← Previous: 2021 Essay 1 | Next → 2021 Essay 3
✒️ IAS MAINS 2021 — ESSAY 2
“Philosophy of wantlessness is utopian, while materialism is a chimera.”
Opening Tagline
A reflection on desire, freedom, fulfilment, and the human search for meaning.
🟧 1. FODDER SEEDS — Strategic Brainstorm Points 💡
• Wantlessness = absence of desire, not absence of life
• Materialism = endless pursuit of objects for happiness
• Both extremes deny human nature as it is
• Wantlessness ignores social, biological, aspirational needs
• Materialism ignores inner emptiness and spiritual hunger
• Desire is natural; attachment is the problem
• Fulfilment ≠ possession
• Modern societies oscillate between ascetic idealism and consumer excess
• Sustainable life lies in moderation, not negation
• Happiness arises from balance between inner contentment and outer sufficiency
🟦 2. INDIAN PHILOSOPHICAL SEEDS 🇮🇳
• Upanishads — Desire moderated through wisdom, not eliminated
• Buddha — Middle Path: neither indulgence nor self-mortification
• Gita — Nishkama Karma: act without attachment, not without desire
• Gandhi — Simplicity, not poverty; restraint, not renunciation
• Kabir — Critique of both hollow asceticism and blind accumulation
• Vivekananda — Rejected escapist spirituality; life-affirming Vedanta
• Indian tradition — Dharma balances Artha and Moksha
🟥 3. WESTERN PHILOSOPHICAL & INTELLECTUAL SEEDS 🌍
• Epicurus — Simple pleasures, freedom from excess desire
• Aristotle — Golden Mean: virtue between extremes
• Stoics — Control desire, not the world
• Marx — Alienation under material obsession
• Freud — Suppressed desires distort personality
• Erich Fromm — “To Have or To Be”
• Modern psychology — Hedonic treadmill validates chimera of materialism
🟩 4. GOVERNANCE, SOCIETY & GS SEEDS 🏛️
• Consumerism fuels ecological collapse
• Extreme asceticism incompatible with modern governance
• Welfare state assumes minimum material provision
• SDGs: dignity with restraint
• Policy must address poverty without glorifying excess
• Development with sustainability
• Youth mental health crisis linked to material success narratives
• Happiness indices surpass GDP as governance metrics
🟪 5. QUICK UPSC REVISION SEEDS 📌
• Absolute wantlessness = denial of human condition
• Absolute materialism = denial of inner fulfilment
• Extremes are rhetorical, not realistic
• Balance is civilisational wisdom
• Attachment, not desire, causes suffering
• Contentment > consumption
• Means matter as much as ends
🌳 ESSAY TREE — UPSC STRUCTURE MAP
I. Introduction
Metaphor of pendulum between asceticism and consumerism.
II. Understanding the Statement
Clarify “utopian wantlessness” and “chimera of materialism”.
III. Philosophical Perspective
Indian & Western traditions on desire and fulfilment.
IV. Psychological Dimension
Human needs, motivation, happiness, hedonic adaptation.
V. Social & Economic Dimension
Consumer culture, inequality, environmental strain.
VI. Governance Context
Development, welfare, sustainability, ethics.
VII. Contemporary Relevance
Modern crises of meaning and mental health.
VIII. Way Forward
Middle path: mindful prosperity.
IX. Conclusion
Human fulfilment lies in balance, not extremes.
✒️ IAS MAINS 2021 — ESSAY 2
“Philosophy of wantlessness is utopian, while materialism is a chimera.”
Opening Tagline
A reflection on desire, freedom, fulfilment, and the human search for meaning.
Philosophy of wantlessness is utopian, while materialism is a chimera
Human societies have perpetually oscillated between two powerful but opposing visions of life. One urges complete renunciation of desires in pursuit of inner peace; the other promises happiness through material acquisition and consumption. The statement that the philosophy of wantlessness is utopian while materialism is a chimera captures this tension succinctly. It suggests that total freedom from desire is unrealistic for human beings, while the belief that material wealth can deliver lasting fulfilment is equally illusory. Together, the two extremes expose the fragility of absolutist thinking and highlight the necessity of balance in understanding the human condition.
The philosophy of wantlessness envisions a life unburdened by desire, ambition, and attachment. At a moral and spiritual level, this idea appears noble. It promises freedom from suffering, jealousy, greed, and anxiety. Many philosophical traditions have celebrated detachment as a path to liberation. However, when translated into lived reality, absolute wantlessness appears impractical, even contradictory. Human beings are biological, social, and psychological entities. Needs for food, shelter, security, affection, recognition, and purpose are deeply embedded in human existence. To imagine a society where individuals are entirely devoid of wants is to imagine a departure from the very nature of humanity itself.
Desire is not merely a moral weakness; it is also the engine of growth, creativity, and progress. Curiosity drives scientific discovery, ambition fuels governance and reform, compassion creates institutions of care, and aspiration motivates individuals to transcend limitations. Even ethical conduct often arises not from the absence of desire but from the desire for justice, dignity, or harmony. A philosophy that demands the total annihilation of desire risks becoming disengaged from reality, suitable perhaps for rare individuals in isolated spiritual contexts, but impossible as a universal social principle. In this sense, wantlessness, while inspirational as an ideal, remains utopian when imposed as a comprehensive philosophy of life.
Conversely, materialism offers a radically different promise. It asserts that happiness, security, and status can be achieved through accumulation of wealth, possessions, and consumption. Material success becomes the measure of worth, progress, and fulfilment. Modern economies, advertising cultures, and social hierarchies are largely constructed around this belief. Yet, despite unprecedented material abundance in many parts of the world, satisfaction often remains elusive. Anxiety, depression, loneliness, and meaninglessness persist, sometimes intensifying amidst prosperity. This exposes the chimera-like quality of materialism — chasing an illusion that forever recedes as one approaches it.
Material wealth undeniably plays an important role in human well-being. Poverty is dehumanising, and material deprivation restricts freedom and opportunity. However, when materialism becomes an end in itself rather than a means, it begins to hollow out life. The relentless pursuit of more — more wealth, more consumption, more recognition — traps individuals on a treadmill of dissatisfaction. Each achievement briefly gratifies, only to create new desires. This cycle reveals that material fulfilment is conditional and transient, incapable of generating lasting contentment. As a result, materialism promises happiness but delivers restlessness, making it a chimera rather than a coherent philosophy of fulfilment.
The contrast between wantlessness and materialism is not merely theoretical; it is deeply embedded in human psychology. Modern behavioural science demonstrates that while unmet basic needs cause distress, excess consumption does not proportionality increase happiness. The phenomenon known as hedonic adaptation explains why people quickly return to baseline levels of satisfaction after material gains. Meanwhile, suppression of desire altogether often leads to frustration, guilt, or psychological imbalance. Thus, both extremes—unrestricted indulgence and total renunciation—fail to align with the emotional realities of human beings.
Civilisations across history appear to have intuitively recognised this. Indian philosophical traditions, for instance, did not advocate the rejection of worldly life in its entirety. The concept of the four purusharthas — dharma, artha, kama, and moksha — accepts desire and material pursuit as legitimate stages of life, governed by ethical restraint and higher purpose. Similarly, Western philosophy has repeatedly warned against excess while acknowledging the role of material conditions in shaping human flourishing. Aristotle’s doctrine of the golden mean, for example, emphasised virtue as a balance between deficiency and excess rather than adherence to absolutes.
In contemporary society, the dangers of materialism are no longer confined to individual dissatisfaction; they manifest as collective crises. Environmental degradation, climate change, and unsustainable resource extraction are direct outcomes of consumerist ideologies. Social inequalities widen when wealth accumulation becomes the primary measure of success. At the same time, glorifying ascetic detachment as a solution to these problems is neither practical nor humane. Governance requires engagement with material realities — food security, healthcare, education, and infrastructure — all of which presuppose structured economic activity and legitimate desires for improvement.
The relevance of this debate is especially critical in democratic and developmental contexts. States cannot function on philosophies of renunciation, nor can they flourish by encouraging unchecked consumption. Development models increasingly recognise that well-being extends beyond gross domestic product. Indices measuring happiness, health, education, and sustainability reflect a growing understanding that human fulfilment emerges from alignment between material sufficiency and inner well-being. This shift reinforces the core insight of the statement: extremes mislead, while balance sustains.
The modern individual stands at a crossroads shaped by unprecedented choices. Technology amplifies desires through constant exposure, comparison, and stimulation, deepening dissatisfaction. At the same time, romanticised narratives of total disengagement from material life appeal to those seeking escape from stress and uncertainty. Both paths, when taken exclusively, risk undermining human wholeness. A meaningful life does not demand the eradication of desire, nor does it submit blindly to consumption. Instead, it calls for discernment — learning which desires enrich life and which enslave it.
Ultimately, the truth embedded in the statement is not a rejection of desire or matter, but a critique of absolutism. Wantlessness fails because it denies human nature; materialism fails because it misunderstands human fulfilment. The human journey lies not in choosing one extreme over the other but in integrating inner contentment with outer sufficiency. Fulfilment arises when material means serve ethical ends, and desires are guided by wisdom rather than indulgence.
In concluding, the philosophy of wantlessness may inspire personal reflection, and material prosperity may support human dignity, but neither can stand alone as complete answers to the problem of living well. Human civilisation advances not by erasing desire or worshipping wealth, but by mastering the art of balance. It is in this middle space — where aspiration meets restraint and progress aligns with meaning — that human beings attain not just survival, but fulfilment.
