INDEX

Topics are arranged alphabetically in the INDEX.

Monday, January 20, 2020

Sophie Oluwole and Her Work




The Nigeria philosopher Sophie Bosede Oluwole died on 23 December 2018 at age 83. She was the first female to hold a doctorate degree in philosophy in Nigeria.

She rejected the sensibilities of a British education system in which she was educated, and lifted up traditional Yoruba metaphysics, seeking to empower fellow Africans.

Oluwole urged western Africa to reclaim its philosophical heritage, contending that the body of knowledge she found in the Yoruba tradition was as rich and complex as any found in the west.

“Reality contains matter and non-matter,” Oluwole told the Dutch filmmaker Juul van der Laan last year, highlighting a faultline. “In the west, the two cannot go together, they are in opposition. The African says yes, it has two features, but they cannot be separated. There is nothing that is absolutely material. There is nothing that is absolutely non-material. And in all phenomenons in the world, the two are there together.”

If Socrates could be considered the father of western philosophy, having left behind no written work of his own, then why shouldn’t Orunmila, who is believed to have predated Socrates, be considered the father of African philosophy? Oluwole urged western Africa to reclaim its philosophical heritage, contending that the body of knowledge she found in the Yoruba tradition was as rich and complex as any found in the west.

In 2015 she published Socrates and Orunmila: The Two Patrons of Classical Philosophy, directly comparing the two philosophers who had shaped her life’s work.

Wednesday, December 18, 2019

Learning From a True Leader




Alice C. Linsley

Of the many patriots and valiant leaders who have served the United States of America few measure up to George Washington. Why did the founding fathers choose George Washington, a forty-three-year-old gentleman farmer, to be Commander in Chief of the United Colonies? What did they see in him that persuaded them that Washington was the man to face such seasoned British generals as Sir William Howe, Sir Henry Clinton, and Charles Lord Cornwallis?

Born in 1732 into the family of a Virginia planter, young George exhibited strength of character and a willingness to serve. He learned surveying as a teenager and traveled as far as the Shenandoah Valley with Lord Thomas Fairfax’s survey team. A few years later, Washington joined the Virginia militia and began military training.

In 1753, he was selected for a difficult mission that would secure the Ohio River Valley for the British. The French were preparing to build a fort on land the British had claimed but not yet settled. Washington was to head an envoy through hostile wilderness, meet the French commander and deliver a message from the Crown, demanding that the French leave the region. The assignment required stamina to travel through rough wilderness, courage to face hostile Natives, and diplomatic skills to negotiate with the French. Washington completed the assignment, successfully delivering the message and returning with the French response in the dead of winter. All along the return route, Native Americans had tried to hunt him down and kill him. Washington was only twenty-one years old. He was then promoted to lieutenant colonel and selected to lead 160 soldiers back to the region to fight the French.

A year later, Washington returned to the disputed region as a volunteer aide to General Edward Braddock. When the British and colonial forces were ambushed by French and Native American fighters, Washington charged to Braddock’s side to inspire the regular troops to fight their way out of the ambush. Then he rode to the rear to bring the Virginia militiamen up into the fight. As officer after officer was killed or wounded, Washington rallied and directed the troops. In all, sixty officers lost their lives. Washington had two horses shot from under him and four bullets had torn through his coat. So many Natives tried to kill him and failed, that they finally gave up the effort, believing him to be under the protection of the “Great Spirit.”

A month later, Washington was promoted to colonel and became the regimental commander over all Virginia forces. He was twenty-three years old and wanted to make a career as a soldier. However, poor pay and inconsistent governmental support of the colonial officers frustrated him. He began to seek other ways to serve. In 1758, he won election to the Virginia House of Burgesses and resigned his commission, retiring to Mount Vernon to serve as a political leader for the next ten years. During this time, he was also elected as a delegate to the First and Second Continental Congresses. In 1775, he was appointed leader of the Continental Army and masterfully commanded the army against superior forces, finally defeating the British and forcing the surrender of General Cornwallis in 1781.

George Washington’s exemplary service to his country won him the trust of the nation. More than once people recommended that he become king. In March 1783, a group of army officers who had not been paid, urged Washington to seize power with their support, but Washington refused. James Flexner wrote, “This was probably the most important single gathering ever held in the United States.”

