Philosophy as a Mission: On Knowledge-Production for Social Reconstruction and Development

Anthony C. Ajah Department of Philosophy, University of Nigeria, Nsukka Mobile: +234-803-731839 E-mail: chinaemeremajah@yahoo.com or anthonyajahc@gmail.com

Presented at a National Conference on Truth, Knowledge and Society, Organized by the Nigeria Philosophical Association (NPA), at Benue State University (BSU), Makurdi, Nigeria May 12th-15th, 2010

PHILOSOPHY AS A MISSION: ON KNOWLEDGE-PRODUCTION FOR SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT By Anthony C. Ajah Department of Philosophy, University of Nigeria, Nsukka Mobile: +234-803-731839 E-mail: chinaemeremajah@yahoo.com or anthonyajahc@gmail.com Abstract
The idea of publish or perish is an enemy - both to any serious scholarship and to the very fundamental idea of philosophy as a mission. This paper argues that: (I) Marxs critique of Philosophers - as only able to interpret but not change the world remains valid in Nigeria until the social function of philosophy is properly understood as requiring consistent critique and reconstruction of the socially given, with the hope of arriving at social improvements; (II) any conceptual reconstruction is meaningful if and only if the aim is to fuse conceptions and views rather than fruitless claims of uniqueness and incompatibilism; (III) the critical social theory of the Horkheimerian and PostHorkheimerian Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, presents a good model of philosophy as a mission with the aim of knowledgeproduction through criticism and normativity for social reconstruction and development. Because of (III), this paper concludes that the mission of philosophy/philosophers, and the idea of knowledge-production for social development, can be realised in Nigeria only when the necessary links are established among the various branches of philosophy. Keywords: Philosophy Mission Knowledge Reconstruction Fusion Horizons Criticism Normativity Development

Preview [t]here are many who carry the mystic wand but few are inspired. Plato, Phaedo. If the quality of the masters fell, the tribe was in peril. It had happened before, when an era of low-calibre and brash individuals dominated the council and nearly destroyed the foundations of the tribe. An important lesson was learnt: a people are only as great or as strong as the quality of the secret masters who guide them on their journey through time to their destiny Masters are known by their deeds Ben Okri, Starbook, 127-128. Introduction

All forms of producers have the society as their target more so knowledge-producers. To produce is to make something available from another. According to the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary (2007), to produce is to create something, especially when skill is needed; it means also to cause a particular result or effect. Production therefore presupposes, at least to some degree, making the thing produced available for use. With the predominant idea of producing material goods, it sounds so strange really to talk about knowledge-production. Or does it not? I think it does. This strangeness is better understood when we define knowledge as that which is known; information; instruction; enlightenment; learning; practical skill; assured belief; acquaintance. This strangeness however clears when we consider that what is known - what is passed-on (as information or given as instruction), the content of the thing (knowledge) that makes one enlightened, learned, or feel assured of an idea as to believe it, the details of what is meant by practical skill, and so on - have not been there from eternity, but were put together and made available by people 1. These things, put together, form the base for several things and processes, and for a society. The putting-together is a form of production. Hence, it is important to bring in the idea of knowledgebase which is an accumulation of previously produced knowledge. According to Agbakoba, a societys knowledge-base includes her normative beliefs and principles, commonsense and theoretical knowledge, and the practical manipulation/organization of nature and human beings (technology, magic and social organization)2. Professional knowledge-producers, whose supposed centre of focus is human social agents and their actions, are regarded in most quarters as social scientists. With regard to them, William H. Starbuck lamented:
Although it is easy to see why social scientists appreciate a system that allows large numbers of them to appear to be highly productive, tens of thousands of quite intelligent researchers are spending their time producing little or nothing of lasting value. Because the utilitarian value of their research is so low, their social environment pays little attention to their research and regards social scientists with amused indulgence. Social science research that sets higher standards for the dependability of its findings would have more value for society and would bring greater respect to researchers themselves.3

