The Actual Infinite

The Actual Infinite as a Day or the Games Author(s): Pascal Massie Source: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol.
60, No. 3 (Mar., 2007), pp. 573-596 Published by: Philosophy Education Society Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20130818 . Accessed: 10/12/2013 10:36
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 support@jstor.org.
Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of Metaphysics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 200.26.133.57 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:36:52 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEACTUALINFINITE AS A DAY OR THEGAMES

MASSIE PASCAL
not
?S _l HE TRANSITION FROM ANCIENT TO MEDIEVAL philosophical theology a simple matter of re monotheism for pantheism, of substituting that admits manifestations of multiple is someone). it entails Rather, For the medievals, of being. with a deeper the claim, a God trans
a divine placing is one person who formation
(who
"God of the concept a to in and exclusive God distinctive entails that is," applies being sense. When stress this mutation, historians frequently characterizing as conceive what maintains itself that the Greeks could only being its own of "infinity" limits. The ancient within concept (ctJteLQOv) would a purely negative term. The infinite can designated not truly be something; at best, is a mere For many infinity potency. it is this limited that will be over conception eventually historians, thus have come with the of ens doubt later emergence infinitum. Aristotle uses of a truly positive concept of infinity other can be in the form No
things?the come almost These senses,
cbteLQOv to qualify?among of matter that ind?termination (a quasi-nothing or of mathematical the incompleteness anything) which
series.
the significance of the transforma infinity. Indeed, as long as it is to medieval tion from ancient remains veiled thought as a matter to understood of the "value" attributed simply changing to a positive the idea of infinity from a negative pole. sense of infinity by addi For Aristotle, cuteLQOv in the particular tion is not that outside of which but on the contrary there is nothing, that "outside of which to any there is always By contrast something."1
compatible of ens infinitum of actual concept
with
a lack of determination, seem utterly in betray the subsequent medieval and Christian proclamation as perfection. a also admits Yet Aristotle's thought
to: Miami University, of Philosophy, Hall Correspondence Department Auditorium Room 212, Oxford, OH 45056-3644. 1 in Loeb Classical Aristotle, Physics 3.6.206b23, Library (Cambridge: Harvard University otherwise all transla Press, mentioned, 1996). Unless
tions are mine. of Metaphysics 60 (December 2006): 573-596. Copyright ? 2006 by The Review of The Review Metaphysics
574
definite When, magnitude, such an infinite fails to ever God
PASCAL MASSIE
reach to be in the medieval is said completion. infinite be
context, however, a failure nor a lack of determination; ing, "infinity" does not designate a perfection that excludes The apparent rather it names nothingness. could and the Christian between the Greek difference conceptions
not be stronger. Aquinas, is "being" because of God minate (non a determinate
significat form" (that is, not to be the form of this or that entity) or perfection. to The negation equivalent form being an infinite is tantamount to the affirmation and limitations all determinations "unlimited form,"
can explain for instance, that the true name this name does not signify deter anything to be But for "not Aquinas, formam aliquam). is of of
a phrase Aristotle would have found unintelligible. the con called In Aquinas's God is view, appropriately being because can form. God be under cept of being does not entail any particular esse if the the stood both as "form" and as "unlimited being" signifies perfection of pure ac itself, for, in such a case, the plenitude a to the sum "His infinity. infinity applies positive tivity grants being a sum, that sum cannot If divine indicates of his perfections."2 infinity a is the number that ends all calcula final but rather number signify to everything that extends tion.3 The idea of omnipotence (a power of being that does covery not include of a new a contradiction) of infinity. concept to the essence sense led medieval thinkers to the dis and omni Like omnipotence of God, because the plenitude of being) limits. does not admit rather, it is beyond sense of in
infinity science, of activity (that Such an infinity

it.
belongs is, the supreme is not beneath
any determination;
By contrast, in Aristotle finity a merely of cept tentiality that
it is often or his potential excludes here
stressed about
that the mathematical matter
inquiry
finds interpretation in act and admitted of an infinity only a potential to challenge remain Three major difficulties entail would this however. interpretation First,
infinity. of actuality.4 the possibility a proof that Aristotle rejected
Greek
can only lead to the con then be a po infinity would The traditional the hypothesis
infinite.
this interpretation, that djteLQOv is a po whatso there can be no corresponding for which actuality tentiality an exception to the principle to assume then have ever? We would
2 Aquinas, 1947). 31 have
Compendium
theologiae
1, ch. 20 (St. Louis, this remark.
MO: Herder,
to thank Lauryn Mayer
for suggesting
THEACTUALINFINITE
dicitur "potentia cannot that tency ad actum" be said since, in relation in this to any
575
be a po case, there would even given act.5 Second, the concept of have how could Aristotle this assumption, "rejected" to at least able envi he without actual did) being infinity (as allegedly was "unable" for the idea that the Greek philosopher sion it? So much to conceive an actual by the fact that we statements various explicit The two particular actuated. far from Third, infinity. do find in Aristotle's the problem corpus amplified De c?elo) (particularly can be claim that infinity and numerical series are is further
the supporting cases of matter views about
Aristotle's exhausting is at stake with But what Indeed, what standard the problem is at stake
history. understand that the
infinity. All this, this question? of the sense of ocjc8lqov in this query, despite we must its
it seems, is historical; reflect on
is mere yet,
the risk of all historical
inquiry is to fall back into historiography.

