|
|
Posted by PeterMcC on 06/02/06 09:45
dorayme wrote in
<doraymeRidThis-7B5048.18285302062006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>
> In article <tr55l3-9oh.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk>,
> Toby Inkster <usenet200605@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Mark Parnell wrote:
>>
>>> To judge whether something is perfect, you must have a perfect
>>> standard to compare it to.
>>
>> I think that's a rather useless definition of perfection. Something
>> that is perfect should be judged perfect by all who perceive it.
>
> Both are circular characterizations [1] as expressed. But Mark's
> can be recovered to some respectability:
>
> There may be no better idea of perfection than something
> measuring up to something else. This other thing forms the
> standard. Perfection in this guise is but qualitative identity.
> Thus Bush is closer to perfection in respect to Hitler than
> Franklin D. Roosevelt.
My favourite analogy for perfection is that of the glass bead game in "The
Glass Bead Game" (Hess, H.) which tacitly recognises that analogy is about
as far as one can go in seeking to define an aesthetic for perfection -
certainly as far as the western philosophical tradition is concerned.
A perfect definition of perfection may well be beyond the scope of alt.html
contributors but each to their own strengths - how many Zen Masters have
truly come to terms with the box model as implemented in IE5?
--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|