A Daily Response to the Daily Post’s Daily Prompt: Perfection
Okay, so I know its is late and that this is a turn away from my “Windrider” story. But I wanted to entertain my philosophical brain by tackling this prompt from a more critical perspective.
Instead of ranting on about what I think perfection is (as I am sure many other responses have done that) I wasn’t to analyse a previous argument that I had on perfection. The conclusion of aid argument was that the only thing perfect in our world was zero degrees Kelvin (0K). I also want to entertain the idea that our minds can only achieve perfection through death.
First year me had the line of thought; “If something is perfect, it cannot be made any better. If something cannot be made any better, then it is without need for change and, if it is to remain perfect, is without change as well. This means that only things that do not change can hope to be labelled ‘perfect’. [Two] such examples of this [are death and] 0K – absolute zero.”
But all of this is very much counterintuitive. Why on earth would perfection, something we associate with ideals, be something that involves death. Well, an ideal is something that we strive for. It is that which we hope t achieve and maintain. They are more abstract concepts like morality and the nature of the good. We cannot obtain ideals because they are not tangible things. Perfection is. Perfection is a state of being. Ever heard the phrase, “That movie was perfect”? I’m sure you have. Perfection, as it is a state of being, is theoretically achievable, but this does not mean that it can be done so in reality.
A thing is perfect when it meets a certain standard, the highest standard possible. When we call something perfect we are saying that it is an idealised thing manifested into reality. This, I think, is where the first two words meet, leaving us with the following. The state of being perfect is attained when something matches our ideals. The question can be raised as to what our ideals are and whether they are objective or not. If we assume that our ideals are purely subjective, then we can have everything as perfect. That’s boring. So, let’s say that they are objective. It, at least, gives us something to work with.In this sense,
at first sight here, we seem to have proven first year me’s thought wrong. I’m certain that our objective ideal is not a frozen wasteland. But upon deeper inspection, I find the conclusion to be more believable. My main issue is that why, a thing that is perfect, cannot be able to withstand change. I think my old argument went along these lines; “Our ideals are set. This means that they are not changing and so, per definition, perfection is a frozen wasteland.” The concept is a tough one for me to accept. But I find that I cannot prove it wrong, I hope that that is just my biassed thinking that causes this. For if perfection is a static state then I cannot see it fitting my ideal. My ideals are unchanging states, but they are not the icy plains that this argument supposes. Hence the counterintuitive nature of the topic.Perfection is a state of being that matches our ideals. But the unchanging nature of our ideals means that things cannot change. Change is ever-present and
Perfection is a state of being that matches our ideals. But the unchanging nature of our ideals means that things cannot change. Change is ever-present and occurs on all scales. If we want no change to occur then we have to drop the temperature to zero degrees Kelvin, where movement, and therefore change, does not occur. Unable to deny the argument on any grounds beyond, ‘it just feels wrong’ I am left having to continue accepting that perfection can be nothing more than a frozen wasteland.