Development Of The Human Soul

Appendix 5. (1132).

We say that space is immense; we can also say that space is infinite in the sense that this word indicates a lack of possible limits. I mention Francesco Orioli as one Italian philosopher who recognises the infinity of space. He rightly notes that the infinity attributed to space has no relationship with the infinity which is proper to God alone. He says: 'We need to consider that the kind of infinity which, according to theology and philosophy, must be understood as exclusive to God is not an infinity unaccompanied by substantiality and consequently by all activity and potency; it is operative infinity, infinity in which the possibility of action is exercised or experienced. But the kind of infinity which we say is granted by nature to space (the same can and must be said of time, about which we shall speak later), is purely extensive infinity. It is, therefore, entirely proper to the first kind of infinity, and is not seen in anyway related to the second (the infinity of God is intensive and extensive at the same time).

In a word, this infinity is dead, not alive - it is infinity of a species of nothing, lacking every potency for action and experience. This 'nothing' does not become anything except in correspondence with its content or with what is containable' (Spighe e paglie, Opera periodica del Professore Francesco Orioli, Corfù, Tipografia del Governo, 1844, vol. 1, quad. 1, lett. 2, Elementi ultimi dell'Universo: Lo spazio). The professor's words indicate an important truth. He says that the infinity of space is quite different from the infinity of God. But after that, as far as I can see, his words are rather inexact. I have to indicate these mistakes in order to avoid equivocation. 1. We cannot admit that God possesses an extensive infinity, if we take this word extensive as the property of space. In God, there is no spatial extension; space is in God in the same way as all creatures are in God. 2. We cannot admit that space is a species of nothing. Nothing has no species, much less infinity. It cannot be objected that mathematicians distinguish several species of nothing; mathematical nothing is entirely different. It is the annihilation of something, brought about by means of some operation as, for example, when we subtract five from five and nothing remains. Space, on the contrary, does not arise as a result of a mental operation with which we take away what has first been posited. 3. We cannot say that space is unaccompanied by every activity and potency because it has the first act by which it exists, although it does not possess second acts. I think, therefore, that it can be called ens, but not substance. 4. Nor can we say that infinity proper to God is that alone in which there is some possibility of action, exercised or experienced. God is act, nothing else; in him there is neither passion nor experience.