PHILOSOPHY, LOGIC AND HUMAN EXISTENCE

What is Philosophy?
A precise and universal definition of the term “Philosophy” is not practicable and
to attempt it, at least at the beginning, would be misleading. However, one general
agreement among philosophers seem to be that philosophy tries to get at the truth of
certain important questions. This is because man, over the year, has been making
frantic efforts to unravel the mysteries of life. This search for the meaning of life has
become so necessary that a Persian Poet points out that “the universe is life an old
manuscript of which the first and the last pages have been lost, which makes it very
difficult to say how the book began and how it is likely to end. It is these missing
pages of book of the universe that Philosophy seem to be in search of, to search out
the lost meaning of life, the universe and all there is.
For the purpose of this course, however, the meaning of philosophy will be
explored from three perspectives, namely; The Etymological Perspective, The
Popular/Public Perspective and The Technical/Professional Perspective.
Etymological perspective:
Etymologically, the word “Philosophy” is derived from two Greek words “Philo” which
means “loving” or “Love of” and “Sophia” which means “wisdom”. These words, when
combined, give a single word Philosophia” which means “Love of wisdom or
knowledge”. From the etymological perspective therefore, philosophy can be seen as
love of wisdom.
Popular/Public Perspective:
The word philosophy, in the popular sense, is used to describe “the expressed or
observed worldview of a person which may be the sum total of his assumptions,
beliefs, convictions, attitudes, prejudices which determine his disposition and approach
of life, the universe, other and nature”. Philosophy from this perspective is used to
characterize a person of group of persons’ attitude to life and the general pattern or
the habitual way of response of the person or groups the events.
Technical/Professional Perspective:
Philosophy from this perspective has changed from its all-embracing posture to a
separate academic discipline. It is also characterized by logical, consistent and
systematic thinking aimed at reaching conclusions that are sound, coherent and
consistent in all ramifications
Philosophy from this perspective is conceived as activity, content and attitude.
Philosophy as activity involves analyzing, synthesizing, assessing, prescribing and
speculating all human values and ends as well as reality in general. Philosophy here, is
seen as something active. On the other hand, as content, philosophy can be seen as
the various schools of thought that have emerged in the history of philosophy. In the
history of philosophy, philosophers differ in their opinions on issues bothering on the
various aspects of philosophy and over the years, they have been grouped into various
schools or movements. These issues and the opinions of various school of thought on
them, form the content of philosophy. As attitude, philosophy is taken to represent the
distinctive attributes or dispositions which are demanded in doing philosopohy. These
common attitudes include consistency, objectivity, openness, comprehensiveness, self-
awareness and tentativeness.
Philosophy from the professional perspective also include the definitions of
philosophy as given by some professional philosophers through the history of
philosophy. For instance, Plato defined philosophy as the acquisition of knowledge or
wisdom; Aristotle defined it in terms of essence as “the science of the universal
essence of that which is actual”; for John Dewey, Philosophy is the criticism of criticism;
Wittgenstein identified the object of philosophy as the “logical clarification of thought”
etc.
From the foregoing, we may see philosophy as the exercise of reason and logic
in an attempt to understand reality and answer fundamental questions about
knowledge, life, morality, the universe, human nature/existence and other forms of
existence.
Mode of Philosophy
As a critical activity of the mind, philosophy can be said to have basically three modes,
which are: The Speculative, The Prescriptive and The Analytic modes.
Speculative mode: This mode of philosophy seeks to set ideals and standards for
judgments of human conduct, values and art with regards to good and bad, right and
wrong, beautiful and ugly, etc.
Analytic Mode: This mode is concerned primarily with the exploration of the meaning
of words and statements in order to separate them into components for easier
understanding.
CHARACTERISTICS OF PHILOSOPHY
Like other disciplines, philosophy has it unique characteristics which includes:
Reliance on the use of Logical Reason: Philosophy uses systematic and consistent
thinking in examining evidence against or in favour of any claim from a detached point
of view in order to discard prejudices and attain impartial conclusions.
Tentative Nature of Conclusion: This means that philosophy does not hold
absolute and certain conclusions. Its conclusions are always open to further
investigations, criticisms and questioning which demand new answers or solutions.
EVOLUTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY IN ANCIENT GREECE
Athens as one of the prominent Ancient Greek city-states was blessed with men of
wisdom who began to probe into various aspects of nature and existence. These men
(in the 6th Century B.C) refused to simply accept traditional mythological and religious
explanations in their curiosity to know the origin, meaning and nature of all existence.
The Milesian Traditional Thinkers (Ionians), to start with, wanted to identify what was
permanent in the midst of the constant change in the universe. They all put forth
fundamental hypothesis but not agreeing on any particular element as the primary
stuff. These thinkers include: Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes.
Thales of Miletus (585 B.C): In Thales’ Perception, water was the primary
substance form which all things emanate. For him, when water is heated, it becomes
steam and thus, all entities that are gaseous, such as atmosphere, can be described as
refined water. Since water is naturally liquid, Thales believed that all things that can
flow are made up of water. Consequently, if water is adequately cooled, it becomes ice
(solidified), therefore, all solids must be condensed water.
