Near perfect existence

[Chriliman]

Not under your definition.

I don't understand what you mean, please explain.

So if you were to present a concept of "perfection", would it be reasonable for me to contradict you?

It would only be reasonable for you to object if you had a sensible reason to object. Besides I'm the one asking you to present a concept of nearly perfect existence of a society of beings.

Think (original Marxian) communism. It presents the concept of a (nearly) perfect society.

Please explain how this society would work in your own words.

 

[Chriliman]

It's really hard to say. Lots of people will have different ideals. And when we get toward the extremes, it's no longer realistic or possible or free from contradiction."

I'd like to be able to shapechange into a housecat and run around for a bit and catch a bird. I probably wouldn't want to be the bird, though.

I'd like to be able to eat as I liked without affecting my perfect (for me) figure. And I'd only poop once a month, but it would always be one of those really satisfying poops.

There would be no want or disease. These things are practically impossible.

People would live, hearty and hale, as long as they liked. And when they got tired of it all, they could stop living.

All children would be wanted. And if longer lifespans caused a population explosion, the earth would expand so there was more room for everyone.

Everyone would have an excellent baloney-detector.

Robots would perform any menial tasks that nobody else wanted to do. And the robots would find it very satisfying (to the extent that they can experience satisfaction).

Adam Sandler would be prevented from making films.

People would not care about what other people did in their bedrooms.

Space travel would be cheap and simple and fast, so there would always be new places to go, new worlds to explore.

"I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, freedom of choice. I'm the kind if guy who would sit in the greasy spoon and think "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the big rack of Barbecued spare ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I *want* high cholesterol. I want to eat bacon, butter and buckets of cheese alright? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinatti in a non-smoking section. I wanna run around naked with green jell-o all over my body reading a Playboy magazine. Why? Because maybe I feel the need to okay pal?"

I could continue the laundry list, but I don't see the point. Most of it is a fantasy.

Haha nice!

So basically you don't think humans can ever achieve a nearly perfect society because imperfect humans would prevent it from ever happening?

 

[Freodin]

I don't understand what you mean, please explain.

You define a "perfect" existence as one where all the imperfect (on the goodness standard) things that do exist now do not exist. Under this definition, this existence now is not "perfect". Therefore there is no need for me to be "perfect" under the same standard.

Under my definition, the existence itself is perfect. It is, to use your words "as good as it can get". Thus I, as a part of this existence, am also perfect.

It would only be reasonable for you to object if you had a sensible reason to object. Besides I'm the one asking you to present a concept of nearly perfect existence of a society of beings.

But we don't have and cannot present an objective standard. So how could we establish what a "sensible reason" is?
I could simply assert "the standard by which you are judging is not objective, and not correct. My own is."

Please explain how this society would work in your own words.

The perfect balance between production, consumation and desire of every means to fulfil human needs.

 

[Chriliman]

You define a "perfect" existence as one where all the imperfect (on the goodness standard) things that do exist now do not exist. Under this definition, this existence now is not "perfect". Therefore there is no need for me to be "perfect" under the same standard.

Under my definition, the existence itself is perfect. It is, to use your words "as good as it can get". Thus I, as a part of this existence, am also perfect.

Okay, so if you're perfect because you exist in a perfect reality. What happens to your perfection, when you cease to exist in perfect reality(when you die)? Does it become imperfect?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Near perfect for the purpose of peaceful coexistence with other beings.

My notion of this would be a libertarian society, which would (by definition) be based on the common recognition that all relationships between adults should be based on mutual understanding and consent.

This would, of course, be only "near perfection" since there would still be the inevitable criminals.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

Okay, so if you're perfect because you exist in a perfect reality. What happens to your perfection, when you cease to exist in perfect reality(when you die)? Does it become imperfect?

When I cease to exist, I don't exist. But to "become imperfect"? How would that be possible? I would have to exist in order to "be" anything.

So no, my existence would not "become imperfect". Imperfect existence is a oxymoron. It would imply that something exists in a way that it doesn't exist in.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Haha nice!

So basically you don't think humans can ever achieve a nearly perfect society because imperfect humans would prevent it from ever happening?

What? No. Some of the requirements for being how-I'd-like-things-to-be are just physically impossible. Imperfect humans are not preventing rapid space travel to other planets. It's just not possible.

 

[Chriliman]

When I cease to exist, I don't exist. But to "become imperfect"? How would that be possible? I would have to exist in order to "be" anything.

If you perfectly existed at one point and then ceased to exist, wouldn't this mean perfect existence would cease? Thereby, rendering existence imperfect?

I'm just trying to understand your logic. If existence is perfect, then anything within existence would perfectly exist, therefore, never would it be possible for anything within perfect existence to go out of existence. Does this make sense to you?

 

[Freodin]

If you perfectly existed at one point and then ceased to exist, wouldn't this mean perfect existence would cease? Thereby, rendering existence imperfect?

No, it would render non- existence imperfect. But non-existence, per definition, does not exist.

I'm just trying to understand your logic. If existence is perfect, then anything within existence would perfectly exist, therefore, never would it be possible for anything within perfect existence to go out of existence. Does this make sense to you?

No, I don't agree with that. The perfection of existence is limited to the sole fact of existence. If it exists, it is perfect. The impossibility of cessation of existence is not part of that deal.

 

[Chriliman]

What? No. Some of the requirements for being how-I'd-like-things-to-be are just physically impossible. Imperfect humans are not preventing rapid space travel to other planets. It's just not possible.

Could that fact that you don't think rapid space travel is possible be the reason its not possible. Whereas, if someone thought it was possible they might figure out a way to do it, given enough time.

 

[Chriliman]

No, it would render non- existence imperfect. But non-existence, per definition, does not exist.


No, I don't agree with that. The perfection of existence is limited to the sole fact of existence. If it exists, it is perfect. The impossibility of cessation of existence is not part of that deal.

Okay, so what you seem to be implying is that when you die, you will not cease to exist. You will continue to exist in some other form unknowable to you in your current state of existence. Am I understanding correctly?

 

[Chriliman]

My notion of this would be a libertarian society, which would (by definition) be based on the common recognition that all relationships between adults should be based on mutual understanding and consent.

This would, of course, be only "near perfection" since there would still be the inevitable criminals.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So it would be possible to achieve a perfect society if there were no criminals? Essentially you could incarcerate all criminals in order to maintain a perfect society forever? Am I understanding you correctly here?

 

[Freodin]

Okay, so what you seem to be implying is that when you die, you will not cease to exist. You will continue to exist in some other form unknowable to you in your current state of existence. Am I understanding correctly?

No, and I don't understand where you get that from. (Ah, perhaps the non-existence does not exist? Meaning, non-existence is impossible? If so, you got that wrong. What I was meaning is: non-existence is not describable in terms of existence.)

When I cease to exist, I do not exist. But it is only of very limited meaning to assign a "state of non-existence" to "me".

 

[Chriliman]

No, and I don't understand where you get that from. (Ah, perhaps the non-existence does not exist? Meaning, non-existence is impossible? If so, you got that wrong. What I was meaning is: non-existence is not describable in terms of existence.)

When I cease to exist, I do not exist. But it is only of very limited meaning to assign a "state of non-existence" to "me".

I understand what you're saying it just seems contradictory. If you perfectly exist to begin with, why would you ever go out of perfect existence? It just doesn't seem to make sense to me because its seems contradictory for something to perfectly exist and then go out of perfect existence for no good reason. It just seems like it would always perfectly exist forever since its perfect.

 

[Chriliman]

No, and I don't understand where you get that from. (Ah, perhaps the non-existence does not exist? Meaning, non-existence is impossible? If so, you got that wrong. What I was meaning is: non-existence is not describable in terms of existence.)

Also, whats the point of believing non-existence is possible, if it can never be describable in terms of existence?

 

[Freodin]

I understand what you're saying it just seems contradictory. If you perfectly exist to begin with, why would you ever go out of perfect existence?

Ah, because ceasing to exist is part of perfect existence. See, no contradiction here.

It just doesn't seem to make sense to me because its seems contradictory for something to perfectly exist and then go out of perfect existence for no good reason. It just seems like it would always perfectly exist forever since its perfect.

I'd say that it only seems contradictory to you because you apply your own definition of "perfection"... not mine.

It seems that your version includes "exists eternally" in its definition. Mine is limited to "exists" only.

 

[Freodin]

Also, whats the point of believing non-existence is possible, if it can never be describable in terms of existence?

It can be described in terms of non-existence.

Simple question: do you think that there are "things" that do not exist? If so, how would you describe them in terms of existence?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Could that fact that you don't think rapid space travel is possible be the reason its not possible. Whereas, if someone thought it was possible they might figure out a way to do it, given enough time.

No.

 

[essentialsaltes]

do you think that there are "things" that do not exist? If so, how would you describe them in terms of existence?

A centaur is a hexapod with the torso of a man sort of grafted onto a horse where the horse's neck oughtta be. They don't exist. But now I want to be one for a while, after I get tired of being a housecat.

 

[Chriliman]

It can be described in terms of non-existence.

Simple question: do you think that there are "things" that do not exist? If so, how would you describe them in terms of existence?

If some thing exists then it will always exist in some form because it would be objectively true that it exists.

As for non-physical existence like consciousness and ideas, its impossible to say that consciousness has a beginning or end. I can only attest to my own consciousness in that there was a time when I was not self aware, but that does not mean self awareness hasn't always existed and it also does not mean that my personal self awareness will come to an end even when I die.