STUDY SESSION 1

CONCEPTION, NATURE, SCOPE AND PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY

1.1 Introduction

In this study session, you will be introduced to the subject matter of philosophy. Our concern

here will be to understand what philosophy is, the basic conception of philosophy, and the

problems which the study seeks to unravel and concerns itself with. The study session will

expose you to the various conceptions of philosophy and its basic subject matters. In turn,

you will become acquainted with the basic understanding of the branches, nature, scope and

problems of philosophy.

1.1.1 Learning Outcomes for Study Session 1

At the end of this study session, you should be able to:

1. Give at least three (3) definitions of Philosophy;

2. State the various branches of philosophy;

3. Define philosophy based on the branches identified;

4. State the nature of philosophy; and

5. List and explain at least two (2) problems of philosophy.

1.2 Conception and Nature of Philosophy

The first thing that most probably embarrasses an initiate into philosophy as a discipline of

study in the university is the general view that philosophy has no universally accepted

1
definition. What is surprising is how any group of intellectual practitioners can carry on for

over two thousand years (at least, according to its history in the West) without an agreement

on the nature of their discipline.

In defining philosophy, therefore, one may safely note variations of practices not only within

its Western tradition, but also cultural variations of methodology, style and issues that receive

attention in different parts of the world. However, since definitions of philosophy in the West

are the ones we are most familiar with, because these have been documented in writing and

have formed the basis of our school education, it may well be best to start with them. Later,

we will take a look at African philosophy and some of the issues that have received attention

in it in the last few decades.

(i) Philosophy as the Love of Wisdom

This perhaps is the first meaning the Greeks gave to philosophy when that word was coined

from two distinct words (Philein – to love; Sophia – wisdom). To the ancient Greeks who

lived about 500 years before the birth of Christ on the islands of Miletus and Ionia, seeking

knowledge may be a common inherent quality of man, but there are a few who seek wisdom

(which is invariably higher than mere knowledge) not just for personal gains but because they

love wisdom. Wisdom, for the Greeks, consists in the ability to draw meaning from

experience, to judge experience wisely; to see beyond what merely meets the eyes. In those

days, philosophy included all knowledge not because philosophy means science. Wisdom

needs knowledge as basis because an ignorant person, a man or woman who knows little or

nothing about the facts of nature and existence can hardly be wise in relating facts to each

other. Logic, mathematics, physics, medicine, cosmology were all areas in which the

philosopher was involved and interested.

(ii) Philosophy as the Search for Reality

2
If wisdom consists of something higher than ordinary experience, that is, something that

transcends mathematical and empirical knowledge, then it must have a subject-matter. What

does wisdom aim at achieving, what is its goal, or what does the philosopher try to grasp?

The Greek answer to these questions is that philosophy is a search for Reality. But then, what

is the Reality? How does it differ from what is given in ordinary experience?

Thales tried to explain this by stating that although nature gives us various objects in

experience – the air, trees, man, animals, hills and mountains, rivers and valleys, fruits and

seeds etc. – they must all have been created from one basic stuff just as a potter can make a

cup, a flower vase, a spoon, plates, pots, tables and chairs etc., using the same material

known as clay. If we break all the products of the potter we will have only one material, one

basic stuff out of which everything is made. The philosopher as a wise man wishes to know

this basic stuff, this fundamental element out of which everything came into palpable

existence. Thales identified this basic stuff as water; other Greek philosophers suggested air

and earth. But it was the philosopher Anaximander who took Thales’s search to a level which

is truly beyond experience. He identified what he named the apeiron in Greek language. In

the English language it means the limitless something which is neither a substance nor an

empirical object. It is something beyond sensible experience.

(iii) Philosophy as the Search for Truth

This definition has a close relationship with the last. The important distinction is that we can

speak of Reality in the sense of being something substantial, something to be described or at

least grasped by way of identifying some inherent qualities, i.e. some characteristics it

possesses by its own nature. Reality is thus generally regarded as something that has its own

independent existent. This means that those who regard matter as Reality believe that its

existence does not depend on the prior existence of any other thing.

3
The truth that the philosopher seeks also has to do with the comparison of truths arrived at

through different processes – Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Medicine, Social Sciences,

Religion etc. In short there is a sense in which philosophy as the search for truth tries to

establish a Truth or even the Truth which is supposed to supersede all other truths in different

spheres of man’s rational endeavour. In fact some will go as far as saying that the search for

this truth is the same thing as the search for Reality. This is because what is taken to be

Reality is also regarded as the Truth.

(iv) Philosophy as the Formulation of Metaphysical Systems or Cosmologies

If man can explain nature in rational terms it means that man can understand not only the

nature of every distinct object in the world but their relationship to one another. We are not

now talking of the relationships among states, countries, continents, oceans or mountains etc.

What philosophy deals with is much more fundamental than that. What is physics, for

example; how is it related to Chemistry etc.? Again, how are the laws in each related or

unrelated to the laws of Biology, Psychology etc.? Do these different laws constitute

members of the same type/group, a universe of natural laws?

Philosophy, for a long time, was seen as attempts to formulate speculative theories in which

every aspect of nature falls into its appropriate place within one grand design. Later on

speculative axioms were replaced by what were regarded as theoretical postulates – axioms

from which deductive systems dealing with or explaining different aspects of human

experience can be built, as Jacob Bronowski once put it. However, the whole exercise turned

out to be more of speculation than of scientific discovery.

(v) Philosophy as the Rational Explanation of Nature

4
When Thales and other Ionian philosophers tried to find the basic stuff out of which objects

in the world were made (not in the sense of Biblical sense of creation, mind you) we are told

these philosophers used human reason and relied mainly on the facts of experience. Before

them, Homer and other Greek poets relied on their intuition and supernatural notions to

explain nature. The idea of gods and goddesses, spirits that populate the world and control

human affairs formed the bases of popular myths. But Thales, Anaximanes and their

associates wanted to explain nature in such a way that we need not go beyond man into the

supernatural to explain experiences such as change, motion and permanence which are the

most common features of human experience.

Today, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Medicine etc., at least as practised in the West, are heirs

of the rationalistic approach to explaining nature. The point is not that any of these disciplines

is philosophy by itself. The fact is that each of them is pursued from the metaphysical point

of view that nature is completely explainable in rational terms (at least until very recently).

(vi) Philosophy as the Critical/Logical Analysis of Language

At the beginning of the twentieth century, philosophers in many countries in the West, most

especially in Britain and United States of America, became disillusioned with speculations

and so-called scientific coryechires which from day to day takes man away from the realities

of experience. Many came to the conclusion that philosophy has come into some sort of

obscurity because the language in which its themes and theories are formulated makes use of

spurious entities and expressions whose inferences and implications do not easily make sense

even to the educated person.

The central task of philosophy then came to be seen as that of explaining, clarifying and

marking out the logical as well as the semantic implications of our language of expression.

This “Linguistic Turn”, as it is sometimes called, came to a point where Professor Noam

5
Chomisky, renowned grammarian, once argued that what philosophy does is nothing over

and above that of marking out the deep structures of language from their “surface structure”.

Philosophy as analysis therefore lays emphasis on the clarity of terms, of consistency in

arguments and hypothetical verification. The belief is that once our language of expression is

clear, unambiguous and systematic, we will be in a better position to know what exactly we

are talking about. This clarity greatly enhances the possibility of reaching some consensus on

important matters both of everyday life and of philosophy. The popular problem of whether

there is a mind apart from the physical body has been dealt with by some modern

philosophers as a purely linguistic problem. But today, the feeling is that there is much more

to the problem of mind and God than that of mere language. There is the inherent

metaphysical problem of the nature of reality.

(vii) Philosophy as the Search for the Ideal Life

This definition of philosophy comes up late not because it is the most recent definition of

philosophy from a chronological order. In fact, Socrates, the father of Western philosophy

saw himself as a philosopher in this sense. According to the Greek tradition into which he

was born, to know the truth, i.e. reality in matters of character or virtue, it is not enough to

have theoretical postulates. To know truth, i.e. to know what is good is to be good; it is to

lead a virtuous life. When the philosopher was therefore identified as the seeker of the ideal

life he was also regarded as somebody who lives that type of life he identifies as good.

Philosophy was therefore the “search for the ideal Life and how to live it”. Socrates

demonstrated this when he was in jail in Athens, condemned to death for allegedly leading

the youths against the State. His friends came in the night ready with plans for his escape.

Socrates reply was that he has always taught that a good citizen obeys the laws of his society.

6
Since running away from prison (and invariably from his condemnation to death) amounts to

a disobedience, to his state Socrates said he would do no such thing.

(viii) Philosophy as the Concern with Human Existence

Philosophy, after moving away from this traditional view of its enterprises for a very

longtime, seems to be moving systematically toward its original conception. This is not to

suggest that philosophy’s central concern today is seen as the formulation of First Principles

of morality which are regarded as guides to the good life. What is happening is that

philosophy rather than being the concern with pure objectivity was now seen as the need to

take human interest and nature into consideration. What is man? What is the goal of living?

What is man’s position in the scheme of things? Where does he come from and where is he

going? These are some of the questions raised by existentialists like Soren Kierkegaard,

Martins Buber, Albert Camus, Karl Jaspers and Martin Heidegger. They also tried to answer

these questions.

Philosophy, for the existentialists, is not abstract speculations about reality or the objective

world. Man as the subject, is the determinant and discoverer of truth. Human interest, his

harmonious relationship with others, his experience and his reason all determine what for him

constitutes truth. Man first exists of all appearances, defines himself before he then turns to

understand and explain the world. Hence for the existentialist “existence precedes essence” –

man exists first before he tries to discover the essence of life, nature and the world.

1.2.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

List at least 5 ways philosophy can be understood and conceptualized.

1.2.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

7
 i. Philosophy as the search for reality

ii. Philosophy as the love of wisdom

iii. Philosophy as the search for truth

iv. Philosophy as the rational explanation of nature

v. Philosophy as the search for the ideal life

1.3 The Problem of What Philosophy Is

The first problem of philosophy is philosophy itself. The nature and definition of philosophy

are philosophical problems. The question, “What is philosophy?” appears to be a very simple

question. But it is not as simple as it appears. It is itself a philosophical question, and

problem. Philosophical questions do not have single answer nor do they have dogmatic

answers that must be accepted by every philosopher. If you ask ten professional philosophers

“What is philosophy?” they will not give you the same answer. In fact, you are likely to get

ten different answers. But that is the beauty of philosophy. It is a critical discipline which

applies its own critical tool even to itself. The first problem of philosophy is therefore the

problem of the definition of philosophy. There are many ways philosophy can be defined, but

none of them can be called the definition of philosophy. There is nothing like that. We can

have a definition of philosophy but not the definition of philosophy. Whatever definition of

philosophy you give, some philosophers will disagree with you. There is no definition that all

philosophers will agree with.

1.3.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Which of these is a possibility, having a definition of philosophy or having the definition of

philosophy?

8
1.3.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

We can have a definition of philosophy but not the definition of philosophy.

1.4 Metaphysical Problem

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), the German philosopher, began his book, Introduction to

Metaphysics, with a fundamental philosophical question (a metaphysical question): “Why is

there something and not nothing?” What does this question mean? Heidegger is, in other

words, asking why things exist in the world at all. He is asking why the world itself, with

everything in it, exists. What is the purpose of its existence? Apart from this basic question,

there is also the question as to whether the world is purely material, essentially spiritual, or a

combination of both material and spiritual elements. Is man himself purely material? Is he

essentially spiritual, or a combination of matter and spirit? Different schools of philosophy

give different answers to these questions. Those who belong to the materialist school of

thought (known as materialism) hold that the world is purely material, that man himself, is

entirely a material being, that there are no spirits. But those who belong to the idealist school

of thought (known as idealism) maintain that the world is essentially spiritual, that man

himself is essentially a spiritual being. Those who belong to the dualist school of thought

(known as dualism) hold that the world is made up of both spiritual and material elements,

and that man himself is composed of spirit and matter. These are metaphysical questions and

problems.

1.4.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

What philosophical problem arises from metaphysics?

1.4.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

9
The problem of what the nature of reality is, and what the world is basically composed of.

Answering this, various schools have emerged giving reasons for their perspectives ranging

from materialism, to idealism, dualism, and even pluralism.

1.5 Epistemological Problem

Epistemology is the study of the nature of human knowledge. It is a philosophical inquiry into

the nature, origin, scope, limits, reliability or otherwise of human knowledge. What can man

know? Are there things that man cannot know? How reliable is human knowledge? What are

the limits of human knowledge? What are the things that are beyond human knowledge? Not

all philosophers agree that certain things are beyond human knowledge. G.W.F. Hegel (1770-

1831), for example, does not agree with Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) that certain things

(which Kant calls the noumena) are beyond human knowledge. For Hegel, there is nothing

either beyond human knowledge or beyond the cognitive power of human reason. Can man

know anything for certain? Can human knowledge ever be absolutely certain? The sceptics

deny that man can ever know anything with certainty. How can we justify our knowledge?

How can we prove what we know? What is the guarantee of the certainty of what we know?

What is truth? What do we mean when we say that a proposition is true? These are

epistemological questions which constitute epistemological problems. The answers to these

questions differ from one philosopher to another depending on the school of philosophy of

the philosopher answering the questions.

1.5.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Have philosophers been able to give satisfactory answers to every epistemological problem,

thereby bringing an absolute end to the problem?

10
1.5.2 In- Text Answers (ITAs)

No. Philosophers have been able to give various answers to the problems which have in turn

created various schools of thoughts. They have succeeded in giving answers to the questions,

which are not univocally accepted but lead to more questions.

1.6 Ethical Problem

Ethics is the third core area of philosophy. Ethics has its fundamental questions and

problems. Is there a way of living that is noble and a way of living that is ignoble? How

ought we to behave? What is the right way to behave and what is the wrong way? How do we

decide which way is right, and which way is wrong? What is the moral standard? Is it

necessary to live a moral life? Why? Why must I live a moral life? Some people embezzle the

country’s money and become very rich, and nothing happens to them. Does it mean that one

can embezzle money or steal (embezzlement is, in fact, stealing) provided one is not caught?

Is it morally right to do that?

Is morality a function of the reason or a function of the passions or senses? Is it reason that is

supposed to guide a person’s life or the passions? What is the source of morality? Where do

the moral principles, the moral laws, come from? Who made them? Is it man himself? Is it

the society? Is it God? What happens if they are not obeyed? Do they have sanctions? What

happens to those who obey them? What happens to those who do not obey them? These are

philosophical problems that are domiciled in ethics.

1.6.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

11
How have philosophers succeeded in analyzing the philosophical problems encountered in

ethics?

1.6.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Through the process of classifying ethics and further through the use of ethical theories and

principles to understand events and make moral judgements.

1.7 Philosophical Problem in the Philosophy of Other Disciplines

In other branches of philosophy, i.e. the philosophy of other disciplines, there are also

philosophical questions and problem. In Philosophy of Law (also called Jurisprudence)

questions such as the following are raised: What is law? What is justice? What is the

relationship between law and justice? What is legal obligation? Has morality anything to do

with law? Must law be subjected to, and judged by morality? What happens if a ruler makes a

law that is immoral or unjust? Should such a law be obeyed? Are there limits or restrictions

to the powers of law makers? Or are they free to make any kind of law they like? What are

the conditions for the validity of law? Is there any other law apart from positive laws? Is

natural-law really law in the true sense of the word? Does it really exist? Is there any ideal

law which serves as the standard of all laws?

The answers any philosopher gives to these questions will depend on the school of

philosophy to which he belongs. For example, the answer that a philosopher in the natural

law school would give would be different from the answer of a philosopher in the legal

positivist school or that of a philosopher in the legal realist school.

12
In Philosophy of Science fundamental questions are raised about the objectivity of science,

the certainty of scientific findings, and scientific principles. Is science based on absolutely

certain principles or on principles of probability? How true and reliable are scientific

theories? If the scientific theories of the past have been faulted by the scientists of our own

time, what is the guarantee that the scientific theories of our own day will not be faulted by

future scientists in the course of further research?

In Philosophy of Education there is the basic issue of distinguishing between educating a

person and indoctrinating him. There is the problem of educating people without imposing

one’s views or opinions on them, educating people and respecting their freedom. There is also

the issue of morality in education. Can morality be separated from education? Is morality not

part of education? Is education complete without it?

In Political Philosophy the basic issue is that of justice. How do we organize society in such a

way that there will be justice and fairness to all its members? How can we ensure equal

opportunities for all members of the society? How do we ensure equitable distribution of the

goods and benefits of the society to all its members without some of them being cheated?

How do we ensure equal opportunities in such a way that every member of the society has the

opportunity to aspire to any office or position in the society? Different political systems and

different systems of government are all attempts to answer these questions.

In Philosophy of Religion there is the basic question as to whether there can be a religion

without the concept of God. For example, Buddha did not believe in God, but he was the

founder of’ Buddhism, Was the Buddhism that Buddha himself taught and practised, a

religion? We know that after his death many of his followers brought in the concept of God,

but was Buddha himself, who did not believe in God, a religious man? Can a person who

does not believe in God be a religious man? There is also the fundamental question about the

13
existence of God. There are very many people in the world today who do not believe in God,

for one reason or another. Does God really exist? If he does not exist how did the universe

and everything in it come into existence? Can anything bring itself into existence? Could the

universe have brought itself into existence? If God exists and the world was created by him,

why is there evil in the world? Why did he allow evil to come into the world which he

created? Why has he not removed evil from the world?

In Philosophy of Mind the basic problem is the nature of the mind and how the mind interacts

with the body. The mind is spiritual (not every philosopher agrees with this) and the body is

material. How can spirit and matter interact with each other? Yet we know that the mind and

the body interact. What happens to one affects the other – what happens to the mind (for

example, anger) affects the body, and what pertains to the body (for example, serious damage

to the brain in an accident) affects the mind. How is this interaction possible?

In African Philosophy, first (in the 1960s, 1970s) there was the problem of whether it existed

at all. Some philosophers argued that there was African Philosophy, others argued that there

was none. That debate is over now. The issue now is the Africanness of African Philosophy.

In other words, what makes African Philosophy specifically African? When you say a

philosophy is African philosophy, what exactly do you mean? That it was written by an

African? That it was written in Africa? What distinguishes African philosophy form other

philosophies? What are the distinguishing features or characteristics of African philosophy?

Another serious problem about African philosophy is that it is written in foreign (European)

languages. Does the fact that African philosophy is written in foreign languages diminish the

quality and the Africanness of African philosophy?

14
1.7.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

List three (3) disciplines that philosophical problems arise from?

1.7.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Social Science

1.8 The Problem of the Scope of Philosophy

The scope of philosophy is the area, the range that can be covered by philosophy. In other

words, the question can be asked: what is within the range of philosophy, and what is outside

the range of philosophy? What can we philosophize about, and what can we not philosophize

about? Like all philosophical questions, the above questions have no definite answers. The

answers any philosopher gives to them would depend on the school of philosophy to which

he belongs. Philosophers of the materialist school of thought, for example, would say that

philosophy deals only with material realities, and that all spiritual, immaterial realities (e.g.

God, the soul) are outside the scope of philosophy. Philosophers of the idealist school would,

of course, disagree with that position and maintain that all realities (both spiritual; immaterial

as well as material) are within the scope of philosophy. Idealist philosophers philosophize

about spirit, mind, soul, God, etc. In fact, they conceive reality as basically spiritual. They see

matter as unreal, or at best only a manifestation of spirit. Ontologists philosophize about

Being, which is the ultimate source of all beings, the source from which all things derive their

being. They describe it as the Being of all beings. Surely, the scope of philosophy, for the

ontologists, the idealists, and other metaphysicians, goes beyond the material dimension of

reality.

15
1.8.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

What would the materialist school say the scope of philosophy is limited to?

1.8.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Only with material realities

1.9 Summary of Study Session 1

In this study session, you have learnt the meaning and nature of philosophy. You have been

able to understand the task to which defining philosophy gives to various philosophers and

even non-philosophers. You have learnt what the basic problems of philosophy are, as related

to the branches of philosophy and the word philosophy too. You have equally been

acquainted with the problem associated with the scope of philosophy and what various

philosophers of varying schools assume this scope to be limited to.

1.9.2 References/Suggestions for Further Reading

Britton, K. (1969). Philosophy and the meaning of life. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Lawhead, W. F. (2003). The philosophical journey: An alternative approach. Boston, MA:

McGraw-Hill.

16
Omoregbe, J. I. (1991). A simplified history of Western philosophy 1, 2 & 3. Lagos: Joja

Educational Research and Publishers.

Omoregbe, J. I. (1990). Knowing philosophy. Lagos, Nigeria: Joja Educational Research

and Publishers.

Stumpf, S. E. (1988). Philosophy, history and problems. New York, NY: McGra

17
 STUDY SESSION 2

A SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY

2.1 Introduction

In this session, you will appreciate the history of philosophy. Indeed, it will be impossible for

you to embark on any philosophical journey without a reference to its history. The history of

philosophy, you will come to see, is a very long one, perhaps as long as the history of man.

However, philosophy as an intellectual enterprise can be dated to the point at which man

began to wonder (Aristotle) and ask fundamental questions about his being. Questions like

what is the primary stuff the universe is made of, the purpose of man on earth were one of the

earlier philosophical questions. A philosopher would be he who goes beyond the common

belief in answering such questions while a mythologist would merely echo communal

consensus in his answer to such questions. The first set of people who offered answers to

questions that others would have taken for granted in a manner akin to that ascribed to

philosophers were the Greeks. Our task in this session will be to explore the periods in the

history of philosophy, namely the Ancient, the Hellenistic, the Medieval, the Modern and the

Contemporary. The division of the history of western philosophy is by no means water tight.

2.1. Learning Outcomes for Study Session 2

When you have studied this session, you should be able to:

1. State the various eras in the history of philosophy;

2. List the philosophers in every era;

3. Differentiate the philosophical ideas in various eras;

1
 4. List the similarity in philosophical ideas of philosophers in various eras; and

5. List the contributions of every era to the development of philosophy.

2.2 The Ancient Period

The Ancient period is divided into two sub periods known as the Pre-Socratic and the

Socratic periods. The Pre-Socratic period focused primarily on Cosmos, the universe. Indeed,

this period that marked the beginning of Greek Philosophy was in a way scientific as

astronomical phenomena and cosmological speculation first attracted early Greek thinkers.

The Socratic period or the Classical period of Ancient Philosophy denoted the period

comprising Socrates himself, Plato and Aristotle.

2.3 The Pre-Socratic Period

For the purpose of this we can say that philosophy is a discipline which attempts to gain

knowledge of life from the perspective of the whole. Philosophy tries to see life and its

attendant problems from a panoramic standpoint. Philosophy emerged as a result of man’s

gift of rationality with which he interacts with nature, the environment and human

experiences. It began when man started to exercise his faculty of reason. Every area of

inquiry can be said to have its own philosophical foundation or tradition. Nevertheless, the

Greeks, who lived in Ionia in Miletus, started the first formal attempt at explaining what life

was all about and what reality is. As the history of philosophy shows there were various

periods, each with its attendant problems and questions about life, the issue of survival, how

the society should be governed, justice, God, etc.

2
These philosophical problems and questions were what the early philosophers dealt with.

Each period (with the philosophers of that time or epoch) answered these questions based on

their various experiences, the prevailing culture and level of intellectual awareness at that

time. Western philosophy began with wonder and curiosity about the nature of the universe.

A few writers are of the opinion that originally philosophy did not begin in Greece but in

Egypt. Others point out its ancestral home to continents such as Pangaea and Laurasia which

existed before the continental drift. In the western European tradition, however, philosophy is

periodized into four historical epochs namely, the ancient, medieval, modern and

contemporary. Here, we shall trace the emergence, growth and advancement of western

philosophy from its place of birth in Greece in the 6th century BC.

The Ancient period is divided into two sub periods namely the pre-Socratic and Socratic

periods. The pre-Socratic period refers to the early Greek cosmologists who mainly came

before Socrates (469-399 B. C.) They are generally referred to as the representatives of the

Milesian school. The history of Philosophy taught that Thales was the first representative of

this school and also the first philosopher and scientist in the real sense of the word.

Thales (624-547 B.C.) lived in Miletus, Asia Minor. He predicted an eclipse of the sun in

585 BC. As a scientist and an advocate of philosophical materialism, he said that water was

the first principle of all things. Thales, explained earthquakes as natural phenomena and not a

display of activities by the gods and initiated the notion of proof by deduction.

Anaximander (610-546 BC) came after Thales. He affirmed that the universe originated as

an amorphous, formless mass that had within itself opposites such as hot and cold, wet and

dry etc. He observed that it was from the union and separation of these opposites that sea,

land, air were formed. Anaximander had the unique privilege to be the first to determine

solstices and equinoxes. Full of scientific curiosity, he was the first to draw a map.

3
Anaximenes (died- 528 BC). He was the third representative of the Milesian school and

teacher of Anaxagoras. The Greek philosopher originated the concept of monism. For him

one substance can picture the diversity of the world. He claims that the fundamental

substance for other substances in the universe is air or mist. The soul is air. Fire is rarefied

air. When condensed, air becomes first water, then it further condensed and transformed into

earth and finally stone. Between the three Milesians, the primary stuff of the universe

oscillated between water, air, and an infinite, eternal substance.

Besides the three representatives of the Milesian school, there are other great minds in this

period.

Pythagoras (580-500 B.C.) was a great mathematician and philosopher who work focused on

numbers. Pythagoras assigned to numbers mystical functions. For him, numbers explain

everything in the universe. His philosophy was a synthesis of religion, mathematics and

science. Famous with the Pythagoras theorem, he founded a school and religious brotherhood

in Croton, south of Italy. One of the core beliefs of the school is reincarnation as the founder

himself was influenced by Orphism.

Heraclitus (544-483 B.C.) Greek Philosopher, he suggested fire as the primordial element

out of which everything has arisen. He was also credited with the crude formulation of the

dialectics. Reality, according to Heraclitus is consisting of change and motion. Objects are a

harmony of opposing tensions. This is possible through logos, the organizing principle akin

to reason. His ideas influenced modern philosophers such as Hegel, Heidegger and

Wittgenstein.

Parmenides of Elea (510-450) played a key role in the Eleatic school. For Parmenides,

nothing changes; everything is permanently in a state of being. He emphasized the difference

4
between the senses and reason. With him, reason and speculation take preeminence over the

evidence of our senses.

Anaxagoras (500-428 B.C.) He was an Ionian who was a disciple of Anaximenes. He was

the first to introduce philosophy to the Athenians and the first to suggest mind as the primary

cause of physical change. He argued that the Mind (Nous) characterizes consciousness.

The Atomists

Leucippus and Democritus were the founders of this school. They believed that everything is

composed of atoms which are physically, but not geometrically indivisible. According to the

atomists between the atoms, there are empty spaces; and atoms are indestructible. There are

infinite number of atoms even of kinds with different shape and sizes, always in motion. The

early materialists built their philosophy on this initial conception of atoms. For instance, their

influence on Karl Marx was so profound that he wrote his thesis on Democritus.

The Sceptics and Sophists

In Ancient Greece, originally a sophist was a “wise man”. However, since the 5 th century

BC, a sophist was no other than an itinerant teacher of rhetoric, politics and the art of success

in life in exchange for money. Protagoras of Abdera and Gorgias represent this school. The

main thrust of their position is that “nothing can be known”. Protagoras was also a sophist, in

fact, the Chief sophist. A sophist is a man that makes his living by teaching young men

certain things that he believes that will be useful to them in life. Sophists were itinerant

teachers who taught for money. They teach those who have money to pay for lessons.

The next sub-period of the ancient period is the “Golden Age of Greek Philosophy” also

known as the Socratic period.

5
2.3.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

List the philosophers of the Milesian school

2.3.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes

2.4 The Socratic Period

Socrates (469-399 B.C.) did not write anything. All we know about him was through his

disciples – Plato and Xenophanes. Socrates was the first person to turn philosophy from the

study of cosmology and away from sophistry and set it in the homes. The Greek Philosopher

was desirous to challenge the scepticism of the Sophists by asserting that genuine knowledge

is possible. He compelled philosophy to consider life style, issues of existence, morals etc. As

a moralist, he exemplified his moral teachings in his life style. He saw himself as a teacher

sent to awaken the people’s ability to use their faculty of reason and as such help them to

release their inner potentials. He was tried, convicted and put to death by the Athenian

authorities by drinking hemlock (poison) which led to his death.(Russell, History of Western

Philosophy, 1959: 101-102)

Plato (427-347 B.C.) His thought is difficult to separate from that of Socrates his teacher.

Plato is said to have contributed immensely to philosophy. The central teachings of Plato

revolve around the notion of Forms. Forms are located outside the everyday world. They are

timeless, motionless and absolutely real. He called the essences of things, Ideas or Forms

which can only be known through reason and not by sense perception. Plato defined man as a

6
being made of the soul (reason) and the body. He founded the first university (called the

Academy) in Europe where people could be taught philosophy. He affirmed that knowledge

was reminiscence. The Republic was Plato’s magnus opus on how the State should be

organized. He covered many areas and topics in his Academy.

According to Russell, Plato’s influence had a wide and great effect on his contemporaries and

upon subsequent ages. The effect of his philosophy is still felt today. Plato used allegories in

espousing his theories. He believed that those in government should demonstrate a high level

of intelligence and moral discipline.

Aristotle, born in 384BC in Stageira was next to Plato. He is said to be the outcome of Plato,

who was his teacher for twenty (20) years. Like Plato, his influence had far reaching

consequences on his contemporaries and those of later ages. He covered such areas as logic,

physics, ethnics, psychology, biology, politics, metaphysics, rhetoric, etc. He was known to

have developed formal logic, which deals with the form that reasoning takes. He also founded

a school known as Lyceum. The Socratic period had a great influence on philosophy. it gave

birth to neo-Platonism as well as neo-Aristotelianism.

2.4.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

List the Philosophers in the Socratic Period

2.4.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle

2.5 The Hellenistic period

7
The Hellenistic period is the period after Aristotle and before the Medieval era. Five schools

thrived in that period. These schools are the Cynics, Cyrenaicism, Epicureanism, Stoicism

and Scepticism.

The Cynic School was founded by Antisthenes who was one of Socrates’s disciples. The

school emphasizes a return to nature and self-discipline, and self-knowledge along with

asceticism.

The Cyrenaics School was founded by Aristippus of Cyrene. He identified pleasure as the

goal of life and made it a criterion for judging right from wrong.

Stoicism was founded by Zeno, This school believes that all knowledge derives from

perception which is the criterion for truth. For the Stoics, all things and all events are

interrelated. Thus, everything has its place in the total scheme of things. They insist that man

should live according to nature, and be ruled by reason.

Epicureanism was established by Epicurus whose philosophy drives mainly from those of

Democritus and the Cyrenaics. They emphasized asceticism to strengthen the power of

reason in order to control the emotion.

Scepticism was established by Pyrroh of Elis. For him and his school there is no objective

standard for judging morality, except to follow the prevailing customs or laws depending on

the place. They do not believe that anything is certain. Therefore, neither reason nor the

senses could give us adequate and certain knowledge.

2.5.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

List any 4 Schools in the Hellenistic Period

8
2.5.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Stoicism, The Cynics, Sceptics, Epicureanism and The Cyrenaics

2.6 The Medieval Period

Also called the Middle Ages, it is the era in which the church brought philosophic thesis to

embellish religious thought and norms so as to fit into their circumstances. The era arguably

witnessed the stagnation of science and materialism. Religion became very powerful in the

affairs of the state. This affected the pace of philosophical thinking. The notable church

philosophers of this period were St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Boethius, St. Anselm as

well a few Jewish and Islamic scholars.

St Augustine was born in Tagaste in Algeria, North Africa in A.D. 354. He fashioned his

philosophy after Plato. He viewed the universe as a place of cause and effect. He adopted

Plato’s world of ideas to represent the mind of God and the idea of good to be God. He wrote

The City of God and The Confessions which were about issues of life, and philosophy.

Boethius wrote a famous book, The Consolation of Philosophy. His philosophy is a

combination of neo-Platonism and Stoicism. The book is based on his experience from a

consul to a prisoner. He defined man as an individual substance of a rational nature. And the

task of philosophy for him is to awaken and broaden man’s knowledge.

John Scotus Eriugena was an Irish philosopher. He was highly influenced by Pseudo-

Dionysus. He sees nature as the expression of God and reality. He says man is a smaller

universe in which both the spiritual and physical components of nature are well combined.

St. Anselm belonged to the Augustinian tradition of philosophy. His ontological view is that

God is a being greater than that which no one can conceive.

9
Thomas Aquinas was largely Aristotelian. He was a prolific writer. The Sununa Theologica

and Summa Contra Gentiles are his most famous books. For him, matter and form are

inseparable. None of them can exist without the other. He is of the opinion that all human

knowledge derives from experience. Islamic and Jewish philosophers whose works were a

fusion of neo-Platonism and Aristotelians flourished during this period.

2.6.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Another name for the Medieval period is?

2.6.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

The Middle Ages or The Dark Ages

2.7 The Modern Period

According to J. I. Omoregbe, the Modern Period marks the period of the Renaissance to the

end of the 19thcentury. It marked the height of the inquiries into the theory of knowledge and

laid more emphasis on the role of reason in thinking, experience and observation. During this

period, philosophy provided the foundation of experimental science and empirical research.

Francis Bacon’s thesis was about how knowledge could be discovered and used by man to

improve his lot and dominate nature. He wrote The Novum Organum. Bacon’s philosophy

and view on the need to purge experience of preconceived opinions of society marked the

beginning of the new scientific era.

René Descartes introduced the fact that reason was the foundation to awareness and all

experiences. He held that it came before knowledge. From the proof of his own existence

10
Descartes derived the notion to the methodic doubt. He brought about the problem of mind-

body interaction in philosophy.

Spinoza (a Jewish philosopher) held man to be part of nature. And that nature or God

presents itself as spirit and matter (thought and extension).

Leibniz (1646 – 1716) was a great mathematician and logician. He maintained that monads

are the basic elementary substances of which all things are made. He is popular for his view

that this world is the best of all possible worlds God could have created. The modern period

also produced the British empiricists, John Locke, Bishop George Berkeley and David Hume.

John Locke, the father of British empiricism, says all knowledge and ideas come from sense

perception or experience. For Locke, knowledge could be intuitive, demonstrative and

sensitive. Knowledge is circumscribed within sense experience. He believes that morality is

based on the authority of God. Locke is known as the philosopher of private property. He

believes the right to own a property is a natural right. Locke’s political philosophy influenced

the American and British constitutions.

Bishop George Berkeley (1685 – 1753), feels that what we perceive are ideas in the mind,

because their existence depends on what we perceived. Therefore, he opined that esse est

percipi (to exist is to be perceived). Berkeley says that laws of nature are meant to regulate

the activities of man, nature and the earth. They are independent of man, nature and the earth,

but they are dependent on God’s activity.

David Hume (1711–1776) was a lawyer turned philosopher. He wrote the famous work A

Treatise on Human Nature. He was an empiricist to the core who believed that any

metaphysics not based on sense experience could not give us adequate knowledge, but

11
contained sophistry and illusion. He criticizes the principle of causality because he says it can

neither be demonstrated nor known by intuition.

Immanuel Kant, a great German philosopher, was born at Konisberg in 1724. He began his

work in philosophy with an investigation into nature and the limits of human understanding.

His philosophy instigated German idealism. Kant began his philosophy on a critical note. He

made the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, and synthetic a priori

propositions. His main works include The Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Practical

Reason, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics) and Critique of Judgment among others.

He died in the same city of Konisberg in 1804.

The history of philosophy also records that German idealism is due largely to Kant’s reaction

to Hume’s philosophy. German idealism was led by Fitche (1762-1814), Schelling (1775-

1854) and Hegel (1770-1831). It is largely derived from Kant’s philosophy about reality

being made up of noumena and phenomena. This philosophy gradually ended up in absolute

idealism. Hegel, precisely took German idealism to its height. He wrote The Phenomenology

of Spirit, Philosophy of Religion and Philosophy of History. Hegelianism focuses on Being as

the Absolute Spirit.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) with dialectical materialism and historical materialism was another

popular modern philosopher. He influenced socialism as an alternative to capitalism. Marxist

socio-political philosophy thrived in the Far East, the former Soviet Union, former

Yugoslavia, few countries in Africa and latin America and a few parts of the rest of the world

towards the close of the Modern period.

2.7.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

The Modern period begins and ends when?

12
Another name for the Modern period is?

2.7.1 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

It begins from the Renaissance lasting till the end of the 19th century.

It is also known as the age of Scientific Knowledge.

2.8 The Contemporary Period

This period is one of the greatest in the history of philosophy. It comprises many

philosophical movements that developed and gave a new orientation to old philosophical

concepts. Such movements are known as Neo Idealism, Neo Thomism, Positivism,

Phenomenology, Existentialism, Existential Phenomenology, Pragmatism, Process

Philosophy, Analytic Philosophy etc.

The logical positivists who emerged in this era (as the Vienna circle) reacted against the neo-

idealists philosophical thought. The logical positivists include Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath,

Richard Von Misses, Hans Reinchenbach, Moritz Schlick among others. The main thrust of

their argument is that science is the only valid way to attain knowledge; thus for them,

verification principle became the instrument of verifying meaningfulness, falsity and truth.

Such areas as metaphysics, religion and ethics are irrelevant because no knowledge can be

derived from them.

Pragmatism was established by C. S. Pierce, and further developed by William James and

John Dewey during this period. Their main thesis is that what works in practice is true.

Phenomenology was developed by Edmund Husserl (1859 – 1938) in the early part of this

period. Its work was with analyzing human experience without prior bias or presumption.

13
The Analytic Philosophy brought about by G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell is a

contemporary philosophy. Ludwig Wittgenstein is a product of this school. They are of the

view that philosophy should concern itself with analyzing language. The argument against

this view is that analysis is one of the tools of philosophy and by its wide area of interest and

activity it cannot be its main task.

Existentialism founded by Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) became established in the 19th-

20th centuries as a modern philosophical movement. Existentialism pictures human life in an

absurd and meaningless universe where individuals are responsible for and the sole judge of

their conducts as they affect individual beings. In Stages on Life’s Way, Kierkegaard admits

that the ways of an individual’s life manifest in three stages which are the ethical, aesthetic

and the religious, upon which human existence was based. Existentialism thrived immensely

as philosophy concerned with man’s existence in the world. It produced many notable

philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), Karl Jaspers (1883-1969), Martin

Heidegger (1889-1976) and Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) among others.

From what you have learnt so far, you can now see that the importance of the history of

philosophy cannot be overemphasized. Philosophy is its history and the history of philosophy

gives live to the practice of philosophy. The history of philosophy is the one without which

philosophy is incomplete. The entire past is imbedded in every moment of philosophical

interrogation. Indeed, all philosophy includes the entire history of philosophy. If it did not, it

will not be intelligible, and, what is more, it could not exist…. There is an intrinsic link

between philosophy and the history of philosophy. Philosophy is historical and its history is

an essential part of it. (Julia Maria, History of Philosophy, Quoted by Roy Mach in “History

and Theory”, Vol. 26, No 3 Oct. 1987 p.287). Philosophy and its history are one. You cannot

embark on one without referring to the other as it is essential to an adequate understanding of

14
philosophical problems, issues that one understands them genetically. (See Roy Mach p 17-

30). The history of philosophy is the history of ideas, the sum total of philosophical problems

in time and space. Philosophy has a history, an indestructible tradition and that no philosophy

can detach itself from this tradition which always shapes it.

2.8.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

List at least three (3) movements that characterize the Contemporary period?

2.8.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Existentialism, Post-modernism, Phenomenology, Neo-Idealism, Process Philosophy, Action

Theory etc.

2.9 Summary of Study Session 2

In this study session, you have learnt that you cannot fully comprehend the various areas of

philosophical thought, if you do not understand the history of philosophy. The importance of

the history of philosophy is that it enables us to have knowledge of the purpose of philosophy

in the quest to understand reality and to show man’s attempt at unfolding his potential in

interaction with the environment. You have seen the various periods of philosophy, showing

its emergence and growth, as well as the various contributions of various philosophers at

different periods and through relative movements, ideas and thought process.

15
Also, through our study of the history of philosophy we are endowed with the knowledge

which comes about as a result of a continuous quest meant to deal with perennial problems.

The history of philosophy shows us that there is continuity in philosophy. It also registers a

strong point which is that philosophy is all about life and how we should live it especially in

relation to the problems we encounter daily.

The philosophers of the ancient, medieval, modern and contemporary periods dealt with

perennial problems which they attempted to answer based on the nature of their circumstance

and level of intellectual awareness and activity. The same questions they asked are still being

raised today based on our experiences and the fast advancing pace of our technology and

education. Man, as a result of the gift of conscience, is philosophical, and philosophy will

continue as long as the earth, her elements and man endure. Man cannot but think, and

consciousness, which thrives on reason, is the foundation of all experiences.

2.9.1 References/ Suggestions for Further Reading

Maria, J. (1987). History of philosophy. Quoted by Roy Mach In “History and Theory”,

26(3).

Omoregbe, J. (1990). Knowing philosophy. Lagos, Nigeria: Joja Press.

Stumpf, S. E. (1988). Philosophy, history and problems. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Unah, J. I. (1995). Essays in philosophy. Lagos, Nigeria: Panaf Press.

Unah, J. I. (1996). Metaphysics, phenomenology and African philosophy. Ibadan, Nigeria:

Hope

Publications

16
 STUDY SESSION 3

METAPHYSICS AS A BRANCH OF PHILOSOPHY1

3.1 Introduction

In this study session, you will appreciate studying metaphysics not just as a main branch, but

a core discipline of philosophy. Unfortunately, this core aspect of philosophy has suffered

neglect and damaging criticism from positivism which is the view that only the specialized

sciences that deal with fact can provide real knowledge of the world. This study session will

examine the claim that philosophy suffered an eruption in the course of the development

scholarship which made the relegation and neglect of metaphysics inevitable. The eruption of

philosophy means its division into the positive sciences. The first question of philosophy

―what is what is?‖ or ―what is real reality?‖ was treated in Greek cosmology. Each science

developed to deal with an aspect of what-is is a profile of reality. In the course of the

development of the sciences, philosophy lost its bearing. It began to tag along with the

sciences.

Consequently, philosophy lost its independent status and became subservient to the

specialized, positive sciences, like a weak man who must depend on his children for

sustenance. We must separate issues here. There is a legitimate sense in which philosophy, as

a parent discipline, must continue to nourish the positive sciences. But it must not do so by

being a weak, senile Methuselah looking for relevance in the activities of the children (the

positive sciences).

1
1. The unabridged version of this chapter has appeared in J. I. Unah, Metaphysics, Phenomenology and
African Philosophy. (Ibadan: Hope Publication, 1996).

1
The proper way that philosophy can play the role of nourishing the sciences is to do so in a

sagely, oracular manner, that is, by constantly raising and renewing the question of reality in

general. In every age, the rejuvenation and reinvigoration of the question of reality of the

problem of being would always provide new guidelines for the positive sciences. The task of

philosophy is to provide these guidelines at every point in time because the sciences need

them to achieve security, acquire character, stature and maturity. Thus, a constant analysis of

Being or reality in general is the dignified way that philosophy can remain relevant in the

scheme of things.

3.1.1 Learning Outcomes for Study Session 3

When you have studied this session, you should be able to:

1. Define and conceptualize metaphysics;

2. Analyse metaphysics as the ground question;

3. Show how metaphysics is linked to science and goes beyond science;

4. Evaluate the limitations of traditional metaphysical thinking; and

5. Show what it means to be metaphysical as different from being a metaphysician.

3.2 The Scope of Philosophy

Metaphysics is a core area of philosophy and the ground of the positive sciences. It is also the

ground of our being. So, it is fitting that we should begin our study of metaphysics with a

brief introductory survey of the scope of philosophy. Philosophy, broadly speaking, is an

intellectual concern with the ultimate nature of things. For the purpose of scholarship, it has

been split into the quest for the ultimate nature or ground of reality, truth and value. Indeed,

2
any genuine concern with the ground of things is subsumable under reality, truth and value.2

Even when philosophy investigates other disciplines or areas of study, it is usually concerned

with the ground of the disciplines or areas of study in question.

A concern with the intimacy of things or what has been regarded as the ground of Being3 is

the distinguishing feature of philosophy. It is what makes philosophy different from other

disciplines. When a philosopher interrogates other disciplines, he does so, not to compete

with specialists in these disciplines, but to provide a clearing, a ground, for them to achieve

security, acquire character, stature and maturity.

The regional specialties (i.e. specialized disciplines) raise the question of the ground of their

being. Whenever they do so, they invariably abandon their primary assignment to the

jurisdiction of the philosopher. The abandonment of duty-post by the regional specialties to

the jurisdiction of the philosopher is not to be construed as an illicit transition. The transition

is inevitable in the scheme of things; to assist the disciplines to achieve security, acquire

character, stature and maturity.

There is an iota of truth in the claim that to define philosophy is to narrow it down to the

area(s) perspective of philosophy. However, care should be exercised, especially in these

days of accreditation of academic departments and rationalization of courses not to give the

erroneous and dangerous impression that philosophy (as a discipline) has no exclusive subject

matter which distinguishes or which ought to distinguish it from other areas of study in a

tertiary school setting. The exclusive subject-matter of philosophy comprises ontology,

epistemology and axiology.

2
This point is made in K. C. Anyanwu, “The African worldview and Theory of Knowledge” in African Philosophy:
An Introduction to the Main Philosophical Trends in Contemporary Africa. (Rome: Catholic Book Agency, 1981)
p. 77-99.
3
See Martin Heidegger Being and Time, trans by J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962)
p. 25

3
Ontology is a special branch of metaphysics called Metaphysical General. Strictly speaking,

it is the science of being, a discipline which studies being precisely as being (not as this or

that being). A metaphysical specialist treats aspects of being in response to the question, what

is reality? Thus, metaphysics deals with the question of reality, of first principles or of

ultimate nature of things.

Epistemology (theory of knowledge) studies the claims to knowledge. It evaluates whatever

we claim to know and how we come to know. Five important questions, among others, are

raised and answered in epistemology. First, can we know reality? Second, by what medium

can we know reality? Third, can we be certain that we know reality? Fourth, to what extent

can our claims to know reality be valid? Fifth, what is the foundation of human knowledge?

Axiology is the theory of value. It deals with the value we can confer on human conduct. In

determining the value to be placed on a work of art and human conduct, it stipulates

standards to which works of art and human actions should conform. In the realm of human

conduct, axiology branches off into ethics which is simply defined as moral philosophy.

Ethics determines and prescribes the fundamental principles of morality. It studies the norms

of human conduct and sometimes the language of morals. In determining and prescribing the

norms of human conduct, ethics also studies the ultimate nature of human actions.

Furthermore, axiology branches off into aesthetics in the realm of the creative process, that is,

in the realm of the work of arts, its appreciation as well as criticism. A work of art is

normally appreciated or criticized in terms of beauty or lack of it. But in what does beauty

consist? Is beauty in the visual disposition of the beholder or is it in the object, in the work of

art? What is the standard to which all things beautiful must conform? All these are some of

the questions you are likely to encounter in the philosophy of value:

4
In addition to the subject areas of ontology, epistemology and axiology, philosophy deals

extensively with logic. It may indeed be said that logic is the soul of philosophy. To deny any

piece of philosophical work of logic is to disembowel such a work. Logic is philosophy‘s

instrument of action. It is an indispensable tool of philosophy.

A piece of philosophy may deal only with metaphysics or epistemology or ethics, it would

still be treated as philosophy. In academic or professional philosophy, it may not be

convenient to deal with the three basic subject-matters of philosophy at any given time. For

the purpose of scholarship, it is proper for philosophy to be differentiated as metaphysics,

epistemology and ethics or even logic, history of philosophy and philosophy of other

disciplines.

Nevertheless, a system of philosophy usually embodies metaphysics, epistemology and

ethics. Primacy may be given to one of them than the others. There may not be an

interlocking theory of reality, knowledge or ethics. A system of philosophy may be more of

ethics than metaphysics, more of metaphysics than epistemology or of epistemology than

either metaphysics or ethics. The point of interest here is that for a system to qualify as a

philosophical system, it must deal explicitly with questions of reality, truth and value, that is,

with what there is, the question of which access to what there is and how man should act in

community.

Consequent upon the foregoing, one begs the question if one merely resolves the problem of

the definition of philosophy in the claim that to define philosophy is simply to express one

area perspective of philosophy. Those who veer radically away from the understanding of

philosophy as an intellectual pre-occupation with the ultimate principles of being, truth and

value do so mainly because of the haste or pressure to establish the immediate practical

5
relevance of their discipline. In some cases too, it is the consequence of a rather poor

orientation in philosophy.

Whoever calls himself a philosopher, especially a professional philosopher, should first of all

have an orientation of Being, that is, a theory of reality, truth and value in order that he may

have a sharp perspective in whatever area of intellectual transaction he might wish to focus

his attention. The question of basic orientation of being or knowledge of the idea is so

absolutely warrantable for the philosopher because it is the pivot on which a whole range of

intellectual transactions can resolve. In other words, an orientation of being equips the

philosopher with the ontological telescope to execute a comprehensive ordering or re-

ordering of experience, of the world. It is clear from all this that the primary task of the

philosopher is the provision of a comprehensive and consistent worldview. This can be

achieved only if the philosopher is thoroughly grounded in theories of first principles, that is,

if he has had a radical exposure to Being in his pupilage.4

A radical exposure to Being by which is meant a thorough grounding in questions of intimacy

or first principles is further facilitated by orientation in informative and interrogative or

investigative philosophy. Informative philosophy is conventionally treated as history of

philosophy. Interrogative or investigative philosophy is the philosophy of other disciplines.

Informative philosophy is an indirect exposure to Being. It acquaints the new corner with

what preceding philosophers have said since the inception of scholarship, about the world,

about reality, about truth and about value. In other words, informative philosophy provides

the answer to the question concerning what philosophers have done in the ancient, medieval,

modem and contemporary periods of human history.

4
See Jim Unah, Essays in Philosophy, (Lagos: Panaf Press, 1995), p. 29

6
Informative philosophy teaches that Western scholarship emerged from Greek cosmology,

Greek search for reality, Greek quest for certainty and Greek desire for perfect happiness and

social harmony. All these are collapsible into ‗a concern with reality, truth and value‘. The

summary of it is a pre-occupation with the problem of Being. Greek cosmology dealt with the

constituents and the ultimate nature of the universe. Greek metaphysics dealt with the

principles or categories of reality that governed the world. Greek epistemology dealt with the

problems and ultimate nature of knowledge and the certainty of our claims. Greek ethics

dwelt extensively on the notion of justice and how man can achieve mental, emotional and

social stability.

The method of dialectics employed by the Greeks as exemplified in ‗the Socratic-Platonic

dialogues‘ as well as Aristotle‘s Organum makes a case for logic as an indispensable tool of

philosophy. In raising the question of what-is or the ultimately real, critical reasoning is

imperative. Thus, criticism of received ideas is an age-long and exciting aspect of philosophy.

But criticism is not an exercise in hopeless and purposeless devastation. In the tradition of the

Greeks, especially Plato, criticism always gravitated towards synthesis.5

Unfortunately, with the emergence of logical positivism criticism has become an excessively

catastrophic and purposeless enterprise, the target of the most devastating activities of

positivism is metaphysics. The positivism of the Vienna Circle of the 1920s and Ayer‘s

logical empiricism, for instance, made no pretence that metaphysics was the disease of which

philosophy and the positive sciences must be cured. But when the alleged therapy turned out

to be a fresh disease of its own, then, it became manifestly evident that any therapeutics (i.e.

science of cure) of metaphysics is a metaphysics of its own, in which case the therapy is a

rejuvenation and a reinvigoration of the ailment.

5
Jim Unah “Disguised Denials of African Philosophy” in Journal of African Philosophy and Studies, Vol. 1, Nos.
1 & 2 (1988), p. 54

7
The point to be made hereafter is threefold: First, that any positive science that embarks on

the task of determining the nature of its methodology of inquiry is entertaining the ground

question which is undeniably metaphysical; second, that any project to exterminate

metaphysics is a metaphysics; and third, that the reductionist and dogmatic mien of man in

the mass constitute the metaphysics of positivism which can be checked by the inculcation of

the phenomenological attitude.

3.2.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Metaphysics can be seen as a core area of which discipline?

3.2.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Philosophy

3.3 Metaphysics as the Ground Question

In academic philosophy our understanding of metaphysics is so radically different from what

it is taken to be in common parlance that we require conceptual clarity in order to establish

how it is ingrained in human nature and how it furnishes the ground of our commerce in the

positive sciences. Even in academic circles, especially with the emergence of positivism,

metaphysics has been a subject of much understanding. It has been argued, for example, that

metaphysics deals with an imaginary universe populated by imaginary and ‗peculiarly

mysterious entities‘ and that the whole enterprise is a product of a misuse of language.6

In our own environment here, metaphysics has been so banalized on the pages of newspapers

that people now associate it with witchcraft or occultism and now goes with the label of

6
A. J. Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic. (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1964), p. 43-44.

8
‗African Science‘, the type that Godspower Oyewole brandishes about. People can call

anything any name they like. But it is muddle-headed to suppose that professional academic

metaphysics can be reduced to any of those. Metaphysics is not a preoccupation with

peculiarly mysterious entities. It is not witchcraft. Much less is it occultism or voodooism.

By metaphysics we mean a comprehensive account of experience, of the world, of the

universe. Every comprehensive account of experience, of the world, of the universe is

informed by a theory of being or a principle of reality. A metaphysician is one who adopts a

position or a principle or who furnishes a ground and proceeds to reduce all reality, all

experience, to the adopted position or furnished ground. The metaphysician may be more

aptly described as the editor of reality because he seeks to determine the principle or category

of reality that governs the world, that grounds experience that explains the universe.

Differently stated, every comprehensive account of reality implies a transcendence of, or a

going beyond reality to the reason by which it comes to be and have meaning. The positive

sciences in the preoccupation with different regions of reality or different aspects of what-is

do engage in this transcendence or voyage of the beyondness of being. Every science justifies

its existence, its methodology of inquiry and makes a show that it is well grounded, that is,

that its foundation is secured. Thus, every science deals with the problem of the ground of its

being. This transcendence of the sciences, this voyage of beyondness of the regional

ontologies in the determination of the ground of their being is undeniably metaphysical.

Philosophy as metaphysics and not philosophy as metaphysical thinking7 has two broad

aspects. The first is metaphysica specialis and the second is metaphysica generalis.8 The

former, metaphysical specialist, is the fragmentation of philosophy into the regional

7
Philosophy as “metaphysical thinking” is different from philosophy as metaphysics and being metaphysical is
different from being a metaphysician. Clarifications of these terms will be made in the last part of this study
session.
8
Martin Heidegger, Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, trans. By J. S. Churchill. (Bloomington and London:
Indiana University Press, 1962) p. xv.

9
ontologies or specialised sciences which deal with beings or particular aspects of what-is

such as History, Literature, Theology, Sociology, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics,

Geography, Psychology, Economics, Political Science and Anthropology, among others.

Metaphysica generalis is what is left of philosophy after the fragmentation and it deals with

Being in general, reality in general or what-is in totality. So, we have specialized ontology

which pertains to the positive sciences and generalized ontology which is ―transcendental

philosophy‖9 properly so-called.

