Naši studenti Ročník 2011

"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.

"God made the country, and man made the town."

William Cowper

AThe description of a city in which most of us would like to live… it would be a city in which

 our liveslife would resembled the liveslife we dream of. Clean and green, vital and healthy, with all supplies

 within reach of a hand, safe, the city full of opportunities, endless job offers, yet a place to 

rest. A cChildren’s desires surely do differ from those of an elderly man, and each of us seeks  for

something different in our lives,. Nnevertheless, anyoneeveryone who dreamings of an ideal city would

 definitely try to coverinclude benefitsadvantages for all. The perfect city has never existed, nor will it ever exist,  and the perfect

city will never exist, as we much as ourselves and ourthe world existthat surrounds us. But let’s dream for 

a minute and imagine see what a perfect city might look like.

The characteristics of my dream city are not the most important; it’s the form of the city that, what

 mattersI find so crucial. That is to say, my dream city is an organism. It’s a living matter, which

 absorbs the stimulius from outside and responds to it. The negative behaviourbehavior of its inhabitants

 toward each other is immediately reflected in its inner atmosphere,; asidentically to with any other living

 organism ,- incapability of living in harmony with surroundings equals doom. Insensitive 

intrusionservention to it’s body causewill cause an illness. It’s the well known Newton’s well-known principle of

 action and reaction. In this case, our actions would be reflectedmirrored in the city’s reactions. And

what is most importantly,  - the image of the city is also the image of our own acts. OWhen we

look into the city’s streets, our actions, our behaviour, and habits, even ourselves, are allall that  is

reflectedmirrored in the city’s streetsre…........

.......Is the idea of a town as an organism „town as an organism“ kind of science fiction? No, it’ is not. EEvery town we all are

living in is really something as an like an organism, which reactsis reacting and respondsanswering to our needsincentives – as is every .

As well as the country, even or our entire planet. We haven’t just madeAnd not just the towns; , butthe whole world is what we have

made the product of through our behaviorur and our intentions. We are designing it without beeing aware of

 the fact, that each of us is anthe architect. But this engineering is not just an active work;, more

than that we are designing the worldit with our passivity, with our idleness. The mere Ggood -behaviorng is

 not enought – - even lack of action on the part of “good ones” the non-performance of „good ones“ enables the victory of evil. Our

 insufficient effort is at the same time our own condemnation of our town, country, planet.

 All of us have the similar visions of thean ideal town;, we all would like to live in one like that. We often verbalize this vision – we describe what how is the city is like; , we explain different approaches to how to reach this dream and what is preventingmissing for completionachievement of this dream. But we totally forget that the main thing that is missing is not hidden somewhere inside these words, but inside of us: – there is lack of effort, motivation, and activity inside of us. We have lost the habit ofto participatinge in our own fate, to work on it; , we have totally forgotten that our destiny is an intergralintegral part of our country, our city. 

So what is the difference between athe real town and my unreal town-living organism? That, in our reality, this organism reacts so slowly and is so complex, that you can hardly recognize its reaction. But it is an organism in any case, and we have to keep it on ourthat in mind. And for those, who don‘t recognize the organism in it, we arehave the obligatedion to show it to them, search for it for them, and remind them of it every single day.

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.

„Chudoba je matkou zločinu“   Marcus Aurelius

Pro hlubší reflexi tohoto konkrétního výroku je určité objasnění základních pojmů nejen žádoucí, ale přímo nezbytné. Vezmeme-li úvodem v úvahu pojem „chudoba“, nabízí se hned několik použitelných konceptů. V kvalitativní rovině tento termín nejčastěji znamená velmi nízký ekonomický status. Nicméně „chudoba“ se může rovněž vztahovat k intelektuálním či duševním nedostatkům, v tom smyslu, že určitá míra ignorance nebo hrubosti může být ve výsledku příčinou zločinu, případně k dalším neekonomickým interpretacím. V kvantitativní rovině existuje zásadní rozdíl mezi „absolutní“ a „relativní“ chudobou. Z ekonomického hlediska „absolutní chudoba“ znamená situaci, kdy jedinec postrádá základní zdroje k zajištění svých primárních potřeb, potravu, pitnou vodu, přístřeší, zdravotní péči, apod. „Relativní chudobou“ mám na mysli situaci, kdy se člověk cítí chudým, například proto, že jezdí pouze běžným automobilem střední třídy, zatímco jeho soused vlastní drahý sportovní vůz.

