Perfection

[DossarLX ODI]

Perfection is an abstract idea about having no flaws. However, putting it into perspective of our world, perfection itself seems more of a detrimental idea.

It is noticeable in religion. Deities are given human traits, even to the point where the Gods have the temper of a 5 year old child. Then, the endless cruelty that happens can simply be used against said deity to not be perfect because of all the bad things happening. I don't want to focus this topic on religion however because religion itself is a human construct, so by that very fact applying perfection to it would be inappropriate.

Basically I want some input on perfection as a concept, because I feel like our society puts too much emphasis on "being the perfect person" which can create many personal conflicts. Throughout my academic career, many times the big picture is not given in classes -- it's just a repeated sequence of study, test, study, test; however the professors try to appear to be the perfect professional. A person could be an engineer with great technical knowledge, but still be of average productivity in a company. Someone could get plastic surgery to get that "perfect" look. But to me, perfection just seems to be more about selfishness and self-image.

[Arntonach]

Perfection and it's ideal seem, to me, an obstacle one must overpass in order to understand their self worth and how they can improve it as well as others. The concept of perfection has more in line with trying to obtain flawless pride, which itself is noted as one of the seven deadly sins. This isn't saying that perfectionists aim to sin without guilt, but to know that they have done everything they possibly can without reservations. That line of thinking just leads to people disregarding their own mistakes and faults as something they to fix rather than something they have to live with. As long as someone believes that, they'll only be lying to themselves, and in practice be imperfect due to the obsession of being perfect. Plus, the vain attempt of being perfect doesn't really solve much, it just adds more to people's plate than they usually need, which can end in tragedy or worse.

It really is just a dream that people need to realize for as it is, otherwise they'll won't be at peace with themselves.

[mi40]

hopefully ur not in philo1 right now cause if you are i'm laughing

anyways perfection is a concept that measures achievement or progress

it can be arbitrary or set in stone (ex. perfect look vs perfect score in bowling)

either way the concept of perfection isn't detrimental - it's selected ways in which people go about striving for perfection that's detrimental

you're focusing on the more obvious aspects of perfection but you're leaving out millions of other cases where perfection has benefits

striving for perfection in aviation lets us fly thousands of feet up without worries & minimizes chances of accidents

striving for perfection in looks gives some people much needed self confidence boosts.. it's all different from person to person so generalizing perfection as a detrimental concept is dumb imo

[V-Ormix]

sounds like perfection is just a standard to be met or surpassed much like a goal set cause you'd consider the best in the world to be as close to perfection as it gets. all and all its a word?

[DossarLX ODI]

Originally Posted by mi40

hopefully ur not in philo1 right now cause if you are i'm laughing

No, and in my ethics class last semester we didn't even talk about perfection. It's just something that has been on my mind and wanted some input on.

The cases I was referring to fit in with Arntonach's post. Figures in history such as Hitler tried to make themselves look perfect, but it was just dreams that led to immense tragedy.

From your post however it looks like the biggest mistake I made was generalizing perfection as something arbitrary when it can also be an objective measurement (like your aviation example, preventing flight disasters from happening).

[rushyrulz]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Reincarnate]

Perfection is just setting up an arbitrary goal and then evaluating how close to that goal you are. All in all, it's still a subjective concept (even when you consider the "objectively measured" examples mentioned earlier).

Maybe we consider a perfect flight one where nobody is killed or injured. Why would it not be perfect otherwise? Because we'd be causing a great deal of utility loss (death is something that causes a lot of unhappiness). But there are many ways to cause utility loss, so maybe we have to constrain our definition to things like "casualties and injuries only." So with respect to casualties and injuries, we can have a "perfect" flight because we have a particular goal, and we met it's criteria.

But is it a "perfect" flight in a general sense? Well, there are many ways to cause disutility. Maybe there's a crying baby, maybe the flight is too long, etc, causing a suboptimal utility impact, and therefore a non-perfect flight. So to generalize, a "perfect" flight is one in which the utility of everyone on-board is maximized, where it is not possible to get a better result.

*We could argue that it's utility-maximizing to avoid flights altogether (say, theoretically, teleportation) but then we're talking about generalized utility of life itself and not the plane (for you fucking pedants out there).

Also, what if I make a "perfect" dinner that gives one person insane levels of utility gain but everyone else a utility loss? Is a gain of X in one individual as "optimal" as a gain of X/n across n people even though the net gain across the distribution is the same?

My point here is that "perfection" is entirely subjective and dependent on how you constrain criteria and what kind of utility distribution you care about. Even the kind of perfection that can be objectively measured/quantified is still being evaluated on an arbitrary goal derived from arbitrary utility concerns.