Since Metaphysica generalis is what remains of philosophy after it has shed its burden to the

positive sciences, then the proper function of philosophy is the analysis of Being, that is, the

study of what belongs to things in general.10 Again, since every study of Being must take root

in man‘s essential nature,11 ontology should have to reach out to the study of man‘s essential

characteristics. Hence ontology will crystallize in a fundamental ontology, that is, a

phenomenological ontology of man. Hence also, philosophy should have to graduate from the

search for the ultimate nature of things to a ‗universal phenomenological ontology‘ of man.12

3.3.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Name two broad aspects of Philosophy as metaphysics

3.3.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

The first is metaphysical specialis and the second is metaphysical generalis.

3.4 How Metaphysics Affects the Positive Sciences

9
Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans. by Norman Kemp Smith (London, 1929), p. 662
10
Martin Heidegger, What is Called Thinking? Trans. by Fred Wieck and Glenn Gray, (New York: Harper and
Row, 1968), p. 79
11
Heidegger, Being and Time, p. 62
12
Ibid., pp. 29-30

10
But what pattern did the eruption or fragmentation of philosophy into independent disciplines

take? Was it an unfortunate accident which happened to philosophy? The fragmentation

which we take to be the shedding of a disabling weight by philosophy that resulted in the

birth of the positive sciences is by no means an accident or a regrettable incident. It was

warranted by the need for division of labour. The positive sciences should investigate

different and particular aspects of what-is, different and particular profiles of reality, different

and particular dimensions of Being, exhaustively, painstakingly, in order that we may

understand and appropriate them effectively for the active realization of our projects.

Philosophy should investigate the general ground of Being to provide the clearing for and to

illumine the positive sciences. By interrogating Being, by investigating what-is in general,

philosophy provides the ground, the clearing or the guidelines for the specialized ontologies

with a view to assuring them of security and assisting them to acquire character, stature and

maturity.

The sciences do gravitate towards philosophy for succour and security when they suffer a

crisis of foundation. The question of ground, of which way of access to the object of inquiry

or of which methodology best renders entities transparent in their own light, constitutes the

metaphysical foundation of the positive sciences.

The sciences are specialized metaphysics or regional ontologies. They are what have been

traditionally labelled as metaphysica specialis. Metaphysics is the study of Reality. Every

science emerged to develop an aspect of what-is, an aspect of Reality. It is precisely because

of this that we say that every science proceeds primarily as a metaphysics. In dealing with an

aspect of what-is or an aspect of Reality, every science develops conceptual tools with which

to order experience in its region of Reality. Again, the development of conceptual tools to

organise experience into stable regularity, into meaningful units, is executed metaphysically

through the mind‘s active categorising. Through the schematizing or image-forming faculty

11
of the mind, both empirical and non-empirical concepts are designed for the ordering of

experience. This means that the mind has a power of forming ―horizons,‖ ―relations,‖

―connections‖13antecedent to experience. Any science that performs this task is invariably

being metaphysical.

Besides, the sciences do sometimes entertain the ground question in their quest for a

functional understanding of Reality. The question, ―what are the fundamental assumptions

and presuppositions of biology?‖ for instance, is no longer biology but meta-biology. In the

same way, the question whether history can be studied objectively or subjectively,

empirically or supra-empirically is not history as history but a meta-historical inquiry of the

methodology of history. The positive sciences do raise these questions and whenever they do

they are being metaphysical. Of course, there are several other ways in which the positive

sciences can be shown to be infected by the metaphysical contagion. The point here is that

every science prostitutes with metaphysics but like the hapless prostitute, almost everyone

(including those who employ her services) vilifies it. Paradoxically anyone who tries to

establish that metaphysics is an unworthy enterprise invariably finds himself in the

metaphysical arena. To repudiate metaphysics is to dig away the ground on which we stand.

Many have and would continue to embark on such a task out of ignorance. But we need no

prophetic talents to teach us that such a project is a misadventure.

3.4.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Other than specialized metaphysics, the sciences are also known as what?

3.4.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

13
See Heidegger, Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, p. 99-104

12
Regional ontologies

3.5 Being Metaphysical and Being a Metaphysician

By stating the case that positivistic thinkers use the drag-net of metaphysics to secure the

achievements in their regional ontologies, we do not in any way suggest that being

metaphysical is the same thing as being a metaphysician any more than being legalistic

implies being a lawyer. Suffice it to say that whenever we employ metaphysical concepts to

organise experience or to establish a case in any field of intellectual transaction whatsoever

we are being metaphysical. This is to say that in responding to our natural propensity towards

metaphysics we are being metaphysical.

But being a metaphysician is a different matter altogether. A metaphysician is one who

boldly confronts the problem of Reality in general and works out a comprehensive ground for

particular aspects of what-is. In other words, a metaphysician is one who furnishes the ground

for all other ontologies, that is, where metaphysics is taken in its strict sense of metaphysica

generalis (ontology). Traditionally, that is, as an academic classification and as a branch of

the philosophical system the term ―metaphysics‖ has been associated with the search for the

double underlying the appearance of things or the ultimate principle that informs palpable

reality. This understanding of metaphysics is Platonism, Plato calls the hidden double of

Reality, that is, real Reality ideas and becoming, appearance, or palpable reality a mere

shadow or illusion.

It was Aristotle who sketched the task of professional academic metaphysics as the study of

being qua being, that is, the study of being precisely as being, not the study of aspects of

being or the search of a hidden double of palpable existence. Thus metaphysics properly

conceived is the study of pure Being or the analysis of what it means to be. Understood in

this light, metaphysics is pure ontology — the study of pure Being. As the study of pure

13
Being, ontology is the analysis of what belongs to things in general, not the search of a

hidden double of existents. The problem here is that rather than concern itself with the

analysis of Being, which prepares the ground for all the other sciences traditional

metaphysics has concentrated its efforts on determining the hidden reality underlying the

appearance of things. It is because of this derailment of metaphysics that some professional

academic metaphysicians such as Heidegger would rather prefer to be called ontologists.

To make matters worse, in developing societies such as ours, occultists, witches and wizards

and all those who profess to possess the power to generate electricity from a bucket of sand

now go by the name of metaphysicians. This state of affairs has led to disenchantment with

academic metaphysics with the result that many young researchers in philosophy are

unwilling to do research in this area of philosophy. Surely, the road-side mechanic, by his

mode of dressing, has made it a herculean task to distinguish the lunatic from a sane person.

Although it is arguable that since the obscure arts and sciences of occultism, witchcraft,

sorcery and parapsychology deal with supra-empirical reality in some ways it would not be

out of place to regard them as forms of metaphysics, the truth of the matter is that

professional academic metaphysics, as the analysis of the general structures of Reality, is

distinguishable from these various ways of actualizing metaphysical propensities.

Professional academic metaphysics, strictly speaking, is ontology. Ontology is the study of

Being and being, according to Heidegger, is always the Being of some entities. Consequently,

professional academic metaphysics as ontology is the exhibition of the general structures of

the world which renders entities transparent in their own Being. It follows, therefore, that the

analysis of what belongs to thought in general, for example, is ontology while the analysis or

description of mental acts is psychology. Mental acts or acts of consciousness are of

particular types and of various sorts. Any description of acts of consciousness as posited by

the existing, valuing self is a psychology whereas a description of the structures of the acts of

14
consciousness necessary for the constitution of knowledge in general is an ontology of mental

acts.

Thus, laying the ground, exhibiting the general structures of the world, from which other

sciences can take their rise, is metaphysics in the strict sense (ontology). In other words, the

metaphysician, strictly so-called, is an ontological researcher. He researches on the general

profiles of Being or the general structure of Reality in order to provide the ground and

security for every other transaction. But in all fairness, we seem to have ignored the problem

of traditional metaphysical thinking.

3.5.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

State what Aristotle meant by his claim that metaphysics is the study of being qua being

3.5.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

He meant that metaphysics is the study of being precisely as being.

3.6 Traditional Metaphysical Thinking

Greek cosmology introduced water, earth, air and fire as the elementary stuff of the universe

in competition for predominance. Each of the four substances was conceived by its purveyor

as the one basic element of Mother Nature that permeated every other thing. Greek

metaphysics arose with Parmenides insisting on the ―One,‖ the ―It is‖ as Being and Being as

permanence. In the Parmenidean system, non-being, change, alteration and plurality are

illusory features of Reality. This is opposed to Heraclitan thesis (among other theses) that

Being is impermanence, that is, that Reality is in a perpetual state of flux or constant change.

15
Protagoras of Abdera introduced a human dimension and assigned primacy to human

subjectivity – of things that are that they are, of things that are not that they are not.

After the Pre-Socratic thinkers there emerged Platonism - the prototype of all metaphysical

systems. For Plato, the principle that governs Reality is the Idea. Idea things are real while

non-Idea things are unreal. Aristotle holds that Reality is primarily informed by mind or

matter informed by the Idea. Ever since, the controversy surrounding the category or

principle of Reality that governs the world remains unabated.

The fall-out of the claims and counter-claims revolving around the nature of Reality is the

development of a form of thinking which identifies a principle and reduces all Reality to that

principle.

With the Greeks and all the cultures and civilizations they have profoundly influenced, the

mind-set has crystallized that Reality must be one and knowable by a single knowing subject.

The crystallisation of this mind-set led to the absolutization of Reality. Almost every thinker

in the history of Western scholarship managed to produce his own absolute. Almost every

thinker could lay claim to a ―God‘s‖ eye perspective of Reality. Reality thus becomes my

perspective over against nothing. Almost every traditional metaphysician recited Parmenides

inadvertently with a glee. ―Being is, non-being is not‖. My position, my perspective, is

absolute and every other opposed perspective would count as nothing. Echoing Parmenides,

for example, Being- the Idea - is, non-being - becoming, appearance -is not, for it is a shadow

or mere illusion.

When this sort of temperament, characteristic of traditional metaphysics, is injected into the

social sphere you have the following-modes of conviction:

16
(i) Christ is the only way, the absolute access to divine salvation. Consequently, all non-

Christ things (beliefs and convictions) are condemned to eternal damnation.

Christianity thus becomes a regime of the absolute.

(ii) There can be no secular state. Islam is the true religion and Mohammed the only

prophet of Allah cannot have a successor. There can be no other prophet like him for he

is the Last of all the prophets. In any community where there are non-Muslims

preferably called infidels only Muslims should rule. The affairs of the children of Allah

cannot be presided over by infidels. Muslims should obey only the precepts of the

Quran and disregard secular constitutions whenever they run against the grain of

Islamic teachings. In this way a Muslim state of absolute norms and values emerge and

take root.

Now since Christian principles are at variance with Islamic precepts, have we not, by our

regimes of the absolute, prepared a fertile ground for discord? Do we need to be reminded

that the conflicts and clashes between Christians and Muslims all over the world are a

product of the metaphysical spirit by the insistence on a cherished perspective over against

nothing?

Similarly, the attitudes of dictators in modern states, which have produced catastrophic

consequences, are no less metaphysical. A one-party state in which I can lord it over the rest

of the people, where almost everyone would submit to my point of view is the true state.

What I do and say as a sovereign is not subject to question, not subject to debate, not subject

to negotiation for as sovereign, I am the Law, the absolute! All oppositions are swept

underground.

But since high-handedness begets high-handedness the putative peace achieved by violence

begets violence by way of vengeance Metaphysical thinking repudiates and sows the seed of

17
its own repudiation. Dictatorship oppresses and suppresses and sows the seed of its own

oppression and suppression. That is why there is no pensioned dictatorship. The dictator must

be paid back in his own coin of repudiation, oppression and suppression.

3.6.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Who introduced a human dimension to Greek cosmology assigning primacy to human

subjectivity?

3.6.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Protagoras of Abdera.

3.7 Neo-Metaphysicism and the Phenomenological Temper

The ubiquitous metaphysical spirit moves away from positivistic (metaphysical) thinkers,

social regimes and political leaders to our quotidian existence. As civilized cultures announce

the collapse of regimes of the absolute in their domains, the average man in our nascent

societies has congealed into a dogmatist and a fanatic in his daily commerce with fellowmen.

Even amongst our scholars and teachers it is now a mark of intellectual sobriety and

distinction to hold extreme views or hardened positions. Such ones call themselves neo-

radicals. We call them neo-metaphysicists.

Neo-metaphysicism is the know-it-all, superior-holier-thou attitude. It is the habit of holding

doggedly and dogmatically to a point of view even in the face of over-whelming counter-

evidence.

18
It is the unequivocal condemnation of all points of view that are antagonistic to one‘s

cherished point of view. Neo-metaphysicism is critical excess and the insistence on the

absolutes of being. It does not recognize alternatives but insists on either this or that.

Extremism – the hardening of position – as a form of metaphysicism makes man the master,

the repudiator, the overlord his fellowmen, on the one hand, and a pathological reactionary,

on the other hand.

Philosophy in its ultimate essence, in the view of Professor Martin Heidegger, is a universal

phenomenological ontology of man, but is a radical understanding of the Being-process, a

glorious articulation of chaos and the fulfillment of nihilism. It is the orientation or habit of

letting things stand out clearly as they are without prior conceptual prejudice or reification,

that is, the habit of letting things in their natural light regardless of whether they make us

happy or sad. By culturing us to let things be and by teaching us to show respect for every

existent and every point of view, phenomenological ontology provides the intellectual ground

for the blossoming of the liberal temper which in turn is the ennobling of man.

The liberal temper makes man the shepherd of Being or the guardian of his fellowmen. The

ideological warfare is borne of the metaphysical spirit. But there is beauty and vigour in the

ideological struggle if it is situated within the neighbourhood of Being. Man in his ultimate

essence, is a homo viator, a wanderer, an eccentric, a finder and a pointer of the way. He is

not overlord; he is not the ultimate initiator.

Autocrats, dictators, and despots who cannot accommodate alternative principles and

perspectives to their cherished position are men of the metaphysical era whose subduing,

repudiating overlordship breeds extremism on the part of the subdued, the repudiated and the

relegated. Extremism, therefore, begets extremism. As neo-metaphysics, extremism

engenders the attitude of vengeance and to that extent it is nihilistic. The liberal,

19
phenomenological temper is the transcendence of extremism the way that a radical

understanding of the Being-process is the overcoming of the metaphysical spirit.

We enjoin radical faith, or rather the Jasperian philosophical in the transcendence. But radical

faith should accommodate alternative perspectives and acknowledge that there is being

everywhere. Radical faith should not subscribe to the either-or syndrome because it is an

intellectual canopy for extremism. A radical faith that does not subscribe to a middle course

is sheer extremism. Nowadays, socialist countries are getting more and more capitalist and

capitalist countries are getting more and more socialist. What this shows is that man is

becoming more human in mind and spirit and that society is becoming much more humane. It

shows, in fact that man has come to the startling realization that there is being everywhere.

What we are is being. What we see, say, feel or imagine is being. Everything we talk about,

think about, dream about is being. There is being everywhere, not just this or that being. One

who steers a middle course is one who speaks the language of Being. The radical thinker and

commentator should be careful in the use of language. The insistence on the either-or

approach to social discourse and social criticism is a mental relapse into archaism and a

hopeless surrender to vituperative elitism. It is a betrayal of an evident lack of circumspection

and a loss of the capacity for pragmatic compromise.

The either-or perspective is neo-metaphysicism. It is a modern day version of the

metaphysical temperament whose overcoming resides in the deliberate and careful cultivation

of the phenomenological attitude, that is, in the internalizing of the liberal temper, letting

beings be and in living and letting others live. Radical faith for us means holding a

compelling point of view, appreciating the value of antagonistic points of view and showing

why your point of view is a better approximation of reality. That is the flourishing of the

liberal temper. That is the ennobling and empowerment of man.

20
From the foregoing, the point has been driven home that to the extent that every science

investigates an aspect of reality, every science proceeds primarily as metaphysics. Besides,

since every science thinks14 out the meaning of the concepts it employs to comprehend reality

and since every thinking-out of the meaning of a concept is philosophy or metaphysics, every

science is invariably metaphysical.

Having set the sciences in motion metaphysics began to receive a bashing from the sciences

which now clamour to extricate themselves from the mother discipline. The sciences,

especially natural science began to conceive ―reality as a system of processes governed

everywhere by the law of causality‖15. The conspiracy to expunge metaphysics from the

sciences crystallized in positivism. But by making a definitive pronouncement on reality, that

is, by insisting that reality is a ―system of processes governed everywhere by the law of

causality,‖ positivism elevated itself to the rank of classical metaphysics. Without realising it,

this is how positivism becomes the metaphysics of science.

What this simultaneous rejection of and return to metaphysics by positivism signifies is that

the sciences are threadbare without metaphysics. Insofar as they clarify concepts and employ

them to organise the chaos of experience into connectedness and universality and in as much

as they raise the question of the ground of their being, metaphysics remains the foundation of

the sciences. Thus, rather than resort to the wild goose chase of trying to exterminate

metaphysics, we should settle down to rejuvenate it.

We should explore16 phenomenologically those elements of finite human mind which make it

possible for us to metaphysise. Such exploration would not entertain a patchwork on

traditional metaphysics much less the positivistic thinking to which it gave rise. The

14
See R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of History. (London, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956), p. 196
15
Ibid., p. 184
16
The exploration of phenomenological metaphysics has been executed by this writer in Heidegger: Through
Kant to Fundamental Ontology, (1996) and On Being: Lectures on the Ontology of Man, (2001).

21
rejuvenation exercise, if it is to be sufficiently radical, must go down to our interiority to

uncover what Heidegger calls the source of the objectivity factory – that without which

objective knowledge of all sorts would not be possible, of which Kant intimated that every

man has a natural propensity to actualize in some form or other. Since no rejuvenation

exercise can throw the whole concept of metaphysics overboard, the new project being

proposed here will crystallize in a phenomenological metaphysics.

3.7.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

What is the know-it-all attitude that involves holding a view doggedly and dogmatically?

3.7.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Neo-metaphysicism

3.8 Summary of Study Session 3

In this study session, you have learnt what metaphysics is as a core branch of philosophy.

You have learnt what metaphysics means, the major concepts that makes up the study of

metaphysics and the problems in philosophy that metaphysics tries to raise and resolve. The

session has introduced you to the link between metaphysics and the sciences, as well as what

it means to being metaphysical and being a metaphysician. This study has been able to help

you understand the traditional metaphysical thinking and the phenomenological temperament

that reacts to it.

22
3.8.1 References / Suggestions for Further Reading

Anyanwu, K. C. (1981). The African worldview and theory of knowledge. In African

philosophy: An Introduction to the main philosophical trends in contemporary Africa.

Rome, Italy: Catholic Book Agency.

Ayer, A.J. (1964). Language, truth and logic. London, England: Victor Gollancz.

Collingwood, R.G. (1956). The idea of history. London, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heidegger, Martin. (1968). What is called thinking? F. Wieck and G. Gray (Trans.). New

York, NY: Harper and Row.

Heidegger, Martin. (1962). Being and time. Translated by J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson.

Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.

Heidegger, Martin. (1962). Kant and the problem of metaphysics. Translated by J. S.

Churchill. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press.

Unah, J. I. (1996) Metaphysics, phenomenology and African philosophy. Ibadan, Nigeria:

Hope Publication.

Unah, J. I. (1988). Disguised denials of African philosophy. Journal of African Philosophy

and Studies, 1(1 & 2).

Unah, J. I. (1995). Essays in philosophy. Lagos, Nigeria: Panaf Press.

23
 STUDY SESSION 4

EPISTEMOLOGY AS A BRANCH OF PHILOSOPHY

4.1 Introduction

This study session looks at epistemology as a branch of philosophy. It essentially examines

the nature of human knowledge; that is, what does it mean to say that someone knows

something. In this session, you will learn about the extent to which humans can know; that is,

how much do we or can we really know? You will be provided with a systematic overview of

the problems that the question above raises thereby focusing in some depth on issues relating

to the structure and various conception of knowledge. It fundamentally examines rationalism

and empiricism as the two main epistemological positions that reacted to the challenge of

scepticism on the possibility and plausibility of absolute certainty of knowledge. The

systematic treatment and meticulous explanations of types of knowledge in this study session

is aimed at ensuring you have a comprehensive general understanding of the subject matter of

epistemology.

4.1.1 Learning Outcomes for Study Session 4

When you have studied this session, you should be able to:

1. Define knowledge;

2. Show the relationship between memory and knowledge;

3. Define and analyse skepticism;

4. List the types of knowledge; and

1
 5. List the theories of truth.

4.2 Conceptions of Knowledge

Knowledge has been defined in various ways. One who claims to identify a particular person,

place or thing may regard himself/herself as having knowledge of these things. This can be

equated to be knowledge by identification. Is knowledge identification? One may claim to

know the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Lagos because one could identify him. But

there is more to knowing the Vice-Chancellor than merely identifying him.

Epistemology is a call to reflect on all the justifiable claims of common sense. Common

sense makes uncritical claim to many things. However, it is historically and culturally

limited, full of deception and uncertain. Even if we are impressed by the feeling of knowing

so many things due to our familiarity with such objects, such claims when subjected to

epistemic x-ray reveals at best that we do not know them.

However, it is common knowledge that the knower must be willing to know. If anything,

admitting ignorance helps us to seek knowledge. Curiosity also fuels the attempt to discover

knowledge. A. J. Ayer calls our attention to three important conditions for knowledge.

According to him, what we know must be true, we must be sure of it, and we must also have

the right to be sure. Roderich Chisholm further states that what we know must be reasonable

and plausible.

4.2.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

What is the subject matter of Epistemology?

2
4.2.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Knowledge

4.3 Knowledge as Acquaintance

Knowledge by acquaintance is explicated in knowing where, why and how. Some

philosophers have considered that knowledge is acquaintance. The knower must be

acquainted with the object of knowledge. For the rationalists, this acquaintance is not

sensory but ratiocinative. The man who knows, according to Plato, is acquainted with the

Real (in the world of ideas). His soul has perceived the real before its contact with the body.

Through the analogies of the „line‟ and „cave,‟ Plato brings to a climax his substantive theory

of knowledge and his illustration of objective knowledge. In The Republic, we are made to

understand that the process of reasoning about our sensation begins at the mental stage of

belief. Plato conceives of belief as the intermediate level between knowledge and opinion. It

is the contemplation of forms that brings the philosopher to the realm of understanding.

Forms are the only objects of knowledge. Knowledge at this level is basically that of

generalization and abstraction. For Plato, therefore, knowledge is a kind of intellectual

perception and nothing in the perceptible world meets this condition.

Plato therefore views knowledge as acquaintance of the mind or reason with the original

objects. The objects of knowledge are the essences provided by Forms of things. The true

objects are in the world of Ideas. To attain genuine knowledge, according to Plato, we have to

rise above the level of sense perception boarding the vehicle of dialectics (with the aid of

reason) to the world of forms.

3
4.3.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

For the rationalists, acquaintance is not sensory but _______

4.3.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Ratiocinative

4.4 Praxis: The Marxist Position

The Marxist claims that knowledge can be explicated in practice. Cognition is the act of

passing from one set of knowledge to a deeper set of knowledge in the movement towards

even fuller objective truth. Karl Marx held that human thought and activities are part of a

larger material universe. Knowledge is the property of matter. Knowing is viewed as a

function of an agent, while sense knowledge and rational knowledge are distinguished.

Knowledge, including logical laws, is the immediate contact of the first signal system with

the dialectic. Our ontology also defines our epistemology. The fact that we are social animals

gives our knowledge a social character. Our attributions of knowledge are context and

content sensitive as well as epoch related.

Marxists also believe that knowledge is historically conditioned. It is both sensible and

mental, but not as conceived by either the idealists or agnostics. According to Mach, the

Marxists conception of appearance, in contradistinction to reality, is based on what they call

practice. This practice is mostly based on theory. Lenin criticizes this view of Mach as

coloured by Mach's idealist bias. According to Marxist-Leninists' view, there are no

comprehensive concepts within which the theory of knowledge can operate other than

concepts of being and thinking, matter and sensation, physical and mental.

4
Marxists hold that acquaintance with the object of knowledge is done through the human

brain. Thought and consciousness are also product of the human brain. Matter is not a

product of the mind. On the contrary, mind is the highest product of matter. Knowledge at the

theoretical level is given content by practice and is epochal. It becomes more advanced

through the dynamics of social interaction and the relevant advancement of that particular

epoch.

4.4.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

In what way can the Marxist approach to knowledge be explicated?

4.4.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

In practice

4.5 Knowledge as Awareness

The second definition of knowledge to be considered is that knowledge is awareness.

Philosophers who proposed this view believe that what we know is what we are aware of.

The view that what is known is a product of awareness spans through the history of

philosophy. Philosophers like St. Augustine made distinction between the immediate

awareness and spiritual awareness. Awareness is, however, a product of the soul's perception.

Our immediate awareness could be the product of sense-experience or internal mental

experience. Knowledge is also the strongest degree of awareness that human beings possess.

Knowledge can be defined (with justification) in terms of states of conscious awareness in

which objects are presented in someone‟s mind. Knowledge can be applied also to

intelligently adjusted behaviour. That is, man who knows the danger of cigarette to healthy

living will desist from smoking. Socrates and Plato will proffer that ignorance is the cause of

5
wrongdoing. Knowledge can be applied to a disposition or readiness to be conscious of

certain things or to behave in certain ways.

4.5.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

What types of awareness did Augustine make a distinction between?

4.5.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Immediate awareness and spiritual awareness

4.6 Knowledge as Involvement

Knowledge may be conceived as involvement. You can learn a language by speaking it.

You drive a car by learning to do so. The act of being a mother is by being involved in

raising children, etc. Knowledge that is culturally delineated is acquired in this way. The

culture of a people is what makes it possible to distinguish one who knows from one who

does not know. It helps us to identify the foreigner and the child1. Often we acquire skills

and competence through such involvement.

In Platonic terms, such involvement could be a discourse between a pupil and a teacher. It

helps the soul to recollect or recover the things it has learnt in the world of Forms. For an

empiricist, involvement may entail practical activities and the use of one's cognitive

resources. Involvement produces competence and performance. Competence and

performance produce diversity of things such as faith. Knowledge can therefore be a product

of faith.

4.6.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

1
J.F. Llyotard “A report on Knowledge”. In Natoli and Hutcheon, ed., A Postmodern Reader. (Albabny: State
University of New York, 1993), p. 71-90

6
What, in the Platonic sense does involvement aim at?

4.6.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

It helps the soul to recollect or recover the things it has learnt in the world of Forms

4.7 Knowledge of the Heart

Knowledge may also be conceived as that which is perceived by the mind. The mind is like

the secret seat of ideas, a theatre where ideas pass and re-pass, the place where ideas are

conjoined into complexes. The mind relates ideas to one another. It modifies the output of

sense perception. Knowledge is that which is perceived by the heart. The heart perception is

the kind of knowledge that is virtue related. Philosophers like David Hume and Miguel de

Unamuno argued that moral acts are the result of the heart's perception. Such acts are related

to feelings.

The knowledge that is action related has been described as knowledge of the heart. John

Locke also came close to this view in his ethics. He situates all morality as a product of

sentiments or feelings. Knowledge by the heart influences our actions or reforms our

behaviour. It may bring about counter claims which further produce inaction or negative

action in that particular individual. But knowledge of the heart produces a feeling on

persuasion that disabuses our mind from immoral acts, as murder, stealing, adultery,

blackmailing, etc. that reason may find an excuse for. Knowledge of the heart also produces

conviction, repentance and adjusted behaviour. Why so? The man that knows will desist from

wrongdoing.

4.7.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Which philosophers argued that moral acts are the result of the heart's perception?

7
4.7.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

David Hume and Miguel de Unamuno

4.8 Knowledge and Belief

Knowledge and belief are often misunderstood to mean the same thing. Knowledge can entail

belief, but belief cannot entail knowledge. Knowledge is justified belief. To have knowledge

of a thing is to be sure, have proof or evidence for it. By looking through my window and

seeing people carrying umbrellas, I then proceed to believe that it is raining whereas it is not

so. Hence, it is always better for us to investigate our claims to knowledge before we accept it

as knowledge.

Belief may stem from ignorance. Hamlyn defines belief as a “a state of mind in which

propositions are taken to be true". Pierce defines belief “as the rule of action and so long as it

lasts, it is a strong habit”. Thus, the common thing about belief is that propositions are

accepted as true, or habits are perpetuated on the ground of lack of proof.

Plato made a critical discourse on the identification of knowledge with belief in the

Theaetetus. He exposes the paradox involved when we talk about false belief. False belief is a

belief in nothing. It is an error of missing the mark that we call false belief. The error may be

as a result of perception. Is knowledge true belief? For Plato, true relief is not a sufficient

condition of knowledge. For example, orators and lawyers do make their audience believe

what they wish about an "eyewitness" account. Plato points out the difference between

knowledge and belief by saying that for one to truly know one needs to be acquainted with

the truth just like the eyewitness is acquainted with every phenomena. The best that the judge

and the audience can claim is that they are persuaded from the evidences before them and that

they truly believe. True belief is not the same as knowledge. Plato also demonstrates the

8
absurdity of proposing that true belief plus logos equals knowledge. In a satirical tone, he

calls it an "extremely darkened counsel". According to Plato, knowledge is infallible,

absolute, immutable and eternal. These qualities cannot be true of belief. Therefore, the

difference between knowledge and belief is like that between sleep and death.

4.8.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

In what way can you distinguish knowledge from belief?

4.8.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Knowledge can entail belief, but belief cannot entail knowledge. Knowledge is justified

belief.

4.9 Memory and Knowledge

It is doubtful if knowledge is possible without memory. Memory is the storehouse of the

mind. Memory is the recorder of all events and activities we encounter on a daily basis.

Memory is what has been learnt and not forgotten. As the storehouse of ideas and recorder of

events, memory helps us in the performance of the following:

(i) Remembering of past events, i.e. retentive memory or current memory.

(ii) It helps in the association of ideas.

(iii) It helps in the development of new ideas, etc.

The importance of memory to human life cannot be exhausted. Without memory, man will

simply become an imbecile. In fact, we cannot talk of human beings with reason or

intelligence without recourse to memory. Our memory of an event when factual exposes the

truth of our acquaintance with that particular event.

9
4.9.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

List one function performed by memory

4.9.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Remembering past events, i.e. retentive memory or current memory

4.10 Scepticism

Sceptics deny the possibility and plausibility of absolute knowledge. They were philosophers

who made theories of knowledge necessary. The first sceptic in ancient Greece were the

Sophists, who challenged the claim to absolute, certain and indubitable knowledge. They held

that knowledge is relative. This makes man the measure of what is and what is not. Gorgias, a

sceptic, says knowledge cannot be communicated. If one succeeds in verbalizing one's

knowledge in word, it cannot be comprehended because the vital element of knowledge:

acquaintance is missing. What that individual expresses are words, but for words to be

meaningful, the recipient will need personal acquaintance with the objects of knowledge.

Academic sceptics such as Arcesilaus (315-240B.C),Carneades (213-128B.C), Cicero,

Sextus, Empiricus and Diogenes Laertius, rejected Plato‟s metaphysical and mystical

doctrines. Their main focus was on the Socratic dictum: “All that I know is that I know

nothing”. Arcesilaus and Carneades reacted to the Stoics' and Epicureans' claims that some

perception could not possibly be false. Carneades argued that there are no distinguishing

features between illusory perception and veridical ones. Therefore, he recommends that we

should suspend judgment.

The Pyrrohian School is another brand of scepticism. Their views have been attributed to

Pyrroh of Ellis (360-270B.C). Pyrrohism was developed by Aenesidemus, Pyrroh's successor,

10
their major achievement is in developing ways of carrying on sceptical argumentation in

order to produce epochs (i.e. suspension of judgment) about matters that deal with 'what is

non-evident.' Pyrroh doubts the powers of the human mind to penetrate the inner nature of

things.

Nevertheless, scepticism can serve as a tool to overhaul our stockpile of ignorance. Rene

Descartes used scepticism in this manner. It can help us to discover the extent of the freedom

of our will and the activities of our minds in our knowledge claims. Hume's exposition gives

a lucid account of such importance. It helps to sift objects of belief from that of knowledge.

Scepticism has always led to advancement of knowledge. It reveals the dynamics of

knowledge.

4.10.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Who were the first group of sceptics in ancient Greece?

4.10.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

The Sophists

4.11 Error and Knowledge

Error could be defined as "incorrect judgement", "a mistaken judgement", or simply put, "a

judgement that affirms what is not the case". Error is something we commit either

accidentally or with preconceived thought. The basic question defining the domain of

epistemology is the concept of knowledge. Error as conceived by epistemologists is a scandal

to knowledge; an obstruction to the process of objective knowledge. The phenomenon of

error is therefore of paramount concern to the two main schools of thought in epistemology:

rationalism and empiricism. Empiricism sees error as a phenomenon ingrained in human

11
reason while rationalism dismisses error as an attribute of the senses. Human mind is prone to

error simply because man by nature is imperfect. Man is a limited being and finite in all

capacity. Rene Descartes, for example, says error is a scandal to knowledge. His rules for the

directions of the mind were geared towards eliminating error from human knowledge. The

way out of error, for Rene Descartes, is that we should keep to the four rules. Thus:

(i) "Avoid carefully precipitancy and prejudice and apply my judgement to nothing but

that which showed itself so clearly and distinctly to my mind that I should not have occasion

to doubt it;

(ii) Divide each difficulty into as many parts as possible;

(iii) Conduct my mind in an orderly fashion, starting with what was simplest and easiest

to know, and rising little by little to the knowledge of the most complex, even supposing an

order where there is no natural precedence among the objects of knowledge; and

(iv) Make so complete an enumeration of the links in an argument, and pass them all so

thoroughly under review, that I could be sure I had missed nothing”.2

What are the sources and effects of error? Error stems from wrong judgment, prejudice,

pride, self-will, fatigue, haste, confused reasoning, wishful-thinking, reliance on hunch,

inattention or carelessness. Error can also occur in our mind in both cases of reasoning and

recollection. It can occur in the process of recollecting the past or as a result of mistaken

memory belief. Error is an impediment to societal development. It obstructs intellectual

development; leads to loss of lives and properties, and impedes cohesiveness of thought.

4.11.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

2
Cited in Karo Ogbinaka, A Window into Philosophy, (Lagos: Obaroh & Ogbinaka Publishers Ltd.), p.
27

12
What is error?

4.11.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Error could be defined as "incorrect judgement", "a mistaken judgement", or simply put, "a

judgement that affirms what is not the case".

4.12 Types of Knowledge

There are different types of knowledge as well as different use of the word “knowledge” in

philosophy. Let us proceed to examine the types of knowledge.

A priori knowledge: A priori knowledge is the kind of knowledge whose validity is

independent of experience. Immanuel Kant coined this terminology. Kant explained that we

possess “a priori” intuition of space and time. A priori knowledge is intuitively evident. This

type of knowledge begins with our understanding of the contents of notions or what is often

the same. A priori knowledge is based on our understanding of concepts, universals or

meanings. It is knowledge of essence and necessity. A priori knowledge is innate in nature. It

is "knowledge acquired before any investigation of facts. When a priori knowledge is

expressed in a proposition, it is called a necessary proposition, e.g. “All husbands are married

men”. Thus, the understanding of the word “husband” implicitly entails „being married”. A

priori propositions are necessarily true.

A posteriori knowledge: A posteriori knowledge is knowledge whose validity derives from

matters of fact and experience. A posteriori knowledge is empirical in nature and therefore

not necessarily certain. Accordingly, we have synthetic propositions and synthetic a priori -

propositions according to Kant.

13
A proposition is said to be analytic if the meaning of the predicate term is contained in the

meaning of the subject, e.g., “A spinster is an unmarried lady”. A proposition is synthetic if

the meaning of the predicate term is not contained in the subject term, e.g., “Mrs. Kehinde is

a lecturer”.

Necessary versus Contingent Proposition: A proposition is said to be necessary if it is true

under all possible circumstances or conditions. A proposition is contingent if it is true in

some but not all possible circumstances. Most contingent propositions are a posteriori.

Religious Knowledge: Religious knowledge is either a product of feeling, emotion, reason,

or faith. Religious knowledge could be the experience of an individual or of a community of

people on religious ideas. Most religious knowledge are said to be the product of revelation.

The revelation could be of private individual, or prophets, it could be God's revelation of

Himself through the Holy Spirit or nature. In the cases of religious knowledge through

revealed authority, it is usually a product of faith. Philosophers have sought to explicate

grounds for religious knowledge through rational arguments, faith or even arguments

deriving from emotion or nature. Philosophers are in three groups, the agnostics, the theists

and atheists on the basis of their position on religious knowledge.

4.12.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

List two types of knowledge

4.12.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

A priori and A posteriori

4.13 Sources of Knowledge

14
Two main epistemological positions reacted to the Sophists' challenge. They are rationalism

and empiricism. They have both engendered a lot of controversies since ancient Greek times.

Knowledge, according to the proponents of these two theories, is attainable. It is by its very

nature, objective and true. Nevertheless, they also expressed their differences of opinion as to

the faculties responsible for the attainment of knowledge. We shall, as examples, examine

two proponents of these schools. They are Baruch Spinoza (a rationalist) and John Locke (an

empiricist).

Rationalism: The term 'rationalism' is from the Latin word ratio, which means reason.

Rationalism is the view that reason, expressing itself through mathematical method, can lead

to the attainment of true and certain knowledge. The rationalists mistrust the senses and

adhere firmly to reason. The father of this school of thought in modern times is Rene

Descartes. Nevertheless, Plato anticipated rationalism.

Baruch Spinoza(1632-1677) was a rationalist. In part two of his book: Ethics, Spinoza

identifies three levels of the mind's operation based on innate ideas of the mind, thus:

confused ideas, adequate ideas and intuitive ideas. According to him, these three operations

lead us to knowledge of the human mind. An idea is conceived by him as the conception of

mind by reason of its being a thinking thing.

Confused ideas are a product of the perception of the human mind in the common order of

nature. Whenever the idea in the mind is determined externally to contemplate things in

isolation, the mind has confused ideas. An example is the duration of our body. The mind's

existence is determined by certain causes which are also determined by other causes ad

infinitum. Inadequate knowledge stems from the fact that things are outside us and are

individual. For we have no adequate knowledge concerning their duration. Spinoza

distinguished reason from imagination. Reason involves adequate ideas and scientific

15
knowledge. The knowledge of reason is clearly and distinctly perceived by all. The human

mind is the seat of adequate and inadequate ideas. Nevertheless, adequate ideas have

reference to God and they are true.

Adequate and instinctive knowledge, according to Spinoza, are necessarily true because they

proceed from an adequate idea of the formal essence of certain attributes of God to adequate

knowledge of the essence of things. According to him, true idea involves certainty. He

asks,"... What then can be clearer or more certain than a true idea to be standards of truth?”

Reason, according to Spinoza, perceives reality. It perceives necessity, which he calls the

eternal nature of God.

Intuitive knowledge, according to him proceeds from an adequate idea of formal essence of

certain attributes of God to adequate knowledge of the essence of things. This level is the

highest form of knowledge. The intuitive level is the level at which the unity between the

individual and the universal is perceived at a glance.

Spinoza, in his essay: "Treatise on the Correction of the Understanding,” identifies four levels

of knowledge, thus: perception by hearsay, vague experience, the level of concluding the

essence of a thing from another, and perceiving a thing through its essence alone. Spinoza

argues that the true method of knowing consists in seeking the objective essence or idea of

things in their proper order. A true idea, according to him is distinct from the ideal about

which one possesses this idea. A true idea must also be intelligible in itself and certain. The

objective essence is innate "for in order to know that I know, I must necessarily first know”.

Intuitive knowledge is innate and derives from God. God is the foundation of Spinoza‟s

epistemology. And the knowledge of God is the highest possible knowledge that gives

blessedness. Spinoza, however, drifts from viewing knowledge objectively as a rational

exercise. He employs the use of reason into mystical conceptions and coloured it with his

16
pantheistic view. This view made his epistemology, like his ethics, deterministic. A true idea,

he affirms, is an absolute necessity. Truth for him involves the eternal and infinite essence of

God Spinoza also assimilates all truth into necessary truth. He would not have done this if he

had considered knowledge purely as an objective entity.

Empiricism: John Locke is the father of classical empiricism. Locke's main concern was to

"inquire into the original certainty, and extent of human knowledge, together with the

grounds and degrees of belief and opinion and assent”. He declares that all our knowledge

comes from experience. According to him, our knowledge ultimately derives from

observation. Therefore, experience is the source of all human ideas. John Locke defines

experience in two ways;

(i) Sensation, that is, the use of our senses in coming in contact with the sensible; and

(ii) Reflection, which is the operation of our mind within us.

According to John Locke, ideas are furnished through experiences; cognition has to do with

conversing with those objects of our sensation. He is of the view that ideas must always be

related to or stimulated by perception. For Locke, knowledge derives from experience and a

child comes to know by degrees. If a child were kept in a place where he never saw any other

colour except black and white until he were a man, that child would have no idea of scarlet or

green than he that has never tasted an oyster or pineapple.

Thought is always related to perception. Locke believes that reason or thinking faculty is

developed by the impact of the senses. Ideas have their origin in sensation. There was no

idea in the mind prior to the senses. In the process of reflection, the mind converts the

impression to objects of its contemplation. The mind does this by its own operations.

17
In book four of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, John Locke conceives of

knowledge as the act of being conversant with ideas. The senses offer to the mind and reason

objects of contemplation. He affirms that sensation is made possible through the mind‟s

experience or reflection. John Locke anticipated the view of the complementarist. For John

Locke our knowledge derives from the agreement or disagreement of two ideas. Locke's

empirical stand becomes more questionable in his exposition of the degrees of knowledge. He

recognizes the following degrees of knowledge; (a) intuitive, (b) demonstrative, and (c)

sensitive.

Intuitive knowledge is perceived directly by the mind without the intervention of any other

idea. It is the clearest kind of knowledge that the human frailty is capable of. The difference

between intuitive and demonstrative knowledge is that the mind does not perceive the

agreement and disagreement immediately.

Demonstrative knowledge may derive from memory, conviction with proofs. The proofs are

not easy to come by and are not without preceding doubt, which are not so clear. In

establishing the proof, each step must be intuitive.

Sensitive Knowledge, according to John Locke is evident and certain, to the knower in sense

experience. Locke is of the view that sensitive knowledge is so obvious that it does not need

proof. The proof that accompanies sense perception is sensation, which is enough evidence

.From John Locke's perspective, reason signifies various things. Reason helps the

enlargement of our knowledge. It regulates our assent. It assists all other faculties in the

cognitive process. It also has to do with knowledge and opinion. This faculty contains two of

the intellectual faculties, i.e., sagacity and elation. He noted that there are four degrees in

reason.

18
Finally, let us look at Locke's tabula rasa. In the Essay, he declares that all our knowledge

derives from experience. The mind at birth is a "white paper void of all characters, without

any ideas”. The white paper recalls impressions from both sense perception and reflection.

By this presentation, John Locke reduces to absurdity the view that the soul knows ideas

independently of the body. If the mind at birth is actually void of all characters and without

ideas, the capacity to comprehend may be denied. For Locke, we derive meaning by an

elaboration of sense data.

4.13.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

List 2 Sources of Knowledge

4.13.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Empiricism (Sense perception) and Rationalism (reason)

4.14 Theories of Truth

Truth conveys some sense of objectivity, it also signals the attainment of a standard. In some

sense, truth could be co-terminus with fact, but this does not mean that truth is the same thing

as fact. Fact deals with what is evidential. This is why we have to investigate a thing to know

the facts involved before we can accept it as true. In investigating, we acquire knowledge

about the object of investigation. It is in this sense that knowledge and truth are interrelated.

There are theories of truth.

Coherence Theory of Truth: Coherence theory takes truth to consist in relations of

coherence among a set of beliefs. This deals with the coherence of the judgment of

propositions, beliefs, or arguments. Something is coherently true if it is rational, justified, and

is characterized by internal relation in such a way that the part gets its meaning from the

19
whole. This method of reasoning is common among rationalists and idealists such as Leibniz,

Spinoza, Hegel and Bradley.

Correspondence Theory of Truth: This is truth at the level of evidence or fact. It could be

at the level of identity, resemblance, or correlation. The important thing here is that what is

said or described must be seen to have direct relationship with real life situation. Propositions

of the correspondence nature must state or describe real life situations. Correspondence

theories take the truth of a proposition, not in its relations to other propositions, but in its

relations to the world, its correspondence to the facts. Both Russell and Wittgenstein offered

definitions of truth as correspondence of a proposition to a fact.

Pragmatic Theory of Truth: Truth is defined as success in practice. The philosophical name

for this is pragmatism. It is a theory of truth that is prominent among American philosophers.

The theory states that something is true if it has positive, practical relevance to human life.

Anything that cannot be proved to have relevance to life cannot be said to be true, and should

be discarded. Peirce, James and Dewey offered characteristically pragmatic account of truth,

which combined coherence and correspondence elements. According to the maxim of

pragmatism, the meaning of the concept is to be given by a reference to the practical or

experimental consequences of its application.

Redundancy Theory of Truth: This theory of truth states that asserting that a statement is

true is completely equivalent to asserting the statement itself. Suppose first that it is explicitly

given, then it is evident that the proposition, "it is true that Unilag is in Lagos" means no

more than that "Unilag is in Lagos"; and also the proposition, "It is false that Unilag is in

Lagos" means no more than that Unilag is not in Lagos. The theory is commonly attributed to

Frank P. Ramsey, who argued that the use of words like facts and truth was nothing but a

roundabout way of asserting a proposition, and that treating these words as separate problems

20
in isolation from judgement was merely a "linguistic muddle". So the prefix, "It is true" is

redundant, it is inactive because to say that it is true that p, is equivalent to saying that p.

Performative Theory of Truth: P. F. Strawson is the main proponent of this theory. The

theory states that truth is the expression of action. For example, the expression "it is raining"

is performative because it expresses an action, i.e. "raining". Strawson invented the

performative theory of truth to supplement Ramsey's Redundancy Theory of Truth. Both

theories of truth, i.e. redundancy and performative theories of truth are meant to correct

wrong expressions in the stating of a truth. Truth, Ramsey and Strawson believe, should be

expressed in simple or atomic language instead of metalinguistic expressions, which lead to

error. For example, instead of describing the properties of an action, it is better to describe the

action itself.

4.14.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

List the classical theories of truth

4.14.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Correspondence theory, Coherence theory and Pragmatic theory of truth

4.15 Importance of Epistemology

Epistemology helps to rid our mind of confusion or delusion about the thing we claim to

know by revealing to us the dangers in accepting without question the verdict of common

sense. Epistemology offers us a rational basis for change and permanence in our conception

of reality, either on the abstract level, individual or in the conception of social relation.

Epistemology helps us to develop a critical attitude to our claims to knowledge. It helps to

awaken our consciousness to the relation between what we know and our actual behaviour. In

21
essence, the epistemic exposure helps to improve our social relation. The man who knows the

good ought to lead the good life.

It helps to reveal the subjective side of our cognitive activity thereby increasing our

appreciation of other views or many views of a particular issue. Epistemological ponderings

help us to confront issues of the most fundamental type. The theory of knowledge is a

reflection of man's creative competence. Epistemology is related in a special way to all the

various branches of philosophy such as Ethics, Metaphysics, Aesthetics, and philosophy of

all other disciplines.

As a science of knowing, it probes into what constitutes human life and human consciousness

and what constitutes philosophy, it evaluates the ultimate value of metaphysics, ethics,

aesthetics and other allied disciplines that touch on human existence. Epistemology queries

how such values are derived, the rules, the techniques of critical thinking, the right or correct

reasoning underlying their epistemic claims.

Epistemology provides the foundation for a general evaluation of human behaviour. It also

queries the general nature of human knowledge as decided by the various social sciences and

science. Epistemology makes explicit the fact that man's social relations are permeated with

man's ideas about reality. That is, a man cannot relate above his level of cognition.

Epistemology inspires confidence because it exposes the common-sense perspective. It

invites everyone to journey beyond absurdities in order to discover the truth and the real.

Epistemology refines our sensitivity to differences and reinforces our ability to tolerate the

inconceivable.

Epistemology, above all, prepares our mind to discover what we do not know, recovers what

we can know and questions that for which we have no clear perspective. It helps us to situate

others and ourselves in the proper context towards unveiling our being, environment and that

22
which is beyond. It reveals to us that interaction with nature transforms not only nature but

also itself. It reveals the relationship between man's epochs and its knowledge. Epistemology

helps us to discover what is not knowledge. Knowledge is not a hunch or lucky guess.

Respect for truth as a regulative idea in our intellectual endeavours is absolutely necessary for

the development of clear and critical thinking. Epistemology therefore helps us to develop a

critical attitude to our claims to knowledge. It helps to awaken our consciousness to the

relation between what we know and our actual behaviour. In essence, epistemic exposure

helps to improve our social relation.

4.15.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Give at least 3 importance of epistemology

4.15.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

1. Epistemology makes explicit the fact that man's social relations are permeated with man's

ideas about reality. 2. Epistemology inspires confidence because it exposes the common-

sense perspective. 3. Epistemology refines our sensitivity to differences and reinforces our

ability to tolerate the inconceivable.

4.16 Summary of Study Session 4

In this study session, you have learnt what epistemology is, understanding it as the study of

our method of acquiring knowledge. It answers the question, "How do we know?" It

encompasses the nature of concepts, the constructing of concepts, the validity of the senses,

logical reasoning, as well as thoughts, ideas, memories, emotions, and all things mental. We

have seen how epistemology is concerned with how our minds are related to reality, and

23
whether these relationships are valid or invalid. Epistemology is the explanation of how we

think. It is required in order to be able to determine the true from the false, by determining a

proper method of evaluation. It is needed in order to use and obtain knowledge of the world

around us. Without epistemology, we could not think. More specifically, we would have no

reason to believe our thinking was productive or correct, as opposed to random images

flashing before our mind. With an incorrect epistemology, we would not be able to

distinguish truth from error.

4.16.1 References / Suggestions for Further Reading

Blakeleley, J. B. (1974). Soviet theory of knowledge. Holland: D. Reidel.

Boydston, J. A. (1991). The collected works of John Dewey, J. A. Boydston (Ed.).

Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Copleston, F. (1964). A history of Western philosophy. New York, NY: Image Books.

Hamlyn, D. W. (1988). The theory of knowledge. Hong Kong: Macmillan.

Kehinde, E. O. (1998/99). The complementarist answer to absolute epistemological theories.

The Nigerian Journal of Philosophy, 17(1 & 2).

Kirkham, R. (1992). Theories of truth: A critical introduction. Cambridge, England: MIT

Press.

Llyotard, J. F. (1993), A report on knowledge. In J. Natoli and L. Hutcheon (Eds.), A

postmodern reader. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Locke, J (1960). An essay concerning human understanding. London, England: Fontana &

Collins.

24
Ogbinaka, K. (2013). A window into philosophy. Lagos, Nigeria: Joja Educational Research

Publishers.

Peirce, C. S. (1983). Studies in logic. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Plato, (1976). The republic. F. M. Comford (Ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Russell, B. (1948). Human knowledge: Its scope and limit. New York, NY: Simon &

Schuster.

Russell, B. (1912). The problems of philosophy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Strawson, P. F. (1952). Introduction to logical theory. London, England: Methuen

Unamuno, M. (1974). Selected works of Miguel De Unamuno 5: The agony of Christianity

and essays on faith. Translated by A. Kerrigan. Princeton, NY: Princeton University

Press.

25
 STUDY SESSION 5

ETHICS AND AESTHETICS

5.1 Introduction

This study session introduces you to Ethics and Aesthetics, as a branch of philosophy and a

theory of value. Our concern, therefore, will be to expose you to the meaning, nature and

scope of ethics and aesthetics. You will be learning about the various branches of ethics and

aesthetics, as well as appreciate the theories that make up the evolution of these branches of

philosophy. This study session will also examine some of the problems which these branches

aim to address and further show the social and personal significance of ethics and aesthetics.

5.1.1 Learning Outcomes for Study Session 5

When you have studied this session, you should be able to:

1. Define Ethics and Aesthetics;

2. Show the relationship between Ethics and Morality;

3. List the types of Ethics;

4. List the theories of Aesthetics; and

5. State the significance of Ethics and Aesthetics.

5.2 The Meaning of Ethics

1
The word, ethics, comes from the Greek word, ethos, which means character or custom.1 The

etymology of ethics suggests that its basic concerns are the character, attitudes and conducts

of individuals and groups and the social rules or customs that govern or limit human

conducts. As a branch of philosophy, ethics is defined in various ways by moral philosophers.

The ancient scholars, such as Socrates and Plato characterized ethics as that branch of

philosophy that teaches us how to live a good life, a life of virtue. In this sense, ethics is a

reflection on our character so as to determine right and wrong behaviour. Ethics is also

defined as the ―philosophical study of morality‖,2 that means it is an attempt to examine the

meaning, nature and principles of morality with the philosophical tools of critical analysis

and conceptual clarification. It is equally conceived as ―the systematic study of the

fundamental principles of the moral law‖3. As a philosophical or systematic study, it

investigates the general guidelines with which human conducts are judged to be good or bad.

In essence, ethics is a critical examination of normative standards that individuals, groups or

societies employ to assess the status of human conducts in the society or institutions.

The idea that ethics is the study of morality suggests that the subject matter of ethics is

morality. What then is morality? Morality ―refers to the person or group’s standards of right

and wrong or good and bad‖4. It is a set of principles that regulate our conducts in the

society. When we reflect critically on our own moral standards or the moral standards of the

society or institutions, we are beginning to do ethics. For instance, as human beings, there are

certain actions that we avoid because we consider them as morally reprehensible actions and

immoral. Those who indulge in those actions are reprimanded and sometimes punished.

Some of these actions include murder, lying, cheating, dishonesty, adultery, embezzlement of

1
Robert C. Solomon, Morality and the Good Life, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), p.3
2
R. S. Downie, Rules and Values, (London: Methuen & co. Ltd 1971), p.1
3
J. I. Omeregbe, Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study, (Lagos, Nigeria: Joja Educational
Research and Publishers Limited, 1993), p.4.
4
William H. Shaw & Vincent Barry, Moral Issues in Business” (Thomson: Wadsworth, 2004), p.4

2
public funds. On the other hand, there are some actions which the society approves of as

moral and those who perform those actions are considered respectable and morally good

people. Such actions include kindness, fidelity, love, truthfulness, honesty, etc. We grow up

to see some of these moral distinctions as practised in the society and culture. We accept

some of the actions as the custom demands. Accordingly, the custom becomes the moral

standard for distinguishing the wrong from the right. In other times, we refer to our

conscience as the determining standard for our conducts. We also appeal to the laws in the

society and equally to our religious standards for the justification of our actions. Yet, these

standards of moral judgments are neither sacrosanct nor self-justifying. They require critical

examinations; Ethics helps us to critically examine these standards of morality in order to

have a more enlightened approach to our conducts and social relations. It prescribes ideal

normative standards for regulating human conducts.

5.2.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Ethics comes from which Greek word?

5.2.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Ethos

5.3 The Scope of Ethics

Ethics is a core branch of philosophy. It is concerned with extremely important issues in

human life; this is precisely because it directs our attention to human morality and to values

that are fundamental for human meaningful existence and cohabitation. By focusing on

human morality and values, it shows us the ways to conduct ourselves, in every aspect of

3
human commitments, so that we live a good life, a life of well-being, fulfillment and

happiness.

A society propelled by ethical precepts is a much disciplined one. A disciplined society is a

morally healthy and fit society. If the members of a community adhere to moral codes of

conduct, the community would most likely experience peace and harmony, and people would

have a sense of belonging and therefore see it as a matter of duty to make sure that justice

reigns supreme. In fact, the life of society, in the normal atmosphere, is, indeed, the training

ground of morality. Our moral ideas develop in association with those of other people and are

being constantly criticized and modified by the opinions of others. 5 It becomes rather

problematic for members of any society to do away with morality or throw morality to the

wind. This act can be very detrimental to any society. In other words, a nation that wants to

be great (with regard to development and progress) must encourage the integration of the

fundamental moral principles in every sector of the society. In a society where ethics is the

basic foundation of human relations, individual members and the state consider it as a matter

of duty to ensure a sense of justice, honesty, discipline, tolerance, obedience, patriotism and

loyalty as well as check corruption.

