OSUN STATE UNIVERSITY, OSOGBO

COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCES
OKUKU CAMPUS

GNS 302: LOGIC AND PHILOSOPHY (LECTURE

NOTES)

COURSE LECTURERS:

* DR. ALEX IGHO OVIE-D'LEONE

** DR OLALERE AMUSAN
***MR. DEBO ADEYEYE
DR. BOLAJI OMITOLA

INTRODUCTION

The materials contained in this handout are intended to facilitate a general

understanding
of the essence of Logic and Philosophy and as these concepts have also impacted on
social rational thinking and scientific enquiries in other disciplines. Logic is the
sequence
of linkage of factual, rational or hypothetical arguments embedded in any social
thought.
All social thought are said to consist of a series of related ideas about any
phenomenon
under focus and how best to tackle any social problem - especially, how best to
organize
the human society.

It is from such a systemic inter-linkage of ideas that the notion of Philosophy

emanates.
This is in the sense of saying that Philosophy entails a systematization of socially
acceptable ideas and of which a people generally accept as authoritative and hence
morally binding on them and on their ways of life. As much as there are multiplicities
of
humanendeavours, so also there are multiples of philosophies about many social
phenomena - especially the notion of social organization.

It is however incisive to understand here that, the focus of his course is on the logic
and
philosophy of human organization in the community or how to ascertain the ethical
essence of politics in the human community. In this sense, the logic or rational
reasoning
and philosophy of some of the greatest thinkers and writers in human annals right
from
the ancient times, through the Middle Ages and up to the contemporary time, form
the central focus of the analyses in this course handout. It is broken down into a
number
of lessons for ease of understanding.

LESSON 1:
BASIC CONCEPTUAL DEFINITIONS

As a general practice in Political Science and much of the Social Sciences, every
social enquiry must logically or rationally begin with some form of conceptual
introduction wherein all basic tools and concepts to be employed are clearly defined
and put in their right perspectives for purposes of clarity and analytical certainty. No
better place to begin on such an onerous task than to focus at the onset on the course
title itself: Logic and Philosophy.

What is Logic?
By definition, it could be taken to mean the structural linkage between two or more
ideas or concepts. Some English Language Dictionaries define it also as "the
principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation". And at other
instances, it could be taken also to mean, "asystem of [rational] reasoning". It usually
consists of a dialectical interaction between a set of ideas. When the linkage pertains
to two or more political concepts this is generally called political logic. Logics are
derived from ideas.

What is an Idea?
An idea can be taken to mean any knowledge, personal view, opinion or information
about a social phenomenon. It also evokes a sense of cognition or awareness about a
phenomenon. And it can be a plan of action that produces a social action. When such
awareness, cognition, opinions or information pertain to social organization of a
human society, it is called a political idea. Related ideas transform into philosophies.

What is Philosophy?
The linkage of closely related ideas by logic or rational reason often creates a system
of knowledge about a set of related social phenomenon. Philosophy can then be taken
to mean a system of related ideas about a social phenomenon. Usually, such ideas
pertain to how to achieve solutions to any given problem. And when these ideas are
authoritatively accepted by a people as binding on them, they translate into political
philosophy. Philosophies usually progress into ethics.

What is Ethics?
They are the underlying principles of right and wrong or acceptable social conducts
which an individual or a social group accepts as authoritatively binding on them
socially. They are derived from related systems of ideas, philosophies or belief
systems that have gained moral force over long period of usage by the people. They
are therefore a set of moral codes about the notion of the good life in the human
community. Political ethics or the ethics of politics, therefore pertain to a
determination of what ought to constitute the moral code for the authoritative
allocation of power and resources within the state and where the question of how to
attain the truest essence of universal justice is usually the principal consideration. All
ideas, logic and philosophies originate from man's cognition or his conscious thought.

What is Political Thought?

Ideas and the logic that link them together into different coherent systems where they
readily become philosophies, actually originate from man's cognitive faculty. In this
sense, political thought can be taken to mean the outcome of the cognitive prowess of
man in the sense of using his mental abilities to bring into being a ‘state of being'
through mental preoccupation. Political thought and political philosophy are therefore
synonymous and are basically the outcome of man's mental pre-occupation about how
to authoritatively organize his socializing community in order to enable him live the
good life (that is within the ambience of universal justice) in harmonious association
with other fellow men. Political philosophy and political thought are also usually
conduced into the notion of political theories generally.

LESSION 2:
GREEK ORIGIN OF MODERN POLITICAL THOUGHT AND THE IMPACT
OF GEOGRAHPY ON THE LIVES OF THE ATHENIANS

Political thought originated from Greece during the early times. It owes its existence
in Greece to the need to correct theories already in vogue and it began when the
‘many' started to answer by arguments, the claims of Aristocratic prestige. Therefore,
the weighing of the claims of the wise and ‘virtuous few' against those of the ‘many'
was always a constant staple of Greek speculation and from where political thought
emanated. This trend though was also influenced by geography.

Greece general has a rugged topography outlined by multiple mountains and a land
mass separated by the sea. In the hinterland, the adjoining mountains created a series
of very narrow valleys which provided the means to support very limited population
that basically survived on agriculture.

Access to neighboring valley habitations was greatly limited by the rough topography
and this compelled each community to develop in relative isolation. The harsh
realities of topography also prevented the eventuality of developing a unified
federation of City-States. The limited space for habitation also compelled in a way
the Greeks to be largely gregarious thereby making the cities social places and
 avenues for recreation/leisure. Italso helped to generate a very vibrant political
culture and activism in such a manner that politics became everyone's business. In
totality it was a unified community and there was relative harmony between it and the
rural communities. In essence, it was a community centre owned and shared by all
equally.

Structural Outlay Of The Greek City State: Athens

It is a fact that men are by and large a product of their environments of socialization.
Inclement of nature, institutions and operating laws tend to shape such environments
and they are in turn shaped by the interactions of individuals within them. If we take
this analogy as given, it becomes evident that for us to understand the influences of
early Greek political thought or philosophy on modern logic and science, we ought to
first grasp the character and structural arrangements within which the early
philosophers operated from at the onset. It is only in this light that we can aptly
understand the essences of the logic and politics embedded in the thoughts of early
Greek philosophers.

Characteristic Structural Outline of The Greek City State: Athenians

a). Life was personal and intimate because the location was relatively small in size.
b) It had a gregarious national population with politics as the main activity
c) Citizens lived with their fellows in s spirit of equality and comradeship that
generally promoted a sense of common national ethos.
d) Autocracy had no place in Athens. In essence what obtained was a direct
participatory democracy.
It had a long and turbulent evolution from monarchy through aristocracy, to tyranny and to
democracy.
Each stage presented a stiff challenge between those who held and those who sought
power and the focus of the struggles were usually premised on a full understanding of
the ethical basis of politics
Geography was a chief determinant of development of the City-State in the sense that it
had:
i) A limited population
ii) An isolated development
There was a social strata consisting of citizens - 1/3 of the population, slaves and the
Metic or resident foreigners who were free men, consisted of ½ the size of citizens.
Slaves were more in numbers.
i) Agriculture was a predominant economic activity and operating it in a
limited space plus a large population created huge demands for daily sustenance.
j) Citizenship was the right of only those recognized by birth, though it could also
be
granted to the Metric but by legislation and not by any legal award.
k) The Metic is required to pay special taxes from which the citizens were exempt.
Slaves performed most of the works and this freed the citizens to devote time
 on politics and civic affairs.
l) Athenians were focused more on civic duties than on the pursuit of leisure or
luxury
m) Whether slave, citizens or Metic, everyone had a comparatively high standard of
living.
n) Slaves had rights guaranteed by the law even though they were generally regarded
as
property of the citizens. Example:
Physical assault on a slave by a person other than the master was punishable
under criminal law.
The state might intervene to ensure the bond servant's protection.

LESSON 3:Ancient Greek Philosophers (Pre and Post Socratic Period)

MADUABUCHI DUKOE
Philosophy, they say, is the mother of all disciplines. This age-long adage can be
substantiated within the ambit of Greek civilization and culture. That is why a brief
survey of the Greek philosophers is imperative. The Greeks invented, among other
things, science and philosophy. Between fourth and fifth centuries, the important
center of thought was Athens and philosophy and science were studied everywhere in
the Greek world. These studies shaped the whole course of Roman and Western
civilization and mankind generally. Greek philosophers asked questions out of which
science and philosophy developed the questions such as what is everything made of?;
How do things come into being; change and pass away?; and what permanent
substance or substances exist behind appearances?
It is said that these Greek thinkers did not initially call themselves philosophers and it
was after quite sometimes that they became logicians. Such notions as "substance",
"matter", "mind", "element", "atom" and "force" were not clearly expressed. There
were no clear distinctions between philosophy, science and religion.
Thales
Thales was one of the ancient Greek philosophers who came from Miletus, one of the
Greek cities. Milesians were believed to be adventurous, exploratory and
individualistic.
There is limited information about Thales. One significant anecdote about him was
that he fell into a well because he was so occupied with looking at the stars. But he
was not odd and eccentric as such, for according to Herodotus, Thales successfully
predicted an eclipse which was visible in Asia Minor in May, 585 B.C. Even though
some said that we do not know anything about the teaching of Thales, Aristotle is said
to have attributed to him the saying that “all things are full of gods: and that the
magnet is alive since it has the power to move iron". He also attributed to him the
saying that “the fundamental substance from which all things proceed is water".
Anaximander
Born about 610 B.C Anaximander was the first of the Greeks to write a book in prose.
He was the son of Praxiodes, a fellow citizen and associate of Thales. He described
the primary substance as the "the infinite" or "the non-limited" or "the boundless".
Anaximander doctrine rest solely on logical and philosophical argument and could not
be discovered by experiment. While the theory of Thales could be falsified by
experiment because water is visible and tangible, the "infinite" or "the boundless" of
Anaximander is not.
Anaximander was also interested in empirical matters since he was the first to draw a
map and to construct a model which was intended to illustrate the movements and
dimensions of the heavenly bodies. He had far-reaching ideas. He said there were
"innumerable worlds"; they had come from and would disappear into "the unlimited".
Some of them could be observed, while others could be imagined and many of their
properties could be demonstrated.
Anaximenses
Anaximenses of Miletus, son of Eutystratus was the thirds of the philosophers of the
school of Miletus and an associate of Anaximander. He said that the underlying
substance was one and infinite which is determinate and that it was air According to
him, everything including the gods and divine things come from air Anaximenses
seemed to be more practical or scientific than Anaximander. He was interested not in
what is more fundamental than any kind of thing, but simply in what particular kind
of thing is most fundamental. For the poetic and philosophical Anaximander, the earth
was cylindrical and remains suspended in space, but for the scientific Anaximenses,
the earth was flat and the heavenly bodies are flying saucers. But today, neither of the
theories is correct.
Pythagoras
The lonian School was more of a symbol of religious revivalism against the scientific
spirit of the milessians. This religious orientation of the school had influence on
Pythagoras. With him, philosophy instead of being simply a “curiousity" or "science",
becomes a way of life or a religion itself. Pythagoras was both a philosopher and a
religious teacher. He regarded philosophy and mathematics as "good for the soul". He
defined "the three lives" by comparing all men to those who attend the Olympic
Games; the low class are those who come there simply to buy and sell; next are the
actual competitors; and the highest class are those who are simply there to watch. It
was said that Pythagoras believed in the transmigration of soul or in "being born
again".
The higher disciplines of Pythagorean School were music and mathematics.
Pythagoras was believed to have discovered the proof of the theorem which laid the
foundation of mathematics. The Pythagoreans treated numbers as being "sacred".
According to them, numbers and their arrangement expressed quality as well as
quantity. Numbers were also treated as the material principle and as that which makes
things what they are temporarily or permanently. They also believed that the principle
of number are the even (or unlimited or indefinite) and the odd (or limited or
definite); that unity is produced out of these two and number out of unity; and that
number constitutes the whole sensible world.
Xenophanes
His social and religious views were symbolic of lonian rationalism. Most remarkable
were his criticisms of anthropomorphism and established mythological ideas of the
gods. In his satires and sillo!, he said that the stories of the gods told by Homer and
Hesiod- are both immoral and scientifically absurd. In a pantheistic sense, he said that
all we know is the material universe which in totality can be called divine. His
pantheistic view of the divine and the universe is encapsulated in the following
thoughts:
One god, the greatest among gods and men neither in form like unto mortals nor
in thought;

