Unit 2: Logic and Human Concept

2.1 Introduction to Logic

2.2 Introduction to Human Concept
Introduction
Welcome to Unit 2 of MPU3193/03 Philosophy and Current Issues. This unit introduces you to logic and human concept.
The first part talks about the definition of logic and also the two types of logics – deductive and inductive. You will also
learn about other aspects of logic such as abductive, heuristic methods, and fallacies.

The second part focuses on human concept from the perspective of philosophy in various civilisations. You will be
exposed to human concept from the perspective of Western, Islamic, Indian and Chinese civilisations. How each
civilisation or religion view human concept will be explored in this unit. The human concept will also be viewed from
the perspective of National Education Philosophy and philosophy of “Sejahtera”. Through the understanding of these
areas in philosophy and thinking, you will learn the role of philosophy in finding happiness and well-being and the role
of the concept of sejahtera in facing challenges in our lives.
Unit Learning Outcomes
1. Explain the roles, status, and relationship between logic and philosophy.
2. Elaborate the development, use, and differences between the two main approaches in logic
– deductive and inductive reasoning.
3. Discuss the abductive and heuristic thinking methods.
4. Explain human concept from various philosophical perspectives and National Education Philosophy.
 2.1 Introduction to Logic
Logic comes from a Greek word “logos” which means word, reason and thinking. It is a study of arguments (Cohen,
2010). Logic in philosophy provides a general guide to the method and rules of thinking and arguing such as building
logical and acceptable reasons (Hamidah, 1991).

The content of this section is adapted from the following open educational resource (OER) material: Knatchel, M.
(2017) Philosophy Faculty Books. OER Commons. Retrieved, May 17, 2022 from
https://www.oercommons.org/courses/fundamental-methods-of-logic/view

In Logic, the object of study is reasoning. This is an activity that humans engage in—when we make claims and back
them up with reasons, or when we make inferences about what follows from a set of statements.
Like many human activities, reasoning can be done well, or it can be done badly. The goal of logic is to distinguish
good reasoning from bad. Good reasoning is not necessarily effective reasoning; in fact, as we shall see, bad
reasoning is pervasive and often extremely effective—in the sense that people are often persuaded by it.

In Logic, the standard of goodness is not effectiveness in the sense of persuasiveness, but rather correctness
according to logical rules. In logic, we study the rules and techniques that allow us to distinguish good, correct
reasoning from bad, incorrect reasoning.

Reasoning involves claims or statements—making them and backing them up with reasons,
drawing out their consequences. Propositions are the things we claim, state, assert. Propositions are the kinds of
things that can be true or false. They are expressed by declarative sentences.
‘This book is boring’ is a declarative sentence; it expresses the proposition that this book is boring, which is (arguably)
true (at least so far—but it’s only the first page; wait until later, when things get exciting! You won’t believe the
cliffhanger at the end of Chapter 3. Mind-blowing.).

Other kinds of sentences do not express propositions. Imperative sentences issue commands: ‘Sit down and shut up’ is an
imperative sentence; it doesn’t make a claim, express something that might be true or false; either it’s obeyed or it isn’t.
Interrogative sentences ask questions: ‘Who will win the World Cup this year?’ is an interrogative sentence; it does not
assert anything that might be true or false either. Only declarative sentences express propositions, and so they are the
only kinds of sentences we will deal with at this stage of the study of logic.
The fundamental unit of reasoning is the argument. In logic, by ‘argument’ we don’t mean a
disagreement, a shouting match; rather, we define the term precisely:

Argument = a set of propositions, one of which, the conclusion, is (supposed to be) supported by the others, the
premises.

If we’re reasoning by making claims and backing them up with reasons, then the claim that’s being backed up is the
conclusion of an argument; the reasons given to support it are the argument’s premises. If we’re reasoning by drawing
an inference from a set of statements, then the inference we draw is the conclusion of an argument, and the
statements from which its drawn are the premises.
As we noted earlier, there are different logics—different approaches to distinguishing good
arguments from bad ones. One of the reasons we need different logics is that there are different kinds of arguments. In
this section, we distinguish two types: deductive and inductive arguments.
(a) Deductive logic
The content of this section is adapted from the following open educational resource (OER) material: Knatchel, M. (2017)
Philosophy Faculty Books. OER Commons. Retrieved, May 17, 2022 from
https://www.oercommons.org/courses/fundamental-methods-of-logic/view

A deductive argument attempts to provide premises that guarantee, necessitate its conclusion. Success for a deductive
argument, then, does not come in degrees: either the premises do in fact guarantee the conclusion, in which case the
argument is a good, successful one, or they don’t, in which case it fails. Evaluation of deductive arguments is a black-
and-white, yes-or-no affair; there is no middle ground.
We have a special term for a successful deductive argument: we call it valid. Validity is a central concept in the study of
logic. It’s so important, we’re going to define it three times. Each of these three definitions is equivalent to the others;
they are just three different ways of saying the same thing:

An argument is valid just in case...

