Quote:
Originally Posted by Illuminated One
@Squirrelloid
I disagree about that. I like people and things that are not perfect.
The good parts/traits/days are worth the bad ones => I like it.
|
Warning! Logic Fail!
claim '!Perfect' =/=> !Like
My claim was:
Only !Like => claim '!Perfect'
I did state them in the opposite order, but that's clearly my intended causality. But we start out knowing the consequent (that someone has claimed the world isn't perfect) and are trying to derive meaning from that statement (ie, by trying to figure out why it was claimed in the first place). Someone who likes the world isn't going to claim its not perfect, regardless of their beliefs on perfection.
So if you *like* it because its not perfect, you're wholly not covered by my reasoning.
---------
Quote:
Perfect => bad parts don't exists and there are no parts missing.
This should be definition enough.
|
This is not an acceptable definition.
What do you mean by 'there are no parts missing'? What parts could be/are missing from reality?
What do you mean by 'bad parts don't exist'? Bad to whom and for what?
I mean, there are clearly no 'parts missing', because reality is reality. Its exactly what it is. (Law of identity) What could we possibly mean by 'parts missing'? But not only do you ask for 'no parts missing', you also ask for 'bad parts to not exist'. =><=!!! If some parts don't exist, then they'd be missing, wouldn't they? (whatever that means...)
Would you like to try again, and define perfection in a way that doesn't use value judgements or contradicts itself?
--------
Omniziron:
Is your claim then that reality is not perfect because it contains sets which are not well-orderable?
You realize one cannot have a perfect circle in a world which contained nothing but orderable sets... =)