Perfection is a Conundrum

[chris epic]

I was reading about Galileo's study of the skies through the recent invention of the telescope. He saw the moon, the sun, Jupiter's moons. He saw how the moon was rugged, with craters and mountains, and the sun had spots. The ruggedness of the moon, and the "blemishes" on the sun; these "heavenly bodies" appeared to be imperfect, like the earth.

Anyway, I started to think about "perfection." Not in the context of the bible, just in the world. After all, the ideal of perfection goes far back before Christianity.

Honestly, I don't know why its used in conversation at all. As it is an ideal, or an idea, there is nothing to base it off of. Are there any examples of anything ever being "perfect?" And this makes me go even further to suggest "how do we know if something ISN'T perfect?"

Do we have instruments that measure perfection? Mathematics? Geometry? Are these sciences perfect? Are they flawless? Are they created by people n or simply discovered and then communicated by people. If these discoveries are perfect, do we really have the capacity to utilize perfection???

Our idea of perfect basically means "without flaw." But what leads us to believe that a flaw is a flaw. A flaw means "inefficient." But if we are able to recognize that something is inefficient, it would have had to be efficient at some point for us to know that it inefficient now.

I don't believe I'm arguing that perfection is merely efficiency, but what is it then? How can we define it if it isn't real? Or, who is to say that it isn't real?

Why can't everything be perfect? I mean, the universe, the earth, evolution; doing what it does: why shouldn't that be perfect? After all, flaws aren't always without their benefits. If someone can say that our evolution (physically, and in the pursuit of knowledge) is a pursuit of perfection, wouldn't it be odd to realize that our pursuit of perfection requires flaw and mistake? These are what challenge us. These advocate learning.

So I am just puzzled I guess. Why have the word if it isn't real and measurable. Or, have the word, but define it so it becomes real. Maybe we would appreciate life more???

[KingMerv00]

So I am just puzzled I guess. Why have the word if it isn't real and measurable. Or, have the word, but define it so it becomes real. Maybe we would appreciate life more???

You can define perfection in some cases. For example a "perfect circle" has a mathematical definition.

[SezMe]

"Perfect circle" is a redundant phrase. It's either a circle or it's not. There is no such thing as an imperfect circle.

Perfection has a perfectly good role as the ultimate expresson of something. That it is not attained in real life does not damage the concept. It can serve as a yardstick.

That said, I've read some perfectly stupid comments in the CT forum. :)

[Autolite]

Why have the word if it isn't real and measurable.

As already mentioned "perfection" is a yardstick. It's just a concept, like the word "absolute"...

[Complexity]

Perfection is a limit, however seemingly unreachable in our daily lives.

The pursuit of perfection can be useful, but carried to extremes (think 'perfectionist') it can be quite damaging.

Some think perfection is unattainable, others that it is undesirable, others that it can be achieved, and yet others that think we are immersed in it.

Where one sees blemishes, another may see perfection.

While our understanding of gravity is probably not perfect, is there any reason to say that gravity itself is not perfect?

If gravity is not perfect, please enumerate its imperfections.

I think that I'm a mixture of several people - a lapsed perfectionist, one who appreciates the quest for perfection, one who appreciates deliberate imperfection, and one who suspects that everything is perfect.

[the PC apeman]

A common problem I see with "perfection" is that it's often applied in an overly ambitious manner. For example what is the perfect automobile or computer? It depends on your criteria. The more criteria you have the more likely there will be logical contradictions among them. This the shortcoming I see in some formulations of ontological arguments for a perfect being.

As far as gravity being perfect, that seems to suffer from the same tautology problem as the circle.

[Denver]

The word "perfect" actually has several uses. The OP focused on the lack of flaw. But, it also means "Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind."

So in that sense, something could be perfect as to its own nature. I think that is a pretty useless definition though, since everything would be a perfect "it". But where it becomes interesting again is as regards our understanding of something. Perfect then describes the match or measure between what something is or its nature, and our understanding of it. Possibly never 100% achievable, but as mentioned in an earlier post, a useful yardstick.

