Freedom: A utopia

INDIVIDUALITY IN COMFORTABLE EXILE 

"Man is born free, but is chained since birth."

                                          -Jean Jacque Rousseau.

Hallowed be the esteemed moniker of Monsieur Rousseau, as he succinctly encapsulated the inescapable incarceration of the Modern Man. Man, however, was never born free. He was never meant to, and if somebody claims otherwise, I encourage you to impugn his knowledge and his sanity.

Since birth, the man is lonely and is subjected to inexplicable and inviolable constraints: he is simply powerless and is coerced to withstand the sharp blade of despondency which gleefully cuts through his fledged soul! For he is a brother to a greedy woman,loyal son to an endearing mother, obedient child to a failed father and the bonded labourer of the society. The man cannot escape this predicament. 

Perhaps this is the inherent reason behind the Buddha preaching his votaries to liberate their "citta" from a world full of "dukkha" and attain nirvana, the highest possible state of bliss and freedom. However, let me not digress. 

Philosophers during the age of Enlightenment, i.e, the late 18th and early 19th centuries, stressed on and elucidated an idea christened  "Social Contract". In simple terms, this notion asserts that individuals have consciously acceded to a contract of ethics, morality and social legalities at the expense of their Will to Power and liberty, so as to facilitate the "greater good", or in practical terms, ensure "security". One can say that this implies shared assets and liabilities, i.e., individuals have acceded to share their resources, profits and responsibilities. 

Although the proponents of the Contract vehemently oppose and criticize it, it does seem that they have realized that liberty or free will is an unachievable utopia. Having claimed thus, let me bring to the reader's attention a petty yet thought-provoking propensity of Mankind. 

Since the prehistoric epoch the Man has resided in groups or clusters, which later flourished as societies or civilizations as he gradually started compartmentalising language and agriculture and began engendering a hierarchy of occupations. Laws were introduced to further embolden the structure the Man concocted,but the nexus of this dissertation is not the analysis of the social evolution of Man but the analysis of one of his idiosyncrasies—Social Image. 

The hierarchy gave way to what I would fondly describe as "wired huts" or "pigeon-holes." When social consciousness began superseding individual consciousness, the Man began to endeavour in order to fulfill the criteria of the hole he supposedly belonged to; the first step towards abnegation and the stepping stone of emptying oneself. 

A sentient being possesses several pleasures, one of which is the Social Pleasure–the joy extracted from the illusion that the herd approves of the ways of the sheep OR the feeling of euphoria that the sheep experiences when it feels that it is a part of the herd. Unfortunately, to this intolerable torment and self-denigrating incarceration have we lent ears ; this belief stands undisputed that those brave men who dare vacillate shall face rebuke, disdain and ostracization. 

Questions might arise as to the specifications and intricacies of such an agreement, which is natural.

I believe that the tenets of this system, i.e., its terms, are:

1. One must live morally and lead a principled life.
2. One must not kill.
3. Children must obey and respect their parents.
4. One must not tend to one's desires; Prioritise others before oneself; 
5. Homosexuality is bizzare and unnatural and it should be "cured".
6. An individual must contribute to the furthering of the society and mankind as a whole rather than realizing personal goals.
7. There is a way to sit, eat and sleep, and it is the only way. 
8. It is either black or white.
9. Only men can be topless.

Before I proceed, I shall dispel all quelms as to the intentions of this dissertation. Imprimis, under no circumstances have I condoned or completely condemned any of the aforesaid legalities. I do not wish to dictate or evaluate: I only wish to peruse and portray. 

Therefore, I posit the ultimate question: Even when the Man faces inexorable wretchedness, it must survive,it must persist. Having gleefully murdered God,  who or what shall the Man seek for attaching meaning and purpose to his existence?

What shall be the impeccable modus operandi? Should he welcome the affirmation, potency and transvaluation of Nietzsche? Or should we embrace Kant's Ideal Man? Realisation and gratification of instincts or abstinence? 

If we are to choose the former, we are to move heaven and earth in generating purpose for oneselves, for no longer does a preternatural entity shoulder  thine life and protect you. The blood of God is on your hands; nevertheless, such a predicament is neither exorable nor undesirable: for the God that stigmatises his children and the religion that stifles the habitude of Man have been fortunately demolished. 

Yet there persist the unthinkable ends if such a course of action is undertaken: ostracisation and rebuke. Unless the Man has reached the point where he is potent enough to transvaluate and recreate morals, that is, the Ubermënsch, it seems that he must meekly tank the pulverising hydraulic press of society. 

Machiavelli dictates princes to ensure that they do not antagonise the masses if they have acquired a principality through popular contentment, whilst simultaneously winning the confidence of the greedy and gluttonous nobility, a task requiring superhuman ability. Although in this case subjugating one's will to ensure one's continuance is one of the tenets of the Contract worthy of practice, the concept of popular sovereignty and democracy fall apart and turn perilous in several cases. 

Let us take the classical example of the fate of the House of Bourbon during the later phase of the inglorious French Revolutions. I am sure a sane man would agree that the murder of the royal family was  avoidable even after the Flight to Varennes had not the moderates conceded to the stupidity and brash of the rash Radicals and had Louis not vetoed the proposals of the assembly in early 1792; in fact the revolution itself could have been averted had not the nobility opposed the liberal economic reforms of Louis XVI. A close appraisal of the events makes me assert that Louis was coerced into taking rash and pointless decisions; the gist was, he was a good man. However, the aristocracy could not accept his liberalism and progressivism. They expected him to behave in  "a manner befitting monarchs", negating the fact that he was an individual, a normal man like them and had in his heart the progress and the love of his nation. So even in the Revolution, and the tragic events following it, we see social consciousness overriding and diluting individual consciousness and conscience—to the point that the humanism it valiantly promised was incinerated with the same rigour with which it was propounded. 

However, historical anecdotes and ideologies make me question my own assumptions. Exist such people who doth carve their own morality and smile gallantly at the crippled society? Are there minds who reign themselves independently? 

In fact, there are. 

From the Cynicists who lend deaf ears to the agonizing shriek of society ; from enlightened despots such as Catherine the Great to emotional, independent patriots such as NSC Bose, history is replete with persona who are the sovereigns of their minds and the constant rebel to the Contract. True, none of these personalities reflect the "Superman",  they however do offer a glimpse of what Nietzsche would proclaim the New Generation of Man.

In all, individuality is in exile. In comfortable nonetheless, In exile it surely is. Pray it unveil itself;else prey to society shall it become.