So, is there really an objective definition of perfection or could this word be used in different contexts with different meanings? — Patulia

The latter, definitely. :up: That's how many (most?) English words work.

Perfection is an absolute and can't be associated with any living thing or any form of art because the universe we live in, there is notthing absolute except for the speed of light. On the other hand perfection associated with divinity doesn't simply arise form the fact that God is far more superior than us also form his benevolent nature. If we remove the concept form of goodness from our our conception of God, than he is not perfect but simply a superior being whom we acknowledge and bow down to. All that I have said is simply my opinion which might differ form yours.

That's how many (most?) English words work. — Pattern-chaser

And English - all languages I reckon - is a creature that can chase its own tail and if not careful, bite hard (to their great surprise, if they're kittens or puppies). Simple example: something perfectly imperfect. The perfection of an imperfection.

Simple example: something perfectly imperfect. The perfection of an imperfection. — tim wood

Maybe that "something" is imperfect on its whole, but if we consider the fact that he is imperfect as a source of perfection we may consider it perfect. Or maybe is just a poetic way to say that one's imperfections might be simply perfect to another person. I don't know

That's how many (most?) English words work. — Pattern-chaser

And English - all languages I reckon - is a creature that can chase its own tail and if not careful, bite hard (to their great surprise, if they're kittens or puppies). Simple example: something perfectly imperfect. The perfection of an imperfection. — tim wood

OK, but how does that relate to whether there is "an objective definition of perfection"? :chin:

So, is there really an objective definition of perfection or could this word be used in different contexts with different meanings? — Patulia

OK, but how does that relate to whether there is "an objective definition of perfection"? — Pattern-chaser

Of course there is an objective definition of perfection - it just depends on what you mean.

I would disagree and say every atom is technically perfect unless you're lumping it in with light. Every proton is exactly the same meaning all matter is a point of perfection. Anything made out of atoms is then capable of perfection, depending on which aspects one is addressing. Just because something is not finite, doesn't mean it cannot be perfect, only imperfect of form.

I would disagree and say every atom is technically perfect unless you're lumping it in with light. — Razorback kitten

This is opinion, just as Sheik’s is an opinion. Of course opinions can disagree.

opinion? The only reason chemistry works is because atoms are quantised. You can't say they are anything other than perfect. Unless you disapprove of existing.

You can't say they are anything other than perfect. — Razorback kitten

Well, to me “perfection” is a value-laden term. I agree that atoms are, well, well-designed? Well-conceived? Adequate in their function? None of these seem right. Neither does “perfection.” Atoms just are.

Well it works fine if you take away the prerequisite of perfect having to be complex in some way, or being out of reach for human conceivability.

I think that's where the difference lies anyway. As I see very simplistic things as being perfect. The greater the complexity the greater the removal from perfection. But if the end result is achieving some higher purpose, like a being, the question opens up to perfection of consciousness. As far as that's concerned, we are the best level of consciousness, still less than perfect of course.

What about a snow flake?

Of course there is an objective definition of perfection - it just depends on what you mean. — tim wood

So you're fine with the concept of "something perfectly imperfect", and yet you think there's an objective definition of "perfection"? Does that make sense? :chin:

What about a snow flake? — Razorback kitten

Just the same as for atoms:

Atoms just are. — Noah Te Stroete

[My underlining.]

@Razorback Kitten, @Noah Te Stroete, @Patter-chaser and @Petulia

Perfection is a noun, and to me it means: the embodiment of perfect things. Perfect, on the other hand, is an adjective, and it means without flaws, totally.

If something is without flaws, and is something, then it is the Platonic Ideal of that thing. (Plus it has to exist and be forever unchanged, aside from being perfect, accroding to Plato / Socrates, "Republc" pp. 1-234.) And what is the Platonic ideal or Form? Something that embodies the essence, usefulness, utility, beauty, appearance, etc. etc. of all things that are that thing.

In this light, God is the embodiment of perfect things, and perfect things are perfect forms of things.

So God is not of this world, because things in this world are all imperfect. They all have flaws, and if you argue they don't, they still don't last forever. Which is a necessary part of being perfect.

Since god or God is perfect, and it only comprizes perfection, in every way, but not imperfection, and since this world is full of imperfect things, god or God can't be of this world.

Therefore, I reckon, there is a God out there somewhere, outside of our universe (necessarily by distance), and that god or God is perfect; and it is not present in our world, because God, in his perfectiojn, only encompasses perfect things, which our world, including its details and itself as whole, is far from perfect.

With regard to the notion of "perfectly imperfect" -- imperfect means not perfect. Perfectly means: in a way, that is flawless. Therefore something can be flawlessly full of flaws, since the first part applies to the entire expression of "full of flaws" or "having some flaws".

Perfectly imperfect therefore is not a self-contradiction of a term, or an oxymoron; it is, instead, a word with a redundancy. Anything imperfect is perfectly imperfect, since "perfectly" means "without flaws", and the "imperfect" includes some flaws, so it flawlessly satisfies the condition to have flaws. But anything that has flaws satisfies the condition to have flaws, therefore everything with flaws is flawlessly flawed, therefere every imperfeciton is perfectly imperfect.

@Petulia, Thank you for proving that the perfect everything does not exist. If I encounter therefore a god-worshipping person, who insists that his or her God is perfect in every way, then I can poof-poof him or her down. If he or she changes her mind, that god or God is perfect only positive, good ways, then it's acceptable, until such time that you prove in an a priori way, that that's also impossible.