Social Philosophers are social scientists. They study human actions. They are as a matter of their calling knowledge-producers. But, because some philosophers so called may be interested, not in bettering their society, but just in publishing to avoid perishing, this paper presupposes that the idea of publish or perish is an enemy both to any serious scholarship and to the very fundamental idea of philosophy as a mission. It argues that: (I) Marxs critique of Philosophers - as only able to interpret but not change the world -

remains valid in Nigeria until the social function of philosophy is properly understood as requiring consistent critique and reconstruction of the socially given, with the hope of arriving at social improvements; (II) any conceptual reconstruction is meaningful if and only if the aim is to fuse conceptions and views rather than fruitless claims of uniqueness and incompatibilism; (III) the critical social theory of the Horkheimerian and Post-Horkheimerian Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, present a good model of philosophy as a mission with the aim of knowledge-production through criticism and normativity for social reconstruction and development. Because of (III), this paper concludes that the mission of philosophy/philosophers, and the idea of knowledge-production for social development, can be realised in Nigeria only when the necessary links are established among the various branches of philosophy. Knowledge: The Hub of Human Existence, Social Reconstruction and Development Can it be presumed that the meaning of the term knowledge does not require to be defined? Berger and Thomas defined knowledge as the certainty that phenomena are real and that they possess specific characteristics4. A description of the features and relevance of knowledge will be useful also. According to Chong J. Choi, Carla C.J.M. Millar, and Caroline Y.L. Wong,
Knowledge forms the basis for the foundations of markets, institutions and organizations. Investment in and exploitation of knowledge remains a key driver for innovation, economic performance and social wellbeing Knowledge [can be understood] both as an inalienable asset and as resource5.

Whatever the rational human being does is purposeful, hence the concept of intentionality. Human existence is full of actions. These actions - the motives for carrying them out, the results of carrying them out, the consequences of not carrying them out, and so on define what we mean by human existence. But above all, these actions are guided by what is known about the several stages of the action, what is known as the intention for carrying out the actions, what is known as the goal/purpose, or the result in view for carrying out the actions, what is known as the possible consequences of not carrying out the actions, and so on. These constitute what was previously referred to as knowledge-base. In the views of Dalkir, what we refer to as knowledge-base can also be referred to as knowledge repositories. He writes:
Knowledge repositories are usually intranets or portals of some kind that serve to preserve, manage, and leverage organizational memory. Many different types of knowledge repositories are in use today, and they can be categorized in a number of different ways. In general, a knowledge repository will contain more than documents (document management system), data

(database), or records (record management system). A knowledge repository will contain valuable content that is a mix of tacit and explicit knowledge, based on the unique experiences of the individuals who are or were a part of that company as well as the know-how that has been tried, tested, and found to work in work situations6.

Social/Human development as a form of change is purposeful and goal-oriented. This requires that what is aimed at be known and the means chosen, that is, known ahead, and/or before specific actions are taken. These means and plans depend very absolutely on what is known by the society in the search for development. Hence, the level and degree of whatever change that is aimed at, and latter realised in any society, is limited by the level and degree of knowledge of those who control the most prominent and influential processes of development and social reconstruction. This is what is meant by the concept of knowledge as the hub of social reconstruction and development. This is better understood when one considers the concept of knowledge-base of a society as the reservoir of what the members of a society know. This includes: (i) what they take reality to be, (ii) what their description of the proper attitude toward reality is, (iii) what values are preferred to others in the choice of attitudes, (iv) what alternatives they conceive to exist in their attitude to reality, (v) what possibilities they conceive about themselves and their relationship to reality, (vi) what potentialities they see in their collaborative relationship in the struggle to grapple with the realities around them, and so on. One will not be too simplistic, in the negative sense of the word, to state that the more a society knows and is ready to improve and reconstruct what she thinks she knows, the more chances she has to develop and live more meaningfully. The other side of this claim holds as valid too. In view of this, Choi et al refer to knowledge both as an inalienable asset and as resource7. They need to be produced also. Knowledge-production: What, Who can, How, For Whom?
A. The What?

Knowledge is a human production. Knowledge is also consumed. Does this sound strange? No, or may be yes. But, no matter how strange it sounds it actually is a human production. It actually also is consumed like every other good. Hence, for a society that is truly human and alive thinking deeply about itself and its environments, and not leaving itself as an object to be acted upon by any person knowledge-production is an attempt to make available an improved conceptualization of reality. It is also a process of connecting and/or re-connecting what has been previously discovered (what is previously known) with the existing conceptual framework. By the term discovered here, I mean what is previously known, taken for granted. Knowledge-production as a process is meant to answer such questions regarding:

 How the newly discovered is same or similar with the given; How the newly discovered is dissimilar to what is given; The continuity or discontinuity in relationship between what

used to be and what is discovered;

Whether the framework which supports what is discovered

conflicts with or agrees with the framework that has been there;
The social and ideological relevance of the newly discovered.

