Flawlessism, a new religion (within the past year)

[Echogem222]

Deleted.

 

[Thomas]

None that I know of.

I find it somewhat telling that someone who professes an ignorance regarding the history of philosophy then declares they've invented a new one. The inherent contradiction is obvious, even if you can't see it.

But as I did explain, if Plato had understood that formal logic was flawed ...

How do you know he didn't?

... then I would already know about that, but he clearly didn't.

Why would you know, if you're ignborant of his philosophy, and philosophy generally?

// You, yourself, said you thought it was the same thing ...

No, I said if it is, why rebrand it? As you don't know what Platonism is ... you think you've come up with something new.

No, I'm making an estimated guess based on what you said, and it doesn't really matter to me either way.

You're happy in your ignorance?

You're not really convincing me your 'philosophy' is worth a moment of my time ...

I have used ChatGPT to check if there are any other religions/beliefs/philosophy/etc. that are even remotely similar to Flawlessism, and came up with nothing.

Where every serious researcher turns ...

Does ChatGPT know everything? No, I've checked, but it still knows a lot.

LOL

However, I've also done research on my own and came up with nothing. Yes, there have been beliefs/philosophy/etc. that have similarities to parts of Flawlessism, but nothing that would make it the same as Flawlessism.

No, I really don't think you have ... or rather ... look harder, because I find nothing new or original in what you've said ...

 

[juantoo3]

Infinity, negative numbers, positive numbers, etc, are real mathematical concepts in mathematics, which is what we are talking about. Infinity is not something that can be demonstrated in the natural world of reality, yet you're debating with me about how infinity works.
+++
If you had 3 apples but you lost them, then that would mean a negative effect of -3 caused you to lose them. Can you see that -3 effect like you could the 3 apples? No, but you can know the effects of -3.

Negative numbers are imaginary. Negative numbers are mathematical philosophy, while in the world of reality you cannot demonstrate negative numbers - because they do not exist in reality. So negative infinity is a vacuous concept. It only makes sense within the confines of mathematical philosophy, outside of mathematical philosophy the concept is meaningless.

 

[Echogem222]

Deleted.

 

[Echogem222]

Deleted.

 

[juantoo3]

That's your subjective opinion, one I have no reason to believe. Have a nice day.

Then you should be able to demonstrate by showing conclusive, objective evidence that negative 3 apples exist. I'd love to see a picture of them.

 

[Echogem222]

Deleted.

 

[juantoo3]

I understand very well what you are saying, you are not reflecting on what understanding is being presented to you.

You, by your admission, are starting a new religion based on AI and video games, and you want buy in from others. Do you think for a moment there won't be others with even more difficult questions than mine?

Or are you looking to recruit a bunch of mindless drones to fall in line behind you in lockstep?

I don't believe you've studied much at all...philosophy, religion, science, there are so many basic elements of each you are ignoring or attempting to rewrite, without any basis to build from. So I'm right back at Mr Rogers and Captain Kangaroo, at least they deal with the real world.

And I'm having a glorious day, thank you! I wish you the same!

 

[RJM]

Imaginary numbers are an essential tool for quantum physicists, and the result is the James Webb space telescope and the internet devices we use to communicate, imo

 

[Thomas]

At this point I'm just going to assume that you're trolling me.

Because I ask questions?

I mean, you should know if I'm right or wrong, yet you're not saying that at all –

I'm not saying right or wrong, I'm saying unoriginal, and better said by others before you.

... you're saying that I'm wrong as a subjective opinion, without evidence.

Not me, chum, I've offered the evidence – the Philosophers. Plato's Republic – you're the one assuming in ignorance of the evidence.

... to the degree you need to in order to have an educated opinion ...

Excuse me. You're proposing a new philosophy based on an uneducated opinion (in fact complete ignorance) of previous philosophies ... so please do not assume to lecture me.

... Yes, I do strive to learn more every day, and I will at some point learn more about philosophy than I currently do ...

Good. Then I suggest you hold back on your own ideas until you're checked those of your predecessors.

And I'd refrain from insulting people simply because they don't buy what you're pushing.

 

[juantoo3]

Imaginary numbers are an essential tool for quantum physicists, and the result is the James Webb space telescope and the internet devices we use to communicate, imo

I didn't say imaginary numbers were not useful. Philosophically they are useful. But they do not exist in reality. Trying to explain something in reality with philosophical imaginings...good grief, the world is full of that already, why do we need more?

