So, I created a new religion, which is also a philosophy, and I wish to share it with the community here because I want people’s philosophical take on it, hence why I think sharing it in this forum is fine.
The name of the religion is Flawlessism, because the faith of it is that there exists a flawless good (so the name comes from that), however, that is the only faith in it, everything else follows logically, and while there might be some who disagree with me on that, I do have strong evidence that the rule to logic I have discovered that my religion uses as a foundation is truly accurate.
Here is the link to a list of posts explaining why the rule in logic I have discovered (which I call, the Void rule), is real (the read order is top to bottom): Link
Your starting point is flawed. A true starting point is axiomatic. That means:
It is given in perception.
It is conceptually irreducible.
It is fundamental.
It is unquestionably true.
It is implicit in all knowledge.
Your starting point fails on four counts. It is unquestionably true that an absolute good exists. All goods, or values, are absolutes, without exception. If without exception is your meaning of flawlessness. But this means that it does not require faith.
Also, it seems like you are treating good as a metaphysical concept. That’s a category error at the beginning of your philosophy. Not a good start. You can’t say anything follows logically from a category error.
I’m not sure how you’re coming to the conclusion that I’ve made a mistake in how I’ve made Flawlessism. I said at the start that it’s a religion/philosophy with the 1 faith that a flawless good exists. Every philosophy I’ve read about has required faith in some way… Look, if you actually get to know my religion in full, instead of just dismiss it so early on, you’ll realize the meaning in having faith in it, that the way it takes form does give it evidence. And I don’t feel like it’s unreasonable for me to ask you to read it in full given that you decided to make two comments about it.
Even science requires faith in the axiom that the universe operates on consistent, observable laws that won’t randomly change tomorrow. You need to have at least one starting point which is faith based, and then from there, you may gain evidence that such a faith is reasonable. After all, when you first started learning about science, you didn’t have scientific evidence that science was a reasonable system to learn about, you had to have faith first… just to learn about it. Thus why it’s reasonable for me to say you should at least read about my religion in full first before you judge it so harshly. If you don’t want to do that, then don’t respond, just end this here.
Not if they start with an objective starting point. The axiom of identity does not require faith and it’s the axiom of identity and causality that ensures a stable universe and natural laws. It only requires faith if you ignore the foundations and start in midstream.
That’s what they did in school. They started me in midstream teaching me about science. They didn’t give me a sound metaphysics and epistemology as an objective foundation. If you start in midstream, as you have, with ethics then of course you have to take it on faith. You have no objective grounding. But an objective starting point, an actual philosophical axiom, then you don’t need faith.
But you see. I saw the fundamental flaw in your system, and so I don’t need to read any more. It would be pointless and a waste of time. If your starting point is corrupt, that’s it. All worldviews must be evaluated at their starting point.
Now, I’ll give you the correct starting point for your philosophy: existence exists. Start there and see if the rest logically follows from that starting point. You’ll see that it meets all the criteria of a philosophical axiom.
And I will end it here if you don’t have any questions.
You are assuming that I am starting ‘in midstream’ because you are categorizing ‘Good’ strictly as an ethical concept. You are applying the strict hierarchy of your own preferred philosophy (Metaphysics → Epistemology → Ethics) onto a completely different system. In Flawlessism, much like in classical Platonism, the ‘flawless good’ is not an ethical byproduct; it is the foundational metaphysical reality. I am starting at the absolute bedrock, we just disagree on what that bedrock is.
Furthermore, calling an axiom an ‘objective starting point’ does not change the structural definition of what an axiom is. An axiom, by definition, is a premise that cannot be logically proven by the system it creates. Even if you start with the Axiom of Identity, you must still rely on the unprovable presupposition that your human perception accurately maps to mind-independent physical reality. Bridging the gap between ‘the logic in my head’ and ‘the physics of the universe’ requires a presupposition. You can call it ‘self-evidence’ or ‘objective grounding,’ but structurally, it operates exactly the same as faith.
