Editing Ubuntu philosophy (section)

==Definitions==
There are various definitions of the word "Ubuntu". The most recent definition was provided by the ''African Journal of Social Work'' (''AJSW''). The journal defined ''Ubuntu'' as:

{{Blockquote|A collection of values and practices that people of Africa or of African origin view as making people authentic human beings. While the nuances of these values and practices vary across different ethnic groups, they all point to one thing – an authentic individual human being is part of a larger and more significant relational, communal, societal, environmental and spiritual world<ref name="Mugubate"/>}}

[[Image:Experience ubuntu.ogg|thumb|300px|[[Nelson Mandela]] in 2006 was asked to define "ubuntu" in a video used to launch [[Ubuntu Linux]].<ref>{{Cite AV media |interviewer-first=Tim |interviewer-last=Modise |interviewer-link=Tim Modise |publisher=[[Canonical Ltd.|Canonical]] |quote=In the old days, when we were young, a traveler through the country would stop at a village, and he didn't have to ask for food or for water; once he stops, the people give him food, entertain him. That is one aspect of ubuntu, but it will have various aspects. |date=24 May 2006 |type=video |title=Experience ubuntu |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Experience_ubuntu.ogv |via=[[Wikipedia]], from [[Wikimedia Commons]] |language=en}}</ref>]]

There are many different (and not always compatible) definitions of what Ubuntu is.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Christian B. N. Gade|year= 2012|url=http://pure.au.dk/portal/files/48387009/What_is_Ubuntu._Different_Interpretations_among_South_Africans_of_African_Descent.pdf |title=What is Ubuntu? Different Interpretations among South Africans of African Descent|journal=South African Journal of Philosophy|volume= 31|issue=3|pages= 484–503|doi= 10.1080/02580136.2012.10751789|s2cid= 27706776}}</ref> Even with the various definitions, Ubuntu encompasses the interdependence of humans on one another and the acknowledgment of one's responsibility to their fellow humans and the world around them. It is a philosophy that supports [[Collectivism and individualism|collectivism]] over [[individualism]].  

Ubuntu asserts that society gives human beings their humanity. An example is a [[Zulu language|Zulu]]-speaking person who when commanding to speak in Zulu would say "''khuluma isintu''", which means "speak the language of people". When someone behaves according to custom, a [[Sotho language|Sotho]]-speaking person would say "''ke motho''", which means "he/she is a human". The aspect of this that would be exemplified by a tale told (often, in private quarters) in [[Nguni languages|Nguni]] "''kushone abantu ababili ne Shangaan''", in [[Sepedi]] "''go tlhokofetje batho ba babedi le leShangane''", in English (two people died and one [[Shangaan]]). In each of these examples, humanity comes from conforming to or being part of the tribe.

According to Michael Onyebuchi Eze, the core of Ubuntu can best be summarised as follows:
<blockquote>
''A person is a person through people'' strikes an affirmation of one’s humanity through recognition of an "other" in his or her uniqueness and difference. It is a demand for a creative intersubjective formation in which the "other" becomes a mirror (but only a mirror) for my subjectivity. This idealism suggests to us that humanity is not embedded in my person solely as an individual; my humanity is co-substantively bestowed upon the other and me. Humanity is a quality we owe to each other. We create each other and need to sustain this ''otherness'' creation. And if we belong to each other, we participate in our creations: ''we are because you are, and since you are, definitely I am''. The "I am" is not a rigid subject, but a dynamic self-constitution dependent on this ''otherness'' creation of relation and distance.<ref>Eze, M. O. ''Intellectual History in Contemporary South Africa'', pp. 190–191.</ref>
</blockquote>
An "extroverted communities" aspect is the most visible part of this ideology. There is sincere warmth with which people treat both strangers and members of the community. This overt display of warmth is not merely aesthetic but enables the formation of spontaneous communities. The resultant collaborative work within these spontaneous communities transcends the aesthetic and gives functional significance to the value of warmth. Warmth is not the sine qua non of community formation but guards against instrumentalist relationships. Unfortunately, sincere warmth may leave one vulnerable to those with ulterior motives.<ref name="GriggsLouw1995">{{cite book|author1=Lewis Griggs|author2=Lente-Louise Louw|title=Valuing Diversity: New Tools for a New Reality|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZubtAAAAMAAJ|year=1995|publisher=McGraw-Hill|isbn=978-0-07-024778-9|page=200}}</ref>

"Ubuntu" as political philosophy encourages community equality, propagating the distribution of wealth. This socialisation is a vestige of agrarian peoples as a hedge against the crop failures of individuals. Socialisation presupposes a community population with which individuals empathise and concomitantly, have a vested interest in its collective prosperity. Urbanisation and the aggregation of people into an abstract and bureaucratic state undermines this empathy. African intellectual historians like Michael Onyebuchi Eze have argued, however, that this idea of "collective responsibility" must not be understood as absolute in which the community's good is prior to the individual's good. On this view, ubuntu it is argued, is a communitarian philosophy that is widely differentiated from the Western notion of communitarian socialism. In fact, ubuntu induces an ideal of shared human subjectivity that promotes a community's good through an unconditional recognition and appreciation of individual uniqueness and difference.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Eze, M. O. |url=http://www.ajol.info/index.php/sajpem/article/viewFile/31526/5888|title=What is African Comunitarianism? Against consensus as a regulative Ideal|year=2008|journal= South African Journal of Philosophy|volume= 27|issue=4|pages= 386–399|doi=10.4314/sajpem.v27i4.31526|s2cid=143775323|url-access=subscription}}</ref> [[Audrey Tang]] has suggested that Ubuntu "implies that everyone has different skills and strengths; people are not isolated, and through mutual support they can help each other to complete themselves."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/open-source-enlightenment-2015-part-1-audrey-tang|title=Open Source Enlightenment 2015 (Part 1)|author=Audrey Tang}}</ref>

"Redemption" relates to how people deal with errant, deviant, and dissident members of the community. The belief is that man is born formless like a lump of clay. It is up to the community, as a whole, to use the fire of experience and the wheel of social control to mould him into a pot that may contribute to society. Any imperfections should be borne by the community and the community should always seek to redeem man. An example of this is the statement by the [[African National Congress]] (in South Africa) that it does not throw out its own but rather redeems.

Other scholars such as Mboti (2015) argue that the normative definition of Ubuntu, notwithstanding its intuitive appeal, is still open to doubt. The definition of Ubuntu, contends Mboti, has remained consistently and purposely fuzzy, inadequate and inconsistent. Mboti rejects the interpretation that Africans are "naturally" interdependent and harmony-seeking, and that humanity is given to a person by and through other persons. He sees a philosophical trap in attempts to elevate harmony to a moral duty – a sort of categorical imperative – that Africans must simply uphold. Mboti cautions against relying on intuitions in attempts to say what Ubuntu is or is not. He concludes that the phrase ''umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu'' references a messier, undisciplined relationship between persons, stating that: "First, there is value in regarding a broken relationship as being authentically human as much as a harmonious relationship. Second, a broken relationship can be as ethically desirable as a harmonious one. For instance, freedom follows from a break from oppression. Finally, harmonious relations can be as oppressive and false as disharmonious ones. For instance, the cowboy and his horse are in a harmonious relationship."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mboti |first1=N. |title=May the Real Please Stand Up? |journal=Journal of Media Ethics |date=2015 |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=125–147 |doi=10.1080/23736992.2015.1020380|s2cid=53519937 |url=http://osf.io/mgzw6/ |url-access=subscription }}</ref>