iUtopia
The dream of making the world a better place is one that has oft been cherished in the minds of fools and nurtured in the hearts of those poisoned with chronic idealism. A Better World. Ostensibly, this seems to be a mere velleity, one that lurks around in the corners of our thoughts. It is however one implanted in our minds, an attempt by farmers of thought to inspire and mould the consequences of our actions towards this fallacious goal. These aren’t just the words of a sceptic or cynic, though I admit, I profess to be both. This is definitely not an attempt to dampen the buoyant naiveté of those who strive to mould the world to their definition of an ideal future and what follows is not mere verbiage intended for sake of argument alone.
The notion, of “better” unaccompanied by a concept of a “best” is what prevents this fallacy from dawning on humanity’s expectant shoulders. Since the birth of civilisation, since man overcame his awe of fire, since the tiller deployed oxen to plough his tracts, since humanity mastered first machine and then the elements, to now where he commands the very constituent of existence to his whims and seeks to both question and answer all, man has come far. Through the ages, history - with its tapestry of narratives and obloquies etched in blood - has proven the restlessness that lurks within the spirit of all humanity. Man has always tried to better himself, and more so, aimed at bettering the state of the world as a whole and in the process, the masses have managed to aid and abet those who seek but their own ends. The single flaw with the above process is that every idealist who aims to make the world a better place usually has his own indulgent opinion of it, which conjugated with severely megalomaniacal tendencies, give rise to leaders, be they jingoistic, fanatical or merely those of a spiritual or philosophical kind.
The concept of a “path to a better world” would indeed be acceptable if there was at all a notion of an ideal world. If we knew exactly what levels we aspire to attain, maybe then the entire enterprise might not seem as asinine to me as it currently does. Again, however, it seems extremely unlikely that a concept of an ideal world, a utopia does or could ever exist.
An ideal world is a child’s fairytale and an adult’s wishful thinking, one that probably helps him look forward to the day next in hope of a better lifestyle. What constitutes a better world? A utopia? No crime, no poverty, happiness in every man’s heart, equality, morality, a world devoid of fear? As tantalising as the above may sound, they are trite, repeated statements parroted without understanding the consequences of their implementation, if at all. Poverty for one, is a relative term. Any notion of eradicating poverty completely comes hand in hand with Communism, Socialism and the breakdown of individualistic thinking. The only thing we can hope to achieve is the establishment of a minimum quality of life and provision of bare basic amenities essential to subsist to all. If everyone gets richer, money has merely lost its value. Even in the most advanced societies, concepts of rich and poor will still rankle the mind of dissatisfied individuals.
The human spirit is one that quests for perfection, one that creates obstacles for itself in hope that it has the ability to overcome them. For such a being, the pursuit of happiness provides far greater satisfaction than happiness itself. The theory of the prospect of a journey being far more inviting than the realisation of a goal applies in this aspect of man’s personality. Any joy that the fulfilment of a task may bring is temporal, being soon shadowed by a far greater challenge that the individual would try to overcome. Dissatisfaction lurks within the skin of humanity. This primal instinct for betterment abhors stagnancy and will, nay, can never allow man to maintain a sustained level of comfort with himself for too long a period of time. It is this that man should attribute all his successes to. The will to survive, the will to prove that he is better than himself, the will to assert his superiority over obstacles of his own creation, the will to Power.
Man’s lack of an infinite ego is the cause of this Will to Power. The term, first widely used by Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, a German Existentialist, is the part of a theory that insists that man needs to assert his dominion over others. As this goes, this extends not only to his fellow inmates, but also to inanimate creations, and absurdly, to himself. The notion of willpower, of overcoming your own innate shortcomings is also a sign, of man wanting to win over something, in this case, himself. This Will to Power sees happiness as a potent sedative, one that restricts, inhibits and binds man to a state of torpid indolence. The representation of the world - by the Warchowski Brothers - as part of a matrix programmed to artificially imbue happiness is our minds was, to many, a detestable notion. Why? Because it took away the sense of achievement, the passion, the fight, the prospect of a challenge, and the sheer surge of satisfaction on success. Happiness eradicates this beautiful sense of victory, and that man will never accept. A utopia leaves no scope for betterment, and as aggravatingly circular the logic might sound, it is this very lack of future betterment that prevents man from reaching the destination.
