Bertalanffy Ensaio Sobre A Relatividade Das Categorias

An Essay on the Relativity of Categories
Author(s): L. von Bertalanffy

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Philosophy of Science, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Oct., 1955), pp. 243-263
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/185344 .
Accessed: 25/11/2012 06:43
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The University of Chicago Press and Philosophy of Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy of Science.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.63 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 06:43:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
VOL.
October, I9 5 5
NO.
AN ESSAY ON THE RELATIVITY OF CATEGORIES

L. VON BERTALANFFY
1. The Whorfian Hypothesis
Among recent developments in the anthropological sciences, hardly any have

found so much attention and led to so much controversy as have the views advanced by the late Benjamin Whorf.
The hypothesis offered by Whorf is,
"that the commonly held belief that the cognitive processes of all human beings
possess a common logical structure which operates prior to and independently of
communication through language, is erroneous. It is Whorf's view that the linguistic patterns themselves determine what the individual perceives in this world
and how he thinks about it. Since these patterns vary widely, the modes of thinking
and perceiving in groups utilizing different linguistic systems will result in basically
different world views" (Fearing, 1954).
"We are thus introduced to a new principle of relativity which holds that all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar.... We cut up and organize
the spread and flow of events as we do largely because, through our mother tongue,
we are parties to an agreement to do so, not because nature itself is segmented in
exactly that way for all to see" (Whorf, 1952, p. 21)
For example, in the Indo-European languages substantives, adjectives and

verbs appear as basic grammatic units, a sentence being essentially a combination of these parts. This scheme of a persisting entity separable from its properties and active or passive behavior is fundamental for the categories of occidental
thinking, from Aristotle's categories of "substance," "attributes" and "action"
to the antithesis of matter and force, mass and energy in physics.
Indian languages, such as Nootka (Vancouver Island) or Hopi, do not have
parts of speech or separable subject and predicate. Rather they signify an
event as a whole. When we say, "a light flashed" or "it (a dubious hypostatized
entity) flashed", Hopi uses a single term, "flash (occurred)."1a
la
This and other examples in Whorf's argument are criticized by Whatmough (1955).
"As Brugmann showed (Syntax des einfachen Satzes, 1925, pp. 17-24) fuiget, pluit, tonat are
simply old ti-stems (nouns 'lightning there, rain there, thunder there,' and Whorf was quite
wrong when he said that tonat (he used that very word) is structurally and logically unparalleled in Hopi". Similarly, "the Hopi for 'prepare,'we are told, is 'to try-for, to practiseupon.' But this is exactly prae-paro". "It will not do to say that Hopi physics could not
243
244
L. VON BERTALANFFY
It would be important to apply the methods of mathematical logic to such

languages. Can statements in languages like Nootka or Hopi be rendered by the
usual logistic notation, or is the latter itself a formalization of the structure of
Indo-European language? It appears that this important subject has not been
investigated.
Indo-European languages emphasize time. The "give-and-take" between
language and culture leads, according to Whorf, to keeping of records, diaries,
mathematics stimulated by accounting; to calendars, clocks, chronology, time
as used in physics; to the historical attitude, interest in the past, archeology, etc.
It is interesting to compare this with Spengler's conception of the central role
of time in the occidental world picture (cf. p. 252), which, from a different viewpoint, comes to the identical conclusion.
However, the, for us, self-evident distinction between past, present, and future
does not exist in the Hopi language. It makes no distinction between tenses, but
indicates the validity a statemeilt has: fact, memory, expectation, or custom.
There is no difference in Hopi between "he runs", "he is running", "he ran",
all being rendered by wari, "running occur". An expectation is rendered by
warikni ("running occur [I] daresay"), which covers "he will, shall, should, would
run". If, however, it is a statement of a general law, warikngwe ("running occur, characteristically") is applied (La Barre, 1954, p. 197 ff.). The Hopi "has
no general notion or intuition of time as a smooth flowing continuum in which
everything in the universe proceeds at an equal rate, out of a future, through a
present, into a past" (Whorf, 1952, p. 67). Instead of our categories of space and
time, Hopi rather distinguishes the "manifest", all that which is accessible to
the senses, with no distinction between present and past, and the "unmanifest"
comprising the future as well as what we call mental. Navaho (cf. Kluckhohn
and Leighton, 1951) has little development of tenses; the emphasis is upon types
of activity, and thus it distinguishes durative, perfective, usitative, repetitive,
iterative, optative, semilfactive, momentaneous, progressive, transitional,
conative, etc. aspects of action. The difference can be defined that the first concern of English (and Indo-European language in general) is time, of Hopivalidity, and of Navaho-type of activity (personal communication of Professor
Kluckhohn).
Wlhorfasks:
"Howwoulda physics constructedalong these lines work,with no t (time) in its
equations?Perfectly, as far as I can see, though of courseit would requiredifferent ideologyand perhapsdifferentmathematics.Of course,v (velocity) would
have to go too" (1952,p. 7).
have had conceptssuch as space, velocity, and mass, or that they wouldhave been very
differentfromours.Hopi has no physicsbecausethe Hopi are hinderedby taboo or magic
fromexperimentalinvestigation."Althoughonehas to surrenderto the linguist'sauthority,
it seemsamplydemonstratedthat the style of thinkingis differentin the severalcivilizations even though Whorf'ssuppositionthat this is more or less solely due to linguistic
factors, is open to criticism.
THE RELATIVITY
OF CATEGORIES
245
Again it can be mentioned that a timeless physics actually exists, in the form
of Greek statics (cf. p. 252). For us, it is part of a wider system, dynamics, for the
particular case that t -* oo, i.e. time approaches the infinite and drops out of the
equations.
As regards to space, the Indo-European tongues widely express non-spatial
relations by spatial metaphors: long, short for duration; heavy, light, high, low
for intensity; approach, rise, fall for tendency; Latin expressions like educo,
religio, comprehendoas metaphorical spatial (probably more correct: corporeal,
L. v. B.) references: lead out, tying back, grasp, etc.'
This is untrue of Hopi where rather physical things are named by psychological
metaphors. Thus the Hopi word for "heart" can be shown to be a late formation
from a root meaning think or remember. Hopi language is, as Whorf states, capable of accounting for and describing correctly, in a pragmatical or observational sense, all observable phenomena of the universe. However, the implicit
metaphysics is entirely different, being rather a way of animistic or vitalistic
thinking, near to the mystical experience of oneness.
Thus, Whorf maintains, "Newtonian space, time and matter are no intuitions.
They are recepts from culture and language" (1952, p. 40).
"Just as it is possible to have any number of geometries other than the Euclidean
which give an equally perfect account of space configurations, so it is possible to
have descriptions of the universe, all equally valid, that do not contain our familiar
contrast of time and space. The relativity viewpoint of modern physics is one such
view, conceived in mathematical terms, and the Hopi Weltanschauung is another
and quite different one, non-mathematical and linguistic" (Whorf, 1952, p. 67)
The ingrained mechanistic way of thinking which comes into difficulties with
the modern scientific developments, is a consequence of our specific linguistic
categories and habits, and Whorf hopes that insight into the diversity of linguistic
systems may contribute to the re-evaluation of scientific concepts.
1 It is interesting to note that exactly the same viewpoint was stated by Lorenz (1943)
in terms of the biological determination of categories: "The terms which language has
formed for the highest functions of our rational thinking still bear so clearly the stamp of
their origin that they might be taken from the 'professional language' of a chimpanzee.
We 'win insight' into intricate connections, just as the ape into a maze of branches, we
found no better expression for our most abstract ways to achieve goals than 'method',
meaning detour. Our tactile space still has, as it were from the time of non-jumping lemurs,
a particular preponderance over the visual. Hence we have 'grasped' (erfasst) a 'connection' (Zusammenhang) only if we can 'comprehend' (begreifen, i.e. seize) it. Also the notion
of object (Gegenstand, that which stands against us) originated in the haptic perception of
space.. . . Even time is represented, for good or wrong, in terms of the visualizable model
. Time is absolutely unvisualizable and is, in our categorial thinking,
of space (p. 344)...
made visualizable always (?; perhaps a Western prejudice, L.v.B.) only by way of spatiotemporal processes.. . . The 'course of time' is symbolized, linguistically and certainly also
conceptually, by motion in space (the stream of time). Even our prepositions 'before' and
'after,' our nouns 'past, present and future' originally have connotations representing
spatio-temporal configurations of motion. It is hardly possible to eliminate from them the
element of motion in space" (p. 351 f.).
246
L. VON BERTALANFFY
La Barre (1954, p. 301) has vividly summarized this viewpoint:

