Books on the philosophy of geometry
$begingroup$
I am looking for recent books ( say published after 2000) on the philosophy of geometry, most books on the philosophy of mathematics seem to ignore or bypass geometry at all or am I just looking with my eyes closed?
geometry book-recommendation big-list philosophy big-picture
asked Jul 18 '17 at 6:59
WillemienWillemien
3,50032060
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am looking for recent books ( say published after 2000) on the philosophy of geometry, most books on the philosophy of mathematics seem to ignore or bypass geometry at all or am I just looking with my eyes closed?
geometry book-recommendation big-list philosophy big-picture
asked Jul 18 '17 at 6:59
WillemienWillemien
3,50032060
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I suppose "Geometry Revisited" by Coxeter is apropos here.
$endgroup$
– Chris
Jul 18 '17 at 7:08
$begingroup$
@Chris, "Geometry Revisited" by Coxeter is from 1967 , maybe the philosophy of geometry is really a dead subject (some say the same of geometry itself)
$endgroup$
– Willemien
Jul 19 '17 at 8:57
$begingroup$
the book "euclidean and non-euclidean geometries" by Marvin Greenberg has a bit of philosophy in it.
$endgroup$
– Tim kinsella
Jul 26 '17 at 15:13
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am looking for recent books ( say published after 2000) on the philosophy of geometry, most books on the philosophy of mathematics seem to ignore or bypass geometry at all or am I just looking with my eyes closed?
geometry book-recommendation big-list philosophy big-picture
asked Jul 18 '17 at 6:59
WillemienWillemien
3,50032060
$endgroup$
I am looking for recent books ( say published after 2000) on the philosophy of geometry, most books on the philosophy of mathematics seem to ignore or bypass geometry at all or am I just looking with my eyes closed?
geometry book-recommendation big-list philosophy big-picture
geometry book-recommendation big-list philosophy big-picture
asked Jul 18 '17 at 6:59
WillemienWillemien
3,50032060
asked Jul 18 '17 at 6:59
WillemienWillemien
3,50032060
asked Jul 18 '17 at 6:59
WillemienWillemien
3,50032060
asked Jul 18 '17 at 6:59
WillemienWillemien
3,50032060
asked Jul 18 '17 at 6:59
WillemienWillemien
3,50032060
3,50032060
1
$begingroup$
I suppose "Geometry Revisited" by Coxeter is apropos here.
$endgroup$
– Chris
Jul 18 '17 at 7:08
$begingroup$
@Chris, "Geometry Revisited" by Coxeter is from 1967 , maybe the philosophy of geometry is really a dead subject (some say the same of geometry itself)
$endgroup$
– Willemien
Jul 19 '17 at 8:57
$begingroup$
the book "euclidean and non-euclidean geometries" by Marvin Greenberg has a bit of philosophy in it.
$endgroup$
– Tim kinsella
Jul 26 '17 at 15:13
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
I suppose "Geometry Revisited" by Coxeter is apropos here.
$endgroup$
– Chris
Jul 18 '17 at 7:08
$begingroup$
@Chris, "Geometry Revisited" by Coxeter is from 1967 , maybe the philosophy of geometry is really a dead subject (some say the same of geometry itself)
$endgroup$
– Willemien
Jul 19 '17 at 8:57
$begingroup$
the book "euclidean and non-euclidean geometries" by Marvin Greenberg has a bit of philosophy in it.
$endgroup$
– Tim kinsella
Jul 26 '17 at 15:13
1
1
$begingroup$
I suppose "Geometry Revisited" by Coxeter is apropos here.
$endgroup$
– Chris
Jul 18 '17 at 7:08
$begingroup$
I suppose "Geometry Revisited" by Coxeter is apropos here.
$endgroup$
– Chris
Jul 18 '17 at 7:08
$begingroup$
@Chris, "Geometry Revisited" by Coxeter is from 1967 , maybe the philosophy of geometry is really a dead subject (some say the same of geometry itself)
$endgroup$
– Willemien
Jul 19 '17 at 8:57
$begingroup$
@Chris, "Geometry Revisited" by Coxeter is from 1967 , maybe the philosophy of geometry is really a dead subject (some say the same of geometry itself)
$endgroup$
– Willemien
Jul 19 '17 at 8:57
$begingroup$
the book "euclidean and non-euclidean geometries" by Marvin Greenberg has a bit of philosophy in it.
