Our StudentsClass 2011Class 2010

"Everyone wants to change the world, but no one wants to change himself." (L.N. Tolstoy)

I am an idealist – perhaps because of my upbringing; or perhaps I was shaped by the eclectic international environment of my alma mater; or maybe it is simply a result of the years I spent living in the very centre of the melting pot called London. In my studies, I have found a burning passion, one which I’ve set out to understand and put to good use. My simple wish for the future is, in Tolstoy's words, to change the world – to leave a mark and to make a difference for the better.

But do I want to change myself?

When Tolstoy speaks of change, changing the world or changing oneself, it lends itself to explain Tolstoy’s remark as a comment on the human lack of will to better oneself. This worldview, deeply pessimistic and no doubt inspired by Schopenhauer’s darker interpretation of ethics and aesthetics, led Tolstoy in the autumn of his life to glorify pacifism above all other virtues – a stand that would later have a profound impact on Gandhi and Martin Luther King. But whilst a positive influence on others, it is this pessimism that ultimately betrays Tolstoy in his perception of the world. In his statement, Tolstoy fully separates the world around us from who we are. He suggests that the two concepts exist independently, that one might wish to change the world, yet expect to remain untouched in the process.

"All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds," says Pangloss, Candide’s tutor, in Voltaire's masterpiece, expressing what Voltaire once called blind optimism. Pangloss’ character advocates the idea that we should not seek to change the world around us; he sees God as a benevolent deity and the world as a constant, perfect for our purpose. We thus follow a story of a man who, even when diseased and enslaved, still does not seek to blame or alter the world in which he lives; he lives with his eyes closed, unable to reflect on what he sees or has seen. Having decided not to change the world, Pangloss too remains unchanged, stale and blind.

Candide himself, having faced austerity, death and loss of loved ones, like his tutor, remains an optimist at heart. But unlike his friend and teacher Pangloss, Candide begins to understand that the world and the self cannot be perceived separately. "We must cultivate our garden," he exclaims. Voltaire suggests that we must nurture the hidden potential within ourselves – and he sees this potential strictly in the light of the world around us. A man who is unwilling to change cannot shape the world.

I, like Candide, believe that these two concepts – change of a man and change of the world - are fundamentally inseparable. The people I have met and the challenges I have faced have formed me into the person I am today. No doubt I will change in the years to come, but that is not the purpose of my undertaking. When I step out into the world, I expect to change; I am thrilled to see the unfamiliar and new; and I hope to evolve – but what I seek and what I want is to change the world. Today, we cannot single ourselves out like Tolstoy might suggest – it is Candide’s view that we need to assume. Change of oneself is not a matter of will; it is an organic, unstoppable process  – a result of living in the world with an open mind.

When Tolstoy claims that "no one wants to change himself," I choose not to understand this as a comment on the lack of will, but merely as a lack of perspective that does not allow us to project and foresee who we wish to be. It is by doing our best in the world that we will learn whom we can become and what we can achieve; and ultimately, it is these achievements that will be the driving force behind any change we see in the world.

So, do I want to change myself? No. I want to change the world. However, in striving to achieve this goal, a change in myself is both unavoidable and welcome. It will be through this challenge, my determination and belief that I will become a better person.

The life of a human being is a complicated structure that flourishesing inunder good conditions. However, I am firmly believeconvinced that beneath all the complexity, there is a simpleplain basis for the behaviour of every man or woman: . When talking about such a background, I mean ourthe unavoidable need necessity forto fulfilling satisfy our the fundamental needs and urges. I believe that when once a person is taken into in deep poverty, his life is consequently reduced tointo fulfilling his basic needs – the satisfaction of what is crucial for living itself survival. The desire to live can easily overcome concerns about what is declared to be legal and, in order to stay alivemaintain whole life, crossing the limits of the law does not seem to be a grave obstacle, neither morally nor de facto.

