|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 8, 2013 10:07:52 GMT -5
Your existence is imperfect because you compare it with one you imagine is more perfect. I'm not saying that your existence would be perfect if it wasn't compared. I'm saying that it's possible to just leave it alone. This does not mean that one would stop responding to existence in a responsible way. The conjecture I'm going with is that by leaving it alone, mentally, one is able to better respond. You still don't understand. Existence is objectively imperfect, simply because I can imagine a better existence. In this case I care about the truth, and not about responding in a better or worse way. Your strategy amounts to a "if you don't like something then just stop not liking it". I'm playing Neo here and you're playing Cypher.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 10:19:33 GMT -5
Your existence is imperfect because you compare it with one you imagine is more perfect. I'm not saying that your existence would be perfect if it wasn't compared. I'm saying that it's possible to just leave it alone. This does not mean that one would stop responding to existence in a responsible way. The conjecture I'm going with is that by leaving it alone, mentally, one is able to better respond. You still don't understand. Existence is objectively imperfect, simply because I can imagine a better existence. In this case I care about the truth, and not about responding in a better or worse way. Your strategy amounts to a "if you don't like something then just stop not liking it". I'm playing Neo here and you're playing Cypher. The labels "imperfect", "perfect", "mistake", when applying them to existence, are all subjective, not objective. Your existence is itself a function of your subjectivity. You are creating your own Matrix.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 8, 2013 10:32:22 GMT -5
You still don't understand. Existence is objectively imperfect, simply because I can imagine a better existence. In this case I care about the truth, and not about responding in a better or worse way. Your strategy amounts to a "if you don't like something then just stop not liking it". I'm playing Neo here and you're playing Cypher. The labels "imperfect", "perfect", "mistake", when applying them to existence, are all subjective, not objective. Your existence is itself a function of your subjectivity. You are creating your own Matrix. What about the circle example don't you understand? Drop the bs and be honest. You sound like trf and all those morons. I can spot dishonesty from miles away so stop wasting my and your time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 10:38:44 GMT -5
The labels "imperfect", "perfect", "mistake", when applying them to existence, are all subjective, not objective. Your existence is itself a function of your subjectivity. You are creating your own Matrix. What about the circle example don't you understand? Drop the bs and be honest. You sound like trf and all those morons. I can spot dishonesty from miles away so stop wasting my and your time. What you call dishonesty and bs I call trying to understand. I'm sorry if it is not adequate. There is no dishonesty. I understand your circle example I just don't think it applies well to 'existence.' Existence is nothing that can be defined, for one. To me your argument smacks of despair.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 8, 2013 10:59:09 GMT -5
What about the circle example don't you understand? Drop the bs and be honest. You sound like trf and all those morons. I can spot dishonesty from miles away so stop wasting my and your time. What you call dishonesty and bs I call trying to understand. I'm sorry if it is not adequate. There is no dishonesty. I understand your circle example I just don't think it applies well to 'existence.' Existence is nothing that can be defined, for one. To me your argument smacks of despair. Of course existence can be defined. All things that are there. It's that simple. I can imagine a better set of things therefore existence is imprefect, i.e. mistake. I can't imagine a better circle than the one expressed in the mathematical forumula therefore it's a perfect circle. Rest of your post is bs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 11:15:38 GMT -5
What you call dishonesty and bs I call trying to understand. I'm sorry if it is not adequate. There is no dishonesty. I understand your circle example I just don't think it applies well to 'existence.' Existence is nothing that can be defined, for one. To me your argument smacks of despair. Of course existence can be defined. All things that are there. It's that simple. I can imagine a better set of things therefore existence is imprefect, i.e. mistake. I can't imagine a better circle than the one expressed in the mathematical forumula therefore it's a perfect circle. Rest of your post is bs. That's simple but fuzzy. Try an accurate definition. Since when does your imagination count for anything, anyway? Seems like you call stuff bs that you don't like?
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 8, 2013 11:22:55 GMT -5
Of course existence can be defined. All things that are there. It's that simple. I can imagine a better set of things therefore existence is imprefect, i.e. mistake. I can't imagine a better circle than the one expressed in the mathematical forumula therefore it's a perfect circle. Rest of your post is bs. That's simple but fuzzy. Try an accurate definition. Since when does your imagination count for anything, anyway? It is not fuzzy. The definition is perfectly accurate. You're confusing logic with imagination. If you take your own objection seriously then you should stfu and never post here again, otherwise you're being dishonest. Stop playing these stupid games. They are a waste of time and won't get you anywhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 11:44:36 GMT -5
That's simple but fuzzy. Try an accurate definition. Since when does your imagination count for anything, anyway? It is not fuzzy. The definition is perfectly accurate. You're confusing logic with imagination. If you take your own objection seriously then you should stfu and never post here again, otherwise you're being dishonest. "All the things that are there." Is your imagination one of these things? How does your concept of existence square with qualia? I'm not playing games.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 8, 2013 12:02:25 GMT -5
It is not fuzzy. The definition is perfectly accurate. You're confusing logic with imagination. If you take your own objection seriously then you should stfu and never post here again, otherwise you're being dishonest. "All the things that are there." Is your imagination one of these things? How does your concept of existence square with qualia? Put in there whatever you want. I don't care and it doesn't make a difference. Important is only can you imagine a better one or not.I'm not playing games. Then stop arguing over pointless shít.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 13:19:21 GMT -5
Important is only can you imagine a better one or not. I'm eating a salad right now. Because I can imagine a more perfect salad does not mean this actually existing salad is a mistake. It also doesn't mean it's imperfect. It's just not measuring up to something else that I imagine.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 8, 2013 13:27:59 GMT -5
Important is only can you imagine a better one or not. I'm eating a salad right now. Because I can imagine a more perfect salad does not mean this actually existing salad is a mistake. It also doesn't mean it's imperfect. It's just not measuring up to something else that I imagine. But of course it means that your salad is imperfect. If it were perfect then you wouldn't be able to imagine a better salad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 13:46:21 GMT -5
I'm eating a salad right now. Because I can imagine a more perfect salad does not mean this actually existing salad is a mistake. It also doesn't mean it's imperfect. It's just not measuring up to something else that I imagine. But of course it means that your salad is imperfect. If it were perfect then you wouldn't be able to imagine a better salad. Okay, you're right, it is imperfect, but only if I think about it being so. Existence is also imperfect if you can think it as such.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 8, 2013 14:26:39 GMT -5
But of course it means that your salad is imperfect. If it were perfect then you wouldn't be able to imagine a better salad. Okay, you're right, it is imperfect, but only if I think about it being so. Existence is also imperfect if you can think it as such. No, it is objectively imperfect. Is an oval not a circle only if you think about it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 14:44:53 GMT -5
Okay, you're right, it is imperfect, but only if I think about it being so. Existence is also imperfect if you can think it as such. No, it is objectively imperfect. Is an oval not a circle only if you think about it? Imperfect is an imagined quality which can be applied if you want to. Existence -- all the things that are there -- is a far cry from a mathematically abstract object like a circle. Technically, an oval is no more an imperfect circle than a box of wheatabix. A circle has a precise definition. Anything other than meeting that is not a circle, it's something other than a circle. It is a circle or it is not. I still am not sure what "all the things that are there" means. But in any case, imagining that "all the things that are there" can be better and then calling "all the things that are actually there" imperfect is just what it is -- a conclusion based on imagination and thinking.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 8, 2013 14:51:24 GMT -5
No, it is objectively imperfect. Is an oval not a circle only if you think about it? Perfectly inadequate. Perfect symmetry isn't as beautiful as something that's a little messed up. Is pain better than no pain?
|
|