Does
Perfection Exist?
Perfection as a concept has
been reviewed, studied and answers have been proposed for centuries. It has a paradoxical
answer if we attempt to apply its conceptual formalization to a material
reality. Perfection exists as an abstraction of our minds, but is not attainable
in the physical world. Outside of the objects of our minds like numbers, perfection is never quite realized in the real
world. Actually, even with numbers we have imperfections. The numbers e and π to name two are imperfect
numbers as they have no complete formation.
No circle is exactly a collection of equidistant points p
from a defined length r, or no line is ever an unerringly straight
distance between two points A and B, or we never actually reach
absolute zero, or any test we perform which measures anything is never 100%
certain or correct. For instance the
speed of light c, or the universal
gravitation constant G, can’t be
established with absolute certainty. In
fact, throughout the natural world it is well known that empirical knowledge is
never perfect in the sense that it doesn’t deviate from some set standard. I believe that natural perfection does not
exist and further that it is a creation of our minds. It is a concept and not a reality. One conceptual notion that developed in physics
is non-Euclidean geometry. We can examine this idea to see that it is synthetic
and contrived. It applies to our three
dimensional world, but is not perfect.
We all know today that a
system of non-Euclidean geometries have been developed in physics to explain
the Theory of Relativity. These geometires began
by denying one of Euclid’s spatial axioms from his book The Elements. For example,
we have Hyperbolic
Geometry which denies the axiom that all parallel lines never intersect and
replaces it with the axiom that all parallel lines must intersect at exactly two
points. This geometry is great for
mapping the Earth geodesic lines of longitude.
The parallel lines of Euclidean geometry become what are called great curves or geodesics on a restricted spatial plane of the Earth and can be used to
measure great distances for ocean-going vessels. They describe the force of
gravity on areas of land mass. Changing
what seems a common sense notion created another conceptual theory that is
perfect in the abstract, but never really exists in our spatial world. Lines don’t somehow curve at the terrestrial
poles! They only curve in the rules of
the geometric theory. For those
geophysicists that raise the objection that the Earth is one big magnet with
N-S polar attraction and thus does setup a curvilinear system of a force
gradient, I submit that this system is not always stable and actually switches
poles periodically. Moreover, those
lines of magnetic attraction are not even symmetric and always attracted to the
polar vertices. It has been shown they
are deviated by solar radiation and the solar wind. This
is evidence of no perfection in reality. Actually, I don’t think any geophysicist would
take issue with me on this topic. I’ll
be so bold as to state, no scientist would dissent that perfection does not
exist in our reality. The question now
becomes if there is no empirical perfection, can there be conceptual
perfection? The easy answer is yes. But the more prudent answer is: I don’t know.
There may be no conceptual perfection
either. I don't believe there is any Perfection, but can’t prove this thesis using deductive methods. If we assume
that we can construct an abstract perfection based on logical rules devoid of
empirical elements, then we run the risk of this perfection being valid only in
its well-defined system and nowhere else.
It becomes vacuous and circular, like religious dogma. The perfection this reasoning achieves is
valid only as long as we accept its assumptions. It’s static and easily overridden by new
empirical knowledge that outdates it. On
the other hand, if we marry the deductive theory and empirical one, we get on a
treadmill of verifying experience against theory always correcting theory to
conform to empirical knowledge. This is
what applied science does, but still applied science destroys the notion that
there is any perfection as the feedback process is infinite. So, again there is no perfection. By definition perfection is a state that
can’t be made better. Thus, I am led to
the following odd conclusion:
Perfection is a chimera. It is
one of many human ideas that doesn't exist.
There is not a perfect thing, state or concept. The concept of perfection itself is flawed.
What I mean by the above
statement is we have created this synthetic conception. Its meaning and substance exists in our
cultures and individual minds. It
doesn’t exist in reality. It furthermore
doesn’t even exist in concept. By conceptualizing it, we are led to
contradiction. If we define perfection
in the abstract of some concept, that concept is always subject to change by
new knowledge and thus by definition can’t be perfect. The very idea of perfection leads to a
contradiction even in theory. One
problem with perfection is it is always applied to things. Perfection itself is meaningless without
reference to that which it applies.
And the worst contradiction would be if we simply consider perfection
the concept unapplied to be perfect. It would
be completely meaningless, because a concept without an application has no
relevancy at all. Examples:
The concept of numeration
without things, to which it can be applied, invalidates the concept of number.
The conception of space without space, to which it applies, does the same thing.
As one final thought, Baruch Spinoza brought this idea to the attention of rationalist philosophers in 17th century Holland. He introduced the idea that God is Perfection. The thing that exist without need to reference any other thing. It is unto itself a complete existing thing with infinity in every possible way. He called infinite space, Extension, meaning in modern parlance spatial geometry, and infinite Duration, in modern terms being Time and Knowledge was the sum total of all information that accrued from that state of being infinitely extended (spatial in all directions) and in all temporal duration. Spinoza thought of Perfection as a being that existed in this way. Thus, we and everything combined all together were God. And since all Reality could have nothing outside it, it was Perfect. Because nothing could exist outside Reality. If taken all together, all things, all space, all time, as a sentient Being, then this Being is Perfect unto itself. Nothing can be referenced to compare it to. His contemporary philosophers responded: this is taking all Reality as God and thus reality is Perfection and cried--that's primitive religion! Why that's associating the Eternal Supreme Being with all Nature, like animistic religions do! Boy, did they get on this poor guy. It didn't help that he was a converted Jew either. The Catholic Church shut him up real fast! Poor Spinoza. He was already excommunicated from the Judaism (written in Portuguese, my favorite foreign language, BTW) Nevertheless, it's the closest thing I can see as Perfection, except for the fact that nothing like this exists. He philosophizes on this in a work called Book of God for those interested. Still, it failed as it must. My take on the issue is: Perfection doesn't exist and is another meaningless creation of our species, human. We've got quite a few. What do I mean? Well take the value of human life, a synthetic concept. Considering none of us live more than 200 years and the planets and galaxies are billions of years old, where is there value in human life? Or take final ends, like to our existence on this planet and, oh yeah.. don't forget the God Myth, and Beauty, and Justice and the Soul. Those two are complete fantasies. How 'bout Right and Wrong morally, that's good one, at least this idea is based on our evolutionary heritage and the need to survive, but just as contrived objectively. Why do we come up with these meaningless ideas? What drives us to see meaningful notions where there are none? I have another in this series: Beauty. See the essay below. And after that there is Love. Oh, non-existent God or real God probability please explain this one to me, huh?
The next idea we explore will be beauty. Is there really a beauty that is objective? Does beauty exist in more than a woman's face or body or in a mathematical object of symmetry, or a landscape, or a celestial object, or a color, ad infinitum? Isn't it clear this is a synthetic concept of human making? Maybe not...
What is Beauty? What is Existentialism? Existentialism is the philosophy that teaches us why such notions as Perfection are without meaning and thus merit.
The Existential Concept
Ken Wais 7/27/10 Return to Portal Philosophies, Science, Mathematics, and Music