SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

Introduction to the
Philosophy of the
Human Person
Quarter 1 – Module 2.1:
Methods of Philosophizing
Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person – Grade 11
Alternative Delivery Mode
Quarter 1 – Module 2.1: Methods of Philosophizing
First Edition, 2020

Republic Act 8293, section 176 states that: No copyright shall subsist in any work of
the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office
wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit. Such
agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties.

Borrowed materials (i.e., songs, stories, poems, pictures, photos, brand names,
trademarks, etc.) included in this module are owned by their respective copyright holders.
Every effort has been exerted to locate and seek permission to use these materials from their
respective copyright owners. The publisher and authors do not represent nor claim ownership
over them.

Published by the Department of Education

Secretary: Leonor Magtolis Briones
Undersecretary: Diosdado M. San Antonio

Development Team of the Module

Writers: Neofidel Ignacio B. Ramirez, Gener C. Irinco, Michael S. Bernal,
Paciano B. Ferrer

Editor: Amalia Solis, Education Program Supervisor

Reviewers: Michael S. Bernal, Paciano B. Ferrer, Gener C. Irinco,
Nastasia V. Besin, Ernie Ronel Tirol Mabahague (Content)
Marianne Carol Rodia Esteban (Language)

Illustrator:
Layout Artist:

Management Team: Malcolm S. Garma, Regional Director

Genia V. Santos, CLMD Chief
Dennis M. Mendoza, EPS In Charge of LRMS
Regional ADM Coordinator
Maria Magdalena M. Lim, CESO V Schools Division Superintendent
Aida H. Rondilla, CID Chief
Lucky S. Carpio, EPS In Charge of LRMS

Printed in the Philippines by ________________________

Department of Education – National Capital Region

Office Address: ____________________________________________

____________________________________________
Telefax: ____________________________________________
E-mail Address: ____________________________________________
 11

Introduction to
the Philosophy
of the Human
Person
Quarter 1 – Module 2:
Methods of Philosophizing
Introductory Message
For the facilitator:

Welcome to the Inroduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person Alternative

Delivery Mode (ADM) Module on Methods of Philosophizing

This module was collaboratively designed, developed and reviewed by educators both
from public and private institutions to assist you, the teacher or facilitator in helping
the learners meet the standards set by the K to 12 Curriculum while overcoming
their personal, social, and economic constraints in schooling.

This learning resource hopes to engage the learners into guided and independent
learning activities at their own pace and time. Furthermore, this also aims to help
learners acquire the needed 21st century skills while taking into consideration their
needs and circumstances.

In addition to the material in the main text, you will also see this box in the body of
the module:

Notes to the Teacher

This contains helpful tips or strategies that
will help you in guiding the learners.

As a facilitator you are expected to orient the learners on how to use this module.
You also need to keep track of the learners' progress while allowing them to manage
their own learning. Furthermore, you are expected to encourage and assist the
learners as they do the tasks included in the module.

2
For the learner:

Welcome to the Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person Alternative

Delivery Mode (ADM) Module on Methods of Philosophizing!

The hand is one of the most symbolized part of the human body. It is often used to
depict skill, action and purpose. Through our hands we may learn, create and
accomplish. Hence, the hand in this learning resource signifies that you as a learner
is capable and empowered to successfully achieve the relevant competencies and
skills at your own pace and time. Your academic success lies in your own hands!

This module was designed to provide you with fun and meaningful opportunities for
guided and independent learning at your own pace and time. You will be enabled to
process the contents of the learning resource while being an active learner.

This module has the following parts and corresponding icons:

What I Need to Know This will give you an idea of the skills or
competencies you are expected to learn in the
module.

What I Know This part includes an activity that aims to

check what you already know about the
lesson to take. If you get all the answers
correct (100%), you may decide to skip this
module.

What’s In This is a brief drill or review to help you link

the current lesson with the previous one.

What’s New In this portion, the new lesson will be

introduced to you in various ways such as a
story, a song, a poem, a problem opener, an
activity or a situation.

What is It This section provides a brief discussion of the

lesson. This aims to help you discover and
understand new concepts and skills.

What’s More This comprises activities for independent

practice to solidify your understanding and
skills of the topic. You may check the
answers to the exercises using the Answer
Key at the end of the module.

What I Have Learned This includes questions or blank

sentence/paragraph to be filled in to process
what you learned from the lesson.

