|
Complementary Reflection, African Philosophy and General Issues in Philosophy |
Kant’s Metaphysics of subjectivity and Asouzu’s
idea of joy of Being
By Enyimba Maduka
Introduction:
Subjectivity
is a philosophical view that denies the existence of objective knowledge or
truth. It holds that truth is dependent on the individual or the subject and
not on the object. It is also against realism, which holds that truth, is out
there independent of mind. According to
Lacey, subjectivism is that view which claims that what appears to be objective
truth or rules in certain spheres are really disguised commands or expression
of attitudes. For him; “… subjectivity says that certain utterances do express
objective truth, but only about human minds, wishes, beliefs, experiences etc.
whether they be of the speaker or of people in general” (333). The subjectivity
implied in Kant’s metaphysics is occasioned by his notion of truth, which
defies ordinary perceptions on the subject. Kant gave the human mind such a
large role in his philosophy that it constitutes truth and authenticity
criterion. This is the pivotal issue upon which Kant’s metaphysics of
subjectivity as found in his Critique of
Pure Reason is rested. On the
other hand, Asouzu’s principle of complementarily appears to be at opposite
pole with Kant’s subjective metaphysics even though both are geared towards the
understanding of reality in its most authentic form. Thus, for Asouzu
“complementarism is a philosophy that seeks to consider things in the
significance of their singularity and not in the exclusiveness of their
otherness in view or the joy that gives completion to all missing links of
reality” (Method and Principles 39).
Following
this, this paper attempt to x-ray the kernel of Kant’s metaphysics and Asouzu’s
joy of being and expose their similarities or dissimilarities in their attempts
to understand or make sense of reality. The point is made that, Asouzu presents
a detailed approach to understanding of reality, which recognizes the
relativity or dependence of being in their existence. While Kant, though
recognizes the subjective/ relative tendency of the human mind, accords to it
the power to categorize and restructure reality according to its very nature.
Thus, giving itself (the mind) an absolute place in the quest for truth or
knowledge of reality.
An Overview of Kant’s
Subjective Metaphysics:
In his
preface to the first and second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant emphasizes the major problem of
metaphysics.
According
to him, the chief problem of metaphysics and of human reason in general are,
the three great themes of God, Freedom and Immortality. In his words;
“metaphysics has as the proper objects of its inquiries three ideas only; God,
freedom and immortality” (Kant 15).
Immanuel Kant was dissatisfied that
metaphysics appears to be an area of endless disputes which has not found any
scientific method which would enable it solve its problems. This
in-conclusiveness of metaphysics and its inability to find a reliable method
that will lead to certain conclusions, convinced Kant that the fundamental
question for philosophers of his time must be the question of whether
metaphysics itself is a genuine subject. Kant was therefore interested to find
out whether metaphysics is capable of extending our knowledge of reality by
giving us sure knowledge of the existences and nature of God, of human freedom
and immortality of soul. Kant subjected metaphysics to the critical
investigation of pure reason, Kant’s major aim was therefore to provoke the
downfall of all dogmatic metaphysics, to limit every considerable scope of a
prior speculation and to establish the limits of metaphysical inquiry.
Kant’s answer to the question “is
metaphysics possible?” was that it is impossible as a science, but as general
disposition or falling of the human mind, it is nevertheless real. What is
implied here is that in spite of Kant’s rejection of metaphysics as impossible
he recognizes its possibility in the natural tendency of human reason towards
metaphysics. Kant believes that human reason has the natural inclination to
step beyond the boundaries of experience to entertain such issues as God,
freedom, immortality. So that even if we cannot know the things as they are in
themselves, we can at least know them as things in themselves. Kant believes
that many of the problems philosopher have entertained stem from the
application of their reasons to the questions that are beyond the phenomenal
world. And when this is the case, that is, when we apply our knowledge to
matters beyond experience, we fall into the antinomies of reason, which are
propositions that make opposite claim but for which we can provide equal
justification.