varied formulations,
To
the fact
interpretation,
4 It is to give an exhaustive list to demonstrate that this view impossible sur constitutes the standard understanding of the issue. May the following 2d ed. (London: Routledge, vey suffice. A. W. Moore, The Infinite, 2001), 40: "It transpires then that the idea of the actual infinite ... was close to a contra The Six Great Themes in terms for Aristotle"; Heinz Heimsoeth, diction of and the End of theMiddle Ages, trans. Ramon Betan Western Metaphysics zos (Detroit: Wayne State University for the Press, 1994), 85: "It is impossible or to In exist. the boundless Aristotle's view, actual, existing, com apeiron
pleted infinity, as it were, was nonsense and essentially self-contradictory. . .
can rightly call infinite the bare indeterminate of existing"; possibility state [infin 70 183: "This "Aristotle's Drozek, Razor," Di?logos (1997): be actualized: infinity by increase does not exist in any ity] cannot, however, of becom sense; infinity by division exists only potentially with no prospect "The Actual Infinite in Aristotle," The Thomist 52 ing real"; John King-Farlow, ... to uphold and reinforce his somewhat vul (1988): 430: "Aristotle strives nerable conviction that nothing may be both actual and infinite"; L?on Robin, de France, Aristote, 1944), 144: "Infinity is in (Paris: Presses Universitaires the potency of something and it is only this. This is not however potency
that, one day, Emmanuel will ever Martineau exist 'in act'." is one of the very few commentators who has at
.One Adam
the presence of an actual infinite in Aristotle. See tempted to demonstrate ou cosmo-th?ologie?" "Ai?n chez Aristote, De c lo I, 9: Th?ologie cosmique et de morale Revue de m?taphysique 84 (1979): 37-40. Drozek (despite the to Aristotle above quote and his attribution of an "horror infiniti") seems to a temporal and divine sense of infinity. acknowledge 5This does not mean that we should subscribe to the "plenitude princi at some point of time) that some ple" (all that is possible must be actualized commentators to attach to Aristotle. It is clear that a true po have attempted the power of being. tentiality must retain the power of not being, alongside The problem, however, is that in that case, a potency would be said in rela tion to what cannot be; itwould be said in relation to the impossible.
576
implicitly It assumes ness sense and of admits that that
PASCAL MASSIE
it is impossible to hold two concepts of infinity. like entails steadi infinity (just eternity) necessarily this assumption, the so-called has been decided in advance. "negative" To chal
With immutability. in Aristotle infinity
lenge these the contrast is a matter
is to contest the idea according to which presuppositions between the Greek and the Christian of infinity concepts a to of pagan conceive of infin inability thought's positive its limitation to the "bad infinite" that is the indef
or ity (pace Gilson) inite (pace Hegel).
I The Actual tude, sion."6 it has Ifwe been Aristotle that the to magni "With respect writes, in infinite is not act, it is only by divi seem that the case is once for itwould
Infinite. shown
stop reading here, seems to be saying Aristotle that infinity is not, unless it is we in potency. to notice in need that is in 3.6 Aristotle Yet, Physics a kind of infinity, namely, that which results particular quiring about all settled: from these the act of "removing from" or "adding to" a given magnitude. the infinite it is in potency." is not "unless From instances, many critics have been is opposed be in act. to actuality, tempted it follows to write that In
it seems, potency it cannot There
this, in an ending: since if infinity is in potency,
a problem with this reasoning. Not only did is, however, never a Aristotle such in but what follows the say very same thing; a sentence casts "The infinite totally different light on the first clause: or it is in act as we say that the day is not in act; it is only by division, and can the games this be? also that: are Does in act, and it is in potency, this mean that the infinite This seems just like matter."7 in potency is only How but
somehow we recall
in act?
"we do not
to is, as A is 'in' B (or related o^lolcd?], but only some cases to in D is C in related for is f?r po B), (or D); ?v8QYe,a what motion is for the of power tency moving [(b? xlvt|ol? jtq?? as substance in others, is to this matter."8 It is not therefore ?uvajiL?]; ii?vxa so
talk of ?v??y^a that by analogy,
to be a patent unless contradiction, as the same in all cases [ov
6Phys. 7Phys.
3.6.206M2. 3.6.216bl2-15.
THE ACTUAL INFINITE

that the the same marble infinite sense cannot of act be said as when to be we in act, but that for it is not said a block
577
so in of
and a statue
(that
is, matter
contrast, and substance)
instance, or a motion.
Infinity and void and other such things are said to be in potency or in act in a different way [?Xk ?] than for many other beings such as: "seeing," or The latter, at some point of time, can be said in "visible." "walking," and in act, for plain truth [cut?,(ju??Xr\QEVEOxai jtoxe] to be in potency of what is ca said of what is seen, and sometimes "visible" is sometimes seen. not in potency in of The infinite however is pable [?uvatov] being such a way that itwill later have a separate [xooqlot?v] actuality, but it is inasmuch as it is known. To this never-ending process of divi potential sion we grant being in actuality and potentiality, but <we do> not
<grant> separate existence.9
In order considered: First, separate such
to account
for this
text
the
following
points
need
to be
the plain actuality
phenomena to say about the tree another capable
is that we can like the "visible" things in our ways and potentiality of speaking, because are indeed different of being. modes It is one thing truth about
seen, mains stance).
to say that
in the garden it is actually that it is visible when seen but re it is visible when it is not actually of being seen (when the tree is in utter darkness, for in
there is a time when is "what Second, [jtoxe] "visible" means a means time when it "what is capable of being seen." The seen," and a or more in these instances difference matter of pre is, literally, time, a difference cisely, its not). Without tentiality Third, the particular the category would of two times (now difference the tree is actually seen, now and po here with that is it
temporal (or beyond it), actuality in totally different have to be thought terms. we are recalls that Aristotle explicitly investigating is, we are only concerned an infinity encounter
of division; that problem of quantity. In this case, we as it is known. One must be actually only inasmuch for the count to reveal What Aristotle does infinity. (and what we have no of ctJteLQOv. But there us from assuming that reason is a more this to assume) is that
in order counting, not say, however, this is the only sense
reason that should prevent important is what Aristotle nevertheless meant. We
8 Aristotle, Metaphysics bridge: Harvard University

9Meta. 9.6.1048M0-17.
9.6.1048b6-10, Press, 1989).
in Loeb Classical
Library
(Cam
578
are
PASCAL MASSIE
senses re two distinct about of actuality with talking (namely, to the finite). spect to the infinite, and with respect we when in the neverending of process engage Fourth, counting, means is always to be division that there that remains something counted.10 The ing in division crease: rather, finite quantity of Aristotle is pointing paradox or addition, we do not simply we are always some left with out is that when get a reduction excess. When engag or an in a
dividing
a foot-long (for example, line), we are actually losing a its for there is unity; always potential remainder, always sight some further number. that could be further divided, always something the operation itself could for us, the act of go on forever, Although counting must there come to a stop. eventually is a sense in which the same can be said to quantity this does not mean however,
Thus, be finite and that
In the second case, as a in act substance. itmust meet infinity separate Rather, two conditions: to an act of knowing; related and (a) it is essentially sense cannot it the of what be is has what completed (for infinity (b) we have of it). We even in excess is always of the actual knowledge infinite. exists tually have itself could to stop dividing go on. As soon we are of what line; yet, we as we ask about the led to consider beyond is not to be also see that the division of the know such a whole. the measure the limit of
able Thus, matter: statue,
as
a whole, the question
stands
it comes
to the fore.
The
stone, stance?once
confused the infinity of with infinity of division a a statue turn out to is be actually what may "[F]or potentially so is potentially but this is not for what infinite."11 Out of a as a definite a statue can emerge and actual individual sub the marble has been a statue has found its place carved, out of infi such thing ever happens remains whether is simply infinity to the traditional challenge a few lines later: in
No the things in the world. among nite divisibility. Yet, the question to evepyeia. In fact, the main unrelated is given by Aristotle himself terpretation
But being is said in many ways, and the infinite is so just as the day or into being successively the game is; they are always coming [?el ???o xod ?Xko], and in these instances there is being in potency and in act.12
10 The verb used by Aristotle left behind," to "leave remaining." 3.6.206al8. nPhys. l2Phys. 3.6.206a21-5.
(i)jioA.eiJtco) means:
"to stay behind,"
"to be
THEACTUAL INFINITE
This with refutes the idea that the infinite admits the very the infinite, on a different signification; The tiality and actuality. analogically. all that occurs within enunciates
579
Rather, only of potency. act and potency takes distinction between of infinity contains both poten the always is to take in view what Aristotle task here dimension that embraces
the temporal surround on. has and of At the started what any moment, day goes already ings of the the ayoov (the season ahead of us. Similarly, yet, it still remains on on for has and this goes days days. Yet, Olympic going gatherings) nothing to do with a succession of identical moments or a numerical the games new; as long as they go on, series; always bring something are in po the outcome remains undecided. The day and the games as a not form do but inasmuch tency completed they are they whole, as they are ongoing also in act in as much Of these phe processes. nomena not we must concluded. say that as long as they are actual, they are precisely the now of our existence and The day that embraces contain some unfinished business. of actual infin of is not at all the concept the idea that infinity could be actual as a whole: and that is, that
A day is a temporal its limits. It constitutes
the season What
of the games always Aristotle rejects here but
ity simpliciter,
in the sense
simultaneously something given achieved be something complete, telian rejection of actual infinity
infinity The so-called Aristo separate.13 in Book 3 of the Physics in concerns,
could
fact, the impossibility of an actually infinite body (a body that would