Anaximander of Miletus (610-547 B.C): The primary substance of all existing
matter, for him, was not water but something infinite, full of magnificence, eternal and
ageless. The primary substance of all things is therefore not a specific thing but an
indeterminate boundless thing (apeiron). All things therefore come from the infinite
and to it shall all return. Some scholars (like Wilhelm Wildelbrand) interpret
Anaximander’s aspeiron to be a philosophical conception of God striped of all mythical
structure and form.```````````````````````````````````````````
Anaximenes of Miletus (585-323): In his view, Air is the primary stuff of all things.
These is considered as the breath of life which is the sources of all that walks, that is,
he justify these as he consider air as the vehicle of vital psychic force where the mind
or soul signifies breath that holds together both human and animal, life and the world
in unity as a result his greater mobility and extension air itself cannot be seen but
becomes visible through material transformation in the process of condensation and
rarefaction. Consequently, it is believe that when air is condensed, it gives rise to cloud,
water, and earth and finally stones and when it is clarified, it causes warming and
finally fire.
 Although, Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes seemed not to have make any
significant breakthrough beyond mere speculations. There real significant is in a fact
that they were the first to raise fundamental question about the ultimate origin and
nature of reality in the universe.
OTHER PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY
Heraclitus of Ephesus; He’s principally remember for his doctrine that all things are
forever in a state of flux (change), and that you cannot step on the same river twice
for new waters are ever flowing in upon you. For him, the only permanent thing is
changed which serves as unity in diversity. In a midst of the constant change he
argues there’s something which remains constant and that is fire.
Embodocles of Acragas: changes in a universe according to him results from the re-
combination of four (4) basic and permanent elements namely; Air, Water, Earth and
Fire which means and separates under the influence of the dual forces of attraction
(love) and repulsion (strive). Thus; the forces of love cause the four (4) elements to
come together and build up some particular form or person while the forces of hate
cause disintegration and decomposition of things or being for him this forms of matter
(water, air, earth and fire) never transform into something else but there mixture
brings objects into being.
Pythagoras: to Pythagoras, all things consists of number mean that numbers are the
basis of all things that has shapes and sizes. Thus; he believes that mathematics
principle underline all things. The Pythagoreans moves from arithmetic to geometry
and then to the structure of reality in which all things can be explain in numerical
terms and reducible to unit or point. The number ten (10) of Pythagoras is the most
perfect because it contains all other numbers. From these, the odd and even values of
number unaccounts for all opposites in things such as male and female, Good and Bad,
Right and Wrong, One and Many, Rest and Motion, e.t.c. He was the first to advance
the study of mathematics with his popular theorem that states; Square of the
Hypothesis is equal to the square of the other two sides of the right angle triangle.

THE ATOMIST LEUCIPPUS OF MILETUS (450-420) AND DEMOCRITUS OF

ABDERA (460-370)
Leucippus of Miletus and Democritus of Abdias, the above thus; argues that the nature
of things consists of an infinite number of particles or units called Atoms which are
believed to be indestructible and serene. The atoms can neither be created nor
destroyed as they exist in space homogeneously and unchanged solid but differ from
each other in shapes and size. The smallest in size of the atoms makes them divisible
in size of the atom but only be detectable in the scientific apparatus. Nature therefore
consists of only space (vacuum) and atoms. The atoms therefore are perpetually or
consistently moving in space and their motion leads them to form the object of
existence. The whole of existence including celestial bodies and other things therefore
came into existence as a result of a combination of various types of atoms. The soul
according to the atomists, is most probably made of particular fine atoms which are
composite as well as perishable like the body.
Anaxogoras (500-428 BC): one of his popular doctrine holds that there’s a portion
of everything in everything asserting that whatever a things changes into is in some
imperceptible proportion acridly imbedded (contained) in it before the changes
manifestos. He holds that all qualities we ever present in all beings with the
preponderant quality emerging. He propounded the principle of homoeomereity in
which hesitates that, things are with light parts of each other. This is the
metaphysical idea of causation in Biology science to the effect that change is a matter
of passing out something that is already manifested or present.
Parminedes of Elea (515 BC): He maintained that fundamental nature of reality has
nothing to do with the world as we experience it. He went much further than
Heraclitus in tempering our reliance on the sense; he rejected the senses as entirely
misleading and pressed on reason alone to reveal the truth. Putting all of his faith in
the power of abstract reason, Parmenides argues that genuine knowledge can only
involve being, and that non-being is literally unspeakable and unthinkable. Using only
the premise that “what is” is and what “is not” is not, he proceeds to deduce the
nature of reality. The reality he arrives at bears no resemblance at all to the world we
experience around us through our senses. The nature of the world, then, can only be
gotten at through a rational inquiry. When starting out on a rational inquiry, according
to Permenides, there are only two logically coherent possibilities: either you begin your
inquiry with the premise that the subject of your inquiry exist or you begin with the
premise that it does not exist. But the second of these possibilities, according to
Parmenides, is utterly meaningless. It is, therefore, not a real possibility at all.
