Evil Elves...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

IBut I can't stretch that into there's more than one perfect answer... no matter how I try.

Why not?

6=4+2
6=2+4
6=3+3
6=5=1
6=1+5
6=10-4
6=16-10
6=2x3
6=3x2
6=1x6.....
Which of these is the perfect answer?

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Why not?

6=4+2
6=2+4
6=3+3
6=5=1
6=1+5
6=10-4
6=16-10
6=2x3
6=3x2
6=1x6.....
Which of these is the perfect answer?

6.

The others consist of more than one part. Which means they are less than perfect.

6=6 was left out of the running... but then a tautology is pretty constrained... much like a perfect being would be...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

6.

The others consist of more than one part. Which means they are less than perfect.

6=6 was left out of the running... but then a tautology is pretty constrained... much like a perfect being would be...

You don't see that as a point of view? Why would perfection be more white light than rainbow? I disagree.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You don't see that as a point of view? Why would perfection be more white light than rainbow? I disagree.

No, I don't see it as a point of view. Which is "more perfect"... something whole unto itself, or the various pieces that compose it?

"Why would perfection be more an entire human being than scattered body parts?"

"Why would perfection be more an auto than scattered bits of metal?"

because the sum is more than the parts...

A rainbow really isn't light anyway.. it's an illusion created by the refraction of light...

You could have a perfect red or green or blue light... in fact we do, they are called lasers... But they are just pieces of the whole.

How can you consider a piece of something "more perfect" than the whole?

[Rían]

I don't think sis's example were pieces of the whole. Each one was a correct answer in itself - it was NOT incomplete by itself. 2 + 4 = 6, whether you list other ways to get to 6 or not.

How about this question - what is an element with 6 neutrons?

Is "carbon" the perfect answer to that?

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

. Each one was a correct answer in itself - it was NOT incomplete by itself.

There's a difference between "correct" and "perfect" however.

Which leads one to the assumption that not all questions have perfect answers. Especially those without context.

No one tried to answer my question "Can a perfect evil being exist?"

You're tossing out questions dealing with abstractions and forms.. which also have no real MORAL or ETHICAL implications... it's like the question about the ice cream. It really doesn't matter what flavor ice cream Thor likes... unless you're the one that has to go get it...

asking whether 2+4 or 1x6 is more or less perfect means nothing without a context.

Unless your concept of perfection is more akin to the void.. i.e. something perfectly neutral that interacts with, and is affected by.. nothing.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

You're tossing out questions dealing with abstractions and forms..

And now you're trying to limit the type of questions we're dealing with so your answer will fit!

Originally Posted by Blackheart

No one tried to answer my question "Can a perfect evil being exist?"

You're not patient enough

I'll go with Tolkien's answer, which I think is the correct one: No, because a perfectly evil being would be the taking away of everything good, which leaves ... nothing.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

No, I don't see it as a point of view. Which is "more perfect"... something whole unto itself, or the various pieces that compose it?

"Why would perfection be more an entire human being than scattered body parts?"

"Why would perfection be more an auto than scattered bits of metal?"

because the sum is more than the parts...

A rainbow really isn't light anyway.. it's an illusion created by the refraction of light...

You could have a perfect red or green or blue light... in fact we do, they are called lasers... But they are just pieces of the whole.

How can you consider a piece of something "more perfect" than the whole?

I consider "whole as all pieces" equally valid as "whole that subsumes pieces". In traditional Christian theology, the Trinity would be a good example of that.

And, as to the rainbow... why would light that includes a refractive component and an observer be "less perfect" than light without? The trend of this argument is that creation is a step away from perfection, rather than a movement towards fullfillment of it. If so, why bother to create at all?

[me9996]

Nope, no perfect evil people, being evil is a (Realy realy big) flaw

[Landroval]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

What you refer to as automatons are soulless creatures dominated by a greater evil. And even that didn't apply to orcs in the later ages.. They acquired a good bit of free will.

As you can see from my post, I explained why I used that word with quote marks - to reflect the diminishing of free will.

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

No, I don't see it as a point of view. Which is "more perfect"... something whole unto itself, or the various pieces that compose it?

"Why would perfection be more an entire human being than scattered body parts?"

"Why would perfection be more an auto than scattered bits of metal?"

because the sum is more than the parts...

A rainbow really isn't light anyway.. it's an illusion created by the refraction of light...

You could have a perfect red or green or blue light... in fact we do, they are called lasers... But they are just pieces of the whole.

How can you consider a piece of something "more perfect" than the whole?

I am going to go ahead and agree with Blackheart on this matter.

"And here you will stay, Gandalf the Grey, and rest from journeys. For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours! "
'I looked then and saw that his robes, which had seemed white, were not
so, but were woven of all colours. and if he moved they shimmered and
changed hue so that the eye was bewildered.
"I liked white better," I said.
"White!" he sneered. "It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken."
"In which case it is no longer white," said I. "And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."

This is of course merely a clever "gotcha" on my part. Gandalf said it, and Gandalf was the good guy, which means I'm right and you're Saruman. But there is (I should think obviously) a bit more too it than that.

For a thing to function perfectly requires more than an assemblage of parts. That is necessary, true, but in addition the parts need to be in the proper relation to each other, and the whole thing must be put to the proper use.

Now a ray of light, or a car, or a human being consists of a set of parts in a certain arrangement. To keep the pieces but break them apart is to destroy the whole - a rainbow may be beautiful, but it is not perfect when compared to the sunbeam.

Anyway, in regards to the question "can a perfect evil being exist" I'll agree that the answer is no. The logic of this is actually fairly simple, and it goes like this:

Suppose we define 'Good' arbitrarily as a value 'close to six.'
Good -> 6
Suppose then that we define Evil as 'not good' or 'not close to six.'
Evil != 6
Suppose also that 'Perfection' is 'the utmost good' or 'the closest to six.'
Perfect = 6
Then if X == Evil is true, X == Perfect cannot also be true.

This is not a rigorous proof, of course, but I'll leave it at that all the same.