[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.