According to philosophy, nature is the essence of something but with a special focus in the purpose, and perfection is achieved by following nature. As in an example, if a lion has the essence of a lion and does it purpose of surviving, by hunting and sheltering, then it is perfect. But what happens to humans if we always say there is no such thing as a defined purpose?

Well, philosophy then says that for humans to be perfect we must see into the core of our essence, that that can tell us a part from a black bird or a stapler, and according to philosophy and some other people, it is reasoning. The ultimate use of the reason is the choice, the decision, so we are perfect just by making decisions, or are we not?

Our behavior goes according to our moral and to our instincts, the moral is completely human, but is not always taken by decision, and that is when we enter into what is correct, some (Kant) would say that we should just do what we are supposed to. That is following the duty, acting upon universal laws and truths. That might sound convenient for a peaceful society, so where is the mistake? It is that we stop reasoning, we stop making choices and we just act based on universal truths, letting all the reasoning out.

So this is why it is such a burden to have this so called liberty, we have to be responsible for our actions, but we can't just follow the duty just because because then it's not freedom, it's just acting based on following steps, which is easier than reasoning each and every situation. So we are perfect because of our choices.

But not all choices involve being human, deciding which cereal are we going to have for breakfast is not really that human, we are just giving for granted that we decided to eat breakfast because it is "what must be done" from there we are already making a bad use of our liberty. Second, such thing its not that human, because it is based on a instinct, on the instincts of eating anyways, and that could have been easily made by the lion.

What I try to say here is, our human decisions are the ones that are not based on the instinct, on seeking pleasure that appeal to the senses. So we achieve such perfection by taking the decisions that are not lead by the instincts, such as to chose to go to school, but not to be forced, that could have been made by a chimp, the actual decision is human perfection.

But if we seek the ultimate perfection, the one that is not just philosophical perfection but, perfection per se, then what we seek is that decision that goes without any drop of primal instinct on it, one that even goes against it. One decision that would state that our liberty is beyond any instinct boundary. So, if the main primal instinct is to survive, which decision would reassure that we are beyond it?

That is the decision of death, and so by the previous arguments and reasons I could state that the decision of death, and the action of it, is actually the ultimate expression of human perfection. Because by choosing death we are going against any animal instinct on us, we are expressing in it's complete form out liberty. So this is why, taking the decision of death is the ultimate expression of human perfection. Suicide


[avoid being perfect, life is good]
By I'm the penguin

By no means this sub-essay tries to encourage the reader of taking any action in attempt to kill itself, it is just philosophical reasoning and thoughts from a mad author.