EDITORS INIOBONG UMOTONG. OTTO DENNIS INAMETI UDOPublished by: The Department of Philosophy Akwa Ibom State University Obio Akpa Campus Oruk Anam L. G. A. Akwa Ibom State Copyright © The Department of Philosophy, Akwa Ibom State University, 2020 Copyright Restriction All rights to this book are reserved to the copyright owners. No part of it may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photography, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. Printed by St. Paul’s Prints Uyo, Akwa Ibom State Tel: 08027140644, 07058646561CHAPTER ONE THE MEANING, NATURE AND SCOPE OF PHILOSOPHY Iniobong Umotong, Ph.D INTRODUCTION Philosophy means different things to different people and, in differen contexts, it is differently applied. These differences in meani occasioned by contextual application contribute a lot to its misconception, misapplication and misrepresentation as an abstract discipline. Philosophy is regarded as one of the abstract and, thus, unrecognised disciplines in institutions of higher learning. Its perception as an abstract discipline is grave that our education policy makers ignore mentioning it or recognizing it in pre- nursery, nursery, primary and secondary school levels as is the practice with major and core foundational subjects or courses such as mathematics and the official language of communication of sucha society. But this perceived or imaginary abstractness does not in any way dent the integrity of philosophy in whatever area one may choose to consider the concept as people on the streets, business premises, anc very often, those engaged in hot debates, use the word philosophy Religious men, politicians, cultists and mystics, in most cases, also use philosophy as one of the ground principles that aid the organization o! their fellowship. But none of these, (except those schooled in elements a aof philosophy) can say what philosophy really is — as an academic «discipline and activity. It is on this basis, therefore, that this chapter is preoccupied with the objective of correcting the misconceptions about the discipline by discussing it as one with a systematic approach, meaning, scope, focus, interest, nature and content. WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? It is generally said that philosophy is full of controversies. To the informed, philosophy is not controversial at all. The alleged controversies comes from the fact that either some people emphasize a part of what it is or they say the same thing as others do, but ina different form. There are some who give wrong descriptions of definition of what the discipline is. In the definition of philosophy, whichever scientific one is adopted from the many that are available, there is a common proposition to be conveyed to the audience. The perceived differences in definition are accidental in the sense that they reflect the functions that are expected of philosophy according to particular social or historical problems it is aimed at solving. To address these controversies some people have resorted to +ymological definition of Philosophy (a definition from the root words). In this wise, itis defined as the love of wisdom,' which is derive from two Greek words — Philos and Sophia. This etymological definition has something to teach us. There is something that it exposes. When one is said to be in love with an object — X, that object of love becomes a target and an end. The process of getting at the end becomes the function or operation of the loving subject. This means that wisdom is the end for philosophy and every endeavor at knowledge attainment is seen as an engagement in philosophical enterprise. Apart from the etymological definition of philosophy as ‘love of wisdom', some people use philosophy to mean very many things. To some it is the belief system that surrounds life. To others philosophy means one's thought or belief about anything. Viewed from these perspectives, people have what they call philosophy of life which, in this sense, means their personal convictions about issues of life. This type of view about philosophy is completely out of the focus of ‘ I =—2—philosophy as an academic discipline. As an academic discipline, philosophy is centered on three basic principles. These include: @ Critical reflection on the justification of certain basic human beliefs and analysis of basic concepts. Here, one carries out basic analyses of ideas of existence and asks questions about usefulness of the analyses. It is through thorough analysis that issues surrounding many beliefs can be exposed such that a more positive and practical decision can be taken. This then portrays a philosopher as one who goes beyond brute facts in justifying an action. In as much as a philosopher is interested in practical life he goes beyond observational level to do two major things. These include: (ii) Locating that kind of belief, acceptance, assumption, principle, oraxiom that gave rise to a particular practice. (iii) Justifying the bases that underlie what can be called further implications of such beliefs, assumptions and their negations. Philosophy can therefore be seen as a systematic inquiry into the nature of the principles, which underlie our common sense beliefs. On another hand, philosophy is an interpretation that transcends the facility of life (circumstances, perceptions and issues of life) and, hence, forms the basis for facts. Here, interpretation is just a narrative explanation, which is one's conception of the issues. Such a critical attempt is bounded by organized principles of logic. In philosophy, when interpretation leads one to a thesis, it can be called conscious worldview as against; a worldview of people or an individual. The latter