By NZAU MUSAU
Introduction
The sprouting of modern philosophy from 17th century up to 19th century came against the background of certain overriding features of the period preceding it and largely known as medieval period. Among these were scholasticism, religious crisis, nationalism and renaissance among others.
These features to a large extent influenced the rise, scope and methods of the modern philosophy a great deal. This paper discusses these background features and how they are linked to the rise, development and general feature of the modern philosophy.
The background and the link
An important feature in the background to modern philosophy is scholasticism which dominated the medieval philosophy era. This philosophy concerned itself largely with doing expositions of gigantic philosophical figures of the past. Scholasticism tended to be dominated by theologians of Catholic Church.
As Silvano Borruso observes in his book “A history of philosophy for (almost) everyone," scholasticism had like the Egyptian pyramids resisted all odds and prevailed ever since the days of St. Augustine up to St. Aquinas who is considered one of its greatest luminaries.
The impression created over those decades scholasticism prevailed was one of professing a stereotypical way of thinking shackled by authority of an all powerful Catholic Church.
Talking of the church, a crisis in its midst also formed another background feature to modern philosophy. The crisis entailed the parallels between the Catholics and the Protestants who contested each other on a number of issues.
The reformation and counter-reformation led by Luther, Calvin and Loyola reduced the power of the church. The thirty year old war that ensued persuaded everybody that neither the Protestants nor Catholics could be completely victorious.
It became necessary therefore, as Bertrand Russel observes in “History of Western Philosophy” to abandon the medieval hope of doctrinal unity and this inevitably increased men’s freedom to think for themselves even about fundamental.
The dominant Catholic Church had itself gone through “astonishing vicissitudes” as Russel calls them with the papacy consolidating power, debasing the church with their schisms, debauchery and all manner of ills. Its authority was obviously waning or in doubt.
The philosophers of the times were therefore keen to identify the nature of the true religion, means of arriving at religious truths and establishing the true role of the church as well as individuals relationship with God.
This period preceding the rise of modern philosophy was characterized also by the rise in national consciousness as marked by clear distinctions between nationalities. This entailed shift from fiefdoms to nations and from Latin which was the dominant language in Europe to the vernaculars. Gunpowder had also begun to strengthen central governments at the expense of feudal nobility and this changed the power arrangements in Europe.
But it was the feature of the renaissance in 15th Century which had a lot of impact on the modern philosophy. It involved the wave of renewal of intellectual interests and activities, technological breakthroughs and impressive high output in the realm of the arts.
Besides the overall impact of the renaissance, a number of key scientific discoveries and inventions provoked by the renaissance upset the status quo and demanded a new look into the future. Key among them was the invention of steam engine technology which inspired industrialization of the continent and conquest of far lands. Also, Galileo Galilei’s heliocentric theory and Darwin’s theory of evolution set philosophers thinking hard.
The impact of these important background features were monumental in the direction modern philosophy took. They tended to drive modern philosophy to a certain ends and this carved out certain concerns.
Among the first concerns of modern philosophy which largely had been influenced by the religious crisis was the relationship between God and human freedom. The ontological proof of Gods existence had been subject to philosophical inquiry ever since the ancient times. Modern philosopher’s rejoinder was if God existed, what then was his relationship with human beings?
For instance Spinoza took on this subject to argue that God and nature were one thing and within this reality there is no freedom to either God or man as laws of necessity are in operation.
Also inspired by the religious concerns of the medieval times was the modern philosophers concern about the mind-body relationship which Rene Descartes passionately focused on. Other philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Diderot Dennis just to mention but a few concerned themselves of this matter.
The impact of renaissance particularly attributed to Italy was massive not only in destruction of the rigid scholasticism which “had become an intellectual straitjacket.” It restored the place of Plato in philosophy, promoted a genuine and firsthand knowledge free from glosses of the Neo-Platonist and Arab commentators.
It also encouraged the habit of regarding intellectual activity as a delightful social adventure, not a cloistered meditation. Besides, it liberated men from the narrowness of medieval culture.
The myth-shattering theories of Galileo provoked in philosophers a fresh concern about the nature of the universe and re-evaluation of long held positions. In the course of this critical re-evaluation, modern philosophers delved into speculative metaphysics on the nature of the universe. The questions of what is finite and infinite, actual and possible universes and the place of God in all these began to dominate modern philosophy.
The rise of nationalism and destruction of fiefdoms influenced to a large extend the philosophical interest in concerns God’s relationship with the civil authority and individual liberty. This could also trace its roots from the crisis the Catholic Church was going through. Previously, it had been taken for granted that political leaders were sort of demigods representing God’s interests, so were the Popes. They could not therefore be questioned. Featuring prominently in this debate was John Locke with his edict that human beings in their state of nature enjoy natural rights.
The aftermath of Isaac Newton’s deterministic laws and scientific grounding of causality principle incited a wave of questioning about human beings capacity for freedom or the place of determinism in man’s activities under the sun. How this question was answered would also have overbearing influence on the religious questions of the day. Modern philosophers descended on the subject and offered striking and diverse views on the matter.
Besides influencing the scope of modern philosophy, the background features were instrumental in influencing the methods of modern philosophy and hence its outcomes. For instance, Galileo’s breakthrough had inspired the individual approach as opposed to institutionally determined methods. Most modern philosophers therefore tended to operate outside the established realms and confines. Spinoza is one such example who operated outside his Jewish society and got banished for it.
The empirical approach also weighed heavily on modern philosophers because it had in the preceding period proved to be productive in the sciences. Philosophy also took an analytical approach with focus being on determining meaning and not offering meaning.
Conclusion
The preceding conditions before the rise of modern philosophy cultivated the ground upon which it thrived. The events of the times can be said to have directly, sometimes indirectly given rise to modern philosophy and also shape its concerns and approaches. Modern philosophy is therefore inextricably linked to medieval philosophy.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Constitution opinion: Have the people genuinely desired a new constitution?
By NZAU MUSAU
COMMITTEE of Experts chairman Nzamba Kitonga told of a very enthralling but analogous story of an aerial man’s view of human beings on the day he launched the first harmonized draft last year.
The story goes that this man from Mars had been watching the men on earth below (human beings) for some time and he noticed they moved from their house in the morning, entered another house (car), moved with it and entered into yet another one (office).
