Formatted by: Captain Andrea

Philosophy(PHIL101).

Philosophy Class Note From Day One Uptill Date

Defining philosophy is difficult because philosophy itself is philosophical.

*Origin of Philosophy* : It comes from two Greek words; Philo & Sophia. Philo means
Love while Sophia means wisdom.
Philosophers are lovers of wisdom. Philosophy as a discipline urges us to be in
constant search for wisdom. Philosophy urges us to distinguish wisdom from opinions,
articles of faiths, suggestion etc.
Philosophy is a discipline that subject opinions to critical assessment in order to have
access to the alternative that is supported by a superior argument.
According to *Bertrand Russell* , philosophy because of its critical nature is a
no-man's land between science and theology.
Philosophy and science are different because while science relies on empirical
analysis, philosophy relies on logical reasoning or critical reasoning.
Philosophy is like theology because both of them are concerned with issues
beyond empirical observation. However they are differ because philosophy is critical in
his own approach but theology and religion are dogmatic.
According to *Soyinka* , philosophy is a violent discipline because it is the only
discipline which is so critically of things and at the same time is critical of itself.
To determine a philosopher is another problem.

*Review of Philosophy Class Today*

Mythopoesis: it is Origin of systematic inquiring to the nature of world. To explain things

in the way of things around you, explaining nature by appealing to supernatural things.

*Natural Philosophy & Human Philosophy*

Up to about 13th Century there is no other discipline than philosophy. Every discipline
start from philosophy. Originally all disciplines are regarded as philosophy.
*Natural Philosophy* are chemistry, biology, mathematics, physics etc. *Human
philosophy* includes, sociology, economics, accountancy etc.
Philosophy does not discuss Mr A or Mr B, philosophy discusses Man.
*Conceptions of Philosophy*
*Philosophy As Critical Argumentation & Examination of Ideas* : It is the conception that
urges and requires us to start from the position of ignorance, in a way that as the idea is
coming, you're subjecting them to critical examination in order to distinguish the one that
will be accepted and the one that will not be accepted. A philosopher that is popular with
this idea is called *Socrates* .
 For *Socrates* , a wise man is not the one who knows all things but is the one who
knows little about everything. For Socrates, a philosopher must try as much as possible
to have knowledge about universe and must start from ignorance.
When people who think they know come to him, *Socrates* will get them to the
level of *Aporea* ; because of his inquisitive nature, he becomes the enemy of the state.
Socrates thought the best way to learn is through questioning. For Socrates, a none
examine live, is not worth living. " Know Thyself "
*Philosophy As Contemplation*: This is propounded by a philosopher known as
*Bertrand Russell*. For Russell a philosopher must acquire as much knowledge as per
the world. That philosopher must use the knowledge to better the society. Also
philosophy urges us to know that there are no absolute positions. Every position must be
held tentatively until you're confronted with super argument. All philosophy questions are
Open-Ended and All philosophy answers are Open-Ended. No position is final in
philosophy.
No absolutism in Science, No absolutism in philosophy.
Philosophy as contemplation, is urging a philosopher to be a universe citizen. You must
not allow your sentiment to influence your judgment on issues.
*Anthropocentrism* : The centrism is talking about center. *Anthropomognism*
means believing that we are the only being created in the nature of God. We allow our
situation in the world to colour our thinking.

Review of Philosophy Class Today

*Philosophy As Conceptual Analysis & Linguistic Clarification*: It means philosophy as
a discipline should be concerned itself with analysis of concepts and clarification of
language. With this conception, it is not the duty of Philosophy to propounds theories but
to analyse issues, unlike the first two concepts. The concept opined that, all other
children disciplines to be propounding theories on their fields and since all these
disciplines will propound their theories with language. This concept will analyze and
clarify all theories other disciplines are propounding. Rather than propounding theories,
philosophy will seek issues base on clarification of thought. It will separate ambiguity
and contradictory stands. This concept was propounded by Ludwig Wittgenstein. He
described philosophy as conceptual analysis & linguistic clarification as a *therapy*
because it heal human being of misuse and abuse of words, philosophy must come as
a form of therapy: since the greatest illness of human society is the problem of misuse
of words. Philosophy as a therapy is to heal us from misuse and abuse of words. All
that is required as a philosopher is to analyse language and clarify issues.

