Perfection: Is it possible?

In my mind, perfection is a relation between one entity (not necessarily something physical) and an idea. A tool can be "perfect" for the job if what it does matches up exactly with my idea of what I want to happen. An argument, a song or a picture can be "perfect" if they fit with my idea of what either should invoke in me.

The idea of "absolute perfection" therefore strikes me as incoherent.

I like the idea as perfection as "fitness for" also. It works with a process philosophy.

Reply to Echarmion Have to agree with you. While a tool may be perfect for a job, such as using perfection itself as a tool for self improvement this implies that the perfection gained here is temporary while the tool is being used for purpose but imperfect when laid down and is unused.

Reply to Pantagruel Sorry Pantagruel you’ve went over my head a bit there. Can you elaborate please?

Reply to Pantagruel Nevermind, got you now.

So is perfection when something has a purpose and is also serving it?

"Perfect" is subjective.

X is perfect (or is a perfect F), just in case x meets one's ideals for x (or an F) (the difference there being whether something is parsed as a particular or as an instantiation of a type/kind).

So one could feel that every single thing is perfect, or that nothing is, or anywhere between those two extremes.

I'm far more on the "every single thing" is perfect side.

Reply to Mark Dennis I was expecting a definition of perfection? I can take a test and get a perfect score. Perfection is basically dependent upon the parameters it operates within.

Given we don’t know the parameters of ‘existence’/‘the universe’ we can only really talk of Perfection within our own defined parameters (like a mathematics test score).

Many systems are deeply complex and fluctuate a lot. A ‘perfect’ entity within such a system would, I assume, need to veer ‘off target’ from time to time in order to know where things work ‘best’. The idea of a ‘perfect’ human is simply that. There is no one size fits all, no perfect medium or workable mean. In this sense I’d say ‘perfect’ - in the day-to-day world - is more about coping with intrinsic imperfections than taking on what I would call a delusional stance of some obtained ‘perfection’.

Reply to Mark Dennis I think the fitness of something to a purpose is a really good way to conceptualize perfection.

A perfect circle exists mathematically.

Striving for perfection is something that might be benificial for some personality traits, supposedly.

Reply to Ansiktsburk

If everything is perfect then you don't have to strive very much.

Quoting I like sushi

Many systems are deeply complex and fluctuate a lot

Is this really true though? A defining characteristic of a complex system is that it tends to transition rapidly (tipping points) from one stable state to another stable state.

Reply to Pantagruel You seem to agree? Don’t understand

Reply to I like sushi As in a perfect system adaptively changes, yes, I see.

Reply to I like sushi Apologies, I should have grabbed the conversation but the claim I made was something like this; Nobody can be perfect, to be perfect is to be unassailable and as nobody is unassailable nobody can be perfect.

While we both agreed (me and @creativesoul) that a perfect person doesn’t exist, I got to wondering if anyone could make a good argument for the existence of a perfect something.

Reply to Mark Dennis That’s been done well enough others above. Circles etc.,. If you mean something more like ‘prefect organism’ you’d still have to establish the parameters of judgement.

In society, at large, we mostly try and make things a little better - and fail often enough. I’ve always liked the idea of ‘setting an unattainable goal’ rather than settling for something easy to achieve, thus giving a false sense of ‘perfection’/‘greatness’ ... even if the source of the quote is none other than a certain Mr. Crowley!

Quoting Mark Dennis

I got to wondering if anyone could make a good argument for the existence of a perfect something.

Again, for me, most things are perfect, and when I think they're not, I tend to think that I need to adjust my ideas.

I'm not someone who usually cares a lot for having a store of quotes on hand from various folks, but one of the few that have stuck with me is this one from Brian Eno: "The only error is your failure to adjust your preconceptions to reality."

If you see people, and things in general, as unique individuals, it's easy to see each thing as perfect. It's perfectly what it is at every given moment.

Reply to Terrapin Station I completely get where you’re coming from here. While I do have a store of quotes I remember like everyone I try and keep my arguments independent of other philosophers on here unless it’s really needed.

I remember on another philosophy forum all the posts would be titled things like “What does Kant/Hobbes/Schopenhauer/Spinoza etc think/believe about X, Y and Z?

They would debate each other for hours on what they all thought these people were trying to say and very few people sharing what they thought about what was said. It was kind of like everyone was just sharing what they really thought about what was said under the guise that the philosopher being discussed thought exactly what they thought.

They would quote something, ask what it meant, someone would reply and then someone would quote something else which contradicts that interpretation and in the end everyone rightly gets accused of misunderstanding whoever it is they are interpreting.

I sometimes wonder if some people go through books with a highlighter to pick quotes out of context that back up their beliefs or look like they do and then just memorise them and only them as if to cut out the rest of the book and destroy its context.

Here’s an example with a quote I remember very well by Marcus Aurelius: “Waste no time arguing about what a good man should be, be one” yet my very presence here is indicative of the fact that I don’t fully believe that and in the context of Marcus Aurelius this was something he HAD to live by. He was the emperor of the Roman Empire and he felt duty bound to be decisive and literally did not want to waste too much time arguing with people who could never comprehend the demands of leadership over such a vast empire or understand the position he was in.

However I remember it because sometimes it’s useful, when a situation might call for decisive action instead of debate.

Fact of the matter is, we can never know what these people truly meant or thought nor how they would react to our ideas, based on what they said but we can know what we think of those words today.

If you see people, and things in general, as unique individuals, it's easy to see each thing as perfect. It's perfectly what it is at every given moment.

Very well said. :)

Reply to deletedmemberMD & @creativesoul You know, that's a question I've been wanting to find the answer to as well! We hear often, "Perfection isn't possible" but when I think of such subjects as math, 1+1 always = 2, no? I've caught myself trying to perfect something in my life, and I've noticed that I always end up disgruntled and upset. At the moment, I'm of the belief that functioning as a human being is possible only when not trying to go for perfection.

Perfection literally means completeness. Something is perfect when there is nothing missing from it. That of course depends on some concept of what a complete thing of that kind is like, so you can compare the assembled puzzle to the picture on the box and tell if anything is missing — if it is imperfect.

Many humans seek perfection. Snobs are a good example of people who seek perfection. But, yet, the human being is not perfect. We are 8 billion people on this planet and no one is perfect. We all have something in common, good and bad habits, strength and weaknesses which makes us unique and different from everyone else. This is the spice of life, being imperfect. I always say, '' I'm not perfect and I surely don't want to be''. I don't want to be a snob, I find them boring.

Reply to deletedmemberMD

To recognise perfection wouldn't we need to be perfect ourselves?

Perfection is a morally neutral concept; I can imagine the perfect villain, the perfect plan to kill somebody, so and so forth. The notion of perfection then is that a perfect x is a thing for whom x-ness is a snug fit. For instance a perfect circle is one such that all points on it are equidistant from a fixed point, the center i.e. the concept of circularity fits the perfect circle to a t.

Perfection is everything the way it is. It becomes subjective when we are trying to look at things through our own lens of perception.

Quoting Ugesh

22
Perfection is everything the way it is. It becomes subjective when we are trying to look at things through our own lens of perception

Yes :D