In the evening the same cycle would repeat with the men moving from their houses (offices) into other houses (cars) and back to other houses (home). This went on day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year.
The man from Mars began to wonder; if the idea of human beings is to be in a house, why do they move from one house to another? After much soul-searching, he concluded that human beings are either confused, chaotic or both.
This story told by the Senior Counsel on the day he launched the proposed draft constitution best captures the Kenyan plight in as far as the struggle for a new constitution is concerned.
A person watching from outside would notice the elements of confusion littered throughout our struggle which has spanned decades and made world history.
Ours is a story of both promise and betrayal, bravery and cowardice, hope and despair among other such abysses which have afflicted us in our quest for a new constitution.
If the idea of Kenyans has been to clinch a new constitution, one might wonder, why haven’t they been unable all those years?
Why do they miss all the moments; from the “No reforms No election” calls of 1997, down through the IPPG debacle, Bomas One, 2002 Narc triumphal entry into power, Bomas Two and 2005 referendum?
If the idea of a new constitution is a genuine one- because that is where we must start, what then explains all the change of color in those who once led the original cause? In this case, one would be at a loss to explain Kiraitu Murungi’s virulent opposition to Bomas Draft in 2004.
Better still, what would explain President Kibaki’s behavior in 2004 contrasted to his days as the opposition leader when he presented his views at County Hall to Prof. Yash Pal Ghai’s team and cited imperial presidency as overriding cause of conflict in Kenya.
Again if it were a genuine one, one would have to explain why both sides of the divide in 2005- Kibaki’s side and Raila’s decided to play poker with the cause and why Kenyans played along.
Interestingly, I have seen in the past politicians admitting that they deliberately misled Kenyans in 2005 for their own interests.
If the idea of new constitution is a sincere one, wouldn’t Kenyans first demand public apologies from these charlatans who are now positioning themselves as knights in shining armors this time round?
Talking of the 2005 debacle which Kitonga says produced nor winners or losers, where did the desire for a new constitution go after Kivuitu declared the Wako draft as defeated? Again, if the desire was genuine, would not have the struggle picked on from November 22nd?
Would have the so called “Orange luminaries” accompanied by one of the biggest crowds I will ever witness in this country gone to Uhuru Park to cut a victory cake or to mourn the loss of yet another opportunity?
Going by the above premised questions and their apparent answers, one could logically conclude that this struggle has not been a genuine one in as far as all the Kenyan people and their various characteristics and divisions are concerned.
I submit here and without fear of contradiction that the quest for a new constitution has not been a genuine one especially for the masses. The political class has shown some measure of divided genuineness which unfortunately is laced with confusion, chaos and self interests.
The masses have definitely expressed the need for a new constitution as exemplified by the thousands of views given to the Ghai review team but they have not concretized that need with genuine commitment to its attainment.
And yet more than anybody else, a new constitutional order would benefit the masses most because it is they who have suffered the brunt of a skewed constitutional order.
It is not too late; the masses can transform their need into a genuine desire by taking the lead this time and keep away from the deceitful guidance of the political class.
The country now boasts of substantial majority of enlightened masses who should now appreciate the vanity of an endless struggle, vote in this document mindlessly and put in place mechanisms to address its shortfalls at a later time.
COMMITTEE of Experts chairman Nzamba Kitonga told of a very enthralling but analogous story of an aerial man’s view of human beings on the day he launched the first harmonized draft last year.
The story goes that this man from Mars had been watching the men on earth below (human beings) for some time and he noticed they moved from their house in the morning, entered another house (car), moved with it and entered into yet another one (office).
In the evening the same cycle would repeat with the men moving from their houses (offices) into other houses (cars) and back to other houses (home). This went on day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year.
The man from Mars began to wonder; if the idea of human beings is to be in a house, why do they move from one house to another? After much soul-searching, he concluded that human beings are either confused, chaotic or both.
This story told by the Senior Counsel on the day he launched the proposed draft constitution best captures the Kenyan plight in as far as the struggle for a new constitution is concerned.
A person watching from outside would notice the elements of confusion littered throughout our struggle which has spanned decades and made world history.
Ours is a story of both promise and betrayal, bravery and cowardice, hope and despair among other such abysses which have afflicted us in our quest for a new constitution.
If the idea of Kenyans has been to clinch a new constitution, one might wonder, why haven’t they been unable all those years?
Why do they miss all the moments; from the “No reforms No election” calls of 1997, down through the IPPG debacle, Bomas One, 2002 Narc triumphal entry into power, Bomas Two and 2005 referendum?
If the idea of a new constitution is a genuine one- because that is where we must start, what then explains all the change of color in those who once led the original cause? In this case, one would be at a loss to explain Kiraitu Murungi’s virulent opposition to Bomas Draft in 2004.
Better still, what would explain President Kibaki’s behavior in 2004 contrasted to his days as the opposition leader when he presented his views at County Hall to Prof. Yash Pal Ghai’s team and cited imperial presidency as overriding cause of conflict in Kenya.
Again if it were a genuine one, one would have to explain why both sides of the divide in 2005- Kibaki’s side and Raila’s decided to play poker with the cause and why Kenyans played along.
Interestingly, I have seen in the past politicians admitting that they deliberately misled Kenyans in 2005 for their own interests.
If the idea of new constitution is a sincere one, wouldn’t Kenyans first demand public apologies from these charlatans who are now positioning themselves as knights in shining armors this time round?
Talking of the 2005 debacle which Kitonga says produced nor winners or losers, where did the desire for a new constitution go after Kivuitu declared the Wako draft as defeated? Again, if the desire was genuine, would not have the struggle picked on from November 22nd?
Would have the so called “Orange luminaries” accompanied by one of the biggest crowds I will ever witness in this country gone to Uhuru Park to cut a victory cake or to mourn the loss of yet another opportunity?
Going by the above premised questions and their apparent answers, one could logically conclude that this struggle has not been a genuine one in as far as all the Kenyan people and their various characteristics and divisions are concerned.
I submit here and without fear of contradiction that the quest for a new constitution has not been a genuine one especially for the masses. The political class has shown some measure of divided genuineness which unfortunately is laced with confusion, chaos and self interests.
The masses have definitely expressed the need for a new constitution as exemplified by the thousands of views given to the Ghai review team but they have not concretized that need with genuine commitment to its attainment.