Parmenides bases this claim regarding the path of “it is not” on the assertion that,
“that which is there to be thought or spoken of must be”.
THE GOLDEN AGE OF PHILOSOPHY
This is a significant period in the history of philosophy as it witnessed the emergence
of three very influential and foundational figures in the history of Western philosophy,
namely: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who have remained reference points in many
aspect of philosophy till date.
Socrates (470-399 B.C) He claimed to be guided all his life by an interior voice, a
divine voice or an oracle (daimonion). He was convinced that philosophizing for him
was a vocation and divine mission entrusted to him by God. Philosophy for him was a
way of life (based on the search for true knowledge and helping others to attain true
knowledge) and not just an academic exercise.
The Socratic Method: His main method of teaching was dialectic which involves
seeking knowledge through questions and answers. He used this method because he
believed that men have innate knowledge within them and all they bneed is somebody
to bring out this knowledge from within them. He therefore, r eferred to himself as a
knowledge midwife. His second method was inductive reasoning which begins with
particular cases or issues to provide universal knowledge as conclusion. His aim was to
make people live a good life devoid of immorality.
The Socratic Irony: The Socratic Irony is found in his claim that a man who knows
his ignorance is wiser than he who doesn’t know his ignorance.
The Socratic Paradox: He equated knowledge with virtue. In other words, ignorance
is the cause of wrongdoing as no man who knows what is wrong will go ahead to do it.
The goal of life for Socrates is happiness and the only path that leads to this universal
and eternal goal is virtue which comes with knowledge.
The Essence of Self Knowledge (Know yourself): Socrates insisted that each
person should continually examine himself/herself for self-knowledge. This informed
his popular dictum that “an unexamined life is not worth living”.
Charges against Socrates: He was accused of impiety and corrupting the morals of
the Athenian youths as he constantly instilled in them the spirit of criticism.
Trial, Conviction and Death of Socrates: He told the court he would never stop
practicing philosophy even if the court or state ordered him to stop. Consequently, he
was convicted and sentenced to death. His friend wanted to help im escape from
pprison but he refused. He was made to drink the poisonous hemlook and died in ……
Plato (428-347 B.C): He was said to be the first to use the word philosophy as one
of the worled creative and influential thinkers in Western Philosophy. A prominent
aspect of Plato philosophy is his theory forms. This theory holds that objects in the
physical world merely resemble or participate in the perfect forms in the ideal world
and that only these perfect forms can be objects of knowledge.
 In his book, The Republic, Plato discussed the nature of justice in the soul and
in the state by giving a theoretical account of the perfect and just (ideal) state. For
him, the soul is divided into three parts; The rational, The spirited and The appetitive.
These, for him, correspond with the three classes of people in the state namely: The
Philosopher kings (who are well educated and have the responsibility of ruling the
state); The Soldiers (who defend the state) and Artisans or Workers (who provide food
and other services for the ruling class). So, the two lower classes of the society must
be ruled by the highest class-the philosophers who are sophisticated in their reasoning.
It is the responsibility of the state, according to him, to educate all the citizens
throughout the state. The philosophers or guardians are deprived of private ownership
and family, to enable them concentrate. For him, when each class performs their
duties for the interest of the state, there is justice.
Aristotle (384-322): He invented the study of formal logic and pioneered the study
of zoology. He was a realist who emphasized method rooted in observation and
experience. Aristotle rejected Plato’s ideal state for being too utopian to be practiced.
For him, every state progresses form the family through the village to the polis or city-
state as he considers the family as the bedrock of the state. Aristotle believed that the
ultimate goal of human existence should be eudemonia which translates as human
flourishing or happiness.
Schools of Thought in Philosophy
Various philosophers assume different perspectives in the course of philosophizing.
This informed the emergence of schools of thought in philosophy. Some of the schools
of thought in philosophy are articulated below.
Idealism: Idealism asserts that reality is actually dependent upon the mind rather
than something that exists independent of the mind. In other words, the ideas and
thoughts of the mind constitute the essence or fundamental nature of all reality. Some
known philosophers in the group include Plato, Xant and Hegel. Plato for instance
maintained that objects in the physical world are mere resemblance of the perfect
form of things in the ideal world.
Realism/Materialism: Realism holds that our minds or what we think about a reality
cannot change that reality, and that reality should be confronted as it is. Materialism
on the other hand, holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter.
Thus, all things are composed of matter. In other words, phenomena are the result of
material interactions, with no place for spirit or consciousness.
Pragmatism: This is a school of thought that emerged in America in the 19th Century
with Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and John Dewey as the major proponents.
Pragmatism holds that for an idea, proposition, word or thought to be meaningful and
true, it must be matched with action and practice.
Logical Positivism: This school of thought is popular for its verification principle
which states that a statement is meaningful if only it can be verified empirically or
scientifically. The task of philosophy for this school therefore, is that of analyzing
scientific theories and language.
