Module 1 - Plato’s Allegory of the Cave
Anaximander: Everything is Apeiron
3 Methods in Philosophy in Investigating Reality
Method Oriented approach consists of
● Age of metaphysics (ancient and medieval
philosophy)
○ Medieval philosophy was connected
with religion and faith
● Age of epistemology
○ Modern philosophy; the focus was
on knowledge
● Age of analysis
○ Contemporary philosophy; focus
was on language
Age of Metaphysics
● Started during the greek times
● Main problem: “What is the nature of
ultimate reality?”
○ Ultimate reality means the root of
how everything is real (?)
● Early world view: no boundaries between
fields of knowledge, everything was a mush
between science, math, literature, religion,
etc.
○ The explanations of natural
phenomena were mixed; different
disciplines are mixed
● World view: Metaphysical conclusions
should come from logical reasoning and
argument
○ Philosophers rejected the practical
world; philosophers possessed
rational insight
The Pre-Socratics (naturalists, hoi physikoi)
● Material Monists: rejected supernatural
explanations of the world in favor of natural,
physical, ones
○ “Nature works in accordance with
certain laws.”
● The world is all made of primordial matter
● Parsimony: reduce a range of cases to a
smaller set of explanatory laws
1. Thales: everything is water
● Water is vital for all forms of life
2.
● A boundless, infinite, formless gas
● Infinite in time and space; the existing
material that the universe is made of
3. Heraclitus: The world is an “ever-living fire”
● Everything that is made is made with fire;
● Fire as movement; fire represents conflict,
change, strife
Socrates
● Oracle of delphi: no wiser man than
Socrates
● Focused on the virtues of man (justice,
courage, love)
● He never wrote anything himself; talked to
many people to find someone wiser than
him (Sophists)
● Sentenced to death on 2 charges, corrupting
the youth and not worshipping the gods
● Was often portrayed by Plato; plato’s
writings was often about Socrates
● Socratic dialect (conversation)
Plato
● If the world is always changing, how can
you have true and certain knowledge?
● True and certain knowledge is not possible;
knowledge is not permanent
● Established The Academy, where Aristotle
studied
● Wrote the Republic: the republic should be
divided into 3 classes by understanding
justice;
○ Common people/hoi poloi:
“uneducated” persons
○ Soldiers:
○ Guardians: intelligent persons and
philosophers
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave
● The sun is the idea of the good
● Political aspect of the Republic -> classist
implications? He’s an elitist; he thinks that
those who rule should be educated only (he
grew up rich)
○ Philosopher king; Plato is
anti-democratic and advocates a
 benevolent dictatorship; only
philosophers have true knowledge
Interpretation: Plato's hierarchy of reality
● Shadows > poor imitations and projections
of marionettes
● Marionettes are not real also; theyre just
replications of actual objects
○ Actual objects are second to forms
PLATO’S THEORY OF FORMS
● There are perfect paradigms of objects that
instantiate them
● Ideal abstract entities; there is an ideal
version of everything, these are called forms
● Not located physically, they are outside of
what we can reach (mind and language
independent)
● Forms (essence) are what you are left with
when you remove all impurities/inessentials
● What makes a chair, a chair? What makes a
cat, a cat?
● What things have forms?
○ Living beings, objects, abstract
concepts (what is art? What is love?
What is a computer? What is a mat?)
○ You have to disregard the physical
characteristics of an object; what
constitutes a ____
● Accessing forms involves careful intelligent
reflection (philosophy)
○ Forms provide true and certain
knowledge
The Form of The Good
● The Good is the highest form and the
source of all other forms
○ Provides being and intelligibility to
all other forms and objects
○ Existence implies there are objective
and unchanging truths
○ When we reach the realm of Forms,
true knowledge is anamnesis
(remembering the forms)
○ Knowledge of the good is necessary
to rule polis hence philosopher king
MODULE 2
Brief Introduction to the Philosophy of Language
Philosophical problems arise due to a faulty
understanding of how language is related to reality,
or how language works
● We cannot analyze reality without
understanding how we view reality, that is ,
through the lenses of language
● Philosophers assumed that words must be
about something existing in reality
● Parmenides: nothing (the nothing) exists
because the word nothing reflects that
“nothing” exists in reality
○ We understand what “nothing” is
referring to
○ It must exist because we understand
it
○ This is logically contradictory as
nothing refers to the absence of
anything, and therefore fails to be
anything
● Alexius Meinong: golden mountains
○ Insisted that there was a lower level
of reality based on things we can
understand from language but are
not real
○ Put golden and mountain together,
we can visualize golden mountains
even if they’re not real
■ Meinong: this must exist
elsewhere
● Conclusion: if we have faulty assumptions
about language, we’ll have faulty
assumptions about reality
Systematically Misleading Expressions
● Gilbert Ryle: many expressions have
misleading meanings because of their
grammatical forms
○ They imply something other than
what they are; THEIR SYNTAX IS
DIFFERENT FROM THEIR LOGICAL
FORM
● Ex. “Nothing is red.” Should imply that
“nothing” is the subject (the absence of
anything, is the subject); but the sentence is
able to bring a meaningful message
○ We are still able to understand the
meaning of this sentence even if
“nothing” is the subject (nothing is
not equal to the void, nor is it an
empty space)
■ Nothing is red actually
means “It is not the case that
there is an X and X is red”
● Ex. Betty White has white hair vs Jett has
white hair; while the first sentence can be
true, the second sentence cannot because
Jett does not actually exist
○ The predicate has white hair in
(logical terms) should not be
ascribed to things that do not exist
in reality
○ Sentences can have the same
structure but not be logically
equivalent (T/F matter) because in
how we use language, not all
“subjects” exist
● Ex. Saying “God doesn’t exist,” or “X doesn’t
exist,” for that matter is contradictory
because to make X/God the subject of the
sentence is to imply their or its existence,
even though the predicate is telling us
otherwise
● Abstract terms are misleading because they
seem to refer to a class of objects
○ Courage is a virtue actually means
Courageous actions are virtuous
■ Virtue is not an object
○ Doves are white actually means all
doves have white feathers.
■ White is not an object
● Adjectives can be misleading because the
standards of an adjective when used to
describe X, are different from those
describing Y
○ A large mouse vs large elephant
■ A 20 lb mouse is large, but a
20 lb elephant is not large
■ A 20 lb mouse is not a large
animal
Founders of Analytic Tradition: Gottlob Frege,
Bertrand Rusell, G.E. Moore
● Weird metaphysical conclusions came from
the erroneous use of language
● Philosophy should embody the same
precision as mathematics
● Sought to build an ideal logical language
using symbolic logic
○ They thought it would accurately
mirror reality, solve all philosophical
problems, etc; they wanted to
reformulate former theories to
detect faulty reasoning and invalid
argumentation
The Early Wittgenstein
● Wittgenstein became the most dominant
philosopher of the 20th century
● Aligned with Frege, Russell, and Moore at
first
● Tractatus Logico-Philosophus was just a
bunch of scrap but Russell and Moore
wanted to make it his dissertation
The Vienna Circle
● Fans of Russell, Moore, etc.
● Developed Wittgenstein’s views into Logical
Positivism which asserts that language has
a one is to one structure with reality
○ Every sentence has to mirror
something irl to be meaningful
● The main function of language is to
describe the world
Philo of Language
● Words, concepts, names, meanings
Words are linguistic objects that denote refer to
things in the world
● We are pointing to points
● They can either be proper names or
common names
○ Common names apply to classes of
objects
○ Words are finite but help us make
statements about an infinite number
of objects (thanks to classes)
■ Dog can help us talk about all
dogs
● Words are used to categorize the world into
objects that share certain properties
○ Table can refer to a group of objects
that have a common shape or refer
to the pages at the start of a book
outlining the chapter
● Words can either refer to things or help us
refer to a group of things
● Words help us perceive the nature of
objects
Definitions tell us what characteristics something
needs to have in order for a word to apply to it
● A definition should contain a defining
characteristic the absence of which a word
would not be applicable
○ If X doesn’t have A, it cannot be
considered an X
○ Designated the sum of
characteristics; but it musn’t be too
broad or narrow
Kinds of Definition
1. Definition by word: we define words by
replacing them with different words w/o
changing its meaning
Ex. My mother is a doctor. My female parent is a
doctor.
● Not all words have equivalents/accurate
synonyms
2. Definition by denotation: giving examples
that are covered by a certain word
Ex. Blue is the color of a clear sky, blueberries, the
ocean, etc.
● Words are meant to reflect properties as
well
3. Definition by non-verbal means: we can
define a word by pointing at something or
using a gesture (ostensively)
Ex. point to dogs
Are Definitions Discovered or Invented?
Plato: they’re discovered
● Because of his belief in the forms, there is a
correct definition of a word, characterized
by their true essence of nature
○ Improving the definition of old things
(whales, fool’s gold)
Wittgenstein: they’re invented
● Words do not have objectively true
definitions; definitions are based on publicly
accepted criteria
● It is a matter of social practice or
convention
● Definition of death:
○ Wittgenstein -> the conventions of
death have changed hence the def’n
changed
○ Plato -> we approached a more
correct and objective definition of
death
Ambiguous and Vague Words
Ambiguity: used to have more than one meaning
● The more meanings a word has, the more
ambiguous it is
○ The word good
Vagueness: has only one meaning, but the criteria
of which it is supposed to be used is unclear
● Vehicles - are skateboards, scooters, toy
cars, a baby carriage vehicles?
● Bald - typically refer to people who have no
hair, but is someone still bald if they have 1
strand? At what point can we call someone
not bald?
How to Avoid Ambiguity?
● Determine its meaning and see if it can be
replaced
How to avoid vagueness?
● Use the most precise words possible and
analyze the rules or criteria for the correct
use of vague terms
Language - how we perceive reality
● Predicates ought to ascribe a property to a
subject
○ Courage is a virtue
■ We don’t know what courage
is, but we know what
courageous acts are
○ Kobe Bryant is a basketball player
■ But you can’t classify
courage to a virtue the same
way you classify kobe bryant
as a basketball player
■ Plato: better to refer to the
form of courage; but do we
know what it is?; it becomes
Meaning
Any theory of meaning should explain the ff:
● Why are some strings of letters meaningful
● Why are some strings of words meaningful
● How are we able to understand novel
sentences that aren’t true, that we’ve never
heard before?