is not a product of a rigorous activity. That is why Wiredu (50) says that self-consciousness is one of the characteristics of philosophy. It is discovered that philosophy cannot just be a reason, cannot just be asking questions. It cannot be a guide to life nor can it be a worldview. It is in this context that Ryle (85) observes that; It is one thing to apply principles intelligently; it is another thing to retreat in order to consider these principles. A scientist, he continues, who ceases to solve his problems through application of principles only in order to inquire the way of the principles is a good philosopher and a better scientist.these two interests Uifferentiate a philosopher from the ordinary stor scholar. WHO IS A PHILOSOPHER? \tv- philosopher is many things to many people. To some people, a philosopher is a calabash of wisdom. He has all the answers to all the ivoblems of man. To others, a philosopher is only interested in hair- splitting arguments. ‘The character of the philosopher, which stands out clearly is (hat he wants to know the ultimate reason for things. Hence, he has been described as an “Intellectual trouble-maker.” Philosophers develop round conceptions designed to instruct people on how they should live. They achieve this by critically and imaginatively examining «ucstions about humanity and the universe. Reports on all matters are sent to the philosopher. From the reports, he attempts a coherent survey of this puzzling universe with a view to offering a comprehensive solution to issues raised by the arts and sciences. What is Wisdom? Wisdom is “an element of personal character that enables one to iviinguish the wise from the unwise, the ability to apply relevant knowledge in an insightful way especially to different situations from shat in which the knowledge was gained” (Oxford Advanced Dictionary 1209). Wisdom is not just mere knowledge. A knowledgeable man is he whose mind is a storehouse of facts. He simply absorbs what is given to him and produces them when required, but finds it difficult to see the relationships between what he claims to be knowledge and some other remote situations or facts not available to his intellect. These are the distinguishing factor between a knowledgeable man and a wise man. In traditional A frican Society certain people are consulted when there are problems. This is done because it is believed that they know about the society and have the perception of relations in society. They cqually have the disposition to use their knowledge to solve human problems. These men and women know not only the values and laws of the people; they also know the reasons and relations behind them. They —10—can apply, relevantly and judiciously, generally accepted norms to individual problems. With this insight it would not be out of place to define wisdom as human ability to understand and take clever decisions backed by reason. Thus, knowledge combined with intellectuality brings about wisdom. An intellectual (intelligent man) is he who, through education, develops his mind to a point of processing facts and extracting their significance for human life and whose interest is to bring to bear on social problem the significance of what he knows, in order to liberate, enrich and humanize people. It is worth noting that intellect not channeled toward the good of the society cannot be regarded as proper wisdom. To be wise entails knowing and appreciating what is good. A skillful armed robber is nota wise man. Philosophy as an Activity with Objective Philosophy as an activity tackles questions or problems from its foundational perspective. The solution or resolution of these problems does affect human belief and hence his behaviour and, invariably by extension and implication, affects in same or greater magnitude man's environment, his actions and inactions. To engage in philosophy is either to follow the activities of some philosophers as they try to answer questions or solve problems or to embark on philosophizing — that is, answering questions or solving problems that are akin to fundamental and common sense beliefs in a manner characteristic of the philosophical method, epoch and environment. Examples of this kind of engagement in philosophy is as represented by articics in journals, talks delivered during seminars,.text books or even lectures or discussions on philosophical issues of interest to the society. Every attempt at philosophizing is not just a mental exercise for people in the Ivory tower — an exercise that has nothing to do with the common man, the poor illiterate peasants, businessmen in the market, _ mechanics, lawyers, rulers, fishermen and people of every area of human endeavour. On the contrary, itis an activity that takes care of the fundamental problems and questions of such people. Philosophy begins with culture, but it does not depend on it, nor terminate there. This is why Russell says that “philosophy is an attempt to answer — IL,can apply, relevantly and judiciously, generally accepted norms to individual problems. With this insight it would not be out of place to define wisdom as human ability to understand and take clever decisions backed by reason. Thus, knowledge combined with intellectuality brings about wisdom. An intellectual (intelligent man) is he who, through education, develops his mind to a point of processing facts and extracting their significance for human life and whose interest is to bring to bear on social problem the significance of what he knows, in order to liberate, enrich and humanize people. It is worth noting that intellect not channeled toward the good of the society cannot be regarded as proper wisdom. To be wise entails knowing and appreciating