EDIT: For those who are curious, by "utility" I refer to the financey mathy statsy sciencey businessey definition, which for all intents and purposes can be thought of as a "measure of satisfaction/happiness" -- http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utility.asp

A fun example of utility gone awry (and why the distribution matters in the end, lol):

[Arkuski]

Originally Posted by DossarLX ODI

Basically I want some input on perfection as a concept, because I feel like our society puts too much emphasis on "being the perfect person" which can create many personal conflicts.

Where have you been for the past 10 years? The media has been endlessly pushing themes of acceptance and self-esteem.

[Cavernio]

Since when is perfection a measurement of 1 specific thing? Perfection by definition would need to fit ALL levels of measurement for perfection we could ever dream of for it. A perfect professor, for instance, would have inspirational teaching and be uber productive. The complaint the dossar has about perfection is that perfection isn't perfect enough.
I know, what's bothering me is largely semantical in nature, but as long as one realizes that any given measure of perfection in 1 category probably means some detriment in another category, I don't see the problem with striving for perfection.

[devonin]

The problem with perfection for subjective things is that they are subjective so you can't actually define what would make something subjectively perfect beyond "It is my personal opinion that it is perfect" which really means nothing.

'Subjectively perfect' is a bit of an oxymoron.

[21992]

Ironic that the person who pretty much sets the standard of perfection is asking about it. In a sense perfection would mean that everything does, is , will be, was everything. Perfection is something we strive for but know we can't reach. Ideally something perfect would be so perfect that it couldn't be measured by anything other than something perfect in which the perfect thing judging the other perfect thing must be judged by another perfect thing. So if one thing were to be perfect then it wouldn't look perfect juxtapose to anything else because everything is perfect. But like I stated earlier perfection can't be achieved, because as devonin said perfection isn't a measured object, it's estimated around people's ideas. I guess this explanation isn't perfect either as is nothing (it's nice to know that nothing is perfect, isn't it?).

[boomakuaku]

First post wish me luck.
In my humble opinion perfection is a human ideal that we seek to flesh out. I do believe it is subjective. To exemplify what I mean and using this site as an example, say someone is creating a stepfile to a song and in their mind they have an ideal of what it is they want. Upon completing the stepfile the stepartist(?) takes a step back and reviews their work. If they feel something is missing or that they could have done better then I'd say they were imperfect. On the other hand if they were to review the work and find themselves satisfied then I believe that their idea was perfectly translated.

As to why I believe it is subjective because I find that it is a human notion and perfection, to me, is generally referred to in the arts. I'm sure there is some insight to be found in the way we count some of the arrows as perfect while playing FFR or Stepmania.

I'm sure Plato could argue that perfection is objective that it exists in a perfect parallel universe(I'm not implying this I am just saying he could argue in this way). I'm trying not to ramble, but I believe this may contribute a little bit. One of my old professors used this example in explaining some of Plato's concepts. While my professor and his friend were at some sort of parade, his friend whispered in his hear to check out some lady on the balcony next to them and how he thought she was very beautifully. My professor did not think the same he thought she was very average. Then his friend pointed out another girl next to her and asked my professor's opinion about her beauty. His friend replied "Man, how is it that I look at one girl and think she is fine and you don't, but when we look at someone else we can both find her equally beautiful?"
I know I'm gonna fumble this last part a bit so bare with me. He told his friend how Plato would say beauty has a perfection. The girl they both found to be beautiful was more resemblant to this perfect form of beauty than the first. Because I think I am too wordy I am going to stop here. I'm sure you can also see how this could be subjective as well.

I really enjoy the CT threads so I will try to post in here not only to keep it alive, but to also try and keep it interesting. Sorry if I am disorganized in my thoughts. It is something I am trying to work on as time goes on.

[stargroup100]

sigh goddammit everything I wanted to say was covered by rubix already ONCE AGAIN goddammit rubix

So in short, I see two kinds of "perfection" as a term. You're either referring to a very objective goal, and trying to achieve this as closely as possible, or referring to a subjective term, where we strive for the optimal result over either some qualitative and/or covering multiple dimensions/aspects/utilities/etc. The dictionary term says it means it has no flaws or defects, that something perfect can't be made better. There are ways of defining what one considers flaws or defects within a certain context. Outside of this context, it might no longer be true, because different/more things are considered flaws/defects.

[Spenner]

Perfection is just an imagined ideal circumstance or outcome, whether or not it is reachable.

On the subjectivity of it for people being perfect or not, it can always be refuted. For that reason I don't think it applies objectively to human tastes.