I ask, given your earlier assertion that SCP doesn't have any monads.
Elaborate.
I suppose a specific canon can have a Monad, but a site wide Monad would require pretty much every admin teaming up to make an SCP specifically designed to be the strongest... which would be lame.
All 's right with the world.
You said there's no examples of a monad in SCP, and asked for proof of there being one when I simply named some.
To be precise, Ultima says "Monad like", aka not Monads but similar at first glance.
I think that's essentially what I said, yet Idiosyncratic still wanted examples of that.
Ah, I see. I thought you were pointing them out as monad monads.
The two are not entirely inseparable. You can have one without the other. Apophaticism sort of helps alleviate the ways in which DS comes into conflict with reason. Linguistically we are not equipped to discuss something which is considered "identical" to its attributes rather than simply having them, so you get bizarre unmeaningful sentences like "God is his goodness" or "God is Being Itself." It runs contrary to the grammatical format we use to discuss things, so we must go on discussing the divine in a way that ignores this (by necessity, due to it being incoherent) but keep an "asterisk" behind otherwise normal descriptions. Even in the face of blatantly composite elements like the trinity, some sophistry is conducted to insist that the three "persons" of the divine are not a separation or composition. They are all perfectly identical. Even as the Son cried out for the Father and asked him for answers, we must maintain that there is no real distinction between the Son and the Father. There's some kind of distinction, but it's not "real" (good luck figuring that one out). This is because God must remain simple for the classical theists, as they largely co-opted Aristotelian notions of the prime mover to attempt to prove their religion, while also resolving the inherent dissonance between the conception of God that Aristotle actually provided, and the various ways in which an Abrahamic God contradicts those notions.
Just like I said how it relates or used to defend you can flesh out DS without Apopathic but of course to use it in actual literature of entertainment one would require to give it reason hence Apopathic may become necessary to make it coherent.
Tier 0 Shulk's really feelin' it
It is not. Refer to Section 4 of the SEP article on Divine Simplicity titled:
Now, regardless of whether or not one agrees with these arguments, the fact remains that theologians have taken great lengths to avoid involving negative theology in their conception of divine simplicity (due to it being viewed as largely self-destructive). There is a relationship between the two, but they are by no means mutually inclusive.
[X] is a subset of [Y] therefore if [X] is Tier 0 then [Y] is too, is fallacious reasoning no matter what [X] and [Y] happen to be. And to quote Ultima:
I don't care to discuss this with you tbh. I will just wait for the thread to concluded. Your arguments doesn't even follow Divine Simplicity. You are talking about Divine Transcendence.
Funny you day this cuz Ultima already mentioned multiple subsets that qualify under Divine simplicity.
I don't agree with your logic but I don't want to argue with you.
Please actually read the article, instead of just scanning for key words with which to offer a paltry objection.
None of which are Negative Theology unto itself serving as a sufficient basis for Tier 0.
So it’s just an arbitrary stop gap?
Ultima and co. would argue that it isn't arbitrary.
A big part of the discussion revolved around how our existing R>F standards have been applied poorly, so likely there will be a thread for any verse attempting to claim it has R>F.
alr
Well it is arbitrary. a monad cannot be trancended or destroyed is a site rule, not a fiction rule.
The detractors of the thread have made that point. Yet the thread has more admins supporting it than not.
idk, ask Ultima
The Monad as described in the revisions is the combination of many different attributes, none of which -- together or independently -- we would currently recognize as having any reason to supercede the concept of R>F.
I actually am interested in Magi, since there is clearly a scene where one of the higher gods creates a lower world that is clearly a quantizable size in comparison to itself. Would it still qualify for R>F?
No. I think Ultima's specifically argued against the applicability of a fair few things from Magi.
So currently R>F is accepted for magi and therefore the gods' AP level is 1-B
We will have to see what the supporters cook up to keep its current R>F rating once the revisions are done.