what is good. A skillful armed robber is not a wise man. Philosophy as an Activity with Objective Philosophy as an activity tackles questions or problems from its foundational perspective. The solution or resolution of these problems does affect human belief and hence his behaviour and, invariably by extension and implication, affects in same or greater magnitude man's environment, his actions and inactions. To engage in philosophy is either to follow the activities of some philosophers as they try to answer questions or solve problems or to embark on philosophizing — that is, answering questions or solving problems that are akin to fundamental and common sense beliefs in a manner characteristic of the philosophical method, epoch and environment. Examples of this kind of engagement in philosophy is as represented by articles in journals, talks delivered during seminars,.text books or even lectures or discussions on philosophical issues of interest to the society. Every attempt at philosophizing is not just a mental exercise for people in the Ivory tower — an exercise that has nothing to do with the common man, the poor illiterate peasants, businessmen in the market, _ mechanics, lawyers, rulers, fishermen and people of every area of human endeavour. On the contrary, it is an activity that takes care of the fundamental problems and questions of such people. Philosophy begins with culture, but it does not depend on it, nor terminate there. This is why Russell says that “philosophy is an attempt to answer —i) ==i ~4. All physical sciences deal with aspects of man and human : “experiences, especially experiences of man about man that has bady _ .and mind. He is also a social being. 2. Therefore, other groups of sciences Human Sciences - (Humanities) as distinct from the Physical or Natural Sciences, take care of the mental and social aspects of our experiences. Here, man is ‘studied in his mental capacity and social relation with his fellow men. These are handled in the area of Sciences of politics, sociology, Economics, Law, and Government, 3. From social point of view, man does not accommodate any type of behaviour in his relations with other human beings; He recognizes the differences between right and wrong, good and bad, pleasure, happiness and pains, duty and responsibility. Therefore, he rejects some behaviour and accepts others -he is therefore moral. This is the focus of ethics. 4 Man also entertains the view that he does not only have an interior relation but also that he has transcendental one. In other words, he believes that he is subjected to or depended on some higher power or powers dwelling somehow, somewhere within or beyond the universe. This is a subject matter of religion. In trying to explain human experience, sciences — physical or human — deal with the approximate, immediate, partial and empirical causes, and simply assume the deeper or fundamental problems of questions. But reason employed, causes assumed, laws and principles accepted etc (that is, beliefs or axioms) when investigated further and light thrown on them, not just from the parochial point of view but from an organic point of view, gives rise to better understanding. Thus, raising questions about them and perhaps criticizing them, analyzing them, justifying or not justifying them in order to throw more light on them, and hence project possibilities is doing philosophy. The implication of this is that philosophy can play arole in every subject. —13—These beliefs or axioms are vague, and inexact. Russell categorizes the different knowledge that gives rise to such axioms or heliefs as “common sense knowledge”. Thus, we have knowledge. through acquaintance with various particular objects of our daily life awh as; table, chain, car, house, etc. Such knowledge may seem certain lant second thought reveals that there is a problem: a problem associated with sensation. Knowledge about particular things outside our inmuediate experiences - as we have from history, newspaper, law, political science, etc. is called knowledge by description. Our trust in this, depend on testimonies which however vary in certainty, Example- 'listory of Gowon, Napoleon. Homer, Hitler, Lenin. Knowledge can also be attained through induction, Induction is mostly’ used in the realm of the sciences. As it is with most other types of knowledge, inductive knowledge is faced with some problems which include: (1) Science suffers the same fate as history. For example: the law of - gravity cannot enjoy the same authenticity with the law of atomic structure. - (b) The inductive method used by science is a matter of dependency of few to discuss many. (e) As long as any discipline is built on assumptions, that discipline cannot be very certain. So the more investigations are done about the assumptions, the more light we receive, and the suret we are about the knowledge from them. Ancxample can be drawn from the legal practice. Very often lawyers in “ourt pass a particular kind of verdict on a particular case because that is deemed similar with another past case(s), which, at its time of occurrence, received the very judgment. What is the basic thing here or what is assumed here is that ‘peration is based on the principle of precedent. And this principle, in (umn, assumes the principle of identity. In order words, if X = Y, X is wlentical to Y and therefore whatever that goes for X goes for Y. Nut it has been argued that such a mechanical application of the principle of identity is absurd and can lead to social problems. The arguments can appear in the following forms: identity relation is one —14—flexible X=and therefore = is no relation, because a relation can only be possible when something