INCULCATION OF PHILOSOPHICAL ATTITUDES IN

NIGERIA SCHOOL CHILDREN AS INSTRUMENT

FOR BUILDING THE CULTURE OF PEACE

BY

ACHI, ANTHONY NDUBUISI

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS
FEDERAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (TECHNICAL) ASABA
+2348037458222
achibeke@gmail.com
AND
ONYEKWE, E. C. (REV. FR.)
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS
FEDERAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (TECHNICAL) ASABA
+2348034054898
revemmanony@yahoo.com

BEING A PAPER PRESENTED AT THE

2 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF DIRECTORATE OF
PROFESSIONAL DIPLOMA IN EDUCATION (PDE), FEDERAL
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (TECHNICAL), ASABA
9TH 13TH MAY, 2016
HOLDING AT THE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS EDUCATION
AUDITORIUM, PERMANENT SITE, FCE(T), ASABA, DELTA STATE

Page10

ND

Introduction

Page10

Abstract
So many approaches and attempts are being made to entrench peace and quality education to
Nigerian citizenry as panacea to national development. This paper posits that the society would
continue to witness and suffer social unrest because the citizens, including the leaders, are not
knowledgeable and critical in their thoughts and approaches. Therefore, until we all become
reflective thinkers - in our attitudes and approach to issues, peace will continue to elude the society.
It is the stand of the paper that philosophical attitudes like reasonableness, humility, open
mindedness, receptivity to opposing ideas and critical thinking be inculcated into the youth through
the educational system so that they will be able to promote peaceful co - existence among the
citizens.

The world has witnessed an unprecedented increase in crime, violence and lawlessness. This
disturbing global phenomenon is also manifested in the school which is a microcosm of the society.
The educational system is plagued with increase in violence and indiscipline. For a while, Nigeria
has experienced various intra - community conflicts due to different ethnic, political and religious
clashes bringing with it death, destruction and despair to the citizenry. Religious and ethnics
conflicts have occurred severally in Nigeria. Evidences range from the O'dua Peoples' Congress
(OPC) clash with the Hausa, to the Ife and Modakeke conflicts in the South - West, the
Ijaw/Urhobo/Itsekiri clash in the Niger Delta and the numerous religious conflicts that blaze
through the North from time to time, the recent of which is the case of the religious sect called
Boko Haram which has created terror and destruction in the country. Alarming is the rate of
conflicts that need to be resolved in the country. Studies have revealed that true peace cannot be
achieved only by the government imposing some form of negative peace, through strict rules and
regulations. Peace is of the mind. It can only be achieved genuinely if the mind of people are
trained and channeled toward peaceful co-existence. Conflict can only be truly resolved when there
is respect for human rights, human dignity and social justice. This can only be achieved when the
philosophical attitudes have been inculcated, that is when all have become philosophers. The
question now comes; who is a philosopher? Can everybody be a philosopher? And what are the
philosophical attitudes?
Who is a Philosopher?
One thing that can be said, with a fair degree of accuracy, is that philosophers try to get you to
accept what they have to say through the process of argumentation. While trying to convince you of
their positions, they, at the same time, take into consideration some objections, stated or possible.
What is being stressed here is the nature of philosophy as a critical discipline, one in which logic
and critical thinking play a crucial role. This perhaps, is what has informed William James'
characterization of philosophy (metaphysics) as nothing but 'an unusually obstinate effort to think
clearly", It may be contested, however, that this attitude of being critical is not peculiar to
philosophy, and that specialists in other disciplines also think through their problems. This may be
so but it is strictly in line with the nature and character of philosophy that nothing is taken for
granted. Philosophers would wish to know how rational beliefs and attitudes are and the extent of
their consistency with other beliefs that are firmly held". There is a kind of uncompromising
otherwise. It is this stringent demand brought to bear on religious or religious claims which tend to
give the impression that philosophy is anti - religion. But this impression is wrong. Among the great

