The Psychology of Human Perfection

Joshua Yen, Year 12, Shaftesbury

“The consciousness of the infinite is nothing else than the consciousness of the infinity of the consciousness; or, in the consciousness of the infinite, the conscious subject has for his object the infinity of his own nature. ” —Ludwig Feuerbach

The achievement of perfection has long been an ideal that has permeated the heart and soul of mankind. To some, it is the formulation of the perfect society; to others, it is the pursuit of the perfect relationship or ideology. The widespread nature of this fascination not only makes it a problem of the individual fields in which one wants to achieve perfection, but also raises fundamental psychological discussions about why, and in some cases, whether we actually desire perfection.

To come to our conclusions, I would briefly discuss the nature of perfection on a societal scale before turning more to the personal and individual sphere. By delving deeper into the latter, I believe that we would have a greater understanding of perfection and why they play such an important role in self-development.

In regards to society, I would like to compare the communist dream of the “ conquest… of the proletariat” (Marx, 13) to the capitalist structure; and in regards to the second, the role of the ideal in our everyday lives and achievements. When approaching the issue of communism in this entry, I want to make it clear that my main aim is not to critique the communist theory, nor to provide any substantive discussion of its capitalist counterpart. Rather, the formulations of both the capitalist and the communist dreams are very profound and have significant implications for our current discussion.

Let us, for the sake of the argument, take a reduction or a summary, of the two views. In regards to the capitalistic idea, we strive towards a free market and free exchange of capital. In regards to the communist blueprint, man is but a byproduct of his class, and history the byproduct of class struggle. To Marx (evidently influenced by Hegel), this was a nigh inevitable progression of history towards an ultimate destruction of class and the development of a shared economy of the proletariat.

What we see here is not mainly an ideological difference, but rather a methodological difference. While capitalism ’ s goal is the achievement of a methodology—the free market, communism starts off with the ideology before finding a way to achieve it. It is understanding this second approach, more specifically its sudden growth of popularity, which is especially applicable to our discussion.

A communist “ economic ” approach (of shared goods) has undergone a wide change throughout history. [1] Originally, when societies were less united and most people congregated in small villages and tribes, it was more practical for man to adopt a more egalitarian approach to goods and production. There was a farmer who provided bread, a hunter etc. However, with the expansion of human civilization and the growing interaction with other tribes, trading became extremely important. It was upon this system that capitalism was found. The necessity for goods and their availability actively impacted their worth in trading, leading to a capitalistic mentality. However, this approach found itself challenged by growing socialistic thought in various parts of the world. Turning to the oppression and suffering of the proletariat, the working class, many socialists were appalled by the system and sought to solve this problem of class inequality. Viewing it as an inherent problem of a capitalistic methodology, they proposed their communist ideal, the divination of a perfect society, a return to a long lost past perhaps. [2]

What does this tell us about perfection on a societal scale? One can make the case that it demonstrates that society views methodology (in this case capitalism) as a tool of progress and development, whereas they view perfection (in this case communism) as the solution to the problems of a flawed methodology.

This, I believe, tells us a fundamental psychological fact about our use of perfection. We are, perhaps, less worried about achieving perfection and more worried about solving the most imminent problems which face us day to day.

This is supported by writings about the psychology of fear and wish-fulfillment in the works of Dostoevsky and Freud respectively. Viewing fear as a fundamental driving force of the human predicament, Dostoevsky, through his character Kirillov, suggested that “God is the pain of the fear of death. ” (p. 128) What Dostoevsky noted is that our fear of certain problems (death in this circumstance) can, at times, be so vehement that it leads us to turn to extreme alternatives to compensate. In the same way, when we are faced with an indomitable problem, either on a personal level, or a societal one, rather than trying to look for the most immediate solution, we would rather turn to the ideal or perfection, a great, perhaps, similarly unrealistic goal to solve our first problem.

Since it seems quite obvious that the societal turn to perfection seems to ultimately stem from a more personal source, it would be apropos for us to delve into this individual nature in more depth. To do this, I would like to turn to the work of Ludwig Feuerbach, who in his work The Essence of Christianity, provides great insight into how we first developed the idea of the perfect being (in his case God).

