I am free but I am not free to be inert, not free to blindly trust authority, not free to senselessly destroy others and myself, and not free to use others for my own advantage. Why? Because otherwise I would not be able to actualize myself as fully human... — Kind Glowing Seer

The proposition of human free-will does not necessarily mean you are free to perpetrate and do flagrant things. I'll begin to support my statement with nihilism. If a nihilist defines the world as meaningless, subsequently; morality is meaningless as well. Values, virtues, and doing personally-willed good things do not matter.

Humans are rational beings — that rationality drives us to know what is morally right or wrong, hence why we are very indecisive morally, because we weigh different variables in a problem before we decide to do something. Thus moral decision practices like: utilitarianism, contractarianism, and virtue ethics surfaced to the human thinking.

Interestingly, the OP does mention objectivity and subjectivity for morality, it'd be safe to assume that Nietzsche's humanly rationalization drove him to condone nihilism as morally acceptable; it's his subjective view on the world.

That would also mean that nihilism is impossible — for nihilism, he argues, is made to be the: monotony, the true essence of life, life's very sole meaning. Rather than meaningless, meaninglessness is the meaning.

Conclusion

So a nihilist human being, I would think surely, cannot agreeably do immoral things, the nihilist would feel uncomfortable.

So if a human, more comfortably doing immoral things, is not self-actualization, its solely just doing immoral things.

This hypothetical thought experiment might basically, be the reason why British empiricism and mindful rationalism were brought to distinction. Personally, I argue that the 'doginess' of a dog was constructed by our rational capability in the first place. We do not acquire the concept, of what makes a dog - a dog by empirical sense, it is innate. We acquire so by rational thinking — hence why when you see another breed of a dog, you would still understand, as a rational being, that it is indeed, still a dog.

When pioneering humans back then encountered a dog, indeed, our first intuitions would be our sense of: vision, hearing, touch, and although unusual, taste. But comprehending those characteristics, is farther than just merely sensing it. You are able to make a distinction of one breed of a dog to the other, not because of dissimilar characteristics, but of rational thinking; of comprehension. To add, characteristics of a dog are only humanly descriptions, we do not know for sure it's real.

Take it from German philosopher Immanuel Kant; There are two realms of definition in the cosmos. The phenomenal realm ( P ), and the noumenal realm ( N ).

• The cosmos in maximum reality is P+N

• Things in the phenomenal realm are purely consisting of our humanly descriptions. They are what they are subjectively; especially to human beings.

• Things in the noumenal world, are 'things-in-themselves'. They are what they are objectively.

Time and Space, are natural intuitions that cannot be at all sensed. We have the developmental capability to rationalize, which therefore makes us idealize and conceptualize what time and space are really are. They don't have any direct essential nor accidental characteristics, they are by thinking. The reason we know we decay because of time's passage, the reason we know we can't move through a window, is because we are rational beings — we understand concepts that maximize into intuitions and drive our lives.

The paradox however, is the fact that Spinoza in no way shape or form, correlates anything religious/supernatural with this One Substance/God. He even rejects free will as he sees Causality to be included in every process whatsoever.
So why use the word "God", when in fact he is describing what a scientist etc. would see as scientific and rational states/processes of nature. — marcolobo8

Spinoza, who was a rationalist, proposed this belief called substance monism. When you thoroughly think of it, we never really had free will — because a god determined our free will, from there it could get so logically and rationally complex. Entirely, Spinoza did not only define his theory of substance monism to be made out of God, but that the things are filled by God. Everything that defines something or someone essentially or accidentally, God designed that through his substance and willingness to do so. That includes: purpose, characteristics, and so forth. It wasn't only made out of him, it was also because of him.

For example, take a rock. A rock has different characteristics however its purpose is not definitive, as it varies by living interference. Where the rock's purposelessness resides, is where God placed that to be, living interference occurs and then therefore, gives it purpose. Our free will was determined by God, but that's not to say our free will is not much of, free will. So Spinoza did not really reject causality, but merely specified it to be Godly decided — Godly determined. (I would gladly accept if I am wrong. If there is somewhere, Spinoza directly or even indirectly rejects this, I am keen to admit.)

So a scientist = scientist, and a scientist is not God, yet only made out of him.

It seems to me that there really is no clear definition/shared sense of what "God" means. — marcolobo8

I think it is because it wasn't given, what we know of God is only approximate. God, suppose he exists, is infinity. Infinity is a concept, but God is not — since he is infinite, it would be a safe assumption to make, that he is ever-growing. After all, he is: omnitemporal and omnipresent. So like the universe, it is ever-growing, it abides to infinity, but that doesn't mean it isn't somewhat an object.

Is God an actual object of reference which the sign "God" refers to? — marcolobo8

To be consistent, I did say that our knowledge of particularly, God, by biblical and realistic principle, is only approximate. So necessary conditions, which would be a first step to deciding God as a reference or sense, has nothing to do with God. The nomenclature of properties for God is void; there are no intrinsic essential or accidental attributes that observes him. God is indefinable.

Also, the sentence "Abandon benevolence, discard duty, And people will return to the family ties." I find intriguing. What does Lao Tzu want to say with this sentence? Is it that by being (overly) benevolent or dutiful, one may rob another from the incentive to take their own responsibility? — Tzeentch

Personally, I would see it with the reason of motivation, where people are indirectly obliged to help — it is made more of a duty, rather than a moral privilege: like how UK wanted to leave the EU mainly because of the obligations to charity, and not anymore recognized as a passionate, personally willed, action.

By first interpretations, it seems that Lao Tzu defines human nature according to fundamental principles of Confucianism; which is to settle for an ordinary life, and is similar to Diogenes' cynicism.

Lao Tzu appears to follow the attachment theory. It is as it follows;

When human beings are exposed to pleasure, which is inevitable, they develop a need for these outlets of pleasure. These outlets are called; attachments. When human beings are having a need to these attachments, their pursuit of true happiness is disrupted. Only when a person is detached from his humanly cravings, he will then acquire happiness.

Does knowledge lead to arrogance and a false sense of understanding?
Does knowledge cause us to worry about things which have no bearing on our lives?
Does knowledge seek to replace intuition as a method of understanding? — Tzeentch

For knowledge, I think what Lao Tzu implied is not what it is explicitly written. Knowledge, according to the aforementioned attachment theory, may be a form of an outlet for entertainment. The passion for philosophy, or even, a want for any job that requires a capability for knowledge, inclines to having motivations, rather than Maslow's theory of self-actualization. We adhere to philosophy for truth, it's not who we really are.

Final things to add, an example of our motivations to adhere to works that require having knowledge, includes the want of money. Although we understand and limit ourselves to knowing the paramountcy of money rather than the lust of it, the possession of it drives us to do things that are fun, wherein Lao Tzu doesn't believe in. He'd rather live a life with only, just only, our fundamental needs, which can be understood as Maslow's bottom section in his hierarchy of needs..

This is specially true in our religion-soaked world; people are simply numb and deluded with dreams of immortality. It is our noble fight to make others aware of their finitude! — Louco

So philosophers, whom are still religious, are compacted to the finitude and are not capable to know the truth?

Does anyone else here agree with me that such an entity is theoretically logically possible, and therefore, even though I cannot imagine it, the fact that I can describe it with language shows that it, nevertheless, exists somewhere in logical space? — Troodon Roar

I guess I would. As a full-on, practicing theist, I will constantly argue that the intrinsic essential and accidental characteristics of God, which I presume, are undefinable. What we know of God, is approximate, driven from assumptions that still abide to societal, ideological, and logical principles; that could still surprisingly, adhere to a phenomenal god, God.

(the space of logically possible entities or possible worlds, as philosophers talk about)? — Troodon Roar

Although as it seems, God may not be perceivable even if the entire universe was examined, that its infinite concept was studied and conceptualized. There is always the presence of that monotony that God would show evident to you if you accept him — which unsurprisingly, does not convince everybody. So possibly no, God cannot be perceivable in logical prepositions, yet God is omnipresent. An unperceivable existence does not imply a nonexistence.

Okay. Suppose again, the beginning was absolute nothingness - not even nonexistence, not even nothingness. I just used the word nothingness, only to start a concept. Nothing at all, that even nothingness was void.

That includes the existence of logic, logic was not existent nor nonexistent, it was void. Presumably, we agreed that logic is essential to the universe. Analyzing the principles of creation, it is known that if logic was essential to the universe, then it should coexist by it. Likewise, if the universe ceased or did not exist, then logic would not.

