It depends on how you define that.

This woman is perfect.
There is no perceived flaw on the woman, so it would be subjective.

This machine does a perfect Carnot cycle.
This is about a physical object, a machine, so it is objective.

This triangle is perfect because it is equilateral.
It depends on what your ontology of such objects (like triangles) is. I would say that if you are a platonist, it is objective, conceptualist, it is subjective, nominalist, neither or just circular.

Edit: exchanged psychologist for conceptualist to avoid confusion with the profession.

Common agreement doesn't make something objective. Objectivity is the experience in act of truth. I can look at something and know that it is perfectly beautiful, but others may disagree. We do not always experience the same mental qualia as others, even if words are the same

Thanks that clarifies things for sure, so to describe something as perfect is to take into account subjectivity, as in the perfect woman example (open to disagreement for sure as a matter of personal preference), objectivity in terms of intended output as per Carnot cycle and things that can fall somewhere in between.



But as Lionino explained in his Carnot cycle example there are certain operations that are produced which are perfect with little room for dispute so how do you account for that ?

If a machine can, if unhampered, do great feats this shows it's material perfection/beauty and usefulness but the question of beauty is usually about arts. Aesthetics ponders on the timeless. I like seeing a perfect score too, but not everything is beautiful. Many things are interesting but not beautiful. Many things in science are interesting but not beautiful. So I do think there is something objective about it

But as Lionino explained in his Carnot cycle example there are certain operations that are produced which are perfect with little room for dispute so how do you account for that ? — kindred

While value judgments are ultimately subjective, including perfection, you can say something is objectively perfect for a specific goal. In the Carnot cycle example the goal is the most efficient cycle.

We have to define a goal for there to be any objectivity.

As the often quoted saying goes “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” would imply that perfection is subjective.

On the other hand natures organisms and animals that roam the earth would be described as perfect, not by the same criteria but rather by the fact of the ecological niche they’re able to occupy, with imperfections being ironed out over time through extinctions such as that of the dodo or other evolutionary adaptations. By mere fact of them being extant (which would be a criterion for perfection) then despite whether they have predators or not would imply that such creatures are perfect or as perfect as they can get from an evolutionary perspective.

I disagree with all that. If two people see a third thing and one sees it as beautiful and the other doesn't, keep in mind that they look with different eyes, are possibly in a different stage of life, and could be at different energy levels (to talk in modern terms). The beauty is there but only one is seeing it (if he is truly having beautiful experience)

If perfection is the description of a mere functional goal then that doesn’t say much as the definition in this case appears more restrictive then the definition of perfection I had in mind.

On the other hand without a clear definition the word itself remains open to interpretation, therefore the more descriptive in terms of output the more objective we get when classing such machines or organisms in terms of perfection.

The beauty is there but only one is seeing it (if he is truly having beautiful experience) — Gregory

But then what would make what is being witnessed beautiful is it the thing in itself - or is it the witness that ascribes such a value ?

You're trying to separate the beauty from the person in order to make it part of you. If you are going to doubt the beautiful, why not insist the whole person is a subjective illusion? When seen something beautiful is seen to exist *as* beautiful. Beauty is imbedded in the form of an objective object or subject

Beauty is such a tricky concept to adequately measure objectively because everyone’s standards are different. The question is whether the object itself is beautiful or just my opinion of it. This can vary from person to person when it comes to beauty I believe.

I was contemplating this question and would like to hear the thoughts of fellow thinkers here on whether perfection is a trait that can be universally acknowledged or whether it’s a more subjective description that can also evoke aesthetics in the subject. — kindred

How about we start with an actual example of perfection in the world and then go from there?

It strikes me that 'perfection' is a word which we use in various ways - from a mere superlative to an almost transcendental category. Which usage is correct?

Yet the conundrum remains due to comparative thinking when it comes to what constitutes perfection, sure you might have seen a beautiful perfect goal be executed in sport or purchased a perfectly crafted chair but there is always something better which leads me to think that so called attained perfection is purely subjective on the taste of the subject rather than a thing in itself.

