Fundamentals of Philosophy-Phy 111 Slides - 103507

OSOPHY
FUNDAMENTALS OF PHILOSOPHY
PHY111
© 2016. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved
1
10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Private and Confidential
THE SPECIFIC LEARNING OUTCOME
At the end of the course, you should be able to:

- Explain the etymological, General and academic definitions of philosophy
- Explain the functions of philosophy
- Describe the historical/ chronological development of philosophy
- Identify the key figures and their contribution in philosophy
- Identify different branches of philosophy
- Describe the concepts underpinning different branches of philosophy
- Apply different philosophical theories in real life.
10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 2

WEEK ONE
WEEK ONE
INTRODUCTION TO FUNDAMENTALS OF PHILOSOPHY .
 COURSE OUTCOMES : At the end of the course, students are expected to:
-Define Philosophy etymologically and academically
-Differentiate the three periods of philosophy
-Identify the philosophical players in each period
-Discuss the contributions of each philosophical figure to the development of philosophy
-Explain the functions of philosophy

WEEK ONE
1. DEFINITION OF PHILOSOPHY
 Etymological definition
-The word “philosophy” originates from the Greek language “philosophia”
- which is the union of two words “Philia” signifying love and “Sophia” signifying wisdom.
-Therefore we can define philosophy as the love of wisdom
 General sense
-Philosophy is take to mean one’s general outlook on life or one’s general outlook to some
particular aspects in day-to-day life.
-It is one’s general attitude towards certain things.
-A person’s philosophy could also be viewed as the sum of that person’s fundamental beliefs and
convictions.
 Academic sense
-Philosophy is a critical reflective personal attitude towards life and the universe.
-To philosophize in academic sense involves critical thought and reflection by an individual, to
solve a problem.
-Philosophy could also be conceptualized as a method of reflective thinking one to think…
WEEK ONE
Academic sense cont….

- through one’s problems and face all the facts involved in a critical and rational way.
- Philosophy as a method of critical reflection projects the mind beyond the level of mere
accumulation of information to that of being able to ask critical questions and making careful
assessments of facts.
- It is a method that seeks to attain the level of bona fide comprehension and understanding, a level
where one can rationally and critically justify one’s beliefs
1. FUNCTION OF PHILOSOPHY
 Contemplative function
-In the ancient Greece the contemplative character of philosophy was recognized explicitly by
Aristotle.
-Philosophy in this type of function promises or assures man a solution to the problem of his
alienation in the world.
-Through contemplation, man is being elevated and conformed to the divine in him, to happiness

WEEK ONE
 Practical function
- Advanced by Plato who was the first to propose philosophy as the means to transform the world.
- Philosophy transform society by basing on justice.
- This function is clearly explained by referring ourselves to the allegory of the cave of Plato
 allegory of the cave
- States that “men live in the cave and are chained there.
- They cannot move and all they see is the shadow of the real world radiated by the rays of light.
- A man who succeeds in leaving the cave and seeing the light of the outside world is the philosopher,
- Whereas the prisoners in the cave represent the majority of mankind, that multitude of people who remain all
their live in a state of ignorance.
- They behold only shadows of reality and hear only echoes of truth.
- The man who escapes and realizes that formerly he saw only shadows is now in a state of true knowledge
- He has the mission now to return to the cave and share his knowledge for the betterment of the others.
- Thus, the philosophical project for Plato in this sense is oriented to education, political praxis and society
transformation.

WEEK ONE
 Analytical function
-The analytic function of philosophy is seen in analytic philosophy.
-Analytic philosophy proposes one important task of philosophy that of translating grammatically
misleading or defective expressions into their correct logical form.
-Additionally, the analytic function is the analysis that aims at making every statement an adequate
picture of reality it describes.
Chronological development of philosophy
- The development of Philosophy is based on historical periods and the main proponents of each period
namely Ancient period, Medieval period, Modern period and Contemporary period
1. Ancient philosophy
The main philosophers during the ancient period include: Pre-Socratic, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle
1. pre-Socratics
- The Pre-Socratic period of the Ancient era of philosophy refers to Greek philosophers active before
Socrates expounded on earlier knowledge.
WEEK ONE
- They rejected traditional mythological explanations for the phenomena they saw around them at the
expense of more rational explanations.
- They asked questions like where did everything come from? why is there such variety, and how can
nature be described ?
- They tended to look for universal principles to explain the whole of Nature
- So their main objective was to explain the universe
- They include the following major philosophers.
 Thales of Miletus (c. 624 - 546 B.C.): Was Greek and believed that water was the main cosmological
principle.
 Anaximander (c. 610 - 546 B.C.) Greek and believed that apeiron was the main cosmological
principle.
 Anaximenes (c. 585 - 525 B.C.) Greek and believed that air was the main cosmological principle
 Pythagoras (c. 570 - 490 B.C.) Greek and believed that number was the main cosmological principle
 Heraclitus (c. 535 - 475 B.C.) Greek and believed that an ongoing process governed by a law of
perpetual change, or Logos, which he symbolized by fire was the main cosmological principle

WEEK ONE
 Anaxagoras (c. 500 - 428 B.C.) Greek and he maintained that the original state of the cosmos was a
thorough mixture of all principles
 Parmenides of Elea (c. 515 - 450 B.C.) Greek and originator of the cosmogenic theory of the four
classical elements of the ancient world: earth, air, fire and water
1. Socrates(c. 469 - 399 B.C.)
-Socrates was more concerned with how people should behave and so was perhaps the first major
philosopher of Ethics
-. He made important and lasting contributions in the fields of Ethics, Epistemology and Logic.
-Was the inventor of dialectic method or Socratic Method
 Socratic method or The dialectical method
-Also referred to as "elenchus" (roughly, "cross-examination") but which has become known as the
Socratic Method or Socratic Debate
-It has been called a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by
steadily identifying and eliminating those which lead to contradictions.
-Still used in classrooms and law schools as a way of discussing complex topics in order to expose the
underlying issues in both the subject and the speaker.

