AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL AND MANAGEMENT SCIENCES

ISSN Print: 2156-1540, ISSN Online: 2151-1559, doi:10.5251/ajsms.2011.2.3.283.290

2011, ScienceHu, http://www.scihub.org/AJSMS
Philosophy and systematic human inquiries
Ochulor, Chinenye Leo and Egbai, Mary Julius
Department of Philosophy, University of Calabar
E-mail: leoochulor@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
This paper argues in defence of the thesis that philosophy (metaphysics) is the most basic and
fundamental of all scientific knowledge and is presupposed by all systematic human inquiries. At
the beginning of the history of knowledge, the paper opines, philosophy (Metaphysics) was the
one and only science. Thus the questions asked by philosophers at that early stage, later became
the property of different fields of knowledge and inquiry. The paper maintains that it was only after
the rise of modern science in the seventeenth century that the lines of demarcation between
areas of investigation became more obvious and more permanent. Since it is clear, from the
above, that the so-called exact sciences are not the most basic and fundamental sources of
knowledge, what they produce have to be scrutinized and be solidly established in the light of the
vision of things entire, provided by a well grounded philosophy, the paper argues. Our justification
therefore, the paper maintains, for taking philosophy (metaphysics) as the most basic and
fundamental of all scientific knowledge is, in the main, historical.

INTRODUCTION
According to W. H. Walsh, since the first principles of
every metaphysical system are neither analytic nor
empirical, there are no absolutely neutral data to
which we can appeal when supporting or attacking a
metaphysical theory (304). We may be tempted, as a
result of this, to conclude that metaphysical theories
are no more than arbitrary prescriptions representing
a point of view taken up for no good reason. But as
individual statements of facts or of the so called exact
sciences are described only within a framework
which metaphysical theories provide, the truth of
metaphysical principles, however disputable, exceed
that of any individual statement of facts (304). From
the foregoing arguments, we can say that
metaphysics is the most basic and fundamental of all
scientific knowledge, and is presupposed by all
systematic human inquiries. This paper aims at
discovering what makes philosophy the most
fundamental and basic of all the sciences.
Origin and Growth of Knowledge: The word
philosophy is derived from two Greek words: philos
meaning love of; and sophia which means wisdom.
The Greeks took philosophy to mean love of wisdom.
So the philosopher was regarded as a lover of
wisdom. This was what Pythagoras called himself.
He preferred this to being called a wise man.
Pythagoras, a pre-socratic philosopher who
flourished in late sixth century B. C. is said to have
first used the name philosopher. We can substitute
the more everyday word knowledge for wisdom.
Philosophy then becomes love of knowledge. At the
beginning of the history of knowledge, philosophy
was the one and only science. At that time, any
learned man was a philosopher. But with time,
philosophy as a discipline started to break down into
various compartments, giving birth as it were to other
disciplines. All the other disciplines developed from
philosophy. At different times, philosophy brought
forth offsprings, that is different branches of
knowledge. As Stumpf put it:
It is a fact of the history of thought that
science and philosophy were the same
thing in the beginning and only later did
various specific disciplines separate
themselves from the field of philosophy,
medicine being the first to do so (5).
It seems incredible today that there was once a time
when a clever man could acquire all the knowledge
that had been accumulated about everything. But as
the general stock of knowledge increased through the
ages, separate disciplines came to be marked off
from the original science philosophy. As these new
disciplines developed their knowledge, they too came
to be subdivided in their turn. Nowadays, a man may
call himself a chemist, a physicist, a mathematician
or a sociologist etc., but he will be a specialist in only
a part of the field of chemistry, physics, mathematics
or sociology etc. Apart from his awareness of the
underlying principles of the general science, he will
Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2011, 2(3): 283-290

