What kind of mistakes do you want to make?

How can you consciously accept the things that go wrong?

Given that none of us are gods, we as human beings have to learn how to make better mistakes. 

There’s no real way to avoid them - we are limited in our knowledge, our power, and our virtue, meaning that we are guaranteed to screw up and fail all over the place. And not just cute little “getting a mere 98% on a test” mistakes, but massive life-altering society-burning fuckups. A lot of our misery comes not just from these fuckups but from expecting ourselves to have had godlike perfection in leading our own societies and lives. 

Given that error is inevitable, we are then left with a choice - what kinds of errors are we willing to accept? Given that any effort of ours is going to fail at least a little bit and have unintended consequences, what kind of failure and disaster are we out to create?

Let’s say that you’ve had your heart broken, either by someone else or by yourself. You are left not trusting love and not trusting yourself in love. What do you do? Do you stay at home and never talk to anyone again? You would avoid the misery of heartbreak and create the misery of lost opportunity. Do you go out and get romantically involved again? You would be exposed to the same deep pain again and some part of you will have a hard time letting go of that awareness and you’ll be hypervigilant and anxious as hell and maybe ruin your next romantic involvement THAT way instead. Which pain is more acceptable - the pain of renewed heartbreak or the pain of forever missing out?

Let’s say that hormone therapy and gender-reassignment surgery really helps some people who are dealing with gender dysphoria. Do you promote hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery as the best and most important treatment for gender dysphoria? You would open the door for people who aren’t best served by such a treatment having their body rearranged in a way they deeply regret later. Do you discourage hormone therapy and gender reassignment? You would deny some people a necessary treatment that profoundly improves their quality of life. Which pain is more acceptable - those who need transition, or those who transition and later regret it? 

Let’s say there’s a conflict in the Middle East. Do you assert that the moral choice is clear between the parties involved? You’ll then risk dehumanizing the supposed evildoers and keeping yourself in the dark about information that contradicts what you’ve committed to. Do you assert that the moral choice is too muddy to assert anything at all? Then decisions will be made and actions will be taken by people who do think the moral choice is clear, even if they’re wrong, and you’ll have denied yourself a presence and voice. Which is more acceptable - ignorance and dehumanization, or paralysis?

Maturity lies in accepting our own finitude, in conscious acceptance of the risk of error, and in consciously communicating the risks to people who share our commitments. Contemporary social incentives do not tilt in this direction - you will not likely go viral by asserting nuance and caution, but that makes it all the more important to swim against the tide.