|
Complementary Reflection, African Philosophy and General Issues in Philosophy |
ELEMENTS OF
COMPLEMENTARY REFLECTION AS A PHILOSOPHY OF INTEGRATION
BY
KIDZU T.
OWEH
The essay captures those elements of
complementary Reflection as utility principles in a complementary society that
can serve the purpose of a philosophy of integration using the instruments
provided by its own frame-work as paradigms for a universal understanding
within the African Milieu. It discusses the dynamics of change within, which we
can have as individuals should we maintain as human beings full of potentials
to become what we ought to be, in a complementary framework, of a complex whole
void of all existential illusion characterizing all human beings; our’s being the cheapest and weakest of all. Thus, elements
of complementary reflection in Asouzu’s socio-philosophic label are models
which this discussion centre
on as possible instruments of transformation which can solve the problems
inherent in all negative values of the human nature in a human society. In
doing this, the essay reflects on the nature of complementary
reflection and how the elements can serve as philosophy of integration in and
beyond African philosophy. In other words, complementary reflection as a
philosophy of integration can help in solving the problems of human artificial
divide and differences through the integrative elements elevated as paradigms
of complementariness.
1. INTRODUCTION
The Nature
of Complementary Reflection
Now, to complement means an ability to
add something to another in order to improve it or make that which is being
added to, more attractive. Thus, for anything to become complementary, it takes
or demands the putting together of things, though having different forms, yet are
made to become attractive of each other and useful too. In this case, none
works without the other. Complementary reflection thus engages itself as a
carefully well thought out, and, written form of explanations and analysis
about the non-monopolistic nature of human knowledge within a complementary
whole. In other words, complementary reflection is an existential attitude of
the human nature where no single person has the monopoly of knowledge but, as a
unit, each complementing the ideas of the other in a whole universal system.
Asouzu,
in The Method and Principles of Complementary Reflection in and beyond African
Philosophy, projected that there are many logics. But all logics must be
subdued to truth and authenticity. In this case, the essence of logic is to
give a legitimacy of what we consider to be true. Since men are either posed to
the relative or absolute pole in life, there is a tendency towards this or that
way. The basis therefore which logic comes in is to open a criterion of truth
(213). This criterion
of truth by an application of a complementary logic as an explicative index
reveals the whole foundation on which complementary reflection rest. The
foundation is such that reflection is done from a wholistic
perspective in a universal context within an African milieu. Acceptably, ideas
cannot be said to be one culture’s exclusive prerogative, Asouzu opined (69). It
follows therefore that men at opposite ends duely
need themselves mutually for their interest to be realized. In this direction, we
can see why complementary reflection addresses those fundamental philosophical
problems to see how the different cultures of the world can solve their
problems via an acknowledgement of each
peoples’ exclusive ignorance about the other’s culture and epistemic rationality.
To this extent, humanity becomes properly adapted to other cultures
outside ones' own’. And this invariably helps us to see how we can have global
harmony as a fundamentally new form of our human consciousness in the global
trends of paradoxes. This is the gospel, which these elements of Asouzu’s
complementary reflection discuss and preach. The same is true. Similarly, we
have chosen in this essay to highlight on these elements as utility principles
in a complementary society that can grant the purpose of a philosophy of
integration. It carries within its own body instruments that act as paradigms
for such universal understanding of the African environment, peoples, culture
and philosophy, with an understanding that rationality is a matter of degrees.
What
then are those elements that can serve as integrative philosophy either within
African, Asian, European or Western cultures? To answer the question we will
first look at how complementary reflection and philosophy stand so as to explicate
the elements and their integrative role. This is our focus and statement of
problem to justify how complementary reflection can be integrative philosophy.
2. Complementary Reflection and Philosophy
If we take philosophy to mean everything
and all things, we would be accepting too many things without their links. But
to say what the obvious is with philosophy in just one stroke of a statement
can equally be an over assumption of thought without a careful critical
approach. Philosophy, in its precinct looked out for answers to problems that
can stand the test of time in both natural and human life universally. That is
why from the point of view of Western Ideological boundaries and cleavages it
is conceived as love of wisdom, taken from an understanding of their cultural
background in an attempt to know what is in reality and what reality is. And
so, from their own points of view, and for early Greek
philosophers from Thales to Aristotle, it became a
science of the comprehensiveness of reality in a universal manner within a
given cultural and historical setting.
