PERFECTIONISM

INTRODUCTION
Perfectionism, in philosophy, means something quite different
from the popular definition (The character of feeling a
compulsion to be or do things, “perfectly”). In Philosophy,
Perfectionism describes any Philosophy of pursuing the best
possible life, human excellence, or other “highest good” or any
philosophy of ethics or politics that prioritize such goals. In none
of these cases dies it imply reaching a state of “Perfection” in the
popular sense, since “Perfection” in such matters in
Philosophically meaningless. Few if any Philosophers are believe
in a “Perfect” life or “Perfect” person. Instead Philosophical
perfection means pursuing the “ best Possible” such as :

A theory of values in which a “good life” means one aimed at

the highest “Good”, either for oneself, or for the world in general
where “good” may be defined differently by different
philosophers. However all perfectionist philosophers assume
some objective nation of the “good” not what ever you feel like or
desire. As a theory of ethics, that perfectionism, as defined above,
determines what is morally right and wrong in other words,
whatever serves the highest “good” is morally right.
A theory in which political systems and government policies
should serve perfectionist agenda, these Philosophies are
separable but cumlative. You can easily be a Philosophical
perfectionist without being an ethical perfectionist, but not other
way around and historically. Philosophers often combine all three
positions many famous Philosophers have been perfectionists
such as Aristotle, Aquinos, spinoza and marx.

Perfectionism is a multidimensional personality disposition

characterized by striving for flowlessness high standards of
performance accompaned by overly critical evaluations of one’s
behaviour. Some versions of perfectionism hold that the good
consists, at bottom, in the development of properties central to
human nature, so that if knowledge and achievement are good, it
is because they realize aspects of human nature.

The word ‘perfection’ has been rooted in the Greek word

‘eudaemonia’. The Greeks interpreted the word as something
which is very nearer to what we call happiness. For Aristotle,
‘eudaemonia’ meant the end or final cause of moral life. According
to him, the word means an exercise of man’s soul (or realization
of the man’s moral capacities) in accordance with excellence or
virtue. When there are more than one execellence it should be in
accordance with the best and more complete excellence. It is
believed that perfection has been achieved through an
evolutionary process. Through the evolutionary process more
perfect plants, animals and human being, have come up. But it is
evident that through the conscious choice and deliberate pursuit
of ends, human perfection has been accelerated. Thus ,a as Lillie
points out, ‘there is one radical difference between evolutionary
perfection and moral perfection …. In evolution, we are concerned
with the perfection of the kind or race, each individual counting
only for the more perfect kind it may help to produce. In morality,
the aim is self-realisation". The perfection with which the moralist
is concerned is the perfection of the individual self. However, it is
not egoistic in its outlook.

Perfection lies in self-realisation

The question now is, which capacity of the individual is worth

developing? The artist develops his faculties of drawing a good art,
the singer tries to attain perfection in her art of singing and the teacher
wants to be a good teacher. But can these excellences help us in
attaining the real perfection? It is an ideal of every human individual
to have an all-round development of his capacities. This is definitely
an attractive feature of human life. But when we consider the question
of self-realisation, we are to pinpoint the particular aspect which has
to be developed. The only answer to this question is that self-
realisation consists in the total and all-around development of
personality. The total development of personality does not mean the
simultaneous development of all possible faculties of an individual.
This is an impossibility. Even if a man tries to develop in every
respect, he cannot aspire to be a master of all. Of course, according to
Bradley, man's aim should be to widen in every way-both the world of
knowledge and realm of practice. This ideal is no doubt
commendable. The difficulty here is that if this be the aim, then in
that case perfection cannot be attained at all. Hence self-realisation
means realisation of one's ideal self. The ideal self is nothing but the
rational self. The realisation of this rational self consists in the total
development of one's personality through an intimate relationship
with others in society. In other words, self-realisation is the
universahsation of the individual self. This is the ideal of yoga as
depicted in the Bhagavad Gita. A man attains perfection, particularly
moral perfection, when he develops his personality in such a manner
that he can promote his own well-being and the well-being of the
humanity at large. This is the ideal of self-realisation. As the
Bhagavad Gita says, the true self-realisation consists in realising or
seeing everything in one's own self and seeing himself in everybody.
This is the realisation of the rational self, quite different from the
realisation of one's lower sentient self.