Any other thoughts ? — kindred

My two cents worth:

There’s an expression I’ve always found humorous: something being “better than perfect”. A superficial look might deem the expression self-contradictory and absurd, but it can make plenty of sense:

Suppose I need an item which you then build, and I then declare it to be better than perfect. What I’m here expressing is that the built item not only completely adheres to, else fits, its intended, or else wanted, purposes but that it surpasses these very same.

In keeping with what expressed, this to me illustrates that perfection is always fully relative to the either concrete or else sometimes rather abstract purposes involved. And purposes always involve aims, goals, teloi.

A perfect goal in soccer fully satisfies the purposes of the game, the purposes for which one is watching the game, and so forth. As is also the general case for a perfect chair.

Can there be any type of perfection that is fully divorced from any and all notions of purpose? I so far cannot find any example of this.

A circle comes to mind, which is perfect by implication. Any imperfection of a circle would make it other than a circle: an oval maybe, or maybe a circular shape with waves in its circumference, or else a “C”-like form. None of which are circles proper. This, though, hearkens back to notions of the ideal, wherein the ideal is perfect - the perfection of some given set of attributes. And the purpose of any ideal is to serve as a standard: as that by we compare and measure or else aspire toward in our efforts. When we seek to draw a circle, then, we will always hold the (perfect) circle as the ideal we seek to emulate. (A circle is then always perfect as circle, but a circle will not always be the perfect object of awareness in many a context: it will for example be imperfect when one seeks to go from A to B in the shortest trajectory possible. So a circle might not then be deemed objectively perfect in at least this sense.)

So too then with any other ideal: such as one person’s ideal of perfect goodness and their aspirations to get near it or another person’s ideal of perfect mischievousness which they crave to enact; one person’s ideal of getting closer to perfect objectivity of judgment and another’s ideal of best becoming a tyrant over all others. It is these ideals, all of which are a perfection of one type or another, we hold that in large part determine how we then choose to behave so as to best approximate these very ideals that call to us, that pull us toward them.

The ideals we ourselves actively hold then, in one way or another, always being aims we seek to fulfill.

My main point here is to evidence that perfection is meaningless outside of notions of purpose.

As to perfection being subjective, in one sense it always will be, for it will always be in relation to the interests of one or more psyches and their strivings, their purposes in this sense.

As to whether perfection can ever be objective, this will depend heavily on the metaphysics one adopts: any system of nihilism will affirm no, for it will likewise deem the universe to in fact be purposeless; whereas, for example, at least some interpretations of Aristotelianism and Neo-Platonism will affirm yes: the “Unmoved Mover” and ‘the One” which was also known as “the Good”, these (among other examples) can be interpretable as perfect being and the proper aim of all of us imperfect beings - this same objective perfection as goal however arrived at from, and defined by, different scaffoldings of thought.

So, long story short: Whether or not there can be such a thing as objective perfection – one which is absolute - will fully depend on the metaphysics one subscribes to. “No” in a purposeless universe, and “yes” in a purposive universe. Notwithstanding, the occurrence of perfection will always be contingent on the occurrence of purpose.

An example would be any piece of equipment that is more than adequate to its intended purpose such as a chair. Now you might want to question how can a chair be perfect which is a valid question but for the sake of argument, one made to a high quality and more than comfortable and able to hold the weight of the person without breaking, long lasting etc. Let’s call this chair the perfect chair - would you be happy to have the label perfect applied to it rather than just adequate?

To paraphrase Rumi, "Your task is not to seek love [beauty], but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it."

I’d just call that fit for purpose.

I’d just call that fit for purpose. — Tom Storm

Which happens to be different wording for this one standard definition of the adjective "perfect"

2. Having all of its parts in harmony with a common purpose. — https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/perfect

:up:

deleted repeat

Let’s just lose the work perfect if all we mean is fit for purpose. Which then takes us back to more pragmatic relationships with ideas. How does one describe a 'fit for purpose' morality? Sounds sinister. Fit for whose purpose?

