Conferenze pubbliche organizzate

dall’Istituto per lo Studio della Non Credenza,
 della Religione e delle Culture (ISA)

DIRETTORE DELLA "WHELAN RESEARCH ACADEMY FOR RELIGION, CULTURE AND SOCIETY", OWERRI - NIGERIA

Le conferenze si sono tenute - mercoledì 3 marzo (Aula Magna),
 giovedì 4 marzo (Auditorium Giovanni Paolo II) 

PHILOSOPHY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE

By Theophilus Okere

President, Whelan Research Academy for Religion Culture and Society Owerri, Nigeria 

Since the end of the cold war, there have emerged two themes which seem to dominate discourse on international relations and future conflicts. First, there is the rumour and talk of the clash of civilizations (Samuel Huntington). There is also, conversely, serious talk of and push for globalization. The "clash of civilizations" has been framed as a concept to characterize the ever-growing polarization and antagonism between the cultural west and the non-west, notably the third world and especially the Islamic world. Rather than resort to such a duel to the death, the protagonists of globalization envisage a softer form of resolution. They want to unify the world, the globe, essentially by westernizing it, by keeping it economically, politically and culturally like the west, that is, subservient to it. Globalization has often been referred to as the globalization of the West and its values (individualism, materialism, democracy, capitalism).

But the aim of 'unifying' the world on one's own terms, even with the best of intentions, is not necessarily morally justifiable in a world apparently created in abundant variety and marked by plurality and difference. Thus the two avowed means of achieving this end are morally suspect. Neither of these strategies would bring a lasting, peaceful solution to the world's differences and conflicts.

Both strategies are selfish and hegemonistic and would destroy both human liberty and the pluralism and creativity born of it.  They would ultimately reduce the world to one drab monotony, one colourless, miserable monoculture of values and customs. Were this ever to happen, one good custom would then corrupt the world.

DIALOGUE

This is why, in the resolution of human conflicts, by far the most fruitful and humane strategy is dialogue. Dialogue, unlike a monologue, is respectful and affirming of the other. In eschewing both violence and the cannibalization of others, it refuses to violate the sacredness of others. It creates a more just environment for mutual communication and assessment, for acceptance or rejection, for assimilation or differentiation, leading to a fairer and mutually more enriching exchange.

PHILOSOPHY AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE

The dialogue among cultures could be carried on in many ways, but philosophy seems to be particularly suited to the task of achieving human understanding. It makes the same assumptions for all. It works with common reason and reason alone, making no appeal to any other authority but reason, an ability that is shared by all men. It aims and is equipped to shed light and clarity on any problem. It deals with the deepest and most common and crucial concerns of all men of all cultures.

Philosophy is one of the greatest gifts to man and one of the most human, cultural achievements of human history. It is a special form and level of human knowledge. Not only because knowledge is the ability that most distinguishes man as man, the paragon of creation, but in this form of knowledge philosophy represents: a totalizing reflection of all that man is, knows and does. Philosophy is really man as knowledge. In this, it has the potential to bridge cultures and even to unite humanity, by building for it an acceptable commonality of concepts, thought structures and a system of humanity-sensitive values. Here we should already distinguish the reality of philosophy from the promise of philosophy; the one dealing with philosophy as we have known it in history, and in the history of intercultural relations on the one hand and on the other, the promise it holds, the great hope ft is pregnant with, the as yet unachieved potential of philosophy.

INTER-CULTURAL KNOWLEDGE/IGNORANCE

For philosophy to serve as mediator and honest broker between cultures, it must have accurate information and intimate knowledge of those cultures in order first to get a sympathetic insight into them. This is the only way to be aware both of the real similarities and the real differences there are among cultures.

However, ignorance, indeed mutual ignorance has often characterized the relations between cultures and ignorance and error have vitiated relations rather than built bridges. This is aggravated if such ignorance comes in the name of philosophy. But any philosophy that denies the full humanity of other humans or the value of certain cultures - is obviously in error and was based in the first place on ignorance, no matter how wittily or brilliantly the philosophy was conceived.

PHILOSOPHY'S HANDICAPS

Even if it had the knowledge of other cultures, philosophy encounters other obstacles in fulfilling the role of a bridge over cultures. The gap between theory and practice traditionally inherent in philosophies can handicap it in its mediator role by portraying it as unrealistic or even hypocritical. A philosophy that will enable intercultural dialogue will be not an over reaching but an over arching philosophy. It will be a mega-philosophy incorporating and integrating all that is best in the philosophies of the world's cultures.

Never perhaps have men been so aware of the tremendous variety of cultures in the world as they are in our time. Never have these cultures been so close to each other and so closely impacting each other. The world's peoples and cultures, many as they are, have been shrunk into a very finite space. Within such a small space and with so many struggling for survival, identity and self assertion, there must be interaction. This interaction can take the form of friction and force or it can take the form of mutual recognition and dialogue. From a fruitful dialogue our world would be able to forge mutual respect, a minimum of agreement on human values, a unity of purpose that respects a plurality of means and strategies, a peaceful co-existence and cooperative pursuit of a modest happiness for all.