284

have detailed knowledge only of his own chosen
aspect of it. If we go back to the days before Plato
when the lonian philosophers Thales, Anaximander
and Anaximenes asked their questions, we find that
originally all questions were philosophical. Thus the
philosophers asked questions in those days which
later became the property of different fields of
knowledge and inquiry. As mans knowledge
developed, certain people specialized in one sphere
of investigation, while others specialized in another.
After the rise of modern science in the seventeenth
century, the lines of demarcation between areas of
investigation became more obvious and more
permanent. Despite all these, philosophy still survives
as an independent field of inquiry. It may, in this
sense, mean a critical and conscious effort to
understand the universe, its origin, nature and
purpose. This is the sense in which philosophy is
said, according to Western tradition, to have started
in Greece in the sixth century BC. This tradition,
which Western historians of philosophy hold on to as
an indisputable fact, has effectively been challenged
by both Onyewuenyi and Alozie.
Onyewueny first secured, in this direction, the
support of a second century source, Kirk and Raven,
quoted in Onyewuenyi. According to Onyewuenyi,
Kirk and Raven have it that
Thales, having practiced philosophy in Egypt,
came to Miletus when he was older (43).
If this source is anything to go by, Onyewunyi points
out, then Thales was not the originator of philosophy
since he had studied philosophy in Egypt before
migrating to Miletus (43).
This greatly challenges Greek authorship of
philosophy and Onyewuenyi takes time out to trace
the origin of what today is called Greek philosophy
and of other disciplines to the Egyptian Mystery
System (44). The coming on board of philosophy led
to changes in attitudes such that men no longer took
things for granted but asked questions about the
nature of the universe, man, society and values. The
birth of philosophy shifted the mode of thought from a
mythological base to one of scientific inquiry. This
attitude is characterized by love of knowledge or
wisdom, pursued in a conscious and critical but
unbiased, non-dogmatic manner, with openness of
mind and a readiness to go wherever the argument
leads. Is there any sense in tracing such shifts in a
peoples mode of thought to the Egyptian or any
other mystery system, as its origin? Onyewuenyi
thinks there is sense in doing just that and we agree
with him. Philosophy or science can originate from a
mystery system. Poppers The Logic of Scientific
Discovery is in support of this position. Naletovs
Alternatives to Positivism is also in support.
Naletov has it that:
Popper ... noted the fact that many
scientific theories had originated from
myths. It was yet another proof that
there existed no sharp demarcation
between science and metaphysics.
According to Popper Copernicus
heliocentric theory of the universe was
inspired by the neo-Platonists worship
of the Sun which they placed in the
centre of the universe. Ancient atomism
was another example of a myth that
played an extremely important role in
the development of science. As
opposed to the logical positivists who
reduced the difference between science
and metaphysics to the difference
between meaningful and senseless
propositions, Popper underscored
already in his first mature works that the
problem of meaningfulness and
senselessness was a pseudo-problem.
Metaphysics, according to Popper, was
neither a science nor a set of
nonsensical assertions. Hence, already
in the early period of his ideological
evolution, Popper held a different view
of metaphysics than the founders of the
Vienna School (61).
The relationships between modern science and
mysticism, magic, religion, parapsychology,
mythology etc. have been discussed approvingly by
many authors (Toyo 2007). Philosophy or any other
discipline could have originated from the Egyptian
Mystery System. Onyewuenyi goes on to,

assert that the so called fathers of Greek
philosophy, who are credited with the first
speculative, critical thought, are not
ultimately the originators of these
doctrines, ideas and theories with which
they are identified: and that they were
apprentices in the mystery system and sat
at the feet of the great Egyptian Priests
(44).
The Egyptian Mystery System Schools were
equivalent to present day universities and the priests
Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2011, 2(3): 283-290

285

who were the equivalents of modern day professors
taught Thales and others the philosophy they later
took to Greece. Is it any surprise that today, the
Euro-American despoilers of the African continent
insist on teaching something else? Onyewuenyis
scholarly work is a welcome development. It will
greatly help to correct the misconceptions,
misinformation, prejudice and deliberate falsehood
surrounding the history of philosophy and science in
Africa.
Alozie, writing on the history of mathematics, strongly
asserts that:
A correct reading of world history will
reveal that ancient Egypt and what the
Euro-American scholars call the
Alexandrian period of Greek civilization
were in fact achievements based on what
Africans with black skin, thick lips, wooly
hairs and flat nose did. This racial
emphasis is necessary in order to debunk
the falsehood being spread about Africans
(12).