And yet more than anybody else, a new constitutional order would benefit the masses most because it is they who have suffered the brunt of a skewed constitutional order.
It is not too late; the masses can transform their need into a genuine desire by taking the lead this time and keep away from the deceitful guidance of the political class.
The country now boasts of substantial majority of enlightened masses who should now appreciate the vanity of an endless struggle, vote in this document mindlessly and put in place mechanisms to address its shortfalls at a later time.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
African thought: Did the Greek’s plagiarize our philosophy?
By Nzau wa Musau
Holding Africa and Egypt in particular as the legitimate origin of Western thought, the theory of stolen legacy has excited intense debate key among its proponents George G James, Henry Olela, Cheick Anta Diop and Martin Bernal just to mention but a few. The question however remains whether their claims are credible enough to prove existence of philosophy in Africa and the subsequent plagiarism by the Greeks.
By and large, the evidence they adduce point to existence of philosophy though not properly documented in Africa and particularly in ancient Egypt and its surroundings. The glory of ancient Egypt for instance, was founded on African ideas long before conquest of North Africa by the Arabs between AD 639 and AD 708.
Egypt was a product of afro-ancestral thought and all its pyramids were works of continental Africans such as pharaoh Djoser who commissioned Imhotep his grand vizier and architect of great standing into building the funerary complex at Saqqara. Obviously, Egypt’s systems, beliefs, architecture, religion, social order and political organization demanded some great measure of philosophical backing.
The famed of the Greek philosophers themselves attest to their schooling in Egypt as their source of philosophical prowess. Thales of Miletus who is considered father of Western philosophy traveled to Kemet and in fact advised his students to go to Africa to study. Deodorise Siculus, the Greek writer came and stayed at Anu in Egypt. He admitted that many who “are celebrated among the Greeks for intelligence and learning” studied in Egypt. Homer, the first Greek writer of the Iliad spent 7 years in Africa studying law, philosophy, religion, astronomy and physics. Pythagoras spent over 20 years in Africa. Interestingly, he would later be credited for mathematical theories which for a thousand years before him had been used in Egypt to calculate areas of rectangles, circles, isosceles and trapeziums.
And writing in “Bucyrus”, Socrates himself admits: “I studied philosophy and medicine in Egypt.” So famed was Egypt a centre of high learning and philosophical thought that St. Clement of Alexandria, himself a Greek would write: “If you were to write a book of 1000 pages, you could not put down names of all Greeks who went to Nile Valley in ancient Egypt to study and even those who did not go claim they did because it was prestigious.”
Besides existence of philosophy in abstract sense, Africans in Egypt practiced philosophy in their day to day life and the evidence of this is scattered in technological, scientific, craft and religious inventions evident in Egypt in pre-Socratic times. Egyptians wrote long before Europeans could. In fact, the earliest known medical books such as the Hearst Papyrus (7th dynasty, 2000BC), the Kahun Papyrus (12th & 13th dynasty, 2133-1766BC) and Ebers Papyrus (18th dynasty, 1500BC) show evidence of the practice of medicine which in itself implies scientific philosophy. They practiced medicine in birth (Caesarian Section surgical mode of delivery is attributed to Egyptians), in life (treatment of various ills and surgery) and in death (mummification of the dead). Yet 1000 years after the recorded practice of medicine in Egypt, Hippocrates would be considered as the father of medicine.
The treatment of Greek philosophers upon return from Egypt clearly indicates that the philosophy they sought to practice was alien and unpalatable to Greek tastes. Their government’s policy is proof of the ‘African-ness’ of their philosophy. Plato fled to Megara, Socrates was executed and Anaxagoras fled to Ionia. The lack of their biographical data notwithstanding, their works smacked of plagiarism and possibly from Africa where they spend considerable time. Plato’s philosophy is eclectic and point to Egypt. His conception of four virtues and even the kind of educational system he vouched for reveals, as F. Ochieng’ Odhiambo says “some compatibility with the ancient Egyptian educational system.”
In fact and according to Akinyi Princess of K’orinda-Yimbo, “Phaedros” is what he learned from the fable of Thoth, the Egyptian god of wisdom and sacred texts when he (Plato) lived in Anu (Heliopolis) under an Egyptian philosopher priest called Sechnuphis. In her work; Dark Europe and Africa’s Past- A Critical Observation of Neighboring Continents, Akinyi Princes says that while Socrates awaited his condemnation, he admitted to his students that he plagiarized work of an African philosopher Aesop, the Ethiopian (560 BC): “I availed myself some of Aesop’s fables which were ready to hand and familiar to me and I versified the first one of them which suggested itself.” His host at Megara when he fled persecution in Greece; Euclid was an African, a greatest mathematician never mind that Thomas Jefferson (who would later became US 3rd president) would many years write that “no negro could comprehend the investigations of Euclid,” that in imagination blacks are “dull, tasteless and anomalous.”
Aristotle, the most influential of the Greek philosophers to modern Europe is largely a product of the loot of great libraries of Egyptian cities and especially the great library of Alexandria which he converted into a research centre and university for education of fellow Greeks. “Aristotle, together with his students Theophratus and Eudemus took full advantage and did research at the Alexandrian library, but must have helped themselves to some texts”, says F. Ochieng’ Odhiambo.
In conclusion, Greek philosophy points to Egypt as the pedestal of intellectualism and philosophy long before Europe’s. Egypt on the other hand is a product, as Cheick Anta Diop in Negro Nations and Culture: From Negro-Egyptian Antiquity to Cultural Problems of Black Africa Today says, of heartland Africa including Ethiopia.
As I observed severally above, the stolen legacy theory merely points to existence of philosophy in Africa and in reality does not pin-point it or crystallize this pointer. It is not enough to attribute Greek philosophy to Africa without giving concrete evidence to back this up. In my own considered opinion, the stolen legacy theory succeeds in merely inferring existence of philosophy in Africa and not in essentially proving it. Much more work needs to be done to prove the practice of philosophy in antiquity Africa and before the alleged Greek theft or plagiarism.
