Perfect=flawless?

[danzibr]

So my wife and I were talking about our marriage, and we got to talking about people with the perfect marriage. The idea of perfect has come up elsewhere, but I decided I'd see what everyone else things.

In my mind, there are two reasonable points of view regarding when something can be considered perfect (though there could certainly be others):
1) something cannot be perfect if it has a flaw. In other words, if there is any room for improvement, it is not perfect. Something perfect is flawless.
2) there is perfection in our everyday lives. You may think your spouse or significant other or job or child is perfect. Obviously as humans we have flaws, but this is sort of a... perfect in their own way kind of perfection.

What does everyone think? And please don't just hyperlink the dictionary or something.

[Lord Raziere]

Perfection does not exist and never will.

This is the first truth of the world- or at least my philosophy.

[Greensleeves]

Perfection is flawless, unchanging, timeless and total. It's a difficult concept and I don't really believe in it being more than basically just a thought exercise.

[LaZodiac]

One would argue that these words are redundent, since it's all in the eye of the beholder. Someone who really likes this drawing they got, the artist may think it is terrible. In the end, I think it's all relative.

[H Birchgrove]

I kinda like imperfection.

[Weezer]

I'm with Greensleeves, that's pretty much my definition of perfect. However, I do tend to use perfect in a more causal sense in everyday conversation where is just means "incredible and nigh unsurpassed, the peak of whatever it is I'm talking about".

[Moff Chumley]

There's perfect in the technically accurate sense, and there's perfect in a form that's actually useful. :smalltongue:

[THAC0]

There's perfect in the technically accurate sense, and there's perfect in a form that's actually useful. :smalltongue:

That's a good way to put it.

Also, perfection is a bit boring, as well as being unobtainable.

[Flame of Anor]

Also, perfection is a bit boring

That's a very common (and kind of annoying) mistake. Clearly perfection can't be boring, as being boring is a flaw.

[Objection]

That's a very common (and kind of annoying) mistake. Clearly perfection can't be boring, as being boring is a flaw.

Then perhaps perfection itself is flawed (and therefore contradictory). This in turn could support the idea that perfection does not exist.

[danzibr]

I must be one of the only people that holds the second point of view.

[BladeofObliviom]

Believe it or not, this philosophical issue makes up the CORE BEING of one of my characters in a God game on this forum.

His result, for the sake of his own sanity, is more or less a synonym for "Optimization." :smalltongue:

[Yora]

If we percieve something as perfect, it's because we ignore all flaws.

People way too much expect things to be perfect and are not happy with anything less. Instead of working on the flaws, things get discarded because they turned out to not be perfect to beginn with.
If you want to be happy, you have to accept that you will notice flaws and that you then have to find work on them or live with them. But if you only want perfect things, you end up with nothing.

[Mathis]

I always saw perfect as a goal, or an ideal that cannot be reached. So I don't think anything can reasonably be considered perfect. What I mean by that is that when something is perfect, it can't be improved upon, and I don't believe that will ever happen as there will always be room for improvement in anything we do or create. So if you spend time trying to make something perfect, you're improving something and bettering yourself or others in the process. It's something worth working towards in life, even if you'll never finish your project. So I guess I mean that I believe you can spend an entire life trying to perfect a technique, whether it's essay writing techniques, martial arts techniques or just the perfect picture, and it won't be a wasted life.

[Trazoi]

Perfect can mean "flawless", but it can also mean "as good as it is possible to be" or "everything that I want or need it to be". It's the latter defintions that apply when using "perfect" to describe relationships.

[Totally Guy]

I'd say that a person can be perfect at being themselves.

Even though the person will be flawed that person can be so true to themselves that they are a perfect representation of that flawed character.

I think that this may be what Danzibr is looking at.

[Flame of Anor]

Then perhaps perfection itself is flawed (and therefore contradictory).

No, that only means that what THAC0 thought was perfection is flawed.

[Starwulf]

If perfection can be achieved, then what's the point in living anymore? If you can't strive towards a goal to make a better life, what's left? Standing around all day saying "Oh, life is perfect, we're all in perfect health, no more advances can ever be made in technology, we've reached the end-state of life". That doesn't sound to fun. The fun in living is in striving to be better, and make a contribution to society and the world as a whole that improves things. I'll take imperfection and a goal, then perfection and doing nothing.

[Objection]

No, that only means that what THAC0 thought was perfection is flawed.

Well ... how exactly can perfection be not boring? And don't say "because boring is a flaw" either - that's not a how.

Also, I seem to recall a quote that went something like "If you chase perfection, you will catch excellence".

[NecroRebel]

To be perfect is to be finished. Over. Done with. Look it up; the word comes from a Latin word meaning "completed." Something is perfect after it's done, and not a moment before. A perfect marriage only comes after a divorce or a death, because those are the only things that can end a marriage, and is not something desirable.

Something perfect is far from the best, and often is probably close to the worst, form of that thing that could exist. The best things are those that are always improving. Good comes from chasing perfection, but never catching it. That's what I think, anyway.

[Lord Raziere]

Then perhaps perfection itself is flawed (and therefore contradictory). This in turn could support the idea that perfection does not exist.

Exactly.

The seeking of perfection is therefore useless. To improve is not become perfect, but to eternally improve and change because it is the nature of all things to change, therefore why not change for the better?

This is the second truth of my philosophy.

[Winter_Wolf]

The perfect marriage is a myth perpetuated to keep couples from being happy with the relationships they have.

I am happy in my marriage because I reject the notion of the perfect marriage. There's stuff I could do better, stuff I could do worse, but I'm not about to subject myself to someone else's idea of what an ideal marriage "should be".

[Elder Tsofu]

Well ... how exactly can perfection be not boring? And don't say "because boring is a flaw" either - that's not a how.

