JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
The Philosophy of Limits: Between Mathematics and Philosophy
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
  • Journal title : Journal for History of Mathematics
  • Volume 29, Issue 1,  2016, pp.31-44
  • Publisher : The Korean Society for History of Mathematics
  • DOI : 10.14477/jhm.2016.29.1.031
 Title & Authors
The Philosophy of Limits: Between Mathematics and Philosophy
Park, Chang Kyun;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
This essay aims to suggest roughly the "philosophy of limits." The limits mainly refer to those of human experiences and rational thoughts. The philosophy of limits consist of three theses and two consequences(L, M). (1) The limits are necessarily supervenient in the course of searching knowledge. (2) The limits cannot be dissipated ultimately. (3) To recognize the limits is not only an intellectual recognition but also a beginning of whole personality`s reaction. (L) It is a rational decision to accept the limits and leave the margins (yeoback/yeoheuck) rather than to try to remove them. (M) To leave the margins (yeoback/yeoheuck) is characteristic of being human, and enables one to harmoniously communicate with others. To justify the philosophy of limits, this essay examine the limits discussed in mathematics and philosophy: set theory, Godel`s Incompleteness Theorem, Galois Theorem in mathematics; and Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard, and Wittgenstein in philosophy. I try to interpret consciousness of limits in various cultures. I claim that consciousness of the limits contribute to lucidity of human identity, communication between persons, stimulation of creative thinking.
 Keywords
limits;consciousness of limits;yeoback/yeoheuck;incompleteness theorem;Kierkegaard;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Michael F. Barnsley, Fractals Everywhere, Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.

2.
M. HALLETT, Cantorian Set Theory and Limitation of Size, Clarendon Press, 1984.

3.
DAVID HUME, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and Other Writings (edited by Stephen Buckle), Cambridge University Press, 2007.

4.
KANG Young Ahn, The Philosophy Story of Professor of Kang, IVP, 2001. 강영안, 강교수의 철학이야기, IVP, 2001.

5.
Soren KIERKEGAARD, Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments (Edited and Translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong), Princeton University Press, 1992.

6.
KIM Hye Sook, Kant, Philosophy of Boundaries, Boundaries of Philosophy, Ewha Womans University Press, 2011. 김혜숙, 칸트, 경계의 철학, 철학의 경계, 이화여자대학교출판부, 2011.

7.
NAM Kyung Hee, Wittgenstein and Linguistic Turn of Contemporary Philosophy, Ewha Womans University Press, 2008. 남경희, 비트겐슈타인과 현대 철학의 언어적 전회, 이화여자대학교 출판부, 2008.

8.
James O'SHEA, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason: An Introduction and Interpretation, Routledge; 1 edition, 2014.

9.
PARK Chang Kyun, Philosophical Implication of Turing's Work-Concentrated on Halting Theorem, The Korean Journal for History of Mathematics 25(3) (2012), 15-27. 박창균, 튜링의 업적이 지닌 철학적 함의'-멈춤정리' 를 중심으로, 한국수학사학회지 25(3) (2012), 15-27.

10.
Graham Priest, Beyond the Limits of Thought, Oxford University Press, 2002.

11.
PYO Jae Myung, Meeting Kierkegaard, Chiwoo, 2012. 표재명, 키에르케고어를 만나다, 치우, 2012.

12.
Daniel TUDOR, Korea: The Impossible Country, Munhakdongne, 2013. 다니엘 튜더, 기적을 잃은 나라 기쁨을 잃은 나라 (노정태역), 문학동네, 2013.

13.
WEBER Z., Transfinite Cardinals in Paraconsistent Set Theory, Review of Symbolic Logic 5(2) (2012), 269-293. crossref(new window)

14.
Ludwig WITTGENSTEIN, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Dover Publications; 471st edition, 1998.

15.
Allen W. WOOD, The Antinomies of Pure Reason, in the The Cambridge Companion to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (edited by Paul Guyer), Cambridge University Press, 2010.

16.
http://krdic.naver.com/search.nhn?query=%ED%95%9C%EA%B3%84