Related questions
§ Anthropology is the study of man. Do you agree?
§ The anthropological study of man does not give a true picture of man. Discuss
§ Has empirical anthropology satisfactorily answered the question, what is man?
INTRODUCTION
The nature and vocation of the discipline of Anthropology is somewhat controversial. It is an issue of philosophical debate whether it truly carries out the study of man. In this write-up, these issues would be evaluated.
THE ETYMOLOGY AND DEFINITION OF ANTHROPOLOGY
Anthropology as a word, derives from the etymological combination of ‘anthropos-logos’. ‘Anthropos’ basically means ‘man’ while ‘logos’ variously means ‘study’, ‘science’, ‘reason’, ‘theory’ or ‘discourse’. Hence, the literal translation of its etymological constructions (aside other options) is ‘study of man’. In other words, Anthropology can be defined simply as, ‘the social discipline which embarks on the ultimate aim of studying man’.
BRIEF HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF ANTHROPOLOGY
Aside the fact that Anthropology became a well-grounded and independent academic discipline in the 19th Century A.D.; it’s beginning, dates back to antiquity, as anthropological ideas were extracted from the experiences of explorers, philosophers and adventurers. Some of these ideas which helped to understand society are given thus;
§ Xenophanes – Whom as the first anthropologist said that, ‘society is mean’s creation’; ‘the gods are human images formed in the mind’ e.t.c.
§ Herodotus – Whom brought in the racial dimension into the anthropological perspective of man, believed that, ‘the Greek way of life was superior to all others’.
§ Socrates – Whom postulated the anthropological dictum of ‘man know thyself’ believed that ‘knowledge produces virtue and virtue brings happiness’.
§ Plato - Whose ideology of man being a soul structured into three parts says, justice is the product of each part playing its role effectively.
§ Protagoras – asserted his anthropological dictum of ‘homo mensura’ – man is the measure of all things. Thus, man determines the status-quo.
BRANCHES/SUB-SCHOOLS OF ANTHROPOLOGY
Anthropology as a mature field of study divides into two broad schools; of which each school has its own sub-branches. Highlighting this, would help us understand the nature of Anthropology as well as what it really does. This would clarify, if it really studies man or not;
A. Physical Anthropology
This is concerned with ‘concrete’ things and it sub-divides into;
i. ‘Human paleontology’ – Extinction of life.
ii. ‘Human Variation’ – Human anatomy.
B. Socio-Cultural Anthropology
This deals with cultures, traditions, lifestyles and so on. It subdivides into;
i. ‘Prehistoric archeology’ – Human remains.
ii. ‘Anthropological Linguistics’ – Language analysis.
iii. ‘Ethnology’ – Comparative analysis of culture.
The above is a straight-forward analysis of the business of Anthropology, as the ‘study of man’. But, now goes the question, ‘has Anthropology really carried out the study of man’?
THE FAILURE OF ANTHROPOLOGY
Concerning the study of man, it is clear that Anthropology has not been able to differentiate between man’s works or activities and man himself. Empirical Anthropology has failed to answer the question ‘what is man’? as, the study of man which ought to penetrate his essence (that which is intrinsically objective to all men), ended up on the wrong path by studying other things relating to man like his works, culture, artifacts, environment and so on. Therefore, for man to be studied anthropologically the question ‘what is man’, must be answered by focusing on the objective nature of man and not his subjective works and activities.
PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: A SOLUTION
Empirical anthropology cannot really study man because; it is not armed with the equipment to do so. ‘Metaphysics’ which is the science of man is the right tool to explore the fundamental and transcendental (objective) structures of man. Hence, when metaphysics as the core of all philosophies, becomes attached to anthropology; what results is ‘philosophical anthropology’ - an infrastructure of discipline, well armed to effectively carry out an objective ‘study of man’.
CONCLUSION
It is clear that anthropology does not give a true picture of man, as it was found studying man’s works instead of his essence. However, with the help of metaphysics in anthropology, an adequate study of man, as well as a satisfactory answer to the question ‘what is man’ can be presented.
§ Anthropology is the study of man. Do you agree?
§ The anthropological study of man does not give a true picture of man. Discuss
§ Has empirical anthropology satisfactorily answered the question, what is man?
INTRODUCTION
The nature and vocation of the discipline of Anthropology is somewhat controversial. It is an issue of philosophical debate whether it truly carries out the study of man. In this write-up, these issues would be evaluated.
THE ETYMOLOGY AND DEFINITION OF ANTHROPOLOGY
Anthropology as a word, derives from the etymological combination of ‘anthropos-logos’. ‘Anthropos’ basically means ‘man’ while ‘logos’ variously means ‘study’, ‘science’, ‘reason’, ‘theory’ or ‘discourse’. Hence, the literal translation of its etymological constructions (aside other options) is ‘study of man’. In other words, Anthropology can be defined simply as, ‘the social discipline which embarks on the ultimate aim of studying man’.
BRIEF HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF ANTHROPOLOGY
Aside the fact that Anthropology became a well-grounded and independent academic discipline in the 19th Century A.D.; it’s beginning, dates back to antiquity, as anthropological ideas were extracted from the experiences of explorers, philosophers and adventurers. Some of these ideas which helped to understand society are given thus;
§ Xenophanes – Whom as the first anthropologist said that, ‘society is mean’s creation’; ‘the gods are human images formed in the mind’ e.t.c.
§ Herodotus – Whom brought in the racial dimension into the anthropological perspective of man, believed that, ‘the Greek way of life was superior to all others’.
§ Socrates – Whom postulated the anthropological dictum of ‘man know thyself’ believed that ‘knowledge produces virtue and virtue brings happiness’.
§ Plato - Whose ideology of man being a soul structured into three parts says, justice is the product of each part playing its role effectively.
§ Protagoras – asserted his anthropological dictum of ‘homo mensura’ – man is the measure of all things. Thus, man determines the status-quo.
BRANCHES/SUB-SCHOOLS OF ANTHROPOLOGY
Anthropology as a mature field of study divides into two broad schools; of which each school has its own sub-branches. Highlighting this, would help us understand the nature of Anthropology as well as what it really does. This would clarify, if it really studies man or not;
A. Physical Anthropology
This is concerned with ‘concrete’ things and it sub-divides into;
i. ‘Human paleontology’ – Extinction of life.
ii. ‘Human Variation’ – Human anatomy.
B. Socio-Cultural Anthropology
This deals with cultures, traditions, lifestyles and so on. It subdivides into;
i. ‘Prehistoric archeology’ – Human remains.
ii. ‘Anthropological Linguistics’ – Language analysis.
iii. ‘Ethnology’ – Comparative analysis of culture.
The above is a straight-forward analysis of the business of Anthropology, as the ‘study of man’. But, now goes the question, ‘has Anthropology really carried out the study of man’?
THE FAILURE OF ANTHROPOLOGY
Concerning the study of man, it is clear that Anthropology has not been able to differentiate between man’s works or activities and man himself. Empirical Anthropology has failed to answer the question ‘what is man’? as, the study of man which ought to penetrate his essence (that which is intrinsically objective to all men), ended up on the wrong path by studying other things relating to man like his works, culture, artifacts, environment and so on. Therefore, for man to be studied anthropologically the question ‘what is man’, must be answered by focusing on the objective nature of man and not his subjective works and activities.
PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: A SOLUTION
Empirical anthropology cannot really study man because; it is not armed with the equipment to do so. ‘Metaphysics’ which is the science of man is the right tool to explore the fundamental and transcendental (objective) structures of man. Hence, when metaphysics as the core of all philosophies, becomes attached to anthropology; what results is ‘philosophical anthropology’ - an infrastructure of discipline, well armed to effectively carry out an objective ‘study of man’.
CONCLUSION
It is clear that anthropology does not give a true picture of man, as it was found studying man’s works instead of his essence. However, with the help of metaphysics in anthropology, an adequate study of man, as well as a satisfactory answer to the question ‘what is man’ can be presented.