This is mainly with regard to its conceptualization of a supreme being; conceptualization of the nature of man; conceptualization of the goal of man; and conceptualization of the means of actualizing this goal;
How what has been - the socially given ideas (conceptual

frameworks, Weltanschauungen) - can be re-conceptualized to suit the present social situation, challenges and prospects. Its necessary to state very sharply and clearly that the main task of knowledge-production lies in: (1) the provision of previously nonexistent grounds for truth-claims taken for granted; (2) the establishment and filling of missing conceptual links; and (3) the reconceptualization of the functional conceptual framework as the paradigm for the perception of nature and social actions. B. The Who can? For the purposes of the driving and fundamental role of knowledge, knowledge-production, though to a great extent a matter of accumulation, is still not what any person can be said to be qualified to do. There is a danger of extreme elitism in the understanding of who can qualify as a knowledge-producer. However, it should also not be overlaboured that some thanks to their training, formal skills, abilities to analyse a system already in existence, exposure, and knowledge of different forms of knowledgesystems should no doubt be regarded as better qualified as knowledge-producers. It will be very safe therefore to expect that those who can produce reliable knowledge have some qualifications by training. It is knowledge regard to challenges noted: interesting reading from Choi et al as they refer to both as an inalienable asset and as resource. With the basic and intrinsic features of knowledge and the these features pose for knowledge-producers, Choi et al

The catalysing complexity, fluidity and dynamism of knowledge are the great drivers that will cause and enable knowledge workers to rise from the bottom of the pyramid whether the application is in the area of knowledge research or in relation to the actors and players themselves, including countries. We believe that understanding of knowledge and the access to knowledge will enable the different actors and players

to position or reposition themselves in the globalized economy.8

Ours is an information and knowledge-driven world/society. Everything about this era - the people living in the era, the mode of living and co-existence, the source and dissemination of information, and so on - is very complex. It takes therefore some level of complexity as mental strength, to be able to produce knowledge for such a complex society. It seems very fitting then when one reads from Dalkir referring to knowledge-producers as knowledge workers 9 and we know how knowledgeable a workers needs to be able to live up to what he/she claims to be. C. The How? Knowledge-production is only one of several social processes. It always begins with the individual. According to Dalkir, a brilliant researcher, for example, has an insight that ultimately leads to a patent. Or a middle manager has an intuition about market trends that becomes the catalyst for an important new product concept. In each of these cases, an individuals personal, private knowledge is translated into valuable, public knowledge. This type of knowledge creation process takes place continuously and occurs at all levels of the society. In many cases, the creation of knowledge happens in an unexpected or unplanned way.10
D. The For Whom?

From the sociological understanding of knowledge already explained, the for whom? of knowledge-production becomes understandably self-evident. By this I mean that the process of knowledge-production, if well understood, leaves no one in doubt that knowledge is produced for social consumption. It is for everybody. Looking at its cumulative feature as a mechanism, knowledgeproduction is for generations present and future. Thus, it can be further appreciated what Choi et al meant by referring to knowledge as an inalienable asset and resource. And, who does not know that assets and resources are transferable and, like reservoirs, can be got back to too. Production as Reconstruction Knowledge-production is mainly a work of reconstruction. With regard to this, it is a work of comparison, fusion, critique, establishment of connections, and so on. As a process, it focuses on the placing, side-by side, of several ideas with the aim of providing some necessary relationships between ideas surrounding, founding, and giving meaning to events. With the re-founding of relationships among ideas and events, new horizons are produced. These new horizons themselves are both knowledge and vantage points for knowledge acquisition and expression. With further founding of groundings among ideas, seemingly separate horizons can be shown