Podobná klasifikace termínu „zločin“ je rovněž nutná. Zde však bude větší důraz kladen na kvalitativní rozměr problému, jinými slovy, na typologické rozdělení druhů zločinu podle újmy či nebezpečí, kterou ta či ona jeho forma představuje pro společnost. Bez hlubšího průniku do kriminologie nebo právní roviny problému, navrhuji načrtnout linku, kde se na jednom konci nachází kategorie „zločinu bez oběti“, sem patří například hazard, a druhý konec představují zločiny proti lidskosti, terorismus, genocida, apod. Mezi tyto dva extrémy možno zařadit vše od kapsářství, drobných krádeží, vloupání a krádeží automobilů až po závažné trestné činy, jako například útok smrtící zbraní, znásilnění, únos, apod. Přesto, že takto formulovaný koncept je vcelku vágní a obecný, poukazuje na skutečnost, že termín „zločin“ je sám o sobě velice široký, komplikovaný a pro seriózní analýzu znamená nemalou výzvu, kde je každé významnější zjednodušení nevhodné.         

Pravděpodobně není třeba se obšírněji věnovat významu použité metafory, že chudoba „je matkou zločinu“. Na druhou stranu nutno zmínit její zásadní význam pro samotný výrok. Pokud je chudoba považována za matku zločinu, implikuje to skutečnost, že chudoba je jediným původcem zločinu. Proto je třeba vyzdvihnout deklarovanou kauzalitu mezi termíny „chudoba“ a „zločin“ tak, jak ji struktura výroku prosazuje.

Výše provedeným rozborem jsem se pokusil naznačit, jak zjednodušujícím zkoumaný výrok je. Vezmeme-li jej do hlubší úvahy, uvědomíme si, jak široké spektrum možných interpretací se nabízí. Pro potřeby další reflexe budu předpokládat, že obecný abstraktní termín „chudoba“ odkazuje na skutečně nízký ekonomický status a „zločin“ znamená závažný trestný čin ohrožující veřejný pořádek, skupinu jedinců nebo samotnou společnost. Kauzalita vyjádřená termínem „je matkou“ pak naznačuje unikátní vztah a vazbu mezi oběma pojmy.

Mám-li vyjádřit svůj názor na daný výrok co nejstručněji, musím prohlásit, že s ním nesouhlasím. Podle mne není možné jednoznačně a nad rámec jakékoli pochybnosti prokázat onen kauzální vztah mezi chudobou a zločinem. V některých případech chudoba může být příčinou a vést ke zločinu, ale obecně se jedná o podstatně komplexnější problém širšího společensko-kulturního kontextu, který je relevantní v určitých podmínkách a za určitých okolností. Takovýto problém nemůže být zjednodušen na pouhé konstatování poukazující na zločin nevyhnutelně vyplývající z chudoby.

Někdo by mohl napadnout můj argument uvedením příkladů, jakými jsou brazilské favely nebo černošská ghetta v USA, kde by se můj názor mohl ukázat nepřesným. Zde mnozí lidé skutečně žijí ve velmi složitých podmínkách. Jejich ekonomický status je někdy až extrémně nízký a obecně se má za to, že schopnost dosáhnout změny aktuálních nepříznivých podmínek je nad jejich síly. Při absenci jakékoli vyhlídky na seriózní zaměstnání se zločin může zdát jediným východiskem z bídy. Z této perspektivy se zločin jeví v podstatě nevyhnutelným. Nikoli proto, že by určití lidé byli nutně zlí, ale proto, že jejich socioekonomické prostředí je nutí zločin spáchat. Takovýto argument, naznačující že na vině je společnost jako celek, že je zodpovědná za jejich mizérii, že společnost z nich činí zločince, shledávám zjednodušujícím a nepřesvědčivým.    

