Is it possible for something to be objectively perfect? It seems to me that perfection is essentially a lie, value is only in the eye of the beholder, and what one sees as perfect another might see as very much imperfect.
For example, strength is considered to be a value- having the greatest possible strength would be a requirement for being perfect. But is strength actually a value objectively? What makes it valuable, why is it not subjective human judgement?
Same goes for intelligence, love, kindness, etc.
Can something be considered truly perfect, and how?
@TerrorKingA
Well, of course perfection is a human invention, because it's a concept and concepts are created when humans describe them based on what really exists- the characteristics.
I mean, you can't really ever make a 'perfect' piece of art, but it's possible to make perfect things as long as there is a definable version of 'perfect', like B_S said a perfect game or bowling, or maybe drawing a perfect circle.
@TerrorKingA
Well, of course perfection is a human invention, because it's a concept and concepts are created when humans describe them based on what really exists- the characteristics.
"What really exists" is where I take exception to your definition. It is demonstrably false because people care more about what they perceive to be true rather than what is fact. This is the inherent flaw with "perfection." It's too subjective a concept in that it depends entirely on one's perception.
Strictly speaking, for a lifeform, perfection would be something that can pass on its genes 100% of the time, but not many would agree that the perfect guy is someone who has sex a whole lot.
This is a good post and goes back to what I said before. You need clearly defined rules and outcomes to determine perfection, thereby eliminating the inherent subjectivity.
"If you get 40 points, that's a perfect game," as opposed to "Score as many points as you can." There has to be a defined upper limit which when met gives the quality of "perfection" to that which has met it.
@Blinking Spirit
What if your goal is to lose?
What if your goal is to play unremarkably?
I can certainly think of plenty of ways that you could have a perfect thing so long as you rig conditionals onto it, but it's not truly perfect if it's only perfect from one perspective is it?
In the case of a perfect circle as well, is a perfect circle truly perfect? It's an actual absolute circle. But that just means it the best it could in one very specific manner. What if you think being a true absolute circle is an imperfect quality?
What we are talking about here is having a 'maximum value' of a quality, a form of perfection yes, but perfection has more to it.
You don't have to play bowling to win. Many people play games to have fun not in a way that means prioritising winning. They might considering doing too well as unfun for other people and therefore it's not their 'perfect game'.
@Blinking Spirit
Again, what I am saying is either perfection only exists as a form of maximum value for a specific characteristic, or it's subjective. The point of this thread is to argue whether perfection, in a more general form, is truly possible.
@Blinking Spirit
Again, what I am saying is either perfection only exists as a form of maximum value for a specific characteristic, or it's subjective. The point of this thread is to argue whether perfection, in a more general form, is truly possible.
I pretty much gave you the answer to that in my first post. Perfection as a concept has no strictly-defined value because it's an abstract construct of the human mind. Depending on what you value, its definition changes. The only way to achieve perfection to clearly define goals. It's like how Magic couldn't have face-down creatures without them being defined by the rules first (as 2/2 creatures).
@Blinking Spirit
Again, what I am saying is either perfection only exists as a form of maximum value for a specific characteristic, or it's subjective. The point of this thread is to argue whether perfection, in a more general form, is truly possible.
Let's turn it around to show the issue you're running into.
Is true "red" even a thing? Can something TRULY be red? What if what you call red I choose to call blue? Or what if what you call true red, I call dark red?
This isn't a meaningful question. Is a TRUE dog even a thing? Is a TRUE tree even a thing?
"True perfection as a general concept" is nonsense. You're taking a criteria-based concept without the criteria. It's just as meaningless to ask if imperfection as a general concept is even possible. Imperfection based on what criteria?
Perfection or imperfection as an external concept to the criteria it's based on isn't a coherent concept. But it's misleading to say this makes perfection "subjective". Something can be objectively evaluated as perfect or imperfect if all the designated criteria is objective (such as a maximum possible score for a game of bowling). Additionally, some criteria is objectively better for some things. A "perfect strategy" for winning a tournament involving a solved game (where all the best moves are objectively known) isn't subjective, because the criteria for what perfection means here gets dictated by how well it achieves your goal. What goals you choose to care about are up to you, but saying that this makes perfection subjective is rather misleading.
