Henry Odera Oruka (1 June 1944, in Siaya County – 9 December 1995, in Nairobi) was a Kenyan philosopher who is best known for "Sage Philosophy". It was a project started in the 1970’s in an attempt to preserve the knowledge of the indigenous thinkers in traditional African communities.
Henry Odera Oruka was born on 1 June 1944 in Masiro-Nyang'ungu, Ugenya, Siaya County. After his advanced level studies in Kenya, he went to Uppsala University in Sweden. There he registered for a BSc programme in the Faculty of Mathematics–Natural Science and studied meteorology, Geography, and Geodesy. He later added Philosophy to his studies because of his interest in the subject. Upon graduating in Science and Philosophy (a year ahead of his class), he opted to drop science and continue with his studies in philosophy. He moved to Wayne State University in the United States of America for his master's degree where he completed his studies and eventually obtained a PhD. His dissertation on the theme of "Freedom" (written in 1970) was later refined and published as Punishment and Terrorism in Africa in 1976. From October 1970 until his death on 9 December 1995, he taught philosophy at the University of Nairobi.[1]
The majority and dominant staff at the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies which had been launched in 1969 at the University of Nairobi were priests and lay theologians. They had little time for "African Philosophy" as they harbored doubts about the ability of Africans to think logically. After years of a sustained and bitter struggle spearheaded by Odera Oruka, Philosophy was separated from Religion at the university in July 1980 and he was appointed the Founder-Chairman of the new Department of Philosophy.[2] Unfortunately for the department, the death of Odera Oruka was accompanied with a marked decline in the international profile of Philosophy at the University of Nairobi. The discipline that Odera Oruka worked so hard to separate from Religion has since been merged with Religion once again.
Odera Oruka was the founder-president of the Philosophical Association of Kenya (PAK); the founding-director of the International Institute of Environmental Studies (IIES), Nairobi; a member of the Kenya National Academy of Sciences (KNAS); the secretary-general of African Futures Studies Association (AFSA); the secretary-general of the Afro-Asian Philosophical Association (AAPA); vice-president of the Inter-African Council of Philosophy (IACP); a member of the executive committee of both the Federation International de societe philosophique (FISP) and World Futures Studies Federation.[3] On June 3, 1993, he received an honorary doctorate from the Faculty of Humanities from Uppsala University.[4]
Odera Oruka was married twice. His first wife, the late Millicent Achien'g, bore him three children: Owiso Odera (the deceased [5] Hollywood actor), Sheila Odera (Veteran Actress/Model and Accountant), and Sharon Odera(deceased). He had two children with his second wife, Olivia Phoebe Ayoma, namely Ronnie Omuga and Peter Oruka Odera (an International relations practitioner).
Three philosophical approaches can be seen in Oruka's works:
There has been considerable (and often acrimonious) debate about the pre-Western existence of an independent African philosophy and what its nature might be. Odera Oruka identified four trends or approaches in this discussion.[6]
Philosophic Sagacity is Odera Oruka's research project begun in the early 1970s designed to preserve the philosophical thoughts of traditional Kenyan sages. The basic principle of Philosophic Sagacity is that in both traditional and modern Africa there exist women and men, illiterate and literate, who commonly engage in philosophical reflection on various problems of human life and nature in general.
Unlike ethnophilosophy, which emphasises communal thinking, Philosophic Sagacity searches for individual thinkers in the traditional community. These "sages" express and defend their philosophical thoughts and opinions on various issues of nature and human life. Some of these thoughts even if not philosophical in the strict sense could nevertheless constitute raw data for technical philosophical reflections by professional or trained philosophers. Oruka wanted to point out that there is and was a philosophy in Africa in the fullest sense of the word: a philosophy that deals with daily human problems and issues which are common to every human being, such as the existence of a Deity, life, knowledge, death etc. Such issues are not the sole domain of literate people but are usually best addressed by the few who can "transcend" the communal way of thinking.
Though some have often equated "Sage Philosophy" with "Philosophic sagacity," Odera Oruka did not. Odera Oruka distinguished between two wings of Sage Philosophy: (1) being the folk or popular sagacity, and (2) being the philosophic sagacity. While the former expresses well known communal maxims, aphorisms and general common sense truths, the latter expresses the thoughts of wise men and women that transcend popular wisdom and attain a philosophic capacity.[7] Hence whereas all instances of philosophic sagacity locate within sage philosophy, not every instance of sage philosophy constitute philosophic sagacity. The novelty of Odera Oruka's project is to be found in philosophic sagacity since the folk sagacity dimension of sage philosophy would be a fallback to ethnophilosophy.[8]
Odera Oruka and his colleagues went with tape recorders into villages of different ethnic communities in Kenya to engage those who were thought by their own communities to be wise. The discourses were held in the native language of the presumptive wise men or women.Each "wise statement" was challenged by the interlocutors. If the person had a philosophical frame of mind he/she would be able to offer rational answers to the objections or requests for clarification. If he/she had not, he/she gave unsatisfactory answers or perhaps was unable to reply. It was believed by this method true philosophy could be separated from popular wisdom.
