What is Yoruba Epistemology? (African Philosophy)

Summary

This video from the 'Car Daddy' series delves into Yoruba epistemology, a West African philosophical approach that challenges Western notions of knowledge as justified true belief. It contrasts 'emo' or first-hand knowledge with 'Gbagbo', knowledge based on testimony or justification. Yoruba epistemology prioritizes sensory experience as the most reliable form of knowledge, differing from Western foundationalism that often relies on logical justification. The video invites viewers to consider the strengths and weaknesses of these epistemological perspectives and encourages skepticism about the foundational claims of both traditions.

Takeaways

• 🌍 The video is part of a series analyzing African philosophy, focusing on Yoruba epistemology.
• 📚 Yoruba epistemology challenges the Western notion of knowledge as justified true belief.
• 👀 'Mo' refers to knowledge gained through first-hand sensory experience and is considered undeniable and strongly connected to truth.
• 🗣️ 'Egbagbo' refers to information not directly experienced but believed based on testimony, divided into verifiable ('osi') and only justifiable ('alaye') categories.
• 🔍 Verifiable 'egbagbo' can potentially be confirmed through personal experience, whereas justifiable 'egbagbo' relies solely on explanation and argument.
• 🤔 The distinction in Yoruba epistemology highlights that direct sensory experience is seen as more reliable than second-hand testimony or logical justification.
• 🔄 The video contrasts this with Western epistemology, which often places higher value on logical truths and justification over sensory experience.
• 😴 The video addresses potential criticisms such as optical illusions and dreams, which can challenge the reliability of sensory experience.
• 🧠 The concept of Yoruba epistemology suggests that different cultural perspectives can challenge and enrich traditional Western philosophical views.
• 💬 The series will continue with explorations of Akan philosophical psychology, Ethiopian philosophy, and Pan-Africanism.

Q & A

What is the main focus of the video on Yoruba epistemology?

The main focus of the video is to explore Yoruba epistemology, which is a part of sub-Saharan African philosophy, and to examine its challenge to the Western concept of knowledge as justified true belief, particularly the notion of justification.

What is the significance of the Yoruba people's geographical distribution in the context of this video?

The Yoruba people are primarily based in Nigeria but are also found in Benin, Ghana, Togo, and Sierra Leone. This distribution is significant as it highlights the regional scope of the philosophical ideas being discussed, which are not limited to a single country but are part of a broader West African cultural context.

How does Yoruba epistemology categorize knowledge?

Yoruba epistemology categorizes knowledge into several types, primarily distinguishing between 'emo' (knowledge) and 'mo' (to know), with 'mo' being based on first-hand experience and not requiring justification, unlike the Western concept of knowledge.

What is the role of 'mo' in Yoruba epistemology?

'Mo' in Yoruba epistemology represents the strongest kind of knowledge, which is derived from direct sensory experience and is inherently connected to truth, not requiring justification.

What are the different levels of knowledge in Yoruba epistemology besides 'mo'?

Besides 'mo', Yoruba epistemology recognizes other levels of knowledge such as 'gbagbo', which is information that can be verified or justified but does not have the same strong connection to truth as 'mo'.

How does the concept of 'gbagbo' differ from 'mo' in Yoruba epistemology?

'Gbagbo' represents knowledge that is not based on direct experience and may require justification or verification, making it a weaker form of knowledge compared to 'mo', which is directly connected to truth through sensory experience.

What is the significance of the challenge Yoruba epistemology poses to the Western concept of knowledge?

The challenge Yoruba epistemology poses is significant because it offers an alternative perspective on what constitutes knowledge, emphasizing the importance of direct sensory experience over justification, which is a central tenet in Western epistemology.

How does the video address the potential for misunderstanding or doubting sensory experiences?

The video discusses the possibility of misunderstanding or doubting sensory experiences through examples like optical illusions and dreams, which can challenge the Yoruba epistemology's strong connection between 'mo' and truth.

What is the role of skepticism in the discussion of Yoruba epistemology presented in the video?

Skepticism plays a role in questioning the absolute certainty of both Yoruba epistemology's reliance on sensory experience and Western epistemology's reliance on justification, suggesting that neither may provide an undoubtable foundation for knowledge.

How does the video compare Yoruba epistemology with Western foundationalism?

The video compares Yoruba epistemology, which prioritizes sensory experience as the foundation for knowledge, with Western foundationalism, which often relies on logical or necessary truths known through justification, highlighting the cultural differences in philosophical approaches to knowledge.

What is the conclusion or the main takeaway from the video on Yoruba epistemology?

