Perfection is Subjective

Your argument makes a glaring error here; the definition that you have given for Earthly Perfection isn't perfection.You have agreed that I have rightly defined 'perfection' as: 'a total absence of flaws'. As such, what you have now defined as 'earthly perfection' is not perfection at all because it necessesarily includes flaws. In stucturing your argument this way, you have presented an enormous implicit contradiction. Plato certainly had some good ideas about many things, but his philosophy on forms has been widely criticized. I would like to offer to you the main reason I see it as erroneous:He has added qualifiers to perfection, something which cannot be done if perfection is to mean a wholly complete and flawless entity. What you have defined as 'earthly perfection' is actually not perfection at all, it is nothing more than varying states of effectiveness. For example, let's take 3 pens:Pen 1: Writes fluidly, great longevity, grippable, contains butons to choose preffered ink colour.Pen 2: Writes somewhat fluidly, moderate longevity, comes in only blue and black.Pen 3: Requires pressure in order to write, contains little ink, comes in only orange. Consider This Scenario:Pen 1, by your theory, would be considered to have 'earthly perfection', I would assume, as it is the closest to what most would consider perfect qualities. The other two pens are imperfect. Here is where your argument falls flat:Suppose a very strong person tried to write with Pen 1 and Pen 2 and found that he was unable to contain the pressure he was exerting on the pens, and therefore creating smudges and smears causing letters to be illegible when he wrote. Pen 3, on the other hand, flowed for him at optimal speed, and he was able to effectively write lists and all manners of other useful information. So Pen 3, the one that most people would not even be able to use at all (they couldn't see the orange ink, they constantly found the ink flow stopping, it lasted only long enough to get through half of their projects, etc). The problem here is that none of these pens are perfect. They all contain flaws. And none of them can even be considered earthly perfect, because by your level of subjectivity, it requires that it be the closest humans as a whole can get to perfection. None of these are the closest to perfection for humans as a whole, as per your definion. In fact, they are all riddled with flaws in different circumstances as we saw in the last scenario. So this simply means that for the strong man, Pen 1 worst in fullfilling his needs, and Pen 2 better at fullfilling his needs, but Pen 3 best at fulfilling his needs. We don't equate 'best' with perfect, for the very reason that just because something is best for a particular person, doesn't mean it isn't riddled with flaws, or completely fails for a different person. Perfection needs to be much broader than a qualified definition which you have given. PerfectionBecause perfection is a state of completeness and an absence of flaws, it must be something more than a qualified version of 'worse, good, bad, better, etc'. So, it must be something that instead, cannot be qualified. The state of completeness implies that nothing more may be done in order for it to fulfill its assigned task; it either fulfills it or it does not (it is either perfect or imperfect). All 3 pens fufill their designed task of writing, thus, they are all perfect, but subjectively, they are either better or worse for a specific person.