"Just plain scary?" A lot of people exaggerate like that. And what's the downside in thinking that people are capable of being perfect? What sort of a situation would have that leading to a downfall?
What are the downsides? Well without writing a thesis on the subject, basically what I have already mentioned. If one believes ones self to be perfect, then logically, there is no reason to continue to strive for improvement is there? Again by definition, you can't improve on perfection.
If one believes ones self to be perfect, then ones opinions/decisions/actions must also be perfect (i.e., perfectly correct) and therefore beyond doubt or compromise. I see such an absolute and unquestionable position (particularly if that position is held by a person in any kind of leadership role) having the possibility to lead to all sorts of unfortunate social consequences. History is filled with examples of leaders who believed their point of view to be beyond question or compromise, usually with bad results.
So if it's not Ayn Rand, who's perfect then?
I stand by my original comment.
The idea of humans being "imperfect" is not in reference to a Webster's definition, but in comparison to the religious notion of the deity's perfection.
If one believes that Mankind is not some imperfect reflection of a perfect deity whom he must serve, then any notion of perfection must be realizable by humans. So in theory a man or woman could be perfect.
Rand writes about these larger than life types of people. Most of us only see shades of them in ourselves or people we know, but it sure beats the idea of guilt/imperfection as a birthright thanks to original sin!
I bring this up b/c western culture is so heavily influenced by Christianity that it pollutes even people's secular understanding of what perfection means.
As I recall someone got a 10 at the olympics this year.
My concept of humans being inherently imperfect comes directly from and is directly in reference to the dictionary definition. I think I have already made my point about the attainment of perfection implicitly meaning that further improvement is impossible and how this can only be a bad thing for humanity. Who wants to live in a world where the best has already been?
If however, proponents of Objectivism wish to redefine and narrow the meaning of the words "perfect" and "imperfect" in order to make some point against certain misguided religious concepts, then that is their business. I could only suggest that perhaps they try using different words to avoid future confusion.
Someone got a 10 at the Olympics? Well done them. You may be interested in this story:
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/06/1214234
But in any case, now it seems that you're switching back and arguing that the dictionary definition of "perfect" is attainable by a human. And it was a good argument too, untill it occurred to me that scores are assigned by imperfect human judges.
I don't see the human inability to attain perfection as a negative, quite the opposite actually. It keeps us growing.
However, that is not the impression that I got from Brook's quotes. The word "perfect" has one meaning, it is not a relative thing. If you don't actually mean "perfect" then use another word.
I still see a strain of absolutism showing through when you say "the "perfect protagonists" are the ones who always live life according to moral values without ever slipping"... Where do these moral values come from? Who agreed that they are the values worthy of being adhered to? And they live life true to these values "Without ever slipping"? Sounds like we're looking at the dictionary definition of "perfect" again... If there's one place where this kind of perfection could be achieved, I guess it would have to be in a fictional book.
Rand says in her works that moral values must come entirely from logic and reasoning, and that that's why her philosophy can be held as a moral absolute: because if it ISN'T logical, she encourages you to disagree with her. It's why people who agree with her seem to do so fanatically: because they're convinced by logic and nothing else that they are right.
And Rand admits from the start that her works portray ideals and nothing more. In her line of thinking if she portrayed only characters with flaws it would make her books subjective and less reliable as a philosophical guide. Nonetheless, there are people who try to live by her words, and many people who have succeeded immensely because of them.
You started out asking me what possible downside there could be to a person believing they are capable of perfection. After I answered, you took the fallback position that perfection isn't actually perfection. You seem a bit all over the place justifying your argument.
Sorry I'm just not buying it. And I'm sure if you were going to buy my argument, you would have done so by now. so I think we will have to just agree to disagree.
Leonardo da Vinci is quoted as having said "Art is never finished, only abandoned."
I see perfection as less of an absolute. It's a difference of definition on our parts.
What I'm saying is that even as it relates to aspects of people, or the actions they perform, based off whatever morality they follow, perfection is not achievable (see above quote from da Vinci). Greatness worthy of respect? Yes. Amazing deeds and ideas? Yes. But perfection? No. If you or anyone else has a different concept of what a word means than its actual meaning then that is up to you. But it doesn't make that concept correct and certainly doesn't make that concept easy to communicate to others who do not share your non-standard definition.
If one has to redefine the meaning of a word for ones philosophy to make sense, then maybe it's just best to use a different word and save everyone some time.
It appears that the meaning of the word "perfect" seems to be very elastic indeed, as it relates to it's use in Objectivism. One moment it actually does mean "perfect" as in "so good that further improvement is impossible" and the next it becomes this "relative" term, of fluid meaning.
Interesting.
"It seems to me that he's misrepresented what Ayn Rand believes and her ideals beyond objectivism," he said. "He's setting it up to fail. He believes , based on what I've read, that any system that is absolutist is ultimately going to lead to disastrous effect. Any system of black and white, any system of ultimate morality."
I'm sure a system of "ultimate morality" would work just fine for me... if I was defining the "ultimate morality".
"I think its flawed logic in the sense that he thinks that people have to be flawed"
"I think there are great people and perfect people and I think we all should strive to be great and perfect."
To strive for perfection is a worthy endeavour, to assume that I or anyone else has achieved it, is naive, limiting and possibly dangerous. I'd like to know who Yaron Brook's puts in this category of great and perfect. Ayn Rand, I suppose would be one.