lOMoARcPSD|16181316

lOMoARcP

Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person

SD|16

Holistic Point of View Partial Point of View

• View all the aspects of a given Situation.  Consider only limited number of aspects of
• All aspects are given importance when making the given problem or situation
conclusions.  Conclusions are done by not considering all
• All aspects are bound together to form a general the sides of the story/problem overview or making
a conclusion

Example: Example:
A mother listens to both stories of her two arguing A mother scolds her younger child after its older
children before making any conclusion about the issue. brother accused him of stealing his coins. However,
the mother only listen to the story of the eldest
without letting the younger one to explain his side.

Meaning of Philosophy
The term Philosophy originated from the two Greek words: Philo which means “love” and Sophia
which means “wisdom”
Philosophy is the science that by natural light of reason studies the first causes or highest principles
of all things. Under this definition, four things are to be considered:

A.
SCIENCE
• It is called science because the investigation is systematic.
• It follows certain steps, or it employs certain procedures. 
It is an organized body of knowledge.
Image 2

B. NATURAL LIGHT OF REASON

• Philosophy explores things, without using any other laboratory or
investigative tools.
• Do not base on supernatural revelation (Theology)
• Philosopher only use his natural capacity to think, or simply human reason
Image 3
alone or the so called” unaided reason”

C. STUDY OF ALL THINGS.

• This sets a distinction between Philosophy and other sciences, All other
sciences concern only with particular object of Investigation.
•Anthropology- Study of human being in relation with the
society Image •Sociology- Study of society
Philosophy is not one dimensional or partial. It studies human beings, society, religion, language and
God among other concern. In short, a philosopher does not limit
himself to a particular object of inquiry. He questions almost
anything, if not everything. It is multidimensional or holistic.
 BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY

ate reality” or how things really are.Metaphysics is really an extension of a fundamental and necessary drive in human being
eal.It is the foundation of Philosophy. Aristotle calls it “first philosophy” (or sometimesjust” Wisdom”) and says it is the
with “first cause and the principle of things”

B.ONTOLOGY Study of the first principle of logic and reasoning

• Study of Being and
existence.
NATURAL THEOLOGY
• Study of God, Religion, Creation, etc.
3 Parts of
Metaphysics
according to
Aristotle

Metaphysics

UNIVERSAL
SCIENCE
 B. EPISTEMOLOGY
Poorly
justified
The study of knowledge or how to tell when we really
true belief
know something.

Three conditions that justified belief are the following. Truth,

Belief and Justification.

Ethics is the branch of Philosophy that explores the nature moral virtue and evaluates human action.
Ethics is a system of moral principles; it is concerned with what
is good for individuals and society and described as moral philosophy.

3 Standard of pleasure
Cynicism- living a simple life is better
Hedonism- maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain
Epictetus- (Stoic Philosopher) contentment, serenity
and peace of mind should be our way of life.
D.
AESTHETIC
The branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and
appreciation of art, beauty and good taste. It has also been defined as
“critical reflection on art, culture and nature”.
Immanuel Kant In very general terms, it examines what makes something
beautiful, sublime, disgusting, fun, cute, silly, entertaining, pretentious,
discordant, harmonious, boring, humorous, or tragic.

According to Immanuel Kant, beauty is objective and universal (i.e. certain things are beautiful to
everyone). But there is a second
er's interpretation of beauty, that of taste, which is subjective and varies
concept
cultural background and education.
.

E. LOGIC
Logic (from the Greek "logos", which has a variety of meanings including word, thought, idea,
argument, account, reason or principle) is the study of reasoning, or the study of the principles and criteria
of valid inference and demonstration. It attempts to distinguish good reasoning from bad reasoning.
Logical systems should have three things:
• consistency (which means that none of the theorems of the system contradict one another);
• soundness (which means that the system's rules of proof will never allow a false inference from a true
premise);
• completeness (which means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in
principle, be proved in the system).
Branches of Philosophy Definition Example
Do I really exist?
Study of Existence Why am I here?
Metaphysics Is there a God?
What is knowledge?
Epistemology Study of Knowledge What do people know?
What should we know?

Is this right?
Is this wrong?
Ethics Study of Action How should people act?
What is moral?

