Law of Attraction Arguments, Part 12: “We’re Not Perfect”

Is Farber’s ‘We’re Not Perfect’ argument against the Law of Attraction any good? Does it prove that the Law of Attraction is not true?

Note: This article is part of a series on arguments against the Law of Attraction. All articles in this series are available from the overview page called “Law of Attraction: Is It Real?“

This twelfth article on Neil Farber’s arguments against the Law of Attraction (as he published them in “The Truth About the Law of Attraction“) is about the “We’re Not Perfect” argument.

Today’s exercise is to see if we can understand what his “We’re Not Perfect” argument is all about. And, in my usual manner, I am going to do that in two steps.

My first step is to understand the logic of his argument, in terms of how everything in it hangs together, in terms of its logic. And after that I will reformulate what he is saying (and not saying) so that we will get a reconstruction of the whole argument, including those things he has not explicitly mentioned (if any).

And once I have done that reconstruction, I will then look at each of the propositions to see if they are true, as well as relevant to the whole argument. So the big question is: Do we have a valid and sound argument as a whole here? Let’s find out!

PART 1: THE ARGUMENT

Here is the “essence” of Farber’s “We’re Not Perfect” argument:

So Farber’s main idea here is that those persons who want a “perfect” life will be disappointed. According to Farber, there is no such thing.

And to show that some authors of the Law of Attraction is promoting a “perfect” life, he is referring to a quote from Rhonda Byrne who says (The Secret, p. 131):

And then Farber goes on to talk a little bit about research and why this thinking may result in disappointment.

So I will now reconstruct the argument, to see how good (or bad) it is.

Argument 12: “We’re Not Perfect”

Here is how I have reconstructed Farber’s “We’re Not Perfect” argument (Argument 12):

PART 2: MY RESPONSE

Here in Part 2 I will be doing my usual evaluation of the argument, to see if it can hold up under scrutiny. So for each of the eight propositions, I will check whether they are true or not. And then, I will evaluate the argument as a whole, to see if it is valid and sound. So let’s do it!.

Proposition P1: The Law of Attraction

So let’s first start with proposition P1:

This is a good proposition. Just like the law of gravitation, the Law of Attraction is a perfect law in the sense that it is always in operation. So proposition P1 is true.

Proposition P2: No Goal Is Unrealistic

This is proposition P2:

According to the authorized accounts of the Law of Attraction, you can be, do, or have anything you want (if you take the trouble to really align with your desires).

Therefore, Abraham-Hicks say this in their Ask and It Is Given (2004):

And when it comes to the idea of “realistic” and “unrealistic”, Jerry Hicks once asked this question (in The Law of Attraction): “Is there anything that we might want that you would consider to be unrealistic?” And then Abraham-Hicks said the following (2006, p. 112):

Summing up: proposition P2 is true.

Proposition P3: A Perfect Life?

Here is proposition P3 in Argument 12:

There are (at least) two different ideas about what “perfection” means. First, we have the “Cinderella” kind of perfection, where one reaches a wonderful state of existence in all life areas, and where everything then stays the same, equally wonderful and equally enjoyable. This we might say is represented by Rhonda Byrne’s account in The Secret that I quoted above (which is the account that Farber is using to illustrate what he doesn’t like).

But Byrne’s book is, as I have said before on many occasions, not a true representative of the authorized accounts of the Law of Attraction. For there is no static “wonder-world” waiting for any of us. That is not the purpose of existence. The purpose of existence is not realizing some end goal, like a “Cinderella” kind of perfection; it’s the creating itself. That is why we are here.

So the “perfection” of our lives and of the whole space-time reality is that we can play as much as we want: we can go on creating, because we like it. But in the creation process is also contrast (“troubles”). For by experiencing those problems, we better know what we want to create. So “troubles” is part of the perfection.

Here’s what Abraham-Hicks say (in The Amazing Power of Deliberate Intent, pp. 243-244):

So our evaluation of proposition P3 is thus the following. Since Farber is using the word “perfect” in the Rhonda Byrne sense of “perfection”, proposition P3 must be considered false. This is because that kind of perfection never will happen, according to the authorized sources of the Law of Attraction. [notes 1 and 2]

Thus, in short, P3 is false.

Proposition P4: Life Is Not Perfect

Proposition P4 in Argument 12 goes like this:

Here, Farber has an opinion. Sure, he thinks life is not perfect. But how in the whole world is that going to help him in a philosophical argument?

Of course, since we know, from the authorized sources of the Law of Attraction, that life cannot be perfect in the sense of that “Cinderella world” that I talked about above, we, of course, understand that that is what Farber means. And we agree with him.

However, although we agree with him, proposition P4 cannot be used as part of Argument 12. This is simply because there is no explanation of why it is not perfect. Whether one calls this the fallacy of “opinion” etc., doesn’t really matter. It is inadmissible, in any case.

Proposition P5: Striving for Perfection

Here is proposition P5 in Argument 12:

Proposition P5 is correct. So P5 is true.

Proposition P6: Unhappiness and Blaming

Here I am discussing proposition P6 in Argument 12, which goes like this:

Once again (as in the “Blame the Victim” argument) Farber wants to focus on the idea of “blame”. But here in Proposition 6, Farber does not give us any evidence. There is no mentioning of any scientific paper or monograph that discusses the topic that Farber is alluding to.

So since there are no references, no citation, no page numbers, no titles, no authors, etc., proposition P6 is not proven true.

In short P6 is not proven true. And therefore Argument 12 as a whole is not sound.

Proposition P7: A Perfectly False Law

Proposition P7 in Argument 12 is formulated like this:

Proposition P7 is not proven true. Although some of the above propositions are true, both P3 and P6 are not proven true. So P7 is also not proven true.

All in all, Argument 12 is not successful. The Law of Attraction is not proven false.

CONCLUSION

Farber’s “We’re Not Perfect” argument (Argument 12) is not a sound one. Although we have found some of the propositions true, it still does not help. For since P3, P6, and P7 are not proven true, the whole argument is unsound.

Therefore, Farber’s argument fails. And thus Law of Attraction still can be 100% true. And it sure is.

For more info on the Law of Attraction, you are most welcome to my “intro” page called “Master the Law of Attraction”. Perhaps that page might inspire you to a new kind of life?

Chris Bocay

NOTES

1. Here’s one quote where Abraham-Hicks confirms that your life never will be “Cinderella-perfect” (The Amazing Power of Deliberate Intent, p. 296): “In other words, you are never going to be in the place where you have achieved the most on all subjects that everybody on the planet has ever achieved. It is just not going to happen. And that is one of the reasons — not the biggest reason — but it is one of the reasons that we think it is really a good idea if you get your nose out of all their businesses, and you put your nose in your own business.”
2. Another Abraham-Hicks idea is this, which again indicates that the idea of a static “Cinderella-perfect” state of existence is not what we came to this space-time reality for (The Astonishing Power of Emotions, p. 237): “You did not come forth into this physical experience with the intention of taking all of the ideas that exist and whittling them down to a handful of good ideas. You did not say, ‘I will go into the physical expression of life, figure out the right way to live on every subject, and then teach all others to live in that one perfect way’.”

REFERENCES

NOTE: All links are clean (i.e. NOT affiliate links).

---