In the medieval period, it became a partner of theology where human
society was viewed in terms of interior spiritual results, quite different from
the principles of philosophy (Ogbuejiofor, 75-76). In
the modern period philosophy took to the rational and empirical approaches
where philosophers lined up according to their currents of thought. While the
rationalists held on to the position of the rational is real and the real is,
rational, which gives them confidence in the power of human reason to
understand reality, the empiricists on their part, took to the more practical
approach of doing philosophy based on human experience and interpretation of
reality. So philosophy thrived like that from Augustine to Aquinas, Erasmus and
Luther to Montaigne; from Bacon to Leibniz; and from Locke to Hume; from Rousseau to Mill
etcetera.
Contemporary
philosophy has its bearing from Nietzche to Marx, all
of the Western culture. But what about contemporary African philosophy and its
philosophers granted the fact as Asouzu opined that complimentarism
is founded on the ambience of traditional African philosophy? (41). In my
thinking, if there was an African philosophy of the traditional or ancient
pattern, then there ought to be a contemporary one also, taking off from what
was left undone. By now, we have become aware that ideas originate from people
based on how they erect their lives and societies upon their action derived
from their cherished values and concerns. Philosophy therefore in such context,
is seen as what Asouzu called “an attempt at delineating perceived way of life
or world view of a people … philosophy is brought in close affinity with
culture” (42). This being thus correct, complementarism, unlike Aristotle’s
metaphysics or Plato’s idealism, Kant’s
transcendentalism or Hegel’s absolute mind etcetera, pursues philosophy
critically from an African background based on those ideas of the anonymous
traditional African thinkers. The task of complementation is reached from
Asouzu’s reflection in this context, and reaching out beyond the African
Milieu, rising above constraints of the diverse forms of personal or individual
subjectivity towards a universal and comprehensive manner.
Philosophy
of this complementary nature becomes such fundamental normative science that
embarks on the task of addressing those ends of human action towards
understanding, explaining and projecting deep answers into the causes of such
action. In doing so, it reached out formulating principles and methods (as we
shall see in its very elements) towards addressing the actions adequately. It
equally analyses all the various interests guiding human action in a
universally minded attempt, saying how, and why men
can be in conflict with each other and how they can resolve such. Asouzu
explicated further that in this way philosophy influence all harmonious
co-existence of people in society through enquiries, upholding its
self-understanding as wisdom by understanding reality truthfully and authentically (35).
The fact that philosophy faces a great deal of challenges cannot be over
emphasized. Challenges ranging from social and political matters, to economic,
religious, ethical or moral, spiritual, scientific, metaphysical, physiological,
psychological, epistemological, as well as anthropological etcetera. This
covers a wide range of issues and activities involving human action in society.
Rising above these challenges, Asouzu profers
that philosophy should refuse the epistemological aesthetics of taking sides
with politicized matters of ideological thinking. Otherwise, philosophy
will be seen as something turned inside out, as an implicit defence
of some congealed contents highly prejudiced and packaged by some old
philosophers in golden language just to impress their desired audience. What
they do is to distort reality by transcending it in favour
of their bais and tilt towards their subjective
blindness against authentic understanding of the essential ontological
understanding of reality. Philosophy done in this regard will be likened to
Plato’s vicious persons who engage in vice with an ingenuine
ultimate aim of gaining happiness thus ignorantly from their vicious
actions. This is what Asouzu rejects
implicitly, saying that Aristotle (whom he said engaged himself polarizing
philosophy), Locke, Hegel, Hume and Kant have done in that category. These he
called persons engaged in “folk mythological racial ideas” who are designed to
ridicule and sensationalize. In this respect,
Human experience into a multiplicity of values
revealed, or painfully experienced in the domain of inner consciousness, there
is gradually emphasized the contradiction between the traditions, usages and
customs of different peoples which by
mutual comparison lose their universality in the contingent nature of chance or
occasion (21).
Rising above such contradiction and painful
experience occasioned by our human shortcomings in an attempt to understand
different peoples of the world, Asouzu says, philosophy vis-à-vis the
philosopher has an enormity of transcending all baises
of secular thinking, private thinking and ideas that are prevalent, guided by
an objective epistemic immunity to move ahead of this private subjectivity onto
a higher and balanced plane of unprejudiced theory formulation of reality (45).
Perhaps this is why he achoed in Effective
Leadership and the Ambivalence of Human Interest, that unless men have
learned to place the common good above their private interests it will remain
difficult for us humanity trying to proceed to manage our affairs (13).
The
question one may ask is what makes this philosophy of his complementary?
1.
It is complementary because it recognizes
relative existences.
2.
