Friday, September 23, 2016
Not existing is an imperfection? (5th post; H3)
Does it make sense to even ask if one thinks not existing is an imperfection? How could anything be imperfect that does not exist? In order to be considered perfect or not, something must first exist. If I deemed that unicorns were imperfect because they did not exist, how would I know that? I would only be able to use my imagination to consider whether or not a unicorn is imperfect for not existing and thus I could imagine it as an amazing creature who, though while amazing, never had a chance to exist; or I could conclude that it does not exist because it is imperfect. Besides, let’s face the facts. Are humans perfect? No. Yet, do we exist? Yes, duh. So riddle me this, if imperfection has to do with not existing, then why do we as humans exist despite the fact that we are ourselves imperfection? Also, in class a point was brought up about whether or not it is acceptable to philosophize about something if you already know what your conclusion will be. The simple answer has to be yes. Most humans already have their conclusion the moment they start philosophizing and that is not a bad thing. For instance, I am a Christian, so is it wrong that whether I am asked questions about God’s existence or questions about sin that I will always conclude God exists no matter what? No, because that is a part of my faith. On the other hand, I won’t immediately stop listening to someone who has a different belief than me, but I won’t relinquish my faith or belief in God when we come to conclusion. Furthermore, I don’t think it makes sense or is even possible to fully separate faith and philosophy.