Critical analysis of truth as opinion according to Kwasi Wiredu.

Personal critique
Kwasi Wiredu, a Ghanaian, is one of the renowned African philosophers. In his thesis on knowledge, truth and reason, he makes the distinction between the English language understanding of truth and its Akan [language spoken in Ghana] counterpart nokware; the translation of which is the English truthfulness. The difference in meaning between the two is stated by Wiredu; Akan has correlated the word truth with a primarily moral, rather than cognitive concept of truth in the Akan language. This is indicative of the Akan cultures high moral value attached to truth contrasted with the Western cultures cognitive understanding of existence. He noted that, a fact in Akan is simply that which is nea ete saa, meaning so. While the English language has the complex capacity and ability to question the truth and in fact relate fact to truth, Akan does not have the capacity to do the same. His thesis considers truthfulness as saying unto others what one would say unto oneself. This is a variant of the Golden Rule; it permits linking the moral conviction defining truthfulness to theology. The high moral and ethical standards espoused by religious doctrine strengthen Wiredus thesis of a deep relation between language, morals and truth. The consensus on high moral ground as a determinant to truth is clear and it becomes clear that there is also an element of moral comment in the use of nokware. This serves to solidify Wiredus argument that the Akan truth involves a separation of the ethical idea of truth and truthfulness as opposed to the Western understanding of truth in cognitive existence of a fact. Even though truth has a formal aspect, it is essentially dynamic and creative. Hence, one proverb says "Truth makes things good" So, truth has creative power, while falsehood is destructive and disintegrative. Therefore, if truth is ignored the result is disaster, for only truth can settle falsehood. Truth is accordingly cherished as the greatest spiritual value. This conception of truth may be designated "the Creativity or Nyano theory of Truth." This can be said to be unique to the indigenous concept of truth. It is different from the pragmatic theory of truth in that it is not only the workability of an idea that makes it true, but its power to bring about a better human situation and continuously to improve the conditions of life.

The defining characteristic of the creativity theory is its emphasis on the ameliorative nature of truth. Wiredu argues that whatever is called the truth is always someones truth. For a piece of information to be awarded the appellation true, it must be discovered by, known by, and defended by human beings somewhere, sometime. Furthermore, as past experience has clearly demonstrated, what human beings defend as true can prove to be false from an alternative point of view. Therefore whatever is called truth is more starkly described as opinion. Wiredu therefore conceives truth as opinion. According to him the objectivist theory of truth is mistaken. This theory explains how truth is independent of and categorically different from opinion. It posits truth as an independent property of timeless eternal information located in some transcendent realm that we humans must ceaselessly endeavour to reach if we are to know it (the truth). The truth about virtually everything is more or less there and always has been there; waiting for us to discover it or, better, decipher it. According to Wiredu, the implication that truth is different from opinion would in effect, make truth as a matter of logical principle, unknowable. This is because every claim to truth would then be reduced to only an opinion advanced from a particular point of view and therefore categorically distinct from truth. However it is a fact of human experience that truth is knowable. And the belief that truth is clearly different from opinion therefore leads to the contradiction that truth is both knowable and unknowable. And since this cannot be the case then it makes it false. But then if it is false, then it follows that truth is not clearly different from opinion. Therefore Wiredus truth is not different from opinion.

Wiredu argues that truth in fact arises from human endeavour and effort that is, from perception and rational inquiry rather than deriving from some transcendent reality. In his words, We must recognise the cognitive element of point of view as intrinsic to the concept of truth. That truth arises from human agency and does not mean knowledge will degenerate into the merely subjective or relative. Wiredu makes this clarification when he differentiates this opinion from the uncertain view or thought as considered by the general public. This opinion according to him is a firm, certain, valid or tenable thought or view based on reason, research or evidence. In his words, What I mean by opinion is a firm rather than an uncertain thought. I mean what is called a considered opinion. This notion of the considered opinion is of fundamental importance to Wiredus overall theory of truth. In other contexts he links it to the notion of warrant borrowing from the American philosopher
2

John Deweys pragmatism, although he is quick to insist that it is not identical. Something is warranted [well considered] not because it is true, but true because it is warranted; better, it is true if and only if it is warranted. Truth as opinion must, of course, always be entertained from some point of view. But that opinion becomes considered or warranted when it arises in a genuinely inter-subjective context where it is grounded upon shared canons of rational inquiry. In his view, such inter-subjectivity becomes a sine qua non [meaning a prerequisite] to truth and is responsible for his enduring opposition to both subjectivity and relativism.