*Philosophy As a Dialectical Materialism*: It is associated with a philosopher called Karl

Max, according to him, all human societies are divided into two classes: *The Haves* &
*The Have-not*. Members of each of the class sees the world as reflected to them by the
position of their class. The Have-not sees the world according to position of their class.
The class of the Have-not will always complain of their wages and income.
 Every *Haves*assumed that poor people are lazy and weak while the
*Have-not*always view the rich men as exploiters, who has gotten more than enough
from general resources that belongs to all. For Karl Max members of each of the class,
will see the world according to the reasoning of the class they belongs to. The idea
generated from each of the class, will form a philosophy of that class. For Karl Max, a
society where few people have access to 89% of the wealth, while others are not is a
terrible society. For Karl Max, philosophy as a discipline is a partisan discipline. Members
of the society uses their class to justify their reasoning. If the Have-not should be able to
conquer the haves, the society will become better. Karl Max support revolution.
Philosophy As Dialectical Materialism is now saying that accumulation of knowledge is
right. It also support the third concept but it try to unite theory and practice. For Karl Max,
theory without practice is barrenness, at the same time practice without theory is blind.
Dialectics means seeing issues not from one way, for every issue there are more than
one way.
*Two Major Way Are:*
_As Master Science_
_As Under Labourer_
Philosophy as under labourer means philosophy as pure analysis. For science to succeed
there must be something to clear all the rubbish of misuse of words.
Philosophy as Master Science, it means philosophy is a master of other disciplines. It
is the duty of Philosophy to be recommending appropriate methodology or words in
carryout works or research. Philosophy is Scientia Matrix: mother of all sciences. And
as that it will also become Retrix I.e a science that regulate activities of other sciences

*Review of Philosophy Class Today, 23rd of May, 2018*

_Branches of Philosophy_

1. Epistemology:
Epistem means knowledge
Logos means Science of, Theory of,
Epistemology is a branch of Philosophy that concerns itself with question of
knowledge. Another name for epistemology is theory of knowledge.
*Terrains of Epistemology*
Question about source of knowledge/ Nature of Knowledge/ Scope of knowledge &
Justification of knowledge claims
When you are dealing with source of knowledge or scope of knowledge or justification
of knowledge, in that case you're dealing with epistemology. It deals with criteria of
getting general knowledge. The way you resolve the criteria of general knowledge, you
will be able to resolve the problem of a particular knowledge. Ability to resolve a general
knowledge will guarantee your ability to resolve particular knowledge.
Epistemology is concern with question of "knowing that" not "knowing How", however
the knowledge of knowing that will guarantee the ability to also explain "knowing how".
For some people knowledge is from reasoning while to some other people, it is from
sense experience.
Those who concern with sense experience are called *empiricists* and the position
they believe in is *empiricism* . Empiricism is derived from the Greek word *empeiria*
which in latin word is *experientia* and in English is experience.
The position that advocate experience alone as a source of knowledge is *radical
empiricism* .
*Modest empiricism* : says sense experience is the major source of knowledge,
however those others that are not derived directly from sense experience will in final
analysis depends on sense experience for their justification.
2. *Rationalism*: It emphasize reasoning as the source of knowledge.
*Radical Rationalism*: It only believe reasoning as the only source of knowledge.
*Modest Rationalism*: it believe that reasoning is the major source of knowledge,
others that are not derived from reasoning will in the final analysis depends on reasoning
for their justification.
The question of *Justification* arises in epistemology, when you are challenged in your
claim of knowledge and you provide reasons or argument to prove that your claim to
knowledge is accurate.
2. *Metaphysics* its derived its origin from the Greek words meta-ta-physika where
physika means physics and physics are the things that are open to our sensory
observation. Meta is talking about what came after physics. Metaphysics talks about
things that we can't see with our eye. It beyond sense experience. Metaphysics is the
branch of Philosophy that concerns itself with question of ultimate consequent of the
universe. Aristotle is one of the major contributors to metaphysics. What is the universe
in the final analysis made up of? Is it made up of idea or matters? For those who
believe that the universe is made up of idea or non matters; those are the *Idealists* .
The one that says is only made up of idea is called *Radical Idealist* .
*Radical Idealism* it believe that the universe is made up of idea alone.
*Modest Idealism* it believe that the universe is made up of idea & matters. Idea is
primary, matters is secondary
*Materialist* : the universe is made up of matters, however those that are not directly
from matter will rely on matter at the final analysis for their justification
*Analytic V. Synthetic Statement*
Analytic is a statement that does not requires sense experience to determine its truths or
falses. It only requires simple definition of key terms. In analytic statement the predicate
does not add any new information to the subject.
*Synthetic Statement* ; they are statement that rely on sense experience for its true or
false.