"Aristotelian Substance and Attribute look remarkably like Indo-European nouns
and predicate adjectives. . . . More modern science may well raise the question
whether Kant's Forms, or twin 'spectacles' of Time and Space (without which
we can perceive nothing) are not on the one hand mere Indo-European verbal tense,
and on the other hand human stereoscopy and kinaesthesis and life-process-which
might be more economically expressed in terms of the c, or light-constant, of Einstein's formula. But we must remember all the time that E = Mc2 is also only a
grammatical conception of reality in terms of Indo-European morphological categories of speech. A Hopi, Chinese, or Eskimo Einstein might discover via his grammatical habits wholly different mathematical conceptualizations with which to
apperceive reality".
This paper is not intended to discuss the linguistic problems posed by Whorf
as was exhaustively done in a recent symposium (Hoijer et al., 1954). However,
it has occurred to the present author that what is known as the Whorfianhypothesis is not an isolated statement of a somewhat extravagant individual. Rather
the Whorfian hypothesis of the linguistic determination of the categories of
cognition is part of a general revision of the cognitive process. It is embedded
in a powerful current of modern thought, the sources of which can be found in
philosophy as well as in biology. It seems that these connections are not realized
to the extent they deserve.
The general problem posed may be expressed as follows: In how far are the
categories of our thinking modelled by and dependent on biological and cultural
factors? It is obvious that, stated in this way, the problem far exceeds the borders
of linguistics, and touches the question of the foundations of human knowledge.
Such analysis will have to start with the classical, absolutistic world view which
found its foremost expression in the Kantian system. According to the Kantian
thesis, there are the so-called forms of intuition, space and time, and the categories of the intellect such as substance, causality and others which are universally committal for any rational being. Accordingly science, based upon
these categories, is equally universal. Physical science using these apriori categories, namely, Euclidean space, Newtonian time and strict deterministic
causality, is essenitially classical mechanics which, therefore, is the absolute
system of knowledge, applying to any phenomenon as well as to any mind as
observer.
It is a well-known fact that modern science has long recognized that this is
not so. There is no need to belabor this point. Euclidean space is but one form
of geometry beside which other, non-Euclidean geometries exist which have
exactly the same logical structure and right to exist. Modern science applies
whatever sort of space and time is most convenient and appropriate for describing the events in nature. In the world of medium dimensions, Euclidean space
and Newtonian time apply in the way of satisfactory approximations. However,
coming to astronomical dimensions and, on the other hand, to atomic events,
non-Euclidean spaces or the many-dimensional configuration spaces of quantum
theory are introduced. In the theory of relativity, space and time fuse in the
Minkowski union, where time is another co-ordinate of a four-dimensional con-
THE RELATIVITY
OF CATEGORIES
247
tinuum, although of a somewhat peculiar character. Solid matter, this most obtrusive part of experience and most trivial of the categories of naive physics,
consists almost completely of holes, being a void for the greatest part, only interwoven by centers of energy which, considering their magnitude, are separated
by astronomical distances. Mass and energy, somewhat sophisticated quantifications of the categorical antithesis of stuff and force, appear as expressions of
one unknown reality, interchangeable according to Einstein's law. Similarly, the
strict determinism of classical physics is replaced in quantum physics by indeterminism or rather by the insight that the laws of nature are essentially of a
statistical character. Little is left of Kant's supposedly apriori and absolute
categories. Incidentally, it is symptomatic of the relativity of world views that
Kant who, in his epoch, appeared to be the great destroyer of all "dogmatism",
to us appears a paradigm of unwarranted absolutism and dogmatism.
So the question arises-what is it which determines the categories of human
cognition? While, in the Kantian system, the categories appeared to be absolute
for any rational observer, they now appear as changing with the advancement
of scientific knowledge. In this sense, the absolutistic conception of earlier times
and of classical physics is replaced by a scientific relativism.
The argument of the present discussion may be defined as follows. The categories of knowledge, of every-day knowledge as well as of scientific knowledge,
which in the last resort is only a refinement of the former, depend, first, on biological factors; second, on cultural factors; third, notwithstanding this all-toohuman entanglement, absolute knowledge, emancipated from human limitations,
is possible in a certain sense.
2. The Biological Relativity of Categories
Cognition is dependent, firstly, on the psycho-physical organization of man.
We may refer here in particular to that approach in modern biology which was
inaugurated by Jacob von Uexkuill under the name of Umwelt-Lehre.It essentially amounts to the statement that, from the great cake of reality, every living
organism cuts a slice, which it can perceive and to which it can react owing to
its psycho-physical organization, that is, the structure of receptor and effector
organs. Von Uexkiull and Kriszat have presented fascinating pictures how the
same section of nature looks as seen by various animals; they should be compared to Whorf's equally amusing drawings which show how the world is modelled
according to linguistic schemes. Here only a few examples, chosen from Uexkuill's
extensive behavioral studies, can be mentioned.
Take, for example, a unicellular organism like the paramecium. Its almost
only way of response is the flight reaction (phobotaxis) by which it reacts to the
most diverse, chemical, tactile, thermal, photic, etc. stimuli. This simple reaction, however, suffices safely to guide that animal which possesses no specific
sense organs, into the region of optimal conditions. The many things in the
environment of the paramecium, algae, other infusoria, little crustaceans, mechanical obstacles and the like, are non-existent for it. Only one stimulus is received
which leads to the flight reaction.
248
L. VON BERTALANFFY
As this example shows, the organizational and functional plan of a living being
determines what can become "stimulus" and "characteristic" to which the
organism responds with a certain reaction. According to von Uexkuill's expression, any organism, so to speak, cuts out from the multiplicity of surrounding
objects a small number of characteristics to which it reacts and whose ensemble
forms its "ambient" (Umwelt). All the rest is non-existent for that particular
organism. Every animal is surrounded, as by a soap-bubble, by its specific ambient, replenished by those characteristics which are amenable to it. If, reconstructing an animal's ambient, we enter this soap-bubble, the world is profoundly changed: Many characteristics disappear, others arise, and a completely
new world is found.
Von Uexktill has given innumerable examples delineating the ambients of
various animals. Take, for instance, a tick lurking in the bushes for a passing
mammal in whose skin it settles and drinks himself full of blood. The signal is
the odor of butyric acid, flowing from the dermal glands of all mammals. Following this stimulus, it plunges down; if it fell on a warm body-as monitored by its
sensitive thermal sense-it has reached its prey, a warm-blooded animal, and
only needs to find, aided by tactile sense, a hair-free place to pierce in. Thus the
rich environment of the tick shrinks to metamorphize into a scanty configuration out of which only three signals, beacon-like, are gleaming which, however,
suffice to lead the animal surely to its goal. Or again, some sea urchins respond to
any darkening by striking together their spines. This reaction invariably is
applied against a passing cloud or boat, or the real enemy, an approaching fish.
Thus, while the environment of the sea urchin contains many different objects,
its ambient only contains one characteristic, namely, dimming of light.
This organizational constraint of the ambient goes even much farther than
the examples just mentioned indicate (Bertalanffy, 1937). It also concerns the
forms of intuition, considered by Kant as apriori and immutable. The biologist
finds that there is no absolute space or time but that they depend on the organization of the perceiving organism. Three-dimensional Euclidean space, where the
three rectangular co-ordinates are equivalent, was always identified with the
apriori space of experience and perception. But even simple contemplation shows,
and experiments in this line (von Allesch, 1931; von Skramlik, 1934, and others)
prove that the space of visual and tactual perception is in no way Euclidean. In
the space of perception, the coordinates are in no way equivalent, but there is a
fundamental difference between top and bottom, right and left, and fore and aft.
Already the organization of our body and, in the last resort, the fact that the
organism is subjected to gravity, makes for an inequality of the horizontal and
vertical dimensions. This is readily shown by a simple fact known to every
photographer. We experience it as quite correct that, according to the laws of
perspective, parallels, such as railroad tracks, converge in the distance. Exactly
the same perspective foreshortening is, however, experienced as being wrong if
it appears in the vertical dimension. If a picture was taken with the camera
tilted, we obtain "falling lines", the edges of a house, for example, running together. This is, perspectively, just as correct as are the converging railroad tracks;
THE
RELATIVITY
OF CATEGORIES
249
nevertheless, the latter perspective is experienced as being all right, while the
converging edges of a house are experienced as wrong; the explanation being that
the human organism is such as to have an ambient with considerable horizontal,
but negligible vertical extension.2
A similar relativity is found in experienced time. Von Uexkuill has introduced
the notion of the "instant" as the smallest unit of perceived time. For man, the
instant is about 118 sec., that is impressions shorter than this duration are not
perceived separately but fuse. It appears that the duration of the instant depends not on conditions in the sense organs but rather in the central nervous
system for it is the same for different sense organs. This flicker fusion is, of course,
the raison d'etre of movie pictures when frames presented in a sequence faster
than 18 per second fuse into continuous motion. The duration of the instant
varies in different species. There are "slow motion-picture animals" (von Uexkuill)which perceive a greater number of impressions per second than man. Thus,
the fighting fish (Betta) does not recognize its image in a mirror if, by a mechanical
device, it is presented 18 times per second. It has to be presented at least 30
times per second; then the fish attacks his imaginary opponent. Hence, these
small and very active animals consume a larger number of impressions than
man does, per unit of astronomical time; time is decelerated. Conversely, a
snail is a "rapid motion-picture animal". It crawls on a vibrating stick if it approaches four times per second, that is, a stick vibrating four times per second
appears at rest to the snail.
Experienced time is not Newtonian. Far from flowing uniformly (aequilabiliter
fluit, as Newton has it), it depends on physiological conditions. The so-called
time memory of animals and man seems to be determined by a "physiological
clock". Thus bees, conditioned to appear at a certain time at the feeding place,
will show up earlier or later if drugs which increase or decrease the rate of metabolism, are administred (for example, von Stein-Beling, 1935; Kalmus, 1934;
Wahl 1932; and others).
Experienced time seems to fly if it is filled with impressions, and creeps if we
are in a state of tedium. In fever, when body temperature and metabolic rate are
increased, time seems to linger since the number of "instants"' per astronomical
unit in Uexkuill's sense is increased. This time experience is paralleled by a
corresponding increase of the frequency of the a-waves in the brain (Hoagland,
1951). With increasing age, time appears to run faster, i.e. a smaller number of
instants is experienced per astronomical unit of time. Correspondingly, the rate
of cicatrization of wounds is decreased proportional to age, the psychological
as well as physiological phenomena obviously being connected with the slowingdown of metabolic processes in senescence (du Nouiy, 1937).
Several attempts (Brody, 1937; Backman, 1940; Bertalanffy, 1951, p. 346) have
been made to establish a biological as compared to astronomical time. One means
2 As far as can be seen, this simple demonstration of the non-Euclidean structure of the
visual space was first indicated by BertalanfFy (1937, p. 155), while "curious enough, no
reference whatever is found in the literature on the physiology of perception" (Lorenz,
1943, p. 335).
250
L. VON BERTALANFFY
is the homologization of growth curves: If the course of growth in different animals is expressed by the same formula and curve, the units of the time scale
(plotted in astronomical time) will be different and important physiological
changes presumably will appear at corresponding points of the curve. From
the standpoint of physics, a thermodynamic time, based upon the second principle and irreversible processes, can be introduced as opposed to astronomical
time (Prigogine, 1947). Thermodynamic time is non-linear but logarithmic since
it depends on probabilities; it is, for the same reason, statistical; and it is local
because determined by the events at a certain point. Probably biological time
bears an intimate although by no means simple relation to thermodynamic time.
How the categories of experience depend on physiological states, is also shown
by the action of drugs. Under the influence of mescaline, for example, visual
impressions are intensified, and the perception of space and time undergoes profound changes (cf. Anschtitz, 1953; A. Huxley, 1954). It would make a most interesting study to investigate the categories of schizophrenics, and it would probably be found that they differ considerably from those of "normal" experience,
as do indeed the categories in the experience of dreams.
Even the most fundamental category of experience, namely, the distinction of
ego and non-ego, is not absolutely fixed. It seems gradually to evolve in the development of the child (cf. Bertalanffy and Deutsch, 1954). It is essentially
different in the animistic thinking of the primitives (still in force even in the Aristotelian theory where every thing "seeks" its natural place), and in Western thinking since the Renaissance which "has discovered the inanimate" (Schaxel, 1923).
The object-subject separation again disappears in the empathic world-view of
the poet, in mystical ecstasy and in states of intoxication.
There is no intrinsic justification to consider as "true" representation of the
world what we take to be "normal" experience (that is, the experience of the
average adult European of the 20th century), and to consider all other sorts of
experience that are equally vivid, as merely abnormal, fantastic or, at the best,
as a primitive precursor of our "scientific" world picture.
The discussion of these problems could easily be enlarged, but the point important for the present topic will have become clear. The categories of experience
or forms of intuition, to use Kant's term, are not a universal apriori, but rather
they depend on the psycho-physical organization and physiological conditions
of the experiencing animal, man included. This relativism from the biological
standpoint is an interesting parallel to the relativism of categories as viewed from
the standpoint of culture and language.
3. The Cultural Relativity of Categories
We now come to the second point, the dependence of categories on cultural
factors. As already mentioned, the Whorfian thesis of the dependence of categories on linguistic factors is part of a general conception of cultural relativism
which has developed in the past 50 years; although even this is not quite correct,
since Wilhelm von Humboldt has already emphasized the dependence of our
world perspective on linguistic factors and the structure of language.
THE RELATIVITY
OF CATEGORIES
251
It appears that this development started in the history of art. At the beginning
of this century, the Viennese art-historian, Riegl, published a very learned and
tedious treatise on late-Roman artcraft. He introduced the concept of Kunstwollen, a term which may be translated as "artistic intention". The unnaturalistic
character of primitive art was conceived to be a consequence not of a lack of skill
or know-how, but rather the expression of an artistic intention which is different
from ours, being not interested in a realistic reproduction of nature. The same
applies to the so-called degeneration of classic art in the late Hellenistic period.
This conception later was expanded by Worringer who demonstrated in the example of Gothic art that artistic modes diametrically opposed to the classical
canon, are an outcome not of technical impotence, but rather of a different world
view. It was not that Gothic sculptors and painters didn't know how to represent
nature correctly, but their intention was different and not directed towards
representative art. The connection of these theories with the primitivism and
expressionism in modern art needs no discussion.
I wish to offer another example of the same phenomenon which is instructive
since it has nothing to do with the antithesis of representative and expressionistic,
objective and abstract art. It is found in the history of Japanese woodcut.
Japanese pictures of the later period apply a certain kind of perspective, known
as parallel perspective, which is different from central perspective as used in
European art since the Renaissance. It is well-known that Dutch treatises on
perspective were introduced into Japan in the late 18th century, and were eagerly
studied by the Ukiyoye (woodcut) masters. They adopted perspective as a
powerful means to represent nature, but only to a rather subtle limit. While
European painting uses central perspective where the picture is conceived from
a focal point and consequently parallels converge in the distance, the Japanese
only accepted parallel perspective; that is, a way of projection where the focal
point is in the infinite, and hence parallels do not converge. We may be sure that
this was not lack of skill in those eminent Japanese artists who, like Hokusai
and Hiroshige, later exerted a profound influence on modern European art.
They certainly would have found no difficulty to adopt an artistic means which
even was handed to them ready-made. Rather we may conjecture that they felt
central perspective, dependent on the standpoint of the observer, to be contingent and accidental and not representing reality since it changes as the observer moves from one place to another. In a similar way, the Japanese artists
never painted shadows. This, of course, does not mean that they did not see it
or not go into the shade when the sun was burning. However, they did not wish
to paint it; for the shadow does not belong to the reality of things but is only
changing appearance.
So the categories of artistic creation seem to be dependent on the culture in
question. It is well-known that Spengler has expanded this thesis to include cognitive categories. According to him, the so-called apriori contains, besides a small
number of universally human and logically necessary forms of thinking, also
forms of thinking that are universal and necessary not for humanity as a whole,
but olnly for the particular civilization in question. So there are various and dif-
252
L. VON BERTALANFFY
ferent "styles of cognition", characteristic of certain groups of human beings.

