Perfect

What are you supposed to do when perfection seems so near that you can almost see it? When you feel like you could've done it, but it's too late? It's like Plato may have been more right than he could have imagined. Perfection is in fact something which appears so close and yet isn't something that we could possibly have ever really seen, nor can it be something that we ever achieve, but why? Why is this the case?

When we paint a picture, we presume it to be the most perfect version of itself, as it does not exist in any other form. Even if a painting is done again in a precisely identical manner, even for an identical aim, time alone dictates that the same thing can never be done twice. But does time even matter? If I close the door at one instant with a certain number of people observing this act, then do the same thing again mere seconds later, with all the same people, the same door, the same "I" closing it, isn't this for all intents and purposes an identical action? There may be fewer seconds between the second occurrence of this event than the first and a person's inevitable end, but in the scheme of things, does that matter?

After all, we always tell each other not to dwell on the little things and to simply enjoy the fact that we are all alive; maybe even cherish the things we dwell on because our life is good enough to allow us time to dwell. But isn't what is little and what is big a matter of perspective, as is the relative goodness or badness of something? If that's the case, then it shouldn't matter what I or anyone else do because virtually every non-scientific characteristic or definition I ascribe to an act is a definition, at least temporarily, uniquely mine.

If we're going to go so far as to say that good and bad are seen from a place within certain bounds, then why do we further arbitrarily limit what we are allowed to call good and bad? The only thing which can almost universally be said by any rational individual to be bad is that which unquestionably worsens the conditions of human life. But even that is only if you're human, so why must we insist on looking to science, the materialism of logic, to prove what is good for humans, when so far as has been logically and scientifically proven, we may not be strictly material? I tend to believe that if there exist things which are provable in a material fashion, then all things are provable in a material fashion. I know that that statement is inductive (and therefore easily falsifiable), but why is it that, when so much of our universe is ending up holding true to the former, so many people disagree on the latter? It's like they want to have it both ways, which is in my eyes a disgusting self-deception that ought to be done away with permanently.

If we can conceive of or imagine a realm of perfection, of an area in which perfect things lie instead of at a singular point, then why can't it be that this realm exists? Why can't we agree that that which is conceivable is also imaginable and therefore possible? I'm arguing here for a point I don't believe in because it's the only way I can justify a point I do. People cannot be "perfect", but they can be perfect versions of themselves. I suppose it's when we don't feel that we're the best we can be that we feel out worst. Perhaps my persistent imagining of a timestream where I am someone else or a better version of myself is as psychologically-unhelpful as it seems. But again, the only feeling I have left over from that thought is one of frustration. After all, I could've been better in the past. Maybe it's the realization of how that would've affected my present and future that annoys and pains so constantly. After all, "have" can mean both "must" and "did possess (a particular state)". For all I know, it's the double meaning of that first word that's been messing with my head for so long.

But it's not just me. We could all have been better in some way--healthier, prettier, kinder, more intelligent, harder-working, generous, helpful. You name it, chances are you're not perfect in that aspect. But why? Why do people, myself included, so frequently fail to live up to their potential? Why do we allow people such leeway in their character or being when forbidding this freedom would make the world a better place? Of course, many will say that it's because requiring more would impinge on freedom, and therefore happiness. But I don't believe in that "freedom" nonsense. If I must eat, I am not free. If I must drink, I am not free. If I must breath, I am not free. So why do we aspire to maximize, to perfect, our freedom, if one, we think perfection of anything isn't possible, and two, freedom has exceptionally limited intrinsic value? After all, if we say, "we are free", that doesn't say much. Free to do what? Free to pursue the perfection of self that we consider valuable? Certainly, American/Anglo-Saxon/European society has long valued perfection. We try to paint it, write it, think it, be it. But at the same time we tell others and ourselves that that pursuit is meaningless, and harmful to the self. If that were true, why would we value whatever image we have of it so highly? And freedom provides no requirement for the achievement of perfection.

From my perspective, freedom is useless in 3 ways-
1. It superficially tells us that nothing other than itself is so valuable that all must be directed toward it.
2. It wants us to be the perfect version of ourselves so that it can continue without having to absolve itself of the conflicts it must naturally allow to exist.
3. It produces no drive for the perfection that it needs to be sustained, and therefore willingly allows itself to die unless we actively maintain whatever version of it we percieve to be complete.

What is a person to do in a society that purports to give him freedom to do what he wants, but only within certain bounds, and requires a high if not total degree of self-perfection to operate (or at least it operates best when this exists), yet not only doesn't provide a strict definition of perfection, but encourages people to define their own perfection? Freedom and it's correlate capitalism fail for these reasons, and intelligent totalitarianism succeeds for precisely the opposite. It tells us what is valuable, should allow our falling from the perfection of those values, and helps us up with a framework for achieving them.

I'd like to say I'll take being perfect over being free any day of the week. But my own life reflects how conflicted I feel on this topic.

I'm really anxious for them to fully understand all the mechanisms of the human brain.