to have meeting points. Such a point, one I refer to as a megahorizon, or encompassing framework(s) as Starbuck (148) prefers to call them.11 Mega-horizons gradually take the place of primordial principles in the ideology of any society. Mega-horizons are forms of knowledge. They are produced. The entire process involved is the process of knowledge-production. Mega-horizons provide widened and therefore previously non-existent grounds for truth-claims taken for granted. On a similar note, they can also provide grounds for some necessary adjustments. It is in the case of such adjustments that one understands more clearly what is meant by the statement that knowledge-production is, and can be seen as, reconstruction. This is because, when non-existent grounds are provided, and truth-claims are affected, then, the entire framework of the conception of an entire society may need to be retouched I mean, re-constructed. It is within this process of reconstruction that one then understands also what is meant in (2) above that the second of the three main tasks of knowledgeproduction is establishment and filling of missing links. When nonexistent grounds are provided for some truth-claims that are previously taken for granted, the process of knowledge-production makes it evident also that with the new framework, there is a conceptual gap between what has been and what is newly produced. It establishes a missing link which among other things questions the relevance of the things standing separately and thus yearns for a filling of this gap. This need for filling becomes a need for knowledge-producers at this stage. What is needed is to conceptually provide what is missing or remove what is blocking the flow of the newly re-constructed. Whether it is removing what is blocking the flow, or bringing in what is wholly not there, there is a reconstruction of a previously severed link. With regard to the first, Starbuck writes about himself: As I see it, my mind creates blinders that block out new, different, or inconsistent perceptions, so I must use extreme measures to tear away these blinders.12 The Problem of Consensus to what is produced Due to the social nature of knowledge, its production or creation consists of a social process between individuals in which knowledge transformation is not simply a unidirectional process but an interactive and spiral one.13 Dalkir rightly states that until knowledge is collectively accepted and institutionalized across an organization, group or society, organizational-level learning cannot occur and organizational memory cannot be developed. It needs to be noted therefore that:
As the community grows and its knowledge base is more broadly shared across the organization, the communitys practices become regularly, widely, and

sufficiently adopted so as institutionalized knowledge.14

to

be

described

as

The above views notwithstanding, or rather because of these views, there is always the problem of consensus in the process of knowledge-production and reconstruction. This is because the production of knowledge is within the social context. Different individuals within a society have different interests for different things they engage in and commit themselves to.15 Knowledge-production is evidently a social process and is affected by other social processes. Starbuck writes in this regard:
Social processes offer both opportunities and discouraging prospects for the production of knowledge. Opportunities come from the possibility of exerting influenceinfluence over social norms for how research should be conducted, influence over the ideas that people accept as knowledge, and influence over ones own career. Those who dislike the existing norms can try to change them. Those who believe they have discovered valuable insights can try to persuade others of their value. Those who want to achieve renown or respect can take advantage of the prevailing norms. Social processes influence both the conduct of research and the marketing of research findings to other people The social processes involved in the production of knowledge also create discouraging prospects insofar as produced knowledge is ephemeral, based mainly or wholly on contagion rather than truly useful insights. Because researchers need to believe they are pursuing potentially fruitful courses of action, they tend to join bandwagons.16

One understands so easily that such barriers and misdirected vested interests are crippling and undermining the process of knowledgeproduction in many departments in our institutions in Nigeria. Starbuck presents it so well and I intentionally quote him at much length:
It is far too easy for researchers to see the social sciences as mere games to be played for personal advantage such as the gaining of tenure or promotions or publishing in prestigious journals or even a sense of social belonging Researchers believe, or at least conjecture with trepidation, that their success depends on pursuing the currently fashionable topics and using the currently fashionable methods... For knowledge to develop, knowledge must actually exist, which means that there must be consensus that some things are known paradigms (Pfeffer 1993). However, many contemporary research norms and practices impede the creation of consensus. Researchers promote their careers by proposing and marketing new ideas with which they are personally identified. Researchers who have proposed and marketed ideas defend them

aggressively even if their ideas differ insignificantly from those of others.17

For the purpose of the desired consensus in the process of knowledge-production among knowledge producers, Starbuck argues very strongly for what I had earlier referred to as the fusion of horizons. In his view, such a fusion of horizons to arrive at megahorizons requires dialectical thinking. Dialectical thinking helps us to overcome our limitations to a small degree. It makes collaborative research possible, and the latter can stimulate and support dialectic thinking. Starbuck very rightly supposes that the possibility of this is based on a prior decision of what to do and for what purpose. Hence he stated that before the social sciences can make real progress, the researchers involved, as knowledge-producers, will have to decide that successful careers and the maintenance of status hierarchies should take second place to revealing research designs and careful assessments of research contributions. They will have to decide that they actually want progress to occur in the overall body of knowledge.18 In his words:
When two or more researchers start from different premises and advocate different theories, they expose their collaborators to alternative interpretations. Collaboration then encourages the researchers to reconcile their disparate theories, and they tend to do this by developing more holistic theories.19

