On the Glorious Necessity of Scale and Striving
“The Colossus falls not because its mortar is weak, but because it dares to rise above the treeline of the mundane. Its ruin is the magnificent husk from which the next, better dream will sprout. We are not defined by the dust of our failures, but by the unquenchable Promethean fire that, though it scorches the hand, remains the sole currency of progress.”
The prevailing modern lament, which casts the magnificent arc of human aspiration as written in the “Fiasco of Colossus,” mistakes the tremor of becoming for the finality of collapse. To view the vast, complex edifices of civilization (be they ideological, mechanical, or communal) as inherently flawed and requiring the strictures of timid “Regulation” is to willfully blind oneself to the source of all human grandeur. The failure lies not in the size of the structure, but in the paucity of the will to defend it, and the tragedy is not that the tower fell, but that men ceased to rebuild higher.
The Colossus, that breathtaking monument to our reach, is not a mistake to be dismantled by cautious hands, but the indelible blueprint of our species’ restless soul. It is the necessary crucible in which true virtue (and its formidable twin, vice ) are forged.
The Indivisible Self and the Daemon of Ascent
To decry Egoism as the root of collective ruin is to misunderstand the very engine of innovation. The “Self,” so often pathologized, is the solitary point from which all light first emanates. It is the unyielding, Promethean fire that bids man to seek knowledge even in the shadow of the celestial law. Where the modest heart seeks only to regulate its pace, the audacious spirit, fueled by its own unique and magnificent ego, seeks to sunder the limitations of the firmament. The history of humankind is not a chronicle of consensus, but a pageant of singular, magnificent drives, each carving its indelible line across the landscape.
Similarly, the impulse toward fierce Loyalty and the resultant Hate Upon Others are not mere moral failings, but the fundamental friction required for the generation of cultural energy. Without the sharp demarcation of ‘us’ against ‘them’, without the necessary, primal division that sparks both conflict and profound communal identity, all human endeavors would dissolve into a bland, unproductive homogeneity. The grand narratives that Shape Us are born in the struggle between opposing loyalties, not in their pacified, regulated synthesis.
The Apotheosis of the Story
The true antithesis to the doctrine of “Fiasco” rests in the power of Story. A Colossus is merely an inert pile of stone until it is animated by a myth that lends it purpose and scale. The narrative, as the scaffolding of human purpose, compels us to Consume resources, space, and time, because consumption is the very nature of growth, the engine devours fuel to move forward.
The pursuit of the colossal is fundamentally an act of faith in a future so large it justifies the present cost. To embrace disbelief, as is often suggested by those weary of the struggle, is merely to retreat into the sterile, small chamber of skepticism, where nothing is ever built for fear of ruin. But the poet P. B. Shelley, in contemplating the fragmented Ozymandias, did not condemn the king’s vanity, but immortalized the attempt itself. The shattered bust on the sand is a noble failure, a tragic vestige more inspiring than a million smaller, successful endeavors.
The true glory is in the striving, the colossal expenditure of will. Let the structure be ambitious, let the failure be tragic, and let the ensuing ruins stand as a testament to what we once dared to imagine. For if we are perpetually constrained to “Embrace” the limits and “Regulate” the spirit, the only fiasco awaiting us is the desolate monotony of the small idea.
A Measured Examination of ‘Loyalty’
The opening chapter on “Loyalty” sets an ambitious, though ultimately precarious, foundation for the work, positing this human attachment as a core driver of both societal organization and subsequent systemic failure. The author frames Loyalty not merely as a virtue, but as a gravitational, almost inescapable force that pulls the individual into a collective, thereby generating the exclusionary ‘other’ that necessitates conflict; however, the analysis suffers from an overly deterministic and essentialist definition, collapsing the nuanced distinction between devotion to an ideal and blind fealty to an institution.