Everyone wants to change the world, but no one wants to change himself  (L.N.Tolstoy)

“Alarm clock!” That is my only thought in the morning. I try to silence its raucous shrieking before it wakes my roommate. Then I quietly prepare for my A.P. English Literature class. While en route, I ponder what I will do later on. We have a class discussion on The Sound and the Fury – I am not quite sure if I understand the book, so I am looking forward to the class. Never before I have appreciated literature as much – subtle differences in diction can make a great difference in meaning; syntax can shift the tone of passage. I recalled the days of Czech literature – no analysis, no passion for the subject, nothing but a dictate of meanings. Now, I have changed – through inspiring work, I have found the beauty of language.

Real victories do not come for free. The most important victories are those that we achieve with great effort. The very issues that constantly present us with those challenges make us better. They are the ones that take us out of our usual routine and place us in a new environment where we have to learn how to live again; the ones that cause us to change ourselves. I once made such a decision – to go study in the U.S., when I was awarded a highly-selective ASSIST scholarship to study at a private boarding institution, The McCallie School in Chattanooga, Tennessee. I am certain that it is one of the best decisions I have ever made.

In a way, all of my experiences there have changed the world, my world, and I believe that I have changed the world of at least some. From Jack Hoyt, my American roommate, I learned to make fun of myself when times are tough; from Seung Moon Lee from Korea, I learned to dare to pursue my dreams; from Bharath Venkatesh, I learned that only hard work yields meaningful results. Building friendships across cultural divides was one of the aspects of this experience that I valued very much.  I adapted to the new circumstances; I changed myself through tireless efforts.

However, American education changed me even more. This education gave me the opportunity not only to apply myself, but also to meet new people from all over the world. The experience of being introduced to and gaining an understanding of new approaches to life, new cultures or completely new ideas was always eye-opening. I also sought and will continue to seek something that makes me grow personally and change myself as much as my stay at McCallie School did: there, my teachers also became my friends and mentors; they encouraged independent thought; and the class discussions were precursors to what we were about to do – independent research.  Again, this is something I love, yet something that Czech education does not seem to encourage as much.

Another vast change of my personality came with English Debate. It got me in touch with some of the most intelligent and talented people I know. But I soon found refuge among those people – I know that I have learned a lot from them, everything from acquiring new vocabulary to reinventing my personal relationships. I have improved not only personally, but also in terms of my debating skills: I won the World Online Debating Championship with a Czech team, and then placed better than the Czech team as captain of a diverse U.S. team in the International Public Policy Forum.

However, these accomplishments required no sacrifice – I was glad to do it. My limited experience with discomfort made my experience of helping others so much more worthwhile. With effort, the change acquires new significance; I had to change myself in order to do it. Waking up early and sacrificing my Saturday to go to Habitat for Humanity is a small example, but it is an experience that bettered me. Staying up late to fulfill my duties as a volunteer translator for Greenpeace was a valuable experience, as was the summer I spent volunteering for Člověk v Tísni or fundraising for cancer research as part of Sluníčkový Den.

Everyone dreams of changing the world. But when actual change is asked of them to make these dreams come true, the dichotomy between dreams and real-life issues, like changing oneself, comes into play – the latter comes packed with real, distinguishable problems. When we merely dream of change, but do not thoroughly deliberate on how to do it, we realize that changing oneself is too protracted, too real to be easy. I had the same qualms when I was deciding whether to organize the student elections at my Czech school. That is the point where ideas, like dreams, turn to reality – and problems start to appear. I came to appreciate that, however, because it is the challenge that has educational value. Many people give up at this point and resort back to dreams. Nevertheless, I decided to go through with this plan and it was enriching, because it showed me the intricacies and processes of good organization.

This is exactly the kind of involvement that foreign schools encourage, for they are valuable both to the individual and the school or society. These events constituted a small evolution of the parts of my character that I value the most. At the same time, they helped me to realize that I seek education abroad. I want to pursue a path in which I can apply my skills, something that foreign institutions focus on and develop.

The difference between dreams and change is our willingness to take our dreams seriously. There will always be problems, since there is neither a perfect plan nor perfect preparation, but we must take a leap of faith – and either fly or crash. I have a dream of attending a university abroad, where I know I will be able to apply myself and help the school to grow, just as the school will help me to develop.

