In Criticism of Critics

"Critics do nothing but criticize," does sayeth his fellow critic. "They should all stop criticizing and start doing something, for their irritating complaints are no help at all," does sayeth the critic of critics. The critic being criticized then said to himself, "when would the one criticizing what I do realize that he had also became one of us (critics) the moment he criticized us? And so ended the story.

It is typical for anyone being criticized to kill the message by killing the messenger, while the object of criticism that motivated the messenger to articulate his critique is not addressed at all. Indeed, one of the great mysteries of human interaction is for the inability of some to distinguish the difference between the person who took action and the action of the person. What do I mean by that? For example, if I say "you are stupid, and you won't succeed in life," and "since you have not pursued your education, the chances of you succeeding in life is lesser," can we tell the difference?

"You are stupid," clearly is an ad hominem argument and "you won't succeed in life," for lack of evidence to validate it, is an unfounded statement and thus, not credible. "Since you have not pursued your education," represents a cause in which the effect is "the chances of you succeeding in life is lesser." The former makes a personal judgment and a declaration without a specified reason while the latter explicitly explains why one will not succeed. The latter example also points out that the action of the person is the object of criticism, i.e., having not pursued your education; the former lacks having action as the object of criticism but instead directly ascribed the person as the one being criticized. I hope that enlightens some of you regarding the difference between criticizing the person and the action of the person.

Going back to the critic of critics, one of the most common is that critics do not critique enough. Perhaps beholden to relationships that complicates their ability to criticize, due to a culture that acknowledge submission to any action of elders (regardless of whether those actions are wrong or not) as right, and customs that find inaction and silence as virtuous, critics are forced to make concessions to prudence, while prudence becomes tainted as an ally of wrong.

Another limitation of critics is the unavailability of absolute truth/s. Subjective facts and supposed objective perceptions of individuals are restricting factors, which seriously dampens the credibility of even the most credible criticism. We do not know anything more than what is exposed to us and whatever is exposed to us does not necessarily mean all are truthful. There is a certain degree of lie and a measure of truth to all that is said, whether it is because it was intended or by mere accident.

Last mentioned but not the last of such flaws, critics are humans too. They make mistakes, create unwanted divisions, challenge established institutions, and stir what need not be stirred. The last is debatable when it comes what ought and ought not to be stirred; but when it comes to the decision of the many to decide what is to be criticized, critics may or may not care. They are motivated by their belief that they are doing what is right, not because they have the approval of the many. As such, a true critic does not care whether he or she receives recognition for his or her actions as much as they do not care when the whole world is against their criticism.

For their strength lies in their knowing that what they do is for the common good. Courage comes from the ability to face reality and discuss issues as it is. Hearing only things that is pleasant to the ears is not a trait of critics. Thus, a critic ought to listen when he or she is being criticized, hoping that he or she would learn something from his or her critics.