It also sees all relative realities as a moment
of what he termed the transcendent unity of consciousness, seeking expression
diversely in history.
3.
It is complementary because it also seek to understand the need to relate all relative entities
towards a common foundation of meaning and authenticity in a universal and all embrasive way.
4.
It is complementary because one sees in it the
inclusion of the spirit of world-multipolarism.
5.
It is complementary because it undertakes to
understudy reality by rightful application of concepts, by an explication of
their meaning in a manner that relates accurately, and designates and captures
mutual relativity of life.
Summarily, Asouzu, upholds
the view that complementary reflection is an inquiry into the nature, essence
and substance of being in such a precise, universally complete and
comprehensive way. It is a methodology amongst many competing methodologies,
but neither transcendental in constitution or in application. It is rather
transcendent (43). This issue of non-transcendental but transcendent will raise
some criticism in our later part of this essay. This, with other pertinent
issues which he contradicted some cultural configurations about African
philosophy will need some clarification. Notwithstanding such opposition, he
opined that complementary reflection has its roots in the background of traditional African philosophy as a model which seeks universal relevance
following the collapse of hitherto ideological blocks of the Old World Order
(41). This philosophy from the ambience of African traditional philosophy seek
to be comprehensive and universal in orientation from the way it sees reality;
systematically communicating it while relying on new facts and insights away
from the old that are peculiar both to the African or Western, European or
Asian ontologies. Having done with some excursion in literature review as
such, let us go over to those elements of complementary reflection to see how
they can serve the purpose of a philosophy of integration.
3. Elements of Complementary Reflection.
There
are some things in any given mode of human existence which are necessary for
social cohesion, their absence which would pose serious threats to any group.
Elements of complementary reflection on their part stand out as those models in
philosophy which are capable
of mediating between our human ambivalent situations and interest
positively, against the severe
passionate approach to our self destruction occasioned by such ambivalence. Some of these
integrative elements of complimentary reflection include: Absence of artificial
barriers, intricate mutual services, mutual coherence, commitment to unity,
wholesomeness of purpose, openness to the future,
Harmony of differences, interest, ectcetera.
Complementary
reflection capture the images of these elements as framework of unity for
progressive philosophizing in a complementary whole, for the processing and
making of its image as a philosophical model that allows space for other
philosophies to thrive. In other words, flexibility as one of the elements is
geared towards overcoming all intrinsic negative tendencies which our human
ambivalent interest can cause as barrier to progressive integrativeness
in philosophy.
Complementary
reflection offers these elements as principles for a universally comprehensive
platform of knowledge enquiry, acquisition, exposition and impartation. They
act as anodyne of social cohesion and cohesiveness. Such anodynic
nature of Asouzu’s elements has prototype in Confucius’ element of ‘Li’ in
Chinese philosophy translated as “the order of things”, “propriety” (including
moral and social behaviours or rules of correct and
proper conduct), “courtesy”, “ ritual”, ceremony and reverence” etc. These element, Confucius’ philosophy gave as those which will guide society and
its human ambivalent character which have turned Chinese society of his days
negatively, with they need to go back to
the ancestral heritage of cherished values and goals. Asked what this element
‘Li’ signifies, Confucius responded:
Of all the things that people live by, Li is the
greatest. Without Li, we do not know how to conduct a proper worship of the
spirits of the universe, or how to establish the proper status of the king and
minister... rulers and the ruled ... elders and the juniors; or how to
establish moral relationship between the sexes,… parents… children… and... others; (
What we try to link between Asouzu’s elements of
complementary reflection and Confucius’ ‘Li’ is to bring out the issues of
mutual interaction and absence of artificial barriers which Asouzu say should
guide human rationality to universal standard where philosophy will seize to be
the claim of one cultural group characteristic as is found in Western
philosophical tradition.
Granted
that “men at opposite ends need themselves mutually for their interest to be
realized’ the idea of harmony of differences is a key elemental function in the
complementary principle within an intrinsic complementary relationship in the
complementary - whole - framework of this integrative drive of philosophy. In
other words, complementary reflection captures this image of the framework of
units within a complementary whole as a ground consideration of Ozumba’s
globalize human being seen from the point of view of human universality;
exhibiting no ethnic, racial or geographical limitations and boundaries and
cleavages (7). A forward looking philosophy in
These
elements pursue philosophy with a heart and spirit of relationship. Such is it
as Ambassador M. B. Ekpang in his “foreword” to Oshita’s Towards
self-knowledge: Essays in the Boki Nation,
opined:
The 21st century would be
increasingly driven by knowledge and a constellation of high technology
information systems. This fact challenges every human group to justify its
occupation of a portion of the global space by making its own contributions to
world knowledge. Communities that benefit from the global knowledge pool have a
duty to also put something back into the pool from which they benefit (vii).
A denial of the services of the spirit of relationship as
seen in the justification of knowledge occupation of every group in the global
space, invariably and inadvertently becomes a disservice to oneself. A disservice
which Asouzu says is caused by the activities of the human mind. The mind,
being placed under this illusion sees nothing good of the other self but
itself. The mind creates what is termed ‘advantages for its own survival; an
interest created out of its own cognitive self, worked out of its ambivalence
and perceiving the world in such a simultaneous mode of the positive and
negative parts; the negative most often overweighing the positive (65).
The
elements of complementary reflection call for a consistent commitment to the
principles of complementary reflection in order to awaken the cognitive
consciousness of all stakeholders in any system of philosophizing for a better
understanding of how to manage and cope with our human ambivalence and complex situations.
Taking for instance the issue of interest as an element, it is realized that an
individual is a missing link to another individual who also is a missing link
to another as a unit, in a system of a complex whole, who can serve the
interest of the other by exchange of one’s own interest through a ‘let-go’
paradigm which in this case, is Asouzu’s call to a higher principle of a higher
rationality Swung up, and far removed from such semi-rational instinct often
occasioning us to seek our self preservation. One therefore becomes a found
link based on the realization of these elements, their absence which have
produced the very shortcomings we have in our nature of doing philosophy. In
this regards, we can operate favourably in
conjunction with such realization that one philosophy becomes a missing link of
the opposite other within the whole system. No wonder Asouzu says ‘moments of
complementary mutual relationship is missing in Western philosophy”.
In
deed, between Benthan and Mill, we see in their philosophies
utilitarian elements of philosophy based on moral motives, sociability, feeling
of universal altruism, sympathy and justice, which they pursued at different
levels. There exist a universal spirit of their
coinage ‘utilitarianism’ following what is derived from these elements. Their
utilitarianism may serve as panacea in western philosophy. Our inference to
this utilitarian mode of Bethan and Mill draws global
concern of which philosophy, as pursued by Asouzu in this complementary nature
impinge on the tenets of globalization (Mukherjee and
Ramaswamy, 321-330). In fact, one observed how these
elements of complementary reflection (which I find to be utilitarian in African
philosophy) can affect the whole wave of social institutions. Just as vehicles
need roads for their plying, so does philosophy need these elements to cruise along. Let us now take some appraisal to see how we can arrived at a conclusion of these elements as instruments of
transformation for an integrative philosophy in and beyond African philosophy.
4. Appraisal and Conclusion
Social
experiences have shown that certain amount of change in knowledge application
would force society not to remain the same. This is so because one knowledge
acquisition and application in one context can find application in another when
such societies come in contact with such new knowledge in vogue. Ideas, norms
and institutions spread from one society to another. This is what Asouzu’s
elements of complementary reflection stand for. They call for an adjustment to
certain knowledge condition that find their base on
elitism. By elitism here we mean doing philosophy in an uncomplementary
manner as most Western and African philosophers have done. But are we now
saying philosophy is starting a new beginning with Asouzu and no other one? No.
It may not be the case. A leap into a kind of universal knowledge application
of the complementary nature which Asouzu called higher principle and
transcendent but not transcendental become his point of departure to build a
philosophical world and mindset that is all embrasive
and could advance knowledge for world peace in the New World Order.
This
therefore is to say that the elements of this philosophy are performing some
social functions as justified moral umpire of global peace and harmony in the
area of knowledge drive by the institutionalization of philosophic justice in
knowledge, where sound wisdom takes precedence over all other human attractions
and merchants of ideas.
We
may still ask for a better understanding that what is the nature or essence of
this higher principle whose elements Asouzu find to be the ontological status
of complementation? What legitimizing role do they
play? And how equally is this legitimizing role legitimate for a general
acceptance by all? Asouzu half way and
indirectly say, they are necessary links which have their roots in equity and
justice. That they are ingredients that can add to the making
of the realization of the interest of the whole other than units of the whole.
He then calls for an application of these elements by men in
knowledge drive in the legislation of matters rather than seek function
to themselves in doing philosophy. The general interest of all is his driving
motive. A rejection of these targets or goals by actors in the play of
knowledge from the units can adversely affect the whole in our global drive for
world peace and harmony.
