According to Aristotle, The concept of potentiality, in this context, generally refers to any "possibility" that a thing can be said to have. Aristotle did not consider all possibilities the same, and emphasized the importance of those that become real of their own accord when conditions are right and nothing stops them. Actuality, in contrast to potentiality, is the motion, change or activity that represents an exercise or fulfillment of a possibility, when a possibility becomes real in the fullest sense. (copy and pasted from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality)
There is also the idea that every living thing has the potential to be "perfect" if it acts in accordance to its' intended nature. A fig tree's nature is to grow and produce fruit. A fig tree that doesn't produce fruit is still a fig tree, but it is not perfect.
Everything exists on a spectrum. A brain that has neuroconnections that cause the body to exhibit symptoms of schizophrenia is still a brain, but it is not perfect. Even inanimate objects have nature, or intended purpose. A chair is created to balance on it's own and support the weight of the user. If it breaks when you sit on it, it's still a chair, but it is not acting to its' greatest potential according to its' nature.
So, keeping these examples in mind, what is the greatest potential for a human being? Are there characteristics that the human could achieve that we could call "perfect" in the sense that the individual has reached the exact end of the spectrum of our intended nature. What would these characteristics look like? What is the furthest humans could reach. Are there any limits?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
HT, you wrote, “... in the sense that the individual has reached the exact end of the spectrum of our intended nature.”
I don’t believe humans have an ‘intended nature’.
There is no finish line.
Evolution makes sense to me, and all organisms are in a constant state of change, of transition. Our environment forces these changes. It is like the wind, you know where it is coming from, but not where it will go.
I was recently piqued about the differences between the chimpanzee and bonobo, our two closest genetic cousins. The outstanding difference between chimp and bonobo is that chimps are hostile to outsiders, while the bonobo is the opposite. I would like to see a trend where humanity is more accommodating to strangers.
There is no actual state in nature as "perfection".
This idea you mention comes from Plato's philosophy, which the early christians adopted to bolster their "perfect" claims about their god and heaven and the afterlife.
Meanwhile, back in reality, t'is a messy world and life, and you just have to do the best with what you have.
added later. And a chair is just a chair, wood, plastic, metal, whatever. A chair is not on any "spectrum" other than in imagination. A chair either works or its broken. There is no "perfect" chair in any imagined heaven.
Appreciate the comment. What stuck out to me was your use of the word “best” in the context of “do the best with what you have”. Wouldn’t this be in contradiction to your own statement and confer with the premise of my question?
Doing "your best" does not necessarily imply "perfection" or "reaching the end of the spectrum of intended natures" what ever is meant by both. I have no respect for absolutes or ancient Greek philosophical twaddle.
But in an attempt to answer the OP, perhaps our best, and only, characteristic lies not in the success of achieving our greatest potential as humans, but in the effort. But without defining "perfect" a "perfect" effort can include lying, cheating and threats of violence or death as all four are known to be well within our nature.
@ht
Nothing is perfect. Please do define perfect.
Humans have to learn there is no god or gods.
The only limit humans have are what we discover with science.
@xenoview
I made no mention of religion or God. This was purely a philosophical question. Kind of telling how you answered it though.
As far as your question on the definition of perfect, I guess that was my original question. What would a perfect human look/act/feel like?
@ Humble Thinker
Well, it would have to carry "New and improved" labels on it, just like Colgate's newest toothpaste.
And it certainly would not look like a human. Having both breathing and food processing share the same tube is just stupid. And where would we locate the sex organs? Having them share the same territory as where we urinate and defecate is just nasty. Would we have to call a perfect man "dickface"?
HumbleThinker,
"What would a perfect human look/act/feel like?"
We live in a time where people who are so inclined can build their own versions of what a perfect human can look like. So if someone doesn't the actual live model he can build his own to his own specifications. If he wants the sex organs on the chest or in the middle of the forehead then that is easy to do. If he wants the waste chute on the bottom of the feet then that is also easy to do. So people should get busy and design their own personal "human".
@ht
You are being rude, answering a question with a question. Can you answer the question? Define perfect.
I apply xenoview's razor to your your claims of a perfect person.
Xenoview's razor
Objective claims requires objective evidence.
You do understand what objective evidence is?
Haha you are wild. I don’t think I’ll be answering any of your comments from this point forward. Feel free to read the dialogue tho and maybe do some thinking instead of typing.
You are funny. You run from me, because you have no objective evidence for a perfect anything.
HumbleThinker: "Every living thing has the potential to be "perfect" if it acts in accordance to its' intended nature."
