|
| The African Origin of Greek Philosophy:: An Exercise in Afrocentrism | 
 enlarge | Author: Innocent C. Onyewuenyi
Publisher: BookSurge Publishing
Category: Book
Buy New: $18.99
New (4) Used (1) from $18.99
Avg. Customer Rating:  8 reviews
Sales Rank: 794690
Media: Paperback
Pages: 320
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.1
Dimensions (in): 8.6 x 6 x 0.9
ISBN: 1419613057
Dewey Decimal Number: 180
EAN: 9781419613050
ASIN: 1419613057
Publication Date: September 19, 2005
Shipping: Eligible for Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Have you ever doubted Greek origin of Western Philosophy or wondered about the irony that Greek government persecuted Socrates and Plato for corrupting the youth? This volume shows that African priest-scholars of the Egyptian Mystery System originated philosophy; that Thales, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle lived in Africa and studied under these priests. Some Greek historians: Plutarch, Diogenes Laertius, Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle; and modern writers: William Stace, Alfred Benn, James Breasted, etc. testify to Greeks' studentship in Egypt. Citing Egyptian texts, the author reveals that the doctrines of Greek philosophers have their prototypes in earlier Egyptian philosophy. However, in their determination to maintain racial and intellectual superiority over Africans, Western historians, since the 18th century, subverted history by attributing the origin of philosophy to the Greeks. The author calls for the restoration of 'truth' to the history of the 'king' of disciplines---Philosophy.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 3 more reviews...
 Read This Lefkowitz September 21, 2008
Here is another books of reason, that would make Mary Lekowi"tz say Oey Veh!; How one canperpeturally argue that the Greeks hadn't been influrenced by African is beyond reason. As Africa was the first to have a population, means that eventually a culture would araise, and those who left the continent, took their culture with them. Sorry about my tirade, but so called intellectual stupidity is not only inexcusablbut a offense against reason.
The African Origin of Greek Philosophy:: An Exercise in Afrocentrism by September 7, 2008
Truth be told:
Greek philosophy didn't begin in Greece (as we know it); It began on the western coast of what is now Turkey, an area known then as Ionia. In Ionia's richest city, Miletus, was a man of Phoenician descent called Thales (624-546). He studied in EGYPT and other parts of the near east(Africa), and learned geometry and astronomy.
Even in this truth Miletus studied in EGYPT. Why did he study in EGYPT, because this knowledge was NO WHERE else in the world at the time. He passed it on and the Greeks made the knowledge popular.
As Americans and Europeans we focus on who has the power to make knowledge popular rather than it's true origin. This book talks about origin, not popularity.
YES! The Greeks are very POPULAR for philosophy, but they got their knowledge from Africa.
It's funny how when Europeans finally admit that the foundation of our studies go back to Egypt it's okay, but when an African says the same thing it's twisting the facts.
If our math system is taken from Egypt by the Greeks, then Philosophy would have to have come from the same place, because math is philosophy and philosophy is math.
It's okay. Don't fret. If Africa has the oldest bones belonging to humans, why is it so far fetched that "Greek" Philosophy originated in Africa as well???
I read this book for a class and I found it to be just as creditable as the European historical lies that we are forced to learn from grade school on through higher education.
Follow the logic and it will lead you to the truth. If the history books that have been stuffed down our throats are full of lies and the omittance of truth, then permission must be given to others to "lie" too.
I loved this book, because it is constistant with the fact that almost everything we do today comes from Africa even our natural resources.
INTELLECTUAL TYRANNY OF THE EUROPEAN PARADIGM.. September 5, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Dr. Onyewuenyi strikes at the foundations of the European/American intellectual model using a multidisciplinary approach. He tells us about Hegel,David Hume, John Lock and a host of other European intellectuals who worked tirelessly to create the myth of a Greek origin of philosophy, eventhough the Greeks never made that claim themselves. Hegel and Johann J. Winckelmann did every thing in their power to place Greece at the center of this mythical construction. This false, nationalistic intellectual paradigm has, and is being taught and promoted globally!!
Even Greek art was undeniably deeply influenced by the ancient African art of Egypt. Take look at the STANDING YOUTH(KOUROS)c.600bc or the Kroisos(KOUROS FROM ANAVYSOS) c.525 bc. Compare the standing sculptures of the male and female figures of the Pharaohs and royal women with the Greek Kouros figures.
The compound Greek word "PHILOSOPHY" has no ETYMOLOGY in the Greek language or in any other Indo-European language. For example, if we take the "sophos" part of the word we find no etymology for "Sophos", or even the first part: "Philos"!!! Anyone familiar with GREEK ETYMOLOGY would know this. In the French language the "tennis" is used: Marie n'aime pas jouer tennis. But we know that the word "tennis" has no etymology in the French language, it is borrowed from the English language.