Which leads to another question, what's in this religion for me? What do I get out of it? What does this religion DO for me?

 

[Echogem222]

Deleted.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

It seems you don't understand what reality is, reality is everything within human comprehension, it's outside of human comprehension which is outside of reality. Infinity is not fully within human comprehension, but it's within human comprehension enough to be inside of reality, "greater than infinite" is not within human comprehension at all, so it's outside of reality.

Flawlessism is all about being able to have hope without trusting someone else that they're right. There is no history you must trust actually happened, or some word the Gods are claimed to approve of. This is why everyone in Flawlessism is their own leader. Flawlessism being explained by me just makes it faster for people to understand this possibility.

This just furthers my critique of your Flawlessism . . .

Reality is what we perceive to be real, there is no underlying true reality that exists independently of perception. The only way we are capable of knowing reality is through the mediation of our consciousness - that is, subjectively. We experience our own consciousness directly, but we cannot directly experience the consciousness of someone else. We can only infer their consciousness from their behaviors. Conceptual thought begins from the pure, unsupported apprehension of one’s conscious self as an existential reality: the ba of ancient Egypt, the psyche of the Greeks, the Golden Flower of the Tao.

Plato developed a two-layer view of reality, the World of Becoming and the World of Being. The World of Becoming is the physical world we perceive through our senses. This world is always in movement, always changing. The World of Being is the world of forms, or ideas, the Platonic First Forms, and the Egyptian Neteru. It is absolute, independent, and transcendent. The World of Being never changes and yet causes the essential nature of things we perceive in the world of Becoming.

Perception of reality is different for each individual and reality is not what we see with naked eyes. Standing in front of a tree, you and I can see different things. And we don’t even know what is real and what is not — our conscious and unconscious mind present a version of reality to us.

 

[RJM]

Plato developed a two-layer view of reality, the World of Becoming and the World of Being. The World of Becoming is the physical world we perceive through our senses. This world is always in movement, always changing. The World of Being is the world of forms, or ideas, the Platonic First Forms, and the Egyptian Neteru. It is absolute, independent, and transcendent. The World of Being never changes and yet causes the essential nature of things we perceive in the world of Becoming

Bingo.

The I Ching developed it long before Plato. The eternal, unchanging (earlier heaven) Spirit world weaving the impermanent, ever-changing (later heaven) world of nature, imo

https://www.labirintoermetico.com/09IChing/Wilhelm_R_The_I_Ching_or_Book_of_Changes_(abriged).pdf

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Flawlessism is more of a philosophy than a religion, but it's still a religion.

Flawlessism is restricted to 18+, not because it's required, but because that's just a part of the way Flawlessism is taught. It's possible that someone under that age could end up believing in it, but believers are encouraged not to teach it to people under that age.

For those of you that just want to dive headfirst into learning about Flawlessism rather than reading this short summary, you can do so on Reddit, where there's a Subreddit called: r/GoodAndEvilReligion (It's restricted to 18+ because of the reason I just explained above). As for why people under that age are discouraged from believing in Flawlessism is because it's also taught that to have faith in a positive way, educated critical thinking is needed, and personal experiences are discouraged. People who are under 18 generally have less experience and knowledge than people above 18, which makes their critical thinking skills lacking due to having less knowledge (This is just in general though, it's not meant to be a perfect way of doing things for everyone in every possible situation, it's just meant to try and prevent indoctrination as much as possible).

The core belief of Flawlessism is that a Flawless good exists, which is a good so perfect, it cannot be understood as evil (undesirable), in any way. This is just a belief though, something to have faith in exists without knowing. Now, you might be wondering what educated critical thinking has to do with such a belief that requires faith in such a way, and the answer to that has to do with how faith in Flawlessism occurs. In order to even have faith in the Flawless good, it must be understood how such a thing is even possible. And the explanation of how Flawlessism is possible is where educated critical thinking is needed to develop such an explanation in a reasonable to believe in way. Philosophy is used to explain the Flawless good, and you might think that you can't get an entire religion (which has reasonability for people to believe in) just by doing that, but that's where you'd be wrong, because that is what has been done, and the results speak for themselves.

Flawlessism is not a belief which is set in stone, only the core faith that a Flawless good exists is set in stone (unless such a thing is disproven as being possible, then the entire religion would have to be discarded because it wouldn't be something people could believe in anymore). Many times, errors have been made which have been found out and fixed, this can be done in a reasonable way because Flawlessism is founded with Philosophy, not a claimed Divine source (like a claimed prophet or something). But it's also because Flawlessism can change like that is why educated critical thinking is so strongly encouraged, so people can understand why the error that was fixed was an error or be able to debate that it's not an error if they understand that being the case. There is no individual leader in Flawlessism, everyone is taught to be their own leader. As for the founder of Flawlessism, that would be myself, and no one else (which isn't something that can change because it's just history at this point).

