Subject: Re: [HM] Lobachevskii
From: Randy K. Schwartz (rschwart@schoolcraft.cc.mi.us)
Date: Thu Mar 16 2000 - 17:26:16 EST
Jeremy Gray, in his comment regarding Russia in the days of
Lobachevskii and Magnitsky, closed by wondering: "Would supporting Kant have
been progressive, for that matter?" Dirk Struik, whose progressive views are
well known, seems to suggest that the answer is "yes." In his entry on
Lobachevskii for the Encyclopaedia Britannica (as quoted in the MacTutor
archive), Struik writes that the reactionary administration of University of
Kazan curator M. L. Magnitskii "... reflected the spirit of the later years
of Tsar Alexander I, who was distrustful of modern science and philosophy,
particularly that of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, as evil products
of the French Revolution and a menace to orthodox religion. The results at
Kazan during the years 1819-26 were factionalism, decay of academic
standards, dismissals, and departure of some of the best professors,
including ... Bartels ..."
- Randy K. Schwartz
+++++++ original message follows ++++++++++
Dear List members
I cannot confirm the story that Lobachevskii was animated by an anti-Kantian
spirit. Kagan, in his biography of Lobachevskii, shows that under the regime
of Magnitsky, the reactionary in charge of education in Kasan, the great
fear was the example of the French revolution. Lobachevskii's enthusiasm for
d'Alembert's views on geometry cost him a publication accordingly. Moreover,
three days after Magnitsky and his puppet Rector fell from power
Lobachevskii gave a public lecture 'On the principles of geometry, with a
rigorous demonstration of the theory of parallels.' The manuscript of this
talk is now lost, but later references suggest that it marks the start of
Lobachevskii's awareness of a non-Euclidean geometry. A. Vassilief, in his
1896 Eloge of Lobachevskii wrote of opposition to Kant's views in Russia,
and suggests that Lobachevskii could well have known of this. Lobachevskii
came to see geometry as founded on experience, notably that of rigid bodies
in local regions of space, and maybe he thought this way early on. On my
interpretation of Kant (which I think agrees with Michael Friedman's, to wit
that Kant had no doubt space was Euclidean and was interested in how the
mind came to know that) Lobachevskii would certainly know that he disagreed
with Kant. But what intellectual and political ripples that caused, I cannot
begin to judge. My sense of Lobachevskii was that he was generally
progressive (whatever that might mean). But would opposition to Kant have
been progressive in Lobachevskii's Russia? Would supporting Kant have been
progressive, for that matter?
Best wishes
Jeremy Gray
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Mar 17 2000 - 05:37:34 EST