Page10

demand by some philosophers that rational grounds are provided for our beliefs, religious or

defenders of religion are philosophers. One issues of common concern to philosophy and religion is
the issue of the existence, nature, and characteristics of God. However, the difference between them
lies in their methods of validating beliefs. Generally, in philosophy, acceptance of a belief is based
on reasoning, argumentation and debate, whereas in religion, acceptance of a belief is usually, or
ultimately, dependent on faith. And since faith is a rejection of fact and logic as necessary elements
of proof, it is clear that philosophers' rejection of faith as a method of validation of belief will often
result in a clash of orientation between religion and philosophy. Critical thinking, in philosophy,
involves a careful examination of claims or beliefs with a view to determining whether they are
sustainable or not. Its primary aim is to drag hidden assumptions into the limelight and scrutinize
them with a view to assessing their consistency and coherence with the established body of human
knowledge". Critical thinking has no other authority than the authority of reason itself. Hence, it is
sceptical, in the sense that it is concerned with a rigorous examination of our ideas and values. It is
rational because it is primarily concerned with seeking grounds for establishing the justification for
whatever is considered as a justified belief. However, this does not imply that critical thinking is a
negative activity involving the wholesome rejection of people's beliefs or ideas but it is a rational,
impartial and articulate appraisal whether positive or negative. The purpose of this kind of criticism
is to enable us see things in a new light or develop a new perspective about them as a means of
encouraging us to reform our beliefs and modify our values when they are found wanting on the
scale of reason.
In his attempt to describe who a philosopher is, Urmson wrote that
In popular thought, a philosopher is a man of high principle, immune so far as is
humanly possible to the shorter - term interests and problems of ordinary mortals,
calm and unruffled in the face of adversity, who has a message for human beings
about how they may best a and most wisely live, a message which is called 'a
philosophy of life'
From Urmson's opinion, one may infer that a person whose primary concern is his short - time
interests, who is not critical even about his own life, who is jealous, and aggressive cannot emerge a
philosopher because these traits are negative to developing good philosophical mind or spirit.
Who can be a Philosopher?
Philosophers could emerge from any discipline or occupation (Popkin and Stroll 1993), some are
teachers like St. Thomas Aquinas, John Dewey and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Others are leaders of
John Locke, a medical doctor; John Stuart Mill, a writer for magazines and briefly, a member of
parliament and scientists like Rene Descartes. Regardless of their aims or their occupations,

Page10

religious movements like St. Augustine and George Berkley. Baruch Spinoza was a lens - grinder;

philosophers have shared a conviction that thoughtful examination and analysis of our views, and
our evidence for them are important and worthwhile. A philosopher thinks about certain matters in
certain ways. He/she wants to find out what various concepts fundamental ideas or concepts that we
have mean, what we base our knowledge on, what standards should be employed in arriving at
sound judgments, what beliefs we ought to adhere to, and the like. By reflecting upon such
questions, the philosopher feels that one can achieve more comprehension of the universe, natural
and human. Therefore, every normal human being has the tendency to be a philosopher.

What are Philosophical Attitudes?

Akinpelu (1981) identified as a major characteristic element of philosophy its absolute reliance on
the use of logical reasoning. Reasoning then meant the examination of evidences in favour or
against any claim, from a dispassionate and impartial point of view, exposing prejudices in claims
that are put forward, and, in general, giving to every bit of evidence as much weight as it actually
deserves. As philosophy involves 'thinking things through' on one's own", rather than taking
statements and recommendations for granted, it helps one to become more aware of the implications
of various issues, and by engaging in thinking on the issues, he will discover other dimensions of
meaning which others have neglected.
Also, as philosophy gives more weight to the validity or soundness of arguments than to the
authority of the person arguing a case, it will encourage one to look at problems of any sort more
critically, divesting them of the confusions that personal interests and prejudiced emotions usually
introduce. In addition, philosophy has a humbling effect on those who pursue it, in that it forces one
to keep an open mind on any subject, since new evidence may render one's previous opinion less
tenable. Hence, one with philosophical mind is not dogmatic or rigid. By and large, the following
attitudes can be identified as being philosophical;

Humility - in reason and action

Critical thinking
Open mindedness, not in terms of not being able to make up one's mind but in accepting and
respecting superior and more valid opinions
Tolerance which implies the spirit to endure others without protest, and
Respect for human dignity and rights

The Concept of Peace

Peace is generally defined as the absence of war, fear, conflict, anxiety, suffering and violence. It is
conflict by non-violent means' (Francis 2006). With this definition, there is the tendency to
conceptualize peace as the converse of war or violence. Thus, war and peace, for instance are often