The ideal rational self is beyond the self of the hedonist or the
self of the rigorist. The self which is realised by hedonism is the
sentient self, the self realised by the pure rationalist is the rational self
but the self realised by eudemonism is the total self. If the ethics of
hedonism be regarded as ethics of sensibility and the ethics of
rigorism is the ethics of rationality the ethics of perfectionism is
regarded as the ethics of self-realisation. While hedonism advocates
in favour of human emotion, feeling etc. and rigorism advocates in
favour of the rejection of sensibility altogether, perfectionism
advocates in favour of a self-conscious self. The rational self is a self-
conscious self because it consists in being aware of the role of
emotion, feeling, reason in the total development of personality.

The total self being the ideal self, it dissolves the ethical dualism
between, (i) sensibility and reason, (ii) egoism and altruism Mill
recognised the role of sensibility-Kant recognised the life of pure
reason, but Hegel, an advocate of perfectionism recognised the
harmonious development of the life of sensibility and the life of
reason, Thus perfect life is an integrated life. This is the view of Sri
Aurobindo says, “one must cease to be the surface personality and
become the inner person, the purusha.,," The implication of this
statement is that one must be a perfect person. Be a person' is the
motto of perfectionism.

This also reveals true nature of ethics which encompasses

both emotion and reason, the Individual and the society. A human
being the subject matter of ethics, has the elements of emotion
and reason but it surrenders the lower self (emotion etc.) to
reason.

The aim of self-realisation is the realisation that no one is an

island in himself, but he is a part of the greater self i.e. the society
or the entire humanity. Self-realisation actually dawns upon an
individual when he realises tins But how can this realisation come
? It comes through a process of socialisation or the expansion of
the sell based upon one's self-sacrifice.

Expansion of the self

Expansion of the self is possible when the moral agent leaves

aside his pettish selfish desires and seeks the development of the
family. In the family itself lie is initiated to a life of sacrifice. His
personality grows in a family. Gradually he realises his sell in
institutions like school, college or a community. If the situation
demands, he has to sacrifice the interest of the family lor the
community, the interest of the community for the nation and even
the interest of the nation for the humanity at large. this is the
universal message of the Upanisads in Indian philosophy. It may
be noted here that one need not renounce his family or
community or nation. One has to preserve his own interest but
must look forward for the upliftment of the humanity or as the
Bhagavad Glta says, one must be involved in lokasamgraha. This
expansion of the self presupposes a life of sacrifice. But one
cannot truly sacrific without love. As Gandhi says, ‘Love ever gives
never commands’.

What sort of sacrifice is demanded of a person who, is going to

realise the self ? He must sacrifice in two ways. Firstly, he has to
sacrifice his emotion, feeling, pettish self-desire etc. This is the
principle of ‘Die to live'. One must die in order to live. Here death
does not mean the complete cessation of the human body neither
it is the annihilation of the sensibility. It only means surrendering
the sentient self to the rational self. Total annihilation of the
sentient self is not required. What is required is the co-ordination
and harmonisation of the lower self with the rational or higher
self. In this sense the ego must die, so that the self may live.

Secondly, perfection can be achieved by sacrificing the individual

interest for the interest of the greater self. For a perfect person,
the ego is surrendered to the social interest. As has been-pointed
out earlier, the individual can realise his own self in a greater
sphere. That is why the individual interest has to be sacrificed
when required.

It should be noted here that the basis of sacrifice must be love.

