RoR: Forum

Jason: “If you don't think it's possible to live by a philosophy, e.g. Objectivism, and consider the belief that one can to be "naive" or "foolish" - then what is the point of studying it?”

Hi Jason. Moral theories are generally an attempt to discover or create standards against which to measure and/or guide human behaviour. In that sense, they are ideals that we are encouraged to live by. But if we accept that all human beings are imperfect, they will invariably fall short of the ideal.

I don’t think Ayn Rand is an exception in this regard. As Daniel points out, my “naive” and “foolish” comments referred to her presenting herself as someone who lived by her philosophy, including presumably her moral theory. In effect, she offered herself as a target for her “enemies”. Naturally, her enemies took up the offer.

It’s a bit rich to complain now that the potshots are hurting. But you don’t have to be an enemy to take her claim seriously. Anyone who wants to live by the Objectivist ethics needs to take Rand’s life into account one way or another, either as an example or cautionary tale.

Brendan

Post 21

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 5:48pm

Why is there such an insistance on considering humans as being 'imperfect' - doesn't that remove the term from the realm of reality? To make mistakes is not a sign of imperfection, and omniscience is not an aspect of reality.

Post 22

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 6:04pm

Robert - Also - perfection is the start of decadence. Nowhere to go after perfect but down.

Michael

Post 23

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 6:08pm

Then you know not what 'perfection' consists of in respect to concept.

Post 24

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 6:49pm

So all those wonderful philosophers weren't actually perfect. Some of that stuff makes Ayn Rand look like an angel by comparison. Perfection is subjective and when we have fictional characters as our role models, well isn't that implying that "nobody is perfect". Its not hypocrisy as much as it is the human condition. People make their own choices, many times choosing between the lesser of two evils, sometimes judgment error--and expect things to be perfect. I even tested out as a perfectionist on a Disc assessment at a job, which I thought was pretty damned funny. We all have our ideals and realities. Sometimes they mesh, sometimes they don't. Don't let it get in the way.

About that quote...

“that which does not kill you makes you stronger.”

I thought my brother made that up. Thanks for setting me straight on my mantra.

Post 25

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 8:06pm

Robert:
>Why is there such an insistance on considering humans as being 'imperfect' - doesn't that remove the term from the realm of reality?

Nope. Only from *physical* reality. Abstractions, such as the famous "perfect circle" can be mathematically expressed, so they certainly exist. They just can't be physically expressed is all. (hardly suprising as they are, after all, *abstract*)

>To make mistakes is not a sign of imperfection...

Well, one could scarcely say it is a sign of perfection either, unless one is being Panglossian in the extreme. In which case there would be no "mistakes" anyway!

>...and omniscience is not an aspect of reality.

But we can certainly propose it as a *hypothetical standard* - as something to measure our own knowledge against, even if we can't directly experience it ourselves. A bit like a perfect circle!

- Daniel

Post 26

Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:17pm

A bit like a perfect circle!

What exactly is an "imperfect circle,"anyway? :-P

The nature of perfection for any particular type of entity has to be defined in terms of the nature of that type of entity. A "perfect X" cannot possess characteristics outside of those of an "X" in general. i.e., you can't say that the nature of men is to be limited in knowledge and fallible, and then say that a perfect man is omniscient and infallible---that amounts to saying that a perfect man is something other than a man.

Or, for that matter, like saying that a perfect circle would have a circumference-to-diameter ratio of precisely 3, unlike those messy real circles.

Post 27

Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:56pm

Robert:

"Then you know not what 'perfection' consists of in respect to concept."

"Perfection is the start of decadence" is a popular saying in Brazil.

But you're right - I don't know with respect to your concept - no. I'm almost afraid to ask you to define the term as you understand it.

The last time you got technical on me, I had to read your post five times to get my reason around your concepts.

Call me slow. Call me foe. But call me...