According to Wiredu, both knowledge and truth are progressive in nature. Wiredu believes human beings are incapable of having a total view of the nature of things in their interaction with other elements in nature. In other words, he draws our attention to the importance of recognizing the limitations involved in human knowledge by certain constraints. The question raised is; if truth is opinion, does it mean all opinions are truth? He argues that although truth is opinion, it does not mean all opinions must be truth. Some opinions are false. Opinion in his view is a matter of reason not a matter of will, that is, opinion depends on reason and evidence. Furthermore Wiredu maintains that truth is not an attribute of reality. Rather it consists of a relationship between reality and cognitive beings. Like previously mentioned, truth for Wiredu is a view formed as a result of rational inquiry, hence a universal application.

My take: If truth is progressive then that means it is constantly developing and changing as new evidence and facts come to light. Therefore what was true yesterday may not be true today or tomorrow. What may be true here might be false somewhere else. This truth is therefore not universal. But if the same rationale is applied [if at all that is possible], then truth [or as close to truth as we can ever get] is achieved.

Wiredus idea of opinion in his theory of truth is one which is; a firm, valid, certain or tenable thought based on research, reason and evidence. This makes sense when equated with truth in that; through research we can find out facts, use our rationale to analyse these researched facts and hence come up with evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt. In such a case, where it has been tried, tested and proved beyond reasonable doubt then Wiredus truth is spot on. It is true in my books. After all like Ren Descartes proves we still aspire to attain the indubitable truth; and in our day-to-day life, we still search for the holy grail.
3

However, evidence may be contradicting. This is because people reason differently based on where they come from, what they have been exposed to, age, education level and standard, experiences etc. Wiredus distinction between English language understanding of truth and understanding of the same in the Akan language is an example of this. These are languages spoken by two different communities with different lifestyles and experiences that make them look at things differently.

According to Wiredu, truth can only be determined by rigorous, careful reasoning and experimentation, that is, cognition. Our cognition develops as we grow from childhood to adulthood; with our schema being constantly realigned to fit in with environmental experiences and influences. And since our experiences are not the same and neither are our reactions to those experiences, our schemas will of course be different. Different people perceive the same things differently and sometimes even the same person can perceive the same thing differently at varying times and under differing conditions. Thus my truth will not be your truth. And my truth today may not be my truth tomorrow. Truth therefore becomes relative; subject to ones priorities, values, culture, beliefs, circumstances etc.

Criticisms: As with all theories, Wiredus theory of truth has been received with some criticisms. D.A Masolo for instance says: Wiredus attempt to univocally define a worthy philosophical practice only in terms of scientific-analytic method contradicts his own theory of conceptual relativism. He seems to think that science can supplant other systems of thought. Along with other critics of ethnophilosophy, he seems to think that science is the thought system of the everyday Lebenwelt.] This criticism is with regard to the question of truth as opinion; where Masolo feels that Wiredus argument that African Philosophy must be able to fulfil the condition of being scientific-analytic for it to be qualified as philosophy, is belittling African Philosophy and wanting it to be more Western. Masolo is not alone in this frame of thought. For example where Wiredu distinguishes between English and Akan language understanding of truth then goes on to portray truth as being as a result of rational inquiry [read: cognitive concepts, which the English/Western understanding is all about]. Or when he implies that while the English language has the complex capacity and ability to question the truth and in fact relate fact to truth, Akan does not have the capacity to do the same.

References: Barry Hallen [2002]. A Short History of African Philosophy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Joseph K. Kahiga [2004]. Introduction to Critical Thinking. Eldoret: Zapf Chancery Research Consultants and Publishers.