Spengler does not deny the universal validity of the formal laws of logic or of the
empirical verites de fait. He contends, however, the relativity of the contentual
aprioris in science and philosophy. It is in this sense that Spengler states the
relativity of mathematics and mathematical science. The mathematical formulae
as such carry logical necessity; but their visualizible interpretation which gives
them meaning is an expression of the "soul" of the civilization which has created
them. In this way, our scientific world picture is only of relative validity. Its
fundamental concepts, such as the infinite space, force, energy, motion, etc. are
an expression of our occidental type of mind, and do not hold for the world picture of other civilizations.
The analysis upon which Spengler's cultural relativism of the categories is
mainly based, is his famous antithesis of Apollonian and Faustian man. According
to him, the primeval symbol of the Apollonian mind of antiquity is the material
and bodily existence of individuals; that of the Faustian mind of the occident is
infinite space. Thus "space", for the Greeks, is the ,udov, that which is not. Consequently, Apollonian mathematics is a theory of visualizable magnitudes,
culminating in stereometry and geometric construction which, in occidental
mathematics, is a rather unconsequential elementary topic. Occidental mathematics, governed by the primeval symbol of the infinite space, in contrast, is a
theory of pure relations, culminating in differential calculus, the geometry of
many-dimensional spaces, etc., which, in their unvisualizability, would have been
completely inconceivable to the Greeks.
A second antithesis is that of the static character of Greek, and the dynamic
character of occidental thought. Thus, for the Greek physicist, an atom was a
miniature plastic body; for occidental physics, it is a center of energy, radiating
actions into an infinite space. Connected with this is the mealling of time. Greek
physics did not contain a time dimension, and this is at the basis of its being a
statics. Occidental physics is deeply concerned with the time course of events,
the notion of entropy being probably the deepest conception in the system.
From the concern with time further follows the historical orientation of the occidental mind expressed in the dominating influence of the clock, in the biography
of the individual, in the enormous perspective of "world history" from historiography to cultural history to anthropology, biological evolution, geological
history, and finally astronomical history of the universe. Again, the same contrast is manifest in the conception of the mind. Static Greek psychology imagines
a harmonic soul-body whose "parts", according to Plato, are reason (Xo-yto--LK6'),
emotion (6v1ioEacs), and cathexis (eirtL&vMrW6J'). Dynamic occidental psychology imagines a soul-space where psychological forces are interacting.
Taking exception from Spengler's metaphysics and intuitive method, and disregarding questionable details, it will be difficult to deny that his conception of
the cultural relativity of categories is essentially correct. It suffices to remember
the first lines of the Iliad, telling of the heros of the Trojan war acrobs-rcCXcMpt.
that their selves were given a prey to the hounds and birds, the
KiwfELOcaTa,0
-rEXfE
"self" being essentially the body or acoAa. Compare this with Descartes' cogito
ergo sum-and the contrast between Apollonian and Faustian mind is obvious.
THE RELATIVITY
OF CATEGORIES
253
While the German philosophers of history were concerned with the small
number of high cultures (Hochkulturen),it is the hallmark and merit of modern
and, in particular, American anthropology to take into account the entire field
of human "cultures" including the multiplicity exhibited by primitive
peoples. So the theory of cultural relativism wins a broader basis but it is remarkable that the conclusions reached are very similar to those of the German philosophers. In particular, the Whorfianthesis is essentially identical with the Spenglerian-the one based upon the linguistics of primitive tribes, the other on a
general view of the few high cultures of history.3
So it appears well established that the categories of cognition depend, first, on
biological factors, and secondly, on cultural factors. A suitable formulation perhaps can be given in the following way.
Our perception is essentially determined by our specifically human, psychophysical organization. This is essentially von Uexkuill's thesis. Linguistic, and
cultural categories in general, will not change the potentialities of sensory experience. They will, however, change apperception, that is, which features of
experienced reality are focussed and emphasized, and which are under-played.
There is nothing mysterious or particularly paradoxical in this statement
which, in the contrary, is rather trivial; nothing which would justify the heat
and passion which has often characterized the dispute on the Whorfian, Spenglerian, and similar theses. Suppose a histological preparation is studied under
the microscope. Any observer, if he is not color-blind, will perceive the same picture, various shapes and colors, etc. as given by the application of histological
stains. However, what he actually sees, that is, what is his apperception (and
what he is able to communicate), depends widely on whether he is untrained or a
trained observer. Where for the layman there is only a chaos of shapes and
colors, the histologist sees cells with their various components, different tissues,
and signs of malignant growth. And even this depends on his line of interest and
training. A cytochemist will possibly notice fine granulations in the cytoplasm
of cells which represent to him certain chemically defined inclusions; the pathologist may, instead, entirely ignore these niceties, and rather "see" how a tumor
has infiltrated the organ. Thus what is seen depends on our apperception, on our
line of attention and interest which, in turn, is determined by training, that is,
by linguistic symbols by which we represent and summarize reality.
It is equally trivial that the same object is something quite different if envisaged from different viewpoints. The same table is to the physicist an aggregate of
electrons, protons, and neutrons, to the chemist a composition of certain organic compounds, to the biologist a complex of wood cells, the art historian a
baroque object, the economist a utility of certain money value, etc. All these
perspectives are of equal status, and none can claim more absolute value than
the other (cf. Bertalanffy, 1953). Or, to take a slightly less trivial example.
Organic forms can be considered from different viewpoints. Typology considers
them as the expression of different plans of organization; the theory of evolution
3 An excellent analysis on the culture-dependence of perception, cognition, affect, evaluation, unconscious processes, normal and abnormal behavior, etc., is given in Kluckhohn
(1954). The reader is referred to this paper for ample anthropological evidence.
254
L. VON B:ERTALANFFY
as a product of a historical process; a dynamic morphology as expression of a

