Human imperfection

Post Reply New Topic

Human beings as accepted by a number of people here, are imperfect. Why are they so imperfect? What causes this? This issue I leave to you, WPers. Tell me, why do you think human beings are imperfect?

Anyway, I might as well explain the options:

--"Because of evil" means that a moral imperfection exists in mankind, either actively driving man to evil(devil's temptations for example), or because of a prior historic event(the fall).

-- "Because we don't act like we should" means that human beings are imperfect because we do not behave as we ought to, such as we kill when we should not, or ignore information that we should pay attention to

-- "Because there can be intelligent beings that are better" means that there can be a better agent such as a biological creature designed better, or an AI.

-- "Because we have free will" means that the free willed nature of people allows them to act imperfectly, and because perfection is a narrow category, the multiplicity of these choices precludes perfection.

-- "Because existence is imperfect" states that the quality of existing is on some level imperfect. This can be that the quality of existing entails a number of impossibilities in order to be considered perfect.

-- ""Imperfect" is subjective, therefore meaningless" argues that basically, perfection relates back to some aesthetic or moral state of mankind that cannot exist, therefore even invoking the language is faulty.

-- "Human beings are perfect" means what it says, the question posed is false, and people really are perfect.

-- "Because they aren't all like AG" means that the root of human imperfection is the dissimilarity between other human beings and myself, and logically states that I, AG, am perfection.

-- "Other" is simply another opinion that I have not or forgot to state.


So, WP, go at it!! !

(also, yes, I know that some of these options can overlap so just pick the best/most fundamental option based upon how you understand the world)

Dithered between "Human beings are perfect", and "Imperfect is meaningless, the language is at fault".

After consulting my memories of "peak"-experiences of connection with the universe, it has to be that humans are perfect, but on a knife edge with the word itself not meaning anything.

.

Last edited by ouinon on 06 Sep 2008, 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I believe that's the reason, Perfection seems to be a human created concept, and likely that concept doesn't even exist (in the sense of actually achieving it) rather a human thought and idealism, we can say that the goal of perfection may exist, a part from that, what is perfect and imperfect varies within societies, culture, history and individuals.

Perfection is indeed subjective, which is something as stated in the quote related to arts and to morality and other areas.

Is its meaningless? depending on the context in which is used, objectively, we can say it isn't real and is meaningless, but as construct which serves and guides humans into something, depending on the belief system and ideology and methodology, it serves some purpose.

It would be something that doesn't exist in nature, but it does exist as a concept, as I tend to think that each concept exists for anyone who holds it, as concepts.

Well, such a position is not something I am trying to refute or accept. I am merely putting that forward in order to better understand what people accept as human perfection. I mean, you are arguing against a position that nobody has put forward except as a hypothetical.

Yes, right, I was practically arguing the option I selected, illustrating that I agree with it, but not as a whole, related to perfection being meaningless or not.

Ah, ok.

I think that the statement "humans are perfect" is by a hair's breadth truer for me than declaring the word itself meaningless because after throwing out the notion of free will earlier this year, and accepting/recognising that everything about me is causal/caused, I experienced myself suddenly not as being on some path to/of self-improvement ( poisonous pedagogy ) , but as already, right now, a perfect expression of the universe as it is, a perfectly functioning part of it.

I am already being and doing exactly what my part in the universe is "supposed" to be doing; how could I not be, if everything about me and my choices is entirely caused/causal, a product of genes, conditioning/nurture, chemicals, environment, etc ? How could I be anything else?

But again that also means that imperfect and perfect are meaningless terms about life. Perhaps useful for smaller matters, like a circle, a pyramid, or a fitted cupboard.

.

My existence as a separate entity implies imperfection. Perfect things are by nature whole and unvarying (le aether, le pantheistic God, le Tao). There is more than one person. Imperfection ensues.

Define perfection for us when it comes to human beings if you please....

Hmm... you must have picked the same answer in the poll that I did.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 06 Sep 2008, 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Why do I have to??? One of my answers in the poll was that perfection was meaningless, so if I define it then I defeat the entire idea behind such a poll.

It's a silly question.

Meh, any question could be considered silly. The issue is that I am trying to get perspective on other people's perspectives.

Perspective on what? On the meaning of perfection? On the nature of humanity? On whether they have a rational response? Perfection is a medieval concept generally rejected today as obsolete. In engineering situations whether a unit conforms to standards is rated in how close measurements conform to design and that is rated with numbers that have an asymptotic significance. The closer the unit comes to the design standard precisely the more it becomes expensive to produce so perfection is a useless concept.
The question is vague and senseless as a human is so varied in its capabilities that one must determine in what context it must be measured. A "perfect" man is not a "perfect" woman or a "perfect" child or a "perfect vertebrate" or "perfectly" healthy or "perfectly" terrible. The concept is just downright stupid.

On anything and everything I can get a response on. This includes the meaning of perfection, the nature of humanity, and can be rooted in the rationality of the response. Perfection is a concept, period. We can say anything we want about the concept, I could even argue that perfect really relates to the relationship of inflows, including design inflows, and output. Thus allowing for an economical perfection as being the maximally beneficial output per unit of input as measured in dollars. I could also say that there is the concept of "perfect competition" as an abstract notion in economics, and thus argue that the theoretical notion has not died. So on and so forth.

Sand, not only that, but for your opinion there is a freakin' option in the poll that states the meaninglessness of the term "perfection" and 46% have voted for that option with 54% not doing so. So, I don't see how the thread is necessarily stupid, given that 54%, a majority, voted ideas other than your notions and that there are posts and votes on this thread. Yes, you can say that this majority is silly, but still, "silly" is even more subjective than perfection so the notion of "silliness" is meaningless.

"Silly" is a personal reaction to someone spending time trying to confuse people over absolute nonsense. No doubt you have attained that goal with some people. It's a popular game of the US government and if it can be successful on that scale it's not surprising you can pick up a small gullible crowd.