Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

On Perfection

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 4:11:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool:

One of the major problems with philosophical progress is the irrational uses of language. The problematic term I would like to focus on here is word "perfect". But all words refer to an idea, which we may also call a concept.

A way to classify concepts are those which are discrete or that of magnitude, for example we may say that emotion is a concept of magnitude because we could feel more or less angry, or happy, etc. But a square is either a square or not, and a line is either straight or it's not technically a line.

The same is that of the concept Perfect, something is either perfect or not. If it is any less so then it's imperfect. Thus it is irrational to speak of the most perfect being, because Perfection is not a concept of magnitude.

An example perfection would be a perfect copy, in that a copy of a picture is perfect if it is an exact match of the original. Any flaws in comparison to the original would deem it imperfect.

Socrates is famous for sayin that "the perfect triangle is in the mind", aka the Form/concept. While triangles perceived through sense data, always some up short of perfection, there is always some small, flaw; a smudge, or a line is not perfectly straight. Lasers can come close to creating the perfect line.

Another way to speak of perfection is in the sense of a perfect score, in that we may score 100% on a test. But it could never be in terms of magnitude because anything less than 100%.

What is important to take away is that perfection can only be known in reflection to an already known ideal. That is, perfection is a comparative notion, and perfection can only be in relation to something already known

.E.g we must know what a perfect score/triangle/image is already to know if something is in perfect relation.

Even the predication of perfection can only be distinguished in relation to another known ideal. In that x is perfect example of Y, if and only if x=y or y is a perfect image or y. But we must know the x before the y and not the y before the x. That is, there is an asymmetry of the knowledge acquisition of perfection.

Straight From the Hill!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 4:16:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh yes, language is just full of it.

Unless we're talking about me. Then I'm just perfect. That's all there is to it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 5:07:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 4:16:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Oh yes, language is just full of it.

Unless we're talking about me. Then I'm just perfect. That's all there is to it.

Its important that you brought up this for many people are confuse about the difference between a desriptive definition(which is analytic) and the connotative Definition ( The Booo! or YaaaaH! factor) Where I am talking about the descriptive meaning of perfection and you are expressing the connotative meaning.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL