Can any spawn of something perfect ever be imperfect?

[arknd]

Philosophically speaking, if something was claimed to be perfect, and it was directly associated with another thing that is imperfect, would the perfect object really be perfect because of the association?

 

I am using perfect objectively, as if it were a subjective term, this argument would be illogical. To me at least.

[imatfaal]

I think it is a poor excuse for a perfect being who could not create an imperfect object if she willed it. the use of perfect, omnipotent, supernatural, or any of those similar sort of word to describe god immediately renders logic, language, and science otiose; i don't believe in gods, perfect beings, supermen etc - but if I did I would not let my logic, understanding, and limitations bind them to a human experience and milieu.

[CaptainPanic]

Philosophically speaking, if something was claimed to be perfect, and it was directly associated with another thing that is imperfect, would the perfect object really be perfect because of the association?

Before we continue, what does it mean to be "perfect". Isn't "perfect" very subjective? The question must assume that there is agreement on what is perfect. So, yeah, the disclaimer "philosophically speaking" is necessary here.

 

But let's assume that we could all agree that something is indeed perfect. If the perfect being had the goal to create something imperfect, then the perfect being could still be perfect in the accomplishment of all its goals, namely creating something imperfect.

[ydoaPs]

Philosophically speaking, if something was claimed to be perfect, and it was directly associated with another thing that is imperfect, would the perfect object really be perfect because of the association?

 

I am using perfect objectively, as if it were a subjective term, this argument would be illogical. To me at least.

That depends on what "perfect" means. This has been a hotly debated point of contention since the first version of the Ontological Argument.

[arknd]

I think because there is debate about what "perfect" means, an argument using the term could be rendered illogical because of it's non-concrete definition from a philosophical standpoint. My reasoning for bringing up the original post was because we just learned about Thomas Aquinas' 5 arguments proving god, or a being that dictated the universe. I felt they were all baseless assumptions that didn't offer any proof.

For example, one of them basically says, for everything to be rated by perfection, there needs to be a grand perfect being that trumps all others for the basis of true perfection. Since perfection is subjective though, it is a baseless to me.

Have Thomas' arguments been officially declared illogical, or do they still stand today?

[imatfaal]

There is a huge debate on what perfect means - as ydoaPs mentions this has been going for at least as long as the ontological argument.

 

Anselm is widely credited with that argument and he pre-dates Aquinas by a couple of hundred years. The Ontological argument has the concept of perfection at it's very heart - whereas Aquinas' 5 proofs of God (i presume you are looking at the quinque viae) do not really deal with perfect nature or perfection. Aquinas' proof by gradation does talk of increase degrees of any quality - but perfection is a simple end point and it is the process of getting there that forms the argument. Although note that his five qualities of god do include perfection.

 

 

Nice Webpage on Anselm's Argument - which is nearly always called the Ontological Proof or Argument

http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html

 

More involved and complex

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

 

 

Aquinas' 4th method of his quique viae is as follows

 

 

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Aristotles' Metaphysics. ii.[3] Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

 

This takes perfection as a natural and simple end of a series of increasing grade - but does not rely on the qualities of that perfection as part of the proof, merely on the existence of that end-point. In some ways absolutes (like perfection) can be less subjective than relatives; what is a good, great, or excellent score on a test? 60%, 75%, 95% - who knows, it is contextual and subjective. But a perfect score is 100% with very little leeway for argument. Of course in other ways perfection is completely amorphous and ungraspable; what is the perfect meal? Aquinas does not need to define or quantify his concept of perfection - just postulate that somewhere it must exist and that place is in god. Anselm's perfection requires an agreement on the nature and intricacies of perfection - you can see here ydoaPs refutation of the idea via tacos

 

These arguments are not of a nature that they can be declared illogical - for a start most of the time the logic is sound, it is the axiomata that are challengeable. The fact that you are still being taught these arguments 800 years after Aquinas shows that they have staying power, if nothing else. The quest for a proof of god is a very useful tool to show, in an educational setting, how thinkers have produced widely varying arguments for the same proposition, how these arguments can be mutually contradictory, how even great logicians can fail on their choice of axiom etc... Philosophy would be immeasurably different (perhaps poorer) without the constant seam of speculation, investigation, and claimed proofs of the existence of god

Edited February 6, 2013 by imatfaal
to put in quote box