How Should We Respond to Our Circumstances of Existence’s idea of perfection?

How Should We Respond to Our Circumstances of Existence’s idea of perfection?

            Iris Murdoch’s “The Idea of Perfection” is a culmination of all of the philosophers we have analyzed thus far. Murdoch analyzes the human desire of perfection; perfection internally and on a social level as well.  She calls into play Plato’s analysis on love, Simon Weil’s use of language, and Aristotle’s ability to know “the place if science in human life” (p. 427). It’s not about what or how the philosophers philosophized, it’s how love comes into play with the idea of perfection. It’s about how language affects an individual’s idea of perfection, and how science influences an individual’s idea of perfection.

            Before these major factors in the construct of perfection, I’d like to analyze is the idea of perfection realistic? I’d argue hoping to attain “perfection” is completely unrealistic- both as an individual and as society as a whole. Murdoch uses a small case study between M- the mother in law and D- the daughter in law, and analyzes the initial relationship to the relationship between the two at a later date. Murdoch calls out a specific trait that is in both individuals and society: change. Morals can change, evolve, grown, weaken, strengthen, etc. More importantly: context. Your understanding of things can change, as you better understand the context of things. This is why wanting perfection is unrealistic. There is no straight path for how to be the perfect person in a perfect society, because you are not always the same person, and what you think you know might not actually be so.

            Yet, as individuals and a society we still seek and work towards perfection. So what does love have to do with perfection?  Love is a value. Love is something many people have philosophized about, and as Murdoch mentions “has been driven by science and logic into a corner” (p. 424). Love is an important part in the idea of perfection because psychology and science ignore the moral value of love.  Love and moral values aren’t seen as concrete factors in the human circumstance in the idea of perfection; they are mostly seen as something abstract. They are abstract because love and morals are “concepts themselves changing” (p.423) as you learn, see, experience, etc. Yet still your idea of love and your morals are concrete factors in this idea because just like you strive to have a perfect GPA (which is a concrete strive) you equally strive to love just as perfectly and to uphold your morals just as perfectly. What Murdoch really calls out here is that perfection in individuals is more than just concrete things such as work, school, material gains, but it’s also in the abstract as well that individuals seek such excellence.

            Alongside love and moral virtues is science. Science tries to measure; it enters the philosophic realm trying to create exact ideas or concepts, while philosophy treats morality on the basis of human nature. Science creates an issue in the idea of perfection in which it doesn’t differentiate that it is a question on human nature and not a concept in psychology that can be clearly mapped out as a chemical reaction in someone’s brain essentially. Science tries to turn something so personal into something that can be explained as “here’s the idea here’s the reason”. Why human’s are always looking for perfection isn’t clear cut, because it is influence by more than just science and psychology. Really, what “perfection” is can even change as language and context come in to play.

            What would the idea of perfection be without language? Language affects all factors when it comes to the idea of perfection.  The use of language affects science, it affects love, and it definitely affects your morals. Words are just like eyes and ears, they are used in the idea of perfection as another way to analyze what we see as perfection, and to judge if something or someone fits in our idea of perfection. Murdoch mentions Plato’s idea of language stating: “…words themselves do not contain wisdom. Words said to particular individuals at particular times may occasion wisdom” (Phaedrus). Two very important things Plato mentions here: time and who you are speaking to. This is how language specifically affects the idea of perfection: the time period and who is speaking. The time period means that there is a specific idea of perfection; that there is a social construct already there probable influencing this person to believe in a certain idea of perspective. Who is speaking is just as influential. Take into account Murdoch’s case study on the relationship between M and D: how the daughter in law spoke heavily misled the mother in law to believe she wasn’t the idea of the perfect daughter in law she had in mind.

            Murdoch sums up the idea of perfection perfectly (I believe) at the end of her piece. It’s not something psychology can map. It’s not something only influence my morals, or love, or language. The idea of perfection is everything, and then it’s nothing. The idea of perfection changes, or it might not. It’s something that is social and individual. Really the idea of perfection is an individual obsession, because we don’t want to be failures. That is why everything influences so greatly this strong idea of perfection. We all want to be perfect, because we don’t want to be imperfect.