LESSON 1: What is Philosophy?

PHILOSOPHY
➢ Philosophy, our subject matter for this course, is really all about questions and answers.
➢ And since by now you already asked and answered hundreds of questions in your life, experience
has already prepared you to take our philosophical journey starting now.

THE THREE PRIMARY QUESTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY:

1. Where am I?
2. How do I know it?
3. What should I do?

Nature and Functions of Philosophy

From a combination of two Greek words, which are 'Philo' and 'Sophia'. 'Philo' means 'love'
and ‘Sophia' means 'wisdom’ it means 'love of wisdom', 'pursuit of knowledge and truth',
'systematic investigation’ (we need to follow a particular process before jumping into a solution)
Uses reason to investigate the human ultimate causes, reasons, and principles which govern
all things.
Considered as the “mother of all sciences”
A way of life (our guide in life)
It is a science (we need to conduct a step-by-step process)
A persistent quest for knowledge and truth
Philosophy is not a purely intellectual activity, for it is also a kind of attitude or emotion.
It isn’t just a simple desire to know or to be wise. Being characterized as “love” the philosopher
pursues wisdom with great passion and seriousness.

What is it with wisdom that philosophers so desire to attain it?

➢ Wisdom essentially includes knowledge of the truth, but it is something more than that.
➢ The elements of wisdom can be gathered from the traits that someone would have if he or she
were a wise person.

What should be the traits of a wise person?

1. A wise person is one who is aware of what he knows and what he does not know. A wise
person is aware of his ignorance.
2. A wise person holds the beliefs that are not only true but which he can also justify. Not
only must he have true beliefs, he also should have strong reasons to have these beliefs.
3. A wise person knows a lot about things that are valuable in life. A person may know so
many things, but if these things prove to be of no value or of no use in the practical affairs of
life, this person cannot be said to be a wise person.
4. A wise person can put his knowledge to practical use. A wise person knows how to apply
his knowledge to practical matters.
5. A wise person does not only know what is true but also knows what is good or what
ought to be done in a given situation and he acts accordingly.

Wisdom is consist of:

1. Knowing what one knows and what one does not know.
2. Having justified true beliefs.
3. Knowing things that are valuable in life.
4. Having the ability to put knowledge into practice.
5. Knowing what should be done and acting accordingly.

How is philosophy different from the other areas of learning or disciplines?

One distinct feature of philosophy concerns the kind of questions that it asks about the many
things that it discusses.
 These questions are what some philosophers refer to as: framework questions, or
foundational questions.

Foundational questions are the questions directed at the theory or set of beliefs that serves
as the framework of foundation of our interpretation of the things in the world.

Consider for instance the difference between the questions:

“What are the causes of earthquakes?”
➢ This first question seeks to understand the physical event called an “earthquake” using the
scientific framework through the use of the scientific concept of causation.
➢ An internal question
“What is the nature of causation?”
➢ It seeks to understand the nature of the concept of causation and the scientific framework itself.
➢ An external question.

The first question is a scientific question, but the second question is a philosophical question.

Rudolf Carnap made a distinction between internal and external questions.

➢ Such questions are considered internal to the framework for they are answerable using the
rules and concepts of the framework.
➢ External questions for they are not answerable for they are not answerable using the rules and
concepts of the framework.

“What is two and two?”

➢ It is a mathematical question and it is a question internal to the mathematical framework. It is
answerable using the rules and concepts of the mathematical framework.

“Is Pedro free to use public funds for his personal use?”
“Is Pedro free in his action of using public funds for his personal use?”

• The first question asks whether Pedro is allowed by the legal system to perform a certain action.
It is a question internal to the legal framework.
• The second question is about whether humans are free in their choices and actions. It asks
whether Pedro can freely choose to perform certain actions.

• The nature of philosophical questions as framework questions is also well explained by Thomas
Nagel when he distinguishes the questions asked by the philosophers from those asked by
nonphilosophers.
• Ludwig Witggenstien writes that “Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an
activity”. Wittgenstein describes the activity of doing philosophy as basically consisting in the
clarification of our thoughts and propositions. We can, however, extend this activity to the
analysis of our experiences and assumptions.

Two Ways of Understanding the nature of philosophy:

1. One sees philosophy as a collection of theories
2. The other sees it as an activity.

Two ways of studying philosophy can be done independently of one another:

1. Just as we can know, through memorization, certain data or pieces of information without
knowing how they have been gathered and established to be true, it is possible to know
philosophical doctrines without knowing how they have been formed.
2. It is also possible for us to engage in a philosophical activity without knowing certain
philosophical doctrines.
Ex.
• When children ask about the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of things.
• When scientists or mathematicians, unfamiliar with the philosophical theories, clarify certain
fundamental concepts in their researches (like when a computer scientist doing research in
artificial intelligence tries to clarify the concept of intelligence and consciousness)
• When a normal human adult who in his idle time wonders about the purpose of his own life and
existence of the universe at large.

Philosophy activities can lead us to new and more relevant philosophical doctrines.
Philosophical theories are formulated in light of the current state of knowledge and technology
and in the background of realities and issues in a given historical period.
Engaging in philosophical activity enables us to evaluate whether previously formulated
philosophical theories are still applicable today and whether they should be revised or
replaced with new and better ones.

Why philosophy if studied as an activity would emphasize the features of philosophy as dynamic,
critical and creative discipline?

1. Dynamic - it does not stop at certain results; it continues to search for new and better
solutions to the problems, old and new, that it deals with.
Philosophy’s search for truth is a continuous process.
2. Critical - it examines and analyzes the assumptions of our frameworks or perspective of
things, including those frameworks provided by philosophy itself.
3. Creative - it leads us to the formulation of new and better frameworks or perspectives.