The main takeaway is that Yoruba epistemology provides a unique perspective on knowledge that challenges Western philosophical concepts, and that both systems have their strengths and weaknesses, suggesting a need for a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes knowledge.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Introduction to Yoruba Epistemology

This paragraph introduces the topic of Yoruba epistemology, a subset of African philosophy, specifically from the Yoruba people of West Africa. It contrasts this with Western epistemology, challenging the traditional definition of knowledge as justified true belief. The Yoruba perspective is presented as a multi-tiered system of knowledge, with 'emo' (knowledge) divided into categories based on the strength of justification, starting with 'mo' (to know), which requires direct experience and doesn't need justification.

05:03

🔍 Yoruba Knowledge Typology and Justification

The second paragraph delves deeper into the Yoruba typology of knowledge, distinguishing between 'mo' and 'gbagbo' (information not based on direct experience). It explains 'occe' as verifiable information and 'alayich' as information that can only be justified through argument. The Yoruba view justification as a weaker form of knowledge compared to direct experience, which is seen as inherently connected to truth. This challenges the Western emphasis on justification in defining knowledge.

10:05

🌐 Yoruba Epistemology vs. Western Foundationalism

This paragraph contrasts Yoruba epistemology with Western foundationalism, which relies on logical or necessary truths as the basis for knowledge. Yoruba epistemology, on the other hand, is grounded in first-person experience, viewing sense experience as more reliable than justification. The paragraph discusses philosophical debates between dogmatists and skeptics regarding the reliability of sense experience versus logical truths, and how Yoruba epistemology could challenge Western assumptions.

15:06

🤔 Philosophical Skepticism and Yoruba Epistemology

The final paragraph raises skeptical concerns about the claims of Yoruba epistemology, questioning whether sense experience or logical justification can provide a solid foundation for knowledge. It discusses the potential for misunderstanding or denying what one senses, using optical illusions and dreams as examples. The paragraph concludes by suggesting that the existence of differing views on knowledge, such as those found in Yoruba epistemology, undermines the idea that certain truths are self-evident or beyond doubt.

Keywords

💡Yoruba Epistemology

Yoruba Epistemology refers to the study of knowledge within the Yoruba culture, which is primarily found in Nigeria but also present in other West African countries. In the context of the video, it challenges the Western conception of knowledge as justified true belief, particularly the role of justification. It emphasizes the importance of first-hand experience and direct perception as the most reliable forms of knowledge.

💡Justification

In the video, justification is discussed as a component of the Western definition of knowledge, which is often considered necessary for something to be classified as knowledge. However, Yoruba Epistemology views justification as a weaker source of knowledge compared to direct experience. The script uses the term to contrast the Yoruba perspective with that of Western philosophy, where justification plays a central role.

💡Ethno Philosophy

Ethno Philosophy is the philosophical study of ideas that are passed down through oral traditions within a culture. The video script mentions this concept when discussing how Halon and So Deepu have worked with traditional keepers of ideas to document Yoruba philosophical concepts. It is a way of understanding philosophy that does not rely on written texts but on the oral transmission of knowledge.

💡Mo

Mo, in Yoruba Epistemology, is a term that relates to first-hand experience or direct knowledge of something. The script explains that to 'mo' something means to know it through direct sensory experience, such as seeing, feeling, smelling, or touching. It is considered the strongest kind of knowledge because it is inherently connected to truth and does not require justification.

💡Gbagbo

Gbagbo, in the script, refers to knowledge that is not based on direct experience but rather on what is told or explained by others. It is a weaker form of knowledge compared to 'mo' and requires justification. The term is used to illustrate the distinction between knowledge derived from personal experience and that which is based on testimony or explanation.

💡Occ

Occ is a level of Gbagbo that refers to verifiable information, which means it could potentially be known through direct experience ('mo') if one were to verify it personally. The script uses this term to describe a type of knowledge that is one step removed from direct experience but still has the potential to be verified and thus is considered stronger than information that cannot be verified.

💡Aleyich

Aleyich represents the weakest form of knowledge in Yoruba Epistemology, which is information that can only be justified through argument and cannot be verified through direct experience. The script contrasts this with 'mo' and 'occ', suggesting that this form of knowledge is the least reliable because it is furthest from direct sensory experience.

💡Dogmatism

Dogmatism, in the context of the video, refers to the philosophical position that certain truths are undoubtable and self-justified, often based on logical or necessary truths. The script contrasts this with Yoruba Epistemology, which considers first-person experience as the basic undeniable truth, challenging the Western reliance on justification for knowledge.

