발표를 경청해주신 YOUN선생님, Eric선생님, Skim9선생님께 감사드립니다.
——————————————————————————————————————
I. Kant’s Absolute Space
Immanuel Kant considers space to be Absolute in his 1768 paper “Concerning the Ultimate Ground of the Differentiation of Directions in Space(Abbr. Differentiation of Directions)”. Kant supports absolute space based on Incongruent Counterparts in Differentiation of Directions.
Kant would like to show Absolute space, independently of the existence of all matter and as itself, the ultimate foundation of the possibility of the compound character of matter has a reality of its own.[1] First, Kant defines the relationship between Position and Direction. The positions of the parts of space about each other presuppose the direction in which they are ordered in such a relation. And the direction is in the relation of the system of these positions to the absolute space of the universe.[2] Therefore the position could be recognized by the objects which situate space, but the direction could be defined by the relation with absolute space.
Thus Kant gives an argument to explain the difference in direction of the object. The ground of the complete determination of a corporeal form does not depend simply on the relation and position of its parts to each other; it also depends on the reference of that physical form to universal absolute space, as it is conceived by the geometers.[3] Based on this, Kant argues absolute space based on Incongruent Counterparts. Incongruent Counterparts are pairs of symmetry like right and left hand but not overlapping each other. Kant’s argument which premises absolute space based on incongruent counterparts is as follows.
- A given hand is left hand or right hand because of an internal relationship
with particular parts of the hand or external relationship with being something outside the world.- But A given hand cannot be left hand or right hand owing to the internal
relationship. This is because the internal relationship between the left hand
and the right hand has the same.- Moreover, A given hand cannot be a left hand or a right hand because of
the external relationship with being something outside. This is because
even though there is the only hand in the world, it will be the left hand or
the right hand.- Therefore the given hand is left hand or right hand owing to the external
relationship with absolute space.[4]
II. Criticism of contradictory argument on Kant
I would like to show contemporary contradictory arguments on Kant don’t have a critical effect on Kant’s argument. Van Cleve defines negating premise (3) as Externalism, negating premise (2) as Internalism, and negating premise (1) as Holism.[5] Now let’s take a look at the problems of arguments that criticize Kant’s absolute space.
First, Holism which negates premise (1) argues that why such hand is a hand depends on having an appearance of that hand, negating external and internal relationship. To name a few, That is the reason why a left hand is because of the left hand in itself. But I would like to criticize of low-level properties problem about contradiction. According to Connolly, Low-level properties are like colors, shapes, orientations, etc and High-level kind properties include natural kind properties like being a wren and artificial kind properties like being a table.[6] For example, when we see an eggplant, the purple color of eggplant is low-level properties and the natural kind properties is high-level properties. The epistemological difference on an object could be explained by only low-level properties in the phenomenal contrast argument. Like Holism, the method which is explained by only high-level properties like could be criticized. That’s Because Eventually, high-level properties consist of low-level properties.
Next, P. Remnant and M. Gardener give an Externalism argument, negating premise (3), which means Left and Right hands have such an external relationship. Therefore Remnant and Gardener claim the Left and Right hand is decided by such a physical standard or feature as follows.
The Problem that the only given hand in-universe is right or left hand is
not only empirically impossible but also incertain. (……) Therefore whether
the given triangle is a right triangle or left triangle is how to set triangle
in the plane as same as, If I create the universe, whether the primal hand is
right or left hand depending on how to choose by selecting a standard body or
counterparts.[7]
The contradiction of Remnant and Gardener suggests that the Right and Left are decided by a standard body. Remnant makes an argument that the hand in such a world is neutrality by contradicting Kant’s said the hand in such world is Right or Left hand. Therefore Remnant gives an extra argument more specifically.
The given hand H is Left(Right) hand about the body B
= Df. H is located in the wrist of heart direction(or depart from the heart) in the
body B[8]
Remnant could define The given hand H as a standard body-like heart. However, Remnant‘s argument is contradicted by the case of patient ‘Situs Inversus Totalis’, which is defined by a congenital disease that organ-like heart is inverse like a mirror image. Specifically, X-ray of Patient ‘Situs Inversus Totalis’ have an inverse organ location such as Dextrocardia(Right Heart). Therefore Location of hand in Patient ‘Situs Inversus Totalis’ is not followed by such a standard body like Remnant’s argument.
Lastly, Negating premise (2) argument, Internalism, gives a hand to directional properties by widely interpreting the given hand of Internal relationship, which is suggested by Van Cleve and Earman. This view defines since the right and the left hand has the difference of internal relationship, It could be defined by right and left hand. To name a few, the arrow which has the difference in directions originated from its directional properties in itself. That is, Van Cleve’s Internalism makes an argument with irrelation to absolute space.
Therefore Prof. Rim makes an argument that an arrow is independent of absolute space. According to him, There is no need to set Absolute space if an arrow has directional properties with irrelation to another arrow. Besides Prof. Rim makes an argument that the directional properties of the arrow are original relation. Therefore the difference between Right and Left is irrelation with absolute space. And Prof. Rim would like to show Absolutist can solve the problem of not premising absolute space. So Prof. Rim makes an argument of direction which object occupies, unlike Kant and Nerlich.
Spatial Points of Set have directional properties. Therefore, an object called an arrow has direction in its occupied space. It could be explained that the reason why the given hand is left hand is occupied by “standing in a left-handed configuration.“[9]
Prof. Rim contradicts Nerlich’s absolute space argument based on his argument. And He also attacks the argument that the difference of right and left by Kant is preceded by absolute space. However, Prof. Rim claims most of Anti-Kantians invert Kant’s argument only if Incongruent counterparts problem is possible in relativism, which is the reductional analysis that difference of right and left is defined by Internal relationship. But an Absolute explanation can explain the difference between right and left. Therefore Prof. Rim raises the question that is Absolutism and Internalism are proper supervenience grounds. Ultimately, Prof Rim leads to the area of supervenience, questioning if the given hand has absolute or internal property, then it is necessarily the left(right) hand.[10]
III. Problems of Prof. Rim’s argument
Prof. Rim suggests direction is independent of absolute space, refuting Kant’s argument. But I would like to criticize two problems of his argument.
First, Hand and Arrow are not appropriate analogies. Prof. Rim compares hand to arrow for the explanation. However, I would Ike to question whether hand and arrow could be considered as the same view of directional properties. Because arrow has a directional property in itself, but It is hard to say that Right and Left hands have directional properties. Someone might like to say the direction of thumb leads to directional properties. But I would like to say that argument is nonsense because it should be set a new premise which one is standard between palm and back of one’s hand.
Second, there is a problem of point position. Prof. Rim considers direction is independent of absolute space, which means, when spatial points of the set appear, it makes directional properties spontaneously. However, the problem of the point’s position should be raised. Is the position of position possible to exist with absolute space? A point has a position but no size. Kant said position goes into space.[11]
Since, the point which has position occupy the space, the spatial entity should be premised. It is Because space precedes the position of the point. Therefore the position of the point should exist on the spatial container. The argument is as follows.
(1) A point has a position but no size.
(2) A position is a place that is situated in space.[12]
(3) The point having a position situated space.
—————————————————————————
(4) Therefore space precedes the position of the point.
So Prof. Rim’s spatial point of set argument, not premising absolute space is not a proper contradiction to Kant.
IV. Conclusion
I would like to scrutinize criticism of Kant’s absolute space and re-criticize them, which leads to the conclusion that Kant’s absolute space argument is provisionally better.
Specifically, I send refutation on Externalism, Internalism, and Holism. Prof. Rim leads to the problem on the area of supervenience based on spatial point of set argument contradicting Nerlich’s absolute space. His argument could be a crossword to his supervenience alternative. Therefore his supervenience alternative should be possible if his spatial point of the set is valid.
However, I criticize Prof. Rim‘s argument, raising the problem of analogies between hand and arrow, the problem of the position of the point. This shows Prof. Rim’s argument doesn’t have a critical influence on Kant. Therefore regardless of whether his supervenience argument is right or wrong, It is impossible to approach his supervenience method. Eventually, I conclude Kant’s argument is still valid.
V. Reference
Barry Dainton(2010), Time and Space: second edition, Acumen
Connolly, K.(2014), “Perceptual Learning and the Contents of Perception”, Erkenntnis 79(6), pp. 1407-1418
Gardener(1969), The Ambidextrous Universe, Mentor Books
Graham Nerlich(2009), Incongruent Counterparts and the Reality of Space, Philosophy Compass 4/3, pp.598-613
Hoefer, Carl, Nick Huggett, and James Read, "Absolute and Relational Space and Motion: Classical Theories", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/spacetime-theories-classical/.
Hud Hudson(2004), Temporally Incongruent Counterparts, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol68(2), pp.337-343
Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, translated by Baek, Akanet, 2013
———————, Concerning the Ultimate Ground of the Differentiation of Directions in Space, translated by Kim, 2018
James van Cleve(1987), “Right, Left, and the Fourth Dimension”, The Philosophical Review 96(1), pp.33-68
Janiak, Andrew, "Kant’s Views on Space and Time", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/kant-spacetime/
John Earman(1989), World Enough and Space-Time: Absolute versus Relational Theories of Space and Time, The MIT Press
Nick Huggett(2010), Everywhere and Everywhen: Adventures in Physics and Philosophy, Oxford University Press
Rim Il-Whan(1989), Metaphysics theory about space and Kant’s incongruent counterpart, Korean Philosopher United Academic Conference1
Shin Changhwa(2021), Study on Kant’s Theory of Space: Concerning Metaphysical Structure of Space and Its Epistemic Contribution to Geometry, Paper of Master degree, Graduate School of Sogang University
——————————————————————————————————————
- Immanuel Kant, Concerning the Ultimate Ground of the Differentiation of Directions in Space, translated by Kim Sanghyun, Hangil, pp. 271
- Ibid, pp. 270
- Ibid, pp. 274
- Handyside, “Kant’s Inaugural Dissertation and Early Writings on Space”, London, The Open Court, p27 ;
(As re-cited Rim Il-Whan, 1989) - James van Cleve(1987), “Right, Left, and the Fourth Dimension”, The Philosophical Review 96(1), pp.36
- Connolly(2014), “Perceptual Learning and the Contents of Perception”, Erkenntnis 79(6), pp.1407
- Gardener, The Ambidextrous Universe, Mentor Books, 1969, pp.399 ; (as re-cited Rim Il-Whan, 1989)
- Rim Il-Whan(1989), Metaphysics theory about space and Kant’s incongruent counterpart, Korean Philosopher United Academic Conference 1, p.12
- Ibid, p17
- Rim Il-Whan(1989), Metaphysics theory about space and Kant’s incongruent counterpart, Korean Philosopher United Academic Conference 1, pp.18
- I interpret “die Lagen der Theile des Raums in Beziehung” with “Position goes into area of space”. And the original sentence is as follows Denn die Lagen der Theile des Raums in Beziehung Auf einander setzen die Gegend voraus(II 377)
- Shin Changhwa(2021), Study on Kant’s Theory of Space: Concerning Metaphysical Structure of Space and Its Epistemic Contribution to Geometry, Paper of Master degree, Graduate School of Sogang University , pp.44