And in a sense, it loops back to the "lack of flaw" definition. Except the flaw being measured is that of our own understanding. Trying to achieve a 100% perfect understanding of anything significant, may not be attainable, but:

"...a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?” -- Robert Browning

[Hokulele]

Honestly, I don't know why its used in conversation at all. As it is an ideal, or an idea, there is nothing to base it off of. Are there any examples of anything ever being "perfect?" And this makes me go even further to suggest "how do we know if something ISN'T perfect?"


This starts to touch on Platonic forms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

[Tumblehome]

While our understanding of gravity is probably not perfect, is there any reason to say that gravity itself is not perfect?

If gravity is not perfect, please enumerate its imperfections.


"Perfect" implies varying degrees of quality leading up to perfection. I'd say gravity just is. There are no lesser or greater forms of it.

[fishbait]

I have a perfect coffee cup next to my computer. It is cup-shaped and holds coffee. It has all the elements of cupiosity. It lacks no cuppiness. How could it be any cuppier than it is? It is perfect.

[Bikewer]

I have speculated along these lines:

"God" is generally described as being "perfect"; omniscient, omnipotent, yadda-yadda.

Why would such a perfect being want or need to create anything? If God can conceive of anything, and have it instantly manifest in all perfection, why bother?

Certainly why would God bother to create the far-from-perfect universe we live in, and the really far-from-perfect human beings we observe.

[Piscivore]

The essential problem with the word "perfect" is that it is a subjective judgement masquerading as an objective quality. When someone describes something as "perfect", most of the time they are using the word to mean "really good" or "better than other, similar things" without meaning anything specifically. Ask them exactly what they mean by "perfect", and I'll bet you they can't. I had this come up recently when someone was talking about God's "perfect" justice- the term as he used it was meaningless, "perfect" being used as nothing more than an emotion-laden nonsensical modifier.

[A Christian Sceptic]

I had this come up recently when someone was talking about God's "perfect" justice- the term as he used it was meaningless, "perfect" being used as nothing more than an emotion-laden nonsensical modifier.

It could also mean that human justice will always be imperfect as we are only human with limited knowledge - we can't know everything. Human justice strives to be perfectly fair, perfectly just, perfectly applied. When it's not or blatantly violated it is an injustice. God's perfect justice would then be the measuring stick against which human's justice strives for or is measured against. God's justice won't be (and can't be) like human justice because God's justice is "perfect". Or put in a different manner - God's justice is a (perfect) circle, human justice is only circle-like. ;)

[Piscivore]

It could also mean that human justice will always be imperfect as we are only human with limited knowledge - we can't know everything. Human justice strives to be perfectly fair, perfectly just, perfectly applied. When it's not or blatantly violated it is an injustice. God's perfect justice would then be the measuring stick against which human's justice strives for or is measured against. God's justice won't be (and can't be) like human justice because God's justice is "perfect". Or put in a different manner - God's justice is a (perfect) circle, human justice is only circle-like. ;)

Was it you? :)

Can you define what "perfect" means in relation to "justice"? How can we use it as a yardstick if no one can agree on what "perfect justice" is in the first place?

I don't know of anyone in the business of justice who has any illusions about even striving for "perfection"- because "perfectly fair" and "perfectly just" are inherently subjective opinions.

The only thing I see that would make God's justice "perfect" would be an a priori agreement that whatever God- or, in practice his "followers"- said his values were automatically trumped anyone else's. But it is still a subjective assesment, nonetheless, even if God said it, because others can have a different opinion.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Was it you? :)


I don't know. If it was on here then probably. :)


Can you define what "perfect" means in relation to "justice"? How can we use it as a yardstick if no one can agree on what "perfect justice" is in the first place?


I had a quote / section I had recently re-read that described what I meant - except the author did a better, more coherent job of it. In fact, he was probably the instigator of the idea of it to me. If you want I can try to find it and post it.

I do know that, especially with God, the accusation of how people perceive his justice (or rather injustice) is very consistent - so even though there isn't a consensus of what the perfection is, there does seem to be a consensus on what it is not.

That is why so many people abhor the idea of an infinite punishment for a finite deed. They know that's not justice, even without knowing what else it should be.


I don't know of anyone in the business of justice who has any illusions about even striving for "perfection"- because "perfectly fair" and "perfectly just" are inherently subjective opinions.


