M,I.5,Persecution , my respons e to th e h arassment

are well informed, we understand that, as nature has graven her image
and that of her Author on all things, they almost all partake of her double
infinity. Thus we see that all the sciences are infinite in the extent of
their researches. For who doubts that geometry, for instance, has an
infinite infinity of problems to solve? They are also infinite in the
multitude and fineness of their premises; for it is clear that those which
are put forward as ultimate are not self-supporting, but are based on others
which, again having others for their support, do not permit of finality. But
we represent some as ultimate for reason, in the same way as in regard to
material objects we call that an indivisible point beyond which our senses
can no longer perceive anything, although by its nature it is infinitely
divisible.

Of these two Infinites of science, that of greatness is the most palpable,
and hence a few persons have pretended to know all things. "I will speak of
the whole," said Democritus.

But the infinitely little is the least obvious. Philosophers have much
oftener claimed to have reached it, and it is here they have all stumbled.
This has given rise to such common titles as First Principles, Principles of
Philosophy, and the like, as ostentatious in fact, though not in appearance,
as that one which blinds us, De omni scibili.5

We naturally believe ourselves far more capable of reaching the centre of
things than of embracing their circumference. The visible extent of the
world visibly exceeds us; but as we exceed little things, we think ourselves
more capable of knowing them. And yet we need no less capacity for attaining
the Nothing than the All. Infinite capacity is required for