By Ejikemeuwa J. O. Ndubisi
Introduction :
Metaphysics is one of the major branches of philosophy concerned with the most fundamental aspects of reality. It explores the nature, structure, and conditions of being —being qua being — that is, what it means for anything to exist and what categories or principles underlie all that is. At its core, metaphysics is an inquiry into existence itself: What is reality? What does it mean to be? What principles govern the identity, continuity, and intelligibility of things?
One of its cardinal concerns is the principle of identity, which affirms that every being is what it is and not another—a principle that underpins logic, ethics, and coherent thought. To examine a phenomenon metaphysically, therefore, is to seek its underlying essence, its internal coherence (or lack thereof), and the ontological implications of its mode of being.
This present reflection undertakes a metaphysical discourse on the concept of ‘Renoism’—a term that captures the complex and often contradictory persona of Reno Omokri. By engaging with Renoism as a philosophical construct, I interrogate not merely a person or his politics, but a mode of being characterized by fluid identity, ideological inconsistency, and performative existence. This exploration seeks to uncover what Renoism is, how it exists, and what it represents in the broader metaphysical landscape of political and moral existence.
Metaphysics of Renoism:
The Metaphysics of Renoism is a conceptual framework that captures a peculiar mode of existence in which an individual embodies ideological inconsistency as a strategy for survival and relevance. It is a condition where identity is no longer rooted in truth, constancy, or moral fidelity but is instead constructed and reconstructed in response to shifting political tides, personal ambition, or performative self-interest. Let’s dig deeper:
1. Being Without Essence : At the heart of Renoism is the problem of essentialism—or rather, its absence. Classical metaphysics, from Aristotle to Aquinas, maintains that every being has an essence that defines its nature. In Renoism, however, essence is displaced by expedience. The self becomes fluid, without a stable core. One’s ideological commitments are worn like clothes—easily changed to fit a new audience, a new moment, a new patron. Thus, the subject of Renoism does not become in any teleological or developmental sense but instead performs existence based on transient incentives.
2. Contradiction as Modus Operandi: Renoism normalizes contradiction. It is not a dialectical contradiction that aims at synthesis, growth, or enlightenment, as in Hegelian philosophy. Rather, it is a contradiction devoid of tension or self-awareness—an unreflective oscillation between opposing positions. The metaphysical implication here is profound: Renoism suggests that truth is not only relative but irrelevant. What matters is not coherence, but visibility. Hence, in Renoism, the logical law of non-contradiction collapses—not through postmodern playfulness, but through an unanchored pragmatism.
3. The Will to Relevance: Drawing on Nietzsche, we may say that Renoism is animated not by a will to truth, but a will to relevance. In this paradigm, survival is achieved not through fidelity to principle, but through alignment with whoever holds the power of the moment. The self becomes a tactical entity, constantly reinventing itself to secure a place in the arena of political discourse, even at the cost of personal credibility. This perpetual reinvention is not progress, but fragmentation—an existence broken into episodes of convenience.
4. Alienation and the Erosion of Conscience: Renoism also represents a form of existential alienation. The individual becomes estranged from conscience, from any internal moral compass. Instead of being guided by inner conviction, the Renoist is led by external approval. Public perception becomes the ultimate reality, and the inner self is silenced. From a metaphysical standpoint, this reflects a decentering of the self: the subject no longer exists for itself, but as a mirror for others.
5. Nihilism and the Death of Meaning: Renoism moves dangerously close to nihilism—not in the overt rejection of meaning, but in the quiet, incremental erosion of all meaning through the collapse of constancy. The Renoist speaks, writes, and advocates, but there is no grounding meaning behind the performance. Words become shells; advocacy becomes a masquerade. This is not freedom, but existential drift.
6. The Mirage of Transformation : A final metaphysical trait of Renoism is the illusion of transformation. The Renoist may claim to have “evolved” or “matured” politically, but closer examination reveals no internal movement of thought—only a change of costume. In authentic transformation, there is growth marked by internal struggle and ethical recalibration. In Renoism, there is merely repositioning. Thus, the subject remains trapped in a cycle of pseudo-evolution, confusing motion with progress.
Conclusion:
The Metaphysics of Renoism compels us to confront a haunting question of our time: What does it truly mean to be authentic in an age that glorifies flexibility over fidelity, and rewards opportunism over principle? It probes the soul of modern identity, asking whether the self can endure when stripped of essence, and whether a politics unanchored to truth can still pretend to be moral. Renoism is not merely a pattern of political behavior—it is a philosophical tremor, a subtle but seismic crisis in the foundations of identity, integrity, and the very meaning of being.
In Renoism, we find not just contradiction, but a mirror—reflecting a society increasingly comfortable with ethical shape-shifting. This is more than a critique; it is a summon — a call to reawaken the forgotten virtues of constancy, of moral rootedness, and of the examined life that Socrates once deemed essential to human worth. If we fail to heed this call, we risk replacing character with convenience, and wisdom with noise.
This reflection is a clarion call to action, especially for our political leaders: to choose truth over trend, conviction over calculation, and legacy over likes. For in the end, history remembers not those who swayed with the wind, but those who stood, unwavering, in the storm.
Leave a Reply