*Review of Philosophy Class Today, 25th of May, 2018*

 *Ethics As A Branch of Philosophy:*
Etymologically, Ethics is from the Latin word 'Ethos' which means generally accepted
norms, values in the society.
In the general sense or loose sense, it can be seen as a collection of moral values for
regulating human mutual coexistence. It regulate both professional and normal activities.
In professional sense, ethics in philosophy concerns itself with question of morality,
questions about nature of morality, source of morality, scopes and justification of moral
claims.
Scope of morality is talking about extent of issue under discussion about morality. For
instance, when you say X is morally right; somebody will ask you to justify the reason why
X is morally right. In that case you're dealing with ethics of morality.
Morality is a set of values meant to regulate human mutual coexistence. Ethics has
to do with morality but not morality itself.
Another name for ethics in philosophy is moral philosophy. Morality is social in
origin/nature, social in function and social in sanction. Morality if it is social in origin
means it is conventional. Human beings grow up in the society and imbibe the values
existing in the society. People don't legislate morals.
It is Social in function because it operates in the society. It meant to regulate human
relations.
It is social in sanction because if anybody does something wrong, you can't take the
person to court for redress.
Morality Vs. Prudence: prudence serves a purpose of regulating human behaviour, but
is personal. e.g trying to minimize your expenses based on the limited amount with you.
Morality Vs. Etiquette: Etiquette is determine by taste, class, aesthetics while morality
is concerned with issues that are wider in scope. Etiquette is narrow in scope while
morality Example of Etiquette: you're in a modern gathering, while others are using forks,
knife and spoons to eat and you decide to use your hands. That is your etiquette.
Law & Morality are wider in scope as they regulate human behaviour but morality and
law are different in the sense that law are consciously legislated, morality is conventional.
The law of the society is contained in the grand law of the society, morality is not. Law is
justiciable while morality is not. Violation of law is sanction with force or threat of
sanctions. The sanctions of morality is social.
When you say an action is morally right or wrong, you're passing a moral judgment.
*Theory of Moral Judgment*
Consequentialist theory and Non Consequentialist theory.
For *consequentialist theory* an action is morally right depending on the
consequences of the action. Another name for it is teleological theory.
*Non Consequentialist theory* means the rightness or wrongness of an action is not
based on the consequences or the effects of the action rather, it is based on the nature
of the action itself. Another name for it is deontological. deontological means there is
nothing existing after the action that will make the action to be right or wrong.
*Examples of Consequentialist Theory*
1. Ethical Utilitarian means an action is morally right if it promotes a greater balance of
good over evil and it is morally wrong if it promote a greater balance of evil over good.
 *Example of Non Consequentialist Theory*
An action is morally right if it agrees with God commandments. It is morally wrong if it
does not agree with what God command.
*Another Branch of Philosophy is Logic* is the branch of Philosophy that concerns itself
with how to reason adequately or properly. Logic is not concerned with processes of
reasoning, all it tries to do is to teach you how to reason properly and adequately.
*Types of Logic*
Formal & Informal Logic
Informal Logic is the branch of Philosophy that teaches you the methodology of proper
reasoning using ordinary natural language while formal logic is the branch of Philosophy
that teaches you the methodology of proper reasoning using symbolic languages.
*African Philosophy* there are problems defining it, African Philosophy is one done by
African Philosophers.
*Conceptions of African Philosophy*
Ethno Philosophy: is the conception of African Philosophy that refers a philosopher
looking into the traditional thought of African and interpreting them philosophically e.g
our proverbs, folklores, folktales etc. You can look at Yoruba work and create your own
Yoruba philosophy.
2. *Philosophy Sagacity*: is a conception of African according to which a person trains in
philosophy goes into a traditional community to identify men of wisdom known as Sages.
A person trained in philosophy will interview a sage on philosophical questions. It can be
on mortality, spirituality, justice etc, after the interview, the trained philosopher will turn
it to argument.
3. *Nationalist Ideological Conceptions*: it is the kind of African Philosophy developed
by people trained in philosophy looking into African traditional thought and using their
findings to develop political theories that will be African in outlook.
4. *Professional Philosophy*: Any work written in philosophy by an African who is
trained in Philosophy