Any society without ethical standards is an undisciplined or an immoral one. An immoral

society is one that is ravaged by malpractice or corruption. It means the members of such a

society have lost the sense of self-control and patience. As a result, all the manifestations of

indiscipline would take their toll, such as corruption, dishonesty, greediness, fraud,

selfishness, neglect of duty, disregard of others, etc. If this situation should become the order

of the day, with time, the entire list of vices above would eat deep into the fabrics of the

society, permeating all its institutional structures. As a result, the society becomes sick. All

5
William Lillie, An Introduction to Ethics, (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. 1948) p. 239.

4
the organs of such a society cannot function properly. Life will become extremely difficult to

live because of insecurity (of life and property). Individuals will be demoralized and

unhappy; lack of peace and self-fulfillment will become the order of the day. Thus, the

country cannot make any headway in terms of meaningful development and progress. Such

immoral society would epitomize the Hobbesian state of anarchy and disorder where the life

of men was nasty, brutish and short.

The empirical sciences are descriptive in nature, but Ethics, as a normative science, is

prescriptive. This is because it prescribes norms, standards and principles which guide human

actions or activities. Again, while the social sciences deal with “what is”, Ethics deals with

“what ought to b”’. Ethics tries to find out how people ―ought‖ to behave. Although Ethics is

actually concerned with the way men ―ought‖ to behave, it mainly aims at providing moral

answers to the numerous ethical questions arising out of human existence.

Moral evaluation and moral judgment are inevitable in ethics. People's actions are evaluated

from a moral point of view. Moral evaluation thus enables us to judge people's actions as

good (reward) or bad (punishment). Moral judgments are, very often, based on moral

principles. It is also advisable to always back up our moral evaluations with justifiable

reasons. This will guard against making moral judgments in vacuum. But one important

question is: what makes an issue a moral issue? About this matter, Barcalow remarks: Moral

issues arise most fundamentally when the choice people face will affect the wellbeing of

others either by increasing or decreasing it, causing either benefit or harm.6

It is true that the decision to eat eba or amala does not affect the wellbeing of others.

Therefore, it does not constitute a moral issue. However, the decision to sell drug represents a

choice that affects the wellbeing of others. Therefore, it constitutes a moral issue. The state of
6
E. Barcalow, Moral Philosophy: Theory and Issues. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
1994. p. 4.

5
wellbeing involved may be physical or psychological. Nevertheless, it is worth nothing that

there is no clear-cut demarcation between moral and non-moral issues. There are people who

claim that even if it is only the agent's wellbeing that is involved, it constitutes a moral issue

– a broad view. After a thorough research, Barcalow came to the conclusion that any form of

behaviour you can think of can be classified as morally prohibited, required or permitted.

Sub-divisions of Ethics

Ethics has three major sub-divisions. These are descriptive ethics, meta-ethics and normative

ethics. Let us examine them.

Descriptive Ethics

Descriptive ethics is a branch of ethics that describes the views, beliefs and principles of

ethics. It explains moral beliefs and practices that are discussed in ethics. It describes the

moral positions that are held by the individuals, groups and societies. For instance, ―stealing

is prohibited in the traditional African society‖ or ―Joseph believes that abortion is morally

good‖ is an example of descriptive ethics.

Meta-ethics

The basic concern of meta-ethics is the analysis of the concepts, language and principles used

in ethics in order to determine their actual meanings, connotations and implications. It

involves a critical analysis of the nature of morality and moral concepts such as good, evil,

duty obligations, moral, immoral, principle, and so on. The analytic philosophers believe that

philosophy is about clarification of concepts. Accordingly, they maintain that the

fundamental preoccupation of ethics is clarification of ethical concepts. Interestingly,

conceptual clarification of ethical concepts is necessary in ethical analysis. This is precisely

because the concepts need to be understood for their proper applications. So, meta-ethical

6
analysis helps to shed more light on the ethical matters and moral claims. This is necessary

because it is not impossible for two people to disagree without knowing that their dispute is

due to their misunderstanding of the concepts in question.

Meta-ethics asks questions such as what does it mean to classify an action to be good or bad?

What does the concept, ―moral goodness‖ entail? What is the difference between right and

wrong? In response to these questions, moral philosophers or ethicists have devised different

theories. Thus, meta-ethical theories include, Naturalism, anti-naturalism, emotivism,

prescriptivism and intuitionism.

Normative Ethics

Normative ethics is an aspect of ethics that deals with the standard norms or principles that

regulate human behaviour. In normative ethics, moral philosophers make moral judgments

and determine what correct moral principles are. It is also in normative ethics that conscious

attempts are made to ―discover some acceptable and morally defensible view concerning

what kinds of acts are good and what kinds of acts are right, and why‖ 7. It raises questions

such as: what are the adequate moral principles for guiding human conduct? Which moral

norms or standard of conducts are worthy of acceptance and for what reason? By responding

to such questions, moral philosophers prescribe principles or norms of conduct. The moral

principles are employed in making moral judgment about specific human conduct.

Simply put, the difference between moral judgment and moral principle is that moral

judgment is about specific human action while moral principle is about human actions and

character. The relationship is that correct moral judgment is based on ideal moral principles.

7
Elliot Sober, op. cit. p.389

7
In making moral judgment scholars employ some normative criteria. Some of the criteria

include the consequences of an action, the intention of the moral agent and the nature of the

action itself. The moral philosophers who see the consequence of an action to be the criteria

of moral judgment argue that it is the result of an action that determines the moral rightness

or wrongness. They maintain that one of the most common characteristics of wrong action is

that it leads to bad result and one of the most common features of right action is that it leads

to good result.8 Those who accept this kind of view are called consequentialists. All

consequentialist theories are referred to as teleological theories. Teleology is from the Greek

word, teleos, which means, end, purpose. So, it is the end or result of an action that

determines its moral status. No action is right or wrong in itself. An example of

consequentialism or teleologism which says an action is right if it yields the greatest benefit

for the greatest number of the people is utilitarianism. Other teleological theories include

ethical egoism and hedonism.

There are other theories that reject consequentialism. They are called deontological theories.

Deontology is from the Greek word deon meaning duty. Deontological theories hold that the

rightness or wrongness of human actions is determined by motive or intention of the agent. If

the intention is right then the action is right. If it is good then the action is good. The most

popular deontological theory is Immanuel Kant. It holds that actions should be assessed in

terms of motives or intentions of the moral agent. This is referred to as motivist’s theory of

Kant or categorical imperative. The other deontological theories include command theory or

natural law theory, virtue ethics, etc.

8
Tom Regan (ed), Matters of Life and Death, (New York: Random House Inc 1980), p.16

8
As a normative discipline, the function of ethics is not limited to clarification of concepts or

postulation and criticism of theories. It also has a practical and social function through which

it responds to our existential needs.

5.3.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

List the subdivisions of ethics

5.3.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Descriptive Ethics, Normative Ethics, and Meta-Ethics

5.4 Ethics and Morality

As used in everyday language, the distinction between the terms ―ethics‖ and ―morality‖ is

not always made clear. Used in the context that shows similarity and differences at various

times, it shows the extent to which ethics is deeply rooted in morality. Historically, the term

―ethics‖ comes from Greek ethos which means the customs, habits and mores of people.

―Morality‖ is derived from Latin mos, mor, mores or moralis which denotes basically the

same; it was introduced by Cicero as an equivalent to the Greek ethos. For the sake of clarity

we assume as a standard definition that morality means the customs, the special dos and

don'ts that are shared and widely accepted as standard in a society or community of people —

accepted as a basis of life that does not have to be rationally questioned. Ethics on the other

hand is the philosophical reflection upon these rules and ways of living together, the customs

and habits of individuals, groups or mankind as such. In ancient Greek philosophy the

question was to find how to act well and rightly and what personal/individual qualities are

necessary to be able to do this. Ethics therefore encompasses the whole range of human

action including personal preconditions. The aim was to identify and to practically realize

9
―the (highest) good‖ in life — which means that you have to evaluate what is ―good‖ as

regards content: what life is a good life and what is not? As opinions concerning the question

what makes a good life differed more and more in modern times, ethics had and has to face

the question how the resulting conflicts of interests and values could be solved peacefully and

justly without taking the part of one side or the other. And this leads to the question of what is

morally right; moral rightness and ―good life‖ become separate issues. Whereas questions of

―good life‖ are tied to an evaluation of what is good and are answered in the form of

recommendations on how to achieve that goal, norms or principles of moral rightness

generate imperatives.

Morals and morality are about personal behavior, ethics is more grandly philosophical.

However, linguistic use constrains the philosophical use and helps to blur the distinction: one

can have a single ethic, as in "a strong work ethic" or "an ethic of selfishness," but if we talk

about a single moral, we have shifted a bit in meaning to the realm of Aesop and Uncle

Remus, as in "the moral of the story". In the singular, a moral is a lesson to be learned about a

single principle of right and wrong, and an ethic is a single guiding principle that affects your

criteria for determining what is right and wrong.

The distinction is best illustrated by the contexts in which these terms are used. When we

disparage someone's behaviour, we say that person has "low morals"; we would never say

that a drug dealer has "bad ethics". Ethics as a branch of philosophy is studied in universities

and theological seminaries.

5.4.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

State the etymology of morals

10
5.4.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Mos/Moralis/Mores

5.5 The Morality of Human Action

The first question that confronts us here is: what are moral issues? Moral issues are about

human conducts. Non-human actions are not usually subject to moral examinations. Moral

conduct refers to human actions or action of moral agents that can be judged to be right or

wrong using moral standards. They are actions that are voluntarily carried out by the moral

agents and they affect the life of other people in the society. For instance, when earthquakes,

volcanic eruptions, floods and hurricanes ravage cities, kill people and destroy

infrastructures, they are not regarded as moral actions. Such occurrences cannot be said to be

morally good or bad. It will, therefore, be inappropriate to ask if it is morally right or wrong

that hurricane killed people or that a dog bit Mr. X. Again, consider a child at the mother’s

back who stretches out her hand and draws down a crate of egg on another woman’s head

without the prior knowledge of the two women. The child cannot be said to have performed

an immoral act. It can be said that it is bad that she broke the woman’s eggs on which her

daily meal depends. But ―bad‖ is used here in a non-moral sense.

In essence, moral actions are: (1) purposive or consciously performed, (2) they are voluntary

or carried out of free choice, and (3) they affect or tend to affect the well-being of the people

in the society, either by increasing the benefit or decreasing harm that would accrue to them.

There is however a debate on whether an action is moral when only the well-being of the

moral agent performing the action is at stake.

11
There is also the question of what makes a particular action right or wrong? To this question,

there are myriad of opinions. One opinion maintains that it is God that determines the action

that is right and the one that is wrong. This view is known as the divine command theory. It

insists that an action is right or wrong precisely because God says that it is. This implies that

murder is not intrinsically good or bad. Its moral status is commanded by God.9 Scholars like

St. Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine are good proponents of this position.

Another opinion is that the moral status of an action is determined by the society that one

inhabits. This view is called ethical relativism. It argues that morality is relative to place and

times. This means that there is no single standard of morality that is uniformly applicable to

all men in all places and at all times and circumstance. Different societies or cultures, at any

time or epoch, determine the moral worthiness of any conduct.

This view is also a view that each individual constructs his or her morality. The argument

here is not that ―each of us decides for ourselves how we should live‖. Rather, the idea is that

we make our actions right or wrong by deciding what standards to adopt. This idea is part of

the version of the philosophy of existentialism10 espoused by scholars like Jean Paul Sartre. It

means, therefore, it is the individual and not God or society that makes the action right or

wrong. This view is referred to as moral individualism or subjectivism.

The views discussed above are classified under the theory called conventionalism.

Conventionalism in ethics holds that an action is said to be right or wrong because someone

(God, the society or individuals) says or believes that it is so. The implication of the theory is

that actions like murder are not intrinsically bad; what makes it wrong is because someone

says or believes or feels that it is. The view is faced with lots of objections.

9
Elliot Sober, Core Questions in Philosophy , (New York: Macmillan Publishing co., 1991), p.388
10
Ibid, p.389. See also, A. Agulanna, ―Ethics and the Human Conduct‖ in Issues and Problems in
Philosophy, Kolawole A. Owolabi, Ed. (Ibadan, Nigeria: Crovacs: Networks, 2000), p.149.

12
Conventionalism seems to remove objectivity of truth from morality. In their belief, instead

of moral truth, we have moral opinion. The problem with the moral opinions is how to

explain the reason ―why certain things are held by men all over the world and at all times as

morally wrong‖. Furthermore, the views make ethical discourse to be unworthy of pursuit in

the sense that it will be difficult to provide a moral standard that can be used to assess the

individual standards of morality.

There is an opposing view which holds that an action is right or wrong independent of

anyone’s opinion. There are two versions to this view. One is moral realism. It maintains that

there is an objective ethical truth that is independent of anyone’s view. Ethical realism insists

on the truth that is universal but admits exceptions. The other version is ethical absolutism.

Absolutism in ethics means that there is a moral standard that is applicable to all men, at all

times and in all circumstances. Moral absolutism indicates that the moral principles are

indisputable and admit no exceptions. Absolutism in ethics faces serious problems. It gives

no room for moral conversations. Such principles would not recognize the complexity and

fluidity in human existence.

What seems to be more acceptable is moral universalism. To argue that moral principles are

universal is to agree that they give room for exceptions. It means that some principles of

moral law can be set aside so as to promote some higher values in a society. For instance, the

moral principle that enjoins respect of human life prohibits killing human beings.

Nevertheless, there are situations where killing is morally justified such as in a situation of

self-defiance, war, capital punishment, etc. it can be morally justified if a solder commits

heroic suicide so as to save his comrades or the nation. In other words, morality is neither

relative nor absolute, but universal.

5.5.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

13
What are the properties of moral actions?

5.5.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

(1) Purposive or consciously performed, (2) they are voluntary or carried out of free choice,

and (3) they affect or tend to affect the well-being of the people in the society.

5.6 Ethics and the Practical Moral Issues

The function of moral philosophy does not solely rest on the ―critical scrutiny of right and

wrong‖ nor do moral philosophers consign their intellectual inquiry to the realm of ―eternal

verities or of scientific methodology‖11. It also gives us ―moral guidelines concerning what to

do and how to treat others‖. It equally gives ―practical knowledge about how we ought to

live‖12. Accordingly, it investigates particular moral issues such as the issue of whether

abortion is morally justified or whether euthanasia (mercy killing) is morally acceptable? In

the case of abortion, it raises the question whether fetus is a person that has right of existence.

This means that in moral philosophy, we go beyond theoretical speculations to finding

pragmatic answers on how to live a good life. For instance, it helps us to classify and identify

the appropriate punishment to antisocial behaviour. Through this, it helps to regulate the

moral agents in the society from falling into abysmal anarchy and chaos and thereby

controlling social contradictions.

Furthermore, every profession has one form of morality or the other guiding it. This is

usually referred to as professional ethics. For instance, in medical ethics, ―Hippocratic Oath‖

is a guide to medical doctors in their duties. A medical doctor has the power and opportunity

11
James Collins, The Existentialists: A Critical Study, (Chicago: Henry Co. 1952)
12
James Rachel (ed) Moral Philosophy: Collection of Philosophical Essays, (New York: Harper and
Row, 1975), p. viii

14
to ―inject killer substance into the veins of his patient. However, it is a sense of morality that

could prevent the medical doctors from doing a thing like this‖.

In politics, ethics provides grounds for interrogating the politics of the government. It is

morality that could make the government to avoid making destructive laws. It helps to

regulate the relationship between the leaders and the citizens. It imposes responsibilities and

duties on the citizens and the government. It defines the responsibilities of the government to

the citizens and the duties and obligations of the citizens to the state.

In addition, ethics inculcates the virtues of trust, kindness, care, fidelity, hospitality and

truthfulness to the people. It helps to avoid antisocial and repressive behaviour like stealing,

fraud, cheating, lying and so on. It promotes love, peace and unity in homes and institutions.

Ethics is a tool for deciding theoretical issues and also settling and resolving practical

disputes and concerns in the society.

5.6.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Since every profession has one form of morality guiding it, what form of ethics guides the

medical profession?

5.6.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Hippocratic Oath

5.8 What is Aesthetics?

The German philosopher, Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten introduced the term ―aesthetics‖ in

A. D.753, but the study of the nature of beauty had been pursued for centuries. In the past, it

was chiefly a subject matter for philosophers. Since the 19th century, however, artists have

15
also contributed to the study of aesthetics. There are various approaches to the study of

aesthetics. This has made the subject difficult to define.13 Objectivists agree that there exists

essential attributes or constituting elements that are objectively discernible and which could

be termed ―ugly‖ or ―beautiful‖. Aesthetics is one of the branches of philosophy and a

science that studies the regulations and laws that govern the occurrence of beauty in nature.

The term ―aesthetics‖ is understood to include all studies of the arts and related type of

explanation from a physical i.e., scientific or other theoretical standpoint. The ―arts‖ are

taken to include the traditional forms such as music, literature, landscape, architecture,

sculpture, dance, painting, and other visual arts. More recently, additions such as

photography, films, earth-works, performance and conceptual arts, the crafts and decorative

arts, contemporary technical innovations and other cultural practices including works and

activities in the field of popular culture have been added as belonging to the arts.

Aesthetics could be seen as the theory of the development of beauty. Beauty itself is an

objective phenomenon. Beauty is the combination of objects, qualities that are harmoniously

blended together to give pleasure to the senses. Man creates and initiates the greatest beauty

in nature. Man tries to perfect creation through beauty. When we look at nature, we cannot

but observe beauty, harmony, order and purpose. This fact suggests therefore that the creator

of nature must be imbued with beauty to be able to create the beautiful that is found in nature.

In conceiving the definition and scope of aesthetics, Karo Ogbinaka states that aesthetics is

derived from the Greek word aesthetikos, which means perceptive. It is the branch of

philosophy that deals with the standard criterion of value judgement such as in the arts,

beauty, or the beautiful, goodness, and phenomenon. What is the standard for the evaluation

of beauty? At what level is a description considered adequate? etc., are questions in

13
G.O. Ozumba, ―Aesthetics and Education.‖ In A.F. Uduigwomen and Karo Ogbinaka, ed.
Philosophy and Education. ( Lagos, Obaroh & Ogbinaka Publishers Ltd., 1999), p.61-70

16
aesthetics. Aesthetics is therefore related to the study of value, human values for judgement,

and assessment. Ogbinaka points out further that

Aesthetics is also called philosophy of arts. It therefore

attempts to provide a distinguishing definition of works of arts,

thereby trying to assess the essential, formal, genetical,

emotional, attitudinal, psychological, ethical, expressional,

etc., properties or elements a work of art ought to have, or

otherwise for its evaluation.14

5.8.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

What Greek word is Aesthetics derived from?

5.8.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Aesthetikos

5.9 The Scope of Aesthetics

Aesthetics does not cover the study of beauty alone. It also appreciates ugly phenomenon.

Aesthetics is concerned with essence and perception of beauty and ugliness. It also deals with

the questions of whether such qualities are objectively present in the things they appear to

qualify, or whether objects are perceived by a particular mode, the aesthetic mode, or whether

the objects in themselves have special qualities – aesthetic qualities. It also seeks to know if

there is a difference between the beautiful and the sublime.

14
Karo Ogbinaka. A Window into Philosophy, (Lagos: Obaroh & Ogbinaka Publishers Ltd., 1995).
P.61

17
Now, beauty and ugliness are value-laden words that are often subjectively defined. That is

why we hear the phrase ―beauty is in the eyes of the beholder‖. Yet it is argued by some that

there are objective criteria for determining what is beautiful and what is ugly. This is

probably the propelling factor behind beauty pageants.

5.9.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

What does aesthetics as a study cover?

5.9.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Beauty and Ugliness

5.10 Problems in Aesthetics

One major problem in aesthetics is the problem of the definition of art. This is because art

expresses the beautiful. We do point out that those who interest themselves in aesthetics fall

into two categories. These are artists with a leaning towards philosophy and philosophers

with a taste for art. The meaning of art has undergone series of changes and modifications. In

ancient Latin (ars) and Greek (texun) both mean craft or specialized form of skill like

carpentry, smithy or surgery. Thus, the Greeks and Romans had no conception of what we

call art that is different form craft.

In Medieval Latin, as in the early modern English, art meant any special form of book

learning such as drama, logic, magic or astrology. The Renaissance established the old

meaning of arts as craft. In the 17th century, a separation began to take plac; in the late 18th

century, the separation has gone as far as to establish a distinction between the fine art and the

useful arts. By the wording here, we mean not delicate or highly skilled art but ―beautiful‖

arts.

18
This brings us to another problem that has generated much heated debate, i.e., whether ugly

should be treated as an aesthetic category. This is not surprising. Whenever the word

―aesthetics‖ is used, it always conveys the image of beauty. The pleasure theory of art (a

derivative of hedonism) does not agree that ugly has anything to do with aesthetics since

ugliness does not give pleasure. Another concern that has been expressed by aestheticians is:

should art be a representation of life or a product of the artist’s imagination? By

―representation‖, we mean that the artist captures what he experiences, what he sees in such a

way that it is actually a replica of the original. The writings of Plato in the Republic

influenced aestheticians that advocate for the artists’ representation of the natural world.

Plato believed that reality consists of archetypes or forms, beyond human sense experience,

which are models for all things that exist in human experience. The objects of such

experiences are exemplars or imitations of those forms. The philosopher tries to reason from

the object experienced to the reality it imitates. On his part, the artist copies the experienced

object or uses it as a model for the work. This therefore means that the artist’s work is an

imitation of an imitation.

In the 19th century, the impressionist school began to challenge the traditional view of art.

The French impressionists such as Claude Monet denounced academic painters for depicting

what they thought they saw instead of what they actually saw. The 20th century impressionists

were more concerned with expressing their own psyche than with representing objects in the

natural world. They argue that art is intuitive. Therefore, the artist should be allowed the

freedom to explore his imaginations. Rather than depict the ugliness he perceives, the artists

could use his artistic medium to portray what ought to be.

5.10.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

What kind of person shows interest in the study of aesthetics?

19
5.10.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Artists with a leaning towards philosophy and philosophers with a taste for art

5.11 Theories of Aesthetics

We shall first look at the function of art and artistic appreciation. From these, we shall deduce

the social significance of aesthetics. These are the pleasure theory, the play theory, the

communication theory, the expression theory, imitation theory, and art as experience. We

shall discuss a few for our purposes.

Art as Imitation: this is the oldest theory of art. It dates back to the ancient Greek period of

Plato and Aristotle. This theory holds that art imitates something:

Painting and sculpture depicts object and people. Music imitates

human moods and emotions. A painting grows out of the desire to

make likeness of people and things. The theatre imitates man in

action: comedy imitates people, and tragedy is an imitation of some

of the events of real life.15

Art as Play: this theory originated from Immanuel Kant, in his critique of Judgement that

makes a distinction between arts and labour. It is argued that this theory is related to the

pleasure theory as well as the notion that art is a means of escape from life. The notion of art

as a play suggests that art is simply a way of releasing excess energy since energy needs

expression of some sort.

15
Marvis Weitz. Problems in Aesthetics. (London: Macmillan Company. 1970), p.385

20
Art as Communication: many scholars see this function of art as highly indispensable. It

argues that the need to communicate is the motivating factor of artistic impulse and the

aesthetic response. This theory finds root in the mystical views that art is a form of ideal.

Art as Expression: this is closely linked to the communication theory. This states that there

is a message that the artist wants to relay. This can only be done through artistic medium.

Benedetto Croce, the Italian philosopher, for example sees art as intuition that is expressed. It

is argued that art has its own peculiar language that aids the artist to express his emotions. In

present day life, we see that this is still prevalent. Writers, singers, and painters, etc., have

been seen to communicate their thoughts, feelings about a particular policy decision through

their works and this has been seen to have tremendous impact on the society in which they

live. In Nigeria, the acclaimed musician, Fela Anikulapo-Kuti, was known to have used his

music to express his dissatisfaction with governmental decisions as well as the happenings

taking place in his country, which of course were judged by him as rather unfair. His song

―Teacher don’t teach me nonsense‖, for example, agitates for an exemplary life style from

leaders.

5.11.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

List three Theories of Art

5.11.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Art as Communication, Art as Imitation, and Art as Play

5.12 Social Significance of Aesthetics

This issue is important because often times, matters of aesthetics have been treated with

triviality. Perhaps this is due to the generally mistaken assumption that aesthetics is of no

21
serious importance to man. At best, we can only derive certain pleasure from it. That is why

we go to the theatre simply to relax and cool the nerves. This therapeutic function alone

portrays the significance of aesthetics to the society. What is the societal importance of

aesthetics?

The view that aesthetics is of no serious benefit to mankind is certainly a display of

intellectual ignorance. It merely reduces man to a machine, a robot that is content with just

existing. We do agree with Abraham Maslow’s analysis of man’s desires. That man is first

concerned with the bare necessities of survival, yet he has never considered the mere

continuation of existence a sufficient goal. Aristotle describes man as a rational animal who

thinks and makes decisions, but man also feels, thinks and possesses a wide range of

responses.

Aesthetics has a great significance for the society at large. In recent times, a lot of attention is

being brought to bear on the importance of beauty. According to Virginia Postrel,

All around, conflicts are brewing on aesthetics. Instead of

tolerating sights they don’t like…from tacky parch furniture to

innovative architecture…more and more Americans are

demanding a world free of ―visual pollution‖. Appearance is

getting the sort of regulatory scrutiny once reserved for public

health and safety.16

Even the subject of beauty is being discussed in the sciences especially at the level of

scientific theory. According to physicist and science philosopher, Paul Davis, ―it is widely

believed among scientists that beauty is a reliable guide to truth, and many advances in

16
Virginia Postrel, ―In enforcing taste, it’s better to tread lightly‖. New York Times. July 13, 2000

22
theoretical physics have been made by the theorists demanding mathematical elegance of a

new theory‖.17

Since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, of what significance is aesthetics to society,

especially since there is no particular yardstick for judging the beautiful? Well, as we have

said earlier, it is in the nature of man to appreciate the beautiful. The only category of human

that might not appreciate nature is perhaps the mentally deranged person. Now, it is another

matter entirely if we begin to probe the psychological state of the deranged that creates a

rubbish dump, which he calls his home. Because there is this nature inherent in man, it is

therefore not out of place that man would seek and crave for beauty around him. He searches

for it when he clamours for ―appropriate living conditions‖, ―conducive environment‖, ―good

music‖, ―tartly food‖ and what have you! It is pleasing to his soul and helpful to his health.

Sigmund Freud for example believed that the value of aesthetics lies in the therapeutic use. It

is by this means that both the artist and the public can reveal hidden conflicts and discharge

tensions. Fantasies and daydreams, as they enter into the art forms are transformed from

escape from life into ways of entering it.18 However, more importantly, if we consider the

functions of art as explained above, apart from the therapeutic effects of aesthetics

experience, there is also the revolutionary, educational and representational significance.

Expounding on the revolutionary importance of aesthetics, Herbart Marcuse is quoted by

F.P.A. Demetrio as saying:

A work of art can be called revolutionary if by virtue of the

aesthetic transformation, it represents, in the exemplary fate of

individuals, the prevailing unfreedom and rebelling forces, thus

17
Paula. Davis, in ―Quantum Aesthetics: Overview‖. @http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu
18
A. Danto, Aesthetics.@http://encarta.msn.com 2001

23
 breaking through the mystified (and petrified) social reality, and

opening the horizon of change (liberation).19

For Plato and Aristotle, aesthetics was inseparable from morality and politics. Aristotle

argues in his Politics that music or art generally affects human character and therefore, social

order. This is not surprising. Aristotle indeed believed that happiness is the aim of life. He

also believed that the major function of art is to provide human satisfaction.

Plotinus, a third century philosopher, born in Egypt and trained at Alexandria, gave a

mystical importance to Aesthetics. In his view, art reveals a form of an object more than

experience does. He argues that art raises the soul to contemplation of the universals. Being a

monist, Plotinus argues also that art enables the soul to unite with ―the one‖. Thus, one loses

oneself while contemplating beauty. The German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fitche saw

beauty as a moral virtue. He equated beauty with truth and argued that the artist creates a

world in which beauty, as much as truth is an end. For Fitche also, art is individual and not

social but it fulfils a human purpose.

Overall, traditional aesthetics assumes that art objects are not only beautiful but also useful.

Paintings can commemorate historical events or encourage morality. Music might inspire

piety or patriotism. Drama could also serve to criticize society and therefore lead to reform.

5.12.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

For Plato and Aristotle, what is Aesthetics inseparable from?

5.12.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Morality and Politics

19
F.P.A. Demetrio, Diwatao, vol.1. @http://www.geocities.com 2001

24
5.13 Summary of Study Session 5

In this study session, you have learnt what ethics is as a theory of value, as well as the place

of aesthetics in philosophy. You have been acquainted with what ethics means in itself, its

shared relationship with morality and the extent to which ethics holds value in relation to

moral issues and, decisions and judgement. This study session has also helped you

understand what aesthetics means, calling to mind its origin, evolution, theories and social

significance.

5.13.1 References/Suggestions for Further Reading

Agulanna, A. (2000). Ethics and the human conduct. Issues and problems in philosophy. K.

A. Owolabi (Ed.) Ibadan, Nigeria: Crovacs Networks.

Barcalow, E. (1994). Moral philosophy: Theory and issues. California, CA: Wadsworth.

Collins, J. (1952). The existentialists: A critical study. Chicago, IL: Henry.

Downie, R. S. (1971). Rules and values. London, England: Methuen.

MacIntyre, A. (2006). A Short history of ethics: A history of moral philosophy from the

Homeric age to the twentieth century. London, England: Routledge.

Ogbinaka, K. (1995). A window into philosophy. Lagos, Nigeria: Obaroh & Ogbinaka

Publishers.

Omeregbe, J. I. (1993). Ethics: A systematic and historical study. Lagos, Nigeria: Joja

Educational Research and Publishers.

25
Ozumba, G. O. (1999). Aesthetics and education. Philosophy and education. A.F.

Uduigwomen and K. Ogbinaka (Eds.). Lagos, Nigeria: Obaroh & Ogbinaka

Publishers Ltd.

Postrel, V. (2000, July 13). In enforcing taste, it’s better to tread lightly. New York Times.

Rachel, J. (1975). Moral philosophy: Collection of philosophical essays. New York, NY:

Harper and Row.

Regan, T. (1980). Matters of life and death. New York, NY: Random House.

Shaw, W. H. & V. Barry (2004). Moral issues in business. Thomson: Wadsworth.

Sober, E. (1994). Core questions in philosophy. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Solomon, R. C. (1964). Morality and the good life. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Weitz, M. (1970). Problems in aesthetics. London, England: Macmillan.

Lillie, W. (1948). An introduction to ethics. London, England: Methuen

26
 STUDY SESSION 6

LOGIC AND ITS IMPORTANCE

6.1 Introduction

This study session shall introduce you to the concept of Logic as a branch of philosophy, and

as a tool for philosophizing. You will be acquainted with the meaning of logic, the place of

logic in the advancement of philosophical ideals and thoughts, as well as the importance of

logic. The study session shall be an introductory session to other aspects of logic which we

will discuss in the study sessions that follow. Although a younger discipline when compared

to Mathematics and Law, Logic as a systematic discipline dates as far back as half a

millennium. This said, it is evident that logic, as a systematic discipline is much older than

most recent academic fields, social constructs and institutions, and even religions. 1

Though the field of logic might have existed far before the time of Aristotle and the Stoics,

especially as regards the application of logical inferences, deductions and formal application

of proofs, the field of logic has always existed in the application of reasoning and validity in

various fields. As such, while one wonders if logic has any relevance to man, disciplines or

even civilizations, one need only ask how and why the field of logic has stood the test of time

and broadened its horizon past the fields of philosophy, mathematics and law alone; one need

only question the validity of beliefs and notions held as truth; one need only apply logical

reasoning to every sphere of human existence and endeavours.2

The motivational purpose of logic sees it as an organized common sense which everyone

should have and be familiar with since logic is not an inborn skill but one that must be learnt

1
J. van Benthem, H. van Ditmarsch, J. van Eijck, J Jaspars, Logic in Action accessed from
http://www.logicinaction.org/docs/lia.pdf retrieved on 06/12/2016 pp. 1-11
2
Ibid pp 2-11
and practised, though some may be better at it than others (like games and languages), one

cannot neglect or give up the need to be acquainted with it. Hence, the importance of logic

and its significance in various sectors cannot be overemphasised.

People are basically overwhelmed daily with the decision of discerning between notions,

facts, theories and beliefs that are assumed to be right, valid or logically correct. As a result

of this, many who lack the necessary philosophical tool find it hard or next to impossible to

rise above their pressured beliefs and social constructs. It is then unequivocally clear that the

products of mental cognition are the effects of power which in turn forms social constructs;

despite this observation, it is only one skilled with handling the tool of logic to their

advantage who can find the flaws and limitations in these constructs, seeing them as

fallacious and incorrect reasoning, thereby becoming subjugated knowledge. As Harvey

Bluedorn rightly stated, in bid of preparing one’s child for the various confrontations of life, a

firm grasp of logical thinking skills is necessary. It is with this ability to reason correctly that

one’s thinking is firmly anchored on, to avoid being carried about by every wind of doctrine,

making them hold fast to truth and be able to defend it throughout their lives.3

Having analysed what the field of logic entails, we are set to give a vivid analysis of the

significance of logic; in other words, we deem it fit to show the importance of logic, as a field

to be studied and applied as a tool of philosophy, and its relevance to education and our

everyday lives. We will show the necessity of Logic in the analysis and understanding of

one’s views and beliefs and that of others.

6.1.1 Learning Outcomes for Study Session 6

When you have studied this session, you should be able to:

3
Harvey Bluedorn, “Why Study Logic?” in Trivium Pursuit, 2002. Accessed from
http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/why_study_logic.php retrieved on 11/23/2016
 1. Define logic;

2. State how logic differs from psychological reasoning; and

3. List the importance of logic.

6.2 Definition of Logic?

The term "logic" came from the Greek word logos, which is sometimes translated as

"sentence", "discourse", "reason", "rule", and "ratio". Of course, these translations are not

enough to help us understand the more specialized meaning of "logic" as it is used today.

Alfred Taski was of the view that Logic is the name of a discipline which analyzes the

meaning of the concepts common to all the sciences, and establishes the general laws

governing the concepts.4 For Frege, to discover truths is the task of all sciences; it falls to

logic to discern the laws of truth. Therefore, he assigns to logic the task of discovering the

laws of truth, not of assertion or thought.5

Logic is the study of correct and incorrect reasoning. Logicians want to understand what

makes good reasoning good and what makes bad reasoning bad. Understanding this helps us

to avoid making mistakes in our own reasoning, and it allows us to evaluate the reasoning of

others. It makes us better thinkers.6

Logic is one of the traditional sub-disciplines of Philosophy and one of the seven traditional

“liberal arts”, alongside arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music, grammar, and rhetoric.

Logic lies at the foundation of mathematics, where it allows us to provide a clear and

rigorous account of mathematical proof. It also plays a central role in philosophy, where we

use it to help reason as clearly and rigorously as possible about hard questions about

4
Alfred Tarski (1901-1983). From his Introduction to logic and to the methodology of deductive sciences,
Dover, page xi.
5
GottlobFrege (1848-1925). From his 1956 paper "The Thought : A Logical Inquiry" in Mind Vol. 65.
6
https://www.davidsanson.com/logic/supplements/0.1_what-is-logic.html
ourselves, about knowledge, reality, truth, and beauty, and about right and wrong, good and

bad. It also lies at the foundation of computer science: a computer is a logic machine. And a

mind is, at least in part, a logic machine too, so logic lies at the foundation of cognitive

science and philosophy of mind. It also lies at the foundation of linguistics, providing the

tools we use for thinking about linguistic structure (syntax) and linguistic meaning

(semantics).7

For the purpose of this study, we agree with Irving Copi when he defines logic as the study of

the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning.8 When we

reason about any matter, we produce arguments to support our conclusions. Our arguments

include reasons that we think justify our beliefs. However, not all reasons are good reasons. 9

Logic is not the Psychology of Reasoning

One thing you should note about this definition is that logic is concerned with the principles

of correct reasoning. Studying the correct principles of reasoning is not the same as studying

the psychology of reasoning. Logic is the former discipline, and it tells us how we ought to

reason if we want to reason correctly. Whether people actually follow these rules of correct

reasoning is an empirical matter, something that is not the concern of logic. The psychology

of reasoning, on the other hand, is an empirical science. It tells us about the actual reasoning

habits of people, including their mistakes. A psychologist studying reasoning might be

interested in how people's ability to reason varies with age. But such empirical facts are of no

concern to the logician.10

6.2.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

7
Ibid.,
8
Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen and Kenneth McMahon, Introduction to Logic. (U S A: Pearson Education
Limited, 2014) p. 2
9
Ibid.,
10
https://www.davidsanson.com/logic/supplements/0.1_what-is-logic.html
What is logic according to Irving Copi?

6.2.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect

reasoning.

6.3 The Importance of Logic

Man, being a meaning making being is always faced with the endless quest to know. This

continuous quest for knowledge goes beyond the ordinarily experienced realities to the point

of reasoned knowing. Reasoned knowing here relates to the act of knowing that investigates

into the essence of things, why this is so and not otherwise. As such, if questioned on why

man must live in ooder to die, one gives answers that show reason for accepting the statement

as true. It is based on this analysis that we agree with Jean Oesterle who states that “logic is

nothing else than the art that guides us in coming to know something previously unknown to

us. Logic, then, is an instrument for helping us to find out why things are as they are. The

power of thinking is an instrument for knowing the why and wherefore of things, but thinking

sharpened by skill in logic is an efficient instrument for scientific knowing. Based on the

aforementioned, we can be said to have at least a preliminary answer to the question “what is

logic, and why should we study it”. If every human being wants to know, in some degree, and

if logic is an indispensable means of obtaining knowledge more easily, more surely, and more

efficiently, then the study of logic is of use to every human being.”11

Logic is a major tool to discerning between good (correct) or bad (incorrect) reasoning; it

deals with valid reasoning, its systematization and notions relevant to it. As a result of this,

we can see its relevance as it helps to detect fallacies and technical errors in reasoning.

11
Jean Oesterle, What is Logic and why do Philosophers Study it? Accessed on
http://cas.umkc.edu/philosophy/vade-mecum/whylogic.htmretrieved on 11/23/2016
Without logic taking part in this act, we would be surrounded by irrelevant thoughts which

would limit our understanding of reality, clouding our understanding with us forever falling

in the pits and confusions of fallacies which make us oblivious of what actually is.

Logic helps the making of inferences, through observation, and enhances communication. It

also helps to find paradoxes, create them for argument sake and to bring some to their logical

conclusions. Without logic, inferences can always be made, but not all inferences can be

logical or relevant at that point. But with the knowledge of logic as a tool, we are able to

make deductions from all forms of arguments, whether deductive or inductive; with logic, we

make inferences that are not even obvious, with it we can bring an end to paradoxes,

understanding their places and roles.

Logic makes us more observant of language, language use, meanings and meaning of

meaning. And with logic applied as desired to fields and sectors, it strengthens and advances

all fields; art, religion, law, geography, science, technology, basic everyday reasoning and

beliefs.

With logic, one can be sure of having series of orderly reasoning and thought, to which

propositions can be inferred and judgements made; and how these judgements are either

arrived at or derived. Logic will therefore reveal to us when and how reasoning, judgement

and arguments are correct or wrong; valid or invalid. Logic comes to guide the philosopher in

reasoning and investigation; it serves as a tool used for ratiocination. Logic in a lot of ways

serves as an important tool for philosophizing, such that, it is in fact doubtful if the

philosopher could conduct his enquiry without logic.12

6.3.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

12
Oghenekaro Ogbinaka, “Logic: Its Nature and Scope” in E. K. Ogundowole (ed.) Philosophy and Logic.
Lagos: Concept Publications (Press Division) pp. 186-187
Logic helps the making of inferences, through observation and____

6.3.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Enhances communication.

6.4 The Place of Logic

It is assumed by a lot of persons that logic describes what people think about and how

conclusions are made by the thoughts they have, but we disagree with that notion because

logic is more concerned with how we ought to think if we so wish to reason correctly. Logic

seeks to explain the rules necessary for reaching necessary conclusions and logical thinking

and analysis. Consequently, it is seen to be more of arithmetic than history. Logic is not

Psychology, Mathematics, Language, History, but it is concerned with all thoughts, as such, it

is fundamental to all disciplines and institutions. Logic does not differ according to the

disciplines, fields and institutions it is applied to; rather, the same rules and laws of thought

apply to every sphere logic is applied to. While some scholars raise arguments for the place

of special disciplines devoid of logic and advocate for the place of polylogism, we disagree

with this claim on the ground that since reasoning and thinking is applied to discipline, so is

logic. If there is more than one logic, then there must be other rules to be applied to the other

kinds of logic; one who seeks to ridicule logic must do so using logic in their attack, as such,

contradicting oneself.13

LOGIC AND MORALITY

A good number of philosophers have shown endlessly, the strong relationship between reason

and morality. It is in bid of this relationship that we can speak so boldly of a relationship

13
John W. Robbins, “Why Study Logic” in The Trinity Review. Unicoi, Tennessee. Accessed
onhttp://www.trinityfoundation.orgretrieved on 11/23/2016
between logic and morality as well. In the light of this claim, an attack on morality simply

makes for an attack on the logic to such moral standard. The process to which logic is

disparaged would only create a reality with no distinction between the good and the bad, right

and wrong, just and unjust etc. It is pertinent to include at this point that understanding and

reason begets morality insofar as logic is not rejected, if not, the end of morality awaits.

It is the existence and application of logic that makes for the numerous laws society holds in

high regard today for its smooth running and effective management of persons, properties and

natural wealth. These enacted laws are in turn existent as a result of logical rules of inference

and laws of thoughts; the process of identifying a particular action as what it is (A as A –

Law of Identity), not confusing an action with another or the punishment of one action with

another (Law of contradiction) and understanding the likely ways to which a law can be

applied, and how an action can be evaluated (based on the law of excluded middle), all show

the relevance of logic to morality.

Although, as earlier stated, some persons may argue for the lack of logic in some fields,

including morality, advocating views like “there’s no good or evil, for all actions are a

mixture of the good and evil”, the end result of this thinking is the series of moral problems

and constructs the society experiences today.

6.4.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Logic does not differ according to the disciplines, fields and institutions it is applied to,

rather__________

6.4.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

The same rules and laws of thought apply to every sphere that logic is applied to.
6.5 Logic and Other Disciplines

Logic and Mathematics

The relationship between logic and mathematics was not clearly articulated until the closing

decades of the nineteenth century. As understood by early philosophers, it was not delineated

as a subject at the time. Although Plato had through his logic of universals created the World

of Ideas in which mathematics played a prominent role, it was Aristotle who painstakingly

and systematically delineated the subject matter of logic for the first time. Mathematics

emerged subsequently, such that Euclid and Archimedes carried on their mathematical

studies without venturing into detailed inquiry into logic.

Following investigations that reveal closeness between logic and mathematics, George Boole,

a British mathematical logician, published his seminal work Laws of Thought in 1854 where

he dealt with the calculus of class inclusion. Again, C. S. Pierce, whom we briefly discussed

a moment ago, had developed a theory of relations, and Schroeder had produced a synthesis

of the fundamental theories in mathematical logic. K. T. Weierstrass demonstrated how to

establish the theory of calculus without infinitesimals. George Cantor, on his part, articulated

a mathematical theory of infinite numbers and continuity and by doing so abolished a great

deal of mysticism that had obfuscated mathematics. This accomplishment was furthered by

Gottlob Frege, a German logician and philosopher of mathematics. Frege invented a

definition of number which removed the logical mistakes of earlier definitions. He defined

“number” as a plurality of pluralities of pluralities. His analysis of the key concepts in

mathematics can be derived from the principles of deductive logic. The Italian

mathematician, Guiseppe Peano, made some technical advances also in mathematical logic

which was adumbrated by Frege and which proved decisive in shaping the theories of

Russell. Russell believed that the relationship between logic and mathematics is like the one
between a boy and a man. In his view, logic is the boyhood of mathematics. There is no

doubt that logic and mathematics are very related, although the logicist programme itself did

not succeed in its primary objective of deducing pure mathematics completely from logic.

Logic and Psychology

Defining logic as the science of the laws of thought or the science of reasoning process, the

definition gives a clue to what logic is all about, but does not accurately differentiate logic

from psychology. Psychologists study the laws of thought as well. Thoughts may describe

any process that takes place in the mind, but the logician is interested in the product of a

special type of thinking, the end result of reasoning processes. A psychologist can properly

investigate the reasoning process and discover that it is usually influenced by one’s emotional

make-up and complicated trial-and-error procedures. He could even unravel the biochemical

and tiny electrical changes in the brain that accompany thought process.

The study of psychology reveals the way people actually think, the study of logic explicates

the relation of implication between certain types or classes of propositions. In this sense, the

former is descriptive whereas the latter is prescriptive. The analysis of emotions that

accompany our thought processes – certainty, incredulity, indecision – properly belongs to

psychology. Logic analyses the objective relations that hold between propositions.

Psychology is an empirical science, its propositions and theories largely refer to observable

entities. But logic is concerned with the correctness of reasoning, no matter its subject-matter.

The canons of logical validity in logic can be used to evaluate the procedures of reasoning

actually employed in any discipline.

Logic and Natural Science

Western philosophy has always been of the opinion that scientific knowledge can be obtained

through reasoning. While rationalists share this view, empiricists insist that knowledge of the

objective world is only possible through observation. The chequered history of scientific

knowledge shows that reliable knowledge of the world cannot be acquired by sitting down

and thinking alone.

To discern the relation between logic and sciences, it is important to examine what some

philosophers of science have stated on scientific method. Inductivist philosophers of science

have emphasized that inductive logic provides the framework for scientific reasoning. For

example, Bacon, after criticizing induction by enumeration, recommended other kinds of

inductive procedure for scientific discovery. These recommendations were given a systematic

elaboration by another British philosopher. J. S. Mill. The methods proposed by Mill are

basically intended to assist in the discovery of causal connections between phenomena in

nature.

Mill’s inductive logic, though illuminating and important, did not meet the exaggerated

claims which Mill made for them. In contemporary philosophy, the theory of inductive logic

for the sciences was emphasized by the logical positivists, notably Rudolf Carnap, in form of

probabilistic theory.

A scientist employs the techniques of logic and mathematics to deduce empirical

consequences which must be tested experimentally. Therefore, any theory accepted in the

natural sciences must be backed by experimental findings. In logic, it is not necessary, since

the subject inquires into the implications of our initial propositions without regard to their

truth or whether their objects are real or imaginary. Simply put, logic is a tool of inference in

the sciences for working out the implications of scientific hypotheses and theories, which are

subjected to empirical corroboration or refutation.

6.5.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

List any three disciplines that logic has relations with.

6.5.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Psychology, Mathematics and Natural Science

6.6 Summary of Study Session 6

In this study session, you have learnt what logic means, and have been introduced to some

definitions of logic as stated by Copi, Frege and other philosophers. This study session has

been able to acquaint you with what logic is concerned with as a discipline and a tool of

philosophizing. It has also acquainted us with the difference between logical and

psychological reasoning. In this study session, we have discussed the importance of logic to

various fields, as well as the place of logic and its relationship to other disciplines.

6.6.1 References / Suggestions for Further Reading

Copi, I. M., Cohen, C. and McMahon, K. (2014). Introduction to logic. USA: Pearson

Education.

Udeaga, D. N. (2006). Rudiments of logic, Calabar, Nigeria: University of Calabar Press.

Uduigwomen, A. F. (1998), How to think. Aba, Nigeria: AAU Industries.

Uduma, O. U. (1997). Nature and subject matter of logic. Introduction to philosophy and

logic, J. I. Omoregbe (Ed.). Lagos, Nigeria: Department of Philosophy, University of

Lagos.
 STUDY SESSION 7

INFERENCE AND ARGUMENT TYPES IN LOGIC

7.1 Introduction

The principal aim of this study session is to expose you to the formal structure of logic. It

may interest you to know that this formal structure is grounded on the internal form of the

theories of induction and deduction. In logic, induction and deduction are primarily

considered as forms of argument. And since argument itself is a process of inference, it

follows that inference and argument are central to logic.

7.1.1 Learning Outcomes for Study Session 7

At the end of this session you should be able to:

1. Describe how inference relates to argument;

2. Analyse the nature of argument as the subject matter of logic;

3. Distinguish between deduction and induction as methods of inference and argument;

4. State the Rules of Inference and Replacement;

5. Illustrate how arguments are validated and invalidated with the aid of the rules of

inference and replacement; and

6. Analyze the soundness and logical form in logic, and the inter-relationship between

induction and deduction.

7.2 Inference in Logic

Human knowledge is essentially inferential. “By the in-built laws of our minds, we think in

terms of association, causation, succession; which explains the reason why we always see a

link or affinity between ideas, and events of the world” (Kant, 1964, xxiii).

Thinking is fundamentally a process of judgment. Judgment as a process of inference is an

act of combinations or synthesis. Hence, inferential thinking or reasoning can be defined as a

process of abstraction or extraction by which we combine or synthesize occurrences in the

world to arrive at a judgment. Inference is not possible without linking one occurrence

(event) to another. This act is purely mental and is not possible without judgment. For

instance, it is not possible for a mechanic to find out the problem with a car and also find

solution to such problem without inferring. In the same way, it is not possible for a detective

to gather clues, and also link together the clues gathered such that based on the evidence

before him, he reaches a conclusion about the case under investigation; ditto the lawyer and

judge. So on daily basis we make inferences. These inferences we make may be related to

issues that border on commerce, religion, economics, politics, education, culture and so on.

Sometimes we infer correctly. At other times we infer wrongly. Thus, whether our judgment

about a situation is true or false, valid or invalid, correct or incorrect is dependent upon our

act of inference.

But how is inference related to logic? Inference in logic is “the ability to discern and describe

the connections between terms and statements whose association may not be immediately

apparent” (Uduigwomen, 1998: 31). In essence, inference in logic is the reasoning process by

which we transit from premises to conclusion. As stated earlier, the premises that comprise an

argument are the antecedent conditions for the conclusion which is the same as the judgment

made in that argument. This means that by the aid of inference, we are able to rationalize
about how we can derive conclusions from premises. This reasoning or inferential process of

moving from premises to conclusion involves deriving a new set of information (i.e. the

conclusion) from available sets of information (i.e. the premises). This makes allowance for a

transition from the known to the unknown. Hence, because inference enables the transition

from the premises to the conclusion of an argument, it (inference) becomes a process that

allows us to make propositions about the unknown using the known as a foundation (Uduma,

1997: 197). Granted that inference necessarily forms an important category of logic, we must

however, note that the interest of the logician is never in the process of inference itself;

rather, the logician is primarily concerned with the outcome of the process of inference. As

Copi and Cohen (2005) noted:

It is not the thought processes called reasoning (i.e. inference) that are the

logician’s concern, but the outcomes of those processes, the arguments that

are the products of reasoning, and that can be formulated in writing, examined,

and analyzed. Each argument confronted raises these questions for the

logician: Does the conclusion reached follow from the premises used or

assumed? Do the premises provide good reasons for accepting the conclusion

drawn? If the premises do provide adequate grounds for accepting the

conclusion – that is, if asserting the premises to be true does warrant asserting

the conclusion also to be true – the reasoning is correct. Otherwise it is

incorrect (p. 3).

Much later, we shall briefly but vividly explain what is meant by correct reasoning, but for

now our interest is to explain how inference is connected to argument. The act of inference

involves the arrangement of certain information (i.e. propositions) into premises from which
a conclusion is drawn. This act of methodically and structurally arranging propositions into

premises and conclusion constitutes what in logic is called argument or argumentation. In the

first place, to argue or to make argumentation is to provide grounds or reasons for justifying

how we reached certain conclusions or judgments. The grounds or reasons provided act as

backgrounders (i.e. assumptions or antecedent conditions) to certain submissions (i.e.

conclusions or judgments) made. This is so because inferential reasoning in logic is

essentially the combination or synthesis of available information such that when combined

they are found to warrant new information which could not have been derived from any of the

information separately (Uduma, 1997: 193). The point we should note however, is that it is

not the duty of argument or logic to tell us what to infer or how to infer, rather, what

argument helps us to achieve is to establish the procedure by which we can logically

determine whether our inference is valid or invalid, correct or incorrect.

To this point, you should have understood the meaning of inference, the place of inference in

logic and how inference is connected to argument. This, taken, our next task is to examine the

meaning of argument and the importance of argument in logic.

7.2.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

 What is inferential thinking?

 What is argumentation?

7.2.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

  Inferential thinking is a process of abstraction or extraction by which we combine or

synthesize occurrences in the world to arrive at a judgment.

 Argumentation is the act of methodically and structurally arranging propositions into

premises and conclusion.

7.3 Argument in Logic

Have you ever attempted to substantiate your claims consciously through arguments? Or,

have you ever consciously attempted to identify fault in someone’s method of inferring a

claim from another? Your understanding of the nature of argument will enlighten you on this

matter. Argument is the theme or subject matter of logic. In a sense, logic is defined as the

criteria for the evaluation of argument (Ibid.). What this means is that logic as it relates to

argument seeks to establish those rules or principles for ensuring the goodness or soundness

of an inference. By implication, argument is not possible without inference. This is another

way of saying that argument is the formal substantiation of the process of inference in

structural form. As noted by Copi and Cohen, logicians use the word argument to mean any

“group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others, which are regarded

as providing support or grounds for the truth of that one” (2005: 6). The writers also define

inference as the process by which one proposition is arrived at and affirmed on the basis of

one or more other propositions accepted as the starting point of the process (Ibid.).

The definitions of argument and inference provided by Copi and Cohen show that (a) in

logic, argument and inference are inter-connected, and (b) whereas inference determines the

process of argument, argument is in itself the very structure of the inferential process, and by

this virtue, the structure of thought. The question that follows concerns how argument

constitutes the structure of thinking or reasoning?

 We should note that when we speak of argument in logic, we do not in any way imply

debate or controversy. This may be the conventional or denotative definition of argument in

ordinary language, but not in logic. Argument in logic is not about propositions (i.e. points

given in support) and oppositions (i.e. points given against), but about the reasoning or

inferential procedure which results in the soundness or goodness of a completed reasoning

process. When we speak of form in argument, we mean the same thing as the structure of

reasoning or thinking. Again, when we say that argument provides the form or structure for

reasoning, we mean that argument comprises sets of propositions some of which are grouped

as premises, thereby providing the basis for the conclusion. It means that argument consists

of (a) propositions, (b) premises, and (c) conclusion. Briefly, we shall define proposition,

premises and conclusion.

According to Copi and Cohen, in logic the term proposition is used to refer to what

declarative sentences are typically used to assert (Ibid. 5). This simply means that a

proposition is a declarative statement or sentence. A declarative statement is a formal

sentence that either asserts or denies something in our everyday world. Usually, a sentence or

statement consists of subject and object (i.e. the predicate), and also establishes the

connection between the subject and predicate, either by way of affirmation or denial. There

are other types of statements or sentences that do not possess the foregoing characteristics

and for this reason, cannot be said to be declarative, on the ground that they cannot be

affirmed or denied. These include exclamatory, interrogative and imperative statements or

sentences. Logic does not deal with any of the aforementioned sentences or statements. It

deals only with statements that can be confirmed, affirmed or denied. It is in this very sense

that Copi and Cohen defined a proposition as something that may be asserted or denied (p.

