spoondiggidy9

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFnMZVqInaw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZJ0zNQyQ3A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66ur2eA3NYw

I would go with Peterson

if its ppr I kinda like Thomas

I kinda like Washington the best, but don't really like any. Supposed to be really bad weather in Denver and Jones doesn't get a ton of targets.

I have Wayne and Djackson locked in but what about my third:

St. Johnson
T. Owens
A. Collie

Thanks in advance

Please tell me this is not serious.

What is the purpose of posting this? If it bothers you, don't read his thread, if you feel bad, try to encourage him. This just seems petty; you really want to instigate something with someone who has seemed to be feeling down recently?

No help?

Thoughts on my RB this weekend:

I have Foster vs baltimore which is tough because I think Foster is an autostart at this point

The real question is; should I start Dmac, Tolbert or pickup Starks/P. Thomas/ Ivory

I usually go with McFadden but Jacksonville just shut down Chris Johnson last week and KC gave up 160 yds to Moreno.

I dont have a lot of bench room, but P Thomas is on waivers now, is he going to do anything this season; non keeper league.

I just decided to type everything I had pasted before, thanks.

Hopefully that came out okay, I had to retype what I wrote in word into the message box for whatever reason.

Anyway, I'm unsure of how extensive your background in Descartes' philosophy is so please do not think less of me if I am not able to keep up but I will attempt to defend my understanding of what he meant to the best of my ability.

When you say that you do not have an idea of a perfect entity in your mind, I admit also that I do not. Only upon reading this text did I informally decide that I would more aptly name myself an agnostic rather than an atheist. If you want to refute the beliefs of a Judeo-Christian god, then I am not interested. This isn't the god that Descartes was talking about, at least as far as I understand and have been lead to believe. Back to the point, the idea of a perfect being, the characteristics that he refers to directly in his text are that of a sovereign, eternal, infinite, unchangeable, all-knowing, all-powerful and universal creator of things. Which of this do you have a problem buying into? Perhaps it is the meaning of perfect that is the problem here. God is perfect, according to Descartes, in that god is independent, complete and infinite in his being. He does not live an existence that is broken down into an infinite number of instances independent of each other as we do. He simply is. Basically, living infinity, which is impossible for us to understand fully but I think you will be able to distinguish a difference between our existence, a finite one, and that of an infinite existence.

As far as the problem of an imperfect being coming up with a perfect one, I think he comes to this by negation of his own being,. He realizes that his existence is dependent, limited, finite and incomplete; the opposite of this obviously being independent, unlimited, infinite and complete. You are correct in that, it is simply an idea however in the text he says that an effect cannot come with a cause and thus imperfection must come from perfection. Please bear in mind that I am not Descartes nor am I an expert on this, but merely am attempting to share my understanding. I think this belief that perfection being the cause and imperfection being the effect works in that, if you have 9 out of 10 parts you cannot simply come up with the last part but if you have 10 out of 10 parts, you can take away x parts. Please correct me if my logic is flawed.

In regard to perfection being through the eyes of the beholder, I disagree that everything is relative to perspective. There are things, such as virtues, that transcend language and are understood by every human, regardless of nomenclature or whatever else. I apologize if I did not address everything, I tried, but obviously there is a lot to respond to.

yes

I was trying to post in another thread and it said I was over the 7800 character limit, I have what I wrote in word and its only 2500 characters in total. I tried breaking my post in half and quarters and it still said I was over the limit. Any idea what the problem is?

I have something written in response to your post hutch, however covers is being obnoxious and not letting me copy and paste it from word. I will keep trying but know I do have something coming

[Quote: Originally Posted by HutchEmAll]

Another question to ponder:  Let's say you believe in God.  Are certain actions on your part (let's say volunteering at a food kitchen....or a nursing home....or mowing your neighbors lawn) considered pious because God loves them.  Or does He love those actions because they are pious?

[/Quote]

God would love them because they are pious.

Human knowledge and human-will, or free-will, through the eyes of Descartes, are the result of god’s creation of the human being—ironic perhaps that it is called so, as humans are finite and never actually are but instead are potential to be. And it is because of this understanding of human knowledge as being something finite with the capacity for infinity, but yet unobtainable because of the incomplete nature of human existence, that it is evidence of the existence of god. If it is considered that, in finding one truth, the negation of that truth can be found also; in turn, leading to the conclusion that, if humans live a finite, limited and dependent existence but have knowledge of the infinite and aspirations towards perfection, in spite of it being an unachievable desire—god then must live an infinite, unlimited and independent existence. An existence in which he simply is and never struggles with understanding or limitation because he exists independent of everything else which lends him to possess an infinity of knowledge and an infinity of free-will. With this considered, had god chosen to do so, humans could have been given these same qualities, those of infinite freewill as well as infinite knowledge. However, with infinite knowledge, there is not actually infinite free-will because, as explained earlier, the more knowledge that comes to be within a person, the more that it is required to suppress the desires of the free-will. Therefore, if knowledge were to be infinite in humans then they would possess no will at all since there would be no choices to make, as all of the answers would already be known. And if all of the answers were already known to humans then there would be no ontological question; even no philosophy. So then, because of god’s perfection, he willed human existence in a way that humans inherently search for knowledge and thus humans came to be philosophers; if only there weren’t so many deficient in understanding and allowing free-will to reign over their lives.

I hope this can help lend something to the discussion.

I do not claim to know much, however, I recently wrote a philosophy paper over Descartes's meaning of human will and human knowledge which, if anyone has read the meditations, goes into the existence of god to a large extent. I feel like an excerpt, which includes Descartes beliefs through my words, could possibly lend something to the discussion:

Any feedback?

Is benching D Jackson for S Johnson a viable option (My typical three are Wayne, Owens and Jackson)? My issue here lies in the fact that, despite Vick drastically improving Jackson's production, Jackson just doesn't get very many targets. Thoughts about this in general as well as considering match ups this week?

Wayne vs SD
Owens @ NYJ
Jackson @ CHI
Johnson vs Pit

Also for RB, it seems safe to just stick with Foster and McFadden however I have Tolbert and he had a great night last night and goes on to face a pretty bad Indy run D. I realize this depends on if Mathews comes back or not, however assume he does not.

Foster vs Tenn
McFadden vs Mia
Tolbert @ Indy