*Review of Philosophy Class Today, 30th of May, 2018*

Metaphysics
Metaphysics is one of the core branches itself like philosophy, an attempt to define isn't
a straightforward attempts. As such, various philosophers present various definitions of
branch of Philosophy. However, for the sake of simplicity let us follows the approach
proposed by John Carrold and Med Markosian, identified three approaches to define
metaphysics. These are:
1. The Etymological Approach
2. The big pressure approach
3. The definition by example approach
*Etymological Approach* : it defines metaphysics by taking the origin of the then
metaphysics itself after the death of Aristotle there was attempt to compile and publish
some of his writing. The first set of Aristotle's work that was compiled was titled
"physika" meaning physics. Shortly after the publication of physics another set of
Aristotle work was ready for publication. This set contains writing of fundamental issues
such as existence identity, causation, space and time, actuality, potentiality etc. The
editor named this set of writings TA-META-TA PHYSIKA meaning the works after physics.
Thus issues contained in this set of writing became the primary subjects matter of the
branch of Philosophy known as metaphysics. Unfortunately this definition doesn't give a
satisfactory account of metaphysics as a branch of Philosophy. A definition of such
ought to be able to present an idea of the issues that constitute the subject matter.
3. The Big Picture Approach: It define philosophy as a branch of Philosophy concerned
with fundamental question about its nature of reality.
The problem with the big picture approach is that it doesn't help to clearly
distinguish between metaphysics and other disciplines. In other words, the big picture
approach present definitions that is too wide, failing to distinguish between metaphysics
and other disciplines as physics, chemistry, ethics.
*The Definition By Example Approach* It tries to amend the deficiency of other
approaches by simply listing some of the issues that form the primary subjects matter of
metaphysics. Following this approach we may define metaphysics as a branch of
Philosophy concerned with addressing issues such as *Ontology* (study of beings/what
exist). Change & Causation ( what is responsible for change in things in the universe).
*Freedom & Determination*: The nature of material object etc. This suggests that to
understand metaphysics is to understand the various issues that form a subject matter
of this branch of Philosophy. Our aim in this class is to identify and briefly examine some
of these issues that form the subject matter in physics.
First Issue that form the subject matter of metaphysics is *Ontology*; is a sub branch
of metaphysics, it involves in the study of things that exist like many scientific disciplines.
This branch of metaphysics try to study reality with a bid to determine things that
constitute this reality. It aim is to examine things that are made of reality. However unlike
scientific discipline which concentrate on studying specific domains of reality, ontology
raises more fundamental questions about the kind of things that can generally be taken
to exist.
Ontology studies things in general not specific things like physics, chemistry etc.
*Some of the questions Ontology try to address includes*:
Are there material objects? Do mind exist? Do *nonexistent*object like fictional entity
exist? Does God exist? Are there abstract objects in reality? Do possible worlds exist? Do
events exist? Do processes exist? Do property exist?
To aid our understanding of the subject of ontology let examine the problem about
the existence of fictional entities.
*Do Fictional Entity Exist*?
Fictional entities are a kind of objects that are introduced as characters in literary
works. These characters can not intended to represent specific object in the world.
Example of such entities includes; William Shakespeare, Hamlet; D.O Fagunwa,
Akaroogun.
The ordinary or commonsense position in the existence of fictional entity is that they
do not exist. The problem with this commonsense position is that it is unable to explain
how we can talk meaningfully about fictional entities or predicate properties about them.
This challenge facing the commonsense position has drawn the attention of
philosophers who has proposed various theory to address the problem of existence of
fictional entity.