4).
 Having established the nature of propositions, our next task is to explain how propositions

constitute the structure of argument. According to Copi and Cohen, propositions are the

building blocks of every argument, they are the building blocks with which arguments are

made (pp. 4 & 6). The question that follows concerns how propositions constitute the

building blocks of arguments? The simple answer to this question is that within an argument,

propositions are further divided into premises and conclusion. What then is a premise or what

are premises? What is a conclusion? And what roles do they play in logic?

Usually, the definition(s) of premise / premises and conclusion determine their functions in

logic. C. S. Momoh defines premise / premises as follows:

A premise is the building block of a conclusion, it is the prop, the leg on which

a conclusion stands. Wherever an argument is present there must be a premise

or a set of premises which provide the logical, inferential or implicational leg

or legs for the conclusion to stand. By the recognition of premise indicators,

we are able to separate the premises of an argument from its conclusion (2009:

280).

Premise indicators are usually prefixed to the premises that constitute an argument. As the

name implies, they indicate the premises of an argument. They include words and

expressions such as “since, because, for, as, follows from, as shown by, as indicated by, the

reason is that, for the reason that, may be inferred from, may be deduced from, in view of the

fact that” (p. 281).

We now know that premises are the inference or reasoning process by which we arrive at a

conclusion. Put differently, premises are the very process of inference in an argument and in

logic in general. What then is a conclusion and what is its role in argument and in logic? Copi

and Cohen are of the view that “the conclusion of an argument is the proposition that is
affirmed on the basis of other propositions of the argument” (ibid. 6 – 7). These other

propositions are of course the premises. Momoh on his own part defined conclusion as:

The peak or the apex of the premises of an argument. The conclusion of an

argument is the point where the premises hang things together; it is the logical

confluence of the premises. Where the implicational knot is tied and finds its

bearing, where the premises are explicitly stated, the conclusion has no choice

but to be what it has to be (Ibid. 281).

Going by Momoh’s definition, a conclusion in logic is simply the submission or final

judgment made in an argument which is the direct result of inferential reasoning. There are

also conclusion indicators which are usually used before a conclusion is made. They include

“therefore, hence, thus, so, accordingly, consequently, in consequence, given that, proven

that, as a result, it follows that, we may infer, I conclude that, which shows that, which means

that, which entails that, which points to the conclusion that” (Ibid. 283; the italicized are my

own additions).

Provided above is the very structure that constitutes argument or the components of

argument. Now argument as a reasoning or inferential process basically occurs in two ways

or methods namely Deduction and Induction. Deduction is the general rule of logic, while

induction is the particular rule of logic.

7.3.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

 What is an argument?

 Identify the constituent elements of an argument

7.3.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

 An argument is any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the

others, which are regarded as providing support or grounds for the truth of that one.

 The constituent elements of an argument are propositions, premises and conclusion.

7.4 The Theory of Deduction

By the expression “the theory of deduction” we simply mean the method of deduction or

deductive inference. Recall we said that argument is not possible without inference, meaning

that deductive argument is the same as deductive inference. Now, the real fact about a

deductive argument is the logical coherence of its propositions. By logical coherence we

mean the formal structure of a deductive argument which determines its validity. But for a

deductive argument to be valid it must be complete both by form and by content. The point to

note here is that for a deductive argument to be said to be valid, the premises must provide

adequate and sufficient grounds for the truth of the conclusion. It is such that if the premises

are true, the denial of the conclusion will render the argument inconsistent and self-

contradictory or simply invalid. So for a deductive argument to be valid, the truth of its

premises must necessarily render the conclusion to be true. Hence we say that “a deductive

argument is one whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its

conclusion” (Copi and Cohen, 2005: 181). Put differently, “a deductive argument is valid

when, if its premises are true, its conclusion must be true” (Ibid. 43). In essence, what Copi

and Cohen are saying is that contrary to the rule of induction, deductive inference by its
method leads to certainty. This explains why the truth of its premises must absolutely and

necessarily lead to the truth of its conclusion. This point is buttressed by Copi and Cohen

thus:

A deductive argument is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its

premises with absolute necessity, this necessity not being a matter of degree

and not depending in any way on whatever else may be the case (p. 45).

As a theory of logic, the importance of deduction is to “explain the relationship between

premises and conclusion of a valid argument and to provide techniques for the appraisal

arguments either as valid or invalid” (p. 81). What this implies is that the basic characteristic

of deductive inference is to discriminate between valid and invalid argument. Therefore,

every deductive argument is either valid or invalid: valid if it is impossible for its premises to

be true without its conclusion being true also, invalid otherwise.

From a conventional point of view, deductive argument is described as a method of inference

in which we “move from assertions about a whole class of things to assertions about some of

them” (Uduigwomen, 1998, 14). This involves a movement from general or complex to

particular or simple, or from what is true of the whole to what is true of its parts. The above

definition of deductive inference is incomplete and misleading because there are deductive

arguments that go from general to general. There are also deductive arguments that go from

particular to particular. Next, we shall take examples of deductive arguments. These

include deductive arguments with true and false premises and the various types of deductive

arguments as already outlined. The deductive argument of invalid kind shall not be discussed

because it does not form part of the focus of our discourse.

Examples of deductive arguments with true premises and true conclusion:

a. All men are mortal 1st Premise

b. Amadi is a man 2nd Premise

c. Therefore, Amadi is mortal Conclusion

Or

a. All planets revolve round the sun 1st Premise

b. Jupiter is a planet 2nd Premise

c. Therefore Jupiter revolves round the sun Conclusion

Examples of deductive arguments with false premises and false conclusion:

a. Spiders have wings 1st Premise

b. Creatures with wings are insects 2nd Premise

c. Therefore, spiders are insects Conclusion

Or

a. Soldiers are gays 1st Premise

b. Joke, a woman and a soldier 2nd Premise

c. Therefore, Joke is a gay Conclusion

Note that the above examples also represent the conventional definition of deductive

argument as that which the truth of the whole entails the truth of its parts. In addition, it can

be seen that the premises and conclusion of arguments under example two are false, but the
arguments remain valid because by form, they are coherent. However, logicians pay little

attention to this type of argument because logic essentially deals with the truth or falsity of

the premises of arguments.

Example of deductive argument that goes from general to general:

a. All hardworking students are bright 1st Premise

b. All bright students have good grades 2nd Premise

c. Therefore, all hardworking students have good grades. Conclusion

Example of deductive argument that goes from particular to particular:

a. Amadi is stronger than Amaka 1st Premise

b. Amaka is stronger than Chika 2nd Premise

c. Therefore, Amadi is stronger than Chika. Conclusion

From the above examples, we can see that the essential characteristic of deductive arguments

is such that the information contained in the premises provides conclusive grounds for the

truth of the conclusion. When such smooth relationship exists between the premises and

conclusion of a deductive argument, we say it is valid.

7.4.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

What is a deductive argument?

7.4.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

A deductive argument is one whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive grounds for

the truth of its conclusion

7.5 Test of Validity

Validity is akin to deductive argument. We have already explained what validity means. The

task before us now is to explain the meaning of “test of validity”. Recall we said that

argument is the subject matter of logic. It may interest you to know that logic does not deal

with argument as a subject matter. Logic principally deals with the form and quality of

arguments. As it relates to deduction, its form and quality is determined by its validity. In

fact, it is the issue of validity that makes deduction a theory or a method. Hence, to talk about

the test of validity is to deal with the form and quality of deductive inference. Most books on

logic outline four standard ways of testing the validity of deductive logic namely Syllogisms

and Venn Diagrams, Truth Tables, The Rules of Inference and The Rules of Replacement.

Copi and Cohen, however, explain that – Syllogisms/Venn Diagrams and Truth Tables

belong under classical logic and are rooted in the analytical works of Aristotle, while The

Rules of Inference and The Rules of Replacement are techniques of modern symbolic logic

(Ibid. 43).

7.5.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Identify four standard methods of testing the validity of an argument.

7.5.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Four standard methods of testing the validity of an argument are Venn Diagrams, Truth

Tables, the Rules of Inference and the Rules of Replacement.

7.6 The Theory of Induction

Very soon, you will come to realize that the features of the induction theory or inductive

inference in logic are quite different from those of the deduction. Inductive arguments do not

obey the rules of validity or invalidity. Rather, we say that inductive arguments are either

“correct or incorrect, reasonable or unreasonable, sound or unsound” (Uduigwomen, 1998:

14). Inductive arguments are also either “better or worse, weaker or stronger” (Copi and

Cohen, 2005: 44). Hence, the gist about an inductive argument is that the premises do not

necessarily provide conclusive ground for the truth of its conclusion. In contrast to deductive

argument, we say that an inductive argument is one whose “conclusion is claimed to follow

its premises only with probability, this probability being a matter of degree and dependent

upon what else may be the case” (Ibid. 45).

In the most ordinary sense, we say that inductive argument is the particular rule of logic. By

this statement we meant that rudimentarily, an inductive argument is one that involves

making argument from particular instances to a general or universal instance. Sometimes it is

said that inductive argument involves making a transition from simple instances to a complex

instance. But this definition of induction is only conventional. In the real sense of things, the

basic characteristic of induction is that it involves making inference from past instances

through the present to the future. Now transition from past to the future does not in any way

involve certainty, it rather involves a high level of probability. Again, making argument from

particular instances of the past involves making argument from experience. This point is well
articulated by David Hume as follows: “In reality, all arguments from experience are founded

on the similarity which we discover among natural objects, and by which we are induced to

expect effects similar to those which we have found to follow from such objects” (cited by

Copi and Cohen, 422).

By way of enumeration, we can outline the characteristics of inductive arguments thus:

a) Because the truth of the premises of inductive arguments does not entail the truth of their

conclusions, we say that inductive arguments are at best probabilistic or that “they can be

appraised to the degree of probability which the premises provide for the conclusion”

(Uduigwomen, 14).

b) Because the premises of inductive arguments only render their conclusions probable, by

implication, we say that inductive arguments are also analogous. To draw an analogy

between two or more entities is to indicate one or more respects in which they are similar;

hence we say: Every analogical inference proceeds from the similarity of two or more things

in one or more respects to the similarity of those things in some further respect (Copi and

Cohen, 425 & 426). Therefore, analogical arguments can neither be valid nor invalid, they are

simply probabilistic.

c) The justification of inductive arguments is problematic. No amount or degree of instant

confirmation of an occurrence (i.e. particular instantiations) constitutes sufficient grounds for

the conclusion of inductive arguments. For this reason we say that inductive

arguments are non-demonstrative. This latter feature merely confirms the probable nature

of inductive arguments.

d) Based on the analogous nature of inductive arguments, we say that inductive arguments

are ampliative. This means that the conclusions of inductive arguments expand beyond
the content of the premises or that the conclusions of inductive arguments implicitly contain

new information not present in their premises.

Consequently, the conventional understanding of inductive inference as reasoning from

particular assertions about things to a general assertion about them or as argument from

particular to general can be misleading. Just as with deductive inference, in inductive

inference, we can move from general to general or from universal to universal and from

particular to particular. We shall now illustrate with examples:

Examples of inductive inferences (arguments) with particular premises but general or

universal conclusions (i.e. the conventional case):

Akpan a labour leader is a democrat

Amadi a labour leader is a democrat

Gani a labour leader is a democrat

Therefore (probably), all labour leaders are democrats.

Amadi an Igbo trader is a liar

Bode a Yoruba trader is a liar

Abubakar an Edo trader is a liar

Therefore (probably), all traders are liars.

Instance of an inductive inference (argument) with general or universal premises and

conclusion:

All academics are intelligent and successful

Therefore (probably), intending Academics will be intelligent and successful.

Instance of an inductive inference with particular premises and conclusion:

Idi Amin a military leader was a tyrant

Abacha a military leader was a tyrant

Therefore (probably), Abubakar a military leader would be a tyrant.

From the illustrations above, it is obvious that the consistent thing about an inductive

argument (no matter the type) is that the conclusion is always probable to the premises.

7.6.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

What is inductive argument?

7.6.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Inductive argument is that argument that the premises do not necessarily provide conclusive

ground for the truth of its conclusion.

7.7 Link between Induction and Deduction

There are areas of agreement and disagreement between induction and deduction. In the first

place, both are forms of argument and methods of inference, but their modus operandi differ.

As forms of inference, deductive and inductive arguments are composed of propositions (as

premises and conclusions), which can either be true or false. Propositions are declarative

sentences that are capable of being verified such that their truth or falsity can be established.

Thus, an argument is composed of propositions which are classified into premises and

conclusion; the truth or falsity of the premises usually determines what the conclusion will
be. If the propositions of inductive or deductive argument follow coherently, we say that the

former is correct, and the latter valid. If otherwise, we say an inductive argument is incorrect

and a deductive argument invalid. Where both arguments are either valid or correct, we say

that they are sound.

Second, as methods of inference, induction and deduction are conjectural, analogous and

probabilistic. Recall that early in this module, we stated that human knowledge is

fundamentally inferential. We cannot think without judging and judgment is by analogy,

association, abstraction and inference. We believe that events and things of the world are

interlinked or somehow interconnected. Hence, inferences are speculations or systematic

conjectures about the future. Over the millennia, experience and observation have taught us

that uniformity, regularity, constancy or invariability are indispensable features of our

universe ... Inference thus becomes our residue for dealing with the universe; all because, our

daily experiences strengthen our faith in the reliability of our inferences (Uduigwomen,

1998: 22).

By the method of analogy we compare or infer a relationship between two dissimilar things

or events. This makes our knowledge about things all the more probabilistic. Analogy by

deduction is holistic, just as analogy by induction is atomistic. This is so because; complexes

and simples form part of the totality of our world. This habit of linking complexes with

simples and vice versa is not out of order. In the first place, only a being with intelligence or

reason can attempt or see the symbiosis in nature. Thus - by the rule of general logic (i.e.

reason) we see relationship between complex things, and by the rule of particular logic (i.e.

the senses) we see relationship between simple things (Kant, 1964: 63-64).

If inferential knowledge is conjectural and analogous, then it is probabilistic. But exactly how

do induction and deduction apply to the probability theory? The inductive inference leads to
over generalization or a high degree of probability and this is not to our advantage because,

such an attitude is counter-productive. On the other hand, the deductive inference helps to

tame the attitude of overgeneralization. Instead of seeking for high degree of probability, we

seek for a high degree of confirmation or corroboration among things or events. Hence, the

deductive inference could be said to be a more dynamic system of probability.

7.7.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

 Define the method of analogy

 Distinguish between analogy by deduction and analogy by induction.

7.7.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

 The method of analogy is the act of comparing or inferring a relationship between two

dissimilar things or events.

 Analogy by deduction is holistic while analogy by induction is atomistic.

7.8 Truth, Validity, Correctness, Soundness and Logical Form in Logic

Sometimes logic is defined as “the study of methods and principles used to distinguish

correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning” (Copi and Cohen, 3). What this simply means is

that the aim of logic is to discover and make available those criteria for demarcating sound

from unsound arguments. Recall that argument as a method of inference is in two forms:

deduction and induction. This means that the expressions “correct reasoning” and “incorrect

reasoning” apply to both deductive and inductive arguments. In essence, the rules of

correctness and incorrectness apply to both “deductive and inductive arguments. A deductive
argument is correct when valid and valid if the premises cannot be true and the conclusion

false, on the other hand an inductive argument is correct when the premises if true justify the

inductive claim” (Ucheaga, 2006: 59). What this means is that a deductive argument that is

valid is also correct, while an invalid deductive argument is incorrect. Inversely, an inductive

is correct when it is better or stronger and incorrect when it is worse or weaker. However, for

specific reasons, validity and invalidity are used to qualify deductive argument, while correct

and incorrect are used to qualify inductive arguments.

From the explanation made above, it can be seen clearly that logical correctness forms the

basis for the soundness or unsoundness of an argument. What we mean to say here is that if

by the rule of validity a deductive argument is said to be logically correct, otherwise it is

logically incorrect. In the same vein, by the rule of probability an inductive argument is said

to be logically correct if it is better or stronger, otherwise it is logically incorrect. And once

an argument is logically correct, such argument is said to be sound. Thus, about soundness;

“an argument is said to be sound if (a) it is valid, (b) all its premises are true, and (c) its

conclusion is true” (Uduma,1997: 204). Put differently, “when an argument is valid, and all

of its premises are true, we call it sound” (Copi and Cohen, 49).This is to say, logical

correctness, soundness and validity are all interconnected. Which is why we say that “a valid

argument with all true premises and a true conclusion is called a sound argument” (Uduma,

2008: 18). Hence:

Logic as the principle of correct reasoning means that the subject is actually

concerned with the criteria for the evaluation of arguments; in this connection,

it has as its fundamental task the provision of standards or criteria to judge

whether an argument is valid or invalid; that is logically correct or not (Ibid.

37).
Consequently, correct reasoning or soundness deals with the completed reasoning process.

Not with inference as inference or about how to infer. Note, however, that “induction is

concerned with the correctness or incorrectness of inference but certainly not with validity

and invalidity” (Uduma, 1997: 204). However, whether for deductive or inductive argument,

logical correctness or soundness is largely determined by both form and content. By form we

mean rational coherence, while by content we mean empirical correspondence. Hence an

argument cannot be said to be complete or sound if reason and fact do not cohere, which is

another way of saying that the logical form of an argument must correspond with its content.

Next, we look at truth in logic and how truth connects to validity, probability and logical

form. Truth and falsity are attributes of proposition in logic. When we talk of truth in logic

we refer to the evaluation of declarative propositions. Recall that declarative propositions are

those statements or sentences which can either be affirmed to the true or negated to be false.

On the other hand, validity and invalidity, correctness or incorrectness, and soundness and

unsoundness refer to arguments alone. Now since propositions are the building blocks of

arguments, and truth determines the inner structure of propositions, it means that truth in

logic is the rudimentary or elementary basis of validity, correctness and soundness; just as

falsity is the primary basis of invalidity, incorrectness and unsoundness. In other words, just

as validity, correctness or soundness constitute the formal structure of argument, so does truth

constitute the formal structure of proposition. This is why we stated that an argument is valid,

correct or sound when both its premises and conclusion are all true.

One other point you have to note is that the concern of logic is not about the truth or

falsehood of propositions. The concern of logic and the logician is with logical relations

between propositions which make the ground for the soundness of arguments. The test of
propositions, either as premises or as conclusion is a task for science and scientists. By

logical relations between propositions we mean those relations that determine the

correctness or incorrectness of the arguments in which they occur. The task of determining

the correctness or incorrectness of arguments falls squarely within the province of logic. The

logician is interested in the correctness even of arguments whose premises may be false

(Copi and Cohen, 49 – 50).

If you get the gist above, it means that you now understand what is meant by logical form

or formal structure. Logical form or formal structure means that by form (i.e. coherence) and

by content (i.e. correspondence), the propositions that make up an argument are true, making

the argument in itself to be correct or sound. For inductive inference, the conclusion may be

probable, but its premises along with its conclusion, must be true. If so far you have

understood the lecture, it means that you now know all the properties of inference and

argument types in logic.

7.8.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

 When can we say that a deductive argument is valid?

 When can we say that an inductive argument is correct?

 What is a sound argument?

7.8.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

 A deductive argument is valid if its premises offer conclusive evidence for the

truthfulness of its conclusion.

 An inductive argument is correct when the premises if true justify the inductive claim.
  A sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and also contains true

propositions.

7.9 Summary of Study Session 7

Recall that in the study session, we discussed about inference and argument types in logic.

You have thus learnt how inference is related to logic. We said that argument is the subject

matter of logic. As the subject matter of logic, argument describes and provides the internal

form or structure of logic. However, argument in logic is not possible without inference. This

means that the two types or arguments that we have which are induction and deduction are in

actual fact two types or methods of inference. We then proceeded to describe the formal

structure of deduction. We also discussed the method of induction and showed how induction

is connected to probability. Having done that, you were shown how deduction and induction

are inter-connected. Finally we discussed what is meant by logical correctness and logical

form in logic. If you are sure that you have so far understood the trend in this lecture, you can

now proceed to test your knowledge by attempting at the revision questions.

7.9.2 References / Suggestions for Further Reading

Anele, D. I. O. (2005). Logic and critical reasoning. Lagos, Nigeria: Biwaz.

Copi, I. M. and Cohen, C. (2005). Introduction to logic (11th Edition). New Delhi, India:

Prentice-Hall.

Mautner, T. (Ed.) (1996). Dictionary of philosophy, London, England: Penguin Books.

Momoh, C. S. (2009). Elements of formal logic in natural language. Philosophy and

 logic. Lagos, Nigeria: Department of Philosophy, University of Lagos.

Udeaga, D. N. (2006), Rudiments of logic, Calabar, Nigeria: University of Calabar Press.

Uduigwomen, A. F. (1998). How to think. Aba, Nigeria: AAU.

Uduma, O. U. (1997). Nature and subject matter of logic. In J. I. Omoregbe (Ed.),

Introduction

to philosophy and Logic. Lagos, Nigeria; Department of Philosophy, University

of Lagos.

______ (1997). Tests of Validity: Truth Table and Method of Deduction. In J. I.Omoregbe

(Ed.), Introduction to philosophy and logic. Lagos, Nigeria: Department of

Philosophy, University of Lagos.

_____(2008). Logic and critical reasoning: A study of impediments to good reasoning and

guide to sound argumentation. Abakaliki, Nigeria: Willyrose & Appleseed.

 STUDY SESSION 8

LAWS OF THOUGHT, ELEMENTARY FORMAL RULES OF REASONING AND

FALLACIES IN THE THINKING PROCESS

8.1 Introduction

This study session introduces you to the fundamentals of reasoning process in logic. You will

be exposed to the rules of valid reasoning process and the fallacies involved in violating the

principles of this reasoning process. Let us quickly remind ourselves that the fundamental

objective of logic as a field of study is to devise methods and principles for distinguishing

correct from incorrect reasoning. These principles are your concern in this session. Indeed,

two of the ways by which logic attempts to achieve this objective are by exposing us to:

(i) the laws of thought, and

(ii) the elementary formal rules of reasoning.

Logic employs the laws of thought as an instrument of understanding the principle behind

human thinking process. This prompts logic to be defined in some quarters as the science of

the laws of thought.1 The elementary formal rules of reasoning, otherwise known as rules of

inference, is introduced by logic to guide us on how to deduce correctly when making claims

through arguments. In fact, arguments are validated or invalidated on the ground of the rules

of inference. Consequently, logic is generally defined as the study of the methods and

principles used to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning. 2 This study

1 th
I.M. Copi, Introduction to Logic, 5 ed.( New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982), p.3.
2
Ibid.

1
session aims at examining the nature of these principles as (i) the laws of thought, and (ii) the

rules of deductive inference.

8.1.1 Learning Outcomes for Study Session 8

When you have studied this session, you should be able to:

1. List the three laws of thought and the elementary rules of inference;

2. Translate both the laws of thought and rules of inference to their symbolic forms;

3. Define fallacy; and

4. Identify different forms of fallacies.

8.2 Components of the Law of Thought

The components of the law of thought include the Principle of Identity; the Principle of

Contradiction; and the Principle of Excluded Middle. Each of these principles has the status

of “law” since they guide human thinking process. When we follow their dictates we create

order in our thinking process. The fundamental characteristic of these principles or laws is

that they are self-evident truth; nevertheless, we often violate them because we are not

mindful of the implication of doing so. Logic as a discipline comes in handy to raise our

consciousness in this regard.

(i) The Law of Identity

This law or principle underscores the notion that every object has an attribute peculiar to it.

Once an attribute is associated with an entity then that attribute is identical to that entity. For

2
instance, if you attribute “intelligence” to Aristotle, then we can rightly say that Aristotle is

intelligent. Consider the following propositions:

(i) If Nigerians are Africans then they are Africans.

(ii) If Obama is an American President then he is an American president.

(iii) If dogs are animals then dogs are animals.

You can symbolize each of the propositions above as:

p p

Indeed, every proposition of this form is a “tautology” and hence true. A tautology is any

proposition that implies itself.

(ii) The Law of Contradiction

In reaction to the law of identity, the law of contradiction (or non-contradiction), underscores

the idea that we cannot deny an entity the attribute we already associate with it and still

affirm that attribute at the same time. Anton puts it aptly, “The same attribute cannot at the

same time belong and not belong to the same object in the same respect”3. Consequently, it

would be a contradiction if you assert that “Aristotle is intelligent and not intelligent”.

Proposition of this nature is necessarily false. Symbolically,

P ~ P

is a false proposition. In essence, the conjunction of a proposition and its negation shall

result in falsity.

3
J. Anton, “On Aristotle’s Principles of Contradiction and its Platonic Antecedents”, in Philosophia, 2: 1972,
p.267.

3
(iii) The Law of Excluded Middle

How do we resolve a contradiction? This is the question addressed in the law of excluded

middle. Accordingly, it is either we attach an attribute to an entity or not. By implication,

the statement we aver about anything can either be true or false. We can avoid a

contradiction once we follow this principle. Immediately we agree that “Aristotle is either

intelligent or not intelligent”, we easily escape a contradiction. Again consider the following:

(a) Nigerians are either Africans or not Africans.

(b) Obama is either an American President or not so.

(c) Dogs are either animals or not animals.

We can render each of the above symbolically as:

Pv~ P

Any proposition of this form is necessarily true.

In spite of the compelling nature of these laws as rules of right reasoning process, some

objections have been raised by critics against them. Advocates of philosophy of change

consider the law of identity as untenable in the face of change that characterizes reality. The

proposition “Obama is the American President” may be true yesterday, but the reality on

ground indicates that such statement is false today. Trump is the American President today.

On a closer look, however, the proposition under consideration is actually not properly

formed otherwise it would not have been affected by change. Such a proposition is regarded

as an elliptical proposition because its truth values are susceptible to change. Logic deals

with complete formulated statements that cannot be affected by change. We can properly

formulate the statement under consideration thus:

4
 Obama was American President between 2000 and 2016.

The new formulation simply renders the statement changeless.

The law of contradiction faces the challenge posed by Heraclitean, Marxist and Hegelian

philosophies that consider the co-existence of conflicting forces as the foundation of

development. It is the conflict between opposite forces that triggers development or changes

in reality. In Marx‟s socio-economic interpretation of societal growth, conflict between two

contrasting elements in the society, the class of the rich and the poor, is the propeller of social

change. Copi, however, expresses the view that “it is a loose and inconvenient terminology to

call these conflicting forces Contradictory”4. Each of the classes, i.e. the rich and the poor,

does not necessarily count as a denial of the other. They merely have conflicting attributes.

The argument that there are propositions which are neither true nor false offers serious

challenge for the law of excluded middle. Consider the assertion “God either exists or does

not exist”. Indeed, it is quite impossible to verify this assertion; how do we verify whether

God exists or whether he does not? A movement in philosophy called Logical Positivism

concludes that this kind of assertion is meaningless. Nevertheless, Anele avers that the

principle of excluded middle is applicable only to propositions, and cannot be legitimately

applied to meaningless assertions5.

8.2.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Name the three laws of thought.

4
Copi, op.cit, p.285.
5
D.I.Anele, Logic and Critical Reasoning, (Lagos: Biwaz, 2005), p.30.

5
8.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

The law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle

8.3 Elementary Formal Rules of Logical Reasoning (Rules of Inference)

In an attempt to formalize how humans make deductive inference through their thinking,

logicians arrive at some rules that are captured in the form of argument. The fundamental

characteristic of these rules is that their premises provide conclusive grounds for their

conclusions. The rules are: Modus Ponens (M.P), Modus Tollens (M.T), Hypothetical

Syllogism (H.S), Absorption (Abs.), Disjunctive Syllogism (D.S), Addition (Add.),

Conjunction (Conj.), Simplification (Simp.), and Constructive Dilemma (C.D.).

Modus Ponens (M.P.)

According to Modus Ponens, if the truth of a hypothetical premise is assumed, and the truth

of the antecedent of that premise is also assumed, we may conclude that the consequent of

that premise is true. Symbolically, we shall have:

pq

q

In natural language, we can express the rule of Modus Ponens with the following argument:

If God is infinitely powerful then He is the creator of the universe.

God is infinitely powerful.

Therefore, He is the creator of the universe.

6
The chief characteristics of this rule are:

(i) The rule is made up of two premises and a conclusion.

(ii) The major connective of the first premise is the horseshoe.

(iii) The antecedent of the first premise is affirmed in the second premise.

(iv) The conclusion is the consequent of the first premise.

Any argument, whether simple or complex, whose substitution instance satisfies all the

characteristics above can be regarded as substitution instance of Modus Ponens, and hence

valid. The following are the examples of such argument:

~p  ~ s

~p

~ s

(D v N )  J

DvN

J

(F  N )  ~ (L v ~ T )

FN

~ ( L v ~ T )

7
Owing to lack of deep understanding of the rule of “M.P.”, we sometimes make the mistake

of swapping the variables of the second premise and the conclusion. Such move cannot result

in valid argument. In fact a fallacy is said to have been committed by this move; this is the

fallacy of “affirming the consequent”. Such an argument would reads thus:

p q
q
p

This argument is invalid since the consequent of the first premise has now become the second

premise. Normally, it is the antecedent of the first premise that ought to become the second

premise. This is why the rule is sometimes called “affirming the antecedent”. Of course, that

is exactly what it does. It makes a conditional statement, and then affirms the antecedent of

that conditional statement, and draws as a conclusion the consequent of that conditional

statement.6 The point being made shall become clearer by the time we produce the semantic

interpretation of an argument that affirms the consequent. Let us consider the argument

below:

if Democritus actually postulated the atomist theory, then he is scientifically oriented.

Democritus is scientifically oriented.

Therefore, Democritus actually postulated the atomist theory.

The invalid nature of this argument can easily be intuited effortlessly. Democritus, being

scientifically oriented, is not the stated condition for being affirmed as the postulator of the

atomist theory. The conclusion is non-sequiture from the premises.

Modus Tollens (M.T.)

6
B.N. Waller, Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict, (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.,1988) p.84.

8
According to Modus Tollen, if the truth of a hypothetical premise is assumed, and the falsity

of the consequent of that premise is also assumed, we may conclude that the antecedent of

that premise is false. Symbolically, the rule reads:

pq
~q
~ p

In natural language, we can express the rule of Modus Tollens in the following argument:

If Georgias were a sophist, then he would hold the belief that knowledge is relative.

Georgias does not hold the belief that knowledge is relative.

Therefore, Georgias is not a sophist.

The chief characteristics of this rule are:

(i) The rule is made up two premises and a conclusion.

(ii) The major connective of the first premise is the horseshoe.

(iii) The second premise is the denial of the consequent of the first premise.

(iv) The conclusion is the denial of the antecedent of the first premise.

Any argument, whether simple or complex, whose substitution instance satisfies all the

characteristics above can be regarded as substitution instance of Modus Tollens, and hence

valid. Consider the following argument:

9
K  (T  O)
~ (T  O)
~ K

F ~S
~~ S
~ F

A somewhat similar to the form of “M.T.” but not deductively valid because it denies the

antecedent of the first premise in the second premise should however be avoided. For

instance,

W N
~W
~ N

The fallacy committed here is the fallacy of denying the antecedent. The, invalidity of the

argument shall become glaring by the time we express it with natural language-couched

argument like the following;

If Socrates was morally upright, then, he would have lived a peaceful life.

Socrates was not morally upright.

Therefore, Socrates did not live a peaceful life.

The argument here no doubt does not conform to the natural way of thinking, hence any

argument of this form would be invalid. There is nothing in the first premise (implicitly or

explicitly) that indicates that Socrates not being morally upright is sine qua non to his not

living a peaceful life

Hypothetical Syllogism (H.S.)

10
This is an elementary valid argument involving three conditionals in which the consequent of

the first conditional becomes the antecedent of the second conditional while the antecedent of

the first premise becomes that of the conclusion and the consequent of the second premise

becomes that of the conclusion. This is a chain argument that is valid because of the transitive

character of the entailment relation.7 Symbolically, the rule reads:

pq
qr
 pr

We can express the argument thus:

If Anselm was a contemporary of Aquinas, then he was a medieval philosopher.

If Anselm was a medieval philosopher then he proved the existence of God.

Therefore, if Anselm was a contemporary of Aquinas then he proved the existence

of God.

The chief characteristics of this rule are:

(i) It comprises two premises and a conclusion.

(ii) Each of the premises is a conditional statement hence its major connective is the

horseshoe.

(iii) The consequent of the first premise becomes the antecedent of the second premise.

(iv) The antecedent of the first premise becomes the antecedent of the conclusion.

(v) The consequent of the second premise becomes the consequent of the conclusion.

7
P. Wright, Valid Thinking: An Introduction to Logic, (California: Wardsworth, 1971), p.64.

11
The following are some of the arguments with the substitution instances of “H.S.” in their

symbolic form:

Absorption (Abs.)

According to the rule of “Absorption”, when a conditional statement “p  q” is made, the

absorption permits the inference that “p” can imply both “p” and “q”. The rule symbolically

states:

p  q
 p  ( p  q)

When expressed with natural language, the argument may appear clumsy; nevertheless, it is

an elementary valid argument. Consider the example below:

If Locke is a democrat then he believes in the equality of all men.

Therefore, if Locke is a democrat then Locke is both a democrat and a believer of the equality

of all men.

The following are the chief characteristics of “Abs.”:

(i) The rule has only one premise with a conclusion.

(ii) The premise and the conclusion are conditional statements hence with the horseshoe as

the major connective.

(iii) The conclusion is a complex argument involving a bracketed argument.

(iv) The antecedent of the premise is also the antecedent of the conclusion.

(v) The consequent of the conclusion is a conjunction of both the antecedent and consequent

of the first premise.

12
The following are some of the argument with the substitution instances of “Abs.”:

L  ( N  O)
 L  [ L  ( N  O)]

~J  T
~ J  (~ J  T )

Disjunctive Syllogism (D.S.)

The rule of the Disjunctive Syllogism is an elementary valid argument form in which one

premise is a disjunction, another premise is the denial of one of the two disjuncts, and the

conclusion is the truth of the other disjunct. The rule symbolically states:

pvq

~p

q

A natural language argument of this form reads:

Hegel can either be a subjective idealist or an objective idealist.

Hegel is not a subjective idealist.

Therefore, Hegel is an objective idealist.

The chief characteristics of the rule are:

(i) It has two premises and a conclusion.

(ii) The major connective of the first premise is the disjunctive.

(iii) The second premise is a denial of the first disjunct of the first premise.

13
(iv) The conclusion is the second disjunct of the first premise.

The following are some of the arguments with the substitution instances of “D.S.”:

(L  T ) v S
~ (L  T )
S

~ K v ~U
~~ K
~ U

Addition (Add.)

According to this rule, given the premise of an argument, Addition permits the inclusion of

another proposition with the previously given premise, and connecting the two with the

disjunction to form the conclusion of the argument. The rule is sometimes called Logical

addition. The rule can be symbolized in the following way:

pvq

When constructed with the natural language, the argument can be in this form:

Epistemologists are philosophers.

Therefore, epistemologists are philosophers or knowledgeable people.

The chief characteristics of the rule are:

(i) It is made up of a single premise and a conclusion.

(ii) The major connective of the conclusion is the disjunction.

14
(iii) It is the only rule in which one of the constituent elements of its conclusion never

appears before in its premise i.e. what is not already contained in the premise is found in the

conclusion.

The following are some of the arguments with the substitution instances of “Add.”

S v ~ R

J vT
(J v T ) v ~ (J v T )

Conjunction (Conj.)

This rule permits the conjunction of two individually existing statements that are assumed to

be true. Each of the two statements shares the slot of each of the premises that constitute the

parts of the rule. When stated symbolically, the rule appears thus:

 pq

And when applied to natural language we shall have:

Plato is a rationalist.

Aristotle is an empiricist

Therefore, Plato is a rationalist and Aristotle is an empiricist

The chief characteristics of the rule are:

15
(i) It is made up of two premises and a conclusion

(ii) The first and the second premises conjoined to become the conclusion using the dot

symbol.

The following are some of the arguments with the substitution instances of “Conj.”:

~S

 J ~ S

L v O
T U
 ( L v O)  (T  U )

Simplification (Simp.)

While the rule of conjunction works towards the unification of two independently existing

statements, and thus moves from simpler to complex statement, the rule of Simplification

aims at the division of two conjoined statements, hence moves from complex to simpler

statement. It plays the role of simplifying a rather compounded statement. According to the

rule, if the conjunction of two statements is given, the rule permits that we can validly

separate the first conjunct to exist on its own and form a conclusion. It is a rule for liberating

the first conjunct.

The symbolical representation of the rule reads:

p q

p

16
We can express the natural language form of the rule thus:

Aristotle is an empiricist and a scientist

Therefore Aristotle is an empiricist.

The chief characteristics of Simplification are:

(i) It is made up of a single premise and conclusion.

(ii) The first premise is a compound of two statements linked with the conjunction symbol.

(iii) The first conjunct of the first premise becomes the conclusion of the argument.

The following are some of the arguments with the substitution instances of simplification.

~ J U
~ J

(S v O)  K
S v O

Constructive Dilemma (C.D)

Constructive Dilemma as a rule of inference makes use of a combination of at least three

logical connectives. The rule consists of an argument in which one premise, the major, is the

conjunctive assertion of two hypothetical propositions, and in which a second premise, the

minor, is an alternative proposition.8 The minor affirms alternatively the antecedents of the

major while the conclusion affirms, alternatively the consequents of the major premise. When

symbolized, the argument appears thus,

8
Ibid., p.160

17
( p  q)  (r  s)
pvr
q v s

In natural language for, the “C.D” may appear thus:

If Hume is a rationalist then he must accept only the reality of the soul and if he is an

empiricist, he must accept only the reality of the body.

Hume is either a rationalist or an empiricist.

Therefore, Hume must either accept only the reality of the soul or only the reality of the body.

From the above, we can deduce certain crucial characteristics of “C.D.”:

(i) The rule is made up of two premises and conclusion.

(ii) The rule involves at least four different variables (the largest employed among the

rules).

(ii) The major connective of the first premise is the dot (conjunction) while the minor

connective is the horseshoe (implication).

(iv) The major connective of the minor premise is the disjunction (wedge)

(v) The major connective of the conclusion is the disjunction (wedge).

(vi) The first disjunct of the second premise (minor premise) is the antecedent of the

conditional statement that forms the first conjunct of the first premise.

(vii) The second disjunct of the second premise is the antecedent of the conditional statement

that forms the second conjunct of the first premise.

18
(viii) The first disjunct of the conclusion is the antecedent of the conditional statement that

forms the first conjunct of the first premise.

(ix) The second disjunct of the conclusion is the consequent of the conditional statement that

forms the second conjunct of the first premise.

In line with the above characteristics, the following are some of the arguments with

substitution instances of “C.D.”:

( J  D)  ( N  O)
JvN
DvO

[(W  S )  L]  ( F  ~ C )
(W  S ) v F
Lv~C

With the semantic analysis of the nine rules of inference as done above, it would be easy for

you to have a sharp grasp of the symbolic rendition of the rules. The rules are no more seen

as mere combination of symbols but as something that has its foundation in the natural way

we think about things.

8.3.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

List the nine rules of inference

19
8.3.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Absorption, Disjunctive Syllogism, Hypothetical Syllogism,

Constructive Dilemma, Addition, Simplification, Conjunction

8.4 What is Fallacy?

Following the products of our mental cognition, we realise the daily occurrence of erroneous

reasoning processes which appear to be valid and correct at first, but upon better scrutiny, we

see the errors in these forms of reasoning – fallacies. Fallacy can be seen as a type of

argument that tends to be persuasive but does not provide logically adequate grounds for a

change in belief. By this, we know that fallacies tend to be persuasive; often, or even most of

the time, they succeed in changing belief, although they need not always do so. Fallacies can

be said to be viruses, and like viruses on the human body, they attack human reasoning at

places where it is vulnerable; the act of studying these fallacies can serve as an inoculation,

revealing to us and helping us identify places where human reasoning is vulnerable.

Fallacies are to be differentiated from arguments that are wrong. Despite the many forms by

which we can say an argument is wrong, none of such cases can be compared to the state of it

being fallacious. Fallacies occur when the premises of an argument appear to support the

conclusion, but do not in fact do so. Fallacies for us mean typical errors that often occur, are

mostly used (innocently and deliberately), and are often deceiving as related to reasoning.

A fallacy, (Latin, „fallere‟, to deceive) is an argument that is incorrect, but may appear to

some in some contexts to be a correct argument. Bad reasoning occurs when people construct

arguments that are fallacious without realizing that they are doing so. Fallacies may be

20
divided up into two categories, formal and informal. Informal fallacies themselves can be

subdivided into fallacies of relevance and fallacies of ambiguity.

8.4.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

1. What is fallacy?

2. The term fallacy is derived from the Latin word ---

8.4.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

1. Fallacy can be seen as a type of argument that tends to be persuasive but does not

provide logically adequate grounds for a change in belief.

2. „Fallere‟, to deceive

8.5 Formal Fallacies

Formal fallacies are fallacious by virtue of their logical form. They tend to be persuasive

because they resemble valid logical forms. The formal fallacies always have a deductively

Invalid form. Find that form, and you have found the fallacy. We must always remember that

to the extent to which formal fallacies are persuasive, it is the case only because they

resemble valid forms, and can so exploit problems which people have with conditionals and

disjunctions.

Types of Formal Fallacies

21
Formal Fallacies can be classified into 4 major types, Fallacies of Propositional Logic,

Fallacies of Syllogistics, Fallacies of Predicate Logic and Fallacies of Modal Logic.

1. Affirming the Consequent – A Type of Fallacy of Propositional Logic, this formal

fallacy appears in a form that is often mistaken for Modus Ponens, which is a valid

form. The first premise being a conditional statement, the “if”-part is the antecedent,

while the “then”-part is the consequent.

Formal Fallacy: P ⊃ Q Valid Form: P ⊃ Q

Q P

Therefore, P Therefore, Q

Example

If Lucas is a Nigerian, then he understands Yoruba

It is the case that Lucas understands Yoruba

Therefore, Lucas is a Nigerian

2. Denying the Antecedent– Another type of Fallacy of Propositional Logic, this formal

fallacy appears in a form that is often mistaken for Modus Tollens, which is a valid

form.

Formal Fallacy: P ⊃ Q Valid Form: P ⊃ Q

~P ~Q

Therefore, ~Q Therefore, ~P

Example

If Lucas is a Nigerian, then he knows Fela

Lucas is not a Nigerian

It follows that he does not know Fela

22
 3. Affirming a Disjunct – Also a type of Fallacy of Propositional Logic, this formal

fallacy occurs in a form that is often mistaken for Disjunctive Syllogism, another

valid form.

Formal Fallacy: P v Q Valid Form: P v Q

P ~P

Therefore, ~Q Therefore, Q

Example

Either you bathe daily, or you will have body odour

You bathe daily

So, you will not have body odour

4. Converting a Conditional – This formal fallacy occurs when one tries to convert the

antecedent of an argument to the consequent, by so doing, losing validity of such an

argument.

Formal Fallacy: P ⊃ Q

Therefore, Q ⊃ P

Example

If Tunde was NAPS President, then he was popular

Therefore, if Tunde was popular, then he was NAPS President

Other types of Formal Fallacies include the following:

 Fallacies of Propositional Logic

5. Improper Transposition

6. Improper Disjunctive Syllogism (Affirming One Disjunct)

23
 Fallacies of Syllogistics

7. Four Terms, quaternioterminorum (due to ambiguous middle term)

8. Undistributed Middle Term

9. Illicit Major (Predicate term distributed in conclusion but not in major premise)

10. Illicit Minor (Subject term distributed in conclusion but not in minor premise)

11. Illicit Affirmative

12. Illicit Negative

 Fallacies of Predicate Logic

13. Illicit Quantifier Shift

14. Unwarranted Contrast

15. Illicit Substitution of Identicals (Masked Man)

 Fallacies of Modal Logic

16. Modal Fallacy

8.5.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

List the four major types of formal fallacies.

8.5.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Fallacy of Propositional Logic, Fallacy of Syllogistics, Fallacy of Predicate Logic and Fallacy

of Modal Logic

8.6 Informal Fallacy

24
Informal Fallacies do not have bad forms, but make other kinds of errors, typically violating

considerations for evidence, relevance and clarity. Informal fallacies are considered to be

murky as a result of their being unsystematic as opposed to formal fallacies which are

systematic, rigid and quite traditional. Being quirky with no force of law but only explanatory

power, they identify classes of less conclusive arguments that recur with some frequency, but

they do not contain formal laws that make their conclusion illegitimate. Informal fallacies are

best used when we encounter arguments that we know are wrong, but cannot say why.

Informal fallacies have been classified by various writers differently, separating one form of

appearance and occurrence from another. Some of these classifications include;

1. Pathos, Ethos and Logos – where Fallacies of Pathos rests on the flaws in the way

arguments appeal to the emotions and values of the audience; Fallacies of Ethos rests

on the flaws in the way arguments appeal to the character of opponents or of sources

and witnesses within an argument; Fallacies of Logos rests on flaws in the

relationship among statements in an argument.

2. Fallacy of Evidence, Fallacy of Relevance: Credibility, Confusion, Manipulation,

Inductive Fallacies and Fallacy of Clarity.

3. Fallacies of Relevance, Defective Induction, Fallacies of Presumption and Ambiguity.

For the purpose of this write-up, we categorise informal fallacies into two; Fallacy of

Relevance and Fallacy of Ambiguity.

8.6.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Which category of fallacies are considered problematic due to their lack of form?

25
8.6.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Informal fallacies

8.7 Fallacy of Relevance

There are fallacies that have conclusions that do not logically follow from the premise from

which they issue; Fallacies of relevance are mistakes, and have been said to be better called

fallacies of irrelevance as they point to the absence of any real connection between the

premises and the conclusion of the argument. Since there is no connection, the premises

cannot possibly establish the truth of the conclusion. But the premises are usually

psychologically relevant; they have some emotional impact on the readers. The premises

contain information which may appear to be relevant but which in fact is not relevant in

establishing the conclusion as true.

1. Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to People/Popularity) – Commonly called the

Bandwagon, as a result of the nature to which it takes, feeding on the emotions of the

people based on popular opinion and dominating constructs at the moment, this fallacy

occurs if and only if the argument tries to justify its conclusion by appealing to the

audience‟s emotions. Relying so much on emotion rather than on reason, in place of

evidence, the enthusiasm of the audience is excited through the use of expressive

language, for or against some cause or issue. But the occurrence of this enthusiasm has

nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion.

The popularity of what it accepts is irrelevant compared to its actual merit. This fallacy

shows how gullible people allow themselves to be as a result of what is popular at the

moment, making them believe the popular opinion as valid and true. This fallacy is

26
 mostly used by propagandists and advertising agencies as they try to convince the

populace into buying a product because everyone else is buying and using it. For

example: “Using Durex is the right thing since it‟s the most commonly bought condom to

prevent STI, STD and unwanted pregnancy, so buy Durex”. “Living together before

marriage is the right thing, since that‟s what every couple does now.”

2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity) – The goal of this fallacy is to justify

actions or issues through the arousal of sympathy and pity from the audience over the

consequence of such action or issue. This fallacy is mostly used by lawyers in the court

room, as they try to give arguments that would appeal to the emotions of the judge and

the jury so as to find their client innocent, even if circumstantial, of whatever crime he is

being accused of. Again, the argument relies on emotion rather than on reason; pointing

out the unfortunate consequences that will follow if one is to act otherwise, it tries to

convince the audience, after which we would then feel sorry. Despite this fact, this fallacy

can be said to have proven its worth especially when used for humanistic aids and the

general betterment of the human race, especially by priests and other religions, fund

raising bodies, charity organization etc. For example; “If you fail to make contributions to

this charity, a lot of children in Sudan will be in danger all their lives, experiencing the

terrible war”. “My Lord, I ask that you consider my client‟s reason for being charged,

she received a call about her none-year-old crippled son being in a bus accident and had

to rush down to the hospital, which was why she was given a speeding ticket”. “I was not

in my right state of mind, my parents were in a terrible train accident and I just got the

call on the morning of my exams. There was no way I could write the exams on my own

and I couldn‟t defer the semester, which was why I cheated in the exam”.

3. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force) – This fallacy tends to appear in form of

threats and force, where one is given little or no option than to go with the rulings of the

27
 argument. Mostly used by persons in position of power, like parents, political leaders,

group leaders in projects and assignments, class representatives etc, the threat is used to

bring about unfortunate consequences for anyone who dares to disagree with his/her

proposition. Though this fallacy serves its use in an effective way, to get one to agree or

disagree with whatever the one in power wills, it does not offer reasons for believing such

propositions or statements to be true. For example: “If you do not vote me to represent

you in the Senate, don‟t expect anything to be done for you all here, you will be

forgotten”, “What do you mean by there‟s nothing wrong with homosexuality, and love

is love? If that‟s what you go to school to learn I will not pay your fees anymore, you

better start thinking right”.

4. Argumentum ad Hominem (Argument Against the Person) – Literally, the phrase “ad

homimen” translates to mean “to the person”; this fallacy occurs in two different ways –

Abusive and Circumstantial, and in both cases, the fallacy is directed at the person instead

of the thing (ad rem) being discussed or addressed to the specifics of the case. Instead of

arguing against someone‟s opinion, the argument attacks the person who holds that

opinion by showing him as disreputable in some way. So it is saying that the opinion

must be false because of the person who believes it to be true. This fallacy differs from

the Fallacy of Poisoning the well, because, poisoning the well makes an advance discredit

and opposition.

I. Ad Hominem Abusive – an argument is said to have committed this fallacy when it

purports to discredit and insult the person who holds the view rather than addressing the

argument itself. For example, “Wole Soyinka keeps talking about his grievances with the

ruling government and their decisions that affect the masses, but who‟s Soyinka to speak?

He doesn‟t even believe in God and he‟s a polygamist.”

28
II. Ad Hominem Circumstantial – An argument is said to have committed the fallacy ad

hominem circumstantial, when it goes to discredit an issue or an argument by appealing

to the circumstance or characteristics of those who hold the view: “You definitely will

support APC and their change agenda, after all your father is a party member and part of

the senate”, “Senator Oriola‟s view on the petroleum tax should be discounted because

her husband owns a huge oil company”.

5. Red Hearing – This fallacy derives from using a Red Herring, a highly odiferous fish, to

throw dogs off the scent they are meant to be tracking; it is the process of throwing an

audience off track by raising unrelated or irrelevant points. A deliberate attempt to change

the subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue to some side-point. This

fallacy is used by smart lawyers to their advantage:“The police keeps disturbing patriotic

citizens who pay their tax, arresting me for reckless driving; yet they fail to arrest the

leaders who loot our naira and those rapists and criminals on the street”.

6. Straw Man – this argument occurs when one oversimplifies the arguments of an

opponent, making it easier to refute or ridicule; rather than recreate and summarize the

opponent‟s arguments fairly, you make up easier arguments you wish your opponent had

made which are far easier to knock down like a straw man in a corn field. In other words,

it is an attempt to establish a conclusion by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying

the arguments of the opposing side.

7. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Fallacy of Ignorance) – like the name implies, this

means fallacy of ignorance. This fallacy is committed when one makes a claim directly

opposite to a premise to be its conclusion; it occurs as a result of our limited knowledge

on the facts that make up the existence or workability of a thing or an event. Here, the

speaker tries to deceive his audience with the use of his own ignorance to give basis to his

so-called knowledge. The speaker only says that which he thinks is the case because the

29
 opposite has not been proven yet; even with this method, the conclusion still doesn‟t

follow the given premise. This is because the premise may still be true, but has no proof

of justification yet; the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. For example,

“No one has ever proven that there are witches and people with supernatural abilities,

therefore, there are no witches or people with supernatural abilities”, “It has never been

proven that UFOs exist, so no UFOs exist”. “Since no one has seen or found the Tree of

life, we can infer that such tree never existed.”

8. Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Inappropriate/Wrong Authority) – We tend to

experience this fallacy daily, yet we fail to notice such occurrence; we see it daily through

media outlets, we express it ourselves to impress people or to get them to give in to what

we want by appealing to a wrong authority as a point of reference. For example, I once

made my niece try the fruits she does not like by telling her Sofia the First likes these

fruits and insists children take it. Using the knowledge of her favourite cartoon character,

I was able to make her do as I please. This fallacy is appealed to when one uses famous

people to testify to cases where these persons have no professional competence, like when

students attempt a quotation during exams, misplacing a quote with another speaker.

Because we know these authorities, or believe they have some sort of knowledge, we

assume that they have knowledge about things outside their expertise too.

9. False Cause (Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc) – This fallacy is translated to mean “after

this, therefore because of this”, and it occurs when a sequential relationship is mistaken

for and taken to be a causal relationship. This fallacy is committed by a lot of people,

especially those who crave to believe there‟s a reason for everything, so they try to give a

causal relationship to all they experience. But to say a causal relationship exists requires

that we eliminate every other possible cause. This fallacy occurs when one mistakenly

assumes that, because the first event preceded the second event, it must mean the first

30
 event caused the later one, following the principle of causality. For example; “My right

hand kept itching me this morning. Later this noon my bank account was credited. My

itching hand must have caused the credit alert”, “A black cat crossed my path last night.

This morning, my grandfather dies of a heart attack. So the black cat must have caused

his death”.

10. Hasty Generalization (Dicto Simpliciter) – This fallacy occurs with the making of a

broad generalization on the basis of very little evidence. As such, we draw general

conclusion without examining all the relevant data. As expected, we cannot examine

everything; but still, the sample must be carefully selected, and large enough. This fallacy

is committed when we claim to know a lot about a thing, just because we know supposed

basic facts to understanding the thing; it equally occurs as a result of us gathering

inferences from what we presume to be the foundations to knowing a thing, and with such

inferences, make general claims and affirmations. As such, the truth and validity to our

notions do not stand as right, but rather even infringes on the truth.

11. Fallacy of Accident – Known as ad dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid in Latin,

this fallacy is committed if and only if one tries to justify an argument‟s conclusion by

treating an accidental feature of something as essential to the premise of the argument. It

is simply the application of a general rule to a particular special case or instance where it

is not relevant For example, “Suppose a friend, in his right mind, gives me his car keys

asking me to prevent him from driving when he‟s drunk, and then asks me for the car keys

when not in his right mind. Am I supposed to give him the car keys, allowing him leave?

Of course: Everyone knows and agrees that you should give back what you borrow”.

“Thou shall not kill: it is wrong to kill anyone, not even a murderer, a criminal or even

an assassin.” The application of a general rule to a particular case when accidental

31
 circumstances render the general rule inapplicable, is when this fallacy is committed; for

the truth in general might not be absolutely true without qualification.

12. Fallacy of Complex Question – This fallacy may come in form of rhetoric, confusing the

audience on what answer is to be expected of them. It entails asking questions with the

deliberate intention to confuse and place one in a compromising position, giving yes or no

answer to such questions is highly incriminating. At face value, the questions appear

harmless and simple when in actual fact they are complex and quite intricate. For

example, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” “Do you agree with the Change mantra

that has taken hold in every part of the country?” “You do agree with Capitalism, don‟t

you?” This fallacy is mostly used by lawyers and journalists when questioning people.