My impression from the law and criminal justice classes I've taken was that is what we strive for (at least in America) but the definition of what that should be and the how it's implemented is what is debated. Regardless though, there is Something we strive for that's better than what it currently is. Justice in America is definitely not consistent and not always fair. (I know you hate that word, but I don't know another one. Got any suggestions?)

My argument isn't that we can even necessarily know all of what God's justice is, but that He won't do anything that we know would be an injustice for a man to do. He'll always be "more perfect" not less. :)

[chris epic]

You can define perfection in some cases. For example a "perfect circle" has a mathematical definition.

Is math perfect, or an interpretation of perfection?

[Piscivore]

I had a quote / section I had recently re-read that described what I meant - except the author did a better, more coherent job of it. In fact, he was probably the instigator of the idea of it to me. If you want I can try to find it and post it.
Please.

I do know that, especially with God, the accusation of how people perceive his justice (or rather injustice) is very consistent - so even though there isn't a consensus of what the perfection is, there does seem to be a consensus on what it is not.
I think that's may be because "perfect justice" remains undefined, even by the Bible. Does the bible even use the phrase?

That is why so many people abhor the idea of an infinite punishment for a finite deed. They know that's not justice, even without knowing what else it should be.
It doesn't need to be anything else. if it is not justice, how can it ever be "perfect" justice- except by simply declaring it so without (or despite) any specific, objective criteria?

My impression from the law and criminal justice classes I've taken was that is what we strive for (at least in America)
If anyone says that it is what we do or should strive for, I'll bet you dollars to donuts they mean A) only their idea of what justice is, universally applied, or 2) they are using "perfect" to vaguely mean "better than we do it now", and could not elaborate if asked.

but the definition of what that should be and the how it's implemented is what is debated.
Exactly. It is a subjective notion without any objective foundation, and so it essentially meaninless as it is usually used.

Regardless though, there is Something we strive for that's better than what it currently is.
Why do we need to pretend that something is "perfection"? what is wrong with "more equitable across class or ethnic lines" or some other, real, objective criteria? The only ones that will suffer for it are the soft-shoeing politicians, it seems to me.

Justice in America is definitely not consistent and not always fair. (I know you hate that word, but I don't know another one. Got any suggestions?)
"Unbiased" is better. So is "objective".

My argument isn't that we can even necessarily know all of what God's justice is,
Then it is useless as a yardstick.

but that He won't do anything that we know would be an injustice for a man to do.
He already has, the Bible is full of examples. Unless you are saying it is all right for me to burn down my neighbor's house because he is a sodomite, and killing the other neighbor's wife for watching me do it.

ETA: Or to go New Testament, Is it justice to poison my neighbor's fig tree because it didn't give me fruit when I wanted it? Or trashing a Walmart because I disagree with their business practices?

He'll always be "more perfect" not less. :)
What does "more perfect" mean?

[chris epic]

Perfection is a limit, however seemingly unreachable in our daily lives.How can a limit be unreachable? If know one or thing has reached it, how can we claim it is a limit. Maybe I'm on a slippery slope, but unltimately, I guess, is it incorrect to have expressions that are intangible or unattainable? Wouldn't that sort of practice advocate faith?

The pursuit of perfection can be useful, but carried to extremes (think 'perfectionist') it can be quite damaging. What or where is the appropriate line to draw between a useful pursuit and an extreme pursuit? How is useful better than extreme? To what extremity? Spiritual? Knowledge? Truth? All of these? Some of these?

Some think perfection is unattainable, others that it is undesirable, others that it can be achieved, and yet others that think we are immersed in it. If there are so many different interpretations of it, is that a sign that it is a fallacious concept that just runs people into more trouble?


While our understanding of gravity is probably not perfect, is there any reason to say that gravity itself is not perfect?There shouldn't be a reason because no body has any evidence to draw that kind of conclusion, let alone an assuption.

If gravity is not perfect, please enumerate its imperfections.That's a fallacy (I'm not sure which one). Please enumerate its perfection.

I think that I'm a mixture of several people - a lapsed perfectionist, one who appreciates the quest for perfection, one who appreciates deliberate imperfection, and one who suspects that everything is perfect.
They have medication for that. :D I'm only joking.

