The Search For Perfection

Remove all ads!

A good point, Faraaz - how does one measure perfection? Who gets to judge?

@Nakia: My former fencing coach used to say, "Practice doesn't make perfect,practice makes permanent. Perfect practice makes perfect permanent."

 

Revising some of what I said earlier, I think it can. In taoism and zen-buddhism perfection as harmony and balance within self and with surroundings is attainable. This is not exactly setting a certain goal for yourself, as often seen in western tradition, where the definition of perfection comes mostly on theology concerning properties of God.

The ancient greeks had the same kind of understanding of perfection as in zen-buddhism. Perfection could be attained by humans mainly through avoiding excess. For them perfection was perfect symmetry, of the mind and the body, and of the state, as Plato describes in The State. This line of thinking, perfection as symmetry, was represented especially by the epicureans, the stoics and the pythagorans, from whom the golden ratio comes from if I remember correctly.

In renaissance the ideal of a perfect human being was re-introduced after the middle ages. Leonardo DaVinci used the golden ratio in many of his works, for instance in the Last supper. Perfect humans or perfect 'men', were seen as masters of all arts and having symmetrical, trained bodies. Hence the term 'renaissance man'.

The term 'perfection' has been applied to dynamic variables, and I think that it can, if it's understood as harmony and symmetry.

 

@Iku-Turso,

Yes, but you are still defining perfection. I'm inclined to agree with Faraaz here. If you delineate what you mean by perfection, it may in fact be possible to acheive it. Whether your talking about zen-buddhism, or the "renaissance man", you're still setting up some standard to be acheived. But perfection in all things in every way has yet to even be defined. In looking at it that way, even if it were possible to acheive, how would you know when you have accompished it?

 

Symmetry is a dynamic variable, but yes, it's the right kind of question to ask 'How do you know that you're in harmony with yourself and with your surroundings?' I'd answer that you know it when your not in discord with yourself and your surroundings. There is a balance in everything, and when some things change, and becomes disproportionate in accordance with other things, a new balance seeks itself out.

Among many things, this is the way of nature, it's in mathematics, in chemistry, in physics. It is also applicable to humans, since we are not apart from the laws of nature.

 

My belief of perfection is that humans and humanity can not achieve it no matter how hard we try. My belief is that the only true perfect human that has ever existed was Jesus Christ (excluding Adam and Eve), and that by following his example can we come closer to it. And, the one whom defines and judges perfection is god.

Something a bit off topic: Anything we create is imperfect, it has it's good and it's bad. The same goes for marriage. In the bible it states that marriage is a perfect union of man and woman. Obviously, two imperfections cannot create a perfection. They can, however, create something close to it. Just like a Ruling Council is better then a King. All IMHO.

 

Yes.

No.

It is not 'one person'. My husband and I make perfection. We are the other half of each other.

(You can all go throw up now. )

 

Perfection? thats a funny thing to call it, i always preferred the term 'whoopee'

As far as i know there is no such thing as perfection but a woman with no gag-reflex is pretty close to it.

 

@Faraaz:

What you describe is being perfect in someone's eyes or according to a certain definition. The condition of perfection never having been defined has no bearing on the abstract state of being objectively perfect or not, supposing that objective perfection exists. Also, definition by someone doesn't affect the objective quality, so let's say someone defines perfection in some obviously flawed way. Then you can meet his criteria but still not really be perfect. Of course, if his definition is flawed, then you can argue that he hasn't defined perfection (because what he defined was something else or because he failed to do it right). So I guess in practice it's just something that can't be grasped and Rally's questions pop up.

There's one more problem: Can perfection be defined at all? The best possible result may sometimes be considered perfect (e.g. the best performance possible), but it will still be conditional, i.e. perfect in the circumstances that be (for your weight, height etc, within your physical boundaries, in case of sport, for example). And if you absolutely can't make something any better within its own genre, then pops up the problem whether the genre is perfect. A flawless and perfectly cut diamond, for example, okay... Can't have any better. But is it thus perfect? Question is then: Can a diamond be perfect at all? A diamond being a perfect diamond doesn't necessarily mean the diamong is perfect... So is it really perfect? "Real" perfection should probably be something unconditional, absolute. As such, it should probably elude definition.