For it to be credible, Africa will have to trace and indeed produce the works of its famed philosophers whose works, ideas are claimed to have been looted or lost. These include Imhotep (2700 BC), the first recorded physician, architect, counselor to a King; Ptahhotep (2414 BC), the first ethical philosopher who believed in harmony with nature; Kagemni (2300 BC), teacher of right action for the sake of goodness and who came 1800 years before Buddha showed up and revolutionized the Orient; Merikare (1990 BC), classical teacher of good speech; Sehotep-Ibra (1991 BC), the nationalist philosopher. Others include Amen-emhat (1991 BC), the world’s alleged first cynic, Amenhotep son of Hepu (1400 BC), the most revered of ancient Kemetic philosophers and Duauf (1340 BC), master of protocols.
If the philosophical works of these men could be found and their biographies ascertained, the stolen legacy theory would be credible in proving existence of philosophy in Africa. If philosophy is to be proven in Africa, it is not to be sought in Europe but through undivided philosophical examination of African ways, systems, beliefs, history, cultures and reasoning. Stolen or not stolen, the evidence of practice of philosophy in Africa should be very apparent even in the present if indeed it was there. If its not, a lot of questions arise.
Ends…../.
Holding Africa and Egypt in particular as the legitimate origin of Western thought, the theory of stolen legacy has excited intense debate key among its proponents George G James, Henry Olela, Cheick Anta Diop and Martin Bernal just to mention but a few. The question however remains whether their claims are credible enough to prove existence of philosophy in Africa and the subsequent plagiarism by the Greeks.
By and large, the evidence they adduce point to existence of philosophy though not properly documented in Africa and particularly in ancient Egypt and its surroundings. The glory of ancient Egypt for instance, was founded on African ideas long before conquest of North Africa by the Arabs between AD 639 and AD 708.
Egypt was a product of afro-ancestral thought and all its pyramids were works of continental Africans such as pharaoh Djoser who commissioned Imhotep his grand vizier and architect of great standing into building the funerary complex at Saqqara. Obviously, Egypt’s systems, beliefs, architecture, religion, social order and political organization demanded some great measure of philosophical backing.
The famed of the Greek philosophers themselves attest to their schooling in Egypt as their source of philosophical prowess. Thales of Miletus who is considered father of Western philosophy traveled to Kemet and in fact advised his students to go to Africa to study. Deodorise Siculus, the Greek writer came and stayed at Anu in Egypt. He admitted that many who “are celebrated among the Greeks for intelligence and learning” studied in Egypt. Homer, the first Greek writer of the Iliad spent 7 years in Africa studying law, philosophy, religion, astronomy and physics. Pythagoras spent over 20 years in Africa. Interestingly, he would later be credited for mathematical theories which for a thousand years before him had been used in Egypt to calculate areas of rectangles, circles, isosceles and trapeziums.
And writing in “Bucyrus”, Socrates himself admits: “I studied philosophy and medicine in Egypt.” So famed was Egypt a centre of high learning and philosophical thought that St. Clement of Alexandria, himself a Greek would write: “If you were to write a book of 1000 pages, you could not put down names of all Greeks who went to Nile Valley in ancient Egypt to study and even those who did not go claim they did because it was prestigious.”
Besides existence of philosophy in abstract sense, Africans in Egypt practiced philosophy in their day to day life and the evidence of this is scattered in technological, scientific, craft and religious inventions evident in Egypt in pre-Socratic times. Egyptians wrote long before Europeans could. In fact, the earliest known medical books such as the Hearst Papyrus (7th dynasty, 2000BC), the Kahun Papyrus (12th & 13th dynasty, 2133-1766BC) and Ebers Papyrus (18th dynasty, 1500BC) show evidence of the practice of medicine which in itself implies scientific philosophy. They practiced medicine in birth (Caesarian Section surgical mode of delivery is attributed to Egyptians), in life (treatment of various ills and surgery) and in death (mummification of the dead). Yet 1000 years after the recorded practice of medicine in Egypt, Hippocrates would be considered as the father of medicine.
The treatment of Greek philosophers upon return from Egypt clearly indicates that the philosophy they sought to practice was alien and unpalatable to Greek tastes. Their government’s policy is proof of the ‘African-ness’ of their philosophy. Plato fled to Megara, Socrates was executed and Anaxagoras fled to Ionia. The lack of their biographical data notwithstanding, their works smacked of plagiarism and possibly from Africa where they spend considerable time. Plato’s philosophy is eclectic and point to Egypt. His conception of four virtues and even the kind of educational system he vouched for reveals, as F. Ochieng’ Odhiambo says “some compatibility with the ancient Egyptian educational system.”
In fact and according to Akinyi Princess of K’orinda-Yimbo, “Phaedros” is what he learned from the fable of Thoth, the Egyptian god of wisdom and sacred texts when he (Plato) lived in Anu (Heliopolis) under an Egyptian philosopher priest called Sechnuphis. In her work; Dark Europe and Africa’s Past- A Critical Observation of Neighboring Continents, Akinyi Princes says that while Socrates awaited his condemnation, he admitted to his students that he plagiarized work of an African philosopher Aesop, the Ethiopian (560 BC): “I availed myself some of Aesop’s fables which were ready to hand and familiar to me and I versified the first one of them which suggested itself.” His host at Megara when he fled persecution in Greece; Euclid was an African, a greatest mathematician never mind that Thomas Jefferson (who would later became US 3rd president) would many years write that “no negro could comprehend the investigations of Euclid,” that in imagination blacks are “dull, tasteless and anomalous.”
Aristotle, the most influential of the Greek philosophers to modern Europe is largely a product of the loot of great libraries of Egyptian cities and especially the great library of Alexandria which he converted into a research centre and university for education of fellow Greeks. “Aristotle, together with his students Theophratus and Eudemus took full advantage and did research at the Alexandrian library, but must have helped themselves to some texts”, says F. Ochieng’ Odhiambo.
In conclusion, Greek philosophy points to Egypt as the pedestal of intellectualism and philosophy long before Europe’s. Egypt on the other hand is a product, as Cheick Anta Diop in Negro Nations and Culture: From Negro-Egyptian Antiquity to Cultural Problems of Black Africa Today says, of heartland Africa including Ethiopia.
As I observed severally above, the stolen legacy theory merely points to existence of philosophy in Africa and in reality does not pin-point it or crystallize this pointer. It is not enough to attribute Greek philosophy to Africa without giving concrete evidence to back this up. In my own considered opinion, the stolen legacy theory succeeds in merely inferring existence of philosophy in Africa and not in essentially proving it. Much more work needs to be done to prove the practice of philosophy in antiquity Africa and before the alleged Greek theft or plagiarism.
