A ship in harbour is safe, but that is not what ship is for.

A ship in harbour is safe, but that is not what ship is for. It was in early 2010s, a young chubby boy, who was representing his country at an international level in cricket looked at himself in the mirror and he deduced that he is way "out of shape" for an athlete. Regretting his lifestyle, from the very next day he changed everything about his training, diet, discipline. That was one day and today is the day where whole of India idealised him as an epitome of fitness and discipline, the guy is Virat Kohli. Virat was in his comfort zone, earning well, but if he did not change his attitude and get out of comfort zone.

He would not have been "VIRAT" today. "The event explains us that how a boat Ship at harbour is comfort zone but the real purpose of the ship is to sail referring it to be out of the comfort zone." This construct will make an effort to analyze the above statement by considering multiple dimensions, analyzing alternative perspectives, substantiating using examples and will focus on synthesis of the most practical form of deconstruction connoting to human life, human empiricism and philosophy. The analysis can be initiated by asking the most fundamental question that what is a comfort zone (Harbour)? Is it a physical space / constraint? or a psychological state of mind? As we understand, our brain releases dopamine (a happiness hormone) as we experience something which gives us Joy (physical aspect). The idea of Joy is derived from the mind, which is the mental / psychological aspect. Hence the idea of comfort is an amalgamation of both the extremes. Consider an example of evolving world and technological advancements. As the "short content" consumption is increasing, our mind is getting prone to instant gratification and hence it is pushing ourselves more into the "harbour" (comfort zone). It is very rare to find someone with long attention span and it is dangerous because we are discussing about youth and youth is the future of the country. Hence in long term such comfort zone can be catastrophic. By this example one may not conclude that comfort zone is necessarily screen consumption, it can be anything, it can be to not write one extra answer, or to do an extra rep in the gym. It is that little which looks like it won't matter instantaneously, but turns out to be detrimental in long term. Like, in the war of 1962, it was the strategic error done by the state of India, where the trust became harbour, ship stayed away from ocean (defence) and the country suffered (Indo-China war). Why is it necessary to leave from the harbour? It has been observed that leaving the harbour (comfort zone) is often alleged to be pre-requisite to success but in a rationale opinion it may not guarantee success, however it changes the character. Getting out of comfort zone incorporates the quality of discipline, life values, learnings etc. The next step should logically be how to get out of the comfort zone?

According to Hannah Arendt, Action is one of the most important virtue of human. So next step is simple, to act. Being in present, making short term goals and acting in synchronization with it will naturally make the individual adopt to it. Eg: A gym goer initially hates the gym but as they push themselves out of comfort zone, they see progress and they sail out like the ship in the open ocean. Peter Thiel in his book "Zero to One" further gives an important parameter to supplement the idea of "Sailing away from harbour". He suggest (0.1) decimal improvement everyday and it summates from something less to much significant degree. Incorporating life skills like communication, public speaking can naturally help an individual improve by 0.1. At Macro-level, when we think about comfort zone in society, we can take inspiration from social reformers like Raja Rammohan Roy, who could have choose to live his life normally but he chose to break the evil practices by pushing himself and the society out of the harbour of social conditioning. Further, idea of pushing out of comfort zone can also be observed at the levels of nation-state. In Post-Colonial World, India along with the third world countries advocated for Non-Alignment to either global power blocks, moving away from traditional notion demonstrating affirmation and most importantly the courage to choose something different and positing the idea to sail in the open sea, away from the harbour.

Having referred to the above analysis, is it always necessary, that comfort zones are bad? If the ocean is turbulent and is affirmative to sink the ship, should the ship still choose to sail? What if the ship never leaves the harbour? To answer these question, it is imperative to understand the other factors that why the ship chooses to be at harbour? It can be a structural constraint, for example if a person is physically injured then it is natural and logical for them to not hit the gym or if they have migraine (headache) then it is rationale to not study, as they won't be able to focus. Such structural constraints suggests that it is okay to be at harbour when the waves are on life taking carnage. The positives of the comfort zone is contested concept in modern psychology, it gives instant gratification, and pleasure, it can be argued that pleasure is the supreme value in the lens of hedonists and Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism, and as per their logic comfort zone or harbour is a Just space.

