In the tome “The Little Prince,” subsequent to the arrival of the diminutive sovereign to Earth, he chanced upon a verdant garden replete with roses, beholding within it five thousand blooms mirroring those adorning the planet B612. His astonishment was profound upon the realization that the rose, heretofore deemed singular in the cosmos, was in truth not so. His spirit waned, engulfed by a profound crisis of identity. In this crucible, he encountered the fox, from whom he gleaned enlightenment. It was then that he comprehended the paramountcy of nurturing unique bonds through domestication.
As they bid farewell, the fox beseeched the little prince to revisit the rose garden. The fox posited that solely through such a return could the little prince reaffirm his self-assurance and internalize the wisdom imparted, thereby unraveling the essence of his bond with his rose.
“You are unlike my roses, utterly unlike,” for “no one has tamed you, nor have you tamed anyone.” Upon hearing these words, the rose recoiled in chagrin. Undeterred, the little prince persisted in his reproach: “You are resplendent, yet hollow. No soul would sacrifice for you. Indeed, to the casual observer, my rose might seem indistinguishable from you all. However, her solitary blossom surpasses your collective allure, for I have tended to her.”
Unbeknownst to the little prince, his words inflicted profound wounds upon the self-esteem of the five thousand roses, plunging them into a crisis of selfhood akin to his own.
Were I one of these roses, my rejoinder to the little prince would unfold thusly: while in reality, most individuals are not the beloved rose of the little prince, but merely one among five thousand. In all candor, many may concede that they are not even roses but rather unassuming blossoms or verdure lining the roadside.
Though the roses languish in sorrow, veracity does not invariably reside with the little prince. They might counter that it is egregiously unjust for him to impart such a lesson unto them.
Primarily, they were denied the opportunity to comprehend the precepts of domestication ere now. Had the little prince not encountered the fox, he might never have gained such insight. Whether one chances upon an illuminating figure in life and imbibes their teachings is, to some extent, contingent upon fortune. Even if the little prince’s assertions hold merit, he ought not to administer his lesson with the airs of a triumphant victor, but rather evince basic sympathy and comprehension.
Moreover, even if they grasp this verity, encountering the little prince amid life’s throng still necessitates a stroke of fortune. Even if another prince were to visit the rose garden henceforth, he could tame at most but a solitary rose from the multitude. The little prince, in his youth, fails to grasp this futility.
Furthermore, the little prince’s claim that his lone rose eclipses the entirety of the five thousand roses is unjust. The notion of “importance” herein is but a reflection of the little prince’s subjective viewpoint. Examined through an objective and universal lens, each rose stands as an equal, possessing intrinsic worth, with none superior to another. Thus, since the little prince regards them with indifference, they need not measure themselves against his standards.
Having articulated this rebuttal, can the Roses attain serenity?
Alas, the path to tranquility is fraught with challenges. For the little prince propounds a profound philosophical query: a life bereft of domestication is devoid of meaning.
Should the roses accede to this conclusion, they shall confront a formidable trial upon the little prince’s departure: how to discover individuals desirous of mutual domestication, and thereby lead a life of reciprocal bonds.
The roses may address this challenge through two avenues — either actively seeking potential domestics or imbuing the concept of “domestication” with broader significance.
The former approach, albeit direct and proactive, necessitates the convergence of myriad circumstances. One must first encounter a worthy candidate for domestication and subsequently garner their willingness. Domestication is a bilateral process, requiring mutual selection, acceptance, and investment.
It is understood that compatibility, rather than the assertion of right or wrong, constitutes the crux of any relationship. Domestication demands not only individual autonomy but also reverence for the autonomy of others. This dual autonomy, coupled with life’s capriciousness, renders the likelihood of two individuals converging and domesticating one another at a specific juncture exceedingly slim. Herein lies the capriciousness of fate. The roses must acknowledge that, in human relationships, no amount of effort guarantees a favorable outcome.
The second approach involves expanding the conception of “domestication.” For instance, the rose might posit that while domestication imbues life with meaning, the subject of connection need not be confined to the “little prince” alone. It can encompass pursuits worthy of dedication and commitment, such as vocation, faith, artistic endeavors, or societal ideals.
When these objectives transmute into vocations aligned with one’s essence, they cease to be mere pursuits; rather, they become intrinsic to one’s existence, forming the bedrock upon which one’s identity is forged. Simultaneously, this internal nexus engenders corresponding responsibilities, impelling individuals to safeguard and actualize these values.
Thus, following the fox’s counsel, the pursuit of ambition also constitutes a form of life’s domestication, albeit one wherein the subject of domestication transcends the realm of the individual. With this insight, the roses need not remain ensconced in the garden, awaiting the advent of the little prince; rather, they can actively pursue their passions, cultivate careers worthy of commitment, and proclaim to the little prince: even in the absence of one who would sacrifice for me, my existence is not devoid of meaning.
Finally, there exists yet another prospect — that the fox neglected to impart unto the little prince the concept of “self-domestication,” a notion oft overlooked by many. Human beings straddle the roles of subject and object. Self-cultivation entails treating one’s own life with tenderness and connection. By attuning oneself to one’s corporeal vessel, heeding the inner voice, and cherishing one’s individuality, one may gradually come to know and love oneself. Frequently, the “self” closest to us remains the most enigmatic, as individuals may deceive, pity, harbor feelings of inferiority, exile themselves, or even forsake themselves altogether. In reality, one may not necessarily possess the keenest understanding of oneself nor harbor the deepest affection for oneself. Indeed, learning to understand and love oneself constitutes perhaps life’s most arduous lesson.
The interplay between self-domestication, the domestication of others, and the pursuit of life’s aspirations is not dichotomous; rather, it engenders a symbiotic relationship. Only upon mastering the art of self-domestication can one hope to domesticate others and actualize one’s aspirations in life.
Indeed, my life is tamed by myself.