Francesca Biagioli

Hermann von Helmholtz’s geometrical papers have been typically deemed to provide an implicitly group-theoretical analysis of space, as articulated later by Felix Klein, Sophus Lie, and Henri Poincaré. However, there is less agreement as to what properties exactly in such a view would pertain to space, as opposed to abstract mathematical structures, on the one hand, and empirical contents, on the other. According to Moritz Schlick, the puzzle can be resolved only by clearly distinguishing the empirical qualities of spatial perception from those describable in terms of axiomatic geometry. This paper offers a partial defense of the group-theoretical reading of Helmholtz along the lines of Ernst Cassirer in the fourth volume of The Problem of Knowledge of 1940. In order to avoid the problem raised by Schlick, Cassirer relied on a Kantian view of space not so much as an object of geometry, but as a precondition for the possibility of measurement. Although the concept of group does not provide a description of space, the modern way to articulate the concept of space in terms of transformation groups reveals something about the structure and the transformation of spatial concepts in mathematical and natural sciences.

In 1870, Hermann von Helmholtz criticized the Kantian conception of geometrical axioms as a priori synthetic judgments grounded in spatial intuition. However, during his dispute with Albrecht Krause (Kant und Helmholtz über den Ursprung und die Bedeutung der Raumanschauung und der geometrischen Axiome. Lahr, Schauenburg, 1878), Helmholtz maintained that space can be transcendental without the axioms being so. In this paper, I will analyze Helmholtz’s claim in connection with his theory of measurement. Helmholtz uses a Kantian argument that can be summarized as follows: mathematical structures that can be defined independently of the objects we experience are necessary for judgments about magnitudes to be generally valid. I suggest that space is conceived by Helmholtz as one such structure. I will analyze his argument in its most detailed version, which is found in Helmholtz (Zählen und Messen, erkenntnistheoretisch betrachtet 1887. In: Schriften zur Erkenntnistheorie. Springer, Berlin, 1921, 70–97). In support of my view, I will consider alternative formulations of the same argument by Ernst Cassirer and Otto Hölder

La philosophie de la géométrie de Hölder, si l’on s’en tient à une lecture superficielle, est la part la plus problématique de son épistémologie. Il soutient que la géométrie est fondée sur l’expérience à la manière de Helmholtz, malgré les objections sérieuses de Poincaré. Néanmoins, je pense que la position de Hölder mérite d’être discutée pour deux motifs. Premièrement, ses implications méthodologiques furent importantes pour le développement de son épistémologie. Deuxièmement, Poincaré utilise l’opposition entre le kantisme et l’empirisme comme un argument pour justifier son conventionnalisme géométrique. Cependant, Hölder montre qu’une stratégie alternative n’est pas exclue: il sait tirer parti des objections kantiennes pour développer un empirisme cohérent. En même temps, surtout dans Die mathematische Methode [Holder 1924], il adopte aussi bien les expressions que les conceptions de Kant. Dans mon article, je considère d’abord les arguments de Hölder pour la méthode déductive en géométrie dans Anschauung und Denken in der Geometrie [Holder 1900], en relation avec sa façon d’aborder la théorie de la quantité [Holder 1901]. Ensuite, j’examine son rapport avec Kant. À mon sens, les considérations méthodologiques de Hölder lui permettent de préfigurer une relativisation de l’a priori

This book offers a reconstruction of the debate on non-Euclidean geometry in neo-Kantianism between the second half of the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth century. Kant famously characterized space and time as a priori forms of intuitions, which lie at the foundation of mathematical knowledge. The success of his philosophical account of space was due not least to the fact that Euclidean geometry was widely considered to be a model of certainty at his time. However, such later scientific developments as non-Euclidean geometries and Einstein’s general theory of relativity called into question the certainty of Euclidean geometry and posed the problem of reconsidering space as an open question for empirical research. The transformation of the concept of space from a source of knowledge to an object of research can be traced back to a tradition, which includes such mathematicians as Carl Friedrich Gauss, Bernhard Riemann, Richard Dedekind, Felix Klein, and Henri Poincaré, and which finds one of its clearest expressions in Hermann von Helmholtz’s epistemological works. Although Helmholtz formulated compelling objections to Kant, the author reconsiders different strategies for a philosophical account of the same transformation from a neo-Kantian perspective, and especially Hermann Cohen’s account of the aprioricity of mathematics in terms of applicability and Ernst Cassirer’s reformulation of the a priori of space in terms of a system of hypotheses. This book is ideal for students, scholars and researchers who wish to broaden their knowledge of non-Euclidean geometry or neo-Kantianism.

