David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Mind 97 (387):501-s-501 (1988)
The wrong version of my article ‘Aspects of the Infinite in Kant’ was printed in the last issue of Mind (pp. 205–23). I should like to correct an error that thereby appeared on page 207. In A430–2/B458–60 of the Critique of Pure Reason Kant does not deny that what is (mathematically) infinite should be what I called an actual measurable totality—if, by its measure, we mean ‘the multiplicity of given units which it contains’. His point is simply that what makes it infinite cannot be the fact that its measure is the greatest possible; for there is no such thing. What he has in mind here can be illustrated as follows. Take the infinite multiplicity of hours that have elapsed up to a given moment; then the multiplicity of minutes that have elapsed, and indeed the multiplicity of hours that will have elapsed an hour later, are both greater. No multiplicity is so great that it cannot be increased in this way. (Of course, standard contemporary formal work on the infinite has superseded Kant here. A modern mathematician would want either to quarrel with this or at least to refine it.) He also refuses to allow that an infinite multiplicity is a number (cf. BIII and A526–7/B554–5). In the end, he thinks, there is no saying what it is for something to be (mathematically) infinite without falling back on ‘the true transcendental concept of infinitude,’ namely ‘that the successive synthesis of units required for the enumeration of a quantum can never be completed’
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
E. Herrman (2001). Infinite Chains and Antichains in Computable Partial Orderings. Journal of Symbolic Logic 66 (2):923-934.
Carlos Fraenkel (2009). Maimonides and Spinoza as Sources for Maimon's Solution of the “Problem Quid Juris ” in Kant's Theory of Knowledge. Kant-Studien 100 (2):212-240.
Marshall Thomsen & D. Resnik (1995). The Effectiveness of the Erratum in Avoiding Error Propagation in Physics. Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (3):231-240.
H. Meyer (1947). Erratum: Some Aspects of Modern Philosophy. Synthese 6 (9/12):502 -.
Lydia Patton (2011). The Paradox of Infinite Given Magnitude: Why Kantian Epistemology Needs Metaphysical Space. Kant-Studien 102 (3):273-289.
Omri Boehm (2011). The First Antinomy and Spinoza. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (4):683 - 710.
Andrew Chignell (2006). Review: Moore, Noble in Reason, Infinite in Faculty: Themes and Variation in Kant's Moral and Religious Philosophy. [REVIEW] Philosophical Review 115 (1):118-121.
A. W. Moore (2003). Noble in Reason, Infinite in Faculty: Themes and Variations in Kant's Moral and Religious Philosophy. Routledge.
A. W. Moore (1988). Aspects of the Infinite in Kant. Mind 97 (386):205-223.
A. W. Moore (1990). The Infinite. Routledge.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads22 ( #212,703 of 1,902,769 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #264,801 of 1,902,769 )
How can I increase my downloads?