I think it is impossible not to rebel against your own self, but more importantly, to not rebel. In that I mean to question one's own existence and meaning. Thomas Merton had a narrow view of it, but it can be elaborated that we will never find ourselves in the problem of not having to question the purpose of life. If you could see the meaning of life without effort, and could obtain the purpose without trouble, then the fact that life is worth living wouldn't come up, but it is always questioned. So why is there the overwhelming urge to reject evrythign for one answer?

The paradox is that most options give you their answer to what the purpose of life is, and in the institutions there is always questioning, which would defeat the purpose of having the answer. In laziness, you can shift the search to someone else who will tell you the "answer", allowing you to move on your way with no real redeeming thoughts. This is not limited to what is defined as a "religious" institution however. There is a natural laziness to accept an answer that appeals to your individual preference -but a comfortable answer is not always the most virtuous. The answer that doesn't analyze supernatural or the intangible, can be a paradox if it questions "Why?" as well. If it does not question "Why?" then how can it be considered a thought process?

Optimism not to follow ancient teachings and dogma on the supposition that it is currently controlled by the corrupt or that it has no value is a comfortable optimism, but is it safe to disregard and ignore alternatives on only that basis? The basis that a person or people decided it wasn't true -is enough to ignore a vast library of spiritual queries, philosophies, and denominations? You would suppress an ability to have options, and you would attempt to discard the options for future generations, so that there is only the thought process of no supernatural or intangible possibilities? Is that expansive? Is that an omnibus? No.

So the comfort of strict science or strict philosophy or strict religion amuses itself with relaxed complacency having answers to questions that don't have anything to do with the problems of life, if the answers are not blended. Why is this accepted? Why is it allowed to escalate into full blown walls of counterarguments without any information exchange? It is the ultimate fallacy for any group to act in this manner.

1. You have the right to learn about anything.
2. You have the right to think about anything.
3. You have the right to talk about anything.

Why do so few recall these lines today? Is it because you also have the right to not do any of these things?

So to repeat the title: No man is an island. Or at least, was an island.