For it to be credible, Africa will have to trace and indeed produce the works of its famed philosophers whose works, ideas are claimed to have been looted or lost. These include Imhotep (2700 BC), the first recorded physician, architect, counselor to a King; Ptahhotep (2414 BC), the first ethical philosopher who believed in harmony with nature; Kagemni (2300 BC), teacher of right action for the sake of goodness and who came 1800 years before Buddha showed up and revolutionized the Orient; Merikare (1990 BC), classical teacher of good speech; Sehotep-Ibra (1991 BC), the nationalist philosopher. Others include Amen-emhat (1991 BC), the world’s alleged first cynic, Amenhotep son of Hepu (1400 BC), the most revered of ancient Kemetic philosophers and Duauf (1340 BC), master of protocols.
If the philosophical works of these men could be found and their biographies ascertained, the stolen legacy theory would be credible in proving existence of philosophy in Africa. If philosophy is to be proven in Africa, it is not to be sought in Europe but through undivided philosophical examination of African ways, systems, beliefs, history, cultures and reasoning. Stolen or not stolen, the evidence of practice of philosophy in Africa should be very apparent even in the present if indeed it was there. If its not, a lot of questions arise.
Ends…../.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
With or Without dependency; Can the 3rd World survive?
In discussing depedency, Brazilian scholar Theotonio Dos Santos claimed that 3rd world countries cannot do without dependency nor can they do with it. In this paper, Nzau Musau discusses the claim and its basis.
In making this statement, Dos Santos is saying that the third world is inextricably and perpetually condemned to necessary dependency which guarantees survival but at the expense of stagnation. This statement is informed by a number of reasons which I will attempt to discuss below.
According to Dos Santos, third world countries cannot do without dependency because it provides the much needed capital which is very much wanting in those countries. This is caused by limited capital stocks and marginal incomes in the face of growing needs. Capital flight is also occasioned by heavy domestic borrowing leading to expensive capital within the borders. It therefore becomes inevitable that third world countries will be depended on the West for capital to develop their industries.
Third world countries must necessarily depend on the West for the expensive technologies which propel the western economies. Due to lack of capital, third world countries cannot afford to develop own technologies to propel their economies.
They cannot also afford to procure the Western technology either and therefore dependency is, again, inevitable if the countries are to develop. Technology in third world is very necessary when employed wisely. For instance, production of genetically modified foods in Africa can stave off the perennial food insecurity in the continent. Since the continent lacks enough capital to fund expansive GMO projects and spread the technology, it must necessarily depend on the West to do that. The West has accumulated surplus capital which would be idle anyway if it was not employed for this purpose.
The third world need depend on the west to turn over the bad legacy of mere providers of raw materials set by the colonialists. These countries must be able to process their raw materials into industrial products and add value to them to enable them compete in international market. And since such a venture is expensive, they need to depend on those countries which have the means and ways to enable this undertaking. Dependency seen in this light of creating a break from the cycle of dependency is positive and should actually be encouraged.
Dos Santos also bases his statement on necessity of dependency for third world on the fact that on the capitalistic reality of the world order at the moment. This implies that rich countries will continue to get richer and richer as they enjoy capital surplus while the poor will continue to get poor and poorer. Added to this is the hard fact that the international trading system largely suits the west.
If you were take the example of Europe and Africa, it will be noticed that individual African countries are disadvantaged in international trade where they individually bargain in the world market bilaterally while European countries approach the market through the EU bloc. Third world countries which are fragmented and economically non-viable must therefore depend on the developed economies for assistance.
The adverse effect’s of the colonial legacies of most of these developing countries is another factor that Dos Santos bases his argument on necessity of dependency. The nation-states bequeathed to new leaders of these countries by colonialists enjoyed very limited economic resource base, so little that self sufficiency is impracticable.
Their markets were also perpetually designed to be outside themselves. They did not have the capacity- and still do not, of fixing own prices for their goods. Moreover, labour is cheap, underpaid and domestic production discouraged. They must therefore look to the west for help and liberation from this sad state of affairs.
But as Dos Santos argues, third world countries cannot also survive with dependency. Like the analogy of bleeding a leech to fatten a heifer, third world countries in depending on the west design their own downfall or perpetual stagnation. They cannot survive with dependency because it condemns them to a perpetual begging position which is not sustainable.
Tolerance for this perpetual begging posture is expensive to the extent that developing countries are required to put in place economically hostile measures as conditions for obtaining capital. In this way, labour becomes cheap as machines take over, staff is laid off and multinational from the west are granted monopolies just to mention but a few.
They cannot do where they are condemned by the begging position to retain unfair trade agreements with the west just to keep in good books. Most developing countries as observed earlier on lack internal market and are locked in unfair trade arrangements of no benefit to them. They are required to open up their market for competition with products from larger economies in order to receive aid. Their unfinished products fetch little prices on the world market leading to lack of capital.
Largely because of limited capital stocks, developing countries are forced to accumulate loan after loan thus lacking any money or surplus for investment. This not only limits opportunities of growth but also diminishes existing ones where interest rates are pushed up the wall as domestic capital becomes more and more expensive. In such a case, capital is not only lost to the state but also to citizens. The net effect of lack of capital for citizens means that they cannot improve their lives by setting up businesses, investing in industry, education, agriculture and other essentials of human development.
According to Dos Santos, they cannot also do because some of the measures demanded of developing countries by the west like mechanization of labor lead to unemployment and end up undermining the very development they are seeking. Expertise to manage this mechanization or technology as it were is equally imported from the same west hence the leech-heifer analogy.
The economic pressures placed by dependency create a ripple effect in the socio-political state of third world countries. Political reforms demanded by the west lock the country in perpetual state of conflict between the ruling elite and the opposition. In this state of affairs, the country barely survives. The case of Zimbabwe is a classic one. Although there is a semblance of democracy as demanded by the west after the fall of the Berlin Wall in early 1989, the country is barely surviving.
The opposition has been stuck in endless power squabbles with the government and neither side seems to let up even as the economic fortunes of that country tumbles from bad to worse. In the mean time, Zimbabwe continues to receive foreign aid to fund its programmes even as inflation sky-rockets to unimaginable proportions.
The happenings in Zimbabwe although quite outstanding, represents the plight of many a third world country.
