Are the Borg hypocritical?

[Kegek]

No, it just makes the distinction between a quest for perfection within either sphere non-absolute. Reaching a state of near-indissoluble matter may be the closest thing they can reach to perfection, and it's probably a lot more feasible than near-indispersable non-corporeality.

 

[Jonas]

Kegek`s Corpse said:
No, it just makes the distinction between a quest for perfection within either sphere non-absolute. Reaching a state of near-indissoluble matter may be the closest thing they can reach to perfection, and it's probably a lot more feasible than near-indispersable non-corporeality.

That is not perfection, that is excellence.

 

[Kegek]

If the perfection described does not exist, then perfection does not mean what you believed it to mean, thus as - to use a battered example - truth doesn't mean what it appears to mean either. There are perfect evenings, and when the Borg refer to perfection they no dobut refer to this real goal, rather than a non-existent abstraction which, like the world of Plato's Forms, only exists as a linguistic convention.

 

[Gepard]

Jonas said:
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 positrons your electrons will vanish and you will die.

Which is why the Borg exist as a distributed network of drones devoid of individual personality. Each one knows what the group knows (at least in theory), and vice versa. That way, if one drone or group of drones is destroyed, nothing gets lost. It's the same idea behind the United States' Federal Depository Libraries. It's a safeguard against exactly what you're citing as the weakness of physical form.

 

[Apogeal Alpha01]

Wait a minute. I hope this isn't far off topic, but, didn't the Borg Queen really admire Data's perfection? I know she woed him to get the codes to send a message to the Collective, at the same time I sensed real admiration on her part. Adding flesh to his androidness - completing him, making him a higher form of Borg with free will, like herself? They seemed to covet the mechanical perfection over the corporeal part of their existence.

 

[Kegek]

And Locutus considered Data inferior due to his purely android nature. It's an odd inconsistency of the Borg, and hardly the only one... maybe further analysis of Data (and the whole Lore-leading-a-splinter-group debacle) caused them to re-evaluate.

 

[Peacemaker]

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

No, it isn't. You're conflating words and whole concepts. Words have a fixed intension, but an indefinite extension. Their extensions are variable over a particular domain. There are many kinds of "perfection" just as there are many kinds of "infinity."

For example, to take a simplier example, let's take a word like "all." I'll borrow an example from exegetical theology, since that will make it easy.

Christians who deny special redemption typically appeal to the “pantos” (“all’) passages of Scripture. But this confuses extension (referent) with intension (sense). A universal quantifier has a standard intension, but a variable extension. That follows from the nature of a quantifier, which is necessarily general and abstract rather than specific and concrete marker in the text. That’s what makes it possible to plug in concrete content. A universal quantifier is a class quantifier. As such, it can have no fixed range of reference. In each case, that must be supplied by the concrete context and specific referent. In other words, a universal quantifier has a definite intension but indefinite extension. So its extension is relative to the level of generality of the reference-class in view. Thus, there is no presumption in favor of taking “all” or “every” as meaning everyone without exception. “All” or “every” is always relative to all of something. Likewise, a believer in general atonement will call on the "world" passages (like 1 John 2:2), but this is suffers from the same problem. A word like "world" can have qualitative or quantitative meanings, it depends on the extension of the word. Which or what world?

 

[Sisu]

Isn't the Federation as hypocritical then? Given that they believe (like the Borg) that the union of races is important (ie into the grand "Federation"), they will keep assimilating races into their social structure.

But in doing so, they have to "remake" each culture into their own, effectively "humanising" them. Hence Klingons become the "better" brand of Klingons, the Ferengi (like Nog) become a beter type of Ferengi, etc etc.

So in assimilating cultures, and changing them to fit into a Federation "ideal", is the Federation itself as hypocritical as you say the Borg are?

 

[CoveTom]

^ Didn't Quark, insightful as he sometimes is, once comment on the Federation's similarities to the Borg?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

No, it was Eddington.

 

[Sisu]

"We are the Feds. Lower your cultural ideals and prepare to surrender to our morality. Resistance is irrelevant. You will adapt to service OUR cultural hegemony."

 

[Jonas]

peacemaker said:

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

No, it isn't. You're conflating words and whole concepts. Words have a fixed intension, but an indefinite extension. Their extensions are variable over a particular domain. There are many kinds of "perfection" just as there are many kinds of "infinity."

For example, to take a simplier example, let's take a word like "all." I'll borrow an example from exegetical theology, since that will make it easy.

Christians who deny special redemption typically appeal to the “pantos” (“all’) passages of Scripture. But this confuses extension (referent) with intension (sense). A universal quantifier has a standard intension, but a variable extension. That follows from the nature of a quantifier, which is necessarily general and abstract rather than specific and concrete marker in the text. That’s what makes it possible to plug in concrete content. A universal quantifier is a class quantifier. As such, it can have no fixed range of reference. In each case, that must be supplied by the concrete context and specific referent. In other words, a universal quantifier has a definite intension but indefinite extension. So its extension is relative to the level of generality of the reference-class in view. Thus, there is no presumption in favor of taking “all” or “every” as meaning everyone without exception. “All” or “every” is always relative to all of something. Likewise, a believer in general atonement will call on the "world" passages (like 1 John 2:2), but this is suffers from the same problem. A word like "world" can have qualitative or quantitative meanings, it depends on the extension of the word. Which or what world?

