[Illuminated One]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

claim '!Perfect' =/=> !Like

My claim was:
Only !Like => claim '!Perfect'


I did state them in the opposite order, but that's clearly my intended causality. But we start out knowing the consequent (that someone has claimed the world isn't perfect) and are trying to derive meaning from that statement (ie, by trying to figure out why it was claimed in the first place). Someone who likes the world isn't going to claim its not perfect, regardless of their beliefs on perfection.

So if you *like* it because its not perfect, you're wholly not covered by my reasoning.

Only !Like => claim '!Perfect'
I.e. I will only claim something isn't perfect if I don't like it?

This assumption then is generally wrong. And I did challenge that with my statement (even if it does indeed serve also against a counterexample against the first one). Since by saying "I like people and things that are not perfect" I also claim they are not perfect.
That isn't saying that I like them because they are not perfect but despite their flaws which I am aware of (or which I believe them to have).

But not only do you ask for 'no parts missing', you also ask for 'bad parts to not exist'. =><=!!! If some parts don't exist, then they'd be missing, wouldn't they? (whatever that means...)

I thought that this would arise. By no parts are missing I mean of course no good parts are missing. No one misses bad parts (or maybe we do?).

What do you mean by 'there are no parts missing'? What parts could be/are missing from reality?

I mean, there are clearly no 'parts missing', because reality is reality. Its exactly what it is. (Law of identity) What could we possibly mean by 'parts missing'?

Would you like to try again, and define perfection in a way that doesn't use value judgements

Concerning the world, I'd first shortcut it. I personally don't know if there is such a thing as the "world" or what reality is. But I know that I (whatever I is) am experiencing. Let's call the sum of my experiences my life and let's for simplicities sake just assume that there are other people who are also having a life of their own without proof (and let's say that is these lives happen in the world).
Now some of these experiences are good (pleasant, joyful, meaningful, whatever) some are bad (...).
So in a perfect world everyone would have all the good experiences that could be had and not a single bad one. I'm not saying that this would be consistent. But I'm saying that this is a far better description of a perfect life/world than anything that doesn't use value judgements - because that sort of misses the point.