Philosophy Now Forum

Humans know of preferring one state of being to another, or, one situation to another. They seem to think of improvement without an artificial prompting. To improve, on metaphor, is to ripen. To be ripe is to be perfect. To be ripe is nothing great, and yet, for human beings it is rare that they reach true ripeness. Whereas apples do it easily. And yet, humans might live without noticing they could reach maturity. However, if such a being existed, they would hardly be human. And almost, rather, animal or brute. So far as humans speak, they tend without artificial prompting to think of their ethos or character as wanting. And in this that wants they seek to be at home. And to be at home is to reach release into the land filled with light forever or until death. However, perhaps all ripeness connotes the evil of rotting and withering after the ripe moment.

Yes, the idea of perfection is necessary for humans but merely as a guide.
Since perfection is an ideal that is not achievable and impossible in practice, it should only be used as a guide, i.e. a fixed goal post to guide continuous improvements.

Note the saying;

• Aim For The Stars, If You Fail, [at least] You'll Land On The Moon.

If one aim low, then the best is still low or on average always achieving on the low side.

• Example;
  In say a written test, the past best scores of all student is 80 marks.
  Thus if one we were to rely on statistics and set one expectations at 80 marks, the maximum is only 80 marks and in practice one will score say 60 or 70 marks.
  But if one were to strive for perfection as a guiding standard only, i.e. 100 marks or 150 marks which are not likely to be possible, one could at best score 90 or 95 marks if one continuously put in improving efforts.

So striving for the impossible ideals of perfection is necessary and can improve one's results on a continuous improvement basis, thus better than ignoring perfection.

Yes, the idea of perfection is necessary for humans but merely as a guide.
Since perfection is an ideal that is not achievable and impossible in practice, it should only be used as a guide, i.e. a fixed goal post to guide continuous improvements.

With the test you do show a case where perfection is conceived as a modest enough and possible idea. Insanity or fancy, though, is no guide. Which is why we have the notion of the false Utopias. And of the critique of "Plato," and of Hobbes' version of the upside-down Platonic order, where the lowest standard, that of preserving life, is treated as the best the state can do. And thus as the true perfection, or the best possible political arrangement.

Not sure why ripeness is not possible, or maturity, as you imply. Also, I wonder if you are treating the question morally. As if it asked, ought one to have the idea of the best possible or perfect? But, what I mean is, would a being without the idea of maturity or the best possible or perfect be human properly?

If one asks about the idea of the perfect, it's true one might insist it has only the most remote and insane meaning, however, this is not the most reasonable way to understand the idea of the perfect. The reasonable sense of the word perfect is of the ripe fruit or mature or adult human being.

Plato asks which legal order is best or perfect by law in his book the Laws or Nomoi. He doesn't ask, which is the best by imagination or fancy, but the best possible or probable in reality. That is, the perfect order by law (rather than by the standard of nobility as in his Politics where he asks about the city that is most perfect by the standard of nobility or glowing moral beauty.)