Philosophy 102: Philosophy and Perfection, or The Unavailability of the God's Eye View
PLEASE NOTE it is not recommended that you read this article until you have read the 200s articles on knowledge, or unless you are familiar with philosophy.
The the following is a revision and expansion of the article as it was up to the comment made by Nick Vane on 10/21/02.
"Wisdom consists in knowing when to avoid perfection." - from 'Horowitz's Rules'
Contents:
Introduction
Section 1: An analysis of the concept of perfection
Section 2: The God's Eye View
Section 3: The Unavailability of the God's Eye View
Appendix: The Three Groups in this topic
Introduction
I hold that the ideals pursued by philosophy (see Philosophy 101) amount to the pursuit of the perfect worldview. Or, to put it another way, philosophy aspires to the 'God's- eye View' of the world, which is perfect knowledge. Thus the analysis of the concept of perfection presented in this articles is quite similar to my account of the main philosophical ideals.
In what follows, my use of G1, G2 and G3 refers to my thesis that philosophical concepts fall naturally into three group (see Philosophy 103 & 103a).
Section 1: An analysis of the concept of perfection
Completeness is the concept that unites the parts of this analysis. Whatever else perfection involves, it involves completeness.
As analyzed in the following, perfection has three aspects: a qualitative aspect, a relational aspect, and a quantitative aspect. To be perfect, a thing must be complete in each of these three pairs of ways.
G1. The qualitative aspect of perfection is complete identity, which is absolute clarity and distinctness. This is the absence of confusion. If X has clarity it has purity and simplicity. The distinctness of X consists in its being countable as a unity.
G2. The relational aspect of perfection is complete harmony , which is absolute coherence and compatibility. This is the absence of conflict. If X is coherent it is free of conflict between its several parts. The compatibility of X and Y consists in the absence of conflict between them. An X to having complete compatibility it would be free of conflict with any other thing.
G3. The quantitative aspect of perfection is complete precision, which is quantitative completeness and simplicity. If X is complete it has all it needs to satisfy its definition. The simplicity of X consists in its having nothing in excess of that which makes it complete.
Section 2: The God's Eye View
The God's Eye View is perfection in the three sorts of knowledge: knowing as, knowing that, and knowing how.
G1. Perfect 'knowing as' would be knowledge of all objects of perception, and of each object 'as it really is'. It would be perception from all possible points of view and from no particular point of view. In a word, it would be omniperception.
G2. Perfect 'knowing that' would be completely justified belief of all true propositions, and possession of all sound arguments. In a word, it would be omniscience. [Note: strictly speaking, knowledge of all true propositions would render reasoning unnecessary.]
G3. Perfect 'knowing how' would be the ability to wield sufficient cause of any and all effects. In a word, it would be omnipotence.
4. The Unavailability of the God's Eye View
G1. Perfect perception is unavailable to humans for two reasons. First, we cannot perceive all objects at once (and thus not all at all). Second, we cannot perceive objects as they really are but only as WE really are. We cannot escape having a particular point of view (or a particular kind of point of view). For us there can never be the world 'as it really is', there can only ever be the world as it is to us.
G2. Perfect 'knowing that' is unavailable to humans because we must build our knowledge from a state of ignorance (false propositions) using the imperfect tools of perception and reasoning. Reasoning is imperfect due to the 'messy' unmathematical nature of language and the failure of most of the forms of reasoning to be truth-preserving. A false proposition is not the opposite of a true one, it is a more or less incompletely true one.
G3. Despite our increasingly effective technology, we are still a large distance away from even knowing the causes of all effects, let alone being able to wield them. The comparatively primitive state of our technology is revealed by the fact that we are only just beginning to grapple with its unintended side-effects in the ecosphere we cannot do without. Further, human know-how involves prediction. Our use of technology necessarily involves the prediction that causes will have the same effects in the future as they have had in the past. But that prediction is almost completely indefensible, based as it is on inductive reasoning.
Appendix: The Three Groups in this topic
Analysis of perfection:
G1: Quantitative aspect: complete clarity and distinctness
G2: Relational aspect: complete coherence and compatibility
G3: Quantitative aspect: quantitative completeness and complete simplicity.
The God's-eye view:
G1: Omniperception
G2: Omniscience
G3: Omnipotence
I'm convinced: perfection is unattainable. And thank goodness - I'd hate it if the bar were set any lower.
I'd settle for knowing whether it's a limbo bar or a pole-vault bar ;-)
I'm don't really know, but I'm sure which ever it is, it still manages to knock me in the neck every time...
So, should I duck or should I jump?
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I'm thinking it looks worse to go under a pole-vault bar than over a limbo bar, so without knowing the sport for sure, I would encourage you to jump. :-)
Perfection, damn I am just trying for competent in so many areas of my life. You folks are talking about jumping a bar or going under one.
All I can say is just take me to the nearest one and keep pouring. :)
My fellow bar-flies, these comments have been a loud hoot so far, but some criticism of my analysis would be welcome too.
The usual preface about my lack of experience and my doubts as to the usefulness of my comments. Moving on.
