as individuals we certainly make mistakes that are deteramental to our personnel success, however as a species are we truely flawed? We project alot of negative sentiment into wars and the destruction of other species, in my opinion these projections are our dissatisfaction with our inablity to control Nietzch's "inner beast", I am not so sure that these actions make us flawed. What is our berometer, isnt that the problem, we have no other intelligent species upon which to gadge how perfect or imperfect we are. Is the true tragedy that we hold ourselves to a standard that is unrealistic?

I agree with Bush...and from an aesthetic view, all is well and perfect. War is as beautiful as children licking lollipops in a park. Besides, if this has been the way of man since man can recall, why call it imperfection? If anything, even the nastiest has gotten more perfect. War isn't merely throwing stones or swords or arrows...it's now hi-tech weaponary, missles from other countries, liquid-gel bullet proof vests. Mmm...perfect (for the time being)!

you had me at liquid gel bullet proof vests, 666. i like where this is going

HEEEEEYY! I like swords and arrows!

Seriously, though, I can see where you're coming from - and if you think of it from a greenie's perspective like mine, war is good because it's a very effective form of population control!

Well yes - I suppose that's what an ideal is defined as really - a model vision of a situation that can be thought up, but can never be reached practically, because of the innate hard-wiring of human nature (which i think was Sixx's point: things like war have just been a part of humanity since time began, so why are they thought of as an anomaly?).



x Jelly

hmmm i just got around to really reading through the last few posts and thought i'd comment on this one. i agree that we as human beings generally hold ourselves to a high standard, perhaps even an unrealistically high standard, but why does that make it wrong? that seems like saying that stupid people should just not study because they're gonna fail anyway. i don't think tragedy is the right word for it, because i don't see trying to improve against all odds as being a bad thing. and i know it's debatable whether we've improved as a species over the years. norse mythology comes to mind - don't you agree it's better to fight the good fight and lose than to just give up? perhaps humanity's unrealistic standard is heroic rather than tragic. just my two cents.

oh and btw i think there's something fishy about questioning whether war is an anomaly or not. if it weren't, why would people think it was? hmmm... it seems a bit on the contradictory side to say that we as human beings are right but that we're wrong about our wars being wrong. savvy? maybe i'm not thinking clearly enough...

It is arguable that a stupid person should spend time learning a trade and not waste there time studying advanced physics. Hhow do you establish a standard and is that standard right or wrong? Striving for a higher standard is not wrong but the standard itself may be.

no, i think it's hypocritical to just give up. why bother living at all if you don't go for the gold? i know lots of people who do learn trades, and respect many of them. i respect them because they want to do it. one of my best friends is an auto mechanic and he's probably the smartest person i know - far smarter than myself. you see he didn't just give up, he chose to do something because he doesn't care what other people think. it's what he enjoys doing. i cannot respect people who think "i'm stupid, i'll be an auto mechanic". it is disrespectful to themselves and others. i believe if a stupid person wants to be a physicist, it is weakness that keeps him from it, not logic. strength isn't doing what you know you can do, but trying to do what you aren't sure about and sticking with it. this is obviously just my opinion, although i have a hard time imagining how others can just give up like you're advocating. really think about it. don't you think it's best to try, keep the standards sky high, and go for it? life loses meaning if you don't have anything to shoot for.

and no, i don't think it's possible for a standard we make to be wrong and us to be right in not living up to it. things are the way they are for a reason. we have high standards because it's in our nature, god-given or not. if our standards are flawed, then our nature is flawed, and whatever we do is flawed. however, if the standards are right and we just aren't there yet, there's still hope. perfection is living up to all our standards. it's what religion and philosophy is all about, really, in summary. again, just my point of view.

so someone paralyzided should spend there life trying to walk? I didnt say people should give up I said the standard could be wrong.

what is perfection? If you cant answer that question how do you even know you are pursueing it?