I'm making this post thread so people can at least have a general idea of what Flawlessism is since "I" (as a believer in Flawlessism) am taking part in this online community.

How does the axiomatic assumption that a "Flawless Good" exists influence
- your attitude toward your environment (neighbours, society, nature)?
- your way of thinking?
- your actions?

 

[talib-al-kalim]

No... you would have infinity minus one.

Alternately one would have to be added from "nowhere" in order to retain infinity, so nothing was actually subtracted in order to stay at infinity.

I have this argument with mathematicians that want to add to infinity. If infinity already has all possible, there is nothing more to add...hence there is nothing available to add to balance the detraction of infinity minus one. So infinity minus one is *almost but not quite* infinity. But it is NOT still infinity.

The mathematical infinity is a not-a-number term which may only be converted into a numerical or logical result by a limited number of operations, the most important one being 1/inf = 0. In particular, inf = inf is neither true nor false (no logic result) and inf/inf is not a valid numerical result. These rules can be proven. If you have a term inf-1, the result obeys exactly the same rules as inf, so that it is mathematically correct to set inf-1 = inf.

 

[Thomas]

The core belief of Flawlessism is that a Flawless good exists, which is a good so perfect, it cannot be understood as evil (undesirable), in any way.

Plato offered this in his 'Forms' – the Form or Idea of the Good being exemplary.

In order to even have faith in the Flawless good, it must be understood how such a thing is even possible.

Yes. Parmedides (c5th century BC) proposed the ontology of being, Plato took it up, as did Aristotle, Augustine, end on.

So we have the 'Transcendals', properties of being, notably 'Truth, Unity, Goodness and Beauty', which in themselves are common to all being, but cannot be traced back to something prior..

And the explanation of how Flawlessism is possible is where educated critical thinking is needed to develop such an explanation in a reasonable to believe in way.

That is what philosophy is.

Philosophy is used to explain the Flawless good, and you might think that you can't get an entire religion (which has reasonability for people to believe in) just by doing that, but that's where you'd be wrong, because that is what has been done, and the results speak for themselves.

If you knew Plato, and the Greeks, you'd realise this was 'religion' to them.

Plotinus and Porphyry speak of divine emanations:
To Hen (τό ἕν), The One: Deity without quality. Sometimes called The Good.
Nous (Νοῦς), Mind: Universal onsciousness, from which proceeds
Psyche[/i (Ψυχή), Soul Including both individual and world soul, leading finally to
Physis (Φύσις), Nature.

Plotinus urged contemplation for those who wished to perform theurgy, the goal of which is union with the Divine henosis.

... only the core faith that a Flawless good exists is set in stone

Well it's an abstract philosophical concept which can be a hypothesised, but not proven. You cannot prove the existence of the transcendentals.

You cannot prove philosophical absolutes.

And an ontological belief that all goods derive from a singular, superlative, abstract Good, is likewise questionable, and only accepted as a matter of faith.

There are thing that are said to be good.
There are things that are said to be red
But there is not a 'red-as-such' which exists in and of itself, the ontological source of all redness in all things.

 

[juantoo3]

It seems you don't understand what reality is,

Still waiting for you to show me negative 3 apples...

It seems I've got a much firmer grasp of reality than you do.

 

[juantoo3]

The mathematical infinity is a not-a-number term which may only be converted into a numerical or logical result by a limited number of operations, the most important one being 1/inf = 0. In particular, inf = inf is neither true nor false (no logic result) and inf/inf is not a valid numerical result. These rules can be proven. If you have a term inf-1, the result obeys exactly the same rules as inf, so that it is mathematically correct to set inf-1 = inf.

philosophically true.

not so in reality. <shrug>

 

[juantoo3]

Flawlessism is all about being able to have hope without trusting someone else that they're right.

Hope in what, exactly? Hope I'll get a raise at work? Hope the bald tire on my car doesn't blow out before then? Hope in what??? How does believing in this new religion give me hope in....<insert big blank here>?

Are you not asking us to trust that you are right in this? You are certainly someone else to me, and you are very much asking me to believe you are right.

The logic is very flawed, unless the words used have newly invented definitions. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...