Alas, the author reaches a mountain of a question (as a side note, at that): why are we so dissatisfied with human imperfections?
Alas, the author reaches a mountain of a question (as a side note, at that): why are we so dissatisfied with human imperfections?
> The closer men came to perfecting for themselves a paradise, the more impatient they became with it, and with themselves as well. They made a garden of pleasure, and became progressively more miserable with it as it grew in richness and power and beauty; for then, perhaps, it was easier to see something was missing in the garden, some tree or shrub that would not grow. When the world was in darkness and wretchedness, it could believe in perfection and yearn for it. But when the world became bright with reason and riches, it began to sense the narrowness of the needle's eye, and that rankled for a world no longer willing to believe or yearn.
edit: typo
It does help if you have some knowledge of the ways of the Catholic Church when reading the novel. I don't think I could have fully appreciated the richness of "Canticle" if I'd read it at a younger age when I'd had no experience with the Church. But I'll also say that it's one of those books that I love but don't reread too often since it always leaves such an impression.
But yes, I would say that the dangers of pure rationalism (without the wisdom to temper it) is something of a theme throughout "Canticle".
When imperfection affects only yourself as an individual, or those around you only slightly, it doesn't seem like a big problem. And if it's not a big problem, hey, why do we even make a problem of it at all? Right?
But it turns out imperfections reach much further. I want a society that doesn't let anyone sink, that is built to be resilient, that is in control of human wellness. And we are still too imperfect to reach that. Though it's not about imperfection per se, it's about doing better as a tool to make our societies what we would like them to be. Maybe if we reached such equilibrium we could allow ourselves to go back to be much more imperfect again.
Who decides what is “sinking”? I don’t mean in the sense of “is a teenager given an iPhone X who wanted a 13 ‘sinking’?” but rather:
What if some people have a genuine desire to do something that other people (people who are in charge) have decided is “sinking”? Should we abide the will of the former or latter group?