The point is related to the idea that there are some objective set of values that could make something perfect generally. Perfection is subjective in that values seem to have to be chosen subjectively. Anything decided even in part on subjective principles is ultimately a subjective determination. All forms of objective perfection as a specific are also alternatively a subjective more general perfection. The question is can we have an objective general perfection?
Perfect- "having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be."
Fits fine. The question is whether values can be objective in order to make perfection objective.
Perfect- "having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be."
Fits fine. The question is whether values can be objective in order to make perfection objective.
Desirable for what? Required for what? Good as it's possible to be for what? The definition you provided shows exactly what I'm talking about. It's entirely contingent on the criteria required to serve a specified goal.
No, your only expressing that you agree with me. There's nothing malformed about the question; desires, requirements, good for something- these are all related to the idea of values, which is the question, can they be objective so that something can be considered objectively perfect?
Sure, there are many possible values, but that doesn't mean they are all created equal, it is possible in the abstract that some could be in some way 'good' or 'right', my concern is how any specific values could actually be any better objectively and it would seem you and most others so far agree with me as to this point.
The question is incoherent because you're using words in ways that they don't work in. You're asking the equivalent of half a sentence. You might as well be asking, "What is the sound of..." And never finishing the sentence. Perfection is based on desirable qualities. You need to define what the goal is for. Otherwise you're effectively asking, "Is is possible to have a best possible version of..." and never finishing the sentence.
There can absolutely be objectively best possible versions of things based on defined goals. If you refuse to specify a goal or criteria, the question becomes incoherent.
Then you're linking this half-question to argue against an objective notion of perfection. This is why we do NOT agree. Objective perfection can absolutely exist once you finish the question and clarify what you're trying to evaluate. There can be an objectively perfect game of bowling. Just like something can be objectively 2 meters in length.
Other people can say, "well that's not what I consider the definition of a perfect game of bowling. I think getting exactly one gutterball is perfect.". Likewise, someone can say, "well that's not what I consider the definition of the word 'meter' to be. I think it's equivalent to 4 feet." This is a meaningless objection. As BS says, they're just playing a different game.
Once you define your terms, things can get objective. Until then, what is as-good-as-it-is-possible-to-be is entirely dependent on the goal in question. A fuse works because it is weaker than the rest of the system. Architectural supports work because they're strong. It's really not very complicated.
StairC the question is not incoherent, it seems that you have missed the whole point of the question: can we have 'right' values? You object to the question saying that it's not complete, there needs to be values specified but that only makes sense if objective perfection cannot be general, because if it can then there is a specified set of values, the objective general ones. The question is centred around the idea of whether there can be objective general values, so making an objection saying there has to be specific values is obviously not an objection to the question but an answer. Your objection only works based on one answer being right.
Also of note, you still agree with me. If you reread my posts you'll see that I'm saying that I think there is no objective general values, only subjective ones. That is not to say that there cannot be objective perfection, only objective general perfection, objective specific perfection is of course possible because it's very easy to make objectivity when you can specify all the rules circumstantially. It is not relevant to the question of general perfection, which is quite different.
StairC the question is not incoherent, it seems that you have missed the whole point of the question: can we have 'right' values? You object to the question saying that it's not complete, there needs to be values specified but that only makes sense if objective perfection cannot be general, because if it can then there is a specified set of values, the objective general ones. The question is centred around the idea of whether there can be objective general values, so making an objection saying there has to be specific values is obviously not an objection to the question but an answer. Your objection only works based on one answer being right.
Also of note, you still agree with me. If you reread my posts you'll see that I'm saying that I think there is no objective general values, only subjective ones. That is not to say that there cannot be objective perfection, only objective general perfection, objective specific perfection is of course possible because it's very easy to make objectivity when you can specify all the rules circumstantially. It is not relevant to the question of general perfection, which is quite different.
