What Is Perfection?

The greatest of perfection, which is amoral and yet governs the truths and possibilities of moral perfection, is that of reason, of the laws of logic.  Logical axioms, such as the fact that some truths follow from other truths, are inherent because they could not be false without still being true, and the other necessary truths that they ground are also true because it could not have been any other way.  All else could perish--in all but the case of empty space, which still could only exist by logical necessity or because of logical possibility, this is something that could hypothetically happen at any time--and it would be intrinsically impossible for the laws of logic and the truths they necessitate to cease to be true by no longer existing, by changing, or by being nullified.  They are a metaphysical existent themselves and not a feature of contingent things.  Mind, matter, morality, time, and all that these entail could have never existed (the exact reason why each of these does or could exist would relate to the uncaused cause), and reason would still have existed in the absence of all else.  It is the supreme existent and that which depends on nothing else even as everything else depends upon it.  This is what its epistemological infallibility stems from, for all intellectual flaws are on the part of people avoidably misunderstanding reason and not reason itself.

Not even God has this very particular, exclusive kind of perfection, for his existence is one of necessity as an uncaused cause in light of things that had to have come into existence.  However, God, at least the Biblical conception of him that is almost certainly the real uncaused cause (which exists either way), has a moral nature, and without this nature, there would be no such thing as good or evil.  There would otherwise be only the moral preferences of lesser beings like humans or whatever other conscious animals or extraterrestrial beings exist.  Thus, if God has a moral nature, it is a morally perfect nature because nothing else could determine if morality exists or what moral obligations there are.  Whatever is just and therefore morally mandatory for all beings with the capacity for full rationality, introspection, and free will is grounded in God, but mercy would not among these moral requirements.  A deity without mercy cannot be in the wrong.  A deity without a nature grounding justice would instead mean there is no such thing as justice to begin with.

For humans, perfection could only matter in specific categories that could only have a moral dimension if the uncaused cause has a nature that makes this so.  The intellectual perfection of intentionally grasping necessary truths, avoiding assumptions, and discovering or at least pursuing the discovery of every important philosophical truth is there and attainable regardless of morality's existence or details.  Moral perfection entails doing everything that is obligatory.  Something can be good and not obligatory, like mercy.  Likewise, mercy is not necessary for perfection in humans, like how it does not logically follow from respect for humans being obligatory that holding the door open for everyone is as well.  Human perfection of other kinds, such as perfection in one's workplace productivity or perfection of observational skills in everyday life, are not required to be perfectly rationalistic or morally perfect (by Biblical standards, the only ones that are likely to be true).  It is not perfection in knowing logical necessities or in doing that which one should do, so it is trivial at best by comparison, if it has any non-pragmatic significance at all.

What of other things like perfection of artistic creations?  Objective quality and perfection in art does not depend on the existence or nonexistence of objective moral values: perfection of art is the state of not having any flaws, which could mean the execution of an intention was flawless or that there is no clash between the different aspects of a work.  Certain qualities could have made a film, video game, book, television/streaming show, painting, or sculpture better without it actually having any deficiencies in its present form.  For example, a movie that could have had one or two more excellent lines is not actually flawed unless its current dialogue, themes, storytelling, and effects (which are heavily era-sensitive, as special effects capabilities can improve with technology, unlike acting) are deficient; to add these lines would only be to include more of an excellent thing, and though this can enhance art all the more in some cases, in others it would jeopardize something else about the unity or smoothness of the work, and it is simply unnecessary in order to avoid problems.  The perfection of art is similar to how a bowl is technically perfect if it can perform its intended task without flaw, with additional forms of perfection other than philosophical accuracy in art being irrelevant to this--a bowl being a perfect fit for someone's life is really not about just the bowl's functionality, but about how it relates to someone's preferences or circumstances.

Perfection entails differing things in various instances from the metaphysically intrinsic truths of reason to the moral perfection of God to the artistic perfection of entertainment, though in all things it involves a lack of flaws pertaining to whatever something's nature is.  Many people seem to chase after perfection of things like bodily beauty or workplace performance that are in themselves meaningless (though still having their own philosophical status and relative depth or lack of it) without connection to one or more of these aforementioned types of perfection.  As for how humans should live, there is no excuse for not striving to be rationalistically and morally perfect no matter how grievous one's past mistakes were.  To be human is not to err.  It is in part to be capable of erring or forsaking error depending on one's worldview, will, intentions, and deeds.