Introduction to

the Philosophy of
the Human Person
Quarter 1 – Module 2:
Methods of Philosophizing
 Lesson

1 Knowledge and Truth

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
Source:
their lives.

All of this happened because we have one tiny enemy which we can’t see
https://www.shutte rstock.c
om/search/scie ntis t+s ketch

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 .ne t/figure/Cha rles-
Darwin-as-a n-earthworm-scie ntis t-caricature-from-
the-journal-Punch-publishe d-in_fig3_42387382

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:
2
 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

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.

3
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.

4
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.

5
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”.

6
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

7
 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

8
 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.

9
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.

_ _

10
 Q1W2 PHILO ACTIVITY 2 (35 PTS)
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
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
11
 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

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
12
 9. Cats are animals.
10. The Sky is blue.

Select the keyword that best fits the statement in each item. Write the chosen letter .

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

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
13
 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

14
15