Being the central idea of philosophy, I'm rather impressed about the fact that it has never being discussed here. So, what are your views on excellence? How do you think we can get to the point of perfection (or almost perfection, if you don't believe perfection, itself, is possible).

I believe the central issue is balance. Any exageration in either side would create anxiety and imperfection. For example, you shouldn't let yourself be totally out of control, with no social conduct, because you can finish hurting yourself and others. But you can't control yourself too much either, because that would create repression.

Since there's only one single point where balance is achieved, it must be really hard to find such a point, where excellence is attained. Which means that we must fight a lot to reach such a state. Also, such a point would depend on the personality, the same way you can balance a big heavy ball with a small one. Like Aristotle once said, that we could control the course of the Earth if you balance in the right position. What is it called....? Teater-totter or something like that (pardon my ignorance, my childhood was lived in portuguese).

So anyways.... Socratic wisdom would also be important. Knowing that we don't know could make us more peaceful. Which also imples being honest with ourselves. Being open, and not hide important information. Recognizing the fact that nobody is perfect, and that it is ok not to be perfect and know everything.

So... what do you guys think about that? I would love to ponder those things over a cup of coffee, but unfortunately, the distance doesn't allow such privilege. :D


PS: I hope I'm clear about excellence. I mean human excellence. :)

truthseeker:
Like Aristotle once said, that we could control the course of the Earth if you balance in the right position.
==============================================
that is a contradiction to"and that it is ok not to be perfect and know everything"
your answear truthseeker:I believe the central issue is balance. Any exageration in either side would create anxiety and imperfection.Since there's only one single point where balance is achieved, it must be really hard to find such a point

and i say
perfect is perfect,perfect is some thing you can not see because perfect can only see perfection

Philosopher Philocrazy

Perfection. Ah, that is a question indeed. So many people have only a vague idea of what this term means, or describes.

I think what most people believe this term to mean is this: "The point at which there is no greater value."

What point is this though? Is perfection different for different beings? By this, I don't mean, "do different beings consider perfection differently." What I mean is exactly what I ask, "Is the state of perfection a different medium for different beings?"

I think this is an important question to answer. For example, what do we mean when we say, "it is a perfect replica" as opposed to "God is perfect" or "we strive for perfection?"

Let's consider the first statement, "This painting is a perfect replica of the Mona Lisa." What does this statement suggest? As I see it, what is being conveyed here is that the replica is complete. That is, there is nothing added to, and nothing left out from the original, and that there are no deviations from the original's design, whatsoever. Complete, whole, entire.

Now, let's consider the second statement, "God is perfect." I think the perfection here is a little different than the last one. This kind of perfection would normally be considered as "supreme perfection." If we consider what perfection meant in the last case, "completeness," or "lacking nothing of the original," and apply it to the idea of supreme perfection, what we're left with is something like this: Supreme perfection is an absolute wholeness, a total entirety. Completely lacking no thing. If God were an infinite being, then, as such (an infinite being) this would certainly apply, since an infinite thing would really lack nothing. An infinite being really would be absolute totality. Again, the notion that perfection is completeness fits.

Finally, let's consider the last statement, "We strive for perfection." What does this mean? Completeness? Well what does it mean to strive for completeness? Completeness of what? Do we strive for supreme perfection? That is, do we strive to grow infinitely, so as to reach a state of utter totality? Or, as in the first case, do we strive for completeness relative to a given parameter? In the first case, the given parameter was the Mona Lisa. What is the given parameter that we would persue in striving for perfection, if not the supreme?

In metaphysics, there is a distinction between form and matter. Form being the "model" of things, and matter being the actual thing. For example, there are many different species that inhabit the earth. Let's consider the dolphin. We identify each dolphin as being a dolphin because it bears certain physical features that conform to the specie. The individual dolphin, therefore is the matter that conforms to the form of the specie (I hope this makes sense).

The form is said to be perfect, while the matter is said to be imperfect. This is because the form is the model upon which each material being is based upon. However, no material being is completely identical with the form. This is quite clear with the human specie. There are billions of humans living, and which among them completely conforms to the human form? The human face, for example, is meant to be symmetrical. The more symmetrical the face is, the more beautiful it is (this has recently been discovered). This is because the more symmetrical the face is, the more it conforms to the true human form, and therefore is closer to perfection (that is, completeness according to a given parameter). Furthermore, we can see this to be true, since a more symmetrical face also indicates health. The healthier something is, the more "right" it is according to its peak efficiency. Peak efficiency will come when the being conforms entirely to form.

Therefore, to say, "I strive for perfection," is, perhaps, simply to say that I strive to achieve the closest possible alignment to true human form? Perhaps. However, this doesn't seem entirely accurate. Do we not also seek growth? Growth in knowledge? Virtue? Is constant growth a part of natural human form? If so, does it have a maximum point? That is, is there a point at which such growth ceases? If not, then such growth (if death were not a reality) would, in theory, be infinite.

What does this mean? It means, then, that we do persue supreme perfection. This is because in gaining knowledge, we gain the possibility for everything. Though, with this consideration, we should also ask, "is this separate from natural human form?" If natural human form includes intelligence, as well as curiosity, then yes, the persuit of supreme perfection is part of the natural human form.

Therefore, to seek perfection, is to seek the closest alignment with natural human form, which entails a persuit of absolute totality.

Yet, how is this to be achieved? There is an old saying, "what goes up must come down." Does this mean that in persuing such growth, we will eventually come to a point of loss? Perhaps, but I believe it to mean something else.