Many Americans do not realize how close our nation came to a military coup. Instead of grabbing power, Washington tried to persuade the soldiers to give their new government time to do the right thing, but the officers persisted in their way of thinking. In a final effort to calm the officers, he read them a letter he had recently received from a congressman. Washington paused, looked at the letter with difficulty, and finally reached into his pocket for eyeglasses. He quietly remarked, “I have already grown gray in the service of my country. I am now going blind.” The stunned officers took his words to heart and relented in their plan.

A month later, Washington resigned his commission as Commander of the Army and retired to Mount Vernon. It was his intention to live simply as a gentleman farmer among the people of Virginia, but the country still needed him.

When it came to selecting a President for the new nation, the Electoral College unanimously chose Washington. Never again would a President receive the unanimous vote of the Electoral College. George Washington earned the right to lead because his entire life was dedicated to the service of his country. He was chosen because he was proven.

Admiral James B. Stockdale rightly said, “Leadership must be based on goodwill. Goodwill does not mean posturing, and least of all, pandering to the mob. It means obvious and wholehearted commitment to helping followers.”

If you lead, you have the opportunity to do new things, explore new ground or defend what is good and true. If you are a follower, you are not part of the decision-making process and you must be content to go where you are led, even into unfamiliar territory. If you are not willing to go there, you must act in a decisive way. You must begin to act like a leader.

The present crisis of leadership in the United States emerges from discontent, polarization, the purchase of politicians, and apathy. Many do not care enough to be well informed and to get involved. Edmund Burke truly said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

The nearly universal crisis of leadership entails morally lax and ethically corrupt leaders, arrogance, and those more motivated by political self-interest than by public service. Recognizing the link between character and leadership, retired General Norman Schwarzkopf wrote, “Leadership is a potent combination of character and strategy. But if you must be without one, be without strategy.”

Good leadership is an act of the will combined with training and discernment. One must decide to lead, intentionally develop leadership skills, be a person of integrity and stand up for what is right and good. Honest, humble and hard working people can become extraordinary leaders, especially if they have a stiff spine. Good leaders keep the greater good in sight and do not succumb to pressures to conform to what may seem right in many people’s eyes. Margaret Thatcher once said, “No great cause has ever been fought and won under the banner of consensus.”

The seven fundamentals of leadership are:

1. Serve others, not your ego.
2. Learn humility.
3. Pray for wisdom and to see others as God sees them.
4. Be passionate about all you do.
5. Develop discipline and rely on it, rather than on emotion.
6. Evaluate where you can make peoples’ lives better.
7. Share your power. You have it because God gave it to you.

As we approach another national election, let us pray for the gift of good leaders. We need them badly, and God can raise them up “for such a time as this.”


Related reading: Washington and Freedom of Expression; What Donald Trump Doesn't Get About George Washington


Saturday, December 7, 2019

Getting Real About Medieval Philosophy



Alice C. Linsley

As a former professor who taught Medieval Philosophy, I recommend a unique new textbook to those who are interested in a multi-cultural approach. The title is Medieval Philosophy: A Multicultural Reader, edited by Bruce V. Foltz. Forward written by Bernard McGinn. This is a comprehensive volume for less than $50 (US).

There are 5 sections: Ancient philosophers as a spiritual tradition: Predecessors of Medieval Philosophy (Eric D. Perl); The Greek Christian Tradition (David Bradshaw); The Latin Christian Tradition (Peter Casarella); The Jewish Tradition (Sarah Pessin); and The Islamic (mainly Persian) Tradition (Mohammad Azadpur). 

Typically, Medieval Philosophy texts jump from Plato to Augustine, or from Aristotle to Descartes, by-passing centuries of philosophical inquiry and cross-fertilization of thought. They do not provide sufficient non-Western sources to help the student gain an accurate understanding of the influence of Greek, Latin, Arabic, and Hebrew traditions. This neglect has the effect of flattening Medieval history. The text's multi-cultural approach exposes the richness of Medieval philosophy. 

Published by Bloomsbury Academic (2019), this excellent book is 715 pages of fascinating reading. I hope it will become the approved text at many colleges and universities. There is no other text like it, and it meets a need.