"Poverty is the mother of crime." (Marcus Aurelius) 

If poverty is the mother of crime, who is the father? Marcus Aurelius failed to specify this, yet it is crucial for this essay. In reaction to this, I will discuss the following points: what poverty and crime actually mean in different contexts, how and why poverty is often the principal cause of crime, and most importantly, I will examine other factors that might prompt criminal behaviour. More specifically, the key trigger I will discuss is human nature, which was not only causing criminality in Ancient Rome, but continues to do so nowadays, for example in cases of white-collar crime. I will finish by discussing Marcus Aurelius himself, and to what extent his observations are relevant nowadays.

The definition of poverty is relative. To us, as ‘Westerners’, it is arguably the lack of luxuries such as electronics and an inability to participate fully in the urban, fashionable lifestyle. This can be interpreted as relative poverty, where the income is neither too high nor too low, but restricts the individual in many ways. We also recognize absolute poverty: with support of the media, various charities and NGOs portray this as lack of essentials such as electricity and running water, targeting their activities mainly on the ‘Third World’.

That is one version. Poverty as a ‘lack of something’ comes in many non-obvious forms, which perhaps Aurelius did not consider. How about emotional poverty? A child never hugged by his mother – is this not a form of deprivation? Or a rejection from a university one wanted to attend since childhood? To me, poverty is the state of not being to achieve one’s happiness and satisfaction, either through material, economic, emotional, psychological or biological barriers.

Crime as such is however not restricted to poverty. White-collar crime is, as Sutherland described it in 1939, "a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation." In Aurelius’ time, they had not yet invented crimes such as stealing copyrighted materials, hacking or identity theft. It is arguable whether new technology and social organisation develops new crime. Scandals like Watergate (or, arguably, numerous recent ones in Czech politics) and white-collar crime in general, reflect how crime adapts itself to the time period and specific society. Human nature? Probably, since it is committed by humans so craftily in the first place.

Marcus Aurelius was an honorable emperor. He despised crime and ‘barbarianism’, much of which he encountered on numerous military conquests. He saw the correlation between Roman poverty and everyday crime such as stealing. However, I see human selfishness, instinct and opportunism as the real parents of crime – after all, both chimpanzees and dolphins have been proven to rape and assault their own species. The praying mantis eats her husband. Is ‘crime’ a natural, selfish instinct allowing us to survive and create the best possible conditions for ourselves? Perhaps it is best to conclude with another of Aurelius’ quotes: ‘The art of living is more like wrestling than dancing.’ Arguably we all wrestle our way through life at all times, which includes committing different forms of crime, whether we are impoverished or not. Marcus Aurelius did not live to see how his heir Commodus, a wealthy, educated and ‘enlightened’ man, destroyed the empire with his criminal behaviour. Perhaps if Marcus Aurelius had witnessed the downfall of the empire to which he gave birth, he would reevaluate his comment.

"Everyone wants to change the world, but no one wants to change himself." (L.N. Tolstoy)

Many people want to change the world instead of themselves, because they feel better qualified to affect this kind of external change than to attempt to change themselves. They believe that any alteration to themselves will seriously interfere with their personal freedom. Or they simply do not see the need to make any personal change. Sadly, these people are too often unaware of their narrow and closed-minded attitude.

My perception of the opening quotation brings me to the strong link between changing oneself and leadership: “Leadership requires selflessness. The will to serve and sacrifice for others, the willingness to set aside our wants and needs in seeking the greatest good for others; this is what it means to be selfless. This is what it means to be a leader. “ 

If someone wants to change the world, he has to be a great leader. He has to lead people through their weaknesses and setbacks, even if it means inventing something revolutionary or supporting others as they fight for their cause. As he travels through life, determined to seek goodness for others, he has to learn and take in experiences, so that he can adapt to a variety of situations. He knows that everybody makes mistakes, so he endeavours to improve his overall personality. But only an academic environment of the highest quality can enable him to rise to the greatest challenges. Without such an education, backed by a range of life skills and experiences, he unfortunately cannot do anything, because he lacks the knowledge and experience necessary to understand how and what to do with these factors.

