Urfi Shirazi, a Persian poet, in one of his couplets says to his love that your beauty's limit cannot be comprehended and this statement comes from my limited comprehension.

  • 2
    But is "comprehending that something is incomprehnsible" the same as " comprehending the incomprehnsible" ? May 14 '17 at 18:40
  • You can look at it from a logical/mathematical perspective for an example. We have proofs that some things are unprovable (although some nuance to this statement is need, see undecidability and independence). It is as Mauro says, knowing that something is unknowable and knowing something unknowable are two different things, the former of which is possible and the latter of which is impossible.
    – Not_Here
    May 14 '17 at 19:05

Claiming to know that something is unknowable does not seem to be a paradox straight away, but it can become a paradox if the ground for the unknowability claim is itself umknowable, by its own standard. One famous example from 20th century philosophy is the verification principle of the logical positivists. The verification principle asserted that only statements that can be empirically verified have meaning. It was soon suspected, however, that the verification principle itself cannot be empirically verified, and must be therefore meaningless, by its own standard...


No. To comprehend means to "take in the mind", so it means Urfi Sharazi knows the beauty-capacity of his mind is somewhat less than the quantity of beauty beheld. Not unlike how one knows the capacity of one's stomach is less than a full luncheon buffet table. Or how a 100G hard disk can't hold every movie ever made. It's no paradox to overfill a cup.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.