We understand the idea of a wave, that it goes "up and down." It has highs and lows. The higher the wave, the lower its bottom (forgive my lack of proper terms). This, many people would consider an imbalance. What wave doesn't return to a state of balance, that is, a lack of wave? In mathematics, the utter balance is zero. Are we then to attempt to achieve such a balance, as the Buddhists suggest, the balance of no-self? Only if true human form is that of no-self. However, in consideration of what we have already described as true human form, let us consider a different alternative.

Since we have already said that growth is part of true human form, perhaps balanced growth is the answer? Considered graphically, such growth would be a straight line extending from point (0,0) at a 45 degree angle. That is, it is a balanced (1,1) growth rate. This allows conformity to true human form (that of growth), without the danger of lapses into lows (as in a wave).

So then, is persuit of excellence, or perfection, really the persuit of balanced growth, according to a non-deviance from true human form? If so, this means "basics first." It also means patience. To overstep patience, and skip the basics, is cause for disaster.

**************************************************

Could the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil then be considered in this way: A human form whereby we experience growth at an unbalanced rate, allowing for great accelleration in growth, while at the same time allowing for equal dips into human lacking?

I think the man has a sense (a sensor?) to reconise the perfect (or nearly perfect) when he sees/experieces it. This perfection is not describable, it also cannot be defined. Two examples: (put you speakers on): Beethoven's fur Elise. (http://clara.indosoft.net.id/cpr/midi/classic/furelise.mid) and Mondrian's Broadway (http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/mondrian/broadway.jpg)

The two art pieces do not aim to describe an existing object..they are perfect on thier own basis.

But both works are compositions of elements. The perfection can be therefore "captured" by talented minds and be "frozen" in a piece of art.

Such "frozen" perfection can be shared.

Perfection is therefore metaphysical.

the prusuit of 'perfection' can lead to evil. his has been shown time and time again...with the Christians, Islam, Eastern religions, Nazism, etc etc. that when one posits 'perfection' along comes fascism. the 'perfect' ones then see 'imperfection' everywhere they look, and then seek to eradicate it. Not realizing that the problem lies in their selves. that they are trying to separate two abstract terms which in reality are not separate. ie., imperfection is embedded in perfection

so balance is.....allowing loss of control. because clinging to control defeats the prupose. it becomes a sense of not having control.. what i mean is is that our culture does not allow loss of control which is ecstasy...ecstatic ritual. because it fears 'evil'...being 'possessed'. all of this fear is due to its philosophical foundation of 'perfection' aspiration of perfection as it has been encouraged by the likes of Plato etc. the idea that we can become superior. this belief causes havoc. not only for our species--the inequality and violence, but for all other species and Nature itself

To begin: I'm sure you meant to write 'Pursuit'.
In any case, I wonder where you got the idea that excellence was the central idea of philosophy???
Odd.
While this might be true of the ethical realm, it's certainly not true of philosophy as a whole.
Philo: love of
Sophia: wisdom

QED

One miiight be able to argue that wisdom is tantamount to excellence, but that would be tenuous at best.
Still.. for your excellence et. al., just read from Aristotle up and through the Middle Ages.

p.s.: After that.. all the good philosophy starts.. :-)

truthseeker:
Like Aristotle once said, that we could control the course of the Earth if you balance in the right position.
==============================================
that is a contradiction to"and that it is ok not to be perfect and know everything"
What the heck does that have anything to do with Aristotle? :bugeye:

your answear truthseeker:I believe the central issue is balance. Any exageration in either side would create anxiety and imperfection.Since there's only one single point where balance is achieved, it must be really hard to find such a point

and i say
perfect is perfect,perfect is some thing you can not see because perfect can only see perfection
That is not an answer. All that you said was "x=x". So what?

...
Naaaaahhh...

beyondtimeandspace,

Perfection doesn't need to be physical. It doesn't need to be completness. I'm talking about something else. I'm talking about human excellence. It's a point where we can develop our virtues continuously. Perfection is not something for humans. Maybe, after death, we can be perfect. But that is just not possible in life, even with your idea of perfection. With completeness, people would never be able to get there because we always need things like food and sleep; so we would never be complete.

Human excellence is when you get to a point where you are free to develop your virtues continuosly and with no difficulty. What does that mean? It means we never stop growing. But just the fact that we can recognize our ignorance is already part of human excellence. Just as Socrates said, people don't know everything. People that think that they know are fooling themselves around. And that's why Socrates was considered wise - because he knew he didn't know. The same was true to Lao Tzu and many others.

Apart from that, what you said about Buddhism... The point where you reach no-self is also the point of human excellence. This ties in with what Lao Tzu and Socrates said about wisdom and ignorance. It's a point where you are ready to give up your life for something greater. I'm not talking about suicide, I'm talking about a kind of "sacrifice". But calling it sacrifice would be a misnomer, because you are not giving up anything great. As Socrates said, maybe dying is good. Maybe there's something in the other side that is better then in this side. And recognizing the fact that death can be beneficial takes away your fear of death. In the other hand, recognizing the fact that death can be just sleeping forever, might help you apreciate your life better. The central idea of the Eastern philosophy is something like this: whatever is the circumstance, receive it well; and live your life in peace. In Buddhism, the lack of desires. In Taoism and Zen, the lack of self, and the pursue of inner balance. All those things have to do with human excellence.