He sees all over, thinks all over, and hears all over;
He controls all things by the thought of his mind; and
He is always the same and unmovable.
HERACLITUS
Heraclitus of Ephesus, though cannot be said to belong to any school was influenced
by the Milesians. He work was deposited in the temple of Artemis in his native city.
In antiquity he was known as “the Dark". He has been called with reasons, "the first
mental philosopher". Prominent in his work is his conclusion that unity is variety and
that what is fundamental is not a"stuff" but a process. The images he gives of this
process are those of a river or of a flame. He says it is possible to say of river and
flame that body do and do not exist. One cannot step into the same river twice, yet it
remains a river. He says nothing exists statistically and that there is no stuff contrary
to the opinion of the milesian philosophers. For him, the process of existence
continues forever and identifiable shapes are manifest in the stream or flame.
When Heraclitus says that a river or; process can both be said to exist and not exist, he
has violated the law of contradiction that says that something must either be or not.
But he says that such a law cannot aptly be applied to a consideration of the universe
or the soul.
He seems to reject both the 'pantheism of xenophanes and the mysticism of
Pythagoras
Parmenides
He was the founder of the Eleatic School in the Greek West. He wrote in poetical
verses. He was the first logician and first philosopher in the modern sense of the
word. His system depended entirely on logical deduction rather than the speculative
"science" of the Milesian School
He distinguishes between three nays of thought. They are:-
that it is;

that it is not and

that it both is and is not (reminiscent of Heraclitus)
But Parmenides asserts that the only possible way of thought is (1). He says it is
impossible to think in "nothing” as something which exist; there cannot be such thing
as emptiness; there cannot be no spaces between objects, no temporal beginnings or
ending of things; the universe is one single, continuous object, and if our senses
suggest that things do move and do change, then our senses are deceiving us. This is
obviously reversal of Heraclitus thought.
The doctrine of Parmenides ‘that it is’ can be clearly put as follows:-
Any intelligible name must be the name of something which exists;

X does not exist (it is meaningless if X is not the name of something existing and
it is contradictory if X is real); and
Therefore all views which either say or imply that something does not exist must
be rejected. The idea that something does not exist cannot be thought of.
It follows that what exist must be temporarily infinite. To say otherwise would entail
referring to "what it is not" as preceding and following "what is" and that makes no
senses But Parmenides believed that what exist is spatially finite and spherical
probably because bounded by nothing was a meaningless idea; so is also the idea that
what exist" is spatially bounded at all.
The startling deduction from Parmenides is that change and motion are illusions of
the senses. He also asserts that, "As it was in the beginning. is now and ever shall be".
The conclusions of Parmenides are more logically articulated in Zeno Paradoxes
(Zero was one of his followers).
EMPEDOCLES,
Empodocles, a native of the City of Akragas in Sicily was born around 493 B.C. He
was an aristocrat and a writer of poems. He was believed to be a magician and much
more of a scientist than Parmenides. He is credited with the invention of the theory of
"the survival of the fittest". His philosophy is a kind of compromise between
Parmenides and Heraclitus. He advocated both the idea of the permanency of ‘what
is’ and the permanency of a process. He rejected the original Milesian theory of "the
one” or the hypothesis of a single substratum and said that the world is composed of
four "roots" or, elements- fire, air, water and earth.
Apart from the theory of four elements, he has another theory which accounts for
change and motion, for the process of development and dissolution. Here Empedocles
proclaimed the existence of two things which he calls "strife" and "love". According
to him, strife and love or attraction and repulsion account for change and motion. The
four elements are compounded under the influence of strife and love. Love is the
unifier and strife the divider. There is a fight between strife and love over four
historical periods at the end of which love will triumph.
Anaxagoras
Anaxagoras was an Ionian who settled in Athens in 480 B.C. He was a friend and
teacher of Pericles a prominent Greek politician. Like Empedocles he was concerned
with the it problem of motion and change and like Parmenides he believed that
nothing can be added to or taken away from "what is".
He did not believe in either one or four "roots" or elements. He was not an atomist
either. He said that matter is a continuum infinitely divisible with each part containing
elements of everything else. Therefore, the difference between, say, fire and earth, or
a piece of gold or a grain is accounted for simply by the fact that in fire there is more
fire than there is in earth and in gold more gold than there is in wheat: yet there is
some fire in earth, some earth in fire, some wheat in gold and some gold in wheat.
With regard to the problem of motion, growth and change, Anaxagoras assumes the
existence of an external cause which he calls Nous or "mind". The "mind" for him,
therefore accounted for how the seeds came together into the forms we know then.
Zeno
In the middle of the fifth century, in the youthful age of socrates, Zeno, a pipul and
fellow -townsman of Parmenides once more vigorously asserted the doctrine of
Parmenides. He was said to have been born in 490 B.C and visited Athens in the
company of Parmenides. Although the principle of dialectics are evident in
Parmenides, Zeno first gave the "logic" and "rational thought", a dramatic and a
particularly incisive expression. His method was to take up the hypothesis of his
philosophical opponent and deduce from it contradictory conclusions and to show that
those who disagree with the doctrine of the Parmenidean "one," and try to "save
appearances" will find themselves involved in difficulties much greater than those
which they have been attempting to avoid.
Zeno’s three best-known paradoxes are as follows:-
You cannot get to the other side of a race-course. To do so, you must first get half-
way across, and to do this, you must first get halfway to the halfway point, and
so on. Therefore you can never start at all;

(ii) Achilles can never catch up with tortoise. In trying to do so, he must first
reach the point from which the tortoise started, and by that time the tortoise
would have got a little further one.
(iii) The arrow in flight is at rest. At any given moment it must occupy a space
equal to itself. Therefore it cannot move.
Numbers one and two paradoxes are directed against the hypothesis that matter or
being is infinitely divisible or, to be more precise, that a line is made up of an infinite
number of points. The third paradox is directed against the hypothesis that matter or
being is made up of a infinite number of indivisibles. It means that if being is neither
infinitely divisible nor composed of a finite number of divisible, it must be as
Parmenides had concluded, a continuum.

Melissos
Melissos of Samos is said to have commanded the Samian fleet against Athens in
442-440 B.C. He differs from Permenides in concluding that "what exists" is infinite
in space as well as in time. He seems to believe in Parmenides "one". However he
says that if one is going to believe in "a many" (he of-course thinks one should not)
then each one of the many must have all the characteristics of the Parmenidian "one".
Leucippus
Leucippus of Miletus, a contemporary of Milissos is said to have studied Zeno and
may have visited Elea, the headquarters of the "school" of Permenides. He invented
the atomic theory which seems the most satisfactory answer to the question posed by
his fellow-country man Thales. He tried to reconcile the views both of the lonians and
of the Eleatics. His theory was later developed by Democritus and Epicurus.
He asserted that "nothing" exist, He accepted Zeno’s arguments against infinite
divisibility and asserted the existence of ultimate particles or “atoms” (a word which
simply means indivisibles), each of which, according to Mellissos, had the
characteristics of the Parmenidean "one". He said that everything was made up of
atoms and the void (nothing) in different arrangements. The atoms are invisible and of
different sizes. Though they have magnitude, they cannot be divided because, like the
"one" of Parmenides, they contain no empty space.
He introduced a revolutionary use of the verb "to be". His assertion that there can be
a void - that there can be what is, in a sense nothing - was a paradox to earlier thinkers
who was inclined to identify existence with corporeal existence. This is unorthodox
was essentially a resistance to the logic of Parmenides and Zeno. One fragment of
Leucippus that has survived is that “nothing happens at random, but all things for a
reason and of necessity". This is certainly evidence for a belief in determinism.
The Sophists
The fifth century before Christ was a period of extraordinary activity and achievement
in the Greek world. There was the defeat of the great Persian invasion. Under the
leadership of Pericles, there was a new spirit of enterprise, most perfect flowers of art
and literature. There was desire for knowledge resulting to conflicting speculations
and voices.
In this intellectual ferment, there arose a new class of people called sophists or wise
men. They were Snot essentially philosophers or scientist but professional itinerant
teachers. Their objective was to teach cleverness and efficiency rather than wisdom
and goodness and charge fees for their services. They were the first grammarians and
teachers of the art of persuasive prose. They were systematisers and humanists. One
of the greatest sophists, Protagoras, is credited with the statement, "Man is the
measure of all things". Also the dominant characteristic of this movement is religious
and philosophical skepticism.
Development of Atomism
Democritus
He was born in 460 B.C and died at ninety. He was nicknamed "wisdom" because of
his great learning. He took over from Leucippus the basic theory of atomism and
elaborated it. He says the ultimate realities are atoms and the void. These atoms are all
of the same substance, indivisible, infinite in number and infinitely voices in shape.
He says that nothing, which though unreal, exists, is also infinite and, that the objects
of sense are formed by the constant movement, and "vibration" of atoms in the void.
According to
Rex Warner, Democritus seems to assume that motion is an eternal property of atoms,
something which depend on necessity. To the atomists, the motion is the cause of
everything.
Democritus states that our only legitimate knowledge is of the atoms and the void
while other knowledge that come to us through the senses are bastard. Democritus
theory of "necessity" or "mechanical cause" seems to imply atheism in religion and
determinism in morals. In spite of this, he seems not to have been concerned at all
with the problem of free will and determinism. He assumes the existence of free will
and determinism and proceeds to elaborate a doctrine of "cheerfulness" as being the
aim of a good life.
Epicurus
Epicurus (342/1 - 271/70 B.C) founded one of the two philosophical systems which,
from the end of the fourth century B.C. almost until the triumph of Christianity,
continued to dominate the minds of the educated - both Epicureanism and Stoicism
could be called "creeds" as well as "philosophies". These two schools were designed
both to explain nature and to satisfy the scepticism that had arisen as a result of the
decline and fall of the authority of Athens and other Greek city states. At this period,
it was no longer possible to think exactly like Socrates and Plato and the city of
Athens, both as a practical reality and as an ideal, had ceased to exist. The individual,
freed from his dependence on the city gained wider horizons, became disoriented and
was in danger of being lost in a world too big for him either to confront or to
understand. What he needed was assurance which Epicurus attempted to give.
To Epicurus, there is no question of a distinction between appearance and reality.
Appearance is reality. He does not accept Democritus view that legitimate knowledge
is confined to atoms and the void and that our knowledge of the "secondary qua1ities”
(appearance) is "by convention". To him, the only "legitimate" Knowledge is
sensation, thought itself being a kind of sensation.
To account for atomic combinations, Epicurus asserts that at any moment any atom
may, for no known reason, deviate slightly from its course. As a consequence of this
slight deviation or swerve it will come into collusion with other atoms and so give rise
to the whole complex of movement out of which all things are made. Unlike
Democritus, who says that atoms in motion in the void could be held to account
everything, Epicurus here introduces in the "the slight swerve" a new element of
causation which has the disadvantage of being absolutely unpredictable and
unexplainable.
Also on the basis of sensation, Epicurus concludes that the beginning and the root of
all good is the pleasure of the stomach and that even wisdom and culture must be
referred back to this. Similarly, on the basis of sensation and appearance, he says that
one is freed from fear of death when one realises the truth about the corporeal
structure of the soul and how it is impossible for it to exist after the death of the body.
Stoicism
This is one of the most influential post-Aristotelian schools of philosophy founded by
Zeno of Citum (this is different from Zeno, native of the greek city of Eliea in
Southern Italy). There are three divisions of the Stoic doctrine, namely: Local,
Physical and ethical doctrines.

