People are beautiful.

I often make philosophical arguments to myself or occasionally to others that reference my deeply held belief in the valuation of human characteristics. However, I don't know that I've fully fleshed out, in any sort of cohesive format, precisely what I aim to convey in words about such qualities. Humans are flawed; I think that's a fairly acceptable initial statement to make. However, that sounds overtly pessimistic - not something I feel I match up with. Some days are ups and others are downs, but to me, that's analogous to the difference in weather and climate. A bad day can be like bad weather. It's a temporary setback, a finite period of negativity. However, that doesn't remove the possibility of a climate (corresponding to one's disposition towards life as a whole) of positivity, filled with a stereotypically sunny day. When someone thinks of me, I hope they imagine something more along the lines of "radiantly cheery." Thus, perhaps the statement, "Humans are flawed," should be revised. Elaborated upon. Discussed at length, to address what I really mean, in line with my mindset. Perhaps, "Humans are a success story." It's the plot that courageously rises from a humble beginning, decimating the forces that oppress the potential of the individual. It's one person, pouring their entire Selves (see my "Self" essay for additional thoughts, though the usual context of "self" is still applicable here) into the development of a life that was previously only a thought, if at all. Effort yielding satisfaction. In flashback, it is a dramatization of the accomplishment of everything someone would put on their resume of existence. But, not every human is a success story. Not everybody meets a great level of satisfaction in life. What accounts for this? Such a description of what it is to be "human" cannot be complete if it's not universal. "Human" should encompass all humans. Being "human" is not a privilege. It's more fundamental to me than the concept of a "natural right" to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. However, natural rights are regarded as a baseline, a zero-point to the scale of societal freedom. Thus, if a natural right is the most basic form of entitlement based on living, being human must be its cause. Why do I choose to tackle this statement? Why am I arguing a happy case against a negative statement? Is it because I believe due to a Disney-induced stupor, immune to realistic views, that good always wins and arguing for an optimistic view strengthens the legitimacy of my hunt for an explanation? Perhaps. That's entirely possible. But I think that the real reason I'm supporting that is that I do believe that humans are flawed. I do look out and see problems caused by humans every day. I see people having issues, be they personal (brushed off as first world problems) or financial (blame the recession!) or social (finding belonging in what feels like a divergent society). I usually try to help as I can, but sometimes things are out of my power - I, too, am flawed. Perhaps, "Humans are limited." I can't do everything, and I have yet to know of anyone who can. Many people can do many things well, but no matter what sort of Renaissance man or polymath someone is, there exist limitations. Some are imposed by the laws of physics, but others are imposed by ourselves. I see a "flaw" as something more superficial. It's a chip in a block of marble in my mental visualization. A limitation, however, is an immovable hard value that cannot be surpassed. Neither one seems very flexible or capable of change, yet people can conquer their weaknesses if they're sufficiently committed to doing so and have circumstances that aren't incredibly adverse to their goal of improvement. "Limitation" is a better word to me. It denotes something that's a little less surface-level. It's difficult to conquer. However, I see humanity's greatness in its ability to expand the initially fixed limits upon it.