Human minds could be a small infinity inside a larger infinity. In knowledge , we try to set up an isomorphism, one-to-one correspondence, between our little, social "mind" infinity and the larger infinity.
Or maybe it's just we don't want to limit what the rank-and-file can "understand" in principle, or make anybody dependent upon priests, geniuses and knowledge specialists _ in principle_.
Chris Doss wrote:
The problem with asserting that the mind is capable of understanding things without limit is that it leads to various varieties of idealism (if you are a fan of idealism this is not a problem of course). It was what differentiates Hegel from Kant at bottom, the idea that you can jump behind appearances and get at the "ground" -- which Hegel was only able to justify by arguing that consciousness and reality are at bottom the same thing.
=================================
Just so.
I believe it was Simone Weil who wrote that *a man who's proud of his intelligence is like a prisoner who boasts of the roominess and pleasant accomodations of his cell.*
An under-appreciation of the fact that there likely is a limit to humanity's ability to understand things leads, as you say to *various varieties of idealism*.
Note, as a recent example on these very virtual pages the statements in support of the inevitability of machine cognition (AI) which poured forth from various LBO-sters.
The underlying assumption is that we are surely clever enough to, sooner or later, possess a thorough understanding of our own minds which will, in turn, allow us to create a machine mirror on ever more sophisticated devices which we will surely build.
Supporting the weight of this cathedral of idealism is a boundless faith in the human ability to *understand things without limit.*
No doubt, we are clever monkeys what with our flying machines and language and stone melting bombs and so on. It does not follow however that we are blessed with a depth and breadth of cleverness equal to the complexity of all things.
DRM
--__--__--