The logical doctrine is that the human mind is originally ‘like a clean tablet’, the
‘impressions' from which all thing and all knowledge derive differ in clearness.
According to Zeno, some impressions are borne in upon us with such force and
vividness that they in Zeno’s phrase) "take hold of us by hair and drag us to assent".
The physical doctrine of the stoics was monistic; there was only one substance
underlying all phenomena. It was materialistic. As such, all gods, human minds, even
emotions and the qualities of objects are all material things or bodies.
The ethical doctrine emphasises peace. The only good was virtue and the only evil is
vice Virtue and vice were held to consist, respectively, primarily in right and wrong
disposition of the coil. But the will is totally under the control of the individual.
Panaetius
Panaetius of Rhodes, a rationalist stoic was born early in the second century B.C. It
was through him that stoic ideas were transplanted to Roman soil where they-
flourished greatly; In ethics, he laid emphasis on the virtues of co-operation rather
than upon the harsher ideal of the attainment of personal apatheia, of unfeeling
tranquillity.
Pasidoniurn of Apamea
He constructed a great pantheistic system in which the whole of empirical knowledge
and the whole superstition of his time find place.
Epictetus
He was a Greek by birth and was born in about the middle of the first century A.D.
Heattempted to revive the early inspiration of Zeno but somehow went beyond that.
For Zeno, health and wealth, though by no means really good, were, other things
being equal, preferable to illness or poverty. However, in the view of Epictetus, to be
a master of one’s fate through control of the twill, and through the control or
elimination of all feeling whatever is the only rational goal. His thoughts are
contained in his discourses.
Marcus Aurelius
He was born in Rome in 121 A.D and adopted at the age of seventeen by the Emperor
Aritoninus Pius. He was also Emperor of Rome at the height of its prosperity and
power. He abandoned studies in law and rhetoric for philosophy. Marcus Aurelius
was by temperament both more human and more ascetic than the Stoic "wise man"
(the Stoic was required to be a wise man). He regarded material trappings of
civilization as actually repulsive. His thoughts are contained mostly in his
meditations.
Cynicism
This school of philosophy was founded by Antisthenes, a disciple of Socrates. The
Cynics deliberately disparaged all learning, all refinement, all civilization. Stoics, like
Diogenes openly flouted the customary conventions and proprieties. They rejected as
superfluous and dispensable worldly goods and freedom. They were wandering
mendicants preaching against the shams and corruption of the world in favour of a
simple natural life in which all should be equal with the whole of mankind as one
family. However, as Stoicism developed, Cynics languished. Much later the doctrines
of cynicism were revived. But the later writings of cynicism being less philosophical
and les argumentative was more a blend of exhortation and satire. Later Stoics like
Epiatetus had a high respect for the Cynic philosopher.
Scepticism
Pyrrho of Ellis, who died at nearly ninety years of age in about 275 B.C, was the
founder of Scepticism. It is believed that Pyrrho may have derived from Anaxarchus,
a disciple of Metrodorus of Chios, who was in turn an exponent of the theories of
Democritus, the first impulse towards general questioning and doubt. Scepticism as a
philosophy recommended practical intention as a means of achieving non-attachment,
peace of mind and therefore such happiness as could be expected in a dangerous
world. According to Timon of Phlius, the nature of things is completely unknowable.
It is believed that he was instrumental to making scepticisrn an official doctrine in
Plato’s Academy. Distinguished among later leaders of the academic, and also a
sceptic was Carneades who lectured in the stern, moralistic atmosphere of Rome.
SextusEmpiricus, also a sceptic, who wrote in the second half of the second century
AD. offered a complete compendium of sceptical arguments against all those who
claimed definite knowledge in any field. Another distinguished late disciple of the
Sceptical doctrine was Lucian of Samosata, whose dialogue Hermotimus shows an
affable sceptic triumphing over stoicism.
Plotinus
Plotinus was born in 204 or 205 A.D in Egypt and died in 269 or 270 A.D. Like
Pythagoreans, Plotinus had a high respect for the number three fold distinctions. He
distinguishes in man body, soul and spirit. Similarly, he distinguishes the world as
perceived by the senses, the world as a spatialand temporal order, and the spiritual
world. He says that matter is an illusion and tbat the body which is the matter in
human begins is evil or the cause of evil. He contends that the natural world is an
appearance. Plotinus also denies the reality of space and time.
Conclusion
The foregoing are some outstanding Greek thoughts or ideas that have influenced
subsequent civilizations down the ages. These ideas are so enduring that they survived
the conquest of Greece by Persia, Macedonia the Romans and so on. In each case,
each of these conquerors tried to preserve these strong and superior ancient Greek
cultures and civilizations. It must however be remarked that the ancient Greek
philosophers did not have monopoly of knowledge; ancient Africans were also
thinkers. To support this view, Dr. Maduabichi F. Dukor in his book Theistic Human;
Philosophy of Scientific Africanise has this to say:
“It seems that the first intellectual and philosophical preoccupation of man on
earth was to wonder and cogitate on why and how he comes to the universe;
how and why there exists the universe; how the universe will probably come
to an end; and who was the author of all existence. lt was not only the Greek
philosophers, as recorded, history tells us that bothered themselves with these
questions. People of other races in ancient times approached these issues in
consonance with their cultures. The African medicine men, herbalists, priests,
diviners, hunters, warriors and so on were preoccupied with these questions
especially when trying to improve on their vocations".
Nonetheless, ancient Greek thoughts or ideas have influenced and will continue to
influence political, legal and social thoughts of today.

LESSON 4:
THE EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHERS: THE TRIUMVIRATE
SOCRATES

He was originally focused on how to attain order from the pervasive chaos that
followed defeat of Greece by the Romans resulting in collapse of the city-state
arrangements. To him, harmony could only germane from pure intelligence and
rational reasoning. He is often credited by scholars like Professor A. E. Taylor for
this notion of morality that has had profound impact on Western political thought over
the years.

This idea is premised on the notion that man possesses a soul that is immortal and this
in turn is fed or nourished by the need for a general subjection of man to a moral life.
There is therefore a dire need for man's overall conduct in life to be tandem always
with the character or nature of his soul. It is however in this sense that many thinkers
have related origin of the Christian doctrine to this kind of Socratic way of reasoning.
Viewed holistically therefore, Socrates argues, the proper care of the soul demands
that a man's thought and action ought always to be judged by or in accordance with
the standard of rationality. In any case, it is from this notion of rationality that
Socrates proceeds to enunciate his famous dictum premised on the notion that:
"Virtue is knowledge, that is discoverable, and that it can be taught and learned".

Socrates in his logical reasoning utilized the method of pinpointing truth through a
procedure of obtaining precise definition of that concept. He first proposes a question
about an issue with a view to eliciting answers from an imaginary panel of
discussants. This method is called "Socratic Irony".

He would then proceed to critically question every shade of opinions advanced by the
discussants as if he was less knowledgeable or sophisticated in awareness. And out of
the ensuring arguments with his discussants, would ultimately emerge an acceptable
answer to the original question. It was through this method he attacked the foundation
of Athenian democracy as premised on the City-State arrangements. In his
submissions however, he argues that Democracy is logically flawed since government
by the many is government by the nonvirtuous and an obvious social injustice. The
argument here is premised on the notion that in every human society, usually, only a
few people in the minority are knowledgeable and hence virtuous. They are therefore
the right people to rule over affairs of all society instead of the majority who are less
knowledgeable.

He also assumes that man is always a political animal and his entire being invariably
belong to the state which ought to be supreme over him. Man is therefore obliged to
be perpetually subjected to the state in total obedience. But then, he concludes that a
man also has a much higher obligation to his conscience, to eternal truth and to the
seeking of virtue which is knowledge. And if such a duty to the state clashes with
such much higher ideals, every man ought to be willing to forfeit his life to the state
instead of compromising his conscience and such higher ideals. He was stoned to
death for his views. Even when he had the chance to escape, he chose to sacrifice his
life for such higher idea.

PLATO (427 - 347 BC)

His contributions to political thought are the outcomes of three major books he wrote.
They include: The Republic, The Statesman and The Law. A review of the three
books here will facilitate an understanding of his political ideas.

The Republic:

In this piece, Plato focuses largely on all known human preoccupations needed for the
growth and development of man's social life. Such a holistic focus stems actually
from the unique character and the exclusive nature of the Athenian city state. And this
position is informed by the assumption that man cannot live the desired good life
outside the framework of the state to which he own his existence and sustenance.
Good life therefore can always be approximated with good citizenship.
One state is not possible without the other state. In his Republic, he tried to create a
system that could help man attain the good life. But this was seemingly too utopian to
many of his critics. It is therefore a science and politics of society. Government as a
rule must proceed on the basis of knowledge about the truth and such a context is
what he tagged as the ‘Ideal State' or the ‘Republic' where justice can only germane or
be possible.

The Republic actually is a dialogue cast in the usual Socratic fashion where Plato tries
to highlight some critical views of his teacher as they impact on prevailing trends in
Athens at the time. The setting of the dialogue in the Republic is the home of
Cephalous - a wealthy retiree who was engaged in religion and astrology as his
pastime. The discussants include the followings:
a) Polemarchus - son of Cephalus
b) Thrasymachus
c) Glaucon
The dialogue by Plato and the discussants actually centers on justice and Plato's plan
for the ideal state. Plato through the dialogue presents his argument from the
assumption that three forces generally motivates man: his desires/appetites, his spirit
and his reason (rationality). A society also, he adds is usually composed of three
classes of people in whom each of these forces are most prominent. Every class then
ought to play the role in society according to the forces most prevalent in them.
His Logic:
- Those motivated by desire/appetite will be greater in number
- Those motivated by spirit/courage will be lesser than the former and
also more that the latter
- Those motivated by reason will usually be few in numbers
It is however the result of the common yearnings for social community that could
facilitate the attainment of these three fold desires which readily culminate in creation
of the state as a political organization. Thus, while one class pursues its desires, it
helps the other classes to achieve their own desire and these in turn help it to achieve
its aims further. It is a reciprocal relationship that benefits all classes and is one that
is premised on the principles of social specialization.

No class can on its own form a state. Therefore for Plato, justice in the ideal state
amounts to a product of class division founded on specialization of functions. And in
this sense, justice is giving to each man his rightful dues. This means each man ought
to be assigned a role to play in the society in accordance with his most pronounced
skills and attributes most times obtained through training or education.

The intention here is to achieve a unique sense of social harmony amongst men and
between them and the state. In conclusion, he asserts the need for the state arises in
response to demand for an organized community that could help facilitate the abilities
of each class to realize its aims. And that which satisfies such needs best is a best state
and that which satisfies them perfectly is a perfect or an ideal state. Here two notions
of justice emanate from Plato's definition:
As it applies to an individual and when he is given his rightful due
As it applies to the state in terms of whether it can easily facilitate realization of
the multiple desires of the three groups simultaneously with less friction.

According to Plato's logic, it is evident that from reason - most pronounced in the
minority class who ought to be the rulers, also flows the three most useful virtues of
the state: wisdom, courage and self-control. These are vital qualities that ought also
to be prevalent in the ruling class in an ideal state. In all, every impulse in man must
be subjected to temperance in the sense of harnessing every pronounced attribute in
the service of the state and the curbing of lesser impulses so as not to allow them
inhibit the smooth functioning of the state.

