Relevance of Sagacious Reasoning
Von F. Ochieng’-Odhiambo (Barbados) –
This brief essay is an effort to explain my journey into philosophic sagacity as an approach to (or trend in) African philosophy.
Der Schwerpunkt Philosophie in Afrika setzt sich zum Ziel, Institute sowie akademische Philosoph*innen mit Arbeitssitz in afrikanischen Ländern oder mit Bezug zu Afrikanischer Philosphie vorzustellen. Es kann dabei einerseits um Arbeitsprofile, Forschungsschwerpunkte sowie inhaltliche Positionen gehen als auch andererseits um die Institutsstruktur und die kooperativen Möglichkeiten. Aus diesem Grund erscheinen die Texte in der Regel unübersetzt in englischer Sprache.
On the Road to Philosophic Sagacity
As an approach to the study of African philosophy, Kenyan philosopher, H. Odera Oruka, introduced it within philosophical circles in the 1970s. He was fundamentally reacting to two dominant views of that time within philosophical landscape. One view polarized European philosophy and African thought, and the other view collapsed African thought into European philosophy. Scholars referred to the latter view as the professional approach to African philosophy and the former as the ethno-philosophical approach.i
I encountered the discipline of philosophy for the first time in 1979 when I joined the University of Nairobi, Kenya, for my undergraduate studies. Though initially attracted to philosophy because of its unbounded subject matter as well as the amiable and vibrant teaching staff of the Department, as I transitioned to postgraduate level I became somewhat disenchanted. Why was this the case? Philosophy, while often seen as a rigorous and systematic discipline, can also seem peculiar due to its methods and tendency to question fundamental assumptions about reality, knowledge, and existence. Its focus on abstract concepts, thought experiments, and questioning the obvious can make it appear detached from everyday life and practical concerns. As a result, some individuals do not see the point of studying philosophy since all that philosophers do is to squabble over the meaning of words and concepts, and they never seem to come to any meaningful consensus. For instance, they are still arguing about the same problems that bedeviled the ancient Greeks. Furthermore, philosophy does not seem to be able to change anything at all. This is obviously a serious contention that philosophers should not take lightly.
Another related difficulty arises from the manner in which philosophers express themselves. Some philosophers write in an overly complicated style where everything is symbolic or metaphorical, forcing readers to dig for the meaning instead of clearly stating it. This style of writing and manner of expression creates the picture that philosophy necessarily operates at an esoteric level. Nothing could be further from the truth. The idea that philosophy must always operate at a higher rarefied level and with deep abstractions is not true. Some philosophers write very simply and operate at the level of ordinary common sense thinkers. In many ways, we can express philosophy very simply and with no metaphysical mysteries, epistemological jargons, ethical subtleties, or logical complexities. Some very good philosophers are not as abstract or confusing as some people would wish them to be.
The abstract methodological nature of philosophy coupled with the rarefied and opaque manner in which some renowned philosophers express themselves is what led me onto the road to philosophic sagacity. In a fundamental sense, philosophic sagacity is therefore a rescue package to the predicament that philosophy finds itself. It seeks to liberate philosophy from the charge sheet that philosophy involves “thinking for the sake of thinking”; that it is a thought processes, without a specific, pre-defined goal or outcome in mind.
