Anthony Neal

Scholarship on Martin Luther King, Jr., and more recent works on Howard Thurman, have become widely appreciative of their contributions to a struggle for Black liberation. This study explicates how the philosophies of Thurman and King also contribute to a universal theme of self-transformation. To be sure, the challenge of self-transformation is aggravated by the oppressive circumstances faced by Black persons in a racist society; however, the resources offered by Thurman and King for personal transformation should be relevant to persons almost regardless of circumstance. This study presents four concepts shared in the personal-transformation philosophies of Thurman and King: (1) Existential Transformation, (2) Self-Altered Destiny, (3) Self Examination, and (4) Rejection of Irrelevance. These four concepts provide a new framework for reading Thurman’s and King’s writings in tandem with a view towards self-transformation and demonstrate why a philosophy of the Black experience would...

In this author-meets critics discussion of Howard Thurman’s Philosophical Mysticism, Anthony Sean Neal argues that Thurman’s work requires systematic recognition of how he was rooted firmly within the Modern Era of the African American Freedom Struggle (1896–1975). Michael Barber suggests that Thurman may be understood in contrast to Levinas on two counts. Whereas Thurman develops the duty to love from within the one who must love, Levinas grasps the origin of love’s duty in the command of the one who is to be loved. And while Thurman’s mysticism yearns for oneness, Levinas warns that oneness is ethically problematic. Eddie O'Byrn challenges the symbolic validity of calling love a weapon, and asks why the book has not treated Thurman’s relations to Gandhi or King. Neal defends a provisional usage of the term weapon in relation to love and offers some preliminary considerations of Thurman’s relation to Gandhi and King, especially in the symbolic significance of "the dream.&q...

In the 2016 presidential election campaigns, one thing in particular has been overwhelmingly obvious to me. Most members of the various communities existing within the United States have developed perceptions that detect only their particular one and not the general. Essentially, we do not see the other! It seems that being American has become equal to inattentiveness, inwardly ignoring those people on the exterior of our particular communities. It's an us vs. them mentality! In spite of our proximity, our ability to see others — or hear others, for that matter — is in direct proportion to our ability to perceive beyond our immediate context. Our immediate context is basically our own field of familiarity, which is certainly not the same as proximity. In spite of the constant flux in proximal spacing, most of the time our perception varies only slightly, if at all. Perception is quite possibly the biggest determining factor of our particular reality, yet so little effort is made by most individuals to alter it in any significant manner. Certainly, I would not make the claim that an individual's perception is an immutable part of their existence, remaining stagnant for the duration of a lifetime. However, perceptual changes are usually unintentional and externally provoked. For the most part, our particular perception is just a product or extension of the community, which we, by chance, find ourselves members. If we are from a big city, we have that city's perception. Likewise, if we are from a small town, our perception will almost certainly resemble that. But there are other factors, such as religion, gender, race and economic level, to name a few. All of these factors can help to expand our perception, but they certainly can also be limiters of our perception. As fellow philosopher Howard McGary once brilliantly quipped, propositions of this sort should be tested by asking, " So what? " Essentially, if individuals are not hindered in day-today living, what does it matter if their perception is never intentionally altered. Maybe perception is predetermined by nature and is a utilitarian function of life, only purposed for interpreting the world in relation to particular existences and not in generalities. Maybe we aren't supposed to see or hear the people who evade our perceptions. Can this really be true? Is it possible that we are perfected in only the particular and therefore doomed to have imperfect relations with other cultures. Maybe, but it seems unlikely. Unlikely because, education, which definitely alters perception, is such a necessary part of being human. For the widest participation in human community it is understood that some human intervention will be required. It might even be extrapolated from this proposition that communities are perfected when they have the widest participation in communities of communities, i.e. nations. It is well known that through education we learn language, we learn to read, and we especially learn to operate within a particular culture, all from other humans. The latter is good for understanding " our " culture; however, it can certainly stifle our ability to learn or even appreciate other cultures or appreciate the very notion of culture in general. This is because with culture there is the subsequent creation of certain appetites and aversions. Extending from these creations we are able to make judgments or choices about what we like and what things will enter our gaze. An example of this would be when we buy a new car and it seems that many more people now own the same car. The cars that are different from our own seem to fade away. We probably would like to believe that somehow we treat people differently. But, for most of us, this is unlikely. There are whole communities that simply fade away from our gaze. Fortunately, it seems the fix is simple. Learn more about other cultures! And, while formal education is certainly good, any education beyond reliance on passive experience helps tremendously. Watching movies from other cultures, eating foods from other cultures and reading about other cultures are wonderful ways to actively create these types of educational moments. Beyond these moments, whenever the opportunity presents itself to engage other cultures, it should be taken, especially with the understanding that all cultures offer something unique and wonderful to humanity. Without many of us truly taking an interest in other cultures, we will soon lose the ability to empathize with other cultures. This can set the stage for moments of dehumanization. When that happens violence is soon to follow. With 2016, us vs. them, quite possibly it will be the year that communal relations were either repaired significantly or severed in some catastrophic way. It would be wonderful if it were the year we finally come to know what it means to be American and then really make America great. I mean wouldn't it be wonderful for everyone to realize that this nation is chock full of many cultures and it would be nearly impossible to make that notion go away? When we

