Happiness: Ayn Rand, Karl Marx and a man called Narayan

Ayn Rand must be turning in her grave. To be equated with Marx in the same context will incur her wrath and god knows she had some anger in her. But much that she would hate to hear it, she and Marx were not too different, both made an assumption, a terrible assumption! They assumed that the world would be ideal if their philosphy was followed! The mistake was that their path could be only followed in an ideal world...A paradox!!!

The foundation for their philosophy, any philosophy of life is the purpose of it. What exactly do we live for is a cliche question which has been asked my every man, woman and child(to borrow Erich Segal,excellent book I must say!) at some(many) points in life. I wont attempt to go into the futility of life or the glories of it. I am not interested in understanding the origin and purpose of life. I as always will make an assumption and work my thoughts on the basis of those assumptions.

I will assume that happiness is the purpose of life. This assumption is the easiest one and although certainly not easily defensible(as all other assumptions on the purpose of life) is an assumption that many illustrious souls have made before me. So, if happiness is the purpose of life, how best do we reach it? Is not imperitive that its purpose is always met to make a life worth living?

Of the many people from Socrates and the Greek philosophers to Confucious and Kautilya , from Voltaire and Hobbs to Marx and Ayn Rand, a whole bunch of extraordinary personalities have tried to identify the purpose of life and the ways it could be realised. Most(I am tempted to say all) assume happiness as the purpose directly or indirectly of life. Although none of their arguments are irrefutable, all of them are certainly persuasive and extra ordinary. I have however always been drawn to Rand and in this attraction have also realised how much Marx was close to Rand. I know this is a controversial statement and I will come with a separate blog to put forward my arguments in that regard.

Sticking to the issue of happiness, both Marx and Rand provide paths to reach happiness. One believes that individual happiness is more important than anything else and the other believes that in the larger happiness of the Soceity lies the happiness of every man. Ultimately both are the same. Individual happiness of every man means social happiness and vice versa. But the paradox is that both the paths would only work in an ideal world.

So how do we achieve the purpose of life? That answer is provided by an unassuming author now dead who never wrote a single book on philosophy. His works were surprisingly short and always dealt with human emotions and very human and real to life charectors. His name was R.K Narayan and his contribution to philosophy would never ever be recognised except by a small minority.
What was R.K Narayan's philosophy? His philosophy was that human happiness lies in the simplicity of the emotion. There is no purpose in life but to live and happiness comes from each and every emotion. Anger, fear, victory, defeat, laughter, tears for all makes happiness even more precious and magnified. Hence for Narayan living was a penance and a life well lived a purpose. His books often deal with charectors which are grey and very real to life. Almost all of his writings are set in the fictional city of Malgudi, and are narrowly focused on the lives of relatively humble individuals, neither extremely poor nor very rich. Through their tribulations (which to the reader seems so minor but to the charectors is the centre of their life) Narayan demonstrates the simplicity of human happiness.

While he is not the most profound or hard hitting author in history, but in his own gentle, humorous, and warm ways he demonstrates all that is simple in the world and in the emotion of happiness.

Narayan is the unlikely man who wrote about the essence and purpose of life and the path to human happiness...the sad thing is, though he wrote it...it is highly unlikely that such an unassuming man realised that in his humble and simple works lied the keys to perplexing century old questions on human happiness...

Note: The Guide and Swami and Friends are R.K.Narayan's greatest work. Graham Greene and many authors of his time thought he was the greatest author in English(between 1940-1979). Although overlooked for the Nobel in 1970 for Guide(which by all counts is a great work of literature) Narayan is recognised as a brilliant author with complete mastery over language. All his works are short(150-250 pages) at the most and written in simple but beautiful prose in the true tradition of Chekov.

Loss of Innocence

I was innocent once. I guess everyone is. But there is a point in life when that innocence is lost. I lost mine at a stage when I was becoming a man from a boy. It was not a momentous event, nor was it dramatic. It just happened gradually and very slowly like the arrival of rain after a cloudy day. Something very natural and expected.

By losing of innocence I do not mean a loss of my beliefs. Nor do I mean a loss of my faith in my ability. It also doesn’t mean I became a crook. It just means that the sanctity, the purity, the pristine quality every man is born with got diluted and I joined the great mass of human civilization.

Ideals became less and less feasible in the world as it is and practicality seemed more and more inviting. But given that was the case, I would like to think that the idealistic aspect of my personality has not been diluted. I am still idealistic, although I can understand someone’s point when they advice me on the utility of practical approach in the modern world. I do not despise them anymore.

