Perfection 1928374 225469929 2008-07-13T21:26:26Z Nihil novi 4062893 Deleted nonexistent Italian link. {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}} {{otheruses}} {{redirect|Perfect}} {{TOCright}}'''Perfection''' is, broadly, a state of completeness and flawlessness. The [[terminology|term]] "perfection" is actually used to designate a range of diverse, if often kindred, [[concept]]s. These concepts have historically been addressed in a number of discrete [[academic discipline|discipline]]s, notably [[mathematics]], [[physics]], [[chemistry]], [[ethics]], [[aesthetics]], [[ontology]] and [[theology]].<ref>[[Władysław Tatarkiewicz]], ''O doskonałości'' (On Perfection), 1976.</ref> ==The term and the concept== The form of the word long fluctuated in various languages. The [[English language]] had the alternates, "perfection" and the [[Bible|Biblical]] "perfectness." The word, "perfection" derives from the [[Latin]] "''[[w:la:perfectio|perfectio]]''", and "perfect" — from "''[[w:la:perfectus|perfectus]]''." These expressions in turn come from "''[[w:la:perficio|perficio]]''" — "to finish", "to bring to an end." "''Perfectio''(n)" thus literally means "a finishing", and "perfect''(us)''" — "finished", much as in [[grammar|grammatical]] parlance ("[[perfect tense]]"). Many modern languages have adopted their terms for the concept of "perfection" from the Latin: the [[French language|French]] "''[[w:fr:parfait|parfait]]''" and "''perfection''"; the [[Italian language|Italian]] "''[[w:it:perfetto|perfetto]]''" and "''[[w:it:perfezione|perfezione]]''"; the [[English language|English]] "perfect" and "perfection"; the [[Russian language|Russian]] "[[w:ru:совершенный|совершенный]]" (sovyershenniy); the [[Croatian language|Croatian]] "''dovershiti''"; the [[Czech language|Czech]] "''dokonalost''"; the [[Slovak language|Slovak]] "''dokonaly''" and "''dokonalost''"; the [[Polish language|Polish]] "''doskonały''" and "''doskonałość''." The genealogy of the concept of "perfection" reaches back beyond Latin, to [[Greek language|Greek]]. The Greek equivalent of the Latin "''perfectus''" was "''teleos''." The latter Greek expression generally had concrete referents, such as a perfect physician or flutist, a perfect comedy or a perfect social system. Hence the Greek "''teleiotes''" was not yet so fraught with abstract and superlative associations as would be the Latin "''perfectio''" or the modern "perfection." To avoid the latter associations, the Greek term has generally been translated as "[[completeness]]" rather than "perfection." [[Image:Aristoteles Louvre.jpg|thumb|60px|[[Aristotle]].]] The oldest definition of "perfection", fairly precise and distinguishing the shades of the concept, goes back to [[Aristotle]]. In Book ''Delta'' of the ''Metaphysics'', he distinguishes three meanings of the term, or rather three shades of one meaning, but in any case three different concepts. That is perfect: 1. which is complete — which contains all the requisite parts; 2. which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better; 3. which has attained its purpose. [[Image:Saint Thomas Aquinas.jpg|thumb|left|60px|[[Thomas Aquinas]].]] The first of these concepts is fairly well subsumed within the second. Between those two and the third, however, there arises a duality in concept. This duality was expressed by [[Thomas Aquinas]], in the ''[[Summa Theologiae]]'', when he distinguished a twofold perfection: when a thing is perfect in itself — as he put it, in its ''substance''; and when it perfectly serves its ''purpose''. [[Image:Leibniz 231.jpg|thumb|80px|[[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz|Leibniz]].]] The variants on the concept of perfection would have been quite of a piece for two thousand years, had they not been confused with other, kindred concepts. The chief of these was the concept of that which is the best: in Latin, "''excellentia''" ("excellence"). In [[classical antiquity|antiquity]], "''excellentia''" and "''perfectio''" made a pair; thus, for example, dignitaries were called "''perfectissime''", just as they are now called "excellency." Nevertheless, these two expression of high regard differ fundamentally: "''excellentia''" is a distinction among many, and implies comparison; while "''perfectio''" involves no comparison, and if something is deemed perfect, then it is deemed so in itself, without comparison to other things. [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]], who thought much about perfection and held the world to be the [[Optimism#Philosophy|best of possible worlds]], did not claim that it was perfect.<ref>Tatarkiewicz, "Perfection: the Term and the Concept," ''Dialectics and Humanism'', vol. VI, no. 4 (autumn 1979), pp. 5-10.</ref> ==Paradoxes== [[Image:Joseph Justus Scaliger.JPG|thumb|100px|[[Joseph Juste Scaliger|Scaliger]].]] The parallel existence of two concepts of perfection, one strict ("perfection", as such) and the other loose ("excellence"), has given rise — perhaps since [[ancient history|antiquity]] but certainly since the [[Renaissance]] — to a singular [[paradox]]: that the greatest perfection is imperfection. This was formulated by [[Lucilio Vanini]] (ca. 1585 – 1619), who had a precursor in the 16th-century writer [[Joseph Juste Scaliger]], and they in turn referred to the ancient philosopher [[Empedocles]]. Their argument, as given by the first two, was that if the world were perfect, it could not improve and so would lack "true perfection", which depends on progress. To [[Aristotle]], "perfect" meant "complete" ("nothing to add or subtract"). To Empedocles, according to Vanini, perfection depends on incompleteness ("''perfectio propter imperfectionem''"), since the latter possesses a potential for development and for complementing with new characteristics ("''perfectio complementii''"). This view relates to the [[baroque]] [[esthetic]] of Vanini and [[Marin Mersenne]]: the perfection of an art work consists in its forcing the recipient to be active — to complement the art work by an effort of mind and imagination. The [[paradox]] of perfection — that imperfection is perfect — applies not only to human affairs, but to [[technology]]. Thus, [[irregularity]] in [[semiconductor]] [[crystal]]s (an imperfection, in the form of [[contaminant]]s) is requisite for the production of semiconductors. The solution to the apparent paradox lies in a distinction between two concepts of "perfection": that of [[regularity]], and that of [[utility]]. Imperfection is perfect in technology, in the sense that irregularity is useful.<ref>Tatarkiewicz, "Paradoxes of Perfection," ''Dialectics and Humanism'', vol. VII, no. 1 (winter 1980), pp. 77-80.</ref> ==Perfect numbers==<!