He goes on to cite some renowned authors to
support the fact of ancient African achievements.
First is G. M. James, who according to Alozie, has it
that:
the dishonesty, in the movement of the
publication of a Greek philosophy,
becomes very glaring when we refer to
the fact, purposely, that by calling the
theorem of the square of the hypothenuse,
the Pythagorean theorem, it has to be
known that the Egyptians taught
Pythagoras and the Greeks what
mathematics they knew (16).
Another author cited by Alozie to support the fact of
ancient African achievements is Russell who
according to Alozie said: It is said, and is not
improbable, that Pythagoras visited Egypt, and learnt
much of his wisdom there (16). From the evidence
given by G. M James and Russell, Alozie clearly and
pointedly stated thus:

What has come to light now is that most
of the so-called founders of Greek
mathematics and science reproduced
what they learnt or plagiarized from
ancient Egypt then regarded as the
educational centre of the ancient world.
Thus Thales of Miletus, Pythagoras,
Democritus, Plato etc visited and
studied in the Egyptian Mystery School
and received instruction from Egyptian
priests (16).
Alozie makes it clear to all and sundry that the Egypt
in question was owned and controlled by dark-
skinned, wooly-haired, flat nosed Africans. These are
revealing discoveries. After a rigorous philosophical
discussion of the fact that the early Greek
philosophers got their philosophy from ancient Egypt,
with proofs for it, Alozie comes to the conclusion that:
It is now easy to appreciate the claim
that the early Greek philosophers got
their philosophy from this ancient
Egyptian source, which existed as far
back as 4000BC. Another obvious fact
is that Atom of Science which features
in modified forms in chemistry,
physics, biology, originated from a
similar source in ancient Egypt. The fact
that a number of the ancient Greek
philosophers studied in this Egyptian
Mystery School where Memphite
theology was taught, or the fact that
some of these early Greek philosophers
were connected directly or indirectly
with Alexander the Great, who
conquered Egypt and looted the
treasures and books in the Mystery
School is an additional support for the
claim that the Egyptians gave the world
science being now developed (23).
We deeply appreciate these inspiring discoveries
which assure us that Africa has a place in the
Committee of Continents, with something substantial
to offer to the rest of the world. With such a rich
background as shown in the above discoveries, we
Africans must develop the kind of self confidence that
can enable us aim at originality in all our
undertakings.
It is not uncommon to hear someone saying
something like My philosophy is, the more discipline
the better. Here one is referring to ones philosophy
of life. In this sense, the word philosophy expresses
the central features of ones personal world outlook
and value system. When we speak of someone
taking something philosophically or when
professionals from different fields are invited to
contribute to a seminar or journal on My Philosophy
Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2011, 2(3): 283-290