As a result, kant declared that “our forms
of intuition, first of all restrict us to what can be experienced in a spatial
and temporal context namely empirical objects, our logical forms and our
categories are organizing principle within this context” (Popkin and Stroll
137). Only phenomena (things as they appear) which are object that are related
in time and space can be known by the human mind; while the noumena (thing as
they are in themselves) which are object that are not related in time and space
cannot be known by human reason (mind). Following this, we do not see things as
they are in themselves but only as the structure of our mind makes them appear
to us. In other words, the human mind restructures objects and makes them
appear to us in certain ways and it is only in these ways that we can perceive
them.
The subjective nature of kant’s
metaphysics is therefore evident in his theory that the world of our
experience, the so-called phenomenal world, is the product both of something
which we are presented with, and the a priori conditions supplied by the mind.
The mind is viewed as something like a vast blank form which determines the
kinds of answer that can be given and the categories fix the necessary
conditions of both experience and knowledge, but the actual content arises only
from something independent of us.
Joy of Being in Asouzu’s
Complementary Reflection;-
An adequate grasp of Asouzu’s
philosophy of complementary reflection is dependent on the understanding of two
major principles upon which complementarily is based. These are the principle
of harmonious complementation and the principle of progressive transformation.
The former states that “anything that exist serves a missing link of reality”.
By missing link it is meant the diverse component or entities of which any
existing reality is constituted. In line with this principle, Asouzu avers that
“a system can only work when the diverse components of which it is constituted
serve each other complementarily and authentically as aspect of it's’
existence",”(Effective Leadership 58). What is meant here is that, if
different components that make up a system are viewed in isolation and singly,
we can say that they are missing in relation to one another in a way. They are
missing in the sense that, as descrete entities, each can be viewed in
isolation to each and in total disregard to each other. When this happens, a
unit can be unaware of the other, and in this moment, the one that it is
unaware of is missing. Thus, as a system these component parts ought to be
brought in relation to each other, such that they become aware of themselves
and serve each other in the most authentic and harmonious way.
The principle of progressive
transformation on the other hand, is a completion of the principle of
harmonious transformation. The principle state thus; “allow the limitation of
being to be the cause of your joy” (Asouzu, Effective Leadership 60). What
Asouzu means here is that, a thing serves a missing link of reality if and only
if in the process, it can also gain its authentic legitimization. That is to
say that, all human acts including the act of knowing or the act of
metaphysical speculation must be directed to their authentic source as a
condition for them to be source of our joy. For instance, those who perform
negative acts derive some negative joy from it, but this joy which the
limitation of being provides must be transformed to authentic joy to have its
meaning.
Thus, complementary reflection is “a
philosophy that seeks to consider things in the significance of their
singularity and not in the exclusiveness of their otherness in view of the joy
that gives cornpletion to all missing links of reality” (Asouzu, Method and
Principles 39). Complementary philosophy aims at allowing being assume its
natural completeness as the joy that unifies all relative entities to a common
foundation of meaning and legitimization in a universal and comprehensive
perspective.
Essentially therefore, Asouzu’s
complementary reflection is a life philosophy seeking to understand reality
from the preceding conditions of its African background, without committing
itself uncritically to these preconditions. In other words, it seeks to outline
the conditions for understanding and interpreting human life and situation with
a view to providing the tools necessary for harmonious co-existence.
Asouzu refers to his idea of joy of
being as the driving force of our lives made evident in conscious attempt to
live authentically through mastering our situation. Thus, a person is said to
have allowed the limitation of being to be the cause of his joy, if he
participates in the joy embedded in the ultimate foundation of being, and this
is made evident in authentic living and in the conscious attempt to choose the
positive side of this ambivalent interest. Asousu contends that there is a joy
that is constitutive of our existence of being and it is known to us
proleptically and referentially in all those moments where we make honest
commitment to experience it authentically in our existential situations.
