It is the concept of “perfection”. For, if existence — or, “to be” — constitutes the satisfying minor premise of the definition contained in the major premise, “That than which nothing greater can be conceived of”, then the question is: Do we necessarily have to agree with the societal construct of what “greater” means or, similarly of what “perfection” must entail?
Most ontological arguments must include some acceptance of what “perfection” entails — of the query involving, “How can an imperfect being possess a concept of perfection unless that perfection exists?”
But when it comes down to the details of what we mean by the term “perfection”, we find ourselves in squabbles of circular argumentation. Societal constructs of perfection — or, of even lesser norms, like what is a “good” citizen, a dedicated worker, a loyal individual, etc. — often gets us into trouble, especially when such a definition becomes the basis for a self-harming viewpoint.
For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, continuing to work despite harming your own health is often insisted upon because of our distorted view of societal perfection. We hold onto the societal construct of what it must mean to be a dedicated and loyal employee — i.e., the societal definition of perfection — until we die of exhaustion in trying.
If you are no longer able to perform all of the essential elements of your position with the Federal Agency or the Postal Service, contact a disability lawyer who specializes in Federal Disability Retirement benefits and begin the process of defying the false construct of societal perfection.
Robert R. McGill
Lawyer specializing exclusively in FERS Disability Retirement Law