(i) its premises guarantee its conclusion; i.e.,
(ii) IF its premises are true, then its conclusion must also be true; i.e.,
(iii) it is impossible for its premises to be true and its conclusion false.
Here’s an example of a valid deductive argument:
All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.
Socrates is mortal.
This argument is valid because the premises do in fact guarantee the conclusion: if they’re true (as a matter of fact,
they are), then the conclusion must be true; it’s impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

Deductive logic looks at the validity of the premises to decide the validity of the conclusion. If the premises are true,
then the conclusion from the premises must be true as well. In deductive logic, a specific conclusion is drawn based
on general premises.

Watch the following video on deductive logic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKEhdsnKKHs
(b) Inductive logic
Inductive logic is different from deductive. It only requires at least one premise even though usually there are more
than one premise used and conclusion is drawn from those premises. Inductive does not have criteria although its
nature is similar to deductive. This is because in inductive, if the premise or premises are true, it does not mean that
the conclusion is true.

In inductive logic, a general conclusion is drawn from specific statements. Therefore, based on a specific premise (as it
is made based on observation made on a limited number of crows), a conclusion is drawn. However, part of this
conclusion is inductive even though the premise is true. This is because, although it is true that all the crow the person
has seen has black feathers, it does not mean that the conclusion that all crows including the ones the person has yet
to see are black. The conclusion goes beyond what is given in the premise and so does not guarantee the truth of the
conclusion. There is an element of inconclusivity in the use of inductive logic which sets it apart from deductive logic
where the conclusion drawn from the premises are surely true. In summary, inductive logic does not necessarily
provide a true conclusion in the end.
Example 2
First premise – Ali is a bald grandfather.
Second premise – Ahmad is a bald grandfather.
Conclusion – All grandfathers are bald.

The example above fulfils the criteria of using the correct inductive logic because the example shows two premises
where each premise contains statements which are specific sentences. Based on the two specific cases, a general
conclusion is drawn. From this example, it can be seen that although the premises are true, the general conclusion
drawn is not necessarily true. There are also grandfathers who have hair and are not bald. Hence, as long as there
are grandfathers out there who are not bald, the conclusion that all grandfathers are bald is false. This is also one of
the characteristics of inductive logic where from premises that are true, we draw a general conclusion which may
not be true but are based on the premises given.
Learning activity 2.1

Definition (a)

Logic
Deductive (b)

Categories

Inductive (c)

Fill in the blanks with the correct answers.

Suggested answers to learning activities and self-checks
Learning Activity 2.1
a. It is the study of arguments
b. A deductive argument attempts to provide premises that guarantee, necessitate its conclusion.
c. In inductive logic, a general conclusion is drawn from specific statements.
Self-check 2.1
Discuss the two main branches of logic:- deductive logic and inductive logic. Provide examples in your discussion.
Self-check 2.1
Discuss the two main branches of logic:- deductive logic and inductive logic. Provide examples in your discussion.

[Submit your answer to your tutor for evaluation and comments.]

2.1.1 Thinking methods
In philosophy, there are other thinking methods such as abduction and heuristic.

(a) Abduction
Abduction or inference to the best explanation is when something happens and we can see the phenomena
happening. From there, a conclusion is drawn on what happened before the phenomena to explain why the
phenomena exists or happens. In other words, we are trying to give the best explanation based on the existing
phenomenon. To make this happen, we are thinking backwards.
Example 1
When we are observing a car moving on the road, we would ask:
a. How did this happen?
b. What makes the car move?
c. What condition must exist for the car to move?

This process enables someone to think backwards and question the criteria that has to be fulfilled or must exist
before we can see the phenomena of a car moving to happen.

