God and defining perfection

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Tnerb, Mar 11, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I said 'the common way in which nature tends to be considered 'flawed' is in that it doesn't give us the satisfaction we hope to get from it'.

    Some further examples:
    A man falls in love with a young, healthy, cheerful woman, marries her and is happy with her, he sees her and the activities he can do with her as the source of his happiness. But soon enough, wrinkles show on her face, her hair starts to get grey, she gets ill, she is less and less in the mood to do the things that the man wants to do, and over time, these symptoms get worse and worse. Eventually, the man does not see her as a source of his happiness anymore, but more the source of his misery.
    IOW, the man hoped to get satisfaction from his wife, and at first he did get it; but as time passed, this changed, the satisfaction he used to get from her is now less and less.

    Or take a person who likes to dine well and takes great pleasure in that. He hopes to get satisfaction from food. But the more he eats, the less satisfied he is, the sicker he feels.
    If the true nature of eating would be satisfaction, then it would follow that the more a person eats, the more satisfied he will be. But experience shows - and painfully clearly - that this is not so.

    And so on.

    So nature can be considered 'flawed' in the sense that it doesn't give us the satisfaction we hope to get from it. Our hopes for satisfaction and the reality of acting on those hopes are often in discord, and our hopes are disappointed.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I don't think this was Sarkus' point.

    From what I understand, his position is that because God is the authority on God, man can never have certainty about God - because man is not the authority on God. IOW, that man is stuck in his own interpretations and can never rise above them (which is related to the problem of solipsism).


    By 'experiencing defeat in all areas of knowledge' I simply meant that the philosopher has to 'come to the end of his wits' - and where this end is can differ from one philosopher to another.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2009
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Algernon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    176
    If you don't mind indulging my curiosity... would you mind telling me how you feel about nature yourself? It seems you could have picked any 2 examples, but your choice to choose these two examples also in a sense represents a part of yourself in your choices. You could have picked many other possible examples, but these were picked well in that it supported your point. You must however know that there are many examples that also do not support that claim, but it doesn't agree with your own views on life and how you believe human nature truly is.

    Just the statement that "nature is flawed"... some may or may not agree with that. Depending on which aspects of nature you pick out to explore, you can find things that would support or reject that idea.

    Here's an example... a man is initially attracted to his wife physically. He finds her sense of humor and personality interesting, and he can have fun with her both physically and as a sense of emotional comfort knowing that a person is by his side. As he ages, he doesn't notice her physical appearance anymore, because over time she ages as so does he. Her initial characteristics and personality change over time, and so does he. Sometimes this may be a bad thing, sometimes it is not. He is able to start to see other parts of her, even when they get in arguments and fights he starts to learn to accept those things about her that are not perfect as he once thought. It isn't that he doesn't love her anymore, he has learned to accept and tolerate if not love her even more. Physical attraction diminishes, her feminine traits also since he probably sees her even the most embaressing or unattractive of situations. Over time he learns things about her he never would have known if he only focused on the initial attractions and personality. Things that she has grown into and mutually accept each other. IN a sense, this couple aged together and has grown fonder of each other dispite all the other things that have diminished. The love has been refined to be more mental and not physical or even emotional. While the emotional spark has been lost, the two want to be near each other and even though they've spent the most time talking with one another can always make time to talk with each other and enjoy each others thoughts and company sometimes even being able to just sit there quietly and enjoy each others presence.
    In this example, one could say that the two aged like wine, and that the nature of their love increased, and became more meaningful to the two.

    With the other example, the reason the person cannot enjoy the food is not due to mental dislikes, its because his physiological functions and his hypothalamus will not allow him to continue eating (less he eat so much he pukes). However if you would like to look past the short term example, and apply it to his love for food in his lifetime, he can probably have the same favorite food for the longest time. I myself love pizza, given all the great foods I have tasted I have for all my life ever since I first tasted pizza to enjoy it. It has rarely ever gone wrong on me, and despite the fact that I have had it over and over and over doesn't make me ever sick of it. Sometimes I haven't had pizza in a while and it tastes absolutely delicious when I get it. I don't know when or if ever I willl get sick of pizza, but sometimes I even eat so much pizza that I DO puke, yet I can't help it.