play of processes and forces for which mathematical laws are sought (Bertalanffy,
1941). Each of these viewpoints is perfectly legitimate, and there is little point
to play one against the other.
What is obvious in these special examples equally holds for what traits of
reality are noticed in our general world picture. It is an important trend of the
development of science that new aspects, previously unnoticed, are "seen", that
is, come under the focus of attention and apperception; and conversely, an
important obstacle that the goggles of a certain theoretical conception do not
allow to realize phenomena which, in themselves, are perfectly obvious. History
of science is rich in examples of such kind. For instance, the theoretical spectacles of a onie-sided "cellular pathology" simply did not allow to see that
there are regulative relations in the organism as a whole which is more than a
sum or aggregate of cells; relations which were known to Hippocrates and have
found a happy resurrection in the modern doctrine of hormones, of somatotypes
and the like. The modern evolutionist, guided by the theory of random mutation
and selection, does not see that an organism is obviously more than a heap of
hereditary characteristics or genes shuffled together by accident. The mechanistic
physicist did not see the so-called "secondary qualities" like color, sound, taste,
etc. because they do not fit into his scheme of abstractions; although they are
just as "real" as are the supposedly basic "primary qualities" of mass, impenetrability, motion and the like the metaphysical status of which is equally dubious, according to the testimony of modern physics.
Another possible formulation of the same situation, but emphasizing another
aspect, is this. Perception is universally human, determined by man's psychophysical equipment. Conceptualization is culture-bound because it depends on
the symbolic systems we apply. These symbolic systems are largely determined
by linguistic factors, the structure of the language applied. Technical language,
including the symbolism of mathematics, is, in the last resort, an efflorescence
of every-day language, and so will not be independent of the structure of the
latter. This, of course, does not mean that the content of mathematics is "true"
only within a certain culture. It is a tautological system of hypotheticodeductive nature, and hence any rational being accepting the premises must
agree to all its deductions. But which aspects or perspectives are mathematized
depends on the cultural context. It is perfectly possible that different individuals
and cultures have different predilections for choosing certain aspects and neglecting others.4 Hence, for example, the Greek's concern with geometrical problems
and the concern of occidental mathematics with calculus, as emphasized by
Spengler; hence the appearance of unorthodox fields of mathematics such as
4I find that Toynbee (1954, p. 699 ff.), in his otherwise not overly friendly comment on
Spengler's theory of types of mathematical thinking, arrives at an identical formulation.
He speaks of a different "penchant" of civilizations for certain types of mathematical
reasoning, which is the same as the above-used notion of "predilection". The present
writer's interpretation of Spengler was, in the essentials, given in 1924, and he has seen no
reason to change it.
THE RELATIVITY
OF CATEGORIES
255
topology, group theory, game theory and the like which do not fit into the
popular notion of mathematics as a "science of quantities"; hence the individual
physicist's predilection for, say, "macroscopic" classical thermodynamics or
"microscopic" molecular statistics, for matrix mechanics or wave mechanics
to approach the same phenomena. Or, speaking more generally, the analytic
type of mind concerned with what is called "molecular" interpretations, i.e. the
resolution and reduction of phenomena to elementaristic components; and the
holistic type of mind concerned with "molar" interpretations, i.e. interested in
the laws that govern the phenomenon as a whole. Much harm has been done in
science by playing one aspect against the other and so, in the elementaristic approach, to neglect and deny obvious and most important characteristics; or, in
the holistic approach, to deny the fundamental importance and necessity of
analysis.
It may be mentioned, in passing, that the relation between language and
world view is not unidirectional but reciprocal, a fact which perhaps was not
made sufficiently clear by Whorf. The structure of language seems to determine
which traits of reality are abstracted and hence what form the categories of
thinking take on. On the other hand, the world outlook determines and forms the
language.
A good example is the evolution from classical to medieval Latin. The Gothic
world view has re-created an ancient language, this being true for the lexical as
well as the grammatical aspect. Thus, the scholastics invented hosts of words
which are atrocities from the standpoint of Cicero's language (as the humanists
of the Renaissance so deeply felt in their revivalistic struggle); words introduced
to cope with abstract aspects foreign to the corporeally-thinking Roman mind,
like leonitas, quidditas and the rest of them. Equally, although the superficial
rules of grammar were observed, the line of thinking and construction was profoundly altered. This also applies to the rhetorical aspect, as in the introduction
of the end-rhyme in contrast to the classical meters. Comparison, say, of the colossal lines of the Dies irae with some Virgilian or Horacian stanza makes obvious
not only the tremendous gap between different "world-feelings" but the determination of language by the latter as well.
4. The Perspectivistic View
Having indicated the biological and cultural relativity of the categories of
experience and cognition, we can, on the other hand, also indicate the limits of
this relativity, and thus come to the third topic stated in the beginning.
Relativism has often been formulated to express the purely conventional and
utilitarian character of knowledge, and with the emotional background of its ultimate futility. We can, however, easily see that such consequence is not implied.
A suitable starting point for such discussion is the views on human knowledge
expressed by von Uexkuill in connection with his Umweltlehre we have discussed earlier. According to him, the world of human experience and knowledge
is one of the innumerable ambients of the organisms, in no way singular
as compared to that of the sea urchin, the fly or the dog. Even the world of
256
L. VON BERTALANFFY
physics, from the electrons and atoms up to galaxies, is a merely human product,
dependent upon the psycho-physical organization of the human species.
Such conception, however, appears to be incorrect. This may be shown in view
of the levels both of experience and of abstract thinking, of every-day life and of
science.
As far as direct experience is concerned, the categories of perception as determined by the bio-physiological organization of the species concerned, cannot be
completely "wrong", fortuitous and arbitrary. Rather they must, in a certain
way and to a certain extent, correspond to "reality"-whatever this means in
a metaphysical sense. Any organism, man included, is not a mere spectator,
looking at the world scene and hence free to adopt spectacles, however distorting,
as the whims of God, of biological evolution, of the "soul" of culture, or of
language have put on his metaphorical nose. Rather he is a reactor and actor in
the drama. The organism has to react to stimuli coming from outside, according
to its innate psycho-physical equipment. There is a latitude in what is picked as a
stimulus, signal and characteristic in Uexkulll's sense. However, his perception
must allow the animal to find its way in the world. This would be impossible if
the categories of experience, such as space, time, substance, causality, were
entirely deceptive. The categories of experience have arisen in biological evolution, and have continually to justify themselves in the struggle for existence.
If they would not, in some way, correspond to reality, appropriate reaction would
be impossible, and such organism would quickly be eliminated by selection.
Speaking in anthropomorphic terms: A group of schizophrenics who share
their illusions, may get along with each other pretty well; they are, however,
utterly unfit to react and adapt themselves to real outside situations, and this is
precisely the reason why they are put into the asylum. Or, in terms of Plato's
simile: the prisoners in the cave do not see the real things but only their shadows;
but if they are not only looking at the spectacle, but have to take part in the performance, the shadows must, in some way, be representative of the real things.
It seems to be the most serious shortcoming of classic occidental philosophy,
from Plato to Descartes and Kant, to consider man primarily as a spectator,
as ens cogitans, while, for biological reasons, he has essentially to be a performer,
an ens agens in the world he is thrown in.
Lorenz (1943) has convincingly shown that the "a priori" forms of experience
are of essentially the same nature as the innate schemata of instinctive behavior,
following which animals respond to companions, sexual partners, offspring or
parents, prey or predators, and other outside situations. They are based upon psychophysiological mechanisms, such as the perception of space is based on binocular vision, parallaxis, the contraction of the ciliary muscle, apparent increase or
decrease in size of an approaching or receding object, etc. The "a priori" forms of
intuition and categories are organic functions, based upon corporeal and even
machine-like structures of the sense organs and the nervous system, which have
evolved as adaptations in the millions of years of evolution. Hence they are fitted
to the "real" world in exactly the same way and for the same reason, as the
equine hoof is fitted to the steppe terrain, the fin of the fish to the water. It is a
THE RELATIVITY
OF CATEGORIES
257
preposterous anthropomorphism to assume that the human forms of experience

