Are the Borg hypocritical?

[Jonas]

I'm sure this is something that was stated earlier, but I couldn't find any threads regarding this matter:
According to Borg philosophy, their only purpose is their strive for perfection. However, the Borg are biotechnological hybrids, whereas a perfect being would be some "superexistent" (I'll admit that I just made this word up, it means that you exist but not in physical, destroyable dimensions) and omnipotent being. (e. g. God or Q) However, being bound by their physical, non-supernatural bodies the only thing they will achieve is relative Perfection, that means they are the most potent non-omnipotent beings in the universe.
However, relative perfection is an oxymoron. And every drone realizing this should deem it's own live irrelevant and disable itself.
Is there any "justification" by the Star Trek staff or any other person?

 

[Colin Xavier]

Hypocrisy is irrelevent, this discussion is futile.

 

[PDX Trek]

The Borg have a different view of perfection than humans do. They are aliens and not just in a racial/species sense, they are also alien in the way their collective mind operates as one. Since they are sincere and honest about their objective of reaching perfection and ultimaley trying to "save" the rest of the galaxy, (from their perspective via assimilation) I would have to say that they are the least hypocritical beings in Star Trek.

Perhaps the question to ask would be: "Is the Borg Queen a hypocrite for retaining her individuality while usurping the wills of all those drones under her?"

 

[Kegek]

Clearly the Borg are wishing to attain the summit of biological life by amassing all data on it and using whatever advantage each species has to add to its whole. One advantage biological life has is technology, and the Borg use it for all things, even on the body, to improve the body's function.

I think it's reasonably coherent and consistent. Their striving is basically evolutionary. If they're going to ultimately become godlike, they'll do it this way, not by snapping their fingers...

 

[Jonas]

Kegek`s Corpse said:
I think it's reasonably coherent and consistent. Their striving is basically evolutionary. If they're going to ultimately become godlike, they'll do it this way, not by snapping their fingers...

But my point is that they are never going to be able to become godlike because they are bound to their humanoid bodies. And you can't assimilate a god.

 

[Kegek]

My point is they are perfecting themselves in both power and physical ability. You seem to believe that omnipotence - or something close to that - requires non-corporeality. Hardly. Actually, it'd require the power to manipulate corporeality, which in no way implies the absence of corporeality oneself.

 

[Jonas]

Kegek`s Corpse said:
My point is they are perfecting themselves in both power and physical ability. You seem to believe that omnipotence - or something close to that - requires non-corporeality. Hardly. Actually, it'd require the power to manipulate corporeality, which in no way implies the absence of corporeality oneself.

But not-being corporeal means being vulnerable, destroyable. Which is inconsistent with the meaning of perfection.

 

[ITL]

Jonas said:

Kegek`s Corpse said:
My point is they are perfecting themselves in both power and physical ability. You seem to believe that omnipotence - or something close to that - requires non-corporeality. Hardly. Actually, it'd require the power to manipulate corporeality, which in no way implies the absence of corporeality oneself.

But not-being corporeal means being vulnerable, destroyable. Which is inconsistent with the meaning of perfection.

Your definition of perfection. Who says the Borg would think the same way?

 

[Kegek]

That's assuming non-corporeal things can't be snuffed out. A virtually invincible corporeal form, a virtually un-dispersable energy cloud... where would one draw the line?

 

[exodus]

Jonas said:

Kegek`s Corpse said:
I think it's reasonably coherent and consistent. Their striving is basically evolutionary. If they're going to ultimately become godlike, they'll do it this way, not by snapping their fingers...

But my point is that they are never going to be able to become godlike because they are bound to their humanoid bodies. And you can't assimilate a god.

To domintate the universe is to be Godlike.

Look at 300, Xerxes believed himself to be a "God King" because he conquered all that stood in his way. Because he believed himself and his army to be unstoppable, he believe himself to be a God. The Borg view themselves to be no different. As long as at least one Drone exists, the Borg shall never die. That is the quality of a God.

 

[exodus]

Jonas said:

Kegek`s Corpse said:
My point is they are perfecting themselves in both power and physical ability. You seem to believe that omnipotence - or something close to that - requires non-corporeality. Hardly. Actually, it'd require the power to manipulate corporeality, which in no way implies the absence of corporeality oneself.

