Is this a perfect world?
- Thread starter Nathaniel Grey
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, this is not a perfect world, this was never a perfect world, this will never be a perfect world.
From an objective point of view perfection can not exist unless there is no more imperfection and that is impossible in an imperfect universe. Why is it imperfect? Because change exists and change has no room in a perfect universe.
Unlike good and evil, two concepts that, by their very definition, one can not exist without the other (someone is evil because others are good, if nobody is good then nobody is evil), perfection and imperfection are two concepts that, by their very definition, one must exclude the other (if there is one small imperfection then it is not perfect and if it is perfect then it has no imperfection)
From a subjective or relative point of view you might think that one person could achieve their own vision of a perfect world at some point. But that would be a lie. We are wired to evolve, to change. So we always have to want something. We always have to strive for something. No matter how many times you get what you want, you will always want something else after.
Even if, by absurd, one person were to reach perfection, it would only last for less then a fraction of a second because they would want something else and the only thing left to want would be imperfection.
Maybe a perfect world would be beautiful but i will never experience it, nobody else has or will, and yet there is still beauty in the world. So personally i would call this world "imperfectly beautiful".
From an objective point of view perfection can not exist unless there is no more imperfection and that is impossible in an imperfect universe. Why is it imperfect? Because change exists and change has no room in a perfect universe.
Unlike good and evil, two concepts that, by their very definition, one can not exist without the other (someone is evil because others are good, if nobody is good then nobody is evil), perfection and imperfection are two concepts that, by their very definition, one must exclude the other (if there is one small imperfection then it is not perfect and if it is perfect then it has no imperfection)
From a subjective or relative point of view you might think that one person could achieve their own vision of a perfect world at some point. But that would be a lie. We are wired to evolve, to change. So we always have to want something. We always have to strive for something. No matter how many times you get what you want, you will always want something else after.
Even if, by absurd, one person were to reach perfection, it would only last for less then a fraction of a second because they would want something else and the only thing left to want would be imperfection.
Maybe a perfect world would be beautiful but i will never experience it, nobody else has or will, and yet there is still beauty in the world. So personally i would call this world "imperfectly beautiful".
What reason does something that is perfect have to change, and what is capable of changing it? Even if it was adapted to change it would still have to have a goal to achieve it in a perfect manner, so what if it did its job perfectly like making people happy but people stopped existing, than its now perfect at something impossible so its not perfect. But if it was perfect than become not, how is that perfect?j1015 said:
More to you second point what makes a perfect society, I definitely agree that a world without war and famine would be good. What about smaller things, does it get better if you remove theft? How about scarcity, will people be happier if they can get whatever material goods without doing any work. How about the big one death, would the world be a better place if no one died at all?
Yeah.... no.... its not perfect and the fact its "working" isn't a redeeming factor, sure you can say everything's fine here living in a first world country or at least a country with internet access but those under harsh dictatorships or dying of starvation and disease may believe otherwise, the thing about perfection is that its perfect, if there's a even small and minor quibble about it then its inherently not perfect and there's lots of things we can fix without upsetting the balance and the mere fact that we are working towards solving our problems means that each day we are getting closer to an answer to most of them then the last, thus no , its not perfect else why would we be trying to fix it but there's a crap ton of philosophy that says as soon as we have a perfect world we pretty much cease to be interesting in anyway but I'm not sure I buy that and we may never get to cross that bridge anyway.
This is that age old argument you can't prove it either way as that 'perfect' world doesn't exist. Also was there a need to insult my intelligence over a question that at least right now can't be answered without a shred of doubt? But who cares about that, I disagree with you so just continue to insult me.j1015 said:
I don't think most people are reading my entire argument because they are mentioning pain, sorrow, and suffering as reasons for why the world isn't perfect. Everyone seems to be coming off of the basis that the world we currently live in is flawed hence it is imperfect. While I'm coming from the standpoint that since the world we currently live in is flawed, it is perfect. In order to understand what I'm asking your going to try to have to think like a god instead of a human. You can't simply say that this world isn't perfect and then offer no solution. What I'm trying to debate, somewhat, is whether the current idea most humans have of perfection might in fact be wrong. It was aforementioned that "Perfect World" would be would be incredibly mundane. That is what I'm trying to tackle. What if we are in fact currently living in a perfect world. And that those things, war, famine, ...etc., are what makes it perfect. I'm not offering suggestions on how to make a perfect world. I'm saying that this world WAS, IS, and AlWAYS will be perfect.
