• Dr Michael Sunday Sasa Department of Philosophy Veritas University, Abuja.
Keywords: Heterogeneity, Knowledge, Pluralism, Postmodern Discourse, Traditional Epistemology


The position of this paper is that the postmodernist onslaught on traditional
epistemology does not stand rigorous questioning. It actually committed a
conceptual suicide. The task of traditional epistemology, represented in the
discussions of the modern period, is essentially to search for and discover those
fundamental general principles and procedures that could form a universal and
foundational theoretical framework for knowledge and rationality. This quest for
a single reference point was opposed by the postmodern thought as an impossible
venture, given the problem of justification. An alternative epistemological
programme was, therefore, presented by figures in the postmodern agenda. This
was marked by a rejection of homogeneity, universality and foundation, and the
preference for heterogeneity, plurality and difference. The postmodern agenda
presents an epistemology of chaos to philosophy, thereby falling short of the
Archimedean point of view as well as denying a universalist form of epistemology
in preference for yet another universalist epistemology. The paper adopts the
philosophical method of analysis, critical evaluation and reconstruction to bring
to the fore the very weaknesses of the postmodern agenda. At the heart of the paper
is the thesis that a viable epistemology for the contemporary human condition is a
holistic and integral universality.


Bartley, B. William. “Rationality versus the Theory of Rationality”. Mario Bunge

(Ed.), The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy. New York: The

Free Press Glencoe, 1964.

Bernstein, J. Richard. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics

and Praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998.

Bordo, Susan. The Flight to Objectivity: Essays on Cartesianism and Culture. New

York: New York University Press, 1981.

Capra, Fritjof. The Turning Point: Science and the Rising Culture. London: Fontana

Paper Backs, 1984.

Frege, G. “On Concepts and Objects”, In P. Geach and M. Black (Eds.).

Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

Habermas, Jürgen. Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Bacon Press, 1971.

Haldane, Elizabeth and Ross G.R.T. (Eds.). Philosophical Works of Descartes.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.

Kekes, John. “Some Requirements of a Theory of Rationality”. The Monist. Vol.

, No. 3, (1988). Pp. 320-338

Lovibond, Sabina. “Feminism and Postmodernism”. American Journal of

Education, Vol. 95, No. 4. (1987).

Lyotard, Jean-Francois. “The Postmodern Condition”. In K. Baynes, J. Bohmann

and T. McCarthy (Eds.), After Philosophy: End or Transformation.

Cambridge: MIT Press, 1987.

_______Lyotard, Jean-Francois. “Notes on the Meaning of Post”. In Thomas

Docherty (Ed.), Postmodernism: A Reader. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1987.

_______. “The Postmodern Condition”, In Thomas Docherty Ed. Postmodernism:

A Reader. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1987.

Peerenboom, R.P. “Reason, Rationales, and Relativism: What’s at Stake in the

Conversation Over Scientific Rationality?” Philosophy Today. Vol. 34, No.


Putnam, Hilary. Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1981.

Rorty, Richard. Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press, 1982.

___________. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,

Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon & Schuster,

Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, (London: Pan Books, 1979), 59-

Toulmin, Stephen. Human Understanding. Vol. 1. Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1972.

Veith, John. (Trans.) Descartes: A Discourse on Method and Meditation of First

Philosophy. London: Everyman’s Liberty Press, 1979.

Yates, Steven. “Feyerabend, Realism, and Historicity”. American Catholic

Philosophical Quarterly. Vol. XLV. No. 4. (Autumn, 1991).