Tag Archives: Ma’at

Egypt: Ancient History of African Philosophy. Théophile Obenga (2005)

The scales of Ma’at

In Egypt: Ancient History of African Philosophy, Théophile Obenga argues that African philosophy, or more specifically, Egyptian philosophy has been wrongfully excluded from philosophical canon, and more than simple inclusion, the study of Ma’at ought to be one of the most respected and well taught schools of philosophical thought.

One of the first issues Obenga approaches is that Egypt has been considered something other than African historically, either being considered the Near-East or Sub-Asian. The author doesn’t expressly address that the reason for this omission of Egypt as African was to justify the viewing of African people by Europeans as being lesser, while simultaneously being in awe of the Egypt’s progress as a civilization, though I’m sure in that debate he would have a more nuanced and vehement argument than I just gave.

Obenga goes on to express that in his view (though the essay is presented entirely as facts not up for debate) the first use of a word equivalent to philosopher was used in Egypt and written in hieroglyphics. He then spends several pages describing the form and meanings of many hieroglyphics while attempting to convince the reader that hieroglyphics are the only, best, and most effective way to convey meaning; for example, the symbols for “mouth”, “placenta”, and “papyrus, rolled up, tied and sealed” when combined mean “to know”. Get it?

I feel that if the essay were written by someone else or written as if it were a theory up for debate rather than a declaration of truth or a polemic against the prevailing academic thought of the time I would be far more likely to find it somewhat convincing. The central point that studies of philosophy have been euro-centric is absolutely true, the idea of philosophy very likely came about with the growth of city-states wherever they rose, including Egypt, but claims such as Egypt having no jails or social distinction between men and women for 35 centuries because of the power of Ma’at is too unbelievable and discredits the rest of Obenga’s work. (Not to say jails and social distinction among genders is innate to humans, but that’s another discussion for another time).

The 42 Negative Confessions (Excerpt from the Book of the Coming Forth by Day). Translation by E.A. Wallis Budge (Translated 1913)

The 42 Negative Confessions are the confessions a soul must make, according to the Book of the Coming Forth by Day, or as it’s also popularly known, the Book of the Dead, before being judged before the scale of Ma’at and entering the afterlife. This brief text has a short introductory paragraph explaining what the confessions are, to whom they are given, and who the translator was. After the introduction the rest of the text is presented the confessions as they were meant to take place.

As I stated above, the confessions are those that a newly deceased soul would give before being judged by the scale of Ma’at. The text itself does not give any more illumination as to what happens if one is deemed worthy or unworthy by the scale, but does illuminate what traits were valued by Ma’at. Each confession was given to a different of the 42 Gods and Goddesses of the Nomes (a territorial division) of Egypt. There is likely some correlation as to which confession is delivered to which God or Goddess, but the sparseness of the explanatory text makes it so that a reader must have background information to know what that correlation is.

The bulk of the test takes place in the form of a numbered list wherein at each interval the “speaker” hails a new God or Goddess, calls them by their title and proclaims that they have not done a particular type of wickedness in the eyes of Ma’at; for example, I have not snatched away food, and I have not set my lips in motion against anyone. The negative confessions shed a decent amount of light on the nature of Ma’at itself; Ma’at means to be truthful, righteous, and honest. The basic concepts are familiar to anyone; it’s just the form it takes that is foreign.

The biggest question that the form of negative confessions brings to my mind is, is it good enough to not do evil, or must one do good in order to be ethical?