Two Vehicles For The Effective Functioning Of The State:

Education:
The welfare of the state depends largely on the character of the education it gives the
citizens. To Plato, education should not only be compulsory to all citizens, it should
be controlled by the state and there should be no gender barriers as obtained during
the city-state era.
There were two stages of education:

Stage One:
This stage consists of the followings activities:
i) Compulsory training in gymnastics and music up to 18 years
ii) Military training for two additional years
 There are also two level of curriculum here in this stage:
First Level Curriculum: consist of gymnastics training needed to develop a sound
physique. Body training also impacts directly - according to Plato, on development
of a man's spirit and courage.
Second Level Curriculum: the principal focus is on poetry and literature.
Here a rigid system of censorship is to be applied to ensure the outcome
promotes the desirable social and political character of the state. Free
inquiry and speculation is largely abolished.

Stage Two:
The focus is primarily on mathematics and astronomy at the onset and runs for up to
ten years and thereafter, the following steps are implemented:
20-35 years: the focus is on the study of philosophy for 5 years
2) 35-50 years: practical training in civic administration for fifteen years
3) 50 years and above: Guardianship training for the selected few who would
rule by
rational reasoning

Communism of The Upper Class:

This system was promised on commonality of property ownership by the upper class.
The essence here was to eliminate the usual struggle and competition for power
between the elites.
Its Functions:

- Outlawed marriage and all forms of monogamous unions

- Helped to regulate breeding by the elites
- Proscribed individual-parent relationship
- Abolished private ownership especially in such areas as:
a) Family
b) Children and property among the elites. All these were owned by the state and
commonly utilized or centrally catered for by the state.

Reason for the system:

A focus by the elites on child upbringing and property management distract them
from the higher calling to civic duties in the ideal state and hence there was a need to
eradicate private ownership of any sort among the ruling class.

Possible Stages Of Degeneration Of The State:

a) Pigsty - when the state is dominated by appetites (love for food)
b) Timocracy or military rule - when the spirit dominates reason (love for valour)
c) Oligarchy - when the state is dominated by acquisition (love for wealth)
d) Democracy - when the state is dominated by appetite (lust for freedom)
e) Tyranny - when the state is dominated by force (lust for power)
The essence of degeneration here means dominance of only one of the many
motivational forces within a state.

The Statesman:

In the Statesman, Plato continues his attacks on amateurism in government

administration. The good statesman should be an expert - he argues. He rules over
people because he knows how to rule and his knowledge gives him the right to do so.
He is an artiste who depends largely on the strength of his superior rational reasoning
and not on the dictates of codified laws. He may use laws as he chooses but his
rational reasoning predominates always. His task is also to develop a virtuous people
and the facilitation of the citizens' education is a vital function of the government.

Law is imperfect and inferior to knowledge and hence it is usually not always
necessary in civic administration as Plato argues. The law is imperfect because it is a
collection of the collective foolishness of a people as well as their own wisdom. It
only has value to the extent to which it helps promote stability in the state. But this
state is also inferior to that which germane in the ideal state.

Types Of States According To Their Virtues

a) There is the Ideal State in the Republic

b) There is the Lawful State consisting of the followings models:
i) Monarchy - Lawful rule of one (the best)
ii) Aristocracy - The lawful rule of a few (second best)
iii) Constitutional Democracy - Lawful/moderate rule of many (worse)
c) There is also the Unlawful State where the prevailing force is arbitrariness and
the
absence of legal restraints. It consists of the following models:
i) Tyranny - the unlawful rule of one (worst)
ii) Oligarchy - the unlawful rule of a few (worse)
iii) Unconstitutional Democracy - the arbitrary and extreme rule by many
(bad but less dangerous).

In Plato's conclusions here, he argues that the greater the concentration of authority on
a single individual the more likelihood for a good or evil rule in a state whether it be
lawful or unlawful. Here, he acknowledges the frailties of man's character and
invariably concedes that man actually needs a set of legal codes to restrain his
likelihood to degenerate towards brutality and greed. His book on the Law highlights
this point more aptly in the foregoing analogy.

The Law:

The Law represents a dramatic shift in Plato's earlier positions on what forces ought
to prevail in the ‘ideal state' - which he acquiesces, is not a practicable state in the real
world. And to which he prefers instead a ‘model state'. Here, he asserts that instead of
the rule of philosopher-kings in the Republic or the statesman in the Statesman, the
Law is what prevails in this ‘model state'. Also, in place of the utilities of division
and specialization amongst classes as highlighted in the Republic, he favours the use
of personal moderation and self control as exercised by the Law in creating the much
needed unity and social harmony in the community.

Plato's ‘Model State' In the Law:

- It should be located inland to discourage commerce that could interfere with civic
duty/
administration and this arrangement also will discourage naval militarism.
- The community should be agrarian based and self-supporting to reduce dependence
on
the outside.
- The cities should be private, isolated and fully devoted to civic concourse
- A citizenry should not be so poor as to spend full time eking out a subsistent living
and
should not be so rich as to adopt money making as a vocation

Place of ‘Property' In the Law:

Equal ownership of property is proposed by Plato and this is premised on universal

equality as a desirable end. But in reality inequalities will always exist in property
ownership. And this can only be regulated by the Law which ought to restrict
individual ownership only to four times the value of his land ownership, after which
he legally forfeits the excess to the state. Political power is distributed on the basis of
property ownership among the four classes. Other forms of income are regulated in
the same way. While private property is abolished in the Republic, it is regulated in
the Law where all citizens in the ‘model state' are members of a specific ruling class.
They draw their subsistence from the land and though slaves do much of the works
for them, they are largely focused on the task of civic governance.

‘Marriage' And The ‘Family' In The Law:

Instead of the communism of the family in the Republic, Plato prefers the unity of
opposite in the Law where he insists that the rich must marry the poor, strong should
marry the weak and there should be no legal compulsion in these arrangements. In
this manner marriage has both a public and private end.

Government Of The Model State In The Law:

Plato insists that of the most extreme of all governments - whether lawful or unlawful
the right combination of oligarchy and democracy is the most suitable system of
government in the model state. This is a realization by Plato that achievement of
peace and harmony in the state is difficult if the citizens are denied some kind of
voice in the governing process. But the government is to be manned by the
‘Nocturnal Council of Elders' who are virtuous because they are also knowledgeable.

ARISTOTLE 384 - 322 BC

Though he was a student of Plato at the latter's Academy, he disagreed openly with
both Socrates and Plato on virtually all major areas of their political thought. His
emphasis was on how to implement constitutionalism and the Rule of law - as perhaps
the most principal ideals desirable in the Athenian society. Even though he was a
Metic from Macedonia and of a Donian origin, his works focused largely on trends in
Athens. He wrote at a time when Athens was recovering its vitality from the
depression set in by defeat in the war with Spartan during the Peloponnesian war. His
method was different from the other two as demonstrated by his thoughts enunciated
in his Politics or the State.

His Methods:

This was largely scientific and rational in nature. The basic conditions for
establishing the best practical state or the ideal state he asserts, should be
implemented in a manner so as not to equip man with more virtue and abilities than he
actually possess. His focus was on how to reform an existing state instead of
reconstructing a new one - whether it be perfect or imperfect. The state like Plato
insists is important and indispensable to man. Any state perfect or imperfect was
better than anarchy or lack of politics in the community. Therefore in reconstructing
the state, he insists the student should examine the process as it has evolved
historically through tradition and customary practices long favoured by the people.
The merits of those ancient arrangements lay in the fact that they had functioned at
several instances in such critical moments in the past. Good reasons must have also
underlain them at those specific historical moments and those reasons must still be
valid to an extent in the present time and hence obviously worthy of our attention.

The Politics (The State):

Aristotle asserts that though it is an organization created by man for his own benefit, it
is also a natural institution. It represents the culmination of institutional development
in the long and tortuous evolution of the human society. It is more powerful than the
individual and to all other social organizations that ought to be subjected to it in total
obedience. He uses analogy of the seed to buttress his analysis here. He informs that,
"the seed is less representative of the true nature of the species than is the flower in
full blossom: yet it precedes the flower. Thus, the state is more natural than the
precedent - individual, family or village organization. The state represents the
pinnacle which man as a social animal has achieved after a long period of
development and experiments with lesser levels of organizations". This position
advances the organic theory of the state that cannot be seen as a mere instrument used
to manage citizens by the elites. Here, the bonds of community held men tighter
together than the dictates of the Law. A state can therefore only be judged in terms of
its capacity to dispense goodness and justice that serves the general interests best.

Forms Of The Polis:

Those constitutions which consider the common interests are right constitutions and
judged by the standard of absolute justice. But those constitutions which consider
only the person and personal interest of the rulers are all wrong or pervasion of the
right forms. The exercise of power is distributed on the basis of contributions which
each individual makes to the community. And since contributions are equally not
equal, the exercise of power and the receipt of rewards ought also to be unequally
distributed. This is Aristotle's principles of ‘distributive justice' which is at variance
with Plato's ‘equalitarian justice' in the Republic.

Aristotle's Types of State

(1) The Right States:

a) Monarchy - rule by the virtuous man
b) Aristocracy - rule by the virtuous few
c) Polity (moderate democracy) - rule by the unvirtous people and where
there
is a balance between democratic and oligarchy principles.
(2) The Perverse Sates:
a) Tyranny - rule by the selfish man
b) Oligarchy - rule by the selfish few wealthy elites
c) Extreme Democracy - rule by the selfish mobs.
Constitutions vary with class composition in each state and since there can be no
perfect men, there cannot also be a set of philosopher-kings as Plato proposes in the
Republic that can be totally unrestrained by the Law. Consequently, Aristotle argues
that no single class or person has a totally valid claim to power, but rather we must
rely on the Law that is based on general principles evolved over long periods of
customary practices of the people. Its rule assures that government will always be
based on the peoples' consent. But obedience must also be taught to the people within
an education system that is public and not private.

General principles ought to also be complemented by "psephisma" or special

legislature based on equity that is needed to be applied in special circumstances.
Arbitration also should be complementary to these mechanisms. Governance in the
Polis, as Aristotle informs would then require that the statesman ought to studiously
review the ideal constitution with a view to ascertain what organizational rules he
ought to apply at any specific circumstance.

Two Forces Dominate In A State:

They are the forces of:
a) Quality - numerical strength of the masses or the democratic force.
b) Quality - wealth, birth, social position and education or the totality of oligarchic
forces of the community.
A state dominated by only one of these forces is a bad state that is also unlawful,
unstable and selfish. The two forces can therefore not be eliminated in preference of
one for the other, but they must be harnessed by balancing each against the other for
the purpose of serving the need to maintain such a delicate balance. In practical terms,
Aristotle insists, this can be achieved if power is lodged in the middle class - which, if
it is sufficiently large enough ‘will hold in check the disruptive forces of extreme
oligarchy and extreme democracy' in the state. In this sense, the polity represents the
means of moderation between these two forces. On Property, as opposed to Plato who
proposes that it be abolished, Aristotle insists this must be distributed equitably
enough so that contentions over its possession will be greatly minimized in the
community.

LESSON 5:
ROMAN POLITICAL THOUGHT AND INFLUENCES OF GREEK
STOICISM

Early political philosophies usually took off from the stand point that, though man is
usually a political animal and had a responsibility to the State, the State and Society
have to be separated by all means though the two have to also completely absorb the
individual. This required a total repudiation of the early notions of the Greek City-
State philosophies as advanced by the likes of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. They
therefore looked deep into the groundswell of the protestation doctrines for a new
philosophy to govern the expanding Roman Empire.