What I Can Do This section provides an activity which will

help you transfer your new knowledge or skill
into real life situations or concerns.

3
 Assessment This is a task which aims to evaluate your
level of mastery in achieving the learning
competency.

Additional Activities In this portion, another activity will be given

to you to enrich your knowledge or skill of the
lesson learned. This also tends retention of
learned concepts.

Answer Key This contains answers to all activities in the

module.

At the end of this module you will also find:

References This is a list of all sources used in developing

this module.

The following are some reminders in using this module:

1. Use the module with care. Do not put unnecessary mark/s on any part of the
module. Use a separate sheet of paper in answering the exercises.
2. Don’t forget to answer What I Know before moving on to the other activities
included in the module.
3. Read the instruction carefully before doing each task.
4. Observe honesty and integrity in doing the tasks and checking your answers.
5. Finish the task at hand before proceeding to the next.
6. Return this module to your teacher/facilitator once you are through with it.
If you encounter any difficulty in answering the tasks in this module, do not
hesitate to consult your teacher or facilitator. Always bear in mind that you are
not alone.

We hope that through this material, you will experience meaningful learning and
gain deep understanding of the relevant competencies. You can do it!

4
 What I Need to Know

This module was designed and written with you in mind. It is here to help you master
the nature of philosophizing. The scope of this module permits it to be used in many
different learning situations. The language used recognizes the diverse vocabulary
level of students. The lessons are arranged to follow the standard sequence of the
course. But the order in which you read them can be changed to correspond with
the textbook you are now using.

The module is divided into two lessons, namely:

• Lesson 1- Knowledge and Truth
• Lesson 2– Theories of Truth

MOST ESSENTIAL LEARNING COMPETENCIES

After going through this module, you are expected to:

1. Distinguish opinion from truth;
2. Realize that the methods of philosophy lead to wisdom and truth
Specific objectives:
1. Identify the meaning, importance, and source of knowledge.
2. Describe, the steps/processes of acquiring knowledge.
3. Explain how validating one’s knowledge leads to truth.
4. Compare/contrast different theories of truth.

5
 What I Know

Select the keyword that best fits the statement in each item. Write the chosen letter
on a separate sheet of paper.
1. The Correspondence Theory of truth asserts that truth must
A. be agreed by upon by two people
B. corresponds with experience and fact
C. be based on myth and reality
D. be agreed by upon by three people only
2. This theory of truth is the agreement of things with one another.
A. Pragmatic Theory of Truth
B. Correspondence Theory of Truth
C. Coherence Theory of Truth
D. Dialectical Theory of Truth
3. The truth of a belief is tested by its satisfactory results when it is put into
operation.
A. Pragmatic Theory of Truth
B. Coherence Theory of Truth
C. Correspondence Theory of Truth
D. Dialectical Theory of Truth
4. This theory of truth deals with the consistency of the truth of statements
claimed within the system that is being used.
a. Correspondence Theory of Truth
b. Coherence Theory of Truth
c. Pragmatic Theory of Truth
d. Dialectical Theory of Truth
5. You know that “Snow is white" if and only if snow is white.
A. Correspondence Theory of Truth
B. Coherence Theory of Truth
c. Pragmatic Theory of Truth
d. Dialectical Theory of Truth
6. Truth is a property of an extensive body of interrelated statements; hence,
statements have degrees of truth and falsity.
A. Coherence Theory of Truth
B. Pragmatic Theory of Truth
c. Correspondence Theory Truth
d. Dialectical Theory of Truth
7. This theory of truth is tantamount to the belief in the good or practical
consequence that an idea would bring.
A. Coherence Theory of Truth
B. Pragmatic Theory of Truth
C. Correspondence Theory of Truth
D. Dialectical Theory of Truth

6
8. It is the idea that something is true if it accurately describes the world.
A. Pragmatic Theory of Truth
B. Correspondence Theory of Truth
C. Coherence Theory of Truth
D. Dialectical Theory of Truth
9. A statement is not known to be true if the fact corresponding to the
statement is not, in principle, verifiable in some manner.
A. Correspondence Theory of Truth
B. Coherence Theory of Truth
C. Pragmatic Theory of Truth
D. Dialectical Theory of Truth
10. You can never know something is true until you can test its validity. If you
cannot test it, you cannot know it.
A. Pragmatic Theory of Truth
B. Coherence Theory of Truth
C. Correspondence Theory of Truth
D. Dialectical Theory of Truth
11. Formal discussion entails process.
A. argument
B. lecture
C. discussion
D. debate
12. Informal discourse does not entail tedious preparation.
A. lecture
B. debate
C. argument
D. discussion
13. It is true if it is in exact conformity to what is observed in their actual
status and relations.
A. rational
B. concrete
C. reasonable
D. empirical
14. Light Railway Transit is a train.
A. common senses
B. complex confirmation
C. self-evident
D. corresponds to argument
15. Reason is the chief source and test of truth.
A. Rational
B. Concrete
C. Reasonable
D. Empirical