Everyone must make personal changes in order to change humanity. At the very least, they must forego their own needs in order to focus on the needs of others. Many people go their entire lives without learning this vital fact. On the other hand, there are people who are really determined to change themselves, specifically with the goal of affecting their own fate. They often force themselves to face adversity alone, even in the worst possible circumstances. They apply their own expansive and valuable experiences and knowledge to what people really need. In such a life, they meet many admirable people and hear many stories of people facing tough challenges. This, alongside a great education, is why they know what is important in life: mainly, it is the support they receive from family and friends. In addition, they appreciate that they need support from those who have the ability and power to make decisions that take advantage of opportunities to enrich people’s lives. As I find myself in this exact situation, this is my point of view.

I remember that, when I was a child, I yearned to be an ordinary boy, living and studying somewhere in my native country, experiencing a perfectly normal childhood, without the ever-present knowledge of what an invalid's life is like, but I knew that I would never have that life. One month after my birth, I got pneumonia and fell unconscious. I survived, and I had to change myself and adapt to the life circumstances that were given to me. Literally, I had to fight for my life, through many dark moments and situations, to learn to face my destiny and fight for my goals with much more power and an unwavering conviction not to give up. Everything was more difficult for me. My disability made me unable to walk, to do something that is normal and natural for others. My goal is to walk, and I do everything I can to achieve it. It has enriched my quality of life immeasurably. I have learned to spend much more of my energy on achieving my dreams and goals. I have had to change myself many times to get closer to my goals. Simply put, this is the knowledge I want to provide to society: per aspera ad astra.

"Everyone wants to change the world, but no one wants to change himself." (L.N. Tolstoy)

Tolstoy’s sentence applies to individual human beings but also to larger social entities like states. The desired goal or the perception of the ideal outcome are not very often matched by sufficient will to fulfill them.

Earlier this month, the outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave a grave

assessment of the state of the NATO alliance, saying that the U.S. was carrying an undue financial and moral burden for other NATO countries who are either unable or unwilling to pay they fair share for their own defenses. Thus, the U.S., weighed down by its own huge budget deficits, pays about 70 percent of NATO’s overall budget. However, the discrepancy in defense spending U.S. and other member countries is only one symptom of the crucial phenomenon dividing the transatlantic

alliance.

According to Robert Kagan's theory, Europeans live in a postmodern Kantian paradise, whose security is only assured by U.S. strength stemming from the perception that the world is based on the Hobbesian principles. Since the end of WWII, Europe has been moving from hard powerpolitics to a self-contained world of laws and transnational negotiation and cooperation. The U.S., on the other hand, has had sometimes to use hard power as international law are not often the

ultimate guarantee of peace and security. In the Hobbesian world, the true security still depends on the possession and use of military might. In Kagan’s opinion, any potential aggressor to Europe knows that he would have to face the U.S.- and that it is the only reason that E.U. has not experienced any international conflict since 1945.

However, the use of force, almost always aimed at stopping humanitarian crises, has not disappeared from the European toolbox indefinitely. The results are, however, dismal. Very recently, we witnessed, as Gates said, the Europe's “punch(ing) well above their weight fighting in Libya”, with a result of running short of munition just in a couple of weeks. Once again, the U.S. was to make up the difference.

E.U. countries are fond of lofty criticisms of autocratic regimes, but many of them refuse to want to actually significantly contribute to the alliance, preferring to leave it to a broke “big brother” to pick up the tab. The E.U. plans for common defense policy remains a fuzzy, empty concept, with E.U. “allies” constantly at odds over policy. this impotence to contribute sufficiently to a trustworthy security arrangement does not weaken the E.U.’s external policy, but has a profound impact on its own security. In 2008, after Russia invaded Georgia, Baltic States begged for a coherent defense plan. Their defense became an integral part of the NATO’s contingency planning, but this arrangement will expire in 2014. And the assumption that debt-laden NATO

countries will not be willing to contribute to the defense of the Baltic states is not implausible.

So if we think there IS a threat and the eastern states should be the ones afraid and pushing for common protection - should it not be in our most interest to keep the alliance in a good shape?