WEEK ONE
- Used to solve a problem by breaking the problem down into a series of questions, the answers to which
gradually distill better and better solutions.
- Both the questioner and the questioned explore the implications of the other's positions, in order to
stimulate rational thinking and illuminate ideas.
- Thus, Socrates would counter any assertion with a counterexample which disproves the assertion
- This would lead to a modified assertion, which would then be tested again with another counterexample.
- Through several iterations of this kind, the original assertion is continually adjusted and becomes more
and more difficult to refute, which Socrates held meant that it was closer and closer to the truth.
 Socrates: concept of death
- The separation between the soul and the body
- The soul is the principle of life whereas the body is the matter.
- Socrates believed that the body is the tomb for the soul and the source of corruption
- The soul, rather than the flesh alone, was capable of seeing truth, and therefore death was the moment
when the soul would be set free to find true virtue and happiness.
- Death is a purification of the philosopher's soul from its bodily attachment.

WEEK ONE
- When death comes it is a liberation.

- Thus, it would be unreasonable for a philosopher to fear death, since upon dying he is most likely to
obtain the wisdom which he has been seeking his whole life.
- It because of immortality of the soul that death was no evil.
 Socrates’ philosophy: “the only thing that I know is that I know nothing”
- A motto of humility. You need to recognize your own ignorance.
- Also called the Socratic paradox
- Means that any knowledge or information acquired is likely to be insignificant compared to how much
was left to be discovered.
 Socrates: on immortality of the soul
- Immortality means incapable of dying
- Four arguments about the immortality of the soul are as follows according to Socrates
- 1st argument: The soul must be immortal because life always comes from the dead as we see in nature.
- As nature always seems to generate new life out of decay, so too the soul must emerge alive when the
crumbling flesh perishes.

WEEK ONE
- 2nd Argument: based on the principle of recollection, in which men seemed to remember concepts they
had not known before.
- Nobody needs to be taught good or justice. People just know the concept naturally, suggesting that they
must have learned it in a previous life.
- 3rd argument: soul is like a cloak made by a weaver, and just as the cloak continues to exist after the
death of the weaver, so too the soul must outlast the body.
- 4th argument: there are some things we all know of that are eternal, which he called the pure forms.
Concepts like beauty or numbers exist outside the body and they exist forever.
- The concept of three will always exist, even if our written digits on paper vanish.
- The soul must be like these things, abstract and eternal. He then said that when freed from the body, a
soul continues to exist with other pure concepts, like truth or beauty.
 Socrates on Ethics : Ethical intellectualism
- Believed that no-one desires evil, no-one errs or does wrong willingly or knowingly.
- Stated that all virtue is knowledge; virtue is sufficient for happiness.
- He believed that wrongdoing was a consequence of ignorance and those who did wrong knew no better
(sometimes referred to as ethical intellectualism.
- He believed the best way for people to live was to focus on self-development rather than the pursuit of
material wealth
- Individuals should try to concentrate more on friendships and a sense of true community.
- He was convinced that humans possessed certain virtues and that virtue was the most valuable of all
possessions, and the ideal life should be spent in search of the Good
 Socrates on politics in Plato’s dialogue "The Republic",
- Was strongly against the democracy that had restored in the Athens of his day
- Was against any form of government that did not conform to his ideal of a perfect republic led by
philosophers. Philosophers were the only type of persons suitable to govern others.
- He believed that the will of the majority was not necessarily a good method of decision-making, but that it
was much more important that decisions be logical and defensible.
- the purpose of politics was not to capture power, nor it was an art how to remain in power. Political ethics
make good and proper citizens

WEEK ONE
- Helped to lay the foundations of the whole of Western Philosophy.

- Founder of the famous Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the western world
 Plato’s idealism
- Also called platonic realism or Plato's metaphysics
- Plato believed that universals do in fact exist and are real.
- However, they exist in a different way than ordinary physical objects exist
- They exist in a sort of ghostly mode of existence, unseen and unfelt, outside of space and time, but not at
any spatial or temporal distance from people's bodies. Its a type of Dualism..
- Part and parcel of platonic realism is theory of Forms or Ideas, which refers to his belief that the material
world as it seems to us is not the real world, but only a shadow or a poor copy of the real world.
- This is based on his concept of hylomorphism, the idea that substances are forms inhering in matter.
- He held that substance is composed of matter and form, although not as any kind of a mixture or amalgam,
but composed homogeneously together such that no matter can exist without form (or form without
matter).

WEEK ONE
- Pure matter and pure form can never be perceived, only comprehended abstractly by the intellect.
- Forms are the pure and unchanging archetypes or abstract representations of universals and of all the
things we see around us.
- They are in fact the true basis of reality.
- These ideal Forms are instantiated by one or many different particulars, which are essentially material
copies of the Forms, and make up the world we perceive around us.
- Plato was therefore one of the first Essentialists in that he believed that all things have essences that
make an object what it fundamentally is.
- According to Plato, true knowledge or intelligence is the ability to grasp the world of Forms with one's
mind
 Allegory of the cave
- Kindly read on the practical function of philosophy ( refer to unit one)

WEEK ONE
3. Aristotle (384 - 322 B.C.)