In the same way the Greeks borrowed the word : Sabai, sabe from the ancient Africans. The word means roughly:to know,to be wise......
The Greeks used the (ph)for the Egyptian "b". So Sabe became sopho(s) in the Greek.
In order to understand the authors linguistic argument one must understand modern linguistics.....its far more complex than "having a few similar words". Without an understanding of ETYMOLOGY, one would assert instantly that the compound Greek word "philosophy" is "derived" from the Greek.
The author makes another great point:when the Greeks first started to write c.850th bc, the Ancient Egyptians had aleast 3,000 years of literacy. So the Greeks had very little,if anything to teach the ancient Africans of Egypt.
The book demolishes the old Eurocentric model that asserts, even today, that Africa had no history. If you are intellectually trapped in the narrow Eurocentric perspective and constantly amazed by the "Greek Miracle" the book will seem utter nonsense. Even if the word "philosophy" is not of Greek origin. And even if Greek philosophers themselves say that they went to Africa to learn under the authority of the Egyptian priest.....
In a way this reminds me of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Intellectual bondage is difficult to escape; but it can be done.
I think this African writer who holds a PHD in philosophy can help you break out this Euro-American intellectual prison which seems to hold so many people so willingly!!
Many negative reviewers displayed a superficial or a complete lack of understanding of linguistics, philosophy and ancient African cultural history. Therefore we have a number of deeply held uninformed opinions.
The book is a great source of insights and fresh new perspectives free of dogma and deliberate falsification and distortions.
I will be reading this book for years to come.
At last, the true history of the origin and doctrines of ancient philosophy is rediscovered February 17, 2008
3 out of 5 found this review helpful
The recent press release by an Amazon.com publishing company, BookSurge, on this startling book, The African Origin of Greek Philosophy: An Exercise in Afrocentrism has heightened my interest to write this review. Part of the release states: "thoroughly researched, this book rediscovers the origins of Philosophy and triumphs the intellectual achievements of Africans. Brave, bold, and intellectually stimulating, this is a book that provocatively rewrites the history of philosophy as readers know it..." Yes, every word of the press release is verified and redeemed in this scholarly work by Innocent Onyewuenyi. It is indeed a "thoroughly research" work with findings and revelations that lay bare the "untruth" in the history of Western Philosophy as written and taught since the 18th century. This short review outlines the highlights of this book. You really need to read the entire book to understand its richness, especially about the origins of philosophy that has been distorted for centuries.
From this intellectually stimulating book, we now know that Aristotle himself acknowledged the primacy of Egypt as the home of philosophy. In his Metaphysics, Aristotle states that the priestly caste in Egypt was allowed to be at leisure to practice the art of philosophy (see p. 46). This revelation by Aristotle is corroborated by Edith Hamilton in her book, The Greek Way, stating that: "Before Greece, the domain of intellect belonged to the priests. They were the intellectual class of Egypt. Their power was tremendous. Kings were subject to it. Great men must have built up that mighty organization; great minds, keen intellect" (p. 44).
We now know that Thales, whom many Western historians and philosophers regard as the father of Greek philosophy and who is credited with the first formulation of the problem of the unity of cosmic power, studied in Egypt and borrowed, especially his doctrine of the cosmic origin and his geometry from Egyptian thought. Mestrius Plutarch (50-120 AD), philosopher and historian of ancient Greek antiquities states, "Homer, like Thales, made water the basic principle of all things through learning from the Egyptians" (p. 47).
We know from Herodotus, the father of Greek history and a Greek himself, that Pythagoras, a native of Samos (not Greece) gained admission to study in Egypt through the intervention of Amasis, King of Egypt, and Polycrates, King of Samos. King Amasis introduced Pythagoras to the priests of Heliopolis, Memphis and Thebes. In his initiation, Pythagoras underwent circumcision and other severe trials as well as studied measurement, medicine, metempsychosis, etc. He spent 22 years of his life in Egypt (p. 47). Can anyone argue that Pythagoras could not have been influenced by Egyptian philosophy and way of life?
The research reveals also that the Greek philosopher and historian, Isocrates, in his Bousiris, written c. 390 BC, admired Egypt and its people and their legal system. He wished his native Sparta and its government had adhered more to the Egyptian model - he portrayed the land of Egypt and its people as the most blessed in the world. This piece was a eulogy to Bousiris as a mythical lawgiver and to the perfection of the constitution which he had devised for Egypt (p. 54).
