... turning a little, because one side of his body was almost singed already, whereas the other side was still numb with cold— because what did people say before Cantor (well of course only in the scientific fields, in particular after the end of the so-called ancient philosophical school of thought in our Western culture, but not in philosophy or in poetry, because those people kept coming up with all these bad infinities and things like that, no, were only speaking of the history of thought in the natural sciences), and what do I mean by that? well, to echo the most primitive of formulations: the infinite is a part of reality, the infinite is real, and what is this based on, of course on the unacknowledged view-they should, however, have perceived this and they could have perceived it— that the infinite is just one axiom of the problem; there is, however, another dictum, and that is the inability of the human being to accept the view, occurring with real weight, that there are quantities, only that the mind simply would have to "believe" that things presenting themselves to the mind as an entity-even that word, en-ti-ty! it boggles my mind-present themselves in exclusively finite quantities, but no, ah, no, that's not what happened, what happened was that this human mind always treated measurements-and we are thinking in this case of both very enormous measurements, as well as very tiny ones, do you understand —this human mind treated these measurements as reality even though they formed no part of tangible reality, for Cantorian set theory also says something about this, and in addition it's pretty ingenious, but still we have to concede that not only is there an infinite, but there are innumerable infinities, well of course because of this he immediately got in trouble with Berlin, with those Kronecker types and the rest, and the takedowns were precisely as logical and confirmable as they possibly could be, marinated in a little Hilbert to help it along, they had to be, and here exactly was the blunder, because this "demonstrability," namely what can be examined as empirical evidence is precisely that which is sacred in so-called scientific thought, and by these means—there's no point in denying it—we can go far, but at the same time, by following this method, we greatly distance ourselves from the problem, because it's so, but so manifest that empirical proof itself is..