Consider for example the concepts put forth by Jacob Lund Fisker on his “Early Retirement Extreme”. The concept of how little is required for subsistence of life and the cheaper hacks for living are all extreme in nature that not many people could follow it without standing apart from the rest of the peers.
When I read ERE, it was transformational in the way I thought about early retirement. It gave more importance to financial independence in a way that it reduces all other nuances of social life to its basis form. But can one follow the book in its fundamental essence? Or, did the author really meant it that way. I don’t think so. Yet the concepts seem extreme to us because it obliterates the societal obligations a person might have, or might assume he/she has. After contributing by ERE and a blog of the same name expansion, the author has maintained a low profile, not coming to the current happenings of the field of FIRE. The book and blog stills remains a benchmark in terms of its fundamental concepts, but then there were many others who came afterward (in a good way), and probably metamorphosed the content to suit an average person.
Things like 4% rule and index funds boiled the elements of financial independence to a very basic, easy to follow and practice methods. While these later concepts are easier to follow by the masses, the initial conceptual contributions like ERE are consider tough to follow.
There are many such fields where we derive inspiration from a form that is extreme or consider tough to follow.
Consider the fact that auto manufacturers sell more vehicles when they win races. The vehicles on the road differ far from their racing counterparts, yet people get a good dose of inspiration by a brand which is winning races.
Another instance, one that has been impacting the world unlike any other is the communist manifesto by Karl Marx and Engels. This is arguably the most influential works, but when we search for an example state which incorporated the concepts, we might not find any. All communist states are a modified version of the original (Leninism, Stalinism).
Consider example of fitness supplements and bodybuilding. Top bodybuilders are either partners or proprietors of fitness supplements. An average person concerned about his/her health cannot fathom the results that top bodybuilders get. Yet these bodybuilders inspire the most towards training and fitness.
So, what is this that makes us get inspired by utopian ideologies and why is it that we achieve only restricted and practically limited form of that which inspired us? I think these extreme things that inspire us are like a symbol. One that doesn’t accurately symbolize the reality. I think the societal restrictions are also contributing to this conundrum. Pick any field and the society or even the very immediate family would discourage trying to endeavor towards a peak. When there are no such restrictions, probably society would crumble on its own weight. This might seem like a crude predicament. But I think there is some truth to this. Consider for the fact that any person who stands apart from the crowd and is still being truthful is rather put down by the society. Jesus, Galileo, etc., This also aligns with the fact that the person or things that inspire us are condemned by their contemporary society.
Societal conformance is what both glues the society and separates people from their true inspiration.