- He was an important Greek philosopher mainly based in Athens.
- He is one of the most important founding figures in Western Philosophy.
- First to create a comprehensive system of philosophy, encompassing Ethics, Aesthetics, Politics,
Metaphysics, Logic and Science.
- Competed his education at Plato’s famous Academy, He was therefore Plato’s student
- In 335 B.C., Aristotle established his own school just outside the walls of Athens, known as the Lyceum,
in competition with Plato’s long-established Academy
- The Lyceum had a broader curriculum than the Academy, and a stronger emphasis on natural philosophy.
- Aristotle's most famous students were Theophrastus (371 - 287 B.C.), who followed him as head of the
Lyceum, and Strato of Lampsacus (225 - 269 B.C.) who succeeded him.
- His most important treatises include the six books of the "Organon", "Physics", "Metaphysics",
"Nicomachean Ethics", "Politics", "De Anima" ("On the Soul"), "Rhetoric" and "Poetics".
 Aristotle’s metaphysics
- This is tackled in the unit entitled metaphysics, later in this course

WEEK ONE
2. Medieval philosophy
- The longest period in the history of philosophy. It dates from the 5 th century to the 15th century counting
about 1000 years.
- It is a period of philosophy which represents a renewed flowering of Western philosophical thought after
the intellectual drought of the Dark Ages.
- The subject matter of this period include: God, Creation, Evil, Morality, theory of knowledge etc. It
includes the following major philosophers:
• St. Anselm (1033-1109)
• Avicenna (Ibn Sina) (980-1037)
• Peter Abelard (1079-1142)
• Averroes (1126-1198)
• Moses Maimonides (1135 - 1204)
• St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274)
• John D. Scotus (C. 1266 - 1308)
• W. Ockham (C. 1285 - 1348)
- Much of the period is marked by the influence of Christianity and many of the philosophers of the period
were greatly concerned with proving the existence of God /Allah
- An important development in the medieval period was the establishment of the first universities with
professional full-time scholars
WEEK ONE
3. Modern philosophy
- This period of philosophy is actually divided into three eras namely: The Age of Reason, The Age of
Enlightenment and the Modern Age
 The Age of Reason ( 17th c)

- Regarded as the start of modern philosophy, and roughly equates to the 17th Century. It includes the
following major philosophers: John lock, Rene Descartes, Spinoza Benedict, Pascal Blaise.
- The period advocated for the move away from theology and faith-based arguments, and marks the
shaking off of medieval approaches to philosophy
- It embraces the more unified philosophical systems like Rationalism and British Empiricism.
- The advances in science, the growth of religious tolerance and the rise of philosophical liberalism also
led to a revival in Political Philosophy in general.
- This period is also known as the Early Modern period.

WEEK ONE
 The Age of enlightenment (18th c)

- Corresponds roughly to the 18th Century. It includes the following major philosophers:
- Immanuel Kant, J.J Rousseau, Adam Smith, George Berkeley etc
- In general terms it is an intellectual movement, developed mainly in France, Britain and Germany.
- It advocated freedom, democracy and reason as the primary values of society
- It started from the standpoint that men's minds should be freed from ignorance, from superstition and from
the arbitrary powers of the State, in order to allow mankind to achieve progress and perfection.
- The period was marked by a further decline in the influence of the church, governmental consolidation and
greater rights for the common people
- Politically, it was a time of revolutions and turmoil and of the overturning of established traditions.
- The major philosophical movements of the period include British Empiricism, Rationalism and
Kantianism.
- It was essentially a continuation of the process of rationalization that begun in the Age of Reason of the
17th Century

WEEK ONE
 The modern Age ( 19 – 20th century, mostly spoken of Contemporary era)
- Jeremy Bentham (1749 - 1832) , Fichte Johann (1762 - 1814) , Hegel G. W. F. (1770 - 1831)
Friedrich Schelling (1775 - 1854) , Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)
- Also Auguste Comte (1798 - 1857) John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) Soren Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855)
Karl Marx (1818 - 1883) William James (1842 - 1910)
- This period exploded in a flurry of new philosophical movements which included the rise of
Existentialism, Marxism, Modernism, Utilitarianism, Pragmatism,

WEEK TWO
TOPIC TWO
INTRODUCTION TO THE MAIN BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY
-Differentiate the main branches of philosophy from the auxiliary branches
-Discuss the branches of philosophy.
-Identify the main players of these branches of philosophy

WEEK TWO
- Philosophy as a whole is traditionally split into main branches and auxiliary branches.
 Main branches of philosophy
1. Ethics: This is the study of how people should act, and what is good and valuable. The main proponents
include John Stuart, Emmanuel Kant, Aristotle, John Rawls. Them ethical theories include:
Utilitarianism, Deontology, Eudonemia, theory of Justice.
2. Epistemology: This is the study of knowledge, and how and what we know. The main players include
Emmanuel Kant, Rene Descartes, John Locke etc. The major theories include Empiricism and
Rationalism.
3. Logic: The study of good reasoning by valid inference and demonstration, The main figures are
Aristotle, sophists etc. The major concepts are Syllogism, Proposition, Fallacies and Paradoxes
4. Metaphysics: This is the study of existence and the nature of reality. The main player is Aristotle. The
major concepts explored include Substance, Matter, Accidents, contingent beings and necessary beings.

WEEK TWO
In addition to these, there are other branches concerned with philosophical questions arising from other
disciplines, including:
Philosophy of the Mind Philosophy of religion Philosophy of Language

(the study of the nature of mind, (the study of the nature of religion, (the study of the nature, origins,
consciousness, etc) God, evil, prayer, etc) and usage of language)
Philosophy of Education Philosophy of History Philosophy of Sciences

(the study of the purpose, process, (the study of the eventual (the study of the assumptions,
nature and ideals of education) significance, if any, of human foundations, and implications of
history) science)
Many others could be added to this list such as Philosophy of Law, Philosophy of Sociology, Philosophy of
Mathematics, African philosophy or Philosophy of Ethnology (also known as Ethnophilosophy),
Philosophy of Psychology, even Philosophy of Philosophy (also known as Meta-Philosophy).

WEEK THREE
TOPIC 3: ETHICS
-Explain both etymological and general definition of ethics.
-Identify the branches of ethics.
-Explain the theories of ethics
-Apply theories of ethics in evaluating ethical issues
-Describe the ethical issues : Abortion, Euthanasia, Prostitution, Theft, In-vitro fertilization etc..

WEEK THREE
Introduction
This units seeks to demonstrate the general understanding of the concept “Ethics”. The definition will be
circumscribed within its etymological sense. Secondly, we shall also consider its definition from the general
point of view . Conscious of the diversity of the theories (e.g. structuralism, behaviorism, sentimentalism,
etc,) within which “Ethics”, we shall be selective and consider only Utilitarianism and Deontological
theories as our preferred scope of this study. The unit further tries to show how these ethical theories can be
applied in arriving at decisions when faced with ethical social issues.

