D O C U M E N T 1 0 8 M A R C H 1 9 2 1 8 7
W. H. Bragg (the
father)[2]
is not coming either, and Langevin is
doubtful.[3]
He
came down with pleurisy, which was luckily not dangerous and is now over, but he
still has to take care of himself.
Under these conditions and specially in view of your absence, Mrs. Curie and
Brillouin
suggested[4]
postponing the meeting to the fall. This turned out to be
impossible, however, and so we are going to Brussels on 31 March. We also invited
Michelson,[5]
who happens to be in Europe, and L. Brillouin, the
son.[6]
And now I cordially wish you a good and in every respect fortunate trip and
express the hope that it will also really go to the benefit of the Jerusalem
university.[7]
I already have relations with this university; for their library is receiv-
ing the publications of the Dutch scientific society, such as the Oeuvres complètes
de Chr. Huygens.
Be sure not to tire yourself out too much with interviews and
talks.[8]
Of course,
you will conduct a few, and that is right and good, but too much might be demanded
of you. Let us see you in a few months in Leyden in good health.
Cordial regards from both of
us,[9]
yours truly,
H. A. Lorentz.
108. To Heinrich Scholz
Berlin, 20 March 1921
Highly esteemed Colleague,
I am delighted that you assess Schlick’s prospects so
favorably.[1]
Today I am writing to ask you for professional clarification relating to a com-
ment contained in your postcard. You speak of an intuitive, formally a priori
space.[2]
I had hitherto believed that the Kantian formally a priori interpretation
was purely logically axiomatic, which was in strict opposition to the intuitively
psychological one. I also know that there are Kantians who adamantly deny that
Kantian “intuition” has anything to do with what in everyday life is described as
intuition or intuitive. Kant’s “intuition” rather only described something logically
and epistemologically apprehensible. I must admit that I always thought Kant’s
theory of space conflicted in detail with the general theory of relativity, although
the requirement of drawing up an inventory of basic concepts and functions a priori
in character within a given science remained
justified.[3]
I would be obliged to you
for a brief reply to this question, which would only reach me in two months, how-
ever, following my return from
America.[4]
Very sincerely yours.