Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What is perfection?
Is perfection even possible, or just an ideal state?

In today's world what would have to be done in order for perfection to be achieved.....

So in other words, how would you define a perfect world?

i dont think its possible

Nah, no such thing as certain perfection. Perfection is in the eye of the beholder.

Sure thing. Perfection is different for everyone, there is no a universal perfection (except maybe Brad Pitt )

true perfection has to be imperfect.
Think about it.
How do you know if something is perfect?
How can you judge it?

i think perfection is not possible if it were ppl will destroy it anyway.
coz for real we can't stand anything perfect

Not quite, as something perfect could contain a paradigm for imperfection without ruining its own state.

I don't think 'perfection' in general terms is attainable. You can hit a perfect shot in football or something, where the desired aim can be quantified. General perfection is not only subjective, but it could not exist. To slightly modify the above point, you can only have a good thing, if you have experienced a bad thing. Warm is only comforting after cold, and vice versa. Perfection would just be...bland.

perfection is impossible. Inperfection is a constan in the universe

I dont know who to agree with but im gonna go with Backfire on this one. Everyone perceives perfection differently, its impossible to obtain so that it would be perfect for everyone, and if that was achieved, how long would it be perfect for? it couldnt possibly BE perfect, it cant work by any stretch of the imagination.

Basically i believe we can see certain things as perfect, but others would not see it as such, and we would only see it as perfect for a short time, it would eventually fall into imperfection, like everything else.

So to sum that up: perfection is subjective.

Is there an objective perfection?

Yeh im coping ok with everything, tryin to get involved before i study this stuff at college, then VVD steps in and im at a loss makes me sad...

can you explain that for me VVD? Or any1 who's lurking?

Anyone....

Er, I was just summing up what you said. You are arguing perfection is subjective, ie dependent on viewpoint.

Perfection, total perfection anyway, can never be achieved by anyone.

So I guess we have to iron out or remove the imperfections that are removeable and just leave it at that.

A perfect world to me, Omega, is one where everybody realises that the perfect world is a different thing to everyone. Only by respecting, acknowledging and using bits and pieces from each and evolving together instead of trying to see who can have the tightest stranglehold, can we dawn a perfect world.

I believe the legalisation of all drugs, would infact get us closer to achieving this. But since the powers that be like being just that, the last thing they want is humans evolving and taking control of their lives. Hence where the law and war on drugs comes in.

Perfect World will never be achieved I don't think.

"Don't worry about perfection. You'll never reach it"
-Salvador Dali.

-AC

If different people see a perfect world differently, then. . . that makes no sense. A perfect world is a unified society in which all people see things the same. However, if all people see things the same, then we loose individuality, and imagination and forethought is lost to a stagnet society, who can not grow to ascend to better themselves.

The lost world of Altantis had this, but lost it. They had a buoyant soceity filled with citizens in tune with nature and their surroundings, and they treated everyone and everything with the same respect. But then they lost their way and began a war with the world to gain more power. Plato says the Greek gods then took their paradise away by sinking it deep into the Atlantic Ocean, never to be seen again.

Wow... mean.

We are the Borg. Perfection is our state of being. Resistance is futile.

Maybe perfection goes against human nature
But really perfection is boring.
Imperfection is much more interesting.
isnt it?

pray

hmmm... what went wrong there?

pray

True e'nuff. If we were perfect we'd know everything. And where's the fun in that?

Perfection is subjective. What' s perfect in my eyes isn' t perfect in yours. I can find perfection in imperfection.

The only thing in life which has truly evolved to a perfect state is boredom. Perfection is boring where as imperfection is interesting and attracts the attention of the intelligent mind. When the mind perfects something, it finds itself satisfied momentarily and subsequently gets bored, just to search for the next imperfection. Perfection is thus attained when it starts to bore the intelligent mind.

Perfection can't be found here.

speak for yourself

Have you found it????????/

in the mirror everytime I look

Even in the morning??????????

yes, wouldnt be perfection otherwise

yep..but by that concept perfection is only a matter of terminology and is totally relative.
you can meet perfection in..let's say...a perfectly cut diamond...or a perfectly plane surface.

I find perfection in nature all the time.

you philosophy is extremely impressive and accurate I must say... I can't comment any further...

