Element contents
The Euclidean Programme
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 January 2024
Summary
The Euclidean Programme embodies a traditional sort of epistemological foundationalism, according to which knowledge – especially mathematical knowledge – is obtained by deduction from self-evident axioms or first principles. Epistemologists have examined foundationalism extensively, but neglected its historically dominant Euclidean form. By contrast, this book offers a detailed examination of Euclidean foundationalism, which, following Lakatos, the authors call the Euclidean Programme. The book rationally reconstructs the programme's key principles, showing it to be an epistemological interpretation of the axiomatic method. It then compares the reconstructed programme with select historical sources: Euclid's Elements, Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, Descartes's Discourse on Method, Pascal's On the Geometric Mind and a twentieth-century account of axiomatisation. The second half of the book philosophically assesses the programme, exploring whether various areas of contemporary mathematics conform to it. The book concludes by outlining a replacement for the Euclidean Programme.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009221955Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 22 February 2024
References
Adam, C. and Tannery, P. (eds.) (1897–1910), Oeuvres de Descartes, vols. 1–12, Leopold Cerf.Google Scholar
Aristotle (4th century BC), The Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, transl. by Cooke, H. P. and Tredennick, H., 1938 ed., Harvard University Press: Loeb Classical Library.Google Scholar
Aristotle (4th century BC), Physics, transl. by R. Waterfield, 2008 ed., Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle (4th century BC), Posterior Analytics, Topica, transl. by Tredennick, H. and Forster, E. S., 1960 ed., Harvard University Press: Loeb Classical Library.Google Scholar
Arnauld, A. and Nicole, P. (1683/2019), La Logique ou l’Art de Penser (5th ed.), 2nd Revised ed. by P. Clair and Gibral, F., Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. (ed.) (1993), Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. (2005), ‘What Is a Disjunction?’, in Frede, D. and Inwood, B. (eds.), Language and Learning, Cambridge University Press, repr. in his Logical Matters (2012), Oxford University Press: 512–37.Google Scholar
Barton, N., Ternullo, C., and Venturi, G. (2020), ‘On Forms of Justification in Set Theory’, Australasian Journal of Logic 17: 158–200.Google Scholar
Boolos, G. (1971), ‘The Iterative Conception of Set’, Journal of Philosophy 68: 215–31.Google Scholar
Bos, H. (1981), ‘On the Representation of Curves in Descartes’ Géométrie’, Archive for History of Exact Sciences 24: 295–338.Google Scholar
Bronstein, D. (2016), Aristotle on Knowledge and Learning: The Posterior Analytics, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burnyeat, M. F. (1981), ‘Aristotle on Understanding Knowledge’, in Berti, E. (ed.), Aristotle on Science: The Posterior Analytics, Antenore: 97–139.Google Scholar
Corcoran, J. (1974), ‘Aristotle’s Natural Deduction System’, in Corcoran, J. (ed.), Ancient Logic and Its Modern Interpretations, Reidel: 85–131.Google Scholar
Corkum, P. (2016), ‘Ontological Dependence and Grounding in Aristotle’, Oxford Handbooks Online in Philosophy, https://doi.org//10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.013.31.Google Scholar
Craig, E. (1996), The Mind of God and the Works of Man, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, R. (1637/2001), Discourse on Method, Optics, Geometry, and Meteorology, transl. by Olscamp, P. (Revised ed.), Hackett.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1984a/vol. 1) & (1984b/vol. 2), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, transl. by Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., and Murdoch, D., Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Detel, W. (2012), ‘Aristotle’s Logic and Theory of Science’, in Gill, M. L. and Pellegrin, P. (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Philosophy, Wiley: 245–69.Google Scholar
Detlefsen, M. (2014), ‘Completeness and the Ends of Axiomatisation’, in Kennedy, J. (ed.), Interpreting Gödel, Cambridge University Press: 59–77.Google Scholar
