Poll: Does perfection exist

[let's rock]

Yes, have you ever heard John Myung's bass chords? or Steve Perry's voice? Or Jimi Hendrix's guitar playing? Perfection.

 

[GamerAddict7796]

In a way yes! Those moments where you're sat there and think "Life couldn't get any better." That is perfection!

 

[GeorgW]

It can't be drawn, but that's not the problem. It can't even be conceived. Unless pi is rational we can theoretically only get a circle that's indistinguishably close to perfect, but never perfect. What you're trying to say is that uncanny precision is perfection, and I can't possibly agree with you.

Actually that isn't what I was saying.

A circle can be easily conceived. All the points whose distance from a singular stationary point is r is a circle. In polar coordinates, any function in which rho = c. Bam. Circle. Neither of these functions necessarily involve pi. Pi is the ratio of circumfrence to diameter, and it can be computed, but is irrelevant to the conception of a circle.

I don't think conceive means what you think it means.

238U.

Circle, maybe. I don't want to argue about the definition of a circle. But a perfect circle, as was requested, has to in some way involve pi, which makes it impossible. It can be computed, yes, but as of now not exactly. So once again, we could come as close to a perfect circle as is ever needed, but it won't be perfect.

 

[Captain Pancake]

It's entirely subjective, one man's interpretation is different from another's. As such, since it cannot please everyone it is by definition imperfect. Ergo, Perfection= paradox.

 

[deus-ex-machina]

I'll leave it to Kurotsuchi the mad scientist from Bleach:

"AWESOMENESS"

I love the fact you quoted that guy. He's amazing.

 

[SvenSirupSon]

Does perfection exist ?

Yes i do exist xD

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Circle, maybe. I don't want to argue about the definition of a circle. But a perfect circle, as was requested, has to in some way involve pi, which makes it impossible. It can be computed, yes, but as of now not exactly. So once again, we could come as close to a perfect circle as is ever needed, but it won't be perfect.

Uh, no.

A conceptual circle, such as one defined by a mathematic equation, is intrinsically perfect which is to say the distance of each point from the center is exactly the radius. The arc is consistent. The line is perfectly thin. All concentric circles would be perfectly parallel, and hence would never intersect, even as the difference in radii approached zero.

Unless you're messing with the rules, say, toying with the axioms, such as redefining perfect to equate to impossible or has to in some way involve pi, then, no.

238U.

 

[FireFenix]

Perfection exists.

It's called "Kikis delivery service"

 

[funguy2121]

Hell, no! Perfection is a Platonic ideal. It has no Earthly manifestation. The very pursuit of perfection makes reaching new frontiers of excellence impossible. No one is omniscient enough to even comprehend perfection. There is no perfection any more than there is nothing.

 

[funguy2121]

Circle, maybe. I don't want to argue about the definition of a circle. But a perfect circle, as was requested, has to in some way involve pi, which makes it impossible. It can be computed, yes, but as of now not exactly. So once again, we could come as close to a perfect circle as is ever needed, but it won't be perfect.

Uh, no.

A conceptual circle, such as one defined by a mathematic equation, is intrinsically perfect which is to say the distance of each point from the center is exactly the radius. The arc is consistent. The line is perfectly thin. All concentric circles would be perfectly parallel, and hence would never intersect, even as the difference in radii approached zero.

Unless you're messing with the rules, say, toying with the axioms, such as redefining perfect to equate to impossible or has to in some way involve pi, then, no.

238U.

Whatever, I'm just glad that they're back together and touring again

 

[standokan]

I'll leave it to Kurotsuchi the mad scientist from Bleach:

"There is nothing in this world that is truly "perfect". Though it may be a rather large cliché, it is still the truth. It is the ordinary people who look up to "perfection" as an ideal and seek after it. But in truth, what is this idea of "perfection" truly worth? Nothing. Not a single thing. I detest "perfection". To be "perfect" is to be unable to improve any further. There would be no scope for "creation", not a single gap in one's knowledge or one's ability. Do you see now? To true scientists like you and I, "Perfection" is tantamount to "despair". We aspire to reach greater levels of brilliance than ever before, but never, NEVER, to reach perfection. That is the paradox through which we scientists must struggle. Indeed, it is our duty to find pleasure in that struggle. In other words, the second you allowed yourself to spout a ridiculous word like "perfect", in truth, you had already been defeated. That is if you wish to be treated as a scientist."

What a load of old crap.

Attaining perfection would mean you never would stop striving, since to do so would mean you think you are perfect, a flaw.

Well no, you're missing the point, to obtain perfection would mean that as scientist you would have nothing more to strive for and would mean despair to them. Even though scientist live for improvement, for obtaining perfection. That makes their existence paradoxal, wanting the thing they don't wont. Attaining perfection wouldn't by his logic mean that you would never stop striving, it would mean the complete opposite, that you'd have nothing more to strive for since it is already perfect, complete, uninprovable.