are the only possible ones, valid for any rational being. On the other hand, the
conception of the forms of experience as an adaptive apparatus proved in millions
of years of struggle for existence, guarantees that there is a sufficient correspondence between "appearance" and "reality". Any stimulus is experienced not
as it is but as the organism reacts to it, and thus the world-picture is determined
by psychophysical organization. However, where a paramecium reacts with its
phobotactic reaction, also the human observer, though his world outlook is quite
different, actually finds an obstacle when he uses his microscope. Similarly, it
is well possible to indicate which traces of experience correspond to reality,
and which, comparable to the coloured fringes in the field of a microscope which
is not achromatically corrected, do not. So Pilate's question, what is truth, is to
be answered thus: Already the fact that animals and human beings are still in
existence, proves that their forms of experience correspond, to some degree, with
reality.
In view of this, it is possible to define what is meant with the intentionally
loose expression used above, that experience must correspond "in a certain way"
to "reality whatever this means." It is not required that the categories of experience fully correspond to the real universe, and even less that they represent
it completely. It suffices-and this is Uexkuill'sthesis-that a rather small selection of stimuli is used as guiding signals. As for the connections of these stimuli,
i.e. the categories of experience, they need not mirror the nexus of real events
but must, with a certain tolerance allowed, be isomorphic to it. For the biological
reasons mentioned above, experience cannot be completely "wrong" and arbitrary; but, on the other hand, it is sufficient that a certain degree of isomorphism
exists between the experienced world and the "real" world, so that experience
can guide the organism in such way as to preserve its existence.
Again to use a simile: The "red" sign is not identical with the various hazards
it indicates, oncoming cars, trains, crossing pedestrians, etc. It suffices, however,
to indicate them, and thus "red" is isomorphic to "stop", "green" isomorphic
to "go".
Similarly, perception and experienced categories need not mirror the "real"
world; they must, however, be isomorphic to it to such degree as to allow orientation and thus survival.
But these deductive requirements are precisely what we actually find. The
popular forms of intuition and categories, such as space, time, matter, and
causality, work well enough in the world of "medium dimensions" to which the
human animal is biologically adapted. Here, Newtonian mechanics and classical
physics, as based upon these visualizable categories, are perfectly satisfactory.
They break down, however, if we enter universes to which the human organism
is not adapted. This is the case, on the one hand, in atomic dimensions, and in
cosmic dimensions on the other.
Coming now to the world of science, Uexkill's conception of the physical
universe as but one of the innumerable biological ambients, is incorrect or at
least incomplete. Here a most remarkable trend comes in which may be called the
258
L. VON BERTALANFFY
progressive de-anthropomorphization of science (Bertalanffy, 1937, 1953). It

