Answer:

￼

￼

￼

(some assumptions to be made considering cases, mentioned below)

you can prove that it does not make sense to say of anyone that are perfect

you can prove that it does not make sense to say of anyone that are perfect

let us take as the

definition of perfect:

an object a is perfect if there is no conceivable object b , if it were to

exist.anybody who claims that right is either perfect, or - much more likely - seriously

disturbed.

but suppose there is a metric b you and your accuser agree. you can prove that

the concept of perfection is selfcontradictory, would be better than a. note that requires a

metric of betterness.

for our purposes, any consistent metric will do. we shall call it the b

function. we require b to be such that if b(x) > b(y), and b(y) > b(z), then b(x) > b(z).

let us

assume that person x is perfect. in other words, it is categorically not possible that there is

another person y, such that b(y) > b(x). is trivially true if everybody has the same value of b.

then everybody is perfect, just the way are.

so the first you should ask of anybody

who calls you imperfect is “what gives you the right to determine a metric of betterness

discriminates against me? ” (note that it is no accident that the devil’s function is that of

accuser). however, you can’t learn without making mistakes. y might be better today, but less

adaptable to the future, by virtue of having learned less. if you take the future into account, x is

better. you cannot define a metric of betterness at the same time is 100% concerned with

the current situation and 100% concerned with the future. people who are overly concerned with

perfection are blind to the future.then it is evident that there is an upper limit to b, say u. then

b(x) = u. means that x never makes mistakes, ever. because otherwise we could conceive of

some y just like x, making one less mistake and therefore being better than x.

let us take as the

definition of perfect:

an object a is perfect if there is no conceivable object b , if it were to

exist.anybody who claims that right is either perfect, or - much more likely - seriously

disturbed.

but suppose there is a metric b you and your accuser agree. you can prove that

the concept of perfection is selfcontradictory, would be better than a. note that requires a

metric of betterness.

for our purposes, any consistent metric will do. we shall call it the b

function. we require b to be such that if b(x) > b(y), and b(y) > b(z), then b(x) > b(z).

let us

assume that person x is perfect. in other words, it is categorically not possible that there is

another person y, such that b(y) > b(x). is trivially true if everybody has the same value of b.

then everybody is perfect, just the way are.

so the first you should ask of anybody

who calls you imperfect is “what gives you the right to determine a metric of betterness

discriminates against me? ” (note that it is no accident that the devil’s function is that of

accuser). however, you can’t learn without making mistakes. y might be better today, but less

adaptable to the future, by virtue of having learned less. if you take the future into account, x is

better. you cannot define a metric of betterness at the same time is 100% concerned with

the current situation and 100% concerned with the future. people who are overly concerned with

perfection are blind to the future.then it is evident that there is an upper limit to b, say u. then

b(x) = u. means that x never makes mistakes, ever. because otherwise we could conceive of

some y just like x, making one less mistake and therefore being better than x.

mark me brainliest.