Second Question on Nehamas

Does reading something "deeply" really imply that there is a bottom?  Can it still be applied to mean that there is always more to explore?


I believe that Nehamas brings up an interesting point when he makes the claim that reading into something deeply implies there is a bottom.  I had never thought of that notion before; however, while that may be the case, I'm not sure that I fully agree with it.  I believe that when referring to the word "deeply" in that connotation, it brings up a different point entirely.  While this may be obvious, I'm not sure that Nehamas is completely correct in this fact.  Take for example what we call "deep space": here we are referring to so far out into space that we do not know what is out there.  It means to go further out in all directions of the Universe from where we are.  We all know, or at least subscribe to the same paradigm, that space has no foreseeable end or "bottom."

So how does this connect to reading something?  The same way the Nehamas did so with his argument.  It is another way that we humans use the word "deep" to describe something.  It does not have to imply that there is an end or bottom, it simply means to look further into something, and that further can expand to infinity.