With this level of clarification, I don't have an issue. The thing is you've been generally using the terms "objective perfection" and not more specific phrasing, which is why BS asked what you make of a perfect game of bowling to begin with. If you're asking can there be objective general perfection, there cannot because it's an incoherent concept. It's like asking how something scentless smells. The word "perfection" is based on criteria in your own definition. Without criteria perfection is an icoherent concept. As for whether some criteria is objectively better than others, again it comes down to "better for what goal?" Criteria is inherently based on criteria-for-what?
So the whole question ends up being incoherent. You aren't begging the question, you're basically begging the refutation, because the refutation to your question is assumed within its definition. And your previous phrasing, along with your responses to BS, made it sound like (to me at least, can't speak for others) you were trying to argue against any objective perfection on these grounds.
But now we're just arguing over what makes a question "incoherent" versus the answer just being "no". I'm calling this one incoherent because the words just don't work in this context. Refusing to introduce criteria into a word that depends upon criteria for it to have any meaning results in the question being incoherent, because the words just don't work.
If you consider the answer to the question, "No, because the words just don't work" then okay. Not a big deal.
@StairC
Criteria can be valued in part based on the goals they relate to. If being able to solve maths problems, for example, could somehow be an 'objectively good' goal, then being intelligent would become a criteria for objective general perfection.
Just to clarify, we are talking here in quite an abstract sense, not based on a day-to-day understanding alone.
For example, strength is considered to be a value- having the greatest possible strength would be a requirement for being perfect. But is strength actually a value objectively? What makes it valuable, why is it not subjective human judgement?
Same goes for intelligence, love, kindness, etc.
Can something be considered truly perfect, and how?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Perfection is a human invention and changes based on what criteria one needs.
Your mods are terrified of me.
Well, of course perfection is a human invention, because it's a concept and concepts are created when humans describe them based on what really exists- the characteristics.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
"What really exists" is where I take exception to your definition. It is demonstrably false because people care more about what they perceive to be true rather than what is fact. This is the inherent flaw with "perfection." It's too subjective a concept in that it depends entirely on one's perception.
Strictly speaking, for a lifeform, perfection would be something that can pass on its genes 100% of the time, but not many would agree that the perfect guy is someone who has sex a whole lot.
This is a good post and goes back to what I said before. You need clearly defined rules and outcomes to determine perfection, thereby eliminating the inherent subjectivity.
"If you get 40 points, that's a perfect game," as opposed to "Score as many points as you can." There has to be a defined upper limit which when met gives the quality of "perfection" to that which has met it.
Your mods are terrified of me.
What if your goal is to lose?
What if your goal is to play unremarkably?
I can certainly think of plenty of ways that you could have a perfect thing so long as you rig conditionals onto it, but it's not truly perfect if it's only perfect from one perspective is it?
In the case of a perfect circle as well, is a perfect circle truly perfect? It's an actual absolute circle. But that just means it the best it could in one very specific manner. What if you think being a true absolute circle is an imperfect quality?
What we are talking about here is having a 'maximum value' of a quality, a form of perfection yes, but perfection has more to it.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Again, what I am saying is either perfection only exists as a form of maximum value for a specific characteristic, or it's subjective. The point of this thread is to argue whether perfection, in a more general form, is truly possible.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I pretty much gave you the answer to that in my first post. Perfection as a concept has no strictly-defined value because it's an abstract construct of the human mind. Depending on what you value, its definition changes. The only way to achieve perfection to clearly define goals. It's like how Magic couldn't have face-down creatures without them being defined by the rules first (as 2/2 creatures).
Your mods are terrified of me.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Let's turn it around to show the issue you're running into.
Is true "red" even a thing? Can something TRULY be red? What if what you call red I choose to call blue? Or what if what you call true red, I call dark red?
This isn't a meaningful question. Is a TRUE dog even a thing? Is a TRUE tree even a thing?
"True perfection as a general concept" is nonsense. You're taking a criteria-based concept without the criteria. It's just as meaningless to ask if imperfection as a general concept is even possible. Imperfection based on what criteria?