💡Skepticism

Skepticism is the philosophical stance that questions the possibility of certain knowledge. In the video, the script suggests that the existence of differing perspectives, such as Yoruba Epistemology, provides evidence to doubt or be skeptical of the traditional Western claims about the nature of knowledge and the role of justification and experience.

💡Optical Illusions

Optical Illusions are visual phenomena that cause a misinterpretation of reality, which the script uses as an example to challenge the reliability of direct sensory experience ('mo') as a form of knowledge. It suggests that such illusions can lead to misunderstandings or denials of what is being sensed, thus posing a problem for the status of 'mo' as a solid form of knowledge.

💡Dreams

Dreams are used in the script as another example to question the reliability of sensory experience. The script suggests that because one might not be certain whether they are dreaming, the experiences during a dream could be mistaken for reality, thus challenging the notion that direct sensory experience is always a trustworthy source of knowledge.

Highlights

The video continues the series on African philosophy, focusing on Yoruba epistemology.

Yoruba people's philosophy is primarily oral and has been documented through ethno-philosophy.

Yoruba epistemology challenges the Western concept of knowledge as justified true belief.

In Yoruba thought, 'emo' represents knowledge with different categories based on justification strength.

The concept of 'mo' refers to first-hand experience and is considered the strongest kind of knowledge.

Sense experience in Yoruba epistemology is inherently connected to truth.

The video discusses 'Gbagbo', knowledge that requires justification and is weaker than 'mo'.

Verifiable information ('OCC') is stronger than information that can only be justified ('alayich').

Yoruba epistemology values direct experience over justification or argument.

The video explores the distinction between 'mo' and 'bugbo' in terms of truth connection.

Yoruba epistemology contrasts with Western foundationalism, which relies on justification.

Optical illusions and dreams are presented as challenges to the reliability of sense experience.

The video debates the sufficiency of 'mo' and 'bugbo' as foundations for knowledge.

Skeptics argue that neither sense experience nor logical truths are undoubtable or self-justified.

Cultural differences in epistemology suggest that what is considered self-justified may be influenced by culture or philosophy.

The video concludes by questioning the traditional Western claim that logical truths are beyond doubt.

Upcoming videos will explore con philosophical psychology, Ethiopian philosophy, and Pan-Africanism.