Finally, if you look up in the night sky and see how small you are, you might find yourself contemplating something much greater then yourself and that will give you inner peace. Recognizing how insignificant we are gives us inner peace. And that is also an important point in Eastern philosophy; and an important point to the pursue of excellence.

the prusuit of 'perfection' can lead to evil. his has been shown time and time again...with the Christians, Islam, Eastern religions, Nazism, etc etc. that when one posits 'perfection' along comes fascism. the 'perfect' ones then see 'imperfection' everywhere they look, and then seek to eradicate it. Not realizing that the problem lies in their selves. that they are trying to separate two abstract terms which in reality are not separate. ie., imperfection is embedded in perfection
Ok... Well, first of all.... you cannot expect people to be perfect. To recognize that and be able to forgive people for their imperfection is already a characteristic of human excellence.

Second, imperfection and perfection are opposites. But of course nobody is completely imperfect, so you have to consider what is in between. Imperfection is not embedded in perfection, it is just the fact that there's a lot in between perfection and imperfection.

so balance is.....allowing loss of control. because clinging to control defeats the prupose. it becomes a sense of not having control.. what i mean is is that our culture does not allow loss of control which is ecstasy...ecstatic ritual. because it fears 'evil'...being 'possessed'. all of this fear is due to its philosophical foundation of 'perfection' aspiration of perfection as it has been encouraged by the likes of Plato etc. the idea that we can become superior. this belief causes havoc. not only for our species--the inequality and violence, but for all other species and Nature itself
This is not the idea - not at all. The idea is not to become perfect, the idea is to clinge towards perfection. In other words... work towards it. It is like a race that never ends. And part of being perfect is to recognize our imperfections and how insignificant we are compared to the universe.


Human excellence is to achive your maximum perfection, which is not the same as achive God's perfection.

To begin: I'm sure you meant to write 'Pursuit'.
Yeah... I dunno what happened there... :/

In any case, I wonder where you got the idea that excellence was the central idea of philosophy???
Socrates and Plato. Philosophy= philo + sophia = love of wisdom. To achive human excellence is to become wise and virtuous. It's the whole point of being a philosopher.

While this might be true of the ethical realm, it's certainly not true of philosophy as a whole.
Philo: love of
Sophia: wisdom
You are describing the same I'm describing. Why it is not true to philosophy as a whole?

Still.. for your excellence et. al., just read from Aristotle up and through the Middle Ages.
That would be like skipping addition and subtraction in math...

p.s.: After that.. all the good philosophy starts.. :-)
Have you ever read Plato?

Being the central idea of philosophy, I'm rather impressed about the fact that it has never being discussed here. So, what are your views on excellence? How do you think we can get to the point of perfection (or almost perfection, if you don't believe perfection, itself, is possible).

I believe the central issue is balance. Any exageration in either side would create anxiety and imperfection. For example, you shouldn't let yourself be totally out of control, with no social conduct, because you can finish hurting yourself and others. But you can't control yourself too much either, because that would create repression.

Since there's only one single point where balance is achieved, it must be really hard to find such a point, where excellence is attained. Which means that we must fight a lot to reach such a state. Also, such a point would depend on the personality, the same way you can balance a big heavy ball with a small one. Like Aristotle once said, that we could control the course of the Earth if you balance in the right position. What is it called....? Teater-totter or something like that (pardon my ignorance, my childhood was lived in portuguese).

What is wrong with your thinking and counterproductive for excellence, is that you think of excellence as if it were a state, a point to reach.

As if one would, after some struggle, come to a point where one would simply sit down on one's throne of "excellence" and calmly, competently judge phenomena around one.

This is typical middle-class thinking of "growth" and "comfort": when you "grow up" and when you "become normal" (after the maybe not so normal youth), you sit down on your "throne of excellence" and nothing can move you from it. BS.

Excellence cannot be planned, neither can it be controlled. It cannot be achieved working by a safe plan that is known as "comfortable", "easy" and "bearing great results".

A great part of excellence is to stop striving to be oh so excellent. Trying to be excellent makes one so dismal!


So anyways.... Socratic wisdom would also be important. Knowing that we don't know could make us more peaceful. Which also imples being honest with ourselves. Being open, and not hide important information. Recognizing the fact that nobody is perfect, and that it is ok not to be perfect and know everything.

Since, per definition, perfection is not possible for humans, using the proverbial "nobody's perfect" is a hideously cheap excuse, used by those who fear to step out of their comfort zone.


And do look at my signature.

What is wrong with your thinking and counterproductive for excellence, is that you think of excellence as if it were a state, a point to reach.
All mountains have peaks. Doesn't mean some day you will get to it, but you can't define excellence without defining what is not excellence.

As if one would, after some struggle, come to a point where one would simply sit down on one's throne of "excellence" and calmly, competently judge phenomena around one.
This point is unreachable, so your argument is flawed. Nobody is perfect and nobody can become perfect. That's what makes us humans in the first place. However, there is something that we can call relative perfection where you can point in the direction of perfection and keep going. In the mountain analogy, relative perfection would be going up the mountain, while relative imperfection would be like goind down (or not moving at all).

This is typical middle-class thinking of "growth" and "comfort": when you "grow up" and when you "become normal" (after the maybe not so normal youth), you sit down on your "throne of excellence" and nothing can move you from it. BS.
I agree it is bullshit. I've suffered a lot when I was a kid because people wouldn't treat me well just because I was a kid, just because I was still "growing up". Surely that is true, we are all always growing up. But that doesn't mean all that I say is stupid, like others have thought before. Maybe those others should get out of their imaginary thrones and contemplate their insignificance. Everybody is insignificant; and that is not necessarily bad. I think sometimes we are very harsh on ourselves and others. But to totally give up on the search for perfection is just... not brave.

