Are we finished with the ethnophilosophy debate? A multi-perspective conversation

Q1 Arts and Humanities
E. Imafidon, B. Matolino, Lucky UchennaOgbonnaya, A. Agadá, A. D. Attoe, F. Mangena, Edwin Etieyibo
{"title":"Are we finished with the ethnophilosophy debate? A multi-perspective conversation","authors":"E. Imafidon, B. Matolino, Lucky UchennaOgbonnaya, A. Agadá, A. D. Attoe, F. Mangena, Edwin Etieyibo","doi":"10.4314/ft.v8i2.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In line with the tradition of the Conversational School of Philosophy, this essay provides a rare and unique space of discourse for the authors to converse about the place of the ‘ethno’ in African philosophy. This conversation is a revisit, a renewal of the key positions that have coloured the ethnophilosophy debate by the conversers who themselves are notable contributors to arguments for and against the importance of ethnophilosophy in the unfolding of African philosophy particularly in the last decade or so. There are four key positions that have been argued for in the pages of this paper: (1) ethnophilosophy is not African philosophy and it is useless and inimical to the growth of African philosophy and should thus be jettisoned – Matolino; (2) ethnophilosophy is the foundation for African philosophy as it provides the raw materials for African philosophical discourse – Ogbonnaya and Agada; (3) ethnophilosophy has some value for African philosophy but it is definitely not the foundation for genuine African philosophy the way criticism and rigours are – Attoe; and (4) ethnophilosophy can be adequately conceived as African philosophy particularly in terms of its etymology as culture or race philosophy, dealing with a philosophical or critical reflections on, and exposition of, immanent principles in African thought – Mangena and Etieyibo. These conversers provide good arguments for the positions they hold, arguments that are of course, open for further interrogation. Two points can be concluded from the ethnophilosophy debate provided in this essay: (1) the disparities in views among conversers it seems, stem ultimately from the understanding of ethnophilosophy that each converser holds, which varies from the notion of a method used at some point in the history of African philosophy, to an etymological understanding as culture philosophy; and (2) the debate about  ethnophilosophy in the spirit of any philosophical tradition remains a perennial one that is yet to be concluded. This essay certainly concretises what is on ground and paves the way for further discussions.Keywords: Ethno, African philosophy, Foundationalist, Universalist, Particularist, The common moral position (CMP), Ethnophilosophy","PeriodicalId":37706,"journal":{"name":"Filosofia Theoretica","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Filosofia Theoretica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/ft.v8i2.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

In line with the tradition of the Conversational School of Philosophy, this essay provides a rare and unique space of discourse for the authors to converse about the place of the ‘ethno’ in African philosophy. This conversation is a revisit, a renewal of the key positions that have coloured the ethnophilosophy debate by the conversers who themselves are notable contributors to arguments for and against the importance of ethnophilosophy in the unfolding of African philosophy particularly in the last decade or so. There are four key positions that have been argued for in the pages of this paper: (1) ethnophilosophy is not African philosophy and it is useless and inimical to the growth of African philosophy and should thus be jettisoned – Matolino; (2) ethnophilosophy is the foundation for African philosophy as it provides the raw materials for African philosophical discourse – Ogbonnaya and Agada; (3) ethnophilosophy has some value for African philosophy but it is definitely not the foundation for genuine African philosophy the way criticism and rigours are – Attoe; and (4) ethnophilosophy can be adequately conceived as African philosophy particularly in terms of its etymology as culture or race philosophy, dealing with a philosophical or critical reflections on, and exposition of, immanent principles in African thought – Mangena and Etieyibo. These conversers provide good arguments for the positions they hold, arguments that are of course, open for further interrogation. Two points can be concluded from the ethnophilosophy debate provided in this essay: (1) the disparities in views among conversers it seems, stem ultimately from the understanding of ethnophilosophy that each converser holds, which varies from the notion of a method used at some point in the history of African philosophy, to an etymological understanding as culture philosophy; and (2) the debate about  ethnophilosophy in the spirit of any philosophical tradition remains a perennial one that is yet to be concluded. This essay certainly concretises what is on ground and paves the way for further discussions.Keywords: Ethno, African philosophy, Foundationalist, Universalist, Particularist, The common moral position (CMP), Ethnophilosophy
种族哲学的辩论结束了吗?多角度对话
根据对话哲学学派的传统,本文为作者提供了一个难得而独特的话语空间来讨论“民族”在非洲哲学中的地位。这次对话是一次重访,是对关键立场的更新这些关键立场为种族哲学辩论增添了色彩谈话者本身就是对种族哲学在非洲哲学发展中重要性的支持和反对的重要贡献者尤其是在过去的十年左右。本文中有四个关键的论点:(1)民族哲学不是非洲哲学,它对非洲哲学的发展是无用的和有害的,因此应该被抛弃——马托利诺;(2)民族哲学是非洲哲学的基础,为非洲哲学话语(Ogbonnaya和Agada)提供了原材料;(3)民族哲学对非洲哲学有一定的价值,但它绝对不是真正非洲哲学的基础,而批判和严谨则是——Attoe;(4)民族哲学可以被充分地理解为非洲哲学,特别是就其词源而言,作为文化或种族哲学,处理对非洲思想内在原则的哲学或批判性反思和阐述- Mangena和Etieyibo。这些谈话者为他们所持的立场提供了很好的论据,当然,这些论据是可以进一步审讯的。从本文提供的民族哲学辩论中可以得出两点结论:(1)对话者之间观点的差异似乎最终源于每个对话者对民族哲学的理解,这种理解从非洲哲学史上某个时刻使用的方法的概念到作为文化哲学的词源学理解;(2)关于任何哲学传统精神中的民族哲学的争论仍然是一个长期的争论,尚未得出结论。这篇文章无疑具体化了现有的内容,并为进一步的讨论铺平了道路。关键词:民族,非洲哲学,基础主义,普遍主义,特殊主义,共同道德立场,民族哲学
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Filosofia Theoretica
Filosofia Theoretica Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: Filosofia Theoretica is a publication of Calabar School of Philosophy (CSP), University of Calabar. From 2018, the journal will begin to publish a third issue which will be a bi-lingual edition in both French and English languages. Filosofia Theoretica provides outlet for well researched and original papers in the following areas of African studies: philosophy, culture, religions, history and arts. It also publishes book reviews. Its publication cycle is January-June and July-December issues. The journal is abstracted/indexed on SCOPUS, EBSCO Humanities Source, ProQuest, Google Scholar, Ajol, EBSCO Database, Philosopher''s index, etc. Filosofia Theoretica is also accredited by the Department of Higher Education and Training (DoHET), South Africa.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信