• Echogem222
    82
    Before I begin my explanation, I need to introduce 2 words I came up with myself that is related to this discussion. Though the first word sort of already exists, the second word is related to the first word, but doesn't really exist (at least I've never been able to find it):

    First word, Non-Applicable Existence (noun):

    Definition: An existence that is not relevant or applicable to a particular context or situation.

    Second word, Less Than Non-Applicable Existence (noun)

    Definition: A hypothetical state of existence that is so insignificant and irrelevant to a particular context or situation that it cannot be distinguished from not being there at all. It denotes a level of existence that is so minimal that it has no practical or observable impact on the world or any system.

    More detailed explanation: Try thinking about it this way, there could be an object that you will never think about, but that doesn't mean that object that you will never think about isn't a real thing, it just means that you'll never think about it.

    +++

    A non-applicable existence is something which exists, but not in whatever is applicable to you at that given time, in other words, you don't understand how it could apply in that situation since it lacks an applicable existence.

    Less than non-applicable existence is an existence which not only you don't understand as being an applicable existence in a certain context, but you also can't understand how it would be an applicable existence in other situations since you have not yet gained awareness of it.

    In other words, all types of nothing are simply non-understanding in certain contexts. You could have 3 oranges and 1 apple, and the 1 apple would be impossible to be understood as being an orange in that situation. But because we're not just understanding oranges in that situation, is why we can understand the nature of the apple. But say we only had understanding of oranges, and we could not understand apples at all, we then wouldn't have any awareness of the apple, and instead we would only understand there being 3 oranges.

    In the same sense, we could all have been created by something that we have no awareness of, which would be nothing to us, therefore, nothing creating everything is reasonable given that we currently lack the means to say otherwise using logical reasoning.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.3k
    In the same sense, we could all have been created by something that we have no awareness of, which would be nothing to us, therefore, nothing creating everything is reasonable given that we currently lack the means to say otherwise using logical reasoning.Echogem222

    You are overloading the word 'nothing' to also mean 'having no understanding, having no awareness of', so it is that you are saying it is reasonable that we don't know how we became. A person blind in a primary color could use some wave frequency instrument to learn more about a color not registering.

    As an aside, we do know how we and all the other temporaries were created, via instruments and math, yet it's true that we can't be aware of noumena directly nor if there is more that we can't get at in any way, say, something that can't exchange energy, which, of course thus has no effect whatsoever.
  • Mww
    4.7k
    …..it just means that you'll never think about it.Echogem222

    If it is the case to think just is the employment of the faculty of understanding, then the negation would be necessarily true, in that to not think is to not employ that faculty. So it isn’t so much a lack of understanding, which implies an attempt, but rather, understanding, with respect to this certain thing, is never even brought to bear.
    ————

    we could all have been created by something that we have no awareness of, which would be nothing to us, therefore, nothing creating everything is reasonableEchogem222

    This could only be justified by changing “nothing creating everything” to nothing to us creating everything. Otherwise, there is something that creates us but nothing creating everything, a blatant contradiction.

    Or so it seems…..
  • Echogem222
    82
    This is a thread about the religion Flawlessism. If you actually knew that religion you would know that your argument has no basis because of what I'm referencing to. If you don't know what Flawlessism is then don't comment.
  • Echogem222
    82


    This could only be justified by changing “nothing creating everything” to nothing to us creating everything. Otherwise, there is something that creates us but nothing creating everything, a blatant contradiction.

    Or so it seems…..
    Mww

    Yes, "seems" is correct, the issue here is that you clearly don't know anything about the religion Flawlessism which is what my post was about, meaning you misunderstood the context of the argument. In other words, you used the straw person argument.
  • Mww
    4.7k
    ….you clearly don't know anything about the religion Flawlessism…..Echogem222

    Nor do I have to, in order to argue the philosophy of its ground.
  • Echogem222
    82


    You can argue however you want, but if you don't understand the correct context, all you're doing is using the straw person argument. In other words, wasting my time.
  • Relativist
    2.2k
    This is a thread about the religion Flawlessism. If you actually knew that religion you would know that your argument has no basis because of what I'm referencing to. If you don't know what Flawlessism is then don't comment.Echogem222

    You defined Flawlessism (over here) as a "philosophical religion rooted in the belief that life holds a perfectly good and meaningful purpose."

    I guess you would say that "having a meaningful purpose" makes it applicable to us (it's we who have a purpose, apparently), however the mere fact that it would be applicable doesn't establish a purpose as having actual existence.

    You go on to say, "Flawlessism encourages rational thinking and critical inquiry. We believe that by seeking wisdom, examining our experiences, and embracing educated critical thinking, we can better understand the nature of the Flawless Good and its implications in our lives."
    I have rationally concluded that purpose is not an existent, nor is it a property of any existents. Rather, it is a personification of an intellectional/emotional motivation to achieve something.
  • Echogem222
    82
    That was a vague description of Flawlessism, meant as a short introduction, not enough to understand Flawlessism in regard to the post in this thread.
  • Relativist
    2.2k
    It's more of a description than you've given in this thread. Do you, or don't you, depend on the assumption that "purpose" exists?
  • Echogem222
    82
    Yes in regard to all of Flawlessism remaining as all of Flawlessism, but this post is not dependent on that aspect of Flawlessism. As I explained before, you're not understanding the context correctly. Look, you don't have to respond to this post. Don't know what Flawlessism is? Fine, don't comment pretending you know what you're talking about.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.