Thanks peter, I tried my best to come up with a 'PERFECT'....ha-ha.. answer.

a boring answer in other words

If I didn't put 'PERFECT' in quotes it would have implied boring, but I was joking - my answer is utterly imperfect.

still boring

the genius bores the idiot.

One could take the point of view that everything is perfect. However, that is only if they accept that everything has it's place in the universe and in reality, and that each thing has it's own role to play, and that it does it perfectly.
For example, a squirell is not thought of as being perfect. But it's role in reality is to be a squirrel; a task which it fulfills perfectly. It is not a perfect being in the sense on a godlike being, but it is perfectly like it is meant to be.

THere is a difference between being perfect and being godlike.

Another example: A circle might be perfectly circular, but it is not godlike at all.

Then by your philosophy Philo, the idiot has acheived perfection. And by achieving perfection has become superior to the genius. So if you are a selfproclaimed genius, and you reach to be something more, are you striving to be an idiot?

The idiot has achieved perfection, that's why he bores the genius and vice versa. Who says perfection is superiority? The imperfect minds are the most intelligent.

the idiot was destined to be an idiot. Therefore, he has achieved his role in the universe perfectly and has perfectly fulfilled his destiny of being an idiot.

I don't believe in destiny.

well, being an idiot was (is) the purpose of an idiot, and it is a task that he/she fulfills perfectly

how come your able to bore people then

As I said, the genius bores all idiots.

yeah and again how come you are able to bore someone then

I think the reason is obvious.

only obvious to you

Exactly, I see things that idiots doesn't - to the idiot, very little things are obvious.

You see things that idiots don't. Like your genius intellect.

To tell you the truth, I don't see that either and I'm no idiot.

No offence meant, but everytime I dip into the Philosophy forum you are just here claiming to be some brain power Pete when you're not actually saying things.

An idiot over complicates, a genius can simplify and retain meaning.

-AC

the only thing that is obvious here is that you aint no genious.

Exactly.

Looking through his posts, he makes grammar mistakes nobody should be making, which do not appear to be typos, they're strategically placed.

Nobody on KMC has ever leaned so heavily on a thesaurus I believe.

-AC

Topc guys, don't let some bullshit ramblings destroy a thread.

I don't actually say things? I wrote a big deal of philosophical ideas in this forum, you on the other hand have nothing to show - you only criticise me as you have nothing original to say. Anyway, I got a lot of compliments in this forum from other members about my philosophy, also in other forums - peterKSL is one of them - one of the few here who can talk philosophy.

We can achieve the things we want to perfection. All we lack is the light to show the way.

A lot of great writers have made hundreds of grammar mistakes in their first editions - grammar has got nothing to do with intelligence anyway. If you need a thesaurus to read my stuff, you aren't very literate. I think you just don't understand my theories and now resort to pointing out grammar sh*t.

I just think you can't admit that he's right rolleyes1

"I wrote a big deal of philosophical ideas in this forum, you on the other hand have nothing to show - you only criticise me as you have nothing original to say. Anyway, I got a lot of compliments in this forum from other members about my philosophy, also in other forums - peterKSL is one of them - one of the few here who can talk philosophy."

I have posted in the philosophy forum before, when it was more than just people coming in saying "I'm smart". Like you.

PeterKSL? You mean the same guy who believes that homosexuality is a disease that should be cured? The same guy who hates gay people coz they're different? Yeah he's a real sharp tool.

I'm not saying you shouldn't post philosophies or such, that's the point of the forum. I just don't think (for someone who has a number of spottable faults from the outset) you should be coming on and immediately saying that you are a genius among idiots, that's all. Having a bunch of philosophical theories does not make you any special. Asking questions with no answers is just a cowardly way to not get proven wrong.

Anyway, perfection:

"We can achieve the things we want to perfection."

It's referring to complete and total perfection. Not neccessarily a task that can be labelled perfect due to a quantity of application or effort.

-AC

O <---- perfection

Alpha - I'm sorry, but I can't argue with someone who's against philosophers asking questions for which there are 'no answers'.

Again people, topic. One more off topic rambling by anyone and I'll close this thread.

Did I say I was against philosophers? No.

I was implying that it's a rather cowardly way to avoid having outrageous (sometimes) theories proven wrong. Hiding behind philosophy I mean.