Criteria 1 – the car must have sufficient petrol because a car would not be able to move without petrol.
Criteria 2 – We can conclude that there must be a driver driving the car because self-drive cars are not available in
our country yet.

We can also make other conclusions such as there must be four functioning tyres for the car to move.

From a simple phenomenon of a car moving, we can make conclusions about things that we cannot see with our
own eyes but can make such inferences by thinking backward. We are able to know things that we cannot see but
logically must present such as the presence of a driver, petrol and functioning tyres. This type of thinking is called
abduction.
Example 2
A building is on fire and we are trying to look for the cause of fire. As there could be more than one cause, we have
several possible explanations or hypotheses.

Below are some possible explanations to this incident.

Hypothesis 1: A short circuit happened in the building.
Hypothesis 2: There is gas leakage.
Hypothesis 3: Someone poured gasoline and burnt the building.

How do we choose among these three explanations? Theoretically, the three explanations above are possible to be true.
In order to find out the main cause to this fire, evidence and the possible chain of events has to be investigated. For this
submission, let us assume that the forensic team found evidence of petrol stains at the scene. The CCTV recordings
placed near the building also show a van entering the premise a few minutes before the fire happen. A suspicious figure
carried something from the van before disappearing from the view of the CCTV. Based on those information, evidence
and reports that show that maintenance was done on the gas pipes, circuits and wiring a week prior to the fire, the most
possible explanation of the fire is that someone set the building on fire.

Watch the following video to understand induction and abduction reasoning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wrCpLJ1XAw
(b) Heuristic
Inductive, deductive and abduction are ways of logical thinking which has rules that can be applied. However, heuristic
way of thinking is different. This is because, heuristic method does not have a systematic or organised rules to be
applied. This sets heuristic apart from other logical thinking. Although it does not have a specific rule, it has a set of
guidelines. Heuristic thinking is exploratory. In heuristic thinking, we attempt to:
Explore new situations that may have certain issues
Find solutions or answers to those issues

If we are able to find solutions to problems which does not have a specific way of solving, then there is no problem in
this world that cannot be solved. However, the existence of problems that are yet to be solved shows that heuristic
method, even though has guidelines to follow, does not guarantee a solution. Nevertheless, it is useful as it increases the
probability of achieving a solution. One of the ways that can be used in heuristic method is trial and error. When we use
this method, it is not a specific method but can be a rule of thumb or a general guideline. We can try various methods to
solve a problem. Even though there is no guarantee, it is better than not trying at all.
Another method of heuristic is lateral thinking by Edward de Bono. Lateral thinking is said to be heuristic because
it helps towards solving problems. An example of lateral thinking that is taught by Edward de Bono is when our
ability or failure to solve conceptual problems is because we take a wrong approach of made a wrong
assumption. If we change our assumption, we may be able to solve the problem.

Edward de Bono shared an example from his experience as an undergraduate student in Oxford University. He
and his friends went out late at night and when they return, they realised the gate was closed. He and his friends
climbed over the fence to enter their hostel. After climbing over the fence, they realised that the gate was not
locked, just closed. So, based on that incident, he realised that the error that they made in their thinking was that
they made wrong assumption by thinking that if the gate is closed, it must be locked too. If only they made a
different assumption or checked the gate, it would have been easier to enter through the unlocked gate without
having to climb over the fence.
2.1.2 Fallacy
In the different methods of thinking, we sometimes make errors and those errors are called fallacies. Fallacies
refer to errors in the usage of thinking techniques such as deductive logic, inductive logic and others. For
example, in deductive and inductive logic, conclusion that are made which are invalid from the premises or
incorrect conclusion drawn from the premises are errors in the usage of the logics.

In general, there are two types of fallacies:

1. Formal fallacy
This fallacy happens when we are not using the rules in deductive and inductive logic correctly. When we did not
use the rules correctly to draw conclusion from the premises, we have committed a fallacy.
2. Informal fallacy
This fallacy is committed without breaking any of the rules in logic when drawing conclusion from the premises.

For example, ad hominem where we attack the person making the statement based on factors not related to the
argument or statement made. Personal attack is a fallacy in argument or thinking as it has nothing to do with the
content of the speech, arguments or ideas made but the ideas were dismissed because of the person’s personality.
An example of ad hominem would be when someone presents a theory and was criticize by another person who
disagrees with the theory. The argument presented by the critic is that the person is a Jew. This is a fallacy because the
argument presented did not show the error in the thinking but personal belief of the person who presented the theory.