Why is studying philosophical theories important?

• These theories can motivate and guide our philosophical inquiries.
• But the real work begins when we start doing philosophy ourselves.

In this lesson, we shall adopt a certain way of presenting the scope of philosophy;
1. By classifying different kinds of philosophy into certain general types.
2. We get the bases of this classification from a very general description of the kind of activity that
philosophy engages in
3. That philosophy is an activity in which one seeks to answer a particular type of question (or
resolve a particular type of issue or controversy) using a particular type of issue or controversy,
and which happens at a particular place and at a particular time.

5 Bases for Classifying Philosophies:

1. According to the kind of questions or issues being addressed in a philosophical activity;
2. The kind of answer or solution being advanced for a certain question or issue in a
philosophical activity;
3. The kind of method being used to arrive at a certain solution to a certain issue in a
philosophical activity;
4. The geographical location or region of a philosophical activity;
5. The time frame of a philosophical activity.

KINDS OF PHILOSOPHY:
1. The Thematic types: under this classification are the kinds of philosophy that are
distinguished from one another according to the topic of the issues being addressed.
2. The Positional types: under this classification are the kinds of philosophy that are
distinguished from one another according to the solution that is being proposed for a certain
issue.
3. The Methodological types: under this classification are the kinds of philosophy that are
distinguished from one another according to the method used to resolve a certain issue.
 4. The Regional (or Geographical) Types: under this classification are the kinds of
philosophies that are distinguished from one another according to the geographical location
in which philosophizing transpires or flourishes.
5. The Historical Types: under this classification are the kinds of philosophies that are
distinguished from one another according to the historical period in which philosophizing
occurred.

Origin of Philosophy:
Greece is the birthplace of philosophy in the West.
Thales is the Father of Philosophy in the western civilization.
Thales was the first individual who tried to reduce the multiplicity into a unity; everything is
related to each other.
Thales' approach highlights the difference between religion and philosophy.
Religion rests on faith, while philosophy rests on reason.

Philosophical Activity
Philosophical activity is characterized by three things:
1. Philosophy involves the widest generalizations
2. Philosophy is all about fundamental foundation. A fundamental is the root cause that explains
almost everything in a given context.
3. Philosophy is driven by the desire to integrate things into a one coherent whole (Holistic).

Branches of Philosophy
Cognitive Branches (provide description of being & knowing)
To answer “Where am I”
➢ Metaphysics - deals with questions regarding reality and existence.
➢ To answer “How do I know it?”
➢ Epistemology - study of the nature and means of human knowledge.
➢ Logic - science and art of correct thinking and reasoning
Normative Branches (concerned with the standard of the good)
To answer “What should I do?”
➢ Ethics or Morality - deals with human actions whether good or bad, right or wrong,
acceptable or unacceptable, justifiable or unjustifiable (What is right and wrong).
➢ Aesthetics - deals with the nature of art/objective judgment of beauty (standard
of beauty)
➢ Politics - deals with the principles of a proper social system.

• Philosophy of the Human Person - area in philosophy that understands the human person from
a philosophical perspective.

We can gather from Russell’s discussion that there are two main reasons behind the charge that
philosophy is a futile activity:

1) The indefiniteness of philosophy with regard to the answers that it provides to philosophical
questions.
➢ This means that philosophy does not provide final answers to the questions that it deals
with, for the answer that it offers differs from one philosopher to another; and there
seems to be no objective way to determine whose answer is better.
➢ For this reason, it is thought that philosophizing would just lead to nowhere, and thus
would just be a waste of time and energy.
2) The impracticality of philosophy.
➢ This means that the activity of philosophizing has no practical benefits in that it does
not help us in our efforts to satisfy our material needs such as those related to the
nourishment of our body.
These two characteristics attributed to philosophy actually contrast with science.

Science provides definite answers to the questions that it deals with, or an objective means
of resolving issues that it handles. Unlike philosophy, science, through its inventions and
technologies, provides us with more efficient ways of satisfying our material and survival
needs.

In contrast, we see science as the ideal model of a valuable undertaking, which philosophy fails to
achieve or even approximate.
Philosophy is indefinite in answers to philosophical questions because of the kind of questions that
philosophy deals with.

It is not the goal of philosophy to deal with the kind of questions that science deals with.

The questions that science deals with, the scientific questions, are those questions already known
with some degree of certainty to be capable of being answered in a precise and definite way.

Scientific questions are questions in which it has already been established that there is a
precise and objective means of answering these questions.

Philosophical questions are questions in which it has not been established yet whether
there is a precise and objective means of answering these questions.

While science deals with definitely answerable questions, philosophy deals with indefinitely
answerable ones.

Most scientific questions did not start out as scientific questions. They started out as philosophical
questions, questions that were thought to be indefinitely answerable.

One reason for this was the unavailability of the technology that could test hypotheses.

For instance, prior to the invention of the telescope, hypotheses about the stars and the universe
could not be tested. Another reason was the imprecise formulation of the questions.

When philosophy deals with the unscientific questions (the indefinitely answerable questions), one
primary goal is precisely to determine whether such questions can eventually become scientific-
whether they could eventually be answered in some definite way.

How does philosophy do this?

➢ Philosophy examines all possible angles to these questions, all possible formulations for
these questions, and all possible answers to these questions.
➢ It engages in debates, advancing and criticizing arguments and answering objections, in
order to ascertain which perspective is the most promising or offers the best possible
explanation.

The moment that a philosophical question is proven to be answerable in some definite way, the
question becomes a scientific question and ceases to be a philosophical question.

The question is thus relegated to science to conduct more detailed and methodical research to find
the definite answer.