appears that this process of de-anthropomorphization takes place in three major
lines.
It is an essential characteristic of science that it progressively de-anthropomorphizes, that is, progressively eliminates those traits which are due to specifically human experience. Physics necessarily starts with the sensory experience
of the eye, the ear, the thermal sense, etc., and thus builds up fields like optics,
acoustics, theory of heat, which correspond to the realms of sensory experience.
Soon, however, these fields fuse into such that do not have any more relation to
the "visualizable" or "intuitable": Optics and electricity fuse into electromagnetic theory, mechanics and theory of heat into statistical thermodynamics, etc.
This evolution is connected with the invention of artificial sense-organs and
the replacement of the human observer by the recording instrument. Physics,
though starting with every-day experience, soon transgresses it by expanding the
universe of experience through artificial sense-organs. Thus, for example, instead
of seeing only visible light with a wave length between 380 and 760 millimicra,
the whole range of electromagnetic radiation, from shortest cosmic rays up to
radio waves of some kilometers wave length, is disclosed.
Thus it is one function of science to expand the observable. It is to be emphasized that, in contrast to a mechanistic view, we do not enter another metaphysical realm with this expansion. Rather the things surrounding us in every-day
experience, the cells seen in a microscope, the large molecules observed by the
electron microscope, and the elementary particles "seen", in a still more indirect
and intricate way, by their traces in a Wilson chamber, are not of a different
degree of reality. It is a mechanistic superstition to believe that atoms and
molecules (speaking with Alice in the Wonderland of Physics) are "realler"
than apples, stones and tables. The ultimate particles of physics are not a metaphysical reality behind observation; they are an expansion of what we observe
with our natural senses, by way of introducing suitable artificial sense organs.
In any way, however, this leads to an elimination of the limitations of experience as imposed by the specifically human psychophysical organization, and, in
this sense, to the de-anthropomorphization of the world picture.
A second aspect of this development is what is called the convergence of
research (cf. Bavink, 1949). The constants of physics have often been considered
as only conventional means for the most economic description of nature. The
progress of research, however, shows a different picture. First, natural constants
such as the mechanical equivalent of heat or the charge of electrons, vary widely
in the observation of individual observers. Then, with the refinement of techniques, a "true" value is approached asymptotically so that consecutive determinations alter the established value only in progressively smallerdigits of decimals.
Not only this: Physical constants such as Loschmidt's number and its like, are
established not by one method but perhaps by twenty methods which are completely independent of each other. In this way, they cannot be conceived as
being simply conventions for describing phenomena economically; they represent
certain aspects of reality, independent of biological, theoretical or cultural biases.
THE RELATIVITY
OF CATEGORIES
259
It is indeed one of the most important occupations of natural science thus to

verify its findings in mutually independent ways.
However, perhaps the most impressive aspect of progressive de-anthropomorphization is the third. First, the so-called secondary qualities go, that is, color,
sound, smell, taste disappear from the physical world picture since they are
determined by the so-called specific energy of the diverse and specifically human
senses. So, in the world picture of classical physics, only the primary qualities
such as mass, impenetrability, extension, etc. are left which, psychophysically,
are characterized as being the common ground of visual, tactual, acoustical
experience. Then, however, these forms of intuition and categories also are
eliminated as being all-too-human. Even Euclidean space and Newtonian time of
classical physics, as was noted previously, are not identical with the space and
time of direct experience; they already are constructs of physics. This, of course,
is true even more of the theoretical structure of modern physics.
Thus, what is specific of our human experience, is progressively eliminated.
What eventually remains, is only a system of mathematical relations.
Sometime ago it was considered a grave objection against the theory of relativity and quantum theory that it became increasingly "unvisualizable", that
its constructs cannot be represented by imaginable models. In truth, however,
this is a proof that the system of physics detaches itself from the bondage of our
specifically human sensory experience; a pledge that the system of physics in
its consummate form-leaving it undecided whether this is attained or even is
attainable at all-does not belong to the human ambient (umwelt in Uexkuill's
sense) any more but it universally committal.
In a way, progressive de-anthropomorphization is like Muenchhausen pulling
himself out of the quagmire on his own pigtail. It is, however, possible because of
a unique property of symbolism. A symbolic system, an algorithm, such as that
of mathematics and mathematical physics, wins a life of its own as it were. It
becomes a thinking machine, and once the proper instructions are fed in, the
machine runs by itself, yie]ding unexpected results that surpass the initial
amount of facts and given rules, and are thus unforeseeable by the limited intellect who originally has created the machine. In this sense, the mechanical chess
player can outplay its maker (Ashby, 1952), that is, the results of the automatized symbolism transcend the original input of facts and instructions. This is
the case in any algorithmic prediction, be it a formal deduction on any level of
mathematical difficulty or a physical prediction like that of still unknown chemical elements or planets (cf. Bertalanify, in press). Progressive de-anthropomorphization, that is, replacement of direct experience by a self-running algorithmic
system, is one aspect of this state of affairs.
Thus, the development of physics naturally depends on the psychophysical
constitution of its creators. If man would not perceive light but radium or x-rays
which are invisible to us, not only the human ambient but also the development
of physics would be absolutely different. But in a similar way as we have discovered, by means of suitable apparatus and supplementing our sensory experience,
x-rays and all the range of electromagnetic radiations, the same would be true of
260
L. VON BERTALANFFY
beings with an entirely different psychophysical constitution. Suppose there are

