For some reason, one that often eludes me, the human psyche is very obsessed with the idea of perfection. We are always striving to find perfection, both in ourselves and in the world around us. Therefore, when initially shown two very different looking trees, one with an asymmetrical configuration and the other the epitome of tree perfection, my first instinct was to pick the perfect one. However, upon further consideration, I soon came to the conclusion that tree B’s perfection is anything but ideal. By analyzing the details of tree B, I was met with reflections of the scientific but also social concept of the “perfect human” or the ”perfect pet”. Personally I find those ideas slightly terrifying in the sense that they appear to take away
…show more content…
This thought experiment appears to be more about the mind and drawing a universal conclusion based on a specific predilection, than about the trees themselves. As a result, it would seem necessary to define what it means exactly to be partial to something. If one’s tendency lies in the aesthetic appeal of an object or living thing, such as a tree, then a distinction must be drawn between them and the person who chooses a tree due to the number of rings on its trunk and its history. There may, of course, be another individual who likes to climb trees and therefore selects the tree that is the most inviting to climb on. My point is that the general question of tree preference is quite ambiguous because without a full assessment of a person’s character, not very much can be determined. In the example of choice through climbing potential, I would go so far as to say that there is no way to classify that person as Romantic or Classic. Even with a tendency towards adventure, there are still too many unknowns to categorize a person just because they like climbing trees. Consequently, based on my very limited knowledge of both trees and the distinction between Romanticism and Classicism, I believe that while trees may be the new windows to the soul, they should also just be appreciated for their uniqueness and serenity. Perfection is an incredibly subjective term and while I think that it will always be out of reach, I hope that for a certain Classicist, tree B inspires hope that perfection is a little bit closer than they originally
This thought experiment appears to be more about the mind and drawing a universal conclusion based on a specific predilection, than about the trees themselves. As a result, it would seem necessary to define what it means exactly to be partial to something. If one’s tendency lies in the aesthetic appeal of an object or living thing, such as a tree, then a distinction must be drawn between them and the person who chooses a tree due to the number of rings on its trunk and its history. There may, of course, be another individual who likes to climb trees and therefore selects the tree that is the most inviting to climb on. My point is that the general question of tree preference is quite ambiguous because without a full assessment of a person’s character, not very much can be determined. In the example of choice through climbing potential, I would go so far as to say that there is no way to classify that person as Romantic or Classic. Even with a tendency towards adventure, there are still too many unknowns to categorize a person just because they like climbing trees. Consequently, based on my very limited knowledge of both trees and the distinction between Romanticism and Classicism, I believe that while trees may be the new windows to the soul, they should also just be appreciated for their uniqueness and serenity. Perfection is an incredibly subjective term and while I think that it will always be out of reach, I hope that for a certain Classicist, tree B inspires hope that perfection is a little bit closer than they originally