MARXISM
This branch of philosophy is concerned with the origin, nature and essence of reality,
existence or being. Some issues in metaphysics include the problem of being,
substance and accident, essence and existence, problem of universals, appearance and
reality, change and permanence, causality, freedom and determinism, etc. The
following are the components of metaphysics:
Cosmology: This is the aspect of metaphysics which studies issues and theories
about the origin, nature and development of the universe as an orderly system. They
key question here is: how did the universe originate and develop?
Theodicy: This is the part of metaphysics that has to do with conceptions about God.
The key questions here are: does God exist? If there is God, why is there evil in the
world? Is there only one God or are there many gods? 
Ontology: This aspect of metaphysics deals with theories concerning the essence of
being. It studies questions of being or existence such as: what is the meaniThis aspect
of metaphysics deals with theories concerning the essence of being. It studies
questions of being or existence such as: what is the meaning of being or what does it
mean “to be” of being or what does it mean “to be” for each of such beings as
physical entities, souls, values, numbers, time, space, imaginary objects? What is real
existence? Why does something exist rather than nothing?
EPISTEMOLOGY
This is the branch of philosophy that deals with the theory or science of knowledge. It
enquires into the nature, origin, range and condition of knowledge. It is the theory of
valid knowledge. The two major aspects of epistemology are theory of knowledge and
logic.
Theory of knowledge: This is the aspect of epistemology that deals primarily
with the sources and reliability of knowledge. There are five major sources of
knowledge identified by this aspect of epistemology. They include: empirical,
rational, authority, intuitive and revealed.
o Empirical Knowledge: This holds that knowledge is ultimately derived from
our senses by experience. For proponents of empiricism therefore, there is not
innate knowledge, i.e knowledge that we are born with or posses from birth.
Empiricism fits well with the scientific world-view which places emphasis on
experimentation and observation. It struggles, however, to account for certain
types of knowledge like knowledge of pure mathematics.
o Rational Knowledge: This holds that knowledge is derived primary from
reason and that reason plays an important role in the acquisition of all of our
knowledge. There is clearly a limit to what we can learn through abstract
thought. The claim of the rationalist however, is that reason plays a role in
observation, and so the mind is more fundamental than the senses in process
of knowledge acquisition.
o Authority: This is the kind of knowledge acquired by making recourse to or
depending on authority without verifying claims. This kind of knowledge is
derived from the written works, documentaries and reports of others for
instance. If Juliet accepts that Kano is the largest commercial city in Northern
Nigeria, because she was told by her teacher, such knowledge is authoritative.
Again, if Juliet accepts that Asaba is the capital of Delta State by reading it
from a book, her source of knowledge is used in all academic activities as
references are most times made to authorities, writers and authors in some
specific fields. Care must be taken in the use of this source of knowledge not
to rely on wrong authorities for knowledge.
o Intuition: This is the way of knowing which involves an immediate insight or
eruption into consciousness of an idea produced by a long process of
conscious work. It may occur as a sudden arrival of solution to one’s problem
or puzzle, having worked for some hours or days without arriving at such
solution.
o Revealed Knowledge: This is the claim to knowledge form some
supernatural or celestial beings. This type of knowledge is commonly found
within the religious sphere. For those who profess this knowledge, the
condition is that there must be a total surrendering of oneself to the source of
such revelation. That is, the supernatural being is eternally superior and
cannot be said to lie or make a mistake. In the Christian fold for instance,
dreams, visions and even the Bible have to be accepted as forms of revealed
knowledge. In the Islamic tradition, the Koran is held to be an authoritative
 and revealed source of knowledge. In African tradition Religious, the status of
self-revelation is given to deities, ancestors, divination of oracles and dreams
interpretation is a major challenge with this source of knowledge.
Logic: This is the aspect of philosophy and epistemology concerned with the
science of reasoning. In other words, it is concerned with the systematic
separation of correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning through the use of
principles or techniques.
C. Axiology
This branch of philosophy is simply the study of values; the investigation of its nature,
criteria and metaphysical status. Axiology deals with both intrinsic and extrinsic values.
Values are described as intrinsic when they are pursued for their own sake, while
extrinsic values are pursued as a means to other ends. For instance, medicine as a
discipline can be said to have intrinsic value when it is aimed at the improvement of
health of the society. But it can be said to have extrinsic value when it is seen as a
means of acquiring material wealth. Axiology is further divided into ethics, aesthetics
and political philosophy.
- Ethics: This branch of philosophy and axiology is concerned with human act
that is deliberate from the point of view of what is morally good and bad,
right and wrong it is the science of good and evil of human action (good
referring to what is praiseworthy and bad referring to what is condemnable).
Ethics asks and attempts to answer fundamental questions such as: what is
the good life of man? How should we live? Is it right to be dishonest even for
a good course? Is war justified? Is it right or wrong to clone a human being or
to destroy human embryo in medical research? It abortion justified? Is
euthanasia right or wrong? Etc.