7
 Lesson

1 Knowledge and Truth

Have you ever experienced believing in something you thought is true but in the end
you discovered that it is false? For example you feel that the person standing in front
of you is a true friend who will never betray you but in the end he did betray you. Or
during an examination period you feel strongly that “A” is the right answer for item
number 12 but it turned out to be “B.” Or you feel that your belief(s) can guide you
in the correct path only to discover that that it leads to disaster. These, and countless
examples from your experiences, show that there is a BIG difference to what we feel
is true and what is really true.

According to philosophy if you want to know the truth you have to use, not emotions,
but thinking. To think however is an act of choice which is not always done properly.
Sometimes we need guidance to straighten our thoughts. This is what module 2
provides. Welcome to the province of epistemology.

What’s In

Direction: Make a Hashtag (#) (at least five) of what you have learned about the
significance of Epistemology or act of knowing from the previous lesson.

#______________________________________________________________________
#______________________________________________________________________
#______________________________________________________________________
#______________________________________________________________________
#______________________________________________________________________

Notes to the Teacher

As facilitator, you should make your student be aware that in
acquiring knowledge, the ultimate goal is the truth. More than
this, you should accompany them while they navigate in every
step of the mental processes starting from a) simple
apprehension, b) proposition, and c) inference.

8
 What’s New

Right now we are living in a very challenging time that some

people call the “New Normal.” In this time things that we
usually take for granted like the freedom to travel,
entertainment like concerts and movies and yes, even
haircuts, are hard to come by. Not only that the economy is
bleeding to death with thousands losing their jobs and
countless businesses closing. And we must not forget the
thousands of people who were infected and lost their lives.
Source:

All of this happened because we have one tiny enemy which we can’t see
https://www.shutterstock.c
om/search/scientist+sketch

but is deadly: the Covid 19 virus.

No wonder scientists in giant pharmaceutical companies are in a race to develop the

vaccine for this virus. The survival of human civilization may depend on their
achievement. And in all of this mankind is relying on one thing which can defeat the
virus: the knowledge inside the head of every scientist developing the cure. Without
knowledge the vaccine needed to end this pandemic is impossible.

Our reliance however on knowledge is not new. Even before the

Covid 19 pandemic people are already relying on knowledge for
their survival. Without knowledge on how to create a fire, how to
cook one’s food, how to build a shelter, how to build dams to
control flooding, how to create laws to preserve order in society
and yes even how to think properly, we would still be in a
prehistoric cave. Knowledge literally enabled mankind to survive
and reach the present level of our civilization.

It is on the recognition of the supreme importance of knowledge

that gave rise to the branch of philosophy known as epistemology.
Let us therefore explore the meaning, foundation and importance
of epistemology.
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Charles-
Darwin-as-an-earthworm-scientist-caricature-from-
the-journal-Punch-published-in_fig3_42387382

What is It

WHAT IS EPISTEMOLOGY?
There is no one correct definition of epistemology. The one that I’m going to use came
from the philosopher Ayn Rand:
“Epistemology is a science devoted to the discovery of the proper method of
acquiring and validating knowledge” (Rand 1990).
The purpose of epistemology therefore is two-fold:

9
 1. To show how we can acquire knowledge.
2. To give us a method of demonstrating whether the knowledge we acquired is
really knowledge (i.e., true).
Since knowledge plays a central role in epistemology let us briefly described its
nature.

THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE

According to Ayn Rand knowledge is a “mental grasp of reality reached either by perceptual
observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation” (Rand 1990).

When you know something (be it the behavior of your friend, the movement of the planets, or
the origin of civilizations) you understand its nature. You identify what it is. And it stays
with you. Knowledge is a retained form of awareness (Binswanger 2014).

