Quote:
Originally Posted by Illuminated One
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.
|
Ok, lets cut right to the chase. You keep using these value judgements. These are weasel words because they don't actually mean the same thing to you as to me. As such, they make your discussion fairly contentless.
'Good' and 'bad' are ambiguous terms. If we define a perfect world in terms of +good and -bad, of course we can't have a perfect world because no one agrees what these are. In many cases, one agent's idea of good is inimical to another agents - and i don't even need to specify the agents are people, merely entities capable of initiating action and holding values (however basic, like survival).
Consider the simplistic example at the start. What's the perfect world for the sheep? How about the wolves? Are these anywhere close to the same thing?
As soon as you use 'good' and 'bad', you've already answered the question why a perfect world is impossible. You're defining perfection for you, not for anyone else. As such, the question becomes meaningless.