If the religeous person insists that god is good and perfect in good ways, I can show him then that that god is not of this world, and can't have any reign over this world, since this world is not part of God.

You're welcome, I guess. Btw, it's not Petulia, it's Patulia .

I went over your bio, Patulia. Quite impressive, to attain such levels of philosophical insights as you have demonstrated, at such a young age as yours.

I used to belong to a club where one of the mottos in my local group was "Don't try to be clever. Everyone is clever here. Try to be kind."

Well, here on the philosophy forum, you can let your hair down and be as cruelly clever without any trace of kind as you want to be.

But as a man who has gone though an entire lifetime of living, I advise you to try to stay kind in your other circles outside this forum. You will go farther in life that way. (Not to misconstrue that I noticed any act of unkind behaviour by you here on this forum. No, you did not show unkindness, the way I see it.)

May I ask just what, exactly, you think "objective" means?

Perfection is defined as a result of an evaluation - these evaluations are described differently by different people with different contexts.

Without anyone there to give evaluation there can be no perfection.

I cannot give you an objective definition of perfection, but I can give you two words from a different time and culture, for variety and perhaps a new aspect here and there.

Let us start, as everything started, with Tem.
Tem means „completion“, and it is also the name of the creator god.
Tem is the original, universal oneness, he is the self-created one inside the abyss of the primeval chaos, where he sat lamented his loneliness as the only aware being.
So Tem creates, starting with the duality of the indomitable force of life and the guiding force of order, followed by all the multiplicity of the created world.
In his act of creation, Tem pours himself into the world and gives up on his oneness, loses his completion.
Should he gather himself again the created world will end: „Tem“ also means „ending“ and has the additional meaning of „negation“ if you change only one single sign.
We are reminded of this aspect each day when the setting sun is called „Tem“. The same sun who brought the light in the morning is now taking it away, back into the netherworld, which is the realm closest to the primeval chaos.
So if we see „perfection“ in the sense of completeness, then it can indeed exist only outside of the created world. While the Christian mind seems to grasp this „outside“ in a more spatial sense – the transcendent God being „above“ or „outside of“ his creation – the Egyptian mind is focused on the temporal aspect, Tem being completeness „before“ creation... and potentially „after“.

The other word that can be translated as „perfection“ is nefer.
The basic and more common meanings of the word are „beauty“ and „goodness“.
Please observe that the Egyptians saw now distinction between those terms. The Egyptian texts use „nefer“ in all cases, and the historians try to figure out if they should translate as „beautiful“ or „good“, depending on the context.
Perfection in an absolute, universal sense is not of this world, it is transcendent. But you can find a worldly type of perfection in that which is good and beautiful.
We Westerners may object to this view: That the beautiful is at the same time the good. For aren‘t there beautiful things that are at the same time cruel and dangerous?
I think the Egyptians were well aware of this dissonance. The goddess Hathor, the Golden, With a Beautiful Face – she can at any moment transform into Sachmet, the Powerful, the agent of the Sun God and his most fierce and cruel warrior.
This danger did not diminish the ancients love and adoration of beauty. Ours may not be a perfect world, but perfection can be found in the beauty of a moment. For the "Carpe Diem" of the Egyptians was the "beautiful moment", a popular phrase in poetry and literature.
To paraphrase the instructions of the wise men:
Follow your heart. Feed your soul with moments of joy, make your heart wide.
(the Egyptian word for „joy“ is awt-ib, literally „wideness of the heart“)
In your life, balance pragmatism with joy and beauty:
When you build yourself a house, plant trees for shadow and a field of cucumbers. Then fill your hand with all kinds of flowers and plant them around your house, too. It‘s good if you don‘t forget a single one of them.

Interesting indeed - a moment of perfection!

Follow your heart. Feed your soul with moments of joy, make your heart wide.
(the Egyptian word for „joy“ is awt-ib, literally „wideness of the heart“)
In your life, balance pragmatism with joy and beauty: — WerMaat

Can you add a sentence or two - not too many - on how the ancient Egyptian idea of "soul" might compare with a modern Westerner's?

The idea of "balance" seems simple, but as I think on it, it just grows the more significant. I'm guessing the balance beam was a common and important tool in their lives - perhaps one in every home. One arrives at (for me) a dimly seen concept of balance, juxtaposed against ideas of either/or, neither/nor. Balance, it would seem, is part pragmatic and part nefer. And to be sure, all balance is a matter of moment, and never endures.

And can you give a literal translation, however odd-looking? I'm wondering if it says, "feed your soul," or maybe instead, "fill your awt-ib." There's a difference in having a wide heart and making your heart wide. Of course that all may fall into the literary conceit of the writing of that moment by that writer - and no greater significance - but I know from biblical translation that meaning is sometime lost in translation.

TBH i dont really know what perfection is. Maybe what you are saying is right if you link it with uniformity. But my opinion about perfection is related with Divinity and i feel like it is impossible for a normal human being to perceive perfection with its worldly sense. Its nice talking with you.

I have to shake my head in wonder, when I read on a Philosophy Forum statements like,"Everyone has a right to their opinion." Is that not the epitome of the redundant? Has it not been stated in one form or another, a thousand times before?

As to the Perfect. Perhaps everything is perfect, and any less interpretation is just the etherial monkey-chatter in the little human mind, which itself is neither perfect nor imperfect anymore than an arrangement of ones and zeroes.