WEEK THREE
 Definition of ethics
- Three definitions are given here below
1. Etymological Definition
- The term ethics is derived from Greek word Ethikos which means customs or pertaining to character.
- The term Ethics therefore is related to the notion of custom, as an acquired way of doing things, as well
as to a person’s natural inclination.
2. Ordinary definition
- In the ordinary sense, ethics is defined as a set of principles guiding human behaviors.
- It is the systematic study of human actions and judgment from the point of view of their rightness or
wrongness as means for the achievement of man’s ultimate happiness.
3. Technical definition
- In the technical sense; it is as a branch of philosophy that is concerned with questions of sources, scope,
and justification of morality

WEEK THREE
 BRANCHES OF ETHICS
1. Descriptive Ethics
- This is the branch of ethics that uses the descriptive method of science in describing the phenomenon of
morality.
- This approach can be by mere description or comparison. It may describe morality across time or culture.
2. Prescriptive or Normative Ethics
- It is concerned with setting the criteria or standards of good moral conduct.
- In an attempt to avoid what is morally bad or encourage what is morally good, people refer to moral
standards.
- Those moral standards are given by normative ethics in accordance with three main approaches to moral
theories which are teleological, deontological and virtue ethics.
3. Meta-ethics or Critical Ethics
- The aspect of ethics which examines the meaning, nature and origin of moral standards.
- Meta-ethics raises questions about what an ethical standard really means. Example is that of the question
of the origin of moral codes.

WEEK THREE
4. Applies Ethics
- Refers to the branch of ethics which examines the moral status of concrete social issues.
- It does this by using ethical theories which we have in normative ethics to assess practical issues of
everyday life.
- When faced with making a moral decision on any particular or definite moral issue, more often than not,
we usually desire to know what the moral status of such an issue generally is.
ETHICAL THEORIES
A. Utilitarianism as a Teleological theory
- Etymologically, the word teleological comes from two Greek words; telos, “end”; and logos, “science”.
- Thus, it is the science about the “ends”. Teleological ethics is also known as consequentialist ethics
- it can be understood as the theory of morality that derives moral obligation from what is good or desirable
as an end to be achieved.
- It postulates then that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall
utility in maximizing happiness or pleasure as summed among all people, thus, the greatest happiness for
the greatest number of people.

WEEK THREE
- The focus on happiness or pleasure as the ultimate end of moral decisions, makes Utilitarianism a type of
Hedonism thus sometimes known as Hedonistic Utilitarianism.
- It is an extension of hedonism because it goes beyond the hedonistic happiness and pleasure of the
individual to the utilitarian happiness and pleasure of the greatest number of people.
- Its origins are often traced back to the Epicureanism, a movement of the followers of the Greek
philosopher called Epicurus.
- John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham are the main proponents of utilitarianism
 The concept of Utility Calculus in utilitarianism
- Utilitarianism offers a relatively straightforward method for deciding the morally right course of action
for any particular situation we may find ourselves in.
- To discover what we ought to do in any situation, there are fours steps involved:
- Identification: first identify the various courses of action that we could perform.
- Cost/benefit analysis: determine all of the foreseeable benefits and harms that would result from each
course of action for everyone affected by the action.
- Choice: Select the course of action that provides the greatest benefits after the costs have been taken
into account
- Execution: Performance of an action.
- This is also known as felicific calculus, hedonistic calculus

WEEK THREE
APPLICATION OF UTILITARIANISM
- For this theory, the slogan is “ the end justifies the means”.
- Meaning that in practice individuals when making decisions will not focus on the moral status of an
action but what the action offers.
- As said above, if an action conforms to the principle of utility that is, if the action tends to promote
happiness or prevent unhappiness, then the action is morally right.
- If an action does not conform to the principle of utility that is, if the action tends to prevent happiness or
promote unhappiness, then the action is morally wrong.
- Arguments for abortion, euthanasia and Organ transplantation just to mention a few, most of the time
fall under this form of ethical practices.
 Utilitarian Arguments for abortion
- Most of the arguments for abortion often cite the bad consequences that may result from a continued
pregnancy like, loss of a job, death or other opportunities that the pregnant woman would have merited
if she had not been pregnant

WEEK THREE
2. Economic Reasons and Commitment to a certain life style
- The child to be born is seen as a threat and a burden to the economic status of the parents to the extent
that, if pregnancy happens to intervene their goal they have to opt for abortion.
- Moreover, a commitment to a certain life style like prostitution and the shape of the body may be
another utilitarian reason for abortion because a prostitute will see pregnancy as a hindrance factor to
her business.
3. Academic Reasons and personal dignity
- The main issue here is that, schools, colleges and different educational institutes do not allow their
students to be pregnant during the academic roster.
- This promotes a lot of pregnant students to opt for abortion as a reason to continue to their studies
and as a means of maintaining their personal dignity because to be pregnant while you are in school
is also viewed as bad

WEEK THREE
4. Abortion checks Overpopulation and eliminates the handicapped

- some parts of the world are overpopulated and mother Earth is running out of the natural resources to
sustain the increasing population, abortion is taken to be a means of checking overpopulation.
- Here, unborn child in the mother’s womb is seen as threat and only means to avoid this threat and
maximize the happiness of the majority in Earth is to abort.
- Equally, the handicapped children which are foreseen are also eliminated through abortion to avoid a
burden to the society.
5. The Being killed is neither a human being nor a Person
- At the heart of the arguments for abortion is the denial of the personhood of the embryo or fetus.
- The assertion is that the “being” killed by abortion is not a member of human species but just a cluster
of cells, and hence it does not deserve the human rights given to persons. For them, personhood requires
exercisable cognitive abilities, sense organs and developed brain.