Another fallacy similar to this, is the Fallacy of False Dilemma (Either/Or) where an

argument is over- simplified so that only two options or choices appear possible,

sometimes one option is made to seem less desirable so one can choose the other as the

right choice.

13. Begging the Question (Petitio principia) – Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant

Conclusion) – The speaker tries to establish the truth of a proposition by offering an

argument that actually provides support for an entirely different conclusion. It can

often distract the audience, and we don‟t notice that the conclusion just misses the

point. For example:

Children should not be brought up with negativity. Parents who

had good childhood tend to be positive parents. Therefore,

mothers should stop being negative.

Driven with the goal of making sense in our argument we often get excited with the major

thrust of argument, thereby repeating our premise in our conclusion. When one assumes

32
 as a premise of one‟s argument the very conclusion he intends to rove, the fallacy of

petito principia is committed. Here, one can easily notice the overemphasis placed on the

information one hopes to pass across. It occurs when one assumes the truth of what one

tries to prove, it can also occur in circular arguments.

For example: Jide can eat any delicacy given to him

He doesn‟t have any preference

Jide eats a lot

14. Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)–People get carried away in their argument, to

the point of giving so much details as part of the premise to an argument, only to give a

conclusion that is far from the expected. This fallacy is committed when one leaves the

main point in an argument and goes ahead to draw conclusion or state something else, not

related to the point under consideration, thereby stating another conclusion. It is mostly

experienced when one fails to have enough evidence for one‟s argument, or lacks the fire

power to stand against an opponent‟s attacks.

8.7.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

1. Which of the fallacies appeals to pity or sympathy?

2. Which of the fallacies appeals to the people?

8.7.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

1. Argumentum ad Misericordiam

2. Argumentum ad Populum

33
8.8 Fallacies of Ambiguity

Fallacies of Ambiguity, also known as Fallacies of Clearness are mostly general deductive

arguments which appear to be valid but are not because of a shift in the meaning of a word,

phrase, or sentence. Since not all fallacies have conclusions that do not follow the issued

premise, some arguments occur whose formulations contain ambiguity, shifting meaning and

tend to change the course of the arguments. The change in the meaning of words of phrases

could be deliberate or just as a result of inattention: a term may have one sense in a premise,

but a different sense in the conclusion. As long as the inference depends on these changes in

meaning based on the ambiguity, the argument is fallacious.

1. Equivocation–The goal of every word geared towards communication is the exercise of

meaning. As such, words are geared towards meaning themselves. So it is not surprising

to notice a word having varying meanings; it is not impossible for words to have more

than one literal meaning. The moment one confuses the actual meaning of a word or a

phrase when used at a time, this fallacy tends to rise. It occurs when words that have

double meanings are used in a way that springs confusion and misinterpretation. This

occurs when a term or phrase is used in different senses in the premises and in the

conclusion. It often occurs with relative terms, and those cases can be harder to notice. As

such, when a word is used such that it could have two meanings, it can be said to

equivocate. For example: I saw Tade at the Bank. Bank here could mean the financial

institution or the river (bank).“The sign said, „fine for parking here‟. So since it was fine,

I parked.”

2. Composition and Division – This fallacy occurs in two different ways. For the fallacy of

Composition, sometimes called Part-For-The-Whole (Pars pro toto), it involves the

projection of the qualities of parts of a thing for the whole. This fallacy involves

34
 attributing a thing to a whole or a group because it can be attributed to parts of the group;

a bit is picked from the part and then generalised to apply to the whole as well based on

the idea that what is true of the part is true of the whole. The Fallacy of Division is the

inverse of the Fallacy of Composition. It involves arguing from the properties of the

whole for the parts; it involves attributing the qualities of the whole group on the

individual parts that make up the group.

3. Amphiboly – An argument commits the fallacy of amphiboly when it tries to justify its

conclusion by relying on an ambiguity in a word or phrase. This fallacy is mostly

common with oracular predictions. It occurs as a result of the awkward combination or

arrangement of words, so much that it causes misunderstanding. An amphibolous

statement might be true in one interpretation and false in another; when it is used in the

premise in one interpretation, and the conclusion is drawn based on the other one, that‟s a

fallacy. For example:“The tour guide said that standing on Third Mainland Bridge, the

Lekki Bridge can easily be seen. Thus, the Lekki Bridge is in Third Mainland Bridge.”

4. Accent – This occurs in an argument when one tries to justify its conclusion by relying on

presuppositions arising from a change in stress in a premise; it is the placement of wrong

emphasis or the wrong accentuation of words and phrases while speaking and writing,

such that the original or intended meaning is perverted. It mostly occurs through the use

of quotation marks and italicized words. For example: “It is wrong to lie to your

parents.” This statement makes it seem like one can lie to anyone else but one‟s parents.

8.8.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Name any two fallacies of ambiguity

35
8.8.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Equivocation, Division, Accent, Amphiboly

8.9 Summary of Study Session 8

At this point, it should be clear to you that the fundamental laws of thought are: the law of

identity, the law of contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. In our discussion, we

shown that these laws are so formulated to follow the logical structure of the human

reasoning process. While the first law, as discussed, states that if any statement is true then it

is true, the second asserts that no statement can be both true and false at the same time.

According to the third law, any statement is either true or false. These laws have their

symbolic representations.

From your reading so far, you can see that the elementary set of rules employed in

constructing formal proofs of validity, like the laws of thought, are also formulated to follow

the logical structure of human reasoning process. By that virtue, they are necessary and

sufficient in guiding you to draw inference. They are commonly called the rules of inference.

They include Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens, Hypothetical Syllogism, Absorption,

Disjunctive Syllogism, Addition, Conjunction, Simplification, and Constructive Dilemma.

It should also be clear to you now that the violation of the basic principles of reasoning as so

far discussed will result into fallacies. These fallacies could either be formal or informal as

the case may be. The latter can be subdivided into fallacies of relevance and ambiguity.

36
8.9.2 References / Suggestion for Further Reading

Anele, D. I. (2005). Logic and critical reasoning. Lagos, Nigeria: Biwaz.

Anton, J. (1972). On Aristotle‟s principles of contradiction and its platonic antecedents.

Philosophia, 2, 266-280.

Copi, I. M. (1982). Introduction to logic (5th edition). New Jersey, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Corcoran, J. (2003). Aristotle‟s prior analytics and Boole‟s laws of thought. In History and

Philosophy of Logic, 24, 261 – 288.

Falaiye M. (2002). Fallacies. In E. K. Ogundowole (Ed.), Philosophy and logic. Lagos,

Nigeria: Concept Publications.

Leech, J. (2015). Logic and the laws of thought. Philosophers‟ Imprint, 15,12.

Okoro C.B. (2012). Logic: Its scope and nature. In F. N Ndubuisi (Ed.), GST

102:Philosophy,

logic, and philosophy of science. Lagos, Nigeria: University of Lagos Press.

Priest, G. (1998). What is so bad about contradiction? In Journal of Philosophy, 1, 91-130.

Waller, B. N. (1988). Critical thinking: Consider the verdict, New Jersey, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Wright, P. (1971). Valid thinking: An introduction to logic. California, CA: Wadsworth

37
 STUDY SESSION 9

THE PHILOSOPHY OF OTHER DISCIPLINES

9.1 Introduction

This study session will take you through the functional role of philosophy and philosophers

as compared to other professions and professionals in the society. You are aware that often

time philosophy has been seen as being exceedingly abstract, irrelevant and disinterested.

This study session will further expose you to the true picture concerning this matter.

Some of the fundamental questions to be addressed include; what exactly is philosophy? How

does philosophy relate to other disciplines? What is the place of philosophy in the general

scheme of human knowledge and culture? Of what importance is philosophy?

9.1.1 Learning Outcome for Study Session 9

At the end of this study session, you should be able to:

1. Describe how philosophy interrogates other disciplines;

2. Highlight how philosophy lays the foundation of other disciplines;

3. State the importance of philosophy; and

4. Examine the challenges of philosophy.

1
9.2 The Concept of Philosophy

Are you aware that the most provocative and perhaps embarrassing question a philosopher

can be asked is ―what is philosophy?‖ This is because the nature of philosophy is not well

understood. Philosophers are divided into numerous hostile camps on this issues; this is due

to the different area perspectives of philosophy. Most definitions of philosophy are

perspectival. There are five basic subject areas in philosophy, namely; Metaphysics,

Epistemology, Ethics, Logic and the philosophy of other disciplines or what some scholars

have called the philosophy of infrastructure of disciplines. Do you know that another reason

for the lack of a universally acceptable definition of philosophy has been identified as the

differences in schools of thought, that is, is the philosopher an Idealist or a Materialist? The

school of thought tends to affect the philosopher‘s perception of philosophy. There is also the

question of culture. A philosopher is said to be a child of his culture and culture often

influences a philosopher‘s definition and perception of a subject matter. The age or epoch is

another area perspective that also influences a philosopher‘s definition. Finally, there is the

ambition1 of a philosopher based on a programme and agenda. A philosopher has a

programme and agenda or is either a philosopher of a status-quo or a philosophical of

change.

A cursory look at a history of philosophy shows that philosophy indeed has a chequered

history and that philosophy is an analogical term. Today, however, ―Philosophy goes with

criticism, scepticism and refusal to believe, unless on rational grounds‖.2 Philosophy goes

with arguments, reflections, rationality and critical evaluation. In fact, argument is a decisive

characteristic of philosophy. ―Without intuitive argument and clarification, there is strictly no

1
C.S Momoh, “Nature, Issues of African Philosophy” , in Metaphysics, Phenomenology and African Philosophy,
Jim Unah (Ed.) (Ibadan: Hope publishers, 1996), pp312-315
2
K. Wiredu Philosophy and An African Culture. (London: Cambridge University Press, 1980), p.3

2
philosophy‖.3This is because philosophy, strictly speaking, is an exercise in elaborate

argumentation, clarification and answering of objections, known or anticipated. Furthermore,

philosophy begins with wonder. This sense of wonder is so vital to the philosopher.4 By

philosophy is meant critical, rational and reflective study of nature of the world, of man and

his position and goal in the world. Philosophy is the study of the fundamental questions and

principles underlying conduct, thought and knowledge.5 It is essentially the articulation and

clarification of concepts. It is the consciousness of a people at a point in time. There is no

philosophy in a vacuum. The social milieu in which a philosopher lives influences and

encourages him or her in the conception and articulation of the nature of things. Philosophy

challenges our ideas, beliefs, concepts, and understanding and analyzes them in the light of

evidences and arguments. The methods and contents of philosophy best define it.

A philosopher is a professional thinker, equipped with the intuitive insight and rational

stamina to delve, more than superficially, into the difficult and complex problems of life and

living. ―Take nothing for granted‖ is the dictum of the philosopher. This conception is from

the point of view of method. There is also the conception of philosophy from the point of

view of content. Here, cognizance is taken that philosophy is traditionally divided into four

core areas, viz. Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics and Logic- where Logic is both an

instrument or tool and a branch of philosophy. In this respect, we define philosophy as a

critical, rational and systematic reflection, study or search for the ultimate reality, knowledge,

values, reasons or thought.

9.2.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

3
ibid
4
J.J White, “Philosophy and Society” in The Nigerian Journal of Philosophy, (Vol.3, No. 2, 1981), p.74
5
G.E Azenabor, Understanding the Problems of African Philosophy, (Lagos: First Academic Publishers, 2001),
p.14

3
Name the five basic areas of philosophy.

9.2.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Logic and the philosophy of other disciplines

9.3 The Concept of the Philosophy of other Disciplines

We have what is today referred to as the Philosophy of other Disciplines or the Philosophy of

the Infrastructure of Disciplines. In the Philosophy of other disciplines, the philosopher

inquires into other substantive area of intellectual enterprise or independent disciplines, like

Education, History, Law, Mathematics, Religion, Social sciences, science, etc. Here, the

relationship between philosophy and other disciplines is to simply study the principles behind

the fundamental questions and claims raised or made in other disciplines and the examination

of their validity.

The philosophy of other Disciplines is a second order activity which deals with the general

theories, character, problems and pre- suppositions in other disciplines. It is the application of

philosophical methodology to other disciplines. In this respect, the philosopher has been

accused of being an imperialist, a busy-body who is meddling with other peoples‘ disciplines.

The philosopher is accused of pretending to know what he does not or ought not to know. But

the reason for this ―imperialist‖ character of philosophy, it must be noted, is that philosophy,

if we may recall, is the Parent discipline or the mother of all disciplines; the other disciplines

are intellectual descendants of philosophy. This is precisely the reason why at the apex of any

intellectual or academic enterprise a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) is awarded as a sign of

continuity and paternalism. So, philosophy began and ends all intellectual enterprise. In this

4
respect, philosophy has been described as the highest intellectual achievement of mankind. It

is along this line that Momoh sums up: ―Philosophy is the base and the apex, the foundation,

the ceiling and the roof of any civilization. Any religion, any science, indeed any discipline,

any culture, any way of life, corporate or individual, is anchored on a philosophy, floats on a

philosophy and hangs on a philosophy. Philosophy is the ultimate intellectual discipline; it is

the queen and the king of all the disciplines. Wherever philosophy is present, there is light,

where it is absent there is darkness‖6

Philosophy, Herbert Spencer tells us, coordinates the other branches of knowledge.7 Human

Knowledge is like a tree, with a trunk and many branches. The trunk, the parent stem is or

was Philosophy. The branches are the special sciences. All knowledge was originally

included in philosophy. But as knowledge has grown, it has differentiated itself.8 Every

discipline has its own philosophical foundation, which gives it force and a sense of direction.9

Given the profound nature of Philosophy, its contact with any discipline will give the

necessary depth, better scales of values and the rational stamina needed to delve into the

issues of life and living, provide meaningful and theoretical answers to educational, social,

political, religious, moral and economic problems. The philosophical spirit, when applied to

other disciplines helps to improve the reflective abilities and critical powers of the

disciplines. The relationship of philosophy with other disciplines is manifested in under-listed

areas.

6
C. S. Momoh, op.cit, p.309.
7
W T. Stace, “ The place of Philosophy in Human Culture” in Philosophy, (vol. XII, .1937) p.303.
8
ibid. p.37.
9
G. E. Azenabor, Understanding the Problems of African Philosophy, (Lagos: First Academic
Publishers, 1998), p.14

5
9.3.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

a) What do you understand by philosophy of other disciplines?

b) Another name for philosophy of other disciplines is --

9.3.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

a) It is an attempt by philosophy to query the basic assumptions, presuppositions, claims

and counter-claims of other disciplines.

b) Philosophy of infrastructure of disciplines.

9.4 Philosophy of Education

Philosophy of education deals with the general theories, character, fundamental questions,

problems and pre-suppositions in the discipline of education. When educators apply

philosophical principles or methods to the field of education or when philosophers turn their

attention to education, we have philosophy of education. Philosophy of education is where

education draws materials from philosophy. G.F Kneller confirms the role of philosophy in

education when he writes: ―Philosophy questions some presuppositions in educational

practice with a view to giving meaning and synthesis to this same process. Philosophy seeks

to comprehend education in its entirety, interpreting it by means of general concepts that will

guide the choice of educational ends and policies‖.10

It is not always easy for the educator to combine contents, instructions, techniques, students

and their behaviour, with educational goal. It is the philosophy of education that takes care of

10
G. F. Kneller, Foundations of Education, (New York: Willey and Sons, 1963), p 64.

6
the educational goal. The curriculum of education is influenced by values, like the divine, the

material, etc. What does the educational system take as its value? It is philosophy that

determines the scale of values.

Philosophy of education gives new insights into contemporary problems and issues in

educational matters and helps the educator to take a wider educational perspective at

educational problems and attempts to answer basic questions, like why do we go to school?

Who should be educated? What is education? What criteria should guide decisions on the

contents of education? What should the teacher teach and why? What should he condemn or

commend? What is the right method to use in imparting or disseminating knowledge? What

is the nature of the human being educated?

9.4.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Which area of human knowledge interrogates the principles and methods of teaching?

9.4.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

It is the Philosophy of Education.

9.5 Philosophy of History

It may interest you to know that philosophy is related to History through the Philosophy of

History. Here one of the questions asked by Philosophers are; what is History or what is the

meaning of History? This question is of a fundamental importance to the historian even

though the question, as you will notice, is not a historical question. The question deals with

7
the essence and nature of History. It is a philosophical question. For this question to be

adequately tackled by the historian he must have recourse to philosophy. Another problem

facing the philosopher of history is the question of historical methodology. The kind of

methodology a historian uses really defines his idea of history.

For example, ―a Hegelian historian who believes that there is a necessary universal force or

law that drives history towards its goal, freedom, and that history is a development in the

consciousness of freedom, will use a different methodology in his study of history from

someone like Karl R. Popper who believes in ―the poverty of Historicism‖, that is there are

no objective laws, metaphysical or scientific, on the basis of which historical developments

are predictable‖.11 The questions in historical methodology are: Is history a science? Are

there objective laws guiding historical process? What is the logic or rationality behind

historiography (i.e. record of history)? etc. These are philosophical questions in the

Philosophy of History. They are the most critical aspects of history, which is different from

the study of history as a chronicle of facts. The critical aspect of history which is

philosophical reflects upon the method by which such facts are obtained.

9.5.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Who believes in ―the poverty of Historicism‖?

9.5.1 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

11
T. Jackson, “Philosophy and other Disciplines”, in Sagacious Reasoning, Graness and Kresse (eds.),
(Frankfurt: Peterlang, 1997), p.36.

8
Karl Popper

9.6 Philosophy of Law

Most lawyers are concerned with what the law says and the actions that are legal or illegal.

The lawyers know legal and illegal actions, and what sanctions or penalties are stipulated for

illegal actions. This is ―positive law‖. This positive aspect of law does not concern itself with

whether or not a legal rule is morally justified. Rather, what the lawyer is concerned about is

the validity not the moral justification of law.

It is philosophy of law that passes from the question of law to morality, from the question of

validity of law or what the law says to what is the nature of law itself, upon what concept is

law based? What is the ethical justification for the concept of obligation? Ought I always to

obey the law? How much or to what extent does morality influence the law? What is the

justification for law? What is the relationship between moral and legal responsibility? What

is the purpose of punishment and what are the moral and logical justifications for it?

It is these and other related questions that are raised in the philosophy of law, otherwise

known as legal philosophy or Jurisprudential philosophy. For anybody to deal with the above

questions completely, and competently, the person will have to be a philosopher —a legal

philosopher. ―The task of a legal philosopher is to discuss the nature and sources of law and

the relation of law to ethics or morality‖.‘12 So the legal practitioner tries to understand and

get the justification for the very basic concept on which the law is based.

A critic may object by saying that philosophy of law is not as important as we are portraying

it; that law is sufficient in itself for all we need – which is the social control of human beings

or the maintenance of security, law and order in the society. But to argue this way is to refuse

to see beyond the wider horizon of law. Every legal system is based explicitly on some
12
13 bid, p.37

9
principles. Philosophy, as we said earlier, is the study of the principles underlying knowledge

and reality. Philosophy of law is the fundamental principle of law.

9.6.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

a) Which form of law does not concern itself with whether or not a legal rule is morally

justified?

b) Another name for philosophy of law is -- .

9.6.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

a) Positive law.

b) Jurisprudential philosophy

9.7 Philosophy of Religion

In the study of Religion, there are many fundamental questions that a theologian, except he is

philosopher, cannot deal with successfully. Theology, as the study of religions ―deals with the

sociological, historical and perhaps the psychological aspects of religion or religious

questions‖13. It is philosophy of religion that makes the theologian deep and wiser.

Philosophy of Religion deals with such questions as, what is religion? Or, who is a religious

person? What is the nature of God? What are the arguments for and against the existence of

God? Can we hold on to the idea of God side by side with the problem of evil without

contradiction? What are the grounds for religious beliefs? What is the nature of miracles and

13
14 bid, p.39.

10
religious language, experience or knowledge? etc. These are fundamental questions that

cannot be answered satisfactorily without going outside religion, the Bible or Quran, to

philosophy — the appeal to human reason, rather than revelation or belief. It is in philosophy

that the exercise of human reason is at its highest peak. This is precisely why religion has a

need for philosophy, if has to make sense of its beliefs, claims and theories. Our crucial role

as philosophers of religion, therefore, is to examine the knowledge claims that are made in

the area of religion, to see if they can be justified and to evaluate and interpret the claims

within the framework of rational understanding.

9.7.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

What aspect of religion concerns theology?

9.7.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

The Sociological, historical and perhaps the psychological aspects of religion or religious

questions

9.8 Philosophy of Science

Philosophy is also related to science through Philosophy of Science. Philosophy of Science is

primarily concerned with how science works, how the reasoning in science can be justified. It

examines scientific statements, theories, claims, assumptions, methodology and

developments. Philosophy of Science deals with questions like: What is the nature of

scientific investigation? Is science objective? Etc.

11
Philosophy of Science also has a social and moral aspect. Here, we study critically ethical

issues of scientific use or misuse. Philosophy of science in its moral sphere studies ecological

safety and bio-hazards from chemical, industrial and radio-active releases from nuclear power

activities.

Science and philosophy are both pre-occupied with explanation and understanding of the

natural reality, truth and knowledge. In this respect, the two disciplines can supplement each

other. But while philosophy deals with the why?‖ science deals with the ―how‖? it also deals

with the ―application‖ of knowledge and this is where technology comes in. To discover truth

is the task of science, to define the nature of this truth is the task of philosophy. Science

grows on ideas and philosophy provides the ideas. Philosophy is in fact the reciprocity of

ideas. Philosophy has no doubt influenced scientific developments through its checks and

critical analysis of scientific assumptions and knowledge. But both science and philosophy

aim at liberating man from ignorance.

9.8.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Which area of inquiry can question the method of science?

9.8.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Philosophy of Science

9.9 Philosophy of Arts and Literature

Philosophy is related to Arts, like Design, Fine Arts, Creative Art and Literature. Aesthetics

is a branch of philosophy that deals with these subjects, including basic concepts and

12
problems therein. ―Aesthetics is a philosophy or perception of beauty in art and in nature‖.14

Here, the fundamental questions are what is Art? Of what use is artistic production? What is

artistic experience? What are beauty, love and ugliness? What are the problems of art and

aesthetics?

9.9.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Which area of philosophy deals with works of art?

9.9.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Aesthetics

9.10 Philosophy of Language

Philosophy of Language deals with the theories and problems of meaning and the nature of

language. A branch of philosophy in which the concern for language is very prominent is

logic. Logic is the study of correct and incorrect reasoning, valid and invalid inferences and

argument. Our reasoning and thoughts are carried out in Language. An important part of logic

consists in the classification of statements and meaning. Language deals with statements and

meanings.

The philosophical concern for language has to do with the concept of philosophy as

conceptual clarification and analysis. Hence, we have the Analytic Movement in philosophy,

which is mainly concerned with language. Here, it is the ― philosopher‘s business to bring out

features of the use or meaning of various words and forms of statements; it is essential for

14
Jackson, op. cit p. 42.

13
him to proceed on the basis of some general conception of the nature of linguistic use and

meaning‖.15

9.10.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

What is the preoccupation of the Analytic Movement?

9.10.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Linguistic analysis of language

9.11 Philosophy of Political Science

The political scientist deals with the descriptive and prescriptive meanings of political terms

like ―democracy‖, ―equality‖, ―freedom‖, ―government‖, etc., but not with their normative

meanings. To discuss the normative meaning of political terms is to pass from politics to

ethics, a branch of philosophy. So, the political scientist appeals to philosophy and he does

this through the study of political philosophy or theories. This is because the political

scientist tries to get a philosophical base or justification for the political values which he

studies. Philosophy of political science investigates political theory and the nature of human

being as a political and rational animal.

9.11.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Discussion of the normative meanings of political terms is the preoccupation of ---

15
W. P. Alston, Philosophy of Language (U.S.A: Prentice Hall Inc. Englewood Cliffs, 1964), p.7.

14
9.11.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Political philosophers

9.12 Philosophy of Mathematics

Mathematics and philosophy also relate through logic (symbolic logic). Some logicians even

claim that Arithmetic is derivable from logic. ―And since Algebra and Geometry are

extensions of Arithmetic, it follows that the whole of pure mathematics is based on logic and

is reducible to logic. The study of logic is therefore of a great fundamental importance to the

students of mathematics‖. 16

The basic assumptions and axioms of mathematics are a priori propositions in philosophy.

The why of the equation 1 + 1 = 2 cannot be successfully explained without recourse to a

metaphysical and basic assumption. The question, ―what is 1?‖ is axiomatic and unprovable.

It is a first principle, which is metaphysical. And metaphysics is the heart-beat of philosophy.

9.12.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Which area of philosophy relates with mathematics?

9.12.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

16
Jackson, op.cit, p.41

15
Symbolic logic

9.13 Philosophy of Psychology

Philosophy of Psychology or philosophical psychology examines the theories, claims and

presuppositions of psychology. Psychology is the study of individual and inter-personal

behaviour (human and animal) for the purpose of understanding. The philosophical questions

in Psychology are: Is psychology a science? What is science? What is the nature of the

human mind, intellect, will, action, emotion and the mental processes? Is man free or

determined, egoistic or altruistic? What is the driving motive of human actions? Can we

study scientifically human behaviour, predict and control human actions? Etc. Philosophical

psychology has implication for philosophy of mind. It is in the philosophy of mind that

philosophy and psychology relate. Philosophy of mind concerns itself with the theories about

the nature of the human mind. Here, the philosopher postulates theories that are made the

basis of argument and debate in this respect. The psychologist tries to explain human mind

and behaviour through quantitative and empirical analysis and experimentation while the

philosopher examines the concepts and validity of the claims. Finally, the philosopher is

interested in psychology because most of the claims of the psychologist, like other social

scientists are value laden.

9.13.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

State how the psychologist and the philosopher differ in their treatment of the mind.

9.13.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

16
While the psychologist tries to explain human mind and behaviour through quantitative and

empirical analysis and experimentation, the philosopher examines the concepts and validity

of the claims.

9.14 The Importance of Philosophy

From the above explication, it is evident that there is really no discourse or discipline outside

the province of philosophy. Every discipline has its own philosophical foundation, which

gives it a force and a sense of direction. This is the philosophical principle.

This is precisely why we can define philosophy as the principle underlying conduct, thought

and knowledge. Knowledge of philosophy is fundamental to the understanding of any

discipline. There is also the importance of philosophy in its etymological meaning as the

―love for wisdom‖. Every discipline really needs this wisdom in its enterprise. And this

wisdom is essential in a nation‘s progress and civilization than anything else. Without

wisdom for instance, social justice would not be possible. ―Wisdom is an affair of value and

of value judgments. It is the intelligent conduct of human affairs. It is knowledge of what is

most worthy in our17experience, of the ends which can be justifiably pursued, of the good, the

better and the best, the bad , the worse and the worst in those concrete situations in which

confronted by alternatives of policies of action we ask what shall we do?‖18

Philosophy has an immense role to play in the society. The concern of the philosophers for

values, goals, ends of human society, human activity and the means of achieving these,

makes the philosopher better qualified to play the role of helping to determine societal values,

development and progress. When the knowledge of philosophy is applied to our societal life

17
C. B. Okolo, ’‘Philosophy and the Meaning of Life”, in The Nigerian Journal of Philosophy (vol. 5 No
2 l985), p. 142-152
18
Ibid

17
it creates more enlightenment and gives more meaning, thereby enlarging our range of vision

and perspective. Philosophy is a response to society and to social problems. This is not to say

that some philosophers have not presented philosophy as a disinterested study — a subject in

vacuum. Philosophers can make policy makers to appreciate the deeper aspect of the

problems of development — constantly reminding them, for instance of the true nature and

dignity of society‘s greatest asset, namely, human being itself, and of his essential

orientation to a goal, above and beyond the state. Philosophy is an important tool of national

development, where development is not seen as one dimensional, that is, technological

development only. There is also cultural and moral development. This is where philosophy

has an important role to play in development. ―Culture as a way of life of a people needs a

‗standard of appeal‘‖, it needs a basic principle and ethic that justifies and defends it. This

ethic should be rational and open to significant changes. But it cannot be so unless it is a

philosophical postulate and guided by a constant Philosophical Inquiry‖. 19

In most African Societies, there is need for cultural authenticity and development. This is

where philosophy becomes useful to society, in the sense that it contributes greatly to the

foundation of the standard of the culture of a society.

Another point to note is that philosophy is important in the area of ideas. Every organization,

be it medical, social, political, economic, educational, financial, industrial, media or even

religious need ideas, and philosophy is the repository of ideas.20

19
Jackson, op.cit, pp 44-45

20
G. E. Azenabor, “A Critical Reflection on the Relevance of Philosophy in the Contemporary World”,
Lagos Notes and Records, A Journal of the Faculty of Arts, University of Lagos, (Vol. 20, 2014), p.88

18
9.14.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

The fundamental ideas needed for the development of every organization are generated

through what?

9.14.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Philosophy

9.15 The Challenge of Philosophy

From the above exposition, the question ―what can philosophy do for you?‖ has been

obliterated. So philosophy can no more be said to be suffering from the crisis of relevance.

But even then, philosophy still stands accused. Philosophy is accused by the average

intelligent person of being exceedingly abstract. Philosophy, for instance, does not teach one

how to make money, increase one‘s social status, get rich quick with ease, and give one a

better bargaining power in the labour market. The accusers have missed the point. ―More than

wealth and prestige, philosophy provides for man an opportunity to fulfill his life‘s purpose

which is a more basic need‖ 21 Philosophy re-directs the thinking and value of man, by asking

and tackling the question of the meaning of life. What is the meaning of human existence?

What is the purpose of life and living? It is the way individuals conceive the answers to these

challenging questions of existence that make for one‘s type of living, contentment and

valuation. Many turn to religion, some to science, most forgot philosophy — the rational

21
21 C. B. Okolo, op. cit, p. 146

19
method for tackling the questions about human existence, the universe and man‘s place and

role in it.

The real essence of philosophy is metaphysical; the metaphysical urge to penetrate reality and

ask questions like: What is the place of man in the universe? What is the origin of things?

Why is there something instead of nothing? 22 Is nothing even something? Why am I here?

What am I? These are ―ontological wonders‖ which are beyond bread and butter. Man is both

material and spiritual; philosophy emphasizes more on the spiritual and metaphysical essence

of man.

Another of the charges that is usually brought against philosophy is that a philosopher is ―a

jack of all trades and master of none‖. But as we discussed earlier, we see this charge springs

from a misconception of what a philosopher‘s task is. The philosopher does not claim to

know all disciplines in details, what the philosopher claims to know about every discipline

are the fundamental principles underlying each discipline.

So the philosopher only discusses the philosophical questions in other disciplines and the

assumptions and principles on which they are based. The philosopher worries about these

fundamentals and assumptions because ―the fundamentals of a subject are like premises in a

logical argument, the validity and soundness of an argument depends on the truth-value or

authenticity of its premises. And a change in the truth value of a premise will affect the

soundness of the argument itself. Likewise, a change in the fundamentals of a subject entails

a change in the subject itself‖.23

9.16.2 References / Suggestions for Further Reading

22
Godwin Azenabor: Philosophical and Psychology, op. cit, p.36
23
W.T Stance, “The Philosophy in Human Culture” in Philosophy, Vol. xii, 1937), p.316

20
Alston, W. P. (1964). Philosophy of language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.

Azenabor, G. E. (2001). Understanding the problems of African philosophy. Lagos, Nigeria:

First Academic.

Jackson, T. (1997). Philosophy and other disciplines. Sagacious reasoning, Graness and

Kresse (Eds.). Frankfurt, Germany: Peterlang.

Kneller, G.F. (1963). Foundations of education. New York, NY: Willey and Sons.

Momoh, C.S. (1996). Nature, issues of African philosophy. In J. Unah (Ed.), Metaphysics,

phenomenology and African philosophy. Ibadan, Nigeria: Hope Publishers.

Wiredu, K. (1980). Philosophy and African culture. London, England: Cambridge University

Press.

21
 STUDY SESSION 10

SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

10.1 Introduction

In some of the previous study session you were taught what philosophy is. Also, you now

have the knowledge of how philosophy relates to various other disciplines and spheres of life.

You can now clearly establish a link between philosophers and the world they live in which

they aspire to unravel and change. In this session, our concern would be to learn about the

link between philosophy and socio-political philosophy. As such, our concern here would be

to understand the nature and meaning of socio-political philosophy as well as to have in-

depth understanding of the individual and the society. In this session, you will be able to have

a basic understanding of what African Political Philosophy is, as well as weigh arguments for

the need of a new political order in Africa.

10.1.1 Learning Outcomes for Study Session 10

When you have studied this session, you should be able to

1. State what socio-political philosophy is:

2. List and explain the central issues in socio-political philosophy:

3. Give a historical account of the development of socio-political philosophy:

4. State what African Philosophy is: and

5. Give your account of the need for a new political order in Africa.

1
10.2 The Meaning and Nature of Socio-Political Philosophy

Socio-political philosophy is an important branch of philosophy. Oftentimes, students assume

that political philosophy, political science and political theory address the same theme and

employ identical methodology. The truth, however, is that the socio-political philosopher is

concerned with more fundamental issues other related disciplines take for granted.

The political philosopher employs the tools of epistemology, ethics, ontology and logic in his

attempt to understand the nature of society and how an ideal state ought to be organized. In

some ways, political philosophy “describes past and existing social organizations, in which

respect, it appears to encroach on the domain of economics, political science, anthropology

and sociology”.

While it is true that socio-political philosophy has close connections with social sciences and

with ethics, it would be erroneous to conclude that it does not have distinctive problems of its

own. It deals, for example, with such issues as: “What are (or ought to be) the proper limits of

governmental power over members of society?” “How should an ideal state be organized?”

“Is it possible to have rigid control over the economic affairs of people without curtailing

their political freedom?” “Should elected representatives to a legislature be allowed to vote as

they see fit, or should they merely reflect the majority opinion of their constituency?” etc.

The central task of socio-political philosophy, therefore, is to prescribe how an ideal state

ought to be organized.

The basic point to note is that socio-political philosophy, in spite of its seeming autonomy, is

a branch of philosophy. Employing the standard methods of philosophy, it investigates the

principles of a proper social system. In general, it studies the nature of human communities,

in order to evaluate their aims and modes of cooperation. In particular, it is concerned with

2
government or the state, i.e., the institution that possesses the exclusive power to enforce

rules of conduct in a particular geographical area.

The central issues of socio-political philosophy may be divided into the following areas:

(i) What is the relationship between the individual and the society?

(ii) Can the existence of government or state be justified?

(iii) What abstract principles should guide the operation of government, regarding its

aims and limits of its authority?

(iv) What sort of constitution, political institutions and legal system should a given

government have?

(v) What practical public policies should apply to specialized areas such as the police,

defence and international relations, economics, public finance and welfare?

In order to proffer answers to these questions, socio-political philosophy derives its strength

from three other more fundamental philosophical disciplines. They are metaphysics (the study

of existence and man‟s relation to reality), epistemology (the study of knowledge), and ethics

(the study of the code of values of guide man‟s choices and actions). It is important to note

that the three fundamental philosophical disciplines mentioned above require stable polities

for effective philosophizing. This can only be provided by the ideas of a “socio-political

philosopher”. To further understand and appreciate the importance of socio-political

philosophy, one must have some knowledge of the history of political theory.

Socio-Political Philosophy: A Historical Perspective

Socio-political philosophy, like its mother-discipline, philosophy, has its origin in ancient

Greece. In fact, the word “political” is derived from the Greek „polis‟ or city-state. The

Sophists in the 5th Century B.C. challenged the legitimacy of the polis with its laws and

3
institutions. To this, Socrates (470 – 399 B.C.), Plato (427 – 347 B.C.) and Aristotle (384 –

322 B.C.) responded with philosophical arguments. The political theories of Plato and

Aristotle were inextricably connected with their philosophical systems; Plato, by appealing to

his doctrine of forms and Aristotle by appealing to a theory of biological naturalism. The

Stoics and St. Augustine (A.D. 354 – 430) in later antiquity, as well as the scholastics – most

notably Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274) – in the Middle Ages, sought to justify political

authority by basing it on belief in God and divinely instituted natural laws.

With the rise of modern science and the secular state, following the decline of medieval

social and religious institutions, the traditional arguments for political authority were called

into question. In the Renaissance, Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 – 1527) eschewed religion and

classical philosophy. Instead, Machiavelli drew on historical examples to offer practical

advice to rulers. The Modern era from the 17th to 19th centuries witnessed a series of

attempts to provide a defensible moral account of the State and its purpose.

In England, Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) and John Locke (1632 – 1704) sought the basis

for the State in a “social contract” among individuals who possessed “natural rights” in a

prior “state of nature”. Hobbes argued that men must enter into a social contract and

surrender their natural liberties to an absolute sovereign. Locke concluded that the political

State must have limited powers and the citizens retain the right to revolution. Sceptical

conservatives like David Hume (1711 – 1776) and Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797), who saw

tradition as the only basis for government and law, criticized both Hobbes and Locke. Later

British thinkers like Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873)

invoked the utilitarian principle of “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”. They

advocated political reforms that tended to be increasingly democratic, egalitarian and

welfarist.

4
Meanwhile, in continental Europe, there was a steady drift towards altruism and statism in

the theories of Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778), Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804), G.W.F.

Hegel (1770 – 1831), and Karl Marx as the inevitable result of historical processes. They

regarded collectives as of greater reality and value than their individual members. Resisting

the generally collectivist trend, Herbert Spencer (1820 – 1903) defended capitalism against

socialism by appealling to the evolutionary theory of history. In addition, various anarchists

criticized the State as an inherently oppressive institution and advocated its abolition. These

included libertarians such as William Godwin (1756 – 1836) and Lysander Spooner (1808 –

1886), and the leftists like Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1809 – 1865), Michail Bakunin (1814 –

1876) and Peter Kropotkin (1842 – 1921).

Throughout most of the 20th century, political philosophy was neglected because of the rise

of logical positivism and linguistic analysis, which were sceptical about the capacity of

reason to apprehend objective moral truths of any sort. However, in the early 1970s, two

philosophers employing the techniques of analytical philosophy to defend opposing political

theories inaugurated a revival of political theorizing. John Rawls, a neo-Kantian form of

liberalism and Robert Nozick a neo-Lockean version of libertarianism.

The literature of socio-political philosophy is vast. The following are some of the most

influential works: Plato (Crito, Republic, Statesman and Laws); Aristotle (Politics); St.

Augustine (The City of God); Thomas Aquinas - (Summa Theologiae I-II, Questions 90-97);

Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince); Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan); John Locke (Two Treaties of

Government); John Stuart Mill (On Liberty and Utilitarianism); Jean-Jacques Rousseau (First

and Second Discourses and The Social Contract); G.W.F. Hegel (The Philosophy of Right);

Karl Marx (with Friedrich Engels) (The Manifesto of the Communist Party); Herbert Spencer

5
(The Man Versus the State); Lysander Spooner (No Treason); John Rawls (A Theory of

State); Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State and Utopia); etc.

10.2.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Employing the standard methods of philosophy, what does socio-political studies

investigates?

10.2.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

It investigates the principles of a proper social system. It studies human communities, in

order to evaluate their aims and modes of cooperation.

10.3 The Individual and Society

The fundamental issue in political philosophy concerns the relationship between the

individual to society. Most political theorists hold that the individual is prior to society,

because the mind belongs to the individual as such, and individuals must perform acts of

thought. Although men learn from their predecessors and are interdependent in various ways,

they still have to exercise their rational capacities as individuals. This position, known as

individualism, is opposed to collectivism, which treats society as if it were a super organism

existing over and above its individual members, and which takes the collective in some form

(e.g. tribe, race or state) to be the primary unit of reality and standard of value. We are

therefore led to the questions: “What is the purpose of the state?‟ “Is the state an end-in itself

or a means to an end?”

6
10.3.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Why do most political theorists hold that the individual is prior to society?

10.3.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

The mind belongs to the individual as such, and individuals must perform acts of thought.

10.4 What Is African Political Philosophy?

African political philosophy is a sub-set of political philosophy. It shares a lot with what we

have ascribed to political philosophy except its African-ness. But are the problems of political

philosophy not of universal character? If they are, why then an African political philosophy?

All races have not been created into the same environment. Some races are so suited that their

struggle for survival is relatively easier than those of others. Each race has had to respond

differently to the circumstances and conditions of its own environment. The problems

encountered in the African environment for example, are different from those experienced,

say, in the Asian, European or the American environment. Therefore, it will be absurd to

expect all races and cultures to pose the same questions or offer similar solutions to the

problems encountered in their different environments. The answers offered to problems

encountered in race “A” might be totally different from those offered in race “B”. Even when

such problems are similar, solutions are known to vary, if not different outright. African

political philosophy is a response to the different experiences of the African, and his

interpretation of such experiences. The peculiar experience of slavery, colonialism, racialism

and neo-colonialism has made the African ready and capable of evolving a peculiar political

philosophy. Such a political philosophy is intended to capture the African-ness of his thought

system and experience. African socialism is one of the earliest political theories proffered by

7
thinkers at the outset of independence. Various grounds were adduced for this. Let us

consider a few political theories by African thinkers.

10.4.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

What is African political philosophy a subset of?

10.4.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

African political philosophy is a sub-set of political philosophy

10.5 Socialism

„Ujamaa,‟ which literally means familyhood, was first articulated by the Nwalimu, Julius

Nyerere (1922-1999) at Arusha on the 5th of February 1967. Ujamaa as Nyerere perceives it

is to be the basis of socialism in Tanzania. Nyerere came to the conclusion that socialism was

the solution to the socio-political problems Tanzania faced shortly after independence.

Having been convinced that traditional African society was harmonious and communal he

agrees that the new States of Africa are at one and the same time faced with the task of rapid

economic development and the creation of new values. How to achieve these objectives is, to

Nyerere, the greatest challenge confronting contemporary African leaders – a challenge

perhaps greater that the struggle for independence itself.

Nyerere concludes that because conditions in each society differ, there can be no „sacred

book‟ from which all can draw inspiration. Still, whatever the objective conditions of a given

society may be, an ideal society must always be based on three essentials that he identifies as,

freedom, equality and unity. These three essentials are not new in Africa. They have always

been a part of African traditional life. What is new to Africa and which most certainly came

8
with colonial contact is the phenomenon of classes. Nyerere says that African languages do

not have the vocabulary to embrace the concept of class. According to Nyerere, the African

society was a poor one before colonialism. As such, there were no rich people. Wealth in

possession or non-possession of wealth has nothing to do with socialism. The millionaire and

the beggar are both capable of being socialist or capitalist. Mere physical possession of

wealth is therefore not the deciding factor. What is important is the use to which the wealth is

put.

Nyerere goes on to assert that no country can afford to be anything else but socialist.

Socialism, he claims, is the road to happiness. The African needs neither education in

socialism nor in democracy, as both are familiar ways of life. The socialization in the family

has helped the African acquire the attitude of mind that pre-disposes him towards socialism.

In Nyerere‟s ideal state, ownership of land and other means of production are communal.

They are not subject to private ownership. The only forms of private ownership allowed did

for example, the farmer own his hoe, the carpenter, his saw, a family, their house.

Nyerere sees man as essentially equal. Socialism is built on such equality. He says, „without

the acceptance of equality of all men, there can be no socialism‟. The purpose of socialism is

service to mankind regardless of colour, size, shape, skill, ability and everything else. An

important basis of Nyerere‟s socialism therefore, is equality of all people. This also extends

to their participation in government. Everyone must be an equal participant in government.

He opposes vehemently the capitalist form of government that seeks to build happiness on a

philosophy of inevitable conflict between man and man. Exploitation, as Nyerere sees it, is a

man with money making profit from a man without money. The source of this kind of

exploitation is private ownership of the means of production.

9
Leopold Senghor (1906-2001) is very popular for his Negritude. With Leon Demas and

Aimie Cessaire, he formulated the term Negritude to describe the cultural and political

movement of French speaking Africans in Africa and the French speaking Negroes of West

Indies against the colonial policy of assimilation. Senghor sees Negritude as the total cultural,

social and political values of African civilization, and of the black race as a whole. One

cannot therefore deny that Senghor‟s Negritude was purely an ideology for decolonization.

After independence, Senghor knew Negritude had run its course. He thereafter developed his

idea of African socialism.

To show the difference in African traditional experience, Senghor, like Nyerere rejects

western capitalism and orthodox socialism. He pitched with an adaptation he calls African

socialism. He considers his African socialism, a true reflection of African experience. He also

agrees that in the working out of his African mode of socialism, the problem is not how to put

an end to the‟ exploitation of man by man, but how to prevent it ever happening by bringing

political and economic democracy back to life.

Generally, the difference in attitude towards socialism between Nyerere and Senghor is not of

kind but of degree. While Nyerere talks about a total breakaway from Euro-philosophical

tradition, Senghor advocates the adoption of some essential things that are useful to African

development. Nevertheless, they both see African socialism as having its roots largely in the

traditional past. They see traditional African societies as classless. They both reject capitalism

and orthodox socialism.

Kwame Nkrumah (1909-1972) is one of the first recent African political thinkers to

emphasize the need to adopt an innovative approach in the European philosophical heritage

for a better understanding of it, so it can aid development needs of the continent. He is of the

10
view that the formulation of an ideology would speed up the rate of progress amongst

emergent African states.

According to Nkrumah, capitalism, being an offshoot of colonialism and an identified culprit

of exploitation and oppression, cannot be used as a platform or basis for freeing the African

people from bondage. Consequently, he rejected capitalism and any other philosophical

system that may tend to support it. In its place, he advocates for socialism. The crux of

Nkrumah‟s argument is that African needs a better understanding of the Euro-philosophical

tradition as an intellectual basis for the struggle against poverty and the general backwardness

of the continent.

With his background experience in America and Britain, coupled with his experience of

colonialism at home, he sought for a solution to the problems he identified not in the

capitalism of the west, but in the socialism of the east. He is convinced that in order to

achieve the goal or a better life within the shortest possible time, socialism would be the key.

Nkrumah‟s socialism takes due cognizance of the production of goods and services to lay a

proper foundation for socialism. Nkrumah believes that complete industrialization is the key.

It is in pursuance of this that Nkrumah explains that all talks of economic and social

reconstruction are just empty words if they are not accompanied by industrial and agrarian

revolution.

Nkrumah therefore sees sound economic planning as the basis of development and progress.

To redress the dislocation caused by colonialism, he argues that Africa has to meet up the

challenges of the new era by being self-sufficient and egalitarian. Nkrumah‟s socialism has

therefore been shown to be different in kind and degree from those of Nyerere and Senghor.

Nkrumah appears to continue in the tradition of Karl Marx and Lenin. His socialism shows,

like all modern Marxists, that socialism and industrialization go together. Again, unlike

11
Senghor‟ and Nyerere, Nkrumah is of the view that socialism cannot be built in a single

country in Africa. For him, the building of socialism in Ghana must be accompanied by the

building of socialism throughout the continent. As a matter of fact, he once stated that

Ghana‟s independence was meaningless if vast territories in Africa remained under colonial

rule. The Africa of his dream would be happy only if it adopts a socialist system. We should

note that Nkrumah does not agree with Nyerere that socialism can only be built by returning

to „our glorious past.‟ He opines that the traditional Africa no longer exists. In his view, this

has been corrupted by Afro-Islamic and Euro-Christian traditions.

Sokou Toure’s (1922-1984) view on socialism, which he calls communaucratique, takes

virtually the same line as Senghor‟s. Like Senghor, Toure wants to adopt Marxism to African

conditions while at the same time denying some of the key elements of Marxism. The

intention of both Toure and Senghor is to blend the socialist value of traditional Africa with

more recent and modern Marxist ideas. Toure advocates a rejection of both capitalism and

communism. In its place, he advocates the adaptation of their economies to concrete African

realities. Toure explains:

Thus, when people ask us if we are for capitalism or for;

socialism, for the East or for the West, we invariably answer

that what we consider first and above all are the Africa we

intend to liberate from foreign domination, sickness, misery

and ignorance.1

Toure rejects capitalism because it imposes the value of individualism and egotism that in his

view are alien to Africa. He also rejects communism that he equates with collective or state

capitalism. He therefore concluded that neither communism nor capitalism is applicable to

1
S. Toure, La Panificaiion Econamiqite, (Conakry: Impprimerie National, 1960), p. 292

12
Africa because as he puts it, „the Soviet Union, as well as Europe and America, are far more

highly developed than Africa.‟2 In Africa, Toure explains, the struggle is not between classes

but between the colonized people and the colonizing powers. Toure calls his socialism in

Africa „communaucratique‟ because he feels adopting the term „socialism‟ would portray his

country (Guinea) as importing a foreign ideology. On this issue, he says, “We use the

expression „communauucratique” precisely in order to avoid all equivocation and all false

analogies.”3 The reality of Toure‟s socialism shows a strong attachment to Lenin, rather than

to Marx. It also shows his strong commitment to liberating himself from colonial legacy.

Obafemi Awolowo (1909-1986) calls his brand of socialism „Democratic‟. He disagrees with

classical socialists and some of his contemporaries. First he rejects the orthodox idea of

African Socialism. In his view, there is no justification for such a label because he sees

socialism as a normative science that should not bear the mark of any region of the globe.

Awolowo therefore does not concern himself with a supposedly peculiar African socialism,

but with attaining socialism not by any revolutionary process, but by a democratic

reformation of the existing order, in his Voice of Reason, Awolowo presents his thesis on

democratic socialism. He declares:

…In my considered and settled opinion, the best political ideal

for mankind is democratic socialism which is founded among

others on the principles of wellbeing of individual and

brotherhood and among all men, irrespective of creed, colour,

and race.4

2
Ibid., p. ix
3
O. Awolowo, Voice of Reason, (Akure: Fagbamigbe Press, 1981), p. 182.
4
O. Awolowo, The Path to Nigerian Greatness, (Enugu: Fourth Dimension Pub. 1981), p. 54

13
His kind of socialism is reformative for it admits the existence of private and public

ownership of properties side by side. It takes individual welfare as it focus of attention and

guarantees the fundamental rights of individuals including the right to religion and worship.

Citizens are also to be seen as equal before the law, irrespective of their status in the society.

The installation and change of government under this system is only through the electoral

process. In the same vein, in changing from any existing political ideology to democratic

socialism, only the democratic process is permissible. It is therefore immoral for any

powerful radicals to impose or force their rule on the people of a state without the latter‟s

consent under the guise of socialist revolution.

Awolowo says that the socialists of the Marxist persuasion have instilled fear in the minds of

the people by creating the impression that the word „socialism‟ is synonymous with violence.

This, he observes, has contributed to the people‟s negative attitude to socialism as a political

ideology. But as a Christina, who is very much conscious of the Biblical injunction against

killing, Awolowo could not hide his disagreement with Chairman Mao of China who once

said that power flows from the barrel of the gun. Awolowo argues, “I do not share this great

man‟s view. In my own opinion, power flows form a leadership that is sustained by the will

and approval of the people freely articulated and given.”5 The choice of socialism should

therefore be a way of life expressed through electoral process for the political party that

champions the socialist objectives. Awolowo speaks extensively of the role of the universal

mind or God as a mind is capable of bringing about his ideal state. In doing this, “...the

universal mind may or may not necessarily bring about the use of force or

violence.”6Awolowo says, “The universal mind can be absolutely trusted to play its part. It

5
O. Awolowo, The People’s Republic, (Ibadan: Oxford University Press), p. 199
6
Ibid,

14
will be by a process that no human mind can possibly conceive, fruitify all good plans and

actualize evil ones for the discomfiture or ruin of their actors.”7

Unlike many other African socialists, Awolowo argues in the People‟s Republic that

socialism is not culture bound. He claims it is a normative science and therefore of universal

application to all nations of the world. Therefore, the question of African socialism does not

arise.

10.7.2 References / Suggestions for Further Reading

Awolowo, O. (1981). Voice of reason. Akure, Nigeria: Fagbamigbe Press.

Awolowo, O. (1981). The path to Nigerian greatness. Enugu, Nigeria: Fourth Dimension.

Machiavelli, N. (1956). The prince. Translated by G. Bull. Hamondsworth, England:

Penguin.

Maritain, J. (1965). An introduction to philosophy. New York, NY: Sheed and Ward Inc.

Marshall, G. (1996). The concise Oxford dictionary of sociology. Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

McAuley, J.W. (2003). An introduction to politics, state and society. London, England: Sage.

Toure, S. (1960). La panificaiion economiqite. Conakry, Guinea : Impprimerie National.

7
Ibid,

15
 STUDY SESSION 11

AFRICAN PHILOSOPHY

11.1 Introduction

This study session will open your mind to the substance of African philosophy. To achieve

this, some fundamental questions are outlined for your reflection and resolution. These are:

What is African philosophy? How would the themes and topics in African philosophy

improve our understanding or knowledge of the world and reality? In a nut shell, of what

contemporary relevance is Africa philosophy? It is argued here that the relevance of African

philosophy is inseparable from its humanistic and existential base, which is holistic and

ontological. Determining the extent to which this is true shall also be our task in this study

session.

11.1.1 Learning Outcomes for Study Session 11

At the end of this study session, you should be able to:

1. Establish a relationship between philosophy and African thought system:

2. Identify the basic axiom of African philosophy:

3. Describe the nature of African philosophy;

4. State the problems of African philosophy: and

5. Discuss the contemporary relevance of African philosophy.

1
11.2 Clarification of Concepts

Let us begin this study session with the clarification of what philosophy entails before we

now situate it within African philosophy. The conception of philosophy is crucial in

determining what we take African philosophy to be. Your conception of philosophy will

influence your conception of African philosophy. The history of philosophy shows that

philosophy has a chequered history and that philosophy is an analogical term.

Etymologically, philosophy connotes “love for wisdom or knowledge”. From the Ancient

Greek perspective, “the word „philosophy‟ originally meant curiosity, the desire for fresh

experience.”1 Indeed, the history of philosophy seems to portray that there is no universally

accepted definition or conception of philosophy.

It may interest you to know that philosophy has always been the consciousness of a people at

a given point in time. The concept or meaning of philosophy changes according to the

challenges of a period and the type of consciousness. In fact, “philosophy is invariably tied to

social reality… the mode of doing philosophy, e.g. its methods, dominant issues, questions,

and schools of thought, vary as society changes.”2 This is why philosophy has been idealistic,

rationalistic, theological, ideological, analytical, speculative, humanistic, and scientific at

various points in time. The important point to note, however, is that in all the phases, the

philosophical presence is rational and or metaphysical – it is the wisdom of life that is being

sought. It is with wisdom that the philosopher brings “together what common sense has

thrown apart.”3 And by wisdom we mean the intelligent and judicious interpretation of

experience.

1
Cited by J.A.I Bewaji, “African Philosophy; Some Comments”, The Nigerian Journal of Philosophy. (Vol. 3, No.
2, 1983), p. 71
2
Quoted by D. A. Masolo, African Philosophy in Search of Identity. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1994), p. 42
3
K. Wiredu, Philosophy and An African Culture. (London: Cambridge University Press, 1980) p. 175

2
Central to any account of philosophy, however, are: (i) wonder or curiosity (ii) wisdom (iii)

reflections (iv) the asking of fundamental questions (v) argumentation (vi) rational and

critical evaluation, (vii) clarification, (viii) scepticism, and (ix) objections: real, imagined or

anticipated.

We may define philosophy from the point of view of method and content. There are two

senses of the world “philosophy” from the perspective of method; the narrow and broad. In

the narrow sense, philosophy is a technical enterprise, which requires formal training. Here, a

philosopher is a professional thinker, who takes nothing for granted, except on rational

ground. In the broad sense, philosophy is a worldview, principle, belief system and

convictions, intended to govern the daily practice or life of a people. This broad sense of

philosophy puts philosophy at the disposal of everyone. One may not need a formal training

to acquire this sense of philosophy. Here, everybody is a “philosopher” by nature. This is

philosophy from the layman‟s perspective – “bear parlour philosophy”. Here, philosophy is

not a theoretical enterprise, but a doctrine, a belief and an activity.

