Arthur Schopenhauer, noted German philosopher observed in his Studies in Pessimism: The Essays, “Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.
“limitation is a very versatile word in English that is used either way by its protagonist as by its detractors. But it is not much understood, less alone evaluated for internalising our discourse or lifestyle. Every field of human existence has some application of limitation, science, statistics, computer, law, welfare and above all human behaviour. The last named becomes very vital for the success of a democratic living, something that must hold us back in various situations. The free will to make unimpeded choices sounds utopian as there are logical, theological, physical, social and mental constraints that inhibit such display and these limitations promote greater good of the largest number.
The opposite of this may lead to a behaviour pattern that may border on narcissism,converting free will into free for all. We may understand that there are implications of holding legal, social and moral responsibility upon individuals’ actions. So there ought to be limits of free will. Definition wise, it means restrictive weakness, lack of capacity, inability or handicap, something that puts a limit or bound. The legal world has the law of limitation that determines a time limit for a cause of action to arise for redressal. It is justified by the logic that a decision or event cannot be left open for all times to come, amounting to cruelty and therefore needs to be capped after the passage of a certain period. To extend the logic, we may quote Supreme Court’s orders of commuting death sentences of many death row convicts on the grounds of cruelty, i.e., there has to be a limit as to how long their mercy petitions could be kept pending.
All the religious and philosophical movements laid emphasis on limiting our desires. For example, from Gautam Buddha to lord Mahavir to Guru Nanak to Prophet Muhammad, the social message that most strongly emerged from their discourses was to make personal interest subservient to the interest of the society, which was nothing but putting limitation on their pupils’ or disciple’s wishes, desires, aspirations and greed. looked in a perspective, Mahatma Gandhi’s concepts of trusteeship and abstinence also elucidated a practical theory of putting limit in one’s life. He taught it by practicing himself instead of just a lip service.
And the last Mughal emperor and great Urdu poet put it in a slightly different context but quite philosophically, “Zafar aadmi usko na janiyega, ho vo kaisa hi saheb-e fehm-o-zaka / jiseaysh me yade-khudanaraha, jisaytaysh me khauf-e-khudanaraha!” (I do not consider him a man, howsoever be he a master of knowledge or piety / who forgets God in extravagant indulgence or loses the fear of God in rage). Our largest democracy has many pluses. It affords the opportunity to the smallest and weakest person not only to exercise his right to vote but also have the aspiration to reach high positions through competitions or the political process; there are examples like Giani Zail Singh and Abdul Kalam, both reached the highest office after coming from humbler backgrounds.
But we have other problems, one of these how to recognise the rights of others to live with peace and harmony, security, privacy and dignity. This is a hugely failing area in our society. We infringe the rights of others all the time. This failure is extendable as well to any and all areas of human relationships as to the national life. Whether it is the small unit of family or a mohalla or colony or the gated community or inter-State matter, we have no qualms in stepping on others’ toes without any guilt. The rights of individual as mentioned above are inviolable. They are sacrosanct and have special position that cannot be undermined by limitless aggression or intimidating reactions without bringing as much ignominy to the violator as unfortunately to the nation.
This adolescent behaviour is far too common even in adults. There is lack of perspective and empathy. There is no understanding to appreciate the viewpoint of the other person or an event. Otherwise we cannot explain the myriad ‘limitless’ activities that keep happening around. It was succinctly put forth by Sara Paretsky, American author of detective fiction, “The hardest thing about adolescence is that everything seems too big. There is no way to get context or perspective... pain and joy without limits. No one can live like that forever, so experience finally comes to our rescue.” A mature people and a mature nation have to have a sense of imposing limits upon themselves. like emotional intelligence, this is also a learning capability that can be acquired and grows with practice. The only exception that comes to mind is perhaps goodness that can be limitless but it is doubtful if it is really attainable.
The blossoming of ideas may be another but there are destructive ideas as well, which have done tremendous harm to the humanity. So better beware of limitlessness!