What is perfection? What is progress?

[leftrightleftrightleft]

This post has two somewhat different ways that it can be viewed.

Perfection is at the core of many religions. But what is perfection? Isn't any definition of perfection circular?

And from this question of perfection, I struggle to see what progress is. What kind of world are we trying to make? What would utopia look like? Is that what we should be aiming for?

If we are unable to define perfection then I find it equally difficult to define progress.

 

[quatona]

This post has two somewhat different ways that it can be viewed.

Perfection is at the core of many religions. But what is perfection?

I don´t know. I don´t seem to have any use for this concept.

Isn't any definition of perfection circular?

I see a lot of problems with the concept "perfection", but I am not sure what you mean here. I know what makes arguments circular, but I don´t know what makes a definition circular. Feel free to explain.

And from this question of perfection, I struggle to see what progress is.

Why is that? I don´t seem to have any problems recognizing or determining progress without the idea of perfection.

What kind of world are we trying to make?

As far as I am concerned: a better one.

What would utopia look like?

That´s not an important question, to me. Possibly (I might have to think about this for a while) it´s even counterproductive.

Is that what we should be aiming for?

I don´t get much out of this idea.

If we are unable to define perfection then I find it equally difficult to define progress.

Why is that?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I see a lot of problems with the concept "perfection", but I am not sure what you mean here. I know what makes arguments circular, but I don´t know what makes a definition circular. Feel free to explain.

For example, the first definition given by Google is:

"the condition, state, or quality of being free or as free as possible from all flaws or defects."

But within that definition is the word "flaw" and "defect". From Google:

flaw: "a mark, fault, or other imperfection that mars a substance or object."
defect: "a shortcoming, imperfection, or lack."

The definition is circular in that the given definition contains words that use the concept themselves.

Why is that? I don´t seem to have any problems recognizing or determining progress without the idea of perfection.

In order to progress you need to have an idea of where you're headed. If you have no ideal, no utopia, no perfection, then where are you headed?

As far as I am concerned: a better one.

Would you agree that that is subjective?

That´s not an important question, to me. Possibly (I might have to think about this for a while) it´s even counterproductive.

Why is that?

As I said above, I think in order to "progress" you need to have an idea of where you are headed.

For example, if you are progressing up a mountain, then your goal is the summit. You can define progress as steps taken which further your goal of reaching the summit. If you don't know to climb the mountain, then which way do you walk?

 

[juvenissun]

This post has two somewhat different ways that it can be viewed.

Perfection is at the core of many religions. But what is perfection? Isn't any definition of perfection circular?

And from this question of perfection, I struggle to see what progress is. What kind of world are we trying to make? What would utopia look like? Is that what we should be aiming for?

If we are unable to define perfection then I find it equally difficult to define progress.

In Christianity, only God is perfect. No one else and nothing else could be equally perfect. So terms like "more perfect" or "less perfect" are meaningless.
So, in Christianity, progress means making oneself more like God. This type of progress is measurable.

I think this is the simplest, and the best answer to your question. No other religion can do the same.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This post has two somewhat different ways that it can be viewed.

Perfection is at the core of many religions. But what is perfection? Isn't any definition of perfection circular?

And from this question of perfection, I struggle to see what progress is. What kind of world are we trying to make? What would utopia look like? Is that what we should be aiming for?

If we are unable to define perfection then I find it equally difficult to define progress.

If we relegate these concepts to navel gazing (as is so often done here) they are difficult to understand and define. However, applied personally they are easy to understand and implement. I have a motto that I work by: "Every job a masterpiece". Of course with my age and experience I can pull it off.

 

[muichimotsu]

Perfection may not be strictly circular, but it's nebulous in trying to be precise. We have the same kind of issue in the ontological argument for God, imagining something better than anything, which is limited by individual tendencies and concepts of the greatest possible entity.

As you might tell by my signature, perfection is something I have a general distaste for, especially because when achieved,. it renders any other ventures hollow and pointless, since we've reached a veritable absolute telos at that point.

