Is Perfection a Real Thing?

The concept of perfection has intrigued philosophers throughout history and still does today. Whether we are talking about ancient Greek thinkers or modern discussions, we can’t stop thinking about perfection, even though it may be impossible to achieve. Perfection crops up everywhere. But does such perfection even exist, or is everything only “perfect” up to a point? Let us consider what some philosophers have had to say on the subject.

Plato’s Theory of Forms is a key aspect of his philosophy. He proposed that there is a world of perfect Forms or Ideas beyond the visible imperfect world we live in. If you think about a perfect circle, no matter how hard you try, you will never draw one because perfection cannot exist in the physical realm. According to Plato, ideal circles only exist in the world of Forms, which we can access only with our minds (not our senses).

Plato believed that our physical world can never be perfect, but rather, it just does its best to imitate ideals. Everything here is just a faint copy – like when you see shadows or reflections. Take beauty, for example. Lots of different objects and people can be beautiful. But they are all sharing or participating in the Form (or ideal) of Beauty itself, which doesn’t age or change.

This difference between the physical world and the realm of Forms has important consequences for how we think about perfection. It implies that perfection isn’t something we can achieve fully in our material lives. Instead, it functions as a blueprint for us: we should always try to move towards it even though we can never reach it perfectly.

For humans, this entails striving for moral and intellectual virtues, knowing that we will never be perfect but can always improve and be nearer to these perfect Forms.

Aristotle: The Pursuit of Excellence

Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia (commonly translated as “flourishing” or “well-being”) is central to his philosophy. While Plato thought that perfection resided in an abstract realm apart from the world, Aristotle believed that it consists in realizing one’s full potential right here. Think about an acorn turning into a mighty oak tree. Aristotle would say it has achieved its perfect state—it has reached its potential or eudaimonia.

In humans, eudaimonia comes from cultivating virtues such as courage, moderation, and wisdom. These aren’t innate qualities. Rather, they’re gradually developed through practice and habituation. Sculptors make themselves skilled by shaping statue after statue until they gradually become adept.

Aristotle argued that by performing virtuous actions repeatedly, individuals can shape their character—just as this sculptor shapes theirs—to come closer to embodying goodness itself. They can move towards their own Form of perfection.

The main contrast between Aristotle’s and Plato’s ideas about perfection involves what each philosopher concentrates on. While Plato argues for an ideal that exists beyond the everyday world, Aristotle sees perfection as something grounded in this world.

For Aristotle, perfection is not some far-off idea that can never be reached. Instead, it is about constantly developing and bettering oneself. It means always trying to do and be better and understanding that your actions and choices are fundamental to who you are becoming.

Immanuel Kant has an interesting take on perfection. According to him, perfect actions can be commanded as a universal law through the categorical imperative, meaning you should only act based on principles you’d want everyone else to follow. Rather than something abstract or personally great, moral duty makes an action perfect for Kantians.

In his view, there’s also a difference between perfect and imperfect duties. Perfect ones must always be upheld absolutely (like not committing murder or lying). At the same time, imperfect duties allow room for personal judgment, although they’re still necessary aspects of living morally – such as helping others or developing one’s talents. These duties point towards a path of moral perfection wherein one strives to act from reverence for the moral law itself rather than out of inclination or self-interest.

In Kant’s system, rationality and autonomy are key. Rationality enables us to understand moral laws and live by them, while autonomy enables us to freely choose moral action.

Think of someone who could cheat but doesn’t because they see the point of honesty and want to abide by it. After thinking it through rationally and picking it autonomously, acting like this is what Kant would call striving for moral perfection. It’s about constantly trying to align what you do with principles everyone could act on for a fair and good life.

Friedrich Nietzsche: Beyond Good and Evil

Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy challenges the conventional idea of perfection as dictated by morality and religion, believing that these standards limit human potential. He suggests an alternative ideal: the Übermensch (often translated as “Overman” or “Superman”). This being would surpass usual notions of right and wrong and forge their own path—self-affirming through self-growth and the ability to make values.

