It is my belief that Mr. Emerson's essay was more about being the best version of yourself you can be. Yes, someone has to mend your shoes and bake bread, however, if that's your profession, you should strive to be the best at the given task. If you pride yourself in your work, then being the best baker isn't an insult, nor being the best car driver, chef, or construction worker.

There's certainly no shame in being a driver, baker or barista. And if you yearn to be the best at a particular task, all the better for those who use your services and perhaps society at large. But you're not your job. In a small amount of time you won't even be a memory. The universe doesn't care how well you brewed that coffee, nor does it care about your electric car company. Even as the people of the future and their artificial aides stand on the collective shoulders of giants past, finally encapsulating the sun with the greatest megastructure ever known to harness its vast power, the universe stares back silently, carelessly.

You are the universe looking at itself. If you want to make something, make it. Make it as good as you want to make it. But more than anything, celebrate your existence. For some, that's doing a great job - making a great thing. But society will suffer as long as the only way to validate your existence is to work and work hard.

striving for being best shouldn't be limited to profession, but also on personal levels - friend, family member, partner, parent. sociery will benefit greatly from people who manage to get this all well, but there seems to be actually very few people who achieve this.

>if that's your profession, you should strive to be the best at the given task.

My best takes 10x the time and, in most cases, is 100% unprofitable. Standards and status quos exist for a reason - because they work.

I used to work with a "perfectionist" personality and he was ultimately let go. He just couldn't keep up and had this ridiculous "I'm the best" attitude that was incompatible with most acceptable schedules. He didn't even seem all that talented, just obsessive. I suspect "being the best" usually translates into "learning the test."

The reality is that when we look at creative and productive and satisfied people, we see a mix of traits. More common than not, the lazy half-asser wins out as she can provide something of value (convenience). She gets annoyed by problem y and produces solution x. The guy who looks at problem y and has a "okay I'll spend 10 hours on getting this perfect" attitude falls behind the girl who says, "Lets write a script for this and fully automate it." Why shouldn't the automator feel as much satisfaction as the obsessive perfectionist? Honestly, the "be your own mountain man with endless time on his hands to do simple things" ethos shouldn't be applauded. Its just a lot of questionable things taken to an extreme - obsessiveness, distrust of others, inability to be on a team, inability to be efficient, etc.

That is perfectionism as a vice more than a virtue, which is a valid concern.

The best tends to be achieved by acknowledging constraints of time and resources and accomplishing the most within those constraints. Knowing when something is good enough is important. Being able to reach that point quickly is also important, or at least being able to reach it before the competition.