Get M. R. Z. Mahendra’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
By treating Loyalty as a monolithic, primal instinct that must lead to a “Hate Upon Others,” the chapter’s critique appears to target the abuse of loyalty (fealty), the rigid allegiance to a perishable Colossus , rather than its generative potential (devotion), which is often directed toward abstract, universal principles like Justice, Truth, or Beauty. Furthermore, the resulting prescription to dismantle or strictly regulate this impulse risks throwing out the vital infrastructure of trust (the fides that underpins contracts, families, and nations ) that allows for any collaborative endeavor, whether massive or modest, ultimately failing to offer a robust exploration of the necessary social glue and leaving only the regulated, sterile isolation against which the author’s own subsequent chapters on ‘Egoism’ and ‘Self’ might ironically rebel.
A Refined Critique of ‘Egoism’
The chapter on “Egoism” performs a crucial reduction, presenting the pursuit of self-interest as the primary, yet flawed, engine that drives the Colossus towards its inevitable “fiasco.” While compelling in its diagnosis of ambition’s potential for ruin, this perspective struggles under the weight of its own simplification, failing to distinguish between psychological egoism (the descriptive claim that all actions are fundamentally self-motivated ) and ethical egoism which is the normative claim that one ought to act in one’s own self-interest. By conflating these dimensions, the author overlooks the sophisticated defense of rational egoism articulated by thinkers such as Ayn Rand, who viewed “selfishness” not as rapacious greed, but as the moral virtue of independent, productive achievement. Furthermore, the text gives insufficient consideration to the “Invisible Hand” concept popularized by Adam Smith, where individual self-interest, when channeled through market mechanisms and rule of law, paradoxically serves the collective good. The critique thus operates in a philosophical vacuum, dismissing egoism outright without engaging with the formidable counter-argument that the only sustainable collective endeavor is one built upon the rational, self-aware striving of robust individuals, rather than the fragile, sentimental altruism that often masks a deeper dependency or resentment. The true danger lies not in the strength of the self, but in its irrationality.
Deconstructing the Fallacy of ‘Sincerity’
The third chapter, devoted to “Sincerity,” falls victim to a common philosophical pitfall: the conflation of sincere feeling with verifiable truth, and the subsequent critique of both as a foundation for grand structures. The author seems to position sincerity as either a naive vulnerability easily exploited or, conversely, as a performative mask that merely precedes inevitable disillusionment. This reductive framework ignores the critical distinction drawn by Lionel Trilling between sincerity (being true to one’s self in the eyes of others) and authenticity (being true to one’s self in one’s own estimation). The critique fails to address the existential imperative of authenticity, which, far from being a liability, is the necessary prerequisite for ethical action , that is one must be genuinely self-aware before one can rationally commit to an external cause. To dismiss “Sincerity” is to dismiss the internal mechanism that allows for growth and self-correction, condemning individuals to operate in the “bad faith” described by Jean-Paul Sartre, a state of self-deception that is arguably a far greater weakness in any complex system than simple falsehood.
Challenging the Condemnation of ‘Judgement’
In the fourth chapter, the condemnation of “Judgement” as a corrupting factor in the Colossus’s downfall oversimplifies the necessary function of appraisal and evaluation within any functioning human ecosystem. While the author rightly identifies the perils of prejudice and rash determination, the text appears to indict the very cognitive process required for moral and political life. This perspective ignores the Aristotelian notion of phronesis, or practical wisdom, which is fundamentally a capacity for context-sensitive judgment. Crucially, the argument neglects the essential distinction, articulated by Immanuel Kant, between determinative judgement (applying a universal rule to a specific case) and reflective judgement (finding a universal or principle based on a specific observation). As Hannah Arendt argued, the capacity for political judgement, the ability to “think from the perspective of everybody else”, is the core virtue of citizenship, essential for mitigating tyranny and enabling collective action. By seeking to eliminate the faculty of judgement, the author inadvertently prescribes a state of unthinking passivity, trading the potential for flawed, biased action for the certainty of moral and intellectual paralysis.
