|
|
Post by Yoyti on Aug 21, 2011 20:04:43 GMT -5
Perfection is but a dream. I don't think anyone here would say that anyone is entirely perfect. But we can suppose, for purposes of discussion, that such a perfect person exists.
First off, there's the issue as to what makes a perfect person. I will not discuss that right now. But if we suppose that there is someone who is perfect in every way, what does that person think?
The opera Patience touches upon this. There are two particular characters. Archibald "The All Right" Grosvenor and Reginald Bunthorne.
Grosvenor is absolutely perfect. He is a kind and gentle man, is intelligent, is an idyllic poet, and it doesn't hurt that his looks are flawless as well. He is adored by just about everyone he meets, and the rest tend to be jealous. Grosvenor is absolutely miserable in his position. He expresses a desire to be a common man. He cannot meet people properly, least of all girls, because everyone judges him instantly. He can't hold a normal conversation, because people think he is so much better that anyone else. In his unhappiness lies his imperfection.
Bunthorne is also a poet, and at the beginning of the opera, is adored by every maiden in the village. But he is a sham. He doesn't like poetry. He is as common as anyone, but he puts on a sham to make himself more attractive to others, and in doing so becomes bitter. There is his imperfection.
Later in the opera, Bunthorne is angry at Grosvenor, because Grosvenor has stolen everyone's attentions. As previously mentioned, Grosvenor is not too happy with it either. So, the two poets essentially trade places, but without Grosvenor becoming a sham. Bunthorne transforms into a kind poet, whereas Grosvenor gives up his position, and becomes a common man.
Somehow, Bunthorne is unable to attract anyone back, except for Lady Jane. This happened, because "Archibald the All Right cannot be all wrong. And if the all right chooses to discard aestheticism, it proves that aestheticism is to be discarded." Thus, since Grosvenor is content as a normal man, all the girls in the village content themselves with normal men, leaving Bunthorne, the only perfect one left, alone. Grosvenor, as his character hasn't changed a bit, only his appearance, is still as perfect as he was in the beginning, and is now happy.
In the end, no one of any perfection is happy. Only when they renounce their perfection are they happy. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dju on Aug 21, 2011 20:11:38 GMT -5
People have the 'perfect person' image as someone without flaws or a dark side, but that amkes someone unperfect because there is something missing about them. So, I personally believe, that perfect does not exist or if it does, it's different. There are infinite kinds of perfection, each person is one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Aug 21, 2011 20:32:19 GMT -5
I think a problem people would have with someone who's perfect/do have with people they perceive as perfect is this idea that there would be a lack of humility, or a lack of strength. Even if it wasn't true - after all, our hypothetical perfect person would presumably be humble and strong - other people would assume it.
There's something very bonding and almost reassuring in knowing that others have been where you are at some point. Presumably, a perfect person would never have gone through trouble or hardship, at least not of their own making. They've never failed themselves or made a terrible mistake or lost hope in themselves. "To err is human."
And if a person has never fallen, how do we know they can pick themselves back up? Resilience is something that's admired in other people, and there would probably be doubts that this perfect person could stand up to the situations the rest of us not-so-perfect people have to deal with.
I think this is part of the reason Mary Sues are so annoying - they don't do anything wrong. If something has happened to them, it was never their fault, and they always miraculously pull off a way to slip out of the current situation that also isn't their fault, without having any serious doubts about their own capabilities.
...I did not mean to turn that into a Mary Sue rant, sorry =P
|
|
|
|
Post by selmette on Aug 21, 2011 20:44:07 GMT -5
the reason a person cannot truly be perfect is because everyone perceives perfection a different way.
i believe someone is perfect if they can effectively express their opinions without insulting anyone or hurting their feelings; i have a lot of respect for someone skilled at debating. if they are understanding, honest, intelligent, and open to all other beliefs. if they have a clear set of goals in mind and work with sincere effort to achieve it.
most people are self-conscious about their flaws and traits that apply to them they dislike, and think they would be perfect without these flaws or traits. i don't consider myself very good at communicating or expressing my thoughts to others; i dislike that about myself very much, which is why i admire that a lot in others, and why many people do the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Aug 21, 2011 21:05:47 GMT -5
I'll sy this quickly because I have to rush off...
How do you define "perfect"? Is "perfection" when everyone either hero-worships you or is secretly jealous and wants to be you?
Because, well, Jesus was perfect. At least in the sense of he never sinned. But not everyone he met actually liked him. Some people just couldn't get over the fact that he came from some obscure smalltown called Nazareth ("Does anything good come from Nazareth?"). Some people got riled by what he said. But that didn't discourage him from being perfect. People ripped him apart - literally - and even as they basically destroyed him, he still stayed perfect.
The other thing I wanted to say is that, as a Christian, I'm called to emulate Christ. Now, as a mere human, this is impossible, but with the help of God and as one grows in faith, we gradually grow more and more to resemble Jesus. In this sense I find that perfection is a goal, but one that requires divine grace and a lifetime of work and suffering to even grow near to. And, it will not be pleasant. But do I care? I want to be perfect in Jesus, and if that means I'll be crucified along the way... so what? Does being crucified and feeling pained by my struggles make me "imperfect"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2011 6:34:45 GMT -5
I've always said that perfection is imperfection in itself, and imperfection is perfection.