Perfection or imperfection as an external concept to the criteria it's based on isn't a coherent concept. But it's misleading to say this makes perfection "subjective". Something can be objectively evaluated as perfect or imperfect if all the designated criteria is objective (such as a maximum possible score for a game of bowling). Additionally, some criteria is objectively better for some things. A "perfect strategy" for winning a tournament involving a solved game (where all the best moves are objectively known) isn't subjective, because the criteria for what perfection means here gets dictated by how well it achieves your goal. What goals you choose to care about are up to you, but saying that this makes perfection subjective is rather misleading.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Fits fine. The question is whether values can be objective in order to make perfection objective.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Desirable for what? Required for what? Good as it's possible to be for what? The definition you provided shows exactly what I'm talking about. It's entirely contingent on the criteria required to serve a specified goal.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Sure, there are many possible values, but that doesn't mean they are all created equal, it is possible in the abstract that some could be in some way 'good' or 'right', my concern is how any specific values could actually be any better objectively and it would seem you and most others so far agree with me as to this point.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
There can absolutely be objectively best possible versions of things based on defined goals. If you refuse to specify a goal or criteria, the question becomes incoherent.
Then you're linking this half-question to argue against an objective notion of perfection. This is why we do NOT agree. Objective perfection can absolutely exist once you finish the question and clarify what you're trying to evaluate. There can be an objectively perfect game of bowling. Just like something can be objectively 2 meters in length.
Other people can say, "well that's not what I consider the definition of a perfect game of bowling. I think getting exactly one gutterball is perfect.". Likewise, someone can say, "well that's not what I consider the definition of the word 'meter' to be. I think it's equivalent to 4 feet." This is a meaningless objection. As BS says, they're just playing a different game.
Once you define your terms, things can get objective. Until then, what is as-good-as-it-is-possible-to-be is entirely dependent on the goal in question. A fuse works because it is weaker than the rest of the system. Architectural supports work because they're strong. It's really not very complicated.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Also of note, you still agree with me. If you reread my posts you'll see that I'm saying that I think there is no objective general values, only subjective ones. That is not to say that there cannot be objective perfection, only objective general perfection, objective specific perfection is of course possible because it's very easy to make objectivity when you can specify all the rules circumstantially. It is not relevant to the question of general perfection, which is quite different.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
With this level of clarification, I don't have an issue. The thing is you've been generally using the terms "objective perfection" and not more specific phrasing, which is why BS asked what you make of a perfect game of bowling to begin with. If you're asking can there be objective general perfection, there cannot because it's an incoherent concept. It's like asking how something scentless smells. The word "perfection" is based on criteria in your own definition. Without criteria perfection is an icoherent concept. As for whether some criteria is objectively better than others, again it comes down to "better for what goal?" Criteria is inherently based on criteria-for-what?
So the whole question ends up being incoherent. You aren't begging the question, you're basically begging the refutation, because the refutation to your question is assumed within its definition. And your previous phrasing, along with your responses to BS, made it sound like (to me at least, can't speak for others) you were trying to argue against any objective perfection on these grounds.
But now we're just arguing over what makes a question "incoherent" versus the answer just being "no". I'm calling this one incoherent because the words just don't work in this context. Refusing to introduce criteria into a word that depends upon criteria for it to have any meaning results in the question being incoherent, because the words just don't work.
If you consider the answer to the question, "No, because the words just don't work" then okay. Not a big deal.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Criteria can be valued in part based on the goals they relate to. If being able to solve maths problems, for example, could somehow be an 'objectively good' goal, then being intelligent would become a criteria for objective general perfection.
Just to clarify, we are talking here in quite an abstract sense, not based on a day-to-day understanding alone.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I don't care if my water bottle can solve math problems. And I'd be very happy if an evil robot couldn't.
Even something like "strength" doesn't work. Like I've mentioned before, the weakness of fuses is important for the goal they're designated for.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Not good for something, just good generally is the idea. I don't see how, but that's what.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice