Perfection

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, I get your point, and I'm not suggesting that we ban the word "perfect". It's perfectly fine to use it informally, but I was thinking about when it is used in earnest, as when, for example, God is described as the perfect being.

It's funny, I would have said almost the opposite. It can be a problem when it is used not in earnest - when it can be fine - but as some kind of technical assertion. As a rational assessment.

The emotions in the earnestness testify to the subjective.

That said, I'd like to leave open objective use of perfect, as in without flaw.

A 300 bowling game.

You do some CPR on your dad...and it works.

I suppose you could have done cpr on him and at the same time you unintentionally correct his spine chiropractically. But I'd consider both interventions perfect.

You buy the winning lottery ticket, the top prize one. A perfect purchase of that day's lottery tickets.

[Harbal]

Yes, I get your point, and I'm not suggesting that we ban the word "perfect". It's perfectly fine to use it informally, but I was thinking about when it is used in earnest, as when, for example, God is described as the perfect being.

It's funny, I would have said almost the opposite. It can be a problem when it is used not in earnest - when it can be fine - but as some kind of technical assertion. As a rational assessment.

The emotions in the earnestness testify to the subjective.

That said, I'd like to leave open objective use of perfect, as in without flaw.

A 300 bowling game.

You do some CPR on your dad...and it works.

I suppose you could have done cpr on him and at the same time you unintentionally correct his spine chiropractically. But I'd consider both interventions perfect.

You buy the winning lottery ticket, the top prize one. A perfect purchase of that day's lottery tickets.

Okay, I didn't start the thread to make assertions, just to air opinions, and yours is as good as anyone's.

[Iwannaplato]

Okay, I didn't start the thread to make assertions, just to air opinions, and yours is as good as anyone's.

I'll try not to corner you into an assertion, and thank you.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

God is said to be the perfect being, and I once heard Jamie Oliver claim to have made the perfect omelette, but is there really such a thing as perfection? It seems to me that perfection is only a relative term, and only makes sense in relation to a specific, objective point of view. And even when perfection is considered to have been achieved, how can the possibility of something a little bit better be totally dismissed. I think perfection is only a hypothetical state, and can never be more that something to aspire to.

And that is my less than perfect assessment of perfection.

Interesting. I guess it's what is meant by perfection. As annoying or perhaps paradoxical as it might seem I'd say that perfection must include what could be called flaws. An uttery symmetrical face, with both sides exactly the same, I think, would feel a bit odd, even if one was not conscious of the issue. I thought you were going to say the following:

It seems to me that perfection is only a relative term, and only makes sense in relation to a specific, subjective point of view.

I guess when we think of perfection, we might think sort of geometrically. The perfect circle.
I prefer Kandisky

to Noland....

and certainly to any perfect circle drawn by some AI.

Could one make a more perfect painting. Well, I like many artists better than Kandinsky, but I think perfection would be more like infinity. Infinitely + 1 (even a billion) = infinity.

I mean, I know this is babbling in a way. But I neither want to lose the word perfection nor think that, well, perfect things are perfect in the engineering drawing sense.

I don't know what could be better than a hummingbird. Like it flies to my window, hovers then shoots off. The next day I see a more perfect hummingbird? I dunno.

Something about the thing/person/being AND its relation to me is where the perfection lies. We're both responsible.

Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery

So, I am not with Michaelangelo...

The true work of art is but a shadow of the divine perfection.
Michelangelo

and more on team St. Augustine (and the oft forgotten in philosophical contexts-Taylor Swift)

This is the very perfection of a man, to find out his own imperfections-Saint Augustine

I think the perfection of love is that it's not perfect-Taylor Swift

And then the otherwise mainly ignorable Marc Jacobs....

I don't love Photoshop; I like imperfection. It doesn't mean ugly. I love a girl with a gap between her teeth, versus perfect white veneers. Perfection is just... boring. Perfect is what's natural or real; that is beauty.
Marc Jacobs

These are my appeals to authority and that should say something about perfection that they are the authorities I am appealing to or would like to think I am, in any case.

Perfectly symmetrical faces don't exist, although some are more symmetrical than others. We all have 'perfect' faces, in the sense that we have the face we are supposed to have (within reason) which is why meddling with it via plastic surgery only results in freakish faces.
Here's Marilyn Monroe's actual photo along with two 'perfectly symmetrical' mirror image photos.

marilyn.jpg (15.58 KiB) Viewed 778 times

[attofishpi]

Perfectly symmetrical faces don't exist, although some are more symmetrical than others. We all have 'perfect' faces, in the sense that we have the face we are supposed to have (within reason) which is why meddling with it via plastic surgery only results in freakish faces.
Here's Marilyn Monroe's actual photo along with two 'perfectly symmetrical' mirror image photos.

marilyn.jpg

The top pic looks lop-sided and ugly.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Perfectly symmetrical faces don't exist, although some are more symmetrical than others. We all have 'perfect' faces, in the sense that we have the face we are supposed to have (within reason) which is why meddling with it via plastic surgery only results in freakish faces.
Here's Marilyn Monroe's actual photo along with two 'perfectly symmetrical' mirror image photos.

marilyn.jpg

The top pic looks lop-sided and ugly.

Are you jealous?

[attofishpi]

Perfectly symmetrical faces don't exist, although some are more symmetrical than others. We all have 'perfect' faces, in the sense that we have the face we are supposed to have (within reason) which is why meddling with it via plastic surgery only results in freakish faces.
Here's Marilyn Monroe's actual photo along with two 'perfectly symmetrical' mirror image photos.

marilyn.jpg

The top pic looks lop-sided and ugly.

Are you jealous?

About what!!?

Is your brain farting at you this morning?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The top pic looks lop-sided and ugly.

Are you jealous?

About what!!?

Is your brain farting at you this morning?

It was such a ridiculous comment. Marilyn Monroe is 'ugly' to you, or is that just more of your tedious, low-brow pommy humour?

[attofishpi]

Are you jealous?

About what!!?

Is your brain farting at you this morning?

It was such a ridiculous comment. Marilyn Monroe is 'ugly' to you, or is that just more of your tedious, low-brow pommy humour?

It's what we call "winding people up"

[Veritas Aequitas]

God is said to be the perfect being, ..
........

"Perfection" is one regular term I often bring up;

I posted this;

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.
1. Relative perfection
2. Absolute perfection

1. Relative perfection
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within man-made systems of empirically-based measurements.

2. Absolute perfection
Absolute perfection [Empirical] is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically. Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.
Absolute perfection [Transcendental] is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from pure reason and never the empirical at all. Such 'perfection' is attributed to God by the majority of theists.

Relative perfection can be real but must be qualified [relative] to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR], e.g. Geometry, objective tests, Gymnastics, Diving, Archery, perfect murder, etc.

Absolute Perfection [Empirical] is an impossibility and cannot be real empirically. It exists in thought as theoretical only but it is nevertheless useful as a standard.

Absolute Perfection [Transcendental - beyond the empirical] is obviously an impossibility to exist as real by default, but it is nevertheless useful for psychological purposes, i.e. to soothe the existential crisis.

That Absolute Perfection must be attributed to God is a critical necessity because no theists would want their God to be less perfect to [be kicked in the arse by] another greater perfect God.

P1. God [as real], must exists imperatively as absolutely perfect
P2. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
C. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists as real.

Related threads:
Impossible for God to Exist as Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Theism Soothes the Existential Angst
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=39204

[Advocate]

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=616892 time=1672632850 user_id=7896]
[quote=Harbal post_id=616767 time=1672576195 user_id=9107]
God is said to be the perfect being, ..
........
[/quote]
"Perfection" is one regular term I often bring up;

I [url=viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704]posted this[/url];

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.
1. Relative perfection
2. Absolute perfection

[b]1. Relative perfection[/b]
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within [b]man-made systems[/b] of empirically-based measurements.

[b]2. Absolute perfection[/b]
[b]Absolute perfection [Empirical] [/b]is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically. Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.
[b]Absolute perfection [Transcendental][/b] is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from [b]pure reason[/b] and never the empirical at all. Such 'perfection' is attributed to God by the majority of theists.

Relative perfection can be real but must be qualified [relative] to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR], e.g. Geometry, objective tests, Gymnastics, Diving, Archery, perfect murder, etc.

Absolute Perfection [Empirical] is an impossibility and cannot be real empirically. It exists in thought as theoretical only but it is nevertheless useful as a standard.

Absolute Perfection [Transcendental - beyond the empirical] is obviously an impossibility to exist as real by default, but it is nevertheless useful for psychological purposes, i.e. to soothe the existential crisis.

That Absolute Perfection must be attributed to God is a critical necessity because no theists would want their God to be less perfect to [be kicked in the arse by] another greater perfect God.

P1. God [as real], must exists imperatively as absolutely perfect
P2. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
C. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists as real.

Related threads:
[b]Impossible for God to Exist as Real[/b]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

[b]Theism Soothes the Existential Angst[/b]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=39204
[/quote]

Relative perfection is completeness relative to some imperfect goal. Perfection is a direction, not a destination. Or an approximate scale, not a perfect one.

[Advocate]

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=616892 time=1672632850 user_id=7896]
[quote=Harbal post_id=616767 time=1672576195 user_id=9107]
God is said to be the perfect being, ..
........
[/quote]
"Perfection" is one regular term I often bring up;

I [url=viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704]posted this[/url];

There are two types of perfection for philosophical consideration, i.e.
1. Relative perfection
2. Absolute perfection

[b]1. Relative perfection[/b]
If one's answers in an objective tests are ALL correct that is a 100% perfect score.
Perfect scores 10/10 or 7/7 used to be given to extra-ordinary performance in diving, gymnastics, skating, and the likes. So perfection from the relative perspective can happen and exist within [b]man-made systems[/b] of empirically-based measurements.

[b]2. Absolute perfection[/b]
[b]Absolute perfection [Empirical] [/b]is an impossibility in the empirical, thus exist only theoretically. Examples are perfect circle, square, triangle, etc.
[b]Absolute perfection [Transcendental][/b] is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from [b]pure reason[/b] and never the empirical at all. Such 'perfection' is attributed to God by the majority of theists.

Relative perfection can be real but must be qualified [relative] to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR], e.g. Geometry, objective tests, Gymnastics, Diving, Archery, perfect murder, etc.

Absolute Perfection [Empirical] is an impossibility and cannot be real empirically. It exists in thought as theoretical only but it is nevertheless useful as a standard.

Absolute Perfection [Transcendental - beyond the empirical] is obviously an impossibility to exist as real by default, but it is nevertheless useful for psychological purposes, i.e. to soothe the existential crisis.

That Absolute Perfection must be attributed to God is a critical necessity because no theists would want their God to be less perfect to [be kicked in the arse by] another greater perfect God.

P1. God [as real], must exists imperatively as absolutely perfect
P2. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
C. Therefore it is impossible for God to exists as real.

Related threads:
[b]Impossible for God to Exist as Real[/b]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

[b]Theism Soothes the Existential Angst[/b]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=39204
[/quote]

Relative perfection is completeness relative to some imperfect goal. Perfection is a direction, not a destination. Or an approximate scale, not a perfect one.