Second many have been saying that it all depends on your interpretation of what "Perfection" is. But your opinion about what that word means does not matter in this case. Unless you know, to the T, how to create said idea of perfection. If you don't then said idea remains just that, an idea. Now, I'm not saying that somewhere along the line someone can not figure out how to make the world "perfect", in the sense that there is no suffering, death, yada yada. But since said idea has not been offered up in this discussion. Then is safe to assume that currently this is the best version of a perfect world we have.
Second many have been saying that it all depends on your interpretation of what "Perfection" is. But your opinion about what that word means does not matter in this case. Unless you know, to the T, how to create said idea of perfection. If you don't then said idea remains just that, an idea. Now, I'm not saying that somewhere along the line someone can not figure out how to make the world "perfect", in the sense that there is no suffering, death, yada yada. But since said idea has not been offered up in this discussion. Then is safe to assume that currently this is the best version of a perfect world we have.
I know it's the taboo book broached by supposed idiots but the Bible presents paradisiac conditions. In it people that are meek and hard working and peaceful inherit the earth. There will be no war, famine, disease and the "minor things" eliminated as well. Now I know this seems like fairy tale to a lot of people, but I question what improvements are proposed that have/would work.zerragonoss said:
The world is perfect purely from a geographical and mechanical standpoint, once you sit back and examine everything around you and how amazing things such as a computer, the cardiovascular system, ecosystems etc. work, it's breathtaking.
Then you start introducing more human aspects and things become more context-sensitive and grey.
I still think it's a good world, even after all the shit, there is at least enough goodness that counter-acts the bad things, and I've barely found any of them.
Then you start introducing more human aspects and things become more context-sensitive and grey.
I still think it's a good world, even after all the shit, there is at least enough goodness that counter-acts the bad things, and I've barely found any of them.
I would like to point out that the majority of minds that come into existence in this world die painfully after a lifetime of hardship. Herbivores, predators, and most humans are plagued by disease, starvation, and pain. To argue that this state of affairs is perfection comes across as pretty damn arrogant. I highly doubt that you would believe this if you had felt the anguish of watching your loved ones dying of starvation, or the agony of being pinned down by a bear while it eats your intestines. Even if what you define as 'perfection' is objectively true, would it not be better to try to remove the suffering at the cost of perfection?
Furthermore, what do you even mean by perfection? The definition I have is 'the state of being perfect; as good and complete as it is possible to be'. How does that work when applied to a universe that is constantly in flux? Species evolve and become extinct, atoms form compounds and break down again. Should we not develop any more technologies, or discover any more knowledge, in fear of violating perfection?
Besides, how can anyone hope to imagine what an example of a perfect object is without comparison? For example, if you had only ever seen one car in your life, you would have no idea whether or not it was a perfect or imperfect car, let alone the extent of improvements that could be made to it. On the other hand, if you saw a top of the range supercar; finely engineered and highly polished, compared to a worn out piece of junk with a grinding gearbox and rusted paintwork, it would be far easier to tell which one was closer to a particular ideal of 'perfection'. Without knowing what we could make the universe, or how it could be different, we should not assume that what we have is the best we could get.
Furthermore, what do you even mean by perfection? The definition I have is 'the state of being perfect; as good and complete as it is possible to be'. How does that work when applied to a universe that is constantly in flux? Species evolve and become extinct, atoms form compounds and break down again. Should we not develop any more technologies, or discover any more knowledge, in fear of violating perfection?
Besides, how can anyone hope to imagine what an example of a perfect object is without comparison? For example, if you had only ever seen one car in your life, you would have no idea whether or not it was a perfect or imperfect car, let alone the extent of improvements that could be made to it. On the other hand, if you saw a top of the range supercar; finely engineered and highly polished, compared to a worn out piece of junk with a grinding gearbox and rusted paintwork, it would be far easier to tell which one was closer to a particular ideal of 'perfection'. Without knowing what we could make the universe, or how it could be different, we should not assume that what we have is the best we could get.
Personally I just disagree with the concept of objective perfection. Something can only be perfect for a purpose as without a purpose there's no metric against which we can measure how close to perfection something is. An old, run down mansion isn't perfect for the purpose of being lived in by a pair of first home buyers, but it may be perfect for the purpose of being fixed up by an eager renovator looking to make a profit afterwards.