And so in conclusion, the import of Dos Santo’s statement is that although this dependency is a necessity, developing countries cannot also prosper with it. It fixes them to a situation where they cannot improve their lot but also which is unsustainable in the sense that it will not be long before they break up.
In making this statement, Dos Santos is saying that the third world is inextricably and perpetually condemned to necessary dependency which guarantees survival but at the expense of stagnation. This statement is informed by a number of reasons which I will attempt to discuss below.
According to Dos Santos, third world countries cannot do without dependency because it provides the much needed capital which is very much wanting in those countries. This is caused by limited capital stocks and marginal incomes in the face of growing needs. Capital flight is also occasioned by heavy domestic borrowing leading to expensive capital within the borders. It therefore becomes inevitable that third world countries will be depended on the West for capital to develop their industries.
Third world countries must necessarily depend on the West for the expensive technologies which propel the western economies. Due to lack of capital, third world countries cannot afford to develop own technologies to propel their economies.
They cannot also afford to procure the Western technology either and therefore dependency is, again, inevitable if the countries are to develop. Technology in third world is very necessary when employed wisely. For instance, production of genetically modified foods in Africa can stave off the perennial food insecurity in the continent. Since the continent lacks enough capital to fund expansive GMO projects and spread the technology, it must necessarily depend on the West to do that. The West has accumulated surplus capital which would be idle anyway if it was not employed for this purpose.
The third world need depend on the west to turn over the bad legacy of mere providers of raw materials set by the colonialists. These countries must be able to process their raw materials into industrial products and add value to them to enable them compete in international market. And since such a venture is expensive, they need to depend on those countries which have the means and ways to enable this undertaking. Dependency seen in this light of creating a break from the cycle of dependency is positive and should actually be encouraged.
Dos Santos also bases his statement on necessity of dependency for third world on the fact that on the capitalistic reality of the world order at the moment. This implies that rich countries will continue to get richer and richer as they enjoy capital surplus while the poor will continue to get poor and poorer. Added to this is the hard fact that the international trading system largely suits the west.
If you were take the example of Europe and Africa, it will be noticed that individual African countries are disadvantaged in international trade where they individually bargain in the world market bilaterally while European countries approach the market through the EU bloc. Third world countries which are fragmented and economically non-viable must therefore depend on the developed economies for assistance.
The adverse effect’s of the colonial legacies of most of these developing countries is another factor that Dos Santos bases his argument on necessity of dependency. The nation-states bequeathed to new leaders of these countries by colonialists enjoyed very limited economic resource base, so little that self sufficiency is impracticable.
Their markets were also perpetually designed to be outside themselves. They did not have the capacity- and still do not, of fixing own prices for their goods. Moreover, labour is cheap, underpaid and domestic production discouraged. They must therefore look to the west for help and liberation from this sad state of affairs.
But as Dos Santos argues, third world countries cannot also survive with dependency. Like the analogy of bleeding a leech to fatten a heifer, third world countries in depending on the west design their own downfall or perpetual stagnation. They cannot survive with dependency because it condemns them to a perpetual begging position which is not sustainable.
Tolerance for this perpetual begging posture is expensive to the extent that developing countries are required to put in place economically hostile measures as conditions for obtaining capital. In this way, labour becomes cheap as machines take over, staff is laid off and multinational from the west are granted monopolies just to mention but a few.
They cannot do where they are condemned by the begging position to retain unfair trade agreements with the west just to keep in good books. Most developing countries as observed earlier on lack internal market and are locked in unfair trade arrangements of no benefit to them. They are required to open up their market for competition with products from larger economies in order to receive aid. Their unfinished products fetch little prices on the world market leading to lack of capital.
Largely because of limited capital stocks, developing countries are forced to accumulate loan after loan thus lacking any money or surplus for investment. This not only limits opportunities of growth but also diminishes existing ones where interest rates are pushed up the wall as domestic capital becomes more and more expensive. In such a case, capital is not only lost to the state but also to citizens. The net effect of lack of capital for citizens means that they cannot improve their lives by setting up businesses, investing in industry, education, agriculture and other essentials of human development.
According to Dos Santos, they cannot also do because some of the measures demanded of developing countries by the west like mechanization of labor lead to unemployment and end up undermining the very development they are seeking. Expertise to manage this mechanization or technology as it were is equally imported from the same west hence the leech-heifer analogy.
The economic pressures placed by dependency create a ripple effect in the socio-political state of third world countries. Political reforms demanded by the west lock the country in perpetual state of conflict between the ruling elite and the opposition. In this state of affairs, the country barely survives. The case of Zimbabwe is a classic one. Although there is a semblance of democracy as demanded by the west after the fall of the Berlin Wall in early 1989, the country is barely surviving.
The opposition has been stuck in endless power squabbles with the government and neither side seems to let up even as the economic fortunes of that country tumbles from bad to worse. In the mean time, Zimbabwe continues to receive foreign aid to fund its programmes even as inflation sky-rockets to unimaginable proportions.
The happenings in Zimbabwe although quite outstanding, represents the plight of many a third world country.
And so in conclusion, the import of Dos Santo’s statement is that although this dependency is a necessity, developing countries cannot also prosper with it. It fixes them to a situation where they cannot improve their lot but also which is unsustainable in the sense that it will not be long before they break up.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Faith versus Reason: My two little sense of worth.
We cannot accept the two to leave us because they will leave the church of God very weak, so we have decided that we will not take them to the grave but sit and wait for the Lords intervention, Apostle William Kimani, February 21, 2010.
The story of thousands of faithful who thronged the Kingdom Seekers Fellowship church in Nakuru town awaiting an ultimate resurrection miracle of their departed sisters got me thinking the following:
In matters of reason and faith, where do we place the boundaries? When should believers stop believing and start reasoning? Or where does reasoning start and which should reveal? Where is the balance?
Now I know this is a pertinent philosophical issue which has been debated hundreds of years before me but the immediacy and proximity of the circumstances naturally demand my humble reflections.
And no, it should not be just about me! Anybody who cares about the recent happenings in our country should care to give a thought to such a question. First it was a celebrated TV anchor who appears to have lost her marbles to blind faith bend on the occult.
And now an entire congregation- thousands we are told, gathered in Nakuru over the weekend to witness the resurrection of Pastors Patrick Wanjohi Wanja and Francis Kamau Ndekei who had died earlier on of a road accident.