-AC

BackFire, please close this thread, I can't handle these idiots - they don't understand reason.

Why are you resorting to calling me an idiot?

Don't be afraid of being challenged buddy, I'm not.

I reverted back to topic, you and Finti were already throwing insults before I got here.

-AC

Sir.. I am sorry that you see me that way, but I don't dislike homosexuality because it has no purpose in nature as I have mentioned clearly on that thread... Homosexuality on the other point had a psychological effect on me... I am completely straight, and homosexuality act as a virus in my brain, that is one of the reason why I hate it... Almost all of my friends spread the stupid rumor that I am gay, and so as my family believed that I am... I hate gays like hell if you can imagine the state I am in...

Just because you can't list the possibility why I hate gays, doesn't mean that you are completely right...

I don't want to post this on the internet actually, but I had no choice since you can't see why I hate them...

I am not saying that I hate evey gay... I just hate the idea of homosexuality... why did it exist??

Because you are an idiot. And don't flatter yourself in thinking you are challenging me - you are too much beneath my intellect.

"I just hate the idea of homosexuality... why did it exist??"

If you hate something you don't understand and still hate it after it's been explained to you especially when it comes down to personal choice, then you obviously aren't worth spending time on. Close-mindedness isn't where I dwell.

"Because you are an idiot. And don't flatter yourself in thinking you are challenging me - you are too much beneath my intellect."

Too much beneath your intellect?

Hit grammar school grampa, then come back to me.

-AC

A grammar obsession won't make you intelligent.

Nor will a thesaurus obsession.

-AC

Being perfect doesnt mean that everything that you want to do is achieved as perfectly as you want it. Being perfect is to be perfectly fulfilling your role in the universe and your destiny.

I don't have a thesaurus obsession, but some concepts can only be expressed using certain words. Anyway, familiar/unfamiliar/strange/unusual words is relative to the reader of the text.

"I don't have a thesaurus obsession, but some concepts can only be expressed using certain words. Anyway, familiar/unfamiliar/strange/unusual words is relative to the reader of the text."

It's because I understand what those words mean that I can see you use them to seem intelligent. Either that or you arrange words in a way that, to a reader, might make you seem intelligent.

There have been more intelligent discussions in the Off Topic forum than in here, by people who don't complicate things half as much as you.

It's the content, not the delivery.

You might do well to remember that Webster.

Anyway, topic.

-AC

Even if I did arrange words in a way that, to a reader, might make me seem intelligent, that ability to arrange words in such a way is in itself a sign of intelligence. But it's not what I did.

That's quite a telling couple of sentences psycho-analytically.

But, topic.

I've said all I wanted to.

-AC

Are you talking gibberish when you say: "That's quite a telling couple of sentences psycho-analytically." ? Or are you making a failed attempt at trying to arrange words with the object of seeming intelligent?

Hahaha,

That's giving the game away right there my friend.

You've spouted so much "intelligent" stuff on here that is actually simple that you don't know when someone is actually saying something.

I wasn't trying to be intelligent. Psycho-analysis is just a psychological technique, I read and look into psychology in my spare time. Try to keep up or sit at the kiddie table. You should have known that term.

-AC

I know what Psycho-analysis mean you idiot! Your sentence wasn't making any coherent sense.

"I know what Psycho-analysis mean you idiot! Your sentence wasn't making any coherent sense."

"That's quite a telling couple of sentences psycho-analytically", doesn't make coherent sense? But "You're too much beneath my intellect" does? Tsk tsk. To think you just called me an idiot. Sad, sad indeed. It means.......ready?......that the couple of sentences you posted, were quite telling, from a psycho-analytical point of view. The answer is in the sentence.

Anyone with a brain cell can understand what "telling" means. It means revealing, it's an equally used and acceptable term.

Basically, in layman's terms for you, what you typed was very VERY revealing and it showed that you obviously know you're complicating things for the sake of it. Coz you justified doing it, then said "But I'm not doing that." to cover tracks. You're fooling no one. Finti, Backfire and I have all seen this, so have many others.

