Spenser

SOCRATES: Indeed, then all perfect things are not perfectly acceptable?

RW: And this would be perfectly understandable.

SPENSER: AH! Who farted?

SOCRATES: Sorry.

MENO: Hmph...!

NORMAL: How could a God allow such a smell?

WYRDSMYTH: That's easy, it was a perfectly good fart.

SIGNOFTHECROSS: I believe you are misinterpreting the fart, what FALSE rubbish!

SPENSER: You're going to have to give me your definition of the word fart before this conversation can have any meaning.

RW: One mans fart is another's garden.

JACK: Can there be a perfectly altruistic fart in perfect agreement with the perfect course of action for society?

SOCRATES: Come on guys, it was a simple fart...

rainbow walking

SOCRATES: Come on guys, it was a simple fart...

RW: Don't you mean a perfectly simple fart Socrates?

SPENSER: Indeed.

Wyrdsmyth

Well, of course, there is no problem if you truly believe this world and everything in it is perfect. You can use "perfect" to such an extent that the word is stripped of its usual definition of "without flaw" or "that which cannot be improved upon." But if you do that, you are equivocating.

To people who simply want to insist that this world (and everything in it) IS INDEED PERFECT, and that it has no flaws and needs no improvement, then the question by 'Socrates' poses no problem at all. But to most of us, you look deluded -- because to most of us, it is evident that many people are flawed, and the world could use a lot of improvement.

But the matter is especially bad if you are, for example, a Christian, who believes that we are are all imperfect, flawed sinners in need of a redeemer. Now, you begin to look like hypocrites, or just confused.

rainbow walking

rw: A little bit of equivocation can go a long way and is not always a bad thing. If the concept of perfection could use some improvement maybe your Socrates can elucidate it in his next conversation. BTW Wyrdsmyth, it was an excellent piece. Do continue with more...please. IMO the litmus test of a good contribution is when others can understand it, take its concepts and build upon them something more...even if it's something foriegn to your original intent. Don't be offended because you have nothing to be offended about with this contribution. It was excellent and I thoroughly enjoyed the unique way in which it unfolded.

Wyz_sub10

As entertaining as this line of dialogue is, I'm going to be a curmudgeon and make a non-dialectic post.

Any talk of perfection is meaningless without a reference point to define the "intent".

I cannot say a shoe is perfect unless I know what constitutes a perfect shoe to begin with.

Having said that, this has no bearing on some of the omni- terms, as we understand the concept of "knowing" and the concept of "power".

The real key is "love" (as in omnibenevolent). We need to understand what constitutes a perfect love before we can assess if a god has a perfect love.

But in adopting this line of reasoning, it is important to remember that if one defines love (i.e. as per biblical or church definitions), then one must adhere to that definition in order to "gauge" perfection.

In other words, using the J/C god as an example, you cannot assume an action contradicted by the bible's definition of love is in agreement with god's perfect love. This is especially true if you consider the bible unerring and complete.

Normal

Wyrdsmyth: But the matter is especially bad if you are, for example, a Christian, who believes that we are are all imperfect, flawed sinners in need of a redeemer. Now, you begin to look like hypocrites, or just confused.

Socrates: Take the example of the perfect hammer, this hammer is made up of it's head and it's handle?

Normal: Yes

Socrates: Are we correct in saying the handle is perfect it and of itself, or it is a component of the perfect hammer?

Normal: I see no reason to call the handle not perfect in and of itself.

Socrates: But what is the function of the handle?

Normal: Socrates, obviously it is to hold the hammer.

Socrates: So a handle without it's head is useless?

Normal: Yes

Socrates: Could we consider a useless tool perfect?

Normal: Indeed not

Socrates: So taken by itself, the handle is not a perfect tool, but when combined with the head, it is perfect?

Normal: That seems to follow

Socrates: What of the pot? If we were to cut off the rim of the pot, would this rim have a use on its own?

Normal: I suppose not

Socrates: So while the rim is part of the pot, the perfection of the rim is only recognized as a part of the whole pot?

Normal: That follows from what we agreed

Socrates: And of the music, if we isolate a single note. Is this note in itself perfect? Does the note not have a place within the whole peice of music, to add effect, atmosphere, to give and take away tension from the music peice? Is the note useful on it's own?

Normal: No, decidely not

Socrates: Well then the same it is for man. A man by himself may seem imperfect, but only when taken with creation as a whole may you preceive his perfection.

Hawkingfan

As a huge fan of Australian Aboriginal music, the didgeradoo can only play one single note. The note itself can be "perfect". The note is the piece of music. The note is useful on it's own.

Normal

I'm also famaliar with the didgeradoo, am a fan of the song by Aphex Twin, and know it can play only one note. When playing music they never play one note at a time.

Edit to add: As in, one note by itself does not compose the music, the music is composed of a combination of the notes.

Hawkingfan

I play the didgeradoo and I have several CD's of real-life Aboriginees playing only one note at a time for several minutes until the "song" is over.

Normal

It's a "single note", but surely you agree, when listening to music, it is not alone. There is a "single note" before it and a "single note" after it until the song is over. Each of these "single notes" taken on their own is uninteresting, but when combined into a peice of music can be beautiful.