Bantu Philosophy stays canonical despite doubts about its philosophical status.

Evidence

The fact that Bantu Philosophy is consulted by almost all students of African philosophy should make us pause and ask why that should be the case. If, according to unpublished work by Janz (n.d.), Tempels was not a philosopher, and if Bantu Philosophy is not a book of academic philosophy because it makes few references to academic philosophical discourse of the time, then why do African philosophers keep referring to it? Indeed, if, according to Hountondji (1983), Bantu Philosophy is a “location of philosophy” or “ethnophilosophy”, as he calls it, why then should the book be recognized as a “classical work”? Could it be the case that this “localized philosophy” spoke to many Africans then and still speaks volumes to them today, albeit imperfectly? — Frans Dokman, Beyond Bantu Philosophy_…, 106

Categorization

• QUESTION: The chapter leaves open whether localized philosophy remains meaningful despite being ‘ethnophilosophy’ — worth chasing how later chapters resolve this.