There is also the definition of philosophy from the point of view of content. Here, cognizance

is taken that philosophy is traditionally divided into four core areas, viz. metaphysics,

epistemology, ethics, and logic. Within this perspective, we define philosophy as a rational

and systematic study or reflection of the nature of the world, the nature of man and his

position and goal in the world. Simply put philosophy deals with the question of the ultimate.

It could be ultimate reality (metaphysics), ultimate truth (epistemology), ultimate value

(ethics) and ultimate reason (logic).4 Philosophy can also be conceived as the study of the

principles underlying conduct (ethics), thought (logic), and knowledge (epistemology) and

reality (metaphysics). Apart from the core areas of philosophy, philosophy also has regional

4
G. E. Azenabor, Understanding the Problems of African Philosophy. (Lagos: First Academy Publishers, 1988), p.
67

3
and cultural perspectives. Hence, we have European philosophy, Asian philosophy, American

philosophy, Chinese philosophy, Indian philosophy and African philosophy. This write-up

focuses on African philosophy.

What should be noted, however, is that philosophy, though a universal discipline, is culture

bound. This is why philosophy has a chequered history and its understanding and conception

depends on the time, age, culture, tradition and experience of a people or individual. This is

precisely why the idea of a universal or univocal definition of philosophy is, objectively,

speaking impossible.

The Concept of African Philosophy

Various definitions have been proffered as answers to the question, what is African

philosophy? J. S. Mbiti maintains that African philosophy is “the understanding, attitude of

mind, logic, perception, behind the manner in which African people think, act, or speak in

different situations of life.5 Mbiti‟s definition is a little too generalized.

F. William Abraham went further to recommend that we must also investigate “the

environment in which the thinking, acting, and speaking are situated.6 Therefore, there is

need to situate African philosophy within a socio-cultural paradigm. For K. C. Anyawu,

African philosophy is African cultures, religions and traditions. This conception is

anthropological. It also fails to take into consideration a proper understanding of

contemporary African experience. P. O. Bodunrin and P. Hountondji believe that “African

philosophy” is the philosophy done by African philosophers. This is a radically new sense of

African philosophy. We must, by this conception extend the concept of African philosophy to

5
J. S. Mbiti, African Religion and Philosophies. (London: Heinemann Educational Books, Ltd., 1969), p. 2
6
Quoted by T.U. Nwala, Igbo Philosophy. (Lagos: Lantern Books, 1985)

4
include all the researches into western philosophy carried out by Africans. But is every work

by an African philosopher African philosophy?

C. S. Momoh, holds that African philosophy is the African doctrine on the spiritual, “which is

the culture of harnessing the spirit of the whole and the communality to enhance and

transform the spirit, interest, aspirations and ambitions of the parts and the individual” 7. If

Momoh‟s conception of African philosophy is right, then one will suppose that even the

writings of David Hume would qualify as being within the tradition of African philosophy!

Definitely, Momoh‟s definition is too general. Also it admits everything, anything as African

philosophy! Momoh, however, gives a more acceptable definition of African philosophy

when he describes African philosophy as simply the African doctrine or theories on the

universe, the creator, the elements, the institutions, beliefs and concepts in it.8

Against the inadequacies of these definitions and conceptions of African philosophy we want

you to consider Odera Oruka‟s view. Oruka defines African philosophy as the work dealing

with specific African issues formulated by indigenous African thinker or by a thinker versed

in African cultural and intellectual life.9 On our part, we define African philosophy as the

reflection of an African or non-African on how Africans make sense of their existence and

the world in which they live, based on the African cultural experience and reality. African

philosophy, (just as its western counterpart or any other philosophy) has its metaphysics,

ethics, epistemology, logic, aesthetics, and even science. The concept of African philosophy

is better understood against schools of thought in African philosophy.10

7
C. S. Momoh, “The Nature, Issues and Substance of African Philosophy.” In Jim Unah, ed., Metaphysics,
Phenomenology and African Philosophy. (Ibadan: Hope Publishers, 1996), p. 318
8
ibid
9
Odera Oruka, Trends in Contemporary African Philosophy. (Nairobi, Kenya: Shirikan Publishers, 1990), p. 112
10
See Godwin Azenabor, “Schools of Thoughts in Contemporary African Philosophy”. In C. S. Momoh, ed. The
Substance of African Philosophy. (Auchi: African Philosophy Projects Publication, 2000), pp. 23-56

5
11.2.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

 Name the different modes of interpreting African philosophy as experienced at

different times?

 What is Odera Oruka‟s view on African philosophy?

11.2.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

 The modes include: idealistic, rationalistic, theological, ideological, analytical,

speculative, humanistic, and scientific.

 Odera Oruka conceives African philosophy as the work dealing with specific African

issues formulated by indigenous African thinker or by a thinker versed in African

cultural and intellectual life

11.3 The Nature of African Philosophy

The nature of African philosophy refers to the features in philosophy that give it its peculiar

African character. The nature of African philosophy is found in the African philosophical

tradition. Philosophy is rooted in a tradition. In fact, “the philosophy of a people is always a

tradition, and a tradition pre-supposes a certain minimum of organic relationships among (at

least some of) its elements.”11 Any philosophy or “thought system that is not part of its

traditions does not constitute experience”12. The nature of a philosophy is the tradition of that

philosophy and the tradition of a philosophy is the spirit and style of that philosophy, the

persistent and dominant orientation of a people’s philosophy, which can be seen as primary.

11
Cited by D. A. Masolo, op. cit, p. 245
12
Ibid., p. 248

6
The question of African philosophical tradition must be determined in the way in which

British philosophy, for example, is seen as empiricism, American as pragmatism, French as

rationalism, German as idealism, Russian as materialism, Indian as spiritualism and Chinese

as humanism.13 A tradition of philosophy is identifiable in terms of the innermost essence of

the intellectual pulse within which it is produced.14 The development of knowledge anywhere

is cultural and historical. It is determined to a great extent, by the social context. And

understanding comes from interaction with our environment. Even though philosophers

propound their philosophies in their individual capacities, they do not diverge from the

prevailing experience, the philosophical spirit of their age, the challenges of their time and

the influences of their culture. For example, Dewey‟s philosophy is in conformity with the

spirit of American philosophy of the time, which was pragmatism. Hume‟s philosophy was in

line with the prevailing philosophy in Britain, which was empiricism. Descartes was in

conformity with French philosophy, which was rationalism. Hegel‟s philosophy was within

the spirit of German philosophy which was idealism. So, the nature of African philosophical

tradition is in its innermost essence which is rooted in and nourished within the context of

African culture, history and experience. The nature of African philosophy is more

metaphysical and spiritual. “It is more of co-existence with nature, rather than conquest, more

of collectivism, rather than individualism, more of holism, rather than atomism, more of

synthesis, rather than analysis”15.

The nature and tradition of African philosophy could also be found in its basic assumptions

about reality and the theoretical schemes or explanatory models, which are epistemological

and metaphysico-religious in nature. Within this framework, spirit, life force or vital forces

13
C. S. Momoh (ed.) op. cit., p. 59
14
W. T. Stace. “The Place of Philosophy in Human Culture.” In Philosophy: The Regional Institute of Philosophy.
(Vol. 12, 1957), p. 312.
15
C. S. Momoh, op. cit., p. 59.

7
are the primary axioms. Here, the material has meaning and purpose only through the lenses

of the spiritual – spiritual empiricism.

In African philosophy, the nature of reality is beyond space and time. Every existing reality is

charged with life forces, that is, everything is alive. Here, even “nothing” becomes

“something”, especially when we utilize the right spiritual apparatus. What force is to

Africans is what being is to the West. Placid Tempels tells us about the nature of life forces in

Bantu philosophy. Life forces are in hierarchical order. The highest of the forces is God,

followed by divinities, ancestors, spirits, man, animals, plants and minerals. Superior or

higher forces can directly influence the lower, while the lower can only indirectly influence

the higher or superior. Nothing moves without affecting another, there is a constant

interaction, no isolation in the universe of life-forces. Life forces are active and can be

communicated with. Life forces can be good or bad, friendly or hostile, benevolent or

malevolent. Secret, unknown or unforeseen forces can intervene in the course of events, even

in those consciously planned.

Given this framework, things are understood in relations, holistically, rather than in isolation

or atomistically. All elements of knowledge are interdependent. There is unity in diversity. In

identifying the nature of African philosophy we make a case for holism, which acknowledges

the fact that knowledge or truth is not one but many. Holism is a pluralistic theory based on

the idea that the fundamental principle of the universe is the creation of wholes, of a complete

and self-contained system. D. A. Masolo informs us that the holistic value is built around an

ontology that accepts diversity or otherness without hierarchical judgments of human worth.16

It is with this holistic mode of thought that we are able to establish a synthesis of human

knowledge. The nature of African philosophy is therefore that of holistic ontology.

16
Cited by G. E. Azenabor, in Understanding the Problems of African Philosophy. (Lagos: First Academic
Publisher, 1998), p. 156

8
The point to underscore is that every philosophy has an existential base. The ideal life in

Asian philosophy is to flee from the illusions of life process in this world, that of western

philosophy is to conquer the world and nature, but that of African philosophy is to co-exist

with nature and the world. A deep-seated need exists in the mind of the African, the need to

feel at home in the universe. Consequently, existence-in-relation, being-for-self-and-others,

sums up the African conception of reality.17 This is precisely why there is more of tolerance

and peaceful co-existence in African belief systems and indigenous religions, compared to

that imported from the West where we have intolerance, antagonism and endless vendetta, in

the course of lording one idea or position over all others.

Another crucial factor which makes a philosophy African is when a philosophy is applied to

the conceptual problem(s) of African life. The other characteristic of African philosophy,

which marks it off from western philosophy, is the drawing from a common pool; the African

traditional past. This drawing from the traditional source of African philosophy is yet another

difference between African philosophy and any other philosophy. This is precisely why

Kwesi Wiredu remarks that it is necessary to develop a sympathetic reflective understanding

of traditional modes of thought; and to a large extent our modes of thought remain much

closer to traditional ideas than many are willing to acknowledge.18 The point is that a

philosophy is African if it draws from African experience and reality. It is with this mode of

understanding in African philosophy that we can now understand and explain other

philosophical ideas about God, mind-body, causality, freedom and determinism, etc., within

an African cultural setting.

17
Innocent Onyewuenyi, “Traditional African Aesthetics: A Philosophical Perspective.” In Albert G. Mosley, ed.
African Philosophy, Selected Readings. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1995), p. 424.
18
Cited by G. E. Azenabor, in “The Idea of African Philosophy in African Language”, in Indian Philosophical
Quarterly. (Vol. xxviii, No. 3, July 2000), p. 326-327

9
On a critical note, the question may be raised: is our characterization of African philosophical

system not generalizing? How for example, does the life force of the Igbo affect, interact or,

interpenetrate with that of the Yoruba or Ethiopian? A point is missed by this question. Our

characterization is really culturally anchored. The framework or basic assumptions are to be

understood within a given socio-cultural paradigm of a people; their trans-cultural nature is

only to an extent.

Can the above ontological framework find meaning in a plural society, with a multi-lingual

and multi-cultural background? Why not? Every sophisticated society or multi-lingual culture

still has its roots and lineage, especially if it is African.

11.3.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Where can we locate the nature and tradition of African philosophy?

11.3.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

The nature of African philosophy is located in the African philosophical tradition.

11.4 Problems in African Philosophy

African philosophy has given rise to many problems. We can identify at least seven problems

in African philosophy, namely: (i) the problem of definition, (ii) the problem of

documentation or undocumented knowledge, (iii) the problem of the History of African

philosophy (iv) the problem of language (v) the problem of logic and critical question (vi) the

10
problem of methodology (vii) the problem of an African philosophical tradition.19 It is

instructive to note that the most crucial of these problems is that of definition. Other problems

are offshoots of the problem of definition; they take their roots from here. The way the other

problems and questions are tackled or addressed depends on what one takes African

philosophy to be. Most of the other problems are merely as a result of the different concepts

of the understanding of the nature of philosophy in general and African philosophy in

particular.

11.4.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Identify any five problems of African Philosophy.

11.4.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

(i) The problem of definition, (ii) the problem of documentation or undocumented

knowledge, (iii) the problem of the History of African philosophy (iv) the problem of

language (v) the problem of logic and critical question (vi) the problem of methodology (vii)

the problem of an African philosophical tradition.

11.5 Issues in African Philosophy

One of the main problems in western philosophy is the problem of how to resolve the

contradiction of experience; there is a contradiction between mind and body, good and evil,

19
See G. E. Azenabor, Understanding the Problems of African Philosophy.

11
freedom and determinism, one and many, living and non-living, space and time; the way this

problem is resolved depends on people‟s basic assumptions about reality.

Issues like God, mind-body, witchcraft, reincarnation, causality human destiny, etc., would

be briefly discussed in relation to African philosophy.

A. God in African Philosophy

There is no universally accepted conception of God. Largely, the word “God” has similarity

in usage, not in meaning. The aspect of the concept of God that we are concerned with is

three fold: (i) God‟s attribute and the ways in which He can be known (ii) God‟s relation to

the world and (iii) The idea of God and the problem of evil in the world.

In most systems of philosophy and religion, God is endowed with certain attributes that

distinguish Him from other beings. In Africa, especially Nigeria, God is known as

„Osanobua‟ „Olodumare‟, „Oghene‟, „Chineke‟, „Abasi‟, etc., depending on the language, all

of which means the creator and source of the world, the sustainer of the universe, the

Supreme Being, who is over and above all deities, excelling them in power, honour and

majesty.

In the Africa conception, God is conceived to be beyond man‟s knowledge, understanding

and imagination God‟s attributes remain a great mystery and marvel. The African conception

of God is not anthropomorphic; that is, human attributes are not ascribed to God. But the

Christian and Jewish conceptions, (where God hears, sees, feels, argues, regrets, speaks,

loves, hates, is jealous and merciful) are anthropomorphic. God is not given gender

characteristics in most Africa languages.

What are the grounds of proof of God‟s existence? To an African, no one teaches the child

about God – there is the natural instinct to know God – one is born with the knowledge of

12
God. Moreover, God manifests himself in everything in the world. You take a look at the sky,

stars, moon, clouds, raindrops, night and day, animals, insects, plants, rocks, mountains,

rivers, wind etc., and their movements and ask if it is man who is responsible for them. Look

at the influence of all these and the helplessness and shortness of human life on earth and tell

us who has control. We have witnessed the processes of birth and death, growth and decay.

We have felt the agonies of hunger and thirst, emotion and joy, fear and love. Now, have we

asked ourselves what is the mechanism behind all this phenomena and influences? If we do,

then we will discover that a powerful being must be the ultimate source and symbol of all

these influences. It is this power that the African refers to as God. So the African conception

of God‟s existence appeals to experience. This is similar to its western counterparts,

especially the teleological argument, that also appeals to experience. But wait a minute: A

sceptic might argue that all the above phenomena are natural sequence and self-caused: they

do not have transcendental basis, but natural basis. But then, one fact remains manifestly

clear; it seems logical and meaningful to assert that if man is not responsible for the

phenomena, someone or even something else might be responsible.

The second question is on God‟s relation with the world. The African does not worship God

directly. There are no shrines, no temples, no feast days or celebration dedicated to God.

There are no sacrifices to Him. The African does not worship God directly because he cannot

conceive an image of Him. Moreover, God is not a local or personal God; He is for the whole

universe, spreading over the earth. So we cannot confine Him within our temple or locality,

or approach a deity concerned with the whole universe and say; “my own will be done”, the

way it is said of a personal deity. Furthermore, God who created everything, who is self-

sufficient, does not need sacrifices made up of the thing he has made – God is such a majestic

being that cannot be adequately satisfied. One more vital point – an African world is that of

13
hierarchical order of relationships. To approach a being in the highest hierarchy, like God,

one cannot go directly; one has to pass through the intermediaries, which are the lesser Gods.

This African conception of God is a reflection of African social pattern and respect for vital

ranks. This is why God is inactive in the day-to-day activities of the African people.

Although God is withdrawn from the world and man, Africans, in what could be called the

“the public aspect of their philosophy”; still believe that God is the ultimate recipient of all

sacrifices offered to the lesser Gods; who are expressions of His powers. People, however,

still appeal to God in cases of extreme despair or distress. One logical conclusion that one can

easily draw from the withdrawal of God from man, is that man refuses to hold God

responsible for any evil in the world. Since God remains inactive after creation, evil cannot

be attributed to Him.

B. The Problem of Evil in African Philosophy

A formidable objection to the existence of God in philosophy is perhaps, the problem of evil.

The problem of evil, so often discussed in western philosophy and Christian theology, does

not arise in an African conception of God. For, “it is when a God who is not only powerful

and omniscient but also perfect and all loving is postulated that the problem of the existence

of evil becomes an intellectual and philosophical hurdle”20. In African philosophy, evil is due

to the spiritual beings endowed with extra-ordinary powers (like witches, sorcerers, etc.).

Since God remains inactive after creation, evil cannot be attributed to Him. Between God and

man lie many powers and principalities – both good and evil forces – which account for the

happenings in the world. Consequently, in the African conception of God, evil can exist side

by side with God without constituting a problem.

20
Cited by G. E. Azenabor, “ An African and Western Conception of God and the Traditional Problem of Evil.” In
Journal of African Philosophy and Ideas. (Vol. 2, No. 3, 1999), p. 23

14
The next question is what purpose does evil serve, or how can it be justified? Evil exists to

punish bad acts. The reality of evil is ultimately a part of justice, done by spiritual beings.

Another justification for evil could be seen in the doctrine of retribution; a person must reap

the consequence of his or her bad deeds or misdeeds. So evil exists, to serve as an evidence of

a distinction between moral uprightness and moral decadence. This is why we have moral

evil. The physical evil is due to the activities and anger of the spiritual beings.

From the above, it follows that the presence of evil in the world is not sufficient to assert that

there is no God. Evil can be explained, depending on the worldview prevalent in each culture.

C. Mind-Body Problem

The question of the relationship between mind and body has long been a very difficult one in

western philosophy. The fundamental questions in the philosophy of mind are:

(1) Does the mind exist?

(2) If the mind exists, what is the nature?

(3) What is the relationship between mind and body?

In African thought, the mind does not only exist, it is superior to the body. No clear-cut

distinction exists between the mind and body – they are interrelated, connected and are

different aspects or manifestations of the same reality, which is undifferentiated.21 So mind

and body are two qualities in one thing. The mind and the body are partners, inasmuch as

none can exist without the other. There is a symbolic (rather than a casual) relationship

between mind and body. The benefits are mutual. To really understand an African conception

of the relationship between mind and body, we allude to D.E. Idoniboye‟s distinction

between the “active principle” and the “quiescent counterpart” of the mind.

21
Godwin Azenabor, “An African Theory of Mind-Body: An Esan Cultural Paradigm” in African Quarterly, (Vol.
39, No. 4, 1999), p. 125

15
David Idoniboye states that it is the “active principle” that departs the mind, when someone

becomes absent-minded or goes into a coma or sleeps. One can only return to full

consciousness at the return into the body of the “active principle”. There are also the

disembodied and unembodied states of the mind. The mind, unembodied, can inhabit

anybody it chooses. The mind can exist in unembodied and disembodied states. The aspect of

the mind that has this character is the soul.

The soul is not absolutely, but relatively immortal – there is a maximum period of time the

soul can take on the body to reincarnate; thereafter, the soul perishes and disintegrates

completely, joining the ancestors.

The African theory of mind-body compares to that of the West, in that Western dualism

asserts that mind and body are two different entities that are real. And Western monism

asserts that mind or matter is the only reality, not both. But an Africa theory does not take on

a dualistic or monistic countenance; rather it asserts pluralism with a leaning on a peculiar

kind of monistic duality. The African theory can easily accommodate other African

traditional beliefs, like witchcraft, reincarnation, cultism, etc. So the African theory portrays

mind and body as logically and functionally distinct but not ontologically distinct, hence the

body can affect the mind and the mind can affect the body. And this history is as a matter of

fact the whole basis of spiritual or physical healing. “There are certain diseases which are

believed to be „spiritual diseases‟ and cannot be healed by the application of the physical

therapy. In such diseases, attention is paid to both physiological and spiritual aspects of the

person. Unless the soul is healed, the body will not respond to any physical treatment”22.

D. Freedom and Determinism

22
Ibid.,

16
The question of whether man is free or determined is one of the fundamental questions and

problems in Western Metaphysics. African culture and belief system accommodate the idea

of human destiny, which is a version of determinism. Determinism is the view that asserts

that given certain sets of conditions nothing else could happen apart from the way it

happened. Everything has antecedent causes and effects are determined by their causes. The

Yoruba, for example believes in “Ori”, the Igbo in “Chi” and the Esan in “Ehi”, as the

determinant of human destiny, or purpose. This means that to do otherwise would not have

been possible. Everything has antecedents, which renders unavoidable their causes.

The question arise, if human life is directed by destiny, are human beings still free? If not,

can we be held responsible for our actions or inactions?

Freedom, which is the ability to do otherwise, the absence of compulsion and availability of

alternatives, in the history of philosophical thought, has moral implementations. This is

because human beings are said to be responsible for the ways they chose to use their freedom.

Since the African conceives the world as comprising of physical and spiritual elements,

human freedom may be difficult to accomplish. But even then, human destiny, or

determinism can be altered through the right sacrifices and worship of the appropriate God(s)

. So, to this extent, man is free. Another exercise of freedom in the face of Determinism is

through our behavioural pattern. Moreover, both Freedom and Determinism are compatible in

the idea of casualty – actions in both are caused – in the case of freedom by oneself and in the

case of determinism by factors external to one.

Another similar position is found in Mystical and Ethical Casualty. Mystical casualty has to

do with the interaction of the spiritual, mystical and human actions in the course of events.

Ethical causality relates to one‟s own behavioural pattern. In mystical casualty, appropriate

manipulation of things, words, gestures, or even thoughts can influence the behaviour of

17
other objects, even at a distance. It is these mystical factors that obstruct human freedom and

render its exercise difficult, if not impossible, hence man is determined, to this extent. Ethical

casualty has to do with one‟s moral conduct and is the derivative of the principles of

retribution. The underlying conception is that effect follows cause as reward or punishment

follows good or evil action. A person‟s past actions have bearing on, and determine his or her

present. This is backward looking causation. Whatever happens to a person is an inevitable

outcome of what he or she is, and is a necessary consequence of his or her past actions, which

are now the cause of his or her predicament.

Actions have to do with choice and choice entails freedom; freedom from compulsion. Hence

man is free to make or unmake his life by his life style. Since man is free, he is responsible

for his or her action or inaction. So, responsibility is inseparable from freedom.

E. Reincarnation

Reincarnation is an aspect of human Freedom and Destiny or Determinism. Reincarnation

could be said to be “the successive animation of different human bodies by one human

mind”23. Reincarnation also means that at death, a person passes into another living

creature;:man, animal or plant. Usually, reincarnation can only take place within a people of

the same clan.

Reasons for reincarnation include: Atonement for previous deeds or misdeeds, family

resemblance and behavioural pattern, memory transfer or retrocognition and divination.

Reincarnation synchronizes with human destiny and determinism because we have to explain

the problem of unfulfilled destiny. Again, reincarnation gives the individual succeeding

chances to fulfill his or her original destiny. In fact human beings are ruled inexorably by

23
Peter Geach, Reincarnation in God and the Soul, (New York: Schocken Books, Inc. 1969), p. 1

18
cause and effect, hence our actions have been conditioned by our past life – our action(s) or

inaction(s) in our past lives will determine the future24.

11.5.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

 What is the hierarchical relationship between the mind and the body in African

thought system?

 Which principle, according to African thought system leaves the body when someone

goes into comma?

11.5.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

 The mind is superior to the body.

 Active principle.

11.6 The Relevance of African Philosophy

We shall now direct our attention to the relevance of African philosophy. African philosophy

provides a rational method for tackling the question of human existence, and the universe

with the African cultural lenses.

There is also the relevance of African philosophy in its “love of wisdom”. Wisdom is

essential in progress and civilization, especially within a socio-cultural perspective. This is

precisely why the wisdom of today may become folly tomorrow.

24
G. E. Azenabor, “Reincarnation in an African Metaphysics”, in Jim Unah (ed.) Metaphysics, Phenomenology
and African Philosophy. (Ibadan: Hope Publications, 1996), p. 359

19
By wisdom, we mean the intelligent conduct of human affairs with experience and in relation

to concrete life situations, in which confronted by alternation of actions, we shall be able to

make the most relevant choice(s). African philosophy seeks the wisdom of life and living by

trying to understand the African in his or her concrete historical and personal condition of

existence in order to make sense of the world of his or her experience. The essence of African

philosophy is metaphysical – the metaphysical urge to penetrate reality and delve into

ontological wonder. This better situates issues, problems, and questions in African

philosophy, especially within the changes that have taken place in our cultures, tradition and

environment, be it physical, spiritual and social. So, we will have to make African philosophy

relevant to our existential situation, experience and problems, leaning heavily on the

metaphysical, because any ultimate standpoint, if it is reasonable, is metaphysics.

African philosophy has to be relevant in the area of cultural authenticity and value

orientation. African philosophy will have to be applied to our educational, socio-political,

ethical and even medical orientations. African philosophy in the next millennium must be

made relevant to the African societies. It should not be abstract but must be seen in the

context of societal and human relevance. It should be an instrument of social and material

change. Philosophy, whether western or African, must be at the service of man, African

philosophy must grapple with the African problems and experience.

To make African philosophy relevant, we are enjoined to go beyond the elucidation of

African ideas and delve into the critical examination, clarification and exposition of the

changes these ideas have undergone and the conditions that make these changes possible25.

We must avoid any attempt to describe and defend our cultures and traditions without taking

25
C. S Momoh, “African Philosophy: Past, Present and Future” in The Nigerian Journal of Philosophy. (Vol. 11,
No. 2, 1991), p. 18

20
into consideration the changes that have taken place in our environment; both physical and

social.

African philosophy has been and will continue to be relevant to the existential experience of

Africans. In African societies there had been, and will continue to be, the need for cultural

authenticity and development. This is where African philosophy has been useful. With

African philosophy, we are able to evolve a cultural philosophy, an African ethics,

epistemology, metaphysics and even African medicine.

In the area of ethics, for example, we can in the next century evolve a value system that we

can truly call our own, a value system that will produce meaningful and practical solutions to

our moral problems. This we can do by building from our roots and culture, taking into

consideration our conditions, historical background and realities. There is need for authentic

existence. We do not want to be “African Europeans”. Hence, we do not need to “fry” our

hair or bleach our skins in order to look like the European. Everything has an adaptation to

life. We really need moral development and a better perspective of the meaning of life.

In the political sphere, a dose of African philosophy is necessary to enable us appreciate our

political heritage. Basically political life in traditional African society centres around the

Chiefs, Obas and Emirs, whose authority are religious, administrative and judicial. The

African traditional culture is an organic whole. In other words, it is impossible to separate

religion from politics, politics from economy, economy from moral values. The concentration

of powers notwithstanding, the Oba, Chief or Emir is not a despot. There are traditional

restrictions to his powers. Subjects could demand for his removal, if he failed them, and a

king could even commit suicide for failure. There is also the fear of ancestral vengeance and

sanctions from constitutional deities. Furthermore, “the ability of families to move or migrate

from an abusive and despotic chief, Oba or Emir and join another chiefdom restricted the

21
Chief‟s powers, for he could lose manpower and tribute. So the Oba or Emir embraces his

office with a mixed feeling of joy and fear; joy for having been elevated to an office that will

confer on him, if he performs his duty successfully, the title of ancestor, and fear of

weakening the bond between God, spirit, man and the while universe, should he grossly

abuse his office or be found unworthy”26.

The relevance of this, therefore, in contemporary African set-up, is that in order for us to

have a truly indigenous and nationalistic political order, we should restructure the country

(Nigeria) into its different political units. In order to achieve this effectively in modern times,

a confederation or regionalism would be an ideal form of government for Nigeria. This is a

situation where the government of the whole surrenders greater power to the government of

the parts. But a common organization could be set up to regulate matters of common concern.

Another relevance of African philosophy in the political sphere is ideological. This is the idea

or principle that Africans should develop their own personality and ideologies; hence

ideologies like Pan-Africanism and Negritude should be reinvigorated.

Pan-Africanism is a response to western disparaging comments and discourse on African

thought. Pan-Africanism is an attempt to define, characterize and establish African cultural

identity. It was a political movement launched in London in 1893, initiated by Henry

Sylvester William and later W. E. B. Dubios, an African-American activist scholar and

champion of the interest of Africans. The movement manifested in a series of conferences

and congresses in Paris, London, Lisbon, New York, Manchester and Tanzania in the 1900s.

Pan-Africanism is meant to help towards characterizing a uniquely African personality and

identity.

26
K. C. Anyanwu and E. A. Ruch, Introduction to African Philosophy (Rome: Catholic Book Agency, 1981), p. 373

22
Thereafter, came Negritude, which though is often associated with Leopold Senghor, the first

president of Senegal, the first person who actually coined the term “Negritude” was Aimie

Cesaire of Martinique in his poem, “Return to my Native Land” in 1937. However, it was

Senghor who later popularized, politicized and ideologized the concept27.

Negritude attempted to re-construe the distinctive characteristics of African personality,

complimented by an African mode of knowledge. Senghor places greater emphasis on

traditional African cultural values. Negritude constitutes an authentic African identity, a

distinctive mode of being and existence. These ideologies help Africans to fight colonialism,

oppression and neo-colonialism.

The African wants to become modern but not westernized. It is against this background that

we understand Momoh‟s recommendation of an active oath taking as an authentic part of

Africanism. Momoh recommends that “every public office holder should be made to swear

on juju, specifically prepared for that purpose, spelling out what should befall the oath taker

if he willfully and deliberately enriches himself, friends or relation. It is irrelevant whether a

swearer believes in juju or not… the efficacy of juju is not a matter of belief, it is real” 28. This

active oath taking is based on the beliefs, culture and values of the traditional African. This

recommendation becomes relevant in this modern day Nigeria, where heads of state or

government, government agents, parastatals etc., are treasury looters, where most Nigerians

in public offices no longer have conscience, where there is large scale corruption, abuse of

office, mismanagement and embezzlement.

African philosophy is relevant even in the medical realm – no one today doubts the efficacy

of African traditional medicine or alternative medicine. There is also African science which is

27
See A. G. Mosley, African Philosophy: Selected Readings, (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffy, 1995),
p. 222
28
C. S. Momoh, “African Philosophy; Past, Present and Future” in The Journal of Philosophy (Vol. 11, No. 2,
1992) p. 132

23
moral and mystical in its causal explanation. The moral or ethical has to do with man‟s

conduct and is a derivative of the principle of reribution. There is an essential connection

between past and present actions. The mystical is related to the actions of the gods, ancestors,

fellow human beings, etc. Here, reality is beyond space and time, causal explanation is

beyond the physical and mechanical – knowledge is not just empirical, there is mystical and

spiritual knowledge. In fact, modern science has come to terms with African science,

especially in the context of the present state of scientific research with the Relativity and

Quantum theories and post-modern developments in science. “We are now living at a time

when science at its highest power has entered the spiritual world”29. Today, in science, non-

physical dimensions, like spiritual entities are now accommodated.

There is also the technological dimension to African science. The application of science is

technology. For example, we can put water in the calabash, having performed necessary

incantations; we call the name of whoever we want to deal with or expose and he or she

appears and he or she confesses the crime or we strike the person dead – technology. There is

also “Afeiri” – where you place your back or one foot on the wall and disappear. There is

also the causing and stoppage of rainfall for human benefit, i.e. the power to manipulate

nature etc. We also have action-at-a-distance, “Utagba”, missiles in Esan culture. All these

can be harnessed to make African philosophy relevant in the next millennium.

We need to re-orient the African mind as it relates to development and human personhood

through positive African philosophy. We need a reconstruction and deconstruction of our

traditional and colonial ideas, beliefs and practices in order to make them relevant to

contemporary period.

29
K. C. Anyanwu, “The African Experience” in American Market Place (New York: Exposition Press, 1983), p. 16

24
11.6.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

What is Pan-Africanism?

11.6.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Pan-Africanism is an attempt to define, characterize and establish African cultural identity

11.7 Summary of Study Session 11

A critic might argue that philosophy, in the West, is essentially individualistic. Along this

line of thought, William Abraham opined in his book, The Mind of Africa, that we need to

make a distinction between private (individual) and public (communal) views or aspect of

African philosophy. Every philosophy has an orientation. The orientation in Western

Philosophy is predominantly individualistic but in African philosophy, the orientation tilts

towards the communal and the holistic. Consequently, it may be possible to draw a water-

tight distinction between private and public aspects of philosophy in the western tradition,

especially because the frameworks of their culture and worldview are essentially

individualistic and atomic. But in Africa, the line between private and public is difficult, if

not impossible or unnecessary to draw. This is because the individual and the whole are fused

together. One finds it difficult, if not impossible, to present an individual philosophy without

relating it to the whole. Again, what we have discussed are common and perennial themes in

African philosophy, capable of general recognition and acceptance. So in spite of the

diversity of forms, there is still unity of thought. There is always a prevailing philosophical

spirit of any age and time – there is always a tradition and a common denominator in

philosophy. In African philosophy, it is a metaphysical and spiritual orientation, which is

25
more of co-existence with nature, rather than conquest, more of collectivism rather than

individualism, more of holism, rather than atomism, more of synthesis rather than analysis,

more of relations rather than separation, unity rather than division, monism, duality than

dualism, interdependence rather than dependence.

African philosophy is a philosophy founded upon observation of reality and deduction drawn

from human experience – it is, therefore, a critical and rational philosophy. It must be noted,

however, that criticism is a meta-activity and only a tool in philosophy; it is not the essence

of philosophy – the essence of philosophy is the metaphysical urge to penetrate reality.

11.7.1 References / Suggestion for Further Reading

Anyanwu, K. C. (1982). The nature of concepts in African and Western system of

philosophy, African American Journal of Philosophy, 3-4.

_____ (1983). African experience in American market place. New York, NY: Exposition

Press.

Anyanwu, K. C. and Ruch, E. A. (1981). Introduction to African philosophy. Rome, Italy:

Catholic Book Agency.

Azenabor, G. E. (1996). Reincarnation in an African metaphysics. Metaphysics,

phenomenology and African philosophy. J. Unah (Ed.). Ibadan, Nigeria: Hope

Publications.

_____(1998). The philosophy of other disciplines. In J. Unah (Ed.), Philosophy for all

disciplines. Lagos, Nigeria: University of Lagos.

26
______(1998). Understanding the problem of African philosophy. Lagos, Nigeria: First

Academic Publisher.

_____(1999). An African and Western conception of God and the traditional problem of evil.

In Journal of African Philosophy and Ideas, 2(3)

_____(1999). An African theory of mind-body: An Esan cultural paradigm. In African

Quarterly, 39(4).

______(2000). Schools of thoughts in contemporary African philosophy. In C. S. Momoh

(Ed.), The substance of African philosophy, Auchi, Nigeria: African Philosophy

Projects.

_____(2000). The idea of African philosophy in African language. Indian Philosophical

Quarterly, xxviii(3).

Bewaji, J. A. I. (1983). African philosophy: Some comments. In The Nigerian Journal of

Philosophy, 3(2).

Geach, P. (1969). Reincarnation in God and the soul. New York, NY: Schocken Books.

Masolo, D. A. (1994). African philosophy in search of identity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana

University Press.

Mbiti, J. S. (1996). African religion and philosophies. London, England: Heinemann

Educational Books.

Momoh, C. S. (1988). Cultural philosophy. In Journal of Africa Philosophy, 1(1& 2).

_____ (1991), African philosophy: past, present and future. In The Nigerian Journal of

Philosophy, 11(1).

27
_____ (1996). The nature, issues and substance of African philosophy. In J. Unah (Ed.),

Metaphysics, phenomenology and African philosophy. Ibadan, Nigeria: Hope

Publishers.

Mosley, A. G. (1995). African philosophy: Selected readings. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nwala, T. U. (1985). Igbo philosophy. Lagos, Nigeria: Lantern Books.

Okolo, C. B. (1985). Philosophy and the meaning of life. In The Journal of Philosophy. 5(1).

Onyewuenyi, I. (1995). Traditional African aesthetics: A philosophical perspective. In A. G.

Mosley (Ed.), African philosophy: Selected readings. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Oruka O, (1990). Trends in contemporary African philosophy. Nairobi, Kenya: Shirikan.

Stace, W. T. (1957). The place of philosophy in human culture. In Philosophy: The Regional

Institute of Philosophy, 12.

Tempels, P. (1959). Bantu philosophy. Paris, France: Presence Africaine.

Wiredu, K. (1980). Philosophy and an African culture. London, England: Cambridge

University Press.

28
 STUDY SESSION 12

THE CONCEPT AND NATURE OF PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

12.1 Introduction

This study session will introduce you to the concept and nature of philosophy of science. As

such, our major concern here would be to understand the concept of science as understood by

philosophers, calling to mind their various contributions to the development of the field of

science and the philosophy of science. In this study session, we will be examining the

concept of science and the philosophy of science. The study of the history of science and

philosophy of science will also be a big discussion in this session as well as insights into the

scientific culture and method. You will be able to understand reasons for the study of science

through the lens of philosophy, hence the further analysis of the field of the philosophy of

science.

12.1.1 Learning Outcomes of Study Session 12

After you have studied this session, you should be able to:

1. Define science;

2. Define the philosophy of science;

3. Give a detailed account of the history of science; and

4. List and explain methods of scientific culture.

12.2 What is Philosophy of Science?

Philosophy of science is a critical discussion of developments in science which takes account

of how it (science) has fared throughout the ages, and how it has affected man’s destiny

positively or negatively. Philosophy of science is the exhibition of the workings of

1
philosophy in the scientific enterprise in the context of its history. It wants to be a radical

departure from the common place presentation of history and philosophy of science in form

of a discussion of scientific topics such as “measurement”, “velocity”, “electrons”, “protons”,

“neutrons”, “asteroids”, et cetera. It claims that these topics are already exhaustively

discussed in our faculties of science and need not engage the attention of a cerebral thinker in

philosophy. While it acknowledges the importance of stimulating the interest of the young

scholar in science, philosophical science insists that a philosophy worthy of the name need

not be an emotionally overcharged errand boy of any discipline.

Some teachers of academic philosophy who want to go along with any discipline

momentarily “making the waves” often cite scholasticism as a typical example of the task of

philosophy in any era. They claim that as philosophy was the handmaiden of theology in the

medieval period, so shall it be the handmaiden of science in our time. In truth, however, such

a strategy of philosophy is to be deplored and it has been deplored. A philosophy that

babysits the sciences or allows itself to be subservient to the disciplines reduces itself to the

role of a second fiddle and in time consigns itself into the dustbin of obsolescence and

irrelevance.

For philosophy to maintain its pride of place and be relevant in the realm of the sciences, it

must make a clear statement and a significant contribution to the advancement of scientific

knowledge. It has and it could still do so in a dignified manner. But philosophy cannot

achieve this task by tying itself to the apron-string of any discipline. Philosophy cannot attain

the status of intellectual aristocracy or “world citizenship” by merely playing a second fiddle.

The intrusion of philosophy into the realm of science should be able to jolt science or put it

constantly on the mettle, on its toes. Philosophy should detonate, if you like, explode a hand

grenade or a napalm bomb under the scientist’s accustomed way of treating reality.

2
Philosophy should make science pulsate, bubble and come alive. Only then is the

philosopher’s projection into science authentically and radically philosophical.

It is to distinguish our task from those of our colleagues seeking relevance in the morass of

the disciplines that we call our undertaking in this treatise a Philosophical Science. All this, in

the last analysis, is to signal the reader that a more fruitful and exciting way of embarking on

the study of History and Philosophy of Science exists, and it shall be elaborated on presently.

Suffice it to state here that the task of Philosophical Science is to prod “scientists into an

extremely healthy state of scepticism about many of the traditional foundations of their

thinking”1.

12.2.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

For philosophy to maintain its pride of place and be relevant in the realm of the sciences,

what must it do?

12.2.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Philosophy must make a clear statement and a significant contribution to the advancement of

scientific knowledge.

12.3 Nature of Philosophy of Science

Certain basic characteristics clearly distinguish scientific knowledge from other sorts of

knowledge, and they include, among others, the following.

Observation of Facts

Apart from Mathematics, and depending on the knowledge situation, most of the disciplines

classified under physical and natural science begin with the observation of facts, that is, how

1
E.A Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundation of Modern Science, (New Jersey: The Humanities Press, 1980)

3
things generally behave. Galileo was the first in the history of science to start studying or

observing the “behaviour of falling bodies”2. From this observation or study, more facts were

collected about moving bodies which refuted earlier theories of motion such as that of

Aristotle which asserted that “the rate of fall was proportional to the weight of the body” in

question. Thus, progress in science has been largely assured by the observation of things as

regards how they, as a rule, behave3.

Collection of Data

It is often suspected and contended that the way things are observed to behave may actually

be different from how they truly behave. This makes collection of facts for close scrutiny

another important feature of science. Facts or data are collected for the purpose of laboratory

analysis and verification.

Experimentation

Through laboratory analysis and experimentation of collected data the essential

characteristics of things are determined. Since it is necessary to determine the actual

composition and status of things, laboratory experiments, especially in the natural sciences,

constitute one basic way of recognizing a genuine work of science.

Furthermore, a genuine work of science is characterized by the formulation and testing of

hypothesis, the construction of theories and the establishment of a causal law or probable

laws governing a number of particular facts. We should, perhaps, state here that there is no

hard and fast rule as to whether observation or hypothesis or theory comes first before the

others. Another recognizable feature of a work of science is that its claims or assertions are

veridical, that is, they are capable of being shown to be true or false. The results arrived at

must be repeatable, and findings should make predictions possible.

2
Friday N. Ndubuisi, Contextual issues in Scientific Philosophy, (Lagos: Panaf Press, 1997), p.13
3
Martin Heidegger, “the Age of the World Picture” in Alfred I. Tauber (ed.) , Science and the Quest for Reality:
Main Trends of the Modern World, (London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1997), 74

4
Research

As we have said in the foregoing discussion, science is organized research. In other words,

research is the essence, if you like, the kernel of science. But what is research? Research is

“ongoing activity” situated on a ground plan projected into an object sphere4. The basic event

in research, the essence of research, is the opening up of this object sphere in which

continuous, ongoing, activity is carried out. And needless to say, research exacts rigour from

those who take part in it. Consequently, every form of research exacts rigour, be it those of

the mathematical, physical and natural sciences or those of the social and humanistic

disciplines. Rigour means the “obligation to remain within the sphere opened up”5. Rigour is

tenaciously remaining on course, in focus. Thus, research achieves its objective of eliciting

the truth of what is, through rigour. Rigour enables research to emerge with a strict opinion

on what is. And since research as continuous interrogation or “ongoing activity” is the

essence of science, the decision regarding the essence of truth by science is the product of

rigour. Thus, rigour is research and any research which proceeds “from observation of

particular facts to the establishment of exact quantitative laws, by means of which future

particular facts could be predicted”6 is science, expressed in simple terms.

12.3.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

List three basic characteristics that distinguish scientific knowledge from other sorts of

knowledge.

12.3.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

4
Ibid,p.73
5
Ibid, p.87
6
Bertrand Russell, Op.cit, p.21

5
Experimentation, Collection of data and Observation of facts

12.4 What Is Science?

The simple way to look at science is to see it as the devotion of man to research or the

attainment of the kind of knowledge which establishes general laws governing a number of

particular, isolated facts. This devotion to research or knowledge of general laws connecting

facts of particular sorts has increased man’s power and technique of controlling and

manipulating nature7. Thus, science as a culture of research is intertwined with the increased

power and technique of controlling and manipulating nature. Others have described science

as “…trained and organized commonsense”, the “critical and accurate observation and

description of things and events”8.

We could also define science as the product of curiosity – the urge to know. It seeks for

evidence and deals with facts, that is, “with what is true or false”. In its strict or pure form,

science is the “quantitative and objective knowledge of nature”. Science is knowledge for its

own sake without due regard for practical consequences. Science is strict official position

constructed on facts or evidence. It is strict adherence to or insistence on rules without

recourse to sentiments or extraneous considerations. Science is officialdom.

Thus, in this study, we mean by science, those disciplines of a mathematical, physical,

chemical and natural sorts which make claim to exactness, objectivity, universality and

methodological orthodoxy. They include, among others, the disciplines of Mathematics,

Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Biology, et cetera. The Social Sciences would not come up

for inclusion in this body of knowledge that demands rigour and exactness. It is only in a

broad sense that the Social Sciences qualify for inclusion in the scientific enterprise, since

7
Ibid
8
Timon H. Harold & M.S Smith, Living Issues in Philosophy, Sixth Edition, (New York; D. Van Nostrand Company,
1994), pp.284 - 285

6
they also purport to deal with facts which can be true or false. What distinguish the former

from the latter sort of Science is “rigour”, laboratory experimentation and “exactness”.

Although it could be demonstrated that not all the disciplines of the mathematical, physical

and natural types have the same strictness, exactness and rigour and not all of them submit

themselves to laboratory experimentation, they are the ones referred to, primarily and mainly,

when we speak of Philosophical Science or History and Philosophy of Science. Thus, by

science, in our context of discourse, we mean natural science. The social sciences are

excluded here, but they are ripe for attention in another treatise.

12.4.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

What distinguishes the pure science from social science?

12.4.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Rigour.

12.5 Why Study the History and Philosophy of Science?

We walk into the mainstream of this study by seeking an answer to the question, “why is it

necessary to gain an insight into the History and Philosophy of Science?” Look at it this way.

Science as a culture of research has increased man’s power and technique of manipulating

and controlling nature9. That power and technique which arose from science have, today,

become our passion. Why not? Science has produced immense and dazzling results. People

now think, talk and fictionize science. Almost everyone is fascinated by the scientific way of

doing things – the scientific way of investigation and the scientific way of life. What is stated

shows that we are now neck-deep in a science culture. Needless to say, the story of a culture

that, literally, has become the concern of everyone needs to be told.

9
Bertrand Russell, The Scientific Outlook, (New York: W.W Norton and Company Inc., 1962), p.viii

7
Another point of interest in studying the history and philosophy of science is that every

normal human being would want to identify with success. The story of science has, by and

large, been that of success. People are always enthused by stories of success – when things

happened and how they came to be – in order that they may take advantage of the

opportunities offered by the situation.

It is therefore important to study the history and philosophy of science so that we can

acquaint ourselves with developments in the enterprise with a view to availing ourselves of

the opportunities offered by the scientific outlook.

In addition, an understanding of the History and Philosophy of science would enable us to

take active interest in it and develop the discipline and thought habits necessary for the

emergence of a science culture in our environment. It is only when we have adequate

understanding of when and how something came about and what it promises could we

purposively partake of it.

In like manner, everywhere in the world, organizations, be they governmental or non-

governmental, as well as big financiers of research projects and programmes normally do

want to be apprised of developments in a field before they could be persuaded to commit

their resources.

It is envisaged, therefore, that a well-articulated history and philosophy of science which

projects the progress it (science) has made throughout the ages, and how its application has

alleviated human plight and improved the standards of man’s daily transactions in practically

every sphere of life would encourage governments and non-governmental organizations in

developing nations to invest enormous resources in the scientific enterprise.

12.5.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

According to this session, when do we purposively partake of something?

8
12.5.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

It is only when we have adequate understanding of when and how something came about and

what it promises.

12.6 The Science Culture and Method

Unfortunately, the mere desire for a science culture does not in itself produce scientific

activities. What produces scientific activities is, primarily and mainly, a hunch, that is, the

feeling (upon observation of facts) that something might be the case. Once the hunch is there,

you become curious about things. It is this curiosity arising from a hunch that gives impetus

to scientific activities. Thus, the first condition for the emergence of scientific activities is

that there are human beings who are actuated by the urge to know.

Nevertheless, the urge to know, without any further ado, cannot by itself establish a science

culture. Ingrained in the urge to know is the desire and willingness to dedicate oneself to

research which, we have said, is the essence of science. Research construed as ongoing

inquiry demands commitment and exacts rigour. You need men and women with intellectual

stamina and a capacity to remain on course to set in motion and sustain scientific activities.

Apart from men and women of calibre, there are other thought habits and a form of discipline

necessary for the emergence of a science culture. People who desire science should not pay

lip service to it. People should cultivate the habit of seeking for evidence, for facts, and

rigorously applying the logic of facts. A people who prefer hearsay and rumour to facts or

evidence cannot develop a genuine science culture.

You need, also, for the emergence of a scientific way of life a conducive social and political

climate. You need a social and political environment that ensures continuity and consistency

of policy positions such that research proposals are not tied to the vagaries of changing

political fortunes, whims, and caprices of those who exercise the powers of the state. The

9
evident lack of a conducive, social and political climate accounts for the inability of

developing nations and societies, under the yoke of oppressive social regimes, to develop a

science culture in their environment.

It is for this reason that a strong argument has been advanced in favour of having the

humanities and the social sciences, especially those that extol emancipatory, liberatory and

democratic values and virtues, develop side by side with the mathematical, physical and

natural sciences. Sandra Harding thinks that we would have to reinvent science (of the latter

sort) in order to make sense of our social experience10. Similarly, it has been argued that

scientific rationality or the scientific outlook requires an understanding of how our value,

social and political commitments insert themselves into our research methodologies11. The

point of interest here is that “science and knowledge will always be deeply permeated by

value commitments and the social relations through which they come into existence…”12.

The summary of all this is that a science culture requires for its sustenance an adequate

knowledge of the role of value orientation and social relations in our research efforts.

We return now to the crucial segment of this introductory essay which we highlighted in the

preliminary remarks. It is the question of what precisely it is that makes science

philosophical. What are those elements of a philosophical nature that make incursions into

science? What makes science truly, authentically and radically philosophical?

12.6.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

What produces scientific activities is, primarily and mainly_____

10
Sandra Harding, The Science of Questions in Feminism (Ithaca New York: Cornell University Press, 1986),
p.251
11
P. Lather, “Feminist perspectives in Empowering Research Methodologies” in Women Studies International
Forum, Vol.II, No.6, 1988, p.576
12
Sandra Harding, Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives, (Ithaca New York: Cornell
University Press, 1991), p.ix

10
12.6.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

A hunch, the feeling that something might be the case

12.7 What It Means for Science to Be Philosophical

Philosophical science or rather philosophy of science has been presented in many different

ways, three of which are easily distinguishable. It is increasingly becoming suspect by the

day whether all of them can pass muster. What cannot be disputed in the various

presentations is that philosophy of science is an attempt to render science accessible and to

make it an object for philosophical scrutiny. Whether the scrutiny, in all cases, is properly

executed or whether it is actually philosophical remains to be seen. We begin our task by

examining three distinguishable methods of presenting philosophy of science namely, the

pedestrian “anything goes” method, the critical method and the original philosophical

method.

1. The Pedestrian Method. This method of presenting the philosophy of science takes the

form of the discussion of topics in science such as measurement, motion, electro-magnetic

waves, electrons, neutrons, protons, celestial bodies, et cetera. In some cases, the activities of

notable persons in science or in philosophy are discussed in relation to major discoveries in

science without discussing or clearly showing what is philosophical in such activities and

discoveries. Often times, you take up a philosophy of science text and find discussions of

how it was discovered that “light travels on a straight line”, how falling bodies generally

behave; or how Copernicus and Kepler have impacted on astronomy, how Newtonian Physics

amounted to a breaking of new grounds, how Euclidean geometry is different from non-

Euclidean geometry, without a hint as to how these scientific exploits generated philosophical

problems and discussions or how epistemological debates in philosophy have acted as a

catalyst for such scientific activities and discoveries.

11
Presented in this manner, philosophy of science is threadbare, barren, pedestrian. It makes the

enterprise an all-comers affair. Anyone who is literate in the language of instruction would be

competent to dispense this body of knowledge. In other words, this pedestrian method of

presenting the philosophy of science makes the argument robust that a trained scientist or

historian or linguist or even an accountant is competent to teach philosophy of science.

The robustness of the contention that just anyone can teach philosophy of science is aided

and abetted by the “anything goes” attitude of some teachers of academic philosophy who

subscribe to the convenient view that philosophy is a huge umbrella which provides shelter

for virtually all theoretical activities. Unfortunately, such a conception of philosophy can no

longer hold after centuries of the dismemberment of philosophy into independent disciplines,

each with an object sphere of its own. What this means is that man has introduced division of

labour and specialization of functions in his activities, be they theoretical or practical. In such

a state of affair, we cannot continue to entertain the “anything goes” attitude to philosophy

without absurdity.

Fortunately, the division of philosophy into independent disciplines leaves philosophy with

exclusive items which constitute its functions. It is these items that it (philosophy) projects

into any discipline, anything, that it seeks to investigate. Without such a projection of the

exclusive philosophical items into anything, into any discipline, the endeavour would not be

philosophical. Consequently, the pedestrian presentation of philosophy of science under

examination in this segment does not pass muster. This takes us to yet another method of

presenting philosophy of science – the critical method.

2. The Critical Method of doing philosophy of science entails taking up science and

examining its fundamental assumptions and presuppositions,13its competing theories, its

methods of inquiry and its relation or non-relation to other fields of study. An activity of this

13
C.S Nwodo, “ A Critique of Copelston’s objection to Philosophy of History” in The Nigerian journal of
philosophy Vol.2 No.1 & 2, 1989, p.71

12
sort is often described as meta science or meta scientific inquiries of the methodology of

science. Surely, it is part of the functions of philosophy to inquire into any discipline, into

anything, to establish its mode of cognition, its foundation and its limitations. The critical

question concerning the procedure of human reason in scientific research, for example, is not

science but meta-science, and as such qualifies to be called philosophical.

The point of interest here is that criticism of method and procedure and the clarification of

concepts are some of the attributes native to philosophy. And so, the criticism of scientific

methodology and procedure and the clarification of scientific terms would constitute a

philosophy of science. But we must quickly point out that this method of presenting

philosophy of science, that is, the method of critical discussion of basic assumptions and

presuppositions of science as well as a critique of its methodology of inquiry are not the sort

of things that only a trained philosopher can do. A working scientist, at some point, would be

compelled to critique his method and basic assumptions. This makes philosophy of science an

enterprise that is open to two sorts of people – the trained philosopher and the trained

scientist.

Arguably, criticism of method, procedure and fundamental assumptions and presuppositions

of any discipline as well as the clarification of concepts therein are functions of philosophy,

especially where there is division of labour and specialization of functions. Criticism of

method, procedure and basic assumptions and the clarification of terms or concepts are like a

tool sharpening exercise. By critical discourse philosophy sharpens the methodology and

concepts of science or any discipline whatsoever. But the claim of the trained scientist to the

enterprise of philosophy of science is that if the philosopher does not do it, the scientist

would himself perform the function in course of time, since tools invariably become blunt

and would require sharpening.