For Nietzsche, perfection isn’t about meeting external standards but rather ceaseless self-development and change. Picture an artist who doesn’t imitate any previous style but instead invents entirely novel forms because they have a vision no one else has expressed before.

By breaking free from tradition to create something where there was nothing—or rather, something culturally brand-new—the artist embodies Nietzschean perfection. They go beyond limitations and what society expects to say, “Look! I have made something better suited to who I am.”

Nietzsche did not believe in universal rules for perfection because what is perfect for one person may not be for another. Instead, he argued that individuals should determine their own ideals based on their strengths and aims.

Nietzsche did not think of perfection as something fixed, to be defined once and then forgotten about. Instead, he saw it as an ongoing personal project.

Jean-Paul Sartre had a unique perspective on perfection from an existentialist point of view. According to him, perfection is something one creates for oneself rather than trying to match up with any external standard.

According to Sartre, we don’t come into the world knowing our purpose. There is no such thing as a pre-existing essence. Instead, each individual has to make meaning for themselves and decide what values they want to live by through their choices.

In this context, perfection isn’t about meeting some kind of standard set by others. It’s about your own personal journey that you can only take because you have your freedom and choices.

Think about an artist standing in front of a blank canvas. To Sartre, this act of creating means being perfect. The artist does it for themselves, out of who they are (or want to be) expressed choicefully, so ongoingly becoming authentic (true).

Sartre criticized the idea of perfection that comes from society or outside influences because it limits personal freedom and genuine living. Instead, he said people can only find real perfection by disregarding these standards entirely and embracing their freedom to create their own way of life.

This type of existential freedom enables individuals to live authentically, making decisions that align with their inner self rather than what others may expect from them. In Sartre’s view, perfection should be about valuing uniqueness and having the bravery to define oneself—even in a world where nothing has an intrinsic purpose.

Simone de Beauvoir, a feminist philosopher ahead of her time, criticized how society imposes notions of perfection on women that are loaded with gendered expectations. These ideals, she said, can limit women’s freedom. They have to mold themselves to fit roles and standards that may not actually suit them if they want to be genuine or have choices.

De Beauvoir took ideas from existentialism into feminism, arguing for a concept of perfection about existential choice and freedom. She thought both women and men should be able to make up their own minds about what paths to follow and what values were important; these should not be dictated by society.

Instead of trying to meet external criteria, such as looking faultless at all times or being super successful at something very “feminine,” her idea includes having the space—existential liberty—to embrace who one is at any given moment and pursue goals one has chosen for oneself.

Societal norms have a big effect on women’s attempts to be perfect because society often only values how they look or if they can do traditional female things well. De Beauvoir said we should reject these ideas because they limit us. Instead, she encouraged women to find meaning by making their own choices and being true to themselves.

In feminist existentialism, rethinking being perfect involves caring more about personal development and freedom than fitting in. It’s about valuing who you are and living up to your potential—without worrying whether society thinks this is “womanly” enough.

Perfection is a fascinating idea that has captivated humans for centuries, but it’s complicated – there’s more than one side to it.

One way of looking at perfection is as something impossible, so perfect that it doesn’t actually exist in the real world. From this point of view, we can try really hard and still not be excellent because excellence would mean reaching a standard of flawlessness that nobody ever has.

Another way of thinking about perfection is as a personal journey: aspiring to be better tomorrow than we are today and always striving for self-improvement. Rather than society or external ideals dictating how we should live, it’s about creating our own benchmarks based on what’s important to us.

Ultimately, whether perfection exists comes down to semantics. If by “perfect” we mean something static and absolute, then perhaps it is not real. But if instead we define the term as dynamic (constantly changing), personally meaningful growth, that allows for authenticity? In that case, being perfect is very much a real part within reach for all humans.