In Menkiti’s Moral Man, Oyowe argues that Menkiti’s persons are “soft persons.” They are different in kind from human beings in that they find their existence in a social ontology, whereas humans find theirs in a natural ontology, but this does not make them any less real. This understanding, Oyowe contends, is consistent with Menkiti’s texts and allows for a satisfying explanation of a possibly problematic relationship between human being and person. He acknowledges that their placement in social ontology makes (...) them (at least partly) conventional entities and so opens Menkiti’s account to some of the threats that face conventionalism, but he goes on to argue that these can be overcome. This article argues against Oyowe that Menkiti’s persons are resistant to the interpretation as soft entities. Though Menkiti continually stresses the importance of the community to personhood, much of what he has to say suggests he ascribes neither to the distinction between social and natural ontology that is central to Oyowe’s interpretation nor to the conventionalism that comes with it. This article argues that the soft-person reading does not solve problems of conventionalism as neatly as Oyowe hopes but that Menkiti’s view is not vulnerable to those problems. (shrink)

This article examines Oyowe’s highly distinctive socio-ontological account of ancestral existence. According to Oyowe, ancestors are intentional objects. Ancestors thus constitute a social kind and are ontologically distinct from natural kinds. The article critiques and rejects Oyowe’s distinction between social and natural kinds. The article then goes on to outline a possible alternative approach that draws on quasi-materialist and pan-psychic metaphysics to argue that ancestors exist as a natural kind—more specifically, ancestral existence consists in the this-worldly survival of the mentalistic (...) aspects of a human person’s biological death. Throughout, the article is concerned with the rationality of belief in ancestral existence rather than with their de facto existence as such. (shrink)

This article critiques Oritsegbubemi Anthony Oyowe’s “Ontology, Realism and the Persistence of Ancestral Persons” response to Katrina Flikschuh’s “The Arc of Personhood” argument on the theoretical grounding of ancestors in Ifeanyi Menkiti’s work. Flikschuh argues that ancestors are uncertain and redundant such that one can only account for them practically. Contrastingly, Oyowe defends Menkiti’s concept of ancestors as social kinds in his innovative attempt to theoretically ground them. The article argues that the dialogue between these thinkers reflects an exogenous reading (...) of African experiential reality, effectively lending itself to epistemic erasure. In the end, the existence of ancestors is ambiguous at best in both their accounts. The article first questions Flikschuh’s view and suggests that it is paradigmatic of white solipsism. Thereafter, the article contends that while Oyowe’s social ontology injunction challenges Western realism, he fails to account for mind-independent ancestral persons. In the end, he only partially captures African experiential reality, thereby reflecting Western ways of being. (shrink)

This article examines two issues raised and addressed by Oyowe in his book, Menkiti’s Moral Man. The first involves two of Oyowe’s criticisms of Menkiti: One criticism is that his conception of personhood is unfairly gendered; the other is that Menkiti’s view involves the priority of the community over individuals. The second issue involves Oyowe’s criticisms of Ikuenobe’s analysis of some aspects of Menkiti’s view in the context of the above criticisms. Oyowe indicates that, although he is “a repentant critic” (...) of Menkiti, he does “not deny the merits of these criticisms.” On page 15, He indicates that he is “convinced that there are resources in Menkiti’s general account for tackling them [criticisms].” This article highlights how his criticisms of Ikuenobe indicate his failure to appreciate fully the relevant robust resources in Menkiti for addressing these criticisms that Ikuenobe’s analysis highlights. (shrink)

This article reacts to Oyowe’s understanding of the personal existence of ancestral persons as real mind-dependent entities. The article’s author’s contention is that Oyowe has not managed to rule out the alternative that the author is sympathetic to, namely, that ancestral persons are real mind-independent entities that continue to exist even when, through forgetfulness, they cease to exist in the memory of humans. This article calls Oyowe’s mind-dependent alternative the “safe” one, as it appears easier to defend than the “unsafe,” (...) mind-independent alternative, which the article’s author has yet to develop convincing reasons for. (shrink)

In Menkiti’s Moral Man, Oritsegbubemi Oyowe aims to provide a sympathetic interpretation of the works of Ifeanyi Menkiti as they address personhood, community, and other facets of morality. In my contribution I maintain that, while Oyowe’s Menkiti is more plausible than the way Menkiti has often been read, there are still respects in which the account of personhood advanced invites criticism. One criticism is that it is implausible to think that personhood is constituted by others recognizing one as a person. (...) Instead, insofar as community constitutes one’s personhood, it is insofar as one lived up to norms of interpersonal morality. A second criticism is that there are intuitively some dimensions of personhood that are not constituted by the community or other-regard at all. In particular, I argue that there are moral duties to oneself that exist and that are not well captured by any sensible understanding of the view that community alone constitutes personhood, such that part of what it is to be a full person is to treat oneself in certain ways. In sum, personhood, while admittedly social, is not as social as Oyowe’s Menkiti believes. (shrink)

The subject of personhood has received substantial discussion in contemporary African philosophy where communitarianism happens to be the dominant approach. In his new book Menkiti’s Moral Man, Oritsegbubemi Anthony Oyowe enters this discussion as a repentant critic of Ifeanyi Menkiti’s version of communitarianism, the plausibility of which he attempts to defend with compelling arguments and interpretations. In this book, especially in chapter 4, Oyowe addresses the subject of women’s social recognition and inclusion in the African community. In view of this, (...) this article extends the discussion of the subject of social recognition and inclusion to the LGBTQ+ people. Therefore, this article critically engages the place of LGBTQ+ people in the contemporary African community and argues for their inclusive recognition. The article contends that the nonrecognition and exclusion of LGBTQ+ people within the African community constitute a social and epistemic injustice. The article also argues that, since, like other recognized community members, LGBTQ+ people duly discharge familial and communal obligations, display good conduct in the community, and share in the responsibility to respect nonpersons, humans, and nonhumans alike, they deserve social recognition. (shrink)

In this article, Oritsegbubemi Oyowe responds to seven critics of Menkiti’s Moral Man on a range of issues and questions and, along the way, clarifies further some of the ideas and proposals in the book. Some of these issues and questions concern what it means to interrogate other cultures, what social recognition really entails, whether persons are social kinds, and, by extension, whether Oyowe’s appeal to a special social ontology is superfluous, whether Oyowe’s account of the existence and persistence of (...) ancestral persons is plausible, and finally, whether and to what extent the terms of these engagements exemplify exogenous discourse. (shrink)