
To begin with, it is true that we often have the impression that perfection is attributed the highest value. As Lavelle puts it: Perfection is the extreme peak of value
1.
However, we soon realise that the concept of perfection carries a different meaning: when we describe something as perfect, we generally mean that it has achieved the greatest value it is capable of.
For instance, a perfect coffee would be one that combines the ideal aroma, bitterness, and temperature for the drinker. A perfect circle is a figure whose radii are all really equidistant from the centre. Yet, no one has ever claimed that the perfect cup of coffee or the perfectly drawn circle holds supreme value.
In fact, when we call something perfect, we are not referring to an absolute or ultimate value, but rather a relative and limited one. A circle may be perfect in the sense that all its radii are equal, but it holds no value beyond that. Moreover, its value only exists in comparison to other geometric figures we might clumsily draw on a blackboard.
Therefore, the concept of perfection is not, as it may seem, the 'extreme point of value'; on the contrary, it signifies a degraded and inferior form of value—relative value.
We could go even further and argue that the concept of perfection does not relate to value at all. Indeed, saying that something is perfect often means that it has become everything it could be. As Misrahi puts it, Traditionally, perfection is the completed fullness of a being, but this fullness exists only as an essence or idea
2.
In this sense, we would say that a horse is perfect because it possesses all the attributes of a horse: speed, a long mane, muscularity, and so on. Similarly, a perfect radiator would be one that radiates gentle heat, never breaks down, and, in short, possesses all the attributes we expect from a radiator.
However, this meaning strips the concept of perfection of any relation to value, shifting it entirely to the realm of essence: to be perfect is to be all that one can be, to achieve the fullness of one's essence, to actualise all that one can be in potential. This is an ontological determination rather than an axiological one. Perfection is when the reality of a thing corresponds to its concept. The value of this thing, or concept, remains entirely undetermined. In other words: the perfection of something characterises its essence, not its value.
This becomes clearer if we consider the intriguing concept of 'perfect evil,' which designates an action so dark that it fully corresponds to the very concept of evil. It allows evil to unfold to its fullest potential—this is evil in its complete form. In this sense, the concept of perfection no longer relates to value, especially not supreme value, but instead designates the relationship between a concrete fact and its essence or concept.
Thus, we see that the concept of perfection cannot effectively address the problem of values, as it misinterprets the issue by using a term appropriate for questions of essence, or at best, relative values, rather than absolute value.
This demonstrates the inadequacy of Descartes' first argument for attributing supreme value to God. While we may concede that perfection is part of God’s definition, we cannot allow Descartes to implicitly confer supreme value upon God, since value and perfection are not equivalent (value is not implicit in the definition of perfection). The question of whether perfection holds value remains unresolved.
1. Traité des Valeurs, tome 1
2. Qu'est-ce que l'éthique ?