@Rally:

That's something to keep in mind when someone's trying to judge people or things. However, it's all too often cited as a reason to give up trying. For example, some people say they can never attain perfection, so no point trying, so no point doing anything at all to improve. Some other people say it's subjective and no one has the right to judge etc etc, so they don't have to try or do anything to improve, for that matter.

@Eldular:

That's one point of view. But there have been entirely opposite views, deeming a single king better than a council because of no disputes or dissentions. A country in which all power lies within collective hands doesn't necessarily function better. Not only that, but you always need some kind of chairman. You can rotate the position, though, so that no one carries inherently more power than the rest. However, sometimes even the mere activity of a person will put him ahead of others, thus limiting the collective rule at least in practice.

Some people would say the ideal authority would be a collective one because many options and views would be considered and the best one chosen. But there's a fundamental flaw in that reasoning: collective rulers are assumed each to be perfect somehow and choose the best course of action rather than the most appealing one. With that kind of presupposition, one can already presuppose that a single wise king will make the best decisions after weighing the options in his head. After all, we don't need several people per se -- we need a certain mental process of evaluation.

So, instead of assuming that the collective rulers will collect all options, weigh them duly and choose the best one and then "enforce it" (put it in practice) without quarrelling about it (e.g. if they were outvoted), it's probably more realistic to assume a single wise ruler making the right decisions, I think. Note that there is always a certain notion of imperfection in the situation in which there are rejected options and outvoted councillors. They aren't perfect or they would never be outvoted -- because an outvoted decision isn't perfect and a perfect councillor wouldn't support an imperfect option. So, essentially, perfect councillors would always have to agree. This means that they would all be redundant except one. So you could just keep one and dispose of the rest. Even if you were to concede that perfect councillors would represent different outlooks, the result of voting or otherwise reconciling those interests could still be achieved by some analysis by a single person, if we don't presuppose the person to be biased.

If we give up all unrealistic expectations of perfectness of the rulers, then we'll have to judge what's better to have: more outlooks or more decision.

So all this only shows that there are no perfect systems. It's all about people. And circumstances, perhaps, some current needs of the nation. Political, social, economic, whatever.

[ June 08, 2006, 21:23: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Our resident marilith does bring up a good point. Since humans are not an asexual or hermaphroditic species we suffer from increased complexity to reach a perfect human. Since hermaphrodism is not a normal quality in humans we have no way of creating a perfect human unless we can decide on a perfect sex (which I pass on doing, thank you). We might do better replacing perfect human with perfect man or perfect woman.

Since sex is inherent to the nature of humans, we cannot create a perfect human who lacks the feature of a sex (an aestic who reaches perfect asexuality has become something other then human). The same goes with any other notion that enspouses leaving aspects of the "essence of human" behind (the essense of human being any structure, materially speaking, which is inherent to the human body, the digestive track for instance, but not the waste produced from consumption).

 

@Chev: I'll get back to you once I understand the bulk of that

@Everyone: I suppose a true perfection would be if everyone was one the same with same mind set and no 'free will'. Then we would all be perfect, aka: 'normal'

 

I don't see what the problem about defining perfection is - so long as you're keeping it within the realm of opinion rather than claiming there to be an objective perfect state of being, it can be whatever you damn well please. Perfection is what *you* think is the perfect state of existence - doesn't this work as a definition that we can strive towards?

Eldular: Er, wait, didn't you just backflip? First you say that it's bad to try and reach perfection as you'd have to judge yourself. And now you're saying that you want to try and follow the example of Jesus (your idea of perfection) - contradiction, no?

