|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 24, 2017 22:33:36 GMT
Order , goodness and dignity of man. Say the designer shared ownership of the chair 50/50 with a man on the verge of freezing to death. And say the decision as to the chairs destruction (with a view to keeping one man alive )rests with you. Whose ideal for the chair to you find in favour of and to what authority can you appeal to make your decision to destroy one mans ideal? (If you cut the chair in half btw it's no longer a chair and nor is there sufficient material to keep the freezing man alive ). What??? Obviously perfection is subjective. It's relative to each individual. You had claimed that there has to be a "higher level of perfection" beyond subjective ideals. I asked why you believe that. You started your answer with "order, goodness and dignity of man." But those are simply subjective concepts/assessments. So you're saying that there has to be a "higher level of perfection" beyond subjective ideals because we have concepts like order, goodness and "the dignity of man" That's a complete non-sequitur. Re your scenario, you can't "destroy someone's ideal(s)." Their ideal is in their head. It seems like you're asking the question from the perspective of being a (legal) judge? Anyway, often people will have different ideals in mind re any given x. That's a fact. That doesn't imply that there has to be a "higher level of perfection" beyond subjective ideals. I was hoping you were going to attempt to support, in a logically valid way, why there has to be a "higher level of perfection."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 23:37:28 GMT
You said "obviously perfection is subjective". Perfection isn't subjective. Perfection is when a thing is flawless . The subjective is prone to error. A thing prone to error isn't flawless and so perfection can't be subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 25, 2017 8:05:03 GMT
You said "obviously perfection is subjective". Perfection isn't subjective. Perfection is when a thing is flawless . The subjective is prone to error. A thing prone to error isn't flawless and so perfection can't be subjective. What in the world would it mean for something to be objectively flawed? Flawed in relation to what? The whole point is that things are not objectively flawed. The idea of that makes no sense. Objectively, things simply are whatever they are. Flaws are a failure to match some ideal that someone has in mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 20:22:56 GMT
You said "obviously perfection is subjective". Perfection isn't subjective. Perfection is when a thing is flawless . The subjective is prone to error. A thing prone to error isn't flawless and so perfection can't be subjective. What in the world would it mean for something to be objectively flawed? Flawed in relation to what? The whole point is that things are not objectively flawed. The idea of that makes no sense. Objectively, things simply are whatever they are. Flaws are a failure to match some ideal that someone has in mind. Was that your rebuttal of my contention that perfection is not subjective? You haven't proven your case that perfection is subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 26, 2017 1:08:23 GMT
What in the world would it mean for something to be objectively flawed? Flawed in relation to what? The whole point is that things are not objectively flawed. The idea of that makes no sense. Objectively, things simply are whatever they are. Flaws are a failure to match some ideal that someone has in mind. Was that your rebuttal of my contention that perfection is not subjective? You haven't proven your case that perfection is subjective. It was a question (obviously). I was hoping you'd offer an answer.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Apr 26, 2017 3:29:42 GMT
lifes a moving circle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 20:58:33 GMT
It was a question (obviously). I was hoping you'd offer an answer. Flawed in relation to the truth of the matter or thing. If I tell you that I believe the Moon is made of hamburgers and that that's where McDonald's get their Big Macs and if I tell you that my reason for believing this is because they both share the letter M in their name, you would I suspect (hopefully) tell me -amongst other things- that my thought processes on the matter are flawed. In the face of the truth of the make up of the moon etc ,we can, without any risk of subjective error , say that my argument, thinking etc on the matter of the moon is flawed.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 26, 2017 21:58:13 GMT
It was a question (obviously). I was hoping you'd offer an answer. Flawed in relation to the truth of the matter or thing. If I tell you that I believe the Moon is made of hamburgers and that that's where McDonald's get their Big Macs and if I tell you that my reason for believing this is because they both share the letter M in their name, you would I suspect (hopefully) tell me -amongst other things- that my thought processes on the matter are flawed. In the face of the truth of the make up of the moon etc ,we can, without any risk of subjective error , say that my argument, thinking etc on the matter of the moon is flawed. Assume for a minute that I agree with that. Are you then saying that things can not be flawed/imperfect, only beliefs/statements about things can be flawed/imperfect? For example, take McDonald's. Can McDonald's be flawed/imperfect, since McDonald's isn't a truth claim?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 18:25:36 GMT