*Review of Philosophy Class Today, 1st of June, 2018*

Positions That Different People Hold On The Existence of Fictional Entities_
. Traditionally there are two major positions of fictional entities. These positions
are fictional realism and fictional anti-realism .
Fictional Anti Realism was proposed by philosophers like Richard Mark Saintsbury
and Gregory Curie. This position support the view of commonsense; that fictional entity
do not exist.
Fictional anti realist argue that propositions about fictional entities are meaningful
even though these entity do not exist as a subject of proposition. In other words fictional
propositions do not need to exist in order for the propositions about them to be
meaningful. This is because such propositions are nearly about what is describes in
some stories, not about what is through reality.
Fictional realism stand against the commonsense position by proposing that
fictional entity exist as part of the entity that make up reality.
There are three major version of fictional realism, these are:
1. Non Actualism
2. Possibilism
3. Artifactualism

1. Non Actualism is the view that fictional entities are non actual entities, subsisting in a
world of unreal objects. Authors of fictional works only select one of the pre existing
entity when they introduce fictional characters in their works. Philosopher who defend
this view includes Alexius Meimong, Terrency Barsons and Edward Zanta
2. Possibilism: is the view that fictional entities are possible objects existing in the
possible world. Possibilist such as David Lewis argue that fictional stories represent
some possible world which exist independent of our world. Like non actualist,
Possibilism argue that authors of fictional works merely selects one out of many
independent existing possible objects which they talk about when they introduce fictional
characters in their works.
3. Artefactualism; is proposed by philosophers like Amie Thamasson, John Searle, Saw
Kribke. Is the view that fictional entities are abstract artefacts created by authors of
fictional works, through the act of introducing these entities in their works. Artefactualist
unlike non actualist and possibilist maintain that fictional entities do not predate their
introduction by authors of fictional works, rather it is the introduction of fictional
characters in fictional work by authors that bring these entities into existence.
*Problems of Abstract Entities*
The question whether there are abstract entity is also one of the concerns of ontology.
There are two major approaches through which philosophers characterised objects as
abstract entities.
1. To characterize abstract entity as entities that exist outside space and time, such
entities are characterized as abstract because they lack features such as shape, size,
color, smell etc which are characteristics of concrete entity. Giving this approach some
philosophers has classify objects, such as fictional entities mathematical objects, time
etc as abstract entities.
2. It characterize abstract entities as properties which are *abstracted* from perceivable
concrete entities. Given this approach some philosopher have classified entities such as
colour, shape etc as abstract entities.

*Review on Phil 101 Class Today, 8th of June, 2018*

_The Position On The Existence Of Abstract Entities (Cont'd)_

In the traditional philosophical literature, properties abstracted from concrete entities

are generally referred to as *universals*. So when we talk about *Red* being an abstract
entity which all red share from; that *Red* is universal. They includes properties such as
numbers, roundness, goodness, colours etc.
Alysa Ney defines a universal as a type of entity that is repeatable, that may be
instantiated at multiple locations at once by distinct entities.
The question about whether universals exist form the core debate between
Platonism and nominalism, (Do Universal Exist?).
One major proponent of Platonism is Plato, Plato not only believe in the existence
of universals called *forms*, he argues that this forms are the most fundamental entities
in reality. For Plato the real thing that exist are universals (forms) not we that are sitting
here learning. To Plato all human beings in this world are photocopy.
They are translucent and eternal because they exist outside space and time. They
are ideal because they are perfect. They can only be known as Apriori, that is through
intellectual contemplation.
In Plato's view you may observe things that are beautiful, institution that are just etc
but one never observe beauty or justice itself. The forms cannot be seen, touched or
heard. They can only be understood through the intellects. Plato proposal, present what
is known as realism about universals.
Platonism is the position that universals exist as mind independent entities. If you
want to know realism use your reasoning.
One classic argument usually presented to defend Platonism is called " the one
over many argument ".
The argument posit from observing some similarities between a group of objects to
the conclusion that there is an existing universal object, which these group of objects
instantiated. For instance a Red house, a red car, a red sheet of paper, all instantiate the
properties of *Redness*. For Platonists these properties of redness exist independent of
the object which instantiate it.
It is by virtue of sharing in the nature of these universals property that the entities are
correctly describes as red. There are different version of Platonism:
1. *The abundant theory of universals*: This is an extreme version of Platonism which
argues that there is a universal entities corresponding to any terms that is correctly
applied to a multiplicity of entities.
2. Another version maintains that there are only universal entities, corresponding to the
type of entities recognized by our best physical theory. This is known as *Sparse Theory*
of universal.
Contrary to Platonism is the position known as *nominalism*; nominalism is the
view that universal do not exist. There are different version of nominalism, one is known
as *Ostrich* *Nominalism*. Proponents of Ostrich nominalism denied the existence of
universal but they refused to explain how some objects appears to have similar features
or properties. For instance while the Ostrich nominalist reject the idea that *Redness*
exist, she fails to explain how is it that all red objects appears to share the property of
being *Red*.
Another version of nominalism is known as *Predicate* nominalism, proponents
of predicate nominalism also denied the existence of universal. However they insist that
why predicate may be satisfied or not satisfied by certain objects, there need be no
independently existing universals to explain this facts. In other words, there is no need
for the existence of a universal *Red* to explain the *Redness*of objects that satisfy the
predicate red.
A third version of nominalism is known as Class or Set nominalism. This version of
nominalism maintaining that properties are not independent universal entities rather they
are classes or sets that have certain objects as their