Hatred yields hatred, love begets love. Sacrifice has no meaning if
something is not sacrificed with love. When the personal
subjective interest is sacrificed with love, it results in happiness.
The Bhagavad Gita says thet unification with the greater self
(yoga) presupposes purity of intention (citta suddhi). This purity
of intention yields happiness which is distinguished from mere
sentient pleasure. In Indian tradition, this state of happiness is
called ananda as distinguished from mere sukha or pleasure.
Perfectionism, Hedonism and Rigorism

The preceding discussion reveals that perfectionist aims at an

ideal, quite different from the ideal of the hedonist as well as the
rigorist. It is traditionally accepted that there exists an ethical
dualism between hedonism and rigorism. It has been a common
practice to identify hedonism with sensuous pleasure and
rigorism with reason, thus hedonism has been regarded as
empirical, and rogorism as rational in nature. Those thinkers who
believe that perfectionism institutes a reconciliation between the
two. But, it may be noted here that hedonist is not an advocate of
physical presure in every case. Similarly, rigorist also does not
reject sensuous pleasure altogether. The hedonist reveals the
general tendency of the human beings to seek pleasure. The
rigorist pleads that if pleasure be the goal of moral life, then man
will forget his higher sense of discharging his duty towards
others. Thus Kant holds the view that one should discharge his
duty without any personal cinsideration or for the sake of his own
pleasure.

If a person is not rewarded for his action then none will be

inspired to be virtuous. Similarly extreme form of hedonism
would lead to egoism or personalism. It would lead to a life of self-
gratification or self-indulgence. Thus James Seth aptly remarks,
"As the watch word of hedonism may be said to be self-pleasing
or self-gratification and as that of rationalism is apt to be self-
sacrifice or self-denial, so the watch-word of eudaemonism may
be said to be self-realisation or self-fulfilment.

Perfectionism does not merely reconcile the positions of

hedonism and rogorism, it goes beyond both of them.
Perfectionist looks at the spiritual values. He aims at the
harmonious development of all the faculties of a person in order
to make him a better man. A perfect man need not be an ascetic,
but he should not be controlled by the pleasure of the senses
Perfection means the realisat.on of the rational self by
subjugating, regulating or transforming the sentient self. He must
be a model of all human beings. In this sense, Kant’s maxim, be an
end in yourself is realised. A man must satisfy his animal desire,
he must have strength and vigour but to become a perfect man or
a real person he must utilise his basal instincts, strength, vigour
etc. according to the dictates of reason. This gives him happiness,
not a mere pleasure of senses.

Perfectionism, Egoism and Altruism

Egoism champions the cause of the individual. It seeks the

individual pleasure and individual perfection. Egoistic hedonism
clearly advocates this view. Universalism, on the other hand,
looks at the pleasure of all. It seeks the pleasure of the society as a
whole. Extreme form of universalism might neglect the interest of
an individual. Thus there appears a conflict between individual
interest and social interest or egoism and altruism. But this
conflict is dissolved from the standpoint of perfectionism.
According to a perfectionist, the social good is the individual good.
The relation between individual and society is organic. No man
can realise his true self by remaining isolated from society.

He can achieve this by being a member of the society Self-

realisation, which is the highest ideal of moral life, consists in the
realisation of an individual in society. His achievements and
failures are judged from the standpoint of social upliftment.
Social-upliftment, so to say. is a mirror in which face of the
individual is reflected. The social good can be established only
when different individuals live in harmony. Mutual help,
reciprocity of ideas, extending love to each member of the society
are the necessary prerequisites of social harmony. As Empedocles
pointed out, love integrates and hatred disintegrates'. Integration
of individuals, integration of emotion and reason etc - are
necessary for making of a perfect individual. Perfectionism, as
pointed out earlier, is based upon the ideal of co-ordination. To
lead a perfect life, co-ordination is necessary at two stages. First
of all, the different faculties of individual like, passion. emotion,
sentiment, reason conscience etc. must be co-ordinated. Secondly,
there must be perfect co-ordination between one member of the
society and another. It is the responsibility of each individual to
establish rapport with the other members of the community. But
the minimum requirement is that the individual must, himself be
perfect, or as Kant points out, each individual must be an end in
himself In this connection, perfectionism makes a distinction
between personality and individuality. The higher or rational self
of man constitutes personality where as the lower self constitutes
individuality. Man in his individuality thinks of himself, but he as
personality transcends egoistic desires and enters into
communion with the community as a whole James Seth puts this
idea in a different language.

When we submit ourselves to the common Law,

of Personality. We cease to be member of separate,
Competing or cooperating individual. We together
constitute a society, a system or kingdom of ends.
Individuality separates us, personality unites us
with our fellows,
James Seth’s maxim is ‘Be a person’ To be a person, it is
necessary that one should live in harmony with others. This
attitude should start from the individual himself He must make
himself perfect and act in such a manner so that the society may
become an ideal society.

Critics point out that as perfection is a vague term and its nature
and content cannot be clearly formulated. So it is very difficult to
accept perfection as the standard of rightness or wrongness of an
action. But it is true that perfectionism is the most acceptable
standard of morality as it places before us perfection as the ideal.

Different views on perfect life

Hegel:

Hegel is an idealist. According to him, the world and the

individual grow in the process of evolution. Hegel advocates that
the universe is the manifestation of reason. According to Hegel,
'whatever is real is rational and whatever is rational is real'. The
universe evolves from the spirit in a dialectical process of thesis,
antithesis and synthesis. In this process of evolution the
individual marches ahead towards self-consciousness A human
being not only develops the capacity to be aware of things, he
develops the power of thought to reflect on himself thus without
the capacity of self-reflection or self realisation, a man connot be a
fully human being. This capacity to reflect on himself is called as
reason by Aristotle. However, realisation of good which is
regarded as the highest moral perfection of a man does not
consist in the seeking of one’s personal good. Hegel emphasises
upon the social system to which the individual belongs. The
conscious effort of the individual to realise his own good is
useless and even evil unless it is in harmony with the social
institutions in which the individual realizes his own self in a
gradual ascending process. These institutions are family, society
and the state. Hegel's position can be better understood in
realizing the implication of the term 'good will'. According to
Kant, 'good will' is the basis of morality which is otherwise known
as forming the rules for one's own self. Hegel, however, maintains
that the good will is a universal will which becomes self-conscious
in the course of evolution.

Kant gives importance on rights of reason ignoring the right

of sensibility. Hegel harmonises both giving importance on right
of reason. He advocates the principle 'Die or live'. By this he
means that the self must die as a private individual and live the
rich and wider life. The crucifixion of the flesh is necessary for the
resurrection of the spirit. He advocated to live the higher life of
reason and for him the way to self-realisation is through self-
abnegation. Hegel further says "Be a person". We should bring out
our personality out of individuality. We should realize our
rational self by transforming our sentient self. Personality is an
end in itself, it is not a means to some other end. So we must
realize our personality and respect that of others. So he says "Be a
person and respect others as a person".

T.H Green:

T.H. Green was an Oxford idealist thinker. Both Hegel and

Green held the view that there is a spiritual principle which
expresses itself in nature. Green, however, holds the view that
there is the spiritual principle which distinguishes man from
other animals. Man shares some qualities in common with other
animals. But he enjoys the privilege of possessing spirituality
which other animals do not distinctly posses. The unique spiritual
character of man is not an accidental or additional faculty. The
spiritual principle works in and through man. The principle is
manifested in the ordinary behaviour of human life which
consists in looking forward for an ideal and realising it as an
entirely spiritual activity. According to Green, the human
activities are mostly teleological. This teleological activity of
planning for the future, adjusting means to ends or the goal-
directed activities are rational and purposive activities According
to Green, the spiritual principle of the universe manifests itself in
and through these rational activities. We call this spiritual
principle as God. Just as God conceives of the future of the
universe, man also conceives, predicts and plans his future course
of activities Reason is reflected in the self-conscious activities of
man and to some extent in the conscious or semi-conscious
activities of man.

According to Green, reason works for attainment of a

particular end. There can be different ends-in-view But so far as
the moral goal is concerned, man is not very clear about it.
However, he always marches ahead towards the realisation of this
end, In other words, man is always progressing towards
perfection. Perfection can be progressively attained in social life
alone. Man is attempting to realise this end through the gradual
process of socialisation. For Green, the growth of the spiritual
principle can be traced in the course of history. However, Green
has stressed on the point that the moral development of man is a
growth from within. This growth is the manifestation of the
spiritual character. I lie development towards perfection is
realised through socialisation.

F. H. Bradley :

Both Bradley and Green belong to the idealistic school of

thought. They advocate that there is a metaphysical spirit which
manifests and works every where and particularly in human
activities. As Alasdair Maclntyre puts it, "Both Green and Bradley
however, place the individual not merely in a social, but in a
metaphysical context or rather, they appear to perform social
analysis in a highly metaphysical style" . Both Green and Bradley
raised a crusade against utilitarianism, Utilitarianism, according
to them, is actually individualistic in its approach. This theory
treats the society as an aggregate of individuals where each man
seeks his own pleasure. The common good or the maximum good
of the maximum number which the individual seeks is a mere
practical compromise between the individual interest and the
common interest. The idealism of Green and Bradley, on the other
hand, stands on the principle that morality grows from within'.
The most perfect life of an individual is the life lived according to
the moral ideal. But an important question, according to Bradley,
is, why should I be moral? The only answer to this question is that
the question is improper as the question suggests that there is an
end of morality which is beyond the scope of morality itself. But
according to Bradley, the end is constituted by morality itself.
This is the realisation of the self as a whole, the achievement of
this ideal is the attainment perfection The question now is, how
can the perfection of the individual be attained?

It has been seen earlier that no individual can attain

perfection in all the sphere of his activities. An attempt to do so
also creates problem in society, as no one would he able to
specialize in all fields. Most of the idealists think that each
individual is a part of the whole universe and he is intrinsically
related to the universe. Each person is thought of having his own
special place in the social system. The concrete moral life of an
individual consists in performing a particular function in the
community. This is the 'station' in which an individual is placed. A
faithful and honest discharge of duties leads to the perfection of
the individual. F. H. Bradley pointed out that a man has to
discharge his duties in the station in which he is situated. Bradley
advocates the optimum use of one's potentialities in furtherance
of social good of a person who is well-disposed and capable in one
field does not his duty, then that vital function of society is
hindred and the social organism suffers.
 One's natural duty determines one's station in life. Society is
a functional organization and all functions which are essential for
the development of society requires, one has to engage oneself in
duties that are appropriate to him. The views of Bradley bear a
close affinity to that of the Gita in respect of linking one's duly
with one's station in life. According Bradley, each person is born
with particular aptitudes and talents. He has a definite station in
society By performing duties appropriate to his station in the
society, he can achieve self-realisation. "1 am to realize myself my
station and its duties. In short, man is a social being, he is real
only because it is as social and can realize himself only because he
is as social that he realizes himself.

Self-realisation of an individual consists in attaining

perfection in the particular station where he is placed. The society
benefits by the perfection of the individual The idividual also
realises his self in the society by performing e particular duty
assigned to him. For example, he can attain perfection as a
teacher, as an artist, as a painter. While discharging his duties, the
individual is likely to discover a wider sphere of morality. He has
to discharge his duties perfectly and sincerely. This is what his
sense of morality demands. Apart from this, which is his main
duty, he has to establish contact with his fellow-being. This is a
step towards the perfection of the self. This also avoids the
conflict between self-realisation and self-sacrifice. As William
Lillie puts it, "It is by attending to these that we shall discover
practically the compromise between self-relisation and self-
sacrifice which has been such a problem for moralists. In doing
our daily duty we shall both spend our lives in the service of our
fellowmen develop towards perfection those of our own
capacities which are most worth-while developing".

References :

1. James Seth, A Study of Ethical Principles p 183

2. Sri. Aurobindo, The Conversations.
3. James Seth, A Study of Ethical Principles p 192
4. Ibid , 205
5. Maclntyre, A Short History of Ethics. p 245
6. F.H Bradley, Ethical Studies, p. 98
7. Lillie, An Introduction to Ethics. p 203.