In opposition to the masses Print

Humanity has long contemplated the idea of the crowd, with varying viewpoints on the matter. Hovhannes Tumanyan, the prominent dreamer of the Caucasus, offered his perspective: "The earth is in danger when the people become a crowd... The people and the crowd are opposites. The people are wise, generous, and kind, while the crowd is fickle, irritable, and inclined towards malevolence." To some, these reflections may sound somewhat manipulative, as I firmly believe that people and the collective are not opposing but rather interrelated categories, with one encompassing the other. Beyond the romantic viewpoint, this is a utopian ideal, a beautiful dream, a form of justification. For me, these concepts converge into the broader category of society, the only rational unit of human coexistence. Society, in its essence, is remarkably patient and adaptable, forgiving of nearly everything except true genius. There are discernible paths for altering the course of society, with two primary methods: evolution and revolution. I am adamantly against the latter, as revolutions are typically envisioned by romantics, carried out by fanatics, and their consequences are often reaped by opportunists. On the other hand, there exist numerous evolutionary routes, but I find the transformation of the individual's character and morality to be the most acceptable. Just as a person, when merging new qualities, perceptions, depths, and achievements, begins to diverge from the societal norms and chart a fresh course, this individual becomes a catalyst for progress, shaping the future through their actions. In essence, it is the deeply introspective, morally-centered individual who paves the way for the future, and opposition to the conventional is merely a natural byproduct. Any reform that isn't centered on moral transformation is, in my view, futile, echoing the sentiments of Thomas Carlyle.