The other day I hopped onto the exit ramp to escape the busy highway, when John Lennon's Imagine came on the radio. I’m not the biggest Beatles or Beatles member fan; so most of the time when something from those artists comes through the speakers I flip to the next station. However, this time I was gripped by an urge to do something I had honestly never done whenever the aforementioned song had met my ears on any previous occasion: listen intently to the lyrics.
This tune and its message are incredibly popular, and serve and have served as the anthem for much of what has been called Progressivism. Without knowing exactly what Lennon says in the song, I had always assumed it was an argument for world peace, a mirror image of the movement of which Lennon was a part before his tragic death. And I found, in listening that day, that I was right—though I also found that the world view he presents and the things he “imagines”—or, calls upon his listeners to imagine—are not only impractical (a point he seems to address and reject in saying, “You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one”), but are also, in my opinion, nonsensical.
We must remember that just because kings among men speak, their words are not infallible.
I seek not to bash Lennon. He was a man with an opinion, a worldview, and a voice, one he, via his many talents and global validation thereof, was privileged to project to millions upon millions during his life and after his death—for this he cannot be condemned. But we must remember that just because kings among men speak, their words are not infallible. Too often, I fear, we give those in positions of influence (whether they are celebrities or people of power) a benefit of the doubt that, subconsciously (maybe), leads us to believing that whatever said individual is saying is either correct or coming from a position more informed than our own; we take their celebrity and their platform, couple that with a validation of wisdom, which the masses seem to have given them via thunderous applause and celebrity elevation, and then forget to test their words against anything. No one has a monopoly on truth, regardless of status; and fame and power do not earn or produce wisdom, nor are they by wisdom always won. And yet truth exists and can be attained. But to attain it, we must test that which is to us presented as truth.
That is what I seek to do here today.
A new leader has assumed the highest office in the United States; and as a result the nation seems—not inevitably, but willfully—to have imploded.
Since I began writing this piece, a new leader has assumed the highest office in the United States; and as a result the nation seems—not inevitably, but willfully—to have imploded. And in the midst of exchanging tools of progress for signs of protest, and cries of unity for cries of hate and division; in the midst of the nation willingly sawing off its own hands and refusing to rise with its neighbors to protect the freedoms in defense of which they holler ever so loudly, and act not; in the midst of pursuing the razing of the only civilization that affords its people the chance to work together to make power act as they would so have it act, all to demonstrate in deed and to the world that “Love” and “Peace” can only be attained when one finally destroys those whose views and beliefs get in the way of “My way;” in the midst of it all, I have heard this mass of enraged individuals cry for a world much like the one Lennon describes in his song. But is this really the world they want? Is it a world anyone wants? And what does Lennon tell us about his own views in the words he’s left behind? What did he believe?
Let’s work backwards, because the song, as I see it, works from points of high significance to low.
No Possessions
What would a world of no possessions look like? If we owned nothing, and there was nothing for which to strive, what would be our daily purpose?
In the final verse, Lennon imagines "no possessions," and asks if it is possible for us to comprehend such a thing. He suggests that a world in which no one possesses anything, and everyone shares “all the world,” there would be “a brotherhood of man,” with “no need for greed or hunger.”
Now, we can assume he defines greed as most do: an intense desire to have more than one requires. But what would a world of no possessions look like? If we owned nothing, and there was nothing for which to strive, what would be our daily purpose? I’m not saying that we all presently or must live for our HD televisions, fast cars, and fancy jewels; but we do live to build and dwell in houses that keep us sheltered, for the food we eat, and for other necessities. Our labors produce rewards, both in the Need category and the Want category. What Lennon suggests is a world in which every man just takes and shares all that exists; and while it sounds nice to live in a world where everyone reaps and sows equally, we would, in such a world, have absolutely no need for some of the greatest, most admirable human qualities.
A world [of no possessions] keeps man, for lack of a better word, primitive; and he would, in addition, have to be content with his position...and no position could hold more power or significance than another.
A world in which there are no possessions forces all men to accept the same lives, relatively (some will plant and grow crops for the brotherhood, others will work to clothe and shelter the members, and so on and so forth), thus destroying the very thing that has led man to be what he has become today. A world like this keeps man, for lack of a better word, primitive; and he would, in addition, have to be content with his position; and furthermore, in accordance with equality among possessions (which total none), no position could hold more power or significance than another, else one man would own what another does not; and if man is not without the failing of covetousness, discontent and idleness (more sowing than reaping) would most assuredly arise.
How, then, if man did not look upon the great advancements of his forefathers, or gaze in awe at the achievements of his peers, would any individual feel any need to pursue and realize his highest potential?
[The qualities] that inspire us toward greater heights, are what have made humans such a fascinating, successful species.
When I was a child, Michael Jordan was everything. I loved watching him play so much that when I sang the song “Like Mike,” I sincerely meant I wanted to be just like Mike. He inspired me to work hard to be a better basketball player, and as I grew older, and basketball became more a recreational pastime, his story of fierce competitiveness, wanting to be the best, working extremely hard to overcome every hurdle in his path, inspired me to go after the things I wanted (and still want) with the same passion. Qualities like the ones displayed by Michael Jordan, the ones that inspire us toward greater heights, are what have made humans such a fascinating, successful species. And it is in part because we see something we want to possess and are motivated to get it, thus producing the qualities that further the species and inspire others. All of our advancements can be traced back to these desires, such as the advent of the automobile to meet the desire for faster, more convenient travel, or the Internet to meet the desire to share and experience the world and all its knowledge and mysteries.
Human beings will always be greedy, and life will never be fair; but to make a world of no possessions leads to a species that is not only at great risk of becoming idle, but also of never knowing the qualities of motivation, aspiration, or inspiration.
The want of more can corrupt, yes; and while I do not believe it is wrong to own more than one needs (so long as it has been legally attained), I feel the possession of much affords one the opportunity to demonstrate some other inspiring and wonderful human qualities, like compassion and charity and service—qualities that define true greatness. Human beings will always be greedy, and life will never be fair; but to make a world of no possessions leads to a species that is not only at great risk of becoming idle, but also of never knowing the qualities of motivation, aspiration, or inspiration, while similarly never realizing the true joy and significance of service and compassion and charity, for, in the same way one cannot appreciate the light without the dark, such qualities would be rendered next to, if not totally, meaningless in such a world.
No Countries
In the second verse, Lennon imagines a world with no countries, in which, as a result, there is “nothing to kill or die for.” This, he says, “isn’t hard to do.” And before moving on to the chorus, he slips in one final thing to imagine: a world, too, with no religion.
If there really were nothing for which to die, nothing at all, nothing so precious for which we would be willing to lay down our very lives, what meaning, then, would life really hold?
Side point: I assume Lennon, when saying “nothing to kill or die for” means that there would be no government to serve, and for which to give one’s life. A world with no killing would be a wonderful place. However, if there really were nothing for which to die, nothing at all, nothing so precious for which we would be willing to lay down our very lives, what meaning, then, would life really hold? If I had nothing for which I would be willing to die, what on earth, including my own life, could I possibly value? Such a reality would make one of man’s greatest gifts, love, impossible to understand, foster, experience, or attain; and if there exists no love among men, Lennon’s dream of a world living as one would be impossible.
The elimination of countries and religion would (as suggested by the very last line of the verse) make for a world in which people are “living life in peace.” But what are the consequences of such a world? Without countries, we would have, I assume, a single population spread out all over the world, in which we all speak the same language (or possess some common method of communication) and live under the same type of rule with the same beliefs and values.
While a man left to himself without any government over him to control his life sounds nice, for man to be able to enjoy absolute freedom...[he] would need to have zero negative qualities and tendencies in him—he would have to be perfect.
Let’s start with a single rule, a single order of humanity. If we are going to take the following (third) verse into account (no possessions), we would have to assume there would be no government and no leaders, for all people could possess no power higher than his or her neighbor. This would, in turn, require man to live under absolute freedom; he would have to govern himself. Now, while a man left to himself without any government over him to control his life sounds nice, for man to be able to enjoy absolute freedom, and for Lennon’s view to work, man would need to have zero negative qualities and tendencies in him—he would have to be perfect. If not, we could expect to see rampant atrocities among men, where the rights we in the United States enjoy and take for granted (such as the basic three: Life, Liberty, and Property/Pursuit of Happiness) would constantly be in jeopardy.
