Defiance, just for the heck of it, is nothing but an another form of obedience. Defying is not freedom; it is a slavery. A man who obeys needs someone to obey. Similarly, a man who defies needs someone to defy. Each of them gets confused when he is left on his own.
Moreover, defying without value is perverse. Defiance has only a negative value - 'I don't' rather than 'I do'. And 'I don't' does nothing.
Defiance doesn't need courage; it needs recklessness. And it breeds what it needs - recklessness.
Moreover, defying without value is perverse. Defiance has only a negative value - 'I don't' rather than 'I do'. And 'I don't' does nothing.
Defiance doesn't need courage; it needs recklessness. And it breeds what it needs - recklessness.
7 comments:
Is rebellion not defiance?
A rebel must defy, but defiance in isolation is not rebellion.
A rebel defies, but not for the heck of it. he fights for an alternative. His defiance is not without a value, without a vision.
Bhagat singh didn't defy British rule only to hide somewhere with his friends and feel great about himself. His defiance was beginning of a rebellion - to establish the alternative.
Also, one who brings rebellion may not relish the identity of rebel (as Camus has said). It is because a rebel always rebels. He has to. Then it becomes just a valueless defiance.
"I don't rather than I do" is also establishing an alternative.
U r just getting ready to finally say "I do",:)
"I don't" doesn't always establish any alternative.
Sometimes, it sure does. I don't smoke is surely an alternative. But we don't use words like 'defy' in such contexts.
I am ready for WHAT?? I didn't get you. :D
Post a Comment