So how do you acquire knowledge? Miss Rand’s definition gives us two ways:
First, we can acquire knowledge using our senses: seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling, smelling.
How do you know that the table is brown? Because you see it. How do you know that fire is
hot? Because you feel it. This method of acquiring knowledge is called empiricism and it has
many adherents in the history of philosophy such as John Locke, George Berkley, David
Hume.

The Empiricists (from left to right) John Locke, George Berkley, and David
H

Second, we can acquire knowledge by thinking with the use of our minds (what philosophers
call the rational faculty). This is what rationalism advocates. (Some well-known rationalists
in history are Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz).

The Rationalists (from left to right) Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

However thinking is just half of the story of knowing (in fact the second half). The reason is
that thinking involves content. To think is to think of something. You cannot think about
nothing. This is where sense perception enters the picture by feeding our minds with data
coming from the outside world so that we can have something to think about.

10
ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE
Let us now explore the first part of epistemology: the process of acquiring knowledge.

1. Reality

To know is to know something. This “something” is what philosophers call reality, existence,
being. Let us employ the term existence. Existence is everything there is (another name for it
is the Universe [Peikoff 1990]). It includes everything we perceive (animals, plants, human
beings, inanimate objects) and everything inside our heads (e.g., our thoughts and emotions)
which represents our inner world.

Existence is really all there is to know. If nothing exists knowledge is impossible.

2. Perception

Our first and only contact with reality is through our senses. Knowledge begins with
perceptual knowledge. At first the senses give us knowledge of things or entities (what
Aristotle calls primary substance): dog, cat, chair, table, man. Later we became aware not
only of things but certain aspects of things like qualities (blue, hard, smooth), quantities
(seven inches or six pounds), relationships (in front of, son of) even actions (jumping, running,
flying). These so called Aristotelian categories cannot be separated from the entities that have
it. Red for example cannot be separated from red objects; walking cannot be separated from
the person that walks, etc.

3. Concept

After we perceive things we began to notice that some of the things we perceive are similar to
other things. For example we see three individuals let’s call them Juan, Pablo and Pedro who
may have nothing in common at first glance. But when we compare them with another entity,
a dog for example, suddenly their differences become insignificant. Their big difference to a
dog highlights their similarity to one another (Binswanger 2014)

We therefore grouped them into one class or group, named the group (“man” or “human
being”) and define what that group is to give it identity (Peikoff 1990). We now have a concept
which according to one dictionary means “an abstract or generic idea generalized from
particular instances” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

The first concepts we formed are concepts of things like dog, cat, man, house, car. These
elementary concepts are called first level concepts (Rand 1990). From these first level
concepts we can form higher level concepts through a process which Rand calls “abstraction
from abstractions” (Rand1990).

Let us describe the two types of abstraction from abstractions: wider generalizations (or
simply widenings) and subdivisions (or narrowings) (Binswanger 2014):

Wider generalization is the process of forming wider and wider concepts. For example from
Juan, Pedro and Pablo we can form the concept “man”. Then from man, dog, cat, monkey we
can form a higher and wider concept “animal”. And from plant and animal we can form a still
higher and wider concept “living organism”. As we go up to these progressive widenings our
knowledge increases.

Subdivisions consist of identifying finer and finer distinctions. For example “man” is a first
level concept that we can subdivide according to profession (doctor, entertainer, fireman,
teacher), or race (Asian, Caucasian [white], black), or gender (man, woman, lesbian, gay), or
nationality (Filipino, Chinese, American) among other things. As we go down these
progressive narrowings our knowledge of things subsumed under a concept increases.

11
The result of this progressive widenings and narrowings is a hierarchy (or levels) of concepts
whose based is sense perception. As we move further from the perceptual base knowledge
becomes more abstract and as we move closer to the perceptual level knowledge becomes
more concrete.

4. Proposition

When we use concepts in order to classify or describe an “existent” (a particular that exist be
it an object, a person, an action or event, etc) (Rand 1990) we use what philosophers call a
proposition (Binswanger 2014). A proposition is a statement that expresses either an
assertion or a denial (Copi, 2002) that an existent belongs to a class or possess certain
attribute.

Proposition is usually expressed in a declarative sentence. When I say, for example, that “Men
are mortals” I am making an assertion of men which are affirmative in nature (thus the
statement is an affirmative proposition). When I make an opposite claim however, “Men are
not mortals” I am denying something about men and thus my statement is negative in nature
(thus the proposition is called a negative proposition)

An affirmative proposition therefore has the following structure: “S is P” (where S is the

subject, P is the predicate and “is” is the copula stating the logical relationship of S and P)
while the negative proposition has the structure “S is not P” (“is not” is the copula expressing
denial).