Philosophic Sagacity is not philosophy is the main argument of D. A. Masolo. Based on Socratic method, his analysis shows how frequently tradition and opinion are based on insufficient reasoning. For him, true philosophy relies on analysis, definition, and explanation. Pre-Socratic knowledge has no place in strict philosophy. Philosophic sagacity, he believes, falls into the category of pre-Socratic philosophy. Both fail in a consistent attitude towards, and practice of, rational explanation, despite the presence of the "sage" and the discourse with him/her. A mere discussion of a topic does not have the high degree of abstraction, conceptual analysis, and relation which, according to him, are the essence of strict philosophy.
Masolo also objects to the Afrocentric perspective inherent in Odera Oruka's approach to treating pre-literate African men and women as proto-philosophers.[9] This appears to be a misunderstanding. For Odera Oruka, Philosophic Sagacity lies between ethnophilosophy and professional philosophy and is simply a starting point in determining the nature of African Philosophy.
In his essay, "The Philosopher and the Sage: On the Question of African Philosophy", Peter O. Bodunrin rejects Odera Oruka's notion that philosophic sagacity is philosophy because, for him, literacy is a necessary condition for philosophical reflections. His second, related, objection is one common to anthropology: the influence of the observer. If a philosopher interviews a "sage", is the result really the work of the "sage" or a joint product? Who is the actual creator of the "philosophy"?[10] Odera Oruka responded to such thought by pointing out that thinking normally precedes writing and that the intent of the discourses is to produce raw material, to be used by the philosopher in his effort to prove that true philosophy exists on African soil.[11]
Anthony Oseghare, a PhD student of Odera Oruka, makes a distinction between sagacity and knowledge. Both involve the acquisition and usage of skills, but they are not identical. Sagacity involves wisdom of a practical nature which is achieved through experience. It has a broader meaning than knowledge. Within sagacity too, there is a sagacity that stops with common sense and a sagacity that transcends common sense.[12] Oseghare's critique, unlike Masolo's and Bodunrin's, is not negative but meant to clarify and enhance Odera Oruka's project.
A point worth noting is the distinction between sages and prophets. They could be confused in that both are concerned with efforts to resolve problems that affect human society. It is also true that a sage can be a prophet and a prophet can be a sage but the critical fact is that they are not identical. The basic difference – according to Odera Oruka – is that the prophet claims to predict the future based on past experience, whereas a sage is concerned with fundamental issues of ethics and other questions of immediate importance. A sage has the ability to offer insightful solutions to practical issues. Sages have existed in every society as custodians of its culture and values, regardless of literacy.[13] After Odera Oruka's death philosophers who have continued to push the agenda of sagacity include Kenyan born scholars F. Ochieng'-Odhiambo and Oriare Nyarwath together with American Gail Presbey.
Lesser known are Odera Oruka's contributions to ethical questions, such as protection of the environment and the justification of foreign aid.In his article "The Philosophy of Foreign Aid" Odera Oruka responded to Garret Hardin's "Life Boat Theory". Hardin argues against helping poor nations because they will believe their problems are being solved, the population will grow, and the "boat" will sink.
Odera Oruka gave three possible reasons to justify foreign aid: charity (common decency), promoting international trade, and historical rectification. He later added another argument: the "right to a human minimum".
In his article "Parent Earth Ethics" Odera Oruka uses the metaphor of a family of six children with varying degrees of wealth and poverty to explain his argument. These six children have some things in common and each has his/her own individual talents and possessions. He made the following distinctions:
Rule One: Parental Debt Principle(a.) Family Security Rule(b.) Parental Debt Rule(c.) Individual Family Survival Rule
Rule Two: The Individual Luck Principle(a.) Personal Achievements Rule(b.) Personal Supererogation Rule(c.) Public Law Rule
The entire system cannot be detailed within the scope of this article but, from the above outline, the main points are as follows: The Parental Debt Principle occurs prior to the Individual Luck Principle. Under normal circumstances, if the first rule comes into conflict with anything in the second rule, the first rule takes priority. This is "the ethics of common sense". If the wealth and security of the community comes in conflict with personal luck or achievements, the former prevails over the latter. This type of ethics can be applied to both environmental concerns and the redistribution of wealth.