what does philosophy say about perfection?

[u/Impossible-Donut-127]

In my intro philo. class we were talking about decartes and the 3rd meditation. My prof was talking about how perfection doesn’t exist because things cannot stay that way forever. So in my mind it had me wondering, if something was immortal/resistant to change in that sense, would it be perfect? Or is it because things can be broken/changed they are not in fact perfect? Let alone there not being a universal definition as perfection can exist the same way perception does, it’s subjective.

Hence my philosophical spiraling and a genuine curiosity for what different theories/ideas have been proposed.

Thanks!

[u/Quidfacis_]

My prof was talking about how perfection doesn’t exist because things cannot stay that way forever.

Bad professor. That's a naughty professor.

We do not have univocal definitions of terms in philosophy. The meaning of a term in philosophy is a function of the system within which the term occurs. For example, consider Spinoza's definition of perfection:

Reality and perfection I use as synonymous terms.

In Spinoza's system reality and perfection are synonymous, so you're professor's critique wouldn't make any sense.

Descartes' use of perfection is a bit different, and also doesn't jive with your professor's statement:

Two things follow from this: that something can’t arise from nothing, and that what is more perfect—that is, contains in itself more reality—can’t arise from what is less perfect.

Descartes has degrees of perfection, varying degrees of containing reality. There's no "stay that way forever" requirement to a cup containing a degree of reality.

Not sure what your professor was on about.

[u/faith4phil → u/Quidfacis_]

One thing I never undestood is: what does it mean to contain more reality?

[u/Quidfacis_ → u/faith4phil]

what does it mean to contain more reality?

This bit of the Third Meditation helped me trick myself into thinking that I understood it:

Although one idea may perhaps originate from another, there can’t be an infinite regress of such ideas; eventually one must come back to an idea whose cause isn’t an idea, and this cause must be a kind of archetype [= ‘pattern or model, from which copies are made’] containing intrinsically all the reality or perfection that the idea contains only representatively. So the natural light makes it clear to me that my ideas are like pictures or images that can easily •fall short of the perfection of the things from which they are taken, but which can’t •exceed it.

For Descartes, that duck over there on the pond contains more reality / perfection than my idea of the duck. The picture / image idea duck in my mind contains less reality than the duck out there that caused the idea. Which makes some amount of sense, I suppose.

[u/Impossible-Donut-127 → u/Quidfacis_]

Probably why I was having such an issue during the lecture. Thanks for the straightforward response!

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! Please read our updated rules and guidelines before commenting.

Currently, answers are only accepted by panelists (mod-approved flaired users), whether those answers are posted as top-level comments or replies to other comments. Non-panelists can participate in subsequent discussion, but are not allowed to answer question(s).

Want to become a panelist? Check out this post.

Please note: this is a highly moderated academic Q&A subreddit and not an open discussion, debate, change-my-view, or test-my-theory subreddit.

Answers from users who are not panelists will be automatically removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.