One for the Metaphysicians - Kant's 'Left Hand/Right hand Paradox!'

[Alephnul]

^^50% left and 50% right what does that mean? For the logical positivists who’ve responded that it’s simply word games, granted, but then logical-positivists see no room for metaphysical questions in philosophy.. The question is not, granted exactly as Kant posed it (you are right about it being wrapped in several pages of comment. To B9 – this paradox is still unresolved – so what? Perhaps you’re right, so what, but if you are seriously interested in metaphysics (I don’t know if you see it as an important branch of philosophy or not – I hazard – not?). The fact it’s a hand points rather to its symmetry. Juts as p and q show share three-dimensional symmetry (p is the mirror image of q, through three dimensions), what does this tell us about the mannequin’s hand. Yyou are right to some extent that the first hand must be both right and left, but what does this mean? how, can a hand, be both left and right?

 

[swilow]

^It can't. It can't even be a hand. A hand is meaningless without a human. Left or right. Plus, for symettry, there must be an opposing inversion; if this is the first hand, it is nothing at all.


There could be left hands everywhere, or the equivalent thereof, and we call them stars or something....

 

[BurnOneDown]

^Yea but if this were to take place in an empty universe and we could observe it - then we could apply our concepts to it.

Nevertheless, there aren't any other objects to relate a directional system.

It can't be a paradox. We can't come to a logical conclusion. If we could, and it did contradict itself then we would have a paradox. There is simply not enough information.

 

[Rated E]

^^50% left and 50% right what does that mean? For the logical positivists who’ve responded that it’s simply word games, granted, but then logical-positivists see no room for metaphysical questions in philosophy.. The question is not, granted exactly as Kant posed it (you are right about it being wrapped in several pages of comment. To B9 – this paradox is still unresolved – so what? Perhaps you’re right, so what, but if you are seriously interested in metaphysics (I don’t know if you see it as an important branch of philosophy or not – I hazard – not?). The fact it’s a hand points rather to its symmetry. Juts as p and q show share three-dimensional symmetry (p is the mirror image of q, through three dimensions), what does this tell us about the mannequin’s hand. Yyou are right to some extent that the first hand must be both right and left, but what does this mean? how, can a hand, be both left and right?

I don't think I'm going out on a limb here when I say that I think a lot of the people here were happy with the way that this 'paradox'' has been answered. I know for sure that I'm quite content with my own explanation of it. I'm just failing to see the paradox here...

But carry on if you will. Maybe you will get the answer you're looking for.

 

[Alephnul]

^Yea but if this were to take place in an empty universe and we could observe it - then we could apply our concepts to it.

Nevertheless, there aren't any other objects to relate a directional system.

It can't be a paradox. We can't come to a logical conclusion. If we could, and it did contradict itself then we would have a paradox. There is simply not enough information.

I am not quite sure what your description of a paradox is. Answers have been given that are self-contradictor (within their on frame reference) and there is a logical answer, its where that logical answer leads to that is important. B9 hinted at it in sayig it is both a right and a left hand, the question is in what way?

Two 2 dimensional right-angled triangles (or p and q) that are incongruous counterparts can be made to appear identical, ie - a right-angled triangle can be made to exhibit similitude, but only if we have a 3rd dimension in which to 'fold' one onto another. No amount of 2 dimension 'translation' can get them to match. If we apply this to the hands then we could posit a fourth dimension of space, in which left-ness and right-ness become redundant as 'translation' through this fourth dimension would make a right hand = a left hand.

I agree I may not have worded the original question well, but it was how it was posed by Kant: the subsequent debates surrounding it were extrapolated by Metaphysicians in the US. To dismiss is as either 'resolved' or 'not a paradox' misses the myriad questions it begs. Is space a function of matter? (if yes then there would be no universe 'out there' from which to observe the hand from in the first place'. To say it is left and right, simultaneously, without qualification, is no different from saying it is neither left, nor right.

