Perfect does not equal happiness

[Just Another Gamer]

No no no no. Perfection isn't subjective. Actual perfection would be seen as perfect by everyone.

But perfection in the eyes of everyone will be different thus perfection is subjective.

Just because something is perfect to you doesn't make it perfect to me same can be allied to anything that requires more than 1 person to feel/think the same thing.

If you think it is perfect and I do not, then by definition it is not perfect at all.
What I'm saying is, if everyone subjectively saw something as "perfect" then it is perfect. Which essentially means nothing is perfect on this planet.

Your right if everyone thought something as perfect then it would be considered perfect but that isn't possible because everyone has a different option and thought.

Imperfection is in itself is perfect because nothing can be perfect making everything imperfect.

So...you're agreeing with me?

Yea I didn't think this out when I responded did I?

 

[Vulpes Abnocto]

Until all minds are created in the same fashion, we can never see things from precisely the same viewpoint.
Thus, until such an event occurs, there will always be matters of opinion on what "perfect" means.
As it stands, "perfection" cannot happen.

 

[notmeanymore]

Until all minds are created in the same fashion, we can never see things from precisely the same viewpoint.
Thus, until such an event occurs, there will always be matters of opinion on what "perfect" means.
as it stands, "perfection" cannot happen.

Why does that sound a great deal like the makings of Nazi Germany?

 

[triassic911]

Until all minds are created in the same fashion, we can never see things from precisely the same viewpoint.
Thus, until such an event occurs, there will always be matters of opinion on what "perfect" means.
as it stands, "perfection" cannot happen.

Why does that sound a great deal like the makings of Nazi Germany?

Because it is. If I'm not mistaken, Hitler wanted a "perfect" world. Remember, he was seeing perfection through his eyes. He was sharing his ideals and some people agreed while some didn't. Those who didn't were killed.

 

[Vulpes Abnocto]

Why does that sound a great deal like the makings of Nazi Germany?

Perhaps because that was the basic hope of the Reich.
Or maybe it's because you have been trained to think that such ideas are Socialist in nature.

Either way, one of us is now a Thought-criminal.

 

[Veho]

Also, Is a perfect world best to maximize happiness.

 

[Just Another Gamer]

Wow, thats kinda reminds of religion somehow.

 

[Zarcon]

A perfect world would be one where everyone could get along regardless of their opinions, not one where everyone's opinions are the same.
If everyone liked the same things and agreed on the same things, if everyone had the same opinions then there would be no progress.
You could say, what if humanity already progressed as far as they could, to the point where everyone was happy with everything?
Perfection doesn't need further progress or change after all.
Then it doesn't matter if everyone has the same opinions and thoughts.

But therein lies a problem as well, perfection is a dead end. Perfection is death.
If there's nothing to improve then things can never get better.
If things can never get better, well, that's not very perfect is it?

 

[jarejare3]

Felix is a dick... or maybe mentally insane or retarded....

 

[FailName]

If things can never get better, well, that's not very perfect is it?

If things could never get better, I would consider that pretty much the exact definition of perfect. If everything was perfect, I would have to say it does equal happiness, since everything is the best it can be. If there was anything wrong at all, it wouldn't be perfect. But everything can't be perfect, can it?

 

[gshock]

Perfection is subjective and so is happiness.

That pretty much ended the thread, for me.

No no no no. Perfection isn't subjective. Actual perfection would be seen as perfect by everyone.

Having "many" subjective opinions doesn't suddenly make anything objective.

People agree on wrong things all the time.

If something makes the majority happy, why is that better than not making the majority happy.

I think the original question is asking about majority rules and this thread has nothing to do with perfection.

For example, if you had every Wii game, would that maximize your happiness (I would love to hear from pirates on this one)...

Well I don't need a perfect world to be able to do that.

Maybe I'll be upset about all the time and money I wasted tracking down all those damn shovelware games instead of using the time/resources more wisely towards my own life and my own future somehow. Seems a lot more likely to me. tbh.

Also, Is a perfect world best to maximize happiness.

I should point out that the topic already has its answer in the title. "Perfect does not equal happiness".

If happiness is your epitome or your goal, you can simply redefine "happiness" as perfection / whatever perfection is to you.

What's preventing you from thinking about things that way?

You could say, what if humanity already progressed as far as they could, to the point where everyone was happy with everything?

If people will continue to exist then they will do things, if they don't have something to do then they will find or make something to do.

Just enjoying whatever they're happy with implies existence, change time to the degree it (perhaps always) matters.

Spoiler

Where does this assumption come from that one person's perception of perfection has to even match somebody else's? Why can't you just respect somebody else's decisions but also respect them for being individualistic and thus entitled to have their own preferences that could easily be different from yours?

I don't see that as an issue of perfect [or happiness] but maturity and merely comprehending the fact that the world doesn't need to match or mirror your perceptions or ideas of anything, necessarily. Not to mention acknowledging the simple fact that people will have their differences.

 

[Zetta_x]

Thanks guys!

Me and a few friends went out last night and got really drunk. But we are the type of people who think about these things and we were pretty much ready to start killing each other because two questions could not be answered:

One person said: "If someone had two choices, if choice one made 20 people happy and choice two made 2 people happy, then choice one would be best"
One person said: "If murdering 10,000 people today extended the life of the human race 10,000 years, would murdering them today be better or deal with it 10,000 years from now?"

The person who said the first one had an extremely strong stance that maximizing happiness amongst the world was the only "right" action. I disagreed because similar to some opinions in this thread, I felt happiness is opinionated and you can't even form an unbiased equation to relate happiness to another and then you can't maximize a biased equation. However, he didn't accept that...

 

[retKHAAAN]

One person said: "If someone had two choices, if choice one made 20 people happy and choice two made 2 people happy, then choice one would be best"

That depends on who the people are...

If the choice to make the 20 people happy was to kill the 2...then which choice is best?

 

[yuyuyup]

You would have to be a horrible monster to be happy these days, living in such a bubble preventing you from opening your eyes to the constant deaths and nuclear tsunamis and mass r@pe and FACTORY FARMING

 

[Gahars]

Oh great, another debate on a philosophical issue with no definitive answer... perfect.

 

[gamefan5]

Oh great, another debate on a philosophical issue with no definitive answer... perfect.

I know right? It reminds me of another philosophical sentence.
'L'être est, le non-être n'est pas.' (Sorry don't know the phrase from Parmenides in english)
Try to explain THAT! LOL Took me awhile to understand it.

 

[Gahars]

Oh great, another debate on a philosophical issue with no definitive answer... perfect.

I know right? It reminds me of another philosophical sentence.
'L'être est, le non-être n'est pas.' (Sorry don't know the phrase from Parmenides in english)
Try to explain THAT! LOL Took me awhile to understand it.

I don't know French, so it's going to take me even longer!

 

[Thesolcity]

Perfect does not equal happiness....

NONSENSE​

 

[Gahars]

Also, I have evidence to refute the title's claim.

Look at that smile he's rocking; a clear sign of happiness.

 

[Schizoanalysis]

My adrenals are fatigued.