Philosophy and Sagacity
Philosophic sagacity found its way within the academy as a reaction to the ethno-philosophical and the professional schools of thought. The gist of ethnophilosophy is that African philosophy is a lived communal philosophy, a Weltanschauung. It is therefore easily distinguishable from European philosophy, which endemically is critical, independent and produced by individual persons. Unlike European philosophy, in African thought the people exercise philosophy as a collective wisdom, not as a preserve of any one person or persons, with every individual in the society sharing it. It consists in a set of shared beliefs, values, categories, and assumptions that are implicit in the language, practices, and beliefs of African cultures. African philosophy is, therefore, an existential lived experience, common and obvious to all Africans. Odera Oruka thought that this distinction between African thought and European philosophy was artificial. One of the aims of philosophic sagacity was too disprove the ethno-philosophical view that critical independent thought was foreign to Africa. He went on to identify persons in traditional Africa who were not only sagacious but philosophic as well.ii
Besides arguing for and showing that individual critical reflection or philosophy was a feature found in traditional Africa contrary to the insinuations of ethno-philosophical school, Odera Oruka believed that, if well developed, it could serve yet another very important function in modern Africa. Sagacious reasoning, he asserted, is not just reasoning for the sake of reasoning the way some philosophers proceed. He noted with dismay that philosophy (as individual critical reflection), especially in the common academic understanding of the term, tends to estrange itself from the “Socratic” partnership with wisdom with the result that philosophers have proceeded in a manner in which they perfect their reasoning skills without caring about, or at the expense of, its practical utility. They have become too theoretical and have tended to divorce philosophy from society and study the subject in a vacuum. Odera Oruka definitely has a point in this respect. Little wonder, some non-philosophers view philosophers as not only dreamers, but also daydreamers who cannot say anything sensible concerning problems of life. It is also common for some people to regard a philosopher with suspicion, while some view a philosopher as someone who is different—as someone who is odd, unconventional, or difficult to understand. This is unfortunate. Philosophy aims to respond to society and to social problems. In all fairness and truth, philosophy is after all for life and not life for philosophy.iii
In the same vein, Nigerian philosopher, Christopher S. Nwodo in appreciating some of the works of the eighteenth century Ashanti born scholar Anton-Wilhelm Amo, castigates the present day African philosophers for being content with merely teaching philosophy for a living, unlike Amo. According to Nwodo, contemporary African philosophers and the various Philosophical Associations (he specifically mentions the Nigerian Philosophical Association), should be more committed, more courageous, and more relevant in addressing social and political problems affecting African countries. African philosophers should not just sit in their armchairs at the universities but should give directives and lead the people.iv
The project of philosophic sagacity is an attempt to bring back some of the lost glory of philosophy by emphasizing on wisdom or sagacious reasoning. In his essays written in early 1980s, Odera Oruka had defined a sage simply as a person “versed in the wisdoms and traditions of his people.” However in the introduction of his publication Sage Philosophy: Indigenous Thinkers and Modern Debate on African Philosophy, in order to underscore the practical aspect of philosophic sagacity, he attaches the ethical quality as an explicit (necessary) component of the definition of a sage. He emphasizes that the thoughts of a sage, in contrast to that of a philosopher, must be seen primarily as concerned with the ethical and empirical issues, and questions relevant to the society, and his (the sage’s) ability to offer insightful solution to some of those issues. The sage engages and interrogates the ethical and empirical concerns in society with a view to make it (the society) better. Odera Oruka is unequivocal that a sage has two qualities or attributes,
…insight and ethical inspiration. So a sage is wise; he has insight, but he employs this for the ethical betterment of the community. A philosopher may be a sage and vice versa. But many philosophers do lack the ethical commitment and inspiration found in the sage…. A sage proper, is usually the friend of truth and wisdom. A sage may suppress truth only because wisdom dictates not because of some instrumental gain. Indeed, Pythagoras’ definition of a philosopher as “the lover of wisdom” should have been reserved for a sage, since the Sophists were the grave-diggers of wisdom and truth. Socrates was wrongly labelled, “philosopher”; he was first and foremost a sage. Socrates used philosophy only as a means to advance his sagacity and expose the hypocrisies of his time. But when all this is said, one must still emphasize that sagacity and philosophy are not incompatible…v
Aims of Philosophic Sagacity
In my article “The Tripartite in Philosophic Sagacity”, I identified three aims, functions, or objectives of philosophic sagacity as an approach to African philosophy. These are the academic, the cultural-nationalist, and the epistemic. The academic function of philosophic sagacity fundamentally aimed to disprove within the academy the claim that traditional African peoples were innocent of logical and critical thinking. Some European philosophers such as Hegel, Kant, Voltaire, and Hume had advanced this claim, and proponents of the ethno-philosophical school implicitly embraced it.vi
The question of national unity has been a preoccupation of most post-colonial African nation-states. Issues that revolve round culture have hampered unity within various national boundaries in Africa. These issues include ethnicity, religious affiliations, regionalism and racialism. The second function of philosophic sagacity is an effort to address the question of national unity by engaging services of philosophic sages. Africa must as any other places have philosophical principles justifying and governing its cultural practices. It is only that they are mostly covert and not explicit. It is high time that these principles be unearthed and manifested. The unearthing and manifestation of these principles would require the helping hands of philosophic sages. Once manifested, harmonization of the principles would be undertaken and then this would serve as a pedestal upon which to construct a systematic unified national culture.vii I refer to this function of philosophic sagacity as the cultural-nationalist.