If we all feel we have answered the question, then we may as well close the thread, however I feel it a shame that we have not even begun to scratch the surface of the question, never mind producing answers.

PS - there are no answers that I am specifically 'looking for', and if one is happy with one's answer then good for you. I for one am not happy with my own answer. Unfortunately we can't ask Kant what he was gunning at

 

[B9]

^^50% left and 50% right what does that mean? For the logical positivists who’ve responded that it’s simply word games, granted, but then logical-positivists see no room for metaphysical questions in philosophy.. The question is not, granted exactly as Kant posed it (you are right about it being wrapped in several pages of comment. To B9 – this paradox is still unresolved – so what? Perhaps you’re right, so what, but if you are seriously interested in metaphysics (I don’t know if you see it as an important branch of philosophy or not – I hazard – not?). The fact it’s a hand points rather to its symmetry. Juts as p and q show share three-dimensional symmetry (p is the mirror image of q, through three dimensions), what does this tell us about the mannequin’s hand. Yyou are right to some extent that the first hand must be both right and left, but what does this mean? how, can a hand, be both left and right?

Yeah I think that it doesn't matter - the fact it is a paradox being the point ...if you follow me.

Perhaps you’re right

Hmm I'm sorry but the childish instinct to say half left was just too much :D

how, can a hand, be both left and right?

I'm not sure I can actually even attempt to try to describe that at the moment - mainly because I lack the articulation.

 

[Thick_as_a_Planck]

A related problem is:

If I stand in front of a mirror, why does it reverse left and right but not up and down?

 

[vegan]

i must have missed the point, because i don't see the problem

look at the palm, if clockwise you get first the thumb and then the forefinger and so on, it's a left hand

if you get the little finger, the annular and so on, it's a right hand

i'm sure i missed the point of the question

If I stand in front of a mirror, why does it reverse left and right but not up and down?

our bodies are symmetric horizontally so it seems to us that it reverses left and right, but it actually just reflects what's in front of it
your feet are at the bottom of your body so there's no reason to see them in the top of the mirror

 

[Jamshyd]

Alright, I'll go along with it, even though I still think it is very badly written and, semantically-speaking, that line is not a Paradox. But anyways:

The hand would be of neither direction and, in fact, not a hand at all. A hand is only a hand when defined as such to the relation of an other, in this case, the rest of a body. It will require yet another "other" to define itself as left or right.

Now I aay this is badly written because:

a. We are trying to create a paradox of creation out of a posteriori knowledge, therefore locking ourself in a small thought-loop that revolves around the concept of a hand.

b. We are given too much info to work with, but not enough to think about. We know that there is a universe, and a creative force, and a hand. We have no idea what their relationship to each other is. Since the hand was the first thing in a universe, would that not make it, up to this point, all that the universe consists of? It is not a hand then, it is a universe. Or there is no universe, but merely a hand. Take your pick.

c. This all goes before even getting into direction.

I honestly think we are missing a lot of context here. I will admit though, I think Kant's ideas are a crock of shit that graduate academics use for bragging rights. But thats just my own opinion.

 

[B9]

I honestly don't care that much - I mean exactly what does it acheive to take some olde worlde paradox & try & rethink it ?

Invent your own paradox I say!

Like the universe

 

[ebola?]

>>
I honestly think we are missing a lot of context here. I will admit though, I think Kant's ideas are a crock of shit that graduate academics use for bragging rights. But thats just my own opinion.>>

For the most part, I agree, but Kant did some good work throwing other crocks of shit into doubt, creating a conceptual spring-board for better things (and numerous, dogmatic, crappy things).
...
I don't get the import of this "paradox". Okay. So if you have two "stereo-isomers", they cannot be flipped around to match one another in the dimensional space they inhabit, but they could be flipped around in a hypothetical orthogonal spatial dimension.

So what?

ebola

 

[neonads]

Sooo, we're not talking about dependent/independent space then?

 

[Canis aureus]

Most of you simply don't understand the point!

In relationistic (Leibnitian) way two hands are similar, and in two dimensional space.