If the world existed to satiate the whims and needs of all individuals, it would be an isolationist world, one comprising of individuals in the ideal sense of the word. Society binds men in fragile, bonds of gossamer, never seen or felt, merely apprehended on every occasion. It was on the might of a collective that man managed to survive the ages. However, the happiness of an individual can never actuate to the happiness of a collective. The spark within man that urges him to relatively better himself is prevalent in all. However, this unity is that which leads to disparity. To quote a friend, society is merely a compromise reached between individuals in order that their basic rights will be guaranteed and will stay inviolate by mutual consent. When the very nature of society exists on a compromise on ideals, there can be no notion of individual and collective happiness. Each has ideals of their own, and the more persuasive, the more powerful, the more influential supersede the rights of others. The world is the result of the choices of a few who sought to mould the future to they’re concept of an ideal. This creates society, and it is on this that society thrives. The inequality of power. And as long as this exists, a collective happiness can only be achieved by denying Freedom of Thought. And a greater blasphemy is hard to conceive.
As I reach the conclusion of my arguments, I would like to clarify a few points. I assume they stem from a basic need to not be misunderstood. I would like to apologise for the lack of a cogent, consistent argument through the entirety of the above. My views need refinement in their presentation. It was possibly an amateurish attempt to philosophise but I strongly stick by the ideas presented above. The passage, ill-titled though it may be, attempts to establish the non-conceivability of a utopia and tries to give reasons to support the claim. Many of the reasons can be supported (with my current persuasion skills) only by day-to-day examples. The reasons that I allude to are, by themselves, long-winding theories and notions established in my messed up head. Putting them into readable words is difficult. Ignore the presentation of views, correct the lacunae (if any) in reasoning, but do try to understand the essence of the views presented.
I do admit, the reason I even tried to bottle my thoughts into a passage with a vain attempt at both brevity and explanation (and (initially) a mere show of my love for words and long-winding sentences) was a little influenced by the theme of my college annual magazine, “How to make the world a better place”. It was not, however the reason for the train of thought. It is a notion I had maintained for quite some time.
Consumattum Est
- Thriddas Anorak
The notion, of “better” unaccompanied by a concept of a “best” is what prevents this fallacy from dawning on humanity’s expectant shoulders. Since the birth of civilisation, since man overcame his awe of fire, since the tiller deployed oxen to plough his tracts, since humanity mastered first machine and then the elements, to now where he commands the very constituent of existence to his whims and seeks to both question and answer all, man has come far. Through the ages, history - with its tapestry of narratives and obloquies etched in blood - has proven the restlessness that lurks within the spirit of all humanity. Man has always tried to better himself, and more so, aimed at bettering the state of the world as a whole and in the process, the masses have managed to aid and abet those who seek but their own ends. The single flaw with the above process is that every idealist who aims to make the world a better place usually has his own indulgent opinion of it, which conjugated with severely megalomaniacal tendencies, give rise to leaders, be they jingoistic, fanatical or merely those of a spiritual or philosophical kind.
The concept of a “path to a better world” would indeed be acceptable if there was at all a notion of an ideal world. If we knew exactly what levels we aspire to attain, maybe then the entire enterprise might not seem as asinine to me as it currently does. Again, however, it seems extremely unlikely that a concept of an ideal world, a utopia does or could ever exist.
An ideal world is a child’s fairytale and an adult’s wishful thinking, one that probably helps him look forward to the day next in hope of a better lifestyle. What constitutes a better world? A utopia? No crime, no poverty, happiness in every man’s heart, equality, morality, a world devoid of fear? As tantalising as the above may sound, they are trite, repeated statements parroted without understanding the consequences of their implementation, if at all. Poverty for one, is a relative term. Any notion of eradicating poverty completely comes hand in hand with Communism, Socialism and the breakdown of individualistic thinking. The only thing we can hope to achieve is the establishment of a minimum quality of life and provision of bare basic amenities essential to subsist to all. If everyone gets richer, money has merely lost its value. Even in the most advanced societies, concepts of rich and poor will still rankle the mind of dissatisfied individuals.
