During my years as a student of philosophy, it seemed to me that philosophy was all about distinctions. It was almost as if that was all philosophy was about. Taking seemingly mundane topics and finding ways to distinguish different aspects of those topics. For example, in the case of the good, it is often distinguished between intrinsic good, that is the good that is for its own sake, versus instrumental good, that is the good that is for the sake of something else. It is this particular distinction that I draw from in my topic for today.

Before applying this distinction to perfection, as is my intention, I would like to take a moment to discuss how it applies to the idea of the good. For most, I think, that which is good is that which associates closely with what is ethical or moral. The good in “good versus evil” for example. This view of the good is most closely related to an intrinsic good. This sort of good is good within and of itself. A person who is good is one who always acts in accordance with the laws and rules of society; Aristotle’s Virtuous Man. I do say man here as this is what Aristotle intended; during his time there was no way a woman could ever be virtuous. In our modern times, updating his ideas, it is likely most would prefer to suggest he meant a virtuous person.

The instrisic good is a good that is good for its own sake. To be good in this way has no further aspirations or goals. There is nothing that this good is a means to. A popular example of this type of good is happiness. It is said that no one uses their happiness to attain another loftier goal. Happiness is the end goal. All actions and choices are focused with the end goal of happiness.

In contrast, an instrumental good is one that is intended for the sake of something else. As a simple example, we might suggest that my car is good in that it performs its functions appropriately. It is a good car because it starts reliably and takes me from place to place safely. There is no thought that the car might be moral or ethical in any way. And the car’s being good is simply an intermediary toward some other goal, such as transporting me from place to place. My goal in this case is not to have a car, but to travel from place to place, which is why the good is instrumental.

I know there will be those out there who will want to jump down my throat regarding relating morality and ethics to intrinsic and instrumental goods. These are things of different types, they will say. But I suggest they are not so different. One who is considered moral is good precisely because they follow the rules of society. There is no loftier goal in mind for the good person. To be good is the goal itself. To be good for goodness sake. While the word “good” may be itself dubious, this is why I referred to Aristotle’s idea of virtue. Virtue is a good. But there are clearly many other goods that exist like this.

Fortunately, as I now move to the discussion of perfection, I will drop the debate regarding morality and ethics. At least, as far as intrinsic goods go. My discussion is not intended to resolve the debate regarding ethical goods. It is intended to raise awareness and allow for meaningful discourse with regard to my desired topic of discussion. To understand the difference between the intrinsic and the instrumental.

As my previous posts hopefully made clear, the idea of an intrinsic perfection is unfeasible. Perhaps even impossible. This will be due to the issue of establishing a criteria for perfection. One always has to declare that something is perfect in virtue of a particular criterion. The selection of criterion injects bias and subjectivity into the idea of perfection. For perfection to be intrinsic, there would have to be no particular criterion required. Something would have to be perfect within and of itself.

However, it is my intention to suggest that perfection can still exist, but that perfection would have to be instrumental in nature. An instrumental perfection. The perfection razor focused on some other goal. The perfect car may be the car that allows me to travel with the least amount of waiting to get to my destination. Or perhaps it is the car that can allow me to travel with the greatest amount of comfort and luxury. It is up to me to decide the criterion, whether it might be speed or comfort in this case, but once I have made my choice, there is the opportunity to achieve a perfection in the car’s design and function.

I might suggest it was thinking about the Borg in the Star Trek series Picard recently that raised this idea within me. The Borg are the species within the Star Trek universe who are razor focused on achieving a perfection within themselves. How they come about this goal is questionable at best, for anyone who has more intimate knowledge of this character from the show. However, as is demonstrated in various episodes from various different series of Star Trek, the criterion for perfection selected by any particular Borg character can differ significantly. And in that their criterion for perfection can vary, the nature between particular Borg characters can also differ significantly.

The question some might be thinking about is whether any particular Borg are more perfect than any other Borg in this case. With opposing viewpoints of perfection, is one somehow superior than all others? It is here I will draw from Thomas Kuhn and his idea of a paradigm.

For Kuhn, a paradigm is an existing framework or structure that encompasses all that makes up a community’s thoughts and ideas. Consumerism and patriarchy are parts of the currently existing paradigm that exists in North American societies. The idea that only a man could be virtuous falls into Aristotle’s paradigm for his time, so clearly the paradigm that exists today is different than the one back then. But I imagine at least some of my readers might still feel a certain tugging from these statements; that the differences between men and women are not merely aesthetic. It is this feeling that is a part of the paradigm.

Again, I am not here to argue regarding paradigms, whether they exist or what they amount to. I am here to discuss perfection. Perfection is similar to a paradigm. If multiple different communities have different ideas on perfection, those different ideas may not be resolvable between each other. One community may suggest that perfection is related to the conquest of the largest area, suggesting that perfection for them is the consumption of the entire universe. For another commuity, perfection may be the joining of the largest community of cooperative individuals, suggesting that perfection for them is to turn all sentient life across the universe into a singular community under a single authority. In some sense, these both are the same goal, as they involve joining all life together in some fashion. However, they are also quite different goals, as one seeks to oppress and subvert all life, while the other may be more interested in preserving the individuality of the members and finding a way to join them without subversion.

The point to be made here is that if both of these communities I have just described were to meet, they may initially try to work together with the common goal of joining all life throughout the cosmos. However, they would quickly find conflict with regard to their methods of joining. In fact, a war would likely result as the former community would attempt to subvert the latter. How the latter would react is unknowable with just the basic premises that I have indicated.

These are but two examples of sorts of perfections, but I expect there are too many to count. It is the criterion that is significant in the selection of a perfection. The criterion is the sake for which the perfection is aimed. Perfection is not for itself, it is for a reason beyond itself. The perfect car is not for itself, it is for the speed or for the luxury. The travelling from one place to another is what matters.

For all these reasons, perfection can be an instrumental good. A good for the sake of something else. Perfection cannot be for its own sake. If it is somehow taken as such, the result is nonsensical.