Perfection

People often speak of perfection; "The perfect job", "The perfect car", "The perfect day". The list goes on and on. I often stop to wonder if people really think about what makes something "perfect" or if they're just tossing the word around.

There's objective perfection, which is something that is defined by a mathematical equation, or some other kind of objective criteria. A perfect sphere is an example. A Platonic Solid (example pictured) is another. One has to admire the precision with which such things are created, be it as a two-dimensional drawing or a three-dimensional object. There's no discussion involved with items such as these; if it meets the mathematical criteria, it is perfect. Period. I find this kind of perfection very appealing in a sense because it is so easily measured.

Then there is subjective perfection. This is where our definitions get, well, less defined. What makes a perfect car for example? High top speed? Good acceleration? Low cost? Good gas mileage? There is no simple answer, because everyone is looking for something different. A "perfect" daily commuter car, something low cost with great gas mileage, would likely make a really lousy race car. So can it really be called "perfect"? And then you have to take into account advancing technology; how can any car be called "perfect" when they are continuing to evolve? Once something is truly perfect, it cannot be improved upon, so anything involving technology or engineering is pretty much ruled out from ever being "perfect".

And as we get into less practical matters, art for example, the definitions of perfection become even less clear. No longer are there clear, practical goals in mind, you are now dealing entirely with matters of emotion perception, and experience, all of which are inherently difficult to quantify. Take the Mona Lisa for example. It is widely considered to be one of the finest works of art in the world. But can it be called perfect? To an abstract artist, it would look bland, to a pointillist too precise, and a true landscape artist would point out the flaws in perspective. Yet, despite all of its flaws, people still stare at this painting for hours, hundreds of years after it was painted, looking for some hidden meaning or morsel of truth. If the goal of the artist is to inspire awe and self-exploration, could this painting not be considered at least close to perfect?

So what do I consider to be perfect? While there is much to be said for improving something, I think that there's even more to be said for actually completing something. To conceive of something, to plan it out and understand it, to implement it, and to stand back upon its completion and appreciate it in spite of any flaws or shortcomings; to me, that is perfection. To later look upon something you have done, and, in understanding its flaws and shortcomings, devise and execute a plan to improve upon it; to me, that is perfection. To understand that you have accomplished what you set out to do; to me, that is perfection.

(First two images used in accordance with the GNU Free Documentation License, courtesy of Wikipedia. Third image from the public domain, courtesy of Wikipedia)