The "blueprint" for a perfect world

[Pallas_Athene]

How to create a “perfect” world? First, the definition of “perfect” needs to be ironed out. For the purposes of the discussion, I will propose the following definition: “a perfect world is where there is no pain or suffering due to either natural causes or due to volitional decisions”. If you disagree with this definition, we cannot have a conversation, until you provide another one which we can agree upon.

So, for the time being, I will take the liberty to assume that we have a working definition of “perfect”.

First approximation: To create a perfect world, the creator does not create any beings which are able to experience either pain or suffering. Only inanimate matter would exist. Since in this world there are no beings, which can experience pain or suffering, it fulfills the criteria of being “perfect”.

But some people will assert: “so what”? Such a boring world is not worth creating. Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on the value system of the creator. Be as it may, let’s accommodate the “naysayers”.

Second approximation: Let’s expand this world where there are plants. Plants have no pain receptors, they have no pain/pleasure centers. When they lose a part, they can replace them, by growing alternate branches, or simply regenerate the lost parts. (Actual example: the planaria.) There is no reason why plants cannot have cognition, intelligence, reasoning. The nervous system, which allows one to think and make decisions is separate from the system which experiences pain (suffering) or pleasure. So it is possible to have a world with lots of intelligent beings, capable of abstract thoughts, poetry, music, games, philosophy (etc…), but no possibility of “pain” or “suffering”. Sounds like a wonderful world to me - actually a “perfect” world.

But I still can see some adversaries (naysayers) who find such a world “unsatisfactory”. They may say: “so what”?. If a being is unable to experience pain, then there is no difficulty in the creation of a world where there is no pain. My question to them: “why?”, or “what is the point?”.

They may respond: “pain is useful, it can alert one to some problem, which needs to be attended to”. But that is an inferior solution. A much better approach is a replacement, or a regeneration of the problematic part. There is no need for pain if it can be prevented by a superior method of having the organism healthy and intact.

There might be some more naysayers, who prefer to have pleasure/pain centers… to them I have the question: “what is the point?”, what does the ability to feel pain “add” to the world as described? If there are any of these, let’s hear from them.

 

[davidv]

The perfect world already exists. Some have concluded that is not worth the price of admission.

 

[Aloysium]

Given that we exist, that pain is a daily, sometimes constant companion until death for some of us, for all of us at least temporarily, what is the point of such questions? What awesome reality, to be, to live life to the fullest, embracing the suffering as part of its ecstatic totality, with its victories and humiliations, pain and pleasure, fullness and emptiness. Cowards rejoice, surrender it all back to God, the Light of love, brilliant whiteness containing all shades and colours of experience, returning to the Source of all this wonder.

 

[laircy]

Intelligent plants? Propose that idea to someone who loves to travel and tell me how it goes.

 

[friardchips]

edited.

 

[friardchips]

The perfect world already exists. Some have concluded that is not worth the price of admission.

Three points here.

The first:

‘Genesis 1:31 - God saw all He had made, and indeed it was very good.’

Scripture does not say that He made physical existence to be perfect. If the world was perfect, would we need Him to perfect us? Only our Creator is absolute perfection. After all, we are not our Creator. We are IN our Creator.

The Second:

What is perfection? Can perfection be in the material. I don’t think so, because creation has to die, before it can be renewed. So perfection grows in the soul. It is perfect love. The soul carries on; the physical body does not. We get back our bodies but they are different because there is no imperfection within them and are of different matter not attached to our physical realm, which grows old.

The third:

After He had made Creation, was it perfect before the fall? Were Adam and Eve’s souls in a state of perfection before they were given the ability to question and make a choice resulting from questioning? Remember, that before they could make a choice to serve Him, or not, they were made ‘very good’, not ‘perfect’. Because they were more along the lines of nature which cannot question its own existence. Even the angels were given a choice to freely choose our Creator. Therefore, by Adam and Eve’s choice, could their souls have been perfected? (I believe so). Before the fall their souls were ‘innocent’ with the potential to be ‘perfected’. After the fall their souls were corruptible.

