The prominent writer Charles Dickens once said, “Subdue your appetites, my dears, and you’ve conquered human nature.” As tempting and yet unadorned this phrase may seem, it should not be taken lightly nor should we believe that it illustrates the path we should seek. The history of our world has proved to us, once and again, that should we wish to conquer human weakness, or “human nature,” we are left with no choice but to restrain all passions, all “appetites.” More often than not, this restraint offered a life of security for many. Yet, should we seek such a life?

            Initially, I refute Dickens’s advice to “conquer human nature.” It is quite true that human nature includes many weaknesses. However, did we consider that perhaps those weaknesses are what allow us to live? Love is considered a weakness by many; could we live without love? Sacrifice is considered a weakness; could we live life without sacrifice? Sympathy is considered a weakness; is it possible for humanity to exist without sympathy? Have we paused to imagine how the universe would run should we reject the very nature of our souls? Here, I implore the reader to consider the history of our world. Could Napoleon Bonaparte have defeated the Russians had he not love for his country? Could Joan of Arc have become a role model for future warriors had she not felt the need for sacrifice? Had we not sympathized with West Germany during the World War, could so many lives have been saved? Conquering human nature will only lead us down the path to a meaningless life. We shall live and die forgotten for we have destroyed all that makes us human.

            Furthermore, I challenge Dickens’s claim that we should “subdue our appetites.” It is quite true that to follow an unrepressed passion would be to live life selfishly as a predator would, following the lead of naught but a passion that would not yield to wisdom. Was it not an unruly passion, a misguided appetite of nationalism that drove Adolf Hitler to commit such heinous acts of cruelty? Was it not the uncontrolled ambition of Julius Caesar that led to his murder? Were they not the twisted passions of Bin Laden that led to the dreadful scandal of 9/11? Nevertheless, passion, when correctly maintained, shall lead to success and, ultimately, a better world. President Wilson’s passion for world peace was what led to his Fourteen Points, and later, the formation of the United Nations. Martin Luther King Jr.’s passion for justice among all Americans led to the success of the Civil Rights Movement. Susan B. Anthony’s passion for women’s rights led to women’s suffrage in the late 19^th century. Furthermore, Malala Yousafzai’s passion for justice led to the spread of education in Pakistan, and the ultimate defeat of the Taliban. Finally, prominent writer Gaston Leroux once said, “I have always brought the same care to making an adventure novel, a serialized novel, that others would bring to the making of a poem. My ambition was to raise the level of this much maligned genre.” Had Leroux suppressed his ambition, would he have succeeded as a writer? Would his pieces have been read and loved a century past his death? Hence, is it true that we should suppress our passions, and quell the flame that blazes within? Would this subjugation truly benefit humanity, or would it hasten its destruction?

            Finally, I would like to return to my original query. Should we seek the security offered by the suppression of appetites and the conquest of human nature? It is quite true that many crave the tranquility and peace offered by such a life. Yet, if we all choose to live so selfishly, humanity would simply cease to exist. It was once said that, “I think, therefore I am.” To think is to connect one’s passion to one’s mind. Therefore, if we cease to think, we simply cease to be. If we live life with no goals, no purpose, then life itself shall become no more than a myth, an abstract dream which can only be seen never changed. We shall become powerless, for strength can only be obtained with passion. We shall evolve into the playthings of fate, to be tossed mercilessly by the winds of destiny, to be eternally shackled and bound by the cruel ropes of time. Emily Bronte once said, “A man will row long against wind and tide before he cries out, ‘I am baffled!’” Should we lose our passion, our strength which allows us to tolerate the hardships of life, we shall be “baffled,” utterly overcome and ultimately defeated.

            In conclusion, it does not do to believe that we should fight our nature nor is it fit for us to resist our passions. To do so would be to reject the very fibers of our being. To do so would be to live life in continuous battle. Perhaps such actions would save us from the toils of life, but they shall force us to live in an eternal prison. Hence forced to gaze upon bars of cowardice through which no light shines save the gleam of a blade in the flames of war.

– Ayah Gouda