From: Zeynep Tufekcioglu <zeynept-AT-turk.net>
Subject: Re: marxism-digest V3 #39
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 11:31:57 +0300


>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",

Later scientific concepts are not "equally valid", standing on the same
plane as the before. Take Newton and Einstein. Einstein's theory encompasses
the former as a special case. 

The mathematical example Guzman used is completely different (or should be)
>from the physics argument. Non-Euclidian geometries *are* "equally valid".

I mean to say, epistomology of physics and mathematics is different. You
can't take on example from one, and another from the other and have them
prove the same thing. No way. 

Validity for mathematics has a different meaning than validity in the other
sciences. 

Yes, I did not argue Kant. I have not enough of a grasp on the level of
detail. I do reject the "a priori synthetic knowledge" category. 

As Paul says: 

>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." 

What we deem as self-evident is actually what we have been exposed to all
our lives, through practice and observation. I gave one example in last post.

If you want more debate, post how Guzman moved from this:

>>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perceived Kant as a subjective idealist superseded by the empiric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. 

to this:

>>He concluded: "The space-time continuum
>>does not constitute a reference system on the basis of which one
>>can build unvarying natural laws." 

I am repeating myself, but I don't see how theory of relativity and and
non-Euclidian geometry can be compared or connected, and I also don't
understand how these allow us to conclude the last sentence, the meaning of
which, if you ask me, is no meaning.

Honest inside appraisal. Marxists are attracted to say "there are no
unvarying natural laws" inspired by "relativity", and "other forms of
geometries are equally valid" - because then they can jump to the conclusion
that "truth depends on your class position - what is good for the
bourgeoisie is different from what is good for the working class, and there
are no permanant unchanging laws concerning how a society should operate, as
capitalism will be superseded by socialism, a society governed by different
laws".

That's why I don't like analogies. Neither the math nor the physics argument
has anything to do with the above conclusion. 

Zeynep






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