Ex.
The question of whether there could be machines that could think like humans was originally a purely
philosophical question. But after some time, scientists started conducting research on how to
actually construct those machines.
At present, the said question is still partly philosophical and partly scientific; but some philosophers
and scientists are predicting that it will just be a matter of time that it will be a purely scientific
question.

Philosophy does the preliminary work for science in finding definite answers to certain questions.

And so, if we value science for the definiteness of its answers to the questions that it deals with, the
more we should value philosophy for making it possible for science to deal with such questions.

Hence, it is simply wrong to think that just because there are no definite answers to the philosophical
questions, or that philosophers do not seem to agree on how to answer philosophical questions,
then philosophy is just a waste of time and energy.

With regard to the charge of being an impractical activity, it is true that philosophy does not directly
satisfy our material needs.

Russell explains, this is only because philosophy is focused on satisfying another kind of valuable
human needs: The needs of the mind.

Once most or all of our material needs have already been satisfied we still have questions about
how to further improve the quality of our lives.

Russell says that suppose our society has already provided for our economic needs such that
nobody among us is living in poverty, still we will be confronted with questions about how to improve
the quality of our lives.

Such questions must surely be then be about our non-physical needs, the needs of our mind,
which we equally value.

These non-physical needs may be varied, for they may concern better human relationships, better
spiritual life, and a better and deeper understanding of our place or purpose in the world we live in.

These are the kinds of questions that religion and philosophy address with their own particular
means- generally faith and divine inspiration for religion and human reason for philosophy.

Ex.
Are human choices free or determined by natural laws?
Are human embryos and fetuses moral persons?
Is there really a God?

A lot of important consequences will follow from how these questions will be answered, which will
greatly affect the value that we give to human life.

For instance, if human choices are not really free but are only determined by past events and natural
laws, then we are not really responsible for our actions and there really are no good or bad actions.

And if human embryos and fetuses are not moral persons then there would not be anything morally
wrong in killing them, as in cases of abortion and scientific experimentation.

While philosophy mainly addresses the needs of the mind, which are valuable in themselves, some
tools of philosophy, such as logic and the skills of critical thinking, can also be used to address
questions directly related to the satisfaction of our material needs.
A more efficient use of the scientific inventions and technologies to address our material needs
would require good decision-making, which in turn would require good reasoning skills.

The charge that philosophy is an exercise in futility because of impracticality is mistaken in two
following ways:
A. It is simply wrong to limit what is valuable in life to the satisfaction of our material or practical
concerns.
➢ Our non-physical need, the needs of our mind, are equally valuable. If our material needs
concern our physical existence and survival, our nonmaterial needs concern the quality
of our life and human relations.
B. It is also wrong to think that philosophy, though focused on addressing our mental needs,
cannot contribute to how we can best satisfy our material needs. Satisfying our material
needs would also require adequate reasoning skills, which can be provided by philosophy.
➢ We thus conclude that the idea that philosophy is a futile activity is a consequence of a
lack of understanding of the goals of philosophy and a limited view of what is valuable in
life.

The Achievements of Philosophy:

To provide a holistic view of life.
o Philosophy supplements what is lacking in scientific explanations to come up with holistic
explanations of things or events in the world.
o Aristotle’s division of causes into four kinds is a good model for explaining how
philosophy does this.
Aristotle believes that there are material, formal, final, and efficient types of causes.

Suppose there is a table (a wooden table) in front of and we want to explain why.
1. The table is there because there is wood. Wood is the material cause of the table, for the
material cause refers to the composition of something, what a thing is made up of.
2. The table is there because there is wood that has the form or shape of a table. For had this
wood been shaped as a chair, there would not be a table there. This table or shape is the
formal cause of the table, for the formal cause refers to the design or form of something
that makes it what it is.
3. The table is there because someone needs it there, presumably to put his/her things on. To
have something to put things on is the final cause of the table, for the final cause refers to
the purpose of something.
4. Finally, there is a table there because someone, a carpenter, made it. The carpenter is the
efficient cause of the table, for the efficient cause refers to the one that initiates the
change in the object—in this case, the change from just being a piece of wood to being a
table.

A complete explanation of why there is a table in front of us, according to Aristotle, should account
for its four causes.

What science usually investigates about the world are its material, formal, and efficient causes. The
final cause is usually not its concern.

Ex. The existence of a human being.

Generally, science would explain it in terms of the composition of the human body (material
causes), the functions of the different parts of the human body (the formal causes), and the biological
actions of the parents that led to the birth of the human being (efficient causes).

It will not, however, explain human existence in terms of its purpose (the final cause). And this is
where philosophy comes in.
Philosophy also investigates the final causes of things. It is also concerned with the purposes of
things.

Various philosophers have reflected on the purpose of humane existence and of the existence of
the universe as a whole, and usually this reflection factors in current scientific findings. It is in this
light that philosophy can supplement the investigations of science to come up with holistic
explanations of things.

Philosophy contributes to the development of some disciplines or areas of knowledge.

➢ During the Ancient Period, the Pre-Socratic philosophers broke away from mythological
explanations of natural processes (explaining events in nature by the actions of the gods)
and started methods of explaining these processes in terms of observation and reasoning.
➢ Generally, this gave birth to what we now call the scientific method.
➢ During the Medieval Period, philosophy was regarded as the handmaid of Christian theology.
Prominent philosopher- theologians during this period used philosophy (the philosophies of
Plato and Aristotle, in particular) to clarify, justify, and show the consistency of Christian
doctrines and teachings, such as the beliefs in the existence of God and the angels, the Holy
Trinity, and the consistency of God’s divine attributes with human freedom and the existence
of evil in the world.
➢ Philosophy then contributed to the strengthening of the foundations of Christian theology.

