Browsing by Author "Magero, Jacob"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Contextual Limitations in Sandra Harding's Epistemological Framework and How They Can be Overcome
    (EdinBurg Peer Reviewed Journals and Books Publishers, 2024-05) Mulwa, Beatrice Jannie; Magero, Jacob; Oyigo, Josephat
    This paper aims to investigate the contextual constraints in Sandra Harding's epistemology and suggest methods to get around them. The standpoint theory developed by Harding highlights the significance of taking historical, social, and cultural contexts into account when producing knowledge. This strategy essentializes and homogenizes various experiences and viewpoints. The study offers potential solutions to these constraints by critically examining the drawbacks of intersectionality and feminist standpoint theory. This entails embracing a more nuanced understanding of power dynamics, encouraging inclusive and diverse viewpoints, and acknowledging the complexities of multiple intersecting identities. The study aims to strengthen and enhance Harding's epistemology by addressing its contextual limitations and promoting a more equitable and inclusive approach to knowledge production. To achieve this goal, this study employs the laws of thought: three guiding principles: the non-contradiction rule, the excluded middle, and the identity principle. The study is primarily a conceptual analysis that proceeded by library study, employing the typical philosophical argumentation approach of evaluation, analysis, synthesis, reflection, and philosophical speculation. By highlighting the weaknesses of Harding's epistemology and suggesting possible remedies, this study contributes to a broader debate on the potential limitations of epistemology. It offers insights into developing more robust epistemological frameworks that promote social justice and inclusivity in knowledge inquiries, practices, and justification.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Contradiction in Kant’s Hierarchical Racism and Egalitarian Humanism
    (Journal of Sociology, Psychology & Religious Studies, 2024-09) Ndole, Philip Ochieng; Magero, Jacob; Namwambah, Tom
    Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), a prominent and influential German Enlightenment philosopher, believes that white people are superior to non-white people. He divides mankind into four groups: "white" (Europeans), "yellow" (Asians), "black" (Africans), and "red" (American Indians). Kant claims that other races, except the white race, are unable to acquire moral maturity due to a lack of talent (a gift of nature). He argues that whites themselves have all themotivationand talents, while blackscan receiveeducation,but only as slaves. NativeAmericans cannot receivean education, theydon't careabout anything,theyare lazy. This contradicts his egalitarian humanism. He proposes the belief in universal democracy and categorical moral imperative, where he argues that everyoneshould be seen and treatedas “ends”,not as means to an end. One should alsoact as one would want all other people to act towards him or her, and according to the maxim one would wish the action to be a universal law.This paperadopts the laws of thought, that is, theprinciple of identity, the principle of non-contradiction,and the principle of excluded middle tointerrogate and evaluate the consistent tenability of Kantian hierarchical racism on one side and egalitarian humanism, espoused in categorical imperative, on the other side. The conclusion is that thereis a contradiction.