//;-)

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 3/17, 4:58pm)

Post 28

Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 8:18pm

A clue to help you grasp the nature of the concept 'perfection' is to grasp the concept 'context'.... for example - to use one postured in here - the circle does exist in reality, in the context that an ellipse is a circle within the context of a dynamic universe, not the abstraction given in a static moment.
The same is in regards to the idea of 'perfection', namely that is must, to be valid, be taken in context of reality - that is, what it is in the nature of being human [to use human perfection as the object of what it is to be perfect]. If, to be human, necessitates an imperfection - that is, its nature violates a normalty - then the idea of perfection is a sham, for it is only reality which can be used to measured against. It is the given.

Post 29

Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 8:37pm

(sigh)

I was afraid of that. 5 times.

But I think I got you. You don't want to contemplate or accept any standard of perfection that does not exist in reality (which actually is redundant - can anything "exist" not in reality?).

No unreal or inexistent standards for you. Did I get it?

However, that does not negate my poor Brazilian saying. Once something attains perfection, i.e. the most complete and correct form possible in reality, it can only get worse from there. It cannot get better. So... decadence.

Or, who knows? Maybe you think perfection does not exist - ever?

Michael

Post 30

Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 7:15pm

Nature asks:
>What exactly is an "imperfect circle,"anyway? :-P

Oh, the usual thing, where you can define the perfect circle mathematically - that is, in abstract - but cannot physically achieve it. All physical circles are imperfect compared to an abstract standard. (BTW, you do accept that abstractions exist - just not physically?)

>The nature of perfection for any particular type of entity has to be defined in terms of the nature of that type of entity.

I think you'll find that without some standard to apply to this ends up tautological.

- Daniel

Post 31

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:01am

Nature: "The nature of perfection for any particular type of entity has to be defined in terms of the nature of that type of entity. A "perfect X" cannot possess characteristics outside of those of an "X" in general. i.e., you can't say that the nature of men is to be limited in knowledge and fallible, and then say that a perfect man is omniscient and infallible---that amounts to saying that a perfect man is something other than a man."

That is a perfect explanation.

Barbara

Post 32

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:06am

deleted post

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/18, 12:08am)

Post 33

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 2:36am

George, I didn't understand it, but why did you delete it?

Barbara

Post 34

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 3:56am

George - that was perfectly clear to me, and you have my sympathies.

Post 35

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 5:43am

I think he's hiding the good stuff for an article.

Michael

Post 36

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 7:50am

My apologies for jumping in here and thinking out loud…I have no trouble with a concept of human perfection, maybe I am too kind to myself and other fellow humans. I think Michael K. thinks of perfection as it would apply to an inanimate object, or to a momentary state of being, like a great moment of bliss…and, of course, after the bliss comes moments that are not so blissful…right? And I think we are talking about ethical perfection, not body…hmmm, well that is not bad either…ummm, ok, ethical perfection for living human orgasm, whoops, organism…it seems the concept of human perfection would apply to the process of living and not to concrete achievements or blissful states, they would be consequences of the process. A personal mantra of mine is know thyself. I think that is helpful in evolving and exploiting one’s being. And I think there are tons of other focuses or processes like being aware, perceiving. Something like being malicious and knocking the light out of someone’s eyes is for sure not good. I see perfection kinda like drawing a line in the sand and opting to be on the good side of the human universe…it doesn’t seem like a big deal to me…but I think it is important that if one has a concept of perfection it should be damn well and reasonably attainable.

Michael

Post 37

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 7:57am

Interesting thoughts, Michael N. I particularly liked the following snippet:

I see perfection kinda like drawing a line in the sand and opting to be on the good side of the human universe…it doesn’t seem like a big deal to me…

I like that way of looking at it. After becoming more objective I was never too concerned about holding myself to an idea of perfection and more concerned about being willing to correct myself if I make an honest error, and avoiding willfull "errors".

Jason

Post 38

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 12:25pm

Michael N.,
I didn't know that you are also a comedian!

Post 39

Friday, March 18, 2005 - 9:07pm