Notice that statements like “Men are mortals”, “Angels are not demons”, and “Saints are not
sinners” can either be true or false. “Truth and falsity are called the two possible truth values
of the statement” (Hurley 2011). (Later were going to explore the nature of truth).

5. Inference

How do we demonstrate that the statement is true? By providing an argument. According to

Hurley an argument “is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are
claimed to provide support for, or reason to believe one of the others (the conclusion) (Hurley
2011). To clarify this definition let’s give an example using the famous Socratic argument:

All men are mortals

Socrates is a man.

Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Here we have three related statements (or propositions). The last statement beginning with
the word “therefore” is what we call a conclusion. A conclusion is a statement that we want
to prove. The first two statements are what we call premises (singular form: premise). A
premise provides justification, evidence, and proof to the conclusion.

An argument expresses a reasoning process which logicians call inference (Hurley 2011).
Arguments however is not the only form of inference but logicians usually used “argument”
and “inference” interchangeably.

There are still many things to be discuss on the topic of knowledge acquisition. We only
provided a brief overview of the topic.

THE NATURE OF TRUTH

Now that we know how we know, it’s time to see whether the knowledge we acquired is “really”
knowledge i.e., is true. This is the second part of epistemology: validating one’s knowledge.

12
The first step in validating one’s knowledge is to ask oneself the following question: “How did
I arrive at this belief, by what steps?” (Binswanger 2014). Thus you have to retrace the steps
you took to acquire the knowledge, “reverse engineer” the process (Binswanger 2014). This is
what Dr. Peikoff calls reduction (Peikoff 1990). One will therefore realize that the steps you
took to acquire knowledge (perception-concept-proposition-inference) are the same steps
needed to validate knowledge (but in reverse order). Thus what the ancient pre-Socratic
philosopher Heraclitus said is true when applied to epistemology: “the way up [knowledge
acquisition] is the way down [knowledge validation]” (quoted by Dr. Binswanger 2014).

If we perform the process of reduction we will realized that all true knowledge rest ultimately
on sense perception. “A belief is true if it can be justified or proven through the use of one’s
senses” (Abella 2016). Consider the following statements (Abella 2016):

I am alive.

I have a body.

I can breathe.

You can only validate the above statements if you observed yourself using your senses. Feel
your body. Are you breathing? Feel your pulse. Observe your body. Is it moving? These and
countless examples provided by your senses proved that you’re alive (Abella 2016).

Not all statements however can be validated directly by the senses. Some beliefs or ideas
need a “multi-step process of validation called proof’ (Binswanger 2014). Nevertheless proof
rests ultimately on sense perception.

Statements based on sense perception are factual and if we based our beliefs on such facts
our beliefs are true (Abella 2016).

For example the belief that human beings have the right to life rests on the following claim:

1. Human beings are rational animals.

2. Animals (including human beings) are living organisms.

And of course the fact that we are alive can be demonstrated perceptually as shown above.

A third way to determine if the statement is true is through a consensus (Abella 2016). If the
majority agrees that a statement is true then it is true. However there are certain limitations
to this approach. Far too many times in history false ideas became popular which ultimately
leads to disaster. For example the vast majority of Germans during the time of Adolph Hitler
believed that Jews are racially inferior. This is obviously false supported by a pseudo
biological science of the Nazi. The result of this false consensus is the extermination of
millions of Jews in many parts of Europe.

A fourth way to determine whether a statement is true is to test it by means of action (Abella
2016). For example you want to know if a person is friendly. Well the best way to find out is
to approach the person. Thus the famous Nike injunction of “Just do it” is applicable in this
situation.

TRUTH VS OPINION

Identifying truth however can sometimes be tricky. The reason is that there are times
when we strongly held an idea that we feel “deep down” to be true. For example
religious people strongly believed that there is life after death. Some people who
embraced democracy may passionately embraced the idea that the majority is always
right. Or on a more personal level you may feel strongly that your sister is “selfish”.

