So I hate to keep bringing this up....but infinity is still posing some problems for my little human brain. I was talking with my roommates about this seemingly impossible concept. As James was saying yesterday, I am also not convinced that I have any idea of infinity. When it seems as if I might be thinking "infinity," I believe I am actually taking a very very large thing (a billion years, a universe, a trillion pounds, etc) and adding onto it continuously. Basically, for as long as I am actively trying to think infinity, I am really thinking "plus one, plus one, plus one..." or even "plus a trillion, plus a trillion, plus a trillion..." (until of course I stop trying to think "infinity"). When I try ot think of an infinite universe, I think of a huge giant ball of existence expanding continuously.
This way of thinking infinity (which, I feel, is the way probably everyone actually thinks of infinity) by adding more and more continuously is actually imposing limits on the supposed idea because, if I am adding more and more to something, it still has a limit but the limit is only increasing.
This really led me to think about how we define "ideas." Just because we can say the word "infinity" and have perhaps some understanding of what infinity is not (all the finite things we have ever experienced), does not seem to mean it is a fixed idea within my mind. In fact, I think that "an idea," by its very definition, is a fixed phenomenon. It imposes limits on things simply by fixing them in time and space within one's head. Ideas seem to act like frames of a photo. You can try to capture as much as you can in a picture, but as soon as you snap it, you impose limits on the image you capture. In the same way, having an idea of something is to fix it in your mind, and although that "infinity" thing that you are trying to take a picture of might actually exist, you cannot capture it because it, by its own definition, is uncontainable and uncapturable.
Do you agree?
You seem to be describing the contrast of an object's "essence" to our understanding of it- if we describe infinity as (to give an example from last class) a mode, then we would say that we can refer to it -infinity- in conversation, but that, as you describe, we cannot grasp it's objective form. This is almost ironic, because Descartes seems to describe infinity as being above modes, yet infinity itself is a mode when he describes it.
ReplyDeleteSimply put, I agree with you.
Of course there would be no other way for us to comprehend such an endless and perpetual thing. Because of our imperfection and finality, we can only imagine things as finite, whether or not they really are. But, as Aaron states, we still understand the essence of it, can describe it, and therefore can give it qualities, even if we can not picture infinity itself. We at least know what it is and therefore can grasp the most basic concept of it. So yes, I agree, but do not believe that we are totally wanting in respect to having the essential and basic idea (limited as it is).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Megan, especially that we can understand the essence of infinity enough to describe it in our own (limited) terms. I think Descartes would agree, and say that since we are finite beings, we cannot be the origin of the idea of God, and therefore the idea of God can originate only in God, since God is an infinite being. The very doubt that we cannot perceive or define infinity come from the understanding that we, as humans, have limitations. So, Descartes would argue that the awareness of this limitation comes from a counter-awareness (is that a word?) that there exists a more perfect being that has no limitations. This perfect being is God, and moreover the idea of God must be caused by something infinite. Then, if we wonder how we came to possess the idea of God, following Descartes reasoning, we can only claim that the idea of God came from God, rather than a finite being.
ReplyDeleteBut, Megan and Nicole, does it even make sense to say we have "the essential and basic idea (limited as it is)" of god/perfection/infinity that we describe "in our own (limited) terms"? I don't think it does. If our idea is not a COMPLETE idea of god, then it certainly cannot actually be of god. So the argument of "I have a basic idea of god and so something infinitely perfect called god must be the cause of that idea" is not a valid argument (I don't believe).
ReplyDeleteWell obviously, judging from my classroom participation last period, I agree with you. When I imagine something that is infinite, I imagine a vast expanse with me floating somewhere in it. When I look in any direction, there is nothing and I have this utter feeling of smallness and lack of importance. The only comprehension of the infinite that I have is that I have incomprehensibly small compared to it. But this does not seem to be a true comprehension of the infinite, only the recognition of my smallness in relative to a lot of things in the universe (the greater majority, haha). My big question, however, is that if the god of Descartes exists, how does this change anything regarding the lives of man? How does the existence of the wholly stripped down shell of what most people consider god that we are offered by Descartes affect our lives at all if it is simply the one infinite substance? It wouldn't.
ReplyDelete