Defining ‘perfection’? As in, making a definition + a thing which is always in the state or place [situations, coincidences, causality etc] of continual ‘redefinition’.
Hmm ok, well ‘perfect’ can be something that does the job most effectively, and we could say that suffering and wisdom go hand in hand as if like a cosmic grinding stone. But perfect could also be where, there is no deficit, no death nor disease, hunger and so on. One can only learn wisdoms of the given leaned thing, so if we are learning from harshness the wisdoms we learn pertain to that. In a perfect world we would learn without the need to suffer??? And only learn good things. Or is that the very thing one cannot do; learn without suffering?
What is perfect in terms of worlds?
Is there a non religious perfection?
I like to think that we live in a world free of gods and that the world is what it is, and will keep turning the way it does until it doesn’t. …even if there are or were gods/God [I think they only partially exist and in mental/spiritual worlds, but not ‘real’ worlds…
‘Perfect’ is a qualitative adjective people use to show opinions. When someone says something is ‘perfect’ they are usually trying to achieve something else (make people envious of their food, communicate to their lover that they are happy with the ring so he feels happy too etc). A lot like ‘amazing’ or ‘brilliant’ -
In philosophy I feel that you can only use the term ‘perfection’ when there are some pre-agreed criteria for the thing in question, and these will differ from thing to thing. A perfect logical system would be, for example, intuitive in both its premises and all of its conclusions, and complete (in the technical sense). Perhaps it would also be easy to use? Or able to capture all forms of arguments (like possibilities, fuzziness etc)? I think you’d have to have a transparent set of standards first, then measure things up to those staandards, in order to use the word ‘perfect’ perfectly ( :-" )
Imo, any attempt to define an overall concept of ‘perfection’ would stink of platonic idealism (aka waffle).
Yes but there is also ‘perfect’ in the sense of not deteriorating, is complete etc. This can be an imperfect monstrous creation, but if it is imperishable then there’s ‘nothing wrong with it’ and so ‘perfect’ in a literal/actual sense.
Another perfection would be one which yields to all things that they may exist. This in turn may require that one thing must become another thing, such that all existences which can exist, can take their turn existing - so to say. …bit like this world? To get one shape you have to change the given other, but the perfection is in that blob of existence’s ability to do that.
There could be plenty wrong with it. If its a bin bag, then it was made to deteriorate, in which case its lack of deterioration is an imperfection, for example. Lack of deterioration is only an indication of perfection if we agree that the thing, whatever it is, is not supposed to deteriorate. That goes with all levels of ‘perfection’ - if we first define what it is that we want it to do (set a standard) then the definition of perfection becomes a lot less mystical.
A deteriorating bin bag, is a perfect deteriorating bin bag. A deteriorating human is imperfect in e.g. Has memory and other function >loss<.
To be more specific;
Perfection is then lossless? Which would be gainless too? Where were are speaking of completenesses [cant believe that’s a word lol].
Then they exist, unless you are saying that there is something non-physical about the brain? Besides points or regions of attraction and observation exist in quanta, then they collect in patterns which is a shape ~ atomic structure. Collections of these collections formed into a box, are a box-shaped collection of said pattern type/s. It doesn’t mean that there is a reality that is ‘box’ without its constitution, but it does mean there are shapes in qualia and quality, both of which are observable phenomena [e.g. In technology and brains].
One other thing; is an empty space a ‘shape’? Or is a volume a shape? A distance?
What proportion of thingnesses is shape in the world? There are things that don’t have shape, like spoken word, music or data ~ except in their patterns. But all things of light probably have shape?
If x can be logically better in any way, then it is not perfect. How can it be perfect if it can be better?
It gets controversial when you ask “better in what sense?” For me, the answer is better in every aspect hypothetically possible in existence. So a “perfect chair” (one that is maximally comfortable) is as good as a chair can be (others will have a different criteria such as maximally sturdy). So its the best possible chair. It’s maximally good…as a chair. But can something be better than a chair? Yes. God.
Whilst the chair can’t be any better as a chair, it can be better as an existent thing because I think it can be coherently said that there are existent things that are better than chairs. So even a maximally good chair is certainly not perfect. The phrase a “perfect chair” is like saying the perfect imperfection, which is absurd.
The only thing that can be perfect, is that which is omnipresent (existence). Only it can be almighty, alknowing and infinite. Logically there’s nothing hypothetically possible that’s better than that. So that is perfect (provided that the aforementioned traits are logically coherent)
a perfect chair which fits me perfectly and not the one which fits you perfectly, or has the right feel etc. …but i take your point that you can have perfection, and there are different degrees of that…
If we are speaking of ‘all-perfect’, then God would come into several categories of not being perfect e.g. He is not a perfect female Goddess. There are more subjective imperfections, like he may not be the best cook or artist etc. In fact if I were divinity I would make a universe such that I could be born into many incarnations, such to learn [a continual renewal?] and be all of those things.
A God which is universal is superior/more perfect than a God with an otherwise restricted form/nature.
A divinity which is silent, eternal and without form is more perfect still.
Hello Amorphos,
There was a platonic dialogue that once asked the question as to who was the better man: he who could not tell a lie, or he who had the choice to tell the truth or a lie. The conclusion was that the better man was the one with the choice. A similar conclusion can be reached here. Perfection (as subjective as that is), is essentially the absent of defect-- but the question is what one considers as a defect. Creating a world without hunger, or disease, might have resulted in a world lacking other things that are more desirable, such as free will. A world like ours could be a world without hunger, without disease-- it is in our power, and such a world would be a greater achievement than a world designed to be flawless (but saddled with the flaw of lacking choice) and nothing else besides. That possibility of becoming imperfect is still of more importance to perfection than perfection itself.
I agree that many ailments can eventually be removed. There remains questions:
What is absolute perfection, can there be an all-perfectness.
What is the perfection in or of a given thing?
What is perfection in more human terms of say balance, human nature and thought ~ which for me is an individual journey for each in its own right. Human thought and nature relies upon comparison ~ as you say, and so the next thing is to weigh or calibrate contrasting things to achieve balance and understanding. In an everchanging world there will be continued renewal of party’s and positions of that which is to be weighed. In both cases choice is a fundamental aspect of calibration [on the mechanistic side of things] and harmony, in both wisdom, aesthetics, politics and such human things.