Reading Philosophy With Ometa

FACEBOOK ASKED me WHAT'S ON YOUR MIND? 👇👇👇👇

Well I come across the following headline from BBC World service today and I have this to say. If Formal President Trump made it back to the white house, for sure he have the potential to adress global peace and security especially the threat Iran pose to Middle East. However, it's also a test to the moral status of President Trump as a moral agent. To prove if his ambition for number one citizen of United State of America once again is to seek for recognition by the brake away world power, the newly formed body by the leaders of the anti-Western world and its allies or to uphold democracy and other core values of the united state of America and other Western allies. And I believe the later will earn Mr Trump both domestic and international credit. Thus no matter how they both try to romance, Mr. Trump must play with caution when handling Russia/Ukraine conflict. I'm saying this because before the unjustified invasion of Ukraine by Russia, I know what I saw in the reams even when it was very few number of the world population is aware of what was coming, when the two elephants involve in this conflict were still playing their secret ludo. Of course I made a post about it in this app search it out. There is no president of the United States of America in his or her moral sense will be in support of what Putin did to Ukraine. In as much as I'm a fan to Mr. Trump, it will be imprudent and inappropriate to use because he wants to discredit or make Biden administration a joke and abandon or deny justice to Ukraine. I see absolutely nothing to justify Putin's activities in Ukraine. In fact, such a thing will be anti America, anti democracy and anti free world. I saw the coming of Russia invasion of Ukraine and I've been following the war from the beginning. I'm aware of the game played internationally. Innocent Ukrainians were caught in a cross fire between two giant elephants involved. Any American government that turn its back on Ukraine did not just fail America, but the entire world, they did not fail Ukraine, but the entire West and I believe Trump is not going to make such mistake. Because the devastation is going to be dangerous not just to Ukraine, but to the West, to America and to the entire free world.

A PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH TO THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE NIGERIA CIVIL WAR A MUST READ IF YOU'VE LISTENED TO DIFFERENT STORIES ABOUT THE WAR BUT YOU ARE NOT SURE OF THE TRUE ACCOUNT. HERE IS AN ARTICLE TO HELP YOU DETECT THE TRUE STORY.👇👇👇
A few days ago, after touring the social media Facebook and TikTok, I come across some posts. Though not today that I've been seeing this kind of post but this time, my spirit was moved to write concerning what they were discussing in the Post. I said to myself isn't a right time to begin pinpointing this lies. So I decide to write this article.
At first, I was reluctant and that was why it took me some days to publish it. Because I know how bitter the truth is to many especially to the category of people the article is to adress, the Igbo people of South Eastern Nigeria. It's going to hurt no doubt but do I have any choice? No one is hated most in a society than the one who exposes lies. But I say to God is this what you created in me, making expository content, exposing lies in the midst of people especially people most members are cruel and excels in lies. To have my peace, I must expose lies. That's simply how I was made.
In life, every social phenomenon that affect a group of people or a set of members of a given society is influenced by either appealing to emotions or appealing to fact. Two things can make you to either appeal to emotion or to a fact. These two things are knowledge and ignorance. Truth when accepted leads to knowledge while lies when accepted leads to ignorance. A people that are comfortable with lies will always live in a state of mirage, confusion, illusion and manipulations. Knowledge a justified true belief exposes you to a fact of a situation. When you come in contact with the truth of a matter, you become knowledgeable of that situation. By knowledge I comprehend that fighting a civil war does not make us less human as war has always been part of the human nature, neither are those who did not meet their expectations of the war only people that have lose a war. That people fought a war is not an issue, the most dangerous aspect of war is the emotional and psychological impact of a war. My thinking about the civil war changed the day I came to this knowledge. The war was fought for just three years but after fifty years, many Nigerians believe that the war has ended but 90% of Igbo youths whose fathers fought to separate from Nigeria are of the believe that the war is still with us. So what exactly made it so? This is what ignorant assimilated from so many accumulated lies can produce. This and more will be discussed in this article.
My name is Ometa Tabansi Mikah'el. This is my fourth year in the university of Ibadan studying philosophy and public affairs. In this noble discipline, there are questions that dominate each of the introductory course. These questions are: "why are things the way they are? Why did the social phenomenon occurs and what gave the impetus to the causation." By the way these questions are most common in political philosophy. Any question as regards to social phenomenon in political philosophy is a philosophical question. Though can be answered politically, but you can never get it corect without a philosophically approach. In fact any question of why did a social phenomenon occur and what give impetus to its causation is a philosophical question and not even a political questionsl. The reason we have been getting the answer to our question on the root cause of the civil war is because we have always try to answer it politically instead philosophically.
Normativism is a feature in philosophy centered on three other sub feature namely aesthetics, moral and political. Aesthetics ask the question what is beautiful and why? The second one Moral philosophy ask the question what is morally right or wrong and the third one is the political philosophy which ask the question how should a legitimate society be structured or what make a society structure legitimate? I'm going to limit this discussion on moral and political philosophy. This is due to the fact that the discussion is going to center on the question of why did civil war occur in Nigeria and what gave the impetus to the causation. These two questions revolve round moral and political issues. Because this is what Philosophy as a normative in contrast to prescriptive explain.
It's about time we begin to correct some certain knowledge we have been holding to be true whereas it's not. A lots of stories has been told about the the account of the civil war. Hardly to read any account of the war without a bias. This seems to be the major reason the generations after the war often feel they're still at war with fellow citizens. They feel hated, marginalized and to a great extent, tools in the hand of politicians for political power and economic strength and regrettably, this has been like this for generations since the end of the war. Those who have the skills to document the events of the war have always been good story tellers.
An account like "there was a country" by Chinua Achebe is example of a work of such a great historian. Mr. Achebe was more of a historian than a rationalist. Half of the book "there was a country" was used to criticize Nigeria, Britain and international community while the other half was used to display his literary devices and skils. Devices like poems were used to draw pity. Other tools including fallacies most common one being demagagurey. Here Mr. Achebe try to manipulate the people's psychology. He succeeded in exploiting cognitive, bias and emotional response such as fear and tribalism among the Igbo youths. This way, Chinua Achebe appeal to the emotions of Ndi Igbo leading to fear, prejudice and ignorance. As I read "there was a country," I try figuring out if there is a place the writer try to approach the root of the war philosophically and if there is such a philosophical perspective, it's partially at all. A story you aim to tell nothing but the truth should be apolitical rather than political.
Britain the Nigeria colonial master handed over Nigeria to civilians. Notable individuals like Alahaji Tafawa Belowa, Sir Ahmad Belo, Dr. Nnamudi Azikiwe, Chief Obafemi Awolowo among others were some Nigerians that played significant role when Britain handed over Nigeria to Nigerians. Also, these civiliana were not uneducated Nigerias, they were scolars. When you here them speak most time, you notice that most of them if not all of them were political philosophers. If you study Nigeria post independent speeches by these gentlemen, the following questions were prevailing in their political thought. Question like what are the best way for a society to be structured in other to allow human flourishing? What is the appreciate division of right and responsibilities? How should liberty and equality be handled. The above questions are not just philosophical questions, but normative one. The problem here is that we sometimes ask a philosophical question and approach it scientifically or politically.
Philosophy, a discipline that sprouts forth from human curiosity and quest to know the truth about the ultimate nature of reality make it difficult to approach any philosophical questions with prejudice bias lies and hypocrisy. It was an attempt to approach the above questions with deceit that make it backfired.
The questions what is the best way for the society to be structured? What is the appropriate division of right and responsibilities? And how should liberty and equality be handled were often asked by the political actors of the post independent Nigeria either directly or indirectly. But asking these questions is not where the problem is, the problem lies on our approach to this questions. We often asked these questions collectively, and answer them individually. This is because most of those in control of government affairs, its managerial system and parastatals had secret agendas. You may ask is there anytime Dr. Nnamudi Azikiwe, Chief Obafemi Awolowo or Abubaka atafawa Belowa directly asked the above questions. They might not ask these questions directly, but it was asked when everyone of them in their speech reflect on possible evedence of marginalization and inclusiveness of members of the Nigerian society. The problem aroused from the above questions would've been resolved amicably if the political actors of that time sincerely adapt the same answer given by Thomas Hubs in his book Leviathan and other books written by philosophers after him like John Locke social contract theory and and the theory of justice by John Rawls.