to itself). is never the add something infinitely This, argues Aristotle, is. But it does not follow that infinity can only be in po way a body never in act. and actual tency infinity calls for a refer Furthermore, ence because to knowledge that is not needed for a body). (something the conviction that there is infinity arises from five inasmuch It is so sources:
(a) time ("for it is infinite"), (b) the division of magnitude,

tion and destruction
(c) "genera
as they do not come to an end," (d) the consideration of the limit that envelops each being. Finally, (e) "the an most tremendous which and raises greatest thing [xvQi?xaxov] that affects aporia tudes and also what because in thought us and mathematical magni to the heavens be appear infinite, [e^co] never come an to end."14 they [?v t?] vof|?eL] is outside all is this: numbers
Louvain
13See Antoine C?t?, "L'infini chez Aristote," 88 (1990): 490-1 in particular. 14Phys. 3.4.203b24-26.
Revue
philosophique
de
580
PASCAL MASSIE
This greatest is thus made manifest or aporia by the numerical and what as we stands beyond the cosmos will see, in (although, In these think quite different respects). infinity concerns instances, an in so it essential but does to with what way, ing respect thought der cannot could cept."15 grasp as a whole. infinite To is what borrow say that the an expression from its "escapes representation Kant, we in a con
Yet, not being any actual simpliciter. thing is not "not-being" not we have does a the to a human Infinity actuality grant being, statue or a temple because there is no such thing as an infinitely large In these cases, it is indeed justified to say that there is no infin body. a in act. there is further dimension time and be ity Yet, concerning to be investigated. that needs In the mathematical series and coming "what is outside the heavens," there is an infinity of what always comes a process into being that does not stop. In all successively, cases, the background of an inquiry concern infinity appears against once and for all close any limit that would ing the idea of an ultimate further regress.
II and Matter. Thought Infinity, counter It seems that with infinity? privileged sight what lowest point is beyond of reference. The But first en of all, how do we to infinity, there is no when we take into
respect issue arises as well
we consider the heavens, the occurs matter. of that at the lowest is, being, Infinity degree levels of being: the almost and the highest and the of matter nothing at of God. In arises of each the limit what case, pure actuality infinity we can conceive. The confrontation with is a confrontation infinity with a paradox. it is potential claim that never comes to an itself as what Infinity presents as it is known inasmuch but, at the same time, it is as it is infinite. inasmuch that it exists Certainly, essentially infinity to knowledge to is related is not equivalent our as in the standard interpretation only mind, our cannot is what mind infinity fully compre remains out of reach; but to appeal to thinking
as when
end, unknowable To stating suggests. hend,
what
15 of the sublime The question related to infinity. fundamentally
in Kant's
third Critique
is in this sense
THE ACTUAL INFINITE 581

and knowing is a conceptual proper place in this case is not simply a matter on of saying infinity the indicates that
construction; of its encounter.
the contrary, thinking, of infinity The experience
nature. Before of a particular the infinite, experiment comes as us out of our minds; it is a de such, infinity puts restless; an idea of the mind which, at the same mented [de-mens] thought, time, is out of the mind. in order This is why for the consideration it: since it is infinite, of knowledge says Aristotle, to the case of is to account
is a thought the intellect be
necessary
"it is unknowable To understand matter. acter
[ayvwoxov]."16 this, we need
to turn our attention
the material char appears when we consider Infinity already are their of those beings which, virtue of closest by corporeity, an independent to nonbeing. Matter itself does not possess substan we never se. encounter matter in tial being. confron It is per Indeed, Plato that Aristotle gives us an important indication:
tation with
is unknowable qua infinite because matter has no form it is that manifest the infinite is rather in the definition [el?o?.] Thus, in than the of a whole, of the definition for matter is a part part, [X-?ycp] of the whole: is "said" of a bronze statue. if it just as bronze Further, were to embrace perceivable things [xo?? ouoOt]xolc;] and intelligible things, the great and the small should also embrace the intelligibles [x? for the unknowable and the in voT]x?] But it is absurd and impossible definite [a?QLOxov] to embrace or to limit [jt8ql8X?lv xod oq??eiv].17 "The infinite" are articulated in terms of a causal (a) The first two propositions matter It is because form relation: that lacks its infinity is un (y?g) as is infinity in matter, knowable. There because matter such entails the absence matter bronze a statue nor that only of form. by Matter is unformed, shapeless. never it to what it is not?we the bronze as such it can become of matter of something. lacks form. either allows itself We know encounter of this
simpliciter is not a statue. (and
referring but always
The matter It is neither
Matter
for this reason, character between
infinity ter only by appealing to that of which as that which we cannot know. Aristotle's mension reptitiously does not mean interpreting that the potentiality infinite as
(b) This peculiar stand the connection
this or that). us to better
under
and knowledge. mat Knowing it is said, we understand matter insistence is merely ideal, on the noetic di mental sur (thereby or fictional,
conceptual,
mPhys. 17Phys.
3.6.207a26. 3.6.207a27-33.
582
and actuality as real, that a fundamental is, for example,
PASCAL MASSIE
extramental). This ignorance, To its being
corresponds not nothing;
is ignorance. however, as we our it is a known Inasmuch know ignorance. we have already encountered the limit of knowledge. ignorance, Yet, to posit a limit (even when it is taken to be the "ultimate" is to one) raise the immediate of what it. stands beyond question rather (c) The reference Plato and to Plato is not a mere illustration of the same the Pythagoreans and the small as understood in terms of infinity of matter), while
argument. the duality
of the great the one was construed
is nevertheless less, matter which is the principle of all forms the one is principle qua (indeed, a one Wherever it is constitutes ipso facto form). whole, something of substance?is itself something thing. But if the one?the principle of the order of the great and the small (that is, if the one is itself un derstood diction; gives for as a magnitude) in that case, If the infinite then we encounter a fundamental to be the granted contra to what have infinity would could encompass
(the principles the principle of substance. end Although a one it limit when receives the given
unity. then the forms would be infinite, and selves, The unknown and the indeterminate would sure the proper limit of knowledge. as such cannot
them intelligibles one the would be many. to mea somehow have is "impossible cannot be infi of the part (it form (by es a whole the through and never
and absurd." nite.
Matter
Thus, matter must always is said of something By essence, else). has no essence), whereas sence, matter is such that it necessarily of a form. The
All this, however, be finite, and form remain in the definition matter whatever be has no
constitutes so only principle
mediation
is one, but this can one is a metaphysical one
of magnitude. simply a question The case of matter demonstrates potency shows is said that matter Even in relation is said though statue, itself becomes characterizes about
of the two Metaphysics in relation
senses
in which 6 clearly
to actuality. to be in potency bronze can be an ornamental remains such
substance.
turned plate,
0, to a hylomorphic into a determinate
thing (a particular that bronze reveals matter the that bronze infinite that Form
indeterminate; or such substance.
a medal), this power it is then never qua For this reason, indefinite of accom (oql^slv), a form
matter what
brings (??QLGxov). on its own, namely, to embrace plishing (jt8ql8X?lv), to grant a separate Matter existence (x?)q??8lv).
is properly called matter is incapable to limit receives
THE ACTUAL INFINITE