The third function of philosophic sagacity views the approach as a source and a storehouse of knowledge. Here the interest is that philosophic discussions and discourses should focus on various features and themes that emanate from traditional African societies. These could be cultural, religious, linguistic, etc. The basic difference between the epistemic function or aim and the cultural-nationalist one is that, whereas in the latter the aim is primarily to unearth the fundamental principles of culture with a view of harmonious co-existence, in the former the aim is to generate and sustain philosophical discussions with African themes.viii The world today is more of a global village with various regions of the world interacting seamlessly, thanks to advances in technology. There is no question that ideas and cultures from other regions are influencing large parts of Africa. This in itself is not bad. The problem has to do with influences and ideas that are obnoxious. Given the definition of a sage above, thoughts of sages if articulated and documented are one sure way of avoiding or at least downplaying the invasion of obnoxious foreign ideas to a culture. Take the purported technological morality, for example. In simple terms, it is a morality geared to the worship of technological innovations. In technological morality, people identify the moral good with technological superiority and efficiency. Technological possibilities are construed as fitting and therefore morally permissible. Moreover, the bad is that which lags behind technological advancement.
Conclusion
In summation, this brief essay is an effort to justify why sagacity must accompany philosophy, that sagacious reasoning should be part of philosophical reasoning. Reasoning for the sake of reasoning is unseeing. To paraphrase Nkrumah: “thought without wisdom is empty and wisdom without thought is blind.”ix The synergy between philosophy and sagacity is necessary. There is need for both careful theoretical thinking of philosophy and inherent practicality of sagacity. This is what the ancient Greeks referred to as phronesis. Philosophic sagacity signifies the ability to discern the best course of action in a given situation, taking into account both the specific context and the individual’s understanding of what is good and bad for humans. It consists of reasoned thinking and judgement projected towards adapting to one’s environment or modifying it to achieve a goal. It is about finding effective solutions to everyday problems and making decisions that are both logical and achievable.
F. Ochieng’-Odhiambo is a Professor of African Philosophic Sagacity at The University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados, and serves as the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Education. He earned his PhD degree at the University of Nairobi, Kenya, where he also taught for several years before relocating to the National University of Lesotho in southern Africa. He joined The University of the West Indies in 2003. His other research interest areas include moral and social philosophy as well as logic. His book publications include Sagacity in African Philosophy (forthcoming), Philosophical Reflections on Some Concerns and Values in African Societies (2023), Conversations in Philosophy: Knowledge and Freedom (2015), Trends and Issues in African Philosophy (2010), Foundations of Ethics (2009) and, African Philosophy: An Introduction (2002).
i See H. Odera Oruka. “Four Trends in Current African Philosophy.” In Philosophy in the Present Situation of Africa, ed. Alwin Diemer. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1981, pp. 1–7.
ii He has presented the thought of some philosophic sages in his edited text Sage Philosophy: Indigenous Thinkers and Modern Debate on African Philosophy, ed. H. Odera Oruka. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990.
iii See H. Odera Oruka. “Philosophy and other Disciplines.” In Sagacious Reasoning: Henry Odera Oruka in Memoriam, eds. Anke Graness and Kai Kresse. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH, 1997, p. 35.
iv See Christopher S. Nwodo. “The Explicit and the Implicit in Amo’s Philosophy.” In Philosophy in Africa: Trends and Perspectives, ed. P. O. Bodunrin. Ile-Ife, Nigeria: University of Ife Press, 1985, p. 38.
v H. Odera Oruka. “Introduction.” In Sage Philosophy: Indigenous Thinkers and Modern Debate on African Philosophy, ed. H. Odera Oruka. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990, pp. 9–10.
vi See F. Ochieng’-Odhiambo. “The Tripartite in Philosophic Sagacity.” Philosophia Africana, vol. 9, no. 1, March 2006: pp. 24-26.
vii Ibid., pp. 26-27.
viii Ibid., pp. 27-30.
ix Kwame Nkrumah. Consciencism. London: Panaf Books, 1970, p 78.