But,
do we not consider in our thinking as in the case at hand with Asouzu’s thought
that our human shortsightedness is being unwittingly played upon by this faulty
part of human consciousness, that we so try to consider the whole in
preference, and subsequently neglecting the very concern for the units in a
complementary way as this, that equally often add more tension to the already created
ones? Is this not part of the picture Asouzu himself has created in trying to
place this philosophy in some carved out pedestal? Our academic quarrel here
with this erudite professor of philosophy is, how do
we know that this higher principle of integration is capable of guaranteeing
the equitable participation of all that are involved? Is there any rudimentary
logic that can guarantee truth that human being can actually in future overcome
this ambivalence of the human nature?
Granted
that the human mind itself falls short of the nature of being universal in its
operational frequency; granted that we have different and several levels of such frequency of operation, how then, or
what is the guarantee that abiding by these element of this higher principle
will loosen and set aground the strings that tie human ambivalence and
interest? For we know that the only and one universal mind that can be without
errors is, as Asouzu opined, the mind of God, which has no polarizing entity.
If it were not so, how would Asouzu have had such intellectual quarrel with
Aristotle’s polarization of philosophy?
In
attaining his object, Asouzu, said these elements of this higher principle are
the reason for most traditional African’s ability to surmounting their
problems. And that success for them arise as a result
of their recourse to the principle and had been admired as the fulcrum around
which the traditional African spirit of universal brotherhood and communalism
are known for. Is this higher principle integrative at all? If the case be
true, how can Asouzu reconcile his other thesis that the same principle of
communalism is not an African heritage while he tried to use it as an
ingredient in building complementarity in African philosophy?
Asouzu
in further complementation of this project says is an attempt at reformulating
and expounding of the principles of complementarity concretely built as a guide
or pointer to the transformation of our human ambivalent actions towards a
maxim that becomes a general law. Does this give us an ethic of the kind of
Kant’s categorical imperative or not? Or is it a new framework of building a
universal ethical maxim based on his own integrative
complementary principles? What are the limitations of maxims which become the
task of his work? Where can we find the imperatives advantageous enough to
address these matters? How is this principle of his transcendent and not
transcendental? The difficulties in finding solution to these
question will continue because of suspected ideological boundaries that
inherently overweighs the human mind due to our refusal to submit willingly to
the spirit of openness.
Let
us believe that this is one system among many that is groomed with some
scientific interest. According to Nwaigbo, the
characteristics or features of science are that it is empirical, verifiable and
scientifically demonstrable of facts and data (17). This being so with science
as the basis now from which world politics is played, we would ask one more
question whether this category of Asouzu’s approach to philosophy can go beyond
the context of these scientific characteristics to demonstrate itself as one
instrumentals philosophical element ready to place itself on the corridors of
science necessary for global politics and peace? This, and other previous
questions raised before become our point of departure in response to Asouzu’s
elements of complementary reflection as a philosophy of integration. They
require answers upon reflection. This is a task in philosophy and a standard
for philosophical inquiry if philosophy must remain the queen of the sciences
and art.
In
conclusion, it is our desire that these elements of complementary reflection,
being guided by its own internal instruments become paradigm for world peace
where wisdom everywhere stands as wisdom and individuals and nations contribute
to the universal pool. In other words, Aristotle’s wise man must allow himself
to be persuaded by sound knowledge rather than the idea of his refusal to be
ordered, or caused to obey, but must cause those he feels are unwise to be
ordered and obey him. Elements of complementary reflection seek a plane where
all wise men will cohabit with the unwise, and all supposedly unwise people
will learn to become wise in a spirit of tolerance for global peace. That is
why I think this higher principle is complementary indeed.
WORKS CITED
Asouzu,
Asouzu,
Asouzu,
Ekpang M. B. “Foreword” Towards
Self-knowledge: Essays on the Boki Nation 1. Ed. Oshita O. Oshita.
Mukherjee, S.
and Ramaswamy, S. A History of
Political Thought: Plato to Marx.
Nwaigbo, F. “Scientific
Ideologies at the Dawn of a New Age” Global Journal of Humanities
11 (2002):17.
Oguejiofor,
J. O. Philosophy and the African Predicament.
Ozumba,
G. O. “The Spirit of Contemporary African Philosophy” A Colloquium on
African Philosophy. 1
(2003):7.
Ozumba, G. O. “African
Metaphysics” A Colloquium on African Philosophy 2 (2004) 1-14.
Untersteiner, M. The Sophists, Trans.
Freeman Kathleen.