which remains other than the matter that in which the form becomes.
583
is embodied.
It suffers
the unity
of a form
it itself never
Ill
Infinity, mathematical the instances Time series of And Eternity. or the ind?termination and of yet, the incompleteness of matter do not exhaust
to time, measure, With infinity. respect generation the heavens," in re and "what is beyond infinity is not said to be actual to movement: but in relation lation to a substantial body, Since which the infinite is actual in the sense in being is said in many ways, we say that a day is, or that the games are actually occurring; that is, they are always coming on and on into being for these are both in po tency and in act. Thus, the Olympic games are potentially occurring and
ongoing.18
are
The
remarkable
feature
of these
claims
as two distinct and actuality of speaks "in-potency-and-in-act." being is to the power what motion of moving. tentiality qua potentiality more. In these potentiality) cases, infinity is not
is that they do not present po moments. Aristotle Rather, is to potentiality Actuality But motion on with of (the actuality a substance any the indefinite
dependent is not identical
Rather, (ctOQL?xov) of and junction actuality potentiality. and an actuality admits of a progression ing.
of matter.
it is properly
djt8LQOv and entails a con is both a potency that Infinity that is always into be coming
Its potency admits of a progression, and its movement is its actu or never the Yet like it is the games), achieved and ality. day Qust never never for what in reaches eternal is is motion completion, at any moment.19 "as a whole" present Since games it is an also maintains will the image of the day however, analogy a difference. There will be a time when a time when they will a time come then if we be no more for and the today or and become
the games
be over,
Could such things of the past. not: if being one means "being a whole," this kind of actualization. Clearly,
infinity? Obviously is excluded from infinity mean by actuality the
19 As Leo Sweeney puts it: "We can say of it 'it is being never 'it has been actualized'." in Greek Divine Infinity Thought (New York: Peter Lang, 1992), 150.
18Phys.
3.6.206a20-5.
actualized' but and Medieval
584
PASCAL MASSIE
and subsistent existence of a thing, then infinity is nothing separate actual. the conclusion is not that infinity cannot Yet, for this reason, be actual, but rather that this sense of actuality is not the proper way of understanding in this context. An eternity that could ?v8Qy?La somehow that rather once." has be given is not, infinity simply At the that same of totum nor simul that is a square be be we is actual have circle. said This doesn't mean it cannot cannot to be in the discovered in actuality, but sense of "all at that infinity understood as a lin to its con
infinity
Infinity, In this context, time is not understood is eternity. temporally, ear succession an empty form indifferent of punctual nows, forth.21 tent, but in the sense of the seasons' bringing sense to the specific We now need to turn our attention that Aristotle c?elo 1.9. attributes into to God. The the question key text of being is to be
a necessity
time, however, its own. "Time
infinite."20
of infinity in De found
encounters
Enquiring the properly As
being as a whole limit. of its outer cept of limit; when? These the aporia: (a) Where
philosophical question all that exists in relation is to consider such, from the question the pondering
as a whole, Aristotle of God. To consider to the aporia the very con
it arises
two basic
questions
puts to the test of two questions: and where us with the provide starting point of a whole? this be, further that Is it since space? how a
is the world, of what the totality is, as some But how could that is, is it in place? somewhere, definition surrounded is by always by some place But in Should we rather say then that it is nowhere? could the world be if it is, literally, In such a case, nowhere to be found?
case,
(b) When is the world a whole?

what would tend main any nity? exists now? be cut off from to all that was,
Should the world be limited to