In
making sense of the nature of reality and our knowledge of it, complementary
reflection demands that the different roles of the different aspects of reality
including the subject of knowledge is of utmost importance, and must be so
recognized in order to uphold a harmonized complementary unity among them. In
doing so, all aspects of reality are placed in a relationship of intricate
mutual joyous complementary services to each other. Hence, all aspect of the
human person must work together harmoniously and complementarily in order to
understand clearly the nature of reality in general. And also, all aspect of
reality must be viewed in isolation of each other. This enables them to
function as missing links of reality and as such be transformed into the
authentic source of joy.
The
point being made here is that, the human person must live from the deep
awareness of the relativity and fragmentation of the world and must not
consider this arrangement a disadvantage in any way. Based on this, the human
person could feel and think into this world and allow this to affect him
positively, such that there arises a fusion of the subject and his world
(object) so that a more intimate relationship is established between them. This
is an activity of the mind seeking its fullness and authentication through the
unity of possible relations that it finds in all existential situations.
Asousu
in his idea of being tends to show that, one of the greatest difficulties that
complementary reflection has to contend with is the thought that we can never
truly overcome the challenges posed by our relativity. This, one must state was
the case with Kant, Kant was unable to overcome the challenge of human
subjectivity and so he cast doubts on the ability of the mind (reason) to know
truth objectively, that is to know what Kant called the noumena. According to
Asouzu, “in a situation of this nature, unhealthy doubts easily supplant the
type of certitude that derives from the necessity conferred by a transcendent
complementary unity of consciousness about the world” (method and principle
497).
Kant
gave the mind (reason) such an autonomous self-subsisting and independent role
that it becomes the abiter and decider of truth and authenticity criterion.
Hence anything the mind, by means of its categories presents to us as the
nature of reality is truth and knowledge. The human mind does not depend on the
world nor does it conform to the structure of the world for it to arrive at
truth and knowledge of reality or being. Instead, it is the mind, which
restructures the world and presents such to us as truth and reality. By this,
Kant unwittingly takes recourse in subjectivity by which he creates the problem
of noumena and phenomena, where the human mind cannot grasp reality in the
world of noumena (things as they are in the themselves). This culminated in his
rejection of metaphysics as impossible. What Kant does here is to project his
individual subjective understanding of the world as authentic knowledge of reality.
And this occurs when one is unable to overcome the challenges of his
relativity, and when instead of appreciating reality from the angle of its
comprehensiveness, the limitations of one’s personal interest influences one’s
appreciation of a given reality.
On
the contrary, Asousu argues that authentic knowledge does not reside in the
individual’s subjective projection of his understanding of the world. It is
rather a moment of skepticism about the world and the necessity to be aware
that one can be in error and that our essential situation is ambivalent and as
such can be a danger to what we want. In his words:
“Authentic
knowledge has to do with the anxious and frantic efforts we make to be
acquainted ultimately with all the meaning we share with all Missing links of
reality in the process of transcendence of fragmentary meanings we give to
common sense experience. In the process of authentic knowledge acquisition, the
mind seeks to know things as they in themselves and learn to distinguish
appearance from reality (Methods and Principles 407).
From
the above, this comprehensive authentic knowledge is the one that has its
foundation in being, and such authentic knowledge is the only one that can form
the foundation of human action. Authentic knowledge therefore consists in the
conscious mental activity in the process of which we come to appreciate the
world from the angle of its comprehensiveness and not from the limitations
imposed by our personal interests. It is the process by which the mind rids itself
of those interest that threaten it.
Thus,
Asouzu’s idea of joy of being is understood to mean that no meaning taken
singly can be comprehensive enough; all ideas acquire their actual significance
only in a complementary framework, yet in a manner that makes us conscious of
the significance of the thing in question. It is for this reason that Asouzu
believes that all acts of knowing are object oriented and are as such focused
on something outside of the subject or at least it is the capacity of the mind
to be above the thing known or be conscious of it. In many actions therefore,
including the act of knowing, the mind is not only drawn by the good that
sustains it but also in evident insight of the joy that drives it. It is
therefore not enough to say that an act is good or right, but such an act must
also be a source of joy for the actor. A joy is authentic if it offers the
actor reasons to believe that the criterion of truth and authenticity is upheld
in his action.