Excellence cannot be planned, neither can it be controlled. It cannot be achieved working by a safe plan that is known as "comfortable", "easy" and "bearing great results".
Yeah, sure. It shouldn't be comfortable, you often have to get out of your comfort zone in the pursuit of excellence! And like climbing a mountain, there's not a safe plan, nor a single path either - not to mention it is definetely not easy.

A great part of excellence is to stop striving to be oh so excellent. Trying to be excellent makes one so dismal!
This is not about trying to be excellent, it is about striving for it. It's a growth process that never ends. If you force yourself to appear excellent you are making a fool out of yourself. And eastern philosophy also talked about that. You can only be wise if you know that you don't know. And if you show you are "wise" that makes you ignorant.

Since, per definition, perfection is not possible for humans, using the proverbial "nobody's perfect" is a hideously cheap excuse, used by those who fear to step out of their comfort zone.
I don't get what you are saying here. Sure nobody is perfect because perfect is not possible for humans. But why is that a "cheap excuse, used by those who fear to step out of their comfort zone"?? :confused:

And do look at my signature.
It's not appearing...

Btw... back to the mountain analogy.... Often, when we climb mountains we finish on a lower "peak" not knowing there is a higher one. And then when we get to this peak, we realize there's more mountain to climb..... ;)

Also, it seems you guys are not getting the main point. The main point is that altough excellence itself is not achievable, the pursuit of excellence is, and that is the whole point of the thread. It is not about being at the top of the mountain, but how to get there.

All mountains have peaks.

That's what's wrong with the metaphor you chose to conceptualize your idea of excellence with: you are viewing excellence as something static.

Note that depending on the metaphor we choose to conceptualize a certain concept with, the metaphor could be misplaced or misleading. In the case of excellence, the mountain metaphor is misplaced and misleading.

That mountain metaphor says: "You get up, then you are up there, and it is lonely at the top, and then you can only fall down, there's no more." -- And this is not a good way to coneptualize excellence; that mountain metaphor is destined to give a dismal, morbid and negativistic conceptualization.


you can't define excellence without defining what is not excellence.

Certainly, many things cannot be properly defined ex positivo, so we define them ex negativo.


“ As if one would, after some struggle, come to a point where one would simply sit down on one's throne of "excellence" and calmly, competently judge phenomena around one. ”

This point is unreachable, so your argument is flawed. Nobody is perfect and nobody can become perfect.

My argument isn't flawed, you obvioulsy weren't paying attention: It begins with an "as if" and then I said "no, it isn't so" several times. I said that that's *not* the way to define excellence, with that throne and peacefulness.


In the mountain analogy, relative perfection would be going up the mountain, while relative imperfection would be like goind down (or not moving at all).

That's why the mountain metaphor is misplaced and miselading.


Everybody is insignificant; and that is not necessarily bad.

You must be young, huh?


“ Since, per definition, perfection is not possible for humans, using the proverbial "nobody's perfect" is a hideously cheap excuse, used by those who fear to step out of their comfort zone. ”

I don't get what you are saying here. Sure nobody is perfect because perfect is not possible for humans. But why is that a "cheap excuse, used by those who fear to step out of their comfort zone"??

Why is that so?

It is stating the obvious and trying to give it as a justification for your failure: "Yeah, humans don't have wings, so don't go against me if I cannot fly." Which is a cheap excuse.

If someone went against you for not being perfect or for not having wings, then that accusator has made a bad case to begin with, and you should not indulge such an accusator by saying "Nobody's perfect/nobody has wings, so don't put it against me if I'm not perfect/don't have wings." If you do this, you are thereby stating that you agree with the valuation that the accusator made of you. Do note that you yourself can be your own accusator.

Think, before you accuse yourself or someone else of imperfection: Since noone can be perfect, such an accusation is null and void.

But if you respond to it with "Nobody's perfect", you have chosen to ignore that it is null and void, and you are actually treating it as if it were a proper accusation. This is self-sabotaging behaviour.


“ And do look at my signature. ”
It's not appearing...

It is:

You had to gather wood and carry water before you were enlightened, and you will have to gather wood and carry water after being enlightened.

An old wisdom

See?


Btw... back to the mountain analogy.... Often, when we climb mountains we finish on a lower "peak" not knowing there is a higher one. And then when we get to this peak, we realize there's more mountain to climb.....

Also, it seems you guys are not getting the main point. The main point is that altough excellence itself is not achievable, the pursuit of excellence is, and that is the whole point of the thread. It is not about being at the top of the mountain, but how to get there.

And I am telling to drop that mountain metaphor, as it is literally going nowhere!

***
And please, for crying out loud, don't think that I have something against you, just because my words may sound harsh.

That's what's wrong with the metaphor you chose to conceptualize your idea of excellence with: you are viewing excellence as something static.
And it is static. Why wouldn't it be? Excellence means to reach a point of perfection. The notion that perfection is relative is contradictory because perfection itself needs to be perfect, which implies that it is a single idea with one possibility rather then many.

You could say that someone has this wisdom, while other has that other wisdom, and that both is wise even tough they don't have the same kind of reason. In this case, both are wise, but they are wise in different ways. But that is not to say that the concept of excellence is relative, it just means that people have different strengths and different paths to excellence. I think that's what you are misunderstanding: there are many paths, many kinds of wisdom, but the concept of excellence is static.