286

of Life, it is in this sense of expressing the central
features of ones personal world-outlook and value
system that the word is used. And this sense of the
word is as far as it is properly understood, perfectly
reputable. In that most common understanding,
philosophy is a matter of a comprehensive view,
embracing both value commitments and beliefs about
the general nature of things. However, the sense in
which the word refers to the subject or discipline
studied and practiced in Departments of Philosophy
within institutions of tertiary education is quite
different (Flew Antony,3).
Speculative and Exact Sciences: With the
tremendous growth of applied sciences and its
influence in making possible our industrialized and
technocratic civilization, many people have been
accustomed to looking to science for anything which
makes a difference to life. In this regard,
philosophical theories and metaphysical speculations
are thought of as harmless pastime which make no
difference to life and produce no tangible results. It is
tangible results which are the criterion of real
knowledge of the world. People, as articulated by
Russell, tend therefore to doubt whether philosophy
in general and metaphysics in particular is anything
better than innocent but useless trifling hair-splitting
speculations and controversies on matters
concerning which knowledge is impossible (15).
According to Richard Taylor:
What first of all claims the attention of all
creatures and of all men is the need to
survive and this being once reasonably
assured, the need to exist, as securely
as possible. All thoughts begin there
and most of it end there But
metaphysics is concerned with
questions that it is perfectly easy never
to ask in ones life time (1).
This immediately leads us to the question of practical
relevance as applied to any branch of knowledge.
Ordinarily, a branch of knowledge is said to be of
practical relevance when it has a bearing on our daily
activities to survive and live happily amidst the limited
economic resources and other problems of life e.g.
sickness, climatic problems, social evils and natural
catastrophies. Such a knowledge must be able to
minimize our economic problems and other problems
of life like those enumerated above, in order to make
human life enjoyable, cherished and interesting. This
implies that the idea of practical relevance as applied
to any branch of knowledge is largely pragmatic in
content, with emphasis primarily on the material
welfare of men and secondarily on the spiritual
welfare, which is seen as a social tool or as a way of
making material well being possible. On this note, the
physical and biological sciences such as physics,
engineering, medicine, pharmacy etc. are considered
to be of more practical relevance than a speculative
science like philosophy. Philosophy defined as the
most basic and fundamental science, destined to the
discovery and explication of the ultimate condition of
human knowledge may be considered as a mere
pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, without any
relevance to mans existential, economic and social
situations. But since the criterion for making such a
judgment is based on an unreflective, presumptuous
and half-baked conception of man and his needs as a
being in the world, there is no credibility for such a
position. In fact the ordinary notion of practical
relevance has to be criticized by a science that
encompasses all reality in order to be truly credible.
We need a vision of things entire in order to discern
what is truly useful to man. This applies strictly to the
positive notion of practical relevance, which concerns
making human life enjoyable, cherished and
interesting.
That the physical or biological sciences are directed
towards the production of certain concrete goods,
example good health, infrastructures, and the basic
necessities of life, is one thing. But that all they
produce are actually useful to man is another-
although this is presupposed by these sciences, it
needs to be proved. Since it is clear that the so called
exact sciences are not the most basic and
fundamental source of knowledge, what they produce
has to be scrutinized and be solidly established in the
light of the vision of things entire, provided by a well
grounded philosophy. Philosophy is not directed to
the production of that which is truly and ultimately
good for man as a being in the world. This does not
mean that its scope will be limited to man alone,
because we cannot talk of what is absolutely good for
man without a fundamental knowledge or explicit
knowledge of the horizon of being on which man lives
and thinks. Philosophy seeks to discover and
explicate the ultimate condition of human knowledge
or the ultimate possibility of any and all questions.
This according to Emerich Coreth,
is an awareness that goes beyond the
already known to the unknown, to be
known, or of being that is limited by
nothingness or of being in openness to
being (48).
Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2011, 2(3): 283-290

