Tyranny: Slave to yourself
Some things just can't be neglected or simply overlooked. Although it is a known fact that we adhere to this practice day to day, it is of pinnacle importance to discern the difference of merely giving a person a chance to change and letting a person become complacent. Of course, the problem always exists with human beings. For the world was never a better place, nor a worse one, since the beginning of mankind.
The word "mankind" is a compound word made of two words: "man" and "kind". However, this combination is not stating that man is kind in nature, but it is stating that man is just another kind of being. The word "kind" can be used in many different ways, but this context is definitely not referring to a very generous and loving nature. Instead, it is referring to the generalizations that we use of each and every living being on the face of earth. In this word, humans are just another "kind" of being.
To say that man is kind is utterly wrong, because man is not only "kind" but also can be cruel, bashful, calm, furious and many other personalities. It would be wrong to just generalize a subject by just referring to one of its traits. It would be utterly innacurate. Another important matter to take into account would be that man is not one, but many individuals. All individuals have their own unique personalities and traits, which would bring us to a unreacheable conclusion on what man can truly be defined as. It is through generalisations and stereotypes that we pursue the cause of understanding "man" as one entity. Perhaps we have been going upon this matter in the wrong way all along; perhaps we should first look into the individual and draw a conclusion on the individual itself and no others. I believe that through this way, we would be able to bring justice to justifications of an individual.
Subject to matters of ethics, intellect and ability, man does not survive only for himself, but also for the others that share the same "social space". I term "social space" as a compound for the individual's survival as a social animal. However, there are those who choose to take advantage of the personalities of others for more selfish means or goals. Within this passage, this is the thought that troubles me with much frustration. Some people exist within a social space to merely manipulate and change the customs to fit his or her well-being, leading to their own superiority and neglecting others in the process. What conclusion could be made from this? Is it tyranny? Is it egoism? Is it selfishness?
If we were to analyse these three terms, we would be able to conclude that they are merely different levels of the same trait. Selfishness itself is counted as a small matter. A person can be selfish but not egoistic. Egoistic would mean a person prefers only his own gain and does nothing to furnish gains for others. This would be a much higher level of selfishness. Tyranny however, is the outright violation of the rights of others over the individual. Each and every individual inside a social space has a right over all the other individuals that exist within the same social space. Their right is the right to stop the individual from violating individual sanctums of existance. No man is an island, but no man does not have his own island. Tyranny would mean direct violation of individual space or the "island" that a person preserves only for himself - a private place for self seclusion. From selfishness, if one were to remove social boundaries and moral values, one would finally arrive at tyranny.
Whoever the egoist, is finally just a fatal enemy of himself. Man is a social animal, and but embodying the egoist, you become a secluded body. In other words, you lose your social space totally. You are on your own. You become an island, which is forbidden and shall crumble under the pressure that the law of social space inputs on the individual. Without any connection to any social space, an individual could be said to become non-existance. Tyrants force themselves, or rather force others into their own social space. However, the bonds are weak because the others in the social space have lost their right of their own private space and bow to the needs of only the tyrant. These bonds are weak, though sustained strongly through human perception of power and fear. But once power is not important and fear no longer an issue, the bonds shall break and the tyrant should be easily overthrown. That is the fate of the tyrant.
Enjoy your time while you can, for it shall not be long.
I gaurantee it.
No comments:
Post a Comment