Something from the NS thinker's cult

sampsihoyos

sampsihoyos

Active member
An instant doesn’t not exist, its only a term that we use to describe the most brief amount of time passing in a flow of time (which does exist). Similarly, the idea of perfect does not exist in reality because

1) perfect is an opinion, and is subject to interpretation (perfection is different for each person). the only individual who could judge perfection would be a higher being, that's for all of us to decide upon its existence.

2) like an instant, perfect is a mile-marker or place-holder, but to imagine quality at its highest level, therefore (as humans) perfection is theoretical.

so here's what I was thinking: if only one being is alive, then whatever he/she thinks is perfect is actually perfect because there is no question about it (and perfect is an opinion only). So the quality of perfection is limited to the quality of the individual imagining it. Therefore, the world we live in would be a reflection of a higher being’s idea of perfection.

slums.jpg


This is not free will, this is imperfection in man. There is no God.
 
not necessarily....there can be improvements, things could be made easier....or the only being alive could be lazy and be like, wow if i didnt have to do /random thing here/ then life would be a lot better......
 
"Therefore, the world we live in would be a reflection of a higher being’s idea of perfection."

yea thats a good thought... but it only works if you think that a higher power would create people who dont have free will. if a higher power created us so that we have free will then he or she or it can have all the ideas he wants about perfection and what IS still might not reflect those ideas because we have the free will to do what we want. thats why we can all have our own ideas of perfection. and thats why God can exist. and im not saying what i believe about that im just throwing up an argument that negates yours.
 
can i get an invite to this cult? im a philosophy minor... writing a paper write this moment but ill come back to this thread tomorrow or somthin
 
agreed.

also, an opinion is still an opinion regardless of whether there are other people to argue those opinions with.

invite please
 
Oh, sorry about the double post, but i invited snobunny and ski2dominate so other ns thinkers leaders dont invite them again
 
yeah, i know but with the idea of perfection and all that... the point is there was JUST a descartes thread in ns thinkers, and this is a weird, poorly thought out spin off to prove the contrary.
 
Calan says:

yeah and to use that

Calan says:

thought process

Calan says:

to determine there is no god

Calan says:

is the stupidest thing ive ever heard

Calan says:

i dont even realize what he's saying actually

Calan says:

he's basically saying

Calan says:

because the world isnt perfect

Calan says:

there is no god?

Calan says:

how do we know god was striving for perfection?

Casey says:

how do we know the world isnt perfect in the first place?

Casey says:

because those buildings aren't all alike or something?

Calan says:

yeah way to use a horrendous picture to prove your point also

Calan says:

imma post this conversation

Casey says:

k

 
The flow of time could be argued to be purely conceptual though. In which case there is no time,(as all proof of time is in astro-physics, which is really all vague theory) but merely a long passage of intances. In each instance being every action occuring in this universe at that given point.

As far as pefection, I do agree that it is purely how we percieve what is perfect to ourselves. But in that sense perfection does not exist, but this is impossible if what we think is therefore right. If there is no pure state of perfection, than our thoughts are imperfect, thusly spoiling our minds.
 
But we (as humans)realize that our own ideas of perfection are just that, our own ideas. we understand the fact that perfection is subjective, and we accept that. therefore changing the definition of perfection to incorporate opinion of the subject or group inflicting judgement.
 
Yeah but wouldn't that be more ideals, rather than perfection. I mean perfection in definition hails from something beyoned what is feasable to desire or think possible. I mean that idea of perfection being something we create is flawed, what were people like jaspers or hesse looking for?

Autheniticty(ie human perfection of the self[in a sense]). A good case for this is in both Siddartha and Demian (cough i love hesse). Even in Nietszche(sp?, god i hate him). He failed to find the ubermunchs and this was clearly a cause of self pain for himself.

I mean perfection hails beyoned rationality.

PS i need an invite to this cult
 
agreed. i was talking less in the philisophical sense of the definition and more-so in just the general human perception of perfection. Basically just saying that we've allowed the definition of perfection to settle on the opinion of the majority or each individual (mans pompous natural instinct to feel they have the right to identify flaws).
 
And we are definitly flawed (how ironic) in the acceptance of the majority's ideals, but is this necessarily better than a completely individual idea of what is ideal.
 
Your position assumes that perfection is an abstraction of human thought rather than a concept extrapolated from, or given by, a more capable mode of understanding.