287

It provides a fundamental knowledge of the horizon of
being in which man lives and thinks and has thus to
decide ultimately on what is to be pursued by any
science which claims to be or in order to be of
practical relevance to man. As Alozie put it in his
work The Nature of Philosophy
Every human endeavour or pursuit has
a philosophy guiding it. Since
philosophy is essentially a cognitive,
critical and reflective enterprise aimed at
problem solving, we think that every
subject has its own philosophy. There is
thus, the philosophy of science, of
physics, of biology, of law, of history, of
arts etc. (44).
In another work, Philosophical Foundations of the
Sciences and Politics Alozie argues and correctly
too that: querying the results of scientific
investigations will prevent science from becoming a
dogma. This is one of the ways philosophy helps
scientists to break new grounds(204). We talk of
applying philosophy to these various disciplines
which is an attempt to put philosophy close to these
disciplines and so make it possible for philosophy to
help them, the way a mother helps her children.
Some misinformed persons see philosophy as a
butterfly that jumps from one flower to another,
without focusing on any of them totally. In other
words, they see philosophy as a jack of all trades but
master of none. This, to a large extent is the laymans
assessment of philosophy, and this assessment calls
for information on the nature and task of philosophy,
as a discipline. Philosophy by etymological definition
is generally referred to as love of wisdom. Wisdom
here is an old fashioned word which means
knowledge. So philosophy by etymological definition
is love of knowledge. And this knowledge is
knowledge of all types. From point of view of loving
knowledge, the philosopher has no limitations. He is
interested in all branches of knowledge and the
various branches of knowledge are represented by
the various flowers alluded to in the laymens view of
philosophy, expressed above. A philosophers
interest in these various branches of knowledge
makes the layman to see him as a butterfly that
moves from one flower to the other. This movement
which is from one branch of knowledge to the other,
is not an idle mans type of movement but, is
something like an umpires or a supervisors type of
movement. A philosopher, because of his historic
position in the arena of knowledge assigns to himself
the task of seeing what goes on in the various
branches of knowledge because every branch of
knowledge has a philosophy. To indicate the
presence of philosophy in every branch of
knowledge, the Ph.D. degree awarded in all branches
of human learning is called Philosophy Doctor of the
discipline in question. In Ph.D., the Ph represents
Philosophy while the D represents Doctor. The Ph.D.
holder in Physics is a Philosophy Doctor of Physics.
The Ph.D. holder in Geography is a Philosophy
Doctor of Geography. A Ph.D. holder in Medicine is a
Philosophy Doctor of Medicine. It may be useful here
to indicate the difference between a first degree
doctor in Medicine and a Ph.D. holder in Medicine.
Every Ph.D. holder in Medicine is a First Degree
Doctor in Medicine but not every First Degree Doctor
in Medicine is a Ph.D. holder in Medicine. After
completing the undergraduate programme for
Medicine/Surgery students, one becomes a First
Degree Doctor in Medicine. But to become a Ph.D.
holder in Medicine, one has to go the extra mile of
pursing a Ph.D. programme in Medicine. A Ph.D.
holder from any and every discipline is a Philosophy
Doctor in that discipline. This shows that there are
some elements of philosophy in that persons
specialization. It is this element of philosophy in that
persons and every persons specialization at the
Ph.D. level that draws the philosophers attention to
what goes on in every discipline. The philosophers
interest in any and every discipline, therefore, is not
holistic. He is only interested in the aspect of the
discipline that is philosophical, fundamental or basic.
That is why we have philosophy of all disciplines. For
instance, we have philosophy of law, philosophy of
medicine, philosophy of social sciences etc. In every
course, there is a philosophy.
Philosophy as a discipline has four major tasks it
performs in relation to all other disciplines. These four
major tasks can be referred to as four major functions
of philosophy. It is INVESTIGATIVE in relation to all
other disciplines. Here, philosophy investigates what
goes on in the various disciplines, from the
fundamental and basic points of view. It tries to
investigate each discipline the way a mother
investigates each of her children to make sure they
are on course, because each discipline is an
offspring of philosophy, as indicated above. So from
this investigative point of view, the relation between
philosophy and the other disciplines, is similar to the
relation between a mother and her children.
Secondly, philosophy has a SYNOPTIC function in
relation to the other disciplines. The synoptic gospels
of the Bible are similar in content and as such can be
placed side by side for purposes of harmonious
Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2011, 2(3): 283-290

