In African Philosophy: Myth and Reality (1983), Hountondji argues that the import of turning to sources such as fork lore and beliefs for philosophy in Africa is that no single individual can lay claim to this thought, since it is not identifiable with any single individual but rather with the community as a whole. As such, the philosophy has the characteristic of people practically identifying with it. It is unquestionable, and hence a closed system…As a lived philosophy, it is stored in people’s memory rather than in writing.
Criticism against ethno-philosophy has tended to point to its uniqueness in terms of nature, methodology and scope. To begin with, this kind of philosophy is to be found in tales, myths, legends and cultural beliefs, instead of it spearheading the critical examination of, and perhaps the escape from, the strangling effects of these aspects of culture. As far as the method is concerned, it would be unique for a philosophy to be devoid of critical analysis and rational inquiry, both of which are key features of philosophy. In addition, it is presented as a Philosophy common and obvious to the members of a culture, contrary to Bodunrin’s thinking that “the study of philosophy is the study of the thoughts of individuals” (Bodunrin 1991, 170), making unique the collective thought of a people bandied about as philosophy.