WEEK THREE
6. A Woman’s Right to an Abortion and Personal Integrity

- In our society today, many claim that a woman has a right to abortion.
- This claim is built on two arguments namely; the woman’s right to control her body and the moral
necessity of autonomy and choice in personal integrity.
- The first claims that, in choosing an abortion a woman is simply exercising a basic right of bodily
integrity.
- Thus if she does not choose to be pregnant, she should not be compelled to be so against her will, so
abortion is done for the sole end result of archiving personal integrity.
 Utilitarian Arguments for Euthanasia
1. Euthanasia removes Pain
- Right actions promote happiness, are wrong if they produce pain or the reverse of happiness.
- Applying this to the case of a terminally ill patient suffering from severe, untreatable pain, would see that
the happiness is maximized and pain minimized by euthanasia.
- The level of pain and the progression of the disease renders the person unable to enjoy the activities that
made his life pleasurable

WEEK THREE
- Thus increase in illness increase pain. In contrast, death will create a value of zero pain. Moreover, his
family and friends will be spared the pain of watching him suffering through a prolonged illness. Hospital
space and resources will be free for patients with more treatable conditions
2. means to eliminate Burden to the Society
- Euthanasia would be beneficial and not harmful both to the individual killed, family and even the society.
- This is seem to provide a precedent for killing those who are a burden to the society in the public interest
of minimizing the costs of this burden.
3. Self-autonomy
- human beings have self-autonomy and determination, they should have the right to choose the time and
manner in which they should die.
- This is referred to as the right to die. People have a right to self-determination and should be allowed to
choose their own fate.
- Moreover, assisting a subject to die might be a better choice than requiring that they continue to suffer
- Not to do so is not only to fail to respect the person’s autonomy and dignity, it is to compel him to live in a
way he believes is a horrible mockery of all he holds dear and to force him to die a miserable, pain-ridden
death.
WEEK THREE
4. Quality of life
- When life is devoid of human quality, it ceases to be worth living.
- Quality of life includes the ability to communicate, conscious, responsive to surrounding environment.
- When pain and terminal illness offer no real hope for full recovery, a person’s quality of life is so low
that she is better off dead than alive.
- Here, euthanasia as a means of avoiding unqualitable life, thus avoiding sickness and suffering. This is
a real utilitarian argument.
B. THE ETHICAL THEORY OF DEONTOLOGY
- Deontology, derives its origin from two Greek words ‘deon’ for duty, and ‘logos’ for science
- Therefore, it is a broad philosophy which values duty and strict obedience to duty.
- Deontology rejects consequences to be measures of morality, instead it focuses on fulfillment of
duty to a moral code, and it holds that duty is the only intrinsic good.
- Places center stage the Categorical imperative instead of hypothetical imperative
- Categorical imperative possess the following characteristics, firstly it must express unconditional
command of reason, secondly it must be independent of desires or inclinations and thirdly it must
be applicable in any moral situation not limited to this person or that lifetime.

WEEK THREE
- This imperative is supported by the following maxims:

1. Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.
2. Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another,
always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means. This means that Man exists as an
end (goal) in himself, not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used.
3. “So act that the maxim of your will can always at the same time be valid as a principle of making
a universal law.”
- By this formulation, Kant stress a point that we should act only in such a way that our maxims could
serve as legislations of universal laws.
- It is from this fact that human beings are themselves the sources of morality and the potential creators
of moral realm, which is the basis of their special worth and dignity.
- Conclusion: the summary is that all the three formulations form altogether the golden rule: “ Do unto
others that which you would want to be done unto you”

WEEK THREE
APPLICATION OF DEONTOLOGY IN DECISION MAKING
 Deontological argument on Abortion
1. Fetus is rational, it cannot be used as Means to other Ends

- Change of the fetus to adulthood is not a replacement or substitution but just an actualization of what is
already there.
- Though change implies that something new be acquired, but also something of the old must be carried
over to underlie the process.
- There is something in the foetus which remains in the mature human person, it is the same foetus which
has now become a mature rational human person.
- change is “the fulfilment of what exists potentially in so far as it exists potentially
- Human embryo has radical capacity to develop his rational power from within its own resources.
- This implies that, he has a set of properties of adult members of the human species.

WEEK THREE
CONT…
- Thus, a human embryo is a human person with potential, he is not a merely a potential person
- Therefore it cannot be used as means to an end.
- Kant says “act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of
another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means,”
- This maxim finds its vigor and essence here.
- The fetus as a person should not be used as a means to other ends like a job, school, and commitment to
a life style, checking overpopulation, economic benefits or other opportunities that the pregnant woman
or the society would have merited from abortion
 Abortion cannot be a universal law of nature
- Since a fetus is a being which belongs to human species, a species of rational nature, it follows then that,
it is wrong to kill a fetus.
- This is consistent with Kantian categorical imperative of universality which states that; “act only
according to that maxim that you could at the same time will it to be a universal law”.

WEEK THREE
Cont..
- It is also consistent to the golden rule according to which: “do unto others what you would wish to be
done unto you” .
- We should do to others what we should be glad of if it were done to us.
- The implication is that, if we are glad that nobody terminated the pregnancy that resulted into our birth,
then we ought not to universalize the termination of any pregnancy of a rational being which would be
having life like ours.
 Women and Doctors ought not to be used as Means to Other ends
- Women and doctors involved in abortion also should be aware that they are ends in themselves.
- A woman who decides to abort and risk her life just for a sake of pleasurable life or due to a
commitment of certain life style, job, economic status and the like, must also realize that she is both
using herself and the fetus as a means to those ends.
- Putting it differently, the doctor would be there in such a circumstance treating the fetus, the aborting
woman and even himself not as a person with dignity according to Kant, but just as objects to be used as
means to other ends.