In the research-based, data-driven, cost-benefit-analysis society in which we live, education is now being thought of as only an economic good. I prefer to think being educated in some form or fashion as a virtue. Virtue is akin to the Greek concept of areté, which means excellence and implies that virtues are things we need to become our best selves. Economic goods are items we purchase as means to an end. As an economic good, many are evaluating education by its ability to quantitatively enhance the individual's life without much consideration being given to its ability to go beyond mere enhancement and examine its ability to reconfigure what it means for that individual to be enhanced. Instead of being able to buy new clothes or a new car because of their education, the individual now thinks of how they can make Mississippi better or even make the world better. Personally, the quest to make the world better has taken many turns and twists, but has now concluded with me becoming professionally something I was in private, for most of my life, a philosopher. Although there are many ways to do so, I use philosophy as a tool to spur in the individual a sense of what is vital in life and to throw a shaft of light on the individual experiences of the students and those of others, so that they might develop a profound sense of the interrelatedness of life, to paraphrase a quote from Howard Thurman. As a Morehouse undergrad, I once heard Delores Stephens (my English professor) say, " The only thing people purchase and they don't want their money's worth is education. " She continued, " I am going to ensure that you get all that you have purchased! " This statement epitomized, for me, the necessity of all teachers on all levels to challenge the minds of their students and to even stretch them beyond their preconceived notions of what is possible for their futures. I have been fortunate, in my life, to have had many such wonderful teachers who gave a great part of themselves so that this bruised reed was never broken, nor was the smoldering wick of my desire ever put out. These teachers understood the gravity of investing in the future and they were willing to commit their lives as, not only as servants of their communities, but also as servants of humanity as a whole, because they could not predict the many places the products of their effort were destined to go. Education, however, is necessarily dialogical or conversational. Even if there is not a human teacher present, students have the ability to learn through their attempts to understand the world around them. In short, students can learn when they are moved to gain knowledge of their world, whether for survival or to increase the pleasure of their experience. What does this mean? Education depends as much or more on the students' desire to know their world, as it does on their educational experience. When students are hungry for knowledge, their mental bellies can be filled, but when they are not hungry the world suffers. The student's hunger to know must be deepened so the inevitable obstacles of life also become learning experiences. According to Aristotle, " All human beings by nature desire to know, " but if their appetite for knowledge is not sufficiently stimulated, then fables, superstitions and old wives tales quickly become substitutes. This type of knowledge can quickly turn into a deep fear of the other. It is incumbent upon teachers to creatively present and represent the world to students, both immediate and distant, always with the understanding that the future builders and leaders must not be limited by a shallow imagination or petty prejudices created by insufficient knowledge. When students are not limited, they learn to interpret and translate meaning for themselves. They also become committed to the continuation and betterment of the world through better ideas, while opposing its destruction. This requires, of the teacher, a thorough knowledge of the subject matter combined with a bit of artistry, realizing that communication becomes the outward performance of inward knowledge. What then is the student's role? Students must understand their basic role is to say yes or no at the appropriate time. Essentially to be educated, there is a certain responsibility the student must accept, and if the student refuses, the process comes to an abrupt halt. The educational process is initiated first by the student's inward hunger to know and then on a more formal level, upon being presented with information from their teacher, they take charge of their future by intimating " yes " and continuing their journey or with " no " and a discontinuance, delay or chance to accept another journey. In either case, the choice to initiate the journey of education is ultimately the student's to take.