- Aesthetics: This is the study of value in the arts or the inquiry into feelings,
judgments or standards of beauty and related concepts. Aesthetics is
concerned with questions such as: what is beauty? When we say a things is
beautiful, what does it mean? Is beauty subjective or objective? Etc.
- Social and Political Philosophy: This is the branch of philosophy that is
concerned with how the society should be politically organized. Here,
questions are raised about the origin and purpose of society. Such questions
include: What is the end or purpose of the state? What is the nature of an
ideal state or how best should the state be organized? Why must a person
obey the laws of the state? Where should power and authority reside in a
state? Etc.
LOGIC:
Definition of Logic
Unlike philosophy itself, logicians seem to agree on what logic means or what it is
about. Logic has been variously defined by different scholars. For instance, Copi
defines logic as the study of the methods and principles used in distinguishing
good (correct) from bad/incorrect reasoning. On the other hand, Nancy sees
logic “as the science that appraises reasoning as correct or incorrect”. Kahane
on his part defines logic as “an attempt to distinguish between correct (valid)
form incorrect (invalid) arguments”. Etymologically, Logic is derived form Greek
word Logos, which means study, word or discourse. Basically, you can notice that in
the above definitions the words which stand out clearly are reasoning and
argumentation. Therefore, we can say that the study of logic is the study of correct
and incorrect reasoning and arguments.
The basic aim of logic is to teach us to reason correctly, where reasoning is seen
as the activity or process of adducing, collecting reasons, weighing them, and drawing
conclusions based upon these reasons.
Basic Logical Concepts/Vocabulary
There are some basic concepts used by logicians. The focus here, will particularly be
on statement, proposition, premise, conclusion and inference.
Statement/Preposition: There is no difference between a statement and a
proposition in logic. The two terms are synonymous and thereupon interchangeable.
However, logicians differentiate between statement and sentence. To them, even
though the two terms are interwoven, they are not actually the same. For instance, in
everyday English, a sentence is a set of words expressing a statement, a question or a
command. Thus whenever a sentence expresses a statement without question or
command it can also be called logical statement. It should also be clear that in
ordinary English, every logical statement is a sentence. But as stated earlier not every
sentence is a logical statement. It is only when a sentence can both be denied
and asserted that is qualifies as logical statement or proposition. For example,
the sentence “Kogi State University is large” can be asserted as follow: Yes, Kogi State
University is large. It can also be denied by stating as follows: No, “Kogi State
University is not large”. Because it can be asserted and can also be denied, it is a
logical statement or proposition. Any sentence expressing questions, commands etc
does not qualify as logical statement or proposition.
Premise: Premise is also one of the basic concepts in logic. It is known as evidence
for conclusion basically, a premise refers to that proposition or statement, within an
argument, which provides support for or grounds for asserting the conclusion of the
argument. In a valid argument, the premises imply the conclusion. Premise and
conclusion are related terms. Conclusion does not necessary mean the last sentence.
The premise in an argument A can be the conclusion in argument F and vice-versa.
For example: All men are mortal
Abiola is a man
Therefore Abiola is a mortal.
In this example, the frist two statements or preposition are the premises which the last
one is the conclusion.
Premise-indicators: These are words and expression that indicate the premises
within an argument. The following are some of the premise indicators. “since”, “for”,
“as”, “because”, “in as much as”, “for the reason that”, etc…. When a
statement follows the word “since” the statement is a premise. For example; “since the
Vice-Chancellor is in School, there will be light today”, in any argument, the statement
or proposition that comes after the word “because” is usually a premise for instance:
There will be light today because Vice-Chancellor is in the school. Whenever the word
“for” is used, it simply means that the sentence following it is the premise of the above
argument. For example: there will be light today for the Vice Chancellor is in school.

Conclusion
In logic, conclusion is that proposition, within the argument, that is arrived at on the
strength or basis of the information provided by the premises. Simply put, conclusion
means to come or brings to an end. You should always remember that in any valid
argument, the conclusion follows from the premises. For instance,
All philosophy students are wise
Tony is a philosophy student
Therefore Tony is wise.
Here, it is clear that the third preposition “Tony is wise”, which is the conclusion of the
argument, is arrived at on the basis of the information provided by the first two
propositions, which are the premises.
Conclusion Indicators: There are some expressions and words that function to
indicate the conclusion within a passage. These are generally called conclusion –
indicators. For example: “hence”, “consequently”, “therefore”, “we may conclude”,
 “we may infer”, “thus”, “so” etc. whenever any of these words begins a statement
or proposition, it is obvious that such proposition is a conclusion.
Inference
in logic to infer means to derive the conclusion of an argument from the premises of
that argument. For example:
All Cameroonians are strong
Song is a Cameroonian
Therefore, Song is strong
Here you can see that the conclusion “Song is strong” is derived from the first and
second premises of the argument. This process of derivation is called inference.
Argument
The common understanding of an argument seems to be a heated and most times
hostile disagreement or quarrel between two or more persons over an issue. Logical
argument is completely different from this common understanding of an argument.