A Defense of the Autonomous ‘Self’
The succeeding chapter concerning the “Self” completes the author’s circuit of reductionism by positioning the individual as the final, irredeemable locus of the Colossus’s failure , a fragile, isolated vessel whose inevitable collapse poisons the whole. This condemnation, however, represents a profound failure to reconcile the societal need for order with the ethical necessity of autonomy. By indicting the ‘Self,’ the text bypasses the fundamental political and philosophical project of defining the sovereign individual. As articulated by thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the only legitimate social contract is one where man, though submitting to the collective general will, “obeys only himself and remains as free as before.” The author’s critique mistakenly views the self as a source of anarchy rather than the source of true moral and political agency. The self, particularly the one capable of embracing the inherent meaninglessness of the world (the ‘Absurd’ as described by Albert Camus in The Myth of Sisyphus) is not weak but inherently robust, drawing strength from its recognition of its own ultimate solitude. The true vulnerability of the Colossus lies not in the existence of the autonomous Self, but in its attempts to subsume the individual into a faceless mass, thereby destroying the critical distance and independent thought required to sustain any complex, free enterprise.
A Rebuttal to the Moralizing of ‘To Consume’
The chapter titled “To Consume” advances a puritanical condemnation of human expenditure, framing consumption as the terminal phase of the Colossus’s malignancy, a final, greedy devouring of resources that precipitates ruin. This perspective, however, suffers from a profound economic and anthropological myopia, reducing a complex, multifaceted human activity to mere hedonistic depletion. Structurally, the text fails to acknowledge the crucial role of consumption as the ultimate driver of production and employment, a foundational principle championed by economists like John Maynard Keynes, whose models rely on aggregate demand to prevent systemic stagnation. Furthermore, the critique misses the cultural and symbolic dimensions of consumption, which is not just the satisfaction of need, but often a necessary, “sovereign expenditure” that transcends utility, as explored by Georges Bataille in his theory of The Accursed Share. This expenditure (in feasts, art, and non-productive rituals) is an affirmation of life and liberty, a necessary refusal of the narrow confines of economic function. By advocating for a regulated, minimal existence, the author inadvertently prescribes a spiritual poverty, equating efficiency with virtue, and ignoring the vital, almost Dionysian, expenditure that constitutes the richness of cultural and personal expression. The true danger lies not in consumption itself, but in the lack of discernment and purpose that guides it.
The Necessary Dialectic of ‘Hate Upon Others’
The analysis in “Hate Upon Others” suffers from a moralistic oversimplification, treating antagonism as a purely destructive, pathological force that guarantees the Colossus’s demise. While the toxicity of unbridled hostility is undeniable, this view neglects the crucial, often generative, role of dialectical opposition in the formation of identity, ethics, and political cohesion. Following the insights of G.W.F. Hegel, the “other” is not merely an object of scorn, but the mirror against which the “self” achieves consciousness, and the conflict between the two is the engine of historical progress. Furthermore, the author fails to adequately address the concept of the enemy as a necessary political category, as argued by Carl Schmitt, who posits that the fundamental distinction between friend and foe is the precondition for organized political life and, paradoxically, for peace among a group’s members. By attempting to eliminate all forms of othering, the critique risks collapsing all distinctions into a featureless, inert universalism, thereby forfeiting the energetic friction (the clash of convictions, the spirited debate) that drives innovation and prevents stagnation within large, ambitious systems. The Colossus is not destroyed by the existence of external pressure, but by its inability to channel that pressure into productive self-critique and internal differentiation.
