Paradoxically, and almost ironically, Plotinos elevated the finite, relative and composite to the same logical status of the infinite, the very opposite (!) 9 “Its measure is longer than the earth And broader than the sea. One finds precise indications on this point in the angelology of the scholastic theologians and in its paradoxical correlation with the mystical. Neoplatonism is a relatively easy philosophy to explain and a rather difficult one to evaluate. Functional Behavior Assessment/Behavior Intervention Plan.
Case 3: immanent power of large parts of an infinity, 8. On the other, the mystical relates in poems the experienced figures of ecstatic annihilation towards which the hierarchy of angels points. However, if the being of the infinite, being a singular type of multiplicity, cannot be thought under the term “God,” it is nevertheless truth that it is situated between finitude and the absolute reference, and it is also true that there are four different ways of effectuating this situation. One can think the infinite from below: it is that which surpasses the finite given and the operations that authorize this given. From this time on, the “reasonable” tendency, headed by the bishop Arius and consequently referred to as Arianism, will show itself to be surreptitiously controlled by an imperative of finitude. But if this resource is disallowed, if the representations of the elements of E has to be guaranteed by an explicit procedure, the shadow that covers the notion of any multiplicity whatsoever is then such that even to compare two sets quantitatively becomes generally impossible. This simplicity was described by Paul Tillich as “the abyss of everything specific.”10 This abyss, notes Tillich, is not simply “something negative; it is the most positive of all because It contains everything that is.’’11 The One is thus that being in which, by virtue of Its simplicity, being, existence, nature, activity and will are all identical.12 In other words, what It wills—Its will, what It is—Its nature, and what It does—Its activity, are all by definition “wholly indistinguishable.”13, At this stage it is necessary to make some observations. Change ), You are commenting using your Twitter account. If indeed the resistance to division of the infinite is not of an ontological type (the Father and the Son are ontologically identical, thus respecting the law of the One) but belongs only to the order of appearances (the Father and the Son are ontologically similar, which imposes the law of the Two), what results is an obvious weakness in the divine: the infinite, at the point of its identity, obeys laws quote similar to those of finitude, for which what is different cannot be identical but bears only a resemblance.
One will not be surprised, given these conditions, that Cantor, who was truly very troubled mentally by his own genius and by the radicality of his inventions, asked Rome – the Pope – if his mathematical concept of actual infinity wasn’t in the end blasphemous.
Leave a Reply