So by the universe's creation, logic was planned to be created as well - they happened at the same time, process and product.

In fact, logic cannot be argued by basis of theism because God, as I said, is and was, omnitemporal and omnipresent. Time and space by his creation is tangible to infinity. Perhaps, God designed the universe with a beginning yet still be infinite; constantly expanding yet constantly reducing.

God is also omni-temporal and omnipresent. Concepts of cause and effect and infinity are of different interpretation to him.

If logic was discovered, then is it essential to this god and the universe? That without logic, the universe and the world could not exist?

Damn this is complicated.

The act of creation requires logic. It would require logic to create time. It would require logic to 'create/discover' logic. So logic can't be a creation; it must be a discovery. — Devans99

Great point.

I don't see how you could 'design' logic if logic did not exist. You would not be able to design anything without knowing the difference between right and wrong. — Devans99

See it as the origins of the universe, no, time - no not even that, existence. Existence, if we suppose a god exists, was created by this god. From the very beginning, that even the concepts of nonexistence was void.

We know that existence and nonexistence were two opposites. But their disparity was meaningless as the correlation was absent, one can only live by the presence of the other. The beginning was undefinable. Hence, existence predates logic and mathematics.

(I would point out an oxymoron in this; If existence and nonexistence wasn't there, what was God?)

The beginning, as undefinable, was pure nothingness. Not perceivable, not tangible, not sensible - concepts far from our humanly understanding. Then a god, I personally would suppose, God; created time, logic, step by step to construct universal life - to construct existence and its subsets like logic and mathematics in order for it to stand. God is, of, substance to the entire universe - filled with purpose, design, and conceptual origins that only of him knows.

That whatever greatest, the most awesome thing that you believed to be the completely best, God is greater. God was greater than existence and nonexistence.

For example, its not possible to construct a coherent maths where 1+1!=2, IE maths is invariant - whoever 'creates' it creates exactly the same thing each time... hence it seems 'discovered' is a more appropriate word. — Devans99

It is also probable that God, whom theoretically, designed the universe intellectually in a way that it is infinite. Supposedly, with God's omni-godly capabilities, he should be able to create things intellectually but still abide to the laws of logical possibility. He can't make square-circles or 2-2=7 because he permanently designed logic as well, in a way that is infinite yet understandable to human or more specifically, contingent perspectives. The concept and entirety of mathematics is intellectually designed which can (just can) be evidence for God's existence.

Unsuitable mathematics in particular situations happened due to distinction of logic. God designed the origins of logic purposely by concepts that are known to necessary beings, thus we do not have the capacity to rationalize completely how everything began. We only developed, as sentient and rational beings, to utilise mathematics into our humanly descriptions of the universe, and not it's phenomenal existence — not traceable to the roots and origins of logic, mathematics and the overall structure of the universe.

To begin, I guess we can agree that a god, is necessary and completely superior to beings that are contingent. The earthly possessions consist of contingency. That contingency, relies on it's creator, in this situation, we suppose it's a god.

When we say it is 'a god', we do not know of it, finite or infinite, perceivable or con-substantial, what we know of this god, is approximate. Unambiguously, god created the substance of the cosmos, this god fueled the constant, ongoing, system of time and space.

If mathematics predates the existence of a god, we can assume this god is finite, for there is something greater than his existence. If this god was absent, then the universe would conceivably be absent as well. No god = no universe.

If this god discovered mathematics, he must have used it to create the universe. Therefore, the absence of mathematics would form a conclusion, that without it, there is arguably, no god? but surely, no universe. No Mathematics = No universe, but not necessarily, no god.

So, I personally believe, that God, not only a god, created mathematics and utilised it to construct the cosmos.

God if he exists is a mathematician, but he did not invent maths, he just discovered it. — Devans99

So, Mathematics is an intrinsic theory, therefore already essential to the world, not its descriptions?

Because if you argue that mathematics was not invented, it was infinite, then that unstoppable regress would live by the existence of the cosmos and the world — therefore essential to the universe, to the world.

n religious settings, philosophy is defined a bit differently. It is not about thinking, but it's about what path of religion you're focused on. — Anonymys

Philosophy is all about thinking. Finding truth, like in Buddhism, there is a particular, ideological, and constant proposition that is believed to be the only way to live. That is still from thinking, for without philosophizing, the ideology would not develop.

Which is the correct/better way to live life and expereince a religion? Through a religious pathway or a spiritual one? — Anonymys

One defines truth as absolute, the other unites people. — Anonymys

I don't understand the point here. I disagree. Both, as you define; spiritual and religious pathways, unite people and find absolute ethics, which I would view as morality. Finding a central principle in life is basically asserting to absolute truths, but not assuming one — like what a religion would do. To add, I would personally view 'Absolute truths' as a tautology, truth is absolute in itself, there is no truth that's truthful, unless of course, like a religion, you assume a truth. In contrast, a spiritual life (as you define it) would still consist of organised beliefs, that given, flaws their pursuit of truth.

However, these believed assertions for religion and spirituality of truth are derived with empirical and rational evidence; they are designed to meet conditions that challenge their credibility, so the assumed truth is an acceptable truth — with an exception for technical ramifications.

to philosophize is to create a new standard of living. — Anonymys

To philosophize, honestly, would be more of the process than the truth. You are finding a truth, not creating one. You could revise revolutionary standards, but not create one.

I meant no offense. Just because I stated white supremacy does not mean I think they were the only one to blame. But yes, I accept my mistake, poor choice of words. And yes, you're right — there is no innocent country.

Do you guys think nationalism would have some sort of correlation to white supremacy? I think they are somewhat synonymous. Unobtrusively, it seems that the concept of nationalism was taken of white supremacy: bigotry, unjustified superiority, and prejudiced elitism.

I think it is not unsuitable mathematics, it's unsuitable situations for forms of mathematics (Just a guess out of the blur). You would devise a proper mathematical theorem or formula to solve a problem, not something that couldn't be logically capable to do so.

My bad.

I always viewed acts be prejudiced only if somebody dislikes a person being part of a group. Discrimination; is more likely to be a social phobia as there is an intense, purposeful and deliberate form of hatred towards a group: gender, race, like when you just hate basketball players when you're a soccer player. Discriminatory acts are prejudiced, like how that soccer player is not immersed to basketball culture — he is biased. Discriminatory acts, however, can stand without prejudice. A soccer player can have a reasonable argument like if he was a basketball player before. Being one of that culture/group, the soccer player can argue that basketball is way more tiring etc.

But no, I would not think it is social phobia, because if it were to be a phobia, you are fearful towards societal characteristics of every principle. The concept of society just revolts your mind. The biasedness of prejudiced motivations and beliefs is proof that the person does not dislike every societal characteristics, but only a selected group, and its supporting ideologies.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

-George Santayana

Mostly misunderstood, What Santayana meant to convey is; if nobody finds the significance in history, progress will be neglected and therefore the causes for the problems arisen will most likely happen again.

When patriotic, you understand the progress and you acknowledge the bad and the good things your country has done. When nationalistic, you neglect the progress and believe your country is superior then others are inferior despite any reason. The early gives your love of country a sense of responsibility, the latter is unjustified arrogance, bigotry, and false superiority.

Mathematics is essential to the world. The computer I am using, the internet, and even the sound it projects. The algorithm running by binary, it is obvious that the world revolves around Mathematics. But, if the bayesian theorem is not flawed, then my argument should be entirely wrong.

I argued, that there is no epistemic justification behind 50/50 — which is used as a starting basis towards whether the universe was created, or not. Adding to that, I also argued that mathematics does not have the capacity to comprehend knowledge in epistemological, metaphysical, and theological territory. That mathematics needs to be accompanied with rational thinking.

1+1=2. In that statement, the '1's are the assumed terms. The result (2) cannot be changed unless the former terms, or assumptions are altered. If these assumed terms are taken from no where, then it does not make any sense. It can be empirical, when I say I hold 1 pencil on both my hands, thus I have 2 pencils, then there is empirical sense. It can be rational, when 1 does not have a value in the real world to start, thus requires adding value into 1; there has to be a basis why things began with 1.

So, is mathematics just as powerful to things that require rational reasoning? Please educate me.

Would it still be reliable, when you need rational thinking?

If so, how?

I don't really understand how Mathematics could just define absolutely everything. Please educate me.

In what way, is Baye's theorem flawed?

100% it's the case that there's no evidence of a God, not to mention that the very idea of it is absurd/incoherent. — Terrapin Station

Not really the reason why 50/50 as a mathematical proposition is right, but in epistemic justification is wrong.