I dont see setting unattainable standards to be natural nor in human nature. You could make the argument however that doing so make us more then merely natural

well, i don't think that a crippled person should try to walk, but surely you recognize the difference between doing the impossible and trying to do what you think might be impossible? or perhaps you know that our standards are unattainable? we can say for certainty that the cripple will never walk, but can anyone really say that we can't be perfect beings?

and as far as perfection goes, it's the easiest thing in the world to define. perfection is the state of being made for something. we normally take that in the figurative sense, but in a literal sense a bomb is a perfect way to kill people. the sense i think in which you use it is a fairy tale in that there's no 'per' in the 'perfect'. what's our purpose? as long as we each live for our own reason, whatever it may be, we're doing good. to be perfect, all we have to do is pick something and do it well - like we were made to do it. and perfection is not absolute, despite what anyone tells you. two people can be perfect. god is not perfect, by definition. he is not made for any reason.

whether human beings are flawless is another question. however, until you can prove the standards are unattainable, how can you advocate not setting them? the trick is setting high standards and having the strength not to let failure destroy you. failure can be beautiful as long as you go out trying.

and once again, how can a standard be wrong? why would we make a wrong standard? we as human beings have created countless things. how can we tell whether what we've made is right or wrong, objectively? we can't. as you yourself said, we have no other standards to gauge our own against. so our standards are the standards. there are no others. hence our standards are right. i can't see how you can question the validity of something when there is no alternative. that's like saying "i don't believe in anything". what do you fall back on?

can a unit of measure be subjective?

how do you know your are made for something unless you have tried everyting?

is a bomb a perfect way to kill people? is the intent of a bomb to kill people?

can a bomb kill people? true

if i intend to kill 1000 people and drop a bomb to do it and only 500 die was that bomb perfect?

Do we spend billions to make a bombs better? yes, how can you improve on perfection?

are there alternatives that maybe more effective then a bomb to kill people? yes, why would you use something else if a bomb was perfect?

I have typed all this bomb crap to demonstrate to you that being made for something is far from being perfect, if it was we would not make any changes to or replace that perfect thing with something else. For example I dont see alot of people driving steam engines to work.

There are certainly alternative's to the existing standards those being diffrent standards

you say we should not try to do the impossible why then should we set are standards to impossible goals?

I did not say we should not have standards by the way, there seems to be some confusion so I just wanted to clear that up.

your last paragraph makes no sense but it scares me to think that you would simply accept and not question something that has no comparable data and no supporting evidence. Assume for a moment someone told you that humans could fly wouldnt you want to see some proof.

if an individual did not believe in something and was faced with a situation that challenged that belief wouldnt that by defintion cause them to fall back on believing in something?

well, up until this point i almost followed your logic. your main problem isn't the nature of your arguments but the weak support you give for them. let me explain.

being made for something isn't something you find out afterwards. you know when you make it that it's for that thing. it's a definition, and hence is valid. like if i say i'm going to make a pie to eat and make the pie and eat it, the pie was perfect in that it was made for a reason and fulfilled that purpose completely.

and your example with the bomb proves my point. a bomb made to kill 1000 people is perfect if it kills 1000 people every time. if we want a bomb to kill more people, theoretically a bomb that killed 100000 people, we could make one to do it and if it did it's job flawlessly then it too is perfect. you cannot take something that works perfectly and improve upon it. you 'improve' upon something when your purpose changes.

i specifically said in my last post that more than one thing can be perfect in the same respect. a bomb that is meant to kill 100 people and does is just as perfect at killing 100 people as a laser designed to kill 100 people that does that just as effectively. you cannot just ask "how perfect something is". you have to ask what aspect of the thing's perfection is under scrutiny. it's similar to physics where you ask what the work done is; it makes no sense unless you make the context crystal clear.