Domski, M. (2009), ‘The Intelligibility of Motion and Construction: Descartes’ Early Mathematics and Metaphysics, 1619–1637’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40: 119–30.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. (1973), ‘The Philosophical Basis of Intuitionistic Logic’, in his Truth and Other Enigmas (1978), Harvard University Press: 215–47.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1934), ‘On the Method of Theoretical Physics’, Philosophy of Science 1: 163–9.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (2000), ‘Does Mathematics Need New Axioms?’, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 6: 401–13.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1884/1953), The Foundations of Arithmetic (2nd ed.), transl. by Austin, J., Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Freudenthal, G. (1988), ‘La philosophie de la géometrie d’al-Fârâbî: Son commentaire sur le début du Ier et le début du Ve livre des Éléments d’Euclide’, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 11: 104–219.Google Scholar
Friedman, H. (1971), ‘Higher Set Theory and Mathematical Practice’, Annals of Mathematical Logic 2: 325–57.Google Scholar
Gardies, J-L. (1982), ‘L’interprétation d’Euclide chez Pascal et Arnauld’, Les études philosophiques 2: 129–48.Google Scholar
Gödel, K. (1931), ‘On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I’ transl. by van Heijenoort, J. in Feferman et al (eds.) (1986), Kurt Gödel: Collected Works (vol. 1), Oxford University Press: 144–95.Google Scholar
Gödel, K. (1964), ‘What Is Cantor’s Continuum Problem?’, in Feferman, et al (eds.) (1990), Kurt Gödel: Collected Works (vol. 2), Oxford University Press: 254–70.Google Scholar
Grosholz, E. R. (1991), Cartesian Method and the Problem of Reduction, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, K. (2005), ‘Is Choice Self-Evident?’, American Philosophical Quarterly 42: 237–61.Google Scholar
Heath, T. (ed.) (1925), The Thirteen Books of the Elements (2nd ed.), vol. 1: Books I–II, vol. 2: Books III–IX, vol. 3: Books X–XIII, Cambridge University Press, 1956 Dover ed.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D. (1899a), Grundlagen der Geometrie, transl. by L. Unger from the 10th German ed. as Foundations of Geometry (1990, 2nd ed.), Open Court.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D. (1899b), ‘Hilbert to Frege 29.12.1899’, in Gabriel, G. (ed.) (1980), Gottlob Frege: Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence, University of Chicago Press: 38–43.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D. (1925), ‘On the Infinite’, transl. by Bauer-Mengelberg, S. in van Heijenoort, J. (ed.) (1967), From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic 1879–1931, Harvard University Press: 367–92.Google Scholar
Huntington, E. V. (1911), ‘The Fundamental Propositions of Algebra’, in Young, J. W. A. (ed.) Monographs on Topics of Modern Mathematics, Longmans, Green and Co.: 149–207.Google Scholar
Jesseph, D. (2022), ‘Berkeley and Mathematics’, in Rickless, S. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Berkeley, Oxford University Press: 300–25.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1962), ‘Infinite Regress and Foundations of Mathematics’, in Worrall, J. and Currie, G. (eds.) (1978), Mathematics, Science, and Epistemology, Cambridge University Press: 3–23.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1976), ‘A Renaissance of Empiricism in the Recent Philosophy of Mathematics’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 27: 201–23.Google Scholar
Lee, H. D. P. (1935), ‘Geometrical Method and Aristotle’s Account of First Principles’, The Classical Quarterly 29: 113–24.Google Scholar
Lewis, F. (1920), ‘History of the Parallel Postulate’, American Mathematical Monthly 27: 16–23.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. (2014), The Ideals of Inquiry: An Ancient History, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Locke, J. (1689/2004), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. by Woolhouse, R., Penguin.Google Scholar
Maddy, P. (1988), ‘Believing the Axioms’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 53: 481–511, 736–64.Google Scholar
