Is there such a thing as absolute perfection? In our world can there be something flawless in every way to be classified as perfect?
Discuss
No, but only because the word itself, when used this way, has no meaning. This doesn’t say anything about the world, but about the word. The minimal meaning of the word “perfect” is “complete”. Something is complete if it satisfies the defintion of the word that names it. But being everything a thing is defined as being is not that same as being everything we would want it to be. “Perfect” is not a philosophical term. It’s a religious one, describing only one thing - God.
Just trying to get my answer to that Philo 101 question shorter and shorter.
“90 feet between bases, the closest man has come to perfection.”
–Red Smith
We are perfect not yet perfected.
A
A task can be complete, but in an object, perfection can be compared to flawless.
sunny - who decides what a flaw is? My face is flawed by most measures, I can tell you. But it is completely and perfectly my face.
Very good question, how can we call something perfect if everyone has different opinions? Is absolute perfection something that is perfect to everyone?
When given this question I always state one thing:
A tree is perfect.
Because nothing is perfect, aesthetically speaking of course.
surely that depends on opinion yet again?
aren’t ‘forms’ perfect? according to Plato
is God perfect?
If there is no perfect right or wrong then how can we judge someone’s actions?
sara
xx
sara - but Forms do not exist.
sunny - I don’t think it’s a matter of opinion. It’s just a nonsensical formulation. The idea of perfection is one thing. But the original question was about the empirical universe. The word just doesn’t apply to this. Just a misuse of the word, is all. God is perfect. Er, except that he doesn’t exist, either. Perfection is, when used this way, a metaphysical term. So, you can do what you want with it.
There are other meanings that do make sense, like the “past perfect tense”, a perfect baseball game (by a pitcher). Just not this meaning.
i was giving an example, but that was a rubbish answer, why don’t they exist, prove it!
and even if they don’t what of my other suggestions?
sara
sara - Forms were never conceived of as being empirical objects. I’m not sure that this is controversial, within the context of the original premise of this thread, although I could be wrong. I don’t think that Plato would call mine a rubbish answer - he was talking metaphysics. Again, I might have misinterpreted the context of the original post.
You are asking some very basic questions here. Which is great - that’s what philosophy is. Tough to answer all of them in one post.
As I have said, god is perfect. (except that there is no god, but that is a technicality)
The concept of perfection is not required in every conception of right and wrong. There are other criteria one can use - any moral conception that is, of course, not an absoulutist one will do.
f
faust:
This made me want to dig a little deeper.
So let’s call it a metaphysical term…your stance is God doesn’t exist. Does metaphysical exist or is your suggestion to do what you want with it meaning it won’t affect anything no matter how you think of it?
Perfection doesn’t exist (by your logic there), but something drives us to that unattainable (by your stance). I’m just formulating, myself, so I appreciate all angles to look at. My curious is regards the universal and undeniable impulse of the majority toward that, and I rather like to hear from the minority. Things are more dilinneated that way.
Thanks in advance
regards cp
Yes. By definition of the word perfect, there can be something so flawless in every way as to be classified as perfect.
The “inherent blueprint” is what makes it so.
Find that, and then you can find the perfect expression of it.
It’s a rare enough gem, but absolutely there, or blueprints wouldn’t be perfection according to design.
From there we can go on to examining such bigger equations as “human blueprint” and how close or far from the inherent one we are, but where is that damn blueprint anyway? Maybe we haven’t even conceptually completed our blueprint even, so that could be the driver there, of the mass impulse toward it…and the few that are not impulsed would have to be an aspect of that perfection.
05.06.10.1301
Perfection is a false idea in itself. For something to be without a defect or blemish of any kind is an unrealistic notion. Perhaps then— concerning the nature of reality— perfection itself is about having balance with all things. To this extent it is conceivable to imagine the human spirit as being an example of real perfection— being human couldn’t be more to the point. This idea of perfection then renounces the idea that the spirit once was, is, or will be completely “good†or “evil.†To Christianity, would it then be justifiable to say that to be “saved†or “damned†is to be in a sense, “inhuman†and “imperfect?’ The Christian concept of a god is automatically imperfect in this theorum, but there are Hindu conceptions, like the pairing of Shiva and Kali which better fit the model of perfection— spiritually that is.
We are what we are.
Is energy perfect? It can’t be destroyed can it?
One of the ontology arguments for god is, we have
an idea of perfection and that idea of perfection is god.
We cannot get the idea of perfection from anywhere else,
so god must exist because we have this idea of perfection.
The problem is we can get an idea of perfection from life
experiences. I actually don’t believe in the idea of perfection.
I don’t think perfection is A. possibly, and B. desirable.
It is an artificial goal based on an artificial standard.
You might say this is perfection, a rare steak in a restaurant,
but what does that really mean? It means you have subjectively
made an comparison, but someone else may disagree with
your comparison. Perfection seems to indicate an objective
comparison, but all we have are subjective comparisons,
so perfection is only a personal, subjective viewpoint.
so your perfection may be someone else’s crap.
Kropotkin
depends , physical or mental energy?.
Iacchus: Is energy perfect? It can’t be destroyed can it?"
K: you have traveled to physics. Einstein’s theory of Relativity was
really all about energy and mass. You can’t destroy either
one. If you burn energy, it becomes transforms, becomes
something else, heat in this case. You can’t destroy mass,
because it becomes something else. Energy and mass are
really (and this was his great discovery) one and the same.
Kropotkin