never form a whole, since ex re in it
it would
incomplete. temporal moment. If it were
If the world does not its past and its future. as well as to all that will be, it would always as a whole cannot either occur the world Thus, Could this mean how could then there that the world be time?
is in eter
so, however,
20Phys. 3.4.203M7. 21 as is closer to the "archaic" understanding, This sense of temporality In Eugen Fink's words, "Hours and time are not for instance with Heraclitus. to be taken as the empty form in contrast to the content of time, but as filled each thing in its own time." Martin Heideg time which begets and produces trans. Charles Seibert (Evanston: and Heraclitus Seminar, ger Eugen Fink, Northwestern Press, 1993), 37. University
THEACTUALINFINITE
The question as a whole of being for the question theology, in general and the heavens
585
a matter of is, for Aristotle, is raised in rela of the divine
philosophical tion to nature cles
in particular. the cy Despite and destructions that carry the world of generations away, some as the whole forms strive to make themselves manifest thing remains: It is always the case that, as Aristotle realm of (jx?ol? bears witness. sur The form "human" is what puts it, man begets man. remains, what the births and deaths the tions. It is always of particular same essence individuals that occurs and entire genera the throughout
vives
of human variety in(de)finite as to its surroundings; a-whole qua pure presence. The it is the unaltered, changes; is therefore poses. Eternity
to being-as The divine is related beings. sense of being it designates the highest it is in spite of all that divine remains what the unmoved, the fundamental that motion determination itself presup of the di
a ground can constitute is eternally present vine, for only that which for all that continually enters into and departs from presence. The and destructions in all that is of the cycles of generations in their circular of the heavenly and per alive, the constancy spheres of the cosmos fect motion, the constancy itself call for a divinity that constancy bestows orients an itself. of being entails the consideration of or more is to enquire about the world, must not decide in advance whether immutable landmark toward which all that is becoming
The metaphysical question to ask about being cosmology: about its limits. precisely, there is here a logical error contains would all have the ensembles, once resolved We
similar
to the paradox of the ensemble that a paradox that contemporary set theory for all. What matters is to acknowledge as we limit. speak of "being-as-a And yet, these wor the existence of vari that embraces all
as soon that a paradox appears necessarily or as one an of the world of ultimate whole," ries ous are unavoidable. of beings We cannot without
regions these different grant
could
regions. the space that allows beings their specific realms. Aristotle's word for the wholeness of what is "ouQavo?," Its Latin "heavens." that has "sky" and a term rendering, disappeared "the heavens" commonly however, in our
assuming occurs Everything
acknowledge a whole
as if only an ultimate whole them to be what they are in is in its cosmological as the into English a fundamental "caelum" signifies in German),
sense
translated
still preserves translation: der Himmel
ambiguity both the
(not unlike
586
thus what see
PASCAL MASSIE
to the things both that are out there pointing [x?xe?]22 and to is yonder The heavens show limit of what we can the [im?g]. of the universe of the visible), thus imme boundary (the extreme the question of what three senses of distinguishes opening lurks beyond Ar it. Specifically, of the (a) the sphere
diately istotle fixed,
"Ou?avo?" to and (c) "the whole and 'everything spheres, (b) the planetary [xo o?ov xod xo Jiav]."23 De c?elo bears not only on the heav gether' ens in contradistinction to the sublunar world, but also on the relation and heavens considering to the whole. thus about Asking "The heavens we the heavens, and the world
of cosmos are
being-as-a-whole. of the whole."24 this is the synthesis Such a whole [ouQcxv?c, x?ojxoc]: sum is here is not only the in the world total of what (xo Jtav) plus is there in the heavens; it also envelops whatever this sum (xo bXov). In this totality; various context, rather, the whole does it is understood an abstract concept designate on the basis of a gradual ascension not of of
surroundings.
are This is why the things out there [xocxet] (that is, outside the heavens) them grow old, there is no change not in a place, nor does time make extreme is beyond rotation; but [tjjtsq] the most [|i8xa?oXf]] for what the best and most independent life, immutable, impassible, enjoying the whole eternity they measure [x?v otjtavxa through and through
cdcova].25
Aristotle's as a paradigm and cosmos thought passes cosmos, the most the divine
treatment of cosmic
of the divine or physical different
in De theology.
c?elo
is often In order
to designate of beings, regions to (or embraced that encom of in relation by) a further whole nor of be neither there could them. Without it, regions beings, nor heavens. The ultimate then, is itself beyond surrounding, extreme translation of the heavens, and this is the realm par excellence. of oucov which is "in" eternity, is to say, in relation in the sense in which to time. we Does this mean
expounded for o?qocvo? both must be
of
The fundamental point in this text is that the deity is understood

in terms that God say that a content is
22 is "up there" or "above us," that "x?xet" does not mean what Notice what is "out there," the "dis but says more simply (and more ambiguously) tant," by contrast with what is simply "here," present at hand. 23 in Loeb Classical Library Aristotle, De c?elo 1.9.278b20, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971). 1.10.280a21. 24Decael.
25De cael. 1.9.279 al8-22.
THE ACTUAL INFINITE

in a container? Certainly
587
life that it says of divine not, for Aristotle ai a whole x?v ?jtavxa eternity [?loix8)i8l va]."26 through which that is not a limit within the heavens stands. Rather, Eternity as a is It true that whole. which is "out there" runs through eternity "runs as the word of the But this "odcov" also "course sense sense has the common archaic) (and somewhat recalls this use at 279a24). himself of a life" (Aristotle in order to contrast it with what Aristotle is mentioned
is now ogous eternal
to consider. is anal The limit [x?Xo?] of the heavens attempting is analogical: the life. The relation to the limit of a particular sense of "course of "odcov" in the mundane od?v is to God what life. An
for in is not an identity, however, analogy as a the limit that em "the limit of the heavens the first case, whole, its name from is al(bv; it takes braces [ji8QL8Xov] all time and infinity to "Limit" here has nothing and divine."27 eternal being [aiEi] immortal life" is to a human do with this ment limit, and because by move of this, they are stirred by a teleological the world. them, in turn, to envelop allowing in the sense of a separate is not infinite infin If the first principle some termination. The heavens are themselves embraced
In other words, and ceaseless. it is with eternal ity, it is nevertheless to time that the question of the so-called infinite or in respect positive a line can be not in is infinite the that finite in act arises. way Eternity to it. With extension and more by adding more prolonged to has measure, respect only potential quantitative <ijt8lqov being. to be infinitely di This is why even though any sensible body appears no a infinite calls for dif actual there is body. Alcov, however, visible, indefinitely ferent motion the concept Eternity infinity. divine of the (sempiternitas) of does bodies the everlasting the but (that is, heavens); to God itself?the soul of this signify divine life together and des not
that belongs eternity (aeternitas) In second holds this sense, eternity body. ignates
horizon of God. the temporal But in that case, eternity is not to it is to said for be and od v equivalent immutability, "ceaseless," cannot that be understood the first principle as expressing is unmoved a static is not order to say To claim of being.28 first that the principle
26De
cael.
1.9.279a22. 1.9.279a26-7.
28 on this, he feels obliged to expound When Aquinas comments the con of "totum simul." "a??ov"with the further determination, See Aquinas, cept In Aristotelis libros de c?elo, ?215 (Marietti: Taurini, 1952): "Aeternum est
spatium totius temporis . .. totum simul existens."
27Decael.
588
is something
else.
PASCAL MASSIE
that is fixed, but to say that it is not moved by something
commenta Aristotle declares what many statement, ever to he "It is that un said29: necessary deny attempted xco 6ecp xlvt]?lv to the God ?u?lov mobility belong ceasing [av?yxri a cos to nature that is not mobility Unceasing belongs bn?QXEiv]."30 tors have mic oc What but "beyond motion." anymore [ujx?c] the outermost curs here is, according to Martineau, less than the of creation "nothing a metaphysical not The conclusion Martineau does God-auov."31 is that while as ontotheology its ultimate foundation, demands it does a constant not follow and that
In a sober
draw, however, absolute presence the so-called is not ether,
of presence" Aristotle excludes mobility. "metaphysics nor movement of of the the circular the of heavens, speaking nor of the celestial to "? Oeo?" and divine body; he is pointing
while the circular move itself with mobility, unceasing grants God as a consequence ment of this of the heavens is, in turn, understood of what is "out there" (beyond The transcendence divine movement. is an unceasing which external the most mobility translation) belongs properly enquiring to God. beyond the heavens If, indeed, the heavenly sphere. are a divine body, we are now
Each being that performs [oov eoxiv epyov] exists for the sake of that of God is immortality, that which it performs; but the activity [?v?QyeLCx] that ceaseless This is why it is necessary life [ton] ?i?io?]. is, ceaseless mobility belong to the God [?v?ynx] x(b Oeco xlvt]olv ??OLov i)jr?QXeLV] it con And as the heavens [o?qoivo?] is such (for it is a divine body), a circular body, which, by nature, always moves tains for this purpose itself in a circular motion.32
29 Paul Moreau, Jean P?pin, Etienne Gil Among others, Leo Sweeney, unam is grammatically the fact that this sentence son, W.D. Ross. Despite a at "divine" and adds line 10 William Guthrie translates by biguous, Oeo? that to he remarks of note in which, the Simplicius, authority "by referring no more of the than Oe?ov o(b\xa . . . the coincidence Oeo? Aristotle means terms ?eo? here with o?qcxv?c is another indication that the unmoved mover was not yet a part of Aristotle's On the Heavens, theology." See Aristotle, Press, 1971, re Library Harvard: Harvard University (The Loeb Classical he the very sentence print), p. 148-9, note a. Thereby, Guthrie contradicts which shows that Aristo translates as well as the explicit claim at 279al8-22 tle does not at all confuse oi?qcxvo? and Oeo?.
30De cael. 2.3.286al0.
31 Emmanuel
32De cael.
Martineau,
2.3.286a7-12.
"Ai?n chez Aristote,"
54.
THE ACTUAL INFINITE