Also, I seem to recall a quote that went something like "If you chase perfection, you will catch excellence".

It just means that THACO's perfect world would have to include the elements that makes it not boring. If it is boring it isn't a perfect world.
What is perfect for you might not be perfect for me or for THACO, so if I attained your perfect world I could very well be dissatisfied with it since it isn't perfect for me.

You could say that when something attains perfection it means that it is now perfect for its purpose, be it entertaining you during your life (in whatever way you like best) or being your ultimate garden spade.

[Comrade]

I manage to keep myself happy by staying well away from debates over what perfection is and whether it's possible. Ignorance is bliss and whatnot. As long as I go on not thinking about whether something is perfect, I can simply consider whether or not I enjoy it or like it the way it is, and leave it at that rather than bringing in philosophical discussions over whether it is 'flawless' or whether 'flawless' is even possible or contradictory to itself.

[factotum]

As Lord Raziere says, perfection is not possible in the real world. People who say they have a perfect marriage are really saying they have a really, really good marriage, not that they have one with no flaws whatsoever.

[Flame of Anor]

Well ... how exactly can perfection be not boring? And don't say "because boring is a flaw" either - that's not a how.

It could be, for example, perfect philosophical contemplation--as proposed by Plato. If you find that idea boring, I assure you that you have not studied enough philosophy.



The seeking of perfection is therefore useless. To improve is not become perfect, but to eternally improve and change because it is the nature of all things to change, therefore why not change for the better?


Useless? Surely not. The attainment of perfection is impossible, but the seeking of it is entirely worthwhile and valuable. Have you never seen Man of La Mancha? :smallwink:

In other words, pretty much this:


I seem to recall a quote that went something like "If you chase perfection, you will catch excellence".

[Mando Knight]

I'm with Flame of Anor on this one. True perfection may be an asymptotic limit in a mortal life, but the benefits of pursuing it anyway are sufficient reason for the pursuit itself.

[golentan]

Has anyone ever heard of a flaw that marks perfection? Probably not. I think that a flaw can sometimes enhance the perfection of something by bringing it into relief. You can have a perfect day where nothing bad happens, or you can have a perfect day where you get water up your nose and it turns into a cute comedy routine with your significant other. The latter might be considered a flaw, or it might be an enhancement, all as a matter of perspective. In the Silmarillion, the inclusion of evil was said to only enhance the glory of the world. Some people believe the Mona Lisa's smile to be a mistake, but it's what makes it the work we know.

Anyway, yeah. Also, perfection doesn't preclude growth. Something that's perfect can be improved into something else that is also perfect by accident or design. It's not the same perfection, but there is no one ideal aesthetic either. If I make the perfect wine, it can be used as a component in the perfect stew, and both are good. Or, alternately, a deeply flawed wine as a wine could be a better ingredient. Only one way to find out, so come with me into the future! It also goes over water.

[Trekkin]

Yes, perfection in the sense of flawlessness does exist. I have no idea how, or even what it looks like, but apparently it does, because my TAs claim to have given out perfect scores. So perhaps it's subjective, but flawless work exists, and therefore by extension flawless people doing flawless things off in some wonderful world where everything runs like clockwork.

[danzibr]

If perfection can be achieved, then what's the point in living anymore? If you can't strive towards a goal to make a better life, what's left? Standing around all day saying "Oh, life is perfect, we're all in perfect health, no more advances can ever be made in technology, we've reached the end-state of life". That doesn't sound to fun. The fun in living is in striving to be better, and make a contribution to society and the world as a whole that improves things. I'll take imperfection and a goal, then perfection and doing nothing.
Even if perfection can be achieved, that's not to say everything is perfect.

To be perfect is to be finished. Over. Done with. Look it up; the word comes from a Latin word meaning "completed." Something is perfect after it's done, and not a moment before. A perfect marriage only comes after a divorce or a death, because those are the only things that can end a marriage, and is not something desirable.

Something perfect is far from the best, and often is probably close to the worst, form of that thing that could exist. The best things are those that are always improving. Good comes from chasing perfection, but never catching it. That's what I think, anyway.
I would disagree that perfect means finished. Its etymology doesn't matter to me. Many words have strayed from their original meaning.

Yes, perfection in the sense of flawlessness does exist. I have no idea how, or even what it looks like, but apparently it does, because my TAs claim to have given out perfect scores. So perhaps it's subjective, but flawless work exists, and therefore by extension flawless people doing flawless things off in some wonderful world where everything runs like clockwork.
Hmm, yeah, good point. Something like filling in all the right bubbles on a multiple choice test does give a perfect score. I hadn't thought of that.

[Sholos]

Exactly.

The seeking of perfection is therefore useless. To improve is not become perfect, but to eternally improve and change because it is the nature of all things to change, therefore why not change for the better?

This is the second truth of my philosophy.

I'm curious as to how you define better if not "closer to perfect than it is right now". In other words, where do you put your ideal basepoint? Because you can't improve something without an idea of where to go with it. Otherwise how do you know you're improving at all?

[Objection]

It could be, for example, perfect philosophical contemplation--as proposed by Plato. If you find that idea boring, I assure you that you have not studied enough philosophy.

The reason I maintain that perfection would have to be boring is that, if something is perfect, then any change to it would mean that it ceases to be perfect (another quote I recall is "perfection is not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away" or something); therefore, for something to be perfect, it would have to stay the same. Yet sameness becomes boring. Therefore, perfect becomes boring.

[Lord Raziere]

All things are imperfect in this world. If someone thinks a thing is perfect, it is nothing but an illusion.

This is the third truth of my philosophy.

To seek perfection is to seek stasis, to seek eternal improvement is to seek wisdom.