When non-Euclidean geometry was developed in the nineteenth century, both scientists and philosophers addressed the question as to whether the Kantian theory of space ought to be refurbished or even rejected. The possibility of considering a variety of hypotheses regarding physical space appeared to contradict Kant’s supposition of Euclid’s geometry as a priori knowledge and suggested the view that the geometry of space is a matter for empirical investigation. In this article, I discuss two different attempts to defend the Kantian theory of space against geometrical empiricism. Both Cohen and Riehl defended the apriority of geometrical axioms. Cohen pointed out that knowledge necessarily requires both sensibility and understanding. Therefore, he maintained that space can be proved to be a condition of experience without admitting that some statements about it are intrinsically necessary. By contrast, Riehl emphasized universality and necessity as intrinsic properties of a priori knowledge. He was one of the first philosophers to discuss the space problem in detail and to distinguish between a priori properties of space and empirical properties. Nevertheless, I suggest that Cohen developed a more plausible view because he was not committed to any spatial structure independently of empirical science.

La philosophie de la géométrie de Hölder, si l’on s’en tient à une lecture superficielle, est la part la plus problématique de son épistémologie. Il soutient que la géométrie est fondée sur l’expérience à la manière de Helmholtz, malgré les objections sérieuses de Poincaré. Néanmoins, je pense que la position de Hölder mérite d’être discutée pour deux motifs. Premièrement, ses implications méthodologiques furent importantes pour le développement de son épistémologie. Deuxièmement, Poincaré utilise l’opposition entre le kantisme et l’empirisme comme un argument pour justifier son conventionnalisme géométrique. Cependant, Hölder montre qu’une stratégie alternative n’est pas exclue: il sait tirer parti des objections kantiennes pour développer un empirisme cohérent. En même temps, surtout dans Die mathematische Methode [Holder 1924], il adopte aussi bien les expressions que les conceptions de Kant. Dans mon article, je considère d’abord les arguments de Hölder pour la méthode déductive en géométrie dans Anschauung und Denken in der Geometrie [Holder 1900], en relation avec sa façon d’aborder la théorie de la quantité [Holder 1901]. Ensuite, j’examine son rapport avec Kant. À mon sens, les considérations méthodologiques de Hölder lui permettent de préfigurer une relativisation de l’a priori.

Cassirer’s neo-Kantian epistemology has become a classical reference in contemporary history and philosophy of science. However, the historical aspects of his thought are sometimes seen to be in some tension with his defence of a priori elements of knowledge. This paper reconsiders Cassirer’s strategy to address this tension by positing functional dependencies at the core of the notion of objectivity. This requires the epistemologist to account for the determination of the objects of knowledge within given scientific theories, but also for conceptual changes over time.

It is well known that Hermann Cohen was one of the first philosophers who engaged in the debate about non-Euclidean geometries and the concept of space. His relation to Hermann von Helmholtz, who played a major role in the same debate, is an illuminating example of how some of the leading ideas of Marburg neo-Kantianism, although motivated independently of scientific debates, naturally led to the examination of scientific works and scientists’ epistemological views. This paper deals with Cohen’s view of magnitudes and measurement and with his – less known – review of Helmholtz’s paper “Zählen und Messen, erkenntnistheoretisch betrachtet”, which contains one of the first attempts to formulate a theory of measurement in the modern sense. The first part provides a brief introduction to this debate in its connection with the earlier discussion on geometrical axioms and the concept of space. The main sections deal with Helmholtz’s and Cohen’s approaches to the foundations of measurement. Cohen’s criticism of some of Helmholtz’s assumptions notwithstanding, my emphasis is on some unexpected affinities between these two approaches. In the concluding section, I rely on the constructive side of Cohen’s criticisms to reconsider the philosophical aspects of Helmholtz’s theory and draw a few comparisons with contemporary measurement theory.