That mountain metaphor says: "You get up, then you are up there, and it is lonely at the top, and then you can only fall down, there's no more." -- And this is not a good way to coneptualize excellence; that mountain metaphor is destined to give a dismal, morbid and negativistic conceptualization.
The problem with this view is the very fact that we never get at the top of the mountain. I've said that quite a few times already and it seems you looked over it....

The whole idea is to pursue excellence, and not to attain it. It doesn't make sense talking about having excellence, because that is just not possible. You can have relative excellence, which means that you know you don't have it; but you can't have excellence itself because if you didn't you wouldn't be human.

My argument isn't flawed, you obvioulsy weren't paying attention: It begins with an "as if" and then I said "no, it isn't so" several times. I said that that's *not* the way to define excellence, with that throne and peacefulness.
And I said there is no throne at all, several times...
Again.... pursuit, not attain.

That's why the mountain metaphor is misplaced and miselading.
Ok. Why?

You must be young, huh?
Ok. Three things.

First of all, the fact that you say I'm young implies either a compliment (which I believe is not) or a prejudice, which would probably be that "young people is retarded" or something like that. Which would be very bad, since the fact that you are young doesn't imply that you are dumb or retarded. You can very well be young and wise.

So... which one is it?

Secondly, either:

1. you believe you are significant or everybody is significant and important.
or
2. you believe being insignificant is bad.

Ok. In number 1, I would like to remind you the fact that if a supernova goes out 5 light years away we are pulverized, which means that we are certainly insignificant.

In number 2, I would like to remind you that we can have a fully joyful life in our insignificance, which implies that being insignificant isn't necessarily bad.

It is stating the obvious and trying to give it as a justification for your failure: "Yeah, humans don't have wings, so don't go against me if I cannot fly." Which is a cheap excuse.
It is not an excuse. It is just a fact that needs to be taken into consideration. Humans don't have wings so we cannot fly. There's nothing wrong with that, it is just a fact.

If someone went against you for not being perfect or for not having wings, then that accusator has made a bad case to begin with, and you should not indulge such an accusator by saying "Nobody's perfect/nobody has wings, so don't put it against me if I'm not perfect/don't have wings." If you do this, you are thereby stating that you agree with the valuation that the accusator made of you. Do note that you yourself can be your own accusator.
Ok. the whole point of me saying that we are not perfect is to show the fact that people should be forgiving. You know you are not perfect, and you know that the other person is not perfect. So the question is: can you judge someone because that person is not perfect, while at the same time you, yourself, are not perfect? That would be hypocritical. That's my whole point in this matter. Only God can "judge" people, because only He is perfect. We have no right to point fingers because we are not perfect, ourselves, so we need to recognize our imperfection and forgive people (specially within ourselves) for not being perfect. That was Jesus' point when he said "throw the first stone, he who has no sins," because people were accusing the women and wanted to stone her despite the fact that they, themselves were not perfect; which implies that they had no right to accuse her.

Think, before you accuse yourself or someone else of imperfection: Since noone can be perfect, such an accusation is null and void.
That's my whole point! I just said that above. :)
Why do you think I'm accusing people of imperfection? Please tell me, cause I might be saying it in an inefficient way.

But if you respond to it with "Nobody's perfect", you have chosen to ignore that it is null and void, and you are actually treating it as if it were a proper accusation. This is self-sabotaging behaviour.
I don't get it. If I say "nobody is perfect" that implies that the imperfect person is not guilty of being imperfect. That is a fact, right?

You had to gather wood and carry water before you were enlightened, and you will have to gather wood and carry water after being enlightened.

An old wisdom

See?
Ok. I agree with it. I never said otherwise. All that I said is that nobody will ever get on the top of the mountain, even tough the process of climbing is the whole point of climbing it.

And please, for crying out loud, don't think that I have something against you, just because my words may sound harsh.
Sure. I don't have something against you either.

And it is static. Why wouldn't it be? Excellence means to reach a point of perfection. The notion that perfection is relative is contradictory because perfection itself needs to be perfect, which implies that it is a single idea with one possibility rather then many.

To reach a point of perfection implies that nothing more is possible. Some pursuit, yeah right.


You could say that someone has this wisdom, while other has that other wisdom, and that both is wise even tough they don't have the same kind of reason. In this case, both are wise, but they are wise in different ways. But that is not to say that the concept of excellence is relative, it just means that people have different strengths and different paths to excellence. I think that's what you are misunderstanding: there are many paths, many kinds of wisdom, but the concept of excellence is static.

It is static only if you wish to see it as static. And if you see it as static -- guess what -- you won't move on in your "excellence".


The problem with this view is the very fact that we never get at the top of the mountain.

But this is self-sabotaging! It is an invitation to banging your head against the wall!

Answer me this: What is the point of climbing a mountain if you know that you can never reach the top?

Why use such a self-sabotaging metaphor?


I've said that quite a few times already and it seems you looked over it....

I haven't overlooked it: I saw it, and it soared my eyes so much that I said to quit using the mountain metaphor.


The whole idea is to pursue excellence, and not to attain it. It doesn't make sense talking about having excellence, because that is just not possible. You can have relative excellence, which means that you know you don't have it; but you can't have excellence itself because if you didn't you wouldn't be human.

Yes, take the first metaphor that comes along, and then prop it up with rationalizations (the whole part I quoted from you are such rationalizations).
You see, those self-sabotaging rationalizations would not be necessary if you had chosen some other metaphor than the mountain metaphor.