Were human bodies only corruptible after the fall and was the rest of physical existence ever-lasting before the fall? I’d say it is possible that creation was always ever-changing, but to say that our natural surroundings die, as such, might be a lazy way of interpreting nature. Evolution is a fact of existence. So what we consider to be death, is really the natural world, the ecological system, progressing, in order to continue. So I think that it is reasonable to suggest that the natural world was always ever-changing - that humans could love our Creator also through His beautiful Creation, through His brushstrokes.

But until Adam and Eve chose to sin, was it their souls, alone, that were incorruptible and non-changing, before the fall, or their bodies too? Well, it was not their surroundings, as their natural surroundings were not an area in Heaven, so Paradise was within their incorruptible souls until they sinned and thus joined with the living and ‘dying’, or rather, ‘progressing’, cycle of nature (the rest of His creation). But the fact that they sinned would have meant their bodies aligned with death, and so it could be argued that it is sin itself which causes also the growing older of the physical body, only I don’t think so. Because our Creator would have wanted His children to pro-create, and for this to happen, their bodies would have to grow to being functional in this way and babies would have to grow from being small, to old. Also, Our Lord, after He was born, grew older, did He not, yet His soul was not sinful. And Our Lady was assumed into Heaven probably in part because so perfect a spirit that “magnified the Lord” could not remain in this realm of physical existence.

For all to live eternally we need new bodies, Heavenly bodies, which is why we await His ‘New Creation’.

IMO.

 

[fhansen]

A most perfect world would be one where the ultimate good. love as it happens, is experienced fully, as all of its inhabitants will the good of the other. The possibility for this perfection necessarily involves the freedom of those inhabitants, however, which results in the potential for them to not will the good of others, so that “volitional decisions” cause harm. Actually experiencing the harm and subsequent pain caused by such wrong choices may lead inhabitants to come to see the error in making them, moving them closer to the perfection that would cause the world to be the best possible. Perhaps a crucial ingredient in realizing the best possible world, where happiness is maximized, is that its inhabitants freely choose to love.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

A most perfect world would be one where the ultimate good. love as it happens, is experienced fully, as all of its inhabitants will the good of the other.

Why wouldn’t the intelligent plants (let’s think about them as sequoia trees; they are truly magnificent) would not “will” the “good” of the others? Whatever “will” and “good” are in this respect. I can “will” the best for you, good health, happy and fulfilling life, wonderful experiences, etc… but since my “will” cannot be put into practice, it does not mean anything.

The possibility for this perfection necessarily involves the freedom of those inhabitants, however, which results in the potential for them to not will the good of others, so that “volitional decisions” cause harm.

There is no way to harm a tree which regenerates its parts. And why would a tree have “ill will” toward another? They do not compete for the resources, the sunshine and the rain are available for all. They are all self-sustaining individuals, living their own life and communicating with each other. They conduct their lives thinking and playing, and conducting conversations (telepathically) with each other, playing music with the help of the wind. They could not cause “harm” to one another, even if they wanted to — but why would they want to do that?

Actually experiencing the harm and subsequent pain caused by such wrong choices may lead inhabitants to come to see the error in making them, moving them closer to the perfection that would cause the world to be the best possible.

I asked before, and now I ask again: why is it better to “move closer” to a “perfect world” rather than to BE in that perfect world.

Perhaps a crucial ingredient in realizing the best possible world, where happiness is maximized, is that its inhabitants freely choose to love.

“Love” here is just an undefined “buzzword”. Explain it please.

 

[fhansen]

Why wouldn’t the intelligent plants (let’s think about them as sequoia trees; they are truly magnificent) would not “will” the “good” of the others? Whatever “will” and “good” are in this respect. I can “will” the best for you, good health, happy and fulfilling life, wonderful experiences, etc… but since my “will” cannot be put into practice, it does not mean anything.