The argument often then goes "Well, for something to be objectively perfect then it needs to be perfect for its original/intended purpose." I don't fully agree with this argument, but I do find it's often what people mean when they describe something as perfect without an explicit purpose attached. But even with that argument, the question then arises of "What is the original/intended purpose of the world?" And I think that's where the OP's brother was coming from. Given his answer, it seems reasonable to extrapolate that he believes the purpose of the world is something along the lines of to be full of men and women who "glorify God and enjoy him forever" to poach from the Westminster catechism (a view which I personally agree with for what it's worth).
However, not everyone believes this and in fact many people would say that the world has no original/ intended purpose and so they come to the question of "Is this a perfect world?" and try to answer for what they think is the best purpose for the world. For some (although none in this thread as far as I can see) that best purpose is to make 'me' as happy as possible. For others it's to maximise global mean or median happiness or even to minimise the variance or individual happiness (although they generally don't view it like that).
And so that's the issue I have with this question: there is no agreed purpose of the world and thus it is impossible to answer the question of "Is this a perfect world?" on it's own. However, with the following purposes in mind I offer the following answers:
-To be full of men and women who "glorify God and enjoy him forever": No, see OP for justification
-To make me as happy as possible: I don't have everything on Earth at my disposal, so no.
-To maximise global mean happiness: Given I believe that happiness vs possessions is a decaying distribution, all wealth would need to be equally distributed for this so no.
-To minimise global happiness variance: NO, as this one is also optimised by getting everyone to the same level of happiness.
-To have everyone on Earth experiencing their own personal idea of a perfect world (the view where the boredom argument seems to stem from): No, and it never will as everyone has a different idea of optimal purpose and thus perfection.
So in short, I don't think I can find a metric for which this is a perfect world. Well optimised perhaps, but by no means perfect.
The argument often then goes "Well, for something to be objectively perfect then it needs to be perfect for its original/intended purpose." I don't fully agree with this argument, but I do find it's often what people mean when they describe something as perfect without an explicit purpose attached. But even with that argument, the question then arises of "What is the original/intended purpose of the world?" And I think that's where the OP's brother was coming from. Given his answer, it seems reasonable to extrapolate that he believes the purpose of the world is something along the lines of to be full of men and women who "glorify God and enjoy him forever" to poach from the Westminster catechism (a view which I personally agree with for what it's worth).
However, not everyone believes this and in fact many people would say that the world has no original/ intended purpose and so they come to the question of "Is this a perfect world?" and try to answer for what they think is the best purpose for the world. For some (although none in this thread as far as I can see) that best purpose is to make 'me' as happy as possible. For others it's to maximise global mean or median happiness or even to minimise the variance or individual happiness (although they generally don't view it like that).
And so that's the issue I have with this question: there is no agreed purpose of the world and thus it is impossible to answer the question of "Is this a perfect world?" on it's own. However, with the following purposes in mind I offer the following answers:
-To be full of men and women who "glorify God and enjoy him forever": No, see OP for justification
-To make me as happy as possible: I don't have everything on Earth at my disposal, so no.
-To maximise global mean happiness: Given I believe that happiness vs possessions is a decaying distribution, all wealth would need to be equally distributed for this so no.
-To minimise global happiness variance: NO, as this one is also optimised by getting everyone to the same level of happiness.
-To have everyone on Earth experiencing their own personal idea of a perfect world (the view where the boredom argument seems to stem from): No, and it never will as everyone has a different idea of optimal purpose and thus perfection.
So in short, I don't think I can find a metric for which this is a perfect world. Well optimised perhaps, but by no means perfect.
I feel the ability to strive for perfection while not obtaining it is great. It means progress doesn't end, and new shit comes around all the time. Thats awesome.
If it were perfect, there would be no need for progression towards anything. Since we still DO that, it's not perfect. QED.
If something can improve, then it's inherently imperfect.
I'm not even going to start with the insanity that is "objective", but I'm pretty sure that we can all agree that the world would be improved with fewer senseless murders, for starters.
I'm not even going to start with the insanity that is "objective", but I'm pretty sure that we can all agree that the world would be improved with fewer senseless murders, for starters.
Nope, hopefully i'll live long enough to see some progress to a better imperfect world though. That'll be something worth dying happy for.