Alright, I understand that. But what do the Borg mean by Perfection, then? Being the most powerful beings in the universe?

And excuse my english, english isnt my native language.

 

[Kegek]

^
First, your English is superb for someone for whom it is not your native tongue.

Secondly, the Borg do appear to equate perfection with being perfect corporeal life with total power.

 

[exodus]

Jonas said:
There is only one definition of Perfection: Being flawless, being absolute, non-improvable.

Yep, none of which has to do with being non-corporeal. The Borg strive to be flawless and absolute which by definition is perfection.

You gave the answer to your own question.

 

[ktanner3]

I think Data said it best "Believing oneself to be perfect is often the work of a delushional mind" Of course it makes no sense. Personally I prefered the pre-queen Borg who weren't interested in life forms and was only interested in technology.

 

[Apogeal Alpha01]

Exactly, the Borg refrain: "Your technological sophistication will be added to our own."


Edit: I have this wrong. Surprise. It should have been,



"We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Sisu said:
Isn't the Federation as hypocritical then? Given that they believe (like the Borg) that the union of races is important (ie into the grand "Federation"), they will keep assimilating races into their social structure.

That would only be true if the Federation forced cultures to join when they don't want to. They have never done that. A world only joins when it wants to, and doesn't ever *have* to.

If Federation representatives point out the possible benefits that a world might realize if it joins, that's not hypocritical. They have every right to do that. It's only natural that they should do so. But ultimately the decision is up to that world's leaders.

Remember that TNG ep - "First Contact"? The planet Malcor eventually turned down Federation membership. That was the end of it: No one forced them to. Picard said they'd leave them alone, and they did.

Provided, that is, that the world's government fulfills standards for admission (which aren't that bad - no caste-based discrimination, and there must be one unified world government, that's it).

But in doing so, they have to "remake" each culture into their own, effectively "humanising" them.

The Federation doesn't do that either. As I said, they have minimum standards which a world must fulfill before it can enter, but once it does that, there's absolutely no evidence that the Federation forces a member world to run its own affairs in a certain way.

So no, I refuse to believe that the Federation is hypocritical. Eddington was so full of utter shash on this point as to make him sound even more like an idiot. "No one leaves the Federation"? Bullshit! Where's his proof of that? Look at New Sydney (Ezri's home). They aren't Federation members, but you don't see a Starfleet task force beating down their door, do you?

The Maquis worlds all left the Federation, but that's not why they became targets. It was because they were terrorists who tried to start some shit with the Cardassians. *That* is why the Federation got pissed at them. Not because they left.

 

[Sisu]

ok, I agree Babaganoosh, the Federation does not "force" anyone to join. But the incentives are pretty strong - "You can either join the greatest economic and military force in the Alpha Quadrant, or stay isolationist!" But I am willing to concede this point.

As to your other point, I would suggest that there is enough "evidence" that the Federation pushes its members to become more "human". For instance, at the end of DS9, Rom is Nagus and will implement changes such as universal suffrage, pensions, economic reform. We know it is only time before they become Fed members.

The Klingons as well have been made over into a nicer, gentler Klingon. A good example of this is whenever Worf was asked to go against his instincts - he was praised when he did, condemned when he did not. Example: deciding not to give blood to save the Romulan, and how disappointed were Beverly and Jean-Luc? He had "failed" their human test and needed "more work" to become fully realised (read: human).

 

[Timo]

Regarding the assumptions made in the original question:

Where do we get the idea that the Borg would consider cyborgism to be perfection?

All we know is that they aim for perfection. They have made several steps towards it: they have achieved longevity and possible immortality, they have achieved plenipotency and pleniscience if not omnipotency and omniscience, and they have achieved a pretty nifty means of further improving themselves. Most of this has been done by assuming a cyborg form of existence.

But they have not achieved their goal yet, and they freely admit it. They may quite well believe that perfection means becoming an Omega molecule, or a subatomic standing wave, or a wisp of wind on a really pretty desert. They are heading there, but they are not yet at their destination. And they aren't in a particular hurry. After all, they are basically immortal and indestructible, so they can obviously afford a little patience. Say, a million years or three. Or then thirteen billion, if that's what it takes.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Navaros]

I agree 100% with the original poster's point. Since the Borg have partially organic and destructable bodies, they indeed never can achieve perfection like they claim to want to, and they are indeed hypocrites. Kudos to the OP for pointing this out.

It seems like there is much semantics being thrown around for the purpose of trying to re-define the word perfection for the sake of making a pro-Borg argument where according to the reasonable understood original definition of the word, there is none to make.