Transcripts

welcome back to car daddy so today we're

going to be continuing with our series

dumbfounding definitions dizzying

distinctions and diabolical doctrines a

series sorting through some of the

jargon of philosophy in this video we're

going to be continuing our mini-series

analyzing African philosophy looking at

some of the theories and positions that

exist in African particularly

sub-saharan African philosophy in this

video we're looking at what is Yoruba

epistemology so we now move from

southern Africa to West Africa the

Yoruba people live primarily in Nigeria

but are also found in Benin Ghana and

other West African countries such as

Togo and Sierra Leone well we lack

written philosophy from the Yoruba

authors Halon and so Deepu have worked

with the traditional keepers of ideas

passed down through oral traditions to

document philosophical ideas within the

tradition of ethno philosophy if you are

curious about what ethno philosophy is

and how its philosophically justified

check out my previous video on what is f

no philosophy the focus of this video is

on Yoruba epistemology which challenges

one of the central conceits of Western

epistemology going back to Plato that

knowledge is defined as justified true

belief specifically it's going to take

issue with the idea of justification

being important for knowledge and the

Yoruba justification is actually going

to be a far weaker source of knowledge

than other kinds as we'll see this claim

which has only really been challenged by

Gettier since Plato is deeply entrenched

in Western philosophy as much of

epistemology is built on top of it

therefore it's just the kind of claim

that a non Western philosophy is well

positioned to challenge as the non

Western philosophy doesn't have that

same history going back to a particular

idea they're able to look at it from a

different perspective and not be kind of

bogged down by all the baggage so

instead of lumping knowledge into a

single category your room epistemology

can be described as splitting it into

several categories with straw

and weaker justification the first

category is known as emo the verb form

of which is mo so first off apologies if

I mispronounce anything don't worry I

mispronounce European things far more

often so it's it's no slight on anyone

so you would compare mo to to know

something so you could mo something and

emo to knowledge so you would have emo

if you mo something so in order to have

mo you must have first-hand experience

so that's generally some sense

experience of something so seeing

something feeling something smelling

something touching something those kinds

of things give you mo mo is the

strongest kind of knowledge is a

separate category from the next level of

knowledge that we're going to look at in

a second there is an assumption that

sense experience is inherently connected

to truth what is true and that this kind

of knowledge has a much closer

connection to truth than other types of

knowledge or other separate categories

of things that we're going to talk about

in a sec so something like seeing a dog

smelling a flower or feeling sandpaper

would classify as evil you do not need

to justify them and here's the key kind

of difference between this and Western

philosophy for Western philosophers

knowledge must be true it must be

believed it must be justified for your

robe of histology something that is mo

doesn't need justification you see it

you feel it you experience it and

there's some way in which you can't deny

it you can't say that this is something

that is false

or you can't misunderstand it you can't

not see what's there

so you don't need to justify things that

you mow or things that you experience at

least for yourself internally to other

people you may need to justify it

because for them it would be a Gbagbo

which we'll look at right now so the

next step of the typology of knowledge

is known as a bug book information that

you do not have direct experience there

are two levels of it bug both

information that can be verified and

information that can only be justified

the first being OCC and the second being

alayich if you speak Yoruba please

correct me in the comments on my

pronunciation of things verifiable

information is information that you

could mow but do not

well justification is an argument or

explanation given for something that you

cannot know so someone comes to you and

they tell you that something is true

that they know something that they saw

or experienced that thing now if you

could go and test it so for you if you

understand them and believe them that

would be egg Gbagbo something that you

also know but in a very importantly

different sense now within your egg

Gbagbo if you could go and check on that

thing yourself at least in principle it

could in principle be made mo for you

you could mow it then it would be well

si say wow if it could only be explained

or justified and you couldn't check it

for yourself it would be Aleya

and for the Yoruba that ability to be

verified or justified with your own

experience is a stronger type of

knowledge it's a stronger type of thick

bug Bo then something that can only be

justified or explained through an

argument so for example if you see an

eagle yourself that would be mo you

would mold it hearing from someone else

that Eagle lives in a

three would be Oh ceasing assuming you

could check on whether or not an eagle

did live there and mow it yourself but

being told that an eagle flew past an

hour ago would be Olay the weakest type

of knowledge as you would not be able to

mow it since you could not go and gain

sense experience of it yourself you

would have to be given an argument for

it you would have to be given the claim

that well look here's some Eagle

droppings here and look at this feather

that I found and these kinds of things

you would have to be provided some

justification for it whereas the other

two

you don't need justification you don't

need justification for it your eyes can

see and if you can go and check on

something yourself why would you justify

it when you can go and have that first

person sends experience which is itself

in some way undoubtable so within your

rubric epistemology you cannot deny or

misunderstand something that you know

that's what makes it importantly

different from it Gbagbo there's not a

separate step of understanding or assent

to a proposition about something that

you can see or experience you can't deny

the things that are in front of your own

face

you can't deny your senses but you may

deny or mistake something that someone

tells you you can either understand what

they say and deny that it's true or

misunderstand what they say and so

either deny or accept that it's true but

be understanding something incorrectly

and therefore not really having

knowledge at that point it doesn't rise

the level of Bud bull no no unlike

knowledge while Moke may have a strong

connection to truth he bug beau does not

because you may understand and believe

someone telling you something but it

could be not true and a bug beau has

this sense of the ability to not be

perfectly connected with truth in the

same way it more

is and Wow sometimes a big Gbagbo can be

go out and be justified through the use

of mold that doesn't mean they are

inherently or must be true in the same

way that a Western conception of

knowledge must be true to be known an

argument for the station between molt

and bug will might go something as