Man has, since his existence, worked to protect his life, his liberty, his property, and his pursuit of happiness. How? By banding together into groups, big and small, and with those numbers, and the strength in their arms, fending off those who would seek to take their possessions or enslave them, rob them of their freedom.
As our Declaration of Independence states, “[T]o secure these rights (Life, Liberty, and Property/Pursuit of Happiness), Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Man, because he is flawed and prone to evil, requires some form of government to, via laws and their enforcement, ensure his freedoms are guaranteed and he is protected.
Man, because he is flawed and prone to evil, requires some form of government to, via laws and their enforcement, ensure his freedoms are guaranteed and he is protected. Can governments become corrupt? Yes. Are there bad governments? Yes. Are there any good governments? Well, I know one called a Constitutional Representative Republic, in which, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive” to the securing of the endowed and unalienable rights of man (Life, Liberty, and Property/Pursuit of Happiness), the People, the Governed, have the right “to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
As wonderful as a Constitutional Representative Republic system of governance truly is, it cannot function for the benefit of the governed if the governed refuse to take the wheel with their neighbors, and instead beg those they have elected into power to steer as they will, and then not only gripe that those to whom they have willingly given the wheel steer not as they would like, but also refuse to unite and take the helm. (This is not a call for anarchy; it is a call for unity under the only banner that affords its people more power than their leaders to enact change).
No Religion
In the same verse, as stated above, Lennon quickly adds that we should imagine a world without religion. Given the climate and turmoil in the world of religion today and throughout history, where countless people have been martyred in the name of a particular faith or religion, it is easy to sympathize with those who view all religions as mere catalysts for turmoil, and would in turn see them eradicated from the earth.
Man has a deep-rooted fear of his own mortality, and it’s understandable. We know not what it means to not exist. We cannot fathom a time when we were not aware.
But what is a world without faith or religion? Faith is being sure of that for which one hopes is true, and religion is the collective institutions, practices, traditions, and rituals built around a particular faith or belief. And one thing all religions have in common is their explanation of the unknown—basically, the afterlife. Man has a deep-rooted fear of his own mortality, and it’s understandable. We know not what it means to not exist. We cannot fathom a time when we were not aware. We know the world predates us and that we will die, and yet this fact we either strive daily to ignore, or we cast our cares upon a particular faith, or perform a set of religious practices that will ensure we need not fear, for in so doing we achieve comfort that something better, a paradise or a do-over, awaits us when we die.
Regardless of what man believes, if there really is a God, or some deity, force, or whatever beyond the physical realm and our understanding that is in control over and of our lives, nothing of which man could convince himself would change anything.
Take this away and what have we? Chaos? No, I don’t think so. Because regardless of what man believes, if there really is a God, or some deity, force, or whatever beyond the physical realm and our understanding that is in control over and of our lives, nothing of which man could convince himself would change anything. We’ve seen faiths and religions that require human sacrifice—are they wrong? We see faiths and religions that require the killing of people of other faiths—are they wrong? And we see faiths and religions that require obedience to a set of commands and trust their author—are they wrong? If we knew the answer to that, they wouldn’t be called faiths; they’d be called definitive realities. And a reality one may be; but regardless of man’s adamancy and devotion to a particular one, the truth exists, and we will all find out soon enough which, if any, is the real deal.
Eliminating religions would not change anything, really, in regard to our entering the afterlife. We’ll die and something will happen, even if that something is nothing. Our rejection of all faiths and religions will not change that.
And this brings me to the most intriguing part of the song: the very beginning.
No Heaven and No Hell
The very first thing Lennon asks us to imagine is a world with no heaven and no hell. Here is the verse:
“Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky”
He closes this verse by saying, “Imagine all the people living for today,” which plays into the “no religions” verse, that we live for today and not the afterlife, thus religions are not needed.
So, is this first verse just more of his deconstruction of man’s need for a religion or a faith?
Absolutely not. And here’s why.
Ask yourself why this verse is first. I think its placement tells us A LOT about Lennon and what he really believed. He could have just said “no religions,” as he did in verse two, but instead he made a whole verse dedicated to the abolition of something that is the very foundation of most all faiths and religions: heaven and hell.