And it was to Stoicism that vouches for man to be devoted to duty and to live a moral
life in accordance with nature that was more appealing to the conquering Romans.
But then, there was an urgent need to refine other aspects of the generic brand of
Stoicism so as to meet the urgent administrative needs of the Romans. The shift of
emphasis was towards the requirement of devoutness by man towards a duty to the
public good where every energetic man ought to be actively engaged in the pursuit of
his fellow men's wellbeing through active participation in the institutions of the state.
This was principally, ‘Penaetius of Rhodes' position on this matter which was adopted
by the Romans. Another contribution came from Polybius (204-122 BC) - a
contemporary and friend of Penaetius who applied Plato's principles of the mixed
constitution as the ‘Ideal State'.

In the ideal constitution, all elements of the simple forms of governments are present
in equal force. Each element exercise checks and balances on the others. In such an
arrangement, tyranny cannot be so great as to provoke revolt, oligarchy so powerful
as to stimulate popular resentments, or democracy so uncontrollable as to become
anarchy. It is therefore to Polybius that we can credit with the origins of the
‘principles of checks and balances' on institutions of government.

Legal Theory Of Rome And Evolution Of Modern Jurisprudence:

What became known widely as the Roman laws actually had early roots in what was
known as the ‘Code of Justinian' enunciated around the 6 th century A.D - a period
spanning over a thousand years. It is a fact that Roman laws had profound impact on
the thoughts of the early Christian Fathers, the entire medieval political thought and
the European jurisprudence from where it spread across the world.

Early Roman laws were derived from customs and traditions and the general feeling
was that they were not made but invariably evolved on their own from Natural Law.
They were therefore immutable and unalterable. But such a view was only sensible if
applied to the primitive society. A growing social community needed more practical
laws formed by a government for effective administration.

Law could then also emanate as an act of legislation. And because those authorizing it
are elected representatives of the people, the laws were implemented on the peoples'
consent by legal jurists. In any case, because early Roman laws principally emanated
from traditions and customs, this required that they be codified into a concise
instrument. This was the primary purpose of the ‘Code of Emperor Justinian'.

CICERO (106 - 43 BC):

He was one of the renowned Roman Jurists who greatly advanced the growth of
Roman jurisprudence in his book titled, "The Republic and Laws". He borrowed
Plato's dialogue style and the doctrine of Stoicism by the Greeks. According to
Cicero, there is a Law of Nature which is the constitution of the world. It is the same
for everyone everywhere. On the basis of its dictates proceed the rules of
governments and the actions of rulers will be judged accordingly by it.

In this sense, he informs that true law is right reason in agreement with nature which
has universal applicability, unchangeable and everlasting in character. It summons to
duty by its commands and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibition. It is a sin to
attempt its alteration, repeal or abolition of any of any part of it. It is eternal and
immutable in nature. Whoever disobeys the Laws of nature denies his human nature
and by such a reason is liable to suffer the worst penalties even if he escapes civic
punishments. It is a law totally binding on all men because it sees all men as equal
before it.

SENECA (42 B.C - A.D 65):

Seneca was also a Stoic but a very melancholic one at that. He asserts that a
government can be termed good or bad depending on its ability to exercise the most
efficient control over its territory and citizens. To him, the duty of man ought to be
limited not only to service to the state but to the commonwealth. Unlike the early
Greek philosophers who exalted the state to a high level of importance for the
individual, Seneca argues that the state is a reflection of man's evil nature.

Man lived a perfect life in the state of nature during the "golden age" of innocence.
This was when there were no laws and agencies of legal enforcement for the law.
Everyone followed the rule of nature and man had no real need to be coerced into
obedience. And this is because nature's laws are always just. Man lived a morally
perfect life since he had no knowledge of evil at the time. However, it was the entry
of private property ownership that compelled man to cultivate a selfish and evil
predisposition. Greed became also pronounced in rulers and the ruled. Life became
‘brutish, nasty and short' - as another renown philosopher - Thomas Hobbes in his
famous ‘State of Nature' thesis once asserted long ago. Therefore, there was an urgent
need for a government to curtail such emergent evil tendencies in man's nature.

LESSON 6:
THE POLITICAL THOUGHT OF THE EARLY CHRISTAIN FATHERS

The Political thought of the early Christian fathers cannot be fully understood without
a prior understanding of the basic tenements of faith of Christianity and the social-
political context or milieu within which Jesus and His disciple sought in early times to
propagate their gospel. It was a gospel premised on God's redemption of mankind
and the notion of man's predestination. This includes also the need for an austere life
as a basic requirement for every Christian pilgrim in that final journey toward a final
predestination - to heaven or hell. At the onset, the early Christian doctrine avowed a
total resignation or a willingness to abdicate temporal affairs in the hands of
constituted authorities as captured in the dictum of Jesus Christ which says: "Give
unto Caesar what is Caesar and onto God what is God".

In any case, His Apostles after him tilted a little bit towards the mundane. But this
was only as determined by any prevailing circumstance they were faced with. That is,
a Christian's engagement for instance in politics is to be determined by the prevailing
circumstances he faces. The logic here inheres in the fact that Christian doctrine
subordinates the temporal to the spiritual. It is an arrangement that readily resulted in
the eventuality of an active engagement by cohorts of the faith at some point in some
form of political activism within the state.

It was also this line of thinking that made early Christians to act as if they were also
under a divine government under the sovereign fatherhood of God. In this sense, the
general impression was that secular preoccupation was both unnecessary and
undesirable. As a result the political loyalties of early Christians were suspect and
often opened to sundry questions. And it was a fact that resulted in the severe
persecution of the early Christians across Europe, especially, under Roma rule and
later under the Othman Empire rule. However, as it were the Christian doctrine also
had many similarities with the Stoics - especially as pertaining to Natural Law, the
equality of man, the role of temporal government and property ownership.

Area Of Similarities Between Stoicism and Early Christianity

On the origin of the Law: like the Stoics, Apostle Paul in one of his numerous Biblical
letters, asserts that Natural Law is neither the written law of the state nor the
revealed word of God alone, but one which may be understood by everyone -
Christians and Gentiles alike, through pure reason.
On the issue of slavery: like the Stoics, Christians attest to the universal equality of all
men before God. Whatever form of social stratifications that subordinate some
men to others are all mundane institutional arrangements that have no validity in
the predestination doctrine of Jesus and in the presence of God.
On the austere life: like the Stoics, Christians also prefer the austere life and a general
abhorrence of personal preoccupation on property acquisition which tends to
interfere with the task of living a moral life needed to save one's soul. Christians
however do not desire abolition of property but insist that every activity should be
tempered with temperance or self restraint and with the higher calling of
predestination always in view.

Overview of Church-State Relations

The history of church-state relationship was really turbulent at the onset, but it later
became rosy as from AD 311 when Emperor Galerius issued his edict proclaiming
toleration of the Christian doctrine which allowed them to worship in relative peace
and tranquil. And when Emperor Constantine who succeeded him many years later
was converted to Christianity, the Church's influence and power grew tremendously
across the Roman Empire.

And between AD 379 - 395 when Emperor Theodosius reigned, Christianity was
adopted as the official religion across the Roman Empire. Such a rosy relationship
did not however last for long and the festering problem of Church-State relations
resurfaced again and formed the background on which the political thought of the
early Christian Fathers were premised. The central question was how best to resolve
this conflict over which of these agencies should have an overriding power and
control over the other in the course of administering the human community or society.

The Early Christian Fathers:

ST. AMBROSE, Bishop of Milam (Italy):

His thoughts were perhaps the most concise and pragmatic in the series of attempts
made to resolve the controversial subject of Church-State relationship. According to
him, the state is divinely ordained and the civil ruler must be obeyed by all, even
though he may very possibly rule unjustly by not following the will of God. But then,
the civil ruler should by no means also interfere in Ecclesiastical matters, which are
entirely under the jurisdiction of the Church. Even as a ruler, the secular Leader is
just a member of the Church and to whom he must subject himself according to divine
precepts and as determined by the Church Fathers. In this sense the secular ruler must
be subjected to spiritual discipline as imposed by the Church Fathers.

ST. AUGUSTINE of Hippo (AD 354 - 430):

Born in Targaste, North Africa in AD 354, he was one of the most eminent students of
St. Ambrose of Milan. He was also a prolific writer with his well celebrated piece
titled the "Confessions" that in predicated on philosophy and a critique of other
religion including also a defense of Christianity generally. He also borrowed
extensively from Plato's ideas and methods. His most notable work is the "City of
God" that has had a profound influence on medieval politics thought.

In the ‘City of God' Augustine sought to defend the Church against the charge leveled
against it by its enemies that Christianity was responsible for the fall of Rome to
Alaric and the Visigoths. The treatise also includes an enunciation of what he
considers as the best relationship between man and society - which is his natural
habitation. Here, he draws a distinction - perhaps also a contrast, between two
communities. These are the heavenly and earthly cities. In this sense, he argues that
each man is usually a citizen of the two communities. This is also similar to the views
of the Stoics who argue that man is usually a member of the secular community in
which he lives and of the greater society or brotherhood of mankind in which all men
are brothers and living in harmony with nature.

Areas Of Differences Between St. Augustine' Ideas and the Stoics

For St. Augustine, that which unites all of mankind as one in the heavenly community
is a common belief in and total obedience to the will of God. But for the Stoics, the
bond of unity stems from the common desire to understand the universal essence of
Natural Law and to live together in peace and harmony. However, perhaps a better
way to understand St. Augustine's notion of the two communities is to abstract his
connotation of the two cities from any specific contextual locale. The two cities -
according to him, are not heaven and earth, neither the Church nor State per se.
Rather, they are the forces of good and evil that have been contending right from time
immemorial for the souls of men. They originate from the kingdoms of God which is
in Heaven and that of Satan which is on Earth. For him, the outcome of this struggle
will result in the eventual creation of a Christian commonwealth of redeemed souls.

Two Principles At Play In The Two Cities.

They are:
For the kingdom of Satan on Earth, self-love and pride which holds God in contempt
prevails. Devotees are pre-occupied with material interests, greed and lusts of all
kinds.
For the Kingdom of God in Heaven, love of God is the predominant principle at play
and devotees are pre-occupied with the pursuit of spiritual matters that are eternal
by nature and which will enable them achieve salvation and eternal life in God's
city.

St. Augustine argues that God's city consist in two parts: the Church and the State
premised on divine laws and requiring total obedience to God's will. They are the two
principal institutions needed by man to attain his desired predestination. And of the
two, the Church is the greatest because it best represents God on earth and it has a
greater mission than the State to regenerate or redeem man's soul back to God.

On the other hand, the purpose of the state is to create the enabling social environment
as well as the resources for men to effectively do the will of God in total obedience
and with the hope of redeeming their soul. A State is therefore just or is able to offer
true justice to its citizen, when it can effectively provide such enabling environment
for them to live a holy life. It is a true commonwealth that advances God's purpose on
earth. The Church and State must therefore be associates in a Christian cause if they
are to dispense true justice to mankind.

ST. GREGORY the Great (AD 540 - 604):

He predicates his thoughts on the doctrine of passive obedience of Church to the

State.
And his main reasons for doing so include the fact that:
There is a need to combat the tendencies to anarchism among early Christians
The New Testament states that all power come from God.
The Old Testament accepts the fact that all Kings are anointed of God.
The Church had an argent need to allay fears and suspicions that it had become a
subversive institution.
POPE GALASIUS 1:

He argues that the human society is one great Christian community governed by two
authorities. One is spiritual and the other is temporal and they are represented by the
two principal institutions - the Church and State respectively. Both institutions have a
common purpose to mange affairs of mankind in the most efficient ways and manners
as to make it possible for everyone to attain to the salvation of their soul. However, in
pursuing this common goal, both have a different responsibility. This includes the fact
that:
a) The state is to keep the peace and order through the proper conduct of civic
government.
b) The Church must teach the true doctrine and care for the spiritual interests of the
people.

