The answer to both of those questions is yes. However, the fish may interpret what the water is differently to other beings, and the dog could interpret what it itself is differently to other beings. In the same way, we as humans know we are flawed, but what those flaws are could be interpreted differently by us and others. Basically, we are incapable of knowing whether our thoughts mirror the truth or not, since we do not know for sure what the truth is. The only way in which we can prove our thoughts to be as close to the truth as possible (since we can't prove anything entirely) is to eliminate what the truth isn't, and the truth almost certainly isn't that we are perfect (as shown in my paradox, which you described well in the first sentence of your quoted post). For example, the fish almost certainly can't prove that it is not in water, just as the dog almost certainly can't prove it is not a dog.

Your. Name. Is. Awesome.

Le necroposter :o

Bye D:

Eating them? That's a bit of a specific guess, wonder where you got that idea from... :huh:

Fine, then... Put me under the UK.

How did you guess? :ph34r:

Nice topic :o :lol:

^So I'm one of his noob accounts now? :P

Thumbs up ^_^

*ahem*

Add me under both :P

So many good paints here, way better than the ones we have currently :o Me want le paint, it suits my username :wub:

Le nonsense. But back on topic, please.

I'm so good at this B) http://10fastfingers.com/speedtests/generate_screenshot_result/58_291_0_0_52_0_81.83_20972_115434 340 WPM! http://10fastfingers.com/speedtests/generate_screenshot_result/0_1804_0_0_0_340_0_115288_115288

Original poster: add me to le list, then :P

Awesome stuff :P

Exercise your minds, guys :P http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=181346

I think you will, actually :lol:

^ :lol:

+1

Awesome work!

Hahahaha... No. Sorry Skittles, but only Smarties have the answer.

^Yes. Yes, we are. Other readers, note that we both agree that our justice is flawed, and so we both continue to stand by Socrates' second theory about man's justice being "sometimes unjust and sometimes just" on this one. However, we are simply debating how we know we are flawed at the moment. Ah, I thought you were questioning whether we were flawed or not, rather than if there is any criteria as to why we are flawed. You make a fair point there. I agree that our belief that we are flawed could be flawed in itself, however, that would just prove we are flawed (le paradox again). To see whether there is any criteria for our belief, we could find out what can be defined as perfect; if we are not considered perfect, we must be flawed. However, I think this is where we meet a dead end - whilst we know what "perfect" and "flawed" mean in theory, we can't assign criteria for either groups in practice, since we lack this understanding. This inability to understand the criteria for perfection on Earth is, to me, the criteria for why we are flawed as human beings. Therefore, there is criteria we can use to know we are flawed, and so we do not need access to a higher authority to realise this to be true. We had already agreed that our justice is a flawed attempt at pursuing a perfect justice, but you summed it up in a nutshell quite coherently ^_^ We're currently discussing how we know of perfect justice if we are only practising a flawed version, if you wish to join in. I'm arguing that we know of perfect justice since we can assign criteria as to what it is not, and wrecky is arguing that we know of perfect justice due to a higher authority.