Let’s call this chair the perfect chair - would you be happy to have the label perfect applied to it rather than just adequate? — kindred

No. See above.

Perfect generally means that which can't be improved upon. Where do we find this perfect thing? Unless we accept Platonism?

The colour red is defined as the electromagnetic wave of wavelenght 620–750 nanometers. Let's say that we manage to create a body that emits only waves at λ = 685nm, which we know is not necessarily impossible:


Is that not perfect red being produced?
Electromagnetic waves are, obviously, objective, even if the experience of colours is not.

We have to define a goal for there to be any objectivity. — Down The Rabbit Hole

For objects defined by their final cause (a lift is that which works as a lift), the goal is already implicit when you use the word.

↪Gregory

But as Lionino explained in his Carnot cycle example there are certain operations that are produced which are perfect with little room for dispute so how do you account for that ? — kindred

The machine is accurate. Which means it does what it is designed to do with a very small margin of error. In what sense does this imply that the machine is perfect? Efficient maybe.

Same for you chair argument. If anything, the design and construction of the chair are effective. The chair qua product may be durable, comfortable, attractive. Whether or not it is more durable, comfortable, attractive than any other chair is purely subjective. A "perfect" chair would have to perfectly fit every human being, and this is a manifest impossibility.

For objects defined by their final cause (a lift is that which works as a lift), the goal is already implicit when you use the word. — Lionino

As you say, the word "lift" has its job in the name. Would any lift that can lift be a perfect lift?

I don't think most people would call a really slow, smelly, uncomfortable, ugly lift "perfect".

Isn't narrowing our judgment of perfection to the lift lifting, itself subjective?

In what sense does this imply that the machine is perfect? — Pantagruel

The machine does a Carnot cycle, which makes it the most efficient machine possible under the current laws of physics. That falls just fine under the definition of perfection.

As you say, the word "lift" has its job in the name. Would any lift that can lift be a perfect lift?

I don't think most people would call a really slow, smelly, uncomfortable, ugly lift "perfect". — Down The Rabbit Hole

Very much true for a lift. But in the case of a steam machine doing a perfect Carnot cycle, you could very well say that the machine is perfectly efficient in an objective sense, exactly because it is doing a perfect Carnot cycle, and concerns such as aesthetic or economic ones would not come into play.

The machine does a Carnot cycle, which makes it the most efficient machine possible under the current laws of physics. That falls just fine under the definition of perfection. — Lionino

Yes, as I said, if efficiency is your criterion of perfection. That is still a value judgement. You could replace the word "perfect" with efficient and your description of the machine would lose nothing. In fact, I would argue that describing it as efficient is more accurate and less misleading. Perfect implies there is some overarching objective standard, which there is not (barring your declaration that this is it of course).

edit: I'm actually a huge fan of the concept of efficiency, and I favour it over perfection because it is more descriptive.

Let’s just lose the work perfect if all we mean is fit for purpose. — Tom Storm

And take all the Dionysian fun out of the term’s usage? I don’t know.

When someone I'm enamored with tells me they'll see me at 10 o'clock, I'm gonna reserve the right to reply, "perfect".

Which then takes us back to more pragmatic relationships with ideas. How does one describe a 'fit for purpose' morality? Sounds sinister. Fit for whose purpose? — Tom Storm

A tangential topic to the OP, but isn’t that what any system of objective morality is founded on? A goodness which is universally applicable to the underlying purpose(s) of all co-existent sentient beings without exception. Yes, as you've mentioned, this would require adopting some variant of the Platonic ideal/form of “the Good” - but is in no way sinister in and of itself. It only becomes sinister when upheld in partial manners; as in, “good/beneficial for my purposes/aims but not yours” kind of thing. But then, if so, it wouldn’t be an objective good to begin with. Same potential sinister perversion can equally apply to the notion of “the greater good”, for an added example; but being “of benefit to more people than oneself” likewise is not in and of itself sinister, being instead a standard for the reduced egotism requisite to a functioning society.