13
However we must not confused strongly held beliefs with truth. Truth is knowledge
validated and when we say validated we mean they are based on the facts of reality.
You must understand dear student that the facts of reality are independent of your
thoughts, feelings or preferences (Ayn Rand calls this the primacy of existence [Rand
1982]). That is the characteristic of truth. For example the statement “Jose Rizal died
in 1896” is true. You may not like that statement or deny it strongly. That does not
change the fact that the statement is true because it is based on what really
happened in the past. There are many sources that can validate the truth of that
statement if one cared to look.
However when you say that “Jose Rizal is the greatest man who ever lived” you are
stating your preference and not facts. This is an opinion. Now it is true that there are
many facts about Rizal but that statement is asserting something that is beyond
what the facts state. That statement represents not facts but your interpretation of
facts which may reveal your biases.

To summarize an opinion has the following characteristics:

1. Based on emotions
2. Open to interpretation
3. Cannot be confirmed
4. Inherently biased
While truth is:

1. Based on the facts of reality

2. Can be confirmed with other sources
3. Independent of one’s interpretation, preferences and biases

Lesson
THEORIES OF TRUTH
2
In knowing the truth or falsity of a statement, we generally use the following Theories
of Truth:

1. The Correspondence theory of Truth:

The basic idea of the correspondence theory is that what we believe or
say is true if it corresponds to the way things actually are based on the facts.
It argues that an idea that correspond with reality is true while an idea, which
does not correspond to reality is false. For example, if I say, “The sky is blue”
then I looked outside and saw that it is indeed blue, then my statement is
true. On the other hand, if I say, “Pigs have wings” and then I checked a pig
and it does not have wings, then my statement is false. In general, statements
of beliefs, propositions, and ideas are capable being true or false.
However, according the Eubulides, a student of the Megara school of
philosophy, “the correspondence theory of truth leaves us in the lurch when

14
 we are confronted with statements such as “I am lying” or “What I am saying
here is false.” These are statements and therefore, are capable of being true
or false. But if they are true because they correspond with reality, then any
preceding statement or proposition must be false. Conversely, if these
statements are false because they do not agree with reality, then any preceding
statement or proposition must be true. Thus, no matter what we say about
the truth or falsehood of these statements, we immediately contradict
ourselves.”
This does not mean that the Correspondence Theory of Truth is wrong
or useless and, to be perfectly honest, it is difficult to give up such an
intuitively obvious idea that truth must match reality. Nevertheless, the above
criticisms should indicate that it probably is not a comprehensive explanation
of the nature of truth.
Arguably, it is a fair description of what truth should be, but it may not
be an adequate description of how truth actually “works” in human minds and
social situations (Cline, 2007).
Austin Cline argues, it is important to note here that “truth” is not a
property of “facts.” This may seem odd at first, but a distinction must be made
between facts and beliefs. A fact is some set of circumstances in the world
while a belief is an opinion about what those facts are. A fact cannot be either
true or false because it simply the way the world is. A belief, however, is
capable of being true or false because it may or may not accurately describe
the world.

2. The Coherence Theory of Truth:

It has already been established that the Correspondence Theory

assumes that a belief is true when we are able to confirm it with reality. In
other words, by simply checking if the statement or belief agrees with the way
things really are, we can know the truth. However, as Austin Cline argues,
this manner of determining the truth is rather odd and simplistic.

Cline said that a belief can be an inaccurate description of reality that

may also fit in with a larger, complex system of further inaccurate descriptions
of reality. Thus, by relying on the Correspondence Theory, that inaccurate
belief will still be called “truth” even though it does not actually describe actual
state of things. So how do we resolve this problem?

In order to know the truth of a statement, it must be tested as part of

a larger set of ideas. Statements cannot be sufficiently evaluated in isolation.
For example, if you pick up a ball and drop it accidentally, the action cannot
be simply explained by our belief in the law of gravity which can be verified
but also by a host of other factors that may have something to do with the
incident, such as the accuracy of our visual perception.

For Cline, only when statements are tested as part of a larger system of
complex ideas, then one might conclude that the statement is “true”. By

15
 testing this set of complex ideas against reality, then one can ascertain
whether the statement is “true” or “false”. Consequently, by using this
method, we establish that the statement “coheres” with the larger system. In
a sense, the Coherence Theory is similar to the Correspondence Theory since
both evaluates statements based on their agreement with reality. The
difference lies in the method where the former involves a larger system while
the latter relies on a single evidence of fact.