Aristotle formance. temporal one case, that has All is considering from beings determinations however, be thought the standpoint take on here of their an active senses:
589
per and in
ontological sense. We must,
the activity must to be brought to completion); in another motion; sempiternal again, order God itself. This triple temporal limits senses of time both in the sense of are conveyed (a) With by the word to those
distinguish in relation
different
to an rgon (a task it is the always in another, of it is the eternal of the activity a concern from for the springs and its outer precisely, limit (both the activity of some
its end
"x?Xo?.") More
of the God itself is distinguished

respect
in the following two ways:

beings that are active in view
as they are striving inasmuch to and humans, animals, epyov: plants, are. in to it what Life strives be they accomplish itself; general strug essence. to its The of these achieve reveals what activity gles beings the various ways they are through they can be said to be "at work." The cycles and destruction that bear upon their exist of generation ence are such that they must strive in order to achieve what they are. It is a matter cannot remain in achieve of striving, because individuals ment be (qua human so in is the forth) preserved only species. ings, dogs, to the always that embraces the heavenly respect (b) With motion the continuous circular of the divine This sec spheres, body. ond type of motion reveals the bodily manifestation (the first heaven) qua individuals; trees, and reason, immaterial these two types of Yet, by contrast with to accomplish? sort of task would God have What can properly to God, be attributed defini since, by be with respect is more to place nor with discussed to alter respect in Book 12 of first mover. for this their essence
of the
what activities, kind of mobility tion, it can neither ation? Divine the Metaphysics. unceasing of motions But
psychology Yet, in De in a sense
mobility and yet, if there
properly c?elo, this soul that is demanded distinct between from
as is already understood the two other kinds by them. spheres' unceas
is essentially is a distinction
the celestial
ing motion
some sense
and the mobility

transcendent?
of God, does it not follow that God is in

This view challenges the traditional One might be justified under that object for two rea of "x?xe?,"
standing to talk of transcendence sons. First, Aristotle
of Aristotle's
cosmological theology. in this context cannot expresses God's
in terms being are vague and "jt?QL8X?Lv," and "ujteQ," but these words seem us do not to tell much about stands whatever they
ambiguous; "out there."
590
Second, it does there not
PASCAL MASSIE
follow that beyond the most external necessarily It has been argued is only one being. that Aristotle on the unity or plurality of the God(s).33 to these objections sends us back to our initial obser of God's rest, critiques transcendence. and this this in fact, on the assumption if by "transcen Clearly, of "totum
translation, remains unclear The vation.
answer The
abovementioned sense understand is no not
of a Christian dence" simul," we
there
eternity doubt that follow that
in the sense infinity is not what Aristotle is the only if the words it does not possible
However, ing of transcendence.
it does
suggests. understand
Furthermore,
"jt?QL8X8Lv" are, indeed, ambiguous, are imprecise. terms these Let us consider
ture.
"x?xe?," "vtieq," and follow either that they them at this
as Aristotle
uses
junc
for "x? ?xet," "x? ?xetvcov") has no particular (a crasis (a) T?xe? connotation of a lofty elevation above and beyond standing something us. onto down The God is not "up there" it else. Rather, looking to what in that distant God's place stands is place. yonder, belongs other than here; indeed no place could contain it, and in a sense God is not at all equivalent to saying that God is nowhere. This, however, as from us, the Christian Deus absconditus. is away Transcendence is not without beyond who the mere a here. the world, is transcended; of what negation which is That "x?xe?" is understood but only there is no there as other than and
on the basis of the world. and always to to embrace). The God envelop, (b) ri?QL?x?LV (to surround, in the distance is not away or removed; it is, on the con dwells
in the sense of covering of trary, "against" the world,34 it, and outside in the con recall that "ji8QL8X?lv" appears, it. We should significantly, of is all the things text of Aristotle's time that necessary analysis ("It that are in time be embraced [jc8QL8xeoxaL] by it").35 All that is tempo ral is embraced it is temporally 33For by time. wrapped Whatever in a more enters ample time into being and departs that also embraces from the
"If the Greeks were never quite sure instance, Etienne Gilson: how many gods there were, that was precisely because they lacked that clear to admit more than one." The Spirit it impossible idea of God which makes of trans. Alfred Downes, Philosophy, (Notre Dame: University of Medieval Notre Dame Press, 1991), 47 (emphasis added). 34 term, from the English language this "ambiguous" "Against": another term. most in the be which adequate fact, time, might, 35Phys. 4.12.221a28.
THE ACTUAL INFINITE