The two institutions must also assist each other to achieve their primary
responsibilities wherever and whenever necessary. Each institution is required to
respect the other's jurisdiction but because the Church has a higher responsibility, the
State must always take directives on spiritual matters from the Church. This
arrangement emphasizes a clear separation of powers between the two institutions of
the Christian Commonwealth.

LESSON 6:
MEDIEVAL POLITICAL THOUGHT AND INFLUENCES OF THE
TEUTONS

Between the 6th - 11th centuries, the entire European continent was in chaos following
the invasion by the Teutonic or Germanic race. They were generally considered to be
a barbaric race that had a primitive kind of philosophy that was less advanced that
those of the Western Greek and Roman races they sacked. Before this time, Western
political thought - especially, the idea of the ideal state, had been condensed into the
notion of equality of all men before natural law; the doctrine of the two swords; and
social justice. But the Barbarians had no such sophisticated idealisms. In any case, as
they later dominated Europe between the 6th - 11th century, their own ideas and
customs were also infused into political thought during the middle or medieval period.

Political Thought Of The Teutonic People:

The notion of Teutonic Law was one tied to the people's custom and the centrality of
the tribes which required that each community should carry its Law about wherever it
went. It was not written but was largely codified. It was considered a Law not made
by anyone, but one that had existed from time immemorial. The tribal Law could not
be changed since its principles were immutable. And it was not to be judged good or
bad merely because people approved or disapproved of it. For the people, that it had
existed right from time immemorial was enough proof of its validity. Even if under
prevailing circumstance it became evident that it failed to provide justice to an
individual, the general feeling was that it was wrongfully understood by men. A
collective interpretation by the elders in the tribe would then be required to resolve
such an issue.

However, the tribal law of the nomadic Teutons was also tied to the principles of
"personality of law" which implied that a tribe has exclusive rights to operate and
enforce its laws on its tribe's men even if they live in communion with other tribes
within a territory. But with time, as the Teutonic tribes changed their nomadic life
styles and became more settled in stable locations, the notion of mobility of the law
was substituted for a general fixation of the Law in territories where the tribes reside.
The Law then became that of the territory instead of that of the tribe.

Three Types Of Laws During The Medieval Era

1) The tribal Law of custom and tradition
2) The remnants of the Roman Law (Natural Law)
3) The new Law that could be promulgated by an act of legislation

Three Source Of The King's Power And Origin Of Feudalism

1) The customary right of succession
2) The Divine will of God
3) The consent of the people

Under these arrangements, a King was under an obligation to rule justly and
humanely over his subjects who could only continue to subject themselves to him in
obedience if he does so always. This created a kind of compact contract between the
King and subjects in the sense of saying, the subjects reserved the right to remove -
even if by force, any Kind who ruled over them unjustly in breach of that contract.
One means by which the Teutonic Kings sought to maintain stability was to
decentralize power to their sons who exercised authority over the land allotted to them
by their father. They in turn established administrative structures that aided them to
exercise full control over their allotted land. This was how the feudal era began. It
was highly competitive and violent as each feudal Lord sought to outdo the others and
grab their land whenever there was a slight possibility to do so.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (AD 1227 - 1274):

He was also a prolific writer with his greatest work titled: "SommaTheologica" -
where he sought to reconcile Aristotelian and Christian dogmas. In his view, he
argues that man's ultimate goal in life is salvation of his soul and he must create the
kind of life in this world which will enable him secure that end. It is on this basis he
rests his philosophy of government and society. He adopts Aristotle's views that man
is a political animal in need of a political community. But he also rejected Aristotle's
views on the necessity of the City-State as man's ideal state.
To him, man needs a much larger framework for socialization than the limitations of
the City-State. He prefers a kingdom and rule by a monarchy instead of a City-State
arrangement ruled by the Philosopher-Kings. And such a kingdom he insists must be
a Christian one with the presence of a religious organization - obviously the Church,
endowed with the primary task to administer to the spiritual needs of the people. In
this sense, the state is to be subjected to the Church.

Unlike Aristotle who believes the good life in the ideal state was an end in itself,
Aquinas argues that this was merely a means to a higher eternal end. Salvation of
man's soul and redemption of man back to God was the real end of the good life. The
way to achieve this good life will require the imposition of a welfare state that
intervenes directly to provide the needs of all men as well as cater for their well-
being. Without this, they cannot devote time in Godly pursuits. An enabling material
condition provided by the State is then a required prerequisite for attainment of the
good life.

And unlike Aristotle, he argues that all men are equal in their capacity to reason. He
accepts the facts also that nature requires that those with superior intelligence and
ability should rule over the people. But then, ruler ship he says is based on trust and
the power to govern cannot be absolute but conditional and as authorized by God.
Removal of a tyrant cannot be by force but by prayer since the outcome of any rule is
usually premised on divine sanctions. A ruler must then subject himself to the rule of
Law which is a natural requirement of divine Law.
Types Of Laws

a) Eternal Laws of God: this is the divine wisdom of God

b) Natural Law: this is derived from Eternal Law in which man participates in
its enforcement. It requires all living beings to live in accordance with their
natural essences. It is discoverable by the reason of men.
c) Divine Law: as laid down in the scriptures in the Bible and as revealed to man
by God. They are not always discovered by reason but by faith.
d) Human Law: this consists of that vital part of Natural Law as applied in codes
or customs through human reason with a view to enhance man's life on earth.

The four Laws govern and seek to establish harmonies across the universe. However,
for the purpose of governing the human organization Natural and Human Laws are
the most essential according to St. Aquinas. Human Law for instance cannot
contravene Natural Law. It is only by maintaining such a boundary that justice can
prevail in the State.

In Scenario Of Conflict Between Natural Law And Human Law

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the primary criteria needed to resolve such a
conflict will be a basic determination of:
Whether a principle originates by reason (a character of logic or rational reason).
Whether it is for the common good (a character of universal applicability).
Whether it has evolved from the people's consent or their agents (the character of
legitimacy).
Whether it is promulgated (declaratory character).

LESSON 7:- SOME MEDIEVAL ISLAMIC PHILOSOPHERS

The focus of this chapter is an examination of the evolution and growth of philosophy
within the context of the revealed religion; Islam. Attention will be placed squarely on
the contributions of Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, IbnSina (Avecinna), Ibntufayl, and IbnRusd
(Averroes). _
Al-Kindi (801 — 873A.D)
Al-Kindi (801-873) is generally regarded as he first muslim philosopher and Arab
muslim to study science and philosophy. He hailed from al-Kufah in the Arabian
Peninsula. It is said that his grandfather, Al-Ash’athIbnQais, was one of the first
generation converts to Islam during the prophethood of Prophet Muhammed (610-
632) and that he was one of the Sahaha (companions). Al-, Kindi’s father IshaqIbn
al-/Sababah, was also the Governor of al—Kufah during the reign of the Abbasid
Caliphs, al-Mahdi and al-Rashid.
In his formative years, Al—Kindi was exposed to Quranic as well as rational studies.
Al-Igindi also studied Arabic grammar, Greek language, Fiqh and a relatively new
discipline called KALAM. His sojourn into philosophy began with the translation of
the Polotinus’ Ennreads’s "into Arabic, which he published under the title THE
THEOLOGY OF ARISTOTLE. Thus began the transmission of aspects of Greek
philosophy books, clarified their difficulties, and summarized their deep theories”. It
is for this reason that early Arab historians called him the “Philosopher of the arabs”.
Certainly, Al-Kindi authored many works numbering about 270 but only
compendiums of about 25 treatises have been found in Istanbul by Constance Ritter.
However, Ibn al—Nadim who was close to his age and who had the privilege of
having access to most of the extant documents, has classified Kindi’s writings into
seventeen sub-heads, viz: (1) PhilosophicaL (2) Logical (3) Mathematics (4)
(Globular) (5) Musical (6)Astronomical (7) Geometrical (8) Spherical (9)Medical
(10) Astrological (11) Dialectical (12) Psychological (13)Spherical (14) Causal
(meteorological ) (15) Dimensional (16) On first things (17) On the species of some
metals, chemicals. These are indeed an overwhelming evidence to assert that Al-
Kindi’s knowledge was encyclopaedic. Several generations of scholars have indeed
studied Al—Kindi and many of his works have been translated to and edited in Latin:
viz:
De MedicinarumCompositarumGradibus (153])

De Intellectu

De sommo et uisione
 De quinqueessentiis
Liber introductions in artemLogicaedenzonstratoninis
To Al-Kindi, philosophy is the knowledge of truth; something, over and above
experience. It lies immutable and eternal in a supernatural world. The definition of
philosophy in Al—Kindi’s treatise on "First Philosophy" goes like this: "Pl1ilosophy
is the knowledge of the reality of things within man’s possibility, because the
philosopher’s end in this theoretical knowledge is to gain truth and in is practical
knowledge to behave in accordance with truth”. In concluding the treatise, Al—Kindi
qualified Gods by the term "Truth", which is the objective of philosophy. The true one
(al—Wahid al Haq) is then, the First, the Creator, the Sustainer of all that He has
created", unarguably, this view is a derivation from Aristotle is replaced with the
Creator. Herein lies the substance of the Kindian system.
Al-Kindi, in fact, classified philosophy into two broad divisions: first, theoretical
studier comprises physics, mathematics and metaphysics and, second, practical
studies which comprised ethics economics and politics. However, Al—Kindi’s value
as philosopher lies in the fact that his philosophy was the first bold attempt to effect
an accord or harmony between religion and philosophy. His weakness was that he
confused Aristotles’ Metaphysics of Being with that of Plotinus as this incapacitated
him in formulating a coherent system of his own.
Al-Farabi (870-950 A.D)
Al-Farabi (Abu Nasr Muhammad Al-Farabi) was also one of the most outstanding and
renowned medieval Muslim- philosophers Born in Turkestan (he was of Turkish
origin) around 870, Al-Farabi came to settle in Baghdad early in life. His teacher in
philosophy was a Cyriac-speaking Christian, YuhannaIbnHyalainlwlio taught in
Baghdad and the school of Alexandria. Al-Farabi is reputed to be first Muslim
philosopher to head a "school" and to become known as a "teacher". He was also
acknowledged by subsequent Muslim philosophers as the true and authentic founder
of philosophy in Islam. He was also an Aristotelian philosopher who distinguished
himself by his numerous commentaries on the works of Aristotle.
In contradistinction to Aristotle, Al-Farabi was known as the "Second Master" (after
Aristotle) and the first Muslim philosopher "who sought to confront, to relate and as
far at political philosophy with Islam” and make it intelligible within the orbit of
revealed religion. This is succinctly captured in his renowned publication: al-
MADINA a1-FADILA. His commentaries on Aristotle works confirmed the latter’s
authority in logic, metaphysics and physics. In the same vein, he recovered the
essence of Plato and introduced him as the supreme authority, on the political
philosophy and the investigation of human and divine laws. He also authored the
Enumeration of the Sciences, book which became an indispensable introduction to the
study of sciences and was freely copied by subsequent generations of encyclopaedists
and historians of the sciences.
IbnKhalikan, the biographer, informs us that Al—Farabi began writing his books at
the age of fifty and died at the age of 80. all Al—Farabi works were also said to be
written in Baghdad and Damascus. More than one hundred works have been credited
to him but the extant ones include Al-FususFi’Ijikma, Commentarian in
AristotlemGraeca, and Commentaries on Organon, Rhetorics, De Caelo,
Meteorology, and Nichomachean and Alexander of Aphrodisias’ De Anima, among
others.
One major area of Al-Farabi’s contribution to philosophy was logic. He devoted a
considerable portion of his works to logic, particularly Aristotle’s Organon. He
contends that the art of logic ,gives, in general, the rules which, if followed, can
correct the mind and direct man to the right way, to truth away from the words, and
prosody to verse. The subject-matter of logic, according to him , can be put under
eight themes: (I) Categories (2) Interpretation (3) First Analytics (4) Second Analytics
(5)Topics (6) Sophistics (7) Rhetorics (8) Poetics; all of which constitute the major
kernel of logic.
According to Sharif, Al-Farabi’s contribution to logic is in two major areas. First, he
lucidly expounded the logic of Aristotle and made it accessible to the Arabic speaking
peoples. Second, he laid the basis for the quinary division of reasoning.
Another major aspect of Al-Farabi’s thought was the status of philosophy vis-a-vis
religion. At his time, he was convinced that philosophy had reached a dead end in
most places but a new haven in the world of Islam. He believed that human reasons is
superior to religious faith and, consequently, ascribed secondary status ·to the
different revealed religions which provide in his view, an approach to truth for non
philosophers through symbols. Philosophical truth is universally valid whereas these
symbols vary from nation to nation, they are the works of philosophers — prophets,
of which Muhammed was one. It is apt here to note that_ by this position al-Farabi
has gone beyond al·Kindi who naturalized philosophy as a kind of appropriate hand
— maiden of revealed truth. We also observe that, unlike al—Razi, he did not
condemn the prophets as impostors but allotting, like his master Plato, an important
and indispensable function to organized religion.

