Soule Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 simple question do you believe that there is a such thing as objective perfection? why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 as long as there are standards that cannot be surpassed (ie. a perfect bowling game, a perfect shutout, a perfect record, etc.), then of course there's 'objective perfection'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quicksand Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 What does that mean? Objective perfection? Sounds like a Argumentum ad populum to me. That is, if you get so many people to state this is what perfect is, then that is what perfect is. The word is meaningless... unless your referring to one of my neighbors... yaow! she's fantastic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 15, 2006 Author Share Posted August 15, 2006 as long as there are standards that cannot be surpassed (ie. a perfect bowling game, a perfect shutout, a perfect record, etc.), then of course there's 'objective perfection'. hmm. lets talk more thing-wise. as in a perfect tree, or a perfect person. would there be an objective perfection there? things where there are no set or defined standards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 I'm pretty sure, as I've never heard the term objective perfection, that it would not be applicable in that case. Like Quick said, it doesn't even make sense unless you consider perfection to be the general completion of an objective, such as a properly formed tree (with relation to all other trees of it's type) as opposed to a deformed tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 hmm. lets talk more thing-wise. as in a perfect tree, or a perfect person. would there be an objective perfection there? things where there are no set or defined standards? First of all, a person is neither a tree or a thing. Secondly, if there are no "defined standards", then how would you know if something is "perfect"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 15, 2006 Author Share Posted August 15, 2006 hmm. lets talk more thing-wise. as in a perfect tree, or a perfect person. would there be an objective perfection there? things where there are no set or defined standards? First of all, a person is neither a tree or a thing. Secondly, if there are no "defined standards", then how would you know if something is "perfect"? 1. dosnt matter 2. i dont know. so would you say that for things to be perfect that dont have a set definition, that everyone would have to agree its perfect in order for it to be perfect or at least for it to be considered perfect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 There have to be standards in order to define something as perfect, yes. There can be no human perfection, for instance, because we have no known boundries, and even if we were to reach the limits of our potential, we may still end up lacking somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 15, 2006 Author Share Posted August 15, 2006 There have to be standards in order to define something as perfect, yes. There can be no human perfection, for instance, because we have no known boundries, and even if we were to reach the limits of our potential, we may still end up lacking somehow. ok, so would you say that for things to be perfect that dont have a set definition, that everyone would have to agree its perfect in order for it to be perfect or at least for it to be considered perfect? i need a direct answer to this. believe it or not, i'm actually taking it somewhere. also, in the case of there being a set definition to perfection, who sets that definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 so would you say that for things to be perfect that dont have a set definition, that everyone would have to agree its perfect in order for it to be perfect or at least for it to be considered perfect? When an agreement takes place, consideration is already over with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 ok, so would you say that for things to be perfect that dont have a set definition, that everyone would have to agree its perfect in order for it to be perfect or at least for it to be considered perfect? There has to be a standard. Two definitions that I'm familiar with are: The perfection of an objective: such as a properly formed fetus, or a 300 bowling game. These things cannot be exceeded; you can't have a more fetuslike human fetus, or a 302 game, however, one can have a better representation of that 'perfection' , like a larger, stronger fetus, or a game that is played in less time, and with fewer errors on each frame, with better english on the ball, etc. These are parameters for which there's no known limit; theoretically, it can always be done better, meaning there's no way it can be perfect in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 15, 2006 Author Share Posted August 15, 2006 ok, so would you say that for things to be perfect that dont have a set definition, that everyone would have to agree its perfect in order for it to be perfect or at least for it to be considered perfect? There has to be a standard. Two definitions that I'm familiar with are: The perfection of an objective: such as a properly formed fetus, or a 300 bowling game. These things cannot be exceeded; you can't have a more fetuslike human fetus, or a 302 game, however, one can have a better representation of that 'perfection' , like a larger, stronger fetus, or a game that is played in less time, and with fewer errors on each frame, with better english on the ball, etc. These are parameters for which there's no known limit; theoretically, it can always be done better, meaning there's no way it can be perfect in that regard. so if there must be a set definition for somethign to be objectively perfect, then isnt it impossible by definition for god to be perfect no matter the belief system? and in the case of the perception of being perfect, wouldent everybody have to agree that god is perfect, or else that perfection is nulled by the fact that the current perfection can be exceeded by more people believing that he is perfect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 so if there must be a set definition for somethign to be objectively perfect, then isnt it impossible by definition for god to be perfect? Perfect relative to what? No one's going to deny a perfect 300 in bowling when they see it. They might think the guy had sloppy form or something, but he still bowled a perfect game. Likewise, I repeat, what is god perfect compared to? And assuming god is perfect, is it that his attributes have reached an infinite level, or are they always increasing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 15, 2006 Author Share Posted August 15, 2006 so if there must be a set definition for somethign to be objectively perfect, then isnt it impossible by definition for god to be perfect? Perfect relative to what? No one's going to deny a perfect 300 in bowling when they see it. They might think the guy had sloppy form or something, but he still bowled a perfect game. Likewise, I repeat, what is god perfect compared to? And assuming god is perfect, is it that his attributes have reached an infinite level, or are they always increasing? well, the bowler being perfect at bowling and the fact that he bowled a perfect game are two seperate things. now because of the fact that the bowler (god) relies on others to define wether or not he is indeed a perfect bowler, (seeing as how humans are the ones who would define the specific requirements for perfection in this case,) wouldent the bowler have to live up to that human definition of perfect in order to be perfect? i since it is indeed humans who define "perfection" and the qualifications involved in that perfection, wouldent every perception of every human in this case matter because one can always be more perfect, in this sense, as long as there are people who do not consider you a perfect bowler (god)? now there is a major difference between a perfect being and someone who is perfect at a specific thing. a perfect