As a result, Coherence Theories have often been rejected for lacking

justification in their application to other areas of truth, especially in
statements or claims about the natural world, empirical data in general, and
assertions about practical matters of psychology and society, especially when
they are used without support from the other major theories of truth.

Coherence theories represent the ideas of rationalist philosophers such

as Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
and the British philosopher F.H Bradley. Moreover, this method had its
resurgence in the ideas of several proponents of logical positivism, notably
Otto Neurath and Carl Hempel.

3. The Pragmatist Theory of Truth:

The Pragramatic Theory of Truth states that a belief/statement is true if

it has a useful (pragmatic) application in the world. If it does not, then it is not
true. In addition, we can know whether a belief/statement is true by
examining the consequence of holding or accepting the statement/belief to be
true. For example, there are some people who think that there are “ghosts” or
“vampires” because they find it useful in explaining unusual phenomena and
in dealing with fears (Mabaquiao, 2016). So, if we are going to use the word
“truth”, we define it as that which is most useful to us.

However, there are objections against this theory of truth. For Austin
Cline, truth that is based on what works is very ambiguous. What happens
when a belief works in one sense but fails in another? Suppose a belief that
one will succeed may give a person the psychological strength needed to
accomplish a great deal but in the end he fails in his ultimate goal. Was his
belief “true”?

In this sense, Cline argues that when a belief works, it is more

appropriate to call it useful rather than “true”. A belief that is useful is not
necessarily true and in normal conversations, people do not typically use the
word “true” to mean “useful”.

To illustrate, the statement “It is useful to believe that my spouse is faithful”

does not at all mean the same as “It is true that my spouse is faithful.” Granted
that true beliefs are also usually the ones that are useful, but it is not usually
the case. As Nietzsche argued, sometimes untruth may be more useful than
truth.

16
 In sum, we can know if statements/beliefs are true if we look at each
statement/belief and determine if they correspond to facts, cohere with the
rules of the system and result into useful application.

It must be noted, however, that Philosophers “continue to argue with each

other on which among these three general methods is the correct one or one
that works for all kinds of statement or beliefs” (Mabaquiao, 59). Nevertheless,
it is not necessary to subscribe to only one method and consider it to work for
everyone. Perhaps it is better to use any of the three methods that is
appropriate for any given statement or belief that is being examined.

What’s More

Activity: Inquire and Discover

1. Read the passage from “Plato’s Allegory of the Cave”

(Critical thinking, Communication, Character)

“Some prisoners are chained inside a cave, facing the back wall. Behind
them is a fire, with people passing in front of it. The prisoners cannot turn
their heads, and have always been chained this way. All they can see and hear
are shadows passing back and forth and the echoes bouncing off the wall in
front of them. One day, a prisoner is freed, and dragged outside the cave. He
is blinded by the light, confused, and resists being led outside. But, eventually
his eyes adjusts so that he able to see clearly the things around him, and even
the sun itself. He came to realize that the things he thought were real were
merely shadows of real things, and that life outside of the cave is far better
than his previous life in chains. He pities those still inside. He ventures back
into the cave to share his discovery with the others—only to be ridiculed
because he can hardly see (his eyes have trouble at first re-adjusting to the
darkness). He tried to free the other prisoners but they violently resisted (the
other prisoners refuse to be freed and led outside, and they even tried to kill
him)”.
(https://wmpeople.wm.edu/asset/index/cvance/allegory)

2. What does this story mean?

___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

3. How does this passage from Plato help you turn your attention toward the
right thing (i.e., truth, beauty, justice and goodness)?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

17
Activity: Empiricists vs. Rationalists (Critical Thinking, Communication)
Directions: Using the Venn diagram below, write the differences and
similarities between how empiricists and rationalists acquired knowledge.

Empiricists Rationalists

What I Have Learned

Activity: Theories of Truth (Critical Thinking)

Direction: Identify the different theories of truth on the following statements. Write
your answer on the space provided before the number.

1. There is a water fountain in front of the Cultural Center of the Philippines.

2. Bachelors are unmarried men.
3. The sun will rise tomorrow.
4. A dream board is necessary for dreams to come true.
5. What is more important to me at this time is my family.
6. A wooden table is a solid object.
7. Ghost and vampires exist.
8. 2+2=4
9. Cats are animals.
10. The Sky is blue.

18
 What I Can Do

Direction: Make a reflection paper on Truth.