But not-being corporeal means being vulnerable, destroyable. Which is inconsistent with the meaning of perfection.

Nope, the Prophets of Bajor are non-corporeal beings and they can die, they can either be killed by one of their own or something more powerful than they are. Q may be Godlike from our understanding but it doesn't mean they can't die. There are things and beings in the universe that can be more powerful than a Q, therefore omnipotance is a fallacy.

 

[Jonas]

There is only one definition of Perfection: Being flawless, being absolute, non-improvable.
Perfection is objective, every human being must come to the same conclusion. Being the best of something/everything is excellence, not perfection.
So if you do not get perfection wrong with excellence, the qualities of being perfect are omnipotence and immortality. To be immortal, one must have no body. (that is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition)
Immortal beings can't be killed, no matter how powerful the murderer is. Because that'd be against the very definition of immortality: Not being able to get killed.

 

[Kegek]

Jonas said:
Perfection is objective, every human being must come to the same conclusion. Being the best of something/everything is excellence, not perfection.

Actually, no, they don't. Consider, to be banal, the use of language: A perfect evening, a perfect dinner, a perfect equation. Perfect can frequently be used as an adjective to be attached to something. The Borg clearly desire to become perfect corporeal life.

To be immortal, one must have no body. (that is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition)

Basically: Why?

I don't see how a non-corporeal entity is by default incapable of being dispersed. Nor do I see why an immortal being needs to have no matter.

 

[Jonas]

Kegek`s Corpse said:

Jonas said:
Perfection is objective, every human being must come to the same conclusion. Being the best of something/everything is excellence, not perfection.

Actually, no, they don't. Consider, to be banal, the use of language: A perfect evening, a perfect dinner, a perfect equation. Perfect can frequently be used as an adjective to be attached to something. The Borg clearly desire to become perfect corporeal life.

That is misuse of the word perfection. What those people (and Xerxes) really mean is excellence. People often confuse these 2 things.

To be immortal, one must have no body. (that is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition)

Basically: Why?

I don't see how a non-corporeal entity is by default incapable of being dispersed. Nor do I see why an immortal being needs to have no matter.

Because matter is always vulnerable. Especially organic, biological matter.
And like I said, non-corporeality is one condition of being immortal.

I somehow fucked these quotes up, but nevermind.

 

[Kegek]

You seem to think non-corporeality is invulnerable. Like I said, I don't think that follows. It's certainly concievable for something non-corporeal to be dispersed - we really don't know how it operates at all.

To use a historical example. The belief of the immortality of the soul was not always unquestioned. It is today because normally those who believe in the existence of the soul also believe in its immortality. Atheists of the ancient world accepted, as all did, the existence of a soul, but they insisted that it was mortal. I don't see how we must assume this current, ingrained cultural perception equals absolute proof of non-corporeality's immortality.

You appear to be assuming that, since nothing biological is immortal, if something is non-biological, it is therefore immortal. I don't see the connection. Nor do I see the asusmption that something biological can never be immortal - if immortality is attainable at all through some kind of advancement, why would it be beyond biology?

 

[Jonas]

As long as something consists of molecules those molecules can be disassembled, atoms can be destroyed etc. You can't just declare: My body is invincible. If someone decides to shoot you with positons your electrons will vanish and you will die.

 

[Kegek]

Not unless you have indivisible molecules.

Impossible? Probably. But probably not in the sci-fi environment the Borg are pursuing their goal.

 

[Jonas]

If I'm not mistaken, the Star Trek Universe follows the same physical rules that our universe does. And in our universe, when Antimatter hits Matter, both get annihilated. (The same reaction that goes on in Starfleet Warp Cores.)

 

[Kegek]

And if I'm not mistaken, there's no evidence in either universe for non-corporeality being invincible either.

 

[Jonas]

Kegek`s Corpse said:
And if I'm not mistaken, there's no evidence in either universe for non-corporeality being invincible either.

Irrelevant. If immortality in physical form is impossible and in coproreal form aswell that makes the Borg's quest for perfection even less possible.