Papers by CHIBUIKEM CHARLES NNAEME
The 2011 crises in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Ivory Coast, Libya and 2008 Zimbabwe c... more The 2011 crises in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Ivory Coast, Libya and 2008 Zimbabwe crises provide grounds that contextualize the true nature of the African Union's (AU) legitimacy claim. Several scholars who either argue for or against AU's legitimacy claim often augment their diverse positions with nearly plausible rationales. However, there has been little exploration of the underlying factors that might have informed the diversity in positions. In other words, this paper will tend to identify the foundation that necessitates alleged doubts on the AU's legitimacy. We argue that questions on the legitimacy of AU stems from lack of grassroots participation in various countries that subsequently form the Union. Isolated conception of AU's legitimacy is incomplete without thorough evaluation of the legitimacy of its constituent members.
This article is concerned with how we can know about the existence of God. In attempting to do th... more This article is concerned with how we can know about the existence of God. In attempting to do this, the article will single out two medieval thinkers, Anselm and Aquinas, and will examine their stances on the subject. The former holds, as exemplified in his ontological proof,
that human beings can rationally know the existence of God, whilst the latter objects to the former’s claim by proffering that human beings can know God’s existence through effects of God’s creation. Over the years these positions have appealed to people who defend either strand of the argument. Such a followership makes worthwhile my efforts to contribute to the ongoing debate. It is my intention to show the argument of each of these positions and indicate which is more plausible to human beings. It is vital to note that Anselm and Aquinas
both accept the existence of God; therefore, the existence of God is not in question for them. The article will only concentrate on where the two thinkers differ in terms of how human beings can know God’s existence.
Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article challenges idealists’ philosophy that human beings can prove God’s existence from the concept, God, as epitomised by Anselm’s ontological argument. The critique of the argument through the application of
Aquinas’s realism exposes the limitedness of the human beings in epistemological conception of the absolute metaphysical reality.
Uploads
Papers by CHIBUIKEM CHARLES NNAEME
that human beings can rationally know the existence of God, whilst the latter objects to the former’s claim by proffering that human beings can know God’s existence through effects of God’s creation. Over the years these positions have appealed to people who defend either strand of the argument. Such a followership makes worthwhile my efforts to contribute to the ongoing debate. It is my intention to show the argument of each of these positions and indicate which is more plausible to human beings. It is vital to note that Anselm and Aquinas
both accept the existence of God; therefore, the existence of God is not in question for them. The article will only concentrate on where the two thinkers differ in terms of how human beings can know God’s existence.
Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article challenges idealists’ philosophy that human beings can prove God’s existence from the concept, God, as epitomised by Anselm’s ontological argument. The critique of the argument through the application of
Aquinas’s realism exposes the limitedness of the human beings in epistemological conception of the absolute metaphysical reality.
that human beings can rationally know the existence of God, whilst the latter objects to the former’s claim by proffering that human beings can know God’s existence through effects of God’s creation. Over the years these positions have appealed to people who defend either strand of the argument. Such a followership makes worthwhile my efforts to contribute to the ongoing debate. It is my intention to show the argument of each of these positions and indicate which is more plausible to human beings. It is vital to note that Anselm and Aquinas
both accept the existence of God; therefore, the existence of God is not in question for them. The article will only concentrate on where the two thinkers differ in terms of how human beings can know God’s existence.
Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article challenges idealists’ philosophy that human beings can prove God’s existence from the concept, God, as epitomised by Anselm’s ontological argument. The critique of the argument through the application of
Aquinas’s realism exposes the limitedness of the human beings in epistemological conception of the absolute metaphysical reality.