According to Apostle’s and Pastors who set all this up, Christians have become weak and they no longer question when men of God die but just proceed to bury them.
“We are here to change that tradition and today, we have chosen to question why these two have died when their work was obviously not done, Pastor Stephen Mulungi from Uganda is reported to have said.
Obviously- and this is only obvious to me, the resurrection never took place because it could not have happened in the first place. It is not something the rational would even contemplate in the first place.
But I understand where the problem came from and this is the crux of the matter. Men and in this case the Christians have decided to double up as rationales and faithful at the same time. They want to be believer but also retain their reason.
In doing so, they have not set the demarcations as to where what stops. It is not clear to an ordinary mind which comes first. On one hand, faith appears to be more powerful but on the other, reason serves them daily.
Pupils and students go to school five days a week to practice reasoning but one day to practice faith, so they are set on a reasoning path through out their lives.
But beyond school, other fundamentals of life and most strikingly death trifle them beyond reason and faith steps in for solace. The power of reason starts to wane from here as they start to subject their reasoning to faith.
They rarely try to subject their faith to reasoning and the Nakuru incident goes on to vindicate this observation. If the worshippers placed the issue at hand (resurrection) at the pyre of reason, it would not have stood.
And this incident is just the tip of the ice berg. Many other such instances where faith tend to operate alone and leave reason out characterize our lives.
The failure to merge these two into one has created a situation where we have deficits and extremes in terms of how people practice religion hence the talk of fundamentalist Christians/Moslems, the talk of cults and the like.
These are the results of failure to balance these two. My own reflection is that the two- in a religious context, must necessarily go together. Faith cannot leave reason and achieve its ends at the same time.
I am not however very sure that the vice versa would apply in say, a scientific context. Faith might as well be dispensable in science.
I think Christians would be better Christians when they merge these two concepts of faith and reason in their practice of Christianity. If they don’t, they will be afflicted with confusion, imbalance and torment as the Nakuru incident crowds and as our ex-TV queen appears to be in.
Ends………./.
The story of thousands of faithful who thronged the Kingdom Seekers Fellowship church in Nakuru town awaiting an ultimate resurrection miracle of their departed sisters got me thinking the following:
In matters of reason and faith, where do we place the boundaries? When should believers stop believing and start reasoning? Or where does reasoning start and which should reveal? Where is the balance?
Now I know this is a pertinent philosophical issue which has been debated hundreds of years before me but the immediacy and proximity of the circumstances naturally demand my humble reflections.
And no, it should not be just about me! Anybody who cares about the recent happenings in our country should care to give a thought to such a question. First it was a celebrated TV anchor who appears to have lost her marbles to blind faith bend on the occult.
And now an entire congregation- thousands we are told, gathered in Nakuru over the weekend to witness the resurrection of Pastors Patrick Wanjohi Wanja and Francis Kamau Ndekei who had died earlier on of a road accident.
According to Apostle’s and Pastors who set all this up, Christians have become weak and they no longer question when men of God die but just proceed to bury them.
“We are here to change that tradition and today, we have chosen to question why these two have died when their work was obviously not done, Pastor Stephen Mulungi from Uganda is reported to have said.
Obviously- and this is only obvious to me, the resurrection never took place because it could not have happened in the first place. It is not something the rational would even contemplate in the first place.
But I understand where the problem came from and this is the crux of the matter. Men and in this case the Christians have decided to double up as rationales and faithful at the same time. They want to be believer but also retain their reason.
In doing so, they have not set the demarcations as to where what stops. It is not clear to an ordinary mind which comes first. On one hand, faith appears to be more powerful but on the other, reason serves them daily.
Pupils and students go to school five days a week to practice reasoning but one day to practice faith, so they are set on a reasoning path through out their lives.
But beyond school, other fundamentals of life and most strikingly death trifle them beyond reason and faith steps in for solace. The power of reason starts to wane from here as they start to subject their reasoning to faith.
They rarely try to subject their faith to reasoning and the Nakuru incident goes on to vindicate this observation. If the worshippers placed the issue at hand (resurrection) at the pyre of reason, it would not have stood.
And this incident is just the tip of the ice berg. Many other such instances where faith tend to operate alone and leave reason out characterize our lives.
The failure to merge these two into one has created a situation where we have deficits and extremes in terms of how people practice religion hence the talk of fundamentalist Christians/Moslems, the talk of cults and the like.
These are the results of failure to balance these two. My own reflection is that the two- in a religious context, must necessarily go together. Faith cannot leave reason and achieve its ends at the same time.
I am not however very sure that the vice versa would apply in say, a scientific context. Faith might as well be dispensable in science.
I think Christians would be better Christians when they merge these two concepts of faith and reason in their practice of Christianity. If they don’t, they will be afflicted with confusion, imbalance and torment as the Nakuru incident crowds and as our ex-TV queen appears to be in.
Ends………./.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
There's redempion for Esther
Pardon, madam… when she has obtained your eye, will have your tongue too. This is a creature, would she begin a sect, might quench the zeal of all professors else make proselytes of who she but bid follow- William Shakespeare, Winters Tale.
Beauty might be a virtue but like the poet himself avers, virtue itself escapes not calumnious strokes.
The canker, he says in Hamlet, galls the infants of the spring too often before their buttons are disclosed; “and in the morn and liquid dew of youth, contagious blastments are most imminent.”
Esther’s “blastment” has taken everybody by surprise and sent shockwaves all over. The shock is most registered because going by her unmistakable beauty and constant appearance on TV, most people had formed opinions of her.
The judgment is as expected: mean and harsh as the multitude best delivers them!
No one expected her to pull such a move because her beauty and innocence did not seem to imply anything of the sort. If anything, these two combined with her demeanor and grace sold her out as brainy and non-gullible.
The assumption is that her life was meticulously planned and scattered with prudent moves like the scripts she reads on television. Viewers had therefore set her some standards which as it now appears, were too high.
They ignored that Esther was/is still forming up and is still subject to the “imminent blastments” which affect her lot- youth. She can make mistakes like all of us do and for this, the society should not be very harsh in judging her.
From her behavior during the press conference, it is very clear that she has some growing to do- indeed like most of us have. A fully formed mature person would not reasonably argue that since she’s 30 or thereabout, she can make her own decision about anything and live where she want.
Even people double that age or say octogenarians do not live any way they want because society moderates their lives as it does for everyone.
