ITS ME AGAIN! bongydude The example below is just one strand of my thinking.
You would agree that cancer is a debilitating desease o.k?. You would agree that people die from it? but the cancer 'bug' is a perfect organism designed to kill. It is there, it exists, IT MUST BE ...IN ITSELF... PERFECT.
The result of cancer is horrible but surely, it is what we would expect to happen?
Therefor cancer is perfect at what it does and the result must be perfect too. That is what cancer is! (perfect imperfection?)
This thinking can be applied to every mortal thing that exists and every 'damn' hing that anyone has ever done.
2006-08-24 01:31:57 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Cancer is not a 'bug' but merely normal cells that are 'imperfect' as they don't have the auto-destroy mechanism that cells have to have to ensure 'perfect' function of the body!
Without any cell death mechanism the cells replicate uncontrolled thus producing a 'lump'! IMPERFECT body cells - not a perfect bug.
2006-08-25 01:27:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Perfect imperfection? That would depend upon the point of view. From the point of view of the "cancer bug" it is perfect in that it is designed to kill. From the point of view of the human it infects, it is an imperfection in the human make up. So the fact that it is a perfect imperfection isn't as paradoxical as you might think. And I fail to see your logic on why cancer is perfect anyway. What is your definition of perfect? Is it perfect because it kills and that is what it is designed to do? Perfect means flawless, without defect. If that were true of cancer, why would we be bothering to come up with a cure?? Or am I missing something vital here?
2006-08-24 08:45:40 · answer #2 · answered by Micki 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First of all I appreciate your concern regarding human suffering – yes, cancer if horrible, but it is not perfect. The virus that causes cancer can mutate and change against any antiviral medicine that is being used. This logically proves that those viruses are not perfect but they have ability to better themselves against foreign threats. If the agent causing cancer is not perfect then the disease can also be imperfect.
I cannot think of anything happening differently. There is no third possibility in my knowledge. Things are perfect in their own right, or in there essence - all chairs, for example, are perfect in essence as they make up a family of chairs, but no chair is perfect due to its peculiar visible, or microscopically detectable, attributes when placed in comparison with other chairs. So things are in two ways - being perfect in their own way (the essence) or being imperfect when in comparison with other things of the similar kind (the form).
2006-08-24 09:30:03 · answer #3 · answered by Shahid 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think i like this question. maybe it's all point of view--if i'm playing a game and someone of the opposing team executes a play perfectly, well to that person's teammates, the play is fully appreciated. to my view (since i lost ground in the game because of the perfection of the play), i am certainly not going to be thankful or appreciative because the perfect play undermined me.
i can form a defense based on the moves of the opposing team, but it is more than likely they will shift their offense and maybe once more make my defense obsolete with their perfect adjustments.
so looking at perfection objectively, the other team has perfected the destruction of my team and keeps scoring while i lag behind trying to keep up. does this make a virus a perfect organism? yes, judged by the fact that even though the results of its perfection can be heart rending and sad, it has proven itself difficult to beat by knowing how and when to change itself. a perfect Thing of Destruction. (wasn't the Terminator supposed to be a perfect killing machine?)
2006-08-24 10:54:31 · answer #4 · answered by serasotto 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
From a realistic point of view, I am with you. I mean that when "existence" is the top criterion in your discourse, yes, everything that ever happened or existed is perfect. However, when we begin to talk about perfection we thread on new grounds; by which I mean imagination and the world of not-yet-existent things. In light of this notion, everything ever happened -say perfect- can happen even better! This is part of the reason that we are tapping on keyboard and not sending smoky signals!
2006-08-26 08:59:52 · answer #5 · answered by Peyman 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Poor example fool! Cancer is not a bug!
2006-08-25 08:28:34 · answer #6 · answered by Mr Angry 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think we can assume that perfectionism in itself is not necessarily "a good or desirable thing" It's so horribly excessive, don't you think, something that can't be bettered. What a frightening thought!
2006-08-25 05:36:40 · answer #7 · answered by vagabonde 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, I could try and answer but I can't be bothered. Have a perfect day.
2006-08-24 09:02:13 · answer #8 · answered by Lady Penelope 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
in a imperfect, perfect way
2006-08-28 05:39:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perfectly tautologous, is what it is. Seriously.
2006-08-24 09:50:03 · answer #10 · answered by Drew 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