Knowingly or unknowingly, people are trapped within the unsolved maze of justifications. The social domain, at this stage, or level, where people are engaged in a complicated discourse of finding a solution to this ongoing crisis, seems to be thoroughly distorted by the series of justifications. The engaged people are entirely deprived of the fact that these days every emerging problems are distastefully supported with relevant justifications, and the corresponding solutions are again distastefully challenged as an act of crime.
An arising problem must necessarily implicate two things; a cause and a solution. An advanced society reacts to such problem by first realizing the cause of it, and finding a sound solution. This realization equipped them with the tools that can prevent future problem. But the notion of solution is itself natural, because non intends to sustain the problem. One might argue that someone’s problem is someone’s solution owing to the randomness and contingencies of situations. But, in social context, the above sophistic reason is irrelevant. For instance, one cannot doubt the general will in proclaiming “honesty is the best policy”, and one cannot also doubt the very generality of it.
That being said, in our context, each problem implicates only one thing- the justification. This uncanny justification is not about reasoning the cause of the problem, but a justification of the problem, a justification of the existentiality of the problem itself. This tantamount in favoring the act of sustaining the problem directly or indirectly. In simple words, when a problem arises (a consequential problem), then people naturally demand an explanation of it. This necessity of explicating the analytics of the problem is essentially done to find the solution. [In case of natural problems hindrances are much lesser in the path of presenting the solution.] Now, men, of our time, being seasoned by illogical and sophistical reasoning by their immediate environment across time, they are committed in proving the legitimacy of the accused-problem as being a problem in disguised. Thus, the art of justification is being revealed here, emitting full scale potentiality and competencies with the ability of unwavering focus on the subject matter. Had this dedication and devotion was being use for the general welfare, then the world would have been a merrier place.
Now, this justification never heal itself from a vicious circle. This is because the issue is simply not addressed in such justification. In that case, one cannot infer the possible solution of the problem, and things get stuck. Justifications literally function in support of an action and its consequences. But here, justification is being prepared and raised against the phenomenon of identifying a problem and calling it a problem by the other party. The allegation goes either in the semantics, or in the pessimistic outlook of the other party. Justification, in the above case should essentially be presented in support of the actions and its consequences. But, on the other hand, justifications are simply laid down in favour of the problem itself. Here, one need to realize the fact that problems are identified and not created, and identifying a problem is not a task committed by narcissistic individual or group, with a sinister intention to manipulate the situation. The overall enterprise of research and findings in the epistemic domain is based on identifying the problem meticulously. This means identifying the problem, followed by suggesting a solution always enhances and enriches the epistemic domain across time and space.
But, is a problem truly a consequence that deserves to be defended? This question enables us to segregate true consequences of an action, and a problem identified by an individual or a group within the action or the consequences. Identification of a problem is a visionary work intended to find a solution, and not of preparing for a possible destruction of the creator or originator. The Hegelian Dialectics was not famous for determining or guaranteeing the series of antithesis, but rather for revealing the mystery of arguments & discourses and its underlying character of providing the series of synthesises. Hegel’s Dialectics was synonymously represented as a path to progress and development, i.e. a thesis invites a corresponding antithesis, and the availability of both the thesis and antithesis projects a synthesis in the form of a solution. This is not simply the popular idea of criticism, but it dreamed of a substantial development; from a problem to a solution.
Nevertheless, thoughtless people get easily offended when problems are being identified. Hence, as reaction, unending justifications are released from their bows like the arrows of Arjuna in the battle of Kurukshetra. In such scenarios unnecessary battlegrounds are being created wasting both time and energy in multiple fronts.
When evolution goes backward, men search for a justification for the problems they have created – rather than striving for solutions – and the justification of the justification, and so on. This logical impasse, on the other hand, truly save them, and relieve them from their assumed myth of accusations & allegations.
The writer is Assistant Professor, Imphal College