Philosophy, through its investigations in the area of ethics, provides ethical guidelines for the use
of modern technology.
With the invention of modern technology, new ethics arise.
➢ Ex. Technological advancements in the area of biomedicine which have introduced new
procedures in reproduction (such as in-vitro fertilization, surrogacy, prenatal screening, and
gender selection) and a treatment of diseases (such as genetic therapy and enhancement,
organ transplantation, dialysis, and the sue of ventilators) among others, have given rise to
new ethical issues.
➢ Other ethical issues arising from the development of technology include the possibility of
human cloning, stem- cell research, and the use of humans and animals in scientific
experimentation for medical and business purposes.
➢ These new ethical issues require new and updated approaches, which philosophy supplies
through the different areas of applied or practical ethics which include bioethics,
environmental ethics, computer ethics, and business ethics.

Philosophy, through its investigations in the area of social and political philosophy, has
significantly contributed to social transformation.

Philosophy continues to explore what is possible and consequently expand the boundaries of
knowledge or of what we can know.

We earlier noted that philosophy deals with questions in which there is no certainty whether these
questions could be answered in some definite way.

We further noted that one objective of philosophy here is to determine whether such questions can
become scientific questions.

According to Russell, even if it so happens that some of these questions do not become scientific
ones, philosophy will continue to deal with these questions for the following reasons:
• For us to get insights about the human condition in terms of the limits of what we can know
about ourselves and the world around us.
• To keep this sense of wonder that drives us to explore alternative ways of looking at things,
which eventually liberates us from the oppressive power of customs and the prejudices of our
times over our lives.
In sum, some of the major achievements of philosophy are as follows:
• Philosophy supplements scientific explanations to come up with holistic explanations.
• Contribute to the development of some disciplines, providing ethical guidelines for the use of
modern technology.
• Contributes to social transformation;
• And expands the boundaries of knowledge.

LESSON 2: Philosophical Tools and Processes

Philosophical Tools and Processes

• Philosophical tools are mental frameworks that aid in analyzing and discussing complex ideas.
Philosophers use specific tools and concepts to help them think deeply and critically.

Philosophy uses reason to arrive at a certain knowledge or truth.

Greek philosophers gave us how to use our intellect to understand realities around us. The tools
that they frequently utilized are the following:
1. Philosophical Questions. Philosophy was born because of ignorance. If one is ignorant, he asks
questions and if he keeps on questioning the more knowledge he acquires.
In our daily struggles, one needs to ask questions that we have to cope with. A philosopher
is like a child who has an inquisitive mind who never stops asking questions and finding
answers.
Simple Questions (influenced by curiosity and sense of wonder):
• What is this?
• What does this do?
• Why are trees tall?
• Why is the sky so far away?
Serious Questions (influenced by our experiences and circumstances):
• Why do I have to study?
• What do I need to get better grades?
• What should I do to achieve my goals in life?
• What can I do to be better?
• How do I deal with difficult people?
Deep Questions (influenced to search for meaningful answers):
• Where can one find true happiness?
• Why do good people suffer?
• What can we do to make the world a better place?
• Why do I have to be a good person?
• Is love worth giving up everything?

Dialectics - term used to describe a method of philosophical argument that involves some sort of
contradictory process between opposing sides.

As a dialectical method, it is a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view
about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments.
• Karl Marx known for his Dialectical Method

Thought experiments - basically devices of the imagination. They are employed for various
purposes such as entertainment, education, conceptual analysis, exploration, hypothesizing, theory
selection, theory implementation, etc. It is also used to explore philosophical concepts.

“George is on a footbridge over the trolley tracks. He knows trolleys, and can see that the one
approaching the bridge is out of control. On the track back of the bridge there are five people; the
banks are so steep that they will not be able to get off the track in time. George knows that the only
way to stop an out-of-control trolley is to drop a very heavy weight into its path. But the only available,
sufficiently heavy weight, is a fat man, also watching the trolley from the footbridge. George can
shove the fat man onto the track in the path of the trolley, killing the fat man; or he can refrain from
doing this, letting the five die.”

Philosophical Tools
a) The Socratic Method has been widely used in various fields, including philosophy, education,
law, and psychology. It's often employed in educational settings to encourage active learning
and critical thinking skills among students. By engaging in the Socratic Method, individuals can
refine their ideas, uncover biases, and arrive at a more nuanced understanding of complex
topics.

b) Occam's razor is a principle that suggests simpler explanations are generally preferable, but it's
important to consider the available evidence and context when applying this heuristic to various
problems and questions.

c) The trolley problem isn't necessarily meant to provide a definitive answer but rather to spark
discussions about the complexities of moral decision-making and the ethical principles that guide
our choices. Different people and ethical frameworks can lead to varying conclusions, making it
a rich topic for exploration and debate.

d) The veil of ignorance provides a way to think about fairness and justice by removing personal
biases and considerations of self-interest from the decision-making process. The thought
experiment challenges individuals to consider what principles they would choose for society if
they had no knowledge of their own circumstances, and it encourages discussions about what
constitutes a just and equitable social order.

e) The Ship of Theseus paradox has implications not only for philosophy but also for discussions
about personal identity, object persistence, and the nature of change in various fields including
metaphysics, ontology, and even science fiction. It challenges us to consider how we
conceptualize the identity of objects that undergo continuous change.
• This paradox leads to broader philosophical questions about the nature of identity and the
criteria we use to determine whether an object remains the same over time, even as its
components are replaced. It also raises questions about the relationship between an object's
physical components and its identity.
• Moreover, it has been discussed by various philosophers throughout history, including
Plutarch, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. It's also been used in literature and popular
culture to explore themes of continuity, transformation, and the nature of self.