    I'm just saying there are also other sides of the picture, just because they don't agree or support with your own personal beliefs or theories doesn't mean they don't exist. Acknowledging them couldn't hurt either.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    If a person tries to find true happiness, true satisfaction in nature, then he will ultimately remain unsatisfied.


    I do not know of any such examples, though.


    It all started off by my saying:
    'I suppose the common way in which nature tends to be considered 'flawed' is in that it doesn't give us the satisfaction we hope to get from it.'
    in reply to someone else's question about how nature is flawed.

    I then listed examples how this happens, how our hopes to get satisfaction from nature get disappointed.

    I didn't say that nature per se was flawed.


    There is no guarantee though, that such a change will take place of where a man seeks and finds satisfaction in his wife - as the high divorce and domestic violence rates show.

    In the example you give, what the man has been getting satisfaction from in his relationship with the woman has changed over time; he is not finding satisfaction anymore in the things that he used to find satisfaction in - either because those things have changed (e.g. the woman got old and unattractive) or because he has changed (e.g. other things interest him, not mere physical beauty anymore).

    So my point stands: the common way in which nature tends to be considered 'flawed' is in that it doesn't give us the satisfaction we hope to get from it. One way to avoid this dissatisfaction is to change our focus of where we look for satisfaction in nature. Nature tends to be versatile enough to provide us many such changes of focus, though. But given enough time, a person gets dissatisfied with seeking ultimate satisfaction in anything that is found in nature.


    His body is part of nature, and as such, has some inherent issues of not being able to provide true satisfaction.


    Does eating pizza truly make you happy?
    When you lose your job, or are diagnosed with cancer, or when your partner leaves you: does eating pizza provide you with true relief from your worries?


    I know very well that other sides of the picture exist.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Algernon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    176
    I couldn't agree more. People who are looking for happiness tend to never find it until they stop looking for it. Then it ends up at their front door.

    A good quote from House MD that I really enjoyed:

    House speaking to a senator:
    House: "Wanting to believe the best about people doesn't make it true."
    Senator: "Being afraid to believe it doesn't make it false."

    Sometimes I don't find myself seeing the goodness in people. I tend to consider that there are ulterior motives to their intentions, and that every good deed has something inherently selfish or objective-oriented. At base level, Sigmeund Freud's theory that everyone is inherently selfish seems to work with almost anything if you take it that it also determines people's actions.

    However, it isn't really the fact that I don't actually see good things in people. I actually do, quite often in fact. Even when people do things that society might not look pleasantly upon as moral or right, I still give the benefit of the doubt that people are not intrinsically evil. Everything is rationalized and people's wants and desires are only the manifestations of subconcious needs. To what actions they take to fulfill these desires and needs might fall into the realm of what people consider morality. I choose to not see the good things that people do but it doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge that it is there. It is just an easier way for me to not have expectations about people, and always being skeptical, because in life one of the hardest things to do is learning to trust people and balancing that trust between what you believe in and what you want to believe to be true.

    Even though some may see me as a realist... I feel that I am actually profoundly optimistic. So thus being presented with irrefutable facts, I tend not to jump to immediate conclusions about people even though I may express the opinions I have formulated based on information presented.

    Eating pizza during times which are not the most pleasant may not make all my worries go away, but for that time being, I am not focusing on world hunger, or cancer, or human evils. I just focus on my pizza and how it tastes, because thinking about everything else doesn't mean that it will go away or make it any better. It's useless to worry about things that you have no control over, and letting it affect my pizza and have it taste any less better would not be a positive attitude.

    Happiness is something you discover when you are not looking for it. Satisfaction is something you receive when you learn to accept the mistakes and failures as success in the end. The destination is never as rewarding as the journey to get there.
     
  9. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    I am merely analysing your concept, where you stated:
    When it comes to the concept of God who reveals Himself:
    1. God is the authority in the subject of 'God' and everything pertaining to God,


    If God is the authority... how can we ever be certain we know anything about him, other than through confidence? After all, as I have already explained, everything Man does is based on his own interpretation.

    It is also said sometimes that the moon is made of cheese.
    The key is working out what is worth hearing.
     
  10. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502

    "Reason"; as in logical thought process.


    Obviously.



    My mistake; there is one: It serves no purpose but to allay a weak mind's fear.
     
  11. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396

    I'm not the 1 who needs the definition.
    It's not a concept unless it's properly defined & not selfcontradictory.
    I thought the purpose of calling it harry was to help define it.
    Perfect by default is not a concept. It must be explained how it is perfect.
     
