Fight. Injury. Kill. Blood. Corpses. Death. No mercy.

Primed to impale fellows for food, to

beat them to the bush disputing over accommodation and resources. Desensitized to the pain,
grief and suffering of others, since benefits were of utmost importance. Bound by virtually
nothing, or bound only by self-interests. Ready to go to any lengths for the sake of their own
at the expense of others, yet a staunch, even absurdly blind follower of Gods, slavishly
abiding by the so-called fate, signs from the invisible divinity, whose existence is
questionable. A hurdle to overcome, a challenge to surmount, an obstacle to conquer might
be an indicator of those from above’s rejection. Pouring rain, extreme drought, heavy snow or
any other kind of inclement weather could preclude those seemingly barbarous human beings
from their most ardent desires. Funnily, ironically and paradoxically enough. Or maybe more
than enough.

This scenario was once our primitive and feudal society, premised upon theocracy and
disdain for human’s most basic rights. There was nothing to stop people of greater strength
and from higher social strata from inflicting harm on the “common folks”, yet a dubious sign
allegedly from the deity could discourage them from their needs and yearnings. Compared to
modern society, the notion of “limit” comes into play. It is my fervent conviction that the
matter of definition varies from one to another, and the scope of this concept is no doubt
enormous. Hence, I may approach the subject matter from two distinct aspects as follows,
together with arguments, clarifications as well as explanation.

First of all, I would like to look at “limit” from a moral and legal point of view. Nietzsche
claims that the Dionysus part – the dark, lustful, violent and power-hungry has always existed
inside humanity. As he once said, “the carnal delight de faire le mal pour le plaisir de le faire”
(to act wicked for the pleasure of being wicked). This is clearly demonstrated through the
cruel act of punishment in earlier society. Stoning, boiling criminals alive in oil or wine, tying
people to horses, having their four limbs ripped apart, and other equally inhumane tortures
were not only executed, but also displayed in royal weddings or festivals for sheer
entertainment. Nevertheless, when humanity started to enter into a much more civilized
society, they felt the need to regulate their behavior with a view to establishing a peaceful,
common co-existence. This is when the concept of “social contract” and later, law, emerged,
requiring citizens to give up some of their acts to be kept safe. For example, I abstain from
the urge to pierce you with a knife, so that you will not do the same thing to me. This is also
where the moral concept of guilt came from, as Nietzsche advocates. Humanity began to be
ashamed of our own cruel instinct, because they were now deemed immoral. Thus they can
no longer openly acknowledge and express those instincts. In other words, “law and moral
opinion support one another. Morality is incomplete without law, and law can only be
enforced when it is backed by morality and self-interest”. (Tony Honoré).

“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”. Jean-Jacques Rousseau started off his
“The social contract” with this quote. To the best of my knowledge, he thinks that only when
people partake in social contracts will they truly become free. I do take issue with this idea,
since in my opinion, social contract, law or morality is a trade-off that the majority of people
are willing to make. They oppress their dark inner cores, for the rights of citizens, including
safety. Technically, they are bound by law and morality, probably the harshest limit in
existence not to be led astray. However, the rightness and appropriateness of law and morality
is not conclusive. We can observe this from the gradual disappearance of old-fashioned world
views and taboos from feudal society. The perceived right belief, attitude and acts are
basically passed down from one generation to another. They are not a product of an
autonomous person in terms of thinking, but rather an inheritance that one is left with little
alternative but to accept without really questioning the reason to do so. This is fathomable as
we humans are social animals, with a tendency to feel more at ease and less open to criticism
to follow past practices. Bear in mind that these limits do evolve with the passage of time.
They shall be fine in my opinion as long as they do not intrude into one’s rights, and aim to
aid our society to be stable, thus flourishing.

In the second place, I will dissect “limit” at a more micro level. Now limits can be viewed as
one’s inability to finish something that is not forbidden by the law or morally unacceptable,
such as passing an exam, running a start-up or creating an innovation. The modern society
passionately and feverishly endorses the idea of breaking limits, asserting that limits are just a
state of mind, and that one must be pushed to their frontiers in order to attain success and
become a better version of themselves. Accompanied by cut-throat competition and mounting
peer pressure found in literally everywhere, people, including myself, become fanatical about
this idea and feel obliged to go beyond our limits, or else, we are just standing stills. In this
hectically crazy life, staying put means falling behind. There is always someone who is better
than and superior to us, and still working hard to break his or her limits. Why can’t we do the
same? The trend of breaking limits then appears a bit cliché and toxic. I am not advocating
that people should not make an effort to break their limits. What I am targeting is their aim.
People should consider this to be a gradual process of constructing a better version of
themselves, instead of doing it for fear of falling behind or not being as good as others. The
concept of limits is not a nuisance anymore, because on the trajectory to break the limits,
whether eventually we have achieved them or not, we still get better, thus our efforts are still
meaningful. Take myself as a prime example. Over a year ago, I failed the National English
Contest owing to terrible listening skills. I rejoined the contest this year, with an
improvement in listening, as well as speaking, reading and writing. Although I was unable to
gain my desired prize, in other words, I did not manage to break my limit, my English has
been holistically and greatly enhanced throughout the lengthy process of studies and practice
to realize my potential. I have become a better version of myself, thus I do not regret trying
so hard at all.

Reading all the quotes cited in the essay topic, I also realize there has been a change in
people’s general way of thinking as time passed. In the former days, humanity often
capitulated to the odds, instead of defying them, and regarded them as a turndown from God.
From an ancient Greek hero, a fervent patriot, a Chinese courtesan to legendary writers, they,
both unwittingly or not, sticked to the motto “Thiên thời, địa lợi, nhân hòa”, affected by
external factors and believing that their endeavors made to enhance the status quo would be
futile. Obviously, that has changed with the passing of time. From John Kennedy to the
contemporaries, they have turned to “Thiên thời bất như địa lợi, địa lợi bất như nhân hòa”,
which means the human factors have the most important role to play, and no other excuses,
apart from human, is justifiable for a failure, as well as success. On a personal level, I concur
with this way of thinking, also the mindsets of modern civilization. Nietzsche has long
predicted this path of development, as he famously claimed: “Gott ist tot” (God is dead). The
declining popularity and incremental dissipation of theocracy has made way for secularism to
gain momentum, whether it is about law or individual’s belief about limits.

All in all, limits, from a legal and moral angle, are necessary for the stability and
advancements of a society, although people must make a trade-off to give up some of their
natural instinct, which is totally justifiable. Yet, for individuals, limits should not be regulated
by any supernatural or external factors but themselves, and being unable to break limits
should not be viewed as the end of the world, as on the path to breaking limits, they have
become a better version of themselves. The concept of limits are undoubtedly vast, and one’s
understanding, perception and interpretation of it is variable. For my part, I choose to look at
the subject matter from two specific angles, and air my thoughts on them. It is without
question that they are by no means flawless or complete, yet I hope they have some meaning
to offer and at best provide some food for thoughts.