I'd prefer to seek out ultimacy and objectivity: both things that aren't meant to be achieved absolutely, but sought out nonetheless because of the benefits. Ultimacy in terms of potential and objectivity in perspective.

We can reach great goals, but we shouldn't stop trying to improve ourselves. Realistically, perfection cannot be achieved even in the natural sciences without significant backlash: we always seek to maximize output, but also have to take into account endurance.

If anything, we should seek greatness, but not at the expense of humility.

 

[quatona]

For example, the first definition given by Google is:

"the condition, state, or quality of being free or as free as possible from all flaws or defects."

But within that definition is the word "flaw" and "defect". From Google:

flaw: "a mark, fault, or other imperfection that mars a substance or object."
defect: "a shortcoming, imperfection, or lack."

The definition is circular in that the given definition contains words that use the concept themselves.

I see. I am afraid, though, this is a problem you will face with any definition you are looking up and following further in a dictionary - because that´s not what dictionaries are made for. It´s not a token that a certain definition is circular.

In order to progress you need to have an idea of where you're headed. If you have no ideal, no utopia, no perfection, then where are you headed?

For example, I can be headed north - without the north pole being my ideal or perfect state. IOW I can head in a certain direction without an idea of a perfect goal. My movements can even be the attempt to keep in permanent motion in order keep a balance that can never be reached as a state; my next step doesn´t mean I am aiming in that direction, it just means this is the step currently needed to keep in balance. The next step might be (or even is likely to be) in the opposite direction. With every step I am making a temporary progress (which, though, will be lost in the next moment, necessitating a new attempt at making progress).
Here is a counterquestion: Where is a pendulum headed?

Would you agree that that is subjective?

Sure. In my view, every goal, value, utopia... and even every idea of "perfection" is necessarily subjective. But I am a little surprised to see this question here: It´s an entirely different topic, isn´t it? The OP at least didn´t give a hint that this was going to be just another objective vs. subjective discussion. It seemed to be
1. a semantics problem: the lack of a solid definition of the concept "perfection" (no matter whether objective or subjective),
2. the question whether the concept "progress" (be it subjective or objective) depends on an existing idea of a perfect goal (be it subjective or objective).

As I said above, I think in order to "progress" you need to have an idea of where you are headed.

As I said, I don´t think this is necessarily the case. I just need a (possibly even pretty loose) idea of a direction.

For example, if you are progressing up a mountain, then your goal is the summit.

That may be the case for certain people in certain cases of progressing up a mountain, but it´s not necessarily so. I have walked up mountains without heading for the summit.

You can define progress as steps taken which further your goal of reaching the summit.

Sorry, but it seems to me that now it´s you who is a little circular.
Sure, if you are heading for the summit, each step is progress towards this goal. But walking up a mountain does not necessarily mean you are heading for the summit.
On another note, I have never heard of any mountain climber who stayed at the summit. Thus, even though it may have been his temporary goal, "being at the summit" obviously isn´t and wasn´t his uptopia or state of perfection.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Perfection is at the core of many religions. But what is perfection? Isn't any definition of perfection circular?

Circular? I don't see why that should have to be the case.

As for perfection, we'd have to ask about the purpose that the entity is to fulfill. IOWs, perfect for what? Perfection would be an entity fulfilling its purpose well. That raises plenty of other issues, but one has to start there.

And from this question of perfection, I struggle to see what progress is. What kind of world are we trying to make? What would utopia look like? Is that what we should be aiming for?

Yes, people form societies to achieve their good (or else, why not be a hermit?), and a "perfect" society is one that is successful in accomplishing this purpose. I have my own ideas of what "utopia" would look like, and so I do have an idea of progress. For instance, in my utopia no one is a slave, and so the less slavery in the world, the more social progress has taken place.

If we are unable to define perfection then I find it equally difficult to define progress.

