I wonder if you met any of these people and told them that you regarded them as perfect, what they would say. I believe anyone truly worthy of the respect that you give to the people on your list would laugh at the thought of themselves or anything they have done being perfect (in the actual meaning of the word).
Leonardo da Vinci is quoted as having said "Art is never finished, only abandoned."
But we all have different concepts of what perfection is. Mine focuses only on aspects of these people, I'm aware. Like the saying goes, "Never meet your heroes."
I see perfection as less of an absolute. It's a difference of definition on our parts.
I see your point of view and understand that you will likely continue to hold it regardless of what I say, but none the less, I completely disagree with it.
What I'm saying is that even as it relates to aspects of people, or the actions they perform, based off whatever morality they follow, perfection is not achievable (see above quote from da Vinci). Greatness worthy of respect? Yes. Amazing deeds and ideas? Yes. But perfection? No. If you or anyone else has a different concept of what a word means than its actual meaning then that is up to you. But it doesn't make that concept correct and certainly doesn't make that concept easy to communicate to others who do not share your non-standard definition.
If one has to redefine the meaning of a word for ones philosophy to make sense, then maybe it's just best to use a different word and save everyone some time.
It appears that the meaning of the word "perfect" seems to be very elastic indeed, as it relates to it's use in Objectivism. One moment it actually does mean "perfect" as in "so good that further improvement is impossible" and the next it becomes this "relative" term, of fluid meaning.
Leonardo da Vinci is quoted as having said "Art is never finished, only abandoned."