By
Obododimma Oha
Denial is a
typical human discursive activity, which is obviously an attempt at defending
the self, showing the self as blameless. When that self is blameworthy and one
is claiming to be blameless, it is damaging to the image of self. It is laughable
and also seems to imply the following, which are likewise annoying:
(i) others
are fools;
(ii) others
can believe just anything;
(iii) others
are under some control and can do anything that they are told;
(iv) others
do not make use of their brains – somebody has to think for them.
(v)
relationship with these others is founded on deception.
One can then
understand why the devil is grossly annoyed in the film, Suing the Devil, in
which a salesperson and poor law student, Luke O’Brien, sues the devil for
eight trillion dollars, for the disasters and harm he has caused in the world. Oh,
you are smiling, too! This special but seemingly laughable court case goes on
ridiculously, people wondering how the devil, a supposedly non-existent entity,
would appear to defend himself. But the devil appears though unrecognized in
the court-room, wearing a suit and with his team of powerful attorneys. The
aspect that concerns us is his annoyance over the claim that he does not exist.
Initially, he finds that funny, but at some point, does not find it funny again.
He gets angry, even with the presiding judge, stands up and tells him to shut
up, whether it is not he (the devil) that has been doing wonderful things for him,
including promoting him. He has also helped other attorneys present, who are
arguing that he is fiction! Who has the courage to charge him with contempt of
court in that supernatural manifestation? How could the immortal be subject to
human law, including resolving disputes based on their little knowledge (for
which they are very proud!) with an idea about whose arguments are smarter? Nonsense!
So, the devil, starred by Malcolm McDowell, finds human denial and court-room
discourse really deficient and grossly infuriating.
Released to
the public in 2011, written and produced by Tim Chey, Suing the Devil shows us how far in logic our tendency to deny can
go and should annoy us if we really make use of our brains. Indeed, it is the
kind of discourse about the devil that C.S. Lewis, the author of the famous Screwtape Letters, would find
exceptionally inspiring. Allhough the film has a Christian evangelical ring to
it, it is very relevant to the logic of how we deny or accept things in discourse: it challenges us to think critically about denial in discourse and about
reality. Is the act of denial not really an invitation for us to think, to
probe things deeper or is it for us to accept whatever we are told? If we are
prone to accept whatever we are told, does that not show that our population of
people are the easiest to rule by any fool? Does it not seem to say that
ignorance is still food in that very context and that the ruling group may want
to perpetuate it?
Furthermore,
the film invites us to look at court-room discourse and reality again. It seems
our courtroom discourse overlooks certain things and carries on conservatively
at the way it looks at reality and evidence. The courtroom order is typically
Western and would not admit any evidence from Ifa or any other system that is not observable. Above all, it
privileges the nonsense that one’s proud argument along conservative lines is
able to say. In that case, it recognises just one reality and dismisses fiction
as a mere dream, just as the film itself remains a mere dream!
What is the
boundary between dream and reality, particularly in a courtroom discourse that
places some importance on talk, on argument? This boundary will continue to
operate outside the law, but could be flouted sometimes as we demand justice.
When one thinks of suing the devil or an angel, one is considered mad but held
hostage by one reality. How would that reality understand the insanity as
sanity?
There could be a rational basis for denial in some cases. For instance, if you assert that the author of this essay is the current President of USA, he could deny the assertion and we could easily agree with him. The weight of evidence would weigh in his favor. Also, if one says: "It is well" when I know that it is not, I could say the assertion is false, even if rhetorical. Further, if somebody claims that he cannot function efficiently in power because his predecessors performed badly, is he not begging the question and merely being defensive? One should know when to deny ("Ihe a gba n'aka, a naghị asị weta enyo ka e lelee ya" (A mirror is not required to see a bracelet that one is wearing). One should know when denial becomes ridiculous. What is obvious is obvious. A denial is not a profession, neither is it concrete action. Denial is discursive and only shows that one is merely looking for excuses.
There could be a rational basis for denial in some cases. For instance, if you assert that the author of this essay is the current President of USA, he could deny the assertion and we could easily agree with him. The weight of evidence would weigh in his favor. Also, if one says: "It is well" when I know that it is not, I could say the assertion is false, even if rhetorical. Further, if somebody claims that he cannot function efficiently in power because his predecessors performed badly, is he not begging the question and merely being defensive? One should know when to deny ("Ihe a gba n'aka, a naghị asị weta enyo ka e lelee ya" (A mirror is not required to see a bracelet that one is wearing). One should know when denial becomes ridiculous. What is obvious is obvious. A denial is not a profession, neither is it concrete action. Denial is discursive and only shows that one is merely looking for excuses.
No comments:
Post a Comment