LESSON 3: Holistic and Partial Perspectives

Partial Point-of-view
• looking at the situation only in one part and not seeing the whole situation
• defined as a way or a method how one sees or perceives the reality or a phenomenon
• A perspective that is based on one of the component parts of a whole.
• focuses on specific aspects of the situation

Holistic Perspective
• seeing the situation as a whole by connecting its parts and looking through the bird's eye
view
• looking at the thing or person from various perspectives
• learning and seeing how a thing is related to everything else
• Requires to have an open mindset
 • A holistic perspective can enable a person to step back and consider the general aspects of
a certain problem. Adopting a holistic approach in thinking encourages us not only to be more
critical but also to be more considerate in dealing with others.
o In the case of an argument among friends, would it be beneficial to take one side or act
as a mediator and try to reconcile all sides?
o Should we simply condemn a person who misbehaved in a video that has gone viral?
o Should we reserve judgment until we get all the facts regarding what made that person
act in that matter?
• Doing philosophy entails a holistic rather than a partial perspective. With a holistic
perspective, we are able to see the connectedness of parts to see a meaningful whole.

Examples:
1. Doctors focus on a specific set of symptoms to determine the cause of a patient's illness. Partial
2. Panel of discussants or presenters shares their view on a burning issue. Holistic
3. A doctor identifies other underlying causes of the case of the patient with stomach problems.
Holistic

True or False:
1. Partial point of view is seeing the situation as a whole by connecting its parts and looking
through the bird’s eye view. False
2. Holistic perspective is looking at the thing or person from various perspectives. True
3. It is better to see things from a partial point of view than from a holistic perspective. False
4. The mark of holistic perspective is when a person is learning and seeing how a thing is related
to everything else. True
5. With a holistic perspective, people will be able to see the connectedness of the parts to see
a meaningful whole. True

Critical Thinking
• Critical thinking is the careful, reflective, rational, and systematic approach to questions of very
general interest.
• Critical Thinking means understanding of philosophy and refraining from merely giving claims,
but through careful thought, one reason through argumentations.
• Critical Thinking is a lifelong process of self-assessment that further consists of:
o Defining, analyzing, and devising solutions
o Arriving at reasonable and informed solutions
o Applying understanding and knowledge to new and
o different problems
o Willingness to change one point of view
o Continually examining and re-examining ideas
o Willingness to say “I don’t know”
• The attributes of a critical thinker include:
o Looks for evidence to support assumptions and beliefs
o Adjusts opinions
o Looks for proof
o Examines problem
o Rejects irrelevant and incorrect information

LESSON 4: Philosophical Reflection

Reflection
• Reflection is an activity that requires a person to examine his or her thoughts, feelings and
actions and learn from experience.
• Its trajectory/path is to see the bigger picture about everything. This process is called
philosophical reflection.
 • According to Gabriel Marcel, philosophical reflection is the act of giving time to think about
the meaning and purpose of life.
• It requires a person to be willing to examine one’s thoughts, feelings, and actions and to learn
more about one’s life and experiences
• One can reflect on almost any subject. For instance, the moment you wake up you can
already reflect upon the things that you plan to do for the day. This will enable you to
set your daily goals and set you on the path of thinking of ways to achieve them.

Philosophical Reflection
• Philosophical Reflection allows us to have opportunities to think more deeply about our
action, our motivations for doing such action, and even its possible consequences.
• Philosophical Reflection is vital in ensuring that our actions and decisions are well thought
out and are done with due regard for their implications and consequences on ourselves,
others, and our surroundings.
• Philosophical Reflection helps us understand ourselves and our actions better. When we
reflect, we can judge whether our actions or decisions are reasonable or not.

Two Types of Reflection

1. Primary Reflection
✓ The ability to think logically.
✓ The ability of the mind to construct and evaluate arguments.
✓ It examines its object by abstraction, by analytically breaking it down into its constituent parts.
✓ It is concerned with definitions, essences and technical solutions to problems.

2. Secondary Reflection
✓ This type of reflection enables us to look deeper into our experiences and see the bigger
picture of reality.
✓ It integrates the fragmented and compartmentalized experience into a whole.
✓ It is the idea that various systems (e.g. physical, biological, social) should be viewed as whole,
not merely as a collection of parts.

• Reflection is not exclusive for philosophy in fact it is employed in any endeavor, research or
disciplines.

Moral theology employs the STOP sign as a guidepost of moral decision making.
• S = Search out the facts. (It is necessary that all means should be exhausted to better
understand the issue.)
• T = Think, reflect and analyze the facts, its negative or positive effects, advantages or
disadvantages.
• O = How it affects Others. We should always consider others in every decision that we make.
Every action that we take has always a social dimension. It affects ourselves, others and the
community where we belong.
• P = Stands for Pray. We are human beings with limitations. If our best efforts are not enough,
then there is no way but to look up to the divine or God for enlightenment and guidance.

LESSON 5: Knowledge and Truth

Methods of Philosophizing (Part I)

• People are already relying on knowledge for their survival.
• Without knowledge on how to create a fire, how to cook one’s food, how to build a shelter, how
to build dams to control flooding, how to create laws to preserve order in society and yes even
how to think properly, we would still be in a prehistoric cave.
• Knowledge literally enabled mankind to survive and reach the present level of our civilization.
➢ It is on this recognition of the supreme importance of knowledge that gives rise to the branch
of philosophy known as Epistemology.
Epistemology - is a science devoted to the discovery of the proper method of acquiring and
validating knowledge (Rand 1990).

The purpose of epistemology therefore is two-fold:

1. To show how we can acquire knowledge.
2. To give us a method of demonstrating whether the knowledge we acquired is really knowledge
(i.e., true).

The Nature of Knowledge

Knowledge is the clear awareness and understanding of something.

• it is provided by facts
• It is based on reality
• It is observable and evident on the real world

How do we acquire knowledge?