Today's NATO is busier than ever and works with more partners than ever. We live in a world which is more complex, the local has gone global. Before it was the Iron curtain – the Soviet Union―which “protected” us with a bone-crushing hug. Judging from our unwillingness to pay and contribute effectively to our own now NATO defenses, maybe our complaining was disingenuous?

Maybe we want something for nothing.

Perhaps Moscow is not in the mood or condition to roll tanks into Prague today. However, there are certainly other profound challenges to our freedom and security. Threat of cyber-attacks that can inflict a massive damage in nanoseconds, proliferation of nuclear materials, means we still need effective alliances and partnerships ― and none are more needed than NATO. That is why it is

so important that all alliance’s members invest in and possess the defense capabilities necessary to meet our collective responsibilities.

Maybe it is time for Europe, despite the economic crisis, to finally take the responsibility for its actions and stop waiting for an answer from someone else. Europe has to make the choice: if it wants to make a change, it has to change itself in the first place. The Kantian paradise the E.U. wants to live in is great, but whether we like it or not, there are wolfs in the backyard.

“Everyone wants to change the world but no one wants to change himself.” (L. N. Tolstoy) 

If anything, the quotation is incredibly vague. The trouble starts with the word “change,” as one cannot really be sure what exactly it is supposed to mean in this context. “Changing the world” can be done in many different ways, from simply living (there is no doubt that things would have taken a slightly different course if you or I were not born – who knows, maybe we are destined to save humanity), which most people seem to be quite keen on doing, to wiping out the human race, which, luckily, is the life goal of a much smaller portion of the population, especially these days. Likewise, when someone says he is changing himself, he can have almost anything in mind. Maybe he is cutting down on fatty foods and sweets, or he has decided to spend the rest of his life a Hindu monastery somewhere in the mountain ranges of Nepal, or neither.

Absurd as they may be, these examples do shed some light on the most obvious meaning of Tolstoy's quotation. It is deceptively easy to change the world because all you have to do is sit around – as I have already said, every action has far-reaching consequences. Another reason why the first choice offered in the quotation is so popular becomes obvious when you imagine what a person wishing to change the world would say: “The world needs to change,” or in Czech, “Svět se musí změnit,” or in German, “Die Welt muss sich ändern.” Note that each of these exclamations, though they look like active constructions, is actually a concealed passive voice statement (at least from the semantic point of view) and misses the agent (the entity that carries out the action). Mind you, the world is not going to change itself, even though the above consideration suggests that people wish it would. But it is not difficult to see what the agent would have been had it been included: other people. Yes, is it not easy to say that the world should change and then sit back, relax and watch others do the job? A slight variation on this is what the Czech trade unions are doing at the moment, that is, to say how the world should be in your opinion and then make other people's lives miserable until they give up and do things your way.

So that is it for changing the world. Why is it, on the other hand, so difficult to change oneself? Well, for one thing, you cannot achieve it by not doing anything which, as we showed earlier, is an effective way of changing everything but you. Second, CONSVETVDO QVASI ALTERA NATVRA EFFICI, or “Habit is, as it were, a second nature,” as Marcus Tullius Cicero said. Ask yourself: what is the most natural and least dubious thing in the world for you? I bet the answer is your very existence, the way you are and live and think. Descartes used it as the starting point of his philosophy, as did Kant, Husserl, and many others, and I believe that for most people, their existence is the cornerstone, or axiom, of their conscious life, even though they might have never articulated it in their thoughts. And who would be willing to change that? If you look at things from the outside, then changing oneself equals suicide because when you alter your characteristic traits, the result is no longer you, it is someone who just happens to be very similar to you (and the fact that he thinks he is you means nothing – just like I would not turn into Isaac Newton if I believed I were him).

But we can explain things in a much more down-to-earth manner, and I think we will be much closer to Tolstoy's original intended meaning: people usually think only the best of themselves. Everyone believes he is special in some way, and not few of us are convinced of their seminal import to the rest of humanity and the world in general. It is only logical that such a person feels competent to change the world. After all, when the need for a change arises, what begs to be altered – the infallible self or the corrupt world?

This reminds me of a beautiful – and true – quotation by George Bernard Shaw: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” Let us discuss this some other time. Now I just wonder what it implies about Count Tolstoy...