-AC

It is not possible for having everything perfect.We are all humans and we all make mistakes.It is what being a human is all about.JM

Well, from a psycho-analytical point of view I think you're obsessive - you keep on responding to my replies after you said that you said enough!? Anyway, I'm screwing with your mind - the sentence does make sense, allthough I don't know what you're trying to achieve with it - you're making assumptions about my intentions anyway.

"Well, from a psycho-analytical point of view I think you're obsessive - you keep on responding to my replies after you said that you said enough!?"

Up until you replied to that same post, I had. Now you have gave me something I feel I want to reply to. Simple.

"Anyway, I'm screwing with your mind - the sentence does make sense, allthough I don't know what you're trying to achieve with it - you're making assumptions about my intentions anyway."

Haha, screwing with my mind. You couldn't challenge my brain if you tried.

"Oh I know what the sentence means. I was just screwing with your mind." For someone that has multiple mental disorders, you should be concentrating on keeping your mind together rather than piling up lie after lie, pretence after pretence.

-AC

You are right - I couldn't challenge your brain if I tried, because your brain would not be a challenge for mine.

Here's a challenge for you:

True or False?

What I am now saying, is a lie. If it's true, then it's false and if it's false, then it's true.

What am I saying?

"What I am now saying, is a lie. If it's true, then it's false and if it's false, then it's true."

"What I am saying now, is a lie": First you imply that you are lying.

"If it's true, then it's false and if it's false, then it's true.": You now say that if your previous claim of lying is true, then you are lying and what you were saying was infact false, a lie. As you first claimed. However if it's false, then what you claimed as a lie, is not a lie, it is true.

Loosen up the grammatical brain teasing joints and come better than that, Gramps.

-AC

No, my friend, you're totally confused. Here's the answer:

There is now way out of this - it's a logical circle: "What I am saying now, is a lie": this is not implying that I'm lying - the predicament is that you cannot determine if I'm lying or not - it's impossible. Look again.

"There is now way out of this - it's a logical circle: "What I am saying now, is a lie": this is not implying that I'm lying - the predicament is that you cannot determine if I'm lying or not - it's impossible."

Well using my approach it works.

Secondly, if it's impossible, did you feel some kind of intellectual high by giving someone an "impossible" equation? Clearly an indication of just how pretentious you are. If it were a lesser person you'd probably have called them an idiot for not getting it.

-AC

Your approach is flawed - I'd know afterall - I wrote it. Anyway, you were close to getting it, but it's not that simple.

It's also not that relevant. You threw it out thinking you were gonna trick me, you didn't. If I didn't get it exactly, I saw right through it. So it's neither here nor there.

-AC

If you didn't get it exactly, then how could you possibly see right through it? That doesn't make sense???

"If you didn't get it exactly, then how could you possibly see right through it? That doesn't make sense???"

Because I saw what you were getting at which you admitted.

-AC

WHat did I admit, please be specific. I merely gave you a logical puzzle/conundrum.

"Anyway, you were close to getting it,"

I saw what you were doing with the logical puzzle. So I didn't fail.

-AC

Being close to getting it and actually getting it is not the same. You came to a conclusion of "True", but it's designed to the efect that you can't reach a definite conclusion.

"Being close to getting it and actually getting it is not the same. You came to a conclusion of "True", but it's designed to the efect that you can't reach a definite conclusion."

A) That's exactly what I said. If I DIDN'T get it, I came damn close. It doesn't mean I failed.

B) Why ask it then?

-AC

A: You either get it or you don't - getting it means success; not getting it or comming close means failure.

B: I tested your logical ability - it's pretty good.

This is a rather well known question, stated by many logicians (is there a word like that) before. There are many others, even harder ones.

So, bardock, what do you think is the answer?

"A: You either get it or you don't - getting it means success; not getting it or comming close means failure."

Getting a silver medal in the olympics when aiming for gold, doesn't equate to failure.

-AC

When one does not reach what one aimed for, I think it's a failure.

"What I am now saying, is a lie" that is an equation to the question.. and then you said "If it's true, then it's false"--> If you are lying, then it's false, because you told the truth.. "If it's false, then it's true"--> You are implying that if you weren't lying, then you are telling the truth..

It's called a riddle actually... if I am not wrong... ^^

That is not a riddle, the answer to a riddle is generally quite obvious once it is discovered.

What we have here is a nonsensical loop that means nothing.

Every multiple things are made up of simple matters. What is so hard to understand? Just break it down...

Peter it often seems that you are looking for things that just aren't there.

Perfection is simplicity in it's purest form. Yet it seems that you only seek to complicate your world. I really can't pay attention to too much that you have to say because after the whole thing about finding out why you hate homosexuals and homosexuality you don't sound like the most rational sort.

Complication can only happens if one is not familiar with the subject...
Complication happens basicly when you find out something new...

As some people say it "Being a gay is not a sin, but having homosex is a sin"...

nothing's perfect

Philosophicus the only idiot here is you.

Blackcat - the only idiot here is YOU, not me - what proof do you have that I'm an idiot - I don't think an idiot can belong to a High IQ society. And I do. Nor can an idiot think on the philosophical level that I do.

peterKSL: "Every multiple things are made up of simple matters. What is so hard to understand? Just break it down... "; "Complication can only happens if one is not familiar with the subject...
Complication happens basicly when you find out something new..."; "As some people say it "Being a gay is not a sin, but having homosex is a sin"..."

peterKSL - you are on the right track, what you say makes perfect sense. About homosexuality - it can only be a sin if you are a Christian, but without Christianity in one's life, sin is non-existent. Homosexuality is a biological condition - lots of animals also display homosexuality. One cannot choose one's sexuality. But you have the right to hate homosexuals - everyone has the right to hate who or what they want - freedom - there are kinds of people and things I hate and dispise too. Hate and preference cannot be equated to irrationality, KharmaDog.

The only perfection is imperfection.

Jheez! I've never met anyone so full of themself!

So why don't you just pull that abnormally large head of yours out of your a-hole?

Everyone has a way of showing their uniqueness...

And I've never met anyone so philosophically empty - why don't you say something philosophically meaningful? You only criticise...is it because you can't come up with your own ideas and now desperately seek to criticise others'?

I believe Philosophicus has the right to be what he claims to be, and you can't judge anyone... who knows, maybe he's one of the future's greatest successful person...

Exactly, spoken like a true philosopher.

youpi thanks I really apreaciate it..!!

I admire your confidence in me, BUT I doubt whether I'll be one of the future's greatest successful persons. I'm a bit of a failure at life...guess I live too much inside my head - the curse of a thinker. I can only hope that posterity will be the vehicle to drive my ideas into the future.

As we came into the conclusion that nothing is perfect (as we imagined), for imperfection is perfect in it's own form... that we need to learn, to be perfect, and perfection itself is in the form of learning...

one can't be a failure if one has achieved one's motive/purpose in life, but can viewed as a failure to other people because everyone has their own motive in life...

you see yourself in a failure in life, I assumed that there is something that you haven't yet achieved... Anyway.. Good luck!!!

peterKSL: "one can't be a failure if one has achieved one's motive/purpose in life, but can viewed as a failure to other people because everyone has their own motive in life...

you see yourself in a failure in life, I assumed that there is something that you haven't yet achieved... Anyway.. Good luck!!!"

You hit the nail right on the spot!

displaying that hatred can lead to discrimination , and against that there are laws. So if you wanna hate, as an examples gays, keep it to yourself.


o <- perfection

I don't hate gays, but I hate lots of other things - if everyone just loved everything, the world would have been pretty much non-progressing - it's out of hate for things that there are laws today - in other words, somebody hates something and then creates a law to ban the thing that was hated.

lawmaking is a bit more complicated than that

It's really just that simple, finti. Laws are there out of fear and hate for things.

then maybe you should read the Laws of Norway cause they are about making a society work rather than laws made out of fear, but then again deep down inside Norwegian kind of always been wild ones

Exactly, 'making society work' = making laws against those who are feared and hated, because they don't make society work.

Philo, being arrogant, crazy, disrepectful, obsessive and untrustworthy, and being proud of it is a lovely way to look at yourself, so many times you type words in this forum and I pity you. Stop calling people idiots, it's getting boring and you don't further your arguements you just look like an ass. Learn to debate and not argue. It would not bother me if you seemed to occasionally listen to what the odd person said, but you don't. It seems to be more important to you to be right than to find answers.

Philo and Peter if you could keep your little love-ins to pm's the rest of us would appreciate it.

