A Man who has no inner life is a slave to his surroundings

The man is the end product of the nature. In the Pyramidical structure of the animal kingdom, the homosapiens stands at the apex and make himself differenciated from the rest of d species due to his power of feeling, thinking, expressing, emotions, reasoning etc. The human being is also expert in adjusting, accomodating,  conditioning to the environment or the surrounding. Due to the above unique qualities of the human being, it occupies a special position in the nature's creation. What ordinarily looks cannot be construed as the same thing what it resembles. For ex-all d glitters is not gold. everything has got two aspects-inner and outer. In other words the teeth of the elephant as it appears from outside doesn’t serve the same purpose as the teeth of other animals. Similarly the man ought to have two lives-inner and outer life.

What does it mean to not have an inner life?  In the extreme case, to me, this means having no thoughts or feelings of one's own. This is an impossibility, but there are people who seem to have few thoughts or feelings of their own, only able to "mirror" those around them.  What are the implications of this? As you consider what the implications are, one of them is likely to be your thesis. One thought that comes to my mind is that no one has an real inner life because all of our minds are formed by way of what is outside of us, since the only way any information or idea can enter our brains is through sensory experiences in the external world, our interactions with things and people. This would be an argument that the statement applies to all humans.  Aside from making this argument, assuming for the purposes of the assignment that the statement is true, I think first that such a person cannot bear to be alone, since he or she has no inner resources upon which to draw in solitude, with a countervailing example of the person who prefers to be alone because he or she has a rich inner life, and second that such a person is quite easily led.

In outer life, somebody may be a King, Minister, officer, industrilaist, doctor, student, father, mother etc. In inner life there is something as we know Maharshi  Janak-father in law of Lord Ramachandra was a king in outer life. He was a great saint from the inner life. Thus, the King Janak was surrounded by royal coverage but at d same time he did maintain his inner life. So he was not a slave to his surrounding rather his surrounding was a slave to him. If you take another example, we see late lal bahadur shastri-ex PM of India was quite poor during his student life. He had to bathro several hazards and obstacles during childhood. Yet his inner life was full of morality, honesty, scicerty, dedication, committment, willpower etc Despite poverty which were his surroundings, we found that Lal Bhadur Shastri ji emerged as a powerful and popular leader of international status.

Now, a thesis must be supported with evidence.  To make the argument that we are all slaves to our surroundings, for example, because none of us has a true inner life, the support for that is largely scientific.  It is well established that nothing enters our brains except through our five senses, which means that we are exclusively made up of our surroundings. And there is some interesting research going on concerning what are called our mirror neurons, neurons formed before we are even born, neurons that prompt us to mirror the actions of others, which is what causes a baby to smile in response to its mother smiling at it, for example, or as various parts of a child's brain are engaged when watching someone else ride a bicycle, a process that allows the child's brain to prepare the child to learn how to ride that bike.  As for the person who cannot bear to be alone or the opposite, the person who prefers to be alone, there is science and literature to support that.  Introverts prefer to be alone because they do have inner lives that recharge their batteries and that extroverts, who must recharge their batteries by being with others, have limited inner lives. 

In literature, contrast Gatsby with Tom Buchanan in The Great Gatsby (Fitzgerald). We see Gatsby frequently alone in the novel, even avoiding people at his famous parties, because his inner life is consumed with Daisy.  Tom, on the other hand, clearly has no inner life at all, having only ideas from reading odd racist diatribes and always surrounded by others in a "party" atmosphere.  Tom is arguably a slave to his surroundings.  To support the idea that people lacking inner lives are easily led, two literary texts come to mind, The Giver (Lowry) and "The Lottery" (Jackson). In the first, the members of the community have no inner lives at all, since their sexuality is repressed with drugs and they must share their thoughts and feelings, even their dreams. They are all easily led, obeying all the rules at all times.  In the second, the people of the village appear to have no inner lives, since they unquestioningly follow the tradition of the lottery, blindly, year after year.  Literature is full of such examples and it proves it.