Franz Kafka’s “Metamorphosis” in our life and interactions, Pt.2

In the second part of this series of articles, the questions made in the first part, are going to be analyzed and a remarkable effort will be made to give adequate answers. Those questions were: Are we living our lives in our cocoon; cloaking ourselves from our environment? Are our actions guided by owr sense of obligation towards others or by our personal and unique desires? Should we pursue our own personal “Metamorphosis”?

The reason I do not believe that an objectively, commonly accepted answer can be given to these questions, is that I am quite sure that truth itself is subjective. So, the sole thing we can do is make approaches to a subject. And if we look carefully in the junction of these approaches, we might be able to reach the truth. And I say might, because every individual has its own sense of truth, it only sees what it wants to see, according to his own mind. Every person has the need to feel that he thinks and decides individually.

And that’s how it goes with our subject as well. Man is the only species on earth in whose nature is to seek individuality, to strive for something inside him that separates him from the likes of him. And in this life-long quest, his main tool is the delusion that he acts independently from the factors. I am afraid, though, that is a false hypothesis. As a matter of fact, when one is called upon to take a relatively important decision, he ends up following the rules of the society’s game, and face up to the facts as they are. Even though in his mind, in his heart, his impulses advise him in accordance with his desires and personal needs, he finally -let’s say- chickens out when it comes for him to take the final decision. And what made him reject his impulses are the potential consequences of following them. Name it losing his job, name it losing his sexual partner, name it being killed, or imprisoned.

This deference of the individual to the society, and thus affirmation that independence is a delusion, can be easily seen in the very structure of thereof. For example, people in countries which are severely struck by the financial crisis, have accumulated sentiments of anger and fury towards their governments. But no major uprising (for example) seems to develop; which means that there is something that holds them back and keeps them where they are. Perhaps, the fear for the unknown, maybe the lack of individuals who can lead such actions and control the masses. But these questions belong to another article. The point now is that there are numerous examples of the chasm between how people think and how people act.

So, answering to the first two questions, society, religion, media, modern social ethics and standards have indeed placed bulwarks on individuals, which prevent them from interacting with their environment freely, in the primitive, original way. Let me make it clear, however: this is not necessarily negative. On the contrary, if all individuals acted impulsively and primitively, we could get killed, raped, abused in all possible ways, by simply taking a walk in our neighbourhood. And in this way, this conversation would turn upside down. We would not act freely, because we would be afraid of the strong ones. Which one is better in your opinion?

A conclusion that can be drawn from these, is that where there is fear, there is not freedom. And the paradox of the case, where there is uncontrollable freedom, there is fear.

Farewell until the third and last article on this subject.

Follow Azure’s for more like stories.