I'm not positing a 'God' character, I'm simply highlighting your assumption that 'perfection' is a construct of man.

Technically, for the purposes of refining your position, perfection under your definition would require an inversion of the negative coupled with the concept of infinity. Infinity could, in the same sense, be posited as an inversion of its negative (the finite), but we best leave that rabbit hole alone for now.

Lastly, I'm not entirely sure whether you've based your position on "an instant" in a temporal or causal sense. The technical notation in a temporal view of time, as you claim, has no merit. A causal position however, is subject to a host of logical and emotional implications in which the power of "an instant" can be both real and profound.

I'm glad to see you're thinking, but don't cheapen your position with a photo that fishes for an emotional response.
 
I dont like Liebniz's dismissal of the problem by lowering our expectations of God...non the less, he's the fucking man.
 
okay so in the first part, you state that time does exist. and that instances are just frozen fragments of an uninterupted flow of time.

the second part you state that only God can judge perfection.

in the third part you say that perfection is like an instance, a placeholder...(but you dont say what it is a milemarker/place holder of?)

like, are you putting not that much thought into what you wrote? or are you putting so much thought into it that you're incorporating quantum physics and are stating that perfection is an instance in which strings align perfectly, and perfection is obtained in flash instances of time. And because our brains cannot slow down enough (or rather think fast enough) to computer exact moments of time. then perfection is a theory we're unable to capture?

Am i putting too much thought into this, i don't really understand what you're saying.

so here's what I was thinking: if only one being is alive, then whatever he/she thinks is perfect is actually perfect because there is no question about it (and perfect is an opinion only).

but you just said that only God can perceive perfection. therefore no, if only one being is alive, according to your theory what they think is NOT perfection, only God can determine that.

So the quality of perfection is limited to the quality of the individual imagining it. Therefore, the world we live in would be a reflection of a higher being’s idea of perfection.

so you're basically saying that the quality of the world is a product of the limits of God's capability to imagine something better. and your example of God's shortcomings is a picture of an impoverished village.

and this somehow proves that God doesn't exist because he should have come up with better? Well you're really taking the weight off of our shoulders as humans for the problems in the world, and taking all credit away from God (if he exists).

 
but really, if an instant is just this horribly tiny amont of time, then is that being still alive? and since perfection is subject to interpretation, then it can be so many different things. your interpreation my this of that the only being, etc. but not others' who knows?

i love thinker's cult

 
The more I think about it I really don't like Liebniz's reply here to the problem of evil. His perspective requires that God be subject to his own mechanism, i.e. the rules of the existence which he supposedly created. Thus in an analogous sense he falls victim to the same vice as man; subservience to an alienated concept. If God were to make method supreme, that is, above himself, the core of what constitutes God are (namely infallibility, infinite capability) in serious jeopardy.

Succinctly speaking; a God with limited ability is not a God. God must be a pure expression of essence: perfect, infinite, and complete.
 
i never gave that much thought but it sounds very convincing

i want to be in the cult, may i have an invite?
 
I agree with the first part completely.

Your basing your argument off of something that is entirely conceptual. Time.
 
Of course perfection is an opinion, nothing can ever be perfect simply because we have no idea what perfect is/looks like.

And if there is no time, only instances, we would have to say over x number of instances is a year, instead of 365 days (time), which would be impossible to calculate. Therefore, if there is no flow of time or instances it wouldn't matter because instances are impossible to calculate. "Oh honey I'll be home in 1,500 instances", when we could say "I'll be home in 5 minutes" because we know how much time it takes to get from point A to point B.
 
That is a different time, "human" time, as i like to call it for this sake, is a measurment of times we rotate the sun, used for measuring crop rotation mainly.

This is time as in relation to astro physics, I'm not trained or versed in it enough to explain (since I'm a student of ethics.).

As a tip for ALL OF YOU WHO DRINK WHEY PROTEIN.

Don;t run out of milk, and mix it with soy. Grossest drink ever.
 
Whey protein with regular milk is pretty gross so I can only imagine what it tastes like with soy.
 
Dymatize on whey, GNC pro performance ISO burst, EAS pro performance series, I have all tried to vouch as tasting REALLY good.
 
wow where'd that come from...

all I have to say is any milk other than cow's milk I have had tastes disgusting, including soy milk. Tofu, on the other hand, is wonderful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top