Back to the Purposes of Knowledge-production and Reconstruction The very tightly related processes of knowledge-production and reconstruction should be geared toward better conceptualization of and approach (attitude) to the world around us. More practically, the aim of knowledge-production is social improvement and enhanced meaningful living in the society. As stated already, the main task of knowledge-production lies in: (1) the provision of previously nonexistent grounds for truth-claims taken for granted; (2) the establishment and filling of missing conceptual links; and (3) the reconceptualization of the functional conceptual framework as the paradigm for the perception of nature and social actions. This third aim of knowledge-production brings in the very important issue of normativity in the process of knowledgeproduction. Thus, knowledge-production serves also to compare some sociological causal factors of social change in the search for which has greater causal influence than others. For instance, when I argue for the pre-eminence of truth as a social value, it is an attempt at knowledge-production with committed normative bend. In such a case, knowledge-production is understood as synonymous with valuecreation. This aspect of knowledge-production is necessary because it establishes a very fundamental connexion between what is known,

what is prescribed (as norms) and the actions that flow from and are determined by these norms. Knowledge-production as a Response to Societal Jolts: Understanding Philosophy of Development Philosophy is understood here, not just as the worldview (Weltanschauung) of a people in which sense, philosophy depicts the actual metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, aesthetic, etc beliefs of a people the supreme beliefs of a people and their derivatives all of which constitute the dominant beliefs that underpin the social institutions, policies and social practices of a people.20 More than this, philosophy is used here as a critical reflective activity. It is the activity of examining or evaluating ideas and the generation of fresh ideas consequent on such examination and evaluation where necessary.21 It is thus a critical and systematic study of reality.22 Social and human development can be understood as denoting a type of change: a purposeful or goal-oriented change. Because its goal is purposeful or goal-oriented, social/human development presupposes not only knowledge of the end-state(s) but also some value judgment about the end-state.23 There are various factors that can influence the production of knowledge in a society. Of greater importance here, at least in little passing, is the process of knowledge-production resulting from social jolts and disturbances. This is better appreciated when one questions with some deeper intellectual commitment what specific factors have over-riding influence on the underdevelopment of the Nigerian society for instance. The mission of philosophy here, as the discipline committed to knowledge-production, is a consistent analysis and comparison of various factors in a search for discovery of the factor that has the highest influence on the actions of social agents in a society. An example of knowledge-production from this perspective is the attempt by Joseph Agbakoba to trace the primary cause of underdevelopment in Nigeria, especially in Igboland, to the structure, contents, and predominant culture, ideologies and the values that they project. In view of this, one understands knowledge-production as focusing on the long-lasting goal of letting the members of the society in question know the connection between what is for them a normal way of life and perception of reality and the improvements which they desire but have been failing to actualize.
Jolts create opportunities for change. They provide opportunities for some organizations to gain first-mover advantages or to escape from declining environments. They disrupt routines, energize members, and mobilize advocates From a researchers perspective, jolts constitute natural experiments that reveal obscure or

inactive properties. Jolts also expose differences among overtly similar leaders, belief systems, and organizations, and they reveal hidden boundary conditions. Jolts teach lessons about system dynamics; they activate processes that seek to restore prior equilibria and to establish new equilibria; they show the symbiotic interactions between organizations and their environments.24

Conclusion: True Philosophy and its Mission Every true and committed philosophical enquiry has one primary mission namely the consistent attention to the (predominant) conceptualization of reality by the human society. This attention may, and indeed always, require both a critique of what is there, and a fusion of several available horizons. The mission of any true philosophical endeavour therefore is not all about the exaggeration of points of difference among ideologies and worldviews based on any form of conceptualized incompatibilism of the points of seeming difference. The mission of any true philosophical endeavour is rather a patient consideration and mutual enrichment of various, useful, and internally consistent, ideas through the process of going beyond the differences with the aim of establishing and consolidating the points of agreement. This is enhanced when the elites as the literally better placed knowledge-producers employ in real practice the dialectical principle that gives room for the emergence of syntheses after anti-theses. This is the fusion of conceptions that leads to the production and emergence of knowledge. It is the readiness for this production as synthesis and reconstruction which philosophy and philosophers should have, that empowers philosophers, more than any others in the social sciences, to have the leading role and mission of knowledge-production. It needs to be reiterated that this mission should aim at longlasting improvements in the society rather than aimless publications for fear of perishing. Such is the true aim and mission of philosophy in any society. Thus, they are failures already who claim to be philosophers but have no such aims to assist in bettering their societies. Because of them Socrates told Simmias and Cebes in the Phaedo: there are many who carry the mystic wand, but few are truly inspired: and these, in my view, are none other than the true philosophers.25 Those truly inspired produce lasting knowledge. For this reason, Ben Okri submitted very clearly: Masters are known by their deeds.26 Lasting knowledge helps in bettering the social situation of the society of these producers. The betterment of their condition is the primary social function of truly inspired philosophers. Those who simply publish for fear of perishing still end up publishing and perishing since their views were aimless: have no worthy or dignified goal, no focus, no structure, and no real content. They are not really appreciated even when they force themselves and their