The second example is a fallacy in Latin post hoc ergo propter hoc post hoc ergo propter hoc which means whatever that
happens before it is assumed to be the cause of the incident. For example, someone went into the woods and bumped
into a stump. The next day, the person falls sick. Hence, it is concluded that the person fell sick because he kicked the
stump in the woods. This argument relates what happens before to be the cause of the incident that happens after even
though there may not be real causal relation between two incidents. It is assumed that the incident before causes the
incident after just because of the sequence of the incident happening. Hence, when such conclusion is made, it is an
informal fallacy as it does not break the rules of logic.

Read more on the different types of informal fallacies in the link below
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
Learning Activity 2.2
Attempt the questions found in this OER
https://www.oercommons.org/courseware/lesson/84406/student/?section=0

Learning Activity 2.2

1. ad hominem
2.post hoc, ergo propter hoc
3.false analogy
4. false premise
5. bandwagon
6.ad hominem
7. slippery slope
8. false dilemma/dichotomy
9. post hoc, ergo proper hoc
10. bandwagon

Self-check 2.2
Explain the meaning of fallacy in your own words and some types of fallacy. Provide examples to your explanation.
Explain how abductive thinking can be used in the effort to find out the cause of a flood.
Describe when and how we can apply abductive thinking in our daily lives.
Self-check 2.2
1. Explain the meaning of fallacy and some types of fallacy. Provide examples to your explanation.
[Submit your answer to your tutor for evaluation and comments.]

2. Explain how abductive thinking can be used in the effort to find out the cause of a flood.
Hypothesis 1: The water drainage is obstructed by rubbish.
Hypothesis 2: The drains are covered.
Hypothesis 3: The water gushes down from the mountains and there’s insufficient trees to slow down the process.

How do we choose among these three explanations? Theoretically, the three explanations above are possible to be
true. In order to find out the main cause to this flood, evidence and the possible chain of events has to be
investigated. For this submission, let us assume that the amount and size of the drains are according to the
requirement set by the authority. The flow of water from the mountains are mitigated with sufficient trees. This has
been verified by a recent report presented by the officers. Then the most possible answer would be that the water
drainage has been obstructed by rubbish.

3. Describe when and how we can apply abductive thinking in our daily lives.
[Submit your answer to your tutor for evaluation and comments.]
 2.2 Introduction to Human Concept
Philosophy is not only revolving around metaphysical, epistemology, logic and ethics but is also about searching for
happiness in life. If we have wisdom, we will be able to live more meaningfully. Understanding the concept of humanity
can help us to find perfection in a more meaningful life such as the human concept by philosophers. For example,
Socrates once said, “the unexamined life is not worth living”.
2.2.1 Human concept from Western philosophy
Aristotle, a Greek philosopher said, “Man is a rational being; a man is a rational animal’. One of human’s
characteristics is the ability to think or possessing a rational mind. Rational thinking differentiates human and
animals. The ability to think rationally is a unique characteristic that human possess which other creations do not.
However, this view is deemed to be a lopsided focus on the intellectual capability of human which is said to be
logocentrism in nature (centered solely on rational and intellectual mind).

Figure 1https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/aristotle-sculpture-gm1217329715-355293779
Another philosopher from Germany, Friedrich Nietzsche said, “Greek literature is interesting because it presents a
different side of man. It gives us a picture of the dark side of humanity”. He claims that the concept of humanity is
not based on logocentrism but on human emotion and intuitive that may not be rational. Neitzsche and those in
Counter-Enlightenment challenges the concept of man as a rational being and proposed the concept of man as
having to adopt a scientific approach towards life. Those in Counter-Enlightenment emphasise on the emotional
and intuitive aspects in life and in the individual.

Figure 2https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nietzsche187a.jpg
From the perspective of Medieval Western philosophy, human concept is widely influenced by religious belief, particularly
Christianity. It elaborates the human concept and its humanities nature from the perspective of religion. As God’s
creation, we have to obey to the laws of God. Philosophers in early Christianity adapted the Greek concept of immortal
soul and the idea that souls are God’s creation and incorporated that into body during conception.