Within Logic, an argument is a group of propositions, one of which, called the
conclusion, is affirmed on the basis of one others, which are premises. At least two
propositions or statements form an argument otherwise it is not argument. In the case
of two propositions only one must be the premises while the others must be the
conclusion. For instance: “Since the Vice Chancellor is in school, there will be light”.
Here the conclusion is “there will be light” while the premise is “the Vice Chancellor is
in school”. The expression “since” stands as premise – indicator. When more than two
propositions or statements form an argument, one must be a conclusion while the
others must be premises. For example:
All mothers are caring
Aishat is a mother
Therefore, Aishat is caring
It should be noted however, that no matter how many premises form an argument, an
argument can never have more than one conclusion.
Deductive Reasoning/Argument
A deductive argument is an argument in which the premises provide a guarantee of
the truth of the conclusion. In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to
provide support for the conclusion that is so strong that, if the premises are true, it
would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. In other words, deductive
argument provide a guarante4e of the truth of the conclusion provided that the
argument’s premises are true. An example of a deductive argument is:
All Nigerians are rich
 Tolu is a Nigerian
Therefore, Tolu is rich
From the above example, it is clear that if all Nigerians are rich and Tolu is one of
those Nigerians, the conclusion certainly will be that Tolu is rich since he is one of the
Nigerians who are all rich. In other words, the conclusion is a necessary and direct
consequence of the premises. A deductive argument can either be valid or invalid,
sound or unsound.
Inductive Reasoning/Argument
An inductive argument is an argument in which the premises provide reasons
supporting the probable truth of the conclusion. In an inductive argument, the premise
are intended only to be so strong that, if they are true, then it is unlikely that the
conclusion is false. The following argument is an example of inductive reasoning or
argument:
In July 2014 there was rain
In July 2015 there was rain
In July 2016 there was rain
In July 2017 there was rain
In July 2018 there was rain
Probably, there will be rain in July 2019
From the above example, the conclusions is only probable because it doesn’t follow
strictly from the premises. It is possible there was rain in July from 2014 to 2018 but
there won’t be rain in July in 2019. But the point is that since there appear to be
consistency of rain in July from 2014 to 2018, it is most likely or probable that the
same consistency will be sustained in 2019. An inductive can only be weak or strong.
Valid and Invalid (Deductive) Arguments
An argument is said to be valid when the conclusion of that argument is derived from
or follows from the premises. In other words, in a valid argument, it is necessary that
if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. Thus, in any valid argument, there
is an absolute connection between the premises and the conclusion. In any valid
argument, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true,
for example:
All Nigerians are hardworking
Peter is a Nigerian
Therefore, Peter is hardworking.
 What matters most here is the link between the premises and the conclusion
rather than on the truth or falsity of the statements comprising the arguments.
An invalid argument is the opposite of valid one. An argument is invalid if
conclusion does not follow strictly from the premises. In other words an argument is
invalid if the conclusion says more or less than the claims of the premises. When the
premises of an argument are all true and the conclusion is false, the argument is said
to be invalid. The following argument is an invalid argument:
All Nigerians are hardworking
Peter is a Nigerian
Therefore, Peter is lazy.
The above argument is invalid since the conclusion talks about Peter’s laziness
which is not contained in the premises or implied by them.
Sound and Unsound (Deductive) Arguments
An argument is said to be sound only if it is first of all valid and secondly, all the
component propositions ( premises and conclusion) must all be true statements. In
other words, soundness of argument goes beyond the logical flow of an argument to
their factual status or material truth or falsity. An argument is therefore sound if the
conclusion follows logically from the conclusions and the premises and conclusion are
all true.
Therefore, validity + truth value of propositions = soundness.
The following is an example of a sound argument:
Kogi State is in Nigeria
Anyigba is in Kogi State
Therefore, Anyigba is in Nigeria.
The above argument is sound because the premises logically imply the conclusion and
the premises and conclusion are all concretely true.
On other hand, a valid argument is said to be unsound if the premises of that
argument are either all false or contain a mixture of true and false prepositions. The
following is an example of an unsound argument:
All human beings stone
Joy is a human being
Therefore, Joy is a stone
The above argument is valid because the conclusion follows logically from the
premises but it is unsound because the premises and conclusion are all not true.
 In conclusion, any valid argument with all premises true is a sound argument.
Any valid argument with at least one false premise in an unsound argument. All invalid
arguments are unsound.
Strong and Weak (Inductive) Arguments
As noted earlier, valid or invalid are words reserved for arguments only while “weak”
or “strong” are used to qualify inductive arguments. As stated earlier, an inductive
argument is based on probability. That is why logicians rather use the words weak and
strong. In an inductive argument, the words strong and weak are used to indicate the
level of strength of evidence or data used as premises and the degree of certainty
contained in the conclusion. Since inductive arguments are based on probability, its
weakness or strength depends on the degree of evidence contained in the premises.