So what brings about the loss of innocence? Assuming my basic assumption, that all men are innocent and they lose the innocence at some point, is true, it is a momentary desire or a complicated web of human relationships that cause this innocence to be diluted. It is difficult to gauge what would be the case if one did not lose their innocence? I cannot speak for others but I can for myself.

If I did not lose that innocence of mine, I wouldn’t be a good son or a brother or a companion. I would view every action as right or wrong. My goals, ambitions and aspirations would be my only vision and I would live only for myself. That is ideal, in an ideal world. But in a world less than ideal, an ideal man is un-ideal in himself. My innocence is diluted; hence I see my aspirations, dreams and ambitions in context of the people I live for. They(ideals) dont mean as much to me as they did earlier, because ultimately it is human happiness that counts.

Since the dilution has been to the bare minimum as far as my core self is concerned, I still retain my dream, my vision. Is that the case with everyone? For someone else the dilution may be entirely different. It may affect the core but not the exterior! What happens then?

Some don’t lose their innocence at all! Do they become an ideal man in a less than ideal world?

Everyday teaches a new lesson. Everyday there is a dilution of innocence. What is my aspiration now? I hope to be someone that strengthens someone’s innocence not dilute one’s! After all it is humans that make the less than ideal world and hence it is humans that dilute another man’s innocence. It is a chain reaction. Maybe I will be a small pause in the chain, if not a break.

Life goes on; my son will wonder the same thing as I do today. I am sure, my dad did someday. But does every son, dad and son wonder the same in differing measure? I do not know. May be that is irrelevant. Better to be a less than ideal man in a less than ideal world than an ideal man in a less than ideal world! How less is the question?

Religion and Gods

I have been a reluctant but a forceful speaker whenever my opinions on religon has been sought or whenever I have felt I need to express my thoughts in order to not be seen as endorsing a view that to me seemed narrow and untrue.

I have had a chat with a few people I have met recently and " I dont profess, practice or believe in any religion" seems to be a common refrain. I do not know if this is the latest fashion. May be it is...for I do not see any logical basis for people saying that they dont profess, practice or believe in any religion. Now before you howl your protest at this statement of mine hold on for a minute and kindly read the rest of the blog.

I am not a fanatic who professes a particular religion and hence sees anyone who doesnt agree with my religeous inclination as an infidel. I myself do not profess or practice any established religion and therein lies the trouble. I am not an atheist nor am I a member of any bizzare cult. I firmly believe in god and this belief is based on my interpretation of life. My interpretation could be completely incorrect. Conversely it could be perfect. That is not the debating point. My debating point is this.

Is it possible for someone to not have a religion? It is imperitive to answer this question, I clarify what I mean by religion. One of the definition given in a popular dictionary is thus:
The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety;

So, the pre-requisite for having a religion is a belief in god or in a force that is superior to self(even atheist would have a god in this case because there is human interactions that may be argued as being superior to self because that determines a man's destiny). I believe in god. Which means I should have a religion. I do, but wait I said I didnt just a paragraph back? I did and thats true as well! This isnt going anywhere is it? Ok let me take a step back. I believe in god and I believe that a religion is a set of moral codes that governs each man. This set of moral code could be logical or illogical. Self-made or made by someone else. Irrespective of its origin, this set of moral code is what constitutes a religion according to me. Now I do not have a religion in the webster dictionary mode. I do not feel any fear nor do I care too much about ceremonies or rites. Hence my first asseration that I do not have a establishd religion myself. Now if the people I met meant what I mean, I do not see any logical inconsistancy. But supposing a minority of those didnt?
Does that mean that they lead a life without having a set of moral codes. Lincoln when asked what he thought of religion mentioned a man called Glenn in Indiana who had a simple theory of religion. He said, "when I do something good, I feel good and when I do something bad I feel bad and that is my religion". This sums it up. A primitive and simpler form of a religion is a man's own conscience. This is the moral code that governs him. Coming back to my debate, anyone who lives should be living by a moral code? If he is then he does follow a religion, i.e his own moral code.

My point? When someone says they dont have a religion, do they say they dont have a moral code governing them? I think they mean they dont believe in any established religion. They better mean so. Wars, conflicts, suffering would all arise because of a lack of moral code in men. My fear is what provoked this blog. Is it just fashion that people dont have a religion? Do they just mean they dont profess any established religion? Or is it the case that moral codes that govern men are slowly vanishing?

I do not know. I am merely wondering. That is after all the easier thing to do!