Al-Farabi also devoted a great deal of his work to the Unity of philosophy. He was
acutely aware of the dangers of partisanship in philosophy and thus insisted that
philosophy is essentially one unit. The object of any philosophic inquiry, according to
him, is the pursuit of truth and thus contends that there must be accord among all
philosophers and all schools of philosophy. In fact, he insisted that there must be a
single school as “pa1ties and cliques are nuisance in philosophy as well as in politics".
He also posits that religious truth and philosophical truth are objectively one, although
formally different. In this manner, he attempted to reach an accord between
philosophy and the tenets of Islam, an edifice which was later built upon by
subsequent Muslim philosophers like IbnSina (Avicenna).
In advancing his arguments for the existence of God, Al-Farabi also drew upon
Aristotelian philosophy. According to him, the First Cause is at the same time the
Plutonian one, the eternal, creator of an eternal world, and the Aristotelian Divine
Mind, a conception which is probably of middle - Platonic origin. Al-arabi holds the
One i.e. God is the necessary by Himself. Hence, He is not in need of another for His
existence or His subsistence. He is an intelligible. He is quite unique by His essence.
Nothing is like Him. He has no opposite or equivalent.
Should the aforementioned premises be admitted, the logical question is what would
be God’s influence on the relationship between Him and many? Only through a kind
of emanation has al-Farabilaboured to pose these problems. He avers that from the
Necessary One flows or emanates only on other by virtue of its self-knowledge and
goodness. This eminent is the First Intelligence.
Also very central to al—Farabi’s thought is the theory of imagination and prophecy.
Prophecy, though being a vital ingredient in man’s perfection, is auxiliary to his
rational faculty, being confined to the inferior faculty of representation. It is neither
presented as a state of possession by supernatural powers nor comprehended as a
“mystic state”. Divine inspiration may be granted to the perfect man who has it
attained the zenith of philosophical pyramid together with the highest from of
prophecy.
Very remarkable too is the theory of Intellect adopted by al-Farabi. From the One, the
First Cause, the Intelligent emanated and from the Intelligent, the World Soul
emanated. Material objects comprise matter and form. Broadly speaking, there are
two intellect in man; the active intellect and the passive intellect. The Active Intellect
is synonymous with the Cosmic intellect i.e. the Intellect of the World Soul and it is
this which illuminates man’s passive intellect, enabling man to grasp eternal and
universal truths. Everything emanated from God and will, in the end return to God.
Man’s greatest task is to, through contemplation and speculation, commune with the
celestial world and attain the utmost happiness. Al- Farabi, unarguably, was Sufi, a
mystic.
Al-Farabi’s attitude to political science, which was also influenced by Plato’s
Republic and Laws deserves some attention in this study. In fact, he formulated a
science of government, conceptualized in the quotation, below, taken from Ihsa al-
Ulum:
"Political Science investigates the various kinds of voluntary actions and ways
of life, the positive dispositions, morals, inclinations, and states of character
that lead to these actions and ways of life; the ends for the sake of which they
are performed, how they must exist in man, how to order them in man in the
manner in which they must exist in him; and the ay to preserve them for- him.
It distinguishes among the ends for the sake of which actions are performed
and the ways of life are practiced. It explains that some of them are true
happiness, while others are presumed to be happiness although they are not.
That which is true happiness cannot possibly be of this life, but of another life
after this, which is the life to come; while that which is presumed to be
happiness consists of such things as wealth, honour, and the pleasures, when
these are made the only ends in this life. Distinguishing the actions and ways
of life, it explains that the ones through which true happiness is attained are
the good, noble things, and the virtues, while the rest are the evil, base things,
and the imperfections; and that they (must) exist in man in such a way that the
virtuous actions and ways of life are distributed in the cities and nations
according to a certain order and are practiced in common. It explains that, this
comes about only through a rulership (ri’asah) by which (the ruler) establishes
 these actions, ways of life, states of character, positive disposition, and morals
in the cities and nations, and endeavours to preserve them so that they do not
perish, and that this rulership comes about only by virtue of a craft and a
positive disposition that leads to the actions that establish (these virtues), and
to the actions that preserve what has been established among them (that is, the
cities and natio1rs)."This is the royal craft or kingship, or whatever one
chooses to call it, politics (siyasah) is the operation of this craft?
Arising from the above conceptualization, al-Farabi developed a classification of
political regimes:
Virtuous City: The city where the purposes of government and institutions of
society are geared towards the attainment of true happiness as ordained by
God.

Ignorant City: The city where government is ignorant of the essence of true
happiness.

Immoral City: A situation where government is aware of the nature of the true
happiness but fails to adhere to it.

Erring City: A situation where all organs of government have been prevented and
corrupted and thus turning the attainment of happiness into a mirage.
In fact, al-Farabi further sub-divided the citizens’ of the Virtuous City into three
classes. (i) the wise and the philosophers who knew the nature of things only by
ocular proofs and good insights (ii) the followers of the first class who have implicit
faith in them; accepted their judgements and insight; and (iii) the rest segments of the
society who have specialized functions: farming, trading, security duties for the good
of the society. The good city, according to him, is analogous to a sound body in which
all members cooperate and felicitate and of which the ruling member is the heart. The
rai’s or head of the Virtuous City, is equated with the Imam, the most outstanding and
perfect of its members, philosopher and a prophet. The rai’sawwal communicates
with the Active Intellect through his rational faculty as the ruler-philosopher and via
his imagination as philosopher — prophet. Al-Farabi’s Virtuous City can be summed
up thus: A regime. in which men come together and cooperate with the aim of
becoming virtuous, performing noble activities, and attaining happiness. It is
distinguished by the presence of knowledge of man’s ultimate perfection, the
distinction between the noble and the base ad between the virtues and the vices, and
the concerted effort of the rulers and the citizens to teach and learn these things, and
to develop the virtuous forms or states of character from which emerged the noble
activities useful for achieving happiness. In short, Al-Farabi‘s ideal government in the
ideal society is that of a non-hereditary monarchy or aristocracy akin to Plato’s
Philosopher - King. Al-Farabi’s importance for subsequent Islamic philosophers is
overwhelming particularly on such writers as theIkhwan, al-Safa, al-Masudi,
Miskuwah and Abu’lHasanMuhammed al- Amiri. IbnSina seems to have read his
known works intimately while IbnRusd follows him in the essentials of his
thought.Fakhr al- Din al Razi and Nasral. - Din al - Tusi also continued his
tradition of the reconciliation between philosophy and theology and of the adaptation
of Philosopher - King to the Islamic Ideal. Maimonides also appreciated him highly.
Al-Farabi’s political ideas recorded a lasting success from the 13m century onwards.

IBN SINA (980-103 A.D)

