|
|
Posted by dorayme on 10/27/21 11:49
In article <1ofsieif8nq9o.dlg@markparnell.com.au>,
Mark Parnell <webmaster@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote:
> Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, dorayme
> <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> declared in alt.html:
>
> > You concede too much really. You were right first time.
>
> Absolutely. I still stand by my statement, but as I said it's not very
> useful in practise - it's all very well to say the only way to know
> whether something is perfect is to check it against a perfect standard,
> but then how do you check that the standard is perfect?
You have it all confused. You apparently do not understand what
was right about your first idea! If your first idea was right,
the idea of a perfect standard makes no sense except in relation
to a higher still standard. So you should not turn around and use
it to criticise your own former good idea.
Perhaps I need to explain this, not obvious? Whenever a standard
is made, there will be some things that live up to it, some
things that don't and some that it is sometimes hard to say.
Whether things conform or not is a totally different question to
whether the standard is a good one. That question is a question
of what further thing one is to measure the standard by. A
standard can be a rotten or cruel one and yet things can measure
up or not. Why it is rotten or cruel is another matter and can be
seen by holding it up to yet another standard.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|