Now here is a rambling bunch of idiotspeak. How do you not act in accordance with your nature? What in the hell is an "INTENDED NATURE." Intended by who or what? Everything you do is EXACTLY WHO YOU ARE. If you do not like it, CHANGE IT or just ACCEPT IT. There is nothing you do that is not YOUR NATURE. NOTHING! If you think you are not the things you do, you are being hypocritical with yourself and with the people around you.
"A brain that has neuroconnections that cause the body to exhibit symptoms of schizophrenia is still a brain, but it is not perfect.: You are of course, incorrect. You are applying some arbitrary standard to the schizophrenic's brain. Most schizophrenics live happy and normal lives. A Schizophrenic brain is a perfect schizophrenic brain for doing exactly what it is doing. If it did anything else it would not be a schizophrenic brain. You have this amorphous idea of something called "PERFECT" and want to push this standard onto those around you. Will you be surprised when people tell you to go fuck yourself?
"A chair is created to balance on it's own and support the weight of the user. If it breaks when you sit on it, it's still a chair, but it is not acting to its' greatest potential according to its' nature." YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY WRONG AGAIN.
"A chair is created to balance on it's own and support the weight of its user. If it breaks when you sit on it, we probably want to find out why? In our exploration we will discover, "It was not designed to support the weight of its user. We were wrong. The chair, in fact, reached its full potential and then broke. Again you are applying some sort of fantasy expectation of "Perfect Chair." You may be able to come up with an excellent chair through trial and error. A chair that can support the weight of an elephant. That does not mean it will support the weight of 6 elephants and you are going to break a lot of chairs before you get there. Your fantasy "Perfect Chair" is like your fantasy "Perfect Brain" you are not dealing with anything real.
"Keeping these examples in mind, what is the greatest potential for a human being"
The greatest potential for a human being is to be a human being. What makes you think there is anything at all called "Intended Nature." Your nature is who you are and what you do with who you are, is your intention.
Another brilliant response by our beloved Cognostic. Thanks for that lesson.
HumbleThinker: “There is also the idea that every living thing has the potential to be "perfect" if it acts in accordance to its' intended nature.”
There is no such thing as "perfect" even within the context of intended nature.
HumbleThinker: “A fig tree's nature is to grow and produce fruit. A fig tree that doesn't produce fruit is still a fig tree, but it is not perfect.”
Neither is a fig tree that does produce figs.
HumbleThinker: “A brain that has neuroconnections that cause the body to exhibit symptoms of schizophrenia is still a brain, but it is not perfect.”
Neither is a brain most would say is normal.
HumbleThinker: “What is the greatest potential for a human being?”
To be good to others, always seek to cause no harm, further humanity no matter how small and insignificant the deed.
HumbleThinker: “Are there characteristics that the human could achieve that we could call "perfect" in the sense that the individual has reached the exact end of the spectrum of our intended nature?”
Nope. Never. No such thing as perfect. This is along the same lines as there is no such thing as objective morality, absolute truth, etc. Perfection can never exist. The best you can hope for is to be the best you can despite all your imperfections.
HumbleThinker: “What is the furthest humans could reach?”
About 100 centimeters.
HumbleThinker: “Are there any limits?”
Depends upon how tall you are and how long your arms are.
rmfr
Perfect in what sense?
"Parasitoid wasps are a large group of hymenopteran superfamilies, with all but the wood wasps (Orussoidea) being in the wasp-waisted Apocrita. As parasitoids, they lay their eggs on or in the bodies of other arthropods, sooner or later causing the death of these hosts. Different species specialise in hosts from different insect orders, most often Lepidoptera, though some select beetles, flies, or bugs; the spider wasps (Pompilidae) exclusively attack spiders."
By your standard those wasps are perfect, what is this meant to tell us exactly?
"what is the greatest potential for a human being?"
Humans are at the same stage of evolution as all other living things, thus they have achieved the same standard of "perfection" you are using to describe other living things such as fig trees. Your question makes no sense to me. We differ from other animals in the sense we have evolved larger brains and intellects that enable greater choice an d a better understanding of how the universe functions, enabling us to manipulate our environment, is this perfection? If so it is simply an anomaly of evolution.
Kind of disappointed with the responses here. I didn’t think atheists were void of any philosophical thought at all...
Humble Thinker, your position is predicated on the belief that mankind has a "purpose", which comes from your religious tendencies. If one does not accept this religious "purpose" proposition, then a healthy debate does not get off the ground.