-- This section is linked from [[Perfect number]] --> "[[Perfect numbers]]" have been distinguished ever since the [[ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]] called them "''teleioi''." There was, however, no consensus among the Greeks as to which numbers were "perfect" or why. A view that was shared by [[Plato]] held that 10 was a [[perfect number]]. [[Mathematics|Mathematicians]], including the mathematician-philosopher [[Pythagorean]]s, proposed as a perfect number, the number 6. The number 10 was thought perfect because there are 10 fingers to the two hands. The number 6 was believed perfect for being divisible in a special way: a sixth part of that number constitutes unity; a third is two; a half — three; two-thirds ([[Greek language|Greek]]: ''dimoiron'') is four; five-sixths (''pentamoiron'') is five; six is the perfect whole. The ancients also considered 6 a [[perfect number]] because the human foot constituted one-sixth the height of a man, hence the number 6 determined the height of the human body. Thus both numbers, 6 and 10, were credited with perfection, both on purely mathematical grounds and on grounds of their relevance in nature. Belief in the "perfection" of certain numbers survived [[classical antiquity|antiquity]], but this quality came to be ascribed to other numbers as well. The perfection of the number 3 actually became [[proverb]]ial: "''omne trinum perfectum''" ([[Latin]]: "all threes are perfect"). Another number, 7, found a devotee in the [[sixth century|sixth-century]] [[Pope]] [[Gregory I]] (Gregory the Great), who favored it on grounds similar to those of the Greek mathematicians who had seen 6 as a [[perfect number]], and in addition for some reason he associated the number 7 with the concept of "[[eternity]]." The [[Middle Ages]], however, championed the perfection of 6: [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]] and [[Alcuin]] wrote that [[God]] had created the world in 6 days because that was the [[perfect number]]. The Greek mathematicians had regarded as perfect that number which equals the [[sum]] of its [[divisor]]s that are smaller than itself. Such a number is neither 3 nor 7 nor 10, but 6, for 1 + 2 + 3 = 6. [[Image:Sanzio 01 Euclid.jpg|thumb|130px|[[Euclid]].]] But there are more numbers that show this property, such as 28, which = 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14. It became customary to call such numbers "perfect." [[Euclid]] gave a formula for (even) "perfect" numbers: :N<sub>n</sub> = 2<sup>n&minus;1</sup> (2<sup>n</sup>&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;1) where n and 2<sup>n</sup>&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;1 are [[prime number]]s. [[Image:Jan Brożek portr.jpg|thumb|left|130px|[[Jan Brożek|Brożek]].]] [[Nicomachus of Gerasa|Nikomachos of Gerasa]] had listed the first four [[perfect number]]s: 6; 28; 496; and 8128. A manuscript of 1456 gave the fifth perfect number: 33,550,336. Gradually mathematicians found further perfect numbers (which are very rare). In 1652 the [[Poland|Polish]] [[polymath]] [[Jan Brożek]] noted that there was no [[perfect number]] between 10<sup>4</sup> and 10<sup>7</sup>. Despite over 2,000 years of study, it still is not known whether there exist infinitely many perfect numbers; or whether there are any odd ones. Today the term "[[perfect number]]" is merely historic in nature, used for the sake of tradition. These peculiar numbers had received the name on account of their analogy to the construction of man, who was held to be [[nature]]'s most perfect creation, and above all on account of their own peculiar [[regularity]]. Thus, they had been so named on the same grounds as perfect objects in nature, and perfectly proportioned edifices and statues created by man; the numbers had come to be called "perfect" in order to emphasize their special [[regularity]]. The [[Greece|Greek]] [[mathematician]]s had named these numbers "perfect" in the same sense in which [[philosopher]]s and [[artist]]s used the word. Jamblich (''In Nicomachi arithmeticam'', Leipzig, 1894) states that the [[Pythagorean]]s had called the number 6 "marriage", "health", and "beauty", on account of the [[harmony]] and accord of that number. The [[perfect number]]s early on came to be treated as the measure of other numbers: those in which the sum of the divisors is greater than the number itself, as in 12, have — since as early as [[Theon of Smyrna]], ca. 130 A.D. — been called "[[redundancy (total quality management)|redundant]]" ([[Latin]]: ''redundantio'') or "more than perfect" (''plus quam perfecti''), and those the sum of whose divisors is smaller, as in 8, have been called "[[deficiency|deficient]]" (''deficientes'').<ref>Tatarkiewicz, "Perfection in the Sciences. I. Perfect Numbers," ''Dialectics and Humanism'', vol. VII, no. 2 (spring 1980), pp. 137-38.</ref> Currently 44 [[perfect number]]s have been identified. ==Physics and chemistry== A variety of [[physics|physical]] and [[chemistry|chemical]] [[concept]]s include, in their names, the word "perfect." The physicist designates as a ''[[rigid body|perfectly rigid]]'' body, one that "is not deformed by forces applied to it." He uses the concept in the full awareness that this is a fictitious body, that no such body exists in [[nature]]. The concept is an ''[[thought experiment|ideal]] [[construct]]''. A ''[[plasticity (physics)|perfectly plastic]]'' body is one that is deformed infinitely at a constant load corresponding to the body's limit of plasticity: this is a physical ''[[model (physical)|model]]'', not a body observed in nature. A ''[[black body|perfectly black]]'' body would be one that absorbed completely, radiation falling upon it — that is, a body with a coefficient of absorption equal to unity. A [[crystal]] is perfect when its physically equivalent walls are equally developed; it has a perfect [[structure]] when it answers the requirements of spatial [[symmetry]] and is free of structural defects, dislocation, lacunae and other flaws. A ''[[perfect fluid]]'' is one that is incompressible and non-viscous — this, again, is an [[ideal fluid]] that does not exist in nature. [[Image:Robert Boyle.jpg|thumb|left|80px|[[Robert Boyle|Boyle]].]] [[Image:Gaylussac.jpg|thumb|130px|[[Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac|Gay-Lussac]].]] A ''[[perfect gas]]'' is one whose molecules do not interact with each other and which have no volume of their own. Such a gas is ''fictitious'', just as are perfectly solid, perfectly rigid, perfectly plastic and perfectly black bodies. They are termed "perfect" in the ''strict'' (non-metaphorical) sense of the word. These are all concepts that are necessary in physics, insofar as they are limiting, ideal, fictitious — insofar as they set the extreme which nature may at the most approach. In a ''looser'' sense, real things are called "perfect" if they approximate perfection more or less closely, though they be not, strictly speaking, perfect. The relation of these ''perfect'' bodies to ''real'' bodies may be illustrated by the relation of a perfect gas to a real one. The equation of state of a perfect gas is a first approximation to a quantum equation of state that results from statistical physics. Thus, the equation of state of a real gas within classical limits assumes the form of the equation of state of a perfect gas. That is, the equation of state of a perfect gas describes an ideal gas (comprising points, that is, dimensionless molecules that do not act upon one another). The [[ideal gas law|perfect gas equation]] arose from the work of [[Robert Boyle]], [[Edme Mariotte]] and [[Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac]], who, in studying the properties of [[real gas]]es, found [[formula]]s applicable not to these but to an ideal, [[perfect gas]].