This is the need of the moment and philosophy can meet this need. But

in order to do so creditably, it will have to purge itself of some of it's historic

baggage.

THE USES OF ONTOLOGY

One of the better known characteristics of philosophy as a knowledge form is what one might call its ontological bias. Philosophy ultimately is not poetry or narrative history, or descriptive phenomenology, but rather a discourse on the being of things. It is a statement with an ontological bias, a statement of how things are in themselves - an ontology.

But granting ontology such a status was capable of opening it up to abuse. An ontological determination is a statement on the deepest meaning and level of being of a thing. As such it was definitive and ultimate and has unfortunately been often used in a negative way, in a way that compromised both its claims to real, accurate knowledge and its claims to universality and objectivity.

Rather than ontology, it was Hermeneutics that rescued philosophy from itself and enabled it to take the first step to act as a bridge among cultures and peoples, it did this by reminding philosophy of its own cultural origins and clearing the ground about its prejudgments, originating biases, initial and abiding interests and unconscious presuppositions.

Once philosophy becomes fully aware of its own cultural background and its limits, its strengths and perhaps also of its weaknesses, it wil! be in a position to appreciate statements, ideas and philosophies from other cultures and ultimately generate a dialogue among ontologies and philosophies. In so doing, it creates a forum for understanding cultures and for seeing the rich pluralism as well as the basic compatibility of cultures.

Two philosophers par excellence, Plato and Aquinas point the way through their quintessentially philosophical methods. Plato's dialogues show the dialectic or Socratic method. Questions draw forth answers and further questions to sharpen and modify the answers in order finally to arrive at some agreement or at least clarify matters. Often the result is inconclusive, indicating that real philosophical questions cannot have a final, definitive answer, but are meant to continue to encourage the human mind to keep wondering about being and nature and man.

Thomas Aquinas in his method of philosophizing, though he knows his answer to the question, takes a serious view of all relevant questions, doubts and objections. His answer is also a reasoned choice among many plausible answers.

In both cases the honest search, the openness, the reaching out to other ideas and opinions with respect, defines the truly philosophical process and temoerament. These two show off philosophy's potentials better than the dogmatic treatises and speculative architectonic of tightly built systems of a Kant or a Hegel. They show that philosophy is a search and is a truth seeker;

ready to see it, recognize and embrace it wherever it can be found. This dialogic/dialectical method stands also for the role of philosophy in mediating between views, worldviews, and cultures. Every viewpoint is taken seriously and when taken together, several viewpoints rub off on each other by interaction and gentle, respectful persuasion.   But philosophy as system building, if it is unaware of its roots, tends to absorb or negate rivals. Philosophy as a system works to fit everything into the rigid mould of its building plan and blue print.

THE ADVANTAGE OF PHILOSOPHY.

The promise of philosophy for intercultural dialogue can be seen equally clearly in its well known function as a clarifier of ideas, words and concepts. This work of clarification is carried on by a sustained, critical teasing out of hidden layers of meaning in words, the analysis of concepts and demanding rigour in logical reasoning. In the real world environment of a pluralism of customs, a babel of languages and opaque symbols, any thing that brings clarity can only bring greater understanding among peoples and cultures. By the nature of philosophy, it poses questions of ultimacy which seem to be in the last analysis, the questions all men ask. In its being the concern of all men, it becomes accessible to all cultures.

But not all articulations of philosophical concerns are equally relevant to all men of all times and climes. There is a certain selectivity at work in time and place. Philosophies based on particular worldviews, which means all philosophies, will have to open up to others. Philosophies have to be attentive to each other It is in the mutuality of dialogue or, better still, a polylogue among cultures speaking through their philosophies that the hope of lasting understanding lies. Hitherto nearly everyone has been listening to the philosophy of one cultural tradition. It is now time for every culture to listen carefully to every other culture.

As it is the questioning and wonderment that constitute the core of the philosophy project, it is bound to continue to link men and cultures in the common pursuit of an ever elusive truth. In humility and in full realization of their perspectivist view of reality, men will continue to share their unique encounters with the truth. As they do so in the context of pluralism they will learn each other's, various, multiple human ways of being human.

Up till now, cultures seem to have interacted with each other at the level of praxis, action and often brutal force; in mutual ignorance or at the level of anecdotes, suspicions, guess work and raw generalization passed on through interpreters ambassadors, journalists and travellers. It would surely be different if they could learn and reflect on each other's reflexions, self articulations and self assessments.

Such a process and discipline of learning would promote a much needed and fruitful exchange. The result should be a creative, cross-pollination of ideas that would lead to intercultural understanding. This would, in turn, contribute immensely to peace among peoples. Philosophy would, for once, be at the service of peace.