Page10

primarily concerned with creating and maintaining a just order in society and the resolution of

referred to as two sides of the same coin. However, if peace is defined as the absence of war, can
war, by logical extension, be described as the absence of peace? This way of conceptualizing peace
though attractive, can be seen as inadequate for understanding the nature of peace. In the first place,
according to Ibeanu (2006), it is tautological and circular in logic. It implies that there is peace
because there is no war and there is war because there is no peace. Secondly, it really tells us
nothing about the meaning of peace, which, going by this definition, we have to arrive at by first
defining war. That is, if peace is the absence of war, what is war? However, even common sense
would suggest that peace even exists independent of war. Thus, there can be peace even when there
is war, as in situations when there are peaceful interactions between countries that are engaged in
active war. For instance, the Palestinians and Israelis have been able to establish peaceful use of
water resources, even as the war between them has raged.
Thirdly, this definition is inapplicable in situations of structural violence as Galtung (1990) calls it.
War is only one form of violence, which is physical, open and direct. But there is another form of
violence that is not immediately perceived as such. This has to do with social conditions such as
poverty, exclusion, intimidation, oppression, want, fear, and many types of psychological pressure.
Finally, it would be wrong to classify a country experiencing pervasive structural violence as peace.
In other words although war may not be going on in a country where there is pervasive poverty,
oppression of the poor by the rich, police brutality, intimidation of ordinary people by those in
power, oppression of women, or monopolization of resources and power by some sections of the
society, it will still be wrong to say that there is peace in such a country. Consequently, it is quite
possible not to have peace even when there is no war.
There are two common interpretations of the peace as converse of war argument. We may call them
the instrumentalist and the functionalist interpretations. In the instrumentalist interpretation, peace
is a means to an end. In this sense, the absence of war serves the end of social progress and
development. On the other hand, in the functionalist interpretation, peace is seen from one angle as
playing a social function, and from another angle as the product of the function of other social
structures and institutions. Consequently, peace is said to have the social function of integration and
order. As such, for society and the state to function properly they need peace, otherwise there would
be a lot of stress on the social and political systems and then they would break down. Related to
this, it is posited that the central function of both the social and political systems is to create peace.
envisage an intrinsic value of peace irrespective of the gains that society and the state make out of
it. In other words, instrumentalist and functionalist perspectives on peace may be criticized for not

Page10

The problem with the instrumentalist and functionalist perceptions of peace is that they both do not

recognizing that peace is an end in itself, which the vast majority of human beings would prefer to
war and conflict.
In general, six meanings of peace are agreed on by many peace researchers. These include

peace as the absence of war (absence of direct violence),

peace as justice and development (absence of structural violence),

peace as respect and tolerance between people (understanding)

peace as Gaia (balance in and with the ecosphere),

inner peace (spiritual peace), and

peace as 'wholeness" and 'making whole'. (completeness)

Galtung (1990) distinguishes three types of violence relevant to the understanding of peace and
conditions that create unpeaceful situations or 'peacelessness'. These are firstly, direct violence, i.e.,
physical, emotional and psychological violence. Secondly the structural violence, i.e., deliberate
policies and structures that cause human suffering, death and harm, and thirdly, cultural violence,
i.e., cultural norms and practices that creates discrimination, injustice and human suffering.
Galtung, in broadening the definition of peace, also outlines two dimensions of peace: 'negative
peace' , i.e., the absence of direct violence, war, fear and conflict at individual, national, regional
and international levels; and 'positive peace' i.e., the absence of unjust structures, unequal
relationships, justice and inner peace at individual level.
It is important to point out that the particular historical and political contexts of a country and
community determines its perception of peace. For example, a society fragmented and polarized by
perpetual war and armed conflict will interpret peace as the absence of war. Similarly, a political
community driven by unjust structures and policies will equate peace with justice and freedom.
People suffering material deprivation and poverty will inevitably perceive peace in terms of equity,
development and access to existential necessities of life. Many philosophers see peace as a natural,
original, God-given state of human existence. Peace, from this philosophical standpoint, is the pre corruption state of man in society, as God established it. Consequently, peace is a state of
perfection, an earthly expression of God's kingdom that is yet uncorrupted. Thus, St. Augustine of
Hippo distinguished between "two cities" namely, the city of God which is founded on perfect
and possessive impulses, is corrupt and tom by strife. John Jacques Rousseau on his part
conceptualizes a peaceful original state of existence of man in which there are no desires. In that