288

comparison. Philosophy as the mother of the various
disciplines plays this synoptic role by placing all other
disciplines side by side to make sure there is
harmony in their individual and collective operations.
No discipline is allowed to operate in a manner that
creates disharmony amongst the various disciplines.
It is the philosophers attempt to ensure this harmony
among various disciplines from the fundamental and
basic points of view that necessitates his moving
from one discipline to another, to have an idea of
what is going on in those disciplines. The philosopher
equally performs an ANALYTIC function with
reference to the other disciplines. He does this from
the IS-OUGHT point of view. The is point of view
analyses the discipline in question exactly the way it
is at the given time; while the OUGHT point of view
indicates in clear terms what the discipline ought to
be. Philosophy being the mother-discipline has a
good knowledge of the general goal or overall
objective that each specific discipline should pursue
and in most cases, the status of the discipline at a
given time is different from what it ought to be. So,
this philosophers analysis of what goes on in other
disciplines from the Ought point of view enables him
to help the disciplines in question to be on course
without derailing. Finally, the philosopher, in relation
to other disciplines performs a
NORMATIVE/CREATIVE function. Here philosophy
tries to articulate, based on its earlier discussed
functions of being investigative, synoptic and
analytical, norms that guide learning and knowledge
acquisition in general and now leaves it to the
individual disciplines to organize their course
contents in a manner that helps them to achieve the
desired objectives the specific disciplines are
expected to pursue. The experts in the various
disciplines, through their contact with philosophy,
fashion their various disciplines in line with their
disciplines overall objectives (Ijiomah, 22). We can
now see why the philosopher is interested in what
happens in the various disciplines. His interest is that
of a concerned supervisor, supervising the activities
of the various disciplines from the fundamental and
basic points of view. This paper greatly regrets the
fact that some universities in developing countries,
graduate students who have not taken any course in
philosophy. Every University student should take, at
least the Philosophy and Logic course recommended
by Nigerias Universities Commission (NUC) as a
compulsory General Studies Course in all Nigerian
universities. This paper emphasizes the fact that
science and philosophy enjoy very close affinity.
Theoretical Philosophy and Applied or Practical
Philosophy: The idea of applying philosophy to
science and other disciplines or applied philosophy
does not mean a sort of laboratory philosophy but
implies a distinction, within the science of philosophy
itself, between the theoretical and the applied or
practical aspects. What is this distinction? While
theoretical philosophy will try to discover and
explicate the ultimate condition of human knowledge
or the horizon of being in which man lives and thinks,
that is, being that is only limited by nothingness, or
the being of the questioner, which is its openness to
being, or an authentic awareness that goes beyond
the known to the unknown, applied philosophy is, on
the other hand, concerned with deciding ultimately on
what is to be pursued by any science that claims to
be or that wants to be of practical relevance to man.
This it does in the light of the conclusions of
theoretical philosophy. Though theoretical philosophy
is fundamental to applied philosophy and seeks
knowledge for its own sake, both are termed
philosophy in the sense that of all branches of
knowledge, they are the most basic and fundamental.
As a science, both applied and theoretical philosophy
have to be systematic and methodic. This means that
applied philosophy for instance, can then be defined
as a systematic and methodic application of
philosophical knowledge to concrete human
situations. It decides what is to be pursued by any
science that claims or wants to be of practical
relevance to man. In the history of philosophy, while
many philosophers like Parmenides, Anaxagoras,
Aristotle, Plotinus, Aquinas, Leibniz, Wolf etc. were
preoccupied with theoretical philosophy, their
different conceptions of what philosophy is
notwithstanding (Omoregbe, 1), others like, Plato,
Spinoza, Comte, Karl Marx etc. made implicit allusion
to applied philosophy. For example, while Aristotles
contentions that philosophy consists of the pursuit of
knowledge for its own sake, implies a preoccupation
with theoretical philosophy, Platos application of his
theory of ideas, which is his metaphysics, to the
principles of moral or political life is an implicit
allusion to applied philosophy. We can also see a
similar thing in the case of dialectical revision of
Hegelian metaphysics by Karl Marx.
The scope of applied philosophy is implied in its
definition as the branch of philosophy that makes an
ultimate decision on what is to be pursued by any
branch of knowledge that claims or wants to be of
practical relevance to man. Applied philosophy is to
examine, criticize or validate the objects or aims of
the physical, biological, social and applied sciences.
Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2011, 2(3): 283-290