(Critical Thinking, Character, Creativity, Communication)
Guide Question: What is truth? How you tell the truth to others?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

19
 Assessment

Select the keyword that best fits the statement in each item. Write the chosen letter
on a separate sheet of paper.

1. Beliefs and statements are true if they are consistent with actual state of
affairs.
A. correspondence
B. coherence
C. pragmatic
D. deflationary
2. Beliefs that lead to the best "payoff", that are the best justification of our
actions that promote success, are truths.
A. pragmatic theory
B. semantic theory
C. correspondence theory
D. coherence theory
3. Check the headline information fair, objective, and moderate
A. It’s time to consider other means of cash aid distribution
B. Other countries around the world have much better means in cash
aid distribution
C. Government vows to faster distribution of coronavirus aid
D. We can also learn lesson from Vietnam how they distribute their cash
aid
4. Statements are true on the degree to which it "hangs together" with all the other
beliefs in a system of beliefs.
A. pragmatic
B. coherence
C. deflationary
D. correspondence
5. The five senses are useful tools to verify the truthfulness of propositions.
A. coherence theory
B. pragmatic theory
C. correspondence theory
D. semantic theory
6. Why do we need epistemology?
A. To overcome poverty
B. To acquire and validate knowledge
C. To become geniuses
D. To succeed in life
7. Knowledge is ultimately grounded on___________.
A. Emotions
B. Convictions
C. Beliefs
D. Sense perception

20
 8. Philosophers who believed that knowledge is based on sense perception.
A. Idealists
B. Rationalists
C. Empiricists
D. Nominalists

9. Identify which of the following statements is factual?

1. My brother arrived at 11 pm.
2. My brother always come home late because he is a good for nothing
individual.
3. Man is a living organism.
4. Free trade simply promotes the selfish greed of businessmen.
A. 1 and 4
B. 2 and 3
C. 1 and 3
D. 2 and 4
10. Identify which statements above are mere opinions.
A. 1 and 3
B. 2 and 4
C. 2 and 3
D. 1 and 4

Additional Activities

Direction: Read an article/watch TV/listen to radio channel and follow the guide
questions below: (Critical thinking, Communication)
Guide Questions:
1. How do you assess the words and statement uttered/stated in the article, tv
and radio?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

2. Which of their statements can be considered truth? Why

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

21
 22
Assessment What I have What I Know
1. B learned? 1. B
2. A 1. Correspond 2. C
3. D ence 3. A
4. B 2. Coherent 4. B
5. C 3. Correspond 5. A
6. B ence 6. A
7. D 4. Pragmatic 7. B
8. C 5. Pragmatic 8. B
9. C 6. Correspond 9. B
10. B ence 10. A
7. Pragmatic 11. D
8. Coherent 12. C
9. Coherent 13. D
10. Correspond 14. C
15. D
Answer Key
References
Books:

Abella, Roberto D. (2016). Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person.

Quezon City: C&E Publishing

Binswanger, Harry. (2014). How We Know. New York: TOF Publications.

Copi, Irving M. and Cohen, Carl (2002). Introduction to Logic (11th edition). New
Jersey: Prentice Hall

Hurley, Patrick J. (2011). A Concise Introduction to Logic (11th edition). Boston:

Cengage Learning

Mabacquiao, N. (2017). Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person. Quezon

City: Phoenix Publishing.

Peikoff, Leonard (1990). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York: Dutton

Rand, Ayn (1990). Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (2nd edition). New York:
Meridian

Stumpf, Samuel Enoch & Fieser, James (2008). Socrates to Sartre and Beyond (8th
edition). New Yok: McGraw Hill

Wilber, Ken (2006). Integral Spirituality. Boston: Integral Books

Websites:

Adapted from articles by Austin Cline:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/05/29/epistemology-correspondence-theory-
of-truth.htm accessed May 31, 2020.

http://mrhoyestokwebsite.com/Knower/Useful%20Information/Three%20Different
%20Theories%20of%20Truth.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

https://wmpeople.wm.edu/asset/index/cvance/allegory

23
For inquiries or feedback, please write or call:

Department of Education - Bureau of Learning Resources (DepEd-BLR)

Ground Floor, Bonifacio Bldg., DepEd Complex

Meralco Avenue, Pasig City, Philippines 1600

Telefax: (632) 8634-1072; 8634-1054; 8631-4985

Email Address: blr.lrqad@deped.gov.ph * blr.lrpd@deped.gov.ph

24