 

Maybe he means you should still try, but not expect yourself to reach it? Sounds a bit like a contradiction, but the idea is that you basically don't put a cup on your expectations while improving yourself, so you never stop trying, but without blaming yourself just because it could possibly be better.

 

But that's exactly what I was saying too...

 

I have never been more perfect than while I am sitting on my back porch with a nice bottle of well age 100+ proof bourbon Whiskey, a fine cigar, and a certin collage cheerleader I used to date, sitting on my lap. Now thats perfection!

p.s. Search over!

 

The thing is, you can't obbssesively attempt to attain "perfection", because you would end up extremely bitter. However, a failure to try to improve yourself would only lead to stagnation.
And, the way I see it, perfect is a completely subjective term.

 

That was in the name of arguement Plus, it is true, just depends on your view of perfection I guess.

Yeah that's about it, just don't try too hard (unless you believe in my belief then that's something else).

 

I think I completely agree with Aiky on this issue, as amazingly as it sounds. There is nothing wrong with striving towards perfection even if it is not reachable.

The goal of reaching perfection has been the driving force behind human advancement for the last 300 years, if not since we first were capable of self thought. Been able to look at yourself and the world around you and realise that it is not perfect is a requirement for advancement to happen. To improve something first you must realise that there is a better way for it to be, then ask yourself how to get there. To do so, you must have a comparison - a state of perfection. Even if it is decided subconsously, somewhere in there you have a definition of 'perfect' which you live your life striving towards.

No, no one will ever be perfect. Nor have they - not even that man who was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be for people to be nice for a change. Perfection is a thing based entirely on personal values. What I define as perfect, no one else will agree. Sure, scoring all hole-in-ones on a round of gold may be the best possible score, but does it make it a perfect game? What if it was raining that day? Or you lost your lucky coin somewhere along the round?

Eldular, this is something that I can't resist disagreeing with. Striving to be something that we are not is what keeps the world ticking over. I go to university each day trying to learn something I don't know. I practice hockey, to improve my skills past a level that they currently are. In both cases I have looked and seen where I am not perfect and am striving to be something that I am not.

 

Interesting topic. What is perfection? Is it striving for a single goal or is it becoming perfect in all ways?

Could I, with musical talent of zero, become the perfect singer? What frustration if that were my goal. To be a kinder, more giving person? That in my opinion is a more reasonable goal and worth striving for.

Should game developers strive for a perfect game? Impossible! The perfect game for me would not be the perfect game for someone else.

My motto: Strive to be the best you can be at whatever you are doing or becoming. We wouldn't be communicating over the Internet if humans didn't have curiosity and the desire to make something better.

 

Hey Rotku, read my last post -_-

Also, I was talking about improving one's self personality-wise, NOT skill-wise Rotku.

 

Being a Christain, I have perfection defined for me easily by God. On top of that, He's out and told us that no human will ever be perfect, we'll all sin. On top of that, as if that weren't downer enough, even if you could be perfect from now on, you're still not perfect because you've already messed up. You're tainted with imperfection from the first screw-up and you won't be clean until Heaven, so good luck.

On the note of defining perfection, however:
1.)Follow all God's commandments and laws, do everything He tells you to and don't do anything He doesn't tell you to.
2.)From here things get a little more complex in my opinion. You see, there is no one perfect human because there is no one human. A perfect me would not be a perfect you. If I achieved perfection by your standards, I would likely be betraying my own true self.

Example:
I like to draw. A perfect me would dedicate the attention and effort to improving drawing according to my interest and desire to do so. Person X hates to draw. If he tried to achieve perfection by my standards, puting as much time and effort into drawing as I want to, he would be betraying himself and thus not really reach perfection.

The perfect human has never sinned, loves all people, is forgiving, hard working, self-sacrificing, etc. But on top of that, (s)he has pursued life according to his/her own perfected desire, alotting time, effort, and resources according to his/her desire to achieve and priorities. The actual level of skill achieved is unimportant, it is whether or not you give all you can to the things you really want to see completed and the like.