Onyewuenyi revealed in his book that Plato, after his visit and study in Egypt, returned to Athens and started the most productive period of his life. In William Stace's words, "He now appeared for the first time as a professional teacher and philosopher" (p. 148). The historian, Strabo, in his Geographie, testifies that Plato and Eudoxus spent 13 years at Heliopolis in Egypt studying philosophy and other sciences (p. 236). Plato reveals in his dialogues, the Epinomis and Laws, that the Egyptians were the originators of mathematics, geometry, astronomy and medicine (pp. 49-54). Egyptian civilization was such that the Pharaohs spent part of their lives and wealth building their pyramids, symbol of immortality. The size of each pyramid shows the greatness and wealth of each Pharaoh. Today, we are still speculating and trying to decipher how the pyramids were constructed.
With regard to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, which history books attribute to Aristotle, Herodotus testifies, "the Egyptians are the first to have maintained the doctrine that the soul of man is immortal.... There are some Greeks who have adopted this doctrine, some in former times, and some in later, as if it were their own inventions; their names I know but refrain from writing down" (p. 47).
Chapter three of this book is a must read by students and teachers of philosophy. There, Onyewuenyi traces how Western historians and philosophers deleted, suppressed and denied the well-known Egyptian origin of Greek philosophy. The author discusses nine revered and respected historians and scholars in Western philosophy from Hegel (1770s) to McInerney (1963), exposing their inconsistencies, fabrications, racist ideas and extreme eurocentrism. For example, Alfred Weber (1868-1958), in his History of Philosophy, credits Ionian Greeks with the honor of having "created" European philosophy. However, he felt constrained to explicate the term "created" in a footnote: "By the word, "created," we do not mean to imply absolute originality of Hellenic philosophy. The influence exercised by the Orient cannot be doubted. There is no trace of philosophy, popularly so-called among the Greeks, before they came in contact with Egypt.... Moreover, the fathers of Greek philosophy are all Ionians; from Asia Minor, philosophy was imported first into Italy, and at a comparatively recent period, into Athens" (p. 108).
In chapter four, Onyewuenyi reveals the important role played by Alexander the Great, in looting the Egyptian libraries after the conquest of Egypt. James Henry Breasted describes Alexander's campaign as the "First Scientific Expedition in History... for he sent hundreds of natural-history specimens home to Greece to his old teacher Aristotle, then teaching in Athens." This event occasioned the transfer of knowledge in every field and culture to the Western world. This event could be rightly seen as the genesis of Western scientific, philosophic and technical knowledge (p. 157).
Onyewuenyi meticulously outlined what are usually regarded as the doctrinal inventions of the pre-Socratics. With the cited extracts from some Egyptian Mystery System Texts: Pyramid Text, The Coffin Texts, The Ramesside Stella, The Book of the Dead, the author shows that the so-called pre-Socratic doctrines dated some centuries before the birth of the pre-Socratics. For example, the Egyptian Heliopolitan System mentions four elements of creation: air, water, earth, and fire; the Ionians each chose or proposed one element as the substance of creation: Thales chose water; and Anaximenes proposed air as the substance of creation (pp. 177-209).
In chapter six, the author cites some Western philosophers/historians, experts in Platonic and Aristotelian studies, and shows that neither Plato nor Aristotle, originated most of the doctrines that they taught in the Dialogues and in the Basic Works respectively. Plato is not the first to reason out the "Transmigration of Soul" and "Reminiscence," which play so great a part in the Meno and Phaedo. Plato is not the first to teach the doctrine of "Nous" as in Philebus, nor the theory of ideas or the doctrine of the creation of the universe, which he treats in the Timaeus. We cannot attribute the claim of originality to Aristotle for the doctrine of change and motion in his Physics, of prime matter and form, of immortality of the soul, of actuality and potentiality (p. 225).
From the above random selections from Onyewuenyi's book, it is clearly evident that the author clearly researched this intellectually stimulating book, and true scholars in the West can now begin to question the origin of Greek and Western philosophy. Dr. Onyewuenyi has re-written the history of philosophy, which was erroneously disseminated in the last three centuries. I am not surprised that some people would still want to continue to propagate contrary views to the historical evidence of the true origin of Greek Philosophy. Imagine what we would have accomplished if we still had some copies of the books of the Egyptian libraries that were destroyed during the raid of Egypt by Alexander the Great, and subsequent arson of the reconstructed libraries of Alexandria (Egypt) and the likes. It is worth noting that neither Aristotle nor Herodotus, who were in the position to know better, ever testified that the Greeks studied "myths" for the long years they spent in Egypt.
Finally, I recommend this book as a text for those studying philosophy in colleges and universities, for those people interested in multicultural education, and for those who are curious about understanding some of the basic ideas that underlie Greek philosophical thought, and consequently, Western thought. We should give due credit to those whose thoughts and labors are the foundation of our own. Onyewuenyi's book is a great work of our century that should stimulate and inspire scholars who are truthful in their quest for knowledge to research into the true origins of Greek and Western philosophy, in order to correct in the present the mistakes of the past and rediscover the richness of Afrocentric philosophy that seemed hidden for centuries.