This is the fourth truth of my philosophy.

Eternal Change is better than perfection, for eternal change is to acknowledge that you will never achieve perfection. Improving oneself does not mean becoming closer to perfection, it is merely becoming another kind of imperfection. For if you focus hard enough on one thing, does it not become your life? Do you not shut out something else to make room for what you want?
All change is exchanging one imperfection for another imperfection, great skill in something, means the death of something else, that is mere choice and is normal. The question is: which imperfection do you want?

This is the fifth truth of my philosophy.

[Mando Knight]

Can I go all Socratic method on your philosophy? 'Cause I take issues with your Fourth and Fifth "truths."

[Flame of Anor]

The reason I maintain that perfection would have to be boring is that, if something is perfect, then any change to it would mean that it ceases to be perfect (another quote I recall is "perfection is not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away" or something); therefore, for something to be perfect, it would have to stay the same. Yet sameness becomes boring. Therefore, perfect becomes boring.

You have two unsupported premises there, either of which could make this argument false.

1. That perfection is stasis. An ever-changing cycle of wonderful things could be perfect, in theory.

2. That stasis is boring. Perhaps it's only boring in real life because you're experiencing the same imperfect thing continuously.


Can I go all Socratic method on your philosophy? 'Cause I take issues with your Fourth and Fifth "truths."

I say go for it! It's a bit arrogant to call one's philosophical opinions "truths" right off the bat, anyway.

[danzibr]

I say go for it! It's a bit arrogant to call one's philosophical opinions "truths" right off the bat, anyway.
Ahh. I understood as like, "It's my personal truth." Dunno.

[Telonius]

Perfection is relative.

In order for something to be perfect, it has to exactly meet a set of specifications. That is, its qualities have to be exactly equal to the qualities desired. So you have a few things that determine it: the desires of the person (which varies from person to person), the list of qualities (which varies from situation to situation), and the qualities of the thing in question (which varies from thing to thing). Sometimes a hammer is the perfect tool for a job; sometimes you need an electron microscope. Sometimes a particular person wants to have something that would be considered "flawed" by others. And sometimes the person has forgotten something important in the list, or makes assumptions about what goes on the list of qualities.

[Mando Knight]

Ahh. I understood as like, "It's my personal truth." Dunno.

I know, but I don't really subscribe to "personal" truths, either. If truth can vary between persons, then is it really truth? We believe physics, mathematics, and chemistry to abide by invariant truths (from which models, variable in their truth and usefulness, can be derived), so why not philosophy as well?

[Objection]

You have two unsupported premises there, either of which could make this argument false.

1. That perfection is stasis. An ever-changing cycle of wonderful things could be perfect, in theory.

2. That stasis is boring. Perhaps it's only boring in real life because you're experiencing the same imperfect thing continuously.

1. The only way you could ever get an ever-changing cycle of wonderful things is if there is an infinite amount of wonderful things, and to my knowledge, it has not been proven that there is an infinite amount of wonderful things. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

2. No, stasis is boring because it is predictable. "Oh, I wonder what's going to happen next. It's probably going to be X. Oh look, I was right." can only be exciting a finite number of times, regardless of whether we're dealing with something perfect or not.

[Starwulf]

I know, but I don't really subscribe to "personal" truths, either. If truth can vary between persons, then is it really truth? We believe physics, mathematics, and chemistry to abide by invariant truths (from which models, variable in their truth and usefulness, can be derived), so why not philosophy as well?

Because philosophy is nothing but opinion. There can be NO universal truths in philosophy like there is in the hard sciences. On the other hand What's wrong with having personal truths that you as a person subscribe to? Something that you live your life by, and stick to, no matter what? I can't say I understand your line of reasoning, I myself have personal truths that I live by, and wouldn't change them for anyone.

[Mando Knight]

1. The only way you could ever get an ever-changing cycle of wonderful things is if there is an infinite amount of wonderful things, and to my knowledge, it has not been proven that there is an infinite amount of wonderful things. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
Does it need to change? Could it not change everything else? Could not a perfect vehicle take you anywhere you wish? Would the perfect life be limited to monotony, or would it be perfect because of what it accomplishes?

2. No, stasis is boring because it is predictable. "Oh, I wonder what's going to happen next. It's probably going to be X. Oh look, I was right." can only be exciting a finite number of times, regardless of whether we're dealing with something perfect or not.
Is predictable boring? And if it is boring, are you using the predictability properly? Is not a perfect tool used to perform its function? Would you rather have a tool whose function you could predict, or one that you cannot predict? Is not the former more useful than the latter?

[Lord Raziere]

Ahh. I understood as like, "It's my personal truth." Dunno.

Even Truth is Imperfect, and not all that one knows to be true, is considered true by others. this is normal.

:smallamused: This is the sixth truth of my philosophy.

edit: also…

This philosophy, since it is a part of the world, is therefore itself imperfect. This is normal.

This is the seventh truth of my philosophy.

[Objection]

Does it need to change? Could it not change everything else? Could not a perfect vehicle take you anywhere you wish? Would the perfect life be limited to monotony, or would it be perfect because of what it accomplishes?

While being able to take someone anywhere they wished would be necessary for a perfect vehicle, would it be sufficient? For it to be perfect, would it not have to be enjoyable to drive as well? And if it drives the exact same way every time ... sure, you might be able to get a large amount of enjoyment out of it, but the novelty will wear off.

Why will the novelty wear off? Because we are learning creatures. We get enjoyment from learning of new things, not from repeated exposure to the exact same things.


Is predictable boring? And if it is boring, are you using the predictability properly? Is not a perfect tool used to perform its function? Would you rather have a tool whose function you could predict, or one that you cannot predict? Is not the former more useful than the latter?

