In this paper I will try to determine the numerical limits of perception and observation in general. Unlike most philosophers who wrote on perception, I will treat perception from a quantitative point of view and not discuss its qualitative features. What I mean is that instead of discussing qualitative aspects of perception, like its accuracy, I will discuss the quantitative aspects of perception, namely its numerical limits. As it turns out, the number of objects one is able perceive is finite, (...) while the number of objects our mind can imagine might be infinite. Thus there must be a level of infinity by which the ‘number’ of objects our mental world can host is bounded. I will use both philosophical assumptions and observations, and mathematical analysis in order to get an estimate of the ‘number’ of objects we could possibly perceive, which surprisingly turns out to be the first level of infinity or the number of natural numbers. I will start by discussing the nature of concrete objects and the way we access them via perception. I will talk about mathematics as well and its relation with perception in order to justify myself for using mathematics as a tool in this paper. After some sections of discussions of various aspects of perception and imagination, I will finally be ready to make a counting and determine what I called “the numerical limits of perception”. (shrink)

In Russia, on the eve of the Revolution, the religious phenomenon was analyzed by scholars in specific works and in public discussions in its various aspects: historical, political, social, institutional. Of particular interest is the attempt to bring it back to an original expression of emotional consciousness, which marks a continuity with the Sentimentalism of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This cultural current attempted to grasp a more certain truth in the immediacy of sentiment than in demonstrative reason, (...) and, levering on the ‘redi in te ipsum’, claimed a full moral responsibility for the individual, and at the same time attributed to the truth an immediate evidence, enlightening the the interiority of the individual. Individual consciousness, namely the seat of the truth that reveals itself in the immediacy of moral and religious sentiment, was moreover opposed to any external authority, and considered as giving rise to the ecclesial community itself. Accordingly, such an idea of an inner Church, fueling sectarianism, determined the hostility of the confessional Churches. However, Sentimentalism, while primarily concerning the psychology of interiority, did not go so far as to deal with the relationship of rational mediation with the immediacy of sentiment: namely to consider the emergence of distinctions (art and religion, moral truth and divine truth) that no longer belonged to the sentimental area but to conceptualization. This was in fact an issue discussed in the early twentieth century by a part of Russian intelligentsia, seeing in the individual emotional interiority not the light of a transcendent truth, but the creative freedom of establishing values. Since values are nothing but culture, namely products of reason, Russian intelligentsia got entangled in an ambiguity similar to the one characterizing Sentimentalism, in the attempt to identify in emotional consciousness the processes of formulation of logical-representative structures. (shrink)