bears on something else. But since nothing can be identical to something other than itself, this position concludes that whatever this sign = (equal to) may stand for, it does not stand fora relation. . Frege also says that = (equal to) cannot be possible in a general sense. It mustbe ina strict sense that is partial sense. Musa is a Nigerian Okonkwo is a Nigerian Therefore Musa is equal to Okonkwo. Though two of them are Nigerians, the capacities and senses in which they are Nigerians are not the same, that is, they differ in some respects and agree in some respects. Therefore it will be fallacious to pass a judgment ona whole from partial aspects of the whole. ‘Mathematics also agrees that two things can only be identical in infinity. X=Y ... but we cannot reach infinity. With this kind of intensive knowledge (knowledge from analysis) people can be cautious in the application of the principle of identity in human relation, lL (a) Differs from (b) in some respects and agrees in some aspects. 2. (b) Differs from 2 (b) in some respects and agrees with 2 (b) in some aspects. 3: In Mathematics: two things can be identical in infinity X=Y...00 But we cannot reach infinity But why should we belabour ourselves with these fundamentals when “a practical man” can lay his hands on what ‘seems’ and produces what can be utilized? The problem is in man. Psychology tells us that man is dynamic. Heraclitus also proved that what is teal is change. This means that man can change his views and values. But the changing rates ofall individuals in all the places are not the same. Therefore, there is a possibility of conflict in values and views of people who previously believed in the same thing. We are also told by sociologists that culture has many characteristics among them is its dynamic nature. Our —15—uilcrest in the dynamic nature of culture is evidenced by the rate at which culture changes with the passage of time. Therefore values in its cultural contexthave to differ. But no person or culture is very independent that he or she does uot require an organic existence with others. This is what Plato and \uistotle saw and defended zealously; the need for a society. It is also ‘lw unavoidability of the organically compounded system that Hobbes wv and criticized the world of nature, Pythagoras did not see this as a ued, he saw itas what actually was. Ifall things are bound to have the necd to be so closely related and yet tend to disagree it becomes necessary to discover the point of convergence of all the divergence in human values and endeavour. This will work as a functional tool for unification. This point can only be discovered if and only if we go to the fundamental, which have given rise to the divergence. To do this is to be cngaged in philosophy. SYNOPSIS OF BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY the three fundamental themes of philosophy, around which all other philosophic problems are clustered, are reality, value, and knowledge. Hach of these themes is explored by different branches of philosophy. ‘The main branches of | ‘philosophy are; (1) Metaphysics ©’ Axiology vy Epistemology (4) Logic (5) Philosophy of disciplines t Metaphysics: The ultimate quest of metaphysics is to establish reality. It is the science of the ultimate principle and properties of real thing. It is divided into special and general metaphysics. The sub- branches are ontology, cosmology, rational psychology, and theodicy. All theories concerning all aspects ofhuman. endeavour are grounded in ‘metaphysics. The reality of anything lies beyond the physical “pearance of the thing. Therefore metaphysics deals with issues beyond the natural phenomenon. —16—2. Axiology: This is the branch of philosophy that deals with intrinsic and extrinsic values. It is divided into Ethics and Aesthetics. Ethics seeks to establish and defend a universally valid theory on issues of right and wrong, good and bad in general. It can be used as a set of moral principles for guiding human action. Aesthetics isa branch of philosophy that deals with art appreciation. While Social and political philosophy, philosophy of education, philosophy of law, among others, are also aspects of axiology. 3. Epistemology: This is the branch of philosophy, which deals with the origin and structure of knowledge, as well as the methods and validity of knowledge acquisition. The sub-branches of epistemology include the theory of knowledge, logic, philosophy of language and philosophy of science. The above are the traditional main branches and. sub-branches of philosophy. New areas are created from time to time, hence you can talk of philosophy of sports or philosophy of science, philosophy of socia! science, philosophy of mathematics and so on. 4. Logic: This is the study of methods and principles used in distinguishing correct from incorrect reasoning. From the root word Logos in Greek which means "word", the study therefore means the study of words in every context of its use. These contexts are: statements or propositions, conversations, arguments and discussions. The hallmark of logic, as against ordinary reasohing and arguments or the process of reasoning, is aimed at leading one to make valid and sound reasoning. : 5 Philosophy of disciplines: This is philosdphy's investigation of other disciplines’ assumptions, principles, methods and achievements for purposes of maintaining their focus, granting them foundation and guiding their engagements to maturity. Philosophy establishes and maintains its motherhood of other disciplines here. Hence, all other disciplines in academia are children of philosophy. And like children, they always return to the parent for solutions to certain problems, especially