289

The problem then is: How is applied philosophy to
carry out this task? What are the possible
implications of such an endeavour? It is to carry out
such a task by criticizing or ratifying the objectives of
the sciences in the light of the conclusions of
theoretical philosophy. The possible implications
would be that: (i) None of the physical, biological,
social or applied sciences has any justification to
claim to be of practical relevance to man or to
produce anything in the name of what is useful to
man without the ratification of applied philosophy (ii)
Applied philosophy itself must depend on the
conclusions of theoretical philosophy as its point of
departure. The idea of applied philosophy does not
entail any limitation of human knowledge, since it
presupposes theoretical philosophy, which pursues
knowledge for its own sake, and since it is not
directed towards the production of any particular
good. Applied philosophy cannot tell us how to
manufacture anything but is to decide whether what
is manufactured is ultimately useful to man, and
prescribe the objective of the productive sciences. Its
concern with the methodology of the sciences is only
in so far as such has some consequences to mans
existential situations. Let us then free ourselves from
the fake conclusion that since philosophy is
speculative and abstract, it is of no practical
relevance. We should try and see the applicability of
philosophy to our lives. Was Einsteins theory of
Relativity not considered useless, speculative and
abstract at the time of its formulation, but what
happened later on? It formed the basis for the
construction of nuclear bombs. Again was the theory
of a number system with a base other then ten, that
is, binary numbers not considered useless at the time
of its formulation, but what happened later now? In
the long run, it was used as the basis for the
construction of electronic computers. In fact, it may
be as C. S. Pierce, the American pragmatic
philosopher once said, that there are always enough
people around to study useful things, but it is the
study of the useless which brings about the genuine
advance in science (75). This means that
philosophical speculations or theories are not to be
relegated to the background because our ordinary
notion of what is useful to man proves such theories
or speculations to be useless. From where do we
derive our ordinary notion of practical relevance and
how valid is it? It is good to note that any attempt to
give our notion of practical relevance a strict and
rigorous validity leads us back to philosophy. Many
scientists have made several attempts today to
produce what they feel is useful to man. Certainly all
productive sciences need a sort of working theory of
what man is and what he is up to in his existence in
the world. Such a working theory will direct them on
what they are to pursue for the optimum benefit of
mankind. Such a working theory presupposes a
vision of things entire and can only be provided by
philosophy. The empiricist, no doubt, will demand
some tangible results for the justification of the
practical relevance of philosophy. It is good to note
that such a demand assumes a certain notion of
practical relevance, which it does not itself justify. It
assumes that for something to be of practical
relevance, it must be directed to the production of
some tangible good, but it does not ask whether what
is produced is ultimately good to man. To ask such a
question is to inquire about what is fundamental in
the issue of practical relevance. And since such a
question leads us back to philosophy, philosophy is
of practical relevance to man in the most ultimate and
certain sense.
CONCLUSION
Even though the idea of practical relevance seems
to imply tangible usefulness, it is nevertheless a
mode or kind of usefulness, and is meaningless if the
idea of usefulness is not essential to it. Usefulness in
general can be of any kind whether practical or
theoretical and if this is validly attributed to
philosophy, then philosophy is of practical relevance.
And if theorizing is prior to practicalization, then even
if philosophy is merely theoretically useful, it is
indirectly practically useful to man. Our justification
for taking philosophy as the most fundamental and
basic of all scientific knowledge is, in the main,
historical.
REFERENCES
Alozie P. I. History and Philosophy of Science in Ancient
Africa in History and Philosophy of Science. Calabar:
Dec-Ford Publishers, 1994.
- Philosophical foundations of the Sciences and Politics in
History and Philosophy of Science. Calabar: Dec-For
Publishers, 1994.
- The Nature of Philosophy in Academic Digest. May-June
edition, 1990.
Coreth E. Metaphysics. New York: Herder & Herder Inc.,
1968.
Flew, A. Philosophy: An Introduction. Lodon:Hodder and
Stoughton,1979
Ijiomah C.O. Contemporary Views About Philosophy of
Education. Calabar. UPTRICO Press, 1996.
Am. J. Soc. Mgmt. Sci., 2011, 2(3): 283-290

290

Naletov. I. Alternatives to Positivism. Moscow: Progress
Publishers, 1984.
Omoregbe, J. Knowing Philosophy, Lagos: Joja Publishers,
1990.
Onyewuenyi, I. The African Origin of Greek Philosophy: An
Exercise in Afrocentrism. Nsukka: Univ. of Nigeria
Press, 1998.
Popper, K. R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London:
Hutchinson, 2
nd
edition, 1968.
Pierce, C. Philosophical Writings. New York: Dover
Publications, Inc., 1940.
Russell, B. History of Western Philosophy. London: George
Allen & Unwin, 1979.
-The Problem of Philosophy. London: Oxford Univ. Press,
1980.
Stumpf, S. E. Philosophy: History and Problems. New York:
McGraw Hill Bk, 1977
Taylor, R. Metaphysics. New York: Prentice Hill, 1963.
Toyo, Eskor. Globalization from a Perspective Relevant to
Africa. Calabar: Confident Publishers, 2007.
Walsh, W. H. Metaphysics, Nature Of In The Encyclopedia
of Philosophy Vol. 5 & 6. New York: Macmillan and
The Free Press, 1967.