Yes, predictable is boring, even if it is used correctly. Everything that remains exciting for a long time has an element of variation to it. However, as you have demonstrated with your example, predictable can also be useful.

Really, you'd be better off trying to argue that something boring can be perfect.

[Flame of Anor]

I know, but I don't really subscribe to "personal" truths, either. If truth can vary between persons, then is it really truth? We believe physics, mathematics, and chemistry to abide by invariant truths (from which models, variable in their truth and usefulness, can be derived), so why not philosophy as well?

+1.


1. The only way you could ever get an ever-changing cycle of wonderful things is if there is an infinite amount of wonderful things, and to my knowledge, it has not been proven that there is an infinite amount of wonderful things. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

Neither has it been proven that there isn't an infinite amount of wonderful things.


2. No, stasis is boring because it is predictable. "Oh, I wonder what's going to happen next. It's probably going to be X. Oh look, I was right." can only be exciting a finite number of times, regardless of whether we're dealing with something perfect or not.

I don't think we've established that perfection has to be exciting or that predictability is boring. If predictability were boring, you'd never listen to the same piece of music more than once or twice. Perfection could be, quite simply, fulfillment.


Because philosophy is nothing but opinion. There can be NO universal truths in philosophy like there is in the hard sciences.

You just contradicted yourself. "There can be NO universal truths in philosophy" is a universal statement about philosophy, and if it is true it invalidates itself. Even if you meant "There is only one universal truth about philosophy, and this is it", you haven't given any sort of evidence to back that up.


On the other hand What's wrong with having personal truths that you as a person subscribe to? Something that you live your life by, and stick to, no matter what? I can't say I understand your line of reasoning, I myself have personal truths that I live by, and wouldn't change them for anyone.

There's nothing wrong with having personal guidelines to subscribe to, etc., as you say. However, if they only apply to you, they're not really truths except as statements about you.

[Lord Raziere]

Be glad that people disagree with you. Otherwise the world would be perfect.

My Eighth Truth. :smallbiggrin:

[Objection]

Neither has it been proven that there isn't an infinite amount of wonderful things.

Burden of proof is on the affirmitive side. You generally assume things do not exist until you have proof that they do, as to do the opposite is not sensible.


I don't think we've established that perfection has to be exciting or that predictability is boring. If predictability were boring, you'd never listen to the same piece of music more than once or twice. Perfection could be, quite simply, fulfillment.

Actually, you yourself said early on in the thread that perfection cannot be boring, and if something is not boring, then it must be exciting on some level, so you implied in that post that perfection does have to be exciting. Plus, I said that predictability is eventually boring. Obviously it isn't the first time, and it can still be exciting for a number of times after that, but infinitely exciting? You'd have to be very easily pleased.

[Mando Knight]

Even Truth is Imperfect, and not all that one knows to be true, is considered true by others. this is normal.

:smallamused: This is the sixth truth of my philosophy.

edit: also…

This philosophy, since it is a part of the world, is therefore itself imperfect. This is normal.

This is the seventh truth of my philosophy.
...That... you...

...You've confirmed one thing. I can't argue with you over the internet, as the issues I have with your philosophy are so fundamental, so foundational that I don't think we could ever explain anything in a satisfactory manner to each other.

It may suffice to say that my view is that absolute, universal truth is the foundation on which all knowledge is built.

While being able to take someone anywhere they wished would be necessary for a perfect vehicle, would it be sufficient? For it to be perfect, would it not have to be enjoyable to drive as well? And if it drives the exact same way every time ... sure, you might be able to get a large amount of enjoyment out of it, but the novelty will wear off.

Why will the novelty wear off? Because we are learning creatures. We get enjoyment from learning of new things, not from repeated exposure to the exact same things.
Why do you insist on novelty? Yes, complacency is bad, but what more could you want beyond perfection? Isn't satisfaction sufficient? Is your dissatisfaction with perfection an issue with the item, or with your expectations for the item?

Yes, predictable is boring, even if it is used correctly.
No, it's not. It may seem boring, but only because you're not using it for its purpose. Do you need to be absolutely enthralled by it? No. Does it even need to entertain you? No. That is not the purpose of all things. A perfect hammer need not be interesting in and of itself, but it is not boring... what would that even mean for a hammer? Wouldn't the perfection of a hammer be dependent on its ability to perform its function?

And for those things which do have the purpose of entertainment... many works considered great are so complex, so multi-faceted, that they can be reviewed time and again, each time finding something new to enjoy. Wouldn't a perfect form of entertainment be even more so?

[Lord Raziere]

...That... you...

...You've confirmed one thing. I can't argue with you over the internet, as the issues I have with your philosophy are so fundamental, so foundational that I don't think we could ever explain anything in a satisfactory manner to each other.

It may suffice to say that my view is that absolute, universal truth is the foundation on which all knowledge is built.



You may believe that if you want. Its your imperfection to believe. I am glad of this. we need disagreements, without which we don't have doubt! and without doubt and questioning, we wouldn't have science, and I am thankful of science, it wrought wonders for us, is the very essence of improvement, which is built upon the very knowledge you believe in. Thank you for disagreeing with me!

[Kallisti]

Perfect can mean "flawless", but it can also mean "as good as it is possible to be" or "everything that I want or need it to be". It's the latter defintions that apply when using "perfect" to describe relationships.

This. 'Everything I want or need it to be' is generally what I mean when I describe something as perfect. After all, for a thing to be 'perfect', there must be some ideal for us to compare it to, so ultimately perfection must be about fulfilling some expectation or function--be it to manufacture a good, or inspire an emotion, or whatever else we may build towards.

Of course, that's not the literal dictionary definition of perfect, but I feel that it's a useful concept, and 'perfect' is the closest English word to express it.

