Paulin J. Hountondji

By "intellectual responsibility," I did not mean any specific responsibility of intellectuals as such, but first and foremost, the intellectual responsibility of all human beings.

The question, therefore, was not about the role of intellectuals in society, but about the attitude towards culture, the relation of individuals to collective heritage, whether in Africa or, for that matter, in any part of the world.

The question, in other words, was this: Why, in what sense, to what extent can't we help identifying with the values and thoughts developed by our foreparents? What are the effects of such identification? How far does it contribute to personal and collective creativity and freedom? When does it, conversely, start being counter-productive?

No one should hide behind his/her people or traditions, or rely on them to think on his/her behalf. No one should deny his/her paternity or parenthood over ideas h/she expresses and positively asserts. No one should stubbornly stick to such ideas once clearly refuted.

I believe there is a minimum, universal ethics of thought, without which no communication would ever be possible among humans. But I also believe this ethics is constantly challenged, in all cultures, by different forms and kinds of sophistry. In this respect, no culture holds any kind of monopoly over either universalism or relativism. These are, instead, two poles of a tension inherent to all cultures. Philosophy is the name given, in Western languages, to the systematic development of the first pole and the borderline discourses thereby generated.

I believe this value to be universal. Even in oral civilizations where intellectual productions tend to be very quickly integrated, absorbed into communal tradition, no discussion would have ever taken place, no palaver under the baobabs in Africa, if there was no idea of intellectual responsibility and the need to acknowledge paternity or maternity over one's own ideas, implying the obligation to change one's mind when clearly refuted.

By "intellectual responsibility," I did not mean any specific responsibility of intellectuals as such, but first and foremost, the intellectual responsibility of all human beings.

The question, therefore, was not about the role of intellectuals in society, but about the attitude towards culture, the relation of individuals to collective heritage, whether in Africa or, for that matter, in any part of the world.

The question, in other words, was this: Why, in what sense, to what extent can't we help identifying with the values and thoughts developed by our foreparents? What are the effects of such identification? How far does it contribute to personal and collective creativity and freedom? When does it, conversely, start being counter-productive?

No one should hide behind his/her people or traditions, or rely on them to think on his/her behalf. No one should deny his/her paternity or parenthood over ideas h/she expresses and positively asserts. No one should stubbornly stick to such ideas once clearly refuted.

I believe there is a minimum, universal ethics of thought, without which no communication would ever be possible among humans. But I also believe this ethics is constantly challenged, in all cultures, by different forms and kinds of sophistry. In this respect, no culture holds any kind of monopoly over either universalism or relativism. These are, instead, two poles of a tension inherent to all cultures. Philosophy is the name given, in Western languages, to the systematic development of the first pole and the borderline discourses thereby generated.

By "intellectual responsibility," I did not mean any specific responsibility of intellectuals as such, but first and foremost, the intellectual responsibility of all human beings.

The question, therefore, was not about the role of intellectuals in society, but about the attitude towards culture, the relation of individuals to collective heritage, whether in Africa or, for that matter, in any part of the world.

The question, in other words, was this: Why, in what sense, to what extent can't we help identifying with the values and thoughts developed by our foreparents? What are the effects of such identification? How far does it contribute to personal and collective creativity and freedom? When does it, conversely, start being counter-productive?

No one should hide behind his/her people or traditions, or rely on them to think on his/her behalf. No one should deny his/her paternity or parenthood over ideas h/she expresses and positively asserts. No one should stubbornly stick to such ideas once clearly refuted.

I believe there is a minimum, universal ethics of thought, without which no communication would ever be possible among humans. But I also believe this ethics is constantly challenged, in all cultures, by different forms and kinds of sophistry. In this respect, no culture holds any kind of monopoly over either universalism or relativism. These are, instead, two poles of a tension inherent to all cultures. Philosophy is the name given, in Western languages, to the systematic development of the first pole and the borderline discourses thereby generated.

By "intellectual responsibility," I did not mean any specific responsibility of intellectuals as such, but first and foremost, the intellectual responsibility of all human beings.

The question, therefore, was not about the role of intellectuals in society, but about the attitude towards culture, the relation of individuals to collective heritage, whether in Africa or, for that matter, in any part of the world.

The question, in other words, was this: Why, in what sense, to what extent can't we help identifying with the values and thoughts developed by our foreparents? What are the effects of such identification? How far does it contribute to personal and collective creativity and freedom? When does it, conversely, start being counter-productive?

No one should hide behind his/her people or traditions, or rely on them to think on his/her behalf. No one should deny his/her paternity or parenthood over ideas h/she expresses and positively asserts. No one should stubbornly stick to such ideas once clearly refuted.

I believe there is a minimum, universal ethics of thought, without which no communication would ever be possible among humans. But I also believe this ethics is constantly challenged, in all cultures, by different forms and kinds of sophistry. In this respect, no culture holds any kind of monopoly over either universalism or relativism. These are, instead, two poles of a tension inherent to all cultures. Philosophy is the name given, in Western languages, to the systematic development of the first pole and the borderline discourses thereby generated.

By "intellectual responsibility," I did not mean any specific responsibility of intellectuals as such, but first and foremost, the intellectual responsibility of all human beings.

The question, therefore, was not about the role of intellectuals in society, but about the attitude towards culture, the relation of individuals to collective heritage, whether in Africa or, for that matter, in any part of the world.

The question, in other words, was this: Why, in what sense, to what extent can't we help identifying with the values and thoughts developed by our foreparents? What are the effects of such identification? How far does it contribute to personal and collective creativity and freedom? When does it, conversely, start being counter-productive?

No one should hide behind his/her people or traditions, or rely on them to think on his/her behalf. No one should deny his/her paternity or parenthood over ideas h/she expresses and positively asserts. No one should stubbornly stick to such ideas once clearly refuted.

I believe there is a minimum, universal ethics of thought, without which no communication would ever be possible among humans. But I also believe this ethics is constantly challenged, in all cultures, by different forms and kinds of sophistry. In this respect, no culture holds any kind of monopoly over either universalism or relativism. These are, instead, two poles of a tension inherent to all cultures. Philosophy is the name given, in Western languages, to the systematic development of the first pole and the borderline discourses thereby generated.