, but also the possibility of considering the history of philosophy of geometry from an uncommon perspective, where especially the significance of Kant’s infamous appeal to “intuition” can be judged by more appropriate standards
Keywords Ähnlichkeit  Hausdorff  Inkongruente Gegenstücke  Kant  Kongruenz  Leibniz  Nicht-Euklidische Geometrie  Congruence  Hausdorff  Incongruent counterparts  Kant  Leibniz  Non-Euclidean geometry  Similarity
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10838-010-9139-4
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,241
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Reconsidering Logical Positivism.Michael Friedman - 1999 - Cambridge University Press.
Kant and the Exact Sciences.Michael FRIEDMAN - 1992 - Harvard University Press.
Reconsidering Logical Positivism.Michael Friedman & Alan W. Richardson - 1999 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 62 (1):152-155.

View all 61 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Kant's Critique of the Leibnizian Philosophy : Contra the Leibnizians, but Pro Leibniz.Anja Jauernig - 2008 - In Daniel Garber & Béatrice Longuenesse (eds.), Kant and the Early Moderns. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press. pp. 41-63 (and 214-223 notes).
Projective Hausdorff Gaps.Yurii Khomskii - 2014 - Archive for Mathematical Logic 53 (1-2):57-64.
A Remark on Kant's Argument From Incongruent Counterparts.Jeremy Byrd - 2008 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 16 (4):789 – 800.
Kant's Philosophy of Geometry--On the Road to a Final Assessment.L. Kvasz - 2011 - Philosophia Mathematica 19 (2):139-166.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-09-29

Total views
26 ( #373,722 of 2,325,131 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #455,085 of 2,325,131 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes