Sake i ostali inkongruentni protivdelovi su dovoljni da odbacimo relacionizam, ili je bar tako mislio Kant, jos od nekih svojih prekritickih spisa. Argumenti sa inkongruentnim protivdelovima su elegantni i efektni, i privukli su prilicno veliku paznju kod odredjenog broja autora, koji su argumente kritikovali na razne nacine, ili ih branili. Rasprave su se pritom odaljile od originalnog Kantovog argumenta, i od duha tog vremena, i primila obelezja moderne filozofije i geometrije. U ovom tekstu bi trebalo da pokazem da Kant, kao (...) i oni koji su ga kasnije branili, nisu postigli svoj cilj - nije dat konkluzivan argument protiv relacionizma. (shrink)

Left and right hands are incongruent counterparts. Yet each replicates the intrinsic properties of the other. This suggests that differing relations to space make the difference. Kant's and Weyl's discussions of the problem are critically discussed. It emerges that spatial relationism fails to explain how its relations may be interpreted. An excursion into visual geometry explains the basis of handedness in the orientable structure of space.

This paper outlines a new interpretation of an argument of Kant's for the existence of absolute space. The Kant argument, found in a 1768 essay on topology, argues for the existence of Newtonian-Euclidean absolute space on the basis of the existence of incongruous counterparts (such as a left and a right hand, or any asymmetrical object and its mirror-image). The clear, intrinsic difference between a left hand and a right hand, Kant claimed, cannot be understood on a relational view (...) of space - for in terms of the spatial relations of their parts, there is no difference to be found. Kant's argument has been interpreted by, among others, Graham Nerlich (in 1973, Hands, Knees and Absolute Space, The Journal of Philosophy). I briefly discuss Nerlich, and then offer a different reconstruction of the argument, one that appears to be closer to Kant's text. The reconstruction, however, essentially involves ascription of primitive identity to parts of space. Comparing the Kantian absolutist account of incongruous counterparts using primitive identity to the correct relationist account, I conclude that the absolutist account pays a heavy metaphysical price, without buying any genuine explanatory advantage over the relationist. I go on to examine recent suggestions that parity-non-conservation phenomena in quantum physics allow a stronger version of Kant's challenge to relationism. On closer examination, it turns out that here too the absolutist or substantivalist must be appealing to space parts with primitive identity in order to claim an advantage over relationists; and here too, I argue the substantivalist story really has no advantage over the correct relationist account. (shrink)

In his 1768 essay ‘Concerning the Ultimate Foundation of the Differentiation of the Regions in Space’, Kant used incongruent counterparts in an attempt to refute a Leibnizian-relationist account of space. It is hard to imagine that scholars could be more divided on how to understand Kant’s argument and on how to assess its effectiveness. Two years later in 1770 incongruent counterparts resurface in Kant’s Inaugural Dissertation, this time as part of a proof that our knowledge of space is (...) intuitive. They appear yet again in the Prolegomena and the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science as part of the argument for transcendental idealism. Not surprisingly, scholars are also at odds on how to explain the shifts in the roles Kant wanted incongruent counterparts to play and how to assess the importance of these matters for the development of his critical philosophy. (shrink)

Kant's argument from incongruent counterparts for substantival space is examined; it is concluded that the argument has no force against a relationist. The argument does suggest that a relationist cannot give an account of enantiomorphism, incongruent counterparts and orientability. The prospects for a relationist account of these notions are assessed, and it is found that they are good provided the relationist is some kind of modal relationist. An illustration and interpretation of these modal commitments is given.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, I want to examine some rather curious arguments of Kant’s which purport to show that some alleged properties of space can be derived from some alleged facts about incongruous counterparts. Secondly, I want to give some preliminary answers to some important questions about the distinction between right and left and the nature of space and space-time which are raised by Kant’s argument. As a byproduct, I hope that the discussion will provide (...) an example of how science can illuminate philosophical issues and of how philosophy can at least lead one into interesting scientific issues. (shrink)

This article argues that Kant’s argument from incongruent counterparts in his essay, Directions in Space yields not the conclusion that space is an objective reality, but rather that it is an absolute and dynamical framework that grounds spatial properties, a view which is neutral with respect to the objective/subjective nature of space. It is suggested that, so construed, Kant’s argument in this essay can be made consistent with his later employment in support of transcendental idealism with regard to (...) space. (shrink)

Two puzzles with regard to the Kritik der reinen Vernunft are incongruent counterparts and causality. In De mundi sensibilis atque intelligibilis forma et principiis, Kant indicates that the experience of things like left and right hands, so-called incongruent counterparts, involve certain pure intuitions, and hence constitute one line of evidence for the claim that the concept of space itself is a pure intuition. In KrV, Kant again argues that the concept of space itself is a pure intuition, but (...) does not cite the experience of incongruent counterparts as evidence for this claim. Since there is ostensibly nothing in KrV which tells against the existence of the experiences of incongruent counterparts, the natural question is: “Why, in KrV, does Kant not cite the experience of incongruent counterparts as evidence for the claim that the concept of space is a pure intuition?” The problem with causality is as follows. One of the most primary and basic claims of KrV is that empirical experience is structured by non-empirical concepts, such as substantiality and causality. In a portion of KrV entitled the Transcendental Deduction, Kant gives section 20 the heading “All sensible intuitions stand under the categories, as conditions under which alone their the manifold can come together in one consciousness”. Since categories are those concepts which structure empirical experience, section 20 has demonstrated that all sensible intuitions are subject to substantiality and causality. However, there is a later portion of KrV entitled the Second Analogy with the heading “Principle of temporal sequence according to the law of causality: All alterations occur in accordance with the law of the connection of cause and effect”. Thus, the natural question is: “What does the Second Analogy demonstrate about causality which the Transcendental Deduction did not already demonstrate about causality?”. (shrink)

Consider your right hand and a mirror image duplicate of it. Kant calls such pairs incongruent counterparts. According to him they have the following puzzling features. The relation and situation of the parts of your hand with respect to one another are not sufficient to distinguish it from its mirror duplicate. Nevertheless, there is a spatial difference between the two. Turn and twist them how you will, you cannot make one of them occupy the exact boundaries now occupied by (...) the other. In his 1768 paper, ‘Concerning the Ultimate Foundations of the Differentiation of Regions in Space’, Kant uses these claims to argue against relational accounts of space and goes on to argue that the difference between incongruent counterparts depends on a relation to absolute space as a whole. In his 1770 Inaugural Dissertation he argued that this difference could not be captured by concepts alone but required appeal to intuition. In the Prolegomena (1783) and again in the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786) Kant appealed to these puzzling features of incongruent counterparts to support his transcendental idealism about space. (shrink)

In this paper we are dealing with Kant's view on the phenomenon of incongruous counterparts, in particular with the argument from his article 'On the First Ground of the Distinction of Regions in Space', where the phenomenon of incongruous counterparts is used as an argument for the existence of the absolute and objective space, and with the argument from Kant's Inaugural Dissertation in which he uses the phenomenon of incongruous counterparts again, but this time for a different purpose - as (...) an argument in favor of the idea of space as a pure intuition. Our aim is to show that Kant's argument from 'On the First Ground of the Distinction of Regions in Space', although it shows the inadequacy of Leibniz's definition of congruence, does not in fact represent the reductio ad absurdum of the relationist view, for his argument in favor of the existence of the absolute space represents merely the inference to the best explanation. We also propound an alternative account of the phenomenon of incongruous counterparts, which is in line with the relationist theory. Furthermore, we call in question Kant's argument from the Inaugural Dissertation, according to which incongruence could not be explained discursively, and we put forward a conceptual determination of incongruence in terms of the notions of similarity, equality and congruence, taken as the possibility of objects to be included within the same spatial boundaries. U ovom radu bavimo se Kantovim shvatanjem fenomena inkongruentnih pandana pre svega njegovim argumentom iz spisa 'O osnovnim principima razlikovanja smerova u prostoru', gde Kant fenomen inkongruentnih pandana koristi kao argument u prilog tvrdnje o postojanju apsolutnog i objektivnog prostora, kao i argumentom iz Kantove Inauguralne disertacije, u kojoj se on ponovo poziva na fenomen inkongruentnih pandana, ali ovoga puta sa drugacijim ciljem - kao argument u prilog shvatanja prostora kao cistog opazaja. Cilj nam je da pokazemo kako Kantov argument iz spisa 'O osnovnim principima razlikovanja smerova u prostoru', iako pokazuje neadekvatnost Lajbnicove definicije kongruencije, ipak ne predstavlja reductio ad absurdum relacionisticke pozicije, buduci da njegov argument u prilog postojanja apsolutnog prostora predstavlja samo zakljucak na najbolje moguce objasnjenje, kao i da ponudimo alternativno objasnjenje fenomena inkongruentnih pandana, koje je u skladu sa relacionistickom teorijom. Takodje, dovodimo u pitanje Kantov argument iz Inauguralne disertacije, prema kojem se inkongruencija ne moze izraziti diskurzivno, nudeci pri tome pojmovno odredjenje inkongruencije preko pojmova slicnosti, jednakosti i kongruencije, shvacene kao sposobnost objekata da zauzmu istovetne prostorne granice. (shrink)

At various times in his "Pre-critical" and "Critical" periods, Kant presented an argument about the nature of space that has come to be called the "Incongruous Counterparts" argument. First presented in his 1768 essay, Concerning the Ultimate Foundation for the Differentiation of Regions in Space, the argument holds that two objects, such as two human hands, might be exact counterparts, that is, identical in "size and proportion and... the situation of the parts relative to each other," and yet might be (...) still "incongruent," that there is no continuous rigid motion which brings them into coincidence in space; or, that they are, though counterparts, incongruently left and right hands. This argument appears in 1768, in the Dissertation of 1770, the Prolegomena of 1783 and the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science in 1786. Unfortunately, while the details of the argument are virtually the same, the conclusions are not. Kant seems to have claimed that the argument shows: that a Leibnizean, relational theory of space was wrong; that a theory of absolute space was correct; that space was a pure form of sensibility and that space was transcendentally ideal, i.e., that space was not and could not be a feature of things in themselves. In the secondary literature, commentators who have dealt with this issue have simply noted the odd history of the argument and lamented it. Buroker's ambitious and interesting thesis in this book is not only that Kant's use of the argument is consistent and interconnected, but that the argument can be seen as the "origin" of Kant's idealism. She argues both of these points by arguing, in the great majority of cases, more for a logical than an actual or historical connection among the conclusions Kant drew from the argument; i.e., that she can illuminate the reasoning that led Kant from a rejection of Leibniz's relational view to his radical separation between sensibility and understanding, and then to his view that things in themselves are both unknowable and non-spatial. (shrink)

When a body is turned through 180°, reversal occurs in two dimensions. If it is turned about the vertical axis, then left and right sides change places, and also front and back. If it is turned about the horizontal axis which runs from side to side, then top and bottom change places, and also front and back. If, finally, it is turned about the horizontal axis which runs from front to back, then left and right change places as well as (...) top and bottom. All this appears to follow from the properties of three-dimensional space and of rigid bodies. If XOX' is the axis of rotation of a three-dimensional structure, then there are two axes YOY' and ZOZ' at right angles to XOX', and if one of these moves round 180°, then so must the other. It follows that a body is always reversed in two dimensions whenever it is turned about an axis in the third. It follows also that there are always two ways of turning a body in space so as to reverse it in a given dimension: namely by turning it about either of two axes perpendicular to the given dimension. (shrink)

In this paper we want to show how far the early, pre-critical Kant develops a theory of the constitution of space that not only anticipates insights usually attributed to the phenomenological theory of lived space with its emphasis on the constitutively central role of the human lived-body, but which also establishes the foundation for Kant’s Copernican turn according to which space is understood as ‘form of intuition’, implied in the activity of the transcendental subject. The key to understand this role (...) of the body lies in Kant’s understanding of the asymmetrical nature of a pair of hands, which despite being equal in size and structure, remain incongruent counterparts, and thus evade integration into a homogenous and purely self-referential form of space. (shrink)

Incongruent counterparts are pairs of objects which cannot be enclosed in the same spatial limits despite an exact similarity in magnitude, proportion, and relative position of their parts. Kant discerns in such objects, whose most familiar example is left and right hands, a “paradox” demanding “demotion of space and time to mere forms of our sensory intuition.” This paper aims at an adequate understanding of Kant’s enigmatic idealist argument from handed objects, as well as an understanding of its relation (...) to the other key supports of his idealism. The paper’s central finding is that Kant’s idealist argument from incongruent counterparts rests essentially on his theory of freedom. The surprising result sheds new light on deep and overlooked links among the pillars of transcendental idealism, pointing the way to a comprehensive and unified reading of Kant’s system of idealist arguments. (shrink)

In a recent paper, Robert Hanna argues that Kant's incongruent counterparts example can be mobilized to show that some mental representations, which represent complex states of affairs as complex, do so entirely non-conceptually. I will argue that Hanna is right to see that Kant uses incongruent counterparts to show that there must be a non-conceptual component to cognition, but goes too far in concluding that there must be entirely non-conceptual representations that represent objects as existing in space and (...) time. Kant is deeply committed to the thesis that no representation of a complex state of affairs as complex can be entirely non-conceptual. For Kant, all representations of complex states of affairs as complex (including those of incongruent counterparts) are conceptually structured. I present an interpretation of the Transcendental Aesthetic according to which Kant not only aims at Leibnizian and Newtonian accounts of space and time, but also Hume's. Hume's account fails to make representations of complex states of affairs sufficiently determinate. Kant offers an account later in the Critique that is meant to correct this failing by requiring that all representations of complex states of affairs as complex be conceptually (inferentially) structured. (shrink)

Despite its first page this paper is not yet another piece on Kant! Rather, the paper is a contribution to the literature on incongruent counterparts. Specifically, it concerns the question of whether we can construct a temporal version of the puzzle of incongruent counterparts—a question which (as far as 1 can tell) has been thoroughly neglected. I maintain that we can construct such a version of the puzzle, and that this temporal variant on the phenomenon has something to (...) teach us about popular arguments for the possibility (or even actuality) of four‐dimensional space. (shrink)

Peter Alexander; I*—The Presidential Address: Incongruent Counterparts and Absolute Space, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 85, Issue 1, 1 June 1.

Kant uses incongruent counterparts in his work before and after 1781, but not in the first Critique. Given the relevance that incongruent counterparts had for his thought on space, and their persistence in his work during the 1780s, it is plausible to think that he had a reason for leaving them out of both editions of the Critique. Two implausible conjectures for their absence are here considered and rejected. A more plausible alternative is put forth, which explains that (...) textual absence as a result of the synthetic method of presentation intended for the Critique. (shrink)

Kant uses incongruent counterparts in his work before and after 1781, but not in the first Critique. Given the relevance that incongruent counterparts had for his thought on space, and their persistence in his work during the 1780s, it is plausible to think that he had a reason for leaving them out of both editions of the Critique. Two implausible conjectures for their absence are here considered and rejected. A more plausible alternative is put forth, which explains that (...) textual absence as a result of the synthetic method of presentation intended for the Critique. (shrink)

Russell (in _Principles of Mathematics_) and Wittgenstein (in _Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus_) largely agree on the twin questions of why pairs of congruent objects cannot always be made to coincide and why surfaces can never be uniformly two colours at once. Both philosophers take space and colour to be mathematically representable, construe the relevant impossibilities as mathematical and hold that mathematical impossibility is at root logical. It is not by chance that Russell says nothing about the phenomena in his Introduction to the (...) _Tractatus_ or surprising that Wittgenstein was unmoved by the objection that his account of colour incompatibility puts paid to his early philosophy. (shrink)

I argue that, by the time of his essay "Concerning the Ultimate Ground of the Differentiation of Directions in Space" (1768), Kant had come to question the status of the Principle of Sufficient Reason as a result, at least in part, of his recognition of the existence of incongruent counterparts. Though Kant's argument against absolute space based on the existence of incongruent counterparts has been much discussed in recent years, its importance as a useful benchmark by which to (...) judge the direction of Kant’s thinking during this period has gone unnoticed. This paper is a modest attempt to remedy this deficiency. (shrink)

I propose that we interpret Kant’s argument from incongruent counterparts in the 1768 article ‘Concerning the Ultimate Ground of the Differentiation of Directions in Space’ in light of a theory of dynamic absolute space that he accepted throughout the 1750s and 1760s. This force-based or material conception of space was not an unusual interpretation of the Newtonian notion of absolute space. Nevertheless, commentators have continually argued that Kant’s argument is an utter failure that shifts from the metaphysics of space (...) to its epistemology, because he has no way to connect ‘directionality’ and ‘handedness’ to absolute space. This supposed failure is based on an understanding of absolute space in purely mathematical terms and as an absolute void that lacks any qualitative or dynamic features. If we recognize that Kant held that space had an intrinsic directional asymmetry then his argument successfully connects incongruent counterparts to absolute space. The presence of this notion in Kant’s pre-Critical thought is rarely noted, and its necessity in understanding his incongruence argument is novel. (shrink)

In modern physics, the properties like charge, spin, etc. of elementary entities like electron, proton, photon, etc. are considered to be “intrinsic properties” of the entity. Intrinsic properties are those properties that a thing possesses, irrespective of whether or not there are other contingent things. In Buddhist philosophy especially in Mādhyamik philosophy, no such concept of “intrinsic property” or svabhāva exists. The problem of origin of the universe baffled the scientists and philosophers for (...) many centuries. Within the framework of general theory of relativity as discovered by Einstein, the origin and structure of the universe were discussed in a comprehensive manner. According to the recent formulation of cosmology, the universe originates from the fluctuations of the quantum vacuum. Vacuum in modern physics is not exactly nothing but rather a “something called nothing,” meaning that it is replete with activity governed by the principle of quantum theory. From philosophical perspective, what is significant is the division of creative conceptions into those which assume that the universe arose from “nothingness” in the strong ontological meaning of the word vs. those which lead to the conclusion that it was originated from a certain “poorer” physical reality, usually called “quantum vacuum” or space-time endowed with fluctuation. This vacuum or ontologically speaking a substratum exists which is devoid of any matter but full of activities or full of potentialities. Special theory of relativity is based on two axioms, one of which is the speed of light taken as constant and maximum. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to explore Deleuze's use of Kant's argument from incongruent counterparts, which Kant uses to show the existence of what he calls an “internal difference” within things. I want to explore how Deleuze draws out an important distinction between the concept and the Idea, and provides an incisive account of his relationship to both the Kantian and Leibnizian projects. First, I look at Kant's use of the argument to provide a refutation of the Leibnizian (...) account of space, before showing how this criticism in fact rests on the question of the conceptual determination of object. Second, I show how Deleuze develops a taxonomy of difference on the basis of his reading of Kant's argument. Finally, I look at what Deleuze sees as the limitations in Kant's understanding of this concept and Deleuze's attempt to overcome these limitations through the introduction of the notion of the Idea, which will provide a genetic and nonconceptual account of the object. In doing so, I show why Deleuze takes the formulation of an adequate account of difference to be one of the central aims of his own metaphysics. (shrink)

Paper begins: I have two gloves, a left glove and a right glove. I can fit the left glove onto my left hand, but not the right glove. Why? Because the right glove is the wrong shape to go on my left hand. So the two gloves are different shapes….

According to Roy Sorensen [Philosophical Studies 100 (2000) 175–191] an object cannot differ aesthetically from its mirror image. On his view, mirror-reversing an object – changing its left/right orientation – cannot bring about any aesthetic change. However, in arguing for this thesis Sorensen assumes that aesthetic properties supervene on intrinsic properties alone. This is a highly controversial assumption and nothing is offered in its support. Moreover, a plausible weakening of the assumption does not improve the argument. Finally, (...) Sorensen’s second argument is shown to be formally flawed. As a result, the case for the aesthetic irrelevancy of orientation seems still open. (shrink)

It’s now commonplace — since Korsgaard (1996) — in ethical theory to distinguish between two distinctions: on the one hand, the distinction between value an object has in virtue of its intrinsic properties vs. the value it has in virtue of all its properties, intrinsic or extrinsic; and on the other hand, the distinction between the value has an object as an end, vs. the value it has as a means to something else. I’ll call the (...) former distinction the distinction between intrinsic and nonintrinsic value; the latter is between value as-an-end and instrumental value. (shrink)

When young Kant meditated upon the distinction between his right and left hands, he could not foresee that the problem of incongruent counterparts would revive in the twentieth century under a new form. In the early days of quantum chemistry, Friedrich Hund developed the so-called Hund paradox that arises from the supposed inability of quantum mechanics to account for the difference between enantiomers. In this paper, the paradox is expressed as a case of quantum measurement, stressing that decoherence does (...) not offer a way out of the problem. The main purpose is to argue for the need to adopt a clear interpretation of quantum mechanics in order to solve the paradox. In particular, I claim that the Modal-Hamiltonian Interpretation, which conceives measurement as a breaking-symmetry process, supplies the tools required to explain the dextro-rotation or levo-rotation properties of optical isomers. (shrink)

INTRODUCTION TO THE ARGUMENT OF 1768 Some ordinary facts about the world we live in can be readily explained by other ordinary facts. One can, for example, explain the fact that when we are facing north the sun rises on the right and ...

Possession of any actual physical property depends on the ambient conditions for its bearers, irrespective of one's particular theory of dispositions. If 'self-sufficiency' makes a property intrinsic, then, because of this dependence, things in the actual world cannot have an intrinsic physical resemblance to one another or to things in other possible worlds. Criteria for the self-sufficiency of intrinsic properties based on, or implying indifference to both 'loneliness' and 'accompaniment' entail that no self-sufficient property can require (...) its bearers to be extended in space or time, yet all physical properties of concrete objects do require this. These outcomes undermine the vindication of physicalism claimed by neo-Humeans for their metaphysical project. For physical properties dependent on ambient conditions cannot supervene on intrinsic properties independent of ambient conditions: when ambient conditions change we get a change in the former without a change in the latter. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:61 PROJECTIONISM, REALISM, AND HUME'S MORAL SENSE THEORY* Introduction The character of Hume's moral theory is currently a topic of considerable discussion.1 We find in the recent literature essentially two sorts of interpretation of Hume's theory. On the one side there is the view that, for Hume, the distinction between virtue and vice is reducible to the moral sentiments of approval and disapproval. Associated with this view is the (...) further claim that Hume ascribes to us the belief that virtue and vice exist as the counterparts to these sentiments; and, in addition, that this belief is, for Hume, a mistaken one. For reasons which will become obvious this may be described as the Projectionist account of Hume. On the other side, there is the attempt to represent Hume's moral theory as a form of realism, i.e., a theory according to which there are moral properties belonging to actions, or the agents who perform them, which provide objective correlates of the feelings which those actions, or the agents concerned, induce in us as spectators. Now clearly an important part of what is at stake between these different interpretations is the question of how seriously we should take Hume's own description of this theory as one according to which moral distinctions are derived from a moral sense. It is characteristic of the Projectionist interpretation to suggest that 'sense' is equivalent here to 'sentiment', and, indeed, that Hume's moral sense theory is tantamount to the denial that there is anything in Objects' themselves corresponding to our moral (or aesthetic) sentiments. The Realist interpretation, on the other hand, stresses the importance of Hume's references in 62 the Treatise to a moral (and aesthetic) sense, and the precedent provided in this respect by Hutcheson; and it takes seriously the idea that this sense enables us to become acquainted, via the sentiments involved, with the qualities of virtue and vice. My own interest in these different interpretations concerns their disagreement about the way in which we should understand Hume's notion of a moral sense. I wish to argue against the Projectionist interpretation, and its dismissive treatment of Hume's references to a moral sense, though it is a further question whether the view of Hume which emerges deserves the name of 'Realism'. 1. The Projectionist Interpretation It seems clear that the notion of a moral sense cannot be intended literally, i.e., as though there is a form of moral sense-perception strictly comparable to the modes of perception provided by the external senses. It is, presumably, part of the definition of a sense that it is a faculty whose function depends upon stimulation of an organ or, at least, receptors peculiar to that sense; and, furthermore, in the case of the various external senses there is -- except for the contact sense of touch -- a distinctive medium of perception. For both these reasons moral sense theorists can only be proposing an analogy with the external senses. In Hume's case in particular, however, there appear to be reasons for doubting whether the analogy can be more than superficial. Perhaps the most obvious of these lies with Hume's insistence on the action-guiding character of the distinction between moral good and evil (see e.g., T 437-462). For it seems clear that sense-perceptions g as such can have no direct influence upon our actions. 63 Then there is Hume's denial that morality consists in any matter of fact (T 468; EPM 292). If virtue and vice are to be considered the objects of some form of moral sense-perception their existence presumably does become a matter of fact. Finally, a moral sense theory seems to imply that judgements of virtue and vice are straightforwardly true or false, according to whether or not we perceive veridical Iy; while Hume's own discussion sometimes points to a non-propositional view of moral utterances as the expression of certain feelings or sentiments. These last two points remind us that Hume often appears to deny that values belong as intrinsic properties to the objects evaluated. This is obviously true of the following, much quoted, passage: Take any... (shrink)

The paper sketches out an ontology of physics in terms of matter being primitive stuff distributed in space and all the properties physics is committed to being dispositions that fix the temporal development of the distribution of matter in space. Whereas such properties can be conceived as intrinsic properties of particles in classical mechanics, in quantum physics, there is a holistic property or structure that relates all matter and that fixes its temporal development.

In 1768, Kant published a short essay in which he inquired into the possibility of determining the directionality of space. Kant's central argument invokes the strategy that if one were to demonstrate directionality, then the relational view of space that Leibniz propounded would be refuted. This paper has been considered a major turning point in Kant's philosophical development towards his critical philosophy of transcendental idealism. I demonstrate that in this study, Kant came very close to the modern concept of symmetry. (...) His novel construction of incongruent counterpart (inkongruentes Gegenstück) contains elements essential to the modern notion of symmetry. However, Kant does not consider the incongruent counterparts, which he designates as ‘Right’ and ‘Left’, symmetric; rather, he holds the French encyclopaedist view that symmetry is a kind of balance. This study convinced Kant that the solution to the problem of the nature of space lies not in mathematics but in metaphysics. He was wrong in this conclusion, at least with respect to symmetry. The solution was found within the framework of mathematics, that is, solid geometry. In 1794, Legendre recast the traditional encyclopaedist concept of symmetry by calling a certain property of polyhedra symmetrical. The view of Kant is contrasted with that of Legendre by comparing their usages of mirror image as an aid for understanding. While in both cases mirror images are not considered illusions—perhaps for the first time in the history of mirror reflections—the differences are substantial, highlighting the limitation of Kant's position and the great potential of Legendre's new concept of symmetry. (shrink)

Lake Tanganiyka has lefty and righty cichlid fish that show there can be natural selection for a trait over its mirror image counterpart.This raises the question Can there be biological selection of a whole organism over its mirror image counterpart? That is, could the fitness of a fish be altered by simply changing it into its own enantaniomorph? My answer is no. I present Flatlander thought experiment to demonstrate that mirror imagecounterparts are duplicates because they only differ in how they (...) happen to be oriented in space. The counterparts have the same intrinsic properties and are in the same environment,so there can be no difference in fitness. (shrink)

This essay examines the metaphysical foundation of Leibniz’s theory of space against the backdrop of the subtantivalism/relationism debate and at the ontological level of material bodies and properties. As will be demonstrated, the details of Leibniz’ theory defy a straightforward categorization employing the standard relationism often attributed to his views. Rather, a more careful analysis of his metaphysical doctrines related to bodies and space will reveal the importance of a host of concepts, such as the foundational role of God, (...) the holism of both geometry and the material world’s interconnections, and the viability and adequacy of a property theory in characterizing his natural philosophy of space. (shrink)

In physics, objects are often assigned vector characteristics such as a specific velocity. How can this be understood from a metaphysical point of view – is assigning an object a vector characteristic to attribute it an intrinsic property? As a short review of Newtonian, special relativistic and general relativistic physics shows, if we wish to assign some object a vector characteristic, we have to relate it to something – call it S. If S is to be different from the (...) original object – and I argue for this assumption – then having the specific vector characteristic is not an intrinsic property under different readings of “intrinsic”. For instance, I argue that lonely objects with different orientations do not constitute metaphysically distinct possibilities. There are, however, difficulties in applying the loneliness test, and they concern the role of the space‐time. (shrink)

It is shown that counterpart theory and the duplication account of intrinsicality —two key pieces of the Lewisian package—are incompatible. In particular, the duplication account yields the result that certain intuitively extrinsic modal properties are intrinsic. Along the way I consider a potentially more general worry concerning certain existential closures of internal relations. One conclusion is that, unless the Lewisian provides an adequate alternative to the duplication account, the reductive nature of their total theory is in jeopardy.

This volume explores the inadequacies of the two standard conceptions of space or spacetime, substantivalism and relationism, and in the process, proposes a new historical interpretation of these physical theories. This book also examines and develops alternative ontological conceptions of space, such as the property theory of space and emergent spacetime hypotheses, and explores additional historical elements of seventeenth century theories and other metaphysical themes. Readers will learn about specific problems with the substantivalism versus relationism dichotomy. First, Newton and Leibniz (...) are often upheld as the retrospective forerunners of, respectively, substantivalism and relationism, but their work often contradicts the central tenets of these views. Second, these theories have proven problematic when transferred to a modern setting, especially with regards to general relativity and the recent quantum gravity hypotheses. In order to address these problems, the author develops a new classificational system that provides a more accurate taxonomy for the elements of all spatial ontologies, both in the seventeenth century and for contemporary theories of physics. This classification obtains successful analogies between Newton, Leibniz, and other natural philosophers with contemporary physical theories, and it also admits a role for the current brand of emergent spacetime hypotheses and the property theory of space. (shrink)

Imagine that the person you see through the looking glass is a real person, with her own experiences, living in an environment that is the mirror-reverse of yours. You look at your right-hand glove as you put it on your right hand; she looks at her left-hand glove as she puts it on her left hand. You feel your heart beating on your left side; she feels her heart beating on her right side. You hear a bird chirping out the (...) window to your left; she hears a bird chirping out the window to her right. Is there any difference between your experience—your what-it-is-like phenomenal character—and hers? She is looking at her left-hand glove, the mirror-reverse of you as you look at your right-hand glove. Does she see what you see, a right-hand glove, or the reverse of what you see, a left-hand glove? Since her environment is the mirror-reverse of yours, and she seems to get by in it just fine, you'd probably assume, if you had to guess, that she sees it correctly. She is looking at her left-hand glove, after all. So it stands to reason that she is having an experience as of a left-hand glove, not a right-hand glove. And it stands to reason—it seems obvious—that an experience as of a left-hand glove differs in what it is like from an experience as of a right-hand glove. In this paper, I will argue that this last presupposition, obvious though it may seem, is false. I'll argue that (unless dualism is true) there is no intrinsic difference between what it is like to experience a left-hand glove and what it is like to experience a right-hand glove: if there are any relevant experiential differences, these are either merely comparative (differences in what it is like to compare gloves) or cognitive (differences in what it is like to bring an experience of a glove under a concept like LEFT or RIGHT). So your mirror-reverse twin, who won't differ from you in what she is comparing or thinking, will have the same (type of) experience as you. I'll call the position I am arguing against orientation–experience categoricalism, and the position I am arguing for orientation–experience relationism. Orientation–experience relationism is a surprising thesis, one whose falsity you might take for granted. I will argue for it by cases. Things go wrong for the orientation–experience categoricalist in one sort of way if we imagine that you and your mirror-twin's experiences differ: basically, this leads to absurdity if we imagine that you and she both live at a world with a non-orientable spatial topology (in the sense in which a Möbius strip or Klein bottle are non-orientable). Things go wrong for the orientation–experience categoricalist in a different sort of way if we assume that you and your twin would experience the same, but that someone else might have the experience that we were just imagining that your twin might have. Under these assumptions, we have to accept the existence of partial zombies, who lack the relevant phenomenology but behave as if they have it, at very close, empirically possible worlds. In an appendix, I argue that property dualism is the best alternative for those who cannot bring themselves to accept orientation-experience relationism. (shrink)

The traditional absolutist-relationist controversy about space and time conflates four distinct issues: existence, abstraction, relationality and relativity. Terms which are relational, relative or abstract may denote items which possess contingent properties. Possession of such properties, including topological and geometrical properties, is therefore no indication of logical type. To fail to recognise the possibility of spaces, times and space-times of various logical types is to risk conflating two distinct ontological issues: a metaphysical issue concerning the existence of abstract (...) objects and a question of physics concerning the existence of causally efficacious substrata which may or may not be needed to explain the contingent properties of the abstract objects. (shrink)