By
G
Obododimma Oha.
Facebook is doing very well in reminding its
subscribers about what they shared on their walls sometime ago. As a store of
memory for many, it is doing commendably well. There was a time that "book
people" used to write things in diaries and schedule appointments, partly using
their heads to work things out. Today, with numerous apps that can give alerts
from our phones, this act of reminding is even better and easier. It was
through this wonderful electronic reminding that Facebook informed me that
about one year ago, I wrote the following on my wall:
What would make me see stupidity but try to defend it?
Is it not because I am stupid? What
would make me see idiocy and begin to defend it? Is it not because I am an idiot? What would make me justify the
unacceptable? Is it not because I am a machine equipped with a human head? And
what would make me begin to applaud what is obviously objectionable, backward
or belongs to ignorance? Is it not that all my learning and claim to banish
darkness is a waste of time?
So many rhetorical questions, you would say. But the
focus is on defence put up. When one starts defending something, that presupposes
that there has been an accusation, or that one thinks that there is the need to
provide a back-up, in case there is a criticism. In other words, that
anticipates a criticism; in fact, a closer scrutiny, which speaks about doubts
in the first place. It is really a self-criticism, but one that lacks
confidence.
Defence, therefore, not only looks backwards in
discourse, it also looks forwards.
Did they not say that an attack is the best form of
defence? But what. they did not say was that one has to leave everything and start
attacking, or make attack and defence a career!
Indeed, defence is an attempt to clear somebody or
something from blame. It is an attempt to justify. And that is why it is asked in the update: “What would
make me justify the unacceptable? Is it not because I am a machine equipped
with a human head?” We are thinking creatures, not the type entirely dependent
on others. As thinking beings, we can evaluate and justify. But when we say
that white is black, we should submit our heads for a thorough examination.
I have made this observation several times and need to
make it again here; any time I see black and say that it is white, my kinsmen
should visit the nearest casket dealer, ask the fellow for a casket that is my
size and pay for the vehicle as my very own, for I am no longer alive and in
this world. One does not need to be a die-hard empiricist to insist that black
is black and white is white. Moreover, living observers need to use labels that are used
by the living in making categorizations.
I implore social media – the new global ilo – to continue,
even symbolically, reminding us, not only about reminders, but also about the
fact that we are thinking and discerning human beings, not intelligent robots.
That we are human requires that we should not be taking human civilization
backwards in, for instance, being shown the road but preferring to roam the
bush.
Reminders imply a call for a closer scrutiny. There should even be
apps developed solely for such reminders. We need to keep a distance from a
childish posture on justification, as if we are afraid of inviting a
punishment. We need to understand that a defensive posture does not justify; it
also exposes somebody. So, instead of just defending self, one should take
another option that does not imply passing near the home of Mr. Guilt.
Comments