“ That's why the mountain metaphor is misplaced and miselading.
Ok. Why?

Did you read my posts in the Dream metaphors thread? If not, do so.
When we use metaphors, the metaphor can sometimes impose certain aspects on the phenomenon that we are trying to conceptualize with a metaphor, that are foreign to that phenomenon or misleading. So is the mountain metaphor when we are using it for conceptualizing excellence. Sure, you can say it is about *pursuing*, not *attaining* -- but this is just word cosmetics, while the monster sleeps still underneath. Read the rest of this post, I've made several comments on why the mountain metaphor is bad.


“ You must be young, huh? ”
Ok. Three things.

First of all, the fact that you say I'm young implies either a compliment (which I believe is not) or a prejudice, which would probably be that "young people is retarded" or something like that. Which would be very bad, since the fact that you are young doesn't imply that you are dumb or retarded. You can very well be young and wise.

So... which one is it?

Secondly, either:

1. you believe you are significant or everybody is significant and important.

or
2. you believe being insignificant is bad.

Ok. In number 1, I would like to remind you the fact that if a supernova goes out 5 light years away we are pulverized, which means that we are certainly insignificant.

In number 2, I would like to remind you that we can have a fully joyful life in our insignificance, which implies that being insignificant isn't necessarily bad.

Ah. That you over-analyze the way you do, shows that you are young.


Ok. the whole point of me saying that we are not perfect is to show the fact that people should be forgiving.

Aha! So why don't you say it right away that people should be forgiving, instead of gooooofing around with "nobody's perfect"?!


Only God can "judge" people, because only He is perfect. We have no right to point fingers because we are not perfect, ourselves, so we need to recognize our imperfection and forgive people (specially within ourselves) for not being perfect.

If so, then we should not tolerate those who wish to put it against us that we aren't perfect.


That's my whole point! I just said that above.

Yes, but I said it before you.


Why do you think I'm accusing people of imperfection? Please tell me, cause I might be saying it in an inefficient way.

I'm not saying that you are accusing people of imperfection. For my taste, you are exhibitng too much tolerance for this type of accusation. I'd kick the dipshit in the shin if he'd put it against me for not being perfect and pity me for that.


Ok. I agree with it. I never said otherwise. All that I said is that nobody will ever get on the top of the mountain, even tough the process of climbing is the whole point of climbing it.

Ah. That damn mountain metaphor is not good, because it is an up and down metaphor. If you climb a mountain, you do expect to reach the top someday, don't you? And after that, it can only go downhill. -- This is a scary predicament, resolved by rationalizing and putting the whole climbing into a haze and saying we'll "never reach the top". But this immanently puts you in the "Why do it then, if we'll never reach the top?" mode, and bye bye excellence.

This is why a metaphor like "You had to gather wood and carry water before you were enlightened, and you will have to gather wood and carry water after being enlightened." is much better, as it has no negative predicament in it. Also, the pursuit of excellence, viewed with this metaphor, is conceptualized as a process, not as a state or point -- 'yes, you figure out one day what to do, but after that, life will go on still'.

It is static only if you wish to see it as static. And if you see it as static -- guess what -- you won't move on in your "excellence".
Why? I don't get it. Excellence mean only one thing. If it is not static, it is undefined.

But this is self-sabotaging! It is an invitation to banging your head against the wall!

Answer me this: What is the point of climbing a mountain if you know that you can never reach the top?
Ok. Why? Just because you will never get there, that doesn't mean it is not worth doing. Have you ever travelled? When you go to a foreign city, where do you go? the answer is: nowhere. You can pass through many places, but you never settle down anywhere. That's what is good about travelling. the same thing applies to excellence. The path has many nice views. Sometimes it is hard and tiring, but it is always worth doing.

Why use such a self-sabotaging metaphor?
Only if you see it that way. Some people like to arrive at places. Others like wandering around.

Yes, take the first metaphor that comes along, and then prop it up with rationalizations (the whole part I quoted from you are such rationalizations).
You see, those self-sabotaging rationalizations would not be necessary if you had chosen some other metaphor than the mountain metaphor.
Which rationalizations?

Ah. That you over-analyze the way you do, shows that you are young.
Yes. An philosophers are also young. And physicists. And politicians.
[I'm being sarcastic, if you didn't realize it yet]

Aha! So why don't you say it right away that people should be forgiving, instead of gooooofing around with "nobody's perfect"?!
That's the first thing I said. :bugeye:

If so, then we should not tolerate those who wish to put it against us that we aren't perfect.
O....k.....
Look.... we are not perfect. This is a fact. It is not an insult, it is ok not to be perfect, ok? We just need to accept that. It is not bad, it just is....

It seems you have a very dualist mind....

Yes, but I said it before you.
I've been saying that since the beginning of the thread!!!! :bugeye:

I'm not saying that you are accusing people of imperfection. For my taste, you are exhibitng too much tolerance for this type of accusation. I'd kick the dipshit in the shin if he'd put it against me for not being perfect and pity me for that.
Ok. Good.

Ah. That damn mountain metaphor is not good, because it is an up and down metaphor. If you climb a mountain, you do expect to reach the top someday, don't you? And after that, it can only go downhill. -- This is a scary predicament, resolved by rationalizing and putting the whole climbing into a haze and saying we'll "never reach the top". But this immanently puts you in the "Why do it then, if we'll never reach the top?" mode, and bye bye excellence.
That's exactly what happens! How many people do you know pursue excellence? Have you ever noted the fact that people don't give a damn? Pursuing excellence is hard work! But it is very rewarding once you get higher up the mountain. The views can be spectacular. And as you walk, the views change and they become even more sptecular. But at the bottom of the mountain, it is not very good. That's why the metaphor works so well....!