intelligent beings or "angels" on a planet of the Sirius who perceive only x-rays;
they would have detected, in a corresponding way, those wave lengths that mean
visible light to us. But not only this: The Sirius angels would possibly calculate in
quite different systems of symbols and theories. However, since the system of
physics, in its consummate state, does not contain anything human any more,
and the corresponding thing would be true of any system of physics, we must
conclude that those physics, although different in their symbolic system, have
the same content, that is, the mathematical relations of one physics could be
translated by means of a suitable "vocabulary" and "grammar" into those of
the other.
This speculation is not quite utopian, but, to a certain extent, seen in the actual
development of physics. Thus, classical thermodynamics and molecular statistics
are different "languages" using different abstractions and mathematical symbolisms, but the statements of one theory can readily be translated into the other.
This even has quite timely implications; thermodynamics and the modern theory
of information obviously are similarly isomorphic systems, and the elaboration
of a complete "vocabulary" for translation is in progress.
If, in the sense just indicated, the system of physics in its ideal state which can
be approached only asymptotically, is absolute, we must, however, not forget
another and in some way antithetical aspect. What traits of reality we grasp in
our theoretical system is arbitrary in the epistemological sense, and determined
by biological, cultural and probably linguistic factors.
This, again, has first a trivial meaning. The Eskimos are said to have some thirty
different names for "snow", doubtless because it is vitally important for them
to make fine distinctions while, for us, these differences are negligible. Conversely, we call machines which are only superficially different, by the names of
Fords, Cadillacs, Pontiacs and so forth, while for the Eskimos they would be
pretty much the same. The same, however, is true in a non-trivial sense, applying
to general categories of thinking.
It would be perfectly possible that rational beings of another structure choose
quite different traits and aspects of reality for building theoretical systems,
systems of mathematics and physics. Our main concern, probably determined
by the grammatics of Indo-European language, is with measureable qualities,
isolable units, and the like. Our physics neglects the so-called primary qualities;
they come in only rudimentarily in the system of physics or in certain abstractions of physiological optics like the color cycle or triangle.5 Similarly, our way
of thinking is conspicuously unfit for dealing with problems of wholeness and
5 This perhaps can lead to a fairer interpretation of Goethe's "Theory of Colors".
Goethe's revolt against Newtonian optics which is a scandal and completely devious within
the history of occidental physics, can be understood in this way: Goethe, an eminently
eidetic and intuitive mind, had the feeling (which is quite correct) that Newtonian optics
purposely neglects, and abstracts from, exactly those qualities which are most prominent
in sensory experience. His Farbenlehre, then, is an attempt to deal with those aspects of
reality which are not covered by conventional physics; a theoretical enterprise which remained abortive.
THE RELATIVITY
OF CATEGORIES
261
form. Therefore, it is only with the greatest effort that holistic as contrasted to
elementalistic traits can be included-although they are not less "real". The way
of thinking of occidental physics leaves us on the spot if we are confronted with
problems of form-hence this aspect, predominant in things biological, is but a
tremendous embarrassment to physics.
It may well be that quite different forms of science, of mathematics in the sense
of hypothetico-deductive systems, are possible for beings who don't carry our
biological and linguistic constraints; mathematical "physics" that are much more
fit than ours to deal with such aspects of reality.
The same seems even to be true of mathematical logic. So far, it seems to cover
only a relatively small segment of what can easily be expressed in vernacular or
mathematical language. The Aristotelian logic, for millenia considered as giving
the general and supreme laws of reasoning, actually covers only the extremely
small field of subject-predicate relations. The all-or-none concepts of traditional
logic fall short of continuity concepts basic for mathematical analysis (cf. von
Neumann, 1951, p. 16). Probably it is only a very small field of possible deductive
reasoning which is axiomatized even by the efforts of modern logicians.
It may be that the structure of our logic is essentially determined by the
structure of our central nervous system. The latter is essentially a digital computer, since the neurons work according to the all-or-nothing law of physiology
in terms of yes-or-no decisions. To this corresponds the Heraclitean principle of
our thinking in opposites, our bivalent yes-or-no logic, Boolean algebra, and the
binary system of numbers6 to which also the practically more convenient decadic
system can be reduced (and is actually reduced in modern calculating machines).
Supposing that a nervous system were constructed not after the digital type but
as an analogy computer (such as, e.g., a slide rule), it may be imagined that a
quite different logic of continuity, in contrast to our yes-or-no logic, would
arise.
Thus we come to a view which may be called perspectivism (cf. Bertalanffy,
1953). In contrast to the "reductionist" thesis that physical theory is the only
one to which all possible science and all aspects of reality eventually should be
reduced, we take a more modest view. The system of physics is committal for any
rational being in the sense explained; that is, by a process of de-anthropomorphization it approaches a representation of certain relational aspects of reality.
It is essentially a symbolic algorithm suitable for the purpose. However, the
choice of the symbolisms we apply and consequently the aspects of reality we
represent, depend on biological and cultural factors. There is nothing singular or
particularly sacred about the system of physics. Within our own science, other
symbolic systems, such as those of taxonomy, of genetics or the history of art,
are equally legitimate although they are far from having the same degree of
precision. And in other cultures of human beings and among non-human intel6 Notice the theological motive in Leibniz's invention of the binary system. It represented Creation since any number can be produced by a combination of "something" (1) and
"nothing"' (0). But has this antithesis metaphysical reality, or is it but an expression of
linguistic habits and of the mode of action of our nervous system?
262
L. VON BERTALANFFY
ligences, basically different kinds of "science" may be possible which would