Mancosu, P. and Mugnai, M. (2023), Syllogistic Logic and Mathematical Proof, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McGee, V. (1985), ‘A Counterexample to Modus Ponens’, Journal of Philosophy 82: 462–71.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1882), A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive (8th ed.), Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
Morison, B. (2019), ‘Theoretical Nous in the Posterior Analytics’, Manuscrito 42: 1–43.Google Scholar
Mueller, I. (1974), ‘Greek Mathematics and Greek Logic’, in Corcoran, J. (ed.), Ancient Logic and Its Modern Interpretations, Reidel: 35–70.Google Scholar
Pascal, B. (1655/1991), De l’esprit géométrique, in Pascal: Œuvres Complètes, vol. III: Œuvres Diverses (1654–1657), Mesnard, J. (ed.): 360–428 (including commentary by Mesnard), Desclée de Brouwer.Google Scholar
Paseau, A. C. (2007), ‘Boolos on the Justification of Set Theory’, Philosophia Mathematica 15: 30–53.Google Scholar
Paseau, A. C. (2011), ‘Mathematical Instrumentalism, Gödel’s Theorem and Inductive Evidence’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42: 140–9.Google Scholar
Paseau, A. C. (2015), ‘Knowledge of Mathematics without Proof’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 66: 775–99.Google Scholar
Paseau, A. C. (2023), ‘Non-Deductive Justification in Mathematics’, in Sriraman, B. (ed.), Handbook of the History and Philosophy of Mathematical Practice, Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19071-2_116-1.Google Scholar
Paseau, A. C. and Leek, R. (2022), ‘The Compactness Theorem’, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/compactness-theorem.Google Scholar
Proclus (5th century AD/1970), A Commentary on the First Book of Euclid’s Elements, transl. by G. R. Morrow, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, W. D. (1957), Aristotle’s Prior and Posterior Analytics (Revised ed.), Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1907), ‘The Regressive Method of Discovering the Premises of Mathematics’, in Moore, G. (ed.) (2014), The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, vol. 5, Routledge: 571–80.Google Scholar
Schechter, J. (2013), ‘Rational Self-Doubt and the Failure of Closure’, Philosophical Studies 163: 429–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, S. (1997), Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. (2009), ‘We Hold These Truths to Be Self-evident: But What Do We Mean by That?’, Review of Symbolic Logic 2: 175–207.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. (2009), Subsystems of Second Order Arithmetic (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smiley, T. J. (1973), ‘What Is a Syllogism?’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 136–54.Google Scholar
Smith, P. (2013), An Introduction to Gödel’s Theorems (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sorell, T. (2016), ‘Knowledge (Scientia)’, in Nolan, L. (ed.), The Cambridge Descartes Lexicon, Cambridge University Press: 423–8.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1994), Introduction to Logic and to the Methodology of Deductive Sciences (4th ed.), Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. and Givant, S. (1999), ‘Tarksi’s System of Geometry’, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 5: 175–214.Google Scholar
Wardhaugh, B. (2020), The Book of Wonders: The Many Lives of Euclid’s Elements, William Collins.Google Scholar
Whitehead, A. N. and Russell, B. (1910/1927), Principia Mathematica to *56 (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wrigley, W. (2022a), ‘Gödelian Platonism and Mathematical Intuition’, European Journal of Philosophy 30: 578–600.Google Scholar
Wrigley, W. (2022b), ‘Gödel’s Disjunctive Argument’, Philosophia Mathematica 30: 306–42.Google Scholar
Zermelo, E. (1930), ‘On Boundary Numbers and Domains of Sets: New Investigations in the Foundations of Set Theory’, transl. by M. Hallett in W. Ewald (1996), From Kant to Hilbert vol. 2, Oxford University Press: 1219–33.Google Scholar
Zuppolini, B. (2020), ‘Comprehension, Demonstration, and Accuracy in Aristotle’, Journal of the History of Philosophy 58: 29–48.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 16
- Cited by