 An example of antischolarship April 23, 2007
15 out of 23 found this review helpful
I came to this book as a teacher of the history of ancient philosophy, and the consideration of whether this book would offer anything that would warrant a change in the curriculum I teach. I'm sorry to say that the answer is "no."
First, a remark on the word "philosophy." The word is of Greek derivation, and was used initially to refer to a tradition of thought that began within Greek civilization. This tradition was defined by no central doctrinal beliefs, but by a method of approach to establish belief. The features of the method were as follows: (1) the central aim was to seek "wisdom" or understanding, (2) a view that traditional beliefs were largely irrelevant to this search-philosophy was a tradition that rejected the authority of tradition, and thus (3) the consequent encouragement of originality of thought, and a critical outlook on the ideas of earlier thinkers within the tradition, and (4) an insistence that any beliefs recommended for adoption should be offered with reasons, evidence, argument that could at least potentially convince any reasonable person that the belief should be adopted. It is this tradition, in antiquity traced back to the Greek philosopher Thales, that has continued through the centuries of western culture, giving rise eventually in the modern world to natural science as well as philosophy as an ongoing concern.
In the twentieth century particularly, scholars have recognized that many other cultures have traditions of thought that share many of the features of "philosophy" as described above, and might thus in a broad sense legitimately be called by the same name. Thus there has flourished a lively scholarship over many decades in Chinese philosophy, Indian philosophy, Native American philosophy, etc. Courses are taught in these areas on most university campuses today. I must admit that to my knowledge there is less such studies dedicated in this vein to "African philosophy," and hope that more becomes available.
Onyewuenyi's project, however, is not one of this sort at all. His project is to place African, and in particular Egyptian thought, firmly into the philosophical tradition in the narrower sense described above. His central thesis is that the original Greek philosophers of that tradition were teaching Egyptian philosophy; that before Thales we must recognize Egyptian thought, and that there is a virtual identity, with some Greek flourishes, of Greek philosophy with Egyptian thought.
Does he succeed? Not at all. In fact the book might be better understood as a demonstration to the denial of it's thesis than a confirmation.
One central problem is methodological. Onyewuenyi argues on the basis of a certain principle, clearly used time and again though he never states it. The principle could be stated, however, in this way: "Proof of intellectual influence is proof of identity of belief." One place this principle is utilized is when Onyewuenyi notes how legitimate scholars have recognized how the pre-Socratic philosophers influenced the Socratics (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) (225-233). After noting these influences, Onyewuenyi offers the bold statement "These philosophers [the Socratics] . . . are the pre-Socratics" (233). Why Onyewuenyi adopts this principle is clear. The Egyptian material that he offers for his argument is on the face of it so discordant with pre-Socratic philosophy that there is little chance of convincing the reader that the Greek philosophers were simply repeating what the Egyptian's had already said. It is a lesser task, however, to show intellectual influence. So if one might convince the reader of influence, then by invoking the principle that influence proves identity one gets Onyewuenyi's thesis, repeatedly stated, that the Greek philosophers were simply teaching Egyptian philosophy, as a fait accompli. But the problem, of course, is the principle is absurd on the face of it. By this principle we would have to infer that Newton's physics is simply Copernicus's astronomy; that Darwin's theory of natural selection is simply a reiteration of Malthus, etc. Enough said.
What of the evidence of influence? I would have to make the judgment that any unbiased person who was not predisposed to accept Onyewuenyi's thesis at the outset could not be in the least convinced. What we are given on the Egyptian side is a genre of thought familiar to any student of culture: creation myths. Myths of the creation of the world couched in anthropomorphic themes (the gods which begat other gods that finally begat the world) that are entirely out of character with Greek philosophy. There is indeed an analogue in Greek tradition to this material-the traditional gods of the Greek pantheon, and the creation myth recorded by Hesiod which records gods begetting gods, which finally explain the world and humankind. But the point must be stressed: this is precisely the sort of tradition-bound, conservative, and religious thought that the Greek tradition of philosophy rejected. To be precise, this genre does not share the features (2)-(4) that define the Greek philosophical tradition.
The best that Onyewuenyi can do with the material is to cite isolated words and here and there what sounds to be a homological concept between the two traditions. For example, Thales speaks of water, as do the Egyptian myths. What Onyewuenyi carefully avoids is the fact that for Thales water is the constituent of all things. For the Egyptian myths, however, water is the primordial source of all things. The difference is in fact a chasm: an attempt to understand the basic constitution of physical reality as opposed to a speculation as to the origination of all reality. The projects are entirely different. All they have in common is a word, "water" in their respective languages.
A further problem is the numerous factual errors in the study. I'll allow the knowledgeable reader to trace these.
|
|
|
---- | |
