The Concept Problem Part II: The Rule of Indifference

First I would like to apologise greatly (if you care, that is) that I have not been posting my blog on a regular basis, but yeah, life, stress, work etc. (plus I have had a bit of a mental block and have been unable to edit my posts for publishing)
Besides that, after watching the documentary/film Zeitgeist, I am inspired and raring to start off posting on a regular basis (I know I'm advertising again, but let me just say it is the single best piece of work I have ever witnessed)

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)

Impossibility of Perfection Round Two

This time I will show an alternative approach to showing indifference, but to do this, we must take into account my first post: The Impossibility of Perfection. As a short, hopefully concise, recap:

To achieve perfection, one must be able to be able to achieve anything, including defying logic. If one then actively defies logic, he has achieved what is not possible. However, since the impossible has HAPPENED, it has become possible. As it has become possible, one has no longer defied logic, and, in turn, is no longer perfect (or, more accurately, was never perfect to begin with)

With this theory of mine suggesting the impossibilities of perfection, I can minimise the impossibilities of perfection to that of concepts.

Rule of Indifference

If this logical standpoint does indeed show a non-existence of perfection, then that consequently shows that perfection is impossible. If perfection does not exist, then the ultimate good is no longer ultimate, and is no longer closer to true meaning of good then the darkest evil are minds can imagine. Difference is now irrelevant and inapplicable to life, essentially, in mathematical terms, 10 – 1 = 0. If there is no goal, no true good, that can be reached from acting ‘good’, then what is considered to be ‘good’ is indifferent from what is considered ‘evil’. Using the idea of good and evil, this ‘Rule of Indifference’ would be considered and described as:

If there can be no perfect ‘good’ and ‘bad’, then there can be no difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’

As such the ideas of good and bad are rendered useless, making us question to what are the definitions of good and bad?
To be blunt, there is NO definition. No one man is closer from good than he is from evil, as these concepts are ill-defined and vague beyond belief.

Application to Real Life

Another question that can arise form this method, however, is whether the ‘Rule of Indifference’ can be used not only for conceptual arguments, but also physical arguments. Can it apply to our society, to our lives?

This is a certain possibility, one could say that:

If there can be no perfect way to live, then there can be no difference between a ‘good life’ and a ‘bad life’

By altering the idea, it is possible not only to use this for the purpose of concepts, but also applying it do everyday ideas and objects (However, since perfection itself is a concept, thus all arguments will contain an a strong conceptual element)

Conclusion

This rule, in my opinion, though not as clear as the Rule of Agreement in Part I, is more definitive as proof of no good or bad. Although with ‘Agreement’, it suggests there is either no difference between Black-and-White concepts, it is minutely possible that there is one correct way to believe, and that all of us, or all but one, have the incorrect belief.
However, with the ‘Rule of Indifference’, it shows that the indifference in ideas and beliefs does exist, and that it is impossible for a single correct opinion to exist within the indifference.