The human spirit is one that quests for perfection, one that creates obstacles for itself in hope that it has the ability to overcome them. For such a being, the pursuit of happiness provides far greater satisfaction than happiness itself. The theory of the prospect of a journey being far more inviting than the realisation of a goal applies in this aspect of man’s personality. Any joy that the fulfilment of a task may bring is temporal, being soon shadowed by a far greater challenge that the individual would try to overcome. Dissatisfaction lurks within the skin of humanity. This primal instinct for betterment abhors stagnancy and will, nay, can never allow man to maintain a sustained level of comfort with himself for too long a period of time. It is this that man should attribute all his successes to. The will to survive, the will to prove that he is better than himself, the will to assert his superiority over obstacles of his own creation, the will to Power.
Man’s lack of an infinite ego is the cause of this Will to Power. The term, first widely used by Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, a German Existentialist, is the part of a theory that insists that man needs to assert his dominion over others. As this goes, this extends not only to his fellow inmates, but also to inanimate creations, and absurdly, to himself. The notion of willpower, of overcoming your own innate shortcomings is also a sign, of man wanting to win over something, in this case, himself. This Will to Power sees happiness as a potent sedative, one that restricts, inhibits and binds man to a state of torpid indolence. The representation of the world - by the Warchowski Brothers - as part of a matrix programmed to artificially imbue happiness is our minds was, to many, a detestable notion. Why? Because it took away the sense of achievement, the passion, the fight, the prospect of a challenge, and the sheer surge of satisfaction on success. Happiness eradicates this beautiful sense of victory, and that man will never accept. A utopia leaves no scope for betterment, and as aggravatingly circular the logic might sound, it is this very lack of future betterment that prevents man from reaching the destination.
If the world existed to satiate the whims and needs of all individuals, it would be an isolationist world, one comprising of individuals in the ideal sense of the word. Society binds men in fragile, bonds of gossamer, never seen or felt, merely apprehended on every occasion. It was on the might of a collective that man managed to survive the ages. However, the happiness of an individual can never actuate to the happiness of a collective. The spark within man that urges him to relatively better himself is prevalent in all. However, this unity is that which leads to disparity. To quote a friend, society is merely a compromise reached between individuals in order that their basic rights will be guaranteed and will stay inviolate by mutual consent. When the very nature of society exists on a compromise on ideals, there can be no notion of individual and collective happiness. Each has ideals of their own, and the more persuasive, the more powerful, the more influential supersede the rights of others. The world is the result of the choices of a few who sought to mould the future to they’re concept of an ideal. This creates society, and it is on this that society thrives. The inequality of power. And as long as this exists, a collective happiness can only be achieved by denying Freedom of Thought. And a greater blasphemy is hard to conceive.
As I reach the conclusion of my arguments, I would like to clarify a few points. I assume they stem from a basic need to not be misunderstood. I would like to apologise for the lack of a cogent, consistent argument through the entirety of the above. My views need refinement in their presentation. It was possibly an amateurish attempt to philosophise but I strongly stick by the ideas presented above. The passage, ill-titled though it may be, attempts to establish the non-conceivability of a utopia and tries to give reasons to support the claim. Many of the reasons can be supported (with my current persuasion skills) only by day-to-day examples. The reasons that I allude to are, by themselves, long-winding theories and notions established in my messed up head. Putting them into readable words is difficult. Ignore the presentation of views, correct the lacunae (if any) in reasoning, but do try to understand the essence of the views presented.
I do admit, the reason I even tried to bottle my thoughts into a passage with a vain attempt at both brevity and explanation (and (initially) a mere show of my love for words and long-winding sentences) was a little influenced by the theme of my college annual magazine, “How to make the world a better place”. It was not, however the reason for the train of thought. It is a notion I had maintained for quite some time.
Consumattum Est
- Thriddas Anorak
posted by Thriddas Anorak at 7:25 am
0 comments