This is why a metaphor like "You had to gather wood and carry water before you were enlightened, and you will have to gather wood and carry water after being enlightened." is much better, as it has no negative predicament in it. Also, the pursuit of excellence, viewed with this metaphor, is conceptualized as a process, not as a state or point -- 'yes, you figure out one day what to do, but after that, life will go on still'.
Climbing a mountain is not a process?

Btw... I like that metaphor too....

Sorry if I sound kinda irritated. I just need to get laid.... :D

Just kidding....

From the Latin: Per - through; facere - to do.

Perfect:
1. Brought to consummation or completeness; completed; not defective nor redundant; having all the properties or qualities requisite to its nature and kind; without flaw, fault, or blemish; without error; mature; whole; pure; sound; right; correct.
2. Well informed; certain; sure

WordNet Dictionary
Noun 1. perfect - a tense of verbs used in describing action that has been completed (sometimes regarded as perfective aspect)
Synonyms: perfect tense, perfective, perfective tense
Verb 1. perfect - make perfect or complete; "perfect your French in Paris!"
Adj. 1. perfect - being complete of its kind and without defect or blemish
2. perfect - without qualification; used informally as (often pejorative) intensifiers
3. perfect - precisely accurate or exact



Why does perfection have to be completeness? Because that's what the word means, in any dictionary. If this isn't the idea being expressed, then don't use the word. This is the idea I was trying to express... so I used the word.

Why? I don't get it. Excellence mean only one thing. If it is not static, it is undefined.

You can also define excellence as something not static; and you have in fact implied that right at the beginning by saying

"I believe the central issue is balance. Any exageration in either side would create anxiety and imperfection. For example, you shouldn't let yourself be totally out of control, with no social conduct, because you can finish hurting yourself and others. But you can't control yourself too much either, because that would create repression."

So excellence is about being dynamic, not static, isn't it?


Ok. Why? Just because you will never get there, that doesn't mean it is not worth doing. Have you ever travelled? When you go to a foreign city, where do you go? the answer is: nowhere. You can pass through many places, but you never settle down anywhere. That's what is good about travelling. the same thing applies to excellence. The path has many nice views. Sometimes it is hard and tiring, but it is always worth doing.

Ah. You *think* in my enlightement metaphor, but you *verbalize* your toughts with the mountain metaphor.


Which rationalizations?

These:
"The whole idea is to pursue excellence, and not to attain it. It doesn't make sense talking about having excellence, because that is just not possible. You can have relative excellence, which means that you know you don't have it; but you can't have excellence itself because if you didn't you wouldn't be human."

You are distinguishing between "having excellence" and "pursuing excellence, since excellence cannot be attained". Thus, noone and nothing can ever be (called) excellent.
But we do call certain people and certain things excellent, don't we?


That's exactly what happens! How many people do you know pursue excellence? Have you ever noted the fact that people don't give a damn?

Because they have conceptualized it as a mountain metaphor, silly!


Pursuing excellence is hard work! But it is very rewarding once you get higher up the mountain. The views can be spectacular. And as you walk, the views change and they become even more sptecular. But at the bottom of the mountain, it is not very good. That's why the metaphor works so well....!

And why can you never come to the top? ... Because one cannot "have" excellence, since excellence can only be "pursued". And all those who call someone or something excellent, are liars, right?

Ah, why do I bother.


Climbing a mountain is not a process?

What is the point of a climbing process if you have in advance excluded the possibility of reaching the top?!


Sorry if I sound kinda irritated. I just need to get laid....

Just kidding....

Spare with those remarks, I now what you think of without you explicitly saying it.

"To reach a point of perfection implies that nothing more is possible."

I disagree.

IMO, perfection is now. Every moment is perfect, regardless of my expectation of it. The universe has no expectation. It executes its function flawlessly. In fact it would be impossible for it to be imperfect, yet it is always changing.

"To reach a point of perfection implies that nothing more is possible."

I disagree.

IMO, perfection is now. Every moment is perfect, regardless of my expectation of it. The universe has no expectation. It executes its function flawlessly. In fact it would be impossible for it to be imperfect, yet it is always changing.

We are talking about perfecting oneself in certain skills and abilities, pursuing/attaining excellence.
In the mountain metaphor, perfection is to come to the top. Once at the top, you can't go higher.

According to you, everything is "perfect", and "perfect now". Why pursue excellence then?

We are talking about perfecting oneself in certain skills and abilities, pursuing/attaining excellence.

Ah, I was reading it quickly and just saw that line. I took you out of context. My bad. In that case, perfection is un-attainable.

In the mountain metaphor, perfection is to come to the top. Once at the top, you can't go higher.

Well, you could perhaps be the best in the world and not perfect.

According to you, everything is "perfect", and "perfect now". Why pursue excellence then?

Hmm. Well I don't really. At least I never think of it like that. I just do what I do and part of that is to learn to be more efficient and adept at attaining things I value.

Honestly I feel pretty perfect in the now in the sense that I am flawlessly me. I perform my function without flaw (my conscious expectation is irrelevant to this). Part of that function includes improving at certain things that I do, but in the moment I am perfection, as is anyone. I cannot be other than what I am in the now. If that is found to be undesirable for the now that follows this one, then one can focus in this now to attempt to function differently later, but at all points they are functioning perfectly as to what they are.