SYLLOGISM
Logic deals with formal science and the central idea is argument and since an
argument comprises of proposition and a resulting conclusion, there is the need to
assess the logical arrangement of these propositions in the argument. Syllogism serves
as a device for measuring the formal structure of an argument. Thus, a syllogism is
an argument that is composed of major premise, minor premise and a
conclusion. The first or the main idea is called major premise, the second premise or
the supporting idea is called minor premise while the last proposition is not a premise
ut a conclusion drawn from the premises. A valid syllogism is governed by a particular
formula. The formula is given as follows:
All P’s are Q’s (major premise)
R is P (minor premise)
Therefore, R is Q (conclusion)
The above structure is established in order to determine whether the argument
has created a strong link between the premises and the conclusion. The application of
syllogistic formula is done by demarcating the premises into two parts – subject and
predicate terms in every proposition. Let’s consider the following example:
All Africans are black
Nigerians are Africans
Therefore, Nigerians are black
The following terms should be noted in a standard syllogism:
 major Term: The term that occurs as the predicate of the conclusions is called the
“major term” of the syllogism.
 Minor Term: The term that occurs as the subject term of the conclusion is called
the “Minor term” of the syllogism.
 Middle Term: The third term of the syllogism, which does not occur in the
conclusion, appearing instead in both premises, is called “middle term”.
Let’s make the term clear with an example:
All politicians are unreliable
Agbo is a politician
Therefore, Agbo is unreliable.
From the above argument:
The major Term in “unreliable”
The minor Term is “Agbo”
Middle Term is “Politician”
The premises of a standard-form syllogism are named after the terms that appear in
them. The major and minor terms must each occur in a different one of the premises.
The premise containing and the major term is called the “major premise” and the
premise containing the minor term is called the “minor premise”. In the syllogism given
above,
Major premise = “All politicians are unreliable”
Minor premise = “Agbo is a politician”
There are three major types of Syllogism, namely: categorical, hypothetical, and
disjunctive syllogism.
Categorical Syllogism
A categorical syllogism is the major type of syllogism discussed above. It is an
argument consisting of exactly three categorical propositions (two premises and a
conclusion) in which there appear a total of exactly three categorical terms, each of
which is used exactly twice. One of those terms must be used as the subject term of
the conclusion of the syllogism, and we call it the minor term of the syllogism as a
whole. The major term of the syllogism is whatever is employed as a predicate term of
its conclusion. The third term in the syllogism doesn’t occur in the conclusion at all, but
must be employed in somewhere in each of its premises; hence, we call it the middle
term.
These categorical syllogisms can be divided into 4 kinds of categorical
propositions which will be explained separately:
1. A: Universal Affirnative: this is a syllogism of the form: All X are Y, like the
example: all woman are caring.
2. E: Universal Negative: this is the negative form of universal affirmative, which is
a syllogism of the form: No X is Y, or as example: No humans are perfect. This
syllogism type is exactly the opposite of proposition “A” explained above.
3. I: Particular Affinitive: Another syllogism type is the “particular form” which only
influences some people and not the whole population. This syllogism is of the form:
Some X are Y.
4. O: Particular Affinitive: The opposite of proposition “I” is proposition “O” which
is of the form: Some X are not Y. an example of this would be: some cars are not
green. By explaining these 4 kinds of categorical syllogism types each syllogism can
be identified, which is also called “stating the mood of an argument”. We know
syllogism can be identified, which is also called “stating the mood of an argument”.
We know syllogisms always consist out of a major and minor premise and a
conclusion. In standard form, as shown on this page, the major premise is always
shown first, after which the minor premise and the conclusion follow. An example of
a mood of categorical syllogism could be: AEO. We know that the major premise is
of type A (all A are B), the minor premise is of type E (No A is B) and the conclusion
is of type O (some S is no P).
Hypothetical Syllogism
In classical logic, hypothetical syllogism is valid argument form which has a conditional
statement for one or both of its premises.
An example in English:
If I do not wake up, then, I cannot go to work.
If I cannot go to work, then I will not get paid.
Therefore, I need to wake up and get to work to get paid.
Disjunctive Syllogism
Disjunctive syllogism is logical argument of the form that if there are only two
possibilities, and one of them is ruled out then the other must take place. In other
words, it does not actually state that a certain premise (major or minor) is correct, gut
is does state that one of the premises is correct. The basic type of this syllogism is:
Either A or B is true, but they can’t be true at the same time. Example:
Major premise: Either the meeting is at school or at home.
Minor premise: The meeting is not at home.
Conclusion: Therefore the meeting is at school.
FALLACIES
In Logic, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Most of our everyday discourse and
reasoning, which appear convincing and sound, contain all kinds of flaws and defects.
Since critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and critically, a fallacious argument,
therefore, is one which violates all logical canons necessary for a valid argument. It
designates not any mistaken inferences or false belief, gut typically errors, that is,
mistakes that arise commonly in ordinary discourse and that devastate the arguments
in which they appear. Each fallacy is a type of incorrect argument.