1. We can acquire knowledge using our senses (Empiricism).
Empiricists:
• John Locke
• George Berkley
• David Hume

2. We can acquire knowledge by thinking with the use of our minds (what philosophers call the
rational faculty) (Rationalism); knowledge comes from intellectual reasoning.
Rationalists:
• Rene Descartes
• Baruch Spinoza
• Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Process of Acquiring Knowledge:

1. Reality
➢ To know is to know something. This “something” is what philosophers call reality, existence,
being.
➢ Existence is everything there is (another name for it is the Universe). It includes everything
we perceive (animals, plants, 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.
3. Concept
➢ “An abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances” (Merriam-Webster
Dictionary).
4. Proposition
➢ Statements about the world or reality are called propositions
➢ Propositions may or may not carry the truth.
➢ Facts - propositions or statements observed to be real and truthful
➢ Claim - proposition that requires further examination; can be contested
5. Argument
➢ A series of statements that provide reasons to convince the reader/ listener that a
claim/opinion is truthful. Group of statements that serve to support a conclusion.
“There is no hope in the Philippine government” (Opinion)
“There is no hope in the Philippine government because many officials are corrupt,
and Filipino voters continue to elect them.” (Argument)
Claim - the conclusion of an argument.
Premises - the reason used to support the conclusion.

Domains of Truth:

Objective domain: related to scientific truths; pertains to the natural world that maintains a
relative independence from the perspective and attitude of human beings that
perceived them.
Eg: Typhoon season, Water’s boiling point (100 degrees celsius)

Social Domain: Truth is related to a general agreement or consensus on what is right as

opposed to what is wrong. Based on norms (standard of acceptable behavior in society)
Eg: maintaining silence inside the chapel; cheering loudly in a basketball game; being silent in the
library
P.s. Consensus has certain limitations. It is helpful but not always true.

Personal Domain: Truth is related to “sincerity”; consistent to inner thoughts and intentions
needs to establish “trust”.

Truth and Justification

• TRUTH (according to Richard Rorty) - has passed the “procedures of justification”.
• JUSTIFICATION is the process of proving the truth or validity of a statement. This process is
made up of ways of critically testing a claim against certain criteria.

Each domain of truth has a corresponding justification or has a different criteria for truth:
• SCIENTIFIC/OBJECTIVE DOMAIN - Truths are tested against empirical evidence.
• SOCIAL DOMAIN - Truths are tested against their acceptability to a particular group in a
particular time in history.
• PERSONAL DOMAIN - Truths are tested against the consistency and authenticity of the person
who claims it.

To which domain of truth does each of the following statements fall?

• “In sickness and in health, “till death do us part” – Personal Domain
• Reptiles are cold-blooded. – Scientific Domain
• “Don’t talk when your mouth is full!” – Social Domain

How do we know if something is TRUE?

1. A belief is true if it can be justified or proven through the use of one’s senses.
2. A belief or statement is true if it is based on facts.
3. Getting a consensus or having people agree on a common belief.
4. Subject to test to determine the truth.
5. Truth requires proving an action.

• Truth is knowledge validated based on the facts of reality. Facts of reality are independent of
your thoughts, feelings or preferences.
o For example the statement “Jose Rizal died in 1896” is true.
• There are many sources that can validate the truth of that statement if one cares to look.
• When one says that “Jose Rizal is the greatest man who ever lived” you are stating your
preference and not facts. This is an opinion.
• That statement represents not facts but an interpretation of facts which may reveal biases.

OPINION - a statement of judgment of a person about something in the world. Opinions are bases
for making arguments and convincing people that a certain claim is a fact. OPINIONS are statements
of judgment that are in need of further justification.
 Example: Case of Extra Judicial killings, war on drugs, Issue on defending West Philippine Sea
from China, Government response on COVID 19.

CONCLUSION - Judgment based on certain facts; could still be contested or questioned.

BELIEFS - Statements that express convictions that are not easily and clearly explained by facts.

EXPLANATIONS - statements that assume the claim to be true and provide reasons why the
statement is true.

An opinion has the following characteristics:

• Cannot be confirmed
• Open to interpretation
• Based on emotions
• Inherently biased
While truth is:
• Can be confirmed with other sources.
• Independent of one’s interpretation, preferences and biases.
• Based on the facts of reality.

SYNTHESIS
• Nature of Epistemology and Knowledge
• Acquire and Validate Knowledge
• Distinguish Truth from Opinion

LESSON 6: Theories of Truth

Methods of Philosophizing (Part II)

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 should align with reality.
• It argues that an idea that corresponds with reality is true while an idea, which does not
correspond to reality is false.
Ex.
If I say, “The sky is blue,” then I looked outside and saw that it is indeed blue, then my statement is
true.
If I say, “Pigs have wings,” and then I checked a pig and it does not have wings, then my statement
is false.
• The Correspondence Theory of Truth would have sense perception or experience as its
source of knowledge.

Fact vs. Belief

✓ Fact
• Set of circumstances in the world
• Cannot be either true or false because it is simply the way the world is.
✓ Belief
• Is an opinion about what those facts are.
• Is capable of being true or false because it may or may not accurately describe the world.

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.
 The Coherence Theory of Truth
• Deals with the consistency of the truth of statements being claimed within the system that
is being used or employed.
For example: use of a formula for a certain mathematical problem.
• Coherence - the quality of being logical and consistent.
• In a sense, the Coherence Theory is similar to the Correspondence Theory since both
evaluate 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.

The Pragmatic Theory of Truth

• The Pragmatic Theory of Truth states that a belief/statement is true if it has a useful
(pragmatic) practical application in the world. If it does not, then it is not true.

Remember: 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.