Confused yet? xD; I think it make sense, actually, despite the paradox xD
I'll quote: "Don't aim your love for someone perfect. Instead love someone imperfect perfectly." (I forgot who said it, but it was some actress.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Huntress on Aug 22, 2011 8:05:44 GMT -5
I think this is part of the reason Mary Sues are so annoying - they don't do anything wrong. If something has happened to them, it was never their fault, and they always miraculously pull off a way to slip out of the current situation that also isn't their fault, without having any serious doubts about their own capabilities. ...I did not mean to turn that into a Mary Sue rant, sorry =P Mary Sues are a good example here, actually xD They're annoying because of their supposed (informed) perfection. Hence, their perfection is what makes them imperfect as characters. Hence, they're not perfect. ...in fact, it's probably the informedness that gets people's goats. When they're told what to think. Perfection is different for everyone, so a person who's perfect in someone's eyes may be seriously flawed in someone else's eyes, and it'll always be impossible to agree on their inherent perfection, because it just doesn't exist. Same as with beauty, it's the eye of the beholder. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie (swordlilly) on Aug 22, 2011 16:51:47 GMT -5
There's something very bonding and almost reassuring in knowing that others have been where you are at some point. Presumably, a perfect person would never have gone through trouble or hardship, at least not of their own making. They've never failed themselves or made a terrible mistake or lost hope in themselves. "To err is human." I would agree with that. It's why I've personally never found stories of perfect people very uplifting.  I feel a disconnect from these supposedly perfect people; it's like they aren't fully human, don't really belong to this world, and couldn't possibly understand or empathize with the earthly struggles I go through. Jesus was perfect. At least in the sense of he never sinned. But not everyone he met actually liked him. ... ... as a Christian, I'm called to emulate Christ. Now, as a mere human, this is impossible, but with the help of God and as one grows in faith, we gradually grow more and more to resemble Jesus. In this sense I find that perfection is a goal, but one that requires divine grace and a lifetime of work and suffering to even grow near to. On the topic of Jesus, it might be interesting to bring up the views of St. Julian of Norwich, an English mystic of the fourteenth century. I'll just quote some relevant passages from Wikipedia: To link back to Tiger's point, it's this kind of sensitivity and empathy, coming from a fellow human just as flawed as everyone else, that people tend to respond well to. While few people would claim to be perfect already, i.e. not requiring any change, nobody likes to be told that they're evil. I have to say though, even though I do work constantly to improve myself, I don't find perfection very appealing as an end-state. Because in a state of perfection, there's nothing left to change, nothing left to strive for, nothing left to hope for. =/ All the things that I find most beautiful and most poignant in life - a child growing, a house falling into ruins, a stream eroding the river bank - are tied to change. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Aug 23, 2011 7:36:28 GMT -5
On the topic of Jesus, it might be interesting to bring up the views of St. Julian of Norwich, an English mystic of the fourteenth century. I'll just quote some relevant passages from Wikipedia: Such a theology contradicts the Bible, and as the Bible is the foundation of the Christian faith, anything which is not firmly supported by its teaching and is clearly in opposition to the principles outline therein should be considered heresy. Romans 6:1-2 (NIV)
"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?"
Romans 8:13
"For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live," 1 John 3:5-6
"But you know that he [Jesus] appeared so that he maight take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him." The "continues to sin" is referred to as wilful, repeated and deliberate sinning even though you are aware that this is bad, eg. like a Christian who is an adulterer and keeps lusting after someone even though he knows he shouldn't. 1 John 3:8
"He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work." It is very clear that sin is evil. I agree that sin necessitates Jesus' sacrifice. If we did not sin, we would not need to be forgiven. But to say that because Christ's sacrifice is good, therefore sin is also good, verges on the irrational. Christ's sacrifice is good because it takes away sin, and if it's a good thing to have sin taken away from you, then sin is a bad thing. Jesus did not suffer as a result of his own sin, as he had no sin. He died as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of everyone else on earth. So, when a person suffers because of their own sin, they are not emulating Christ; when a person suffers for not sinning, then they are emulating Christ. 1 Peter 3:17-18a
"It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God." Therefore, falling victim to sin and suffering for it is not a good thing. 1 Peter 4:15-16 "If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name."
... I should stop. This is, basically, the whole subject of the Bible: how to eradicate sin and by doing so get back together with God. In that sense, perfection is the completion of this process where you will no longer wilfully sin, and get better at catching yourself from sinning, and with the grace and divine forgiveness of God from your past misdeeds, you are dead to sin and you live forever in perfect Joy with the Lord. AKA Heaven. I do not see how if a state such as Heaven is perfect, the very nature of its perfection makes it undesirable. In fact, a perfect place to live would really be very desirable, wouldn't it? A person living in Heaven will envy no one. ------------------------- Edit: Sorry for making this such a long post. But I found a way to say what I believe very succintly. Imperfection is natural. Perfection is supernatural. I believe in the supernatural. The supernatural is by its very definition greater than the natural. Likewise, perfection is better than imperfection. If you disagree, that is up to you and I don't intend to force my views on you. If you do not believe in supernatural perfection, then you will probably think perfection is unnatural. Unnatural is generally worse than the natural. Therfore, perfection is a worse state than imperfection. But because I believe in God, and that God is perfect and that there is nothing imperfect about him, I believe that perfection is the ultimate and most holy and most desirable state. |
|
I feel a disconnect from these supposedly perfect people; it's like they aren't fully human, don't really belong to this world, and couldn't possibly understand or empathize with the earthly struggles I go through.