Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-thh2z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-11T06:00:56.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spatial Perception and Geometry in Kant and Helmholtz

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Gar Hatfield
Gar Hatfield*
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Can there be an empirical science of the mind? Opinions are divided. If within the purview of ‘mind’ we include the phenomena that are associated with such words as ‘reasoning’, ‘understanding’, and ‘judging’, then many philosophers would take the answer to be an obvious no. As these philosophers might say, understanding and judgment are “normative” notions; they are not processes, but achievements, and trying to investigate them empirically would make as much sense as trying to determine the meaning of the words ‘just’ and ‘right’, or of the term ‘good art’, by tape-recording random snatches of conversation and cataloguing the instances of these words and their contexts. But not everyone is so pessimistic. Indeed, tens of millions of dollars currently are being wagered on the chance that just like the solar system or the chemical elements, the mind can be made the object of empirical study.

Type
Part XIV. Invited Paper: Psychology and Epistemology
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1984 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1984 , 1984 , pp. 568 - 587
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I wish to thank Richard Healey, Patricia Kitcher, and Nancy Maull for helpful discussion on the topic of this paper, and Wilda Anderson and Alfonso Caramazza for criticism of various portions of an earlier draft.

References

Beltrami, Eugenic (1868). “Saggio dl interpretazlone dell a Geometrie non-euclidea.” Giornale di Matematiche VI: 284-312. (As cited in Helmholtz (1977).Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf (1934). Logische Syntax der Sprache. Wien: Verlag Julius Springer. (As reprinted with revisions as The Logical Syntax of Language, (trans.) A. Smeaton. London: Routledge,1937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob (1884). Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik. Bresiau: Koebner. (As reprinted as The Foundation of Arithmetic. (trans.) J.L. Austin. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von (1855). Über das Sehen des Menschen. Leipzig: Voss. (As reprinted in Vorträge und Reden. Band I.; 4th ed. Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1896. Pages 85-117.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von (1868). “Über die Tatsachen, die der Geometrie zugrunde 1iegen.” Nachrichten von der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 9: 193-221. (As reprinted as “On the Facts Underlying Geometry.” In Helmholtz (1977). Pages 39-58.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von (1870). “Über den Ursprung und die Bedeutung der geometrischen Axiome.” Lecture presented in Heidelberg In 1870. (As reprinted as “On the Origin and Significance of the Axioms of Geometry.” In Helmholtz (1977). Pages 1-26.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von (1878). Die Tatsachen in der Wahrnehmung. Berlin: Hirschwald. (As reprinted as “The Facts In Perception.” In Helmholtz (1977). Pages 115-163.Google Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann von (1977). Epistemologloal Writings. Notesand commentary by Paul Hertz and Moritz Schlick, (trans.) M.F. Lowe, (eds.) R.S. Cohen and Y. ELkana. Dordrecht and Boston: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, David (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. London: Noone. (As reprinted (ed.) Selby-Bigge, L.A. Oxford: Clarendon, 1888.Google Scholar
Hume, David (1777). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Posthumous edition. London: T. Cadell. (As reprinted as An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, (ed.) Eric Steinberg. Indianapolis: Haokett, 1977.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel.. (1787). Kritik der reinen Vernunft. zweite aufläge. Riga: Hartnoch. (As reprinted as Critique of Pure Reason. (trans.) Norman Kemp Smith. New York: St. Martin's, 1965.Google Scholar
Lewis, C.I (1929). Mind and the World Order. New York: Scribner's. (As reprinted. New York: Dover, 1956.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V (1969). “Epfstemology Naturalized.” In Ontologloal Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press. Pages 69-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans (1928). Philosophie der Raum-Zeit-Lehre. Berlin-Leipzig: de Gruyter. (As reprinted as The Philosophy of Space and Time, (trans.) Reichenbach, M and Freund, J. New York: Dover, 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riemann, Bernard (1867). “Über die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zugrunde liegen.” Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 13: 1—20. (As reprinted in Das Kontlnuum und andere Monographien. Edited by H. Weyl. 3rd ed. New York: Chelsea, 1973.Google Scholar
Ward, James (1883). “Psychological Principles.” Mind 8: 153-169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, Robert Paul (1963). Kant's Theory of Mental Activity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (As reprinted. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973.)Google Scholar