But in independent, form of intuition, three dimensional space, two hands are incompatible (incongruent) counterparts, and they must have presuppose space.

If God created one hand, it must be either left or right, and it exists in space (one of two forms of our intuition)!

 

[Canis aureus]

Kant was first rationalist, noologist and thought like Leibniz, that space doesn't have independent existence. But afterwards, Kant thought that Leibniz and plain relationalistic way to see the space was wrong. Kant found out that empiria has its own existence because there are dimensions and many other things...

 

[ebola?]

>>Kant was first rationalist, noologist and thought like Leibniz, that space doesn't have independent existence. >>

This depends what you mean by "independent".
For Kant, space is both transcendentally ideal and empirically real, a necessary condition of experience as such.

I would also place Kant as an early attempt at fusing empiricism and rationalism.

>>Most of you simply don't understand the point! >>

I still don't.

ebola

 

[Alephnul]

^^Thanks Canis aureus you for the context.


To Jamshyd – yes I agree, I assumed people would be aware of the context (Leibniz/Newton and absolute vs dependent space. I disagree that Kant’s ideas are ‘a crock of shit’ but each to his own.


For those that think the whole exercise is pointless, fine. Also, a paradox doesn’t always have to be s strict ‘semantic paradox’ syllogistically formed along logical-positivist lines. It can denote a problem, unresolved thought experiment etc.

I mean exactly what does it acheive to take some olde worlde paradox & try & rethink it ?

You might ask the question to contemporary theoretical cosmologsts who are doing exactly that.

Okay. So if you have two "stereo-isomers", they cannot be flipped around to match one another in the dimensional space they inhabit, but they could be flipped around in a hypothetical orthogonal spatial dimension.

So what?

Well that hypothetical '4th' dimension of space, also leads to hypothetical negative dimesions of space. As the title says, one for the metaphysician - negative dimensions of space (and possibly time) are of interest,to me at least...perhaps I stand alone :-(
Interesting discusssion though.

AN

 

[ebola?]

>>
For those that think the whole exercise is pointless, fine. Also, a paradox doesn’t always have to be s strict ‘semantic paradox’ syllogistically formed along logical-positivist lines. It can denote a problem, unresolved thought experiment etc.>>

Take the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. Is it a member of itself?

>>Well that hypothetical '4th' dimension of space, also leads to hypothetical negative dimesions of space. As the title says, one for the metaphysician - negative dimensions of space (and possibly time) are of interest,to me at least...perhaps I stand alone :-(
Interesting discusssion though.>>

It's starting to get interesting. I'm not sure what a negative dimension would "mean" though. I do know that fractional dimensions are used in the math that describes some fractal-generating functions...but I don't know much more than that.

A negative dimension. That's like having -1 toes or traveling -1 miles (direction unspecified).

ebola

 

[neonads]

In quantum mechanics, electrical charge is always conserved. So with the creation of matter, i.e. protons, neutrons, electrons and all the other particles, you might assume the creation of anti-matter. While experimentally proven to exist, anti-matter is rare or non-existant (not sure which) in nature and exhibits the exact same properties as matter when interacting with other anti-particles but will annihilate it's corresponding particle creating photons.

So this begs the questions: Why is there more matter than anti-matter? Is it because of some underlying, independant natural law where despite having the exact same properties (AFAWK) matter is more stable? Or is there an anti-sphere(s) in our universe that will instantly annihilate any matter based detection?

Could a black hole be one such anti-sphere?

 

[ebola?]

>>So this begs the questions: Why is there more matter than anti-matter? Is it because of some underlying, independant natural law where despite having the exact same properties (AFAWK) matter is more stable? Or is there an anti-sphere(s) in our universe that will instantly annihilate any matter based detection?>>

Well, physics can't really give us a genesis story for matter or energy at all, right?
The big bang theory describes the initial moments directly AFTER the birth of the visible universe...

ebola

 

[neonads]

Yeah, I'm basically rephrasing the question.