(h) Another prejudice helps us to overcome the previous review of apophatic teachings. Is a thing finite or infinite? Needless to say, absolutely everyone thinks that between the one and the other there is an impassable abyss, so impassable that the finite can never and in no way, under any circumstances, be infinite, and the infinite can also never and in no way be finite. At the very least, we can find examples in the history of philosophy when attempts are made to show that the infinite passes into the finite, or that the finite becomes infinite. In fact, from the point of view of the symbol itself, the finite and the infinite are again only maximal abstractions – admittedly, often convenient for one purpose or another, but not for the purpose of reflecting living reality.

First of all, these categories are not independent if only because they are correlative. Since you think the finite, then you are obliged to think the infinite; and vice versa. We are not talking about factual thinking, but about principled thinking. Having two rubles of money in your pocket, you can, of course, not think of an infinite number of rubles; And when you think of the infinite universal space, you do not in fact yet think of it as finite. However, this separation of the finite and the infinite is achieved here only by introducing an accidental material content alien to these categories themselves. Of course, to have two rubles does not mean to have an infinite number of rubles. But let us discard these rubles; and let us discard even the very quantities to which the categories of the finite and the infinite are applied here; And let's take these categories themselves. Then it will immediately become clear that one is absolutely inconceivable without the other, that one is the boundary for the other, and that the limiting and the limited coincide absolutely in the boundary.

Take the infinite. It is different from the finite one. But once the infinite has been taken, it means that everything has already been taken, that there is nothing left left. In this case, the difference between the infinite and the finite is the difference between the infinite and itself, i.e., the finite is nothing but the infinite formed in a certain way. Let's take the finite. The finite is different from the infinite. But to be different from something means to have a common border with it. But it is possible to have a common boundary only when the limiting actually coincides with the bounded along this boundary. Consequently, the infinite coincides with the finite in its duration, and the infinite is only the finite formed in a certain way.

Abstract thought led here to monstrous conclusions, such as the sophism with Achilles and the tortoise. But philosophers still have not yet learned to operate with a category in which the finite and the infinite would coincide forever, to the point of complete indistinguishability. It would be necessary to listen, if not to the mystical philosophers quoted above, then at least to Hegel with his doctrine of true and evil infinity, and if not to Hegel, then at least to Cantor with his doctrine of actual infinity. I propose to take not mystics, not Hegel or Kantor, but again my old worn-out galosh.

I ask you: is it worn-out or not? Unfortunately - yes, worn-out. Does this mean that it was once new? Yes – alas! "It was once new. So, then something happened here? Of course! I demolished it! But not immediately, did they? Well, of course, not immediately. So, it took time? Oh, yes! Small. And movement? Of course, and movement! It was necessary to walk in these galoshes on the streets for at least some time. But allow me! Did I try on my galoshes in the store? I tried it on in the store. And did you wear them there? One step. Have they been demolished at all during this time? Of course, they did not demolish at all. So, when I take only one step in these galoshes, they don't wear out yet? They are not worn out yet. Well, here is a critique of the abstract separation of the finite and the infinite.

If galoshes do not wear out while moving a step, then they do not wear out when moving a million paces; That is, it means that they do not wear out at all. This is ridiculous. If they begin to wear out already when moving only one step, then the question arises: how big must this step be for galoshes to wear out somehow: Let's assume that this step is equal to half a meter. If so, then a quarter of a meter step does not yet wear out the galosh. Well, then I will move a quarter of a meter stamp, and my pair of galoshes will be enough not only for my life, but for the whole life of all people who have ever existed or will exist; the products of the Soviet "Triangle" will be enough for the entire infinity of time. Absurdly. This means that the measure should be taken less, not a quarter of a meter. But which one? It is clear that such a measure does not exist at all, it goes all the time to infinity, it is infinitely small and less than any given quantity, no matter how small the latter may be.

But what does it turn out to be? It turns out that these three months, during which I wore out my galoshes and they became worn out from new ones, I went through an infinity of the smallest shifts. It turns out that three months is the entire infinity of time, that within three months it is possible to have an infinite number of separate spatial and temporal displacements. Otherwise, I could not have worn my galoshes.

Thus, the simple fact of worn-out galoshes, if we take it not from some abstract point of view, but take it as such, i.e., worn-out galoshes as worn-out galoshes, this simplest fact of everyday life alone screams that in living things the infinite and the finite are indistinguishable, that this very difference is already a sign of a departure from the living life of things.

After that, do not tell me that the coincidence of the infinite and the finite in a single symbol was invented by the Church Father Dionysius the Areopagite or the idealist Hegel. Quite independently of either mysticism or idealism, regardless of any world outlook, the finite and the infinite coincide in one indivisible and living thing, which can therefore be considered both a symbol of the finite and a symbol of the infinite. It is clear to everyone that it is not a matter of worldview, but only of the desire or unwillingness to reason.

(i) We shall not develop the other antitheses which are reunited in the things themselves, i.e., in the things themselves. Such, for example, are the antitheses of the general and the particular, the conscious and the unconscious, the personal and the social, of time and eternity. The abstractness of these and similar divisions, as well as the method of overcoming them in the light of things as such, i.e., in the light of the very beginning, is quite clear from the preceding exposition. The general conclusion is self-evident: since all the world views that have dealt with the first principle of all existence are formally similar to each other and even coincide in the doctrine of the self and its symbols—and we emphasize the originality of each such world view and its incompatibility with every other—it follows that the doctrine of the self and its symbols does not depend on any world view. for any world view can be used and, regardless of any world view, must be constructed, assimilated and accepted.

5. In conclusion, however, it must be said that dissociation from any world view is by no means to be understood in an absolute sense. Philosophy should not be reduced to a world view, but it should not completely dissociate itself from it. On the contrary, philosophy should be the foundation of the world view, and the world view alone can be substantiated with the help of philosophy. Let us not dissociate ourselves from the worldview either. But we will also not be in a hurry to recognize or reject certain worldviews. We will try to build our philosophy without any worldview as long as it is possible. We will try to use from philosophical teachings everything that is most general, most objective, and thereby most scientific. And only after all this will we introduce the principle that will transform all these schemes, formally common to all or to the majority of world views, into a new world view, just as in all the teachings listed above we have always noted the special principle that made each such doctrine an original and independent historical and philosophical type.

II Genesis