/lit/ - Literature

>>11113638
>>11113645

Very well articulated, and it might be true, but I don't think it is.

> if we continue with the laws of explanation used for nature, our explanations will always be continuous with the natural world, our inferences will never take us to some domain apart from the universe.

An infinite regress is inconceivable. A being of pure act is also inconceivable.

> This is a dilemma that we invite when we try to violate our own finite mental abilities, seduced by the idea that if we can seek explanations for natural objects then we can also seek an explanation for nature *itself.*

> whether by negation or analogy, the result is empty.

>>11111792