That is why I cannot take your OP and position seriously and made a sarcastic and humorous response. For this thread to be taken seriously, first you must prove that mankind has a "purpose" as implied by your post.
But please ponder my previous statement, that we know where the wind comes from, but not where it goes to.
David Killens: "That is why I cannot take your OP and position seriously and made a sarcastic and humorous response. For this thread to be taken seriously, first you must prove that mankind has a "purpose" as implied by your post."
And that is also why my response was sarcastic and not philosophical. What purpose do humans serve in this overwhelmingly vast universe? As David said, you must first prove us lowly primitive, barbaric primates actually have and serve a "purpose" in this vast universe. Once you have done that, then you MUST define "perfect/perfection" as you mean it. Until then, I cannot believe you even posted that OP. I would have thought you would have figured this out from the sarcasm and humor offered.
The only purpose of life, is life. Period. Exclamation Point!
rmfr
EDIT: corrected misspellings
@OP by HumbleThinker
First I mostly ignored your examples and will answer the question directly. As I think it is an interesting subject, but the examples detract and narrow responses rather then opens it up.
The greatest potential for a human being? I think the greatest potential would be transcending the body and leaving behind ego, desire, and instead gain ever increasing knowledge and complexity, a form of energy and knowledge that is no longer confined by things such as mortality, time, or other finite resources. Transcending the need for resources all together, as a group of charged atoms electrons that can evolve at a rapid rate it complexity and capability. Or for the theist minded people, in a sense continue to approach the point of being an all knowing being (NOT GOD! - bad definition!)
Nope, "perfect is a human thought construct that does not exist in reality. Even in thought we cannot properly conceived of perfect in our brains, instead "perfect is either used as "something approaching perfect" or literally as a concept of something that cannot occur.
Exact end of the spectrum of our intended nature? I do not think humans/life has an intended nature, life/earth/solar system etc I consider to just be a "pocket" of complexity almost like a bubble of lava rising up to the surface from the crushing dark depths from within the earth, it eventually finds it's way to the surface, and pop's and cools then gets reburied. Humans with their brains may well be the most complex thing on the surface of this planet, but humans are likely to be eventually replaced by something else even more complex, there is no driving force, especially for humans to reach "the end" of "intended nature" their is no end and their is no intended.
Stepping back from intended nature and end of spectrum, to what could humans possibly evolve to?
This goes back to my above point, if humans do make it that far, probably at one point we begin to increasingly shed our "mortal coil" and increasingly live as energy and organized information. To me we are already on this process. Many of us have smart phones in our pocket that can document our lives, and attach to the "internet" where information can be stored and accessed at lightning speeds, and that information can live on after the person that created it dies. We are slowly and steadily already approaching a form of ourselves that is information and energy.
The limits are what can this tiny layer of human surface sustain in terms of human consumption and destruction while humans approach this increasingly complexity and move towards information and energy. In some senses humans and the planet are still in a highly vulnerable state, a major environmental disaster could end all human life on earth at any time. Or humans themselves could start a major nuclear war, in other words, humans own nature may be the limit of what humans could reach.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Hey Humble Thinker,
You might want to try being a humble communicator. You are complaining about the responses here, yet your own responses are full of frustration and contempt. That's pretty far from humble.
Agreed. Going to unsubscribe from this website. Although I started as humble, it is clearly hard to maintain humility in this format. Thanks for all of the dialogue over the last few days. I am realizing I am contributing to unconstructive conversation and adding to the frustration of believers and nonbelievers alike, something which is far from my original goal. If I could leave you with a message it would be I hope you all find peace and joy, but ultimately truth, as that is what we are all ultimately seeking. Much love. HT.
SecularSonOfABi... this is almost always a shock to theists. What they fail to understand is that most of us atheists face this every day in real life. While they have the luxury of popping in and out at their convenience, we have to face the harsh reality of poor treatment continually.
Typical Theist: "If you challenge my delusions, I will run away." So sad.
Sad but true Cognostic. Too many theists believe that their story and revelations will have an impact, while for most of us atheists, it is something we have seen over and over, the same old arguments.
Humble Thinker, despite our differences I wish you well. I do hope you take something positive away from this.
It’s okay HT. Rat spit knows how mean these non-believers have to be to remain so selfish and narrow minded. Rat spit has suffered much dislike while here. But we must ask our selves, “What would Jesus do?” And the answer is, “He’d buy a cheeseburger.” Rat spit is here for you, humping thinker. Don’t go. Stay. There aren’t enough theists on this board!