Lennon begins his song by asking us to imagine heaven and hell don’t exist, as if they do. Why?
He asks us to imagine that they don’t exist. Well, what else does he ask us to imagine doesn't exist? THINGS THAT EXIST! Lennon begins his song by asking us to imagine heaven and hell don’t exist, as if they do. Why? In doing this, in posing the question this way and not grouping the ideas of heaven and hell (which are defined differently by all faiths) under the part about “no religions,” and leaving it at that, he, his language, assumes these very specific places exist!
Why is this significant? I would argue that it makes the entire song hopeless. Why? Because, impossible though it may seem, man can actually (though it is astronomically unlikely he will do so) eradicate countries, religions, possessions, greed, and hunger. But he cannot, if they exist, do away with heaven and hell. So, if I have to imagine there is no heaven or hell, as if they exist, I can’t argue against the assertion that I’m a dreamer, which Lennon does: “You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope some day you’ll join us, and the world will be as one.”
What’s the point? We can’t change that! And furthermore, if there is a heaven and hell, then there most definitely is a set standard of right and wrong, or at least a criteria one must meet to earn a place in one or the other when they die. Which set of criteria is it? That’s an important question, because the answer will change man’s entire attitude if he knows for sure or believes that certain actions will earn him damnation, and others will earn him paradise.
The fact that Lennon says this, and says it first and foremost, tells me he did, on some level, believe in heaven and hell. The version or extent to which he believed is irrelevant (though it is important, for the bastardization of doctrines on which faiths are built can have deceptive and disastrous consequences); but the fact that he believed in—and all the more so that he rejects, or wishes he could reject—heaven and hell is not irrelevant—quite the contrary, in fact.
While Imagine asks us to envisage something that is next to impossible to realize, the inclusion of heaven and hell, something beyond the control of man, and the reach of the living man, makes this song an absurdity.
And this is my point: that while Imagine asks us to envisage something that is next to impossible to realize, the inclusion of heaven and hell, something beyond the control of man and the reach of the living man, makes this song an absurdity. It is no longer hopeful; it is delusional and hopeless. To affirm the existence of a realm to which one, who did or did not live the life required by the deity or force that governs our existences, will be eternally placed, and then reject it along with other earthy things, and then present the result as a foundation, a raw sketch, for a united world with brotherhood and peace—to do that, to compose this song and call it an anthem for peace, hope, and unity, unfortunately, but honestly, makes no sense. And to then claim that he is “a dreamer,” but “not the only one,” and then call for us, the listeners, to join the dreamers, Lennon seems to be asking everyone to detach from reality and remove ourselves into a dreamland, to put our heads in the sand, because if his first point asks us to imagine that something out of our control does not exist, thus assuming it does, thus earning those beneath its ultimate power a trial based on its standards, then there can be no other option, if unwilling to accept the higher truth and ultimate reality, than to dream away and distract oneself unto the end with shiny impossibilities, for man has been shown, truly, to be the powerless vessel he is.
Conclusion
I do believe John Lennon meant well. I do believe he, more than most, felt he could actually realize a human ideal, or something close to it, and thus worked toward that goal in his own way before his murder. And I do so enjoy the musical composition of the song and his voice. However, I simply cannot experience the feeling I know he had aimed to elicit in me, the one he has elicited in others, because his message, I feel, is not only impractical (not a knock to a song asking one to imagine), but is also illogical and rather empty.
When I hear the song, I immediately feel at ease; it is like a lullaby. And I want so desperately for the message to supply the meat that will inspire me. But I find, as I listen, that I am disappointed and sad; the words, in a way, become a lament for the song itself. I’ve listened to it several times in the course of writing this piece, and every time I wish I could agree—how fulfilling it would be to have this musical composition mixed with words that held real, impactful meaning!
I do hope I have explained my position clearly, honestly, and without malice toward Lennon or anyone who might agree with what he says in his song. My pursuit is ever after truth, and such a pursuit motivates and fills me with a desire to hear a multitude of viewpoints that I might consider and test them, while also offering up my own viewpoints and beliefs to be tested.
Truth exists and will always win in the end. The question is, do we really want it?
©2017 by C. K. Conners