[chris epic]

The word "perfect" actually has several uses. The OP focused on the lack of flaw. But, it also means "Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind."But I think even that is an inappropriate definition. The words "whole" and "nature, kind" are completely arbitrary because there isn't an example of that that exists. Or, almost anything could be perfect given that definition because the definition is vague, and I think it fails to capture the general connotation and conception of the word. I build a wooden box. I have certain specifications for that box. I have all the parts I need and I construct it. I am satisfied of the final product: it lacks nothing essential to its whole. So through this, perfection becomes relative. Someone could then argue anything to be perfect if it satisfied them. And through that, the concept of perfect is compromised and becomes weak. And its really hard for me to associate "perfect" and "weak."

[chris epic]

This starts to touch on Platonic forms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_formsYeah, I haven't really delved too deeply into Platonics, but from what I have read, it just sounds like bogus dualism and metaphysics arguments.

[chris epic]

The essential problem with the word "perfect" is that it is a subjective judgement masquerading as an objective quality. Word. :cool:

[Tricky]

What does "more perfect" mean?
Normally, it means, "closer to the ideal", as in,
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

[chris epic]

- we can't know everything.How do you know? ;) We could, and we are trying.

[chris epic]

Normally, it means, "closer to the ideal", as in,I think "more perfect" from your example is grammatically incorrect. "more perfect" states: Something is perfect, and this is more perfect than that. I look at "perfect" as an absolute finality, so something couldn't be "more perfect." I think the word that should have been used was "closer to perfect union."

When something is "perfecting" it is in the process of going from imperfect to perfect, but never a level of perfect. There is only one perfect. Of course, this is a subjective description.

[Tricky]

I think "more perfect" from your example is grammatically incorrect. "more perfect" states: Something is perfect, and this is more perfect than that. I look at "perfect" as an absolute finality, so something couldn't be "more perfect." I think the word that should have been used was "closer to perfect union."

It may be grammatically and lexicographally incorrect, but it is a widely used idiom. As such, people know what is meant and it even creeps into the most revered document in America.

Grammar can't always decide these things. It isn't perfect.

[chris epic]

Grammar can't always decide these things. It isn't perfect.

HA!

[chris epic]

It may be grammatically and lexicographally incorrect, but it is a widely used idiom. As such, people know what is meant and it even creeps into the most revered document in America.
The tyrrany of the majority. If everyone jumped into an icey cold lake, would you? ;)

Isn't one of the scopes of philosophy to correct or at least be particular with language?

Well, then again, maybe I should be corrected. "More unified" makes a similar implication. So I guess wide and historical use of verbiage, even if it is originally grammatically erroneous, becomes grammatically correct.


(btw, is it "isn't one of the scopes" or "aren't one of the scopes?" While we're on the subject of grammar. The Athiest?)

[athon]

Most forms of language are clumsy methods of conveying information, with few exceptions, but short of sharing abstract and concrete mental models directly, there's no other choice but to describe our perceptions and ideas through symbolic representation. Some words, such as 'perfect' suit some contexts but not others.

I find a vast majority of debates on boards such as these result over discrepancies in how one interprets a term. Usually it's a connotative discrepancy, which creates conflict when two parties compete to be correct over links to various online dictionaries. Unfortunately connotative language varies with context, which often depends on the community one associates in.

The term 'perfect' therefore, like any article of language, relies on a context.

There is a 'perfect' example above. KingMerve suggested an imperfect circle, which was argued is tautological as anything which deviates slightly from being a smooth circle can't be described mathematically by the term. However, the language suggest something - an imperfect circle, while mathematically perhaps is a contradiction, gives the receiver of the term an impression of something that has numerous circle qualities but falls arbitrarily short of having all of them.

This is what 'perfect' therefore means. It is a symbol in language which suggests a situation arbitrarily short of being complete, and then insinuates that the described situation is complete. Understanding details of what constitutes a 'complete' situation requires the context, however.

If I say 'that's a perfect cake', it requires the context of knowing what my subjective understanding of the complete situation to be (as Pisci said above). Most of the time, the details of what constitutes this completeness are implied or assumed. Occasionally they are simple enough or universal enough to be understood without expanding upon (especially if it is quantitative or mathematical).