● How are we able to construct very complex
sentences
1. St. Augustine’s theory of
meaning/Reference Theory of Meaning
● Thanks to St. Augustine’s mom, he was able
to associate the sound “ball: with the round
thing on the floor
● Come to associate certain sounds with
certain objects
● Words and sentences are labels, signs, or
names of objects; words function to denote
or refer to things
○ Common and proper names
● Dog, aso, chien, hund all have the same
meaning because they all refer to the same
thing
● Appeal of reference theory is its simplicity;
but not all words are signs, they can be used
through sarcasm, to express abstract ideas
● Meaning -> object it stands for
WEAKNESSES
● Can’t account for expressions, connotative
meanings, adjectives,
○ Not every word denotes something
that exists
 ○ Pronouns of quantification:
“everybody, nobody”
○ Some nouns don’t have something
that exists: sake, behalf
● Abstract words; justice, love, mercy
○ Not all uses of words are acts of
referenceconcep
Concept is a mental object
● Concept of a vampire; concept of a ghost
○ We know the properties of a
vampire, but it does not refer to
anything in the world
● We can tell when people misuse a word
(when people use the word vampire to
describe something else like an angel)
○ Because we have a concept of
something, we can use it to identify
instances of incorrect use
● To distinguish X from Y, we need to have
distinguishing criteria in mind
● We acquire concepts through experience
(but not all concepts)
○ Slavery, rape, robbery
Words are a linguistic phenomenon, a concept is a
mental phenomenon
● A concept is more than just the meaning of
a word;
○ Meaning of death: end of life
○ Concept of death: permanent loss of
loved one, end of suffering, the
beginning of a new journey, etc.
● Different people may have different
concepts of a word
○ Meaning is not the same as concept
● Image is a mental representation of a word
(different from the concept)
○ Idea of gold invovles gold coins, gold
cars
○ Concept of gold: metal,
economically valuable, gold medals
have the most value, etc.
The concepts you have shape how you experience
the world, and how you experience the world can
affect the formulation of concepts in your mind
2. Ideational Theory of Meaning
● Meaning is the image or the picture in your
head; the mental image that a word
produces in your mind
● Locke: immediate apprehension of words
stand for only the ideas in the mind that
uses words
○ “How’s your pet?” we think of pets in
accordance with what we have in our
mind
● For a string of noises to be meaningful, they
need to correspond to a mental state; such
as an idea, image thought or belief
○ It can explain why fictional
characters mean something;
fictional characters are an image in
your head, even if they're not real
○ Can explain abstract words such as
love, etc.
WEAKNESSES
● Too many mental images or contents have
no mental images
○ Is, and, of
● Images can be too detailed for general use,
or they’re not consistent among all people
○ Some details are inessential to what
a word really means
○ Mental image of a dog is different
for everyone
● The image in everyone’s head is private;
meaning that the image in each persons
head may be different
○ Image of a father; can be negative or
positive image
○ 2 different images, and 2 different
meanings according to ideational
theory, but these two people can still
understand each other
● Meaning and language have a public
dimension; we can have different mental
images of a word, but we can all use it
publicly
 ○ Language must capture that words
are publicly understandable within a
community of speakers
● Ideational theory makes language a private
affair, when really it is a public phenomenon
Wittgenstein: it’s difficult to find a single
essence/form that unifies all members of a
concept
● A game: does it follow that all games can be
categorized also have a shared essence? Or
binding property?
● Even if objects can fall under the same
concept, they cannot thave the same
essence, or they cannot have the same form
○ They can have semblances but the
word game
● Do concepts have essences? No, it’s hard to
find a single essence that unifies all
members of a concept
Conceptual Analysis is the logical inquiry into
concepts, or the logical clarification of concepts
● Philosophy studies language, but not just
language
○ Studies what is or is not implied by,
what follows or does not follow
from, or what is or is not assumed
by the use of certain terms
● Ordinary language was developed as a form
of conceptual analysis based on
Wittgensteins philosophical investigations
○ Accdg to them, language is not a
static artifact; better to study it as
it’s used in everyday life, regardless
of its sloppiness and ambiguity
■ It;s unrealistic to study
language as if it were math
○ They wanted to study ordinary
language in order to reach valid and
error-free conclusions about the
world around them
JL Austin was the advocate of conceptual analysis
● “When we examine what we should say when
what words we should use in what
situations, we are looking not merely at
words (or ‘meanings’, whatever they may be)
but also at the realities we use the words to
talk about: we are using a sharpened
awareness of words to sharpen our
perception of, though not as the final arbiter
of, the phenomena.”
● Study the linguistic world to study the
nonlinguistic world
○ Study how we talk about the world,
we can also study how we think
about the world
● Conceptual analysis is the search for the
necessary and sufficient conditions for the
correct application of a concept
○ What are the necessary
conditions/minimum
requirements/defining
characteristics for the application of
a concept?
The Method of Conceptual Analysis
1. Work with a team and choose an area o
investigation and collect all the resources of
language in taht area
Ex. negligence: collect all resources on medical,
law, morality negligence
● All possible occurences/applications of
negligence in all fields
● Words like “willingly” “inadvertently”
“negligently” “clumsily” “accidentally”
2. Conduct dialogues + provide examples to
determine which word is more appropriate
than the other
● A baby accidentally falls over, a friend
inadvertently shares someone’s secret, etc.
3. Give general accounts of the various
linguistic expressions under investigation
● Try to develop a general understanding of
the differences of each word
● Make a set of distinctions of practical
importance to understand the linguistic and
nonlinguistic word; see example
○ Accidentally - by chance or by
carelessness
○ Clumsily - when someone has a
habit of committing accidents
 ○ Inadvertently - when an action has reference theory cannot be used to explain
an unintended side effect (you did names
something as a result of doing Ex. 2
something else) ● JK Rowling and Robert Galbraith
○ Irresponsibly - the failure to do a pseudonym problem
duty or obligation ● They refer to the same thing, but not
allpeople know Robert Galbraith, but many
Intension and Extension of a Concept people know JK Rowling
Extension refers to things that are members of the ○ They would technically be lying if
domain of the concept they said they didn’t know Robert
● Real things in the world; objects, events, Galbraith,
places, people ● How can it simultaneously be true that Paul
● They extend from outside of the word, believes that JK Rowling is a good author,
existing in the real word but not Robert Galbraith?
Intension refers to logical conditions or set of traits, These problems only happen when you subscribe
characteristics, functions that differentiate the to the reference theory
members of the concept from other objects
● Set of features that something must have in Sense and Reference
order to qualify as a certain concept ● Reference of a name is the thing in the
Extensions of the concept of law: constitutional world that it stands for
provisions, legislative statutes promulgated by ○ Reference of a name is analogous to
congress the extension of a concept
Intensions of the concept of law: (logical conditions ● Its sense is the mode of presentation,
to count for law) all have to be action-guiding connotation or idea associated with a name
norms that tell us what to do; all have to be binding ○ Sense of a name is analogous to the
upon citizens within a jurisdiction; all are publicly intension of a concept
accessible standards of behavior ● Frege’s criticism of Meinong
○ Meinong: santa claus refers to
How do extensions and intentions help us someone in another reality
understand names? ○ Frege: wtf? Santa claus denotes an
intension/sense
Gottlob Frege: studied names ish ● THE MEANING OF A NAME IS ITS SENSE
● People used to think (Meinong, etc.) thought ○ Explains pope francis problem, it
that names were just labels, the meaning of goes from A = A (erroneous) to C = D
a name is its reference ■ Pope Francis and George
● Frege: But this view cannot explain how Mario Borgolio are two
some sentences are meaningful different senses
Ex. 1 Bertrand Russell
“Jorge Mario Borgoglio is Pope Francis.” ● Published “on denoting”
This sentence attempts to tell us that name 1 refers ○ It failed
to the same person as name 2 Russell’s Name Claim
● However, if they have the same reference, it 1. Name are not just names; they look like
should be the same thing as: names based on their syntaxical structure,
“Joe Biden is Joe Biden.” but they have a completely different deeper
● But “Jorge Mario Borgoglio” is not the same structure
thing as “Pope Francis” therefore the ● Names are definite descriptions in disguise
 ● Names are shortcuts for an indefinitely long
list of definite descriptions
● Definite descriptions are linguistic devices
that purport to denote or designate unique
and particular individuals, places, or
objects as opposed to general terms
○ Begins with the word the
■ “The dog,” “The cat on the
mat,” “The first professor
who failed me”
Other examples:
2020 = The year taht the world first went into
lockdown because of the covid 19 pandemic
Michael Jordan = the star basketball player of the
chicago bulls in the 1990s
● Russell: names are used for convenience
2. Every sentence that uses definite
descriptions makes 3 distinct claims
Ex. “The king of France is bald.”
CLAIM 1: There is at least one king of France
● “The’” refers to something that exists
CLAIM 2: There is at most one king of France
(applicable to the predicate)
● King of France < 2
● “The” denotes uniquenessKing of France > 0
● saw anyone.”
CLAIM 3: Whoever the king of France is, is bald
● King of France = bald
● Predication
Russell’s Solution to the Problem of Negative
Existentials
● “Pegasus does not exist.”
The original problem with this sentence is that the
fact that the word pegasus has a meaning makes
the sentence invalid with every use of the word
- Supposedly assigning a property to a word
that does not exist
- This is the problem of negative existential
Solving this:
1. Translate “Pegasus” into a definite
description.
The winged horse of Greece does not exist
2. Express the new sentence in its logical form
There is at least one winged horse of Greece
There is at most one winged horse of Greece
Whoever is the winged horse of Greece does not
exist
● The first and third disjuncts of the logical
form disagree, in order for the sentence to
make sense, the word “not” negates the
whole sentence
An Ideal Logical Language
Russel analyzes the use of words such as the, and,
or, etc.
Ex. the word “Nobody”
1. I saw Martha
2. I saw nobody
But “nobody” is not the same as Martha
Russell: nobody has unique logical properties; it
looks like a singular term, but really it is a negative
quantifier
● The first sentence implies that I saw a
person and that the person was Martha
However, the logical structure of the second
sentence is different, the use of the word “nobody”
entails the use of a tilde or negation sign
● From “I saw a person and that person was
nobody,” it becomes “It is not the case that I
Russel aimed to flesh out the logical properties of
language
Challenges to Russell’s Name Claim
Kripke: we can successfully refer to people by their
names without being aware of their definite
descriptions
● Ie. You can know that Henry Fernando
without knowing he is a ME Philo grad that
teaches philo in up yadda yadda
● In short, we don’t need a lot of knowledge
about a person to abbreviate their definite
description
○ You can use a name correctly even
without knowing a lot about a
person
Kripke: you can attach wrong descriptions to a
name but refer to the same person correctly
● Marlowe and Shakespeare problem
 ● When we say Shakespeare, the sense we
use is the author of many iconic plays, but
this is a wrong description to a wrong name
if Marlowe is the real playwright
In brief: name claim’s problems lie in the fact that
we can use vague/incomplete descriptions, or that
we can use descriptions incorrectly
Donnelan: If the name claim is true, names are
descriptions in disguise, not just labels of people
and objects
● There is an attributive use of definite
descriptions, aside from their referential use
Ex. The Red Hot Chilli Peppers; they’re not red, hot
or chilli peppers, but they are a band. It’s not a
description, but it’s more like a label
In brief: not all names and “the-phrases” are
descriptions of something or someone, sometimes
they’re really just labels
Language Games: Use Theory of Meaning
The Argument of The Tractatus: Wittgenstein raised
2 important points
1. Picture Theory of Meaning: any meaningful
proposition must picture or describe some
actual state of affairs
● The way we use language should accurately
mirrors/pictures what reality looks like
○ It should copy irl or else language its
nonsense
○ Hence presocratic theories like
everything is water, forms, etc. is
meaningless because none of these
reflect reality
2. All meaningful propositions are categorized
into 2:
Tautologies: logically true by definition (bachelors
are unmarried men)
● Contradictions: logically false by definition
Contingent statements: empirical statements; not
logical (can't be true nor false)
● It rained in Manila on January 1, 2000
○ To confirm this, you need to look at
old weather records
Wittgenstein classified statements in order to find
the scope of meaningful language
Logical Positivism (again)
● Main logical view that Vienna circle held
● They thought that philosophy could be
enriched by math n science
Doctrines of Logical Postivism
● All of philosophy is linguistic analysis
● Language is divided into observation and
non-observation statements.
○ Observation: grass is green
○ Nonobservation: Ghosts make
spooky sounds (you cant observe
this irl)
● All meaningful sentences are analytic
(tautologically true), contradictory, or
contingent-empirical
● Meaningful empirical statements are
verifiable by possible observation
● An empirical statement is true if and only if
it can be established by observation
○ If you can’t observe it, it’s nonsense
The Principle of Verification: test to verify if a
statement is meaningful or not
Logical positivist-ers: Philosophy could benefit from
limiting its scope to only meaningful statements
AJ Ayer: “A sentence is factually significant to any
given person if and only if he knows how to verify
the proposition which it purports to express; that is,
if he knows what observations would lead him,
under certain conditions to accept it as being true,
or reject it if it is false.”
● A sentence is factually significant if a
person has the faculties to verify a
statement; know when it is true and false
A statement is only meaningful if there is a
possible way of testing it. (empirical statements)
● Principle of verification was used as a
philosophical weapon:
● Function of language is to report and
describe the world as it is (these statements
are meaningful)
Caveat: Sentences that were not empirically
testable by observation were not meaningful to
logical postivists.
 ● Poetic language, prayers, expressions of
emotions
The Verification Theory of Meaning: the meaning
of a linguistic expression is its verification
conditions
What are verification conditions? The method of a
statement’s verification, its testability, and the set
of experiences under which it can be observed to
be true
● The meaning of a word is the conditions
under which a sentence can be observed
○ THE MEANING OF A STATEMENT IS
WHATEVER WILL REQUIRE IT TO BE
TRUE
● Under what experiences will I be able to
verify a statement
○ “It’s raining in Cavite;” as someone in
Cavite if it is raining at the moment,
observe rainfall if you are in Cavite,
etc.
○ The meaning of, “Dogs are born with
4 legs.” is the state of affairs that
dogs are born with 4 legs
○ The meaning of, “There is a colony
of aliens on mars” is the existence of
a colony of aliens in mars
○ THERE SHOULD BE A state of affairs
in reality that corresponds to each
meaningful statement
Under the Verification Theory of Meaning several
topics in philosophy become meaningless and not
worth talking about at all;
● Metaphysics; it’s not possible to verify
platonic forms
● Philosophy of religion; there’s no way to
empirically verify a God
● Aesthetics; there’s no way to determine
what standards conclude that certain
pieces of art are empirically beautiful
● Ethics; moral judgments become
meaningless, there’s no way to verify that
“Killing is wrong,” empirically, there’s no
meaning to the word “wrong” bec we can’t
observe it empirically
○ You can make isolated judgments
but you cannot objectively verify
wrongness, in the same way that
there are no empirical standards for
religion, aesthetics, etc.
The Later Wittgenstein
Attacked 2 dominant views he helped establish;
“nvm, words mean more than their logical
structure”
1. That the meaning of words can be
completely exhausted using Russell’s
method of logical analysis
2. Meaning of a sentence is the actual state of
affairs under which a sentence is verifiable
(aka The Verification Theory of Meaning)
The Five Red Apples
● Shopkeeper is able to understand the
phrase, “Five red apples” because he knows
what to do with it
○ The phrase is not for mere
description; it provoked the
shopkeeper to act based on what he
was given (re: reference theory)
○ The meaning of 5 red apples is not
for verification either; yes it is
verifiable but if the meaning were
just how it’s verified, the shopkeeper
wouldn’t act to reach for and count 5
apples
● Master of the word 5 is explained by
mastering a routine that governs its
application
○ The shopkeeper performs a routine
○ the meaning of a word is its
application
Words as Tools
● Words are like tools with specific uses
● We do things with words depending on how
we use them
● 25:49
 ● Words only look the same but they all have
function differently; how we group words
depends on the aim of the classification
“Slab!” - when used in a conversation between an
architect and an engineer, this is used as a
command rather than a name of an
object/description; ie. he’s saying give me a slab
instead of that’s a slab
The Different Functions of Language
“Language game,” means language is part of an
activity
- “Water!”
- Could be talking about a leak
- Could be talking about someone
who needs water
One-word sentences can be used to perform many
functions; denoting them as names of objects
would be overlooking their function
The Use Theory of Meaning is how it is used in a
sentence/the meaning of a word is its use.
● Meaning is not static
● Depends on various rules of a community
composed of competent language speakers
○ Meaning of a word is decided upon
context (the users, the situation it is
used in, etc.)
○ Depends on social conventions and
socially defined functional roles
● “Chill;” something that is cold, or, “Chill it;”
as in put something in the chiller, or “Chill!”
as in to relax
○ Function of word chill changes
● Language is not a bloodless abstract object
and sentences do not have lives of their
own
● Language is a social enterprise
○ Russel thought it ought to be a
purely logical enterprise
○ But people do things with language,
and as every person is different and
as each person does something
different and does it differently,
language is manipulated to
correspond to these actions
● Rules of language depend on the rules of
community speakers
Language Games
● Language has more uses than to describe
the world/report facts
○ Pray, joke, commend, curse, swear,
cry, etc.
○ These are language games;
activities we engage in
● To know the meaning of a word is to learn a
complex form of social behavior with its
own rules
● Because words have socially defined rules
there are correct and incorrect ways of
using words
○ How to use and make moves with
words
○ To engage with other people, we
need to use and make moves with
words (tokens)
○ Each “token” has its own function,
we use these tokens to interact with
the people and world around us
Ex. Language game of thanking - if someone says
thank you, you must respond with you’re welcome
as a rule in the game
● What are we taught to say for each social
situation
○ To instigate the language game of
betting, you say, “Bet?,” or “You’re
on!”
● You cannot capture these functions if you
approach language as a logical affair
How Do We Learn To Play Language Games?
● We obesrve other people playing these
games to know the rules of using language
● How do different tokens move -> how do we
use certain words
● We participate in language games and
eventually we learn how words are used
● If we can observe how other people use it,
then we understand what it means
Ordinary langage philosophy and conceptual
analysis
MODULE 3 - Epistemology
Plato in the Theaetatus: proposed that true belief
with the addition of an account was knowledge,
while belief without an account was outside its
range
● Knowledge traditionally defined as justified
true belief
● In order for it to constitute as knowledge,
one must
○ Have a belief/proposition
○ Belief must be true
○ It must have a justification/good
reason for having said belief
Belief is an acceptance that something is true or
exists
● In order for someone to know something,
they need to believe it
● Someone needs to believe in what they
know
● People can believe in things that we don’t
know anything about (aliens, ghosts, etc.)
○ Just becase someone believes p, it
does not follow that he knows p
○ A kid can believe that there is a
monster under the bed, but she does
not know that there is
● Belief is a minimum condition for you to
know something
Truth is defined in its objective “absolute” sense;
regardless of what people think, know, or believe
● A person can only know what is true, he
cannot know what is false
● Truth is not relative, no one has monopoly
over the truth
● Truth is independent of our available
knowledge
○ There are lots things that we dont
know yet
● Truth is external to us
Justification is some kind of evidence or good
reason to believe that p
● May take the form of observation,
experience, inference, memory, data, etc.
comes in many forms
● Prevents lucky guesses from being counted
as knowledge
● Justification alone isn’t enough; you need to
have truth as well
○ You can have justification for p, but p
can still be false (mall friend
scenario)
Edmund Gettier “Is Justified True Belief
Knowledge?”
● Employed conceptual analysis to see if the
three criterion is sufficient for knowledge
Gettier Prob. 1
● Smith has justification, truth and belief
about b
● But he also did not know (b) since he was
the one who got the job and not jones
● He had justified true belief but his
knowledge was wrong
Gettier Prob. 2
● Car/brown problem
Theories of Truth
Correspondence Theory of Truth
● A proposition is true if it corresponds to
reality (or represents a fact)
● Here, truth is a mind-independent, external,
and objective matter
○ Things are true or false regardless of
what people think believe or say
Objection: only accounts for empirical or directly
observable truths
● Does not account for logical or definitional
truths, mathematical truths, or hypothetical
truths (what ifs)
● We accept many scientific claims as true
(atoms and stuff)
Coherence Theory of Truth
 ● A proposition is true if it is coherent and
logically consistent with a body of other
propositions
● Truth isn’t determined by an external state
of affairs, but by a coherent system of
propositions that mutually support and
provide evidence for each other
○ Ex. Smith killed Jones is supported
by proposition A, B, C (Blood on shirt,
Smith has a knife, etc.)
Objections
● Any set of propositions can be made
coherent with enough adjustments
○ Anyone can weave a story
● Coherence regresses into some kind of
idealism
○ Truth is only in the mind
○ “Snow falls from the sky is true” is
true because snow falls from the sky
regardless of where you’re talking
about
Pragmatic Theory of Truth
● A proposition is true if it is useful or
practical to believe
● Truth is whatever leads to the best payoffs,
best justification of our actions or helps
achieve success
● Truth is whatever helps us make sense of
our lives
● We believe in a God because it’s convenient
Objection
● Truth and usefulness are different
● It might be useful to believe that people are
inherently good, but it does not follow that
they are
● It remains in the domain of belief
Sources of Knowledge
1. Reason: an internal human faculty that
every human possesses
● ability of the mind to discover or know
things on its own
● Does not require the 5 senses in order to
work
● Reason is binding upon rational creatures
○ We can’t help but act rationally
(according to our own judgment)
● Humans are rational animals
2. Sense Experience: seeing hearing, smelling,
tasting, and touching
● Empirical observation of the world
● 2 ways
○ Internal states: feelings attitudes,
moods, and pain and pleasure
■ When we feel pleasurable, we
learn/know smth about
ourselves
○ Mental operations: thinking,
believing, wondering
● Senses are prone to error; we need to
correct our judgments by sensing the world
some more
3. Authority: authority figures tell us that some
things are true
● Authority figures: someone who is a learned
expert who tells us what is true
● Personal authorities: teachers, parents, etc.
● Impersonal authorities: books, shows, TV
show hosts, etc.
● We need authority figures because the
information helps us filter the information
we need to know
● Authority is never a primary source of
knowledge
4. Intuition: kind of inner experience, a strong
conviction of certainty that suddenly comes
upon us to help us know what's true
● Gut feeling/instinct that helps us determine
what’s true
○ “It just feels right”
● Problems with intuition:
○ Can conflict between people
○ Not much confidence in correctness
○ Can actually be from another source
of knowledge
5. Revelation: divine/non human source
manifests itself and reveals profound truths
● Ex. Angel Gabriel’s visit
● Comes in the forms of dreams, voices,
scripture, visions, etc.
 ○ Not all people have access to
revelation
● Problems with revelation
○ dreams/visions can be vague
○ No evidence that it actually comes
from the divine
○ Different religions have different
sources of revelation which often
disagree
6. Faith: attitude of belief in the absence of
evidence
● Some things can only be known through
faith; like Christian doctrine
● “I know this thru faith”
● Deep or profound belief in God’s Word
● Problems with faith:
○ Different conclusions arrived at by
faith
○ What can be derived from faith may
be derived from something else
(authority of the church)
Types of Knowledge Claims
David Hume
● Hume tried to make a naturalistic science of
man based on human psychology and
nature
● He was an empiricists
● Passions govern human behavior
Hume’s Fork: All objects of human reason may be
divided into:
● Relations of ideas
● Matters of fact
● If it cant be classified as either its not
knowledge
Relations of Ideas: attained thru the faculty of
reason alone
● Math sciences where each affirmation is
certain
● Propositions of this kind are discoverable by
thought alone
● Its knowledge-ness does not depend on
empirical senses
● A priori: independent of or before sense
experience
○ One does not need to conduct an
empirical investigation to know that
something is true
● What falls under a priori?
○ Mathematical truths: 1+1=2
○ Geometrical truths: sum of angles in
a triangle is 180
○ Definitional truths/tautologies: all
sisters are female
○ Logical truths: “All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man. Therefore,
Socrates is mortal.”
● Relations of ideas are true in every possible
world; their negations imply logical
contradictions
○ Ex. no matter what world you are in,
a square always has 4 sides, or
bachelors are always unmarried
Matters of fact are known thru sense experience
and an empirical investigation of the world
● NOT ascertained in the same way as
relation of ideas
● The negation of matters of fact is
possible/never implies a contradiction
● Examples of matters of fact:
○ Scientific knowledge: Ampalaya is
bitter
○ Social scientific knowledge:
Aguinaldo declared independence
on June 12…
● Contraries of matters of fact are possible in
an alternate reality
○ There is no logical contradiction in a
world where fire is cold or ampalaya
is sweet
● These things aren’t contradictory because
these things are empirical possible and
observable; we can imagine that they are
true
○ The knowledge that the sun rises in
the west instead of east is just a
different observation, but it’s not
necessarily untrue
Implications of Hume’s Fork
● Moral knowledge: it is morally good to help
those in need/ lying is wrong
● If Hume’s Fork is true, there is no such thing
as moral knowledge bec it doesn’t fall under
matters of fact or relations of ideas
○ “Killing is wrong” is not a relation of
ideas, and wrongness is not part of
its definition
○ It is also not a matter of fact
because you cannot empirically
investigate the wrongness of killing
thru sense experience
● Moral statements do not describe anything
objectivel ture or real in the world
○ Emotivists: moral judgments are
subjective expressions of emotions
(but this would mean that moral
judgments are just statements of
preference and dont represent the
wrongness)
○ Prescriptivsts: moral judgments are
merely prescriptions or suggestions
(but these dont represent the force
and weight of moral judgments,
they’re more than suggestions)
Analysis of Statements
3 Laws of Thought: governs the analysis of
truth-values of all knowledge claims and
statements
● They are true a priori (do not need to be
verified empirically)
● They are implicitly pre-supposed in every
knowledge claim that we make (that none
of the principles are violated)
○ Principle of Identity
○ Principle of Non-contradiction
○ Principle of the Excluded Middle
Principle of identity: the words be and be signify
something determinate
● Expresses a tautology; A=A
● Tautologies ensure that our statements
refer to one and the same thing
● It allows us to know that “This table is not a
table.” would violate the principle and hence
have less truth value
● We recognize the identity of something by
saying A is A
The Principle of Non-contradiction: something
cannot be both A and not A
● Reality cannot contain logical contradictions
○ He is A and not A violates this
principle
● However this principle does not meant hat
something cannot be both A and B
The Principle of the Excluded Middle: if any one of
two contradictory statements is denied, then the
other must be affirmed
● Logical binaries: one can only be one or the
other, there is no middle ground or third
alternative
● If something is true, it cannot be false, if it’s
false, it cannot be true; no gradient or
spectrum
● Does not apply to opposites because there
are logical spaces in between (hot and cold,
blue and red, etc.)
Rationalism Vs Empiricism Debate
Age of Metaphysics ended and gave way to the age
of epistemology
● Metaphysicians made wild conclusions,
medieval philos relied on faith over reason
○ Parminedes: no such thing as
change
○ Heraclitus: everything is changing
Rationalism vs Empiricism dominated
epistemology
Rationalism
● Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz
● Senses: don’t trust the senses; they cant be
a source of knowledge
● Method: clear and distinct thoughts; key to
knowledge is to use reason correctly and
independently of your senses
○ Believes in innate ideas; rational
beings have innate ideas at birth
 ● Truth: a priori (before experience) you need
to attain truth by investigating the logical
relations between ideas
Empiricism
● Locke, Berkeley, Hume
● Senses: senses make up the majority of our
knowledge
● Method: We must experience the world to
know it
○ Knowledge is derived from
experience
● Truth: a posteriori (after experience) truth is
attained thru empirical observation
○ Bitterness of ampalaya, the number
of islands in the PH
○ Matters of fact
Rene Descartes
● Aimed to restore trust in philosophical and
scientific knowledge w the same certain
foundations
● Methodic doubt: to doubt everything that is
not certain; anything that can be doubted
should be discarded
○ Absolute, indubitable, true, and
certain foundations of knowledge
○ If there is any reason to doubt
something, then it cannot be the
foundation of knowledge
The Attack on the Senses
● The senses are never an absolutely reliable
source of knowledge; it is a mark of
prudence never to place our complete trust
in those who have deceived us even once
● The senses are deceptive
○ Illusions; we can’t know if our
experience is correct
○ Hallucinations
The Dream Argument
● We can be certain of somethings, but we
can all doubt these assumptions regardless
if we think theyre faulty or not
● There are no definitive signs by which to
distinguish being awake from being asleep
● Dream Argument
○ You can’t know that you’re not
dreaming
○ Unless you know you’re not in a
dream, you cannot know anything
based on sensory experience
○ THEREFORE, you cannot know
anything about the world based on
sense
The Evil Genius/Demon Argument
● There is a good God that does not want him
to be deceived; surely God wants me to not
be deceived
● Descartes proposes that there may be an
evil genius/demon feeding us
illusions/deceiving us
● Brain-in-a-vat thought experiment
Cogito: Bedrock of Certainty
● Starting point and foundation of all
knowledge
● He is sure that there is something that is
performing the act of doubting
○ Ie. at the very least, there is
something that doubts, or there is
something deceiving
● The one thing that cannot be doubted; “I
think, therefore I exist.”
● The knowledge of our own minds is more
true and certain than the knowledge outside
of us
○ Proposes an inner and outer world
○ We can only be sure about the inner
world
● Problem of the Bridge/Solipsism: how can
we be sure that there is anything outside of
our minds?
○ We can never be sure of anything
else
● Problem of Other Minds: we can only
observe other people’s behavior, so we can
never be sure that others are not robots
The Wax Argument
● We can arrive at true knowledge by using
the light of reason and think clear/distinct
ideas
● Clear/distinct ideas: innate, self-evident
principles that can never be doubted
 ○ All knowledge should derive from
clear and distinct ideas
■ I am a thinking thing, God
exists, mathematical truths
■ These are RELATIONS OF
IDEAS
● How do we come to know a piece of wax?
○ We come to know it by its physical
properties, smell, touch, etc.
○ When it melts, its sensible qualities
change (physical properties change)
○ But we assume that this is still the
same piece of wax, even if the basis
for our identification of the wax
changes (the same piece of wax
remains)
○ The knowledge in 3 cannot come
from the senses then
● Reason is what helps us distinguish
knowledge and not knowledge
Berkeley’s Idealism
● Nothing exists other than minds and their
ideas (sense impressions)
○ Ideas: not only abstract thoughts,
but also sense impressions
■ Sense impressions:
experience of redness,
sweetness, etc.
● Idealists: There are no physical objects,
there are just collections of recurring
patterns of sense impressions/ideas
○ A chair isn’t actually a chair, it’s just a
collection/set of sense impressions,
the size, the shape, etc.
● To be is to be perceived: objects only exist
insofar as they are being perceived by a
mind
○ The moment they aren’t being
perceived, they cease to exist
● If you leave a ROOM, the objects in that
room cease to exist
○ Footage from CCTV can be a set of
sense impressions too
● Berkely: God is the cause of
sense-experiences, he organizes them into
stable, coherent intelligible patterns
Cherry Argument
● We think that physical objects are different
from their sets of properties
○ We think the properties are different
from the cherry
● Berkely thinks that they’re the same: “I see
and taste the cherry, its softness,
roundness, etc.” but there is no point in
separating the cherry from the summation
of its properties
○ “What is a cherry without its
softness, roundness, tartness”
○ Properties attend to each other and
unite in the mind as sense
impressions
● Berkely argues that you can’t be sure that
CHERRY, aside from its sense
impressions/physical properties can exist,
because we don’t know what denotes its
existence aside from its IRL properties
● It is logically incoherent to think of physical
objects as distinct from its physical
properties
● The world is nothing more than our mind
John Locke
● Rejected rationalist view and rejected innate
ideas
● Tabula Rasa Argument: when we are born,
our minds are completely blank
○ We can only fill it with experience
Hume on Cause and Effect
● Matters of fact are founded on relation of
cause and effect
● Hume as also an empiricist
● Humans have the tendency to find casual
relations behind every event, and this is how
he believes humans arrive at knowledge
○ We try to find causes
● We care only capable of observing events
happening in succession
 ● Casuality is just events in succession, these
events conjoin together in our minds
● “Fire is hot to the touch;” you approach the
flame, then you come to know that it’s hot,
and so we make the causal relation that A
(approaching the flame) leads to B (feel the
sensation of heat)
● Cue Ball example: it’s hard to imagine it, but
hitting the right side of a ball for it to go left
is not logically necessary
○ If we keep seeing the same events
conjoined together, that’s what we
find to be knowledge
● We use the past as a guide for the future; a
posteriori
Hume on Custom/Habit
● Humans cant help but look for patterns or
regularities in nature
● Event A -> Event B
○ Thousands of pieces of knowledge
is acquired in this format
● Inductive reasoning: we observe particular
events and draw generalizations based on
our observations
● Empirically likely is not the same as logically
justified
○ It’s not logically necessary that the
sun will rise in the east, it can rise in
the west
○ It’s a matter of fact, and this is a
claim made under inductive
reasoning
● Inductive reasoning is never justified
○ Description is different from
justification
● Just because the first 10,000 crows are
black, it does not follow that all crows are
black
Kant
● If Hume’s fork is correct, then science is in
danger
○ We call science objective truth, but
Hume’s fork makes it prone to the
problem of inductive reasoning
○ Scientific knowledge can’t be
relations of ideas
■ If we can’t justify scientific
knowledge, they just become
a custom/habit, a likelihood
at best
The Grand Synthesis
● Combined rationalism and empiricism
● Kant: all our knowledge begins from
experience, but it does not follow that it only
arises from experience
● Empirical knowledge is a compound of what
we receive thru impressions and our own
faculty of knowing
● Kant believes that the mind has something
already
○ Category of understanding
Hume: humans look for casual relations
Kant: Causality is just one category in our minds
● The mind also has other built in structures
○ Time and space: our minds are wired
to see everything in space and
experience everything in time
● Categories: are not out in the world but they
are innate tools for structuring data from
our senses
○ Guarantees that everything we
experience has spatial, temporal and
and causal character
● We all have causality/space/time-colored
glasses
○ These are built in ways of interacting
with the world in our mind
○ BUT WE can’t take these glasses off
● Kant rejects the tabula rasa
● The human mind is built in such a way in
terms of space, time, causality, etc.
Kant’s Copernican Revolution
● Causality already exists within our own
mind
● We are able to make inferences because
causality is something built into us
● Cognitive apparatus of the mind shapes
experience
 ● People used to think that the earth was
revolved around
● The Mind shapes the world, the mind plays
an active role in the acquisition of
knowledge
○ The 5 senses always receive data,
and the mind makes sense of this
● We can never really know the world outside
of us, as it really is
○ We can only know the world as it
appears to us, but not what it
REALLY is like
○ We are trapped inside how our mind
is structured
The way forward is the limits of human knowledge
Module 4 - Philosophy of Science
The Problem of Demarcation: how do we
distinguish science from pseudoscience
What is Science?
● Science assumes that there are prevailing
patterns in the universe that can be
discovered using empirical methods of
investigation
Why do we do science?
● For prediction; we can live conveniently if
we can find out what can happen in the
future
● For technological advances; changes in
technology, changes in society
● For the improvement of the quality of life
● Laws of nature are uniformities in the way
things behave
○ They are descriptive
○ They are casual; why things occur
○ They are universal statements
(universal jurisdiction)
TERMS
Laws: universal empirical propositions that are
discovered in nature; generalizable
● Applicable in the future
● Summary of observable facts
Theories: developing/constructed propositions
● Always contain some term that does not
denote anything that can be directly
observed
○ Strings, quantums, etc.
● New unknown facts can be observed thanks
to theories
Hypothesis: educated guesses or predictions of
what will happen
● Testable explanations
● Taken in conjunction; usually are used to
support laws or theories
● They are singular statements
Difference between Philosophy and Science
● Science is a first order discipline, philosophy
is a second order discipline
○ Science: makes scientific claims
○ Philo: what makes a scientific claim?
● Scientific inquiry may theoretically come to
an end
○ Philosophy won't end because with
new knowledge comes more
questions
● Philosophy is concerned with questions that
science may never answer
○ Science asks descriptive questions,
philosophy is concerned with
normative issues (norms)
Teleological Explanations
● Teleological view of reality: every object has
some ultimate good/goal towards which it
strives (ultimate purpose)
○ Teleological view of a planet’s orbit
by plato: must be circular
○ Teleoligcal view believes that
objects gravitate towards its natural
state/place
● Teleological view of sex: it should only be
used for reproduction
● Teleoligcal views in biology:
○ Evolutionary explanations: white fur
is for survival, sunflower moves
towards the sun, all evolutionary
characteristics have an end
○ Nature has intelligent design
(purposeful and possesses final
end)
Why were Teleological Explanations rejected?
1. Teleological explanations rely on future
causes rather than past/prior causes
a. How can a future event have any
influence on a present
characteristic?
b. Ex. how can a sperm know it’s
supposed to go to an egg for
fertilization
c. How can a state of affairs cause
something to occur in the present
2. Religious teleological arguments depends
on a omniscient creator
a. Religious arguments change the
discussion from science to theology
 b. God could have made a more
efficient universe but it does not
exist
i. Ie. some things can be more
efficient than how they
already exist (why are plants
photosynthetic and humans
are not?)
3. Theory of Natural Selection: variations of
certain traits allow organisms to adapt to
their environment
a. Heredity can be explained by
whoever survives
Teleological explanation: giraffes have long necks
to reach leaves
Darwinian explanation: giraffes have long necks
because this adaptation helped them survive
compared to short necks
● Darwin provides a more direct explanation
for the evolution
The Problem of Demarcation
Psuedo-science: theories and methods that appear
scientific but are not
● Claim to be empirically supported
● Demarcation is important because we need
to be able to label things as science
properly
○ The label “science” has a strong
influence on society
Vienna Circle: verifiability (verification movement)
● Something is scientific if it can be
empirically tested, substantiated and
verified with certainty
● Scientific claims can be tested and
confirmed without a shadow of a doubt
● A set of concepts or words have to take part
in a statement that makes a testable claim
about experience
○ Remember: Know the conditions
under which the meaning of a word
can be tested; The criterion of
verifiability is a litmus test
○ Propositions that weren’t verifiable
were pseudoquestions/gibberish
● Under this view, value judgments, religion
centered questions, or metaphysical
questions are pseudoquestions
Is the Principle of Verification effective?
● It’s p good. Why?
1. Scientific claims are empirically testable
● Experiments can be done to test it remotely
● You can’t test astrology horoscopes
because you cannot determine if they have
a direct casual relationship
2. Scientific claims can be confirmed but
pseudoscientific claims cannot
● You can use experimental set ups (control
and experimental) to be able to better
determine casual relationships
● But you can’t confirm the existence of evil
spirits, UFOs, etc.
○ Something that is not scientific can
be helpful still
○ Practicality and scientific quality are
not mutually exclusive
The Problem of Induction
● Hume’s problem of induction posed a threat
to verificationism
● Inductive statements are singular
statements made universal statements
● The question whether inductive inferences
are justified or under what conditions is
known is the problem of induction
Deduction vs Induction
● Deduction: can be derived from the
premises
○ Universal claims to singular claims
○ If a deductive argument is logically
valid, then the conclusion is
absolutely certain
● Induction: conclusions don’t logically follow
from the premises
○ Singular to general/univerisal claims
○ Inductive arguments can only
provide empirical support or
probability but can never be certain
 ○ If the stone fell when he threw it, it
will most likely fall when he throws is
the 100th time
The Principle of Uniformity in Nature
● As the laws of nature have been in the past,
so they will be in the future
Is this assumption logically sound? Logic it
1. Certain kinds of events that occurred
regularly in the past will regularly occur in
the future
2. This kind of event happened regularly in the
past
Therefore, this event will occur regularly in the
future
This is fallacious because 1 assumes the
conclusion it’s trying to prove (circular reasoning)
● The principle of uniformity in nature is not
logically sound;
● At best, induction gives a pragmatic
justification for scientific knowledge
○ It is practical to use induction for
science, but they can only be our
best guesses for predicting future
events
Popper on Induction
Popper: because science is based on induction,
even if scientific laws are empirically accurate, they
are never logically justified or absolutely verified
● Attacks logical positivists because their
criteria for verification is empirical in nature
Verification cannot be the criterion of demarcation
● If you can’t verify the claims of science, then
they’re just like pseudo-science
○ Inductive reasoning, the bases of
verification in “science” is not strictly
verifiable, so it places science in the
same level of doubt as
pseudoscience
● If science can’t be verifiable, then they’re
just like pseudoscience
Popper: the annihilation of metaphysics leads also
to the annihilation of natural sciences
Popper: Falsifiability is the criterion of demarcation
● Popper does not think inductive reasoning is
useless, but it’s not sufficient to use as
basis for universal claims
● Tests for verification can only temporarily
support a claim but not make it universal
○ Thus far, the theory works; thus far,
the hypothesis works
● Empirical verification of a theory is a
temporary affirmation that thus far, it has
not yet been disproven
○ The more tests the hypothesis
survives or withstands, the stronger
and more creddbile it is
The Criterion of Falsifiability
● Falsifiability is what makes something
scientific
● It must be possible for an empirical
scientific system to be refuted by
experience
○ It must be formulated in a way that it
allows itself to be tested
○ There should be a situation where it
can be proven w3rong
● Falsifiability and false-ness is different
● The more a claim is tested, the more
scientific it is
○ If it avoids the possibility of
empirical disconfirmation, the less
scientific it is
Falsifiability in Science and Pseudoscience
● Science: seeks to be falsifiable
○ Scientists keep trying to check if
their theory can be proven false
○ Science puts itself out there and
makes more risky predictions to test
the “metal” of their claim
○ Specific hypothesis and predictions
● Pseudoscience: seeks to be confirmed
○ Pseudoscientists keep trying to
show how correct they are
○ They make vague claims to fit with
any outcome
Marxism and Freudianism is not falsifiable fields of
study
 ● Theory of Historical Develpoment is not
falsifiable
● Psychoanalytic theory
Science as Deduction
Good science consists of 3 steps:
1. Frame conjectures that make strong claims
about experience
a. Conjectures must take risks
2. Attempt to falsify these conjectures by
piling up negative evidence against them
3. Return to step 2 if it withstands testing and
falsification
4. If they have been falsified, frame new and
improved conjectures and attempt to falsify
them as well
The difference between science and
pseudo-science is which approach gives better
logical justification for knowledge claims.
● Science cant produce positive conclusions
but they can make negative conclusions
thru deduction
○ Positive: Swan 1-100 are white,
therefore all swans are white
○ Negaitive: Swan 101 is black,
therefore not all swans are white
● Positive results can’t verify a conjecture, but
one negative result can falsify it
○ It takes one bullet to kill someone
Scientific Holism
The Scientific Method
1. Formulate the Problem
2. Conduct Background research
3. Construct a hypothesis
a. Isolation of independent and
dependent variables
4. Design an experiment to test the hypothesis
Pierre Duhem
● Described the standard view of science
○ Standard view claims that
hypotheses can be tested in
isolation
■ When running an experiment,
you only seek to check the
validity of the hypothesis and
not the body of knowledge it
rests upon
○ But if the experimental data
contradicts the hypothesis, it is
assumed that the hypothesis, and
only the hypothesis is the source of
the scientific error
Duhem is a scientific holist
● Scientific Holism: the view that scientific
theories can’t be studied separately from
each other
○ Everything must be understand in
part of a whole
● Holism also asserts that when something is
being experimented on, the entire theory, a
whole body of science, not just the
hypothesis is in danger of being falsified
○ If the experiment disproves your
hypothesis, you can’t be sure if it’s
the theory, the background research
or the hypothesis that led you to
those results
● For holists, no scientific hypothesis by itself
is capable of making predictions
○ Being able to predict from
hypothesis requires several
background assumptions from other
correct hypotheses
○ In other words, for people to make
hypotheses, they need to assume
the correctness of several other
background assumptions
Why are these assumptions made without
question?
● The results of an experiment do not specify
where the error is located; see an
experiment in hydrology
Duhem’s holism teaches us that science is a vast,
interconnected network of facts, laws, and theories
● The system of science must be coherent
 ○ Any inconsistencies must be
removed; some fact reinterpreted,
some theory abandoned or revised
● Sometimes it’s not the experimental
hypothesis that’s revised, but even the
longstanding scientific theories or laws can
be changed
● Sometimes theories postulate certain parts
to make them coherent even if there is no
direct evidence for it
○ Some parts are postulated to
preserve their coherence
○ Some parts of scientific theory are
purposefully made coherent
● Making a hypothesis requires that you
consult with several fields of study that also
have assumptions
● If everything is interconnected, why do we
assume that only the hypothesis can be
wrong when several other assumptions the
hypothesis was made on can also be
wrong?
WVO Quine’s Holism
● Extended Duhem’s holism from physical
theory to all of science (Duhem-Quine
Thesis)
● He wrote Two Dogmas of Empiricism; which
attacked logical positivism (empiricism)
● Science’s boundary conditions are
experience
○ Reevaluation of some statements
entails the reevaluation of others
because they are logically
interconnected
● Peripheral nodes are empirical statements
of experience
○ E.g. a rock accelerating downwards
at 10 m/s^2
● Central nodes are theoretical statements
○ Newtonian laws
● Quine says that both the peripheral and
central nodes are not immune to criticism or
revision
● You can make any scientific statement
appear true with enough adjustments from
the system
○ A rockmay not accelerate
downwards provided air resistance
or different gravitational forces
applied to the rock, or if someone
throws the rock
● Any part of the theory must be changed or
revisited to reflect data
Quine argues that any scientific statement can
ultimately be revised to restore coherence ot the
web, empirical data underdetermines scietnfic
theory
● Underdetermination: for any scientific
theory there will always be at least one othe
rival theory that is also supported by the
evidence given and can explain the data,
and the rival theory can also be maintained
in the face of new evidence
○ We tend to make theories based on
data; but there are many ways of
explaining natural phenomena (rival
theories)
○ There can be coherent, explanatory
correct theories to account for data
● We can never conclusively know which
theory is the correct one, because every
theory candidate can be made coherent
with empirical data with enough revisions
● See Newton’s Celestial Mechanics Example
○ Underdetermining a theory is
basically just the addition of
possible assumptions/hypothesis
(consistent with the central laws) to
make a scientific statement correct
○ Think of chemistry and the stupid
bullshit like inert pairs and whatever
The Explanatory Virtues
● A set of standards that help us adjucate
between competing theories and determine
which theories are better than others
● Empirical Accuracy: some theories can
make more accurate predictions than others
(withstand more tests)
● Consistency: easier to accept a theory that
is compatible with other theories than a
theory which contradicts other theories
● Simplicity: parsimony; it’s better to use
theories that have straightforward
explanations
Scientific Progress
How do we evaluate scientific explanations or
compare scientific theories?
Thomas Kuhn: wrote the structure of scientific
revolutions
● Popularized the term paradigm shift
● Challenged the standard view of scientific
progress that scientific knowledge grows in
a linear, cumulative, and continuous way
○ We cant objectively say that new
science is better than old science
● Popper: scientists are critical thinkers
○ Kuhn argued that scientists are
subject to non-rational influences in
theory construction
■ Think of adler and freud
● The standard view of scientific progress:
represents history fo science as a ladder,
with each new discovery leading to the next
more complex thing
The Four Phases of Science every field in science
can be represented in four distinct stages
● Pre-paradigmatic phase: occurs only once,
its when there was still no paradigm
governing the field
● Normal science: its the phase we are in 99%
of the time; most scientist work under a
single paradigm or a theory that currently
dominates the field
● Crisis: occurs 1% of the time; occurs when
new discoveries challenge the dominant
paradigm
○ If the crisis is averted we return to
phase 2
○ If its not averted we move to phase 4
● Scientific Revolution: old paradigm is
replaced by a new one, eventually reverting
back to phase 2
Pre-Paradigmatic Phase: a period of time where a
field hasn’t been dominated yet by any paradigm
● Paradigm: a dominant way of doing things
that every scientist follows; its a collection
of theories that govern how science is done
in a field
● With no paradigm, scientists always start
from scratch and are often disorganized
○ There were as many theories as
there were scientists
● Eventually a paradigm emerges and
becomes dominant; this happens for a
number of reasons
○ The theory is effective
○ A group of scientists have political
power, etc.
● These phases come to an end
Normal Science
● Phase where all the methods, knowledge,
etc. being focused on or used are decided
upon by the established paradigm
○ This dictates what counts as
scientific progress, what data is
relevant, what is valid, etc.
● Ex. Astronomy’s geocentric model
○ Aristotelean physics replaced by
newtonian physics
○ Darwins evolutionary biology and
the theory of natural selection
● Dominant paradigms in the normal science
phase have 2 feature; they were both
○ sufficiently unprecedented to attract
a group of people from competing
theories
 ○ Sufficiently open-ended to leave
problems for other scientists to
solve (it was still exciting); has
potential pa
Activities During Normal SCIENCE
1. Re-establishing previous observations and
claims to greater degrees of precision
● Scientists work to confirm the claims of the
dominant field
○ Confirm theory of relativity, etc.
2. Establishment of new facts that vindicate
the theory
● Establishing facts to add to a theory or
clarifying some facts
3. Performing experiments which the theory
draws and excites scientists toward
● Applications of the existing paradigm
(CRISPR) to do cool things
How is Normal Science Established?
● Universities are the main vehicles for
establishing paradigms
● Normal sciences rests upon several
successful scientific achievements
○ These achievements are recounted
in books, articles, in school
○ All HS students are trained to think
in the same way (scientific method)
○ People under normal science are
taught the same things
● Kuhn: Scientists are often not critical
thinkers during normal science
○ Unexplainable evidence are often
shrugged off since it doesn’t
represent the existing theories the
paradigm shares
■ They often attribute it to error
or misapplication of the
theory
○ In other words, errors aren’t properly
recognized in normal science, they
are dismissed
● Scientists hesitate to publish radical novels
because people are reluctant to change
existing views
○ They prioritize saving the theory
instead of listening to the data
○ Scientists get attached to their
discoveries, which subjects them to
irrational thinking
Crisis: certain number of problems cant be solved;
more phenomena cant be explained, more
predictions begin to fail, more discrepancies
● Scientists attempt to prevent the crisis
○ They are very resistant to change
○ They will try to reconcile
inconsistencies with the paradigm
● Eventually after becoming more open,
scientists will become more critical and
rational again
● 2 outcomes:
○ Paradigm is preserved and crisis is
averted (missing link, crucial errors
resolved within the old paradigm)
○ Crisis is not averted and scientific
revolution begins
Scientific Revolution
● New paradigm emerges that can solve the
problems the old paradigm couldnt
● These are very rare (1000+ years) because
this consists of a complete change in
paradigm
○ It takes geniuses to bring about
scientific revolution
● New methods, knowledge, and new
standards arise
○ Erase the board and start from
scratch, almost everything is
replaced
○ New laws, concepts, etc.
● Paradigm shifts: a theory is discarded only
if there’s a candidate to replace it
○ The reject an old one is to accept a
new one
○ You can’t have 2 at once, theyre
going to conflict
● Once things settle, we revert to phase 2
● Paradigm shifts also exist in music and
other fields
Incommensurablity
 ● Paradigms become incomparable, you can’t
say one is better than another
● There’s no objective way to say one
paradigm is better than the other
○ Definition of terms are skewed in
such a way to favor one over the
other; their meanings are derived
from the larger paradigm
○ Some paradigms are better
equipped to answer certain
problems (newtonian vs einstein
mechanics)
A Scientific Revolution is like a change in
worldview
● A set of theories and methods can only be
different but not better than one another
● Different set of glasses; science is not linear
in this sense, we just look at things different
● Kuhn: paradigm shifts in science are no
different from paradigm shifts in art, music,
etc.
○ Science has no greater claim to
epistemic objectivity because things
change in the same way “subjective”
fields change
○ In a sense paradigms are almost like
“styles” of doing things in science
● Theories in diff. Paradigms can’t be
compared, but theories within the same
paradigm can
○ We can’t compare theory of relativity
to newtonian physics, but we can
compare our knowledge of the
theory of relativity now to that of 100
years ago
○ Within the same paradigm , we have
better laws, more technology, etc. to
better understand the world
Module 5 - Logic ○ These sentences are neither true nor
false
What is logic? ■ Ex. “can i have your number?”
● Is the study ofmethods and principles used or “close the door!”
to distinguish correct from incorrect ■ They don’t describe the world
reasoning Logic is only concerned with propositions
● Logic is used when we reason or argue, our
arguments include reasons and must Propositions and Arguments
logically follow from them ● Arguments are clusters of propositions
● Logic is concerned with the correctness of ○ The conc. (a proposition) is inferred
the reasoning process from the other propositions
Aritstotelean Logic (premises)
● Categorical logic: he was concerned with ○ Premise and conclusion are relative
categories terms; you can use the conclusion
Ex. P1: All men are mortal as a premise for another argument
P2: Socrates is a man ○ Whether something is a premise or a
C: Therefore, Socrates is mortal conclusion depends on how they are
used
● This counts as a
deductive argument
● The socrates is part
of the category of
all men, and the
category of all men
share a Validity and Soundness
characteristic
which socrates Truth VS Validity
should also have ● Truth only applies to individual statements
● If he is part of the set, then he also has the and propositions
characteristic of that set ○ Truth depends on whether or not a
proposition reflects whatever is in
Sentences and Propositions the real world
Sentences are linguistic objects; a collection of ○ Single propositions can only be true
words that communicate a coherent, meaningful or false, NOT valid
idea ● Validity applies to arguments or a cluster of
● Two sentences can express the same propositions
proposition ○ Only arguments can be valid
○ Sentences in diff languages that ○ Is a function between the premises
express the same proposition and the conclusion
A proposition is a mental object or a thought; they ○ A deductive argument is valid when
assert or describe something about the world; its premises & conclusion are so
● They can be either true or false related so that it is impossible for
○ All whales are mammals; the cat is the premises to be true unless the
on the mat conclusion is also true
● Some sentences do not express
propositions
 ○ If your premises are true, then it is
absolutely certain that conclusion
will also, always be true
○ Cetrain conditions must be met by
your premises and conclusions for
validity to exist
Soundness
● Validity + truth; this implies that some
arguments do not contain any true
propositions
○ E.g. the coconut mammal hair
example
This argument is valid; if all of these premises were
true then the argument is formed in such a way
were the conclusion must absolutely be true; the
validity of an argument’s format ascertains the
truth value of the conclusion
● Validity is a logical property, while some
aspects of truthfulness can be derived
empirically
● This implies that some arguments whose
propositions are all true
○ Even if the premises are all true, but
the format for validity is wrong, then
it will never be
Deductive Arguments
● Claim that its conclusion is supported by its
premises conclusively (with absolute logical
certainty)
● Deductive logic: study of the validity or
invalidity of arguments
● A deductive argument is valid if its premises
provide incontrovertible grounds for its
conclusion
● A deductive argument is invalid if its
premises fail to establish the conclusion
irrefutably
Inductive reasoning
● Claim that their premises provide some
inconclusive grounds
○ P1: Crow 1 is black
○ P2: Crow 2 is black
○ C: All crows are black
This is not a logically sound argument; just
because the first 1000 crows are black
doesnt mean the next one will be black
The Subject Matter of Formal and informal Logic
● Logic studies the forms of arguments
● Various fields represent ideas thru formal
notations al the time
Ex. Maths; Chemistry use abbreviations to perform
other operations
● Logic requires a scientific notation because
ordinary language is vague, ambiguous, full
of misleading idioms and full of deceptive
metaphors
○ Hard to assess the validity of
arguments expressed in ordinary
language
Simple and compound statements
● Simple statements (propositions) have truth
values
● Compound statements contain two simple
statements as parts
○ Conjoined by AND or OR
○ The truth value of which is decided
by the truth values of the simple
statements taht make up the
compound statement
○ Compound statements are
truth-functional
Propositional Logic
● Capital letters represent simple propositions
5 types of Logical Symbols
● Negation
● Conjunction
● Disjunciton
● Material implication
 ● Biconditionals 4. ∼(C v D)
5. (C • ∼D) v (A • B)
1. Negation: denials of statements;
represented by ∼ 1. ∼A ≡ D
Ex. R: Roses are red; ∼R: Roses are not red OR it is 2. A -> (C v D)
not the case that roses are red 3. (C ≡ D) -> A
● Other markers for negation: “It is not the 4. (A -> ∼C) • (∼C -> D)
case that,” “it is false that,” “it is not true 5. ∼A -> ∼(C v D)
that,” etc.
Truth Tables
2. Conjunction: asserts two or more simple ● simple statements have truth values
statements are true; represented by a dot • ● Compound statements’ truth values depend
Ex. R: Roses are red; V: Violets are blue; on their parts
R•V: Roses are red and violets are blue
● Other markers for conjunction: “and, but, yet, 1. Negation:
although, even though, nonetheless, ● Negation of a true
furthermore, moreover, while,” etc. statement is false;
negation of a false
3. Disjunction: two or more simple statements statements is true
are combined using the word or;
disjunctions are symbolized by (v) 2. Conjunction
● Asserts only one of the simple statements ● Asserts that both
is true simpler
Ex. R v V; Roses are red or violets are blue components are
● Presumable only one of the simple true
statements are true ● P ^ Q are only true
if both P and Q are
4. Material implication: if then statements; if p, true
then q represented by an arrow ->
Ex. If it will rain, then I will bring an umbrella; R -> U 3. Disjunctions
● P only if q, q if p, q on the condition that p, q ● At least 1 of their
provided that p, p is a sufficient condition component parts
for q is true
● P v Q is only false
5. Biconditionals: expresses the equivalence if both P and Q
between statements and takes the form P ≡ are false
Q; they are always true together ● If only P/Q is true, then the compound
Ex. Roses are red if and only if violets are blue is statement will still be true
symbolized as R ≡ V
● Expressed by: Just in case that, iis a 4. Material
necessary and sufficient condition for, if and Implication
only if ● If the antecedent
p is true, then the
1. A • C consequent q is
2. ∼A • ∼B true
3. ∼(C • D)
 5. Biconditional Definition of Validity: an argument is only valid if
● True if and and only if there is no case wherein the premises
only if both of are true but the conclusion is false
the ○ In other words, it cannot be the case
components that you have true premises , a valid
have the same argument
truth value

Evaluating Truth Value of Compound Statements

1. Determine truth values of
propositions
2. Refer to the form of the argument
(disjunction, conjunction, etc.)
3. Use the simpler parts of the compound
statement to evaluate the truth value
4. Check with examples IRL
simple
There is a scenario wherein the premises are true
but the conclusion is false; you can fail the 4th LT
even if you passed the first three
● This argument is invalid because the
premises are true but there is a case where
the conclusion is false

Validity: whether an argument is sound, logically

forceful and correct
● There are informal ways of showing that
this argument is invalid ● Premises are true, and the conclusion is
○ Try to copy the form of the argument always true, therefore the argument is valid

2 Principles for Validity

1. The truth is not the same as validity
a. Truth has something to do with
content and validity has something
to do with form ● Premises are true, but the conclusion is
false
○ There is a case wherein you do not
go into boxing yet you get hurt
Validity is not influenced by content; it is a function
The argument is correct but does not have a of form; whether or not the premise and conclusion
logically valid form are related in a certain way
● Arguments cant be true or false, they can
only be
2. If an argument is valid and its premises are
true, we are absolutely certain that its
conclusions will always be true
Ask:
● Are the premises true
● If the argument has a correct format
● An argument is valid if and only if there is no
case where the premises are true and the
conclusion is false
Representing Arguments 2. Apply truth table to the general/symbolic
● Formal logicians use logical symbols and form of the argument
the truth table method to represent ● Check the row wherein all the premises are
arguments and determine which structures r true and see if the conclusion is true or false
valid ○ It is only valid if all cases where all
premises are true lead to a true
conclusion
Modus Ponens:
P -> Q
Test the validity of [(R->S)• R]->S P
How to test the validity? Therefore Q
1. Tabularize Modus Tollens
each of the P -> Q
premises ∼P
(assuming Therefore ∼Q
they are
true) Tautologies
● We affirm the truth in different ways
2. If possible, ● Empirical observation
you can rearrange ● Logical necessity (M v ∼M)
the premises and ○ (p v ∼p is trivially true)
simple propositions ● Have only true substitution instances
to the form of the Contradictions
argument ● Jungkook is 10 ft tall: can be verified
empirically
3. Refer to only row ● “Jungkook is both 10 feet tall and not 10
one, or the one feet tall.”
where the all ○ p ^ ∼p: violated law of contradiction
premises are true ● Have only false substitution instances
Contingencies
● The truth or falsity of some statements
cannot be formally determined
● You need empirical observation; contingent
STEPS on the state of affairs in real life
1. Identify the argument form
● Symbolize the argument and identify its
general form

Argument in words

Argument in symbolic form

MODULE 6 - ETHICS
Ethics:
● How we ought to live
● How we ought to live, what the idea of good,
concepts of right and wrong
● Moral philosophy is the branch of
knowledge concerned with answering
questions such as what our guiding ideals
should be, what sort of life is worth living, or
how we should treat one another
○ Study of what morality is, and what it
requires of us
● Ethics is concerned with reasoning about
the big questions of morality
Ethics is concerned with standards of conduct,
ethical concepts, what weought to do, the
rationality of moral actions, and our obligations as
persons.
Normative Ethics: seeks to discover the substantive
moral principles that we ought to live by
● What are the contents of our principles?
● Consequentialism: what matters is the
good, long-term consequences of an action
○ Utilitarianism: whatever provides the
greatest happiness for the greatest
number; utility is the same as
happiness
■ What could be more moral
than doing an action that
makes as many people
happy as possible;
MAXIMIZE HAPPINESS
● Non-consequentialism: what we do matters,
some actions are wrong/right in
themselves; Some actions should be done
regardless of their consequences
○ Rights based ethics: claims and
entitlements to respect as free and
equal human beings
○ Deontology: the categorical duties
that flow from the demands of
rationality (follow your duties)
○ Virtue ethics: the virtues and
character traits that promote human
flourishing
Jeremy Bentham
● Influenced by empiricism: all knowledge is
derived from experience and sensation
● Wanted to improve politics through
utilitarianism
● “Nature has placed mankind under the
governance of two sovereign masters, pain
and pleasure. It is for them alone to point
out what we ought to do, as well as to
determine what we shall do.”
○ Pleasure: anything that produces
benefit, advantage, pleasure good, or
happiness
○ Pain: anything that produces
mischief, evil or unhappiness
○ Pain and pleasure can be measured
under utility
○ Quantify pleasure in terms of
positive utility points >0
○ Quantify pleasure in terms of
negative utility points <0
Bentham’s Utilitarianism
How do we quantify utility more precisely?
● Intensity: How intense?
● Duration: How long will the pleasure or pain
last?
● Certainty: what is the probability that the
pleasure or pain will occur?
● Propinquity: How far off into the future will
the pleasure or pain materialize
● Fecundity: probability pleasure will lead to
other pleasures
● Purity: what is the probability that pain will
lead to other pains
● Extent: how many people will be affected by
the pleasure or pain
Bentham’s Utility: when the tendency it has to
augment the happiness of the community is greater
than any it has to diminish it
● Maximize the happiness of the community
● The greatest good for the greatest number
● The appeal of utilitarianism is that it is
objective, quantifiable, intuitive, impartial
and fair to all stakeholders
● HOW MUCH PLEASURE CAN WE MAKE

Testing Bentham’s Utilitarianism
The Crown vs. Dudley & Stephens (1884)
● A cruise ship named the Mignonette was
travelling across the atlantic
● Crew: Dudley (captain), Stephens (first
mate), Brooks (Sailor), and Parker (cabin
boy and orphan)
● When the ship sank, these were the only
survivors
● For the first 3 days, they didn;t eat. On the
4th days, they opened cans of turnips
● Day 5: they caught a turtle and ate it, and did
not eat from Days 6-13
● Day 14: Parker fell ill because he drank
seawater and appeared to be dying
● Day 19: Dudley suggests that they draw lots
to see who should die in order to save the
rest
● Day 24: Dudley and Stephens stabbed
Parker in the throat with a pen knife
○ Stephens said a rosary, and then
stabbed Parker in the throat
○ Brooks objected to this death
● Day 25-27: the rest survived via cannibalism
● Day 28: They were rescued and charged
with murder
Preliminary Objection Against Bentham’s
Utilitarianism
● Fails to respect individual rights
● Total = majority over individual
● This violates our intuition: that people have
basic rights
The Philip Morris Case: Is utilitarianism a good tool
for policy making?
● Czech republic: Excise tax on smoking to
lower demand
● Philip Morris: a tobacco company was going
to be greatly affected; commissioned a
cost-benefit analysis to explain why it is
beneficial for citizens to smoke
● The government would have a net gain for
the government of a lo tof money;
● Utilitarianism assumes that we can put
everything under a single standard (money)
and make objective and fair comparisons
A Second Objection Against Bentham’s
Utilitarianism
● Utilitarianism disregards values and
preferences other than happiness (the value
of life or value to families)
● Can incommensurable goods be aggregated
under a single measure like utility (or
money)
○ Tax vs the value of life
● Do we always have to adequate ino to make
correct judgments
John Stuart Mill
● Mill’s utilitarianism: greatest happiness
principle
○ Actions are right in proportion as
they tend to promote happiness;
wrong as they tend to produce the
reverse of happiness
● Utilitarianism cannot accommodate justice
and individual rights, explain
incommensurable values
● He also addressed how utilitarianism
collapses into hedonism
○ Utilitarianism depicts as
pleasure-seeking creatures
● Mill distinguishes between higher and lower
pleasures; THE KIND OF PLEASURE
MATTERS
○ Higher faculties: art poetry,
contemplating nature, thet study of
history intellectual pursuits, culture,
family, etc.
○ It is better to be a human being
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied;
better to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied
● Mill: If humans educate and cultivate
themselves, then they will never fail to
desire the higher pleasures more
Bentham VS Mill
Objection 1: Utilitarianism fails to respect justice
and individual rights
● Mill: justice eventually is founded in
happiness;
○ A society that upholds rights is
generally happier than one which
doesn’t
○ Justice is a higher pleasure, stands
higher in the scale of social utility
and are therefore of more
paramount obligation than any
others
Objection 2: Utilitarianism cannot aggregate
incommensurable values
● Mill: other values such as life, democracy,
art, family, etc. are higher pleasure; these
higher pleasures are grounded in utility
○ Give more utility to higher pleasures
Objection 3: Utilitarianism collapses into
undignified hedonism
● Once educated, people will always prefer
higher pleasures over lower ones
Non-Consequentialism: some actions are right in
and of themselves and should be pursued no
matter what, while some actions are wrong in and
of themselves and should never be done
● E.g. it is always wrong to lie
Immanuel Kant: kind of a hardass LOL
Morality is a system of oughts; there are many
kinds of oughts
● If I want to study in UP, I ought to pass the
upcat
● If I want to pass chem 16, I ought to study
every day
Kant: there are other kinds of oughts that are more
moral in nature
● Hypothetical imperatives: the first kind of
ought takes the form of hypothetical
imperatives (if-then statements)
○ If we want an outcome, we need to
do something to get to that outcome
Kant says that hypothetical imperatives are weak
because the only benefit of doing an antecedent is
to achieve the outcome
If X, then Y; that means a person would
typically do X just to get to Y. there is no
other obligation to do X other than to get to
Y
● Hypothetical imperatives are dependent on
our desire for an outcome
○ There is no necessity for us to desire
a certain outcome
Categorical imperatives: the second kind of ought
(categorical: unconditional and uncompromising)
● categorical imperatives are unconditional
demands
● Categorical imperatives express absolute
duties and obligations that we are bound to
obey
● Moral rules are not formatted with the
outcome in mind:
Ex. “You ought to help someone if she is your friend
or if you have a crush on her.”
● Categorical imperatives are written like,
“You ought to do this, period.”
○ C. imperatives are grounded in
reason
Reason: categorical imperatives are not ordered by
anyone, but are commanded by reason
● As rational beings, we are bound to act in
accordance with reason
○ If we fail to act reasonable, we
betray our rational nature
● Reason is the foundation and from which
we should derive our moral rules
Categorical imperative:
● act only according to that maxim by which
you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law
○ This is a test for determining which
actions are moral
○ Universal law: a law that every
rational being accepts
● A maxim is a principle that govern’s a
person’s actions
○ I should always tell the truth, etc.
 ● categorical imperative determines what can
be personal maxims and what can be
universal maxims
Categorical imperative comes in 3 stages:
1. Formulate the maxim (principle) to be
universalized
2. Universalize the maxim (imagine the maxim
bein elevated to a law that everyone
follows)
3. If it’s impossible to universalize a maxim,
then it’s not a moral law
a. If there is no contradiction in that
world, then it can be elevated to the
states of a moral law
Examples of using the categorical imperative:
1. Lying: when universalized, it becomes
useless because everyone knows that every
person they talk to is lying; it defeats the
purpose of lying in the first place
a. It i s a crime to our rationality
2. Not repaying debt: when univeralized, no
one would lend money because humans are
rational enough to know that they will not
get paid; it makes debt-making impossible
3. Giving aid to those in need: in a world where
everyone gives aid to other whenever they
are in need, there is no contradiction. People
would be reassured that whenever they are
in need, they will be helped
Duty
● categorical imperative is the foundation of
moral duties (deon)
● Duties as a rational being, being
commanded by reason
● It is our duty to act in such a manner where
we would want everyone else to act in a
similar manner under similar circumstances
From Duty VS In Conformity with Duty
● Acts that are done in conformity with duty
have no moral worth
○ In conformity (out of fear, or still with
selfish interest)
● In other words, acts that are done without
the intention of following duty (for selfish
aims or out of fear) have no moral worth
○ You can’t enjoy being good
● Kant is giving a very pure and firm form of
ethics
○ When people act with agenda, if it’s
not in your heart to act out of duty,
it’s not moral
Objections With Kant’s Categorical Imperative
1. It is absolute and unrealistic
● If a nazi comes to your door and looks for a
jew at your house (there is;) Kant's
deontology would require you that you tell
the truth and allow the jew to be killed
● Doesn’t allow for exceptions
● Kant’s Deontology is too idealistic: some
actions can be moral even if they are not
done purely from duty
● Does it follow that a person who likes
volunteering because they likemaking
positive impact an immoral act?
● No one acts this way
2. The categorical imperative test is faulty
● The universalizability test does not work for
all moral maxims, some maxims can be
universalized but lead to an unfavorable
world
● E.g. “I will not help other people whenever
they ask for help,” works in the
universalizability principle, but it’s not good
● There are some maxims which are clearly
immoral but can be universalized in
accordance with Kant’s formula
○ The “Grope the first person you see”
maxim
● Kant’s test is concerned with the form, but
not the substance, so it would be possible
to universalize immoral or evil maxims as
long as they don’t make a contradictory
world