Tuesday, December 3, 2019

Said's Disappointment




The Palestinian-American Edward Said (1935-2003) received an invitation to attend a conference in Paris in 1979 and he was thrilled about meeting French philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and Michel Foucault. The chaotic conference was a great disappointment to Said. Read the report.
Eager to discover the three philosophers’ perspectives on the Arab region's issues, Said was thrilled when he received an invitation from de Beauvoir and Sartre in 1979 to attend a conference on the Middle East in Paris. 
“It might just as well have been an invitation from Cosima and Richard Wagner to come to Bayreuth, or from T.S. Eliot and Virginia Woolf to spend an afternoon at the offices of the Dial,” he recalls in his diary.
When Said reached Paris, he was surprised to learn that the proceedings had been shifted to Foucault’s house for ambiguously unexplained security reasons. The next few days continued in the same chaotic manner. 
The themes of the event had been chosen by an acquaintance of Sartre without consulting with any of the participants. None of the Arab scholars were happy with the selected topics “covering more or less familiar ground, with no real meeting of minds” and neglecting the struggle of the Palestinians.

“It soon enough became clear that Israel’s enhancement was the real subject of the meeting, not the Arabs or the Palestinians,” Said wrote.

 Read it all here.

Tuesday, October 22, 2019

Looking at Heidegger’s “Augustine and Neo-Platonism"


Martin Heidegger


Here is a paper on Augustinian Elements in Heidegger.

Chad Engelland
University of Dallas, USA

ABSTRACT

Heidegger’s 1921 lecture course, “Augustine and Neo-Platonism,” shows the emergence of certain Augustinian elements in Heidegger’s account of the human being. In Book X of Augustine’s Confessions, Heidegger finds a rich account of the historicity and facticity of human existence. He interprets Augustinian molestia (facticity) by exhibiting the complex relation of curare (the fundamental character of factical life) and the three forms of tentatio (possibilities of falling). In this analysis, molestia appears as the how of the being of life. Heidegger also makes an important critique of what is Platonic in Augustine. Specifically, he rejects what he calls Augustine’s axiological interpretation of tentatio for a more existential one. Heidegger understands axiology to be a calculative preferring of one good over another in reference to a theoretical hierarchy of goods. We offer a defense of Augustine which focuses on the historical manner in which goods are disclosed in desire.

Thursday, August 29, 2019

Aristotle's Final Resting Place


Part of the ancient wall of Stagira

The Greek archaeologist Konstantinos Sismanidis excavated Aristotle's birthplace in northern Greece in the 1990s. He believes that a ruined structure he found may have been the final resting place of Aristotle. Sismanidis admitted that he has no solid evidence, but he quoted medieval references that speak of Aristotle’s remains (ashes or bones?) being interred in his hometown of Stagira.

Stagira is located in central Macedonia, near the eastern coast of the peninsula of Chalkidice.




Sismanidis notes that the vault, with its marble floor, dates from classical Hellenistic times, as do the coins and ceramics found there. He envisions it as a stone mausoleum with an altar outside the entrance, as show above. (Read more here.)

Another theory is that Aristotle's ashes were transferred to Stagira from Chalcis on the island of Euboea (Chalkida on Evia) where it is believed he died.

Some sources assume that Aristotle was cremated and that his ashes were brought to Stagira. Others speak of secondary burial, which means that his bones were reburied in Stagira. 

It is possible that Aristotle was first buried near Athens. He asked to be buried with his wife Pythias, a woman of the nobility. Pythias died in 335 BC and was buried near Athens. Aristotle died near Athens in 322. 

In his last years, Aristotle had a relationship with his concubine Herpyllis, who bore him Nicomachus, the son for whom his great treatise on Ethics is named. 

In his will, Aristotle made provisions for Herpyllis, and directed that Pythias' bones be moved to his grave. If that happened, it can be assumed that the remains of husband and wife rest together. But where? 


Thursday, August 15, 2019

Thoughts on Gender Equality


Alice C. Linsley


When people speak of "gender equality" I am curious about their beliefs and conceptions of reality. For some, the equality of male and female is simply an extension of their dualistic worldview. They embrace the philosophy of Yin-Yang, a soft egalitarianism that offends no one in contemporary Western societies. It is posed as the way of harmony.