Athon

[Tricky]

The tyrrany of the majority. If everyone jumped into an icey cold lake, would you? ;)
It would depend on whether or not the tyrranical majority was shooting those left on the bank.;)

Isn't one of the scopes of philosophy to correct or at least be particular with language?
I don't think so. Of course, it is always important to be clear, but dang it, the best way to be clear ain't so sure sometimes. It depends on your audience. You may have to forsake good grammar for the sake of clarity.

Well, then again, maybe I should be corrected. "More unified" makes a similar implication. So I guess wide and historical use of verbiage, even if it is originally grammatically erroneous, becomes grammatically correct.
Doesn't have the same ring for me. Also, the noun in question here, "Union" is not just "a thing that is unified". It has more connotations than that.

But yes, grammar does change. Except in France.

(btw, is it "isn't one of the scopes" or "aren't one of the scopes?" While we're on the subject of grammar. The Athiest?)
I think of "scope" as a grouping of things, like a "team". A thing has one scope which covers it's whole... erm... scope.

[XBoxWarrior]

"Objective Quality"......read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"

I once had the "perfect" Girlfriend.......C-cups, long brunette hair, very pretty, and a forensic scientist to boot, then she dumped me! :confused:

Well, I'm still looking for "perfect". ;)

[A Christian Sceptic]

Please.


I found the text I was referring to but it's rather long. I was thinking about it on the way home and I don't think I can just shorten it and do it justice.:) Could I post the whole thing on a seperate thread? It's in the public domain so is that allowed?


It doesn't need to be anything else. if it is not justice, how can it ever be "perfect" justice- except by simply declaring it so without (or despite) any specific, objective criteria?


I think the above post on the usage of "more" covered the bases quite well.


"Unbiased" is better. So is "objective".


I could try then, although in common usage I've heard plenty of people say "That's not fair!" I've never heard them exclaim "That's not unbiased!"


He already has, the Bible is full of examples. Unless you are saying it is all right for me to burn down my neighbor's house because he is a sodomite, and killing the other neighbor's wife for watching me do it.

ETA: Or to go New Testament, Is it justice to poison my neighbor's fig tree because it didn't give me fruit when I wanted it? Or trashing a Walmart because I disagree with their business practices?


See - you're showing me here that you do have a concept of justice that seems to transcend what you are reading there in the Bible. And these very same accusations that these are injustices seem to be rather consistent among believers and unbelievers alike!

[Piscivore]

I found the text I was referring to but it's rather long. I was thinking about it on the way home and I don't think I can just shorten it and do it justice.:) Could I post the whole thing on a seperate thread? It's in the public domain so is that allowed?
Only the mods can answer that, but I wouldn't see a problem with it, especially if it not available as a link anywhere.

I think the above post on the usage of "more" covered the bases quite well.
The problem with the usage in the Constitution is that, as I said before, "more perfect union" means "closer in line with our [the Framers] ideas about what a political system should be". Given the events surrounding the drafting of that document, I feel safe in saying that George III and his cronies had a different ideas, and we are back to a subjective opinion again.

Just because we may happen to agree with the framers over the Loyalists does not make their opinion "perfect". ETA: Or "objective"

Yes, Tricky it is an idiom, but it is an idiom implying an ideal that simply does not, and can not, [ETA: objectively] exist. Too many people make the mistake that it does, somehow.

I could try then, although in common usage I've heard plenty of people say "That's not fair!" I've never heard them exclaim "That's not unbiased!"
The reason "fair" is popular and widely used is because it can be applied to a great deal of situations. The problem with "fair" is that it can be applied to too many situations. It is too broad a brush to use to discuss ethics or justice, and is therefore meaningless in that context- although the person using it feels like they've said something meaningful. "Perfect" is exactly the same.

See - you're showing me here that you do have a concept of justice that seems to transcend what you are reading there in the Bible.
Of course I do, but I do not pretend that they are not essentially based in my own, subjective values.

And these very same accusations that these are injustices seem to be rather consistent among believers and unbelievers alike!
That is to be expected if we come from a similar cultural background. Compare our interpretations to those of someone from a hundred or a thousand years ago, and you'll find very different opinions. I don't think you'll find a Cossack criticising the wholesale slaughter of an entire town, or putting infants to the sword.

[Complexity]

Chris - Why are you asking these questions? I don't think they matter much to you.

[chris epic]

Chris - Why are you asking these questions? I don't think they matter much to you.

Why would you say that?