those of foundation, ethics and epistemology. It is in this 7aspect that Philosophy fields studies such as Philosophy of Law, Philosophy of History, Philosophy of Svicuce, Philosophy of l-ducation, etc. YNOPSIS OF METHOD OF PHILOSOPHY the method of philosophy that characterizes it as an enterprise. By method I mean how it tries to solve the problems it faces through laid «lown procedures or systems. To get into this, it is pertinent to consider what Onyenwuenyi calls the objective of the department of philosophy towards African philosophy. The main focus of philosophy is to inculcate the habit of clear, exact, logical and critical thinking, in other words to think rationally. lL. To avoid blind and emotional indoctrination. x To develop the habit of examining critically and solving uvcisively life problems in the light of rational principles. ‘This is not the method of philosophy; it is rather a bunch of dispositions meant to build in an individual a worldview. The question still remains: low does philosophy get about its job of investigation? Philosophical Enterprise is Synoptic: It takes account of what other sciences have for the issue at hand. It uses a second order operation on the analyzed facts {o arrive at the truth or to draw conclusions using philosophy as: (1) Analysis (2) objective (3) activity Philosophy as Analysis ‘Lhe point of analysis is to clarify concepts, belief, etc., in order to help in better theorizing, practicing or solving problems. There are three basic types of analyses: A. Generic Analysis: This aims at finding the necessary features of properties of a thing and answers the question: “what is X”? Or what features make something X? B. Differentiation type Analysis: This aims at separating different senses for the meaning of something. It answers the question: “what are the different uses of the term X (e.g. aims and objectives)”?. C Condition type Analysis: This goes into looking for the conditions that must be fulfilled for a thing to be X. —pge—Ht is critical: Tin's involves separation of the factual from the evaluation. In short, it categorizes and hence justifies. It argues for and brings in likely objections to counter objections that may be raised. Normative: from the tilting of balance due to the weights of the arguments, a position is maintained. This becomes a conscious worldview. Other characteristics that are not interwoven in the method are: Philosophy as a Subjective/Personal Inquiry: It is a personal affair as against any consensus opinion. It is not knowledge embraced or accepted because some others support it, rather itis what one comes to stand for after the rigour of the method. It is context-bound: It is stimulated by problems of culture though it transcends them to look for solutions. Every philosophy secks to solve a problem within a social context. It is this culturally-bound nature of philosophy that led Dolan (28) to maintain that any intellectual system that attempts to operate outside the framework of history losses much ofits formative power. The point made here can be further supported by the history of philosophy. (a) Kant's moral philosophy was motivated by materialistic tendencies of his time and misguided position of the mind in. cognition, {b) The Milesian philosophers (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes) in their philosophies fought against supernaturalism and proved to their people that the moon and. stars they worshipped were mere non-living bodies. (c} The philosophy of Marx has an eschatological element just as the Roman philosophies (Staicism and Epicureanism). @) ‘Existentialism of Kierkegaard was measuring the so-called Christianity lived by Christians against the real Christianity. {e) Kwame Nkrumah's philosophy of Consciencism is a fight against colonization on one hand and a lift of the African personality on the other. —jo—Philosophy as an Objective/Impersonal Inquiry {tisnot subjective but objective in the sense that it can be vended cither empirically or logically. It can be understood and hence criticized. It: is asystem. This is why itis also said to be scientific. in the method mentioned, a summary of the whole process can be called rational. This is why many say that philosophy is concerned with reasoning. Aristotle uses the word rationality in a normative sense when he says that all men are rational animals. He is saying that all men should be rational. In other words, he means that they should act, plan, choose ends, adopt means and therefore control their environment rather than simply responding to it. He should be able to memorize, imagine, predict, hypothesize and think well. Rationality is not a kind of thinking that bounds up like planning your timetable or having enough time for your studies. Rationality is not a matter of being right, for one can be rational without producing a conclusion that is acceptable. Two arguments may have the same end yet we say that one is rational and the other is not. Or we may have two hot debates for and against something. Two of them cannot be right but two of them may be rational (Reasoning well). This shows that rational wigument is nota type that ends with the right answer. In examinations, a teacher may accept the rationality of student's argument without accepting the students position, To talk about rationality is to discuss the process of the argument, the process of reasoning, To say that an argument is rational is to say that the chain of reasoning from premises to conclusion is valid, A rational argument is that which proceeds logically, it is one whose steps follow necessarily from the preceding ones and in good reason, Anargument may fall short of rationality in different ways. 1. If it refuses to take note of pertinent evidence. 