|
|
Posted by dorayme on 10/08/82 11:49
In article <18fh4kfwssdnk.dlg@markparnell.com.au>,
Mark Parnell <webmaster@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote:
> Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Toby Inkster
> <usenet200605@tobyinkster.co.uk> declared in alt.html:
> > 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.
>
> It's certainly not very helpful in practise, no.
You concede too much really. You were right first time. There are
many things that are judged by reference to something else. There
used to be kept physical things in Paris (I think) that were the
standard for things to measure up to (things like lengths, gms).
Perfection in most things is exactly a measuring up to some
ideal. This idea of a paradigm is the most concrete
commonsensical and actually practical notion there is. Most other
ideas are hoary messes.
>
> > Something that
> > is perfect should be judged perfect by all who perceive it.
>
> True.
Not at all true. It is complete and utter nonsense in fact. Why
on earth would you think this? What is this? The idea that 5000
people can't be wrong about things? Masses of people get masses
of things wrong. half the American people thought that Bush was
the best thing since sliced white bread and were dead wrong.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|