Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A· 2026Q1
Cassirer and Reichenbach on the conventionality of geometry
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
This paper argues that both Cassirer and Reichenbach, when viewed against a neo-Kantian backdrop, present a genuine option where the relativization of the Kantian a priori hinges on the interplay of different levels of constitutivity, specifically concerning the status of geometry in general relativity.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- The paper addresses the distinction between the relativization of the Kantian a priori and conventionalism.
- It focuses on Cassirer's and Reichenbach's views on geometry in general relativity.
- The core argument is that both philosophers, within a neo-Kantian framework, propose a model where the a priori's relativization depends on different levels of constitutivity.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Much of the scholarship on the relativization of the a priori has taken its starting point from the way in which Reichenbach, in The Theory of Relativity and A Priori Knowledge (1920), accounts for the possibility of varying the coordinating principles linking abstract mathematical structures to empirical reality. Such are the principles that Reichenbach called a priori in the sense of constitutive of the objects of experience but no longer valid for all time as Kant thought. However, this poses the problem of distinguishing the relativization of the Kantian a priori from conventionalism. This paper aims to reconsider this issue in the example of Cassirer’s and Reichenbach’s discussions of the status of geometry in general relativity. It will be argued that both Cassirer and Reichenbach, when his work is read against the neo-Kantian background of the debate, offer a genuine option, according to which the relativization of the Kantian a priori depends on the interrelation of different levels of constitutivity
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: History and Philosophy of Science
History and Philosophy of ScienceArts and Humanities