$endgroup$
– Tim kinsella
Jul 26 '17 at 15:13
$begingroup$
the book "euclidean and non-euclidean geometries" by Marvin Greenberg has a bit of philosophy in it.
$endgroup$
– Tim kinsella
Jul 26 '17 at 15:13
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Interesting question. In short, I think any book on geometry is in some way philosophical. Let me explain.
Historically, mathematicians like Euclid wrote the Elements not for the final purpose of studying geometry, but in order to prepare people for the study of philosophy. Geometry was a good tool for this because any argument needs to be tight and can be spread out as several steps. This is what you need for a philosophy argument - yes you could lay your argument out in essay form, but at the core it will be a progression from one statement to the other.
Therefore, if you pick up any book on geometry which has rigour in it (for example, Geometry Revisited), you should get some insight into philosophy.
answered Jul 18 '17 at 7:13
PlatoPlato
1,205518
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
the thesis "Historically, mathematicians like Euclid wrote the Elements not for the final purpose of studying geometry, but in order to prepare people for the study of philosophy" sounds very strange to me. However we knows at today that the "Euclid geometry" was known many centuries before him... so it makes more plausible the strange thesis.
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jul 18 '17 at 7:26
1
$begingroup$
@Masacroso Have a look at this: storyofmathematics.com/greek_plato.html : it doesn't explicitly state my thesis, but it does say that geometry was a part of philosophy
$endgroup$
– Plato
Jul 18 '17 at 7:33
1
$begingroup$
anyway the thesis is very interesting. Thank you for the link.
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jul 18 '17 at 7:34
$begingroup$
That something is useful for studying philosophy doesn't make it philosophical itself (taking it to the (to far) extreme: is learning to read realy learning philosophy?)
$endgroup$
– Willemien
Jul 19 '17 at 8:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Francesca Biagioli: Space, Number and Geometry from Helmholtz to Cassirer. 2016.
From the blurb: "This book offers a reconstruction of the debate on non-Euclidean geometry in neo-Kantianism between the second half of the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth century."
answered Dec 19 '18 at 18:58
Patricia A BlanchettePatricia A Blanchette
1
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2362352%2fbooks-on-the-philosophy-of-geometry%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Interesting question. In short, I think any book on geometry is in some way philosophical. Let me explain.
Historically, mathematicians like Euclid wrote the Elements not for the final purpose of studying geometry, but in order to prepare people for the study of philosophy. Geometry was a good tool for this because any argument needs to be tight and can be spread out as several steps. This is what you need for a philosophy argument - yes you could lay your argument out in essay form, but at the core it will be a progression from one statement to the other.
Therefore, if you pick up any book on geometry which has rigour in it (for example, Geometry Revisited), you should get some insight into philosophy.
answered Jul 18 '17 at 7:13
PlatoPlato
1,205518
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
the thesis "Historically, mathematicians like Euclid wrote the Elements not for the final purpose of studying geometry, but in order to prepare people for the study of philosophy" sounds very strange to me. However we knows at today that the "Euclid geometry" was known many centuries before him... so it makes more plausible the strange thesis.
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jul 18 '17 at 7:26
1
$begingroup$
@Masacroso Have a look at this: storyofmathematics.com/greek_plato.html : it doesn't explicitly state my thesis, but it does say that geometry was a part of philosophy
$endgroup$
– Plato
Jul 18 '17 at 7:33
1
$begingroup$
anyway the thesis is very interesting. Thank you for the link.
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jul 18 '17 at 7:34
$begingroup$
That something is useful for studying philosophy doesn't make it philosophical itself (taking it to the (to far) extreme: is learning to read realy learning philosophy?)
$endgroup$
– Willemien
Jul 19 '17 at 8:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Interesting question. In short, I think any book on geometry is in some way philosophical. Let me explain.
Historically, mathematicians like Euclid wrote the Elements not for the final purpose of studying geometry, but in order to prepare people for the study of philosophy. Geometry was a good tool for this because any argument needs to be tight and can be spread out as several steps. This is what you need for a philosophy argument - yes you could lay your argument out in essay form, but at the core it will be a progression from one statement to the other.
