Permanence and Perfection

Traditionally, the idea of perfection implied permanence, especially in the case of God. To be perfect, one must have permanence. Permanence itself has been long sought as something desirable. This is, however, a strange pursuit because of the impermanence of the human soul. The soul is always changing, and even things deemed “good” are regarded as less so if they go unchanged while those observing it do change. Even if someone does not change their tastes, things they once found desirable become less so if they don't go through some form of improvement.

It is for this reason that permanence should not be considered a desirable quality in things for which people strive. Plato saw the impermanence of material or worldly things as a symptom of their imperfection, and Buddhists see the impermanence of material things as a reason why desire brings suffering. It's based on the assumption that everything that we desire inevitably dies, degrades or somehow lets us down. However, even if they stay the same, our desires are less and less satisfied with it over time. One reason for this is that having things is not as satisfying as attaining them. Getting a PhD or a gold medal is always more exhilirating than any time afterword when you look at that degree in its frame or that medal in your trophy case.

The greatest good, given human psychology, is therefore a constant, but unpredictable series of improvements. No matter how good you have it, you will not stay happy in stasis. Constant attainment is truly the greatest good for a human being, not some static state of “perfection” that allows no improvement.

The improvement one undergoes must also give one the feeling that it is a result of ones own efforts most of the time. That's not to say that the occasional event of accidentally falling into some wonderful circumstance won't be satisfying, but if one never has the feeling of personal accomplishment, no amount of dumb luck will bring you fulfillment.