From: Zeynep Tufekcioglu <zeynept-AT-turk.net>
Subject: Re: On the Kantian Theory of Space
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 02:04:51 +0300


Chris writes:

>The author cited relativity theory and stressed that other forms
>of geometry apart from that of Euclid were equally valid. He 
>perceived Kant as a subjective idealist superseded by the empiric
>materialism of Einstein. He concluded: "The space-time continuum
>does not constitute a reference system on the basis of which one
>can build unvarying natural laws." 

>I would be interested to hear comments as to whether these 
>criticisms of Kant are broadly acceptable from a marxist point of 
>view, or whether they are shallow and dogmatic.

Completely ignorant about mathematics would be a better description. Shallow
and dogmatic don't really give all due credit.

He should first tell us what he thinks "valid" means mathematically. As far
as I know, it means consistent. Mathematics is neither true nor false.

The author of that quote, should be made to look up the word "axiom" in a
dictionary. Also, "theorem". Or maybe, is this a Sokal quote? 

The whole problem I think is the non-understanding of the relationship with
epistomology and ontology. As it is with the "chaos" hype.

Mathematical space is distinct than physical space. Mathematics is "a
subjective construction". You can choose to use hyperbolic geometry or
elliptic geometry or Euclidian geometry in your interpretations/applications
to/of the physical world. 

Just that you've got to stick with the one you start out with. Which is what
I wish more Marxists would do, instead of this example of
cut-and-paste-as-it-suits-my-mood/theory type of collage from mathematics in
such a careless manner.

Zeynep



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---