My starting point is internally consistent and logically leads to the rest of my framework. If you are willing to examine how my foundation operates logically, the structure will make sense. But if you are only willing to engage with a philosophy that perfectly mirrors your own starting premises, there isn’t much more to discuss.
Refusing to look at how a logical system functions holistically, just because its initial premise doesn’t match your preferred dogma, isn’t philosophical rigor. It’s just gatekeeping. We can end it here.
If you are using the concept ‘good’ as a metaphysical primitive or primary, then you are starting with a stolen concept. That’s a corrupt starting point.
I pointed out that you got one thing right: Flawless goods do exist. all values are flawless if by flawless you mean objective, absolute. But this conclusion is secured only on a rational metaphysics and epistemology. Which you are missing if you use ‘good’ as an ethical concept. If you are using it as a metaphysical concept, you are committing a category error and a stolen concept fallacy at the same time.
It’s not my preferred dogma it’s how knowledge works. Knowledge is hierarchical. You can’t start with ethics, and you can’t use ‘good’ as a metaphysical starting point. I don’t need anything else. The rest can only be a dressing out of a fractured premise.
You asked for feedback. I’m giving it to you and I’ve given you a proper axiomatic starting point to work from. I’d think you would be grateful.
Anything that is founded on faith alone, where faith alone is the foundation, deals with the problem that anything can be grounded in faith alone thus such a religion or philosophy must admit that contradictory religions/philosophies, to it, are just as legitimate because of the same foundations of faith alone.
By degree faith becomes an exercise in contradiction and the simple result is that “anything goes” which contradicts each philosophy/religion grounded in such foundations.
It can’t function holistically if it’s wrong from the start. It would be floating, unattached to reality. See, axiom are the bridge between reality and consciousness. They are the touchstone. They are the standard.
You are essentially saying, “I refused to read your work, I dismissed your ideas without understanding them, and I told you to just adopt my philosophy instead. You’re welcome.” Yes, you put a lot of effort into that. Way to go.
You are raising a very valid point about the dangers of pure relativism. If a philosophy relies on faith to justify every step it takes, then yes, ‘anything goes’ and contradictions run wild.
However, you are conflating a faith-based methodology with a faith-based axiom. I did not state that Flawlessism is grounded ‘in faith alone’ all the way down. I stated that it has exactly one foundational assumption taken on faith: that a flawless good exists (which I call Lumael as a shorthand name).
From that single starting point, everything else is strictly governed by logic. Yes, my framework introduces a new law to logic—the Void rule—but that rule itself is not taken on faith. I provide direct, non-faith-based evidence for how it functions in the separate section I linked to.
Once that initial faith in Lumael is established, absolutely no more faith is required. It logically deduces that if a flawless good exists, certain things must objectively be true. The fundamental error in your counter-argument is assuming my system uses faith to justify every conclusion it makes, when in reality, faith is only used to set the initial starting premise. As for the reason why I have faith in a Flawless good, if you actually read my linked posts in full, that will make sense.
You didn’t find a ‘fatal flaw’ in my logic; you just realized I wasn’t using your preferred rulebook. Judging a new logical framework by the rules of Objectivism is like giving a chess player a red card because you brought a soccer referee manual. If you ever want to see how the board is actually set up, the links are still there.
Actually, the effort was done long ago, and it counts in the hundreds of thousands of hours. Which is why I dismantled your philosophy at its root, utterly. Had I not done that work already, your accusation would be right but it’s not.
Since ‘flawless good’ exists, there is no reason to have faith that it does exist nor to have faith in it.
‘Flawless good’ just exists, or exists justly. Full stop.
Having faith, and/or belief, in something is the definition for the word ‘religion’. ‘Religious people’ are those who have faith or belief in some thing. Which includes people who have faith or a belief in ‘science’ also, for example.