The Allegory of the Cave

What does this story mean?
Knowledge comes from the senses BUT real knowledge is born out of philosophical
process.

Cave: Ignorance; misunderstanding

Shadows: perceptions
Sun: Philosophical truth and knowledge
Reaction of prisoners: hesitation to seek truth and knowledge
Escaped prisoner: Philosophers, people who seek knowledge outside the cave (comfort zone).
Journey of the escaped prisoner: journey on finding truth and wisdom

LESSON 7: Methods of Philosophizing

Methods of Philosophizing (Part III)

The Dialectic Method

• This method of philosophizing was formulated by the Greek philosopher Socrates, one of the
great philosophers of the ancient world.
• The method starts with eliciting the definition of a certain word from a person who appears to
be familiar (or “pretends” to be familiar) with its meaning. Socrates then points out the
imperfections of the understanding of the person through a series of questions. What
Socrates desires is for the person to realize his ignorance and contradictions, and thereby
correcting his own mistakes and arriving at a complete knowledge of the true meaning of the
word.
• The method, however, does not sit well with the ruling elites of Athens (the city where
Socrates lived).
• They accused him of not worshiping the Greek gods and corrupting the youth.
• His defense (which was dramatically recorded in Plato’s dialogue the Apology) was a model
of “forceful argument” but it fell on deaf ears.
• Socrates was forced to drink poison. He was the first philosopher to die fighting for the truth.
• The Socratic Method was modernized and treated in a different way by George Wilhelm
Hegel, a German philosopher.
• People are social beings and could be completely influenced by other people’s ideas.
• An individual’s mind is influenced by means of a common language, customs of one’s society,
and the cultural institutions that one belongs to.
 • Hegel refers this to as the collective consciousness of a society which is responsible for
honing one’s consciousness and ideas.
• “Spirit”
• Hegel also believed that the Spirit is constantly changing and evolving.
• According to Hegel, the spirit changes through dialectic. First, there is an idea about the world
(much like a thesis), which has a natural characteristic of having errors which give rise to the
antithesis. The thesis and antithesis can be eventually resolved by creating a synthesis
which is a new idea comprised of the essentials of both the thesis and the antithesis.

The Pragmatic Method

• Pragmatism was popularized by William James and institutionalized in American culture by
John Dewey.
• Pragmatists seek to make philosophy relevant by solving real life problems.
• Pragmatism aims to test the view of science, religion and philosophy by determining their
practical results.
• The pragmatic test is: if I practice this belief, will it bring success or failure? Will I solve
problems or create problems? Successful experience is the verification process of truth for
the pragmatists

The Phenomenological Method

• The phenomenological method was conceived by Edmund Husserl, one of the greatest
intellects of the 19th century.
• Husserl’s main purpose was to build a philosophy free from any biases or preconceived ideas.
One can only do this if one returns to immediate experience.
• This experience is the world as it appears to us or the phenomenal world—hence, the term
phenomenology.
Ex. Interview on the experiences of OFW during pandemic.

The Primary and Secondary Reflections

• According to Gabriel Marcel, reflection arises when there is a disruption from your normal
routine and when something valuable is at stake.
• Marcel identified two levels of reflection: primary reflection and secondary reflection.
Marcel applied these two levels of reflection to the most fundamental question: “Who am I?”

Example of Primary Reflection:

When we try to fill up a form given by our school for example. The form asked us to write our
name, age, gender, address, name of parents, etc. To answer this, of course we have to think
to distinguish who we are (the self) against other things (the non-self or objects). This is the
primary reflection.

Example of Secondary Reflection:

• We view that our self is bigger and more expensive than what is there on the form. Thus, we
are not merely thinking but we are thinking about thinking and about the process we perform
in answering the form. This is the secondary reflection.
• The result of secondary reflection is a more expansive view of the self until it embraces the
world. Thus, the separation of the self and the world brought about by primary reflection were
united by the secondary reflection.

The Analytic Method

• The Analytic Method was initiated by philosophers at Cambridge University (England):
George Edward Moore (1873-1958), Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) and Ludwig Wittgenstein
(1889- 1951).
• The task of analytic method is to clarify how philosophers used words through an analysis of
language.
• Wittgenstein said that ‘the object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thought’
 • For example, the usage of words like “demand”, “supply”, “money”, “price” in the context of
economics differ from its usage in everyday life. These are technical words and they follow
certain rules (i.e. the language game) within that discipline that affects the way these words
are used.

REMEMBER
Methods of Philosophizing:
1. Dialectic – two opposing sides (thesis and antithesis which will lead to synthesis).
2. Pragmatic – practical application
3. Analytic – context of language
4. Phenomenological – experiences
5. Primary Reflection – distinguish who we are (the self) against other things (the non-self
or objects).
Secondary Reflection- a more expansive view of the self

LESSON 8: Fallacies

LOGIC
• Branch of philosophy that focuses on the analysis of arguments
• Studies and elaborates on good argumentation.
• Study of correct thinking and reasoning

FALLACY
• Group of statements that appear to be arguments, but fail to support the conclusion.
Eg: There is no hope in the Philippine government, because the Philippines is a tropical
country.

TYPES OF FALLACIES:
Argumentum ad Hominem
• “Attacking the Person”
• Hominem comes from the Latin word “homo” which means man. This fallacy literally means
hitting the person below the belt instead of focusing on the issue at hand.
• Attacking the person presenting the argument instead of the argument itself.

Examples:
“How can we believe him when he talks about social distancing, he is a lawyer who is a liar.”
“Of course he believes that the government is flawed, he is a rebel and a communist!”

Argumentum ad Baculum
• Appeal to Force
• Baculum is a Latin word which means scepter or stick. A scepter is a symbol of authority.
Normally it is the Pope who carries it in his hands. This is committed when a person uses
threat or force to advance an argument.
• Using the threat of force or an undesirable event to advance an argument.