A Defense of the Formative Power of ‘Ideas that Shapes Us’
The chapter “Ideas that Shapes Us” presents a compelling but ultimately fatalistic view, suggesting that the ideological frameworks underpinning the Colossus (its foundational beliefs and myths) are inherently flawed, leading only to a predictable, pre-programmed ruin. This critique, however, errs by failing to differentiate between the Idea itself and its application; it mistakes the map for the territory. The author overlooks the Platonic concept of the Form or Idea as an enduring, often transcendent, blueprint of perfection and order that serves as the aspirational goal for all great human works. Ideas (whether economic, political, or scientific) are not mere descriptive artifacts of human frailty, but powerful, generative forces that grant meaning, purpose, and the necessary shared language for colossal cooperation. As Max Weber argued in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, ideas have a material force, but their corruption does not negate their initial, vitalizing potential. To blame the idea for the failure of the structure is akin to blaming the laws of physics for a bridge collapse; the failure lies not in the governing principle, but in the engineering’s compromised execution. The Colossus collapses not because its founding ideas were too grand, but because the fidelity and vigor required to maintain those ideas against the pressure of self-interest and moral decay were insufficient. The pursuit of the Idea that the unwavering gaze toward the ideal is the only mechanism capable of delaying entropy and driving the next, greater attempt at scale.
A Rejection of the Primitivism in ‘Said — The Origins of Stories’
The chapter “Said — The Origins of Stories” appears to adopt a reductive, perhaps anthropological, stance that diminishes the function of narrative to a mere psychological coping mechanism or a primitive organizational tool that ultimately fails to contain the sprawling chaos of the Colossus. This analysis is fundamentally flawed in its inability to grasp the profound ontological and ethical necessity of storytelling. Narrative, far from being a simple ‘origin’ or an unsophisticated utterance, is, as Alasdair MacIntyre argued in After Virtue, the structure through which human life attains intelligibility and purpose; we are, fundamentally, storytelling animals whose lives are defined by their narrative unity. Furthermore, the text overlooks the critical function of myth and story as the primary vehicle for transmitting moral and cultural complexity (the very “ideas that shape us”) over generations. As Northrop Frye detailed, myth provides the archetypal frameworks that allow societies to interpret and confront chaos, tragedy, and ambition. To critique the origins of stories is to critique the origins of organized consciousness itself. The Colossus does not fail because its stories are too simple or too pervasive; it fails when it loses faith in the redemptive, cautionary, and unifying power of those grand narratives, allowing instead for cynical, fragmented, and meaningless data points to replace the communal search for significance.
An Affirmation of the Structural Power of ‘Story’
The chapter “Story” appears to extend the reductive critique of its predecessor, “Said — The Origins of Stories,” by suggesting that the constructed narrative (the completed, formalized “Story”) is merely a static façade that hides the rot and eventual collapse of the Colossus. This view, however, radically undervalues the Story’s structural function as the mechanism of institutional memory and reconciliation. Contrary to the portrayal of the Story as a mere ornament, it is, in fact, the essential process by which complexity is managed and sustained. As Paul Ricœur’s work on time and narrative demonstrates, it is through the act of emplotment that discordant events and individual actions are synthesized into a coherent, meaningful trajectory, allowing the Colossus to understand its past failures and project its future goals. Moreover, the critique fails to account for the Story’s capacity for self-correction; the great narratives of history and mythology are often built upon the ashes of previous failed “colossi” and serve as perpetual cautionary tales. The Story, then, is not the weakness of the structure, but its immune system, a dynamic framework that permits both continuity and critical revision. The Colossus is not undermined by its Story, but by the contemporary cynical inability to read its own, complex narrative with sufficient seriousness or moral imagination.
