[jonny_noog]

You're putting words in my mouth (or at least attributing meaning to my words that I never intended) and trying to frame the debate. I am not Christian, nor do I count myself as a member of any organised religion. Such concepts as original sin and all that come with them hold no power for me and I certainly don't agree with them.

My concept of humans being inherently imperfect comes directly from and is directly in reference to the dictionary definition. I think I have already made my point about the attainment of perfection implicitly meaning that further improvement is impossible and how this can only be a bad thing for humanity. Who wants to live in a world where the best has already been?

If however, proponents of Objectivism wish to redefine and narrow the meaning of the words "perfect" and "imperfect" in order to make some point against certain misguided religious concepts, then that is their business. I could only suggest that perhaps they try using different words to avoid future confusion.

Someone got a 10 at the Olympics? Well done them. You may be interested in this story:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/06/1214234

But in any case, now it seems that you're switching back and arguing that the dictionary definition of "perfect" is attainable by a human. And it was a good argument too, untill it occurred to me that scores are assigned by imperfect human judges.

I don't see the human inability to attain perfection as a negative, quite the opposite actually. It keeps us growing.

[unalone]

I think that Rand and people who agree with her work see perfection as a relative thing. In her books, the "perfect protagonists" are the ones who always live life according to moral values without ever slipping, and who manage to persevere and create great things. That's perfection in her books: always doing your best, and your ACTUAL best rather than a measly excuse of a best. And when the guy mentions perfect people, I think that's what he's talking about.

[jonny_noog]

Not being intimately familiar with her works, I can only take your word for this. If that is the case, then that seems logical and I have no problem with people being encouraged to do their best.

However, that is not the impression that I got from Brook's quotes. The word "perfect" has one meaning, it is not a relative thing. If you don't actually mean "perfect" then use another word.

I still see a strain of absolutism showing through when you say "the "perfect protagonists" are the ones who always live life according to moral values without ever slipping"... Where do these moral values come from? Who agreed that they are the values worthy of being adhered to? And they live life true to these values "Without ever slipping"? Sounds like we're looking at the dictionary definition of "perfect" again... If there's one place where this kind of perfection could be achieved, I guess it would have to be in a fictional book.

[unalone]

I answered you elsewhere: I think that "perfect" is not necessarily an absolute. It doesn't always mean "incapable of being better." It means "having all desirable traits." It's like if I call somebody unparalleled. It doesn't mean they CAN'T be paralleled, it just means they AREN'T.

Rand says in her works that moral values must come entirely from logic and reasoning, and that that's why her philosophy can be held as a moral absolute: because if it ISN'T logical, she encourages you to disagree with her. It's why people who agree with her seem to do so fanatically: because they're convinced by logic and nothing else that they are right.

And Rand admits from the start that her works portray ideals and nothing more. In her line of thinking if she portrayed only characters with flaws it would make her books subjective and less reliable as a philosophical guide. Nonetheless, there are people who try to live by her words, and many people who have succeeded immensely because of them.

[jonny_noog]

But you've just made my point for me. If you, Rand, Brook and anyone else used the word "unparalleled" in place of "perfect" as it relates to this discussion, then at least the majority of our conversation probably wouldn't have taken place. It's not the same as "perfect". It's not even the same as "having all desirable traits" which is in fact identical to the actual meaning of "perfect". If one has "all desirable traits", "all" being an absolute term, then logically there are no more traits worth acquiring.

You started out asking me what possible downside there could be to a person believing they are capable of perfection. After I answered, you took the fallback position that perfection isn't actually perfection. You seem a bit all over the place justifying your argument.

Sorry I'm just not buying it. And I'm sure if you were going to buy my argument, you would have done so by now. so I think we will have to just agree to disagree.

[gunderson]

I don't disagree. I was not trying to accuse you of being a Christian, just arguing using a bit of hyperbole -- which was intended to be entertaining b/c in particular a lot of Christians don't care for Rand's ideas... :)