Examples:
“TV Patrol is the best news program on TV. If you don’t believe me, I won’t let you watch TV.”
“If this peace agreement will not be signed by the government, then we will have no recourse
but to go to war.”

Argumentum ad Misericordiam
• Appeal to Pity
• Misericordiam came from the Latin word Misericordia which means pity or compassion. A
person uses emotion such as pity to convince someone.
• Using emotions such as pity or sympathy.
 Examples:
“Forgive me officer, there are a lot of boarders in this apartment including myself. Only the
owner was issued a quarantine pass. We don’t have food, we can’t give our ATM to the
owner. That’s why I went out. So I did not violate the Bayanihan Act Heal as One.” “All these
charges are baseless; this is just plain harassment—can’t you see how this is affecting my
family?”

Argumentum ad Populum
• “Appeal to people” or Bandwagon fallacy
• Populum is the Latin word for people. Most TV commercials are guilty of this argument which
exploits people’s vanity, desires, etc.
• The idea is presented as acceptable because a lot of people accept it.

Examples:
“I’m sure you want to have an iphone. Almost 80% of your schoolmates are using it.”
“Every boy your age already has a girlfriend, you should go find one!”

Argumentum ad Tradition/Antiquitatem
• Appeal to Tradition
• Traditio means tradition. Advancing an idea since it has been practiced for a long time.
• The idea is acceptable because it has been true for a long time.
• “this is the way it has always been done”

Examples:
“All of us in the family, from our ancestors up to now, are devout Catholics, so it is only right
that you will be baptized as a Catholic.“
“Marriage should be between a man and a woman. It has been so for a long time in this
country; it should remain so today and in the future.”

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
• Appeal to Ignorance
• Ignorantiam is a Latin word for ignorance. Whatever has been proven false must be true
and vice versa
• Committed when a person could not give a counter argument or if he/she could not present
any evidence or witnesses to prove or disprove the statement of another, his/ her assertions
are correct and the opponent is wrong.

Examples:
“According to Zecharia Sitchin, the author of the book Cosmic Code, Adam was the first test
tube baby. Since nobody proves otherwise, therefore it is true.”
“I am sure that the students have understood the instructions perfectly well because no one
raised a hand to ask anything of them.”

Petitio Principii
• Begging the Question
• A fallacy in which a conclusion is taken for granted in the premises.
• Assuming the thing or idea to be
• proven is true.
• Also known as “circular argument”

Examples:
“I have the right to free speech, therefore you cannot stop me from talking.”
“What is a declarative sentence? It is a sentence that declares.”
“Cheating is wrong because it is immoral”
 “Kung saan ka masaya, dun ka happy”

Hasty Generalization
• This fallacy is committed when one reaches a generalization based on insufficient evidence

Examples:
“Our neighbor who is a police officer was convicted of being a drug dealer, therefore, all police
officers are drug dealers.”

Cause-and-effect
• Post Hoc, Ergo, Propter Hoc
• Assuming that the effect is related to a cause because both events occur one after the other.
• Assuming a “cause-and-effect” relationship between unrelated events.

Examples:
“Ever since you bought that sweater, everything has been going wrong in your life. You should
get rid of it.”
“Jen comes to class just as the bell rings every day. Jen’s arrival at class causes the bell to
ring.”
“She became an old maid because she used to sing while cooking.”

Fallacy of Composition
• Infers that if something is true of a part, it is true as a whole
• Assuming that what is true of a part is true for the whole.
• Individual to all

Examples:
“You are a doctor, therefore you came from a family of doctors.”
“These cases of robbery in this district have convinces me that the city has become a den of
thieves and criminals”

Fallacy of Division
• Infers that if something is true of the whole, it must also be true on its parts.
• Assuming that what is true for the whole is true for its parts.
• All to individual

Examples:
“Your family is smart, therefore you are smart.”
“You come from a family of doctors and intellectuals! Surely you can do better in this course!”

Fallacy of Equivocation
• Using the same term in a different situation with different meaning.
• Calling two different things by the same name.
• Resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an
agreement leading to a false conclusion.

Examples:
“Humans walk with their legs. The table has legs. Therefore the table walks by its legs.”
“A ruler measures 12 inches, Mayor Isko Moreno is a ruler; therefore, Mayor Isko is 12
inches.”

Fallacy of Accident
• When an attempt is made to apply a general rule to all situations when clearly there
are exceptions to the rule.
 Example:
Cutting people with knives is a crime. Surgeons cut people with knives. Surgeons are
criminals.
The Bible clearly says, “Thou shall not bear false witness.” Therefore, as a Christian, you
better answer the door and tell our drunk neighbor with the shotgun that his wife, whom he is
looking to kill, is hiding in our basement. Otherwise, you are defying God himself!

Argumentum ad Verecundiam
• Argument from Authority
• Committed when a person uses a name of a popular celebrity or name of an expert to put
more weight in the assertion being made.

Examples:
“My assignment in Chemistry is not wrong. Ms. Aguirre, my English teacher who is known
internationally as a novelist, confirmed my answer.”

False Dichotomy
• Also known as false dilemma
• The false dilemma fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents an issue by offering only two
options (when more exist) or by presenting the options as mutually exclusive (when they are
not).

Example:
“Either you support this new legislation to give the police more power, or you want society to
descend into chaos!”

Red Herring
• A red herring fallacy is a form of logical fallacy or reasoning error that occurs when a
misleading argument or question is presented to distract from the main issue or argument at
hand.

Example:
A police officer pulls a car over for speeding. The driver complains, saying that they shouldn’t
pay a fine since there are so many dangerous criminals out there and the police should be
chasing them instead.