i suppose that your point about their being different standards isn't completely ridiculous. in fact, it's not a bad point. however, it doesn't prove your point or mine, just shows that our debate isn't laughable. that is to say, we can make whatever standards we want. good point, and completely relevant, but it doesn't support or negate either argument, really. i guess the same can be made of my previous statement.

and as far as having standards goes: not having a standard is a standard. it's the lowest possible standard. the zero, if you will. just like having no money in your bank account is still a balance.

i find it humorous that my last paragraph scares you. perhaps i wasn't clear. my position is that it's funny to say that our standards (or the collective standard to which we as humanity hold ourselves, which you acknowledge by taking part in this discussion) might be flawed in that we represent "as good as it gets". if we're as good as it gets, why then do we still have stupid, unattainable and masochistic standards? i swear the idea stinks of logical fallacy. to say that our ideas are wrong because we are right makes no sense, and that's in effect what you're saying.

when i say us, or we, i mean all of humanity. assuming no other intelligence in the universe other than humanity, humanity has nothing else to compare its standards to than its own standards. comparing one standard against another from the point of view of "rightness" then is, and i say this because i took some offense to your previous post, idiotic. when i say that it's "right" to follow the higher standard i don't mean it's any more inherently correct, but because it offers the greatest possibility. if humanity cannot excede certain low standards, and ironically we can never know until we've tried forever to surpass them, why should we give up? what if those standards are attainable? and what do we lose in trying to attain them? given the opportunity to play "big blue" in chess for $1,000,000,000, would you say no and keep what you've got or throw away an hour or two and go for it? if you wouldn't go for it, then you and i are just too different people to understand each other. humanity has nothing to lose by having high standards but has everything to gain.

again, people flying is not the same thing as humanity evolving to better fit our ideals. people cannot fly. we don't know whether humanity can change or not. please don't liken humanity's changing to something obviously impossible again. it's insulting and ignorant, and i've called you on it before.

well, i think i covered most of the points you tried to make. if we could, let's keep this nice and academic, i don't want this to get personal because i enjoy the topic and would much prefer some good argument to childish fighting.

Iam not fighting with you

You keep making this argument about degrees of standards and setting them high and you keep making an assumption that I am advocating low standards (Iam not and I have pointed this out to you in almost every reply please dont bore me by making me repeat it again)

Let me ask you a question. You say that when you make a thing for a purpose it is perfect, you say that it is perfect when it is made, not after the fact, iam just wondering how you know it fulfills its purpose until you try it out? It would seem logical that you could not know a thing was perfect until after it completes its purpose. If it does not then it is not perfect. Or from another vantage point once the pie is eaten or once the bomb is exploded is it still perfect? Its kinda of a feedback loop you dont know its perfect until you use it but once you do its no longer perfect.

You lack the abailty to describe perfection its okay its part of my point there is no universal truth to describe what perfection is. I cant describe it nor can anyone esle. Websters dictionary defines perfection as 1. lacking in no essential 2. Being without defect or fault. Thats all well and good but there is no way to know with certainity that a thing meets this defintion as such it can not be truely descibed. In other words you cant label something perfect.

You seem to be missing what iam asking, I will point out here that I have never made an argument simply asked questions, the questions were A) are we as a species truely flawed and B ) is the tragedy of mankind that our standards are unrealistic basicaly because we dont understand perfection.

hey man,

sorry if my last post seemed a little harsh, it was, i shoulda reflected a bit (bad mood) anyway, let me hit those questions one more time, and try to definitively say what i'm trying to say...

