The Concept Problem, Part I: The Rule of Agreement

Ok this is the second major post, and I am kind of annoyed that i posted the introductory thing last week because the whole idea is actually a lot simpler than I first anticipated, only taking up a page and a half on Word, with much of it already mentioned in the introduction and the comments. Anyway, I press on...
(Also, I cutting the once-a-week thing for just when I feel like it, so blogs may be more frequent from here on)

Obligatory Notice: I do not mean in any way to offend anyone who has conflicting opinions or ideals, I am merely stating possible theories, which I may not necessarily believe in. I also greatly appreciate constructive criticisms and arguments against the points I make, however, I do not wish to have people slandering my opinions with comments/arguments that are unfounded (excluding religious arguments, although whether they are unfounded or not is debatable), and nonsensical (unless, course, your talking about illogicality, which is naturally nonsensical)

Foundations

In our world, there are several societies and cultures, with differences between them ranging from slight to extreme. However, one thing that is common in all societies, and all cultures, are foundations: set standards and beliefs shared by near the entirety of that society as the ‘correct’ way of thinking and acting; certain convictions that both the individual and the collective holds dear and true to them from birth till death. However, since all societies differ in ways of thinking, the supposed ‘right’ and ‘wrongs’ within such societies will naturally differ. So, does this mean that there are no ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’, or that a singular belief of a single society overrides the singular contradictory belief that other societies might share as their norm?

Contradiction, Indifference and Agreement

The definition of ‘right’ is that that is “correct, just and true”, and conversely, the definition of ‘wrong’ being “incorrect or untrue”
With these foundations having the ability to contradict each other, and with the concepts of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ being simple creations of humankind’s mind, it cannot truly be possible for a true ‘right’, nor a true ‘wrong’, to logically exist. Instead, rights and wrongs are simply based on majority belief, and we use these to define our social norms. Using this ‘rule of agreement’, a better description of right or wrong would be:

Right: ‘what the surrounding majority would believe to be the correct action to the corresponding situation’
Wrong: ‘what the surrounding majority would believe to be the incorrect action to the corresponding situation’

And as you can, like everything in life, the ‘rights’ and the ‘wrongs’ are based on pure belief. Of course, what I have stated over the past two paragraphs should be nothing new, as an average open-minded person would be able to see this with ease. However, what people don’t consider is the next step, applications.

Application of the ‘Rule of Agreement’

‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are concepts, and as have been shown, are subject to the rule of agreement, in which people over-estimate their beliefs as the only possible correct way of thinking, if only unconsciously. However, the very reason that these are subject is because they are concepts themselves, two opposing concepts that work in equilibrium and balance the world into a black-and-white perspective, so-to-speak, one that is easy to understand and follow. As such, shouldn’t other opposing concepts also be subject to this rule? Right and Wrong, True and Untrue, Good and Bad, and even, with great regret, Moral and Immoral, all suffer from this Rule of Agreement, as splitting a world into opposing concepts will not change the fact that the world originally had no concepts to begin with. There are no rights or wrongs, no truths or untruths, no good, no bad, no morals or immorals, only belief. The very basis of our life and existence, or any reason or purpose, is ultimately undermined and eliminated, through complete, unwavering indifference.

Conclusion

This rule of agreement undermines our very system of living, through pure logic it can defy the idea of logic (N.B. ironic, huh?), and show that there is little more than pure unfiltered indifference in existence. However, even if we have the knowledge of this, do we have the understanding? Knowing that indifference is the ultimate, and that anything we believe for sure is subject to almost certain doubt and disagreement, does not mean that we would be able to live our lives with this in mind*. Being able to know this in full extent, and base ones life around such a philosophy, is ridiculous, nay, impossible, for a living being’s intellect to be able to comprehend, and resultantly act upon. Our very life, our existence, is founded on our beliefs, and if these are the only things we can trust with total surety, then we are forced to live by them, regardless or irregardless of the almost certain conflict and doubt imposed by others, or whether we want to or not.

*Just because what is able to understand the cause, does not mean one is able to understand the outcome.