Possibility is different from probability. Remember that. It's fair for both extremes because there is no evidence to disprove a god, only theories. There is also no evidence to prove a god, only ideologies that are reinforced with compromising logic and semantics.

That constant argument that has been ongoing since the ancient times is monotonous because evidence is scarce for both sides. Therefore, starting at 50/50 is just as random as 100/0; just because 50 represents one extreme, which is definitely logical, does not make it 50% possible.

I have been saying this over and over again. The capacity for the Philosophy of Mathematics to comprehend metaphysical and epistemological rudiments is logically capable, but you're in the territory where both empirical evidence and rational thinking is required. Mathematics does not have the capacity to calculate the existence of a god, it does not have epistemic justification behind the 50/50 assumption.

If you think about what your mind would do in a court case as you are presented with evidence, subconsciously it would perform a similar process: blood on the shirt so that makes him a little more likely guilty, prints on the knife so that makes him a lot more likely and so on. — Devans99

Yes, you are correct.

Even if we had a deductive proof demonstrating creation of the universe; would anyone 100% trust it? The first cause argument is meant to be that; it uses only cause and effect as an argument, yet not many people place 100% trust in it. So even in the presence of a deductive proof, there would still be a need for a meta-analysis to combine the evidence from the deductive proof with other available (empirical etc...) evidence. — Devans99

Mathematician and Philosopher Edmund Husserl, proposed that although science aspires to find certainty in the cosmos - using empirical evidence (observations and data) subjects to biased assumptions. Experience, by itself is not science. In synergy, it requires rational thinking.

Mathematics does not rely on empirical evidence, it is full of assumptions to reach a conclusion. To identify something out of terms, it is a rational process. If you make a mathematical statement with terms that came from assumptions, it taints the certainty of the result you acquire. Husserl believed that having assumptions compromise philosophical investigation; this belief is called Phenomenology.

There has to be a reason why you argue something, not a 50/50 beginning.

Once you get beyond 1+1=2 nearly everything we know, we know inductively. — Devans99

A mathematical statement is permanent, it cannot be tweaked unless it's former terms are altered. The creation of the universe isn't, so sometimes deductive argument is needed to create an epistemological conclusion; a conclusion that is not driven by mathematical principle, but by rational reasoning.

Say there was blood on his shirt. We might say that makes it 25% likely (on its own) that the accused is guilty. — Devans99

That's the problem. You suppose 25% defines the blood stain on the shirt, that doesn't mean it creates a definitive number if it makes up 25%. You particularly, used the word might, just implies it's completely arbitrary, you just used your intuition to tweak it's percentage for proving he is the murderer.

I don't believe the reason you mentioned, is an epistemic, it's logical, but not epistemic.

What you always identify to as an epistemic involves the presence and utilization of numbers and statistics. That alone, is pure evidence that an epistemic is absent, as we are looking for an answer without numbers, without involving statistics. It should not involve statistics as we, I assume, have agreed that the characteristics of the mathematical statement only extrapolates the logic behind the mathematical statement for the origins of the universe — not the reason behind that statement.

Just for you to see, I am a theist. Like; a theist who's beliefs revolve around faith.

Do you believe, that it is logically possible, to comprehend the origin of the universe, solely by statistical calculations?

Thats not what I'm arguing for. I'm saying 'was the universe created?', that is not the same question as 'Is there a God?'. I think the 2nd is not a 50/50 proposition if you include attributes like omnipotence in your definition of God. — Devans99

So, you are saying the creation of the universe can be, not of a god? okay, fair enough. That helps my point, it can be of the existence of God, Allah, or the flying spaghetti monster that the universe was created, if it wasn't, then it could be The Big Bang, or the causation of nothingness, or over a million more ideas that are not idealized by human concepts.

Yes there is epistemic justification. If you truly have no evidence either way then you have to assume 50/50. If I were to toss a coin 100 times, what would you assume the outcome would be? The best assumption, in the absence of any other evidence, is 50 heads / 50 tails. I fail to see how you can argue otherwise. — Devans99

No there isn't. You're simply gathering two things and therefore making it 50/50 because logically, 100 split to two certain possibilities are two, hence 50. But no, those possibilities are not certain as there will be over a million possibilities that the human brain has not even thought of.