Assume for a minute that I agree with that. Are you then saying that things can not be flawed/imperfect, only beliefs/statements about things can be flawed/imperfect? For example, take McDonald's. Can McDonald's be flawed/imperfect, since McDonald's isn't a truth claim? No, things can be flawed or imperfect too. I refer back to my earlier post - a created thing can be said to be perfect if there is nothing wanting in its actuality. However, in the universal sense , to the extent that a thing has potential in its nature , does any material thing or being have complete actuality? "A beautiful thing is never perfect" as the Egyptian proverb goes.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 27, 2017 23:56:40 GMT
Assume for a minute that I agree with that. Are you then saying that things can not be flawed/imperfect, only beliefs/statements about things can be flawed/imperfect? For example, take McDonald's. Can McDonald's be flawed/imperfect, since McDonald's isn't a truth claim? No, things can be flawed or imperfect too. I refer back to my earlier post - a created thing can be said to be perfect if there is nothing wanting in its actuality. However, in the universal sense , to the extent that a thing has potential in its nature , does any material thing or being have complete actuality? "A beautiful thing is never perfect" as the Egyptian proverb goes. I think that in order to decide if a (material) thing is flawed, one has to have an idea in mind of a thing's purpose. Otherwise things just are. For example, one application of a piece of silicon might require it to be pure. But for another (for example semiconductor electronics) impurities are essential for the application. A transistor depends on impurities introduced into the silicon for it to behave like a transistor. For one application, the impure silicon is flawed, for the other it's "perfect". I suppose that in the realm of ideas it may make sense to talk of an inherently flawed idea. But this is in the realm of ideas, which to me suggests that flaws are essentially conceptual, and require a point of view.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 28, 2017 1:53:57 GMT
Assume for a minute that I agree with that. Are you then saying that things can not be flawed/imperfect, only beliefs/statements about things can be flawed/imperfect? For example, take McDonald's. Can McDonald's be flawed/imperfect, since McDonald's isn't a truth claim? No, things can be flawed or imperfect too. I refer back to my earlier post - a created thing can be said to be perfect if there is nothing wanting in its actuality. However, in the universal sense , to the extent that a thing has potential in its nature , does any material thing or being have complete actuality? "A beautiful thing is never perfect" as the Egyptian proverb goes. Can some x really be identical at time T1 and T2?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 28, 2017 12:06:29 GMT
I refer back to my earlier post - a created thing can be said to be perfect if there is nothing wanting in its actuality. However, in the universal sense , to the extent that a thing has potential in its nature , does any material thing or being have complete actuality? Sorry, but this kind of writing strikes me as a perfect example of pseudo-philosophy: rhetoric that sounds lofty and meaningful, but actually says nothing substantial. It is easy to use words like "actuality" and phrases like "potential in its nature" and sound as if you are making a point, so long as you are dealing with people who have no bullshit detectors. It isn't so easy to stop with the lofty rhetoric and actually be specific about what the hell you are trying to say. Good philosophy tries to be precise and specific.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 19:57:17 GMT
I refer back to my earlier post - a created thing can be said to be perfect if there is nothing wanting in its actuality. However, in the universal sense , to the extent that a thing has potential in its nature , does any material thing or being have complete actuality? Sorry, but this kind of writing strikes me as a perfect example of pseudo-philosophy: rhetoric that sounds lofty and meaningful, but actually says nothing substantial. It is easy to use words like "actuality" and phrases like "potential in its nature" and sound as if you are making a point, so long as you are dealing with people who have no bullshit detectors. It isn't so easy to stop with the lofty rhetoric and actually be specific about what the hell you are trying to say. Good philosophy tries to be precise and specific. Crikey. Pleasant place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 20:56:02 GMT
I think that in order to decide if a (material) thing is flawed, one has to have an idea in mind of a thing's purpose. Otherwise things just are. For example, one application of a piece of silicon might require it to be pure. But for another (for example semiconductor electronics) impurities are essential for the application. A transistor depends on impurities introduced into the silicon for it to behave like a transistor. For one application, the impure silicon is flawed, for the other it's "perfect". I suppose that in the realm of ideas it may make sense to talk of an inherently flawed idea. But this is in the realm of ideas, which to me suggests that flaws are essentially conceptual, and require a point of view. I agree that in order to decide if a thing is flawed we first ought to have to an understanding as to its purpose. And, whilst we can try to establish the purpose of a material thing, I don't think we can ever say with certainty that we know the entirety of a material things purpose for the simple reason that we do not have perfect knowledge of all that is material. However, our limitations, in the defining of a material things purpose, do not imply that such definition is not possible. Just because we, in our current state of understanding, cannot be certain as to a things full purpose, this doesn't imply that such a purpose, as yet undiscovered or realised, doesn't exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 21:02:19 GMT