For the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence marked the most significant public communication of the Nation’s moral political philosophy. In fact, this one document alone would set the ideological tone to shape the philosophies of American political theorists for centuries to come. Along with other ideological political documents, the Declaration informed American values on concepts of freedom, justice, and equality. Despite its conceptual genius however, the Declaration’s stated moral principles would be marred by the Nation’s cruel and inhumane treatment of its African Americans citizens. Consequently, America’s political ideals related to concepts of equality and truth are often met with skepticism when perceived through the lens of the lived experiences of many African Americans.

Political morality can be defined in terms of traditional philosophy and analyzed based on its application in individual and communal contexts. American moral thought is advanced around the globe as the standard of a model communal political morality. Even so, imposing its documented principles of morality has not consistently guided America’s treatment of its own African Americans citizens. Ultimately, this chapter explores the philosophical development of American cultural perspectives on political morality as demonstrated through early American writings, and examines the degree to which moral behavior involving practices of truth-telling, apology and forgiveness might legitimately be applied to governments and then, imposed on citizens.

African American Philosophy and African American Philosophers have played a central role in understanding and also shaping what it means to be black in America. Some of their conclusions were reactions to the mistreatment they received from the majority population, but other of their conclusions were extensions and/or novel positions taken with a view through past perceptual lenses. Yet, with the mass exodus of black students from HBCU’s after the civil rights era, many of the important figures and their inquiries have been little or poorly studied. The significance of this work is found in its attempt to grapple with one such seminal figure, his memory of his ancestors, and the education he received from Morehouse College (in the Atlanta University Center), all of which formed the roots of the ideas he later produced. Howard Thurman, former Dean of Marsh Chapel at Boston University, and mentor to figures such as Martin Luther King, Jr., left quite a large ideological footprint; however, just as others of his milieu, his ideas have been largely overlooked. Thurman’s deep-rooted knowledge of black culture, particularly black religious ideas as they existed during the period of African enslavement in the United States and as they were exhibited in the Negro Spirituals, shaped his thinking and allowed him to produce a body of work grounded in the musings and traditions of his ancestors. This volume investigates, forms an analysis, and even critiques Thurman’s work such that others can benefit from the profundity of his thoughts while also taking note of their relevance for today’s philosophers concerned with humanity.

This study examines the idea of consciousness as a phenomenal reality in the writings of Howard W. Thurman and Huey P. Newton. The purpose was to determine if there was confluence in the relationship between their usage of consciousness as an idea and their experience of blackness. This study was based on the premise that the experience of blackness caused a strong desire for freedom in the consciousness of the Africans who were brought to the Americas. In order to develop a clearer understanding of the connection between experience and the modalities used by each writer to accomplish their goal it was necessary to approach this study through a critical method rooted in an Afrocentric paradigm. This paradigm also aided in gaining a better visualization of the desired goal of each writer. This study was qualitative in nature, using Afrocentric methods of interpretation concentrating on the African Freedom Aesthetic to extract the purpose and means through which consciousness was used in the writings of the research subjects. This researcher found that both Thurman and Newton subscribed to the belief that in order for there to be a transformation in the lifestyle of blacks there would need to be a shift in the consciousness such that blacks could transcend the ill effects of living in a society which tolerated blacks but never embraced their humanity. The conclusion drawn from these findings suggests that confluence existed in the fact that both men believed that a change in consciousness gives the individual and community the ability to transcend the lived experience.