<ref>Tatarkiewicz, "Perfection in the Sciences. II. Perfection in Physics and Chemistry," ''Dialectics and Humanism'', vol. VII, no. 2 (spring 1980), pp. 138-39.</ref> ==Ethics== [[Image:Platon-2.jpg|thumb|70px|[[Plato]].]] The ''[[ethics|ethical]]'' question of perfection concerns not whether man ''is'' perfect, but whether he ''should'' be. And if he ''should'' be, then how is this to be attained? [[Plato]] seldom actually used the term, "perfection"; but the concept of "[[Good and evil|good]]", central to his philosophy, was tantamount to "perfection." He believed that approximation to the idea of perfection makes people perfect. Soon after, the [[Stoics]] introduced the concept of perfection into ethics expressly, describing it as [[harmony]] — with [[nature]], [[reason]], man himself. They held that such harmony — such perfection — was attainable for anyone. Plato and the Stoics had made perfection a [[philosophy|philosophical]] watchword. Soon it would be transformed, in [[Christianity]], into a [[religion|religious]] one. The Christian [[doctrine]] of perfection rests on [[Gospel]]. [[St. Matthew|Matthew]] 5:48 enjoins: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." [[St. Luke|Luke]] says the same, only replacing "perfect" with "merciful" (evidently, for Matthew, an attribute of perfection). [[Image:Augustine of Hippo.jpg|thumb|left|90px|[[Augustine of Hippo|St. Augustine]].]] Early Christian writings, especially [[Paul of Tarsus|Paul]]'s, are replete with calls to perfection. Many of these are collected in a discourse by [[Augustine of Hippo|St. Augustine]], ''De perfectione iustitiae hominis''. They begin already with the [[Old Testament]]: "Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God." (''[[Deuteronomy]]'' 18:13.) Elsewhere, [[synonym]]s for "perfection" are "undefiled", "without rebuke", "without blemish", "blameless", "holy", "righteous", "unblamable", "unreprovable." Augustine explains that not only that man is properly termed perfect and without blemish who is already perfect, but also he who ''strives'' unreservedly after perfection. This is a broader concept, of ''approximate'' perfection, resembling that used in the [[exact sciences]]. The first ancient and Christian perfection was not very remote from modern ''self-perfection''. [[St. Ambrose]] in fact wrote about ''degrees'' of perfection ("''gradus piae perfectionis''"). [[Image:St Jerome by Rubens dsc01653.jpg|thumb|80px|[[St. Jerome]].]] Along with the idea of perfection, [[Holy Scripture]] conveyed doubt as to whether perfection was ''attainable'' for man. According to [[First Epistle of John|1 John]] 1:8, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Similarly [[St. Matthew|Matthew]] 19:17: "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God..." And [[St. Jerome]] wrote: "''Perfectio vera in coelestibus''" — true perfection is to be found only in heaven. As early as the 5th century C.E., two distinct views on perfection had arisen within the Church: that it was attainable by man on earth by his own powers; and, that it may come to pass only by special [[divine grace]]. The first view, which was championed by [[Pelagius]], was condemned in 417 C.E.; the second view, which was championed by St. Augustine, prevailed at the very beginning of the 5th century and became authoritative. [[Image:StPaul ElGreco.jpg|thumb|left|100px|[[Paul of Tarsus|St. Paul]].]] Still, the Church did not condemn the writings of the [[Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite|Pseudo-Areopagite]], purportedly the first [[bishop]] of [[Athens]], voicing a ''natural'' possibility for man to rise to perfection, to the contemplation of God. And so, for centuries, two views contended within the Church. Even as, for the ancient philosophers, the essence of perfection had been [[harmony]], so for the [[Gospel]] and the Christian theologians it was [[Charity (virtue)|charity]], or love. [[Paul of Tarsus|St. Paul]] wrote (''[[Epistle to the Colossians]]'', 3:14): "And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness." [[Image:Gregorythegreat.jpg|thumb|90px|[[St. Gregory]].]] [[St. Gregory]] wrote that perfection will be realized only after the fulfillment of history — only "then will the world be beautiful and perfect." Still, everyone should make his own approach to perfection — to [[holiness]]. Discourses in moral theology and [[asceticism]] were generous with advice on how this was to be done. The [[medieval]] concept of perfection and self-perfection, especially in its mature form, can be natural for modern man. As formulated by [[Peter Lombard]], this concept implies that perfection is a result of ''[[Personal development|development]]''. And as described by [[Aegidius Romanus]], perfection has not only personal sources ("''personalia''") but ''social'' ones ("''secundum statum''"). Since the individual is formed within a [[society]], the second perfection subsumes the first, in accordance with the "order of the universe" ("''ordo universi''"). The social perfection is ''binding'' on man, whereas personal perfection is only ''becoming'' to him. [[Image:John Calvin.jpg|thumb|left|80px|[[John Calvin|Calvin]].]] Theses on perfection persist within the Church to the present day. The first condition for perfection is the desire of it. Also necessary is [[Divine grace|grace]] — but God gives grace to those who desire perfection and strive for it. Another condition for perfection is constancy of striving and effort. [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]] says: "He who stops, regresses." And effort is necessary in things not only great but also in the smallest; the [[Gospel]] according to [[St. Luke]] says: "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much." An aid in approaching perfection is an awareness of [[God]]'s perfection and of one's own imperfection. [[Image:Teresa of Avila dsc01644.jpg|thumb|100px|[[Teresa of Ávila]].]] The 14th century saw, with the [[Scotism|Scotists]], a shift in interest from [[moral]] to [[ontology|ontological]] perfection; the 