represent other aspects of reality as well or even better than does our so-called
scientific world picture.
There is, perhaps, a deep-lying reason why our mental representation of the
universe always mirrors only certain aspects or perspectives of reality. Our
thinking, at least in occidental but possibly in any human language, is essentially
in terms of opposites. As Heraclitus has it, we are thinking in terms of warm and
cold, black and white, day and night, life and death, being and becoming. These
are naive formulations. But it appears that also the constructs of physics are
such opposites, and that for this very reason prove inadequate in view of reality
certain relations of which are expressed in the formulas of theoretical physics.
The popular antithesis between motion and rest becomes meaningless in the
theory of relativity. The antithesis of mass and energy is superseded by Einstein's
conservation law which accounts for their mutual transformation. Corpuscle and
wave are both legitimate and complementary aspects of physical reality which, in
certain phenomena and respects, is to be described in one way, in others in the
second. The contrast between structure and process breaks down in the atom as
well as in the living organism whose structure is at the same time the expression
and the bearer of a continuous flow of matter and energy. Perhaps the age-old
problem of body and mind is of a similar nature, these being different aspects,
wrongly hypostatized, of one and the same reality (cf. Bertalanffy, 1954).
All our knowledge, even if de-anthropomorphized, only mirrors certain aspects
of reality. If what has been said is true, reality is what Nicholas of Cusa (cf.
Bertalanffy, 1928) called the coincidentia oppositorum. Discoursive thinking always represents only one aspect of ultimate reality, called God in Cusa's terminology; it can never exhaust its infinite manifoldness. Hence ultimate reality
is a unity of opposites; any statement holds from a certain viewpoint only, has
only relative validity, and must be supplemented by antithetic statements from
opposite points of view.
Thus, the categories of our experience and thinking appear to be determined
by biological as well as cultural factors. Secondly, this human bondage is stripped
by a process of progressive de-anthropomorphization of our world picture.
Thirdly, even though de-anthropomorphized, knowledge only mirrors certain
aspects or facets of reality. However, fourthly, ex omnibus partibus relucet totum
again to use Cusa's expression: Each such aspect has, though only relative, truth.
This, it seems, indicates the limitation as well as the dignity of human knowledge.
Centerfor AdvancedStudy in the BehavioralSciences
REFERENCES
ALLESCH,G. J. VON, Zur Nichteuklidischen Struktur des phdnomenalen Raumes. Jena:
Fischer. 1931.
ANSCHtTZ, G., Psychologie. Hamburg: Meiner. 1953.
Asn3y, W. R., Can a Mechanical Chess-Player outplay its Designer. Brit. J. Philos. Sci. 3,
44, 1952.
BACKMAN, G., Lebensdauer und Entwicklung. Roux' Archiv 140, 90, 1940.
BAVINK,
B., Ergebnisse und Problemeder Naturwissenschaften.9th ed. Zurich: Hirzel. 1949.
THE RELATIVITY
OF CATEGORIES
263
L. VON, Einfuihrung in Spengler's Werk. Literaturblattd. Koeln. Zeitung,

May 1924; (ed.), Nikolaus von Kues. Miinchen: G. Muller. 1928;Das Gefiigedes Lebens.
Leipzig: Teubner. 1937; Probleme einer dynamischen Morphologie. Biologia Generalis
15, 1, 1941; TheoretischeBiologie. 2nd vol.: Stoffwechsel, Wachstum. 2nd ed. Bern:
Francke. 1951; Philosophy of Science in Scientific Education. Sci. Monthly 77, 233,
1953;AND DEUTSCH, K. W., Discussion in: Proc. 7th Conferenceon the Unified Theoryof
Human Nature, ed. by R. Grinker. Chicago: Michael Reese Hospital (mimeograph).
1954; A Biologist Looks at Human Nature. Sci. Monthly. In press.
BRODY, S., Relativity of Physiological Time and Physiological Weight. Growth1, 60, 1937.
FEARING, F., An Examination of the Conceptions of Benjamin Whorf in the Light of Theories of Perception and Cognition. Languagein Culture, ed. by H. Hoijer. Amer. Anthropologist 56, Memoir No. 79, 47, 1954.
HOAGLAND, H., Consciousness and the Chemistry of Time. Transactions of the 1st Conference,ed. by H. A. Abramson, 164. New York: J. Macy Foundation. 1951.
HOIJER, H. (ed.), Language in Culture. Amer. Anthropologist56, Memoir No. 79, 1954.
W. VON, GesammelteSchriften. vol. VII, pt. 1. Berlin: Preuss. Akademie.
HUMBOLDT,
HUXLEY, A., The Doors of Perception. New York: Harper. 1954.
KALMUS, H., tYberdie Natur des Zeitgedichtnisses der Bienen. Zeitschr. vergl. Physiol. 20,
405, 1934.
KLUCKHOHN, CL., Culture and Behavior. Handbookof Social Psychology, ed. by G. Lindzey.
Vol. 2, Chapter 25, 921. Cambridge (Mass.): Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. 1954.
KLUCKHOHN, CL., AND LEIGHTON,D., The Navaho. Ch. 8. The Tongue of the People. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard U. Press. 1951.
LA BARRE, W., The Human Animal. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press. 1954.
LECOMTE DU NotY, P., Biological Time. New York: Macmillan. 1937.
LORENZ, K., Die angeborenen Formen m6glicher Erfahrung. Zeitschr. Tierpsychologie 6,
235, 1943.
NEUMANN, J. VON, The General and Logical Theory of Automata. CerebralMechanisms in
Behavior, ed. by L. A. Jefres, 1. New York: Wiley, 1951.
PRIGOGINE, I., :tude Thermodynamiquedes Ph6nomenesirr6versibles.Paris: Dunod. 1947.
RIEGL, A., Die spatr6mischeKunstindustrie, nach den Funden in Osterreich-Ungarn.Wien:
BERTALANFFY,
Hof- und Staatsdruckerei.
1901.
SCHAXEL, J., Grundzuige der Theorienbildungin der Biologie. 2nd ed. Jena: Fischer. 1923.
SKRAMLIK, E. VON, Die Grundlagen der haptischen Geometrie. Naturwissenschaften 22,
601, 1934.
SPENGLER, O., Der Untergangdes Abendlandes.Vol. I. Muinchen:Beek. 1922.
STEIN-BELING, J. VON, tYber das Zeitgedachtnis bei Tieren. Biol. Rev. 10, 18, 1935.
TOYNBEE, A. J., A Study of History. Vo]. IX. London, New York: Oxford U. Press. 1954.
UEXKtLL, J. VON, Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer. 1920; Theoretische Biologie. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer. 1929;AND KRISZAT, G., Streifzage durch die
Umweltenvon Tieren und Menschen. Berlin: Springer. 1934.

WAHL, O., Neue Untersuchungen
iuber das Zeitgedachtnis
der Tiere. Zeitschr. vergl. Physiol.
16, 529, 1932.

WHATMOUGH, J., Review of A. G. N. Flew (editor), Logic and Language (Second Series).
Classical Philology 50, 67, 1955.
WHORF, B. L., CollectedPapers on Metalinguistics. Washington, D. C.: Foreign Service
Institute, Department of State. 1952.
WORRINGER, W., Abstraktion und Einfuihlung. Muinchen: Piper. 1908; Formproblemeder
Gotik. Muinchen:Piper. 1911.

Bertalanffy Ensaio Sobre A Relatividade Das Categorias

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bertalanffy Ensaio Sobre A Relatividade Das Categorias

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bertalanffy Ensaio Sobre A Relatividade Das Categorias

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Essay on the Relativity of Categories

Author(s): L. von Bertalanffy

AN ESSAY ON THE RELATIVITY OF CATEGORIES

Among recent developments in the anthropological sciences, hardly any have

For example, in the Indo-European languages substantives, adjectives and

It would be important to apply the methods of mathematical logic to such

La Barre (1954, p. 301) has vividly summarized this viewpoint:

ferent "styles of cognition", characteristic of certain groups of human beings.

as a product of a historical process; a dynamic morphology as expression of a

preposterous anthropomorphism to assume that the human forms of experience

progressive de-anthropomorphization of science (Bertalanffy, 1937, 1953). It

It is indeed one of the most important occupations of natural science thus to

beings with an entirely different psychophysical constitution. Suppose there are

ligences, basically different kinds of "science" may be possible which would

B., Ergebnisse und Problemeder Naturwissenschaften.9th ed. Zurich: Hirzel. 1949.

L. VON, Einfuihrung in Spengler's Werk. Literaturblattd. Koeln. Zeitung,

Hof- und Staatsdruckerei.

Umweltenvon Tieren und Menschen. Berlin: Springer. 1934.

iuber das Zeitgedachtnis

der Tiere. Zeitschr. vergl. Physiol.

16, 529, 1932.

You might also like