WEEK THREE
 Euthanasia is a Violation of the Hippocratic Oath
- Euthanasia is a Violation of the Hippocratic Oath which states “I will apply dietetic measures for the
benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice. I will
neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect”.
- This is the promise that doctors make to keep to the principles of the medical profession.
- Euthanasia is a violation of fundamental moral and professional duty as healers and preservers of lives.
 Euthanasia is Against the Dignity and Sanctity of Human Life
- Deontology says that rational beings should be treated as ends in themselves and not merely as means .
- The fact that we are human, has value in itself. This inherent worth doesn’t depend on anything else, it
doesn’t depend on whether we are having a good life, that we enjoy, or whether we are making other
people’s lives better, but simply because we are rational beings.
- We shouldn’t treat ourselves or others as means to our own ends. And this means that we shouldn’t end
our lives just because it seems to be the most effective way of putting an end to our suffering.
- To do that is not to respect our inherent worth. This dignity and sanctity is due to the fact that, human
beings are themselves the sources of morality and the potential creators of moral realm, which is the basis
WEEK FOUR
TOPIC 4
EPISTEMOLOGY
-Explain both etymological and general definition of epistemology.
-Identify and explain the theories of knowledge.
-Discuss the theories of truth.
-Discuss the concepts of skepticism and fallibilism.

WEEK FOUR
INTRODUCTION
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that concerns itself with such questions relating to the sources,
scope or extent, and justification of knowledge. In this unit we look at some of the sources of knowledge and
above all some of the philosophical theories of knowledge such as empiricism and rationalism.
 Definition of epistemology
- Etymologically, the term epistemology is from the Greek words "episteme" meaning knowledge and
"logos" meaning theory or science.
- From this, epistemology can be viewed as the theory or science of knowledge
 Sources of knowledge
A. Authority
- The most common way of gaining knowledge about the past is to rely on the testimony of others.
- This is largely the way most of us have gained knowledge of our customs, cultures, tradition, histories etc.
- It is also the way in which we have acquired knowledge of thoughts of other people and the facts in
special fields of various sciences and academic disciplines.

WEEK FOUR
Cont…
Example :
“most of us know that Plato was a student of Socrates, that Aristotle was a student of Plato,
that the each has been in existence for very many years, that George Washington was the first
president of US etc”
- Despite our claim to know these propositions, we never met any of these individuals personally
- This is an example of knowledge gain through authority.
- The motto is: “I will believe in anything unless I have some reason not to do”. And this motto pays off
better than “I will not believe in anything until I can see it for myself”
- The point underscored is that we all depend on testimony of others for a vast majority of things we know.
- However, authority as a source of knowledge becomes dangerous when we surrender our independent
judgment and make no effort to discover what is true or false.
- As such authoritarianism has acquired its negative connotation for it requires complete obedience and
subservience to authority; one surrenders one’s freedom of thought and judgment.

WEEK FOUR
B. Empiricism
- The word empiricism is derived from the Greek empeiria, the Latin translation of which is experientia,
from which we derive the word experience.
- John Locke is one of the great English empiricists who is regarded as the founder of Empiricism.
- Therefore, for empiricists, sense perception is another source of gaining knowledge.
- We know by means of our sensory organs from our past experience.
- What we see, hear, touch, smell, and taste makes our concrete experience and constitute knowledge
- For Locke, we are born tabula rasa. Meaning that our mind is from birth like a blank sheet of paper
- It is only through experience that we write anything on it.
- The ideas derived from experience are the object of our thought that constitute knowledge.
- Therefore, innate ideas do not exist but experiential or empirical ideas.
- If innate ideas existed, it would be ridiculous to suppose that the ideas of colours were imprinted in the
soul of the creature, to whom God gave the sight the power to receive the ideas through impression of
exterior objects.
- To this end, Locke is going to declare a principle according to which no idea would appear in the soul
before it can be introduced through the senses.
WEEK FOUR
C. Rationalism
- Derived from a Latin word “rationes” to mean reason.
- In philosophy, the thinkers who stress reasoning as the central factor in knowledge are known as
rationalist.
- Thus rationalism is the view that we know what we have thought out.
- That the mind has the ability to discover truth by itself, or that knowledge is obtained by comparing ideas
with ideas.
- This knowledge acquired by appealing to reason is sometimes referred to as a priori knowledge.
- According to rationalist the senses, by themselves, cannot give us coherent and universally valid
knowledge.
- Therefore, for knowledge to be universal, there is a need to establish the universal conditions for the
possibility of that universal knowledge.
- These conditions where established by one of the rationalist by the name of Immanuel Kant.
- Kant named these conditions a priori concepts which are “time and space”
- These a priori concepts are non-experiential ideas. Meaning they don’t come from experience

WEEK FOUR
According to Kant, for knowledge to be rational it must obey to the following three principles of
universality, necessity, objectivity or progressive.
To satisfy these principles, there are three stages involved.
1. Transcendental Aesthetics stage: the lowest stage where Kant recognize that all our knowledge only begins but
fully not constituted by experience.
2. Recognition of a priori concepts: Kant believes that all takes place in TIME and SPACE which are the
conditions of possibility of knowledge. Without time and space, we cannot know.
3. Transcendental Analytic stage: This is were judgment takes place. To know is to that judge.
- Kant define judgement as the act of putting the pure concept in connection or in relation with the diverse
objects our experience acquired in transcendental aesthetics by the act of communication.
- With Kant therefore, the only means to justify the reason’s capacity to know is to realize that the object of
our experience obeys to that structure of those pure concepts of our mind.
- For kant, there are three types of judgments namely ‘synthetic judgment’ ‘analytic judgment’ and
‘Synthetic a priori judgment’. The latter is what offers true and rational knowledge.

WEEK FOUR
THEORIES OF TRUTH IN EPISTEMOLOGY

- Epistemology is also concerned with the problems of Truth. One of such problems is ‘that of defining the
concept of TRUTH. There are some theories in this respect
 Correspondence Theory of Truth
- According to this theory, a statement is true if it corresponds to reality or an actual state of affairs.
- In other words, a statement is true if it conforms to a fact. This theory emphasizes agreement between
beliefs and facts.
 Coherence Theory of Truth
- According to this theory, a statement is true if it coheres with an already established system of truth.
- This theory sees truth as a relation between judgment and the system to which it belongs.
- This theory emphasizes agreements among beliefs .
 Pragmatist Theory of Truth

- This theory considers the idea of truth to be an affair of practical experience
- That is, the truth of a statement or proposition is determined by its practicability.
- Therefore, a proposition is true if what it affirms is practicable or realizable.

