Hi snakelegs
again, who does the defining? isn't it subjective? who decides what is superior, what constitutes superiority?
Therer's a difference between:
(1) Acknowledging that there exist "X" which is the best possible form.
(2) stating that a given form A is indeed perfect.
Since that's rather abstract, I'll give an analogy with
tallness rather then
perfection.
(1) I acknowledge that there exists a human being, which is taller then
all other human beings.
(2) I saw a very tall man today, I think he is the tallest human ever to exist.
I find (1) self evident, whereas (2) would always be debatable. I was talking about (1), the questions you asked me are about (2), not (1).
Hi ranma
ranma1/2 said:
i think you can always improve it somehow.
By your own definition, perfection was something that cannot be improved on. So now you're saying that:
"the best possible form" cannot exist, because any form can always be improved right? I think you're wrong, allow me to show you why
First, lets discuss any situation with a
finite number of options. Out of those finite number of options, there will probably be some options that are better than others. However, since your supply of options is limited, obviously at least one of those options has no options that are better to it. Just as like when you have a limited amount of people, only one of them can be taller then all the others. We call that person the tallest of the group. Simularly, I would say that the "
most perfect" option is perfect in the sense that it is "
as good as it gets". Note that I already stated before that I do not believe in an Utopian perfection, but that I argue there is inevitably such a thing as the best possible form.
Now I doubt you have any objections to this logic; and niether do I doubt you object to the best possible outcome in a set of finite options. So if you still insist that perfection is impossible, then I would assume that you believe so because you think that there is always an
infinite number of options. However I would argue that even then, perfection is possible. But the proof is a bit more complex then in the case of a finite number of possibilities. Because here we need to take into consideration the criteria for perfection. I already showed that in order to know whether something is perfect, we need to know what it is, what it's purpose and function is (remember the espressos machine). Any options that's fit all of these criteria, would then by my judgment be perfect. Now I take it you would disagree, and say that you can always make an improvement, even when those criteria are met. However, I say that is wrong. Because any improvement that you make to the perfect espresso machine, is one of two things. Either it is:
1. Something that is neutral towards it being perfect or not. (for example, you think a red espresso machine is better, since the color fits your kitchen, but both the red and the blue version make perfect espressos)
2. Something you forgot to add to your list of initial criteria (you improved the machine so that the quality of it's espressos is even better)
The second case can be disregarded, since the flaw in the "perfection wasn't an inherited flaw, but we simply misjudged the machine due to inaccurate criteria. As for the neutral changes they don't render the previous option imperfect, since the premise was that the perfect espresso machine is judged by it's end product of espresso's and not for example by it's ability to make tea.