Sure, one needs to have a target before one can have a standard of success.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I see. I am afraid, though, this is a problem you will face with any definition you are looking up and following further in a dictionary - because that´s not what dictionaries are made for. It´s not a token that a certain definition is circular.

Fair enough.

For example, I can be headed north - without the north pole being my ideal or perfect state. IOW I can head in a certain direction without an idea of a perfect goal. My movements can even be the attempt to keep in permanent motion in order keep a balance that can never be reached as a state; my next step doesn´t mean I am aiming in that direction, it just means this is the step currently needed to keep in balance. The next step might be (or even is likely to be) in the opposite direction. With every step I am making a temporary progress (which, though, will be lost in the next moment, necessitating a new attempt at making progress).

In this scenario, your "perfection" is defined as "being balanced". That's the ultimate ideal you are trying to achieve and each step towards greater balance is defined as progress. Movement towards imbalance is defined as regress.

I understand that progress does not have to be linear, but within any definition of progress, I think there is some sort of "ideal" (whether attainable or not) which you are aiming for.

In your example, there is the theoretical situation where you no longer need to take any steps but instead achieve a "perfect" balance.

Here is a counterquestion: Where is a pendulum headed?

A pendulum is headed towards equilibrium. Not moving, hanging vertically downward as dictated by gravitational forces.

I'm not sure how this would be analogous to humanity's moral, social, political, scientific or philosophical progress. Perhaps you can elaborate.

Sure. In my view, every goal, value, utopia... and even every idea of "perfection" is necessarily subjective. But I am a little surprised to see this question here: It´s an entirely different topic, isn´t it? The OP at least didn´t give a hint that this was going to be just another objective vs. subjective discussion. It seemed to be
1. a semantics problem: the lack of a solid definition of the concept "perfection" (no matter whether objective or subjective),
2. the question whether the concept "progress" (be it subjective or objective) depends on an existing idea of a perfect goal (be it subjective or objective).

Fair enough. Lets leave that question alone for this discussion then

That may be the case for certain people in certain cases of progressing up a mountain, but it´s not necessarily so. I have walked up mountains without heading for the summit.

This seems to wander into that subjective/objective debate. The people that aren't headed to the summit are still headed somewhere. Even if our desired destinations are subjective, that is entirely separate from whether we need to define an ideal/goal/location/destination in order to progress anywhere. Does anyone drive out to the mountains to wander around aimlessly in the forest?

Sorry, but it seems to me that now it´s you who is a little circular.
Sure, if you are heading for the summit, each step is progress towards this goal. But walking up a mountain does not necessarily mean you are heading for the summit.

True, but it is likely that you are headed somewhere. You have some goal, some ideal, some destination. Steps towards that are considered progress while steps away are considered regress.

On another note, I have never heard of any mountain climber who stayed at the summit. Thus, even though it may have been his temporary goal, "being at the summit" obviously isn´t and wasn´t his uptopia or state of perfection.

This is a good point. And perhaps the analogy breaks down here, as all analogies eventually do.

Or perhaps it highlights the problem with human "progress": There is no summit which we have defined as the pinnacle of human achievement. So we will never reach something which is not defined. There is no defined goal, so how can there be progress?

The mountain analogy breaks down because for a mountain climber, the summit is well-defined, attainable and real. Therefore progress is tangible.

 

[quatona]

Fair enough.



In this scenario, your "perfection" is defined as "being balanced". That's the ultimate ideal you are trying to achieve and each step towards greater balance is defined as progress. Movement towards imbalance is defined as regress.

I understand that progress does not have to be linear, but within any definition of progress, I think there is some sort of "ideal" (whether attainable or not) which you are aiming for.

In your example, there is the theoretical situation where you no longer need to take any steps but instead achieve a "perfect" balance.



A pendulum is headed towards equilibrium. Not moving, hanging vertically downward as dictated by gravitational forces.

I'm not sure how this would be analogous to humanity's moral, social, political, scientific or philosophical progress. Perhaps you can elaborate.