WEEK FOUR
The Concepts of Skepticism and Fallibilism in Epistemology
 Skepticism
- A skeptic is somebody who doubts something is true: A doubter of accepted beliefs or theories.
- Therefore, the theory of Skepticism argues that, ultimately, no beliefs are justified and therefore no one
really knows anything.
 Fallibilism
- Fallibilism claims that absolute certainty about knowledge is impossible.
- Claims that knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken.
- Unlike Skepticism, however, Fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our knowledge but just to
recognize that, because empirical knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we
take as knowledge might possibly turn out to be false.

WEEK FIVE
TOPIC 5
LOGIC
 LEARNING OUTCOMES : At the end of the course, students are expected to:
-Explain the concept of Logic.
-Discuss the concept of Fallacy and Paradox.
-Identify the types of arguments.
-Explain how a categorical syllogism works.
-Discuss the types of fallacies.
-Explain the types of paradoxes.

WEEK SIX
Introduction
Logic is not just a science of reasoning; it is a science of clear and adequate reasoning. There is a
difference between Logic which deals with the principles and techniques of adequate reasoning and
psychology which deals with processes of thinking. Logic is either Informal or Formal. It is informal
when it uses the ordinary language and formal when it uses symbolic statements. In this unit, we shall
look entirely at informal logic.
Definition of Logic
- It is a study of clear are adequate reasoning.

- In strict, technical and professional sense logic is that branch of philosophy that deals with the
study of the basic principles, techniques or methods for evaluating arguments.
 The laws governing the informal logic
There are three main traditional laws of reasoning these are:
a. The Law of Identity according to which a thing is identical to itself.

b. The Law of Excluded Middle according to which a thing is what it is and not something else
c. The Law of Non-Contradiction according to which a thing cannot be and be at the same time.
WEEK FIVE
ARGUMENTS IN LOGIC
 Definition:
-An argument is a combination of a set of propositions some of which are premises and one of which is
a conclusion.
-The premises are the reasons while the conclusion is the claim which is being supported with
reasons.
TYPES OF ARGUMENTS IN LOGIC
There are two types of argument namely deductive and inductive arguments.
1. Deductive argument
-An argument is deductive if it moves from general premises to particular conclusion.
-A deductive argument is valid if the premises provide sufficient support for the conclusion, otherwise it
is invalid.
-A sound deductive argument combines validity and truth. Validity and soundness are not applicable to
inductive arguments; we can only talk of strong, weak, or no support at all in respect of inductive
arguments.
WEEK FIVE
EXAMPLES OF VALID ARGUMENTS
Examples of Deductively Valid Argument: 1

- All metals when heated expand
- Object A is a metal
- Object A is heated
- .:, Object A expands
Example of Deductive valid argument: 2
- All humans are mortal
- Socrates is a human
- .:, Socrates is mortal
The examples above are valid and sound arguments because it is not possible to accept the
premises and reject the conclusion. They are both valid and sound because the premises are sufficient to
guarantee the conclusions and the premises and the conclusions are all true.

WEEK FIVE
EXAMPLES OF INVALID ARGUMENTS
Example of Deductively Invalid Argument:
- All humans are mortal

- Mary is mortal
- .:, Mary is human
This is invalid because it is not all that is mortal that is human. Fowls are mortal and they are not
human.

WEEK FIVE
2. Inductive arguments
- An argument can be inductive if it moves from the particular premises to general conclusion
EXAMPLES OF INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
Example of Inductive Argument: 1
-Metal A was heated and it expanded,

-Metal B was heated and it expanded,
- Metal … Z was heated and it expanded
- .:, All metals when heated will expand.
Example of Inductive Argument: 2
- Water specimen A was heated to 100o C and it boils.

- Water specimen B was heated to 100o C and it boils.
- Water specimen … Z was heated to 100o C and it boils.
- .:, Water boils at 100o C
- It can be observed as defended by David Hume that inductive argument is an argument that is based not
only on drawing the conclusion from particulars but also on repetitive observations.
- In our reflection on logic, we shall concentrate on the development of deductive arguments. This will be
manifested when we will be dealing with categorical syllogism.
WEEK FIVE
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION IN LOGIC
 Definition:
-Categorical proposition assert or deny relationship between classes.

-A categorical proposition asserts that a class is either wholly or partially included into another class.
-Or, it denies that a class is either wholly or partially included into another.
-In other words, a categorical proposition could assert total or partial inclusion of one class into
another, or it could assert total or partial exclusion of one class from another.
 Types of categorical proposition
There are four types of categorical proposition and there forms are as follows
1. A: all S are P
2. E: no S are P
3. I: some S are P
4. O: some S are not P

WEEK FIVE
 Elements of a categorical proposition
-Categorical propositions, irrespective of whether they are of A, E, I, or O type, consists of the

following four elements:
1. A quantifier : which is a word that indicates whether reference is being made to all or just some
members of the subject term or class
2. The subject ( term or class): That about which the proposition is talking
3. The copula: the expression that joins the predicate to the subject. It is usually some form of the
verb “ to be”
4. The predicate (class or term): that which is asserted or denied of the subject

WEEK FIVE
 Example of the categorical proposition A:
“All children are naughty”
“ALL” is the quantifier for it indicates that reference is made to each and every child
“Children” is the subject term. It is what the proposition is talking about.
“Are” is the copula. It is the expression that joins “ Naughty” to “children”
“Naughty” is the predicate term. It is what is being asserted of the subject (Children)
Conclusion: In an A- Categorical proposition there is total inclusion. All members of the subject class are
included in the predicate class.
 Example of categorical proposition E
“No children are naughty”

“NO” is the quantifier for it indicates that reference is being made to all members of the class of
children
“Are” is the copula. It is the expression that joins “ Naughty” to the subject (children)
“Naughty” is the predicate term. It is what is being denied of the subject (Children)
Conclusion: In an E-proposition there is total exclusion of the subject and the predicate terms

WEEK FIVE
 Example of categorical proposition I
“Some children are naughty”
“Some” is the quantifier for it indicates that reference is being made to only some members of the class
of children
Conclusion: In an I-proposition there is a partial inclusion. Some children (but not all) are included in the
predicate class
 Example of categorical proposition O
“some children are not naughty”
“Some” is the quantifier for it indicates that reference is being made to only some members of the class
of children
Conclusion: since the copula is accompanied by the word “not”, in an O-categorical proposition there is
partial exclusion.
WEEK FIVE
FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION
- There are about three fundamentals characteristics namely: Quality, Quantity and Distribution
 Quality
- Categorical proposition are either affirmative or negative.