IMO only love, even if only in small quantities, can compel me to honestly, authentically, to will the good of another.

There is no way to harm a tree which regenerates its parts. And why would a tree have “ill will” toward another? They do not compete for the resources, the sunshine and the rain are available for all. They are all self-sustaining individuals, living their own life and communicating with each other. They conduct their lives thinking and playing, and conducting conversations (telepathically) with each other, playing music with the help of the wind. They could not cause “harm” to one another, even if they wanted to — but why would they want to do that?

That’s a good question. Perhaps the worst of human misery is caused by the sin/selfishness of others. If humans will the harm of others, I’d think trees very likely would too, regardless of the unreasonableness of such wrong-headedness. In the Christian understanding of things Adam-man-lacked nothing, and still wanted “more”, still willed wrongly for whatever reason. Anyway, some say that Buddhism sort of aspires to that “vegetative” state, where no pain, suffering, feelings or passion can move us, or compete for our attention. In any case I don’t know if the state you’re imagining would at all be necessarily better.

I asked before, and now I ask again: why is it better to “move closer” to a “perfect world” rather than to BE in that perfect world.

The ultimate goal to moving closer is to BE in the perfect world. Perhaps struggle brings appreciation for perfection, and such appreciation merits greater fulfillment/happiness in the appreciator. In this, real world, we know, by experience, that struggle produces gain.

“Love” here is just an undefined “buzzword”. Explain it please.

Love is the source of all goodness, peace, harmony, well-being, kindness, wholeness, meaning: happiness.

 

[Peter_Plato]

How to create a “perfect” world? First, the definition of “perfect” needs to be ironed out. For the purposes of the discussion, I will propose the following definition: “a perfect world is where there is no pain or suffering due to either natural causes or due to volitional decisions”. If you disagree with this definition, we cannot have a conversation, until you provide another one which we can agree upon.

Still at it I see, -]Hee_Zen/-] PA …

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12650025&postcount=1

 

[DCNBILL]

Our final destination, Heaven.

Question answered.

Mods you may now close this thread.

 

[Beryllos]

Even among plants there is struggle, competition, and killing. It is the nature of living things.

 

[Beryllos]

Still at it I see, -]Hee_Zen/-] PA …

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12650025&postcount=1

Ha! You just reminded me, I said the same thing (more or less) in that thread!

1. Instead of having a blood and claw type of nutrition system, we all could simply utilize the energy received from the Sun and some other energy sources - like the wind. That would eliminate the fight for resources - a huge improvement.

Even plants compete for resources and kill each other, though it is bloodless. For example, the tallest trees have more access to sunlight, and those in the undergrowth hang on for dear life. The injustice of it all!

 

[Peter_Plato]

How to create a “perfect” world? First, the definition of “perfect” needs to be ironed out. For the purposes of the discussion, I will propose the following definition: “a perfect world is where there is no pain or suffering due to either natural causes or due to volitional decisions”. If you disagree with this definition, we cannot have a conversation, until you provide another one which we can agree upon.

It would seem that if the fundamental guiding principle of your “perfect” world is simply the avoidance of pain or suffering, it leaves wide open the question of the point or purpose for this “perfect” world. Actually, your premise simply disregards the question of purpose altogether.

A world where suitable drugs were developed to nullify pain completely would qualify as a “perfect” one according to your definition.

You give the example of plants able to regenerate parts as compatible with the perfection stipulation, well, it seems to me, that regeneration wouldn’t even be necessary. Just make death or loss the ultimately painless/pleasurable experience and greater joy/happiness would be experienced by the demise of creatures than life so death wouldn’t be feared but would be looked forward to as the culmination of the “perfect” life in this perfect world.

The question could still be asked whether the ultimate goal of painlessness/pleasure would be sufficient to make the world “perfect” once the goal was achieved. Perhaps beings without any higher aspirations would regard it as “perfect,” but the question is whether perfect beings would regard it as such.

