To be good writer — without speaking of the divinely inspired mien one must surely possess sans doute — one must also be a good observer. Herein lies the beauty of Prousts magnus opus; otherwise it would be a tedious and never ending monologue interspersed by distinct speeches. Perhaps they too are creations of the author for the effect; whatever the reality is, it does not matter, for we must accept a priori that so-and-so said such-and-such. From this assumption, we proceed.
The act of observation is indeed, a difficult thing. Most of us are too self-involved and I dare go as far as to say that it is only natural, after all, no-one else matters but the self, the individual. For this reason I have an intense animosity towards Christianity. I have no qualms whatsoever with its ever-evolving system of theology. What I grudge it is simple: its attack on the individual. Christianity is anti-humanist.
It predicates the other, i.e., everything outside the self, as being of cardinal importance. So we are told to ‘love thy neighbor’, in essence to take into consideration how our actions affect others. And it is only the begining, for to make the leap towards the belief that not only must we must be considerate — we are told that this is not only good, but also beneficial to the self, after all this is the definition of what is good — we too must naturally subjegate the self to our neighbors. And one way then deduce that what results is a system of simple equality, alas to assume as much is to err. The system is composed of two groups per se. The first group and by far the largest because of sheer numbers; its members enjoy equality but in their desire they share equally in slavery as a result of the second group. One may call this group the masses.
Now, anent the second group, which though insignificant in size and numbers, is of singular importance. This group plays the rôle Adam: it defines and identifies. One may call this group the priestly class.