 

[Moriarty]

okay, let's analyze the question a bit:

"Does perfection exist?", the first thing we have to define here is what we're talking about so that leads us to a second question:

"What is perfection?" The OP isn't really clear on this one so I'll guess I put the most common answer I can think of here: "A perfect being is a being without flaws". So our next logical step leads us to:

"What is a flaw?" This one is a bit trickier. Without any guidance from the OP I'll propose my own idea of what the most common definition is: "A flaw is something that restrains the ability of something to fulfill it's purpose."

So to answer the question whether a perfect human being exists we first have to answer the age old question:

"What is our purpose?"

And good luck in figuring that one out.

 

[Ashcrexl]

i think you're confusing the fact that the concept of perfection exists, not actually physically in this universe at least.

if something becomes the best it can possibly be, it has reached its own peak, not perfection. it can always be better and it simply does not know or is unable to be better. there is always room for improvement.

 

[Purple Shrimp]

regarding something objective, yes
regarding something subjective, no

voted yes because it clearly does exist based on the above, but not in everything

 

[spartan231490]

No. The only possible exception being the universe as a whole with all it's complexity and possibilities. but other than that, no perfection does not exist in any way.

As for the perfection must exist for there to be imperfection argument. I don't think so. We can only understand most things through their opposite, but imperfection isn't one of those things. We can understand imperfection because we never reach perfection. Finally, how do you even define perfection? Is it knowing everything, loving everything, being strongest, fastest, smartest, most flexible, healthiest, funniest, living life to the fullest, what?

 

[spartan231490]

I'll leave it to Kurotsuchi the mad scientist from Bleach:

"There is nothing in this world that is truly "perfect". Though it may be a rather large cliché, it is still the truth. It is the ordinary people who look up to "perfection" as an ideal and seek after it. But in truth, what is this idea of "perfection" truly worth? Nothing. Not a single thing. I detest "perfection". To be "perfect" is to be unable to improve any further. There would be no scope for "creation", not a single gap in one's knowledge or one's ability. Do you see now? To true scientists like you and I, "Perfection" is tantamount to "despair". We aspire to reach greater levels of brilliance than ever before, but never, NEVER, to reach perfection. That is the paradox through which we scientists must struggle. Indeed, it is our duty to find pleasure in that struggle. In other words, the second you allowed yourself to spout a ridiculous word like "perfect", in truth, you had already been defeated. That is if you wish to be treated as a scientist."

What a load of old crap.

Attaining perfection would mean you never would stop striving, since to do so would mean you think you are perfect, a flaw.

Perfection is an abstract concept, like the perfect circle, theoretically possible but practically unobtainable.

How is thinking you are perfect a flaw? it is only a flaw if you aren't perfect. I'm with Kurotsuchi(and if I ever say that again I will stroke out on the spot) on this one. Perfection doesn't exist. we can't even define it. Is it the best at everything? is it to be as good as possible at everything? Is it to reach the heights of achievement, or to find happiness, or to be content with life, or even to constantly strive? perfection is different to every person, I would dare to say that perfection is different for the same person day to day. To some, perfection could even be chaos. If you can't even define it, how can you claim with certainty that it exists.

 

[electric_warrior]

Yes it does, but no being can be perfect because the definition of perfect in that sense is too paradoxical.

In the sense of objects or abstract things, however, it can exist. If you sit an exam and you fill it out exactly as specified in the mark scheme, then you have asnwered it perfectly. Even if you get 100% you have a perfect score. Single atom is perfect (right?) because it can't have any flaws without it not being the same atom anymore. Its so small, so simple and pure that it must be perfect. Or am I wrong?

 

[SkinyJim]

Depends on what you're examining. People often have different idea's of what is perfect. I guess something that is perfect will meet ALL of these expectations. Which in most, if not all conditions is impossible. Which is why I voted no.

Perfection seems to be quite an ambiguous term. Everyone seems to have different idea's of what "perfection" is.

 

[EndOfDaWorld]

Both perfection and the absence of perfection are statistical improbabilities. Essentially, the theory of perfection, and by extension perfection itself, are imperfect.
I guess, like beauty, perfection is in the (many )eyes of the beholder.

 

[Biosophilogical]

I think that perfection of the person does exist. I view perfection of a relative term. Say if you meet someone who has no traits that view as negative, and is the image of your view on physical perfection, that person is perfect as far as you are concerned. Someone with different tastes may call the person inperfect. There can be no universaly perfect person, however.

Exactly. Perfect is subject to teh perspective from which it is viewed. You can have someone or something be perfect, but it is perfect from your perspective, there is no objective measure of perfection.

So perfection exists in the same way morality does, as a construct. That isn't to say it doesn't exist, just that it exists as an idea, rather than a physical 'thing'.