15th century, particularly during the [[Italian Renaissance]], a shift to [[art]]istic perfection. The first half of the 16th century saw [[John Calvin]]'s complete conditioning of man's perfection on the [[divine grace|grace of God]]. The second half of the 16th century brought the [[Counter-reformation]], the [[Council of Trent]], and a return of the [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] concept; and also, heroic attempts to attain perfection through [[contemplation]] and [[mortification]]. This was the age of [[Ignatius Loyola]] and the founding of the [[Jesuit Order]]; of [[Teresa of Ávila|St. Teresa of Ávila]] (1515-82) and [[St. John of the Cross]] (1542-91), and the 1593 founding of the [[Discalced Carmelites|Barefoot Carmelites]]. It was the epitome of the [[Christianity|Christian]] idea of perfection and remains so to this day. [[Image:Cornelius Jansen.jpg|thumb|left|100px|[[Cornelius Jansen|Jansen]].]] The first half of the 17th century saw attempts at a Catholic reform of the idea of perfection. This was the time of [[Cornelis Jansen]] (1585-1638) and of [[Jansenism]] — of a growing belief in [[predestination]] and in the impossibility of perfection without [[grace]]. With the second half of the 17th century came a further development in the doctrine of [[predestination]] — the doctrine of "[[Quietism]]." Perfection could be reached through a passive awaiting of grace rather than by an active striving. This theory, formulated in [[Spain]] by [[Miguel de Molinos]] (ca. 1628 - 1697), spread in [[France]], where it was espoused by [[Madame Guyon]] (1648-1717) and for a time attracted [[François de Salignac de la Mothe-Fénelon]]. The 18th century brought a sea change to the idea of moral perfection. Faith in it remained, but it changed character from [[religion|religious]] to [[secular]]. This secular, 18th-century perfection was a fundamental article of faith for the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]]. Its central tenet was that ''[[nature]] was perfect''; and perfect, too, was the man who lived in harmony with nature's law. [[Image:Jean-Jacques Rousseau (painted portrait).jpg|thumb|75px|[[Jean-Jacques Rousseau|Rousseau]].]] Primitive man was held to be the most perfect, for he was closest to nature. Perfection lay behind present-day man rather than before him, for [[civilization]] distanced man from perfection instead of bringing him closer to it. A second interpretation, however, took the contrary view: [[civilization]] perfected man by bringing him closer to [[reason]], and thereby to [[nature]]; for reason would direct life with due consideration for the [[natural law|laws of nature]]. The former, retrospective view of perfection had antecedents in [[classical antiquity|antiquity]]: [[Hesiod]] and [[Ovid]] had described a "[[golden age]]" that had existed at the beginning of time, and which had been succeeded by silver, copper and Iron Ages, each inferior to the previous. The renewal of this view now, after two millennia, was stimulated by European contact with the "primitive" peoples of the [[Americas]]. [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]] was but one of many who wrote in a similar vein. [[Image:Immanuel Kant (painted portrait).jpg|thumb|left|90px|[[Immanuel Kant|Kant]].]] These two [[18th century|mid-18th-century]] schools of thought — one seeing perfection in [[nature]] and in the past, and the other in [[civilization]] and in the future — represented a reaction not against the idea of perfection, but against its [[transcendence (philosophy)|transcendental]] interpretation: as, earlier, the measure of perfection had been the idea of [[God]], so now it was the idea of [[nature]] or of [[civilization]]. It was the latter idea that ultimately gained the upper hand and passed into the 19th century as the legacy of the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]]. [[Image:David Hume.jpg|thumb|100px|[[David Hume|Hume]].]] The idea of perfection as transcendental, fell away; only worldly perfection counted. The idea that perfection was a matter of grace, also fell by the wayside; man himself must strive for it, and if a single man could not accomplish it, then perhaps mankind could. As [[God]] had been the measure of perfection during the [[Middle Ages]], so now man was: the measure had become smaller, more accessible. To the thinking of the 19th century, such worldly, human perfection might ultimately be attainable by everyone. And if not perfection, then ''improvement''. This would be the great concept of the [[modern age]]. [[Image:Bentham.jpg|thumb|left|70px|[[Jeremy Bentham|Bentham]].]] At the very midpoint of the 18th century, there occurred an exceptional momentary retreat from the idea of perfection. It was in the [[France|French]] ''[[Encyclopédie]]''. The entry, "Perfection" (vol. XII, 1765), discussed only technical perfection, in the sense of the matching of human products to the tasks set for them; no mention was made of [[ontology|ontological]], [[morality|moral]] or [[esthetics|esthetic]] perfection. [[Image:Herbert Spencer.jpg|thumb|80px|[[Herbert Spencer|Spencer]].]] Otherwise, the 18th century saw great declarations championing the future perfection of man, as in [[Immanuel Kant]]'s ''Idee zu einer allgemeinem Geschichte'' (1784) and [[Johann Gottfried von Herder]]'s ''Ideen'' (1784/91). Perfection was expected to come about by a variety of means. Partly it would be by way of ''natural'' development and progress (the view espoused by [[David Hume]]) but more so by way of ''[[education]]'' (precursors of this view included [[John Locke]] and [[David Hartley]], and some fervent exponents included the leaders of the [[Polish Enlightenment]]) and by way of overt ''state'' action ([[Claude Adrien Helvétius]], later [[Jeremy Bentham]]); reliance was placed in [[cooperation]] among people ([[Charles Fourier]], 1808), later in [[eugenics]] ([[Francis Galton]], 1869). While the foundations of the faith in the future perfectibility of man changed, the faith itself persisted. It linked the people of the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] with the [[idealism|idealists]] and [[romanticism|romantics]] — with [[Johann Gottlieb Fichte]], [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]], the [[Polish messianism|Polish Messianists]] — as well as with the 19th-century [[Positivism|Positivists]] and [[evolutionism|evolutionists]]; [[Herbert Spencer]] penned a great new declaration championing the future perfection of man. [[Image:J-h-newman.jpg|thumb|left|70px|[[John Henry Newman|Newman]].]] The idea of human perfectibility had, however, become more comprehensive. Man would attain greater perfection, in the sense that he would live more rationally, healthily, happily, comfortably. But there was no adequate term for this new conception, as the