Are you an original?

Two days back, I discovered Pink Floyd, and just went “Wow!” To create beautiful songs out of the angst of existence is true art! Their songs are refreshingly intelligent.

‘We don’t need no education.’ I had heard this phrase quoted before. Now, I heard the song. And, while searching more about it, I came across this interesting analysis.

On first appearances, this is a song of rebellion- young students are firmly telling their teachers that they don’t need such a rotten education system, which believes in controlling their thoughts, and limiting their mind’s independence.

However, this song is sung in chorus, thereby implying that all the students are saying exactly the same thing. They are not speaking their own mind, but one common language. There is conformity even in their supposed rebellion!

Isn’t that how all ideological movements/ revolutions are? The people who actually think of the ideas/ ideals are just one or two. The rest are just the followers. They may agree with the ideators, they may believe in what they say, but the idea was not theirs.

Doesn’t every revolution/ movement operate with these dynamics? There is one person who actually rebels. He’s the one who does all the thinking. He has enough charisma to attract devoted followers. And then these followers do the fighting for him, they propagate his cause, devotedly.

The obvious example that came to my mind was of religions. I believe that this is how all the religions grew. I don’t buy the myths about the founder of a religion being a special messenger of god or a messiah. Rather, I think they were great philosophers, who had the talent to talk to people in a language they would understand, and to convince them of their philosophies. And, the main flaw in each religion is that it doesn’t encourage others to think independently. Rather, it makes blind faith seem like a virtue.

Such obsessive, irrational devotion is not confined to the religious domain however.

I am reminded of a page I read on Ayn Rand last year. It made her look almost super-human. She was stated to ‘have taught herself how to read at the age of six’. For a normal person, one would say, that he ‘learnt’ reading at six. But of course, this widely circulated biographical piece on her is written by a ‘fan’.

She originated the idea of ‘Objectivism’. There are many takers for the philosophy. But in their arguments, they use ‘her’ quotes, and novels to justify themselves. Isn’t that being a conformist? You delude yourself that you are being a rebel, a proponent to a new cause, whereas actually you are just conforming- blindly, zealously- to another man’s philosophy. That is what we end up doing in our efforts to ‘make a difference’ or ‘break a new path.’ Don’t we?