To Feuerbach, perfection did not necessarily come from an external source, rather perfection

[2] Evidently, there were already strands of capitalistic mentality here, everyone had to produce a certain amount of goods in order to maintain their value to the society Or at least this is how the socialists of today view the dream of communism. While it is clear that Marx himself viewed socialism as more of a dialectical “ end of history ” a la Hegel, many socialists do not adopt a similar (and I believe flawed) reading of history. Rather, they made what was originally meant to be a philosophical process an ideal that was meant to be strived toward.

came from the process of man learning more about himself. Truly convinced in the “divinity of human nature, ” (p. ix.) Feuerbach concluded that we divined the infinite from our own “ consciousness of the infinity… [and the] infinity of his own nature ” (p. 2.) What is found within us is mirrored onto the world, and it is only when it is mirrored onto the world that we truly find out what it is (and even at times, recognise it as a completely separate entity from ourselves).

This is arguably true for most of our ideals and our images of perfection. The “ solutions ” that we find are arguably manifestations of our deepest thoughts reflected as ideas in the extrinsic world. For example, Marx argued that communism was a “ scientific ” end-to-history, while this appears, at face value, to be an empirical inquiry, in reality, this is an embodiment of his beliefs in equality of outcome and a destruction of class.

If this is the case and we combine this hypothesis with the discussion above, we reach a rather complex, and arguably somewhat paradoxical, idea. We turn to perfection as a solution to an extrinsic, perhaps, existential problem, yet in turn, realise that perfection, instead of being something found in the external world, is actually found deep within us. In some sense, we are already equipped with the ideals to overcome the problems that are meant to be beyond us.

If we were to further follow the argument to its even more messy conclusion, would it not also be right to suggest that it is precisely our reaction to solving the darkness which allows us to discover the greatest light? This idea is profound. Where else would we expect to find God apart from being the guardian against the greatest evil? Where can we come by the ideal apart from the darkest part of human existence? [3]

The same can be said of love, courage, sacrifice and fellowship. These beautiful, if not divine, ideals are most commonly found in the pit of torment and despair. The fact that these ideals are not extrinsic, but indeed intrinsic further convinces us that even in the darkest of times, we can personally reach the light.

While this is definitely a very romanticized version of the ideal, one must note that the ideal is not without its faults. While Dostoevsky undeniably recognised the importance and utility of the ideal, he realised that with it came a very radical and counter-intuitive shift. Instead of being something that you strive towards and aim to achieve, Dostoevsky suggested that upon achieving it, man would naturally destroy the ideal.

To Dostoevsky, the idea of a perfect society was absurd, in some senses it was by definition a contradictio in adjecto. His reasoning was simple. A perfect society is that which embodies perfection in every single level and facet of its existence. But if this is the case, a perfect society would have no way to turn, no way to develop. Man would become useless and harmful in every sense of the word. Everything he does would do nothing but weaken the perfect society. As a result, he concluded that if we were to achieve perfection, we would destroy perfection to maintain the beauty of the struggle and action in man.

This perhaps tells us even more about the ideal. As developed before, the ideal is a solution to a great problem. However, we were yet to describe how exactly it was meant to solve the problem. Dostoevsky ’ s analysis gives us the answer, the utility of the ideal lies not in its attainment but in the fact that we struggle towards it.

To illustrate this, I would like to take a page out of Greek mythology—the age-old problem of Sisyphus, the tragic man cursed to push his rock constantly up the hill only for it to roll back down again. Sisyphus represents the endless struggle of human existence, no matter how far we try to run, we are ultimately stuck on a plane of nihilism and despair, without a goal, without a purpose.

This is where the ideal comes in. While it is dangerous to try to idealise the physical and directly apply perfection into our lives, it works as a beautiful tool to escape this endless cycle. Regardless of whether there is truly another side, through the divination of the ideal, we are motivated to continue to push the rock up the hill. And even if we were to spend all of our existence on an upward toil towards the heights, the “light at the end of the tunnel” allows one to conclude that “ all is well, [for] the struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man ’ s heart. ” (Camus, Sisyphus, pp. 118-119.)

Evidently, what we have established would undeniably be somewhat different from Camus ’ reading, but its existentialist thesis is nevertheless the same. By placing the ideal as the unattainable other, we can see that the problem of Sisyphus should no longer be seen as a problem, but rather a prophecy to inner meaning and purpose. Life, a struggle which is apparently futile and meaningless, is suddenly endowed with meaning through that unreachable goal on the top of the hill, a beacon and a guardian against the gaping chasm of nihilism that lies below. What is special about this beacon is that it did not come from beyond, but from within, a pre-existing solution to all of life ’ s toils and hardships. This is, to me, the most simple, yet most lucid understanding of perfection, a foundational belief within all of us which allows us to strive towards the light.