term "perfection" had a moral coloring, while the new goal was more intellectual, physical and social. In 1852, [[John Henry Newman]], the future [[United Kingdom|British]] [[Cardinal (Catholicism)|cardinal]], wrote that it would be well if the [[English language]], like the [[Greek language|Greek]], had a term to express [[intellect]]ual perfection, analogously to the term "[[health]]", which addresses man's physical state, and to "[[virtue]]", which speaks to his moral nature. During the 19th century, the [[Germany|Germans]] would come to call perfection, thus construed, "[[culture]]" (''Kultur''), and the [[France|French]] would call it "[[civilization]]" (''civilisation''). [[Image:Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz.jpg|thumb|70px|[[Władysław Tatarkiewicz|Tatarkiewicz]].]] One of the elements of perfection, in its new construction, is ''[[health]]'', understood by the [[World Health Organization]] as "a state of complete physical and mental well-being." Still, the burgeoning achievements of contemporary [[biology]] have not dislodged the age-old interest in moral perfection — with the important distinction, that the goal now is not so much perfection as ''improvement''. A classic [[19th century|early-19th century]] exponent of this view was [[Johann Gottlieb Fichte|Fichte]]. In the 20th and 21st centuries, the advances of [[science]] and [[technology]] appear to have been paralleled to some extent by increasingly pluralistic attitudes. The [[Poland|Polish]] [[philosopher]] [[Władysław Tatarkiewicz]] (1886-1980) has written: "To demand of someone that he strive after perfection seems equally inappropriate as to blame him for not striving after it." Such striving, he adds, "is often egocentric and yields poorer moral and social results than an outward-directed behavior based not on self-perfection but on good will and kindliness toward others."<ref>Tatarkiewicz, "Moral Perfection," ''Dialectics and Humanism'', vol. VII, no. 3 (summer 1980), pp. 117-24.</ref> ==Aesthetics== The [[ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]] viewed perfection as a requisite for [[beauty]] and high [[art]]. The [[Pythagoreans]] held that perfection was to be found in the right [[Body proportions|proportions]] and in a [[harmony|harmonious]] arrangement of parts. The idea that beauty and art were characterized by perfection, was subsequently embraced by [[Plato]], who believed that art ought to be "apt, suitable, without deviations" — in short, "perfect." From a conviction that perfection was a single quality, the Pythagoreans, Plato and their adherents held that beauty also was a single quality; hence, for every kind of art, there was but one perfect and proper [[form]]. [[Plutarch]] stated (''De Musica'') that, during the early Greek age, musical [[harmony|harmonies]] that were recognized as perfect were ''legally binding'' at public performances. Similarly, in [[temple]] [[architecture]] from the 5th century BCE, there were established "[[classical order|order]]s." There were established [[Proportion (architecture)|proportion]]s for [[Doric order|Doric]] temples, and for [[Ionia|Ionic]] temples. Likewise in [[sculpture]], for centuries, it was a matter of dogma that certain proportions of the human body were perfect and obligatory. There was also a prevalent belief that certain [[shape]]s and [[Proportionality (mathematics)|proportions]] were in themselves perfect. Plato felt that the perfect proportion was the [[ratio]] of the [[side]] to the [[diagonal]] of a [[square (geometry)|square]]. His authority was so great that architects and other artists continued using this proportion, even when ignorant of its source, as late as the [[Middle Ages]]. [[Image:CiceroBust.jpg|thumb|left|80px|[[Cicero]].]] Another early idea — one that was to be espoused by many illustrious writers and artists of various periods — found perfection in the [[circle]] and the [[sphere]]. [[Aristotle]] wrote in the ''Physica'' that the circle was "the perfect, first, most beautiful form." [[Cicero]] wrote in ''De natura deorum'' (On the Nature of the Gods): "Two [[form]]s are the most distinctive: of [[solid]]s, the [[sphere]]... and of [[plane figure]]s, the [[circle]]... There is nothing more [[symmetry|commensurate]] than these forms." In a commentary to Aristotle's ''De coelo et mundo'' (On the Heavens and Earth), the [[medieval]] [[Poles|Pole]], [[Jan of Słupcza]], wrote: "The most perfect body ought to have the most perfect form, and such [a body] is [[heaven]], while the most perfect form is the round form, for nothing can be added to it." In the famous illustrated ''Les très riches heures du duc de Berry'', [[paradise]] is depicted as contained within an ideal [[sphere]]. [[Image:Palladio.jpg|thumb|100px|[[Andrea Palladio|Palladio]].]] The [[Renaissance]] [[architect]] [[Sebastiano Serlio]] (1475-1554) stated: "the round form is the most perfect of all." The most excellent of 16th-century architects, [[Andrea Palladio]], held that "the most perfect and most excellent" form was "the round form, since of all forms it is the simplest, the most uniform, the strongest, the most capacious" and "is the most suitable for rendering the unity, infinity, uniformity and righteousness of God." This was the same thought as in Jan of Słupcza and in Serlio, and it was one of uncommon durability. [[Image:Castiglione.jpg|thumb|left|100px|[[Baldassare Castiglione|Castiglione]].]] The [[Middle Ages]] — [[Romanesque architecture|Romanesque]] and [[High Medieval|Gothic]] alike — had been quite taken with the idea of perfection. But a true explosion of the imperative for perfection came with the [[Renaissance]]. Renaissance aesthetics placed less emphasis than had [[classicism|classical]] aesthetics on the unity of things perfect. [[Baldassare Castiglione]], in his ''[[Il Cortegiano|Courtier]]'', wrote, of [[Leonardo da Vinci|Leonardo]], [[Andrea Mantegna]], [[Raphael]], [[Michelangelo]] and [[Giorgione]], that "each of them is unlike the others, but each is the most perfect [''perfectissimus''] in his style." [[Image:Paolo Veronese 016.jpg|thumb|130px|[[Daniele Barbaro|Barbaro]].]] The great [[architect]] and [[polymath]] [[Leone Battista Alberti]] wrote (''De architectura'') that "the art of building... in [[Italy]] [had] achieved perfect maturity", that the [[Roman Empire|Romans]] had "created such a perfect art of building that there was in it nothing mysterious, hidden or unclear." This was yet another formulation of the concept of perfection. [[Daniele Barbaro]], in his 1567 translation of [[Vitruvius]], classically defined perfection as "that which lacks nothing and to which nothing can be added." The Renaissance showed a marked concern with ''preeminence'' in perfection. Leonardo concluded that the most perfect of the [[arts]] was [[painting]]. In 1546 [[Benedetto Varchi]] compared