Fair enough. Lets leave that question alone for this discussion then



This seems to wander into that subjective/objective debate. The people that aren't headed to the summit are still headed somewhere. Even if our desired destinations are subjective, that is entirely separate from whether we need to define an ideal/goal/location/destination in order to progress anywhere. Does anyone drive out to the mountains to wander around aimlessly in the forest?



True, but it is likely that you are headed somewhere. You have some goal, some ideal, some destination. Steps towards that are considered progress while steps away are considered regress.



This is a good point. And perhaps the analogy breaks down here, as all analogies eventually do.

Or perhaps it highlights the problem with human "progress": There is no summit which we have defined as the pinnacle of human achievement. So we will never reach something which is not defined. There is no defined goal, so how can there be progress?

The mountain analogy breaks down because for a mountain climber, the summit is well-defined, attainable and real. Therefore progress is tangible.

Thanks for your response.
I suspect that you and I simply have a different outlook on and understanding of life. That´s why our analogies don´t work for each other.
Personally, I understand myself as a living system in and among other living systems. The characteristic of a living system is permanent change in permanently changing conditions. One might talk about dynamic (rather than static). For me, the idea of a static (or end) goal (i.e. perfection) takes life out of life. I am in permanent motion, changing my directions according to changing needs and changing conditions. I am doing what I feel is needed now, and what is needed may be different in the next second/minute.../year. Thus, progress for me needn´t be defined by means of a static end goal (perfection)*. "Progress" is a dynamic concept, as far as I am concerned.

I do understand that this may be different for you.

*Although I can think of many occasions where I work towards a - temporary - goal.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Perfection is not a useful concept. Progress, not perfection.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Perfection is not a useful concept. Progress, not perfection.

We should progress towards perfection. The problem is that people too often settle for mere progress when perfection is actually attainable, once it's properly understood of course.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We should progress towards perfection. The problem is that people too often settle for mere progress when perfection is actually attainable, once it's properly understood of course.

No. This is why I said perfection is not a useful concept. It's nebulous. Like trying to capture air with one's bare hands.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No. This is why I said perfection is not a useful concept. It's nebulous. Like trying to capture air with one's bare hands.

It's really not that complicated, just do things properly and completely. Many are unaware of the problems that are caused by not doing this. Also, perfection is hardly noticeable. It is when a job is poorly or incompletely done that imperfection is noticed.

My ex-wife borrowed my truck to haul trash once. When she returned the truck the bed was full of mud. When I complained she said, "I didn't think it mattered". She (or anyone else) should have:

Replaced any gas used.
Cleaned the truck bed.
Thanked me.

That would have been 'perfect'.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's really not that complicated, just do things properly and completely.

And even then, things don't always happen perfectly.

Many are unaware of the problems that are caused by not doing this. Also, perfection is hardly noticeable. It is when a job is poorly or incompletely done that imperfection is noticed.

Doing a job properly and completely is not necessarily synonymous with doing it perfectly.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And even then, things don't always happen perfectly.


Doing a job properly and completely is not necessarily synonymous with doing it perfectly.

It's darn close.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's darn close.

Darn close is not good enough. Perfection demands more.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Perfection and progress are two very subjective ideas. But when we examine most ideas they turn out to be very subjective. I am not sure about how many religions rely upon the idea of perfection, surely the ancient pagan religions did not see the members of their pantheons as perfect from what i have heard of them. Christianity and perhaps other monotheistic religions do claim that their god is perfect but that claim, IMO at least for Christians, does not stem from some objective idea of perfection but from the fact that God is the Creator of everything therefore his vision of what is best is always applicable as He is the one that created. Progress for a Christian might well be just better realizing how imperfect he/she actually is. Becoming a more righteous person might be considered progress but , depending upon the attitude that would accompany such a rise in righteousness, it might be considered a regression instead. Especially if the increase in righteousness led to an attitude of self righteousness.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Darn close is not good enough. Perfection demands more.

lol