I suggest moving back in time a bit to the pre-socratic philosophers. Let's take Heraclitus. Although we only have fragments of his writing, he seems to be saying (unlike his predecessors) that the universe is a sort of "unity of opposites". He gives us examples of the lyre, harp, and bow. He says that there are clearly opposite forces in these objects that, in pulling away from each other, create dynamic unities—unities through "strife". So, we can tentatively interpret Heraclitus' proposition (and please feel free to correct me if you think this is wrong, provided you've read him somewhat) to mean that if there is any perspective (e.g., being compared to Socrates) from which it is true to say of an object, x (say, Simmias), that it has property p (e.g., tallness), then there exists at least one other perspective, as legitimate as the first (e.g., being compared to Phaedo), from which it is true to say of x that it has property opposite-p (in the present case, shorness). Does Heraclitus' thesis seem to be a necessary truth about (physical) objects and their properties? Why or why not?

I suggest we move the topic on. Philosophy, anyone?

I did three all-nighters in a row the week before finals last semester, which would mean over 72 hours straight. I got so sick after that I had a siezure and almost went into a coma. College sucks, but is still somehow addictive.

No one is born intelligent, or talented, or with any other pre-formed skill or intellect. There is no way to gain knowledge without being taught. Aristotle talks about habit and nature in his Nicomachean Ethics (I'm sorry to bring this selection in, but I believe it gives the best argument). By nature, we are born with certain things, i.e. lungs, heart, legs, etc. Those are necessary. Habit, however, is how we form our ideas and philosophy. Habit is formed by being taught something, accepting it, and practicing it. This is not to say that some are not born with certain dispositions; but a disposition towards a thing is different than the thing itself. Ask Michael Jordan why he's so good at basketball. He won't tell you he was born with the skill or knowledge of the game. No, it was work. Hard work. Habit. In the same way, intelligence cannot be acquired in any other way than by teaching and habit.

Justice is perfect. How, then, if it is used by an imperfect being? Does this imperfection negate it completely? For if it did, justice would not exist. But we know justice exists, and it must conform to the non-contradiction premise, so a flawed use of justice must exist. How should we then approach justice, being imperfect? For if justice cannot be nullified by a flawed use of it, how can if function? Let us examine a flawed use of it. Those who are imperfect, by nature seek their own good. Thus, they would be prone to use justice in a way that benefits themselves, and thus use justice as an injustice. If one, however, was in pursuit of justice in its perfection, he would have a good motive, and use justice--albeit in a flawed way--in a manner that best mirrors justice. It is, then, better to use an imperfect justice than none at all, provided the user has the correct motive.

Let us move on then. You, being the self-proclaimed wiser, must take the lead.

This is rather frustrating. The point of a debate is to defend a point or thesis. You stated a while ago what you were arguing, and now you say you aren't arguing about anything.

If you understand, then let me ask you: what are you trying to prove? What is your thesis?

I don't want to digress into a juvenile squabble, so try to understand. We both believe we are flawed, but our beliefs are based on different premises. You say we're flawed because we can prove it to ourselves. I say it's so because of a higher authority. I make the argument that since we're flawed, we can't trust our thoughts, meaning we can't prove to ourselves that we're flawed. You say that the fact that we can't trust our thoughts because they're flawed is proof we're flawed. This statement commits the Argument from Ignorance fallacy, and is invalid (which we both agree on). You say the solution to your fallacy is to go about proving that we're perfect, and if we can't then we'll know we're flawed. Again, though, I bring in the fact that because we're flawed (which we both agree on), there is no way to get around the fact that we cannot trust our thoughts. Thus, we can make no argument whatsoever that has any integrity, because of the fact that our thoughts are flawed.

I'm afraid you're going in circles here. You stated your paradox, in which Scribo pointed out the clear fallacy, which you apparently knew and agree with. Then you stated the 'solution' to your fallacious paradox, which I revoked. You say you also agree with my revocation. There is no solution to your paradox, as it is fallacious.

You took the words right out of my mouth, Scribo. Yes, that is exactly my point.

Not so. We agree we're flawed. We cannot, however, prove we're flawed. To get around this, we try to prove we're perfect. To be able to prove something, we must have true premises. If we agree we're flawed, though, we cannot conceive of any true premises, thus committing the False Premise fallacy. Our proof then is meaningless.

Sorry I haven't replied for so long. I got extremely busy with exam preparation and execution. If you would like to enlighten us with the solution to your paradox, then please do so. Be warned, however, that you make a rather big logical error in your argument. I've also noticed we've gotten rather far off track, so we could attempt to return to the point we were initially discussing, unless the preference is to continue with this.

slightly_sorryforyourself

In response to Scribo's comment: well put, sir. But I would question, how if we were not flawed? Your assertion was based on the fact that "we are flawed," but we could pose that same question given that we are perfect. What then? For if we were perfect, justice would no longer be a pursuit. Necessarily, then, we would perform all other actions perfectly. In response to GoldRock: you say that the the fact that we don't know we're flawed because we're flawed is proof we're flawed. To one outside our nature, definitely. But that fact that our thoughts, because they are flawed, are not trustworthy, does not mean we know that. Does the fish know it's in water? Does the dog know it's a dog? That is, we cannot logically prove to ourselves that we are either perfect or flawed, as our thoughts do not mirror the truth.