 

[friardchips]

A most perfect world would be one where the ultimate good. love as it happens, is experienced fully, as all of its inhabitants will the good of the other. The possibility for this perfection necessarily involves the freedom of those inhabitants, however, which results in the potential for them to not will the good of others, so that “volitional decisions” cause harm. Actually experiencing the harm and subsequent pain caused by such wrong choices may lead inhabitants to come to see the error in making them, moving them closer to the perfection that would cause the world to be the best possible. Perhaps a crucial ingredient in realizing the best possible world, where happiness is maximized, is that its inhabitants freely choose to love.

Utopia is only possible with all people knowing and adoring our Creator.

And what is ‘happiness’?

 

[friardchips]

Our final destination, Heaven.

Question answered.

Mods you may now close this thread.

 

[fhansen]

Utopia is only possible with all people knowing and adoring our Creator.

And what is ‘happiness’?

Happiness, ultimately, is to know our Creator. It’s what we all innately desire according to the Catechism, and yes, complete and absolute happiness is impossible in this world for anyone, let alone a Utopia

 

[Pallas_Athene]

IMO only love, even if only in small quantities, can compel me to honestly, authentically, to will the good of another.

I cannot comment on this. I do not feel any “love” toward those homeless people I help out whenever I meet one.

That’s a good question. Perhaps the worst of human misery is caused by the sin/selfishness of others. If humans will the harm of others, I’d think trees very likely would too, regardless of the unreasonableness of such wrong-headedness.

Do you have any evidence for this? But even if a tree would like to cause harm, resulting in pain and suffering… it would be unable to do so. Without the pain receptors there can be no pain.

In the Christian understanding of things Adam-man-lacked nothing, and still wanted “more”, still willed wrongly for whatever reason.

Obviously he lacked the knowledge of good and evil.

Anyway, some say that Buddhism sort of aspires to that “vegetative” state, where no pain, suffering, feelings or passion can move us, or compete for our attention. In any case I don’t know if the state you’re imagining would at all be necessarily better.

The word “vegetative state” is inapplicable for the world I proposed. There is active thinking, interacting with other beings, there is “free will”, and all sorts of goodies. What is missing is the possibility of pain and suffering.

The ultimate goal to moving closer is to BE in the perfect world. Perhaps struggle brings appreciation for perfection, and such appreciation merits greater fulfillment/happiness in the appreciator. In this, real world, we know, by experience, that struggle produces gain.

Sometimes it does other times it does not. And I have yet to see an instance where the pain was logically necessary to achieve some good. Logically necessary means that the pain cannot be lessened or eliminated without giving up on that “good”.

Love is the source of all goodness, peace, harmony, well-being, kindness, wholeness, meaning: happiness.

Sorry, that is a description of what “love” is supposed to achieve. It does not tell me, what “love” IS. Let me show the different possible meanings.

1. Love is the emotion I feel toward my spouse. It is a very complex state of mind, caring, attraction, attention… and lots more - erotic love included. This is “love-1”.
2. Another one is the love I feel toward my child. This one does not have the erotic aspect, but there is caring, helping, etc…This is “love-2”.
3. Love one feels toward a “pet”. This is “love-3”.
4. I love a good steak. Very different from the other ones… “love-4”.
5. I also love to sit on the porch and watch the birds… “love-5”…

And innumerable more. All of them are instances of the abstract word “love”. So which one do you use?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Even among plants there is struggle, competition, and killing. It is the nature of living things.

In a sense, yes. But what is NOT there is the pain and suffering. Life and death are not contradictory, life and suffering are contradictory. When we die we give back the chemical nutrients to soil, where we “borrowed” from. Natural recycling at its best.

It is rather amusing to see you digging out old threads and making incorrect deductions from them. As if there would be only ONE rational being who asks difficult questions. I guess, you have a lot of time on your hands.

 

[friardchips]

Happiness, ultimately, is to know our Creator. It’s what we all innately desire according to the Catechism, and yes, complete and absolute happiness is impossible in this world for anyone, let alone a Utopia

Indubitably.