I so far take it you're not big on objective morality. That's fine. Here just illustrating that the objectively perfect (i.e., "fit for purpose") goodness which an objective morality entails is not of itself sinister ... of course, this were it to be non-hypocritical (as previously described).

You could replace the word "perfect" with efficient and your description of the machine would lose nothing. — Pantagruel

The machine does a perfect Carnot cycle, here replacing perfect with efficient would turn a fine sentence into a nonsensical one.

Yet the conundrum remains due to comparative thinking when it comes to what constitutes perfection, sure you might have seen a beautiful perfect goal be executed in sport or purchased a perfectly crafted chair but there is always something better which leads me to think that so called attained perfection is purely subjective on the taste of the subject rather than a thing in itself.

Any other thoughts ?

The problem with evaluating "perfect" or "perfection" as a term is that is has no definitive (objective) intrinsic meaning, rather it is a comparative (subjective) measure of another word's meaning. Much like "better", "worse", "okay" or "average".

As others have noted, if your axis is efficiency, "perfect" means: "perfectly efficient".

Of course in common usage, folks use it as a general descriptor of "quality", using the subjective definition of that term that the user (silently to themselves) gives it. Thus an observer will likely use a somewhat different (subjective) definition of quality, and disagree that the object of evaluation is, in fact an example of perfection.

When someone I'm enamored with tells me they'll see me at 10 o'clock, I'm gonna reserve the right to reply, "perfect". — javra

You would be using the word metaphorically/poetically.

Yes, as you've mentioned, this would require adopting some variant of the Platonic ideal/form of “the Good” - but is in no way sinister in and of itself. — javra

I don't think Platonism is sinister. Just unwarranted.

The word sinister came up specifically for the notion below.

How does one describe a 'fit for purpose' morality? Sounds sinister. Fit for whose purpose? — Tom Storm

I so far take it you're not big on objective morality. — javra

I think morality is a code of conduct that shifts with time and varies between cultures. There are intersubjective agreements made around principles like - 'we should prevent suffering' which can operate as a 'foundation' for moral choices. But in the end morality is a conversation we have about oughts and ought nots.

Let’s just lose the work perfect if all we mean is fit for purpose. — Tom Storm

And take all the Dionysian fun out of the term’s usage? I don’t know. — javra

When someone I'm enamored with tells me they'll see me at 10 o'clock, I'm gonna reserve the right to reply, "perfect". — javra

You would be using the word metaphorically/poetically. — Tom Storm

While I’ve got no issues with the use of metaphor/poetry in speech, wanted to point out the following:

The usage of the adjective “perfect” would in the case specified be in full keeping with “fit for purpose” - as in, her meeting me at 10 would be fully fit to the purposes/aims I (and maybe she as well) hold in mind. Hence, her meeting me at 10 would be perfect in non-metaphorical/non-poetic manners going by the term’s one translation of being “fit for purpose”. Plus, the term “perfect” in this standard (not even figurative) dictionary sense I’ve previously linked to is both more succinct and more aesthetic sounding than saying “that fully fits my/our purposes/aims” - tough they here can only be implicitly understood to mean the same thing.

Which is to in part say that, while one can deem that any philosophy of life should be Apollonian, the living of life is often best done in Dionysian manners. And, imo, in order to be honest, the Apollonian ought to fully account for what is Dionysian in life rather than prohibit those good-natured aspects of it not yet analytically understood. This, specifically, apropos to the usage of the term “perfect” in the sense of “fit for purpose”. But it could also apply in cases such as that of lovingly telling an infant “I’m gonna eat you up” (which I acknowledge would be fully metaphorical/poetic).

At the end of the day, though, whether it’s taken to be metaphorical/poetic or not is not that big of an issue for me - even though I don’t find its stated usage to so be for the reasons given. Heck, all language, regardless of how analytical, can well be interpreted as foundationally metaphorical/poetic in some deeper sense.

All the same: going back to "losing the word perfect when all we mean by it is fit for purpose", I find no reason to not reserve the right to use the term in cases such as that here mentioned.