Pokud zoufalá ekonomická situace nevyhnutelně vede ke zločinu, jak vysvětlit skutečnost, že existují chudí lidé, kteří zločin nepáchají? Není třeba přesných statistik, aby bylo možné prohlásit, že stejně jako se vyskytnou lidé, kteří se uchylují ke zločinu v důsledku své složité ekonomické situace, rovněž se najdou tací, kteří se snaží s vlastními problémy vypořádat čestně a hledají poctivou cestu ven. Například v Bangladéši, kde většina obyvatelstva žije v absolutní chudobě, nízké kriminální statistiky ukazují, že striktní kauzalita mezi chudobou a zločinem je neprůkazná.

Navzdory nedostatkům zmíněného protiargumentu na chvíli předpokládejme, že nízký ekonomický status skutečně vede ke zločinu. Jak ale potom vysvětlit zločin páchaný lidmi s vysokým ekonomickým i společenským postavením, s tzv. zločinem „bílých límečků“ jako ideálním příkladem a Bernie Madoffem jako jeho prominentním představitelem? 

Jak jsem již uvedl dříve, seriózní reflexe daného tématu by vyžadovala hlubší analýzu a klasifikaci termínů spolu s obecným teoretickým pozadím a interpretačním rámcem. Nicméně doufám, že i z této mé vcelku nevědecké úvahy jasně vyplývají nejpodstatnější body. Přesto, že si dokážu představit konkrétní příklady, pro které je výrok platný, obecně neexistuje striktní kauzalita mezi chudobou a zločinem, stejně tak nemůže být chudoba považována za unikátního původce zločinu.    

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) 

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...

Jak se mi navzdory mému handicapu daří studovat? Tuto otázku si v podstatě pokládám často. Víte, je lehké začít studovat když jste upoutaný na invalidním vozíku, protože při čtení rozhodnutí o přijetí na vysokou školu nemůžete domyslet, co to bude všechno obnášet. Je to o neustálém balancování, řešení „problémů“ a zdolávání překážek,ať už těch fyzických či psychických. Nejdříve vás ani ve snu nenapadne, že po úspěšném sjednání osobní asistence se vám rozhodne někdo rozkopat nejvhodnější, dá se říci jedinou příjezdovou cestu k fakultě. Že se budete muset brodit blátem a štěrkem. A ne, aby vás napadlo, že to bude trvat cca dva roky. Nevíte, že vám budou končit přednášky jako naschvál ve chvíli, kdy odjíždí nízkopodlažní tramvaj a celou hodinu nepojede žádná. Časová ztráta vám samozřejmě rozhodí celý zbývající denní plán. Nevíte jak těžké bude skloubit rehabilitaci se studiem, když ani z jednoho nechcete ustoupit. Nenapadne vás, že zapadnete v prvním sněhu a nebude v silách asistenta vás dopravit na fakultu. A pokud nezapadnete a absolvujete celou cestu až na fakultu stane se tak pravděpodobně v době, kdy budou meteorologové hlásit nejsilnější mrazy za celé zkouškové období. Poznáte pravý význam pojmu zmrzlý jak rampouch a obyčejný horký čaj  se promění v božský nektar. Nemůžete předpokládat, že si opaříte ruku a zbývající důležitou část a závěr bakalářské práce budete muset „nadatlovat“ takříkajíc jedním prstem protože neovládáte prsty zbývající. Na začátku vlastně nevíte vůbec nic. Až zpětně, když už máte splněny všechny povinné, volitelné předměty a odevzdanou bakalářskou práci si můžete položit otázku: „Byly to opravdu překážky, když se je podařilo překonat?“

Pokud se tedy obklopíte lidmi, kteří jsou vám ochotni pomáhat, měli byste dojít k závěru, že překážky neexistují.