Search

In his 2015 Theoria article titled 'A Rejection of Humanism in African Moral Tradition', Motsamai Molefe argues that Kwasi Wiredu's humanistic interpretation of traditional Akan ethics cannot be the best account of African ethics because Wiredu overlooks the significant sentiment in traditional African thought that regards reality as a holistic totality of spiritual, social and environmental components. I point out that Molefe's rejection of Wiredu's humanism follows from the latter's de-emphasising of supernaturalism. I argue that Molefe overlooks the fact that the displacement of God in this humanism is consistent with the limited God sentiment in traditional African thought, which confirms Wiredu's humanistic ethics as one rooted in traditional African worldviews. Adopting the method of philosophical exposition and analysis, I show how Wiredu's limited God framework motivates scepticism about the possibility of a supernaturalist ethics and renders a humanistic orientation a more attractive account of African moral tradition. Keywords: African ethics, Akan ethics, humanism, Kwasi Wiredu, limited God view, Motsamai Molefe, supernaturalism, In this article, I argue that Motsamai Molefe's critique of Kwasi Wiredu's humanistic interpretation of traditional Akan ethics in his 2015 Theoria article titled 'A Rejection of Humanism in African [...]

In this article, I locate Okot p’Bitek’s evaluation of African traditional religion and his critique of the traditional African theistic stance in the broader African limited God tradition. I argue that while p’Bitek’s claim is plausible that traditional African societies do not believe in a supreme being that possesses the omni-properties in the context of commitment to the limitation thesis, the other claim, that these societies are atheistic because they merely acknowledge the reality of mystical forces and powers rather than God or gods, constitutes a hasty, unsustainable generalisation. Adopting the method of philosophical exposition and argumentation, I point out that in purporting to make a cultural statement in favour of atheism, p’Bitek fails to reckon with the existence of two culturally rooted but conflicting views of God in African traditional religion and traditional African thought. One view endorses traditional theism while the other, for the most part, proposes that God is limited in power, knowledge and goodness. I argue that both views are damaging to p’Bitek’s second claim. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the 2019 work "A Sense-Phenomenal Look at the Problem of Personal Identity," Jonathan O. Chimakonam articulates an intriguing and novel body-only perspective of personal identity that has a direct implication for our understanding of consciousness. In this article, I focus on the aspect of the work that adopts a seemingly eliminativist stance on the hard problem of consciousness. Chimakonam's version of physicalism rejects the reality of consciousness or experience while accepting that humans have sensations. Having transferred the location of sensation from the mind (the within), and even the brain, to the sense organs (the outside) without eliminating the category of mind, Chimakonam unwittingly raises the question of whether his philosophy of mind represents an eliminativist stance or a reductive physicalist stance. In this article, I argue that while a reductive physicalist reading of Chimakonam is a plausible interpretation of his stance, the non-rejection of the category of mind and the seeming distinction between mind and brain supports the claim that sense-phenomenalism does not radically overcome the hard problem of consciousness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, I show that: (1) There is a transcendence strain in African Traditional Religion (ATR) and traditional African thought that agrees perfectly with traditional monotheism and legitimizes the question of the relation of God with evil in the world. (2) There is incontrovertible evidence of the conception of God as a limited deity that subverts the categories of omnipotence and omniscience. (3) African philosophers of religion must show how a transcendent or, conversely, a limited God is related to the evil that exists in the world, since the overwhelming stance of ATR is that God is the creator of the world and wields effective power. I substitute the categories of omnipotence and omniscience with the novel categories of power and glory and argue that while a powerful and glorious God is not the author of evil and cannot eliminate evil in the world, such a God can be conceived as working to reduce the evil in the world through the instrumentality of human moral agency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The evidence of human wickedness in the world is so transparent that no rational person can dispute its reality. This paper approaches the question of the human person from an African philosophical perspective and explores the relation between the apparently free-acting human being and God conceived as the creator of the world and the ultimate cause of the human being. The paper will proffer answers to the following question: to what extent can the human being be absolved of blame for the evil they perpetrate in a world conceived in African traditional religion and thought as the creation of a high deity who could have foreseen the negative bent of human nature and should have made human nature inclined to goodness all of the time? The paper will make novel contributions to the debate about human nature in African philosophical discourse by recasting the human being as a homo melancholicus, or melancholy being, whose evil inclination in the world can best be understood in the context of a tragic vision of reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the contradiction of positing the existence of a God who is at once omnipotent and not omnipotent in respect of his power that arises in the thought of two African philosophers of religion, John A.I. Bewaji and Ademola Kazeem Fayemi who accept the limitation thesis that projects a limited God and deny the legitimacy of the transcendence view in Yoruba and, by extension, African thought. I demonstrate in this paper that the contradiction arises from the fact that while Bewaji and Fayemi explicitly deny the legitimacy of the transcendence view in Yoruba and, by extension, African thought, they implicitly accept the view and unwittingly and illegitimately attempt to reconcile the conflicting views through the analysis of the notions of God's creatorship, co-creatorship, and controllership. I conclude by recommending that instead of attempting to reconcile the antinomy of God's existence in African philosophy of religion, African philosophers should acknowledge the legitimacy of the two conflicting theses constituting the antinomy and, accordingly, sustain logical consistency by strictly thinking within either the framework of limitedness or the framework of transcendence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]