And the ideas that laws are made against people as opposed to for people is a personal viewpoint.

Thanks for the compliment.



We'll never find answers - but then again, to be right means to find an answer.

And the ideas that laws are made for people as opposed to against people is also a personal viewpoint. Aren't they made for and against people?

I am not going to argue with someone who behaves in such a childish manner philo. Your need to prove yourself superior, to be accepted, and to entertain yourself with such infintile behaviour is sad. You speak of your mental problems as a defence, and use them as an excuse to act the way you do.

You claim to be a genius and a great philosopher. It takes more than telling me that you are either of those, you have to prove it.

he has no reason to prove it to you.. or he had already, by his arguements and his compliments and critics from all around the world, that knows him...

Why are you so jealous of him?? Or are you annoyed by arrogance itself??

I am not jealous of him Peter, and yes such arrogance I find distasteful.
Arrogance is a defence mechanism and I am wary of any who display it.

And merely claiming to be something over and over again while chiding and disrespecting others does put the responsibility on him to prove that he is what he says. Now that would be difficult because it is hard to prove anything in a forum such as this, and he is an admitted liar.

I feel absolutely no need to prove myself to you KharmaDog.

Arrogance is another form of selfish... Everybody is selfish.. none is non-selfish... thanks to bardock42 that he showed me this knowledge..

You are arrogant yourself sometimes, just that you don't know it, because no one tells you that... go analyse it by looking at yourself and everyone.. before you turn insane by your hatred to everyone, because everyone basicly is arrogant in some ways... you would be surprise one day, when someone tells you that you are arrogant...

There's a difference between arrogance, cockiness and confidence. I invite you to learn the difference.

cockiness= when males foundle themself

imagine KharmaDog doing that while typing

arrogance, cockiness and confidence is exactly the same - and don't try and pull out a dictionary, think for yourself...if you can...

And yes, now that I think of it, you are arrogant as well, KharmaDog, but it doesn't bother me - you think you are right all the time and try to sound wise, over and above me.

in time you learn it as well Peter, when you get cream in your pipes

"in time you learn it as well Peter, when you get cream in your pipes"



good one!

"arrogance, cockiness and confidence is exactly the same - and don't try and pull out a dictionary, think for yourself...if you can..."

Using a dictionary is not "not thinking for yourself", it is knowing what the f*ck a word means. And no they are not exactly the same. If you have to completely negate the context and meaning of every word to prove your point, then you have no point.

"you think you are right all the time and try to sound wise, over and above me."
You see, that is your insecurity, I try not to sound wise above you, I am stating my views and opinions based on my experiences and knowledge that seem to differ conmsinderably from yours. If I was right all the time I would not be discussing anything with anyoine in this forum because it would be frustrating. And yes I am confident, sometimes even cocky, but I never put down others' intelligence in order to make me feel good about mine, or see myself as superior in order to make me feel better about myself or validate my self worth.

Definition and meaning of a word is vastly different from each other, KharmaDog.

PLease explain philo

*Nods.*

Kharma I think he means that the meaning of almost every word can be very different for different people.

A few communication scientists have even claimed no real communication is possible because for real communication to take place people should have exactly the same understand of each word or gesture used during the communcation, which is almost impossible.

e.g. (very easy one tho, but it paints the picture) your green is not per say my green

That's what a dictionary is for Fire. The problem with communication is that people do not take time to learn the tools to properly communicate.

I see your point to a degree, but that does not excuse people who cannot communicate or who cannot explain what they mean. Using the correct word in it's proper context allows for more clear expression.

even a dictionary is open to interpretation Kharma, since it uses words (open to interpretation) to explain other words.

I know it sounds far fetched and it sounds like someone just trying to hammer down a point. But after studying the damn subject for 4 days now, it begins to make sense. I hope I get it decent before my exam about it tomorrow

Kharma - if you don't know the difference between 'Definition' and 'Meaning', then you don't belong in a philosophy forum - it's for people who can think above mere definitions.

Well then educate me Philo instead of talking down to me.

Why would I want to educate someone who thinks I'm childish? You'll anyway just try to undermine my opinion, 'cause you can't create your own ones.

Whatever gets you through the night Philo.

Actually, it's day time here.

guys try and keep it on topic, if you want to annoy eachother use PMs