Does perfection exist?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm in agreement with the OP. Nothing can be perfect, not even Apple products!

visagrunt: In reply to your second paragraph (I have not yet figured out how to use quotes on forums, sorry) I would like to mention that later in my argument I tried to prove that existence itself is a flaw, for the reason that anything that exists becomes restricted by the laws of physics, time, space, interaction with other existing things, et cetera. Also, I reasoned that the purpose of everything is to cease to exist, and therefore by not existing things become perfect.

Actually, I think we need to know everything about existence to properly conclude MY argument at least... Well, just see if what I have come up with makes sense.

Also, there was another argument I used, though my friend disproved it saying that since it is a matter of perspective, it is not valid. This argument states that as bad events are perceived as being stretched out over time, and good ones over immediately, a perfect event would seem to be over instantaneously. Such events would be sleeping, being unconscious, and probably death as well, as at such times we are not aware of our own existence, we perceive ourselves as perfect. Consider how you feel when you are asleep; I am often a lot happier (well not actually 'happier' but feeling better anyway than conscious) in such a state. Then again, who said that one would be happy when perfect?

As to the whole matter-of-perspective bit, all I have to say is that I think philosophers today are all a bit too tied up in arguing about this sort of thing, and that I am speaking about the world 'as it most probably is', not 'what it is definitely like'.

Is it a good thing that I frequently disprove my own arguments? I think it probably is...

what about the Buddha ?

The Buddha was a big fat mortal in his day.

ruveyn

I am asking this question from a purely materialistic point of view, as I do not want to start any religion-based arguments. Also, examining Buddhism and the Buddha's teachings, I do not agree with some of them, so from my point of view his reasoning is not perfect. Therefore the Buddha's mind is not perfect, and therefore the Buddha is not perfect.

As to Janissy's water argument, personally I think that nothing has a purpose, not even water. Certainly, water is one of the most powerful and useful things in existence (in an argument as to whether air, earth, fire or water is best, I would immediately say 'water') but I do not think it can be perfect.

Perfection is one of those idiotic Medieval concepts that collapses under the most superficial examination. It is an unattainable ideal. Engineering has a concept of precision where each step towards its attainment is more difficult and expensive. Absolute conformity to the ideal is never reached. That would be perfection and it does not exist.

Just to play devil's advocate with your statement about water being perfect, Janissy:

If we agree on the OP's terms for defining perfection, the object in question (in this case, water) must have a "goal", and must be without "flaws". Your postulate here seems to be based upon the presupposition that the goal of water is to make life possible. However, if that is the goal of water, would it not be better served to have a far lower freezing temperature than 32° Fahrenheit (or 0° Celsius)? Water of some form or another is suspected to be present on many other celestial bodies aside from Earth, but because most of them are further away from the Sun, it is very common for these other planets and satellites to be significantly colder. Most of the water we've found elsewhere in the Solar System is ice, which does not sustain life so readily. If water's goal was to make life possible, such a relatively high freezing temperature (as comparable to common temperatures on other planets and moons) would limit the number of places it could be found in life-sustaining liquid form and drastically diminish its ability to carry out its goal (regardless of other factors), and thus would be, in the context of this thought experiment, considered a flaw. As things stand now, only one of the celestial bodies where we have found water-- right here on Earth-- has been, so far as we know, successful in sustaining life. Therefore, I contend that either your premise of water's goal being to enable life is inaccurate, or water is indeed flawed, and therefore not perfect.

Let me know if anything I've said seems like a fallacy. I don't do much formal debating, and I know for a fact that I'm flawed and imperfect.

And you have the gall for criticizing some people for not being Perfect?

ruveyn

Aah! If only that high IQ you so proudly flaunt were operative. I criticize people for being unaware, stupid, vicious. If you think getting rid of that creates perfection then you have very low standards indeed.

From an evolutionary p.o.v. the vicious ones are more likely to survive and reproduce. The races has more often gone to the Swift and the contest more often gone to the Strong.

Wake up. Might makes Right.

ruveyn

It depends very much on your definition of right. When the Nazis were slaughtering the Jews there is no doubt that was the rule they favored.

Prithee -

Since the concept of "right" has reared its ugly head - on what does "right" rest?

Is it, as some have suggested, purely individual, relative and subjective, or does it rest on an absolute of some sort?

I assume you have something beyond your own values or a temporary consensus by which you judge the Nazi activities [which some say never happened, I understand] beyond the pale?

Right is what is gotten away with. By that criterion the Nazis lost Big Time.

ruveyn

Nobody gets away with anything forever. We all die.

Such is the case. What we get away with while alive is, in the pragmatic sense, right.

ruveyn

I see. You favor that old saying that the only crime in the USA is getting caught.