Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T10:40:39.060Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ernst Cassirer and the Structural Conception of Objects in Modern Science: The Importance of the “Erlanger Programm”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Karol-Nobert Ihmig
Karol-Nobert Ihmig
Affiliation:
Bielefeld, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cassirer's analyses of twentieth-century physics from the perspective of the philosophy of science focuses on the concept of the object of scientific experience. Within his concept of functional knowledge, he takes a structural stance and claims that it is specifically this concept of the object that has paved the way for modern science. This article aims, first, to show that Cassirer's interpretation of Felix Klein's “Erlanger Programm” provided the impetus for this view. Then, it analyzes Kant's conception of objectivity in order to examine whether Cassirer can rightfully claim that his view is a further development of transcendental principles. Finally, it is argued that it is Cassirer's concept of the object that enables him to integrate one decisive feature of scientific progress, namely, the increasing generalization of the basic concepts of a science, into his conception of knowledge. This is illustrated in more detail through the example of the progression from Newton's mechanics to relativity theory.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , winter 1999 , pp. 513 - 529
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Birkhoff, Garrett and Bennett, M. K., 1988. “Felix Klein and his ‘Erlanger Programm’.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. XI: History and Philosophy of Modern Mathematics, edited by Aspray, William and Kitcher, Philip, 145–176. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst. [1907] 1991. Das Erkenntnisproblem in der Philosophic und Wissenschaft der neueren Zeit. Bd. II. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst. [1910] 1953. Substance and Function. In Substance and Function and Einstein's Theory of Relativity. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst. [1913] 1993. “Erkenntnistheorie nebst den Grenzfragen der Logik.” In Erkenntnis, Begriff, Kultur. Ed. by Bast, Rainer A.. Hamburg: Meiner: 1–76.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst. [1921] 1953. Einstein's Theory of Relativity. In Substance and Function and Einstein's Theory of Relativity. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst. [1937] 1987. Determinismus und Indeterminismus in der modernen Physik. In Zur modernen Physik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst. 1944. “The Concept of Group and the Theory of Perception.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 5: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst. [1945] 1979. “Reflections on the Concept of Group and the Theory of Perception.” In Symbol, Myth, and Culture: Essays and Lectures of Ernst Cassirer 1935–1945, edited by Verene, Donald ph., 271–291. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst. [1929] 1990. Philosophic der symbolischen Formen. Dritter Teil: Phänomenologie der Erkenntnis. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Eddington, Arthur. [1939] 1967. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Michigan: Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert. [1916] 1958. “Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie.” In Lorentz, H. A., Einstein, A., Minkowski, H. and Das Relativitätsprinzip. Eine Sammlung von Abhandlungen, 81–124. Stuttgart: Teubner.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 1983. Foundations of Space-Time Theories. Relativistic Physics and Philosophy of Science. Princeton: University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Thomas. 1984. “The Erlanger Programm of Felix Klein: Reflections on its Place in the History of Mathematics.” Historia Mathematica 11: 442–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihmig, Karl-Norbert. 1997. Cassirers Invariantentheorie der Erfahrung und seine Rezeption des “Erlanger Programms.” Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. [A: 1781/B: 1787] 1965. Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Smith, Norman Kemp. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Klein, Felix. [1872] 1974. “Vergleichende Betrachtungen über neuere geometrische Forschungen.” In Das Erlanger Programm, edited by Wussing, Hans, 29–73. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Geest & Potig K.-G.Google Scholar
Klein, Felix. [1925] 1968. Elementarmathematik vom höheren Standpunkt aus. Vol. II: Geometric Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Felix. [1926] 1979. Vorlesungen über die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundert. Teil I. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Klein, Felix. [1927] 1979. Vorlesungen über die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundert. Teil II: Die Grundbegriffe der Invariantentheorie und ihr Eindringen in die mathematische Physik. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Ryckman, Thomas A. 1992. “‘P(oint)-C(oincidence) Thinking’: The Ironical Attachment of Logical Empiricism to General Relativity (and Some Lingering Consequences).” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23: 471–497.Google Scholar
Ryckman, Thomas A. 1998. “Einstein, Cassirer and General Covariance — Then and Now.” Paper presented at the workshop, Ernst Cassirer: Symbol, Science, and Culture, Tel Aviv University (published in this issue).Google Scholar
Torretti, Roberto. 1978. Philosophy of Geometry from Riemann to Poincaré. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Reidel.Google Scholar
Verene, Donald Ph., ed. 1979. Symbol, Myth, and Culture: Essays and Lectures of Ernst Cassirer 1935–1945. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Weyl, Hermann. [1923] 1970. Raum, Zeit, Materie. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Wussing, Hans. 1969. Die Genesis des abstrakten Gruppenbegriffs. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Yaglom, Isaak M. [1921] 1988. Felix Klein and Sophus Lie. Evolution of the Idea of Symmetry in the Nineteenth Century. Translated by S. Sossinsky, edited by Grant, Hardy and Shenitzer, Abe. Boston/Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar