Are we perfect?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I find the general consensus of the question; ‘are we are perfect or not’, to most definitely be in the negative.
After some thought on the question I had begun to wonder about the various responses I could get and decided to start this thread.

Someone once said, ‘Our imperfections perfect us…’

If that statement was true, then yes - we would all be perfect, correct?
However, when used in conjunction with the 3rd definition in the above, it becomes contradictory of itself.

So are we lead to believe that no, we are not perfect? If the answer is yes, I would like to ask - what is the main thing which imperfects us in the end? Free-will? Our vulnerability to disease/illness? Deformity? Perhaps all of the former?

Now, in an attempt not to make this into a religious debate, lets just assume for this section of my post that there is a Catholic God which created us in his image and such and such.

Would we be perfect if God had created us in his image? If we use definitions 2, 4 and 5 then I would have to say yes. Though, definition 2 might be most disputable in the positive for this question, and to this I would say that God created us, precisely as he wanted us - and because of this, our imperfections do perfect us. However, using defintion 3, the former would again be proven incorrect.

I find that since I cannot come to a conclusive positive answer which fits into all of the above definitions - I must therefore conclude, that no - we are not perfect.

Thoughts?

W.C.

2

We are not “per/fect” because we are not “through” with “making” ourselves.

3

Sure we are perfect. If the model of a human being represents perfection, than those that live up to such a standard (of living as a human) are indeed perfect.
As perfect is a completely relative term, whether or not we meet the standard depends entirely apon where we set the bar.

4

W.C., what do you think of this perspective:

“By perfection in general I shall, as I have said, mean reality in other words, each thing’s essence, in so far as it exists, and operates in a particular manner, and without paying any regard to its duration. (Prf:37) For no given thing can be said to be more perfect, because it has passed a longer time in existence. (Prf:38) The duration of things cannot be determined by their essence, for the essence of things involves no fixed and definite period of existence; but everything, whether it be more perfect or less perfect, will always be able to persist in existence with the same force wherewith it began to exist; wherefore, in this respect, all things {animate and inanimate} are equal.”- Spinoza

It is an insighful way to compare 'perfection" to what is so easily understood to mean “degrees of quality.” He shows that all things are equal and perfect in their necessity- that their duration doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference. This would eliminate any previous notions that perfection is defined as a “best” state of something.

Everything depends on the context of relationships in the many sizings of the field of cause and effect. I can say that a bus accident that runs over a fire-hidrant, which spews water all over a fire in a motel, was a perfect incident leading to a better and more fulfilled organization of causes and effects. As a linear sequence the whole event would look like this:

“bus-to-hydrant-to-water-to-extinguished fire” and is I chose to arrange those specific events into a single frame, I could say that the extinguished fire was the perfection of the event.

An event is perfect itself, as Spinoza has shown, but the concept of perfection depends on a framing of events into a plot with an end.

5

I remember hearing somewhere that our souls are like little holes in reality that have the potential to exist.

Perhaps everything that we sense and percieve is perfect…and we keep comparing it to the hole in existence that we are each time we question what we percieve.

6

the universe needs imperfection genius

7

i’ll take the religious side and say we are not perfect, because if we were we would be god.

8

i sort of agree with doc here

but i’ll add that, biologically speaking, i think we’re far from perfect :slight_smile:

9

In examining the question are we perfect, my immediate instinct is to take it to a more personal level. Am I perfect? Certainly not, I have flaws, i’ve lied, cheated on tests, hurt others. But then if we look at the whole, all people have done these things so in a sense no one is perfect. But is it as some have suggested that it is our imperfections that make us perfect? The flaw I find in this seems to be that there would be different degrees of perfection, some cheat and steal more than others, and for different reasons. So I would have to deduce that since there cannot be varying degrees of perfection, that we are all, in fact, imperfect.

10

What if one considers ‘perfect’ as being simply ‘complete’ instead of ‘complete without fault’ as in definition 3?

That seems to me to then connotate that perfection is simply the completion, or the filling, of one’s niche. Especially if we are considering the idea that a Catholic God created us in his image, we are then subjugated to God’s will and plan. We become, in effect, cogs in God’s very large clock. By this definition we are perfect, as we are occupying our role in God’s clock. It follows that if God is perfect, so must be his will and plans, and since we are fufilling his will, we then become an extension of that and are therefore ‘perfect’.

Granted, this is just assuming we are created by an omnipotent God.

11

Any value judgment is a comparison of a perception with an idea.
Since the idea of “perfection” is an imagined one, in this case, it is the comparison of a perception of the other or the self against the imagined idea of the ideal state and so only expressible in degrees through metaphor.

But to more accurately make a judgment on perfection we must first establish a definition based on an ideal.
For some “perfection” represents a phenomenon living up to its potential within a certain system. In other words it is a phenomenon being what it was meant to be to the fullest extent of its potential.
For others it represents a fixed being our becoming strives to reach and against which all others are compared to through the imagination. A Platonic idea.
For others “perfection” is another way of saying God or stability or harmony or self-sufficiency or power or love or whatever word their ideal is given.