  12. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I don't know about that ...


    So basically, eating pizza is a distraction for you?


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    How about a God who would grant you knowledge of God, and who would help you to get past the limitations of your interpretations?
    At least theoretically, can you conceive of this possibility and accept it?


    Worth hearing - based on what set of values?
     
  14. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Okay.
    But we agree that logical thought processes cannot take place without giving them some premises - and that eventually, it all comes down to the premises, right?


    I am assuming you also have a position on what a strong mind is.
    Do tell me more about what a strong mind is like, a strong mind - a mind that does not need God to allay its fear.
     
  15. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    In which case you are amending your concept of God being the authority on God - i.e. allowing Man to be the authority as well.

    Therefore your concept as initially stated is flawed... to the point that even you are amending it.

    Are you still sticking to your original concept?

    Whether they advance understanding or not, and whether they are just empty words relying on irrationality.
    Maybe you base such decisions on whether they dangle a carrot or not? "Listen to me... for I offer a lollipop!"
    :shrug:
     
  16. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Thank you for having the decency to respond.

    By this understanding "perfection" is, that which the individual deams "perfect", which renders the concept of "perfection" pointless.

    jan.
     
  17. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    Which renders the "concept" of any god(s) pointless.
     
  18. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    As I have explained before, the idea of this concept being self-contradictory, has nothing to do with the concept, insofar as it renders the concept, inconceptual. The definition of "concept" is not contingent on varying opinions. The concept of Superman's ability to fly is not contingent upon whether human beings can or cannot fly, or, the idea that there is no scientific evidence to show there is life on other planets.

    The concept of God, can only be based on perfection as there is no other model to base the concept of perfection on, which can be rendered imperfect by some act or other.
    The concept of God is perfect in that there is nothing equal to or greater than God.

    By that understanding, yes. It renders the concept of God, pointless.
    But then what type of person wishes to eat chocolate to point of complete sickness? I would say, a person who has no idea of the results of such actions, a naiive person. If the person continues along this path, then it would be safe to call the person stupid or foolish.

    jan.
     
  19. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    You explained nothing.

    If the "concept" of Superman includes the assumption he always has the ability to fly yet sometimes cannot fly, it is not a concept. If it is assumed he is invulnerable yet can be disabled by Kryptonite, it is not a concept. If it is assumed he never breaks the law ... ... ...

    You have yet to explain your concept. Simply stating that a god is perfect is not proposing a concept. Saying it is perfect because it is the greatest doesn't help.
    If I say "Suppose there is a woman who is a perfect lover", I am not proposing a concept until I explain what all it is that she says, does, or is which means she is a perfect lover.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 29, 2009
  20. Cortex_Colossum Banned Banned

    Messages:
    193
    Perfection is objective. It is also matchless.
     
  21. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    I disagree.


    Perfection is a quality of existance, perfection is not simply god itself, or perhaps you would conclude that it is not a thought itself. It is a quality of existing when presenting information which is entirely weakest, therefore, entirely profoundest. The reason of this is there is nothing superior which is perfect. If this were so we would have an infinite perfect.
     
  22. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    StrangerInAStrangeLa,

    It is, if within that idea, he is susceptible to substances that render him
    unable to fly. That being the case, the "assumption" would be brought into question, not the concept.

    Again, one would question the assumption rather than the concept, as the concept already holds that he is vunerable to kryptonite.

    God is the concept, therefore the explanation.
    If you are not aware of the attributes of the concept, it is not my
    problem, because the concept still holds whether you are aware of it
    or not.

    The concept holds that God is perfect, not me.
    My belief or lack of belief has nothing to do with the concept.

    That makes no sense at all.
    We're discussing "God and defining perfection".
    The title assumes that we have some understanding of both.

    jan.
     
  23. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    It is still my position that God is the authority on God.
    God may grant someone knowledge of God and help that person to get past the limitations of his interpretations - but this does not automatically mean that the extent of God's knowledge about God and man's knowledge about God would be the same.

    It seems that you think that being an authority on knowledge of God is an all or nothing matter; that unless a person knows everything about God, they cannot know what is the necessary knowledge of God.


    Whether they advance the understanding of what?
    And how do you measure whether something is understood (ie. understood correctly) or not?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page