Thinking Maketh The Man

The late Prof. J. A. K. Quartey and I formed the Descartes Club when we were junior masters at Achimota College some 60 years ago. We wanted to continue the tradition that education was much more than accumulation of facts in the head to disgorge later to pass examinations.

We were brought up to revere the great men and women who produced so much original knowledge and to try in our own small ways to emulate their examples.

And so we thought our younger brothers and sisters should not only learn co-ordinate geometry but also know something about the analytical genius who invented co-ordinate geometry.

René Descartes was a great French mathematician, theoretical physicist and philosopher who lived between 1596 and 1650.

The club named after him was originally interested in his mathematics but soon his work in other fields caught the imagination of the club.

His metaphysics became of great interest and his first certitude, “cogito ergo sum” (I think therefore I am) became a subject of intelligent speculation.

The youth who delighted in questioning the propositions of the old preferred translating “cogito ergo sum” as “I doubt therefore I am”.

Others thought Descartes certitude was better interpreted as “I think therefore I am”. The real trend of the metaphysics of Descartes was ignored and thinking was made the distinguishing characteristic of man — and woman.

My youthful idea of man persists to this day and I believe that the man — or woman — who does not think hardly exists.

Our mental powers may be unequal. We may not have the same analytical and abstract mind as Descartes and Einstein but we are capable of achieving greater heights in the thinking process.

Unfortunately, for social cohesion we are brought up to accept not to doubt or question.

Our formal education follows a similar fashion, and authority insists on uniformity and obedience.

Those who think, find life unbearable under dictators, and dictators prefer those who do not question or doubt their edicts. But progress depends on those with unfashionable thoughts.

If we are to move forward, then our education should encourage the new ideas and new ways of doing things which are invented by thinking.

All our political parties agree that education should be given priority. Some even want free education up to university level. There are other promises on other fields and the electorate are likely to fall for these promises.

But a little thinking indicates that these promises depend upon the availability of resources. For education, do we have the funds to build the classrooms, equip them, and provide the textbooks?

Do we have the trained teachers? If not, how do we go about these? And what should we sacrifice while we build up the resources or provide them?

Similar questions may be asked about the health services. Insurance is a good thing and the National Health Insurance Scheme is welcome. But the scheme cannot cover all ailments.

We simply cannot afford such coverage. What then do we cover? Do we completely leave the elderly who have contributed so much, but can no longer do so to suffer and die of hypertension, prostate and breast cancer?

We may not all agree on exactly what to do, but consensus or compromises are possible. They are possible if we think and do not repeat party lines like parrots.

Party politics can help development. But in some areas, a national consensus is preferable.

Must our elected representatives be led like gadarene swine to vote and thereby impose an adverse course of action on the country?

Or should those representatives exchange views with others of different persuasion in Parliament, and come to decisions which will move the country out of unnecessary poverty and dependency?

This raises the fundamental question of democracy. There is no doubt that we enjoy much freedom in Ghana today, and we are trying to achieve the model requested of us by the West.

Generally, their system is good and has done the individual countries well. But the system was not developed overnight.

It developed gradually, and over the years encompassed national character and interests. Can we adopt the best in that system, weave our own character and interests into it so that we move forward? Should we have a party which always opposes?

Or should we leave representatives to THINK and pronounce on certain identified subjects like education and health?

And since much depends on finance should we not spend more thinking time on our financial plans, loans and acquisition and disposal of assets?

One may mention VALCO and Ghana Telecom. It is not what we feel, what we may gain personally, or what the party wants.

Agreement on what should be done should be clear, provided we agree on what the national interest is, and provided we think as the boys and girls of the Descartes club tried to do.

By K. B. Asante