The science behind homosexuality
-
How is the notion of perfection "plural"? :angel2: :pope:
Because it's an abstract concept prone to personal defenition, we as humans are biased by our existence in a society or enviromnent… and mostly is that biased view that presents us the perception of perfection... even if one argue the scientifical aproach that humans are naturally affectionated towards symetry, someone might point than that is only our biological drive choosing a good partner for survival. We are fundamentally stuck to our existence to reach a total defenition of most complex abstract concepts. :cheers: (Example: we can overall think that perfect is when everything is well done, however that is not perfection, since well done changes in personal perspectives according to personal criteria, so the singular universal perception is never of perfection per se but of a proxy)
-
See Plato and the Forms. Perfection exists in an absolute sense, i.e., the perfect circle r^2 = x^2 + y^2. The perfect circle can never be drawn but it does indeed exist.
We call both the sky and blue jeans by the same color, blue. However, clearly a pair of jeans and the sky are not the same color; moreover, the wavelengths of light reflected by the sky at every location and all the millions of blue jeans in every state of fading constantly change, and yet we somehow have a consensus of the basic form Blueness as it applies to them. Says Plato.
But if the very nature of knowledge changes, at the time when the change occurs there will be no knowledge, and, according to this view, there will be no one to know and nothing to be known: but if that which knows and that which is known exist ever, and the beautiful and the good and every other thing also exist, then I do not think that they can resemble a process of flux, as we were just now supposing.
No one has ever seen a perfect circle, nor a perfectly straight line, yet everyone knows what a circle and a straight line are. Plato utilizes the tool-maker's blueprint as evidence that Forms are real.
-
But people aren't just forms! We are so many others things!
And the Plato's theory is kinda lame in a way… Perfect circle according to who?
I mean, i can present you a perfect chair. It will be perfect to me cause it would answer everything i want from a chair but to you it can be ridiculous or ugly...Perfection is based on perception. Which is interpreted by the brain. Therefor, it can't be only one perception of the perfection since all brains doesn't work/apprehend things the same way. Even on the forms basis.
Ex : For some people their brains can't understand form and as much as they're genuine when things are in 2D they get lost and confused in 3D. They could look at the "perfect" cube and still find it disturbing or even, in the worst cases, can't understand how it differs from a square...
Plus, if i wanted to be of bad faith... Perfection means literraly "what is achieved totally". The word wasn't meant to describe a tangible thing nor a human being.
-
But people aren't just forms! We are so many others things!
And the Plato's theory is kinda lame in a way… Perfect circle according to who?
That is not an empirical argument by the way. At least contribute something thoughtful. Using the word "lame" without actually scientifcally refuting something is "lame". :cheerup: :angel2:
-
You are using a simple abstract concept not a complex one, the circle and straight line or vector is only a proxy of perfection, an example, it does not define the totality of it… that is why it's philosophy and not science, and you prove me right by giving exemples since you need plural examples to try to reach it, further and this is non related, a straight line cannot exist in our dimensional universe (iconic idealism right there)
-
That is not an empirical argument by the way. At least contribute something thoughtful. Using the word "lame" without actually scientifcally refuting something is "lame". :cheerup: :angel2:
A theory that can't be demonstrated and told as one of the greatest law of universe when it's just up to the way someone saw it it's LAME
Btw, even Plato himself said that this "perfect" circle can be achieved only in our mind. In reality close enough is good enough. Basically the perfect circle theory means you can dream about perfection, see it in your mind but in the reality you will never achieved it.
Perhaps trying to achieve perfection is a way of non accepting what you don't like about yourself. It may seem reassuring to believe Science can/will be able to change you the way you want it but accepting that a human being can't be perfect and must assume and live with his defaults is also part of growing up. It's also an important part of therapy 'cause not being able to accept what/who you are shows some psychological troubles.
-
because that's the way i was made?
-
That is not an empirical argument by the way. At least contribute something thoughtful. Using the word "lame" without actually scientifcally refuting something is "lame". :cheerup: :angel2:
A theory that can't be demonstrated and told as one of the greatest law of universe when it's just up to the way someone saw it it's LAME
Btw, even Plato himself said that this "perfect" circle can be achieved only in our mind. In reality close enough is good enough. Basically the perfect circle theory means you can dream about perfection, see it in your mind but in the reality you will never achieved it.
Perhaps trying to achieve perfection is a way of non accepting what you don't like about yourself. It may seem reassuring to believe Science can/will be able to change you the way you want it but accepting that a human being can't be perfect and must assume and live with his defaults is also part of growing up. It's also an important part of therapy 'cause not being able to accept what/who you are shows some psychological troubles.
Those who do not embrace technological marvels, will be left behind by them.
-
Those who do not embrace technological marvels, will be left behind by them.
Well I prefer to be left behind then to start thinking the way you do. Such reasoning is part of what is wrong in our century!
You can put your belief in Science if you want but others can believe what they want without being "threaten" to be left behind or worse (like you kinda insinuated in an older post).
The more I read you the more your reasoning makes me think you are a somehow Hitler and just that seems wrong to me…
I think you've real problems... The kind that needs a therapist. And if I were you, i'd go see one soon.
From now on i'll simply ignore your post since it's impossible to debate with you. I wish you a good year and a good life and I really hope you get some help.
-
It is not an insinuated threat, it is a simple fact. Currently, older people who have shunned technology have paid for it because they may have been passed over for promotions and the like. Society will move forward with or without you. The world stops for no man. It is not that technology is inherently good or bad, unless you make it so. If you choose to shun technology, then that is your prerogative. That does not mean other will choose to do the same. People used to think that in vitro fertilization is playing God, now it is common place. Why do you think some adults are taking these "remedial" computer classes such as how to use Excel and Word? It is not because they really want to. It is because they need to do so in order to survive in the workplace. I reiterate, those who do not embrace it, will be left behind by it because it is an ever increasing part of society.