kant on space

8/3/2019 Kant on Space

1/16

met9203.jnw PHILOSOPHYMETAPHYKANT'S ARGUMENT FO

Introduction: Absolute versus relational views'\That is space? Historically, there have been twoare


2/16

'There is a pen between this coffee cThis sentence logically entails:

'There is a pen'which is just a way of saying


3/16

\Ve can use another example to illustrate thebrothers. We might say 'There is a relationwould clearly be foolish to conclude that werelation of brotherhood between them. That

;~".Mike Br


4/16

In summaryThe Absolutist yiew of space is that space ex_If.,- "chairs, cups, etc. exist, but also space itself eOn the Relational view of space space doesexist. These objects are spatially related, bu(There is perhaps one point that needs to beshould not be confused with the view that th


5/16

\Vhich view of space is correct -- the absoluconsider a famous argument for the absolute\\rill call it Kant's handedness argument for a

Kant's Handedness Argument for AbsolutConsider your right hand and your left handalso certain similarities. There are some diffthe back of your left hand there may be a frhand. Ignore those differences. Still your r


6/16

wouldn't actually be any difference betwsay this?We already know that a left hand and aright hand occupy different space. Theydifferent shape. So, to say that a left haattribute some spatial difference to them.Now, relationists say that statements abospatially related. So, the relationist abou


7/16

4.

5.

According to relationists, all claimspatially related.According to relationists, any spahand and a right hand) must be athe parts of the left hand and thehand. (From 4)


8/16

a left hand onto a right v.Tist,and then pressethe thumb would point downward. Similarlythumb would also point downward when theThis seems to provide us with a way of tellinitself as the only thing in the universe -- wou


9/16

What this shO\vsis that sometimes you cnot know which of A or B is true.Now, what bearing does this have on Kahand were the only thing in the universehand. His reason for saying this is thatbody, but cannot fit on both.We can represent Kant's argument as fol

If a hand can fit on one wrist of


10/16

We have seen Kant's argument for premise tbut then again it may not be. It would seemtheory of space, neither relationist nor absoluregarded as an absolutely conclusive argumenAre there any better arguments for the absoluwe must leave Kant and study a contemporar


11/16

strip can be made to occupy the same spacethe strip. (But not if you just move it aroun


12/16

Why is it thought that if something can be used toor is real? Well, consider, what evidence do we hthem. We have evidence that they exist because tto explain th~ results of numerous scientific expernature of those experiments here. So it seems toexplanations for some facts, then we have good evSo, does Nerlich's argument show that space is resignificant difference between the type of explanaobservations provided by space. What type of thiA scientist might use the hypothesis of atoms to e


13/16

sort of explanation is the explanation that appexplanation? .Are all genuine explanations caexplanation, if any, is employed, does it neveexists? We haven't got time to go into thesethem if you are interested in \\Titing an essayLet's now go back to the human hand existinneed to go into some preliminary questions adimensions. Could there be a fourth dimensvisualise it: our minds are three dimensional


14/16

space) then there is a necessary differencehand is in a four-dimensional space, or aMoebius strip) then there isn't an essentiaIt is worthwhile briefly digressing at thisthis. Let us suppose, for example, that oua Moebius strip. Then if a left hand wasback as a right hand! Similarly, if a rightuniverse in a rocket-ship, they would comthe right side of their body, etc.! This woany strange mutation or anything, but sim


15/16

6'. If a human hand were the onluniverse was the same as thehave to be either a left hand o

It might be thought that locutions such as 'ththat actually exists' beg the question againstspace as a thing. 'While such an objection wmeet it by replacing 6' with something like6". If every object in the actual u


16/16

account for that. So the relationist view ofis right 'by default' as it were.If we do not assume three-dimensional flatargument does not go through, but anothersometimes there will be an essential differensometimes not. We can explain this by appspace.. But then space plays an explanatoryreal thing. So this supports the absolutist v

kant on space

Documents