I think you have a lot of reason, man must always serve, is his purpose in life, the meaning of his existence is in this simple action. Just as a car serves to transport people, and without fulfilling its function, it has neither meaning nor purpose, or just like a chair in which nobody wants to sit is useless, because it does not serve, does not fulfill its function. The human body, which is the material manifestation of man, has no value if it does not serve.
Now, there are two things that man should serve; the first, to other men, and the second, which is the reason why the first exists, to ideas.
While we live in society we must serve other men, otherwise, we would not group, the reason for society is to seek the benefit of all, that is, the common benefit, pursuing our own interests. And this individualism does not contradict it, but if it does the degeneration of individualism in isolationism, the belief that man has an existence apart from all other men, and that he can live without them, very common in modernity in people who are antisocial, ergo, people who live in a society without associating, a contradiction, and a destructive existence for the same society.
The man serves others and is part of society, because he wants to serve something greater than himself, to an idea, because when the man served a king, to set an example, they did not serve the man who wore the crown, but that it served a guide, a man who was supposed to be more capable of guiding, by divine nature, others towards the truth. During the liberal revolutions, which were essentially idealistic, this also continued, men no longer served a guide who would show them the way, but they would follow God himself, from there to declaring themselves servants of God.
But if you eliminate God, the leader, the nations, and even the very truth as many want to do with relativism, then man does not find a meaning for which to serve, and does not find a purpose for his existence, which, as I said before, It is in itself to serve, to serve an idea.
Moreover, the man will not go anywhere, but will stay in a mental prison, stagnant and without direction through which to travel.
My main differentiation with what you propose would be that the leader in itself is not necessary, because this only occupies a role, which can also be occupied by other ideas. It is not true in modernity that men are ready to govern themselves, and this is evident in their actions that often show irresponsibility. More I believe, that in a society, perhaps it can be called utopian, although it is practically possible, men can govern themselves without problem, of course, serving not a leader but the truth.
A leader is only necessary, because there are times when he is, when men can not see the path they must follow, that is, when they are slaves (in an ideal sense), but when everyone knows where to go, the existence of this ceases to be a necessity, and becomes a weight, as they were in the liberal revolutions.
Liberalism posed a very different model to what reigns today, today its ideal bases lie dead.
Despite some disagreement, I mostly agree, this was an excellent publication, which leaves a lot to think about. Thanks for that, greetings.
Thank you for engaging and delivering an extended perspective.
What I find is that terms like "greater than oneself" and "ideas" can be totally misunderstood. Indeed, people have a strong longing towards something or someone greater. As I interpret it it doesn't have to be lift up but only to be accepted as reality. We talk about here is that we know of the connection of things, be it people and all other matter. The knowledge about this connection could be called "Devine" as to ignore it means to ignore reality. One could also say life on earth is organic, the earth peoples like an apple tree apples:)
When you think about group dynamics and have practiced democracy in a small group, let's say a class of students who must achieve a certain goal by group effort you soon realize that this group needs a lead. I experienced this during my education where we focused on group dynamics and easily found out that there is always someone who acts as a leader and people willing to follow when the majority of the single minds want also to achieve the goal. If the task is changed it is also happening that not the same person holds the lead but another one who seems to be more competent in a particular matter. This requires physical togetherness to be sure of to whom giving the lead. So I would say in small groups this works best.
I think there is actually no difference between what you and I say. I did not say that we are ready to govern ourselves but that we already are supposed to to so. As loyalty is not being demanded from the government of mine. I am not forced to join a political party, no military and also no church. So I am left to my own devices. This is good as it gives me freedom but on the other hand its not so good as it gives me the impression to be left alone and as if my life and voice has no meaning. Which, of course, is not true.
To be left to my own devices means that I am responsible for my choices, decisions, actions and omissions. But I need an ethical conduct. Without it I am lost. I don't know when I would be ready to go through life without the strengthening through a ritual or a ceremonial act but I think people in general need that and lack it in modern civilizations. It's the visualization of serving in an ethical manner which has a strong narrative character.