Take Neil Gaiman's Sandman--I call it perfect, because it provided everything I wanted out of it, even things I didn't know I wanted going in.

[Objection]

Why do you insist on novelty? Yes, complacency is bad, but what more could you want beyond perfection? Isn't satisfaction sufficient? Is your dissatisfaction with perfection an issue with the item, or with your expectations for the item?

I could ask why you believe satisfaction is sufficient, since to me that looks like you are conflating satisfactory with perfect (if you are then I'd like to see you try explaining why everyone uses formal or informal grades above satisfactory).


No, it's not. It may seem boring, but only because you're not using it for its purpose. Do you need to be absolutely enthralled by it? No. Does it even need to entertain you? No. That is not the purpose of all things. A perfect hammer need not be interesting in and of itself, but it is not boring... what would that even mean for a hammer? Wouldn't the perfection of a hammer be dependent on its ability to perform its function?

And for those things which do have the purpose of entertainment... many works considered great are so complex, so multi-faceted, that they can be reviewed time and again, each time finding something new to enjoy. Wouldn't a perfect form of entertainment be even more so?

OK, first of all, all things are boring or exciting to some degree, just as all things are hot or cold to some degree.

Secondly, if you claim that something does not need to entertain to be perfect, then are you also suggesting that something that is boring is not necessarily imperfect?

Thirdly, the perfect form of entertainment you describe would require infinite facets, and last time I checked, infinite anything (except maybe universe or human stupidity ... or just human stupidity) is not possible to achieve.

[Flame of Anor]

...You've confirmed one thing. I can't argue with you over the internet, as the issues I have with your philosophy are so fundamental, so foundational that I don't think we could ever explain anything in a satisfactory manner to each other.

It may suffice to say that my view is that absolute, universal truth is the foundation on which all knowledge is built.

I agree wholeheartedly with your philosophical views, and (perhaps more relevant in context) I also admire your understanding that such arguments are really never solved over the internet. That's something I took a while, and several acrimonious GitP threads, to figure out.

I don't think there's much more to be said in this thread. Everyone has stated their positions, and though there are many things I could say about (for example) the definitions of "satisfaction" and "boring", I doubt anyone is going to be convinced on either side.

I suppose I will have to be satisfied with the knowledge that, among the many more or less short-sighted people in the world, there are some (Mando Knight) who still value true wisdom. To the rest of you, I say only this: that if you do not allow yourself to believe in true perfection, you can never have the joy of seeking it.

[gooddragon1]

Not in Diablo 2.

Perfect Emerald
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080816150145/diablo/images/5/5c/Perfectemerald.gif
Flawless Emerald
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080816150140/diablo/images/7/7d/Flawlessemerald.gif
Emerald (http://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Emerald)

:D :P

[Lord Raziere]

To the rest of you, I say only this: that if you do not allow yourself to believe in true perfection, you can never have the joy of seeking it.

Thank you for disagreeing with me.

I prefer accepting the world as it is: imperfect in its ever-changing balance. For imperfection is balance, the seeking of perfection is imbalance, for the seeking itself is imperfect, because the world is imperfect and it is awesome that way. Why seek joy when I can find it all around me?

[SiuiS]

"Nothing beautiful is perfect."

Your OP points of view seem to be about whether perfection is a categorical tag or in the eye of the beholder; if somepony finds a perfect thing lacking, is it still perfect despite their standards? Is a thing which is otherwise flawed perfect because somepony thinks it is?

In the end I have to side with the Doji family. Perfection is not an end to be met, but a process, and our constant duty in his life. Striving for perfection is valuable, being perfect is not.

[Elder Tsofu]

I wrote a long post, but realized I could summarise it along these lines...

If you see flaws in someone's perfection it is because what you see isn't perfection, at least to you. If you see flaws when you try to imagine perfection it is because your view of perfection is flawed, not perfection.

[Sholos]

I think the main problem is that perfection, as a concept or actualization, is just so completely foreign to humanity that we can't really get a good grasp on what it actually is. It's kind of like the concept of something being infinite. There's aren't a whole lot of people who really grasp what that means. Hence the arguments that it can't exist because we can't really understand it.

Most people equate "infinite" with "whole lots of bunches of stuff", even though that's not true. Take the graph y = 1/x for example. No matter how far out you go on the x-axis, y never equals 0. Not even for really, really large values of x. The limit as x approaches infinity, however, is 0. I've seen more than one person believe that that means y does in fact reach 0 at some point.

Another example is the decimal form of 1/3, that of repeating 3s after the decimal. A lot of people just think it eventually stops, as opposed to literally having an infinite amount of 3s. And let's not even get started on the differences between "countably infinite" and "uncountably infinite".

The fact that most (if not all in actuality) people don't really understand the concept of infinity is no reason to say that some things aren't infinite, or at least certainly isn't proof that such things don't exist. The same goes with perfection. Is there a version of something that could be called perfect? Maybe. Is there any way of a human being describing such a thing (let alone making it) perfectly? Again, maybe, but I think it's kind of silly to completely dismiss perfection just because one can't come up with an example. That's why things like the P = NP problem are still around. No one's come up with anything that proves it either way, so it's not assumed by anyone to be either way. It is accepted that it's not known. I think the same approach should be taken with perfection until it is proved either way.

[pendell]

My problem with the concept of perfection is that it assumes a static point you can reach. Once reached, you no longer have to change.

It doesn't work that way in computer programs.

The program I wrote in 2003 in VB6 may have been perfect back then, but the world has changed. 64 bit computers have replaced 32 bit computers. The .NET framework has replaced the .COM architecture.

If you're not constantly revising and upgrading, there's a pretty good chance your "perfect" program won't even run in three years time!

Why should humans be any different?

So it occurs to me that a person could only be 'perfect' if they lived in a static, unchanging, already perfect world. In a world where things are fluid and uncertain, "perfection" is not possible. You may be perfect in 2003 -- but if you haven't changed in ten years you will be woefully ill-equipped to deal with even simple things.

So I think the best thing a human being can do is to constantly struggle to be the best she/he can be. "Perfection" is a goal to shoot for, but it is an ideal, something unattainable in the world as it is.

Perhaps you're familiar with Plato's Allegory of the cave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave)? Perfection is like that. It is something that we can conceive of and idealize, but Perfection, like Truth or Beauty, is something that we don't meet in the actual world. It's an artifact of the Ideal, not of the Real. We can aim to bring ourselves and the world around us closer to that ideal, strive for it with all our might, but we shouldn't ever be under the illusion that we can ever realize the ideal fully and completely here in Arda Marred.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Karoht]

So my wife and I were talking about our marriage, and we got to talking about people with the perfect marriage. The idea of perfect has come up elsewhere, but I decided I'd see what everyone else things.

In my mind, there are two reasonable points of view regarding when something can be considered perfect (though there could certainly be others):
1) something cannot be perfect if it has a flaw. In other words, if there is any room for improvement, it is not perfect. Something perfect is flawless.
2) there is perfection in our everyday lives. You may think your spouse or significant other or job or child is perfect. Obviously as humans we have flaws, but this is sort of a... perfect in their own way kind of perfection.

What does everyone think? And please don't just hyperlink the dictionary or something.


Something can be perfect if you don't consider the flaws. In other words, if you can ignore them to the point where they are non-existant.
If it's not a problem, how relevant is the flaw? If the flaw is non-relevant, it may as well be non-existant.

I think you get where I'm going with that.

Perhaps the phrase we're looking for is "perfect enough" I dunno.

Then there's the fact that some imperfections can be fun.

[Elder Tsofu]

My problem with the concept of perfection is that it assumes a static point you can reach. Once reached, you no longer have to change.

It doesn't work that way in computer programs.

The program I wrote in 2003 in VB6 may have been perfect back then, but the world has changed. 64 bit computers have replaced 32 bit computers. The .NET framework has replaced the .COM architecture.

If you're not constantly revising and upgrading, there's a pretty good chance your "perfect" program won't even run in three years time!

If it was perfect back then it is perfect now, for the systems it was designed for in 2003. There couldn't have been a program better for its task, and there never will be (otherwise it didn't reach perfection).
If you specify conditions like that its easier to claim perfection, but not easy. But proving a claim of something general like "the perfect hammer" will be much harder to do since it would have to excel at all tasks hammers have been and will be used for. Specifying it to "the perfect hammer for driving this nail into this plank within the next 10 seconds" would be a way to twist this way of thinking to the other extreme though.

[pendell]

Mando Knight,

Can I quickly butt in on an earlier comment you made?



Why do you insist on novelty? Yes, complacency is bad, but what more could you want beyond perfection? Isn't satisfaction sufficient? Is your dissatisfaction with perfection an issue with the item, or with your expectations for the item?


I would argue that sufficiency or "meets expectations" is not perfection.

In a previous job, an evaluation form read as follows:
[] Often exceeds expectations.
[] Regularly exceeds expectations
[] Occasionally exceeds expectations
[] Meets expectations
[] Does not meet expectations

=====

If you wanted to keep your job, you had to check that top box.

To my mind, "meeting expectations" is not a laudable goal. True perfection comes from going beyond the written expectations and expanding or improving on them.

So you've invented the perfect buggy whip? Then go on and invent the car.

So you've invented the perfect car? Then why not invent teleportation?

It goes without saying that this kind of attitude is the opposite of "perfectionism". Perfectionism is essentially a defensive attitude, in which one settles on One Right Way To Do Things and adheres rigidly to it. Any deviation must be punished. By contrast, the method I describe encourages deviation, because you can't excel if you aren't willing to go outside the lines.

I hope I can say this: To me, it is not so much perfection I pursue, but excellence. Glory. And the objective is not to simply obtain glory and rest on our laurels, but to move "from glory to glory" -- to use current success as a stepping stone to future success, never taking any point as an end point, always seeking more and better. In a way, it is very similar to ambition, but is the kind of ambition that the ancients would laud, rather than condemn.

Possibly perfection can be described as reaching the top of a mountain. But once you've reached the top of the mountain, the next step is to seek a new mountain that's higher.

The point I'm trying to make is that "meets expectations" is a very low bar for perfection, something that not even employers will accept, who aren't noted for their desire to hire perfect human beings :). But once you put "always strives to exceeds expectations, always sets the bar higher" in the definition of perfection , there's no way you could ever meet perfection. The very definition I describe precludes the possibility of ever fulfilling it.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I think that "perfect" needs to become less associated with "ideal", because it's in the concept of conforming to an "ideal" that we really run into sterility and blandness.

There is an ideal circle, an ideal human, an ideal color red...but none of them exist in actuality. There will always be a divergence from the "pattern", so to speak.

Perfection is different, because something which is perfect is something that fully realizes itself. The perfect you is, well, everything that makes up "you", in the truest sense. The perfect marriage, well, that's actually something subjective, because it'll change according to who the marriage is between, though many common elements will exist.

An ideal thing is evaluated according to an external standard. A perfect thing is evaluated according to the standard of fulfillment, of actualization.

At least, that's how I view the whole thing. Ideals are sterile; perfections are alive.

[Mando Knight]

I could ask why you believe satisfaction is sufficient, since to me that looks like you are conflating satisfactory with perfect (if you are then I'd like to see you try explaining why everyone uses formal or informal grades above satisfactory).
Satisfaction is not itself sufficient, satisfaction with perfection is. It isn't "mere" satisfaction, and contentment is not complacency. If infinite good is not sufficient good, then what is? What more can you wish for beyond perfection?

My problem with the concept of perfection is that it assumes a static point you can reach. Once reached, you no longer have to change.My assumption is that perfection is a limit toward which mortal efforts can grow near yet never fully reach, like the value of y at x=0 for y=1/x.
If you're not constantly revising and upgrading, there's a pretty good chance your "perfect" program won't even run in three years time!
Then obviously, your program isn't truly perfect, since it is dependent on a system that itself wasn't yet perfect. :smalltongue:

[Asta Kask]

Perfection is unreachable because there are always trade-offs to be made.

[pendell]

My assumption is that perfection is a limit toward which mortal efforts can grow near yet never fully reach, like the value of y at x=0 for y=1/x.


Then why is the concept useful? Why not simply say "however well I did yesterday, tomorrow I will aim higher?" Why aim for an ideal target you can never hit?

Regardless of whether I always strive to improve , or if I fix for myself a target higher than I am aiming at now, which I will never hit, is not the end result the same? A constant striving for improvement while on this mortal plane?



If infinite good is not sufficient good, then what is? What more can you wish for beyond perfection?


Greater perfection?

All infinite means is "unquantifiable". It doesn't mean that there is nothing greater.

ETA: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_%28philosophy%29) discusses the concept. In particular, I find this bit intriguing:



The Jains were the first to discard the idea that all infinites were the same or equal. They recognized different types of infinities: infinite in length (one dimension), infinite in area (two dimensions), infinite in volume (three dimensions), and infinite perpetually (infinite number of dimensions).

According to Singh (1987), Joseph (2000) and Agrawal (2000), the highest enumerable number N of the Jains corresponds to the modern concept of aleph-null \aleph_0 (the cardinal number of the infinite set of integers 1, 2, ...), the smallest cardinal transfinite number. The Jains also defined a whole system of infinite cardinal numbers, of which the highest enumerable number N is the smallest.

In the Jaina work on the theory of sets, two basic types of infinite numbers are distinguished. On both physical and ontological grounds, a distinction was made between asaṃkhyāta ("countless, innumerable") and ananta ("endless, unlimited"), between rigidly bounded and loosely bounded infinities.


Consider: Both the set of integers and the set of real numbers is infinite. But the set of real numbers is .. to put it very crudely .. "larger" because you can't map the set of integers to the set of real numbers.

If I map 1 to 1.0 and 2 to 2.0, I've missed 1.1 ... 1.9.
If I map 1 to 1.0 and 2 to 1.1, I've missed 1.01 .. 1.99
If I map 1 to 1.0 and 2 to 1.01 I've missed 1.001 .. 1.009

And so on.

So you see I've hit a three-fer: Despite the fact that both sets are infinite, no matter how hard I try to map the two infinite sets to each other, I am still missing numbers! And the number of things I am missing is literally infinite!

The point I am trying to get at is that "infinite" does not mean the same as "achieved maximum value". I don't believe "infinite" is like 2^32 on a 32 bit computer system, where it is literally impossible to assign a higher value.

No, all infinite means is that you can't quantify the number. It doesn't mean that there aren't other infinities to strive for.

So I, for one, will not settle for infinite good as sufficient good. Rather, I will seek to move from infinity to infinity, from glory to glory.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Maralais]

When I read the title, I first thought this was a discussion about perfection not being about having something awesome but being about having no flaws at all(to which I can point Shawshank Redemption as an example, in hindsight it lacked epicness, but it had no flaws at all[Plus Morgan Freeman], which makes it #1 on IMdb[not that IMdb is always a reliable source for ideas, I just happen to agree with it]), but anyway, off I go with my rambling.


I think that "perfect" needs to become less associated with "ideal", because it's in the concept of conforming to an "ideal" that we really run into sterility and blandness.

I'd say it is quite the contrary, ideal and perfect have, imo, quite similar meanings or are synonymous, as having a flaw means deviating from the way it is supposed to be, and ideal means the way it is supposed to be and if we take the definition of perfect as flawless, we see that those two are equivalent(and I do take its definition so).

And yes, it would mean that perfection is lifeless, but I kind of support Eastern Philosophies about that. Life, when examined carefully, is quite imperfect. Breathing is quite inefficient in terms of energy conversion, organisms have all sorts of problems and awkwardnesses etc...(I know these are not helpful for philosophical demonstrations, but they help to get the picture) Yet when looked as a whole, the universe is in fact, quite perfect. Unity, equivalent exchange... It works just as it should, so, perfect.

Thus, my conclusion: Perfection only exists in the universe as a whole, but(just as many others said it) that is no reason to stop chasing perfection.

[Flame of Anor]

If you see flaws when you try to imagine perfection it is because your view of perfection is flawed, not perfection.


I think the main problem is that perfection, as a concept or actualization, is just so completely foreign to humanity that we can't really get a good grasp on what it actually is.

I think these together are a good summary of why many people in this thread are not understanding the concept of perfection.


Then why is the concept useful? Why not simply say "however well I did yesterday, tomorrow I will aim higher?" Why aim for an ideal target you can never hit?

You can only "aim higher" if you have a definition of "up". In the moral sense, "up" is "towards perfection".


Consider: Both the set of integers and the set of real numbers is infinite. But the set of real numbers is .. to put it very crudely .. "larger" because you can't map the set of integers to the set of real numbers.

Oddly enough, the set of rational numbers is the same size as the set of integers.

[Lord Raziere]

Perfection is unreachable because there are always trade-offs to be made.

Exactly. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Perfection would be an existence where we could both at the same time, all the time.

@ Flame of Anor: There is no concept of perfection to understand. It does not exist.