13
Strictly speaking, it is not the job of the scientist as scientist to sharpen his tool, especially

where we have traditional and professional tool sharpeners. By embarking on the criticism of

his method, procedure and basic assumptions and presuppositions the scientist abandons his

primary assignment to the territory of the philosopher14. Thus, when we insist on division of

labour and specialization of functions, philosophy of science presented as a meta scientific

inquires of the methodology, procedure, basic assumptions and presuppositions of science or

the clarification of scientific terms, is the legitimate function of philosophy. The only

argument in favour of the scientist is that if there is a need to prune down expenditure and

reduce the national workforce to the barest minimum in times of economic recession, and if

the argument is whether to retain the philosopher or the scientist, the latter (the trained

scientist) would have an upper hand since he can combine two functions; for the scientist can

double as a field researcher (which he is trained for) and a critic of method (which is the

philosopher’s task).

What this means is that if all the philosopher does in philosophy of science is criticism of

method, procedure, basic assumptions and presuppositions of science and the clarification of

its terms, then, he is threatened in the event of rationalization of courses in our universities,

especially in the decision as to who should teach the history and philosophy of science.

There is, however, a fundamental problem in the scientist combining his function as

researcher with those of the philosopher as critic, guide and guard. First, the ambitious

scientist usurps the role of the philosopher when the latter is available, able and willing to

perform, and ends up painting philosophy with the brush of his discipline. Second, the

combination of two functions by the scientists transgresses the norms of division of labour

and specialization of functions so vital for the assurance of efficiency in human transactions.

Experience shows that trained scientists – mathematicians, biologists, chemists, physicists, et

14
Jim I. Unah, “Metaphysics as the Foundation of Knowledge” in Metaphysics, Phenomenology and African
Philosophy, (Ibadan: Hope publications, 1996), p.5

14
cetera, who abandoned research and laboratory experiments to deal with the philosophical

problems of method and basic assumptions never returned to their primary duty posts. For, as

soon as they enter the exciting philosophical arena of controversy over the meaning of

concepts and limitations of methods, they never remember to return to the laboratory, thereby

depriving humankind of the benefit of their fact-finding assignment. Rene Weber15 makes

this crucial point in her Dialogues with Scientists and Sages. The philosopher’s world is so

rich, so exciting and so aristocratic to warrant a return to the scientists’ drudgery.

Fortunately, there are exclusive philosophical products or manufactures of pure reason which

are exported to the realm of science to guide and guard science. Such exclusive philosophical

items which are injected into science make the philosopher indispensable in the realm of

science. Absence of such exclusive philosophical items not only makes science threadbare

and being-less, it makes the scientific enterprise socially and politically very dangerous. An

elaboration of this will be undertaken in our treatment of the original philosophical method of

presenting philosophy of science.

3. The Original Philosophical Method. This method of presenting the philosophy of science

would require us to heed the call of Husserl to “go back to the things themselves”, that is, to

go back to the etymology of the Greek word for philosophy and the core areas of philosophy

which define its exclusive functions.

First, the Greek etymological combination for philosophy is Philein Sophia, “love of

wisdom”. We recall that science has been defined as knowledge of general laws governing

particular, isolated, facts, that is, knowledge of what is true or false about things or events

without extraneous considerations or regard for practical consequences. But knowledge of

what is true or false (as in the case of knowledge of nuclear fission), if not guided by wisdom,

is potentially very dangerous. We need wisdom to handle what is true or false, to deal with

15
Rene Weber,(ed.), Dialogue with Scientists and Sages: the Search Sages: The Search for Unity, (London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986)

15
facts and to judge experience in an uplifting and beneficial manner16: “…Wisdom consists in

making judicious balance of intuitive and discursive interpretations of our experience of

being and of beings…”17

This wisdom which the philosopher alone generates through the exercise of the power of pure

reason or transcendence is not available to the trained scientist. Consequently, the scientist is

not equipped to guide and guard what he produces – knowledge of facts, of what is true or

false – with wisdom18. This privation on the part of science makes the philosopher, the

custodian of wisdom, indispensable.

Secondly, philosophy is sometimes, perhaps, less controversially defined in terms of its core

areas of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. It is the constant renewal and consideration of

these core areas that endows the philosopher with wisdom, with the power to go beyond the

boundary of ordinary facts to judge experience wisely. The core areas definition of

philosophy takes philosophy to be the search for the ultimate nature of reality, truth and

value. Metaphysics is the study of reality, epistemology the study or theory of knowledge and

ethics the study of the norms of moral behaviour. A constant consideration of these exclusive

core areas of philosophy leads to the cultivation of wisdom. And philosophy of any discipline

such as science would consist in the application of the thoroughly considered opinion on any

of the core areas of philosophy or a combination of same to the relevant discipline or any part

thereof.

Consequently, a genuine philosophy of science is one wherein a trained philosopher injects

his a priori metaphysical, epistemological or ethical notions into science with a view to

elevating its empirical content to the rank of necessary, universal, truth. In other words, a

philosopher in the realm of science, if he is to be true to his calling, is either metaphysicizing,

16
Sophie B. Oluwole, Philosophy and Oral Tradition, (Lagos; African Research Konsultancy, 1997), p.1
17
E.A Ruch& K.C Anyanwu, African Philosophy: An Introduction to the Main Philosophical Trends in
Contemporary Africa, ( Rome; Catholic Book Agency, 1981), p.27
18
Bertrand Russell, Op.cit, p.x

16
epistemologizing or ethicizing science. This proposition holds good for the philosophy of any

discipline whatsoever. Our assertion is supported by the great traditions in philosophy such as

the works of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Russell, and Popper, to cite the

conspicuous and eloquent examples.

We conclude this introductory essay by emphasizing that science or any discipline becomes

originally, truly and radically philosophical if and only if a philosopher’s orientation in

metaphysics or epistemology or ethics or a combination of same informs the relevant science

or discipline.

12.7.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

List three distinguishable methods of presenting philosophy of science.

12.7.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

The pedestrian method, the critical method, and the original philosophical method

12.8 Summary of Study Session 12

In this study session, you have learnt what science is, the relationship between philosophy

and science, and the study of the meaning and nature of philosophy of science. The study

session has introduced you to what fields of study can be placed under science, as well as the

methods applied to enable the continuity of the field of science. You have further been

acquainted with what it means to study science through the lens of philosophy, thereby

understanding reasons for the existence of a philosophy of science as one of the

infrastructural disciplines under the field of philosophy.

17
12.8.2 References / Suggestions for Further Reading

Burtt, E. A. (1980). The metaphysical foundation of modern science. New Jersey, NJ: The

Humanities Press.

Harding, S. (1986). The science of questions in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press.

_____ (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press.

Harold, T. H. & Smith, M. S. (1994). Living issues in philosophy (6th Edition). New York,

NY: D. Van Nostrand .

Heidegger, M. (1994). The age of the world picture. In I. T. Alfred (Ed.), Science and the

quest for reality: Main trends of the modern world. London, England: Macmillan

Press Ltd.

Lather, P. (1988). Feminist perspectives in empowering research methodologies. In Women

Studies International Forum, 2(6).

Ndubuisi, F. N. (1997). Contextual issues in scientific philosophy. Lagos, Nigeria: Panaf

Press.

Nwodo, C. S. (1989). A critique of Copelston’s objection to philosophy of history. In The

Nigerian Journal of Philosophy, 2(1 & 2).

Oluwole, S. B. (1997). Philosophy and oral tradition. Lagos, Nigeria: African Research

Konsultancy.

18
Ruch, E. A. and Anyanwu, K. C. (1981). African philosophy: An introduction to the main

philosophical trends in contemporary Africa. Rome, Italy: Catholic Book Agency.

Russell, B (1962). The scientific outlook. New York, NY: W.W. Norton .

Unah, J. I. (1996). Metaphysics as the foundation of knowledge. In Metaphysics,

phenomenology and African philosophy. Ibadan, Nigeria: Hope publications.

Weber, R. (1986). Dialogue with scientists and sages: The search for unity, London.

England: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

19
 STUDY SESSION 13

THE HISTORY AND METHOD OF SCIENCE

13.1 Introduction

This study session will take you on a journey ride through the history of science. Along the

way, you will be exposed to how different philosophers and scientists from antiquity to the

present age contribute immensely to the growth of science. You will also learn about the

impact of Christian and Islamic cultures on scientific development. You will further be

enlightened on some of the essential features of scientific research and some selected

methodological perspectives that have emerged from philosophical disquisitions on the

subject, especially since the twentieth century.

13.1.1 Learning Outcomes for Study Session 13

At the end of this session you should be able to:

1. Name the different epochs of the history of science;

2. Identify key philosophers and scientists of each epoch;

3. State the contributions of the identified philosophers and scientists to the development

of science;

4. State the contributions of religion to scientific growth; and

1
 5. Outline the procedure of scientific method.

13.2 Science in Ancient Greek Civilization (600-320 B.C.)

The humble beginnings of Western science have traditionally been located among the

philosophers of Greek city-states on the coast and island of the Eastern Mediterranean, in 6th

and 5th centuries B.C.1 Their works are known only through fragments, references and brief

quotations made by authors who came later, perhaps by hundreds of years. You already know

from the previous sessions that the early Greek philosophers were cosmologists who

speculated freely about the ultimate constituent or substratum of the cosmos. For Thales of

Miletus, the earliest Greek philosopher in recorded history, “All is water”, whilst for

Empedocles (500-440 B.C.) another of these ancient thinkers the ultimate principles of the

universe are “love and strife”. In this way, the Greeks moved away from the mythological

explanations of their own cultures and of the ancient civilizations from which they sprang and

from which they borrowed much of their detailed knowledge. The Greeks were the great

adumbrators of the modern European scientific attitude. One very important tradition,

Pythagoreanism (founded by the mystical mathematician and philosopher, Pythagoras c. 530

B.C.) was explicitly religious. Pythagoras wanted to discover the master-key to universal

harmony, both natural and social, and the personality of members, which he construed as an

ordered array of dots, was for the tradition he founded an important clue.

Somewhat later appeared the Eleatic Zeno (c. 490) and Parmenides (c.500) who employed

sophisticated arguments to support the philosophical position that asserted the unchanging

unity of all things. In addition, Zeno’s paradoxes of motion presents a challenge that has

lingered even into contemporary times.

1
B. Russell, History of Western Philosophy. (London: Routledge, 1961) parts 1 & 2

2
Certainly, by the 5th century B.C., these inquiries became quite sophisticated in

argumentation. But they were more speculative than empirical; they pertained more to

speculative explanations of empirical; they pertained more to speculative explanations of

commonsense phenomena rather than highly technical arguments about controlled artificial

experiments; the later emerged with Aristotle.

Plato (429-347 B.C.) was a great metaphysician, mathematician, astrophysicist and political

theorist. He loved mathematics and saw in it the key to a rational method of scientific inquiry.

In his magnum opus, the Republic, he argues that geometry prepares the mind for the

discourse of dialectics about the real ideas, of which perceptible things are but images,

leading ultimately to wisdom and illumination. For Plato, genuine scientific knowledge is

possible through the intellectual apprehension of the ideal entities in the world of forms.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) the greatest student of Plato, was one of the world’s first, and

greatest, scholars. An ex-student of Plato’s Academy (a school devoted to learning), Aristotle

eventually set up his own school, the Lyceum. His interests straddled the entire natural and

human world of his day, including metaphysics and ethics. Through painstaking observation

and disciplined theorizing he created a biological science and a taxonomy similar to those

used today. Aristotle also made important contributions to logic, physics and political theory.

He was also a master of the scholarly method of investigation. He would define the subject

area and its problems, dialogue critically with his predecessors (sometimes showing that they

were naïve or incorrect in some important respects) and then proceeded by reason and

experience to develop his own argument. Indeed, we owe to him the basic divisions of

learning and also the articulation and elaboration of the principles of method and of the

different sorts of knowledge attainable by the use of reason. In the late 4th century B.C.

Alexander the Great, an ex-student of Aristotle, annexed most of Asia Minor and inaugurated

3
a vast empire. Greek culture flowered and the great cities competed for famous scholars and

classical texts. The greatest of these centres of learning was the city of Alexandria in Egypt. It

had a great library and was the equivalent of a modern university. Largely independent of

religious trappings, the library of Alexandria housed thousands of classical texts and many

erudite and eminent scholars of that period flocked to it. Although this Hellenistic Age

(roughly from 323-30 B.C.) did not quite achieve the genius of the Greek era, it produced,

especially in the Alexandrian School, some notable mathematicians namely Euclid (330-275

B.C.), Archimedes (287-212 B.C.), and Apollonius (260-200) and astronomers, for example,

Hipparchus (190-120 B.C.). Studies in medicine and philosophy flourished also, and during

this period, the seeds of alchemy were developed by Egyptian alchemists attempting to

rationalize chemical change with Aristotelian theories.

The demise of the Alexandrian School occurred in 624 when the Muslims, under Caliph

Omar, conquered Alexandria and destroyed the library. The Caliph is said to have justified

his brazen act of vandalism on the ground that “if these teachings agree with the book of God

(the Koran) they are useless, and need not be preserved; if they disagree, they are pernicious,

and ought to be destroyed”.2 Thus science suffered a terrible, though temporary, set-back.

13.2.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

The setback suffered by science in the ancient period was caused by the destruction of which

library?

13.2.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

2
J. Jeans, The Growth of Physical Science. (New York: Fawcett Publications, 1961) p. 97

4
The library of Alexandria

13.13 Science in Rome

Towards the close of the pre-Christian epoch (around the second century B.C.) the Roman

Empire achieved dominance over the Mediterranean world. Rome presented a paradox to

scholars. The Roman civilization, so sophisticated and apparently quite modern in its

personalities and politics, very solid in the learned discipline of jurisprudence and law, very

progressive in the state of technologies of warfare and public hygiene, with direct access to

the corpus of Greek science, nevertheless failed to produce a scientist of note. Two able

scientists that worked during the reign of Emperor Marcus Aurelius in the second century

A.D. were both Greeks: Galen of Pergamon, who synthesized and advanced the study of

medicine, anatomy, and physiology, and Ptolemy of Alexandria, who brought mathematical

astronomy close to a classic perfection and attempted to bring the mathematical cum

scientific method to the earliest empirical social science-astrological prediction.

Generally speaking, the Romans considered science as fit only for casual speculation, on the

one hand, and practical techniques, on the other. They discussed scientific matters seriously

only in connection with philosophies that were basically ethical. Stoicism and Epicureanism

were especially dominant at that time. The messages offered by them to the wise were

dignified resignation and the pursuit of happiness respectively. Nevertheless, one of the

leading Epicureans, Lucretius, authored a master piece of speculative science entitled On the

Nature of Things. The central argument of his atheistic and atomistic explanation of

phenomena was that the gods and other deities in current mythological explanations of the

universe were fictions calculated to instill fear and obedience among the gullible people.

Some scholars have advanced reasons for the failure of ancient Rome to contribute

significantly to some dispute of its technological, socio-political and judicial achievements.

5
For instance, it has been argued that slavery, by stifling the motivation for industrial

innovation, was the cause. But this explanation is too simplistic for slavery, as a n institution,

did not actually disappear in Europe until the 19th century, by which time science was very

much on course. Furthermore, it has been speculated that, perhaps, the social structure of

Rome did not allow for the social mobility necessary for scientific progress, and that its long

attachment to gross forms of magic left no room for the appreciation of the unique

commitment to the hard and hazardous road to knowledge and wisdom through disciplined

inquiry into isolated aspects of the objective world. Be that as it may, when one ponders over

how few have been the cultures in which science has flourished, one may reverse the question

and consider Rome as the normal, and classical Greece as the surprising phenomenon to be

explained.

13.3.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Name the two able scientists that worked during the reign of Emperor Marcus Aurelius in the

second century A.D.

13.3.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Galen of Pergamon and Ptolemy of Alexandria

13.4 Science in the Dark and Middle Ages (642-1453)

Historically considered, the Greco-Roman civilization went through its full cycle in about

1000 A.D. It is often referred to as the Dark Ages. At that time, literate culture in the Rome-

dominated Western Europe was barely kept alive in the monasteries. In contrast, the Eastern

6
empire under the hegemony of Constantinople, hosted a civilized society. Nevertheless, in its

1000 years history, the Eastern empire of Byzantium did not produce much new science.

In the early part of the 11th century A.D., most learned men knew and understood a little

tattered fragment of ancient science, but thereafter something like progress was noticeable.

The 12th century witnessed some semblance of renaissance for science in Europe due partly

to her contact with the superior Islamic civilization in Spain and Palestine, and partly to the

development of towns with literate upper classes. It was in this period that the first

speculative treatises on natural philosophy were produced. The 13th century witnessed the

founding of great monasteries, universities and the great age of scholastic learning. St.

Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274), the theologian and Aristotelian, together with the

experimentally-minded Franciscan friar Roger Bacon (1214-1294) who worked mainly on

optics belong to this period. At the period in question, learning was centred in the

monasteries not in the universities, and religion tended to obstruct the road to scientific

progress whereas philosophy served as its handmaiden.

In the 1350s, Europe witnessed traumatic economic and social disasters in the forms of

general financial collapse and the Black Death (Bubonic Plague). Although philosophical

debates (including interesting mathematical speculations) still took place, in terms of science

the medieval epoch was generally sterile. During the period natural philosophy and particular

facts were studied mainly in connection with problems relating to religion either for the

elucidation of biblical texts or for the debate with the adherents of pagan philosophies.

Aristotelianism was the dominant Weltanschauung, although Platonism and neo-Platonism

were visible. Little attention was paid to experimentation, and authorities were cited instead

of scientific investigations that could have revealed interesting facts about the natural world.

7
However, although earlier historians of science unanimously depicted the medieval period as

one of unbridled dogmatism and superstition, it is becoming increasingly accepted now, with

more scholarship in the history of science, that some essential facts and principles of modern

science owed greatly to the medieval period. The issue becomes clearer when it is realized

that learned men of that epoch were not all trying to do scientific research as it is now

understood. At that time the distinction between techniques, theoretical science and popular

magic was not at all clear to anyone: science was just embryonic then. Thus in Europe, in the

formative period of the present civilization, there was something that could be called science

which still required more anthropological imagination to be clearly understood.

Before we continue our historical narrative concerning the evolution of Western science, it is

well for us to digress somewhat and consider, albeit briefly, the contributions of some other

civilizations to the development of science. As we noted at the very beginning of our

discussion, science as we know it now is the totality of contributions from different

civilizations at different periods of history.

13.4.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

1. Name the dominant philosophical theme used in propagating scientific and religious

ideals in the Dark and Middle ages.

2. The experimentally-minded Franciscan friar Roger Bacon researched mainly on

what?

13.4.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

1. Aristotelianism

8
 2. Optics

13.5 The Contributions of Islamic Civilization to Science

Here, we are going to take a brief look at Islamic culture. Islamic culture is very relevant to

European science.3 Not only is its religion related to Judaism and Christianity, there was, in

addition, active cultural intermingling between Arabic speaking countries and Latin Europe at

crucial periods. In this regard, the literate language of nations that straddle the distance from

Persia to Spain is particularly relevant. The conquerors, followers of Prophet Mohammed,

settled in those lands and brought peace and prosperity where they settled. For instance, the

library at Cordoba in Spain was a great centre of learning and research. Drawing from the

traditions of Greek science through Christian scholars at Syria, the early Arab leaders of

Baghdad in the 9th century had the bulk of the corpus of Greek science translated, and, soon

after, their own scholars advanced further, especially in mathematics, astronomy, optics,

chemistry and medicine.

In chemistry and optics, Islamic scholars made some notable contributions. Jabir ibn Hayyan,

who seems to have flourished in the latter half of the 8th century A.D., explained how to

prepare arsenic and antimony, how to refine metals, and how to dye cloth and leather, and

made other contributions besides.4 He was the first adumbrator of the phlogiston theory in

chemistry.

Geber, who probably worked around the 9th century, has been regarded as the father of

Arabian alchemy, and it is instructive to note that modern chemistry evolved from alchemy.

Arabic alchemy, like the earlier alchemy of Alexandria, differed from modern chemistry in

its aims rather than in its methods, restricting its researches to the aim of changing base

3
Encyclopaedia Britannica (1975) pp. 360-375
4
J. Jeans, The Growth of Physical Science. (New York: Fewectt Publications, 1961) p. 101

9
metals and other sources into gold or silver. In this connection, we find Geber investigating

and improving the standard methods of evaporation, filtration, sublimation, melting,

distillation and crystallization, as well as preparing many new chemical substances such as

the oxides of sulphide and mercury. He was knowledgeable on how to prepare

tetraoxosulphate (VI) and trioxonitrate (IV) acids.

In optics, Al-Kindi of Basra and Baghdad (800-873) worked especially on refraction of light.

A century and half later, Ibn-al-Hazen (965-1038) gave correct explanation of the act of

vision, saying that ocular vision is achieved by something passing from the object into the

eye. He also worked on the problems of finding the true relation between the positions of a

source of light and its image formed by a lens. Al Khawarizmi wrote a treatise on algebra

which contributed much to introduce our present numerical notation into Western Europe.

The 12th century witnessed a heavy programme of translation of works from Arabic into

Latin, at first in astrology and magic, then in medicine, and finally in philosophy and science.

Arabic medicine overtook that of Europe, and medieval Islamic scholars such as Avicenna

(980-1037) and Averroes (1126-1198) speculated on metaphysics, logic, and science within

the context of Platonism and Aristotelianism respectively.

Later, Islamic civilization was under pressure from external forces and so declined. But, we

can say that in addition to its enormous service to Western civilization in terms of preserving

and translating the Greek heritage, Arabic numerals are now used in mathematical

calculations, and that the Arabic language has contributed to modern science a number of the

words (mainly of plants and foods). In fact the words “alcohol” and “algebra” are of Arabic

origin.

10
13.5.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

1. Which Islamic Scientist gave a correct explanation of the act of vision with the claim

that ocular vision is achieved by something passing from the object into the eye?

2. The words “alcohol” and “algebra” are of which cultural origin?

13.5.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

1. Ibn-al-Hazen

2. Arabic

13.6 Contributions of Ancient India, China and Japan

The Indian civilization is about the oldest still alive and it achieved a high level of technology

at an early stage. It does appear that Indian mathematics, with its highly developed system of

numeration and reckoning, influenced Arabic algebra; it also provided the principal Arabic

numerals (i.e. the nine digits in a place-value system). But the distinctive characteristic of

Indian civilization is that of higher consciousness through religion. In this, European thought

has been somewhat deficient to the extent that it becomes aware of its lack once in a while. It

then logically follows that the achievement of Europe and India cannot be gauged on equal

terms, but must be recognized as complementary in view of the different (though interrelated)

paradigms on which they were built.

The ancient Chinese and Japanese civilization also made important contributions to the

growth of Western science. The dominant worldview of China then was this-worldly,

although it was anchored on interpersonal relationship rather than on abstract regularities.

11
Chinese technology, until the Renaissance, was consistently more advanced than the

European. As a matter of fact, the three important inventions that scholars such as Francis

Bacon saw as crucial for the transformation of European society came from China: magnetic

compass, gunpowder and the printing press. At any rate – and this is lamentable anyway –

Europe tends not to recognize its debt to China.

There are some reasons why China did not achieve the breakthrough in modern science as

Europe did.5 First, the Chinese philosophy of nature was based on organic analogies and

relations of harmony and, in addition, did not produce abstract logic and mathematics that

could function as the language of science. Second, China paid too much attention to stability

and bureaucracy; she distrusted the merchant class, and a clumsy bureaucracy made

innovations quite difficult. Thus, the Chinese society failed to provide the necessary soil for

the healthy growth of science. Europe overtook her, and the situation has remained so ever

since.

Japan’s case is somewhat fascinating. For centuries a colony of China, it had a brief exposure

to Western science and religion before her leaders decided, in the early years of the 17th

century, to shut the door against such “dangerous influences”. In the later part of the 19th

century, however, the Japanese decided to assimilate with vengeance much of what was

formerly regarded as “dangerous influences”, notably, Western culture and science. Today

Japan is a very sophisticated and highly industrialized society. Indeed, Japanese native

religion was sufficiently elastic to accommodate new ideas from foreign culture, and the

ordinary Japanese can now cope with living partly in a hyper-modern world and partly still in

one of ancient rigid social tradition.

5
S. F. Mason, A History of the Sciences. (New York: Macmillan, 1962) pp. 73-88

12
13.6.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

List the three important Chinese original inventions that scholars such as Francis Bacon saw

as crucial for the transformation of European society.

13.6.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Magnetic compass, gunpowder and the printing press

13.7 The Rebirth of Science in the Renaissance (1452-1600)

For all its contributions to science, the medieval era was a period of “go-slow” for science.

Every inquiry then was construed as a handmaid of theology, and the Church fathers and

Islamic philosophers used Platonism and Aristotelianism to justify their theological

positions.6

Now the word “science” is protean and in the period under consideration (the renaissance), it

was restricted to fields providing knowledge: theology and philosophy. For other disciplines,

the word “art” or “technique” were used to characterize them: some arts were also

characterized “liberal” and they were taught in Latin in schools and universities. These

disciplines included logic, rhetoric, mathematics and the learned or professional arts of

medicine and law. The other arts subjects were more mechanical and generally involved low

pay.

6
J. Jeans, The Growth of Physical Science. (New York: Fewectt Publications, 1961) pp. 106-113

13
The Renaissance saw the movement of learning and scholarship back to the universities from

the monasteries and men of wide culture were able to demonstrate their talents within and

without the university tradition.

Certain factors contributed to the rebirth of science in the 15th century. To begin with,

Europe began to expand territorially in 1413, and in that year some of her sea-farers raided

the African coast. But the early 15th century was one of cultural stagnation in Europe, the

universities were in decay, the church was disintegrating, and the economy still smarted from

the effects of the Black Death.

However, the light of science flickered. It received a fillip from three sources: (a) the

discovery of man and nature, especially in Italy: (b) growth in mining, metallurgy, and trade

in certain cities in Germany, coupled with the invention of the printing press by Gutenberg,

and (c) trans-oceanic explorations pioneered by Spain and Portugal that engendered new

demands on astronomy and on mathematical techniques and instruments.

13.7.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

1. Which era was a period of “go-slow” for science?

2. Which period saw the movement of learning and scholarship back to the universities

from the monasteries?

13.7.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

1. The medieval era

2. The Renaissance

14
13.8 Science in the 17th and 18th Centuries

The scientific feat of the Renaissance was furthered by men like Galileo and Newton in the

17th century.7But before Galileo and Newton, Copernicus (1473-1543), a Polish ecclesiastic,

inaugurated what is generally regarded as the Copernican Revolution. Copernicus devoted his

leisure to astronomy. He believed that the sun is the centre of the universe, and that the earth

rotated on its axis and revolved around the sun. In his major work De Revolutionibus Orbium

Coelestrum (1543), Copernicus accomplished the revolution that bears his name by removing

the earth from the centre of the universe and reduced it to the status of a mere body that

moves around the sun. Before him, almost everybody took it for granted that the earth was

the centre of the universe (geocentric theory) and this was in agreement with the teaching of

the Church. But with the dethronement of the earth, it became difficult, in the long run, to

give man the pre-eminence he had enjoyed in Christian theology. For us today, it requires an

active imagination to grasp the revolutionary import of Copernicus heliocentric theory.

Galileo Galilei (1564-1641) was one of the greatest scientists of the 17th century. An

astronomer of no mean achievement, Galileo is usually taken to be the founder of the science

of dynamics. He was one of the 17th century revolutionaries who criticized the schoolmen for

their neglect of experimental science. Galileo was the first to establish the law of falling

bodies. Until his time, it had been supposed that heavy objects fall quicker than light objects.

Legend has it that Galileo showed for the first time that there was no measurable difference

between the rate of fall of objects in a vacuum at the Learning Tower of Pisa. Thus, the

acceleration (that is, the rate at which velocity increases) of falling bodies is always the same.

Aristotelian theory of falling bodies became discredited.

7
I. B. Cohen, Revolution in Source.(Cambridge, Massa: Harvard University Press, 1985) pp. 105-175

15
Galileo also studied projectiles and showed that they too behave in accordance with the law

of falling bodies. He demonstrated that projectiles described a parabola (curve) because of the

law of inertia and that of falling bodies. Galileo also accepted the heliocentric theory of

Copernicus, studied the sky with his telescope only to discover heavenly bodies hitherto

unknown. This discovery irked the traditionalists and the clergy, and they maintained that the

telescope revealed only delusions. He was persecuted by the Inquisition in 1616 and 1633,

and the story of Galileo’s battle with pigheaded orthodoxy more than anything else told the

tale of the various battles which scientific innovators had to fight in order to establish genuine

scientific knowledge.8

Galileo also made important contributions to the study of pendulum. He discovered the law

governing its behaviour, and another scientist, Huygens (1629-1695) perfected the pendulum

to make a clock. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) is taken to be one of the greatest scientists of all

times – and rightly so. Indeed, he achieved the acme of scientific feat for which Copernicus,

Kepler (1571-1630), who made immense contributions in astronomy) and Galileo had paved

the way. It is said that Newton discovered the law of gravitation when he noticed an apple fall

in a garden. He then asked himself why it was that the apple fell at all. Starting from his three

laws of motion, Newton deduced the gravitation law to the effect that every planet, at every

moment, has an acceleration toward the sun which varies inversely with the square of the

distance from the sun. He showed that this law of gravitation explains tidal phenomena, the

motion of the planets and their satellites, the orbits of comets and, virtually everything in

planetary theory of his day. The law of universal gravitation asserts that everybody attracts

every other body with a force directly proportional to their masses and inversely proportional

to the square of the distances between them.

8
B. Russell, Op. cit. pp. 517-520

16
His major work: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy contains the theoretical

principles of Newtonian physics, a paradigm of scientific research for two centuries. 9 Newton

made notable contributions in optical theory also. He analyzed the components of white light,

studied the spectrum of colours, reflection and refraction of light, as well as other optical

phenomena besides. His contributions to science are so solid that it was only in this century

that the hard-core of his theoretical system, his conceptions of space and time, have been

superseded.

Science received a boost towards the end of the eighteenth century from the industrial

revolution that began from Britain around 1760. Indeed, the 18th century was a period of

revolution in different aspects of European life: the revolution from Aristotelian cosmology

to the Newtonian, the industrial revolution, and the French revolution of 1789. The industrial

revolution transformed the very fabric of European life. Europe metamorphosed from an

agrarian society to the urban; human labour was gradually replaced by mechanical labour,

and lopsided trade with Africa especially provided cheap labour and raw materials to oil the

wheel of the revolution. At any rate, the contribution of the industrial revolution to science

was indirect at the outset. Though virtually all the problems that resulted from industrial

practice were beyond the capacity of existing scientific techniques and theories of the time,

there is little doubt that attempts to solve them acted as a catalyst for scientific research and

provided audience for further investigation. Industrial chemistry, thermodynamics and

engineering greatly benefited from the industrial revolution.

After the French revolution, France dominated the scientific field. She produced great

mathematicians (Laplace and Lagrange), the eminent chemist, Antonie Lavoisier (who

inaugurated the chemical revolution by replacing the phlogiston theory with the oxygen

9
I. B. Cohen, Op. cit. pp. 161-175

17
theory), and Sadi Carnot (the renowned engineer). A state supported system of education was

introduced, rewards and scholarship were given to deserving inventors and students, and the

Ecole Polytechnique was founded. By the time of Napoleon Bonaparte, Paris became the

Mecca of the scientific world.10

13.8.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

1. Which law asserts that everybody attracts every other body with a force directly

proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distances

between them?

2. Name the theory that considers the earth to be the centre of the universe.

3. Whose theory of falling bodies discredited that of Aristotle?

13.8.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

1. The law of universal gravitation

2. Geocentric theory

3. Galileo Galilei

13.9 Science in the 19th Century

With the advantage of hindsight, the 19th century appears as a golden age for science.

Science at that time expanded its tentacles to new areas of inquiry. Mathematics and

experiment were combined in physics, and controlled experimentation in biology received a

10
T. S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension.(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1977) p. 63

18
new lease of life. In addition, new and reformed universities were founded where research

was fostered, as well as teaching, and communication through specialized journals and

societies. Science became professionalized heavily, and Newtonian physics bestrode the

intellectual world like a colossus.

In physics, different research areas were successfully uplifted by the concept of energy

defined as the ability to do work. Eminent 19th century physicists include Hans Christian

Oersted (1777-1851), Michael Faraday (1791-1879), Hermann von Helmholtz (1821-1894)

and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1979). These men, in their various ways, contributed to the

theory of energy conversion and conservation. But they generally worked within the context

of Newtonian theory, although development in the electromagnetic theory was beginning to

question the validity of Newtonian physics, especially during the last quarter of the 19th

century.

In chemistry, chemists built on the foundation of the nomenclature of chemical substances

founded by Lavoisier. Charles Dalton’s atomic theory (the theory that all material objects are

made up of small indivisible and indestructible particles called atoms) was further elaborated.

Dimitri Mendeleev (1834-1907) a Russian invented the modern Periodic Table of elements.

Scientists in this area work assiduously in classifying substances into elements and

compounds. By this time, the underlying theory of alchemy, that a way could be found for

transmuting all base metals into gold, was dropped, and investigators spent more energy in

discovering and predicting the properties of hitherto unknown elements.

As chemistry continued to make progress, chemists were able to uncover the true structure of

organic (or carbon-based) substances. Thereafter, chemistry moved closer to unity with

physics, and achieved an increased power in industrial application.

19
The fundamental discoveries in biology were those of the cellular structure of organisms by

Theodore Schwann, the microbiological origin of disease by Louis Pasteur (1882-1895), and

natural selection by Charles Darwin (1809-1882).

Darwin’s theory of evolution (1859) unified the disciplines of biology, philosophy and

geology. But it clashed with theology because it tended to jettison the “divine plan” as a

causative agent in the evolutionary process. In philosophy it provided the basic principles for

the metaphysical theories of Herbert Spencer, Henri Bergson and Telhi deChardin.11

Another noteworthy discovery in biology was made by the Austrian-German monk, Gregor

Mendel (1822-1884) in the area of inheritance of characteristics by filial generations of

species and varieties. Today the disciplines of genetic engineering attest to the invaluable

contributions of Mendel.

The major theme of 19th century Europe was progress and science justifiably received credit

for much of it. It also shared in the general optimism of the time. Three basic factors are

decipherable in this general praise of science. First, we have the ancient tradition of respect

for learning as a contribution to civilization independently of its application. Second, there

was the discovery that science could be fruitfully applied in industry. A third factor,

intermittent in its appearance, was the conception of natural science as a weapon against

religious dogma and popular superstition. In the 19th century the memory of the trials of

Galileo stayed fresh in popular stories of science, such that the debate and argument over

Darwinism in England gave a new impetus to the ideological struggle in which liberal

minded Christians allied with agnostics against the orthodox. These three factors, taken

together, served as a Weltonschaury to many an intellectual, and remained a strong

inspiration for science until contemporary times. In point of fact, they no longer have the
11
J. I. Omoregbe, A Simplified History of Western Philosophy.(Lagos: Joja Educational and Publishers Ltd, 1991)
pp. 18-28

20
same force today as they had in the 19th century, although they present some serious

problems for the future of science.

13.9.1 In-Text Question (ITQs)

1. Who invented the modern Periodic Table of elements?

2. The theory of natural selection is scribed to whom?

13.9.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

1. Dimitri Mendeleev

2. Charles Darwin

13.10 Macro and Micro Science in the Twentieth Century: The Two Great Revolutions

in Physics

Certain tendencies in the womb of the 19th century science blossomed in the 20th century.

Science became highly professional in its social organization, reductionist in style (that is,

investigations were concentrated on the artificially pure, stable and controllable processes set

up in the laboratory), and positive in outlook.

The scientific achievements of this century are too numerous to be catalogued. We shall

consider just two: the revolution in macro (big) science via the theory of relativity and that in

micro (small) science accomplished through the indeterminacy principle.12

12
L. Randall, Warped Passages: Unravelling the Mysteries of the Universe’s Hidden Dimensions (New York:
Harper Perennial, 2005)

21
The special theory of relativity (1905) and the General theory of relativity (1916) were

posited by Albert Einstein (1879-1955) to resolve certain theoretical and experimental

anomalies in Newtonian physics. As we noted earlier, Newton’s theory was the paradigm of

research in physics (and related scientific fields) for two centuries, and it assumed the

existence of a universal coordinate system or frame of reference for measurement in space

and time. One of the cardinal implications of Newtonian theory is that ether-shift (that is,

measurable shift in position of the invisible, super-elastic substance called ether that

supposedly pervades the whole universe) should be observed in terrestrial measurements with

reference to the earth. Two physicists, Michelson and Morley performed the relevant

experiments in 1886.13 Further experiments were carried out until 1904 but in all of them no

ether-shift was observed. This anomaly prompted a lot of critical discussion of Newtonian

theory amongst theoretical physicists. Einstein, in 1905, brought a new twist in the whole

debate. He found the trouble with Newton’s theory of gravitation by looking into its very

heart - an attribute of scientific genius of which Einstein was a master.

What did Einstein find? He found the assumption that time and space are given absolutely

and are alike for all observers. But further analysis of the steps by which different observers

can actually compare their time in space revealed to him that something must be wrong with

this assumption. He discovered that we cannot compare the time in two different places

without sending a signal from one to the other which, logically, demands the passage of time.

Consequently, Einstein showed that there is not universal “now”, there is only “here and

now” for each observer, so that space and time are inextricably interwoven, and are species of

a single reality.

13
J. Jeans Op. cit. pp. 260-267

22
In Einstein’s theory of relativity, time is not a strict succession of universal before and after.

Closely spaced occurrences which appear in one sequence to A, say, may appear in the

opposite sequence to B. Thus, the traditional notion of time sequence was discredited, and the

ideas of simultaneity fell into oblivion. Moreover, the structure of space became entangled

with the matter which is embedded in it, and the Euclidean theory of space had to be

adjusted. With the relativity theory and developments in non-Euclidean geometry, it is now

possible to talk intelligibly about the sum of the three angles of a triangle being more or less

than 1800. Einstein also introduced the fourth dimension (space-time) into the traditional

three dimensions of length, width and height.

He also established one of the basic equations that made it possible to know scientifically the

great amount of energy latent in matter and which makes the exploitation of nuclear energy

possible. The equation brought together energy (e), mass (m) and the velocity of light (c). It

is written in its standard form thus: E=mc2.

Another significant revolution, as we stated before, is quantum mechanics. It is a revolution

in micro (small) physics and Einstein too contributed immensely to it (He received the 1921

Nobel Prize in Physics for his contribution to the understanding of photoelectric effect, a

phenomenon explained by quantum theory). The story of the steps leading to this revolution,

like those leading to relativity theory, is interesting and illuminating for it throws some light

on the nature of the scientific endeavour, an endeavour that is largely geared towards the

solution of problems.14 Only a very brief sketch can be given here. In 1900, it was discovered

by Max Planck (1850-1947) that matter gives out energy not n a continuous stream, as was

previously supposed, but in discrete packets of quanta of definite sizes. Prior to that time,

there was a deadlock as to the explanation of the radiation (giving-off) of energy from a red-

14
K. R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations. (London & New York: Routledge, 2002) p. 172-173

23
hot black body according to the continuous-flow theory based on Newtonian principles.

Planck investigated the phenomena of radiation very closely. He imagined that all matter

consists of “vibrators”, each having its own particular frequency of vibration, the frequency

of vibration being the number of vibrations of a unit matter per second. He described the

units of vibration as “quanta” and argued that the amount of energy in any unit of energy is

equal to the frequency of the vibrations times a constant h, (which is generally stated as

Planck’s constant).

But problems still remained, for physicists realized there was no way of describing

scientifically the present and future states of subatomic particles and events in completely

deterministic fashion. By 1926 this anomaly had reached a head because it was becoming

increasingly impossible to predict the behaviour of the electron within the context of the

classical pattern of causality. Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976), a German physicist,

articulated this in a formal principle in 1927 and gave it the sensible name of the principle of

uncertainty or indeterminacy. It asserts that: it is impossible, in principle to measure with

complete precision the position and velocity of a subatomic particle simultaneously.15

Through this principle, Heisenberg demonstrated that every description of nature contains

some basic and irremovable uncertainty. For instance, the more accurately we measure the

position of an electron, say, the less certain we will be of its velocity. The more accurate we

measure the velocity, the more uncertain we will be of its precise position. It follows then that

we can never predict the future of a subatomic particle with complete certainty since, as a

matter of fact, we cannot be completely certain of its presence.

15
T. Hey,&P. Watters,The New Quantum Universe.(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)p. 21-24

24
The physical fact about sub-atomic or micro phenomena as described by quantum mechanics

is not really in question. Their future cannot be predicted with complete accuracy. In short,

the future, from the point of view of the present, is problematic.

Another consequence of the uncertainty principle is that in investigations of micro

phenomena, the observer, together with instruments he uses in observations must also be

taken into account when interpreting the results of experiments. For in such experiments

highly sophisticated equipment that could influence – and in fact do influence – their

outcomes are indispensable.

In addition, quantum mechanics has shown that the traditional concepts of physics fit nature

inaccurately, that deep-going conceptual reconstructions are desiderata in science, and that

the language of ordinary day-to-day life are quite unsuitable in high-level scientific work.

Again, it has increased the use of probability calculi or statistical techniques in micro physics

since, as it were, the atoms or elementary particles form a world of potentialities or

probabilities rather than one of things or facts.

On the whole, the theory of relativity and the uncertainty principle have led to a radical

revision in the basic concepts of classical or Newtonian physics. For instance, concepts such

as mass, energy, etc. all underwent significant changes as a result of the relativity theory. As

we noted already, the uncertainty principle has increased the application of statistical method

in micro physics.

The two theories demand, at the societal level, that all of us ought to jettison dogmatism,

fanaticism, and intolerance and embrace open-mindedness, the desire to listen to others, and

the recognition that our most cherished beliefs may be shown to be erroneous in future.

25
13.10.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Who propounded the theory of relativity?

13.10.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Albert Einstein

13.11 Procedures of Scientific Research

There is a widespread belief that scientific research starts with observation. This belief is a

natural one; after all science, as an empirical discipline, is supposed to explain phenomena

occurring all around us. But since Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, the idea that

observation is the starting point of scientific research has increasingly come under critical

fire, it is generally recognized now that scientific research cannot commence when scientists

merely begin “studying the fact”. No scientific inquiry “can even get underway until and

unless some difficulty is felt in a practical or theoretical situation”. 16 Legend has it, for

example, that the noted scientist, Sir Isaac Newton, was motivated to investigate gravitational

force by the dropping of an apple from an apple tree. Apples have been falling down ever

since that plant evolved, and before Newton was born people had seen them fall without

attaching any significance to the occurrence. The ability to perceive problems in the facts of

experience, particularly problems whose solutions have a bearing on the solution of other

difficulties, is a mark of scientific genius. It is thus understandable that scientific research

16
M. R. Cohen & E. Nagel, An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method. (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1963), p. 199.

26
must begin with some problem, and aim at an order that links what may superficially seem to

be unrelated facts.17

Once the researcher has identified a problem (sometimes such problems may be vaguely felt

at the beginning), he would make an educated guess about how to handle it. He would posit a

tentative solution of the problem he has identified. This is where familiarity with the subject

matter becomes very important. As a matter of fact, a scientist cannot even state the problem

unless he is somewhat acquainted with the subject matter he is dealing with. For him to state

some obscurely felt difficulty in the form of a determinate problem, he must be able to select,

on the basis of his background information, certain elements in his discipline as significant.

An example from the history of science could help to clarify this point. In 1895 when the

physicist Roentgen interrupted a well-precedented experiment pm cathode-ray phenomenon

due to the glow of a barium platinocyanide screen somewhere in the vicinity of his

laboratory, he did so not only because he felt that the glow was anomalous but also because

he saw it as a significant problem requiring further investigation. 18 Based on his background

knowledge about the behaviour of cathode rays, Roentgen entertained the hypothesis that the

glow was due to a new form of radiation different from cathode rays. With that preliminary

hypothesis, our physicist proceeded to systematically investigate the problem and ended up

with the discovery of X-rays.

Not all hypotheses which a researcher can conceive are relevant to a particular problem.

Referring back to our example, Roentgen did not consider the shape of the equipment he was

using, or the type of shirt he wore at the time of his research etc. as the cause of the radiation

he noticed, because no such relation is known to exist between the shape of the equipment

used in experiments involving cathode rays etc and the glow of barium platinocyanide screed.

17
Ibid, p. 200
18
L. W. Taylor, Physics, The Pioneer Science. (Boston Houghton: Miffling Co. 1941), p. 790

27
Although some philosophers (Bacon and Mill are representative in this respect) have

postulated rules for making discoveries, experience has shown that no such rules can be used

mechanically to arrive at causal connections between phenomena. If there were rules which,

if strictly adhered to can lead to scientific discoveries, then the job of the scientist is made

considerably easy. Questions about relevant hypothesis are invariably questions about causal

connectedness. In order to “hit upon” relevant hypothesis asserting such connectedness in

nature, the scientist, as he observed earlier, must be familiar with the sort of connectedness

which the phenomenon under investigation is capable of exhibiting. He would be wasting his

time if, he believes that the mechanical application of a set of rules can lead him to the

discovery of relevant hypothesis.

Armed with a relevant preliminary hypothesis, the scientist could begin to collect additional

facts which, it is hoped, will be a clue to the final solution, because preliminary hypotheses

are always based on insufficient data. Thus, it should not be surprising that such a hypothesis

may even he very different from the solution to the problem.19 Basically, scientific research

starts with some fact of collections of facts which a scientist considers problematic. Usually

these initial facts are too meagre to enable the researcher postulate an adequate explanation

for them. Still, they indicate to a competent scientist some preliminary hypothesis that would

necessitate the search for additional facts. Referring back to our example once again,

Roentgen, having convinced himself that the effect he noticed during the experiment on

cathode rays was a new form of radiation similar in certain respects to light, spent more time

afterwards to gather additional facts to which the preliminary hypothesis had led.20

It must be noted at this point that the postulation of a preliminary hypothesis and the

collection of additional facts are practically inseparable because they are interdependent –

19
I. M. Copi & C. Cohen, Introduction to Logic. (New York: Macmillan 1994), p. 543
20
T. S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension. (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1977), p. 172

28
there is a dialectical relationship between the two. Serious scientific research requires a

preliminary hypothesis to explain the facts, but additional facts may suggest new hypotheses,

which may lead to new facts, and these new facts could still suggest other hypotheses, and so

on.

The scientist, as his research programme progresses, would eventually come to a stage when

he will have the impression that the major facts required for solving the problem he started

with are available. In our example, Roentgen, after seven hectic weeks during which he rarely

left the laboratory, and before he announced his discovery, felt that he had a hypothesis that

explained the data at his disposal. The situation here according to Copi and Nagel 21 is

analogous to that of a puzzle solver who has all the pieces of the puzzle but requires to put

them together. In formulating a more satisfactory hypothesis or theory that explains the initial

problem and additional facts derived from experiments, the scientist has, as it were, to “think

things through”. The end result of such thinking, if successful, would be a theory that

accounts for the available data. The discovery of explanatory theories in science is a creative

process which involves both imagination and knowledge always.

Now, scientists are hardly ever satisfied with theories that explain only those facts that were

considered initially during the process of research; they usually prefer theories that point

beyond the initial data to new ones whose existence in the light of existing knowledge in the

field of research would have been unsuspected. This process entails the inference of further

consequences through the deductive development of a theory. Scientists and epistemologists

put a lot of premium on the predictive or explanatory power of scientific theories, meaning

that additional facts must be inferred from a good theory. From his theory that the cause of

21
Copi, & Cohen, Op.cit. p. 545

29
the radiation was not the cathode rays but a new radiation similar to light in some essential

respects, Roentgen predicted some properties of the new radiation he had already discovered.

But the prediction must be tested to ensure, at least, that the scientist is not on the wrong

track. The procedure of deducing testable consequences from a scientific theory (plus initial

conditions) is extremely important because it helps scientists to bring to the surface hidden

assumptions which can be empirically tested. In our example again, Roentgen spent some

time exploring the properties of the X-rays he had predicted in the course of his

investigations due to the fact that experiments in science are usually performed to test the

consequences of theories in addition to initial conditions. In practice, scientists usually place

more emphasize on theories that enable them infer and discover an ever greater variety of

true propositions. Since no comprehensive scientific theory can be established as completely

true, being at best only highly probable, it follows that theory which predicts more

established causal connections between hitherto unconnected phenomena are preferable to

ones that predict less of such connections.

All the items of scientific method articulated thus far relate more the theoretical concerns of

scientists, that is, to their desire to understand and explain phenomena. But theoretical

concerns are intimately connected to practical problems. Consequently when scientists posit

theories to explain facts these theories usually have practical applications. Roentgen’s

discovery of X-ray phenomenon and his subsequent explanations of it have been applied in

various ways to address practical problems. In medicine, for example, X-rays have for long

been utilized in the diagnosis and treatment of certain ailments. In a large number of cases in

science it is from some practical problem that a theoretical development begins, and some

theories are consciously developed with a keen eye on the solution of some practical

problems.

30
13.11.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Roentgen’s background knowledge about the behaviour of cathode rays led to his discovery

of ------

13.11.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

X-Rays

13.12 Experimentation and objectivity

Despite the assertion made earlier that scientific research begins with problems, these

problems are always connected with some facts which strike the scientist as problematic.

Hence, as an empirical activity, scientific research must ultimately make contact with the real

world through a network of systematic observations, although as H. I. Brown had indicated,22

scientific observation is not a straightforward matter. In our daily interactions with the world,

our sense organs enable us to perceive things within the backdrop of share linguistically

mediated experiences. However, even though ordinary observation and scientific observation

are effected through the senses, the later takes the process to the next level that “… allows us

to extend the range of observation well beyond the limits of what we can detect with our

unaided senses”.23 This has been made possible by the development of new instruments and

equipment which have profoundly influenced the nature of scientific experiments.

Scientific observation is done within the context of a theory (or theories) which guides the

process in at least three ways: it indicates what kinds of items exist, what kinds of equipment

22
H. I. Brown, Observation and Objectivity. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987) pp. 48 – 76
23
Ibid, p. 18

31
are appropriate for observing them, and how we are to interpret the data from the equipment

which aids scientific observation. The discovery of neutrinos, for example, illustrates the

intimate connection between scientific observation and theory.24 It equally underscores the

difficulty in maintaining a rigid distinction between observables and unobservable in science.

As scientific knowledge grows and better instruments become available, a significant number

of so-called unobservable (or theoretical terms) becomes observable. At one stage in the

history of science atoms, electrons etc were deemed unobservable; now scientists consider

them observable. But how can this change be justified in the light of scientific practice? Ian

Hacking provides an interesting perspective on this question when he asserted that:

… it is not even that scientists use electrons to experiment on

something else that makes it impossible to doubt electrons.

Understanding some causal properties of electrons, you guess

how to build a very ingenious complex device that enables you

to line up electrons the way you want, in order to see what will

happen to something else.25

Hacking’s argument should lead us now to a discussion of the role of experiments in science.

Being an enterprise whose major objective is to explain the world, science must have a solid

footing on experiments, since it is the experimental procedures of research that ensures that

scientific theorizing maintains contact with the real world. Scientific experimentation is very

tasking; in some cases it takes years of patient observation and computer-assisted analysis of

data to come up with tangible results that scientists can use. Experimentation in science is the

winnowing process which provides “a reliable way of checking our empirical conjectures

24
F. Reines, & C. Cowan, “Detection of the Free Neutrino” in Physical Review, Vol., 92, 1953, pp. 830 – 831
25
I. Hacking, “Experimentation and Scientific Realism”. In Tauber, A. (ed). Science and the Quest for Reality.
(London & Hampshire: Macmillan, 1997), p. 164

32
about the objective world”.26 The process itself is anchored on measurements. Measurement

is a well- ordered procedure for systematic quantification of nature aimed at improving the

level of “reasonable agreement” between nature and theory27. When the results of

measurements conflict with the numbers predicted with the help of theories, the scientist is

expected to cross back both the experiment and his theoretical calculation to locate the source

of the discrepancy. Scientific research generally can be characterized as a tasking mopping-

up activity meant to secure the horizon of objectivity made available by theoretical

breakthroughs as well as provide the necessary preparation for future theoretical

breakthroughs. Measurement, clearly, is an indispensable tool for such activity.

A much-discussed structural component of scientific method is objectivity. Experimentation

and the reproducibility of both the research procedure followed and the phenomenon

investigated are key elements in scientific objectivity. Now, there is a widespread

misconception about objectivity which derives from the idea that scientific objectivity is a

function of the psychological detachment of the scientists from the object of his research. It is

tempting to think that the “dryness” and esoteric nature of science makes scientific research

objective. However, as Karl Popper28 observed, neither the dryness nor the remoteness of the

problems handled in science could prevent idiosyncratic factors from interfering with the

individual scientist’s beliefs. Rather, it is the social or public character of science and its

institution which imposes a mental discipline on the scientist, and also preserves its

objectivity. Objectivity in science is, fundamentally, a complicated trialogue between the

scientists, his theory and nature.29 This implies that the demand for scientific objectivity is

more or less a reminder to the scientist that he should implement his research programme in

26
L. Laudan, “Explaining the Success of Science: Beyond Epistemic Realism and Relativsim”. In Cushing C. F. et
al (eds) op.cit
27
Kuhn, op. cit., p. 184
28
K. R. Popper, The Poverty of Historicism. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961), p. 155
29
D. I. O. Anele, “Explanation, Objectivity and Theory Choice in Science”, in C. S Momoh, (ed). The Nigerian
Journal of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, University of Lagos, Vol. 19, Nos. 1 & 2, 2001, p. 51

33
consonance with the standard of inter-subjective procedures available for himself and his

professional colleagues. It is only in the context of the recognition that objectivity for

scientists is always a contextually contingent product of their variable but experimentally

justifiable interpretative procedures that the pitfalls of the untenable notion that scientific

objectivity rests on the scientist’s attitude of detachment from the object of inquiry can be

avoided.

13.12.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

List three ways in which scientific theory aids the process of scientific observation.

13.12.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

(i) It indicates what kinds of items exist, (ii) what kinds of equipment are appropriate for

observing them, and (iii) how we are to interpret the data from the equipment which aids

scientific observation.

13.13 Philosophical Models of Scientific Method

Emerging from philosophical discussions of science are certain interesting models of

scientific method which can enrich one’s understanding of the workings of science. The

models to be sketched below, albeit briefly, are well known in the philosophy of science.30

Because of the undeniable success of science in explaining (and through its application in

changing) the world, there is a widespread feeling that there must be something unique and

special about science which accounts for its success and which distinguishes it from allegedly

30
R. H. Newton-Smith, The Rationality of Science. (London: Routledge, 1981)

34
non-scientific disciplines such as astrology, psychoanalysis or even philosophy. Trust

philosophers, they have, in most cases tackled the problem of demarcation in a priorist or

essentialist manner in the quest for an adequate characterization of science that excludes the

so- called pseudosciences or metaphysics.

Logical positivism, once an influential school of thought in philosophy, held that scientists

try to justify their theories inductively. That is, through the accumulation of confirmatory or

verificatory empirical evidence. Continuing accumulation of this sort of evidence implies that

science progresses towards truth which can be measured by probability calculus relating the

tested predictions of theory to available evidence. Popper disagreed with the inductivist

model of science which interprets increasing probability of scientific theories in terms of the

accumulation of confirming instances of a theory as a touchstone of scientific progress. The

probability of a theory relative to the evidence available at a point in time can never be a

guarantee of predictive success, which is something that scientific theories are expected to

offer. Thus, Popper prefers falsifiability to verifiability as the demarcating criterion between

science and non-science. Popper held that the aim of science is to seek trust, but the scientist

cannot be sure he has arrived at the trust. Therefore, scientists have to work from problems

and posit theories to solve them, using basic statements such as potential falsifiers of these

theories. A theory is scientific if it is testable or refutable in principle, that is, if it can yield a

prediction that could contradict experimental findings. Popper claims that the bolder or more

improbable (on the basis of existing knowledge) a scientific theory is, the better for scientific

progress. The best way to ensure the growth of scientific knowledge is for scientists to stick

their necks out and posit bold theories that must be subjected to severe tests. If a theory

stands up to severe tests, if it has proved its mettle, then it is corroborated; if otherwise, it is

deemed falsified. But the decision that a theory is falsified by a piece of evidence may be

mistaken. Hence, the critical attitude is essential all the way in scientific research.

