Kant's Turn: Between Actual and Potential Infinity

Introduction. The purpose of the article is to show that Kant's turn is the answer to the problem of actual infinity, in the light of which it becomes clear how Immanuel Kant contributed to the turn of Western epistemology to non-classics. The relevance of the research is due to the need to make modern epistemology more “sighted” in relation to its own prospects and opportunities.

Methodology and sources. The author of the article reconstructs and critically analyzes Kant's approach to neutralizing the problem of actual infinity on the basis of the involvement of both primary sources and historical-philosophical and historical-scientific works, modern research in the field of the theory of cognition.

Results and discussion. Kant's separation of “in itself” and “for us” separates the finite and dependent world from the infinite and independent. The latter is emptied of its theological content (inherited from Nicholas of Cusa) and, instead of a central meaning, receives a peripheral one, is declared an unknowable thing in itself. And the former is endowed with some properties of the latter and is declared a self-sufficient education. So the transcendent becomes transcendental, and the problem of the connection between the finite and the infinite, discussed by Kant's predecessors (Galileo, Descartes, etc.), is neutralized and passes into the category of antinomies. But the discovery of the inconsistency of Kant's separation “in itself” and “for us” makes the problem of the ratio of the finite and the infinite relevant again. However, now the former becomes completely blind to the latter, so that everything that is beyond “for us” can be attributed to “in itself”. Thus, in place of the actual infinity as transcendent, a potential infinity arises that does not know the limits of its immanence. The author of the article shows that such substitution, while remaining unidentified, can disorient the modern theory of cognition even more.

Conclusion. Revealing how Kant's reinterpretation of the relation of the finite and the infinite contributed to the substitution of the actual infinity by the potential infinity makes it clear that such a substitution does not neutralize the original problem of the actual infinity, but that such a substitution is itself a real problem, the sharpening of which promises great changes in the theory of knowledge.

1. Bogdanova, V.O. (2011), “Kant's Philosophy and Modern Constructivism: points of contact”, Person. Culture. Society, vol. XIII, iss. 2, № 63–64, pp. 211–216.

2. Zhilin, V.I. and Efimova, S.V. (2014), “I. Kant against constructivists”, The science of person: humanitarian researches, no. 4 (18), pp. 10–18.

3. Pruzhinin, B.I. (2009), “Non-classical epistemology: a look from the classics”, Postneklassika: filosofiya, nauka, kul'tura [Postnonclassics: philosophy, science, culture], Mir, SPb., RUS, рр. 230–248.

4. Koyre, A. (1985), Etudes d'Histoire de la Pensee philosophique, Transl. by Lyatker, Ya.A., Progress, Mosсow, USSR.

5. Gaidenko, P.P. (1998), “On the question of the genesis of New European science”, Philosophy of science, iss. 4, pp. 52–60.

6. Philatova, M.I. (2022), “Radicalization of the problem of epistemological relativism (argument “for”)”, Perm Univ. Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology, iss. 4, pp. 579–589. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2022-4-579-589.

7. Agazzi, E. (2017), Scientific objectivity and its contexts, Transl. by Lakhuti, D.G., Progress-Traditsiya, Mosсow, RUS.

8. Meiïlassoux, K. (2015), Après la finitude. Essai sur la nécessité de la contingence, Transl. by Medvedeva, L., Kabinetnyi uchenyi, Ekaterinburg, Moscow, RUS.

9. Mamardashvili, M.K. (2002), Kantianskie variacii [Kantian variations], Agraf, Moscow, RUS.

10. Akhutin, A.V. (1988), Ponyatie “priroda” v antichnosti i v Novoe vremya (“fyusis” I “natura”) [The concept of “nature” in antiquity and in mod-ern times (“fusis” and “nature”)], Nauka, Moscow, USSR.

11. Kosareva, L.M. (1997), Rozhdenie nauki novogo vremeni iz dukha kul'tury [The birth of modern science from the spirit of culture], In-t psikhologii RAN, Mosсow, RUS.

12. Philatova, M.I. (2023), “The Problem of the Actual Infinity and the Path of the New European Classical Epistemology: from Genesis to the Modern Crisis”, DISCOURSE, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 5–21. DOI: 10.32603/2412-8562-2023-9-2-5-21.

13. Bibler, V.S. (1979), “Galileo and the Logic of Modern Thinking”, Mekhanika I tsivilizatsiya XVII– XIX vv. [Mechanics and civilization of the XVII–XIX centuries], Nauka, Moscow, USSR, pp. 494–503.

14. Katasonov, V.N. (2004), “The concept of actual infinity as a “scientific icon” of the Deity”, Khristianstvo i nauka: ΧΙΙ mezhdunar. Rozhdestvenskie obrazovatel'nye chteniya [Christianity and Science: ΧΙΙ Intern. Christmas Educational Readings], Mosсow, RUS, available at: http://katasonovvn.narod.ru/statji/razdel2/2-10_v.n.katasonov_koncepcija_aktualnoj_beskonechn.htm (accessed 14.09.2022).

15. Kant, I. (1963), “Thoughts on the true assessment of living forces (1746)”, Transl. by Focht, B.A., Sochineniya v 6 t. [Essays in 6 vols.], vol. 1, Mysl', Moscow, USSR, pp. 51–82.

16. Kant, I. (2011), Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Trans. by Lossky, N., Eksmo, Moscow, RUS.

17. Galilei, G. (1964), “Dialogo”, Transl. by Dolgov, A.I., Opere Scelte, in 2 vol., vol. 1, Nauka, Moscow, USSR.

18. Kant, I. (1964), Träume eines Geistersehers, erläutert durch Träume der Metaphysik, Transl. by Focht, B.A., Sochineniya v 6 t. [Essays in 6 vols.], vol. 1, Mysl', Moscow, USSR, pp. 292–360.

19. Karapenyan, A.A. (1958), Kriticheskii analiz filosofii Kanta [Critical analysis of Kant's philosophy], Armgiz, Erevan, USSR.

20. Tsokolov, S. (2000), Diskurs radikal'nogo konstruktivizma. Traditsii skeptitsizma v sovremennoi filosofii i teorii poznaniya [Discourse of radical constructivism. Traditions of skepticism in modern philosophy and theory of knowledge], Phren, Münсhen, DEU.

21. Filatova, M.I. (2021), “Actual infinity: a pseudo-problem or a meta-foundation of western European philosophy and science?”, Ideas and Ideals, vol. 13, no. 4, part 1, pp. 11–27. DOI: 10.17212/20750862-2021-13.4.1-11-27.

22. Lektorsky, V.A. (2005), “Kant, radical constructivism and constructive realism in epistemology”, Voprosy Filosofii, no. 8, pp. 11–21.

23. Knyazeva, E.N. (2012), “Evolutionary Epistemology at the Crossroads of Development”, Evolutionary Epistemology: the Modern Discussions and Trends, IF RAN, Moscow, RUS, pp. 8–34.

24. Knyazeva, E.N. (2014), Enaktivizm: novaya forma konstruktivizma v epistemologii [Enactivism: a new form of Constructivism in Epistemology], Tsentr gumanitarnykh initsiativ; Universitetskaya kniga, Moscow, SPb., RUS.

25. Pirozhkova, S.V. (2017), “Is the realistic turn in the philosophy and methodology of science realistic?”, Perspektivy realizma v sovremennoi filosofii [Perspectives of realism in modern philosophy], Kanon-Plus ROOI “Reabilitatsiya”, Moscow, RUS, pp. 297–331.

26. Allison, H.E. (2004), Kant's Transcendental Idealism, revised and enlarged ed., Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, USA.

27. Katrechko, S.L. (2016), “Kant's Transcendentalism as a Realistic Theory of Experience/ Cognition: (Analysis of the Structure of Kant's Copernican revolution)”, Philosophy and Science: Problems and Correlations, Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, RUS. pp. 127–134.