Classification/Types of Fallacies
Fallacies are classified into two broad areas, Formal and Informal fallacies. Formal
fallacies are mainly concerned with certain violation of the formal rules of syllogism.
These are specially constructed systems for carrying out proofs where the languages
and rules of reasoning are precisely and carefully defined. However, our focus will be
on informal fallacies.
Informal Fallacies
An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning which an individual may fall into either
because of his/her carelessness or by being misled by language problems. It refers to
the study of reasoning and fallacies in the context of everyday life. Informal fallacies
have two types namely: linguistic fallacies or fallacies of ambiguity – those
arising from faulty or improper use of language and material fallacies – those arising
out of the confusion of ideas and thought.
Informal Linguistic Fallacies (Ambiguity):
1. Equivocation: This occurs when an inference is invalid because a single word is
used in two different senses. For example, “The loss made Abdul mad; mad people
should be chained; therefore Abdul should be chained. The first usage of the word
suggest anger while the second usage suggest insanity. To equivocate means to
deliberately talk in an unclear manner with the intention of hiding the truth or to
mislead people. It is when both meanings of a word or phrase are used in the same
argument.
2. Amphiboly: This fallacy occurs when the whole sentence, as contrasted with single
words, is ambiguous. Each and every word in the sentence may not be ambiguous,
yet the whole sentence will be because of its grammatical structure. The following
is an example: Croesus the king of Lydia consulted Delphi on whether he would win
a proposed war with kingdom of Persia. Delphi Oracle replied if Croesus went to
war with Cyprus, he would destroy a mighty kingdom”. He went to war hoping that
the mighty kingdom was Persia but lost gallantly. He later wrote the Oracle
complaining bitterly, but Delphi priest replied “the oracle had been right. In going to
war, Croesus had destroyed a mighty kingdom-his own”. The prediction was
amphibious, making it look infallible.
3. Composition: This fallacy is committed when the attributes of the parts of a whole
are ascribed to the attributes of the whole itself. For example, each of the parts of
this car engine is very light, therefore the car engine is very light. Or each player on
the football team is outstanding. Hence, the team itself is outstanding the fallacy of
composition is committed here because even though the car engine is made up of
very light parts gut when put together the car engine itself becomes very heavy. It
is the same with the football team. Even though each of the players is outstanding
and there is lack of team work proper team coaching, the team as a whole may not
be outstanding.
4. Division: This fallacy is simply the reverse of the fallacy of composition. In it the
same confusion is present, gut the inference proceeds in the opposite direction. It is
fallacious to argue that what is true of a whole must also be true of its parts. To
argue that since a certain corporation is very important and Mr. Joe is an official of
that cooperation, therefore Mr. Joe is very important, is to commit the fallacy of
division.
5. Accent: This fallacy is committed when the shift of meaning within an argument
arises from changes in the emphasis given to its words or parts. The use of italics or
bold letters may shift the meaning of a statement. For example: “You should not tell
lies to your mother” said the priest to Chegbe. The emphasis is on the word
“mother” so Chegbe would assume from the statement of the priest that it is right
to lie to everyone else. That of course is not the intention of the priest the problem
is that the stress is misplaced. The advice should have been “you should not lie”
with the emphasis on the word “lie”. Another example is when Joy says to her
friend Blessing “you look very clean today”. The stress is on the word today which
prompts the problem of interpretation. Blessing may interpret Joy’s statement to
mean that she (Blessing) had probably looked dirty in the past even if Joy’s
comment was just meant to commend Blessing.
Material Fallacies:
1. Converse Accident: This is fallacy of hasty generalization. This fallacy is
committed, when a conclusion to an issue is basically generalized, or premised on
abnormal or exceptional cases. For example: “Since a Mass Communications
student has the overall best result in the university, it shows that all Mass
Communications student are first class grade students”.
2. Ignoratio Elenchi: The source of this error consists in not paying attention to the
real issue by missing the point and arguing beside the point. Here, the whole
argumentation would be irrelevant to the subject discussed, thereby making the
conclusion to be irrelevant.
Types of Ignoratio Elenchi
a. Argumentum ad hominem (against the person): This refers to a fallacious
attack on the personality and values of the arguer rather than the issue at stake.
b. Argumentum ad populum (appealing to the mob): This occurs when the
justification for an argument is based on popular opinion and public sentiments
than the merit of the issue at stake.
c. Argumentum ad misericordiam (appealing to pity): This fallacy is
committed when the arguer appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion
accepted, rather than to facts and reason. This is common in the law courts,
when a defense attorney may disregard the facts of the case and seek to win his
client’s acquittal by arousing pity in the jury.
d. Argumentum ad verecundiam (appealing to inappropriate authority):
The fallacy here lies in attempting to appeal to people with insufficient
knowledge about the matter under consideration. From a logical point of view,
anyone if free to express opinions or advice about what is thought true; however,
the fallacy occurs when the reason for assenting to a statement is based on
following the recommendation or advice of an improper authority.
From Mustiniceone
Try browsing more on this to enhance your knowledge
@ https://philosophy.lander.edu