Could two dissimilar items both be perfect for one purpose? (Plus more questions of perfection)
Asked by
Joinm (
81
)
July 9th, 2009
Perfection can exist, hypothetically a ball could be perfectly circular, though in reality it’s a very highly unlikely event.
Could a iteam with more than one purpose be purfect at it’s higher cause if one of it’s purposes hinders the other purpose?
The first question that popped into my head is this.
Could you have a shape that is a perfect circle and also a perfect square?
No, any one item can only be one or none of these shapes at any one time. Maybe I’m thinking about this in the wrong way, lets try it this way. “could there be a perfect hunter?”
There are a myriad of factors that make up a animal’s hunting abilities, two for the examples I’ll use is speed and strength.
I’m not asking for the perfect runner or for perfection in it’s strength, I’m only asking is it perfect at one single point, unlike the circle and the square witch was a dichotomy.
(Is my logic correct my last assumption?)
Now to the main question: Would it be possible to have one item that is perfect at a individual job and then to create a different item that would also be perfect at the same job?
(Sorry for questions like these, it make it look like I’m trying to be smart and not succeeding)
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
37 Answers
Perfection is a myth and exists only in the minds of humans.
However it is possible for multiple roads to lead to the same destination.
@The_Compassionate_Heretic
You can have perfection in certain instances, though as I said it’s highly unlikely.
A perfectly circular elementary partial. (I know don’t tell me)
That’s why I’m using hypothetical.
I thought a perfect sphere was theoretically impossible for some reason, I have a book laying around here that has something about it, I’ll dig it up and get back to you.
@Joinm Show me “perfect” when you find it. I’m curious.
@all That does’t mean post your favorite bikini model.
@The_Compassionate_Heretic
That’s why I’m using hypotheticals.
It’s not theoretically impossible to have a perfect circle as far as I’m aware.
I would agree you can’t have perfection when it comes to subjective, and maybe this comes into play with hunter, because what is it to be the best hunter?
With circular we don’t have this sort of problem.
yeah just checked to be sure…
if it is your conjecture that the sphere in question is made of physical material, let’s say quarks, then the sphere can not be perfectly round. Therefore, if the sphere is perfect, it can not be made of physical material. This is an abstract question and therefore falls in the realm of mathematic. It is a question about the boundary conditions inherent in the newtonian model of physics.
yeah but hypothetically anything is possible. But you’re speaking of the physical world. a perfect sphere CAN NOT exist in a physical sense, so hypothetically, it’s not possible.
@ABoyNamedBoobs03
I’m talking about logic and mathematics.
Like if we were talking about a perfect circle in mathematics. (Well lets just try thinking of it like that)
This why I put: A perfectly circular elementary partial. *(I know don’t tell me) *
Screwdrivers are perfect for their assigned job (screwing and unscrewing screws), but then so is a drill with a screw tip installed. Screwdrivers can also do a lot of other jobs, some less perfectly than others.
@Darwin
Hardly perfect but it does the job, in instances like this perfect is subjective.
Perfect is always subjective, in that someone (a subject) is always going to have to define the criteria by which perfection is to be judged.
@Harp
Does that mean something is only perfect is someone acknowledges it to be perfect? (< I don’t know)
Good reply and I agree with you.
@Joinm Yes. Only we, as humans, can give meaning to objects. Without the presence of sentient thought, the objects would exist, but would not be perfect, as no mind would be around to describe it such.
It’s just a word, and an entirely subjective one at that.
@Grisaille
I’ll agree with that, the (< I don’t know) shows I wrote that in a rush and I agree with what Harp said.
@Joinm Objects are always just as they are, independently of a subject. “Perfect” is a qualitative evaluation of an object based on criteria defined by a subject. How that defining is done will determine whether the object is perfect or not.
@Harp
What if the criteria we gave was completely objective, do you think it would still be impossible for that subject to be perfect? Then how could you say if the item was perfect (to the specifications) subjectively, with a objective criteria?
Even objective is subjective.
Who’s the one giving the criteria? Humans. Human thought.
Do you mean ”..for that object to be perfect”?
@Harp
Yes, we create the criteria and if the subject is perfect to the criteria then by our standards it’s perfect?
(Don’t worry I also see the problems in this, who’s to say our criteria is perfect, etc)
Yes and no.
Does it perfectly fit the criteria? Yes.
Does it make it a perfect object? No.
@Grisaille
Yeah, I’m just stringing along as long as I can :P
But if it’s objective was to be perfect to out criteria then it is then perfect.
Sure. The criteria can be as strict or as loose as the subject wishes. Mathematically ideal forms are extremely strict, but they’re still subjectively defined. But if all I need is something to serve as a a bookmark, my criteria will be very loose, and any number of objects could be perfect.
But you still have the subjective element to consider. It may be perfect to, say, a group of scientists.
But somewhere in the world, it’s a useless piece of shit.
@Grisaille
@Harp
Agree, I like I said “I’m just stringing along as long as I can.”
Also give lurve if you found this interesting while it lasted.
The_Compassionate_Heretic – Pure poetry. And, so right on!
@ChazMaz
I wouldn’t agree with him. Mathematical equations can be perfect.
It’s just judging the criteria.
Or if I said that item is perfectly like it self.
Comes to a point that even Mathematics become theory or as I will say philosophical .
Perfection is nothing more then perception.
No matter how perfect something may appear to be the closer you look the more you will see imperfection.
As exacting as math can be. There is always a theory, might even be seen as perfect, then a conclusion that changes the original computation.
@ChazMaz
Or if I said that item is perfectly like it self. it fills in it’s own axioms.
And does something have to be perceived before becoming perfect?
Maths doesn’t deal with theories but laws can also be wrong but it’s highly unlikely.
Perfectly like itself is an observation. A theory dependent truth.
@ChazMaz
I would say it is logical to assume all object are like themselves without ever seeing them.
(Sorry I’m getting sleepy)
How about a cat and a mousetrap?
Perhaps a perfect circle in our plain of existence would translate to a perfect square in another because the laws of molecular structure differ? And, yet the two serve the same purposes in their perspective realities. (A place where a square wheel would work.)
As for the second part of your question, it makes me think of improvising. Of not thinking in a “funtionally fixed” kind of way. Using an item that was not intended for a particular purpose but achieving the same goal with it.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