*Review of Phil 101 Class Today, 12th of June, 2018*

*Nature of Reality*
Apart from ontological questions, metaphysics is also concerns with questions about
the nature of things that constitute reality. Some positions which have been defended by
philosophers includes the following;
*Materialism*: This is the view that reality is made up of matters or material
substances. There are two versions of materialism; these are extreme materialism and
moderate materialism.
*Extreme Materialism* is the view that reality is made up of only material substances.
*Moderate Materialism* is of the view that even if there are non material substances
all of them ultimately depends on material substances in their final analysis. Someone
who subscribes to materialism is a *materialist* . Materialism is that position who
believe the thing we have in the world are materials.
*Idealism* is opposed to materialism, idealism is the view that reality is made up of
ideas or non material substances, there are also extreme and moderate version of
idealism.
*Extreme Idealism* is the view that only idea exist in reality. Trees, houses didn't exist.
 *Moderate Idealism* is the view that even if there are material substances, they all
depends on ideas in their final analysis.
*Distinction Between Monism and Pluralism*
Monism is the view that reality is made up of one kind of substance. Two versions of
Monism: these are materialist Monism and Idealist Monism.
*Materialist Monism* maintains that reality consists of one single material substance.
Eg Reality is made up of water.
*Idealist Monism* it maintains that reality is made up of one single non material
substance or idea.
*Pluralism*: stands in opposition to Monism, it maintains that reality is made up of
many substances.
*Distinction Between Realism & Anti Realism*
Realism is the view that what exist in reality exist independently of any perceiving mind,
in other words, you as human being exist whether or not there is any mind perceiving you.
*Idealist Realism & Materialist Realism*
*Idealist Realism*: it is of the view that reality is made up of ideas which exist
independently of any perceiving mind. (Plato believes in this ideology).
*Materialist Realism*: is of the view that reality is made up of material substances
which exist independently of any perceiving mind.
In opposition to realism is Anti Realism which maintain that everything that exist
depends on a perceiving mind. (You cannot talk of something existing unless there is a
mind perceiving it.
*God*
Belief in the existence and nature of God or gods raises significant questions in
metaphysics, some of such questions borders on the possibility of the existence of such
God or gods. Some other questions borders on the nature of this God or gods and our
conceptions of them.
Various people have varying beliefs and conceptions of the nature of Gods. The
following are some of the positions on the existence of God or gods.
1. *Theism*: This is defined generally as a belief in the existence of God who created the
universe and who is responsible for running the affairs of the universe.
2. *Classical Theism*: This is a version of theism, it is the view that God is eternal, all
powerful, all benevolent and all knowing.
3. *Atheism*: This is the belief that God does not exist.
4. *Deism*: This is the view that God exist as the creator of the universe but is not
responsible for running the affairs of the universe.
*Two Conception of Deism*
1. *Deus-otiosus* : is the view that God created the universe but he also created some
laws to govern the universe, as such God no longer intervene in the running of the
universe.
2. *Deus-absconditus*: This is the view that God created the universe and abandon it to
run its own course without interference.
5. *Monotheism*: This is the belief in the existence of one God.
6. *Polytheism*: This is the belief in the existence of more than one God.
7. *Henotheism* : This is the view that there are many Gods but only one of them is
worthy of worship.
8. *Pantheism*; This is the view that everything is God or a part of god or an appearance
of gods.
9. *Panentheism* : This is the view that God is in everything in the universe.

*Review of Phil 101 Class, Held On Wednesday, 13th of June, 2018*

*Problem of The Existence of God Or The Existence of God*

In metaphysics there are different kinds of argument on the existence of God.
In traditional metaphysics, various types of argument have been proposed to defend
the existence of God:
1. *Cosmological Argument* : argues for the existence of God on the basis of the nature
of perceivable things in the universe. Examples of such arguments includes, Thomas
Acquinas's *First Cause Argument* ', National Law Argument etc Everything Has A Cause
For it Existence
2. Another kinds of argument for the existence of God is *Ontology* argument. Ontology
argument defends the existence of God on the basis of our understanding of the nature
of God.
Anselm defined God, that is the greatest thing, that there is nothing greater than him.
3. *Teleological argument* defends the existence of God on the basis of presumed
purposeful design of the universe. The teleological proof of the existence of God
presumes that things in the universe and the universe itself exhibit some purposeful
design. This design suggests the existence of a designer , who designed the purpose of
the universe and its constituent. The argument does concludes that God exist as the
designer of the universe.
*_God Problem_*
Problem of Evil or God & The problem of Evil: The problem of Evil is usually a problem of
classical theism. This problem borders on how to reconcile the reality of evil with the
existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. How come there is so much evil in
what he has created? Eg earthquake, diseases, Crimes etc.
Basically there are two kinds of evil
1. Natural Evil and Moral Evil. Natural evil is an evil which occurs as a result of the
activities of non human natural agents.
2. Moral Evil occurs as a result of actions or inactions of human agents. The reality of evil
has led some philosophers to present what is commonly known as the argument from
evil to prove that God does not exist. The atheist present God does not exist from the
angle of evil.
The argument for evil can be stated as follows;
Premise 1. Evil Exist
Premise 2. If evil exist, it is impossible or unlikely that God exist.
Various argument has been proposed by theist to prove that God exist in spite of
the appearance of evil in the universe.

*Review of Philosophy Class Held Today, 19th of June, 2018*

*Theistic Responses To The Argument of Evil*

1. *Argument from Illusion*: (feeling something is happening when it is not really

happening). The argument from illusion proposes that the evil perceived in the universe
is a mere illusion i.e evil is not real.
*Problem*
The first problem with this argument is that it is counter intuitive; thus, the reality of evil
cannot simply be dismissed.
2. *Argument From Punishment*: This argument proposes that evil is a deserved
punishment for some misdeeds, like the argument from illusion. This argument is also
counter intuitive because there are many cases of evil which cannot be attributed to
desert. i.e there are many cases of evil which as a rational human beings will can not say
we deserve it. e.g in the form of a new born baby that is undergoing a health severe pain,
what has the child done to deserve such punishment?
3. *Argument from Necessity*: This argument proposes that evil is a necessary means
to attaining some higher good. In other words, God created the universe and put evil in
the universe but that evil is a means to attaining something that is better or good.
For philosopher like Richard Swinburne, natural evil provides an opportunity for people
to grow in knowledge and understanding of nature and the consequences of their actions
in order that they may grow to strive, to prevent evil from occurring. By experiencing evil,
one will be able to understand nature and consequences of our actions.
For philosopher like John Hick, evil is necessary so that human beings will be
matured in the face of evil. In other words, evil is necessary for the perfect development
of human beings.
The problem with argument from necessity is 4that its suggest that God is either not
omnibenevolent or neither omnipotent. The fact that we have to go through evil, it means
his power too is limited, or is not all powerful or not all good.
He portrayed God as morally wicked who could have created the universe without
evil but chooses to create evil as a means to some higher good. Alternatively, the
argument suggests that God is not omnipotent. Though he wills not to create evil, he is
not powerful enough to create what he wills.
4. The argument from Free Will: This argument proposes that evil is necessary, so that
human agents can be free to choose between good and evil.
The problem with this argument is that if God is all powerful; then he should be able
to create free human agents without necessarily creating evil in the universe.
*Review of Phil 101 Class Today, 20th of June, 2018*

*Ethics As A Branch of Philosophy*

The class will address the following questions:
1. What are primary concerns of ethics?
2. If ethics is a branch of philosophy, what are the branches of ethics?
3.What is ethics?
4. What are major theories of ethics?
5. What are major traditional sub division of ethics?
With a view to addressing all these questions; the class will start with basic points
of ethics.
*The Basic Points of Ethics*
1. Ethics is one of the core branches of philosophy; this is because philosophy is like a
tree with different branches. In addition to ethics, there are other branches of philosophy
such as Metaphysics, Epistemology, Logic, History of philosophy, Aesthetics etc.
2. Ethics, as a branch of philosophy partly deals with some problems of philosophy. The
problem of philosophy is multi dimensional, such problem could be logical, metaphysical,
epistemological and even historical. Ethics focuses on moral controversies in philosophy.
3. If philosophy is defined as a method, then ethics is one of the methods of philosophy.
4. Ethics as a method of philosophy is evaluative. It evaluate human moral actions. ie
human deliberate and voluntary moral choices and decisions. It also evaluate human
omissions in sociopolitical interactions: By omission we mean human involuntary moral
choices or decisions that produce bad consequences.
5. Ethics clarifies key moral concepts: Good, Bad, Right, Wrong.
6. Ethics is fundamentally prescriptive. Philosophical ethics unlike sociological ethics
prescribes what should or what should not be done in different situation or
circumstances. Philosophical ethics tells you what you ought to do and what
not to do in a situation.
Sociological describes while philosophical prescribes.
7. Moral issues in ethics are controversial and open-ended. In open endedness of such
issues keeps ethics alive. That is, moral issues are controversial.
8. Ethics set the standard of right and wrong actions. In view of this it justifies how best
to organize our society. It explains what kind of relationship ought to exist between an
individual and the state, between the government and the governed.
Ethics is branch of philosophy that set the standard of right or wrong actions.

Compiled By:
Abdulganiyu Ismail Shina
*Mastermind*
Edited By:
Ibraheem Sulaimon Olayiwola
*Review of Philosophy 101 Class Today, 26th of June, 2018*
*Definition of Ethics*
 In defining ethics it is wrong to say that ethicists do not agree on what ethics means,
because ethicists do agree with what ethics mean. However ethicists don't agree on
moral issues in ethics.
Ethicists do agree on what ethics is all about, although ethicists offered different
definitions of ethics, such various definition do not compromise the minimum concern of
ethics.
*Ethics* could be defined as the critical evaluation of human moral actions or
omissions. According to Bertrand Russell, ethics deals with human conducts and decides
on what is virtuous (what we embrace) and vicious ( what could be avoided).
Generally ethics is concerns with what is good or evil, just or unjust, moral or immoral,
it addresses question such as , Are we always under moral obligation to tell the truth?
Is it just to steal or Right in order to save someone live? Should we always keep our
promises even though is not convenient for us? Should we permit a seventy years old
man to marry a twelve years old girl? Should we make education compulsory? Should our
society legalized abortion or not? Should the state limit the number of children couples
should have?
These are moral questions in ethics. Ethicists attempt to provide answers to those
questions, unfortunately answers to those questions make ethics controversial.
*Department or Sub Fields of Ethics*
Ethics as a branch of Philosophy as different sub fields or departments, Among are;
1. *Political Philosophy* which partly deals with issues, concerning how human society
ought be organized or managed. The major question it addresses is how do we organize
our society?
2. *Social Philosophy* deals with specific moral issues that arrives in human
interpersonal relations. Social philosophy addresses issues about the morality of
compulsory education? The moral need to protect the disadvantaged group in the society
and the justice of taxation.
3. *Philosophy of Law* It is with nature of law, it also deals with the connection between
law and morality and various moral issues in practice of law. In addition to all these; there
are other sub fields of ethics such as environmental ethics.
4. *Environmental Ethics* deals with moral issues that arises in the way our
environment should be managed. Eg the control of noise level in the society, Air pollution,
water pollution etc.
5. *Business Ethics*: it deals with morality of profit.
6. *Traditional Sub Division of Ethics*: Ethics is traditionally sub divided into three parts:
1. Normative Ethics
2. Critical or Mental Ethics
3. Descriptive Ethics.
*Normative Ethics* it addresses question such as how should we live? What kind of life
should we live? What is good life? Answers are provided to these questions in normative
ethics. In order to provide answers to these questions, normative ethicists formulate
principles or theories.

Abdulganiyu Ismail Shina

Formatted by: Captain Andrea