Bantu rationality allows dynamic unity of opposites while Western logic assumes single conclusions

Evidence

Bantu and Western philosophy represent two forms of rationality. From the vitalistic point of view, human, fellow human, matter and world participate in a universe of force. All related causes and effects ultimately refer to God as the originator of vital force. As a logic of vital causality, Bantu ontology is a dynamic and holistic thinking. The epistemological perspective, most dominant in Western thinking, sees body and mind, matter and nonmatter, etc., as separate. Humans stand in opposition to fellow humans, matter and the world. Causality and effect are only in one relation. These assumptions around Bantu thinking and the West work their way into dialogical philosophical orientations. Bantu orientations assume that there are possibilities for several conclusions, while Western reasoning assumes one conclusion. In question is the distinction between two forms of rationality. In Bantu logic there can be a dynamic unity of opposites. A conclusion is not either this or that, but this and, and, and, and …. Dialogic logic from a Western perspective means working from reasoning to a conclusion. The Bantu dialogic logic tradition follows that the premises first of all enter into a relationship of philosophizing with each other, and this thinking together can possibly lead to one or more conclusions. — Frans Dokman, Beyond Bantu Philosophy_…, 1022

Categorization

• DEFINE: Contrasts the two forms of rationality — vitalistic dynamic-holistic Bantu logic vs. epistemological dualist Western logic — a core conceptual framework.
• XREF: Connects to Western pluralist/paraconsistent logics and critiques of classical bivalence.