However, a macro level analysis from an individual to state, even in the antithesis construct tilts heavily towards the original thesis of comfort zone being a tool of slow poison, or rather slow and sweet poison. Individual today, wasting their time over instant pleasure of gambling will suffer an addiction, followed by debts and economic loses on long term. Society blinded by their values of "log kya kahenge" do sacrifice the happiness of their own loved ones. In a recent event, a young bright girl was killed by her own father for playing tennis at highest level. She worked hard, got out of her comfort zone but societal conditioning did not let her father out of the harbour of traditional/rigid thinking and he ended up committing something inhumane. At state level, too much comfort for a state is harmful. Sri Lanka's trust towards China is a classic example, where slowly China acquired Hambantota from Sri Lanka as the tool of debt diplomacy, had Sri Lanka been assertive and pragmatic they would have avoided it, the act not only degraded their own position but further escalated a challenge for India in proximity. To Synthesize the extract, arguements could be further substantiated by looking at the evidences of "ship leaving the harbour and sailing the sea." Majority of the times it has been observed that the biggest of the changes have been brought by the simple people, taking one step at a time out of their comfort zone. Mahatma Gandhi could have continued practicing law, but it would not have earn him the title of "Mahatma", he was called Mahatma because of his actions, Satyagrah's, his search for truth (Sarvodaya), him getting out of his comfort zone and asking people to rise and seek truth, pushing them out of their comfort zone. Another prominent example can be Siddhartha (Buddha), who had all the pleasures of life yet he chose to live the life of a saint. If Bentham's theory of pleasure was universal, we might never would have seen Buddhism. If Ambedkar, never raised his voice against social evils, we may not have been observing the idea of Rawlsian difference principle in action (reservation). Countless examples can be quoted in this context and yet the crux would be inclining heavily towards synthesized idea of leaving the harbour, you can take a stop if the waves are on rise, fix the gaps and can continue to sail on. In concluding remarks, it would be logical to say that the thesis of getting out of comfort zone has enough of substantial backing. The debates will always go on, as everyone is wanting to push themselves out of comfort zone. Initiatives like Swacch Bharat Abhyan, redevelopment, afforestation projects shows affirmative action and an effort to start, demonstrating action and change. To change, is to get out of comfort zone, turn on the engine and sail the sea, the greater objective may be destined on the other side.

She worked hard, got out of her comfort zone but societal conditioning did not let her father out of the harbour of traditional/rigid thinking and he ended up committing something inhumane. At state level, too much comfort for a state is harmful. Sri Lanka's trust towards China is a classic example, where slowly China acquired Hambantota from Sri Lanka as the tool of debt diplomacy, had Sri Lanka been assertive and pragmatic they would have avoided it, the act not only degraded their own position but further escalated a challenge for India in proximity. To Synthesize the extract, arguements could be further substantiated by looking at the evidences of "ship leaving the harbour and sailing the sea." Majority of the times it has been observed that the biggest of the changes have been brought by the simple people, taking one step at a time out of their comfort zone. Mahatma Gandhi could have continued practicing law, but it would not have earn him the title of "Mahatma", he was called Mahatma because of his actions, Satyagrah's, his search for truth (Sarvodaya), him getting out of his comfort zone and asking people to rise and seek truth, pushing them out of their comfort zone. Another prominent example can be Siddhartha (Buddha), who had all the pleasures of life yet he chose to live the life of a saint. If Bentham's theory of pleasure was universal, we might never would have seen Buddhism. If Ambedkar, never raised his voice against social evils, we may not have been observing the idea of Rawlsian difference principle in action (reservation). Countless examples can be quoted in this context and yet the crux would be inclining heavily towards synthesized idea of leaving the harbour, you can take a stop if the waves are on rise, fix the gaps and can continue to sail on. In concluding remarks, it would be logical to say that the thesis of getting out of comfort zone has enough of substantial backing. The debates will always go on, as everyone is wanting to push themselves out of comfort zone. Initiatives like Swacch Bharat Abhyan, redevelopment, afforestation projects shows affirmative action and an effort to start, demonstrating action and change. To change, is to get out of comfort zone, turn on the engine and sail the sea, the greater objective may be destined on the other side.