ideas on people. What they publish do not have long-lasting values. They publish and still perish because deep minds discover how shallow they are, after all, deep calls on deep. In view of this, I conclude with the words of William H. Starbuck:
The challenges of producing knowledge about people and social systems are immense and changing, and they can only be surmounted by people who see social science research as a high calling that deserves their best efforts.27

Endnotes and References

____________________________________

1. This is at the centre of what is referred to as the sociology of knowledge. See for instance Peter Berger & Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd. 1979, pp. 13, 15. 2. Agbakoba, J.C.A. Philosophy and Development with particular Reference to Traditional African Ethical Outlook and Economic Activities, Lecture Note, 2009, p.4. 3. Starbuck, William H. The Production of Knowledge: The Challenges of Social Science Research, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, p.151. 4. Berger, Peter & Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd. 1979, p.13. 5. Choi, Chong Ju, Carla C.J.M., and Caroline Y.L. Wong. Knowledge Entanglements: An International and Multidisciplinary Approach, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, p. xi. 6. Dalkir, Kimiz. Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. New York: Elsevier Inc., 2005, p.172. 7. Choi et al. Knowledge Entanglements, pp. 120, 122. 8. Chong, et al. Knowledge Entanglements, pp. 123-124. 9. Dalkir, Kimiz. Knowledge Management. p.148. 10.Dalkir, Kimiz. Knowledge Management. p.52. 11.Starbuck, William H. The Production of Knowledge, p.148. 12.Starbuck, William H. The Production of Knowledge, pp.144-145. 13.Kimiz Dalkir. Knowledge Management. p. 53. 14.See Huysman and DeWit, in Dalkir. Knowledge Management. p.115. 15.See Jrgen Habermas central thesis in Knowledge and Human Interest and in Theory and Practice. In the latter he wrote: The interests which direct knowledge preserve the unity of relevant system of action and experience vis--vis discourse; they retain the latent reference of theoretical knowledge to action by way of the transformation of opinions into theoretical statements and their transformation into knowledge oriented toward action. Jrgen

Habermas, Theory and Practice. Trans. by John Viertel, 1996, Cambridge: Polity Press, p.20. 16.Starbuck, William H. The Production of Knowledge, pp.164-165. 17.Starbuck, William H. The Production of Knowledge, p.166. 18.Starbuck, William H. The Production of Knowledge, p.166. 19.Starbuck, William H. The Production of Knowledge, p.146. 20.Agbakoba, J.C.A. Philosophy and Development with particular Reference to Traditional African Ethical Outlook and Economic Activities, Lecture Note, 2009, p.1. 21.Agbakoba, J.C.A. Philosophy and Development with particular Reference to Traditional African Ethical Outlook and Economic Activities, Lecture Note, 2009, p.2. 22.F.O.C. Njoku. Philosophy versus Art (Communication) in Plato: A Concern in Information Ethics, in B. Ewelu (ed.), Philosophy: Of What Relevance?, Enugu: Delta Publications, 2009, p.141. 23.Agbakoba, J.C.A. Philosophy and Development with particular Reference to Traditional African Ethical Outlook and Economic Activities, Lecture Note, 2009, p.3. 24.Starbuck, William H. The Production of Knowledge, p.153. 25.Plato. Phaedo, in The Dialogues of Plato, Intro. by Erich Segal, New York: Bentam Dell, 2006, p. 86. 26.Ben Okri. Starbook: A Magical Tale of Love and Regeneration, Lagos: Farafina, 2007, p.128. 27.Starbuck, William H. The Production of Knowledge, p.169.