How does relational perfection transfer to the concept of the spirit or soul? Providing you believe in the concept of a spirit (or, if you wish, to speak of it in postulative terms). What would be the standard of perfection? Would it be complete harmony with the souls of others? And if so, could the actions of other things change the soul's status as perfect?
I guess that's a general question for you. Can outside forces change the perfect status of a thing? I realize that if you take a black Sharpie to a green x, it is no longer perfectly green. Are we, as humans, doomed at birth to imperfection by virtue of our being brought into a world of tremendous disorder and discord?
Nick, in philosophy almost any comments can be useful, especially if they provoke thought, and yours easily achieve that.
I see perfection as an ideal, one that is real only in God - if God is real.
According to my analysis, a perfect soul, if souls are real, would have the following properties:
First, it would be purely itself, containing only itself, and it would be distinctly itself, not confusable with any other soul.
Secondly, it would not contain any internal conflicts, any self-conflicts, and (pertaining to your question) it would not conflict with other souls, nor indeed with anything - as you put it, it would be in harmony, inside and out.
Thirdly, it would be complete, containing all it needs to be itself and to avoid conficts.
In summary, a perfect soul (or whatever) would have an absence of internal and external confusion, of internal and external conflict, and of incompleteness.
Let me know if you feel I haven't answered your questions (keeping in mind that there are no final answers in philosophy).
Thank you for your quick reply! Your response seems very reasoned and thoughtful.
To make sure I understand, then: we are saying that if another soul B (or whatever) were to refuse or disrupt harmony with the original soul A, that would not, of necessity, make A imperfect?
You're right, philosophy is merely an end in itself. Yet regardless of your own personal belief, what you've stated about the characteristics of a theoretical God, namely His perfection, line up wth my own belief. I do believe that God is completely self-contained and distinct, unified and unchanging.
That is why defining God is so frustrating, even impossible at times. The finite attempting to comprehend the infinite is futility.
A perfect soul could only be free from external conflicts if it was independent of any other thing. So to say a soul was thus free would be to say it was thus independent - would it not? So, perfect soul A would be independent of imperfect soul B and would be unaffected by B's behavior towards it.
Nick, please don't put words in my mouth. I don't claim that philosophy is "merely an end in itself". Philosophy is a means to the end of perfect understanding (an end it may never reach). What would perfect understanding be like? One, it would be free of confusion in that all its concepts would be clear and distinct. Two, it would be free of conflict in that the propositions it was expressed in would be internally coherent and mutually compatible (and thus they would be independent of external, contradicting propositions). Three, it would be complete in its scope and complete im its justification. One is the goal of philosophical analysis. Two is the goal of philosophical synthesis. Three is the goal of philosophical synopsis.
I recommend, in all immodesty, that you read the (as yet unfinished) dialog I've written and attached to this list.
I enjoy reading the posts and replies you guys have. I see that you guys seem to be attempting to define perfection in a universal sense as if perfection was universally understood. I tend to disagree with that notion. I believe that perfection should be viewed on an individual basis. What I view as being perfect may not be what you view as being perfect. Any thoughts on this?
A concept, any concept, that was universally understood wouldn't need defining. Also, a concept, any concept, that each individual defined differently would have no meaning. Whatever else meaning is, it's conventional, agreed upon, a social phenomenon.
I believe perfection is a standard that only exists in a the capacity of the human mind. Without the ability to compute infinite time and infinite change into our equations we must be careful to note that our current ideas of perfection may only be temporary. As an example: A perfectly green X cannot be judged by a blind man.
If the subject of God enters the debate, who are we to say that confusion, conflict, and
incompatibility isn't His perfect plan for continuity. Perhaps the purity is in the constant change.
I would agree that the state of this world, however conflicted it can be, exists purely within the will of God. Otherwise, it would seem to invalidate His perfection. Which I guess goes with my statement that just because we sever our connection to God, it doesn't change His perfect nature.
I totally agree with you; our ideas of perfection are faulty. A green X pales in comparison to a living, self-existant God.
Also, I think your blind man analogy is apt. Try as he might, the blind man cannot fully comprehend a green x. He can formualte ideas, ask sighted people, but until it reveals itself to him, he cannot have a complete understanding of it. For God to be understood at all, He would have to reveal Himself to mankind.
The last paragraph of my previous post was not in any way expressive in my belief in a God. I only meant it as an example of others using God as an expression of perfection.
My only intention in using the reference to a "green X" was to put a dent in the idealogy that we can define absolute perfection with incomplete knowledge.
No, that's cool. I think I understand what you mean.
Maybe my reply wasn't very clear. I was bascially trying to say what you so succinctly wrote: "My only intention in using the reference to a 'green X' was to put a dent in the idealogy that we can define absolute perfection with incomplete knowledge." That's what I was trying to get at, but perhaps I strayed.
Regarless of anyone's beliefs in a God, I would agree that it is self-delusion to think we can understand absolute perfection.
And I can't spell the word "regardless". Anyway, jukejoint, I'm afraid my previous post didn't fully convey my apology for misunderstanding what you had said.
Theology and philosophy are two fields I take great interest in, although I'm not very knowledgable in either. But I find this thread quite enjoyable.