Perfectionism and the Void

What do comedians, the ethereal void, and a boring post about why I procrastinate articles have in common?

Remember when I wrote about starting a Stoicism series in March? Well, I did. They’re all in my drafts section because I don’t like any of them enough to publish them here.¹ So here we are.

The Pros of Perfectionism in Writing

When I talk about my perfectionism, what I mean is that I want the writing to meet a certain standard I have in my head, and if it doesn’t, then I won’t share it or consider the work complete. At first pass, this doesn’t sound unreasonable. It makes more sense to share something with someone when we believe it is a better work because first impressions matter even when it comes to reading something. In addition, we are being considerate of the time and resources it takes to read and store the information.

The context of the writing matters too. If this is a research report for a new cancer treatment drug or a PhD thesis, you can bet it’s going to be better for you if you use all the time you have up until your deadline to craft the best possible version.

The issue with attempting to maximize the “goodness” of the written word is that…

The Cons of Perfectionism in Writing

… You don’t know what perfect is.

“Wait” you might say, “who are you to tell me that I don’t know what perfect is? You, a philosopher of all people, should know that our minds don’t necessarily think alike. Just because you think we might have similar views and experiences doesn’t mean you know what MY perfectionism feels like.”

Maybe you didn’t say that, but I’m going to use that rhetorical device anyway here.

I respond to you, “Yes this is true, but I believe that if you’re reading this blog, we are probably similar enough that my theory of mind applies here.”

Back to the point after I was so rudely interrupted, we don’t know what perfect is. We can have an individual sense of what it feels like to see a paper and have nothing more to add, but many who have been in school know that feeling when you think the paper is perfect until it is returned to you with all sorts of marks and recommendations by the teacher.

At that point, you read this and update perfection. This is why I defined perfection as a bar we set in our heads, based on our prior experiences and beliefs.²

What if the bar is too high? Well, the thing we might want to ask is where is this standard coming from, and since too high is a comparative phrasing, what are we comparing the bar to be too high from?

In other words, what is our ground that this bar is too high above? It might be what we consider to be the norm of papers in whatever context you’re writing in. If this is the case, going above and beyond is alright, as long as you check your reasons for the paper, and then ensure that you aren’t losing sight of the goal of the written work.

There are also times when less is more. A few examples of this can be when a paper is already maximally good for the context, and the author tries to get more technical than they bear the capacity for.³

Comedy Example:

Or perhaps the written work is a script for comedy. The screenwriter spends hours pouring over the script, rewriting, rewriting, rewriting. They wear themselves out trying to ensure this will be the most funny, the most clever, and finally, it comes time to shoot the scenes. The movie has hired some amazing comedians. They also happen to be amazing at improv. The scenes are shot, and most of the time, the comedians are improvising their lines. Rarely do they say exactly what was in the script.

Do you get the point?⁴

So what do we do?

When you have something you’re writing, it’s important to be aware of the following

1. Context of the work

2. Personal experience

   1. Potential blind spots

   2. Potential biases

3. Audience knowledge

All of this is nice, and I believe it is very helpful but at the risk of sounding cliché, the main thing is to know your why. If you can deeply ask why you’re writing the paper, this will allow you to identify the motivation which often brings forth the context, the experiences driving it, and so on.

Once you’ve done this, ask yourself what standard you’re imposing on the writing. Is it set by someone else? Is it set by you?

If it’s set by someone else and you want to meet that standard, then you can either hit the mark or go beyond if time permits. That much is up to you.

If it’s set by you, then the onus is on you to ask yourself why you have that standard. Where does it come from? Is it reasonable for the context?

My reasons

I write this blog for my development as a writer, which makes me a better thinker, a better philosopher, and hopefully, a better human who can think out his actions before acting them out.

I believe that writing forces the writer to take ideas from the fluctuating, ethereal space which is their mind, and funnel them into concise, coherent ideas. It is a way of structuring the qualia of being into some sort of readable, shareable thing.

Once we’ve done this, we can challenge ideas. We can see the actual claims for certain, and unlike in conversation, we can notice when we move the goalposts on ourselves. If the claim is written on paper, then time does not affect it. The paper isn’t subject to change its feelings or wording. The paper sits there, with text, symbolizing some idea we had.

We can see our thoughts change. We can see what kind of being we think ourselves to be in concepts.

Once we’ve done that, we can transform. Writing is a process of elucidating your beliefs, and once you’ve done that, this changes you. You can see what is bull, and what stands, where your assumptions may lie. All of this depends on if you look carefully at what you’ve written, and this takes time and learning, but it’s a possibility.

One way to get better at this is to practice identifying the arguments. The biggest change happened for me when I took a course in Philosophy of Religion. We worked on logical forms, and through this practice, I changed.

So, clarity of thought, transformation, and the pleasure of taking ideas from the ether and transfiguring them into text… that’s why I write.

Cheers, Aaron

writing forces the writer to take ideas from the fluctuating, ethereal space which is their mind, and funnel them into concise, coherent ideas. It is a way of structuring the qualia of being into some sort of readable, shareable thing.

Thanks for reading PhilosophAI

Background: A swirling, ethereal vortex representing the mind's boundless creativity and the abstract nature of ideas. Foreground: A stylized quill pen or typewriter, symbolizing the act of writing and the tools used to capture thoughts. Overlay: Text snippets from your post, such as "Clarity of Thought," "Transformation," and "Qualia of Being," scattered throughout the image to visually convey the themes you've discussed. Accent: Perhaps a subtle silhouette of a figure pondering or writing, representing the introspective journey you've undertaken in your writing process.

1. I felt that I couldn’t do the work justice in the same way that other authors could. Among these I admire are Donald Robertson, William Irvine, Ryan Holiday, and Chris Fischer. I’ll link their respective websites below.

• Donald Robertson Cognitive-behavioural psychotherapist and author of Verissimus

• William Irvine - Author of Guide to the Good life

• Daily Stoic - Ryan Holiday

Podcasts:

• Stoicism on Fire - Chris Fischer

• Stoic Coffee Break

2. Yes, I realize I use this phrasing a lot. So much of what we assume to be good, right, wrong, bad, and the imperatives we put on ourselves with “should”, “must”, “have to”, and so on, is a product of genes, choices, the norms of society, and our experiences. This is a point of emphasis because our experience of being a self doesn’t make this evident…. at least in my experience of being a self.

3. Me while I write this section

4. I acknowledge the use of a reductio ad absurdum argument with the comedian. If you’re unfamiliar with this term, you can read about it here. It’s important because it comes up often in debate and discussions even in daily life.

Here’s a 90-second video explaining the concept of reductio ad absurdum