I think therefore I am

[Anonymous No.14576435]

How can a finite individual know the nature of something that is infinite and outside the possibility of human understanding? It makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.14576467]

By using geometry applied to real life like Descartes did. In logical terms, the opposite of something exists, therefore if a finite individual exists there should be an infinite individual.

[Anonymous No.14576474]

>>14576435
>finite
>infinite
>nature
spooky

[Anonymous No.14576485]

It is a conceptual grasp, not a phenomenological experience based understanding. There, now go to bed.

[Anonymous No.14576501]

>>14576435

How do you know something is outside human understanding? How do you know it exists?

[Anonymous No.14576507]

>>14576474
>spooky

[Anonymous No.14576519]

>>14576467
I have a fake girlfriend. The opposite of a fake girlfriend is a real girlfriend. Therefore, I have a real girlfriend.
Catch you later, virgins!

[Anonymous No.14576568]

>>14576467
Sounds like Descartes made himself God.
>>14576501
Pretty much my point. We can't be certain if it is even within our grasp, therefore it must be unintelligible to man. "I exist because I doubt my existence" is simply a statement of personal belief that ultimately makes the self the measure of all things. But we can only believe in the validity of our own ideas. It's not anything scientific or absolute.

[Anonymous No.14576580]

>>14576568
Nothing is absolute. Your entire experience of reality is an illusion forced upon you by the density of your collective material. Visual spectrum change and you might be blinded during the day. Hearing altered too much and our current forms of warfare become impossible to practice. You're basically a vibrating pattern in slightly warmer water than the rest of measurable spacetime. Absolutes are for cowards.

[Anonymous No.14577009]

> How can a finite individual know the nature of something that is infinite and outside the possibility of human understanding

It can’t. And there goes all attempts to explain nature via some “god.”

[Anonymous No.14577013]

>>14576435
>still struggling with cartesian principle
lmao

[Anonymous No.14577039]

> It is a conceptual grasp

It is *not even* this.

What is the clear and distinct conceptual content of “infinite”? Can you describe it?

> not a phenomenological experience based understanding.

In other words, it’s totally different from the kind of understanding that is tangible and communicable and helpful in worldly physical life.

> There, now go to bed.

lol prideful dreamer, wake up.

[Anonymous No.14577049]

To "know" things "outside" of human understanding is nonsensical.

No need to talk about it. Move along.

[Anonymous No.14577076]

>How can a finite individual know the nature of something that is infinite and outside the possibility of human understanding?
Because that infinite is everywhere, we can understand some parts of the nature of the infinite but not all of it.

[Anonymous No.14577136]

> we can understand some parts of the nature of the infinite but not all of it

Which is basically understanding things finite.

Which is basically understaning nothing infinite.

[Anonymous No.14578251]

>>14577039
>What is the clear and distinct conceptual content of “infinite”? Can you describe it?
You can use extreme concepts like infinity to try and sound clever by being elusive, but if you think all types of infinite nature are the same (which you do, because you just described it as absolute) this conversation is already over.

The infinite shades of red between different amplitudes of hue are different. The nature of the infinity between two seconds of time and an hour is different. You need to be able to formulate a question properly here to get a real answer.

>In other words, it’s totally different from the kind of understanding that is tangible and communicable and helpful in worldly physical life.
What, like understanding gravity is worthless? Our experience of that is UP = DOWN. Conceptual understandings and this science you all worship so much has shown it is not that simple.