Perfection. It runs through our understandings of culture, politics, society, religion, and so much more. I’ve recently discovered that this seemingly daunting word actually carries a pretty complicated history. The concept of “perfection” was born, conceptualized, altered, and now creates standards for us all.
As with most words, the meaning of “perfection” fluctuates in various languages. However, and quite shockingly, the English language has managed to distort the meaning of the word to mean something quite different from the original. The two most general English terms are “perfection” and “perfect”, which are adapted from Latin “perfectio” [perfection] and “perfectus” [perfect]. Both of these Latin expressions come from “perficio”, meaning “to finish” or “to bring to an end”. It’s interesting to note that during the classical age (between the 8th century BC and the 6th century), the Latin “perfectio” [perfection] and “excellentia” [excellence] actually made a pair, meaning that they were used almost interchangeably. If something was excellent, it was also considered perfect. Similarly, the Greek term “teleiotes” has generally been translated to “completeness” rather than “perfection”; denoting fullness or an accomplished end (Tatarkiewicz, 1979).
The oldest analysis of “perfection” that distinguishes the nuances of the term dates back all the way to Aristotle. In one of his principle works, Delta of the Metaphysics, he differentiates three meanings of “perfection”:
- which is complete — which contains all the requisite parts;
- which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better;
- which has attained its purpose.
Inspired by Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, an influential Italian philosopher, theologian, and jurist in the 13th century distinguishes a two-fold meaning of “perfection” in his work entitled Summa Theologica: (1) when something is perfect in itself (or in its substance) and (2) when it perfectly serves its purpose (Tatarkiewicz, 1979).
So, if you’re still with me, I’ll explain what all of this means. All of that was to say that there has long been a parallel existence of two main concepts of “perfection”: namely “excellence” and “completeness”. Yet, recently, we’ve managed to scratch both of these concepts (excellence and completeness) that are historically associated with perfection. In fact, now, we tend to immediately associate the word “perfection” with “flawlessness”. But neither the Greek nor the Latin associated the former with the latter, so where did this association come from? My prediction: societal pressure and unrealistic expectations.
In my opinion, flaws exist in everything, however minute they may be. That’s why nothing — not a person, a situation, a relationship, a place, an experience, a moment— can be perfect (in the sense of being flawless, that is). Even more, “perfection” is one of those concepts that is equally rigid as it is fluid. By this, I mean that reaching a distinct ideal of perfection is simply not possible as its meaning differs so widely from person to person. Yet almost every single one of us still manage to associate being perfect with one umbrella notion: being without flaw.
I know I said that nothing can be perfect in the sense of being flawless. However, everything can be perfect in the sense of being excellent. Let’s unpack this. Like I mentioned previously, during antiquity, “perfection” was widely understood as excellence, virtue, or living up to a full potential or purpose. Still, despite this widely used connotation, society has managed to change the meaning of the word and transform it into something incredibly intimidating. Normally, I’d never even consider going back to old ways because I think that the role of society should be to innovate and transform, but I wonder what would happen if we started equating “perfection” with “excellence” or “completeness” again?
Since excellence simply means exceptionality, which can be defined by you, everything can be excellent. Even if a person, a situation, a relationship, a place, an experience, or a moment is flawed to some degree, it can still complete, and it can still fulfill its purpose. We can, and we should, seek excellence. And whether that means using “excellence” ratherthan “perfection”, or merely using “excellence” to mean “perfection”, we should. Flaws can exist and still create something outstandingly and wildly perfect, but only if we start to disassociate flawlessness with perfection.
The concept of perfection alters our understanding of life experience more than we think. Many of us get so caught up in the idea that one day, we might have the perfect house, relationship, family, car, job, etc. We get overwhelmed by perfection, without even knowing how to attain it, and we get frustrated when we don’t attain it. But the issue here is that we don’t even know what it is. It — perfection — is impossible to attain if we keep thinking that what is perfect does not carry flaw. And, in that same regard, we can only attain perfection if we start believing it to be a state of excellence (whatever that may mean to you), rather than a state of flawlessness (which is objective, and frankly just impossible).
Think about moments, for instance. Yes, moments. The moments that make your heart flutter, your eyes tear, and your body glow. The moments that make you forget your train of thought, the moments that make you wish you could stop time, the moments that you replay over and over in your head. Those moments. Are they flawless? Probably not. Maybe you sneezed when someone was telling you they loved you for the first time, maybe you tripped while running into the arms of your favourite person, or maybe you even choked on your food when your friend was telling you some incredible news. But, despite all of that, were the moments perfect, nonetheless? If you said yes, you’re right. Why? Because those moments were complete. Outstanding. Excellent. They fulfilled their purpose. And nothing could have made them more special. That’s perfection.