Date: 06 Jul 96 03:11:33 EDT
From: "Chris, London" <100423.2040-AT-compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: The Kantian Theory of Space


Many thanks to Paul and Zenep for giving  opinions on the 
brief summary I gave of the marxist critique of Kant, I posted
anonymously. No Zeynep, it was not a Sokal quote, and thanks for
ignoring the clues I left that the author was none other than 
Abimael Guzman, as summarised by the journalist Simon Strong,
thereby allowing us to concentrate for a moment on the merits of 
the argument. I admit to having a good laugh though.

On the merits of the argument I have to say that I thought 
Zeyenep you were picking up a different theme about simplistic 
applications of scientific or mathematical concepts. And I did not 
see where the wording in the summarised critique referred to 
"axiom" or "theorem". Your post this morning which I have
not been able fully to consider, still seems to me to be grinding
a rather different axe.

In fact you do not yourself seem to differ so much from 
the argument that "other forms
of geometry apart from that of Euclid were equally valid".

(Zeynep: "You can choose to use hyperbolic geometry or
elliptic geometry or Euclidian geometry in your interpretations/applications
to/of the physical world.")

I therefore tended to agree with Paul's overview:

>>
I have no special knowledge about this subject, but my impression
was the exact opposite of what Zeynep writes. I thought it was Kant
who believed Euclidean geometry and absolute space-time constituted
a priori synthetic knowledge about the world - that it was precisely
not just "a subjective construction." Modern physics has shown that
these ideas do not exactly model the world. Kant was mistaken on
this point. The dissertation writer was correct on this point. Both
Kant and the dissertation guy were writing about the physical world,
not about abstract mathematics. At least, that's my impression.
<<

I myself find Kant extremely difficult to get a handle on.

I suggest the proposition to anchor ourselves about Kant is this:
having understood his position in its cultural, economic, 
historical and philosophical context, what is the main criticism
that marxists would make of Kant? (If Zeynep wants the 
thread to develop differently, OK.)

After checking my scribblings in the margin of Bertrand Russell's
"History of Western Philosophy", IMO we can confirm the marxist overview
that he was a "subjective idealist".

So does Guzman's early dissertation for his admired university
teacher who was a noted follower of Kant, mark a decisive step
in Guzman's road towards marxism, (whether or not it is 
fully acceptable to his followers as part of the canon of 
Gonzalo Thought - the problem could be similar to that of whether
the 1844 manuscripts are part of the Marxist canon)?

My impression is that it falls probably a bit betweeen the two.
And it would be unwise for his followers to assume that
the particular criticism  would necessarily be the main
marxist cricism of Kant.

Russell writes on Kant's handling of space and time:

>>"A large part of *The Critique of Pure Reason* [1781 and 1787]
is occupied in showing the fallacies that arise from applying 
space and time or the categories of things not experienced. When
this is done, so Kant maintains, we find ourselves troubled
by 'antinomies' - that is to say, by mutually contradictory
propositions each of which can apparently be proved. 

Kant gives four such antinomies, each consisting of thesis and 
antithesis. In the first, the thesis says: 'The world has a 
beginning in time, and is also limited as regards space.' The
antithesis says: 'The world has no beginning in time, and no 
limits in space; it is infinite as regards both time and
space.'  <<<


Now I suggest that the most probably reading of what happened is 
that young Guzman, under supervision, took this *particular* part of 
the Critique, analysed it closely and found that most of the 
scientific concepts of time and space were drawn from those 
available to Kant in the 18th century, including Euclid's and Newton's.
He then argued that later scientific concepts were equally 
valid and that Kant was crucially dependent on the earlier
versions for the structure of his thinking. That with the 
possibility of considering later versions, such as Einstein's
as at least "equally valid", one could understand the 
universe and the weaknesses of Kant's position much better
within a (subtly hinted) marxist framework.

I suspect that Guzman took *one* theme from Kant and put it under
a magnifying glass from a marxist point of view.

Similarly I would be interested to read with marxist eyes 
why Kant takes as an illustration of the categorical imperative
that it is wrong to borrow money, because if we all tried to do 
so there would be no money left to borrow. - A proposition that 
sounds typically innocent to an idealist philosphical mind, and 
is loaded with implications for anyone with the most superficial
awareness of the marxist critique of capital. It
sounds very curious.


Anyway Guzman's probable argumentation seems to be worthy of 
respect alongside others. What is not 
clear, to me, if anyone on this wonderful l'st has the 
motivation to debate the point further, is whether this is now 
THE central critique that marxists would make of Kant.

CB 








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