Page10

heavenly peace and spiritual salvation; and the earthly city of man, which is founded on appetitive

state, man existed as a free, gentle savage. In this 'state of nature', men were naturally good. They
were born free and had few desires. However, this tranquil state subsequently became corrupted by
human desire and greed, thus undermining the peaceful, pristine 'state of nature.' He made a
scathing attack on private property, which he saw as a major reason for the depravity of man. By
contrast, Thomas Hobbles, argues that the 'state of nature' was rampant with conflict and violence.
In this original state, a great man could be murdered in his sleep or overwhelmed by great numbers.
Life was solitary, poor nasty, brutish and short. In order to escape this nasty life, men resolved to
create a social contract in which each gave up his/her right to self defence to a Leviathan, a
powerful force above all and to which all were subject, thus creating a more peaceful and orderly
life. Other philosophers such as the hedonists and utilitarians, suggest that human beings
instinctively seek happiness and avoid pain. Consequently, they naturally prefer peace to war' and
violence.
However, while these philosophical traditions relate peace to the original inclinations and desires of
human beings, they do not address the social context beyond the state of nature. One of the earliest
normative political explore these issues in the social context was Plato. In his republic Plato
discusses justice as the most fundamental basis of ordered social life is the basis of peaceful social
existence. He defines as giving to each other his/her due. He argues that every society requires three
functions to achieve harmony (peace), namely: production, security, and political rule. These
necessitate three attitudes in the populace - appetite, courage and knowledge and three roles
workers, solders and rulers. Justice entails that society systematically determines the endowment of
each member and ensures that they are placed in each of the three functions according to their
endowments. Persons of appetite work and produce society's means of material existence, those
with courage defend society, while the knowledgeable rule. Where it is possible to determine the
single most knowledgeable person - the philosopher king - that person rules. Injustice occurs where
this functional system is distorted, for instance, where the knowledgeable allow persons of appetite
to rule. In such a context, there cannot be peace and social harmony.
Strategies for Inculcating Philosophical Attitudes in School Children
Children should be taught from home on how to think and be critical about issues. Even when their
parents give an order, they should be allowed to question or ask for reasons before they act or obey.
people. It will be of no harm if they are exposed to local riddles and folktales which are major
methods in African indigenous education. Consequently, when these children get to school, their

Page10

Children should be exposed to stories and literature where critical thinking is gainfully employed by

minds are already open to questioning and critical thinking. Then their teachers should always
engage them in arguments based on critical thinking. It may not be out of place if school children
are exposed to elementary books on philosophy and logic right from their elementary classes.
Teachers also, should always allow the school children to express themselves on issues. Their
opinions should be respected and whenever they are wrong, they should be made to know through
superior arguments of their colleagues or of the teacher. Their teachers should have open minds and
should be critical in nature themselves. Open mindedness and tolerance should be inculcated in the
school children. This is articulated in the national policy on Education
Conclusion
To promote development in Nigeria, there must be peace, not just peace as defined by the absence
of war or violence, but as an atmosphere of tolerance, harmonious co - existence and mutual
development; an atmosphere where people are not only aware of their differences but are also
understanding and willing to live and work together. An attitude is philosophical when it is based on
broad thinking. It is a reflective attitude based on consistent principles. It is an attitude based on
understanding. A person lacking understanding lacks critical evaluation of his own life and the
universe. A philosophical attitude reflects beyond the immediate problem. It is a critical attitude
characterized by open mindedness, humility and tolerance. These attitudes can be inculcated into
the young ones by the various subject teachers by making efforts to elicit these attitudes by
adopting pedagogy that will test the spirit of tolerance and allow students to interact and work
together peacefully. These methods include project method, discussion method, field method,

Page10

problem - solving method, micro teaching and even team teaching approach.

References
Akinpelu, J. A. (1981). An introduction to the philosophy of education. London and Basingstoke:
The Macmillan Press Limited.
Francis, D. J. (2006). Peace and conflict studies: an African overview of basic concepts in Best, S.
G Introduction to peace and conflict studies in West Africa. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Limited
Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research. Vol.27:3
Ibeanu, O. (2006). Conceptualizing Peace in Best, S. G Introduction to Peace and Conflict Studies
in West Africa. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Limited
Oladipo, O. (2008). Thinking About Philosophy - A General Guide. Ibadan: Hope Publications.
Onigbinde, A. (1996). The human exploration an introduction to philosophy. Ibadan: Hope
Publications.
Popkin,R. H. & Stroll, A. (1993). Philosophy Made Simple. New York:Doubleday
Sabine, G. H & Thorson, T. L. (1973). A history of political theory. New York: The Dryden Press

Page10

Urmson, J. O. (1960). Western philosophy and philosophers. London: Hutchinson & Co. Publishers
Ltd.