7 ms·

You've sort of side-stepped the point. The idea of humans being "imperfect" is not in reference to a Webster's definition, but in comparison to the religious n

You've sort of side-stepped the point. The idea of humans being "imperfect" is not in reference to a Webster's definition, but in comparison to the religious notion of the deity's perfection. If one believes that Mankind is not some imperfect reflection of a perfect deity whom he must serve, then any notion of perfection must be realizable by humans. So in theory a man or woman could be perfect. Rand writes about these larger than life types of people. Most of us only see shades of them in ourselves or people we know, but it sure beats the idea of guilt/imperfection as a birthright thanks to original sin! I bring this up b/c western culture is so heavily influenced by Christianity that it pollutes even people's secular understanding of what perfection means. As I recall someone got a 10 at the olympics this year.

jonny_noog 18y ago
You're putting words in my mouth (or at least attributing meaning to my words that I never intended) and trying to frame the debate. I am not Christian, nor do I count myself as a member of any organised religion. Such concepts as original sin and all that come with them hold no power for me and I certainly don't agree with them. My concept of humans being inherently imperfect comes directly from and is directly in reference to the dictionary definition. I think I have already made my point about the attainment of perfection implicitly meaning that further improvement is impossible and how this can only be a bad thing for humanity. Who wants to live in a world where the best has already been? If however, proponents of Objectivism wish to redefine and narrow the meaning of the words "perfect" and "imperfect" in order to make some point against certain misguided religious concepts, then that is their business. I could only suggest that perhaps they try using different words to avoid future confusion. Someone got a 10 at the Olympics? Well done them. You may be interested in this story: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/06/1214234 http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/06/1214234 But in any case, now it seems that you're switching back and arguing that the dictionary definition of "perfect" is attainable by a human. And it was a good argument too, untill it occurred to me that scores are assigned by imperfect human judges. I don't see the human inability to attain perfection as a negative, quite the opposite actually. It keeps us growing.
- unalone 18y ago
  I think that Rand and people who agree with her work see perfection as a relative thing. In her books, the "perfect protagonists" are the ones who always live life according to moral values without ever slipping, and who manage to persevere and create great things. That's perfection in her books: always doing your best, and your ACTUAL best rather than a measly excuse of a best. And when the guy mentions perfect people, I think that's what he's talking about.
  - jonny_noog 18y ago
    Not being intimately familiar with her works, I can only take your word for this. If that is the case, then that seems logical and I have no problem with people being encouraged to do their best. However, that is not the impression that I got from Brook's quotes. The word "perfect" has one meaning, it is not a relative thing. If you don't actually mean "perfect" then use another word. I still see a strain of absolutism showing through when you say "the "perfect protagonists" are the ones who always live life according to moral values without ever slipping"... Where do these moral values come from? Who agreed that they are the values worthy of being adhered to? And they live life true to these values "Without ever slipping"? Sounds like we're looking at the dictionary definition of "perfect" again... If there's one place where this kind of perfection could be achieved, I guess it would have to be in a fictional book.
    - unalone 18y ago
      I answered you elsewhere: I think that "perfect" is not necessarily an absolute. It doesn't always mean "incapable of being better." It means "having all desirable traits." It's like if I call somebody unparalleled. It doesn't mean they CAN'T be paralleled, it just means they AREN'T. Rand says in her works that moral values must come entirely from logic and reasoning, and that that's why her philosophy can be held as a moral absolute: because if it ISN'T logical, she encourages you to disagree with her. It's why people who agree with her seem to do so fanatically: because they're convinced by logic and nothing else that they are right. And Rand admits from the start that her works portray ideals and nothing more. In her line of thinking if she portrayed only characters with flaws it would make her books subjective and less reliable as a philosophical guide. Nonetheless, there are people who try to live by her words, and many people who have succeeded immensely because of them.

jonny_noog 18y ago

You're putting words in my mouth (or at least attributing meaning to my words that I never intended) and trying to frame the debate. I am not Christian, nor do I count myself as a member of any organised religion. Such concepts as original sin and all that come with them hold no power for me and I certainly don't agree with them. My concept of humans being inherently imperfect comes directly from and is directly in reference to the dictionary definition. I think I have already made my point about the attainment of perfection implicitly meaning that further improvement is impossible and how this can only be a bad thing for humanity. Who wants to live in a world where the best has already been? If however, proponents of Objectivism wish to redefine and narrow the meaning of the words "perfect" and "imperfect" in order to make some point against certain misguided religious concepts, then that is their business. I could only suggest that perhaps they try using different words to avoid future confusion. Someone got a 10 at the Olympics? Well done them. You may be interested in this story: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/06/1214234 http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/06/1214234 But in any case, now it seems that you're switching back and arguing that the dictionary definition of "perfect" is attainable by a human. And it was a good argument too, untill it occurred to me that scores are assigned by imperfect human judges. I don't see the human inability to attain perfection as a negative, quite the opposite actually. It keeps us growing.

unalone 18y ago
I think that Rand and people who agree with her work see perfection as a relative thing. In her books, the "perfect protagonists" are the ones who always live life according to moral values without ever slipping, and who manage to persevere and create great things. That's perfection in her books: always doing your best, and your ACTUAL best rather than a measly excuse of a best. And when the guy mentions perfect people, I think that's what he's talking about.
- jonny_noog 18y ago
  Not being intimately familiar with her works, I can only take your word for this. If that is the case, then that seems logical and I have no problem with people being encouraged to do their best. However, that is not the impression that I got from Brook's quotes. The word "perfect" has one meaning, it is not a relative thing. If you don't actually mean "perfect" then use another word. I still see a strain of absolutism showing through when you say "the "perfect protagonists" are the ones who always live life according to moral values without ever slipping"... Where do these moral values come from? Who agreed that they are the values worthy of being adhered to? And they live life true to these values "Without ever slipping"? Sounds like we're looking at the dictionary definition of "perfect" again... If there's one place where this kind of perfection could be achieved, I guess it would have to be in a fictional book.
  - unalone 18y ago
    I answered you elsewhere: I think that "perfect" is not necessarily an absolute. It doesn't always mean "incapable of being better." It means "having all desirable traits." It's like if I call somebody unparalleled. It doesn't mean they CAN'T be paralleled, it just means they AREN'T. Rand says in her works that moral values must come entirely from logic and reasoning, and that that's why her philosophy can be held as a moral absolute: because if it ISN'T logical, she encourages you to disagree with her. It's why people who agree with her seem to do so fanatically: because they're convinced by logic and nothing else that they are right. And Rand admits from the start that her works portray ideals and nothing more. In her line of thinking if she portrayed only characters with flaws it would make her books subjective and less reliable as a philosophical guide. Nonetheless, there are people who try to live by her words, and many people who have succeeded immensely because of them.