2. Tfit stresses irrelevant evidence-admission on state level (Emotion) 3. If it falls into ambiguity. 4, Ifit falls into contradiction and inconsistencies. —20 —THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND OTHER DISCIPLINES We have already stated that what places a topic under a particular discipline is not the nature of the topic or the object of discussion. It is the approach: the method of treating the issue or case. Therefore what makes a topic philosophical is the approach to the topic. This can be exemplified by taking a topic and approaching it from many points of view. An example is the issue of morality, L The sociologist will in his manner start by investigating the relationship between social class and moral development. And he would be interested in how morality is imparted to family and social agencies operating within the cover of such community or social control. Db The Anthropologist, on the other hand, will attempt a comparative study of moral codes of primitive! and modern societies as to gain further insight into the way rules and normsare transmitted from one generation to another 3. The Historian will be primarily concerned with the ways idcas of morality have altered and developed over the years as a result of economic and social conditions, Parallels may be drawn between the moral parties of say the pre-colonial Aftica and independent Africa or say between the ancient Grecks and contemporary society, 4. Psychology will investigate the psychical process or moral development to discover the various intellectual or psychic stages which children and adolescents go through before they are capable of mature moral reasoning, The philosopher just engages in synoptic function of: finding what these experts have done in their areas. He goes into the second order questions in these disciplines. He seeks to examine the language used to understand the claims and arguments put forward by these various 2] =people. He distinguishes factual from evaluative claims and languages {o ensure that confusion does not arise in either the conclusion or the _ worldview that might be reached (moral judgments). For example, it may be the case that Sparta was a stable and well-disciplined society, Int if we want to proceed from this statement to saying that the Spartan society therefore had a worthwhile system of morality which ought to be emulated in modern times, then we will have to produce further stgument and justifiable evidence in support of this recommendation. Oras it is sometimes misfired by ideological holders who argue that the United States of America or Russia is respectively capitalistic or socialistic and that the United States of America or Russia is doing so wrongfully well therefore Nigeria should look up to the United States of America or Russia. Hence, the problem is that the inference of ought is automatic from what is. Empirical and — non-empirical considerations have to be made. For Example, what is morality? What are the conditions that bring it about? What is the principle of justification of morality and standards for measuring moral actions? It is after this that we can draw thought inference thus separating it from the 'is'. David Hume rightly pointed out some centuries ago that there is no straightforward or automatic way of inferring the ‘ought’ from the ‘is!. Value judgment has to be clearly stated and rationality defended, ; ng in mind certain situations and implications before any recommendations. The analytic function of philosophy then involves the examination of non- empirical investigations or questions, which are not dealt with in history, sociology, psychology, etc. The philosopher wants to know more than just how moral practices have differed from time to time and from culture to culture or how the process or moral development takes place (though he would have interest in these areas) but rather, he seeks to answer the fundamental questions of what morality is, what conditions favour it, the implications of differing conditions, the bases of moral norms, or their justification. Philosophy and Other Forms of Knowledge Hitherto, ali bodies of knowledge were subsumed under the title “Philosophy” this explains why we still talk of “Doctor of Philosophy” 99 —in all disciplines to indicate that a body of knowledge in every discipline obtains specific answers to it problems through philosophy. Every new discipline spreads up as a result of its independence from philosophy. Psychology is the last to do so, and we expect logic to follow inno distant date. The sciences and arts use various concepts without caring to understand their meanings. Philosophy analyses and sharpens these concepts (e.g. substance, cause, change) for the scientists and the men of arts to use with precision. While these other bodies of knowledge seek for explanation, philosophy seeks for justification; it secks rational. grounds for either accepting a belief or for tejecting it. According to Kant, philosophy asks four fundamental questions: “what can I know?” “What ought I to do,” “What can [hope for?” and “What is man?” For Kant, philosophy concerns itself with the problems of knowledge, the universe, the question of social and moral telationship, the belief of the existence of God, and the problem of self knowledge. For Wittgenstein it is the clarification of concepts. “Philosophy's a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language” (Witgenstein 25). In the same vein, Titus declares that: Philosophy deals with the principles of explanation that underlines all things without exception, the elements common to the gods and men and animals and stones, the first