Ok that's it for today, and please feel free to try and shoot me down and criticise me I need a little debate. Also, next time I'll cover the second part of the concept problem, entitled 'The Concept Problem Part II: The Rule of Indifference/The difference between 1 and 10 is zero' (haven't settled on name yet, but I'm guessing you get the gist of it)

Truth and Lies: An Introduction to The Concept Problem

I would like to thank everyone for their support of my blog, I was a bit hesitant at first but I feel this is a good thing for me to do now (even though its only the second day...)
Although I contemplated putting up the first write-up
I did, i feel it's be better if I stick to the schedule of once-a-week (in addition to the fact that much of what I had written was too radical and dare I say, mad, looking back on it) Despite this, I ask you this:

If I asked you to tell me what is truth, would you be able to answer fully? You may answer the truth is what you know to be right, the scientific approach. However, the 'true' atom 100 years ago was different from the true atom of today. Since proof is constantly in change and fluctuation, science cannot be the truth. You may also answer that the truth is what you believe to be right, the spiritual approach. However, if one's belief is based on one's opinion, and since everyone opinions differ (to some extent), it would be impossible to define one persons belief to be 'true' and another persons belief to be a 'lie'. In essence of this spiritualism and opinions cannot be the truth, since beliefs also change and conflict constantly. However if opinions are unable to certify what is true in his world, and science cannot certify what is true, would this mean that 'truth' and 'lies' are non-existent?

I apologise if this is poorly worded/explained, but it is just off the top of my head and is more of an introduction to the ideas I, and hopefully you guys, will be throwing around next week.

The Impossibility of Perfection

Alright First Blog...this is a very short idea that came to me about four months ago, but of which I only really bothered to share with my brother. I am aware that this theory runs on the basis of logic, and that i can be argued against with ideas such as the ability to defy logic is reserved specifically for God. With those arguments in mind, unfortunately, to me this idea just...makes sense.

Also, I would like to thank my good friend Oliver Hunt for the inspiration to start my own blog with his film blogs at http://newfilmblog.blogspot.com Whether you watch films every now and then or often, his insight into films is great and is well worth checking out, especially since the films he reviews are often relevant to today's films (eg. The Wrestler) Ok that's enough with the advertising, as the main reason for inspiration is simply just actively writing about what you love, and although I think a lot about the kind of stuff that interests me, I never really try to explain my thoughts properly...so et voila, I have a blog.

Obligatory Notice: I do not mean in any way to offend anyone who has conflicting opinions or ideals, I am merely stating possible theories, which I may not necessarily believe in. I also greatly appreciate constructive criticisms and arguments against the points I make, however, I do not wish to have people slandering my opinions with comments/arguments that are unfounded (excluding religious arguments, although whether they are unfounded or not is debatable), and nonsensical (unless, course, your talking about illogicality, which is naturally nonsensical)

The Impossibility of Perfection

Note that since the meaning of ‘Logic’ is vague, and possibly unusable here, I am using it to replace the idea of that which can ultimately be achieved, or that which is possible, for the sake of making this idea easier to understand and more accessible. In addition, Perfection is refering to the ultimate perfection, the true meaning, so to speak, as opposed when someone may consider something 'perfect' for an individual task.

Take into account:

1. Perfection: The state of which one can achieve anything.

2. Impossibility: One that cannot be achieved.

3. Logic: That which can be achieved.

God is considered perfection. However, the meaning of perfection is a being that can achieve anything. By this, this means that the being would be able to defy logic itself. However, simply defying logic would not even mean perfection. It must be able to defy each and every logic, as of which it will be able to become a perfect being. But, if perfection is defined as that that defies logic, that cannot be possible, and the being that strived and succeeded in perfection has indeed defied logic, this mean that the laws of logic are themselves rewritten around the very basis of this that defies logic, and has now become logic, therefore making the being, once again, imperfect. As such, it is impossible for any being, let alone God, to indeed ‘become’ perfect, as this is an impossible concept, and a being cannot exist without itself being possible.

This argument and viewpoint is taken from the idea that we are ‘able’ to understand and comprehend any action or existence, for the sake of argument. (We are not arguing from a human standpoint, but instead from one of omniscience)