great masters in the arts. Others compared [[art]] and [[science]], [[art]] and [[nature]], and perfection in the arts of the ancients with that in the modern masters. The 16th century saw comparisons of their music, the 17th — of their [[visual arts]] and especially of their [[poetry]]. These comparisons construed perfection fairly loosely; the concept was treated more strictly by [[architecture|architects]]. [[Image:Vasari.jpg|thumb|120px|[[Giorgio Vasari|Vasari]].]] The [[Renaissance]] distinguished a variety of properties to perfection. It was variously held to be: * an ''objective'' property ([[Petrarch]], who opposed perfection to other esthetic qualities such as [[grace]]); * specific to ''[[art]]'' rather than to nature ([[Vasari]]); * a ''rare'' property ([[Leone Battista Alberti|Alberti]] felt that not even Greek architecture had attained perfection); * a property of the ''whole'' work rather than of its parts ([[Leone Battista Alberti|Alberti]]); * a conjunction of ''many'' values ([[Lodovico Dolce]] thought [[Raphael]] perfect because Raphael had manifold talent, as opposed to the one-sided [[Michelangelo]]); * something that required not merely talent but art, that is, ''[[skill]]'' ([[Vasari]]); * not the ''sole'' value in a work of [[art]] ([[Vasari]] differentiated perfection from [[grace]]; Renaissance [[Platonism|Platonists]] such as [[Ficino]] viewed perfection as a [[god|divine]] attribute). In the [[eclecticism|eclectic]] view of the late Renaissance, perfection would require uniting the talents of ''many'' artists. [[Image:Sarbiewski.gif|thumb|left|70px|[[Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski|Sarbiewski]].]] The concept of perfection was harder to apply to Renaissance [[literature]] but became so common — often, linked to "''eccelente''" — as to become banal. Its frequent application brought about its [[relativization]] and even [[subjectivity|subjectivization]]. Beginning with [[Sebastiano Serlio|Serlio]] and [[Palladio]], perfection in art had become less important, less definite, less objective. The striving for perfection no longer had the importance for [[man of letters|men of letters]] that it did for the great [[architect]]s. But the 17th century still revered perfection, as shown by the appearance of that word in book titles: ''De perfecta poesi'' by the [[Poland|Polish]] [[poet]] [[Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski]] (1595-1640); ''Le peintre parfait'' (1767 by [[André Félibien]]; and ''Idée de la perfection de la peinture'' (1662) by [[Fréart de Chambray]]. Sarbiewski offered several theses: poetry not only imitates things ''perfectissime'' ("most perfectly"), but imitates them as they ought ''perfectissime'' to be in nature; perfect art is recognized by its agreement with nature, as well as its universality; art is the more perfect, the nobler (''nobilior'') its manner of representing things; it is the more perfect, the more truths it contains; perfection has various degrees — it is higher in [[poetry]] than in [[prose]]. [[Image:Christian Wolff.jpg|thumb|130px|[[Christian Wolff (philosopher)|Wolff]].]] In [[classicism]], especially in [[France|French]] 17th-century classicism, from an ''ideal'' attainable by few, perfection became an ''obligation'' for every author. And inasmuch as the criterion of perfection had been lowered, "perfection" now meant only ''correctness.'' In the ensuing devaluation, it was not enough that art be ''perfecta'', it should be ''perfectissima''. Perfection, formerly the ''supreme'' characterization for a work of art, now became but one of ''many'' positive characterizations. [[Cesare Ripa]], in his ''Iconologia'' (published 1593, but typical for the 17th century), presented ''perfezione'' as a concept of equal status with [[grace]] (''grazia''), [[prettiness]] (''venustà'') and [[beauty]] (''bellezza''). [[Leibniz]]'s pupil, [[Christian Wolff]], in his ''Psychology'', wrote that beauty consists in perfection, and that this was why beauty was a source of pleasure. No such general esthetic theory, explicitly naming perfection, had ever been formulated by any of its devotees from [[Plato]] to [[Palladio]]. [[Image:Greuze, Portrait of Diderot.jpg|thumb|left|70px|[[Denis Diderot|Diderot]].]] Wolff's theory of beauty-as-perfection was developed by the school's chief aesthetician, [[Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten]]. This tradition remained active in Germany as late as [[Gotthold Ephraim Lessing]], who considered both [[beauty]] and [[sublimity]] to be ideas of perfection; when unity prevailed, beauty emerged; when [[plurality]] — sublimity. In the latter part of the 18th century, [[Immanuel Kant]] wrote much in his ''[[Critique of Judgment]]'' about perfection — inner and outer, objective and subjective, qualitative and quantitative, perceived clearly and obscurely, the perfection of nature and that of art. Nevertheless, in aesthetics Kant found that "The judgment of taste [i.e., aesthetic judgment] is entirely independent of the concept of perfection" — that is, beauty was something different from perfection. [[Image:Edmund Burke2 c.jpg|thumb|80px|[[Edmund Burke|Burke]].]] Earlier in the 18th century, [[France]]'s leading aesthetician, [[Denis Diderot]], had questioned whether perfection was a more comprehensible idea than beauty. [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]] had treated perfection as an unreal concept, and wrote [[Jean le Rond d'Alembert]], "Let us not seek the [[wiktionary:chimera|chimera]] of perfection, but that which is the best possible." In [[England]], in 1757, the important aesthetician [[Edmund Burke]] denied that perfection was the cause of beauty. Quite the contrary, he argued that beauty nearly always involved an element of ''imperfection''; for example, women, in order to heighten their attractiveness, emphasized their weakness and frailty, which is to say, their imperfection. [[Image:Alfred de musset.jpg|thumb|left|60px|[[Alfred de Musset|De Musset]].]] The 18th century was the last for which perfection was a principal concept in aesthetics. In the 19th century, perfection survived only vestigially as a general expression of approval. [[Alfred de Musset]] held that "Perfection is no more attainable for us than is infinity. One ought not to seek it anywhere: not in love, nor beauty, nor happiness, nor virtue; but one should love it, in order to be virtuous, beautiful and happy, insofar as that is possible for man." In the 20th century, [[Paul Valéry]] wrote: "To strive for perfection, to devote endless time to a work, to set oneself — like [[Goethe]]— an unattainable goal, are all intents that are precluded by the pattern of modern life." The dismissal of the question concerning whether artists ''can'' achieve perfection, still left the question: Do artists ''want'' to achieve it? Is that their actual goal? Some artists, schools and epochs ''have'' aimed for perfection. Others have nurtured ''other'' goals: pluralism, novelty, powerful [[sensation]]s, faithfulness to truth, [[emotional expression|self-expression]] and [[emotional expression|expression]] of the world, [[creativity]] and [[originality]] — all of which may roughly be summarized as "[[expression]]." There have been ages of perfection, and ages of expression. The arts of [[ancient Greece]], the [[Renaissance]] and [[neoclassicism]] were arts of perfection. In the [[mannerism|mannerist]], [[baroque]] and [[romanticism|romantic]] periods, expression has prevailed.