follows from its one people are

incapable of doubting or

misunderstanding something that they

experience themselves and those things

are importantly connected to truth if

not always true people are capable of

doubting or misunderstanding something

that they are told via testimony or that

is explained to them or that is

justified to them through an argument

and those things may not be connected to

that basic truth in the same way

therefore there's an important

difference between beliefs and knowledge

formed on the basis of experience and on

the basis of testimony or argument

former category being both the second

category being a bug Bo now unlike many

Western epistemologies which take

mathematical or logical truths as the

undoubtable truths to build a foundation

out of or some deep necessary truth that

they try to construct alla Descartes

Yoruba epistemology builds out of

first-person experience as the basic

undeniable truth this is why

justification is central to the Western

definition because your basic deep

truths your necessary AA priori truths

are only known through justification not

through sense experience but it only

arrives at the weakest level if your

rube epistemology because the undeniable

things of things that you see with your

eyes or experience through your senses

well justification is the kind of thing

that can be twisted around and

misunderstood or denied

while the Western dogmatist might take a

logical truth justified by

argument as undoubtable but sense

experience as suspect a Yoruba dogmatist

would claim exactly the opposite as

philosophical skeptic I'm all for

doubting the basic definition of

knowledge and I would argue that the

existence of kind of Yoruba epistemology

in this very different conception of

what the basic kind of kind of knowledge

or kind of information that is justified

is is a good case for doubting or being

skeptical of the traditional Western

dogmatist claim that it's impossible to

doubt the truths of logic but easy to

doubt the truths of experience but my

concern is that there are ways that we

could misunderstand what we see or deny

our senses optical illusions are an

example of a situation where you might

misunderstand what you see and if you're

aware that something is an optical

illusion you may not believe what you

see or what you experience

now the Yoruba dogmatist might come back

and say that these are strange cases and

are very uncommon in the real world the

skeptic might say either well you

wouldn't know if they were uncommon if

they were everywhere and you just

haven't ever realized that they're all

there or go a step farther and talk

about things like dreams so dreams may

make us concerned that our senses are

betraying us you don't know that you're

not dreaming right now

necessarily and in your dream you're

sensing things and experiencing things

and so you may be mistaken about what

you are sensing or experiencing and in

that way there's a disconnect between

what you seem to mo and what is true and

there's a way in which those kinds of

things are in some way disconnected from

reality despite being sensed and

experienced if you think you might be

dreaming right now then you might fail

to assent to what you are experiencing

at the top and so it kind of break

support this necessary connection

between things that you experience

through your senses and things that you

believe or assent to both of these

examples pose a problem for the status

of molt as more solid than a bog ball

because they show that you both can not

necessarily understand what you're

sensing or experiencing and that you may

deny or not assent to we're not agree

with the things that you're sensing or

experiencing this doesn't mean that the

distinction cannot be made simply that

the existing ranking of it in comparison

to a bug bow may be problematic and that

some of the ideas of the way of that

distinction is parsed may not perfectly

map on to our reality from the other

direction the of the dogmatist we might

think that logical truths which folks

believe solely due to justification and

explanation have never acts but have

never actually experienced or in some

way more justified because they're

logically necessary or can be known

without experience the dogmatist would

argue or might argue something along the

lines of wow it might be false that I

think I see a pencil in front of me

because it's actually an optical

illusion or a projection of a pencil or

I'm really sleeping two plus two equals

four no matter if I see it or not no

matter if I'm dreaming or not and no

matter whether my senses have been

tricked the skeptic of course would come

back that even your reason can be

tricked which is arguably an argument

from the side of your rube epistemology

that would say that your senses are more

trust about than things like

justification or explanation these

dogmatist might agree to the distinction

between kind of testimony or explanation

and first-person experience but would

classify things justified by logic is

more reliable than first-person

experience however for the skeptic

neither first-person experience nor

logical truth stand up to the sufficient

foundations for knowledge skipped

doubts the claims of Yoruba epistemology

faith because they find testimony

justification and first-person

experience all insufficient to provide

knowledge so neither moth nor egg Gbagbo

is sufficient to give you knowledge

they're not perfectly connected to truth

in the way that the Yoruba

epistemologists would make us think that

mo is necessarily connected to the

reality of the world arguing about what

represents a stronger or weaker claim to

knowledge is not important if none of

them have been shown to be knowledge in

the first place so while this might pose

some interesting objections to the

dogmatist that relies too much on

justification instead of sense

experience the skeptic is unconvinced in

fact the very existence of these

differing perspectives on what is a

stronger type of knowledge is evidence

that neither mo or necessary truths are

undoubtable or self justified as the

foundationalist might have us believe in

the Western tradition that these kind of

necessary truths are things that are

true through logical justification

must be true and can't be doubted the

aruba might say those are exactly the

kinds of things you can doubt where is

your sense experience is something that

you can't whereas the Western

epistemology through foundationalism

might say no those are the kinds of

things that you should doubt the fact

that they disagree on that at least

gives us evidence that these things

aren't just self justified on their face

that it's in fact perhaps your culture

or your previous philosophical notions

and understandings that makes you think

that they're self justified or that

they're undoubtable as there's evidence

that other cultures do in fact doubt

them so that was Ruby epistemology leave

your comments down below do you think

that you rube epistemology or kind of

the traditional Western foundationalism

is more convincing for what's a stronger

version of knowledge either Sense

experience or things that are justified

or are you skeptic like me and think

that neither are next up we'll be taking

a look at a con philosophical psychology

then Bob - philosophy ethiopian

philosophy pan-africanism

and that'll finish up the series watch

this video and more here at Carnegie

stuff org and stays skeptical everybody