time of its prior and posterior
591
to The time properly allotted nonbeing. tem for of Socrates' instance?his years life, entity (the seventy and the time by the time that precedes poral odcov) is itself enveloped what all temporal his existence. that succeeds envelops By analogy, each else. This is eternity. by something to to be this needs interpretation However, objection some sense of motion, with is compatible mentioned. If eternity then, as with in to be something is there else that motion, ought everything entities must itself be embraced a further anterior and time, since depends, and posteriority within ference of anteriority could eternity be distinct from time? The The bility problem we difficulty is that we with this encounter are prone can only objection with the rests something the definition posterior. of time But if it is so, at least to be ought on in part, the dif there How then
movement.
in what
idea of an eternal with
it presupposes. mo ceaseless
which,
presence as such, This conception, how sense does not with the Greek of The that odcov. ever, agree eternity to God must indeed be distinguished from the con properly belongs run of the ethereal tinuous but it does not follow from this that realm,
to identify eternity disavow movement.
a constant
as Aristotle to be immobile. in various in states Rather, ought is first that not God qua stances, principle necessarily is, unmoved, is not moved else: God but by something generated generating. in motion, "There is something that always moves the things and the God does not mean that the '"Axlt|vxov" not it is that into motion prime put still," by any itself. This other the difference than marks between the tempo thing sense of infinite movement. are ral and the eternal entities Temporal is itself immovable."36 but mover "stands moved in time, insofar as they come into being and are eventually de it himself makes the Aristotle clear: of "eter proper stroyed. opposite nal" is not "temporal" but "destructible The eternal, then, [c()6aQxr|]."37 to be. Ceaseless is by definition does not cease what being, however, does which not we entail can stillness. say and God is not indestructible or Platonic in the sense are in that mathematical the science is mathematics that in forms objects is properly concerned with this kind and not theology.38 God's movement first mover
destructible, of immovability
36 Meto. 37 Meta. 38 Meta.
4.8.1012b33. 12.1.1069a32. 6.1.1026al5.
592
and unaltered movement ungenerated of the noetic discussion of the divine activity 12 demonstrates. As such, God's movement into itself. is an
PASCAL MASSIE
toward intellect itself, as the
inMetaphysics withdraws ceaselessly
By contrast, temporal being but to the alternative envelops multiplicity veloped: temporal things, of these times
to being nor to non neither beings belong as a whole. of being and nonbeing Time one own each its and the time, granting en is itself further each entity enveloping
and generable and in general, things that at Things that are destructible one time are and at another are not, all of these must be in time; for there is a 'vaster' time [jt^eioov] that exceeds of [i)jt8Q8^sl] the existence as as entities well the time their substance.39 temporal measuring Inasmuch ings, both as it embraces and their existence, them.40 time As is in excess of be
delimiting
constituting
already demonstrated, (Phys. 4.1-5) related. This cess" are essentially things that exist and their We that in their own and But the
the analysis of place to "envelop" and to "be in ex "vaster time" that envelops all the both their comprehends cannot to rest with be put inquiry faced with a further question: when things surrounded by this the time
limited
being this remark. is this time
nonbeing. are immediately includes all
is the time When o?qccvo?? If these temporal envelopments ter term cannot designate anything To say a separate character that God is the ultimate and fixed
temporal of times? reveal
the
a transcendence, that would be entirely is not
lat
activity Pure actuality entity. qua "thinking of (as the terms ?v-xeX?xBia, ?v-8Qy8La reveal) or "act that has in itself its own end," this reflexivity consti thinking" us note in Let tutes an activity and not a merely static self-identity. that respect that the translation of a connotation is not "a?xcxQxeoxaxr]" that is not carried of impassivity, by "impassive" by the Greek in the sense of
separate. to say that it constitutes has an essentially reflexive
suggests (Guthrie) word. Divine autarchy
a matter
39Phys. 4.12.221b30-l. 40 to the phenomenological ontic distinction between This corresponds to time. The so-called "finite-time theory" usually attributed and ontological a come to not at all the denial of time Time "after" and entail does Being for death!) Rather, existence Dasein's (and even less a morbid predilection it what is beyond to say that time is finite is to say that Dasein understands self only on the basis of its own temporal position.
THE ACTUAL INFINITE

mere
593
of the very negation True autarchy is, on the contrary, inactivity. is first of all not to be passive To be autarchic (that is, not to passivity. is precisely the case for what to something be submitted else), which has unceasing never at rest. tivity that mobility. Thus, God it. AuxaQxeicx is transcendent is the activity in the sense of that which ac is of a ceaseless
transcends
apprehend
the very immanence names the end "Eternity"
on the ground of which we of time in the sense of its
but its accomplishment. is, not its cessation, x?Xo??that are necessarily and eternity transcendence We can see now why a concern from fundamental for time relation related. Their springs and its end. which This end is not occurs simply a point where time stops, transcendence a step be must be
yond understood activity whole"
nothing in the active
is perpetually is to say that we entity is a matter
anymore. Rather, sense of transcending, divine through which "as a actual. To say that infinity cannot exist cannot attribute the mode of being of this or has unceasing mobility. Transcendence, as the horizon is the ul inasmuch the visible can never and as a whole and the in
that particular in this sense, timate visible. and from The
to what
line of demarcation horizon find
of horizon, between
is a line we our standings
it we
reach, yet it is "out there," a here as our proper establish
dwelling
a "there" we cannot eternity Similarly, place. designates we determine a span from which the horizon reach, yet it constitutes The end of time is the point where time time. of time as our proper transcends But what itself. is this divine that does not have activity Since God is pure activity, else. to seek its justi it cannot be or
in something fication else? act for the sake of something that is, ceaseless [aOavaoia] ceaseless do" in the mobility sense
belong a task to perform. inas of being busy with Rather, as God finds in itself its own end, "God" names much being qua pure as we Just as odcov admits, saw, an intra- and an extra activity. life (^cor| od?LO?) crosses the demarcation sense, similarly temporal between and But movement of generations cyclical to the God the mobility Aristotle attributes the this attribution remains, of course,
"The activity of God is immortality life [?,cor]]. It is therefore that necessary to God."41 God does not have "something to
among living beings xco Obco). itself (xlvt]?lv since divine analogical,
41 De
cael.
2.3.286al0-12.
594
is not akin mobility cle of generations. to the celestial motion along
PASCAL MASSIE
an axis or to the cy
IV Good and Bad Beyond Infinity. neither fits with eternity sempiternitas et cetera, tion of an incessant the eternal nor with It should aeternitas be clear in the sense of nunc Aristotle's of divine
concept
continua (the uninterrupted return of the celestial cycles) stans of an immobile "now."
that the difference between Aristotle's by now ens infinitum cannot be explained away ajC8LQOv and the medieval a a to the between difference by appeal merely potential infinity and a matter an actual a concept of simply one, as if it were switching a negative one. In (and pagan) pole to a positive (and Christian) or negative calls "the wrong fact, it is not certain at all that what Hegel of endless describes Aristotle's of infinity truly concept progression"42 from otJt8LQOv, unless we reduce what the case of mathematical series. such that the that Aristotle What has to say about dubs infinity to is "wrong infinity" the finite simply reit to it, "the progression
Hegel
by negating infinity the finite ad infinitum. As Hegel puts never a statement of the contradiction than in further infinity gets we in must volved the finite."43 Eventually give up the contemplation it is too sublime, it is too of such an infinity, not because but because erates tedious. gel's That Note that the reason why such on is that it depends judgment, on a as ultimate." A typi the categories that regards is, "position of such a thought is that it considers cal characteristic "finite" and "in or more as permanent categories, as a "permanent the finite contradictory precisely, to the that it understands Such infinite."44 an infinity in He is "wrong," "finite and discursive thinking."
is obtained
finite"
42 of The Philosoph Hegel, Logic (Being Part One of the Encyclopaedia ical Sciences 1830), trans. William Wallace (Oxford: Clarendon, 1975), ? 94, the difference between the Greek and the Christian p. 137. When discussing sense of infinity, Gilson in identifying the former (Greek) to the is prompt to the "positive" sense of infinity: "The "negative" and the latter (Christian) confers on it, as of of its [the Christian God's] actuality of being plenitude to Aristotle." full right, a positive infinity unknown Gilson, The Spirit ofMe dieval Philosophy, 58. 43 ? 94, p. 137. Hegel, Logic, 44Ibid., ?28, pp. 48-9.
THE ACTUAL INFINITE