Can some x really be identical at time T1 and T2? The correct answer to your question, I think, depends on whether or not it is possible for X to transcend time. If X is a thing that transcends time then, yes, it could be identical at t1 and t2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 21:16:48 GMT
Absolutes are not always necessary, especially when dealing with the nature of the universe. A glass is a glass and a tree is a tree, and we can claim that much to be a true statement without harsh judgemental questioning, but whatever flaws we may see inherent in something, or even someone, these are not absolutes or imperfections as we may individually perceive them to be. There is always room for improvement and attitude is key, but if you are striving for perfection— which doesn't really exist—in yourself, or what you anticipate or expect of others, then you will constantly be . The bruising has to be felt at some stage. Like another poster has commented, things are what they are. The rest just comes down to ego mind and condemnation of something we may not like or want to acknowledge as being a complete and whole projection of our own being. Life is just reflected and mirrored back straight at us. It's intricate nature is interwoven through every facet of it's and our complete being. It is good that people strive to improve and it is good that people don't always accept things as ' just the way the way they are'. If we didn't there would be no advancement in many fields of endeavour. The important thing to remember , as I think you suggest, is that nobody has perfect knowledge as regards what constitutes perfection . That doesn't mean perfection doesn't exist though.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 27, 2017 21:30:13 GMT
Can some x really be identical at time T1 and T2? The correct answer to your question, I think, depends on whether or not it is possible for X to transcend time. If X is a thing that transcends time then, yes, it could be identical at t1 and t2. I'm not of the opinion that "transcending time" makes the slightest lick of sense conceptually. (And it especially wouldn't with respect to temporal references like T1 and T2.)
|
|
|
Post by general313 on May 27, 2017 23:14:09 GMT
I think that in order to decide if a (material) thing is flawed, one has to have an idea in mind of a thing's purpose. Otherwise things just are. For example, one application of a piece of silicon might require it to be pure. But for another (for example semiconductor electronics) impurities are essential for the application. A transistor depends on impurities introduced into the silicon for it to behave like a transistor. For one application, the impure silicon is flawed, for the other it's "perfect". I suppose that in the realm of ideas it may make sense to talk of an inherently flawed idea. But this is in the realm of ideas, which to me suggests that flaws are essentially conceptual, and require a point of view. I agree that in order to decide if a thing is flawed we first ought to have to an understanding as to its purpose. And, whilst we can try to establish the purpose of a material thing, I don't think we can ever say with certainty that we know the entirety of a material things purpose for the simple reason that we do not have perfect knowledge of all that is material. However, our limitations, in the defining of a material things purpose, do not imply that such definition is not possible. Just because we, in our current state of understanding, cannot be certain as to a things full purpose, this doesn't imply that such a purpose, as yet undiscovered or realised, doesn't exist. No but it is still an open question whether any "full purpose" exists. No one yet has been able to show that the universe has any purpose.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on May 28, 2017 11:35:19 GMT
I agree that in order to decide if a thing is flawed we first ought to have to an understanding as to its purpose. And, whilst we can try to establish the purpose of a material thing, I don't think we can ever say with certainty that we know the entirety of a material things purpose for the simple reason that we do not have perfect knowledge of all that is material. However, our limitations, in the defining of a material things purpose, do not imply that such definition is not possible. Just because we, in our current state of understanding, cannot be certain as to a things full purpose, this doesn't imply that such a purpose, as yet undiscovered or realised, doesn't exist. "Purpose" is not innate to a thing. "Purpose" is something we ascribe to something or project onto something in order to predict and model its behavior according to what is interesting and valuable to us at any given moment. It is entirely dependent on context and human interests, less so on any physical facts about the object itself. You are right or wrong about something's purpose only to the degree that imaging it "has" this purpose turns out to be fruitful. There's literally nothing more to it. The "purpose" of a soda pop dispenser in a cafe is to provide selected beverages in exchange for money. The exact same object could be re-purposed at any time to be ballast or an anchor on a boat, with no physical changes to its innate nature.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on May 28, 2017 22:42:13 GMT
No but it is still an open question whether any "full purpose" exists. No one yet has been able to show that the universe has any purpose. Then perhaps just it's existence and being is it's purpose. If you are here, shouldn't that sense of consciousness and realization be purpose enough? Yes, for me of course. But that would be my point of view. When I die my point of view will no longer exist. If the earth and all of its life ceases to exist, what purpose will the universe have then?
|
|