Shlomi Fish ([info]shlomif) wrote,
@ 2008-04-28 10:41:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current location:Home
Current mood:productive
Current music:John Denver - Grandma's Feather Bed

Unattainable Goals that are Still Worth Pursuing

One thought that occurred to me lately was the fact that there are some goals in life that can never be fully attained, but are nevertheless worth pursuing and getting nearer and nearer to them. Like an asymptotic function in mathematics if you may.

One example that I thought for it is the case of objectivity. Human beings are subjective by nature and so can never be completely objective. However, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to be as objective as possible, or completely give up on being objective. (And by being objective I don't mean having a neutral Point-of-View). Other people can disagree with me that objectivity is a virtue but it's besides the point.

Now a co-worker of mine is a Hasidic Jew, and when I told him that I'm an Objectivist, he said that one cannot be completely Objective. He then gave the fact that the Bible says that God brought the great drought because "Yetzer Lev ha'adam Ra' Mine'urav" (= the desire of the Human's heart is bad from his youth.), and later on decided not to do it again for a similar reason. He brought that as an indication that the Bible indicated that a man is not Objective by nature.

I thought about it for a moment and understood that the same can be said about honesty (or "righteousness" in a more religious language). We can never be completely honest and never lie or do the right thing everytime. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't constantly try to be as honest as possible, or worse succumb to complete dishonesty.

(I was told Immanuel Kant said something along the lines that if one wished, for example, to be sincere, he must not lie even if threatened by death. However, this is silly, because ethical and moral ideals are supposed to help you lead a happier life (as identified by Aristotle in the first book of "Nicomachean Ethics"), not to terminate them prematurely under someone who employs force or threat of force against you, when you otherwise did not do anything wrong.)

After I told it to my co-worker in an MSN Messenger conversation he agreed with me that I was right on both the honesty aspect and, in accordance with the principle, also the Objectivity one.

This concept can be applied to many other values or capabilities we desire. For example, one can always improve as a programmer, which is evident by the fact that most good programmers who take a look at their old code are unhappy with it. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to always improve as programmers.

Likewise, if a particular computing technology is large (e.g: Perl, Java, PHP, .NET) and also has possibly spanned a large number of halo technologies (e.g: CPAN, Apache Jakarta, etc.), then mastering the core language would be hard, and time consuming. In the Perl world we constantly say that "no one knows all of Perl, not even Larry Wall". But it doesn't mean you shouldn't do your best to master as much as you can out of it, or need to.

One example that I'm especially sensitive about is politics in a software project (possibly an open-source one ). Obviously, there can never be zero politics, but the project leaders and members should always try to reduce its amount, because not keeping it at bay is a recipe for disaster. I constantly hear about important features that are not implemented or even bugs that are left unfixed in open-source projects due to political reasons.

I can give Subversion and to a lesser extent the perl5-core development tools as good examples of projects with very little politics and a value-maximising attitude.

One can think of many other examples.

My point is that while it is true that we are humans and can never be perfect, we should always aim for perfection in some aspects. And given enough willingness and by learning from our mistakes, we can remain close to perfection in those respects all the time.



(Post a new comment)


[info]real_skeptic
2008-04-28 10:23 am UTC (link)
I wonder whether people should look at such goal as asymptotes, or look at them more as finding the point of balance. In fact, what you mentioned regarding Kant is about balance, not about trying every day to go further than you did yesterday. In Buddhism (I'm taking a Buddhism workshop this year) they call this "attentiveness" - getting a feel for the situation and finding where the place of balance (which changes all the time) is.

I don't think we should aim for perfection in anything. I think we should aim for balance, otherwise we just create misery for ourselves, because at some point you might break the balance, and pay for achieving that "extra perfection" in other aspects of the situation. All situations are complex. All of them have many variables, and those variables, well, vary all the time. One has to learn to forgive oneself when he hasn't made that extra step - or the price would be self-flogging.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Thanks for the reply! I'll reply to it later.
[info]shlomif
2008-04-29 07:03 am UTC (link)
Hi real_skeptic! Thanks for the reply - it raises many good points. I'd like to reply to it later, but don't hold your breath.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

I was not trying to advocate Perfectionism
[info]shlomif
2008-05-02 07:37 pm UTC (link)

Hi!

Thanks for your message. One problem I had in my post was that it seemed like I was advocating perfectionism. As noted in "Feeling Good" (a highly recommended self-help Psychology book about Cognitive-Behavioural Psychology), Perfectionism is a bad tendency and can easily lead to many depressions. From what I know of myself, I'm not a perfectionist and don't ever wish to advocate it. For example, in the Technion, I had a policy of never trying to improve my grade for a class as long as it was a passing grade. I even got some 50-something grades and still kept them. The reason was that I wasn't a perfectionist and that I was trying to limit the amount of extra frustration and extra work I'll have to endure. I graduated, and while it cost me a lot of blood, perfectionism would have made it much worse.

Feeling Good also discusses dealing with guilt, and that you shouldn't feel bad about your failures. What I meant in my entry is that we should try to keep some natural, but bad tendencies at bay. One should not worry too much about having erred, but you should strive not to err too much.

Naturally, you need to keep your ideals in context. They are meant to help you lead a better life, not make you miserable.

So I think that when striving for excellence, one should not feel too bad if he or she errs.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

http://crimethinc.com/texts/atoz/practical.php
(Anonymous)
2008-05-07 04:01 am UTC (link)
The political and economic structures are constructed so that it is practically impossible to avoid being implicated in their workings. Today, whatever a man thinks of the employment opportunities available to him or of our economic system itself, he has almost no choice except to work if he does not want to starve to death or die of an illness for which he could not afford health care. If he does not believe in material property, he still has no choice but to buy all the food and clothing he needs and to buy or rent living space (that is, if he is not ready to live at odds with our very effective legal system)—for there is no free land left that has not been claimed by someone, almost no food or other resources anywhere that are not someone's "property." If a woman wants to distribute material criticizing the capitalist system of production and consumption, she still has no way to produce and distribute this material without paying to produce it, and selling it to consumers—or at least selling advertising, which encourages people to be consumers—to finance production. If a woman does not want to finance the brutal torture and slaughter of animals in the name of capitalism, she can stop eating meat and dairy products, purchasing health products which are tested on animals, and wearing leather and fur; but there are still animal products in the films in her camera and the movies she watches, in the vinyl records she listens to, and in countless other products which she will be hard-pressed to do without in modern society. Besides, the companies she buys her vegetables from are most likely connected to the companies who make meat and dairy products, so her money goes to the same ends; and these vegetables themselves were probably picked by migrant workers or other oppressed labor.

...

Besides, demands that we avoid hypocrisy deny the complexity of the human soul. The human heart is not simple; every human being has a variety of desires which pull him or her in different directions. To ask that a human being only pursue some of those desires and always ignore others is to ask that he or she remain permanently unfulfilled. . . and curious. This is typical of the kind of dogmatic, ideological thinking which has afflicted us for centuries: it insists that the individual must be loyal to one set of rules and only one, rather than doing what is appropriate for his or her needs in a particular situation.

It might well be true that the whole self can only be expressed in hypocrisy. Certainly a person needs to formulate a general set of guidelines regarding the decisions he will make, but to break occasionally from these guidelines will prevent stagnation and offer an opportunity to consider whether any of the guidelines need reevaluation. A person who is not afraid to be hypocritical from time to time is in a great deal less danger of selling out permanently one day, because he or she is able to taste the "forbidden fruit" without feeling forced to make a permanent choice. This person will be immune to the shame and eventual despair that will afflict the person who strives for perfect "innocence."

So be proud of yourself as you are, don't try to get the inconsistencies in your soul to match up in a false and forced manner or it will only come back to haunt you. Rather than holding inflexibly to a set system, let us dare to reject the idea that we must be faithful to any particular doctrine in our efforts to create a better life for ourselves. Let us not claim to be innocent, let us not claim to be pure or right! But let us proclaim proudly that we are hypocrites, that we will stop at nothing, not even hypocrisy, in our struggle to take control of our lives. In this age when it is impossible to avoid being a part of the system we strive against, only blatant hypocrisy is truly subversive—for it alone speaks the truth about our hearts, and it alone can show just how difficult it is to avoid living the modern life which has been prepared for us. And that alone is good reason to fight.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Hmmm...
(Anonymous)
2008-05-07 01:08 am UTC (link)
What is this objectivity you speak of? Perhaps you mean intersubjectivity?

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…