35
Popper’s falsificationist model has some merits. One, it presents a more modest idea of

scientific achievement by construing scientific progress in terms of increasing verisimilitude

rather than in terms of attainment of certainty. Two, it puts science on a firmer logical ground

than does the verificationist or inductivist model. Three, falsifiability is a tidy way of

handling the demarcation problem.

One of the major criticisms of Popper’s methodology is its inability to provide an

unambiguous answer to the question: when is a scientific claim successfully corroborated, or

falsified?31 Basing their argument on the phenomenon of experiment’s regress, some scholars

maintain correctly that there is no univocal and theory-independent algorithm for deciding on

the issues involved. The decision that a theory is corroborated or falsified, as the case may be,

is hinged on whether the outcome of the experiments was consistent with the theoretical

assumptions of observations (or language of pure observation for describing them), scientists

are bound to disagree legitimately as to when a particular experimental finding constitutes

corroboration or falsification of a particular theory. Popper was wrong in thinking that the

logical neatness of falsifiability also applies to the practical problem of falsification.

The problems of the falsificationist model have led to a more historical turn in the philosophy

of science. Thomas Kuhn’s theory is a typical example in this respect. Kuhn argues that

before a major scientific discipline evolves, there existed a number of conflicting

explanations of the natural phenomenon (or phenomena) from which that discipline emerges

eventually. This period of theoretical anarchy is brought to a close when one of the

competing explanations either solves a difficult problem which its competitors could not

solve or explains a much wider range of natural phenomena. When such an explanation

becomes available and there is some kind of consensus about legitimate problems and

problem-solutions in that particular domain, normal science has begun. Normal science is

31
T. F. Grieryn, “Boundaries of Science,” in Tanber, op. cit, pp. 297-298

36
research firmly based on one or more past scientific achievements, achievements which

members of a scientific community acknowledge for some time as supplying the foundation

for future practices.32 The principal focus of normal scientific activity is the disciplinary

matrix (paradigm) whose basic cognitive components are: (a) symbolic generalizations, such

as f=ma, e=mc2 etc, (b) models, such as the depiction of an atom as a miniature solar system,

and (c) exemplars, which are concrete problem-solutions accepted by scientists in a particular

domain as providing the template for solving other related problems.

Normal science proceeds by finer and finer refinements of the problems and problems-

solutions achieved within the context of a disciplinary matrix (theory). According to Kuhn,

normal science is a puzzle-solving activity in which the disciplinary matrix or theory

functions as the framework for puzzle solving. Sometimes, however, a problem degenerates

into an anomaly, and later into a crisis. But then, scientists never abandon a theory unless

another one is available. In deciding between competing theories, logical and empirical

considerations, though difficult to apply in practice, are relevant but not determinative, for

they are complemented by the psychology of perception and the sociology of commitment

and consensus.

Kuhn’s-theory demonstrates clearly the insights into scientific methodology which can be

arrived at by taking the history of science very serious in dealing with methodological issues.

It also explains the high degree of research consensus in the developed sciences, particularly

physics. But critics of Kuhn have argued that it is rare to see in the history of science the level

of consensus which he attributes to scientists during normal science. Some philosophers also

accuse Kuhn of erroneously downplaying the role of logical and empirical factors in the

choice of theories amongst competing alternatives in science. They insist, correctly, that even

though the application of logical and empirical criteria in theory choice are problematic, as

32
T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. 10

37
Kuhn suggested, scientists have learnt to cope with such difficulties, without jettisoning these

criteria completely, and successfully reach agreement as to when experimental findings

justify the modification of particular theories, or their outright abandonment.

Lack of agreement amongst philosophers of science on the essence of scientific method has

encouraged some scholars to posit anarchist views on methodology. Paul Feyerabend, for

instance, has propounded such a view. Feyerabend was critical of Popper and Kuhn. 33 He

says that Popper’s methodological prescriptions, if applied resolutely, would eliminate

science without replacing it with anything comparable. As for Kuhn, he says that Kuhn’s

ideas, though interesting, are too vague to give rise to anything substantial in methodology.

Feyerabend disclaims the need for methodology. He argues that methodology is like a chain

tied to science, impeding and stifling its growth. He reminds us that various non-western

cultures of the world had made some progress in the areas of medicine and excellence of

western science (and its seeming superiority over other approaches) is not just a reflection of

its superior methodology, rather it is due to “ideological pressures identical with those which

today make us listen to science to the exclusion of everything else.” 34 Instead of the principle

of tenacity which Kuhn prescribes during normal science, Feyerabend urges the principle of

proliferation of scientific theories as the only way to ensure scientific progress. More

precisely, he argues that the principles of tenacity and proliferation are always co-present in

the history of science, and the interplay between them amounts to the continuation, on a new

level, of the biological development of the species.

Feyerabend has succeeded in drawing attention to the problems attendant with taking

methodological prescriptions for science too seriously. His liberal perspective on science as a

33
P. K. Feyerabend, “Consolations for the Specialists”. In Imre Lakatos Alan Musgrave (eds). Criticism and the
Growth of Knowledge. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1970, pp. 197 – 230
34
P. K. Fayerabend, “How to Defend Society Against Science”. In Ian Hacking (ed), Scientific Revolutions,
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 161.

38
whole is a helpful attitude to the overweening influence of “experts” on people’s lives which,

according to Gernot Bohme,35 has disabled the average contemporary man from being the

master of his life. However, Feyerabend went too far by putting outmoded superstitions or

magical practices on the same level with modern science. It is simply false to say, as

Feyerabend did, that the excellence of science over other approaches is due to ideological

pressures that favour science: the fact of the matter is that science has enormously increased

our knowledge of the knowable world in the last three centuries and through its application in

technology, altered the very texture of our practical dealings with it to an extent unmatched

by pre-scientific approaches. The methodological entailments of science in terms of

verification coherence and predictability are intimately connected with the relative success of

science in increasing our knowledge of the world. Any theory, such as Feyerabend\s, which

discountenances this fact is simply wrong. Further, his theory of “anything goes” does not

hold water. For if we accept that idea then nothing can ever be ruled out in science. A

scientist wishing to study the behaviour of thunder, for instance, could as well carry out some

rituals in the shrine of Amadioha, the god of thunder. An astronomer interested in detailed

investigation of the solar system need not go beyond the first chapter of the book of Genesis.

It is obvious from these examples that success in science entails that some approaches are

more appropriate than others in carrying out the tasks which scientists engage in as scientists,

although they cannot guarantee certainly or truth.

13.13.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Which philosopher of science prefers falsifiability to verifiability?

35
G. Bohme, Coping with Science. (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1992)

39
13.13.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Karl Popper

13.14 Summary of Study Session 13

Indeed, our journey in this study session has been a long and arduous one. Nevertheless your

knowledge vault must have been enriched. You can now discuss meaningfully about the

systematic development of science across human, cultural and religious history stating clearly

the sense in which each impacted on the growth of science. Our knowledge bank is further

enriched by our discussion on the method of science involving systematic steps. Of critical

importance is also our discussion on the models of scientific method.

13.14.2 References / Suggestion for Further Reading

Anele, D. I. O. (2001). Explanation, objectivity and theory choice in science. In The Nigerian

Journal of Philosophy, 19(1 & 2).

Bohme, G. (1992). Coping with science. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Brown, H. I. (1987). Observation and objectivity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, I. B. (1985). Revolution in source. Cambridge ,MA: Harvard University Press.

Cohen, M. R. & Nagel, E. (1963). An Introduction to logic and scientific method. London,

England: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Copi, I. M. and Cohen, C. (1994). Introduction to logic, New York, NY: Macmillan.

40
Fayerabend, P. K. (1989). How to defend society against science. In I. Hacking (ed.),

Scientific

Revolution. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Feyerabend, P. K. (1970). Consolations for the specialists. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave

(Eds.),

Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.

Hacking, I. (1997). Experimentation and scientific realism. In Tauber A. (Ed.), Science and

the

quest for reality. London & Hampshire: Macmillan.

Hey, T. and Watters, P. (2003). The new quantum universe. Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.

Jeans, J. (1961). The growth of physical science. New York, NY: Fawcett.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of

Chicago Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Mason, S. F. (1962). A history of the sciences. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Newton-Smith, R. H. (1981). The rationality of science. London, England: Routledge &

Kegan

41
 Paul.

Omoregbe, J. I. (1991). A simplified history of Western philosophy. Lagos, Nigeria:

Joja Educational and Publishers Ltd.

Popper, K. R. (1961). The poverty of historicism, London, England: Routledge & Kegan

Paul.

_____ (2002). Conjectures and refutations, London & New York: Routledge.

Randall, L. (2005). Warped passages: Unravelling the mysteries of the universe’s hidden

dimensions. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

Reines, F. and Cowan, C. (1953). Detection of the free neutrino. In Physical Review, 92.

Russell, B. (1961). History of Western philosophy, London, England: Routledge.

Taylor, L. W. (1941). Physics, the pioneer science. Boston, MA: Houghton Miffling Co.

42
 STUDY SESSION 14

PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

14.1 Introduction

This study session will expose you to the role of science and technology in our contemporary

world. You will be using the mindset of a philosopher in your appraisal of the role of science

and technology. Consequently, you will first be learning about the critical nature of

philosophy. Afterward, you will learn how to conceptualise science and technology, make a

distinction between them and then establish a connection between them as well. You will

finally be exposed to the merits the demerits of science and technology to mankind.

14.1.1 Learning Outcomes of Study Session 14

At the end of this session, you should be able to:

1. Distinguish between philosophy, science and technology;

2. Establish a relationship between philosophy, science and technology;

3. Differentiate between the general and the narrow senses of science;

4. Outline the importance of science and technology to human development; and

5. Enumerate the disadvantages of science and technology to humans.

14.2 Philosophy: A Conceptualization

Philosophy as a concept has been approached or defined from a number of different points of

view. Indeed, as you have learnt in the previous study sessions, it is difficult offering a

universal definition of philosophy. Etymologically, philosophy is derived from two Greek

1
words philo (love) and Sophia (wisdom) which means the love of wisdom. As an academic

discipline, philosophy is a method of reflective thinking and reasoned inquiry. It attempts to

train you on how to think through your problems and face all the facts involved.

Philosophy is a process of asking fundamental questions about the world, about human’s

place in the world, and about all aspects of human activity and experience. Philosophers

from the ancient time to the present period have been concerned with critically examining the

phenomena of human existence. They employ the tools of logic, ethics, epistemology and

metaphysics to attempts a construction of some systematic, coherent and consistent picture of

all that we know and think. Philosophy according to Omoregbe is essentially a reflective

activity; to philosophize is to reflect on human experience in search of answers to some

fundamental questions1. As a human being takes a reflective look at himself or the world

around him, he is filled with wonder, attempt to reflect on these fundamental questions that

runs through the human mind is the beginning of philosophy. Thus, human experience is the

source of philosophical reflection. Stanley Honer also defines philosophy as an activity

undertaken by human beings who are deeply concerned about who they are and what

everything means. Thus, he asserts that a philosopher is a person who perceives in some

measure the ways in which the various experiences and awareness of existence form a pattern

of meaning2. C.B. Okolo also defines philosophy as a form of critical inquiry into things and

their causes, human experience and man’s role and prospects in it3. Philosophy is thus

1.
J. I. Omoregbe, “African Philosophy: Yesterday and Today” in P. O. Bodunrin (ed)

Philosophy in Africa: Trends And Perspectives, Ile-Ife: University of Ife Press, 1995, P.1.

2.
S. Honer, Invitation to Philosophy, London: Wadsworth Publishing Co. 1999, P. 19.

3.
C. B. Okolo, African Social and Political Philosophy Selected Essays. Nsukka:
Fulladu Publishing Co. 1993, P. 3.

2
regarded as the highest form of inquiry that involves no presuppositions, not taking anything

for granted. Philosophy questions everything including itself. In its wide range, philosophy

tries to give a coherent, systematic account of the multi-faceted reality of all nature and how

man knows and interprets them. As a method of reflective thinking and reasoned inquiry,

philosophy adopts the method of learning how to ask and raise questions until meaningful

answers begin to appear. It is learning where to go for the most dependable up-to-date

information that might shed light on some problems. It is learning how to double check fact

— claims in order to verify or falsify them. It is learning how to reject fallacious false-

claims, no matter how prestigious the authority who holds them or how deeply one would

personally like to belief them4.

This submission may make us assume that philosophy is reduced to a technical analysis of

statement. But as Honer tells us, philosophy is more than a purely technical enterprise of

analyzing words, concepts and logical thought processes. It also pays direct attention to the

relentless efforts of human beings to achieve an organized view of themselves and the

universe in which they live5. This attempt at achieving an organized view of the world could

be in different segments of human community, be it economy, religion or politics, etc.

14.2.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

4.
Christian, J. Philosophy: An Introduction to the Arts of Wondering, Chicago:
Holt, Rinehart and Winton Inc. 1990, P. x1x.

5.
S. Honer, Op. Cit. P.19.

3
Name the two Greek words that originate “philosophy”.

14.2.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Philo and Sophia

14.3 Science: A Conceptualization

It is important that you should understand science in its general sense as well as its restricted

sense. In the former, it is generally applicable to any organized body of knowledge; in which

case, “scientific thinking” or “reasoning” generally refers to an organized mode of inquiry

with an end in view and guided by laws of thought. In this general sense, every academic

pursuit or discipline can be said to be scientific in its mode of enquiry.

In its narrow meaning, “Science” is generally restricted to those studies or disciplines carried

out through hypotheses, experiments, and verifications by the use of instruments generally in

laboratories. Such branches of knowledge as Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Biochemistry, etc.

are classical examples.

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English for instance defined science as the study of

knowledge which can be made into system and which depends on seeing and testing facts and

stating general natural laws6. This view corroborated that of S.S Chuahan who also defines

science as a systematized body of knowledge which may be verified at any time by any

6.
P. Procter (ed) Longman Dictionary of Contemporary Ethics, Essex England:

Longman Group Ltd, 1978, P. 993.

4
number of individuals, under a given condition7. Science, therefore, is engaged in

discovering those conditions and factors that determine or cause the occurrence of a

particular event, using scientific method of experimentation and observation.

It does mean, therefore, that ordinary thinking or reflection is not exactly the same as

scientific thinking. The one, as noted above, is carried out by all men, literate or illiterate, as a

result of man being a rational animal and generally acts like one. The other, requires some

form of formal education and training and is thus a mode of inquiry or knowledge acquisition

by experts in their various fields of human endeavours and this, according to some rules or

laws of thought. In its narrower sense, too, experiments, instruments, laboratories, etc. are

made use of in scientific studies and discoveries.

14.3.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

In which sense of science is every academic pursuit scientific?

14.3.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

General sense of science

14.4 The Concept of Technology

7.
S. S. Chauhan, Advance Educational psychology, New Delhi: Vani Educational

Books 1998, P. 4.

5
Technology as a concept is derived from the Greek word “techne” which means “art or craft”

and “logos” which means “word”, “speech” and in fact “study”. Dictionary definition states

that technology is the scientific study of industrial arts, including the art by which, through

the medium of materials, scientific knowledge and skills are transformed into practical use8.

Similarly, Procter described technology as the branch of knowledge dealing with scientific

and industrial methods and their practical use in industry, practical science 9. The term

“technology” may be interpreted in two ways. Firstly, it refers to the tools and artefacts which

men use in daily activities to manipulate nature and the environment for their benefit. Such

benefit may be for domestic purpose for example, technological artefacts such as spoons,

knives, blender, washing machines, plates, needle, etc. Or industrial and commercial

purposes, for example, office utilities such as pins, clips, typewriters, plants and machinery

etc. Or even for communication such as radio, television set, printing machines, computers,

telephones, etc. The point to note is that technology covers every aspects of human life.

Secondly, technology refers to the study of these artefacts, tools, machines, etc. themselves.

In a way, we can say that technology partly deals with intervention of artefacts and tools. It is

the knowledge as well as the means used to produce the material needs of human beings. It is

the application of scientific findings for the fabrication of gadgets, equipment etc.10.

8.
F.B. Fashola in Adeniji Adaralegbe (ed.) A Philosophy For Nigerian Education,

Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books Nig. Ltd 1972, P. 203.

9.
Paul Procter (ed.) Op. Cit. P. 1139.

10.
Cited by M.O. Ogbinaka in J. I. Unah (ed) Philosophy For All Discipline, Department

of Philosophy, University of Lagos, Nigeria 1998, P. 331.

6
Historically, technology was stated to have appeared first in English in the 17th century. It

was used to mean a discussion of the applied arts only, and by early 20th century, the term

embraced a growing range of means, process and ideas in addition to tools and machines. By

mid-century, technology was defined by such phrases as the means or activity by which

human beings seek to change or manipulate their environment11. The implication of this is

that human society survives on the basis of some form of technological devices, either to

enhance productivity of labour or to make human existence meaningful and worthwhile.

14.4.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

The Greek word Techne means what?

14.4.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Art or craft

14.5 The Merits and Relevance of Science and Technology

A look at the history of scientific development reveals the extent to which human beings have

been greatly influenced by science and technology for the enhancement of human life. We

begin with the discovery of the mariner’s compass which opened the way for exploration by

land, sea and air and led to the early travels between different continents. This brought

together different nations and cultures into greater contact and thus resulted in exchange of

ideas for mutual benefit and increased knowledge.

11.
J.O. Urmson & Jonathan Ree, Encyclopaedia Britannica, New York: Unwin Hyman

Ltd. Vol. 16, 1975, P. 440.

7
The age of the steam engine for example, marked the beginning of the industrial revolution

and automation. Transportation was much facilitated by the introduction of the railways. The

industrial revolution brought about increased productivity and reduced costs of production.

Another important landmark in the development of science and technology is that of

electricity, telephone and television. The importance of electricity is enormous; it is used to

light our houses, pump water, refrigerate food, power the washing machines etc.

The telephone has made communication easy; the distance between two persons is no longer

a barrier in communication. It enables Abuja to contact Lagos, Ondo, Sokoto, Kaduna,

Calabar, London, USA and other far distant places within a matter of a few second/minutes.

The electronic media like radio and television as well as the print media like newspapers,

magazines and so on also keep us informed about current happenings in the society as well as

the aims and accomplishments of government establishment, of new ideas and products, of

community problems and solutions as well as attitudes and actions of the governments and

peoples of other nations of the world.

Science and technology has helped to preserve the rural life and its setting, especially in the

developed countries of the world, it has improved facilities and amenities and has reduced

migration from rural areas to urban areas. Amenities like electricity, pipe-borne water and

medical facilities; the establishment of industries and hospitals has also improved the living

conditions in the rural areas considerably. Even in Nigeria, the extension of an electricity

supply to the rural areas has become a reality. Science and technology has put at our

doorsteps the necessary tools and equipment with which to carry out our daily routines with

ease.

Improved communication and transportation networks have greatly enhanced business

transactions and tourism. This has directly fostered better relations among peoples of

different countries. Transportation and communication, we must note, are the life-blood of

8
commerce and industries upon which economic progress rests. Communication networks

have become so complex but new methods and techniques are being developed to give more

efficient service. It has brought people of distant places together.

All the effects of science and technology outlined above are based upon developments in the

physical and chemical sciences. But the biological sciences have also made great impact on

human beings. The influence of the biological sciences is likely to have a far reaching effect

on human beings than that of the physical sciences. This is because most of the basic

problems of human beings are of a biological nature; for example, over-production and

under-production of foodstuffs, biological sciences and technology have enabled mankind to

increase his food production. It has enabled man to bring under cultivation lands which were

non-arable before; it has enabled man to produce crops in areas which are not their habitat.

In the area of medical sciences, application of medical knowledge and scientific techniques

has relieved mankind of pain by using antibiotics, anaesthetics and other medications; it has

lengthened the life-span of mankind, it has helped in kidney transplants and other heart

diseases, it has also enabled mankind to plan the size of his family.

Health is wealth. The economic wealth of any nation depends largely on the well-being of its

people. The people must be physically and mentally fit to carry out their daily activities. In

this respect, the roles of science and technology are emphasized by the advances made in

medicine and public health care12.

Nigeria is principally an agricultural country blessed with natural vegetation, good soil and a

relatively predictable climate. These natural resources must be harnessed for the betterment

of its peoples. All that is required is a scientific approach to farming or what is sometimes

referred to as mechanized farming. Various equipment and machines have been developed

for clearing and cultivating the bush while others are used for harvesting as well as storage

12
F. B Fashola, “The Role of Science and Technology in National Development” A. Adaralegbe (ed), A
Philosophy for Nigeria Education, 1972, P. 207

9
purposes. A planting operation which would normally take several weeks to be carried out by

the primitive methods could now be executed in a matter of days. The increasing use of

fertilizers and insecticides has brought better yields. We are thus able to produce more cash

crops and food crops as a result of our studies in soil chemistry. This, in our view, constitutes

one of our major sources of national wealth. Harvested crops which do not go for immediate

processing could be preserved by the use of chemicals that are not harmful to human health

and stored away in a controlled storage facility, thereby ensuring the continuity of food

supply any season of the year.

Fishing in the high seas can now be carried out by scientific methods. Fishing trawlers are

gradually replacing the manually paddled canoes. Because of the facilities for storage and

cold rooms, the trawlers are capable of operating in the seas for long periods and their catches

are usually measured in kilos and stored in refrigerators in the trawlers. In this way, fresh

fish no longer constitutes any problem to people in the society, who are thus able to get the

most desired amount of protein with their food. All these changes are made possible by

advancements in science and technology.

Quite a number of the working population are engaged in occupations bearing on science and

technology, the tools, machinery and other aids being employed in industry are products of

science and technology. The burden of uninspiring and repetitive routine work is gradually

being removed by the introduction of mechanized methods. In the highly industrialized

countries shorter working hours at no expense to quality and quantity of products are thereby

made possible, and this constitutes a great saving in national manpower.

Unemployment in a developing country such as Nigeria is one of the factors responsible for

discord and disunity amongst its people. Disparities in the location of industries create a lot of

10
divisions. These could only be eliminated by directing our energy and resources towards

rapid industrialization, which is made possible by the advances in science and technology.

There are other forces which battle against man for survival. He has to protect himself against

hazards from natural causes like floods and earthquakes. The weather forecast which gives

the advance warning of cyclones, the building of levees or embankments along the courses of

rivers to contain flood waters and earthquakes, have been evolved through the application of

science and technology.

From the foregoing account, it is evident that all wealth is created by human labour and this

labour is guided by the level of education and acquired scientific skills. The richer and more

skilful countries attained their affluence through the advances made in science and

technology. The younger nations of the world must therefore take a cue from the experience

of the bigger nations in directing their energy and resources towards a balanced economy, a

state which could only be reached through scientific and technological advancement.

14.5.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Name four areas of human endeavour that science and technology impacted on.

14.5.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Agriculture, communication, health, transportation

14.6 On the Demerits of Science and Technology

The above represents impressive details of the usefulness of science and technology to us.

However, it is worrisome to note the bad effects of the application of science and technology

11
in this contemporary world. Almost every discovery in science and technology has its good

as well as its bad side.

The introduction of AK47 for example has increased casualties in the society, it has brought

about child soldiers in many war ravaged countries especially in Africa. The marine science

and compass guided European powers to the African continent which made them play a

powerful role in the colonialism and imperialism13 of African states. The introduction of

machines brought about industrial revolution and productivity; it has however made people to

work in factories for long hours and under hazardous conditions. The use of telephone has

made communication easy but it has, to a large extent, crippled initiative and the

independence of individuals. People in distant places have to seek directions from their

superiors, or a wife calling her husband for direction on matters that could have been resolved

on the spot due to the availability of the telephone for easy communication.

Television has also aided the transfer of western values and civilization to Africa. This has

reshaped African modes of thought, have led to the disruption of African traditions and value

system. Modern medicine has enabled mankind to live longer and this has increased the

percentage of the aged among the population and in some countries has led to over-

population. Science and technology have produced such weapons of mass destruction and

annihilation as the hydrogen and atomic bombs; weapons which are capable of destroying our

world in a few hours.

From what we have said so far, conclusion may be drawn on the fact that science and

technology are very good in a number of ways; however, their applications may be good or

evil.

13
T. A. Balogun, The Role of Science and Technology in National Development” A. Adaralegbe (ed), A
Philosophy for Nigeria Education, 1972, P. 192

12
14.6.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Name two weapons of mass destructions.

14.6.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Hydrogen and atomic bombs

14.7 Summary of Study Session 14

We have attempted to use the temperament of philosophy to interrogate science and

technology in this session. To this end, you have been taught the critical nature of philosophy.

This prepared you for a critical discussion on how to distinguish science from technology.

Finally, your attention was directed at the paradoxical nature of science and technology as

advantageous and disadvantageous instrument for human use. Indeed, the session reminded

us of some of the achievements of science and technology as related to mankind, especially,

in the enhancement of productivity of labour. We are, for instance, reminded of:

i. The impact of science and technology on human resources, such as land and water

from which life is nourished.

ii. In the area of medical research, it has helped mankind to live longer, because most of

the terminal illnesses of ancient times are now curable.

iii. The impact of power, nuclear and solar energy on human existence.

iv. The impact of mechanized agriculture on food production.

14.7.2 References / Suggestions for Further Reading

Chauhan, S. S. (1984). Advance educational psychology. New Delhi, India: Vani

Educational Books.

13
Christian, J. (1990). Philosophy: An introduction to the arts of wondering. Chicago, IL: Holt,

Rinehart and Winton.

Fashola, F. B. (1972). The role of science and technology in national development. In

A. Adaralegbe (Ed), A philosophy for Nigerian education. Ibadan, Nigeria:

Heinemann.

Honer, S. (1999). Invitation to philosophy. London, England: Wadsworth.

Okolo, C. B. (1993). African social and political philosophy: Selected essays. Nsukka,

Nigeria:

Fulladu.

Omoregbe, J. I. (1995). African philosophy: yesterday and today. In P. O. Bodunrin (Ed.),

Philosophy in Africa: trends and perspectives. Ile-Ife, Nigeria: University of Ife

Press.

Procter, P. (1978). Longman dictionary of contemporary ethics. Essex, England: Longman

Group.

Unah, J. I. (1998). Philosophy for all disciplines. Lagos, Nigeria: Department of Philosophy,

University of Lagos, Nigeria.

Urmson, J. O. and Ree, J. (1975). Encyclopaedia Britannica 16. New York ,NY: Unwin

Hyman.

14
 STUDY SESSION 15

PHILOSOPHY AND ITS RELEVANCE TO SOCIETY

15.1 Introduction

Generally in life things are often connected in some ways. Sometimes these interconnections

are direct and obvious; at other times, they are hidden and obscure. For the average observer,

it takes only a little effort to point out the obvious connections between things. It, however,

takes a trained mind and a keen observer to uncover connections that are obscure. The intent

of this study session is to expose you to the connection between philosophy and society. We

shall ponder over such questions as: How does philosophy intersect with the social world?

How does philosophical thinking shape the evolution of ideas that governs the world? What

is the contribution of philosophy to practical human concerns? How does philosophy affect

the society, on the one hand, and how society influences philosophy, on the other hand? Are

there branches of philosophy which by their nature are eminently oriented towards praxis?

These questions have become salient and germane because there is a tendency among non-

philosophers such as you and, interestingly, among some philosophers as well to see

philosophy as an academic discipline that deals solely with metaphysical and abstract ideas

that have little or no relevance to practical concerns or concrete human problems. By

showing you how philosophy and society are interrelated, we clarify some of these mistaken

kinds of thinking.

15.1.1 Learning outcomes for Study Session 15

At the end of this study session you should be able to:

1
 1. State the conception of philosophy by some philosophers;

2. Define society and distinguish between the objective and subjective conditions

essential for the existence of society;

3. Enumerate ways in which society influences philosophy; and

4. Highlight ways in which philosophy influences society.

15.2 Meaning of Philosophy

The name, ―philosophy‖ is derived from two Greek words ―philo‖ (love) and ―Sophia‖

(wisdom). ―Philo-sophia‖ etymologically, therefore, means ―love or pursuit of wisdom‖. It

suggests an attempt to acquire knowledge and satisfy curiosity through the pursuit of mental

excellence. In the Greek application and understanding of the term, philosophy involves the

attempt by man to know the world around him in order to act rationally and consistently; to

take wise decisions based on certain scales of values as they affect matters of truth and

falsity, of beauty and ugliness and of right and wrong. Philosophy became for the Greeks a

way of trying to make coherent meaning out of man’s complex universe; to achieve order in

disorder; to achieve unity in a disjointed world and to understand human existence. As a field

of inquiry, philosophy deals with the systematic body of principles and assumptions

underlying any particular field of experience.

The above conceptions suggest that philosophy is an attempt to understand the world, its

meaning, its laws and values and, as such, it includes and covers every field of human

endeavour. An exact definition of philosophy appears very illusive because there are

misconceptions, prejudices and assumptions of what philosophy is or should be. The best

way to put it is that philosophy is better seen from schools of thought rather than definitions

offered by practitioners. In some cases, non-professional philosophers rush for definitions

that do not capture the essence of philosophy as an academic discipline.

2
Some Conceptions of Philosophy

The conceptions of philosophy under examinations depict the orientation of a philosopher in

question. For example, Allen Wood1 sees philosophy as a self-reflective activity and hence

cannot take its own nature for granted without losing itself. He suggests that philosophers

might free their discipline from a certain amount of self-imposed shallowness if they stop

taking the nature of their enterprise for granted. He calls for a renewal of the question, ―What

is philosophy?‖ Philosophical reflection gains its importance more from what it discovers

about the object of its reflection (about the nature of knowledge, goodness, beauty and so

forth) than from its own nature simply as philosophical reflection. He also observes that the

nature of philosophy is not a preeminent philosophical question, and philosophers can be

great without writing essays on meta-philosophy. This conception of philosophy is Socratic

because reflection is the core of Socrates’ understanding of philosophy. Jim Unah 2 stipulates

that Socrates, the Greek legend sees philosophy as a reflective attitude, which elevates act of

contemplation and the search for universally valid knowledge. Philosophy is a reflection of

the mind in the form of conceptual thought. Quoting Dilthey ―the conduct of the warrior, the

statesman, the poet, or the religionist can be perfected only when knowledge of this conduct

guides practice‖3. Knowledge for Socrates is virtue and ignorance is the root of moral evil.

Knowledge becomes an instrument of empowerment and liberation and directs the mind for

rational decision. The position of Socrates appears indefensible because in terms of wrong

doing, one may not differentiate wrong doing and the right conduct. Humans are prone to

error, so whether we have knowledge or not does not add up.

1
Allen Wood, What is Philosophy? (New York: Vail-Ballou Press, 2001) p.2
2
Jim Unah, “Philosophy and Society” in Philosophy, Society and Anthropology, (Lagos: Fadec Publishers, 2002)
p.3
3
William, Dilthey, Essence of Philosophy, (New York: University of North Carolina Press, 1969) p.10

3
Plato’s understanding of philosophy appears to be based on the task of thinking. Thinking is

akin to contemplation where the mind transcends to the world of forms and grapples with the

ideas of things or the essences of things. The essences of things depict the true nature or the

meaning of things in general. Getting to the true nature of things is the zenith of philosophical

reflection. Among other things, the highest attainment of the true nature of things is the good

which is a source of illumination. At this stage the essence of philosophy is intellectual

progress. Intellectual progress has to do with critical exposition and diagnosis of

philosophical problems. Plato also makes a distinction between knowledge and opinion.

Opinion (doxa) is hearsay and can be expressed by anybody while knowledge becomes

critical, evidential anchored on the idea and not everybody has genuine knowledge 4. Like his

master Socrates, Plato places premium on knowledge especially on reality as against mere

appearance. The way things appear is different from the true nature of things. To this end,

Plato can rightly be described as an objective idealist. Objective idealism is the philosophical

position that reality is located in the ideal world and has independent existence.

Aristotle’s conception of philosophy is located in the realm of praxis, the hallmark of science.

He places philosophy on the doorstep of theoretical orientation which circumscribes all kinds

of human knowledge. Philosophy grounds scientific activity through metaphysical paradigm.

This is echoed in his view that metaphysics is first philosophy. As first philosophy, it studies

being qua being5. Aristotle’s metaphysics throws up the ontological dimension, depicting the

true nature of things in general. It is not targeting specific beings. Aristotle’s metaphysics by

laying the foundation for ontology piloted the emergence of science which has undergone

series of transformation. In a sense, according to Aristotle, all science studies being in certain

ways, but the departmental sciences study it under some specified conditions. The study of

4 nd
Plato, The Republic, 2 edition, translated with notes, an interpretative essay, and new introduction by Allan
Bloom, (New York: Basic Books, 1968) p.193
5
Aristotle, The Metaphysics, translated with an introduction by Hugh Lawson-Tancreed, (London: Penguin
Books, 1998) p.xlv

4
metaphysics is the study of all things that are just in regard to those aspects of them which

pertain to their being merely by virtue of their having being.

Bertrand Russell sees philosophy as an attempt to answer ultimate questions, not uncritically

and dogmatically as we do in ordinary life and even in the sciences, but critically after

exploring all that makes such questions puzzling, and after realizing all the vagueness and

confusion that underlie our ordinary ideas6. Russell further places philosophy between

theology and science:

Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to

which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable,

but like science, it appeals to human reasoning rather than

authority, whether that of tradition, or that of revelation…

Almost all questions of interest to speculative minds are

such as science cannot answer… The study of such

questions is the business of philosophy.7

Russell’s position appears to be anchored on the scope of philosophy as a discipline that is

encompassing, comprehensive and encyclopedic as far as human knowledge is concerned. It

acts as a regulator in the synthesis of human knowledge and also an art. For A.J. Ayer,

philosophy is an activity of analysis8. The position that philosophy is an art is given credence

by Walter, Odajnyk in these words

True philosophy is an art, and… a great philosopher is a creative person, an artist

and not only an intellectual involved with dull analyses—induction and deduction.

Like the artist, the philosopher describes life and the world and unveils new

6
Bertrand Russell, Problems of Philosophy, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959) p.1.
7
Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, (New York: Routlledge, 2000)p.1
8
A. J. Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1974) p.37.

5
 vistas of thought and experience through his own insight and vision. Only a

matter of technique separates the artist from the philosopher.9

Fundamentally, techniques have become the tool of differentiation between philosophy and

the other sciences. Some philosophers, especially those of the existentialist school, are

reacting against the gulf created by these techniques which tend to give the impression that

one discipline is superior to the other. For the existentialist, the purpose of philosophy is not

the exaggeration of reason or analysis of proposition but that of finding the meaning and

purpose of life.

J.I. Omoregbe10 looks at the conception of philosophy from the early Greek cosmologists or

nature philosophers in the city of Ephesus. The Ionians, as they were called, focused their

attention on the cosmos, trying to understand the universe, particularly in terms of the unity

and diversity of reality, the permanence and impermanence of the things in the cosmos. In

their search for the common elements that hold things together, they were amazed at the basic

unity in the midst of amazing diversity, the continuity in the midst of ceaseless changes in the

physical universe. These formed the basis of their philosophical reflection identifying water,

air, the infinite, fire as the fundamental stuff of reality. As cosmologists, to unravel the

cosmic principle of reality was their pre-occupation.

Albert Camus11, a French existentialist philosopher, examines philosophy from the point of

view of the meaning of life. For him, there is only one truly serious philosophical question; is

human life meaningful or meaningless? According to him, there is but one truly philosophical

problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or not worth living amounts to answering

the fundamental question of philosophy. In his view, all the rest whether or not the world has

9
Walter, Odajnyk quoted in Marxism and Existentialism by Jean-Paul-Sartre, translated by John Matthews,
(London: Verso Publishers, 1969) p.157
10
J.I. Omoregbe, The Human Predicament: Has Human Life On Earth any ultimate purpose, Any ultimate
meaning? An Existential Inquiry, University of Lagos Inaugural Lecture Series, 2001) p.4
11
Albert, Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1975) p.11

6
three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories – come afterwards. This is

where one’s philosophical position dovetails into experience. Earlier in this work we have

cited the notion that philosophy is a reflection of human experience which comes in different

patterns and forms. They are disjointed until the human mind is able to analyze them for

meaningful interpretation and application. Albert Camus is seen as a philosopher of

absurdity, because the world and life in general are meaningless. When one is unable to cope

with life as a result of frustration, suicide seems to be the shortest root of exit. Camus,

however, admonishes that one should show courage in the midst of such meaninglessness.

Another French philosopher who examines philosophy from the meaning of life is Jean-Paul

Sartre, who describes man as a being who is not what he is and who is what he is not, a being

who carries a vacuum, an emptiness within him at the heart of being. He says, man is empty

inside him, he feels this emptiness at the heart of his being and this makes him always

dissatisfied, restless and unhappy12‖. He further maintains that man’s whole life and activities

are aimed at filling this emptiness inside him. But it is a waste of time as every effort to fill

this vacuum is futile because it is part of the ontological structure of man’s being. This

emptiness, he continues, has its origin in nothingness which is the ontological foundation of

man’s being. It is this nothingness which separates man from himself and manifests itself as

an emptiness at the heart of his being. This accounts for why man by his nature is a restless

being and a dissatisfied being. Nothing can satisfy him as long as he carries that vacuum

inside him at the heart of his being. All man’s efforts to satisfy his deepest yearnings and

aspirations are futile. ―Man is a useless passion‖.

The nature of man and his restless desire to achieve things that are near impossibility show

the emptiness in man. Man is a bundle of contradiction, great at the same time miserable. He

12
Jean-Paul-Sartre, Being and Nothingness, (New York: Dever Publications, 1969) pp. 78-79

7
is the greatest being in the universe, but at the same time fragile. He is the only being that

asks radical questions about his own being.

Galina Kirilenko and Lydia Korshunova13 raise some fundamental questions about the world,

projecting the essence of philosophy. These questions among, others are: Is the world’s

foreseeable future a matter of concern for everyone no matter how far removed he is from

scientific work, political struggle, or revolutionary movement? What is in store for man: the

holocaust of war, or a peaceful life? What will the earth be like? Will nature survive? Or will

it be annihilated as a result of scientific and technical progress? Will oppression and social

injustice disappear from the world or will they persist forever? They expect philosophy to

renew these questions so as to make our thinking dynamic. For them philosophy is able to

provide answers to these fundamental questions. They re-echoed the words of Cicero, a

Roman thinker and orator in this dictum, ―Thou we are turning to, thou we are asking for

help. On philosophy, the loadstar of life, neither we nor human life itself, could exist without

you‖14. Cicero’s conception of philosophy appears to reflect the etymological definition as

the love of wisdom. In dealing with our fellow men and women, we need wisdom, otherwise

the world will come to an end. Philosophy embodies man’s striving to engage in a constant

search in order to cognize the infinite, the root causes of all things that exist and to call to

question everything there is. This makes philosophy an exercise in wonder.

Jacques Maritain defines philosophy as the science that studies the highest principle of all

things15. While for Martin Heidegger, philosophy is the search for the true meaning of

Being16. Heidegger sees the problem as the fundamental question of philosophy because

nearly everyone has forgotten what it means ―to be.‖ This hardened forgetfulness portends

13
Galina Kirilenko and Lydia Korshunova What is Philosophy? (Moscow: Progress Publishers) p.6
14
Ibid. p.7
15
Jacques Maritain, An introduction to Philosophy, (New York: Sheed and Ward Inc, 1965) p.132.
16
Martin Heidegger, What is Philosophy? In John Stone (ed), What is Philosophy? (London: Macmillan, 1965)
p.115

8
danger for our current civilization and humanism. There is the need therefore, to radically

entertain the question of being as a basis for rehabilitating our banalized, and vulgarized

humanism. What is nothing can become a real force in a nation’s historical development and

supersede it.

15.2.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

Which philosopher defines philosophy as the science that studies the highest principle of all

things?

15.2.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

Jacques Maritain

15.3 Meaning of Society

It was Aristotle, the famous ancient Greek philosopher who asserted in his book Politics that

man is a political animal.17 Among other things this suggested that man is gregarious being

who has to live in social settings. From Aristotle’s perspective, man cannot achieve

happiness, the ultimate goal of human life, by living in isolation. Man who, by nature, is a

moral and rational being can only attain happiness in interaction with others in the polis or

the political society. Aristotle probably focused on the city-state society because that was the

most common political community of his day. The world has since changed in terms of the

forms and levels of societies which now exist. We for instance now speak of local, national,

17
Aristotle, Politics, Trans by C. Lord, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984)

9
continental, global or even virtual societies. But what are we to understand by the term

society? Given the diverse forms of societies which abound in the contemporary world, this

task may not be as simple as it appears.

In the main, there are two major senses of the word ―society‖. In the first sense and broadest

form, society may refer to the totality of all human relationships. On this reading, society is

the "system of interrelationships and structures that connect individuals around the world "18.

This understanding of society is ontologically defined in the phrase ―being-with-others‖

which again goes to show that no man is an island or stand-alone being19. Jim Unah explains

further that to be born into the world is equally original with our interacting with other

beings20. In essence society is a complex of interrelationships which may cut across

boundaries, cultures and nationalities. Marx and Nicolaus sum up the idea of society in these

lines: ―Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the

relations within which these individuals stand‖21.

The second, rather narrower sense is the conventional understanding of society. From this

perspective, society refers to a group of people who share a common culture, occupy a

particular territorial space and feel themselves to constitute a unified and distinct identity. 22A

careful analysis of the above definition of society will reveal that society is constituted by

both objective and subjective elements. It will also show that taken apart, each element in the

definition may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for the existence of society. The

objective conditions for the existence of society, for instance, will include: (1.) group of

people, (2.) sharing a common culture, and (3.) occupying a common territorial space. All

18
James W. McAuley, An Introduction to Politics, State and Society,(London: Sage,2003) p.4
19
Heidegger quoted in Jim Unah, Philosophy, Society and Anthropology, (Lagos: Fadec Publishers, 2002) p.10
20
Ibid. p.10 .
21
Karl Marx and Martin Nicolaus, Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy,(London:
Penguin,1993)p. 265.
22
Gordon Marshall, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology,(Oxford: Oxford University Press,1996)

10
these taken individually are objective conditions because they are material conditions which

can be objectively verified. It can be ascertained, for instance, whether a group of people

share the same culture but even where this condition is satisfied, it does not follow that we

have a society. There is a condition in the definition which suggests that the people must "feel

themselves to constitute a unified and distinct entity". This is the subjective condition. It

follows, therefore, that if a group of people share the same territory and do not feel that they

form a unified and distinct entity, we cannot refer to them as a society. The sufficient

condition for society to exist, it would appear, is the presence of both the objective and

subjective elements of our definition.

15.3.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

1. Name the philosopher that describes humans as political animals.

2. State three objective conditions for the existence of society,

15.3.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

1. Aristotle

2. Group of people, sharing a common culture, and occupying a common territorial

space

15.4 The Nexus between Philosophy and Society

Now with what we have on the meaning of society, we may now proceed to some general

observations about the relationship between philosophy and society. But we must dispose of

an old controversy that philosophy has lost its relevance in the present dispensation of the

world order; that it does not bake bread and butter neither does it put food on a common

11
man’s table. As a theoretical activity, the logical positivist school of philosophy contends that

the major task of philosophy is analysis of scientific terms or concepts. This position gives a

very narrow conception of philosophy as regards what it is and what it should be. J.I.

Omoregbe observes that the Anglo-Saxon analytic tradition lends credence to the

misconception that philosophy is only analysis and no more, no less. According to him,

analysis is indeed part and parcel of philosophy, but it is only a means to an end.

The view that philosophy is not a theory but an activity of synthesis as presented by Logical

Positivism is not only false but shows lack of an in-depth knowledge of what philosophy

should be. J. I. Omoregbe hints at the impact of philosophical theories on society when he

asserts the historical fact that the philosophies of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, John Locke,

Baron Montesquieu, Jean-Jacque Rousseau, Hegel and Karl Marx were forces that shaped

western civilization. For Omoregbe, it is an illusion, indeed a dangerous illusion to think that

philosophy has no practical influence on society23. Philosophical theories are dynamites and

powerful agents of change, transformation and development. We agree with Omoregbe that

the image of philosophy projected by 20th century analytic philosophy is rather narrow.

Philosophers do not engage in analysis for its own sake. It is ultimately a means to an end, a

prelude to dealing with the substantive disagreements that characterize most philosophical

debate. Perhaps the most powerful argument against the idea that philosophy is no more than

ordinary language analysis is to show how philosophy has affected society beyond the four

walls of the university

It is important to reiterate, however, that the connection between philosophy and society is

not a straightforward, direct causal one. Rather, it is an extremely complicated connection

whereby philosophy and society both shape and influence each other. For a start, philosophy

23
J. I. Omoregbe, “The Human Predicament: Has human life on earth any ultimate purpose, any ultimate
meaning? An existential inquiry”, University of Lagos Press, Inaugural Lecture Series, 2001) p.1

12
as an activity does not happen in a vacuum; it takes place within space and time. For this

reason, philosophy tends to reflect the peculiar concerns and the problems of the climes and

times within which it is developed. Western philosophy, for an example, was reputed to have

originated from the commercially prosperous city of Miletus in the Ionian region of Ancient

Greece. The material condition in the city was quite congenial to the emergence of

philosophy and it is no surprise that the philosophers of this era were primarily concerned

with speculative cosmology24. Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince illustrates the role of

historical context plays in motivating philosophy. Machiavelli lived at a time when the Italian

peninsula was a scene of intense political instability and conflict involving city-states such as

Florence, Milan, Venice and Naples. Machiavelli’s concern was how stability can be restored

in the Italian peninsula25. It is against this background that one must understand the political

realism that informs The Prince. While it is possible to cite more cases of how historical

context shapes philosophy, the examples already examined suffices to establish the thesis that

philosophy is often a product of its context. It is in the light of this realization that kyle Cupp

declares that:

All philosophy is contextual. So every philosopher must

be read in context. To understand a philosopher you can

just look at what he said. Philosophers have specific

agendas, task, desires and motivations26.

If the immediately preceding discussion shed some light on how societal context might shape

philosophy, we are left with the question ―how does philosophy affect or influence society?

The answer to this question requires a discussion of those branches or sub-branches of

24
Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, (New York: Routlledge, 2000)
25
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, trans. by G. Bull, (Hammondsworth: Penguin, 1956)
26 th
Kyle cup, “All Philosophy is Contextual” retrieved from www.patheos.com on 18 feb. 2017.

13
philosophy that easily connects with one or other area of human endeavour as well as

ideologies / philosophical ideas that has shaped the course of human history. These branches

of philosophy will include ethics, political philosophy, existentialism, feminist philosophy

bioethics, including some of the relevant philosophical ideas like Marxism, positivism, etc.

Ethics

Ethics or moral philosophy plays a variety of vital roles in society. Ethics helps to critically

examine our moral beliefs and social practices in order to determine if they are in consonance

with the dictates of reason. Peter Singer, it was, who made the distinction between intuitive,

everyday morality and the critical level of morality. 27 At this first intuitive, pre-philosophical

level of morality, we simply act based on a generally accepted set of moral principles which

are deemed right. At the second, critical level, we subject our moral beliefs to evaluative

scrutiny, which sometimes reveal that we have been acting on wrong moral principles and we

are consequently able to adjust our beliefs accordingly. An example of such reconsideration

of value relates to the practice of slavery. In the ancient past, slavery was generally accepted

as morally permissible in many societies. Even highly respected philosophers such as Plato

and Aristotle supported the institution of slavery. But as many philosophers began to reflect

upon the practice, it became increasingly clear that slavery lacks any moral justification.

Today slavery is a morally objectionable and universally outlawed practice. Any person or

society practising slavery is regarded as morally bankrupt or uncivilized. In passing the

slavery and other barbaric practices through the crucible of rational scrutiny, philosophy

contributes to moral progress by helping to eliminate such barbaric practices from human

societies.

27
Peter Singer, One World: the Ethics of Globalization, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002) p.168.

14
A similar contribution of ethics to moral progress is seen in the role it played in the

grounding of natural rights. Philosophers such as the Stoics, Thomas Aquinas, and most

notably, John Locke have demonstrated how man is imbued with certain natural inalienable

and inviolable rights which are made known through human reason. Today, not only do these

rights constitute the core of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), they

are also enshrined in the constitution of virtually all the countries in the world.28

Political Philosophy

Political Philosophy is another branch of philosophy which has eminently contributed to the

progress of the human society. As a veritable instrument of social change, socio-political

philosophers paint visions of the ideal state to which currently existing states could aspire. It

is no accident that the United States is one of the greatest democracies upon the face of the

earth today. The founding fathers of the American nation drew largely from the ideas of

philosophers in designing their system of government.29 It is an uncontestable fact that the

most influential organizing principles adopted by governments all over the world today are

the products of philosophical thinking. These principles include separation of powers,

federalism, checks and balances, representative government, civil rights and popular

sovereignty.

The effects of socio-political philosophy on society, in the main, are positive, but there are

some socio-political ideas which have negatively impacted society. There are examples of

philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Charles Darwin and Friedrich Hegel whose

doctrines provided the motivation and legitimation for totalitarian rulers like Benito

Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. Although these philosophers may not have envisaged that their

28
Jan Oster, Media freedom as a Fundamental Right,( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015 ) p.7.
29
Tom Lansford, Democracy: Political Systems of the World, (London: Cavendish Publishing, 2007).

15
ideas will lead to the emergence of fascist regimes, it is very clear that aspects of German

philosophy which emphasized the supremacy of the Aryan race led the rise of Adolf Hitler. 30

Existentialism

After the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Second World War, optimism was at its

lowest ebb and a sense of despair pervaded many European societies. It was in this context

that existentialism, a general term for the group of philosophies that takes the human

condition as the primarily philosophical focus, flourished. Rejecting the grandiose abstraction

that ran through the history of philosophy and which became most pronounced in German

idealism, existentialism drew attention to the fundamental concerns of human existence,

which according to Richard Tarnas includes the issues of ―loneliness and death, conflict,

spiritual emptiness, ontological insecurity, the void of absolute values, the sense of cosmic

absurdity, the frailty of human reason and the tragic impasse of the human condition‖ 31.The

contribution of existentialism lies in the fact that while it recognizes that the human condition

is defined by the challenges listed above, it counsels us not despair but to define ourselves

and the meaning of life, through the exercise of free choice and personal responsibility.

Marxism

Arguably, of all the philosophical ideologies, Marxism is one of the most significant in terms

of the level of impact it has had on society. Karl Marx once quipped that ―philosophers have

so far interpreted the world. The point, however, is to change it‖32. In opposition to mere

philosophical theorizing and abstraction, Marxism was aimed at creating the necessary

30
Paul Schumaker, Dwight Kid and Thomas Heilke, Political Ideologies in the Nineteenth and Twentieth
Century, (New York: McGraw-Hill ) p.217.
31
Richard Tarnas , The Passion of the Western Mind, (New York: Ballantine Books,1991) p.389.
32
Marx, quoted in Unah, 2002.p.15.

16
changes that will eliminate capitalist exploitation. After the Russian revolution of 1917, the

rise of Mao Tse-tung in China and the spread of communism in Eastern Europe close to two

billion people came under the influence of centrally planned economies, an arrangement

inspired by Marxist thought.

Today, Marxism remains a major rallying ideology on the basis of which workers around the

world are mobilized against their capitalist oppressors. Within the academia, the impact of

Marxism is seen in the attempt of major intellectual movement to incorporate the Marxian

perspective into their respective body of thought. Thus we hear of Socialist Feminism,

Marxist criticism, Marxist jurisprudence, African Socialism, etc.

The idea of African socialism leads to another significant contribution of Marxism to the

emergence of the free world. Many an African nationalist waged the anti- imperialist struggle

in the 20th century armed with Marxian ideas which demonstrated the connection between

colonial expansion and economic exploitation. Thus Marxist thought became the philosophy

of decolonization upon which many African societies mobilized against the imperialist and

gained their political independence.

15.4.1 In-Text Questions (ITQs)

1. Itemise two ways in which society influences philosophy.

2. State how ethics, as a branch of philosophy, influences society.

15.4.2 In-Text Answers (ITAs)

1. (i) Material condition of the society usually impact on philosophy’s content and, (ii)

historical condition of the society usually influences the content of philosophy.

17
 2. It helps to critically examine our moral beliefs and social practices in order to

determine if they are in consonance with the dictates of reason

15.5 Summary of Study Session 15

Having gone through this study session you are now able to identify the critical roles that

philosophy has played and continues to play in different epochs of society. You can now

clearly see that the position that philosophy has no practical relevance in society is not only a

misconception and lack of understanding but an oversight that can drag society into chaos.

Every societal development is shaped by a particular philosophical theory knowingly or

unknowingly. For example, the American Constitution, the British Constitution and the

French Declaration of the Rights of Man were all influenced by philosophical theories. To

understand the ideology that underpins the policy thrust of every developmental agenda of

any society and to understand the culture and lives of a people, you and I first must

understand their philosophy as philosophy and society are structurally interconnected. Plato

had admonished that until philosophers become kings or those that are charged with the

responsibility of governance of men and materials become philosophers, there will be no

respite for humanity. Thus, philosophy becomes a principal agent of social transformation.

15.5.2 References / Suggestions for Further Reading

Aristotle, (1984). Politics. C. Lord (Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Aristotle, (1998). The Metaphysics. Translated by H. Lawson-Tancreed. London, England:

Penguin Books.

Ayer, A. J. (1974). Language, truth and logic. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.

18
Camus, A. (1975). The myth of Sisyphus. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.

Dilthey, W. (1969). Essence of philosophy. New York, NY: University of North Carolina

Press.

Heidegger, M. (1965). What is philosophy? In J. Stone (Ed.), What is Philosophy? London,

England: Macmillan.

Lansford, T. (2007). Democracy: Political systems of the world. London, England: Cavendish

Machiavelli, N. (1956). The prince. Translated by G. Bull. Harmondsworth, England:

Penguin.

Maritain, J. (1965). An introduction to philosophy. New York, NY: Sheed and Ward.

Marshall, G. (1996). The concise Oxford dictionary of sociology. Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

McAuley, J. W. (2003). An introduction to politics, state and society. London, England:

Sage.

Omoregbe, J. I. (2001). The human predicament: Has human life on earth any ultimate

purpose, any ultimate meaning? An existential inquiry. University of Lagos Inaugural

Lecture Series.

Oster, J. (2015). Media freedom as a fundamental right. Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.

Plato, (1968). The republic (2nd edition). A. Bloom (Trans.). New York NY: Basic Books.

19
Russell, B. (2000). Problems of philosophy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Russell, B. (2000). History of Western philosophy. New York, NY: Routlledge.

Sartre, J. P. (1969). Being and nothingness. New York, NY: Dever Publications.

Sartre, J. P. (1969). Marxism and existentialism. Translated by J. Matthews. London,

England:

Verso.

Singer, P. (2002). One world: the ethics of globalization. New Haven, CONN: Yale

University

Press.

Tarnas, (1991). The passion of the Western mind. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Unah, J. I. (2002). Philosophy, society and anthropology. Lagos, Nigeria: Fadec.

Wood, A. (2001). What is philosophy? New York, NY: Vail-Ballou Press.

20