It
is at this point that one seems to find fault with Asouzu’s idea of joy of
being. From the forgoing exposition, it appears that Asouzu concentrates more
on the doer or perpetrator of an action and the joy he, derives from his
action, while neglecting the “other” person (i.e.) the receiver of the action
in question. For instance, in any given human action there is a subject and an
object. The subject is the one who performs the action, while the object is the
one who receives the action. For Asouzu to aver that an act whether it be good or
bad must be a source of joy for the actor, presupposes a neglect or an
unawaness of the other constitutive aspect of the given action – the receiver
or sufferer. Thus, if this is the case, Asouzu’s idea of joy of being is one
sided and lacks the comprehensiveness which complementary reflection demands.
However,
Asouzu seems to agree with Kantain postulation that the possibility or the
reality of metaphysics is found in man’s natural tendency to apply reasons
beyond experience or phenomenal world of space and time. According to him the
question of metaphysics is a very important one. He calls it the question of
certain knowledge of the nature of the ultimate foundation of human action and
cognition. This question, he believes will ever remain relevant to all forms of
complementary philosophical reflections. Whenever we attempt to answer this
question, Asouzu argues that we sense a tension within us and one that connotes
a type of natural and compelling intuitive insight into the nature of the
reality that sustains this quest. According to Asouzu;
This
insight entails both guesswork and certitude, yet we have a premonition into
the impelling character of the type of certain answer, which we anticipate. It
is not a limited, relative answer but an absolute, comprehensive one, which we
cannot fully render due to the relative and fragmented nature of our being.
This is why we sense this type of answer even in our natural tendencies to
intolerance, exclusiveness, unmitigated egoism, to dogmatism, to absolute possessiveness,
which are moments when the mind seeks to be fully committed to some thing
absolute and ultimate. (Mtd and Principle 332)
The
point Asouzu makes in the foregoing is that our ability to state the true and
authentic nature of things depends on our ability to identify them in their
relativity and absoluteness. This approach is important when it comes to saying
what things are in themselves as the central concern of metaphysical
reflections. We find ourselves in this metaphysical commitment sooner than we
imagine due to the natural tendency of our being to seek absoluteness and
comprehensiveness in existential situation in life.
What
we have attempted to show in the foregoing pages is that, the metaphysical
dimension of complementary reflection has a very strong practical aspect since
the being that gives legitimacy to all missing links of reality is the
same-being that confers legitimacy to human action. This being manifests itself
in action as service.
We
however, identified a shortcoming in the idea of joy of being. It was shown
that the other person in a given action who receives, seems to be neglected.
His action, which is a reaction to the action perpetrated on him must be considered
adequately so as to attain the comprehensiveness which complementarily demands.
We therefore suggest that the painful reaction of a receiver or sufferer of an
action to the unjust or evil act perpetrated on him, must be considered as a
constitutive and concrete aspect of reality. Efforts
must therefore be made, in the spirit of complementary reflection, to show how
such a person can possibly transform such action to serve as a source of joy
for him. Otherwise, the question that will continue to loom large at the doors
of complementary reflection will be; “How can one realistically turn an
extremely urgly situation or experience to be the source of his joy when he is
at the receiving end?”
It
was also shown that it is very necessary in all existential situation always to
inquire into the authentic nature of things in themselves. Thus metaphysics is
the study of being as being and for this reason it concentrates on the nature
of reality in its most authentic and true form as against kant’s view that human
mind can only attain knowledge of the phenomenal world, while that of the
noumena is unattainable, Asousu’s complementarism insists that by means of
transcendent unity of consciousness, the mind can know not only the things as
they appear (Phenomena) but also things as they are in themselves (noumena) in
a proleptic and future referential manner.
Works
Cited
Asouzu Innocent I. The Method and Principles
of Complementary Reflection
in and Beyond African Philosophy. Calabar:
Lacey, A. R
A Dictionary of Philosophy.
Kant, Immanuel Critique of Pure reason
(second edition) trans. J. M. D.
Meikle John, Guersey Press, 1995.
Popkin, Richard, H. and Stroll, Avrum, Philosophy
Made Simple