Pursuit of excellence?

One word; Nietzsche

I know he has a bad rep, but he's one of the most incredible philosophers of all time, especially on that topic.

This word is being used in muchatoomuch a general way.
I have seen hints of it's description in some of your posts and I understand both sides of this topic.
There is the objective and unfortunately the subjective aspects of this "excellence/perfection" thingamajing.

As for human perfection, as far as moral perfection is concerned, it is definitely possible.
That is to have a completely consistant, non-contradictory philosophy that allows one to guide ones life productively, happilyy, and fullfilled, without using force upon others as they pursue the same.

What Rosa is getting at, is that, as being human, we are not static beings.
Who can reach a point where no further effort or goal is sought.
It is to understand the distinction of "Progress" in its relationship to "Perfection and or Excelence".
To constantly progress in life in what ever area one commits to IS excellence in human terms.
It is not an end, it is a consistant state of being.
A path, not a destination.
I don't want to sound to much like a corny saying, but none the less, it is true.
To continually progress in life is to acheive human excellence.

And of course there is the objective physical world which is of course perfect in its laws of nature of cause and effect.
Which on a side note is truly beutiful to behold.
Progress is perfection in action.
Human excellence is contant progress.
Even if in the most minute way in what ever area you deem as having value to oneself.
Seek not to be a success, but successful.
Seek Progress, not perfection. :D

La La La dee dum dee!!!!

Possibly perfection is a by-product of doing something good and with passion for what you do (whatever, eg. repairing a bike) then after it's done you see that it's perfect...(perfection was not your aim,,,and look there it is!) :)

You can also define excellence as something not static; and you have in fact implied that right at the beginning by saying

"I believe the central issue is balance. Any exageration in either side would create anxiety and imperfection. For example, you shouldn't let yourself be totally out of control, with no social conduct, because you can finish hurting yourself and others. But you can't control yourself too much either, because that would create repression."

So excellence is about being dynamic, not static, isn't it?
Somewhat. The fact that excellence itself is dynamic doesn't imply that the concept is also dynamic.

Ah. You *think* in my enlightement metaphor, but you *verbalize* your toughts with the mountain metaphor.
Yes, I think so...

These:
"The whole idea is to pursue excellence, and not to attain it. It doesn't make sense talking about having excellence, because that is just not possible. You can have relative excellence, which means that you know you don't have it; but you can't have excellence itself because if you didn't you wouldn't be human."

You are distinguishing between "having excellence" and "pursuing excellence, since excellence cannot be attained". Thus, noone and nothing can ever be (called) excellent.
But we do call certain people and certain things excellent, don't we?
Concepts can be excellent, like excellence itself. But people can never be excellent. We never stop learning. That's the beauty of it. If there was a point where we couldn't learn anymore, that would be pretty boring. Besides, things change and we have to update ourselves. Aside from all that, if we could find an essence of all things, or an essence of excellence, maybe we would be able to get to such a point. But I still doubt it anyways...

Because they have conceptualized it as a mountain metaphor, silly!
That's because your idea of never reaching the top is bad. But that is not the case for me. I can always climb the mountain even tough I know I won't reach the top. That's not bad for me. I still pursue excellence. But most people don't do it even because excellence is not significant for the - they don't value it. Have you looked at our culture? Our culture is very futile and materialistic. We don't pursue things such as excellence, do we?

And why can you never come to the top? ... Because one cannot "have" excellence, since excellence can only be "pursued". And all those who call someone or something excellent, are liars, right?
They just don't know it any better. That reminds me of something my acting teacher used to say. There was this really great video rental store in this tiny town, and it was very good. He used to say that that was the second best video rental store in the whole world. He said that he considered it the second one because there might be one that was better. And so is excellence. You might say: "Oh, this person achieved excellence". But then, you see someone that gone even farther. The you now say "oh, that person is actually more excellent". And there is no limit for that...


Ah, why do I bother.
Because you are pursuing excellence, so you practice philosophy when you talk with me... ;)

What is the point of a climbing process if you have in advance excluded the possibility of reaching the top?!
The view along the way is pretty...

Spare with those remarks, I now what you think of without you explicitly saying it.
Is it that visible... :o

... :D

"To reach a point of perfection implies that nothing more is possible."

I disagree.

IMO, perfection is now. Every moment is perfect, regardless of my expectation of it. The universe has no expectation. It executes its function flawlessly. In fact it would be impossible for it to be imperfect, yet it is always changing.
That's all good, but we are talking in a more human level...

Ah, I was reading it quickly and just saw that line. I took you out of context. My bad. In that case, perfection is un-attainable.
We agree on that...


Well, you could perhaps be the best in the world and not perfect.
It is harder to superate yourself than others....

Hmm. Well I don't really. At least I never think of it like that. I just do what I do and part of that is to learn to be more efficient and adept at attaining things I value.
Well... that's pursuing excellence.... in some level...

Honestly I feel pretty perfect in the now in the sense that I am flawlessly me. I perform my function without flaw (my conscious expectation is irrelevant to this). Part of that function includes improving at certain things that I do, but in the moment I am perfection, as is anyone. I cannot be other than what I am in the now. If that is found to be undesirable for the now that follows this one, then one can focus in this now to attempt to function differently later, but at all points they are functioning perfectly as to what they are.
And that's the central idea of eastern philosophy. But what I inteded was to discuss about the western ideas on human excellence... ;)