On the other hand, existentialism as proposed by Jean Paul Sarte, in modern western philosophy, claims that man is born
without any guide or existing spirituality or essentials in life. It is man’s role to search for meaning of life in this world.
Behaviourist, psychoanalyst and humanist claim that human concept has no connection to God or supernatural realm
such as sin, reward, life after death, angels, genie and Godly ethics because all these are created through ideas and
cultures by man. Hence, it is clear that there are different views in Western perspective on the human concept

Watch the following video for more information on existentialism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDvRdLMkHs
2.2.2 Human concept from Eastern philosophy
a) Islam
Islam philosophy believes that human is made of three main components, spiritual, intellectual and physical. Man has
two main responsibilities towards God. The first one is to be the servant to God and the khalifah (leader) on earth. The
second responsibility is to ensure harmony and well-being of the nature that God has provided to sustain the life on
earth. Hence, the meaning of human life is based on two types of relationship – a vertical relationship and a horizontal
one.
(i) Vertical relationship
This relationship refers to man as a servant of God. This concept is not free because as a servant, man should obey its
master, who is God. As a servant, we should not break the laws set by the master. It is man’s life and purpose is to
worship Allah SWT. This is as recorded in Verse 56 from surah Adh-Dhariyat
“And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.”
(ii) Horizontal relationship
This refers to the relationship between man and nature. Man’s role is stated in verse 30, surah Al-Baqarah
“Surely I am making in the earth a successor.”
This sentence explains that man is made to rule the nature that God has created through its role as ruler or
successor of God on earth. As a successor, man functions as the representative of God as God is the owner of the
earth. Man should not mistreat the nature but act upon God’s wishes on earth.
For example, as a representative of God on earth, we should care for the nature because it is only lent to man. It is
given to man to be used. Man is an agent of God and does not have absolute power on nature. Nature should be
respected and treated well.
The human concept in Islam is realised through
- Relationship with ourselves
- Relationship with God
- Relationship between man
- Relationship with nature
(b) Indian civilisation
Based on Hindu teachings, man is considered to be an atman or individual soul. Atman joins Brahman or the divine. They
believe in the concept of rebirth. Based on this teaching, man is born again depending on what he or she has done on
earth while living. If he or she does good deed, he or she will get good karma and vice versa. Achieving Mokhsa will be
their ultimate aim.

Buddhism is the only religion that do not have the concept of God. Their understanding of human concept is different as
they believe that the concept of self does not exist. The notion of human being permanent and having a separate identity
is objected by Buddhism.
In Buddhism, concept that life is suffering is upheld. They believe that man should work towards freeing
themselves from sufferings. Man should face and understand the reality of life and act according to reality.
Buddhists believe that there is no religion that is permanent in this world. Nothing is permanent. They should
not have attachment to the world, properties, man, ranking or wealth as everything is in a state of impermanent
stacks of flux. This attachment will lead to sufferings as nothing is permanent. Hence, to avoid these sufferings,
they need to free themselves from the attachment to the world.

Buddhist teachings hold on to the Eightfold Path principle. This principle is an ethical principle to free man from
sufferings. The freedom here refers to freedom from being reborn. As long as man has not achieved perfection,
man will not achieve nirvana. Nirvana is the highest level where there are no more sufferings. As long as man
has not achieved nirvana, man will be reborn and experience the cycle of suffering. Hence, achieving Nirvana is
their ultimate aim.
(c) Chinese civilisation
There are two main streams which are Confucianism and Taoism. Confucianism is not based on religion or revelation.
Its ideas are related to ethical principles that has to be followed to achieve happiness in life. For example, honoring
your parents or ruling the nature fairly. Five behaviors of man that are most central to the Analects are
i. benevolence (ren 仁),
ii. ritual propriety (li 禮),
iii. righteousness (yi 義),
iv. wisdom (zhi 智), and
v. trustworthiness (xin 信). (Csikszentmihalyi, M., 2020)

Figure 3https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Konfuzius-1770.jpg
On the other hand, in Taoism, the concept of Tao is something that is indefinable and ineffable. Man has to have the
right relationship with Tao. Man has to look at the context of Tao with mother nature. Our actions should not be
against the mother nature. Respecting the nature will help in achieving happiness in life. The concept of wu wei (non-
action) is in line with natural instinct where man acts in accordance to the nature flow. Man should not act based on
personal interest or ego. In short, Taoism put emphasis on relationship between man and the nature. It speaks about
the understanding of human characteristics and their relationship with nature.