You can toss a coin a hundred times, because both possibilities are given, whereas the creation or non-creation of the universe is not. The fact that the concrete, perceivable state of a coin is given, also provides it's epistemic justification; it's presence to the human eye straightforwardly confirms that there are only two possibilities, and then you can count on numbers. For the universe's origin, there is not, hence the conclusion; your mathematical statement has no epistemic justification.

If the distribution of cases is low, what makes it different to the existence of a god? Two completely different viewpoints that could explain the reason and purpose of everything tangible and perceivable in the universe and even the beginning of time, is not?

It just doesn't make any sense anymore. There is no epistemic justification behind the 50/50 argument of God's existence, you have confused probability, from possibility. Even shortening it to just an existence of an entity, the chances of both sides are incredibly small, yet then the case of gold distributed is the small chance factor here?

The philosophy of mathematics does not have the capacity to portray the concepts of metaphysics or epistemology. You simply can't calculate the beginning of the universe by starting at 50/50 with no epistemic justification and having a basis solely because there are two factors.

So far as I am concerned you may believe what you like. Why not leave it at that? — tim wood

I agree with him. Really. More than one person thinks your calculations are flawed; and I know conforming to utilitarian principles is not always right, but this time it might be.

how else would you perform a meta-analysis for proposition X when you have inductive statements A, B and C that each tell you something about the truth of X. — Devans99

That's the thing, you don't conduct an equation for the existence of a god. It's not two marbles with three factors telling a truth about them that predominantly adjusts their truthfulness. It's two extreme suppositions that are infinitesimally possible.

Analyse it this way, if it's 50/50 for both suppositions or; extremes, then it is also 50/50 for me to walk down the street, and encounter a case of gold, or I do not. The epistemic justification behind that for it to make sense is if someone called me to walk down that street, and mentions he will leave a case or not; but obviously, it is worth the risk. Therefore it is logically 50/50 then your mathematical statement can come to execution.

If your starting point, despite they're equidistant, is arbitrary because like what you admitted, philosophically questionable as it doesn't consist of epistemic justification; it also flaws the entire analysis. Your tower won't stand if the logic of structure is proper in the beginning — if not it will collapse. Mathematically, it might make sense, but by the principles of philosophy, it won't.

which branch of Christianity do you indicate? for surely, the pastor's role will definitely be selective towards their audience. They choose a particular audience, they have particular teachings — they are a particular group.

I think possibly, the stereotypical religion is reflected by their believed distinction. The one that creates wars and disagreement, but hey, that's all religions right? I mean ironically, their self distinction conveys bigotry and superficial elitism, they are disagreeing with what people think; they are inadvertently showing they are a religion.

Do you understand what we're saying though?

no bias at all for/against the proposition. — Devans99

Mathematically, that may be true. But philosophically, it is questionable.

Starting at any value would be completely arbitrary, wouldn't it? — Terrapin Station

I guess (Just an educated guess, I could be entirely wrong) what he is saying is the confusion of potentials and the philosophy of Mathematics. You're not picking two stones from a bag, it is two sides that are completely different, principals and beliefs. I mean if that 50/50 analogy to if not a god exists, then I also have 50/50 chance of walking down the street encountering a box of gold, or not at all.

The capacity of the philosophy of Mathematics to calculate possibility is logically capable, but by the rudimentary laws of: Metaphysics, Theology, and Epistemology, it just cant.

I assure you, you will be.

Oh and by the way, my argument for God will be posted as a discussion. I will select more arguments as per needed, I have a few below my sleeve :lol:.

What do you see as the most compelling reason for supposing a god exists? — Frank Apisa

I mean, I could just blurt out faith but then that wouldn't make any sense, philosophically, would it?

To me the most compelling reason is just our plain existence. I have hold unto the theory of intellectual design but I have altered a few things to, I suppose, make it better. The theory is as it follows;

Some humans practice idealism, the constant pursuit of perfection — perfection however; varies dependently on the human's vision. Our view of perfection, is a contingent perspective, whilst God's view on perfection, is necessary. That necessity conforms to the principle that how God or generally, a god designed the universe: the rocks, the trees, or even far greatly, the universe, is perfect. That perfection is tainted by human delusions, thus, moral evil like: Starvation, Corruption, Greed and whatnot, start to appear because of the pursuit of perfection.