Searching ‘originality’ in the past

There is a picture drawn by a German artist in the 15th century. The context is Alexander’s India attack and he is making a brave attempt to draw an animal unknown to him. The picture shows an elephant and an infantryman. The elephant is drawn having half the height of the infantryman, with a tusk shaped like a trumpet and legs with hooves like those of a bull . The courage of this painter should indeed be admired. He tried bravely to move beyond the boundaries of the corner of the world known and accessible to him.

Man’s imagination has always wanted to soar as further as it could – in his art, in his philosophy, in his worldview. He never wanted to stay still at someplace or be to be restricted to some state of being. In fact, man’s moralities, his art was always indifferent to boundaries. Of course, he had his limitations of his times imposed on him – limitations of geography, limitations of his medium, the customs and practices he may have had to adopt in particular circumstances and particular occasions.

But to celebrate these as nationalities and cultural and social ‘identities’ would be to forget the aspirations and imaginations of those forefathers and to celebrate their limitations and misfortunes. It is a double turning back. We are not even idealizing the limitations of our times but idealizing the limitations of our forefathers who did not have our possibilities.

Long time back and under some circumstances a people grew their hair long and always carried their swords with them. When their descendants today, generations later, ignoring the reality of the times they live in, still do the same, is it a move forward or back? What about those who begin movements announcing that those rituals and ceremonies and their symbols and practices which began when an old culture began to decay, are all the which brings us national identity in the modern world. Man’s urge is to spread beyond borders and move forward with the times. To retreat from that, to make small places, to try to stand still is retrogressive – whether it is in politics, culture or art.

Protest movements have always happened in history. But they can appear as a result of both progress and retrogression. Whether they support or oppose the natural and progressive movement of history should be the criteria of understanding them and indeed, judging them. All which come wearing new colors need not show growth, many in fact show decay.

Philosophies and revisions

Marxism is a philosophy. Communism is a political system based on Marxism or so say its creators. Philosophies can have good and bad sides. They may have relevance or lack thereof at different times. But no successes or failures. In other words, it is not right to subject them to the criterion of success and failure – because they are some understandings which occur to man at some stage of evolution of mankind.

When a political system originates inspired by a philosophy the first possibility that we should think of is that this particular inspiration need not be a successful translation.

It would be more right to characterize the communism of today in the name of Lenin, rather than that of Marx. Lenin was a politician, not a philosopher. To the question whether Marxian thought could have inspired any other model other than this, the only possible answer is that of course it was possible. But for that too victory or defeat could have happened. It is also possible that a new political system inspired by Marxism could develop, revised based on the new circumstances.

The use of the word revision is conscious. Revision is necessary and to an extent inevitable for any philosophy. In a way, aren’t the philosophies that we see, largely revisions of the ones of the past? It is also not necessary for a political system to develop after a philosophy. It can go on as a philosophy living on by affecting human minds in some way, ignoring the final fates of victory and defeat which is bound to happen for its translation.