Hermann von Helmholtz has been widely acknowledged as one of the forerunners of contemporary theories of measurement. However, his conception of measurement differs from later, representational conceptions in two main respects. Firstly, Helmholtz advocated an empiricist philosophy of arithmetic as grounded in some psychological facts concerning quantification. Secondly, his theory implies that mathematical structures are common to both subjective experiences and objective ones. My suggestion is that both of these differences depend on a classical approach to measurement, according to which the arithmetic laws of addition define what is measurable as a particular domain for their application, and, at the same time, the extensibility of these laws to all known physical processes works as a heuristic principle for empirical research. Such an approach is worth reconsidering, not only because it lends plausibility to some of the controversial aspects of Helmholtz’s theory, but also because it offers a philosophical perspective on quantification problems that originated in the nineteenth-century.This paper draws insights on Helmholtz’s philosophical views from his engagement with the measurability of sensations via Fechner’s psychophysical law. This seems to be in contrast with the fact that the reception of Helmholtz’s theory culminated with the formulation of the theory of extensive measurement. I will contend that Helmholtz reached a no less important standpoint in the nineteenth-century debate on whether sensations are different (i.e., intensive) kinds of magnitudes and on how, if at all, they can be measured.

Several studies have emphasized the limits of invariance-based approaches such as Klein’s and Cassirer’s when it comes to account for the shift from the spacetimes of classical mechanics and of special relativity to those of general relativity. Not only is it much more complicated to find such invariants in the case of general relativity, but even if local invariants in Weyl’s fashion are admitted, Cassirer’s attempt at a further generalization of his approach to the spacetime structure of general relativity seems to obscure the fact that the determination of this structure requires a completely different approach that is derived from Riemann rather than Klein. This paper aims to reconsider these issues by drawing attention to the combination of subtractive and additive strategies (more in line with Riemann’s) in Klein’s own considerations about the determination of the structure of spacetime from 1897 to 1910. I will point out that Cassirer relied on Klein’s argument in some central passages from Substance and Function (1910), and elaborated further on his combined approach in Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (1921), also taking into account the application of Riemannian geometry in general relativity. My suggestion is that an appreciation of Cassirer’s continuing commitment to a variety of geometrical traditions may shed light on his particular understanding of a priori elements of knowledge and avoid some of the classical objections to the idea of a relativization of the a priori.

La philosophie de la géométrie de Hölder, si l’on s’en tient à une lecture superficielle, est la part la plus problématique de son épistémologie. Il soutient que la géométrie est fondée sur l’expérience à la manière de Helmholtz, malgré les objections sérieuses de Poincaré. Néanmoins, je pense que la position de Hölder mérite d’être discutée pour deux motifs. Premièrement, ses implications méthodologiques furent importantes pour le développement de son épistémologie. Deuxièmement, Poincaré utilise l’opposition entre le kantisme et l’empirisme comme un argument pour justifier son conventionnalisme géométrique. Cependant, Hölder montre qu’une stratégie alternative n’est pas exclue: il sait tirer parti des objections kantiennes pour développer un empirisme cohérent. En même temps, surtout dans Die mathematische Methode [Holder 1924], il adopte aussi bien les expressions que les conceptions de Kant. Dans mon article, je considère d’abord les arguments de Hölder pour la méthode déductive en géométrie dans Anschauung und Denken in der Geometrie [Holder 1900], en relation avec sa façon d’aborder la théorie de la quantité [Holder 1901]. Ensuite, j’examine son rapport avec Kant. À mon sens, les considérations méthodologiques de Hölder lui permettent de préfigurer une relativisation de l’a priori.

Implicit definitions have been much discussed in the history and philosophy of science in relation to logical positivism. Not only have the logical positivists been influential in establishing this notion, but they have addressed the main problems connected with the use of such definitions, in particular the question whether there can be such definitions, and the problem of delimiting their scope. This paper aims to draw further insights on implicit definitions from the development of this notion from its first occurrence in German language in Enriques’s “Principles of Geometry” (1907) to Schlick’s General Theory of Knowledge (1918). Enriques was one of the first to acknowledge that implicit definitions in mathematics are possible only for higher-order entities or structures, which can have infinitely many interpretations in terms of physical objects. While Schlick introduced coordinating principles to account for the scientific interpretations of implicit definitions, Enriques addressed the problem of bridging the gap between abstract and concrete terms in a different way: He identified, within mathematics, structural patterns that provide a clarification of conceptual relations, and so also serve (indirectly) the purposes of applied mathematics. My suggestion is that Enriques’s analysis of these patterns deserves deeper consideration also from a contemporary perspective on mathematical concept formation.