IbnSina, known to Western Europe as Avicemia, was born in Persia in 98OA.D. he
spent his formative years in Bokhara, Khiva, Khoransa, lspahan and eventually
settled at Teheran. Early in life, he studied a number of disciplines which include
Arabic literature logic, theology, mathematics, Arabic literature, geometry,
jurisprudence, medicine and philosophy. In fact, he followed the encyclopaedic
conception of if the sciences which had been common place since the period of the
Greek sages uniting philosophy with the study of nature and in seeing the perfection
of man as lying in both knowledge and action. He was as distinguished a physician as
he was a philosopher. According to BetrandRussel, IbnSina was even more famous in
medicine that in philosophy as he was, between the 12 th and 17th century, used in
Europe as a guide to medicine.
IbnSina rose to prominence at the age of 16 but he wrote his first philosophical book
at twenty one. At initial stage, he seemed to have some difficulty with Aristotle’s
Metaphysics, which read forty times without comprehending it until he was helped by
the commentary of al-Farabi.
IbnSina was the author of several philosophical works but many have come down in
mutilated condition. The most important surviving works include: KITAB AL-
SHIFA, KITAB AL-NADJAAT ADANISHNAMA I’ALA ‘I, MANTIQAL—
MASHIRKIY YIN and KITAB AL-ISHARAT WA ’L’f/`ANBIHAT However, there
is the need to underscore the point that IbnSina was not that type of philosopher who
lived in his books but one who was occupied by affairs of state and one who was
always compelled to move for political reasons. We are informed that he would write
on horseback, in prison; his only reference being his memory. Yet, we need to
acknowledge that he was nearer to Aristotle and less Neoplat-onic than many of his
Muslim predecessors. His thought was, in fact, moulded by three teachers: Artristotle,
Al-Farabi and Plotinus. ‘
Perhaps the most distinguished aspect of IbnSina’s thought was his preoccupation
with the problem of universals. According to BetrandRussel, IbnSina invented a
formula which was later echoed by Ibn, Rusd and Albert Magnus: "Thought beings
about the generality in forms". The importance of this dictumis that General, i.e.
universals are at once before things, in things and after things. They are before things
in God’s understanding. As a Metaphysian, IbnSina acquired the title of Philosopher
of being" but as a realist he wished to undestand essences in their actualized state, so
that he is as much “philosopher of essence”. The gamut of his metaphysics is
anchored on the twin problem of the origin of being and its transmission to essence,
but to individually actualized essence.
It is, in fact, at this point that a free interpretation of Aristotle and Plotinus ineluctably
led him to develop his theory of creation by emanation. The eminent position
occupied by emanation in his thought even led him to the third startling view: thed
with the light of intehigepce. Moreover, IbnSina was a muslim and thus believed in
God as the creatorlbitiflnleiiiendeavoured to reconcile this dogma, of Islam with his
philosophical postulation
The first certitude apprehended by the human mind, according to IbnSina, is that of
being which is apprehended by means of sense perceptions. Each and everyman
acquires the notion of being through consciousness and affirmation of his own
existence. In fact, the Cartesian pre-configuration: Cogito ergo sum is so central to
IbnSina’s ‘thought.
The second certitude is that the being apprehended in man, and every existing thing is
not present there of necessity. The "essence” of “man", cattle", "goat,’ or
‘granite’g’pgdoes not necessarily imply the existence of a pardcular goat, man or
granite. Existence is given to actualized, cioncreteibeingsiby a Being that is unique
and different from all of them. God alone is Necessary Being, Pue Act, First Cause
and First Mover. He is the only one in who essence is idertical with exixtence.
Certainly, IbnSina’s philosophy is a synthesis of Aristotelianism and Neoplatonism.
A number of posers have, however been raised by some Western scholars concerning
his philosophy; did he really believe in the analogy of being? What is the proper place
of uncreated being -genus substance or genus being? lf he proceeds fromknowledge of
created beings to that of uncreated Being, is this not a proof that he considers the
nature to be allied?
Whatever answers that are preferred to these posers, it is quite evident that
IbnSinaconsiderablyinfluencedThomas Aquinas. It also true that IbnSina did
ntoformulate the distinction between the uncreated Being and created Being with
clarity and precision as Thomas Aquinas did. To IbnSina, the only being is in God,
God is no genus and being is not a genus.
It is also important to remark at this point that IbnSina believed strongly in the
immorality of soul. Corruption cannot touch it, for it is material. The proof of this
materiality lies in the capability of apprehending the intelligible, which are in no way
material.
At the time IbnSina propounded his philosophy, it thundered a major historical
development and many of his works were quickly translated into Spanish and Latin.
He also succeeded in transmitting Greek philosophy to the Arab world. In the West,
many physicians and scholars learned Arabic because of IbnSina. Although, his
philosophy was later criticized heavily in the West, it unarguably influenced the
development of scholastic philosophy. For instance, the use made of him by St.
Thomas Aquinas embodied certain proofs in Catholic theology. Some scholars of the
Franciscan order also saw IbnSina as more of a philosopher argumenting St.
Augustine: the Active Intellect was like the sun of minds and the internal master.
They averred that he opened up a whole mystic world. It has also been posited that he
influenced Roger Bacon and DiunsScotus. It is beyond debate that Saint Thomas De
EnteetEssentiawas imbued by Aviecennism. He occupied an important place in
Thomism.
IBN TUFAYL
IbnTufayl was born in the first decade of the 12th Century in Grandix near Granada,
Spain. By 1150, he had become a man of substaiiceias he was then the Secretary to
the Governor of Granada. In 1154, he was appointed by the founder of the Almohad
dynasty, Abd al Mumin, as Secretary to his son Abu said, governor of Ceuta and
Algier. In later years, he became the Chief physician and vizier to the second
Almohad prince, Abu Yaqub (1163-1164) who "was most friendly and affectionate to
him". And when Yaqub died in 1184 and was succeeded by his son Abu Yusuf,
IbnTufayl still remained as the honoured courtier and vizier. ·
IbnTufayl was a worthy successor to IbnSina in the development of Islamic
philosophy. Althoughtrained in medicine and made significant contributions to that
field, it was as a philosopher that he was much renowned. His major philosophical
treatise was titled: HAYY THE SONE OF YAQZAN. Hayy, the Son of Yaqzan is
an epistle addressed to a disciple and confidence seeking knowledge about the
nuances of Oriental or Illuminative philosophy mentioned by IbnSina.
Like other medieval thinkers, IbnTufayl maintained that the highest end of man
consists in contemplation rather that action, without in any degree belittling the great
importance of action and the necessity for 1nen in general and for the philosopher in
particular, of leading a virtuous life.
In Hayy the son of Yaqzan, IbnTufayl here who lis convinced of the nece3sity of
reforming the imultitude and is willing to do his duty_to his fellowmen spendslhisi
remaining days on his desert Island contemplating God.
Hayy the son of Yaqzan was very popular in 17th century England while the Jewish
philosopher Moses Narboni wrote a commentary on it in 1349. The Arabic original
was first translated by Edward Pococke in 1671 while the second edition came out in
1700. the third translation by Simon Ockley appeared in 1708 and gives more clues
abut the philosophical significance of IbnTufayl work. Simon Ock1ey’s subtitle the
translation: The Improvement of the Human Reason, Exhibited in the Life of
HaiEbuYaqzan. The importance of the book is best captured in
Ockley’ssubtitle:."‘In which is demonstrated, by what Methods one may, by the meer
Light of Nature, attain the knowledge of God and the Affairs of Another Life".
Ockley also found it useful to add an Appendix which reads thus: "In which the
Author’s Notion concerning the possibility of Man’s attaining the True Knowledge of
God and Things necessary to salvation without the use of external means".

IBN RUSHD (AVERROES 1126 — 1198 AD)

IbnRushd, born in 1126AD, was known to the Medieval West as Averroes. He
belonged to an important Spanish family with bias for the law profession. His father
and grandfather were distinguished Qadi while he also rose to become a jurist.
IbnRushd studied many disciplines including Arabic language including literature,
medicine, mathematics, dialectical theology, astronomy, the science of Fiqh
(jurisprudence), logic and philosophy. One of his teachers in Cordova was al-Hafiz
Abu MuhammedIbn Risk. At Cordova, then the famous centre of philosophical
studies, IbnRushd soon became very competent int the science of KHILAF
(controversies and contradictions in the legal science). He learnt by heart the Malikite
book al-MUWATTA and even later revised it. In recognition of his excellent
jurisdicaleducationglbglushd was appointed judge in Seville in 1169 and later the
chief Justice of Cordova.
However, IbnRushd, philosophical career began to receive recognition in 1153 when
he visited Marrakesh (Morocco) and was received by the founder of the Almohad
Dynasty, Abd-Mumin (1133-1163). He was in Marrakesh apparently in connection
with the plans of the Almohad’s rulers to establish colleges at the time. In 1168/69, he
went to Marakesh again where he was introduced to al-Mumin’s son and successor,
Abu-Yaq’ub (1163-1184) by his aged vizier and physician, IbnTufayl.
It is important to remark that IbnTufayl played an important part in his career as a
philosopher. For on presenting him to Abu-Yaqub, the ruler questioned In Rushd on
the sky: Is it a substance which has existed from all eternity or didit have a
beginning?The sovereign also lack of coherence in Aristotle’s style and of their
translations and also about obscurity of Aristotle’s of Aristotle’s aims and that he
hoped someone would paraphrase them and make their aims more explicit. It is said
that IbTufayl, considering himself too old and preoccupied with all-important matters
of state, asked IbnRushd to undertake the work. In 1182 at Marakesh, IbnRushd
succeeded Tufayl as chief-physician to the Almohad ruler, Abu Yaqub. He
alsolcontinued to enjoy this favoured position under al- Yaqub’s son and succession,
Abu Yusuf from 1184 to 1194.
The above provided the context for the philosophical exploration of IbnRushd who
soon produced a number of commentaries on the books of Aristotle. For this
undertaking, he was later conferred with the title the "Commentator of Aristotle"
and was renowned in Medieval Europe under the name Averroes. Dante in his Divine
Comedy also mentioned him as the great commentator. In fact, IbnRushd has
bequeathed to history: Commentary on the Metaphysics, Talkhis, a compendium
called Majmuah, the Fasl and in a short treatise called al-Ittisal. In jurisprudence, he
produced Bidayat Al-Mujjahis while, he authored Colliget (Kukkiyat) on medicine.
Certainly, IbnRushd works were more than these but his philosophical career was
profoundly affected by the crisis occasioned by the ideological dispute between the
philosopher and dialectical theologians of his age, At the onset of IbnRushd career,
there was constant alliance between philosophy and the Almohad rulers: they
encouraged private study of the philosophical sciences. But there was a significant
number of jurists and dialectical theologians who took the line that philosophic
teachings were antithetical, to revealed religion and that philosophers were infidels.
The intrigues of the dialectical theologians succeeded to the point that IbnRushd was
doictrine declared anathema to the good governance of the Muslim society and his
writings publicly burnt. This was in 1195 when Caliph Abu Yusuf was engaged in a
war with Spain. And, although Rushd was later recalled to Marakkesh, a great harm
had been done and, in fact he died three years later; 9"` December, 1198. There is thus
great substance in the view that Muslim philosophy in Spain ended with IbnRushd
(Averroes).
IbnRusd, like most of the Muslim philosophers, though a believer, was not given to
rigid orthodoxy. Earlier, a foremost and orthodox Muslim theologian and jurist, Al-
Ghazali (1085-11t1) had objected to all philosophy as inimical to the Islamic faith and
had written a book against professional philosophers entitled: TAHAFUT - AL-
FALASIFA- (Destruction / Incoherence of the Philosophers). In the book, Al-
Ghazali demonstrated how philosophers always contradicted themselves and
contended that since all necessary truth is embodied in the Quran, there is no longer
any basis for speculation, independent of revelation. As a philosopher, IbnRushd
considered it his duty to defend the philosophers against such fierce attacks and thus
authored a treatise entitled TAHAFUT-TAHAFUT- (Destruction of the
Destruction of Philosophers).
In his defense of philosopher, IbnRushd argued that philosophy is recommended by
the Quran and that the purpose of philosopher is nothing more than the speculation on
the beings and considering them o so far as they lead to the knowledge of the creator.
Like al-Kindi, he posited that “True knowledge is the knowledge of God”. The acts
and aims of philosophy are the same as those of religiom. In short, he considered
philosophy as twin-sister of religion.
In some functional respects, IbnRushd’s philosophy is akin to that of (Avicenna)
IbnSina who is regarded as the greatest Islamic philosopher in Medieval Europe. His
worldview is also an admixture of Aristotelianism and NeoPlatonism. However, he
differed greatly with IbnSina on the theory of creation cum emanation. As far as he is
concerned, his view of creation is that of an eternal creation. There cannot have
existed an empty time which preceeded the appearance of the world at a certain
moment in it. He averred that the creature will in God should not be considered in
relation to our own. It is founded in theexcellence of God; separate from the world;
the world does not emanate from Him, in continuity with Him; God is not an agent in
a way that it is said, at least an image, that a person "makes" a shadow, his own
shadow. The term "will" indicates that method of this action of a transcendental
being. This was what informed IbnRushd’s refusal to see any inconsistency in the fact
that such a creator produces a multiplicity of beings as the effect of his act.
Consequently, he rejected the principle which is the kernel of the emanatist doctrines
that the one can give birth only to one.
IbnRushd also rejected the conception of Being necessary it itself and further added:
being is that "which is predicated of the ten categories analogically, and it is in this
sense that we say of that the substance it exists by itself and of the accident that it
exists through its existing in the existent which subsists by itself.
Beyond the line that the existence of God can be proved by reason, independent of
revelation, IbnRushd also maintained that the Soul is not immortal but intellect (nous)
is-(an Aristotelian view). This does not, however, confer personal immortality, since
intellect is one and the same when manifested in different person. This position was,
however, harshly criticized and rejected by Europe-Western philosophers, particularly
the Catholics.
IbnRushd is also acknowledged as a philosopher exponent of "double — truth"
theory. A great admirer of Aristotle as the greatest genius in history, he supremely
believed in the power of hujman reason to attain truths; yet a practicing Muslim who
subscribed to Quranic doctrines. The germane issue here is: what should be the
correct position when there is a conflict between philosophical truths and Quranic
truths? IbnRushd’s answer is that both are true, each in its own way. He conceives
religion as containing philosophical truth in allegorical form. Religious truths are for
the unlettered and simple minds while philosophy ios for the scienfitic and
sophisticated minds. It is thus the duty of the philosopher to define the context and
framework through which theological doctrines are to be understood. In effect,
IbnRushd subordinate religion and theology to philosophy, a position which drew the
irk of dialectical theologians.
It is against the above background that we can understand why IbnRushd has few
disciples in Islam. Thus he derived his great fame from the western schoolmen. He
deliberately whittled down the religious and juridical works. In a fundamental sense,
he committed an error of appreciation which was to remain a blind spot with the
historians of "Arab" thought, who have seen the Falasifa (Muslim philosophers) as the
heir of the Greek thinkers. Thus, BetrandRussel was quite right when contended that
"Averroes (IbnRushd) is more important in Christian than in Muhammedan (Islamic)
philosophy. In the latter, he was a dead end; in the former, a beginning". Nonetheless,
after a thorough appraisal of the whole gamut of IbnRushd’s work and the unity of his
wide thought, it becomes glaringly clear that the "commentator" was a true
philosopher.