Comment by un-diletante

I'm not sure how I feel about this quote. It seems to me like it only makes sense when talking about a tool or thing with scoped functionality that would be hindered by unnecessary accretions. In the state of "perfection" for something like this, there would be nothing left to add or remove. But even in this context, if it's unable to perform it's function due to insufficiency, perfection would be achieved by adding and not subtracting.

If one were to apply it to life in general, it seems even less fitting. Although we can never achieve perfection, I think most people would agree that a meaningful life is lived through growth and gain towards a particular ideal or goal. The more we grow, the closer we come to that unattainable perfection. Removing what's harmful or a hindrance is a part of this, but if all you do is take away and not add, you just end up with nothing.

Ultimately, I think it's lacking because while you can err both due to deficiency and excess, it only considers excess and denies deficiency. It serves more to assuage feelings of inadequacy in the face of unattainable perfection than to give an accurate representation of life. And even if you don't believe in perfection, this quote doesn't deny that it exists, it merely claims that it can be achieved solely by treating excess, while ignoring deficiency.

I'm sorry if this is all very pedantic.