whence and the last whither of the whole cosmic process, the conditions of knowledge and the most general rules of human conduct (Tits 52). Thus, James, apart from assigning to philosophy speculative function assigns to it a social function also. Russell stresses the amorphous nature of philosophy when he defines philosophy thus: Philosophy, as I shall try to understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of spzculation of matters to which no definite knowledge has so far been ascertainable; but like science, it appcals to human reason rather than authority, whether of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge, so I should contend, belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpass definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between 9gtheology and science, there is ano-man's land exposed to attack by both -ades; this no man's fand is philosophy. (Russell 15). However, for Joad, “Philosophy is... most appropriately to be -unceived as the clearing house to which the results of all other human u«uities are brought and in which the records of all forms of human «perience are sited, assessed and evaluated.” Thus far, we appreciate that there are many philosophers, so arc there many definitions of philosophy. However, it is important to note that some definitions of philosophy are better than others, Even from its roots, we can gain knowledge of a definition of philosophy. From the above, one can conclude that the central focus of philosophy is “to critically analyze sues of life aimed at solving human problems.” Whatever issue of life that is analyzed by a particular scholar has a great influence on his choice of tenses for his definition and this account for the differences in definition and general laxity ofa universally acceptable definition. This siuegnot rule out the existence of a central focus in philosophy. SYNOPSIS OF USES OF PHILOSOPHY 1. The study of philosophy is of immense value to both the individual and to a nation. Apart from the fact that one can gain full employment after studying philosophy, it can also improve the individual as follows: 3 By equipping him to think critically and constructively i.e. by enabling one to develop philosophic attitude; it opens ones horizon in reasoning. 4, By giving people some insight into moral, aesthetic and religious values A By enabling the individual to form the habit of attempting an impartial judgment on issues. Bs By liberating the mind and moulding the citizens to shape their value orientation, thereby enlarging their perception of the world around them. * 6. By also invoking the consciousness to see the other side of everything in \ife before proper judgment can be made. (in everything there is the other side). oyde In order to achieve material development, we need citizens whose minds are free from bias, prejudice, and paltry values and resulting from wrong orientation. 8, In the political sphere, the influence of philosophy is very great. A good philosophy makes for good governance, whilea bad one makes for bad governance, Julius Nyeyere and his philosophy played a great rote in the Tanzanian Revolution. On the other hand, the world would have been spared if the Germans had come under the influence of a better philosophy instead of that of the Nazis. Other examples abound in the contemporary world. PHILOSOPHY AND NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT The sole of philosophy in national development needs not be over emphasized. Ignorance of philosophy and its enterprise is the basic impediment to national development. For a proper understanding of the jssues at hand, it is hoped that a working definition is necessary. Philosophy in its broader sense is the quest for the ultimate truth. On the other hand, development is a positive advancement toward perfect peace and happiness of the people. Development is often conceived in its natrow sense to means physical advancement in terms of emerging structures in the society. In philosophy, our consideration is beyond this, it includes the individual advancement both in thought and deed, the social advancement in structure and policies. Development in this sense also incorporates spiritual advancement. ‘When Thales - the father of ancient philosophy emerge on the scene, the thinking pattern of ancient Greek changed. This reawakened consciousness in critical thinking enhanced the economic activities along the sea port of Miletus. When Plato came on board, his ideas changed the social and political structure of Athens. The trend has been maintained right from time till date. Niccolo Machiavelli, Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, Georg Friedrich Hegel, Karl Marx among others are great philosophers whose philosophical ideas helped in shaping the development trend of their days. In Nigeria, the philosophical thoughts of Nnamdi Azikiwe, 25Obafemi Awolowo and Ahmadu Bello helped much in arousing the political consciousness of the people for self-rule. This brought in its e the developments witnessed after the departure of the colonial masters. The current economic crisis is a direct product of poor economic policies. The political class needs philosophical insight to be able to guarantee sustainable development. Philosophy has been misconceived to be an abstract discipline without practical bearing in national development. This has been so because of the narrow expectation of the uniformed. The central concern of philosophy is reasoning. Proper reasoning is an imperative {or concrete output, In every area of social development, there must bea careful planning guided by the principles of philosophy and logic. WORKS CITED Achermann, Robert. Theories of Knowledge: A Critical Introduction, London: McGraw - Hill, 1965. Print. ----, Belief and Knowledge, New York: Anchor-books, 1972. Print. Akinpelu, R. Meaning and Necessity. London: Macmillan and Company, 1965. Print. Armstrong, D. M. The Materialist Theory of the Mind. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1968. Print. Ayer, Alfred. J. Language, Truth and Logic. Middlesex: Penguin Books limited, 1963. Print. -, The Problems of Knowledge. Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1956. Bah, T. D. Philosophy and Metaphysics: A Critical Introduction. Lagos: Obaroh & Ogbinaka Publishers, 1997. Print. Beauchamp, T. and Norman eds. Ethical Theory and Business, USA: Prentice Hall, 1979. Print. Bodunrin, P. O. Ed, Philosophy in Africa: Trends and Perspective. Ife: University of Ife Press, 1985. Print. Bradlley, J. H. Appearance and Reality. Oxford: Clarendon Press, I16—-1930. Print. Carnal, R. The Logical Syntax of Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1937. Print. Collinson, Diana. Fifty Major Philosophers, A Reference Guide. London: Croom Helm, 1992. Print. Copi, Irving.M. Introduction to Logic. New York: Macmillan, 1985. Print. Coreth, E. Metaphysics. New York: The Sembury Press, 1973. Print. Engel, John & Engel Ronald. Ethics of Environment and Development. London: Belhaven Press, 1991. Print. Buk, Udo (ed) A General Introduction to Philosophy and Logic. Uyo: Afahagideh and Bros, 1999. Print. Evans, J. L. Knowledge and Infallibility. London: Macmillan Publishers Company 1979. Print. Ferm, Vergilus ed. A History of Philosophical Systems. New Jersey, Little Field, Adams and Company, 1961. Print. Franklin, R. L. “Knowledge, Belief and Understanding” Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 31, 1984: 52-64. Print. Gettler, Fdmund 1.. “Ts Justified True Belief Knowledge?” Analysis Vol 23, 1963. Print. Graham, George. Philosophy of Mind, An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell publishers, 1992. Print. Hamlyn, D. W. The Theory of Knowledge, London: Macmillan Press, 1970. Print. Hare, R. M. The Language of Morals. 2nd ed. London: Gallanancz, 1948. Print. Heidegger, Martin. An Introduction to Metaphysics. New York: Yale University Press, 1974. Print. --. Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell, 1973. Print. Hountondji, Paulin J., African Philosophy: Myth and Reality. London: Hatchinson Publishers, 1983. Print. soccnesserccnnaanonnns, African Philosophy: Myth and Reality, London: Hutchinson University, 1983. Print. Ifeshie, E.l. Ed, Okolo on African Philosophy and African —27 —Theology.Cecta Nig. 1990. Print. Iroegbu, Pantaleon. Enwisdomization and African Philosophy. ia: International University Press, 1994. Print. --. Metaphysics: The Kpim of Philosophy. Nigeria: International University press, 1995. Print. Kant, Immanuel. Selections, T. M. Green, (ed), New York: Scribner Publishers, 1948. Print. Kirl, G. S., LE. Raven and M. Schofild. The Presocratic Philosophers. 2nd edition. London: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Print. locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Eid. A, D. Woozley. London: William Collins, Print. Mbiti, John S. African Religions and Philosophy, Heinemann Educational Books, 1969. Print. Momoh, C.S. Problems in Africa: Trends and Perspective. Ife: University of Ife Press, 1990.Print. Moore, G. E. Principles of Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Print. Okolo, Chukwudum B, Problems of African Philosophy and One Other Essay, Nigeria: Certa Limited, 1990. Print. Oladipo, Olusegun, The Idea of African Philosophy. Ibadan: Tunji ILori Press, 1992. Print. Onyenwunyi, Innocent C. African Origin of Greek Philosophy. Nsukka, 1987. Print. Omeregbe, Joseph, Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study. Lagos: Joja Educational, 1993. Print. Ozumba, G. O. A Concise Introduction to Epistemology. Nigeria: Ebeneza Printing Press, 2001. Print. Paul, Churchyard, Matter and Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Print. Purtile, Richard. Logic: Argument, Refutation and Proof. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1931. Print. Quine, W. V. O. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953. Print. ——28 —Russell, Bertrand. The Analysis of Mind, London: Routledge, 1972. Print. ---. Human Knowledge, London, George and Unwin, 1976, Print srrcsccrasacon-. The Problems of Philosophy, London: Oxford University Press, 1976. Print. . History of Western Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1961. Print. Ruch, E. A. The Ways of Knowing and Thinking. Lesotho: National University of Lesotho, 1977. Print. Ryle, Gilbert, Contemporary Aspect of Philosophy. London: Oriel Press, 1976. Print. wenecece nese cenee, . The Concept of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1984. Print Sartre, Jean P, Being and Nothingness. New York: Philosophical Library, 1956. Print. Stumpf, Samuel E. Philosophy; History and Problems. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1977. Print. Titus, Horold H., et al. Living Issues in Philosophy. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1979, Print. Uduigwomen, Andrew F. (ed), Footmarks on African Philosophy, Nigeria: Obarah and Ogbinaka Publishers, 1995. Print. Umotong, Iniobong. Exploration for Knowledge. Nigeria: Minder International 2017. Print. Warnock, G. J. Contemporary Moral Philosophy, London: Macmillan Company Ltd., 1970. Print. William Bechtal, Philosophy of Mind: An Overview for Cognitive Science. New Jersey: Erbium, 1988.Print. Wittgenstein, Luidwig, Philosophical Investigations. Oxford, Blackwell, 1967. Print. Wiredu, Kwesi. Philosophy and African Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Print. —29 —