A fully formed public figure would also not claim that the public has no stake in whoever she dates and expect to remain reasonable at the same time. She would not by accepting to lead a public life, she has exposed her life to public scrutiny. Lawyers and journalists know this better.
And so, the scales upon which Esther is being weighed need be tilted to factor the fact that she is still learning and mistakes are part of this learning. She does not deserve condemnation from the public but acceptance.
This is not to mean the media should go slow on her, hell no. Let is kip spawning every detail it can avail to itself on her because we need to know. That is their role as a media and our role as members of public is to evaluate these.
The society should not behave as though there is no redemption for Esther. She has one hell of bright life staring at her. She only needs to dust herself up and get running again to reclaim her rightful place in the drama of life.
Time is a master redeemer. We only need to throw her into pyre of time and she will be cleansed of these naiveties, inexperience and gullibility. That way she will be a great pillar in future and guard many others from falling her way.
So from here, I say go, go, go Esther, get up, dust yourself up and move on with my good-wishes , God’s blessings and special remembrances.
Musau
Beauty might be a virtue but like the poet himself avers, virtue itself escapes not calumnious strokes.
The canker, he says in Hamlet, galls the infants of the spring too often before their buttons are disclosed; “and in the morn and liquid dew of youth, contagious blastments are most imminent.”
Esther’s “blastment” has taken everybody by surprise and sent shockwaves all over. The shock is most registered because going by her unmistakable beauty and constant appearance on TV, most people had formed opinions of her.
The judgment is as expected: mean and harsh as the multitude best delivers them!
No one expected her to pull such a move because her beauty and innocence did not seem to imply anything of the sort. If anything, these two combined with her demeanor and grace sold her out as brainy and non-gullible.
The assumption is that her life was meticulously planned and scattered with prudent moves like the scripts she reads on television. Viewers had therefore set her some standards which as it now appears, were too high.
They ignored that Esther was/is still forming up and is still subject to the “imminent blastments” which affect her lot- youth. She can make mistakes like all of us do and for this, the society should not be very harsh in judging her.
From her behavior during the press conference, it is very clear that she has some growing to do- indeed like most of us have. A fully formed mature person would not reasonably argue that since she’s 30 or thereabout, she can make her own decision about anything and live where she want.
Even people double that age or say octogenarians do not live any way they want because society moderates their lives as it does for everyone.
A fully formed public figure would also not claim that the public has no stake in whoever she dates and expect to remain reasonable at the same time. She would not by accepting to lead a public life, she has exposed her life to public scrutiny. Lawyers and journalists know this better.
And so, the scales upon which Esther is being weighed need be tilted to factor the fact that she is still learning and mistakes are part of this learning. She does not deserve condemnation from the public but acceptance.
This is not to mean the media should go slow on her, hell no. Let is kip spawning every detail it can avail to itself on her because we need to know. That is their role as a media and our role as members of public is to evaluate these.
The society should not behave as though there is no redemption for Esther. She has one hell of bright life staring at her. She only needs to dust herself up and get running again to reclaim her rightful place in the drama of life.
Time is a master redeemer. We only need to throw her into pyre of time and she will be cleansed of these naiveties, inexperience and gullibility. That way she will be a great pillar in future and guard many others from falling her way.
So from here, I say go, go, go Esther, get up, dust yourself up and move on with my good-wishes , God’s blessings and special remembrances.
Musau
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Our political apathy is our greatest undoing as a nation
“In Kenya, leadership is an opportunity and not a service. It is an opportunity to grab, get rich- stinking rich, and lord it over the masses.”
By NZAU MUSAU
DESPITE numerous petitions on the two professors- Karega Mutahi and Sam Ongeri to quit office over corruption scandal in their docket, the two have maintained they will stay put.
They will not budge because this is political witch-hunt engineered by their enemies to finish them and their people!
But was not this expected? Do Kenyans really hope these men will be graceful enough to voluntarily resign? Is resignation part of the Kenyan culture? Is political leadership in Kenya a form of service?
Kenyan political leaders do not resign, they are forced to resign. In other words, resignations are pushed through by ordinary Kenyans through civil action which inflames the bosses who in turn give word that its time to go.
Remember the cases of the stoic David Mwiraria or the unlikable Kiraitu Murungi who dramatically resigned with a Bible quotation? Remember the case of the mocking Amos Kimunya, he of the “I’d rather die than resign” statement?
Or even more recent, remember the case of Shakespeare-quoting Aaron Ringera? It cost the country weeks of intense public debate, parliamentary censure and disownment by the board for him to quit.
And mark you, that was a judge, a most honorable judge who once chaired the integrity committee of judiciary! That should tell you that we should expect no less from the two professors although writing in the SN today, Philip Ochieng’ says they should behave differently.
In Kenya, leadership is an opportunity and not a service. It is an opportunity to grab, get rich- stinking rich, and lord it over the masses. In Kenya, leadership knows no values and integrity is an alien virtue.
There can be no values in Kenyan leadership when what the people present for leadership are the most despicable lot in the society; the moneyed, the corrupt, the known thieves, the immoral, the wheeler-dealers, the most wicked lot.
And since this lot cannot profess values as accountability, the responsibility falls back on the people to beat them into line when the opportunity presents itself. In the last few years, Kenyans have shown that they can exercise this important role.
Accordingly, they should not let the gains slip back. The standards must be kept as the country struggles to cleanse itself of generational ineptitude, theft and immorality. It is significant to note that the 10th parliament is composed of a more focused lot than previous one.
Incrementally and over time, Kenya will cleanse the practice of politics and instill proper values in leadership. This is why we should not worry so much at such antics as displayed by Ongeri and Mutahi because they belong to the past.
The future of Kenya is not this bleak as exemplified by these two professors. It is a bright one and where the citizens will claim their space in determining the direction of politics and leadership.
But as I said, that future will be attained by securing the incremental gains garnered over time and through struggles of ordinary men of this country. And that includes sustained pressure on leaders to perform and account for their ways.
The future I am talking about will require a lot of civic education to impress on politically apathetic society that this country has become, to take charge of the political bus. It will require the knowledge of the ordinary Kenyan that politics and its practice is the most important activity around their lives.
In the meantime, our half-hearted approach and concern for politics will continue to cost us and benefit the select few who know how lucrative this venture is in the midst of a sleepy citizenry.
Ends………./.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)