Philiminality

This paper discusses the authenticity debate on the Ḥatäta of Zera Yacob and Walda Heywat  from the perspective of a historian of philosophy. From this perspective, the case of the Ḥatäta  and the discourses that developed around the manuscripts raise a number of interesting  questions and problems. The most important point is undoubtedly that we are witnessing here  a process of canonization. To a large extent, philosophical work relies on inherited  philosophical-historical narratives, which are deepened and legitimized by each individual work  within the framework of these narratives. The broad European discourse on ancient Greek  philosophy is a striking illustration of such canon forming processes. Based on oral traditions and third-party sources (often written down centuries later), as well as a few fragmentary  snippets, a comprehensive philosophical discourse has developed that would endure even if  it could one day be demonstrated that neither Thales nor Socrates were historical persons.

The paper argues that the debates about the Ḥatäta provide a vivid example of a process of  forming a narrative of the history of philosophy in Africa. On a meta-level and in a comparative  manner – particularly with regard of origin, transmission, and the various translations of one of  the founding texts of European history of philosophy, Diogenes Laërtius’ Lives and Opinions  of Eminent Philosophers, the paper discusses the question of what it means when the  authenticity of a foundational text is suddenly called into question. Moreover, the paper  addresses the particular explosiveness of such debates in the context of reconstructing  philosophical traditions in formerly colonized and still marginalized regions of the world.  Furthermore, ethical questions of scientific practices are raised in view of the asymmetries in  the academy today and the task of decolonizing the history of philosophy.