Therefore, if you pick up any book on geometry which has rigour in it (for example, Geometry Revisited), you should get some insight into philosophy.
answered Jul 18 '17 at 7:13
PlatoPlato
1,205518
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
the thesis "Historically, mathematicians like Euclid wrote the Elements not for the final purpose of studying geometry, but in order to prepare people for the study of philosophy" sounds very strange to me. However we knows at today that the "Euclid geometry" was known many centuries before him... so it makes more plausible the strange thesis.
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jul 18 '17 at 7:26
1
$begingroup$
@Masacroso Have a look at this: storyofmathematics.com/greek_plato.html : it doesn't explicitly state my thesis, but it does say that geometry was a part of philosophy
$endgroup$
– Plato
Jul 18 '17 at 7:33
1
$begingroup$
anyway the thesis is very interesting. Thank you for the link.
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jul 18 '17 at 7:34
$begingroup$
That something is useful for studying philosophy doesn't make it philosophical itself (taking it to the (to far) extreme: is learning to read realy learning philosophy?)
$endgroup$
– Willemien
Jul 19 '17 at 8:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Interesting question. In short, I think any book on geometry is in some way philosophical. Let me explain.
Historically, mathematicians like Euclid wrote the Elements not for the final purpose of studying geometry, but in order to prepare people for the study of philosophy. Geometry was a good tool for this because any argument needs to be tight and can be spread out as several steps. This is what you need for a philosophy argument - yes you could lay your argument out in essay form, but at the core it will be a progression from one statement to the other.
Therefore, if you pick up any book on geometry which has rigour in it (for example, Geometry Revisited), you should get some insight into philosophy.
answered Jul 18 '17 at 7:13
PlatoPlato
1,205518
$endgroup$
Interesting question. In short, I think any book on geometry is in some way philosophical. Let me explain.
Historically, mathematicians like Euclid wrote the Elements not for the final purpose of studying geometry, but in order to prepare people for the study of philosophy. Geometry was a good tool for this because any argument needs to be tight and can be spread out as several steps. This is what you need for a philosophy argument - yes you could lay your argument out in essay form, but at the core it will be a progression from one statement to the other.
Therefore, if you pick up any book on geometry which has rigour in it (for example, Geometry Revisited), you should get some insight into philosophy.
answered Jul 18 '17 at 7:13
PlatoPlato
1,205518
answered Jul 18 '17 at 7:13
PlatoPlato
1,205518
answered Jul 18 '17 at 7:13
PlatoPlato
1,205518
answered Jul 18 '17 at 7:13
PlatoPlato
1,205518
1,205518
$begingroup$
the thesis "Historically, mathematicians like Euclid wrote the Elements not for the final purpose of studying geometry, but in order to prepare people for the study of philosophy" sounds very strange to me. However we knows at today that the "Euclid geometry" was known many centuries before him... so it makes more plausible the strange thesis.
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jul 18 '17 at 7:26
1
$begingroup$
@Masacroso Have a look at this: storyofmathematics.com/greek_plato.html : it doesn't explicitly state my thesis, but it does say that geometry was a part of philosophy
$endgroup$
– Plato
Jul 18 '17 at 7:33
1
$begingroup$
anyway the thesis is very interesting. Thank you for the link.
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jul 18 '17 at 7:34
$begingroup$
That something is useful for studying philosophy doesn't make it philosophical itself (taking it to the (to far) extreme: is learning to read realy learning philosophy?)
$endgroup$
– Willemien
Jul 19 '17 at 8:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
the thesis "Historically, mathematicians like Euclid wrote the Elements not for the final purpose of studying geometry, but in order to prepare people for the study of philosophy" sounds very strange to me. However we knows at today that the "Euclid geometry" was known many centuries before him... so it makes more plausible the strange thesis.
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jul 18 '17 at 7:26
1
$begingroup$
@Masacroso Have a look at this: storyofmathematics.com/greek_plato.html : it doesn't explicitly state my thesis, but it does say that geometry was a part of philosophy
$endgroup$
– Plato
Jul 18 '17 at 7:33
1
$begingroup$
anyway the thesis is very interesting. Thank you for the link.
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jul 18 '17 at 7:34
$begingroup$
That something is useful for studying philosophy doesn't make it philosophical itself (taking it to the (to far) extreme: is learning to read realy learning philosophy?)
$endgroup$
– Willemien
Jul 19 '17 at 8:50
$begingroup$
the thesis "Historically, mathematicians like Euclid wrote the Elements not for the final purpose of studying geometry, but in order to prepare people for the study of philosophy" sounds very strange to me. However we knows at today that the "Euclid geometry" was known many centuries before him... so it makes more plausible the strange thesis.
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jul 18 '17 at 7:26
$begingroup$
the thesis "Historically, mathematicians like Euclid wrote the Elements not for the final purpose of studying geometry, but in order to prepare people for the study of philosophy" sounds very strange to me. However we knows at today that the "Euclid geometry" was known many centuries before him... so it makes more plausible the strange thesis.
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jul 18 '17 at 7:26
1
1
$begingroup$
@Masacroso Have a look at this: storyofmathematics.com/greek_plato.html : it doesn't explicitly state my thesis, but it does say that geometry was a part of philosophy
$endgroup$
– Plato
Jul 18 '17 at 7:33
$begingroup$
@Masacroso Have a look at this: storyofmathematics.com/greek_plato.html : it doesn't explicitly state my thesis, but it does say that geometry was a part of philosophy
$endgroup$
– Plato
Jul 18 '17 at 7:33
1
1
$begingroup$
anyway the thesis is very interesting. Thank you for the link.
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jul 18 '17 at 7:34
$begingroup$
anyway the thesis is very interesting. Thank you for the link.
$endgroup$
– Masacroso
Jul 18 '17 at 7:34
$begingroup$
That something is useful for studying philosophy doesn't make it philosophical itself (taking it to the (to far) extreme: is learning to read realy learning philosophy?)
$endgroup$
– Willemien
Jul 19 '17 at 8:50
$begingroup$
That something is useful for studying philosophy doesn't make it philosophical itself (taking it to the (to far) extreme: is learning to read realy learning philosophy?)
$endgroup$
– Willemien
Jul 19 '17 at 8:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Francesca Biagioli: Space, Number and Geometry from Helmholtz to Cassirer. 2016.
From the blurb: "This book offers a reconstruction of the debate on non-Euclidean geometry in neo-Kantianism between the second half of the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth century."
answered Dec 19 '18 at 18:58
Patricia A BlanchettePatricia A Blanchette
1
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Francesca Biagioli: Space, Number and Geometry from Helmholtz to Cassirer. 2016.
From the blurb: "This book offers a reconstruction of the debate on non-Euclidean geometry in neo-Kantianism between the second half of the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth century."
answered Dec 19 '18 at 18:58
Patricia A BlanchettePatricia A Blanchette
1
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Francesca Biagioli: Space, Number and Geometry from Helmholtz to Cassirer. 2016.
From the blurb: "This book offers a reconstruction of the debate on non-Euclidean geometry in neo-Kantianism between the second half of the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth century."
answered Dec 19 '18 at 18:58
Patricia A BlanchettePatricia A Blanchette
1
$endgroup$
Francesca Biagioli: Space, Number and Geometry from Helmholtz to Cassirer. 2016.
From the blurb: "This book offers a reconstruction of the debate on non-Euclidean geometry in neo-Kantianism between the second half of the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth century."
answered Dec 19 '18 at 18:58
Patricia A BlanchettePatricia A Blanchette
1
answered Dec 19 '18 at 18:58
Patricia A BlanchettePatricia A Blanchette
1
answered Dec 19 '18 at 18:58
Patricia A BlanchettePatricia A Blanchette
1
answered Dec 19 '18 at 18:58
Patricia A BlanchettePatricia A Blanchette
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2362352%2fbooks-on-the-philosophy-of-geometry%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
I suppose "Geometry Revisited" by Coxeter is apropos here.
$endgroup$
– Chris
Jul 18 '17 at 7:08
$begingroup$
@Chris, "Geometry Revisited" by Coxeter is from 1967 , maybe the philosophy of geometry is really a dead subject (some say the same of geometry itself)
$endgroup$
– Willemien
Jul 19 '17 at 8:57
$begingroup$
the book "euclidean and non-euclidean geometries" by Marvin Greenberg has a bit of philosophy in it.
$endgroup$
– Tim kinsella
Jul 26 '17 at 15:13