What is beauty?
What are the standard of beauty?
Aesthetics/Esthetics Study of Art What is a work of art?
Is there a connection between art and morality?

What is correct reasoning?

What is valid argument?
Logic The Study of Rules What is fallacy?
What makes an argument invalid?

Etymological Definition of Philosophy

        The word philosophy is derived from the Greek “philla” meaning “love”, and “sophia", meaning “wisdom”
or “knowledge”. The literal definition of philosophy is therefore, “love of wisdom”. [Zulueta, 2010]

        Wisdom outweighs any wealth. [Sophocles]

Philosophy as a Concept

        Philosophy is a system of beliefs about reality. It is one's integrated view of the world. It includes an
understanding of the nature of existence, man, and his role in the world. It is a necessary product of man’s
rational mind.

Philosophy as a Process

        Philosophy is employed as a method of inquiry. It is an engagement in the search for the meaning of life,
its value and relevance. It is a process for finding significance in existence.

        To live, man must gain knowledge of the world. To understand the world, man must form conclusions
about its very nature. For instance, to gain knowledge of particular objects, man must recognize that objects
have identity. He must recognize that conclusions are possible because the world does exist, and exists in a
particular way. 

        Philosophy provides the framework for which man can understand the world. It provides the premises by
which man can discover truth and use his mind to support his life. Every man has an understanding of the
world. Every man must have a philosophy, even if it is never made explicit. 
 Philosophy as the Foundation of Knowledge

       Philosophy is the standard by which ideas are integrated and understood. It has been regarded as the sum
and summit of human knowledge, as the “scientia scientiarium”—the science of the sciences and the
compendium of all learning. 
All the branches of learning in fact, sprang from philosophy’s womb, so that she is rightly called the “mater”
and the “matrix” of all knowledge. [Montemayor, 1995]

Purpose of Philosophy

        It is philosophy that digs into the root causes of man’s problems and discovers the true solutions and
remedies to human ills. [Montemayor, 1995]

        Philosophy helps us to free and expand our minds. Through it, we will be able to grasp and comprehend
the complexities of life; and, we will find that there is more to existence than the doing of mundane routine
tasks. We will find that we can do something to make things better for all of us. [Montemayor, 1995]

        Philosophy is all about making sense of the human experience. Philosophy leads to enlightenment and
action.

        Philosophy is used at present to unify, synthesize, universalize, interpret and explain more deeply the
enormous pile of factual but piecemeal, particular, unrelated findings, data, and information accumulated by
the modern sciences—for a more comprehensive and universal concept of man. [Montemayor, 1995]

        The study of philosophy will always be an important feature of human experience and its importance in
the development of the complete social being, ready to take on his responsibility in this rapidly changing world.
[Zulueta, 2010]

        Philosophy makes man think about the basic foundations of his outlook in life, his knowledge and his
beliefs. It makes an individual inquire into the reasons for what he accepts and does and into the importance of
his ideas and ideals in the hope that his final convictions will change as a result of this examination. [Zulueta,
2010]

        “The new technologies give proof of the human being’s intellectual capacity. Can we really believe that we
are incapable of applying that same intellectual power to solving the great problems the world faces,
overpopulation, pollution and poverty chief among them? Can we believe that the beleaguered peoples of the
world will long be tolerant of those who possess the tools but who can’t make them work for the good of
humankind everywhere? There is going to be social and political and economic evolution, which will explode
with such suddenness as to have the character of revolution. The revolutionary forces are already at work
today, and they have humankind’s dreams on their side. We don’t want to be on the other side. It is up to us to
assume leadership of that revolution, to channel it in a direction that will ensure freedom’s future”. [Walter
Cronkite, A Reporter’s Life, 1996]

        Man experiences his own life as a problem. Being a thinking creature, he realizes his life depends on what
he makes it. Being free, he realizes he can decide; he is responsible for his actions. He turns to philosophy only
to discover that reality is not something only out there, but that it also involves him. The quality of his life
depends on “his own free response”. [Robert Johann, American Philosopher]

        “And hey, if you said “No” one too many times, buck up, little buckaroo. It’s never too late to start living…
pursue your dreams…leave your comfort zone…test the waters”. [Rob Cohen and David Wollock, Been There,
Done That!]
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.

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.

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.

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”.
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
THEORIES OF TRUTH

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 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 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.
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.