Some people are influenced by the feminist conception of gender. I am speaking of ideological feminism which is rooted in Marxist thought, not equal pay for equal work. Ideological feminism gained momentum in the 1960s with the writings of Gloria Steinem, Kate Millet, and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. Ideological feminism limits women by requiring them to compete with men in every area of life. This works by shaming, so that women feel bad about themselves when they don't enter the game.

Some views on gender are shaped by the person's religious beliefs. I've had numerous conversations with proponents of the idea that male and female complement each other. That is, they supply for the other what the other may lack. In this conception there is more than inter-dependency; there is absolute need. This notion gained popularity during the 1990s when Evangelicals were elevating the married state above singleness. This too involved shaming until the pendulum swung the opposite direction and Evangelicals started to talk about the blessedness of being single and celibate.

In Evangelical circles the conception of gender complementarity was coupled with the doctrine of headship. While men and women have different and complementary responsibilities in marriage, family life, and church roles, the husband has the final authority.

For Evangelical churches this meant that women clergy could serve only under the leadership of a male head pastor. However, Anglicans ordained women as priests, an action that was predicated upon the feminist conception of gender equality. Though that conception is far removed from the biblical view of gender, the practice continues even within conservative Anglican jurisdictions.

The biblical view of male and female entails binary distinctions and hierarchies. The gender distinctions reflect what the ancients observed about male and female in the natural order. Males are larger and stronger than females. Females are more attuned to potential ruptures in their social fabric. When threatened, males go on the defensive and assert their rights. Fear in females tends to make them clingy. This dynamic in the male-female relationship was articulated by Dr. Carol Gilligan, Harvard Professor of Psychology, in her seminal work In A Different Voice (1982).

We may dismiss these statements as generalizations, but generalizations are grounded in observation. I spoke to Dr. Gilligan about her book soon after it was published. We discussed the effects of fear and how these are expressed differently in men and women. Genesis 3:16 is a succinct description of the dynamic. Fear having entered their relationship (Gen. 3:10), God explains to the woman, "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (Gen. 3:16)

I speak on this topic and find that many people cannot hear what I am saying. The voices of dualism and egalitarianism completely drown the voice of the ancients. The term "binary" has become a bad word.

The distinction between the male and the female has become so blurred that none consider it odd that women serve in combat or as priests. Mothers kill their babies. Fathers abandon their children and abuse their wives. Men have sex with men. God is cast as goddess, and the fact that Jesus was born a man, and called the "Son" of God the Father, is dismissed as patriarchal language.

As an anthropologist, I have been researching the social structure of the biblical Hebrew for more than thirty-five years. In that published research I have demonstrated that the Hebrew did not have a patriarchal social structure. The feminist claim is false and unsubstantiated.

The Hebrew had a distinctive marriage and ascendancy pattern that has been identified through anthropological research using kinship analysis. Though the wives are not always named in the king lists, their presence is evident in analysis of the social structure of the ancient Hebrew.

Before Israel existed, the wives and daughters of the Hebrew rulers listed in Genesis 4, 5, 10, 11, 25 and 36 ruled over large royal households, arranged royal weddings, owned property, and assisted in the building of kingdoms. Among the biblical Hebrew all movable property such as tents and flocks belonged to the wife who ruled over her settlement.

Hebrew wives were essential to the establishment of a territory. The ruler-priest had two wives living in separate settlements at the northern and southern boundaries of his territories. Without these wives, there was no way to establish his kingdom and maintain his territorial boundaries. Abraham's territory extended between Sarah in Hebron and Keturah in Beersheba. Before his son could take the reins from Abraham, Isaac had first to marry his cousin bride. The cousin bride was always the second wife, taken later in the heir's life in preparation for his rule.

Among the biblical Hebrew, wives exercised considerable influence over the affairs of their settlements. Sarah ordered her servant Hagar to leave the settlement and Abraham had to concede. 

Cousin brides named their first-born sons after their fathers. Those sons belonged to the households of their maternal grandfathers. The biblical Hebrew had a double unilineal descent pattern. This pattern pertains to more than descent. It reflects the rights and responsibilities of the matriarch and the patriarch. In a double unilineal descent pattern, both the patrilineage and the matrilineage are recognized and honored, but in different ways.

For healthy conversations to take place about gender, there must be talk about patterns of relating that honor the dignity of males and females without imposing ideologies and shame.