<ref>Tatarkiewicz, "Aesthetic Perfection," ''Dialectics and Humanism'', vol. VII, no. 4 (autumn 1980), pp. 145-53.</ref> ==Ontology and theology== {{see also|Christian perfection}} [[Image:Parmenides.jpg|thumb|100px|[[Parmenides]].]] The Greek philosopher [[Anaximander]] described the world as "endless" (''apeiron''), [[Xenophanes]] — as "the greatest" (''megistos''). But while they ascribed great qualities to the world, they did not regard it as perfect. Only [[Parmenides]] seems to have considered [[existence]] to be "''tetelesmenon''" ("finished"); and [[Melissus of Samos|Melissos]], his successor in the [[Eleatics|Eleatic school]], said that existence "was entirely" ("''pan esti''"). Thus both saw perfection in existence; true existence was one, constant, immutable. Moreover, Parmenides thought the world to be [[wiktionary:finite|finite]], limited in all directions, and like a [[sphere]] — which was a mark of its perfection. Parmenides' view was embraced to some extent by [[Plato]]. He thought that the world was the work of a good [[Demiurge]], and that this was why order and harmony prevailed in the world. The world was the best, the most beautiful, perfect. It had a perfect shape (spherical) and a perfect motion (circular). But Plato said nothing about the Demiurge architect-of-the-world himself being perfect. And understandably so, for perfection implied finitude, limits; whereas it was the world, not its creator, that had limits. A similar view was held by [[Aristotle]]: the world could be perfect, but God could not. Only the [[pantheism|pantheist]] [[Stoics]] held the divinity to be perfect — precisely because they identified it with the world. [[Cicero]] wrote in ''De natura deorum'' (On the Nature of the Gods) that the world "encompasses... within itself all beings... And what could be more nonsensical than denying perfection to an all-embracing being... Besides the world, there is no thing that does not lack something and that is harmonious, perfect and finished in every respect..." [[Image:Plotinos.jpg|thumb|left|100px|[[Plotinus]].]] At a certain moment, Greek philosophy became bound up with the religion of the [[Christianity|Christians]]: the abstract concept of [[first cause]] became linked with the religious concept of [[God]]; the ''[[primum movens]]'' became identified with the [[Creator deity|Creator]], the absolute with the divine Person. Features of an absolute existence were discovered in the Person of the Creator: He was immutable, timeless. And absolute existence took on the attributes of a person: it was good, omnipotent, omnipresent. Christian [[theology]] united the features of the [[first cause]] in Aristotle's ''[[Metaphysics]]'' with those of the Creator in the ''[[Book of Genesis]]''. But the attributes of God did not include perfection, for a perfect being must be ''finite''; only of such a being might one say that it lacked nothing. There was another reason for the denial, to God, of perfection — in a branch of Christian theology that was under the influence of [[Plotinus]]. In this view, the absolute from which the world derived could not be grasped in terms of human [[concept]]s, even the most general and transcendent. Not only was that absolute not [[matter]], it was not [[spirit]] either, nor [[idea]]; it was superior to these. It exceeded any description or praise; it was incomprehensible and ineffable; it was beyond all that we may imagine — including perfection. [[Image:JohnDunsScotus.jpg|thumb|100px|[[John Duns Scotus|Duns Scotus]].]] [[Medieval]] Christian philosophy held that the concept of perfection might describe [[creation (theology)|creation]], but was not appropriate to describe God. The [[Scholasticism|Scholastic]], [[Thomas Aquinas]], indicating that he was following [[Aristotle]], defined a perfect thing as one that "possesses that of which, by its nature, it is capable." Also (''[[Summa Theologiae]]''): "That is perfect, which lacks nothing of the perfection proper to it." Thus there were, in the world, things perfect and imperfect, more perfect and less perfect. God permitted imperfections in creation when they were necessary for the good of the whole. And for man it was natural to go by degrees from imperfection to perfection. [[Duns Scotus]] understood perfection still more simply and mundanely: "Perfection is that which it is better to have than not to have." It was not an attribute of God but a property of creation: all things partook of it to a greater or lesser degree. A thing's perfection depended on what sort of perfection it was eligible for. In general, that was perfect which had attained the fullness of the qualities possible for it. Hence "whole" and "perfect" meant more or less the same ("''totum et perfectum sunt quasi idem''"). [[Image:Frans Hals - Portret van René Descartes.jpg|thumb|left|100px|[[René Descartes|Descartes]].]] This was a [[teleology|teleological]] concept, for it implied an [[telos (philosophy)|end]] (goal or purpose). God created things that served certain purposes, created even those purposes, but He himself did not serve any purpose. Since God was not finite, He could not be called perfect: for the concept of perfection served to describe ''finite'' things. Perfection was not a [[theology|theological]] concept, but an [[ontology|ontological]] one, because it was a feature, in some degree, of every [[being]]. The 9th-century thinker [[Paschasius Rodbertus]] wrote: "Everything is the more perfect, the more it resembles God." Still, this did not imply that God himself was perfect. [[Image:Spinoza.jpg|thumb|100px|[[Benedict Spinoza|Spinoza]]]] The concept of perfection, as an attribute of God, entered [[theology]] only in modern times, through [[René Descartes]] — and in the ''[[plural]]'', as the "perfections" of God. After Descartes, the concept of perfection as a principal concept in philosophy was upheld by other great 17th-century thinkers. In [[Benedict Spinoza]]'s philosophy, however, there was no personal God, and perfection became a property of — even a synonym for — the existence of reality (that is, for the essence of things). [[Leibniz]] wrote: "As M. Descartes states, ''existence'' itself is perfection." Leibniz added: "Perfection, I call