Watch the following video for more information on Taoism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6hslRjGaww
(d) National Education Philosophy (NEP)

The human concept from the perspective of philosophy is linked to various civilisations. Here we will look at the
human concept from a local perspective, Malaysia’s National Education Philosophy (NEP). The human concept in NEP
emphasises on developing individuals who are physically healthy with emotions and feelings. It also emphasises on
religious practice and building man who have sharper, more creative and critical mindset in order to attain deeper
and wider knowledge. The human concept in NEP focuses on the concept of sejahtera human being which is referred
to as physically, emotionally, spiritually and intellectually balanced and holistic. If man is physically, emotionally,
spiritually and intellectually balanced and holistic, he or she will be able to face any challenge.

In short, the appreciation of the philosophy of human concept mentioned in NEP enables someone to face
challenges in his or her lives. Philosophy of human concept from various perspectives is meant to achieve happiness
in life. The challenges that we face are usually physical, emotional, spiritual or intellectual challenges. Hence,
understanding the philosophy of human concept under these four aspects enables someone to face challenges in
their lives. Philosophy of human concept from various understanding of philosophy is intended to achieve
harmonious and happy life.
(e) Sejahtera
Every man possesses similar characteristics, be it in school, at home, at district, national or even international level. All
man possesses the same entity. It is only the environment that is different. All man possesses and understand the
human nature found in the four aspects mentioned earlier (physical, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual). If man is
balanced and holistically developed in those four aspects, all challenges can be overcome.

For example, a person who is physically healthy and strong will have the strength to face unexpected challenges in life.
A healthy body will enable a person to be intellectually and emotionally healthy as well. If a person is emotionally
healthy, all challenges at workplace, home or anywhere can be overcome and managed. If a person is spiritually strong,
he will have inner strength to face psychological and emotional pressure.
Learning Activity 2.3
The human concept based on the various civilization
Western Eastern National
Philosophy of
Civilisation Civilisation Education
Sejahtera
Philosophy

Aristotle (a)
(f) (j)

Neitzsche (b)

(g)
Counter-
(c)
Enlightenment

(h)
(d)

(e) (i)

Self-check 2.3
Explain the human concept from the perspectives of Western, Asian and Islamic civilisations in your own words.
Self-check 2.3
Explain the human concept from the perspectives of Western, Asian and Islamic civilisation.

[Submit your answer to your tutor for evaluation and comments.]

Learning Activity 2.3
(a) Islam
(b) Indian
(c) Chinese
(d) National Education Philosophy
(e) Sejahtera
(f) Physical
(g) Emotional
(h) Spiritual
(i) Intellectual
(j) If man is physically, emotionally, spiritually and intellectually balanced and holistic, he or she will be able to
face any challenge.
Summary of Unit 2
This unit introduces you to the concept of logic and human concept in philosophy. The definition of logic is provided in
the beginning of the unit. You have learnt that there are two types of logics – the deductive and inductive logic. You
have also learnt about other aspects of logic such as the abductive and heuristic thinking methods and also fallacies.
The different types of fallacies were also explained.

Besides that, you also learnt about human concept from the perspective of western and eastern philosophy. The
perspective of this concept from our own National Education Philosophy and the philosophy of Sejahtera were also
explained in this unit.
Now that you have completed Unit 2, you should be able to:
1. Explain the roles, status, and relationship between logic and philosophy.
2. Elaborate the development, use, and differences between the two main approaches in logic – deductive
and inductive reasoning.
3. Discuss the abductive and heuristic thinking methods.
4. Explain human concept from various philosophical perspectives and National Education Philosophy.
References/Glossary
Amran Muhammad. (2022). Modul Falsafah & Isu Semasa - Versi Nota Infografik. Kuala Lumpur: Islamic and
Strategic Studies Institute.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mark, "Confucius", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/confucius/.
Knatchel, M. (2017) Philosophy Faculty Books. OER Commons. Retrieved, May 17, 2022 from
https://www.oercommons.org/courses/fundamental-methods-of-logic/view
Mahadi Abu Hassan, Norliah Kudus, Ahmad Ridzwan Mohd Noor & Shahrulanuar. (2021). Modul Falsafah dan Isu
Semasa. Melaka:UTeM.
Nor Hanani Ismail, Rukhaiyah Abd. Wahab, Syahrina Abdullah, and Mohd Hazim Shah Abdul Murad. (2021).
Falsafah dan Isu Semasa. Kedah: UUM Press.