🌙 Spin-Off Essay (2021 Essay-2)
“Between Hunger and Silence: The Human Search for Enough”
(Philosophical–Literary Reflection | ~1100–1200 words)
Human life unfolds between two illusions that have haunted civilisation since its earliest self-awareness. One illusion whispers that peace lies in desiring nothing; the other insists that fulfilment waits just beyond the next acquisition. Between the hunger to possess and the silence of renunciation, humanity walks a narrow, searching path, unsure of where enough truly lies.
The dream of wantlessness has always carried a strange purity. To live without craving appears to promise freedom from anxiety, pain, rivalry, and disappointment. In religious thought, it is often portrayed as liberation; in philosophy, as mastery of the self. Yet this dream falters the moment it steps into lived life. The human being does not awaken in a vacuum. He awakens hungry, dependent, vulnerable. Desire is the first language of survival. Long before ambition becomes attachment, want is simply the will to live.
Even later in life, desire does not merely erupt from greed. It arises from curiosity, love, responsibility, and hope. A parent desires security for a child. A reformer desires justice. A scientist desires truth. These are not corruptions of the soul but expressions of it. To imagine a human life stripped of all wants is to imagine a life stripped of motion. Absolute wantlessness, therefore, becomes a beautiful abstraction — a horizon that can guide reflection but cannot contain a society.
And yet, the opposite illusion is far more seductive in modern times. Materialism does not present itself as a philosophy; it masquerades as common sense. It promises comfort, control, recognition, speed, and security. It tells us that unhappiness is merely a logistical problem — solvable with better products, higher income, or improved status. But the more this promise is pursued, the more it reveals its mirage-like nature.
The logic of material fulfilment is linear, but human happiness is not. What once satisfied soon loses its power. The object acquired becomes ordinary; the standard rises; comparison begins. Satisfaction gives way to restlessness. Thus begins the chase — not for joy, but for momentum. Consumption creates appetite faster than meaning. In this way, materialism does not fail dramatically; it exhausts quietly, leaving behind fatigue disguised as success.
This tension, between too little and too much, is not accidental. It reflects the deeper contradiction at the core of human consciousness. Humans are neither purely spiritual beings nor merely economic units. They inhabit both worlds simultaneously. Attempts to deny either dimension result in imbalance. Renunciation without compassion can become indifference. Prosperity without restraint can become emptiness.
Ancient wisdom understood this intuitively. Life was never meant to be lived at the extremes. Even ascetic traditions did not reject the world entirely; they stepped away to understand it more clearly. Even material civilizations carried symbols of restraint, ethics, and transcendence. The tragedy of modern discourse lies in polarising these instincts — treating desire as sin and wealth as salvation, or reversing the equation entirely.
Society suffers when these illusions dominate collective imagination. A culture intoxicated with material success breeds competition detached from purpose. A culture obsessed with renunciation risks paralysis, withdrawal, and neglect of responsibility. Governance, too, collapses under these extremes. A state cannot be run on detachment alone, nor can it survive on unchecked accumulation. Policy must feed bodies without starving souls.
Perhaps the question is not whether wantlessness or materialism is right, but why humanity keeps mistaking absolutes for answers. The idea of “enough” is deeply unsettling because it resists quantification. Enough is personal, contextual, and dynamic. It changes across age, circumstance, and responsibility. That which is enough for survival is insufficient for dignity; that which is enough for dignity may not satisfy ambition. Learning when to stop is not a formula — it is wisdom.
In personal life, this wisdom manifests as contentment without stagnation. One can strive without being consumed, possess without being possessed. In social life, it becomes ethics — drawing lines between growth and greed, progress and plunder. In governance, it translates into sustainable development, humane policies, and long-term thinking. At every level, balance is not passive moderation but an active, continual choice.
The greatest danger of both wantlessness and materialism is that they simplify life too aggressively. They reduce the complexity of being human into slogans — “renounce everything” or “achieve everything.” Real life unfolds in the spaces between these commands. It is lived through negotiation, responsibility, sacrifice, and restraint — not through purity or excess.
Ultimately, peace does not emerge from erasing desire, nor does fulfilment arise from feeding it endlessly. Peace emerges when desire is educated — when it learns to serve meaning rather than dominate it. Fulfilment arises not from having more, but from knowing why one has what one has.
Thus, humanity’s task is not to choose between hunger and silence, but to listen carefully to both, and then walk forward without surrendering to either. Enough is not a destination; it is a discipline — learned slowly, lived imperfectly, and renewed every day.
← Previous: Essay 1
|
Next → Essay 3
|
← Back to 2021 Essay Set