Thomas Hubs asked the question what would the world be like without a state, is it going to be better or worst than a world with a form of government? Hubs wanted us to imagine about what he called a state of nature, a situation where there is no form of any governing body. According to Hubs, in the state of nature, people are at liberty to get what they want no matter the process it take because everyone in the state of nature are roughly equal. There is no government to make law and implement punishment. In fact according to Hubs, in the state of nature live have no value. Thus he said, in the state of nature life is solitary, poor, nasty brutish and short. Thus he argued that in other to get out of the state of nature, man need a body that regulate human interactions. But cooperation is need in other to achieve this. This was answered by John Rawls and John Locke in their books the theory of justice and theory of justice respectfully. in his book the theory of justice. Rawls ask, how should the benefits of living together in a community be distributed so to realize the justice required. Rawls said that a just society is the one that would be chosen by rational, free and equal people who chose to contact into. But there is a problem here. In every human society, all fingers are not equal. We are born with different potentials and abilities. Some people are wealthy while some are poor. Some people are fortunate not because they are more intelligent than others but because some societal phenomenon made them to have privilege others did not have. For example, during the slave trade, some people who have close contact to the European slave masters became very rich by selling other fellow man to the Europeans. Making communities who chose not to do so because their cultures forbid it less privileged in handling had currencies. Another perfect example is the introduction of indirect rule system in West Africa by British colony. The warrant chiefs became wealthy families after the independent because they were opportuned to be made warrant chiefs, a privilege many did not have. Some people have such good relationship others did not have. Building our society without first considering all this conditions will obviously lead to building it in a position of inequality. Because those who are wealthy before the establishment of the society like in the case of the warrant chiefs will always use their wealth to buy and secure for themselves both economic, political, educational and social privilege. So Rawls conclude that to build a just society, we should consider putting ourselves in a condition where we have less information about our position in the society. This Rawls called this the veil of ignorance. The fairest way to divide the national cake is to ask you to divide it not knowing which piece you're going to get. If you divide the cake not knowing which part will be yours, you will be forced to divide it equally.
You see, it's easy to blame Britain for our predicament because we think accepting our vices and errors will make us subhumans. Yes Britain have interest in Nigeria, but we can not take away the fact that Britain also want Nigeria to succeed as a formal colony. The interest of Britain to Nigeria including economic but the major interest Britain have for any of its formal colony any where in the world is to resist anything that will make its formal colony a threat to the British interest on the global affairs. Every other relation Britain have with its formal colonies are purely business.
We often talk about Britain sucking our oil. Britain is not the only country that do oil business with Nigeria. The only thing is that Britain have more influence than other countries when it comes to having access to our oil as a formal colony outside that, every other contract is purely business. Price of every natural resources is internationally regulated be it solid minerals or oil and gas. I never read that Britain forced Nigeria to sell oil to them less than what the price of crude oil is sold internationally. America and other countries also buy oil from Nigeria in large quantity, as we often say that why Britain merge South and North is because of the resources in the South. Isn't the same way Britain buy the Nigerian oil that America also buy. Why not say the same to America and other countries that buy oil from Nigeria. What brought us to where we are today as a people is our human nature and not any Britain. We should know this and know peace. The colonial masters observed quite alright that the West were more exposed than the North, they handed over power to the North but made sure that those who are in the position to share the national cake were Southerners in which Igbos plaid major role as of that time.
While the topic on what are the best way for a society to be structured in other to allow human flourishing, what is the appropriate division of right and responsibilities and how should liberty and equality be handled, all aim in founding the right answer to how to structure a just society, South Eastern Nigeria were in the position to share the national cake which if was well carried out appropriately would've answered the above questions. At this time, many Nigerians felt marginalized and left behind. As a result, some were calling for disintegration of Nigeria, Igbos stood and defend the amalgamation and logically argued against anyone calling for disintegration of Nigeria. The Igbos were doing this without knowing that they're acting under the veil of ignorance. They took there position in Nigeria then as an opportunity to take monopoly of others and a section of the country oligopoly.
Why do I say that Igbos were in the position to share the national cake? The number of Igbos in the executive council, senior officers in the army and government parastatals is more than all the tribes in Nigeria put together. This made Igbos control military, economic and political power. But it did not end there, Igbos begin to feel that they earn their position in Nigeria by merits and begin to use derogatory words on fellow Nigerians. This are the attitude that lead to coup d'état and counter coup.
Military will always say that the reason they carry out coup and seize the government is to remove corrupt civilians in power. So you begin to wonder how is it that a military who carried out coup with the aim of eliminating a corrupt administration became selective in executing those tagged corrupt civilians. That's fighting corruption with corruption. This clearly explain why Igbo man who champion the sustainance of the amalgamation of Nigeria ask the following question openly and answer it individually. "What are the best way for a society to be structured in other to allow human flourishing? What is the appreciate division of right and responsibilities? How should liberty and equality be handled." Igbo man accepted the amalgamation wholeheartedly because he believe he was in better position to take monopoly of others not knowing that his position in Nigeria is to divide the national cake not knowing the position or role he will play when power eventually balance. That's what the political philosophers called the veil of ignorance. Had it been that Igbos forgot self and structure the society to allow human flourishing for every part of Nigeria, appropriately dividing rights and responsibilities and handle liberty and equality with caution, by now no section of Nigeria will feel marginalized including Ndi Igbo. During the time Igbos handled political power in Nigeria, everything Hub said about life in the state of nature like solitary, poor, nasty brutish and short were witnessed in Nigeria. All this is because Igbo man wants to be in total control. Throughout my life, my experience from other cultures around the world show that the more educated a people are, the more civilized and tolerance they will be to fellow. But that is not the case with the Igbos. The more educated an Igbo man is, the more he thinks he is better of than every other person especially a set of people in Igbo land. I came from the part of Igbo land Ebonyi state to be precise people from my state have witnessed this form of discrimination, segregation and degradation from this sets of Igbo communities, so I'm speaking out of experience.
I will not end this article without expressing my disappointment of some foreign nationals about the Nigeria social phenomenon. some people around the world are falling for the lies and deceptive image IPOB painted about the Nigeria civil war. If you have falling for their lies and deception please come close I have a message for you especially those in the Holy land. Some of them came to your country, marry or befriend your women and flood them on social media to be shouting Biafra! Biafra! Here is summary of what you need to know about Igbo in the region Nigeria before you jump into conclusion. I'm particularly from the southeastern Nigeria the Igbo territory that have wanted to break away from Nigeria to form an independent state. My life experience in this region explain why no matter how bard people reasoning ability is, there will always be someone or few people among them that uses their right senses. I rather be with few who stick to the truth and are ready to accept their mistakes and move no matter how hurt is the truth than following majority who are conversant with lies and uses it to attract pity from sympathizers.
By Ometa Tabansi Mikah'el.

"THE SELF MADE POOR MAM ONCE IN HIS TIME LIVED LIKE RICH MEN, LIKEWISE THE SELF MADE RICH MAN ONCE IN HIS LIFE TIME LIVED LIKE POOR MEN"👇👇👇👇

Some people are born rich, some people are made rich while some people acquired rich. It seems Aristotle once made similar assertion. He said, "Although we must be fortunate enough to have parents and fellow citizens who help us become virtuous, we ourselves share much of the responsibility for acquiring and exercising the virtues." He made this statement while explaining that the ultimate purpose of every man is to attain eudemonia or virtuous activities. He made mentioned of three factors that can make us archive happiness in life. The first two have to do with being fortune. He said that we must be fortunate enough to have parents, friends and fellow citizens to help us archive happiness. The third factor is ourselves. The third factor is very crucial because according to Aristotle even if we're fortunate enough to have parents and good citizens "we ourselves share much of the responsibility for acquiring and exercising the virtues."
This means that a person who is fortunate enough to have good parents, friends and fellow citizens may severely lacking in virtues activities or eudemonia. But the person who share the much responsibility to archive and exercise eudaemonic can never be defective in happiness or virtuous activities.
Now looking at the above, I've come to understand that no matter how poor you are, remember this two things, this has proven to be the case.
Always plan for the little drop of income occasionally touch your hand no matter how small. Otherwise, you will live a live of big men within that short moment or period the little drop are coming or touches your hand. This is how most poor men especially those that were not fortunate enough to have parents, friends and fellow citizens are made. But on the contrary, planing for the little drop of income occasionally touch your hand will make you poor within a short period because every Kobo spent is in accordance with a plan. Again , this is how most rich men especially those that were not fortunate enough to have parents, friends and fellow citizens are made.

Ometa Tabansi Mikah'el

PEOPLE CAN GO TO MOUNTAINS AND MILES TO MAKE POINT OUT OF NO POINT JUST TO MAKE YOUR POINT POINTLESS IN OTHER TO WIN AN ARGUMENT. IT JUST HAPPENED IN THE RESENT AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE 👇👇👇👇👇

You see one thing I've got to understand about this life is that a real enemy will always make your very profound argument sound like a joke. It's a common future of the idle of the market place according to Francis Bacon "These idols are based on false conceptions which are derived from public human communication. They enter our minds quietly by a combination of words and names, so that it comes to pass that not only does reason govern words, but words react on our understanding."
President Trump was emphasizing on a very important global issue but it seems those in charge of this interview were not ready to listen to his point of view because they have already determine to render his point pointless and his opposition doing everything to prove point out of no point. We are all aware, it has been debated several time in united nations our world is seriously facing the problem of illegal immigrants which has caused problems and serious damages to countries around the world ranging from human trafficking, drug pushing, border insecurity etc. and this are the things president Truman is point at. My people say where a child is point at while crying, if the mother is not there, father will be there. President Trump have been point at this problem as a serious issue confronting America but opposition have always make it sound as if it's not an issue this immersion matter is not just a threat to America, but a global is. The reason people will always fall for the deception of those that oppose Trump on his border and immigration policy is because this fact Francis Bacon stated about the idols of the market place according to Francis Bacon, "it is by dis­course that men associate; and words are imposed according to the apprehension of the vulgar. And therefore the ill and unfit choice of words wonderfully obstructs the understanding. Nor do the defini­tions or explanations wherewith in some things learned men are wont to guard and defend themselves, by any means set the matter right. But words plainly force and overrule the understanding, and throw all into confusion and lead men away into numberless empty controversies and idle fancies." Just for the Democrats to win an argument, they want to use words to render all the good ideas of president Truman nothing.

Ometa Tabansi Mikah'el