1. i think you're right in a way about something not being perfect until you know whether or not it fulfills its purpose without flaw. however, as i've said before, perfection is really only the state of being made for a purpose. theoretically if something's made as a means to an end it's perfect whether it works or not. however, something that's made for a purpose but does work is different somehow... like you can "make something for something else" or "something can be made for something else", like it depends on whether you consider the active or passive sense. so in the active sense most everything is perfect, whereas in the passive sense it depends on how we look at it. and i don't think it's wrong to try to give a working definition for anything, as long as it can be agreed on by both parties. without definitions it makes no sense to talk about perfection, which is why i want to define it. i'd like to find some common ground... webster's does a good job at pointing out the two senses of the word i mentioned, the active (1) and the passive (2). it remains just general enough to be practically universal, and such an idea of perfection is what i'm going with. thus perfection is very much possible... in fact, perfection is everywhere. in a way, saying that perfection is unattainable is setting 'unrealistically high standards' for perfection. hmmm... and i disagree about not being able to apply the working definition to anything. if i need to write something down and i pick up a pen and write what i'm thinking, the pen lacks no essential. it performs its function without any problems at all. it fits the first and second definition of perfection, as it pertains to writing. the pen is obviously not a perfect baseball bat, and perhaps not even a perfect color, but it is still perfect in some respects. pens are made to write with. ...

2 (A). i don't think we as a species are flawed in the slightest, because, in a sense, we're like a novel. to read part of a novel and call it flawed is, in my mind, what people do when they look at humanity and call it flawed. you can't judge something until you've seen the whole thing, as you've said, and even then the purpose of humanity, after the fact, must be fulfilled by the course humanity took, since the purpose of humanity is necessarily decided upon by us, the only intelligent beings in the universe *arguable*. since humanity cannot do otherwise but fulfill the course it sets for itself in a passive inevitable way then humanity is recursively perfect. in essence, being the judge and jury of ourselves, we cannot be anything but innocent. this argument of mine is very clear in my mind but is by its nature very difficult to explain. hmmm... to say that humanity is flawed would be to say that we are flawed in someone else's eyes, and if you mean objectively flawed, you mean god's eyes. hmmm, perhaps the christian faith is a good analogy for my message. humanity is flawed through god's eyes, whereas humanity (and the material world, lucifer, etc) is perfect by its own unholy standards. hmmm...

3 (. by a similar argument to the one i made in 2 (A), i believe humanity's standards are, in effect, the "gold standard" in existence. nothing but humanity's standards are there. one way or another we have to set some standard, no matter what. alright. having established that, the question becomes whether it is possible to pick an unrealistic standard. the simple answer to that question is yes, it is if our standard requires impossibility. our question then becomes is humanity's standard impossible? the answer to that question, as you've mentioned yourself, is that we cannot be sure until it's been done, and only then be certain that it's possible. if we cannot prove something conclusively, if we have to wait to see what happens, as with our living up to an arbitrary standard, we can't be sure it's possible until it happens. we can never be sure it's impossible. this of course is different than, say, physical handicaps or physical impossibilities. we are sure of other things, and it follows from that that other things are impossible. i doubt there's any positive statement that can be made and proven that has as a natural consequence that mankind is incapable of living up a given standard. well, i suppose some standards could be shot down, but why the general "world standard"? what part of that seems so wrong? that we should not wage wars? that we should all live in peace? etc. we know it's possible for peace to exist, we just don't know if it can perpetually exist. and we will never know, really, because if it is forever we'd have to wait forever to prove it - or til the end of the world.

i guess my final verdict, and i hope i've provided some insight into my reasoning, is that mankind is incapable of setting its standards too high because (a) we are ultimately the judge of our standards and as long as the standard is as it is, it is the correct standard as there is no greater intellect than collective humanity to negate it and (b) it's impossible to know whether the standards we set for ourself are too high before we try *forever* to live up to them and (c) perfection is ultimately whatever we want it to be, not some fantastical quality of something we cannot comprehend. i basically believe human power to be limitless, in the sense that there is no limit to our capability to do anything we set our minds to. i know that seems like it's easily debunked but i could then argue about the nature of limitations, in much the same fashion, and prove that possibility is forever - i think. the main problem i have with a theory by which humanity's standards are tragically unrealistic is that it denies the infinite nature of possibility. that i cannot believe. and that's the essence of my case.