From a certain metaphysical vantage point we might say that the idea of “perfection” is rooted in the imagined or intuitively remembered/perceived state of timeless space.
That is a state of inertness.
Reality, as we perceive it and can express it through words, is the interplay of time and space and so to imagine a timeless space is to dream of nothingness and the obliteration of self.

12

Definition of perfection, etc. etc.

13

satyr if i said you were “perfect”
that’s only because i want you to be
respected by evryone else BUT me
in a attempt of dying i let you go off
so it was recorded on VHS and shoots
world wide even though it’s a true event
you lose your fame and are then back to
being “imperfect” see
THIS IS ONLY A TEST

14

In life there is only too many viewpoints. People look at other people and say that they are imperfect. But if we look carefully, we realise that people are perfect in their behavior in situations. Example: person kills other person. Evil? maybe. But the person had perfect reasons for comitting that act, even if those reasons are completely invisible to others. I could kill someone. Why? because people kill me every day for no apparent reason and otherwise because I am just plain physically capable of doing so. Also I do not believe in God so I do not believe that i will go to hell. Also because I am going to commit suicide pretty soon anyway. But, as always, I have to answer the question with a simple yes and no. Everything in life is good and bad. AIDS is terrible but it lessons the world population. So people are completely perfect and completely inperfect too. Depends on your viewpoint. if you are dying from AIDS you will be like Oh this is so terrible. If you do not know or love the person you will just be like oh ok, someone died form AIDS.

15

In examining the question of whether or not we are perfect, one must derive at some vantage point in which to analyze the possibilities.

In consideration of the definitions, I will be analyzing definitions 2 and 3 for they are adjectives and would correlate best with the production of an answer for this question, as the other definitions fall short of the objective manner in which could be applied to this discussion.

First, considering definition 2… [adj] precisely accurate or exact; “perfect timing”.

In an attempt to provide an answer in which corresponds mostly with truth, I will be analyzing from a position of which one can be most objective. Since this objective viewpoint calls for speculation, I will first provide a defintion of objectivity: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers. Since no individual thought can interject and derive its own value of existence, it is derived that all existence perceived objectively is equal. This elicits the assumption that looking at existence or whatever it is you are analyzing for perfection must be in perfect relation in terms of value to all other existence. From this viewpoint in relation to the first definition of perfection our existence is in itself perfection.

Looking objectively at every situation we encounter or every thought process we derive, the mere existence of these experiences being viewed as possible from a stance outside the individual perspective elicits the idea of equality as a middle ground for all these experiences to be grouped. In this equality, the existence of things must then be derived that because they exist, they must exist, and therefore are and were supposed to exist at the specific time they were or are in existence. Considering these concepts, existence in itself as existing must be perfect when considering the second definition for perfection. Since all things being in existence, exist; and in this existence maintain this state of existence for its particular course, ie. the time of specific existence, all that which exist comes about in perfect timing in itself and exists for the time it should in relation to this existence serving its purpose in existence.

So, since everything that exist, does so in equal relevance to all other existing counterparts, and this existence in itself occurs as being precisely accurate or exact considering the means in which it must come into existence as it does so itself, this existence itself must be considered perfect at the particular time of its existence.

From the viewpoint that time, being a measurement of change wherein a change in the existence of certain affinitive properties of this existence can be considered subjectively to have made things appear better or more perfect, can only be considered from this subjective standpoint. When considered objectively this elicits the perspective that each affinitive property, though different in an subjectively analytical perspective; is in reality or in relation to objectivity equal to its counterparts providing the further assertion that the verb tense forms of perfection, to make perfect or complete, etc. are fallacy.

Though things subjectively seem to get better or more complete in time, objectively one must observe these to be equal changes among these properties in relation to the mere existence of these changes as far as the time they occur being in perfect accordance within itself. Considering all of these assumptions, the 3rd definition of perfect also coincides with these ideas. Therefore all things are in themselves perfect at the particular time of their existence.

For those individuals who might have a hard time “seeing” the time issue produced within this post, look at it like this: Suppose you broke down the existence of everything to exactly its moment of existence in relation to time; it is at this point and only this point that this existence is in itself ie. its own realm of time period for the individual existence, perfect. When this particular existence changes into something else better or worse, this is a rise to a new and different existence that must also be evaluated in exactly the same way, producing all things as equally having the same perfect existence in itself.

Comments and suggestions are very much appreciated.

16

Freud had a similiar interpretation which he called Thanatos, who was a character in the Illiad, I believe. The archetype represented what Freud likened as the subconscious longing for death. I’m sure you are aware of it, Satyr, but I thought I’d mention it for the sake of comparison.

Personally I think that this greek metaphor is a distortion of what should be interpreted as a unconfident sex drive. I relate the psychic states of melancholy, anxiety, dread, and meaningless to a lack of sex.

Let’s face it, if we were all fucking each other we’d get along great!

So I think Thanatos just had the hots for Eros and she gave him the cold shoulder, after dodging Cupid’s arrow who was staring at is own mother because of an Odepius complex, and therefore was distracted from his aim.

Wait a minute…those folks weren’t in the same play together. What the hell am I thinking.