Disbelief as Epistemic Virtue in ‘Growing Disbelief’
The final analytical chapter on “Growing Disbelief” attempts to indict the dissolution of collective faith as the ultimate systemic failure, positioning widespread skepticism as the final, corrosive agent against the Colossus. This argument fundamentally misdiagnoses critical doubt as terminal decay. Disbelief, when properly understood, is not a failure of will, but a profound epistemic hygiene, the disciplined refusal to accept doctrines that have failed in practice. Far from being a sign of weakness, the ability to engage in Cartesian doubt (the systematic questioning of all received truth) is the engine of intellectual progress and the very mechanism by which the Colossus can correct its catastrophic trajectory. The author collapses the distinction between healthy, Popperian falsification (the scientific and political willingness to discard a flawed model) and corrosive nihilism (the complete rejection of meaning). True danger lies not in the growing disbelief of flawed institutions, but in the credulity that permits them to continue unchecked. The Colossus’s failure is thus not caused by the citizens’ critical gaze, but by its own structures’ inability to withstand the scrutiny required for its long-term survival. The final act of defiance (the refusal to believe in a visibly failing structure) is not the sign of ruin, but the prelude to genuine reconstruction.
A Counter-Conclusion to the ‘Lesson Learned’
The conclusion of the main text, ostensibly titled “Lesson Learned,” must inevitably advocate for a retreat from grand ambition and a circumscription of human agency, a lesson of timidity disguised as wisdom. However, the true lesson gleaned from the history of all fallen Colossi is not one of regulation, but of resilience through renewal. The author’s conclusion fails to grasp that the magnificent ruin is not an end point, but a pre-condition for the next, more conscious epoch of striving. Against the final counsel to embrace the small and the manageable, the antithesis must stand: the only lasting failure is the refusal to attempt greatness again. The tragic flaw of the Colossus is not its inherent size, but its human reluctance to integrate criticism (Disbelief) and re-establish foundational values (Ideas, Loyalty) in the wake of inevitable collapse. Drawing upon Nietzsche’s notion of the will to power (the eternal affirmation of life despite suffering and dissolution) we must conclude that the fiasco is a dialectical victory, a spectacular proof that human spirit requires obstacles and grand failures to define its trajectory. The lesson is not to abandon the construction of monuments, but to accept their mortality and to recognize that the true immortality lies in the perennial, self-renewing impulse to begin anew at the foot of the magnificent debris.
In final summation, the critique leveled by this volume is not against the fiasco itself , for failure is merely the shadow cast by creation, but against the magnificence of the attempt. The true tragedy is not the collapse of the Colossus, but the intellectual and spiritual capitulation that suggests a lesser ambition is the only safe harbor. Such a philosophy attempts to domesticate the sublime hunger that defines humanity, confusing caution with courage. Our history is not merely a record of ruins, but a palimpsest of persistent effort: every downfall leaves an indelible trace of knowledge, a stronger will, and a loftier design for the next iteration. Therefore, the ultimate, most dangerous lesson is not the fear of height, but the fear of aspiration. Let us reject the prudence of the small and instead embrace the glorious, repeated risk of becoming; for the striving, not the standing, defines the human spirit.
Reference:
Bataille, Georges. The Accursed Share. New York: Zone Books, 1988.
Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus. Translated by Justin O’Brien. New York: Penguin Classics, 2000.
Mahendra, M R Z. Fiasco of The Collosus. Yogyakarta: Cantrik Pustaka, 2021.
Overall J, Gedeon S. Rational Egoism Virtue-Based Ethical Beliefs and Subjective Happiness: An Empirical Investigation. Philos Manag. 2023;22(1):51–72. doi:10.1007/s40926–022–00207–2.
Jahan, Sarwat, Ahmed Saber Mahmud, and Chris Papageorgiou. “What Is Keynesian Economics?” Finance & Development 51, no. 3 (September 2014). International Monetary Fund.
Mill, John Stuart. “Editorial Foreword: Christianity and Liberty.” In On Liberty: A Translation into Modern English. ISR Publications, 2013.
Nankov, Nikita. “The Narrative of Ricoeur’s Time and Narrative.” The Comparatist 38 (2014).
Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Vol. 2. 1st ed. London: W. Strahan & T. Cadell, 1776.
Trilling, Lionel. Sincerity and Authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.
Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Talcott Parsons. London: Routledge, 2001.