thinking merely is clearly bound inasmuch a concept to produce of infinity as all it knows is but of the infinite contrasts this
595
that is
negative, of the finite.45 peated Hegel negation or speculative the "infinite thought" does "while it no less defines," which, stood as finite It is true tween totelian same the finite sense, forms. that Aristotle and the maintains
the re
with conception dialectical is, (that thinking) the categories under away with an irreducible there finite and not difference be
infinite.
Moreover between time
a contradiction
is indeed, and infinite,
in an Aris since the can
thing not be both between "ultimate same
considered finite
at the same Yet
in the same follow
and not finite. is merely The
it does
respect that the relation between and
these
terms
a matter
of mutual
exclusion time
categories." that Aristotle respect," constitutes leaves the finite
properly nite never here, tity.
qualification is keen to repeat a contradiction, is crucial. behind, time, these God's since terms
"at the same when
in the
there
what discussing For Aristotle, the infi a is no there without fall into an iden
while, In order
at the same
can never
as that which of in admits activity between finity and eternity, we need to go back to the analogy infinity in which and the way the day or the games The Olympic exist. games or the day will eventually end. Night for the day, the closing ceremony to understand for the games, are completed, their actuality of time when what in time when we can say that these the point that they are no more. Yet as long as they are actual, an in which there is no point process signifies ongoing are as "The Olympic they are actual as a whole. games will mark
occurs and what is occurring potentially [xod xto ?uvaoGai xai xco yiveoOoa]."46 is "immor God's activity Analogically, yiv8?8oa, sense a ceaseless in the that of that never is, tality, life," mobility comes to pass. To be in act, in this sense, is therefore not to encoun ter an external ticular statue) The modal limit but (as the marble to be in a constant between does when it is carved into a par of occurring. and act can now
process potency
distinction sense (theology)
in its full metaphysical as a whole being
appear as the bridge that unifies the questions of and the question of being qua being
about
45The in a way, fit with what Aristotle shows Hegelian analysis would, infinite numerical series. Each time we reach a finite integer we must deny it (not 10, but 10+1, not 11, but 11+1, and so forth). 4QPhys. 4.6.206a25.
596
PASCAL MASSIE
In De caelo, the final word eter about (ontology). ?v??ysLOC is neither nor not to but God does need nity infinity immortality (?Savaa?a). occurs. in order to be active; it endlessly It rather, produce something or can to cannot have a particular all task for that it fulfill, goal, aim, fulfill is already realized But why then is there by its own happening. still activity when the end is already met? This manner of asking be We cannot limitations. understand trays in fact our own conceptual as anything else lacks; we assume which than a frantic rush for whatever it is that the can only be the anxious that activity search fulfill a prior deficiency. In other words, reveals the fact that we have grown used to see if not productivity. else than production, Yet of the pure actuality of cease is actuality then it qua activity, a being not what but does,
activity
agent for something our
would
incomprehension
nothing ing in activity in the sense is ceaseless God's activity sense in foremost life. If its less being suffices what to being itself. is. Activity
is ultimately
Miami
University

The Actual Infinite

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Actual Infinite

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Actual Infinite as a Day or the Games Author(s): Pascal Massie Source: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol.

THEACTUALINFINITE AS A DAY OR THEGAMES

a divine placing is one person who formation

things?the come almost These senses,

compatible of ens infinitum of actual concept

not be stronger. Aquinas, is "being" because of God minate (non a determinate

infinity science, of activity (that Such an infinity

belongs is, the supreme is not beneath

By contrast, in Aristotle finity a merely of cept tentiality that

it is often or his potential excludes here

that the mathematical matter

infinity. of actuality.4 the possibility a proof that Aristotle rejected

2 Aquinas, 1947). 31 have

1, ch. 20 (St. Louis, this remark.

to thank Lauryn Mayer

the supporting cases of matter views about

history. understand that the

it seems, is historical; reflect on

the risk of all historical

inquiry is to fall back into historiography.

With immutability. in Aristotle infinity

lenge these the contrast is a matter

or ity (pace Gilson) inite (pace Hegel).

it seems, potency it cannot There

this, in an ending: since if infinity is in potency,

talk of ?v??y^a that by analogy,

to be a patent unless contradiction, as the same in all cases [ov

THE ACTUAL INFINITE

contrast, and substance)

In order considered: First, separate such

the plain actuality

phenomena to say about the tree another capable

seen, mains stance).

in order counting, not say, however, this is the only sense

reason that should prevent important is what Aristotle nevertheless meant. We

8 Aristotle, Metaphysics bridge: Harvard University

9.6.1048b6-10, Press, 1989).

Thus, be finite and that

able Thus, matter: statue,

a whole, the question

"to stay behind,"

A day is a temporal its limits. It constitutes

the season What

of the games always Aristotle rejects here but

infinity The so-called Aristo separate.13 in Book 3 of the Physics in concerns,

fact, the impossibility of an actually infinite body (a body that would

(a) time ("for it is infinite"), (b) the division of magnitude,

respect issue arises as well

end, unknowable To stating suggests. hend,

15 of the sublime The question related to infinity. fundamentally

THE ACTUAL INFINITE 581

construction; of its encounter.

the contrary, thinking, of infinity The experience

is a thought the intellect be

"it is unknowable To understand matter. acter

[ayvwoxov]."16 this, we need

to turn our attention

simpliciter is not a statue. (and

referring but always

The matter It is neither

for this reason, character between

(b) This peculiar stand the connection

this or that). us to better