any simple quality, if it is positive and absolute, such that, if it expresses something, it does so without limits." [[Image:Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz.jpg|thumb|left|100px|[[Leibniz]].]] At the same time, Leibniz also construed perfection, in his ''[[Monadology]]'', in an utterly different way: "Only that is perfect which possesses no limits, that is, only God." This concept would last out the entire 17th century. Subsequently [[Immanuel Kant]] would describe perfection as "''omnitudo realitatis''" ("the omnitude of reality"). Thus perfection, which during the [[Middle Ages]] could be a property of any individual being, in 17th-century philosophy became as well, and indeed preeminently, a property of God. Leibniz's pupil and successor, [[Christian Wolff]], took up this concept of perfection — but with a difference. Wolff ascribed perfection not to being as a whole, but once again to its individual constituents. He gave, as examples, an eye that sees faultlessly, and a watch that runs faultlessly. He also distinguished variants — ''perfectio simplex'' and ''composita'', ''primaria'' and ''secundaria'' — and differentiated the magnitude of perfection (''magnitudo perfectionis''). Wolff's pupil, [[Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten]], derived perfection from rules, but anticipated their collisions (''regularum collisio'') leading to exceptions (''exceptio'') and limiting the perfection of things. Baumgarten distinguished perfection ''simplex'' and ''composita'', ''interna'' and ''externa'', ''transcendentalis'' and ''accidentalis''; and, positing so broad a construction, he arrived at the conclusion that "everything is perfect." In short, Wolff and his pupils had returned to the [[ontology|ontological]] concept of perfection that the [[Scholastics]] had used. The [[theology|theological]] concept of perfection had lived only from Descartes to Leibniz, in the 17th century. Thanks to Wolff's school, the concept of perfection lasted in [[Germany]] through the 18th century. In other western countries, however, especially [[France]] and [[Kingdom of Great Britain|Britain]], in that century the concept of perfection was already in decline. It was ignored by the French ''[[Grande Encyclopédie]]''. The history of the concept of perfection had undergone great evolutions — from "''Nothing'' in the world is perfect", to "''Everything'' is perfect"; and from "Perfection is ''not'' an attribute of God", to "Perfection ''is'' an attribute of God." With [[Christian Wolff]]'s school, every thing had become perfect. This was a singular moment in the history of the [[ontology|ontological]] concept of perfection; and soon thereafter, that history came to an end.<ref>Tatarkiewicz, "Ontological and Theological Perfection," ''Dialetics and Humanism'', vol. VIII, no. 1 (winter 1981), pp. 187-92.</ref> ==One term, many concepts== The foregoing discussion shows that the ''term'' "perfection" has been used to designate a variety of ''[[concept]]s''. * The word "perfection" has a special meaning in [[mathematics]], where it gives a ''[[proper name]]'' to certain [[number]]s that demonstrate uncommon properties. * In [[physics]] and [[chemistry]], "perfection" designates a ''[[scientific model|model]]'' — a conceptual construct for bodies that in reality do not precisely correspond to the model. * Elsewhere, the term "perfection" is used consistently with the word's [[etymology]] ("perfect" = "finished"). That is perfect which ''lacks nothing''. This is how the term has been used in [[ontology]] (a perfect being), [[ethics]] (a perfect life) and [[medicine]] (perfect health). In these fields, the concept is understood variously as ''ideal [[model (abstract)|model]]'' or as ''actual [[approximation]]'' to the model. * Also called "perfect" is that which completely ''achieves its [[purpose]]''. [[Christian Wolff]] gave examples from [[biology]] (perfect vision) and [[technology]] (a clock that runs neither slow nor fast). Here "perfection" is less fictitious [[model (abstract)|model]] than actual ''[[approximation]]'' to the model. * That is "perfect", which completely fulfills its functions. In ''social'' discourse, one speaks of a perfect artist, engineer or carpenter. The term is used similarly in [[art]] criticism, when speaking of perfect technique or of the perfect likeness of a portrait. Here again, "perfection" is either ideal model or approximate realization of the model. * In [[aesthetics]] and [[art theory]], perfection is ascribed to what is fully [[harmony|harmonious]] — to what is constructed in accordance with a single principle (e.g., the [[Parthenon]], the ''[[Odyssey]]''). Except for the first, mathematical sense, all these concepts of "perfection" show a kinship, and oscillate between [[ideal]] and [[approximation]]. However, the expression, "perfect", is also used [[colloquial]]ly — as a [[superlative]] ("perfect idiot", "perfect scoundrel", "perfect storm"). Here, ''perfectum'' is confused with ''excellens''. Perfection has also been construed as that which is ''the best''. In [[theology]], when [[Descartes]] and [[Leibniz]] termed [[God]] "perfect", they had in mind something other than ''[[model (abstract)|model]]''; than that which ''lacks nothing''; that ''achieves its [[purpose]]''; that fulfills its functions; or that ''is [[harmony|harmonious]]''.<ref>Tatarkiewicz, "On Perfection: Conclusion," ''Dialectics and Humanism'', vol. VIII, no. 2 (spring 1981), pp. 11-12.</ref> ==Notes== <div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> <references /> </div> ==References== *[[Władysław Tatarkiewicz]], ''O doskonałości'', Warsaw, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1976. An English translation by [[Christopher Kasparek]], ''On Perfection'', was serialized in ''Dialectics and Humanism: the Polish Philosophical Quarterly'', vol. VI, no. 4 (autumn 1979), pp. 5-10; vol. VII, no. 1 (winter 1980), pp. 77-80; vol. VII, no. 2 (spring 1980), pp. 137-39; vol. VII, no. 3 (summer 1980), pp. 117-24; vol. VII, no. 4 (autumn 1980), pp. 145-53; vol. VIII, no. 1 (winter 1981), pp. 187-92; and vol. VIII, no. 2 (spring 1981), pp. 11-12. ::Kasparek's translation has subsequently appeared in the book: [[Władysław Tatarkiewicz]], ''On perfection'', Warsaw University Press, Center of Universalism, 1992, pp. 9-51. The book is a collection of papers by and about the late Professor Tatarkiewicz. ==Quotations== *[[Wikiquote:Antoine de Saint-Exupéry|Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]] is reputed to have said: "Perfection [in design] is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[[#top|'''''Return to top of page.''''']] [[Category:Philosophical terminology]] [[Category:Virtues]] [[ar:كمال]] [[de:Vollkommenheit]] [[fr:Perfection]] [[nl:Volmaaktheid]] [[pl:Doskonałość]] [[pt:Perfeição]] [[sq:Përsosmëria]]