being is perfect at all things, or would be by definition. the perfection of the abilities of a person would not be flawed by an outside flaw such as, say, a drinking problem. in other words, the fact that he has a drinking problem would not define the perfection of his specific ability. however, any flaw whatsoever would affect the perfection of a perfect being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 if perfection is the point beyond which better cannot be done, then who cares what anyone thinks? Can the bowler have better form? If the answer is yes, then obviously anyone who thinks he's the perfect bowler is wrong. Can god do better? Well, for the sake of most arguments (except the ones about whether or not god is perfect) we assume the idea that he is perfect to be true. So again, what is god perfect relative to? And assuming god is perfect, is it that his attributes have reached an infinite level, or are they always increasing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 15, 2006 Author Share Posted August 15, 2006 if perfection is the point beyond which better cannot be done, then who cares what anyone thinks? Can the bowler have better form? If the answer is yes, then obviously anyone who thinks he's the perfect bowler is wrong. Can god do better? Well, for the sake of most arguments (except the ones about whether or not god is perfect) we assume the idea that he is perfect to be true. So again, what is god perfect relative to? And assuming god is perfect, is it that his attributes have reached an infinite level, or are they always increasing? if god was a perfect being, then one of his atributes would be being perfect at being perfect. if he was perfect at being perfect, then everyone would agree that he was perfect. because everyone dosnt agree that he is perfect, then the maximum level of perfection has not been reached. therefor one can say that gods perfection is flawed. therefor one can say that god is not a perfect being. god is never changing, so his atributes never change, thus never increase. objective/absolute perfection isnt relative to anything. if something can be better then its not perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narcissist Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 At first I thought, perfection is only subjective as the idea of perfection is a human construct, and is subject to human judgments (perfect score, perfect babe, perfect god, perfect excuse, etc) But then I thought about abstract/mathematical things like "the perfect sphere" or the "perfect cube", etc. It's a possibility. Therefore, in answer to the original question, I do believe there is an objective perfection, at least in a "Platonic" sense (as I understand, no doubt imperfectly, the Platonic idea of perfection.) It may only ever exist as a concept in our minds or imagination, though. $0.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 if god was a perfect being, then one of his atributes would be being perfect at being perfect. if he was perfect at being perfect, then everyone would agree that he was perfect. because everyone dosnt agree that he is perfect, then the maximum level of perfection has not been reached. therefor one can say that gods perfection is flawed. therefor one can say that god is not a perfect being. god is never changing, so his atributes never change, thus never increase. objective/absolute perfection isnt relative to anything. if something can be better then its not perfect. First, everyone would have to agree that he exists. Then, they'd need accurate information in order to determine if he was perfect.. And of course it has to be relative to something; there needs to be some reference, otherwise, how would you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 maybe there is objective perfection in tautological systems like math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 Objective Perfection sounds like Objective Truth or Objective Morality and such, and I can't really say if there is. There might be, but since I'm an imperfect being, then I couldn't really know if there is one. Of course I can still believe there is one, but I can't know for sure. And the problem lies in that since I'm not perfect, and I'm subjective in all I things I think about, I can't really point to one thing or one system and say that I know for sure that is the objective perfection. It would be a subjective decision or opinion when I do it. The only way of getting there is to establish a language, or symbolic system, that can describe things that are perfect vs imperfect. Maybe math and logic are the basis for it, but who decides what is perfect or not? Like Ficino said, maybe math is a objective perfection? Or Logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 I think we are all perfect no matter how many imperfections we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 15, 2006 Author Share Posted August 15, 2006 if god was a perfect being, then one of his atributes would be being perfect at being perfect. if he was perfect at being perfect, then everyone would agree that he was perfect. because everyone dosnt agree that he is perfect, then the maximum level of perfection has not been reached. therefor one can say that gods perfection is flawed. therefor one can say that god is not a perfect being. god is never changing, so his atributes never change, thus never increase. objective/absolute perfection isnt relative to anything. if something can be better then its not perfect. First, everyone would have to agree that he exists. Then, they'd need accurate information in order to determine if he was perfect.. And of course it has to be relative to something; there needs to be some reference, otherwise, how would you know? in order to believe if god is perfect or not, everyone would not have to believe he exists. they would have to know enough about him to make that kind of judgement. well to say god is more perfect than humans would be correct. however when dealing with such things as absolute perfection, as in there is no possible way for any of the atributes of god to be improved upon, then i guess it would depend on the atribue you are speaking of. however a single flaw in any of these said atributes would, by definition, negate the lable of absolute perfection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueGiant Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 By absolute perfection are you talking about something like a Platonic ideal (see:Wikipedia: Platonic Ideal)? What perfection is should be defined before we speak of an absolute perfection, and would relative perfection have any relavance, as it seems that perfection is an either-or proposition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 "Perfect" is a human concept, describing an ideal that doesn't exist in reality. Certainly, you can role a "perfect" game (to use the previous example), but that's just a score that everyone agreed on. It's doesn't actually make any difference except to those who choose to care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 well to say god is more perfect than humans would be correct. however when dealing with such things as absolute perfection, as in there is no possible way for any of the atributes of god to be improved upon, then i guess it would depend on the atribue you are speaking of. however a single flaw in any of these said atributes would, by definition, negate the lable of absolute perfection. No it wouldn't, unless you could first say that humans are perfect. One cannot be 'more perfect' unless COMPARED to something that is considered perfect. Now that you've defined the nature of god's perfection, how would we know (aside from assuming for the sake of an argument) that god's perfection is infinite? And how does that factor into your previous argument about the people's belief in god's perfection, and how anything less than unanimous opinion negates that perfection? Also, how could his perfection be contingent upon a consensus if everyone didn't believe he exists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts