INTRODUCTION

TO THE
PHILOSOPHY
OF THE
HUMAN PERSON
 The Difference
Between Holistic
Point of View from a
Partial Point of View
 Partial Point of View Holistic Point of View
✓Looks at only limited ✓Looks at all aspects of
number of aspects of the given problem or
the given problem or situation.
situation. ✓All aspects are given
✓Conclusion are made importance when
based on considering making conclusions.
some, but not all, sides ✓All aspects are tied in
of the problem or together to form a
situation general overview of the
problem or situation.
INTRODUCTION
TO THE
PHILOSOPHY
OF THE
HUMAN PERSON
SOME OF THE
PROBLEMS IN
PHILOSOPHY
VALUES
OF
PHILOSOPHY
 The Values of doing Philosophy

The value of philosophy is in this uncertainty, every

time one philosophizes and seeks answers, it opens
the person to a wider perspective of the possible
answers that are devoid of dogmatism and are
results of deliberate activity involving reason.
 The Values of doing Philosophy

Philosophy has value in terms of what it contributes

to the quality of knowledge acquired by people and
how such knowledge enhances the mind’s ability to
reason.
 The Values of doing Philosophy

Engaging in philosophy means engaging in

contemplation. This reflective activity is suspending
who you are, what you believe, and what you value.
Remaining in the belief that you hold what is certain
and definite means closing yourself to other
possibilities that may broaden your perspectives.
PLATO
Plato traced man’s need to
philosophize to his sense of
wonder. Whenever we are
confronted with an
experience, we always
wonder how it came about.
RENE DESCARTES
He traced the need to
philosophize to doubt. In life, we
will be faced with several ideas
and arguments which present
themselves as “truths”. A critical
and questioning perspective is
necessary to determine if indeed
these ideas or views are correct
or true.
• Why do we philosophize?

• Do we all have the potential

to philosophize?
THE METHODS
OF
PHILOSOPHIZING
I. Philosophy as Speculation or Speculative
Thinking

•Speculation is derived from the Latin word specula, which

means “watch tower.” It implies a vision above that of an
ordinary person.

•Speculation is sometimes considered as detached because it

is an activity best done alone and in isolation. It is often a
result of contemplation, which you can do on your own.
II. Philosophy as Critical Thinking or Analysis

•To criticize means to “judge” and/or to

“analyse.” Philosophy, as critical thinking or
analysis, questions, judges, and evaluates any
and all principles and premises that may be
gained through speculation.
II. Philosophy as Critical Thinking or Analysis

•Through critical analysis, insights are validated as well.

As you subject an idea or insight through analysis, you
evaluate if the insight is clearly stated, if it is consistent
with itself, and finally, if it is consistent with the world.
III. Philosophy as Reflective Inquiry

•This kind of reflection is seen as a “meaning-making”

process that moves a learner from one experience into
the next with a deeper understanding of its relationship
with connections to other experiences and ideas.
TRUTH, FACT
and
OPINION
 TRUTH
• is created by people to describe how things
really are
• as a state of belief that is thought to represent
a universal reality.
• Truths don’t have to be logical or verifiable.
They simply have to be shared. They can arise
from faith, commitment, or experience.
• It is what a person has come to believe. If he
believes that something is true, then it is true.
 FACT
• Indisputable
• Can be objectively verified and proven through
evidence
• Basically something that exists, or is present in
reality. Hence, these are things that can be
seen visually, and these are the things that can
actually be verified.
 OPINION
• are value judgments that expresses a feeling
or view
• rely on assumptions and are exceedingly
dependent on the perspective of those holding
them
• highly temporal and can change quickly when
new information or facts become available
NATURE
OF
TRUTH
 THE CORRESPONDENCE THEORY OF TRUTH

•A belief is true, and only if, it corresponds with

something that exists in the world.
•“a belief is true if there exists an appropriate
entity—a fact—to which it corresponds. If there
is no such entity, the belief is false.”
 THE CORRESPONDENCE THEORY OF TRUTH
• Example 1 - "The sky is blue": According to the
Correspondence Theory of Truth, this statement is considered
true when the color "blue" accurately corresponds to the
color of the sky as it exists in reality. If the sky were red at a
particular moment due to a sunset, the statement would be
false at that time.

• Example 2 - Historical Facts: Statements like "Abraham

Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" or
"World War II ended in 1945" are true because they
correspond to historical events and facts that occurred in the
past.
 Criticism of CORRESPONDENCE THEORY

•It seems fair to say that correspondence

theory applies to truths in the domain of
science and ordinary experience but fails in
others.
 THE COHERENCE THEORY OF TRUTH

• A belief is true if it coheres with a body of other

statements that we take to be true.

•In simpler terms, the coherence theory of truth

insists that a belief is true if and only if it is part
of a coherent system of beliefs
 THE COHERENCE THEORY OF TRUTH

Example 1: We can think of a child being told that 2 +

2 = 4. To determine if this is true, the child screens the
idea through the belief system that he already has in
place: he believes his teacher is honest, and he
believes his experience is trustworthy—every time his
teacher adds two blocks to the two already on the
table, he counts four. So, he accepts the idea that 2 +
2 = 4; that notion coheres with what he already
accepts as true.
 THE COHERENCE THEORY OF TRUTH

Example 2: A man is told there is a ghost in the

house, but he rejects the news because it
conflicts with everything he already believes
about life and death and spirituality. The idea of
ghosts and hauntings does not cohere with the
man’s existing set of beliefs. As a result, he
considers the ghost theory to be false.
 Criticism of COHERENCE THEORY

Many criticize coherence theory in various fronts.

Some have argued that it is possible that a
system of statements or beliefs can be coherent
but not true. The denial of an entire system of
true beliefs can still form a coherent system but
will yield only false statements and beliefs. An
argument can be valid (coherent) yet have false
premises and false conclusions.
 THE PRAGMATIC THEORY OF TRUTH

The pragmatic theory of truth holds that a

proposition is true if it is useful to believe it.
Thus, utility is the essential mark of truth. Truth
is arrived at based on beliefs that lead to the
best payoff, give the ultimate benefit or
advantage, or promote success.
 THE PRAGMATIC THEORY OF TRUTH

Example: If someone says, "Please pass the

salt," and the salt is passed, the statement is
considered pragmatically true because it
achieved its intended purpose.
 Criticism of PRAGMATIC THEORY

Russell (1945) argued that true beliefs work

because they are true; they are true not because
they work, but work because they are true to the
facts. In short, we cannot equate the truth of a
particular belief with its usefulness. They simply
come apart.
Do you think knowing the
difference between opinion and
fact is important?
Do you think it is possible that
statement of opinion can help
establish statement of truth?
Do you agree with these lines:
“Truth hurts?” and “Truth will set
you free”?
FALLACIES
FALLACY
• Is a misconception resulting from incorrect
reasoning.
• From the Latin word fallacia which means “for
deceit”
NINE (9)
COMMON
FALLACIES
AD HOMINEM
•attacking the person presenting the
argument instead of the argument itself
AD HOMINEM
Example:

You’re wrong because you’re too dumb to

understand the issue.
APPEAL TO FORCE /
ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM

•using the threat of force or an undesirable

event to advance an argument.
APPEAL TO FORCE /
ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM
Example:
The theory of evolution is just simply wrong;
you can either accept it now or after I beat
you up.
APPEAL TO EMOTION /
FALLACY OF AD MISERICORDIAM

•using emotion such as pity or sympathy.

APPEAL TO EMOTION /
FALLACY OF AD MISERICORDIAM
Example:
A student is going to miss her assignment
submission date so she asks her professor to give
her extra time because she’d be so sad if she
didn’t pass the course.
APPEAL TO POPULAR

•the idea is presented as acceptable because

a lot of people accept it.
APPEAL TO POPULAR
Example:

Most people believe that there is life after

death, so there is life after death.
APPEAL TO TRADITION

•the idea is acceptable because it has been

true for a long time.
APPEAL TO TRADITION
Example:
A mother tells a pregnant woman that she should
give birth to her child by natural birth because all
the women in the family have natural births, not
cesarean sections.
BEGGING THE QUESTION

•assuming the thing or idea to be proven is

true; also known as circular argument.
BEGGING THE QUESTION
Example:
When a journalist asks an author why he
thinks his book is a bestseller, the author
snidely replies; “because it sold the most
copies.”
CAUSE-AND-EFFECT /
FALLACY OF POST HOC
•assuming “cause-and-effect” relationship
between unrelated events.
CAUSE-AND-EFFECT /
FALLACY OF POST HOC
Example:
A superstitious person sees a black cat on the
way to work, then has a terrible day. They rely
on their superstition and blame the cat for
their bad luck.
FALLACY OF COMPOSITION /
FALLACY OF HASTY GENERALIZATION

•assuming that what is true of a part is true for the

whole.
FALLACY OF COMPOSITION /
FALLACY OF HASTY GENERALIZATION
Example:

Reading the first chapter of a book and

assuming the book must be bad because the
first chapter is not great.
FALLACY OF DIVISION /
FALLACY OF DICTO SIMPLICITER

•assuming that what is true for the whole is

true for its parts.
FALLACY OF DIVISION /
FALLACY OF DICTO SIMPLICITER
Example:

Men are faster runners than women, therefore

my brother must be faster than my sister.