[pendell]

Oddly enough, the set of rational numbers is the same size as the set of integers.


Perhaps, but you still can't map one set to another. Despite the fact that both sets are unbounded, any attempt to map integers to real numbers will fail. By contrast, it IS possible to do it the other way -- to assign a real number to a corresponding integer.

The two are both infinite but that does not mean they are identical. And both, like any other infinity, can be conceived of but not actualized here in the world we live in.

Come to think of it, I submit that concepts like 'infinity' , 'absolute truth', 'perfection', and 'beauty' are all related in that they are ideal concepts that we can at best see reflected or dimly portrayed here in the world we inhabit. We can imagine the concept, but we cannot actualize them.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Objection]

Satisfaction is not itself sufficient, satisfaction with perfection is. It isn't "mere" satisfaction, and contentment is not complacency. If infinite good is not sufficient good, then what is? What more can you wish for beyond perfection?

And now you're saying that, for something to be perfect, it requires perfection. I'll just disregard that tautology as it does nothing to support any claims you are making.

To quote me quoting someone else earlier: "Perfection is not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away." Infinite good is not good enough. There must also be zero bad.

[Flame of Anor]

Perhaps, but you still can't map one set to another. Despite the fact that both sets are unbounded, any attempt to map integers to real numbers will fail. By contrast, it IS possible to do it the other way -- to assign a real number to a corresponding integer.

I said rational numbers, not real numbers. :smallwink: And those can be mapped to the naturals. http://www.gauge-institute.org/zigzag/cantorzigzagP.pdf Diagram on page 4.


@ Lord Raziere: you still haven't given evidence for that, or explained what, instead of perfection, defines your moral "higher".

[Mando Knight]

And now you're saying that, for something to be perfect, it requires perfection. I'll just disregard that tautology as it does nothing to support any claims you are making.
...:smallsigh:

You're missing the point. Your issue with perfection is that the novelty of it wears off. So what? Haven't you been content before? Or satisfied? That's what I'm talking about. If a perfect item cannot fulfill your needs in regards to its purpose, then what will? And wouldn't that thing be the more perfect item?

[Objection]

...:smallsigh:

You're missing the point. Your issue with perfection is that the novelty of it wears off. So what? Haven't you been content before? Or satisfied? That's what I'm talking about. If a perfect item cannot fulfill your needs in regards to its purpose, then what will? And wouldn't that thing be the more perfect item?

Just because I am content or satisfied with something doesn't mean it couldn't be better. If it can be better, then it is not perfect. Also, just because I am content or satisfied with something once doesn't mean I will always be content or satisfied with it. What I as a human being want/need changes frequently and for something to be perfect, it would have to keep up with these wants/needs. At the same time, however, something has to not require any further changes in order to be perfect, because if it does require changes, then those changes would make it better, which brings me back to "If it can be better, then it is not perfect." Thus, for something to be perfect, it needs to have everlasting novelty without ever changing, which is contradictory. This contradiction is why perfection cannot exist.

[Elder Tsofu]

Why would it need to be never-changing? Wouldn't the perfect thing for you be if it could change itself to fit your needs perfectly over time? A complex process which would probably involve quite a lot of people, but complex solutions to complex needs...

But I think you miss the target with your static thinking, if you change the requirements on the task for the perfect item (ie. your needs) then of course it will not be perfect for you it. That doesn't mean that a second perfect item couldn't be made for your new requirements while the old one is still perfect for its original task.

[Lord Raziere]

I said rational numbers, not real numbers. :smallwink: And those can be mapped to the naturals. http://www.gauge-institute.org/zigzag/cantorzigzagP.pdf Diagram on page 4.


@ Lord Raziere: you still haven't given evidence for that, or explained what, instead of perfection, defines your moral "higher".

Balance.
No one thing dominates me. imperfection is balance. perfection is imbalance, because perfection is purity, and purity tries to destroy everything around so that it all can be pure- or the purity becomes impure and therefore imperfect.

The world is imperfect, therefore it is balanced. It is balanced, therefore it is imperfect, attempts at perfection only lead to imbalance. an imbalance of selfishness is the attempt to perfect selfishness, an imbalance of oppression is an attempt to perfect oppression. To attempt to perfect freedom would lead to anarchy, and you cannot perfect balance itself, because imperfection and balance are the same thing.

however keeping things the same would be to perfect stasis, therefore the world is ever-changing to one state of imperfection to another to achieve different imperfect balances. This is all normal. Science for example may invent something new, but while the invention might solve one problem it causes another problem to replace it.

therefore: ever-changing balance. one must adapt and be pragmatic, find new balances for each new imperfect situation, as to stick to any one code and try to apply it to everything would be attempting to impose perfection on things. the only moral "higher" is an ever shifting one that is best at the time, one that is unique to every problem, so that you can find the best thing to do in any given situation.

[Scarlet Knight]

I am not a student of Eastern Philosophy, but aren't there whole religions who strive to reach perfection? Even when washing a plate, you strive to wash it the best way possible, and change if you discover better ways? You don't beat yourself up over not reaching perfection, as the journey is important. But that doesn't mean that the ideal does not exist. Kind of like a line that a tangent approaches but never touches.

[Mando Knight]

What I as a human being want/need changes frequently and for something to be perfect, it would have to keep up with these wants/needs.The imperfection here lies with humanity, not the theoretically perfect item.
Thus, for something to be perfect, it needs to have everlasting novelty
Novelty is good, wonder is fine, but understanding and satisfaction are stable states of good, what novelty and wonder work towards.

[Karoht]

I love the line about perfection in Tron Legacy.

It's impossible because it's unknowable, and yet it's always right there in front of us.

Bad paraphrasing is bad, but you get the gist.