- They are affirmative if they assert that either all or some members of the subject term (class) are also
members of the predicate class.
- They are negative if they assert that either all or some members of the subject class do not belong to
the predicate class.
- In other words other words, a negative categorical proposition denies that either all or some members
of the subject class belong to the predicate class.

WEEK FIVE
 Quantity
-A proposition can either be universal or particular
-Universal categorical proposition is one which is about all members of the subject class. Thus “all
children are naughty” and “No children are naughty” are both universal.
-Particular categorical proposition is one which is only about some members of the subject class. Thus
“some children are naughty” and “ some children are not naughty” are both particulars
Take note that:

-while A-propositions like: “all children are naughty” are universal affirmative, E-proposition like “No
children are naughty” are universal negative.
-Thus a quality “UNIVERSAL” can be either NEGATIVE or AFFIRMATIVE depending on the
proposition.
-Accordingly, I-proposition like: “some children are naughty”, are particular affirmative, O-proposition
like: “some children are not naughty”, are particular negative.

WEEK FIVE
We can summarize this in the table below:
NAME FORM TITLE
A Every S is P Universal Affirmative
E No S is P Universal Negative
I Some S is P Particular Affirmative
O Some S is not P Particular Negative

WEEK FIVE
 Distribution
-The characteristics of distribution is explained with reference to the subject class also called a Term of a
proposition.
-TERM in a categorical proposition is distributed when the proposition in which it occurs refers to all
members of the class or to the whole class.
-It is undistributed when the proposition does not refer to all members of the class but only to some.
-The quantity of the proposition determines the distribution of the subject term.
-Thus, a universal affirmative proposition such as the A-proposition “All children are naughty”,
obviously distributes its subject term (children), since it is saying something about all the children.
-On the other hand, a particular affirmative proposition, such as I-proposition “some children are
naughty” obviously does not distribute the subject term (children), and hence “children” here is
undistributed.
-Equally, the universal negative proposition, such as the E-proposition “no children are naughty” equally
distributes its subjects term, and a particular negative proposition such as the O-proposition “ some
children are not naughty” equally has undistributed subject term.

WEEK FIVE
THE TRADITIONAL SQUARE OF OPPOSITION IN LOGIC
 Definition:
- The square of opposition is a group of theses embodied in a diagram.
- The diagram is not essential to the theses;
- The theses concern logical relations among four logical forms
- The diagram for the traditional square of opposition is presented here below

WEEK FIVE
EXPLAINING THE SQUARE OF OPPOSITION

- Explaining the square of opposition involves explaining the relation among the categorical propositions
around the square. Below are the possible explanations.
1. Every S is P’ (A-proposition) and ‘Some S is not P’(O-proposition) are contradictories
- If A-proposition is False, then O-proposition is true.
- If for example we say that (“all trees are plants”), what can we say about the corresponding O-proposition
(“Some trees are not plants”)? A little thought reveals that if all trees are plants, then clearly it cannot be
that any (some) are not.
- Thus we can conclude that these propositions have opposite truth-values such that from the truth of one
we can always infer the falsity of the other and vice versa.
- Hence these propositions are said to be contradictories because their relationship is based on contradiction

WEEK FIVE
2. ‘No S is P’ (E-proposition) and ‘Some S is P’ (I-proposition) are contradictories.
- If we know that an E-proposition is true for example: No Zambians are Tanzanians” what can we say of
about the truth-value of its corresponding I-proposition “some Zambians are Tanzanians”?
- Clearly, if it is the case that “No zambians are Tanzanians”, it cannot be that some are.
- Hence if E-proposition is true, then I-proposition must be false. The reverse is also true. These
propositions are therefore contradictories
3. Every S is P’ (A-proposition) and ‘No S is P’ (E-proposition) are contraries.
- what is the relation between an A-proposition and its corresponding E-proposition?
- It we know that “All statesmen are politicians”, what can we say about the truth-value of its corresponding
E-proposition that non are?
- If “all statesmen are politicians” it cannot be that none are.
- Hence, if A-proposition is true, then E-proposition must be false. The reverse is also true
- relationship between A-proposition and its corresponding E-proposition follows that: they cannot both be
true, so that from the truth of one we can infer the falsity of the other. But they can both be false (as
well as one being true and the other false), so that from the falsity of either proposition the truth-value
of the other is undetermined. This relationship is known as contrariety
WEEK FIVE
4. Some S is P’ (I-proposition) and ‘Some S is not P’ (O-proposition) are sub-contraries.
- From the truth of I-proposition, the truth-value of O-proposition is undetermined.

- In other words, the truth of an I-proposition in and of itself tells us nothing about the truth-value of its
corresponding O-proposition.
- The reverse is also true. Therefore, the relationship between an I-proposition and its corresponding O-
proposition is based on the following principle: they cannot both be false, so that from the falsity of one
we can infer the truth of the other.
- But they can both be true (as well as one being true and the other false), so that from the truth of either
proposition the truth-value of the other is undetermined.
- Thus the relation is that of sub-contrariety.

WEEK FIVE
4. Some S is P’ is a subaltern of ‘Every S is P’ / Some S is not P’ is a subaltern of ‘No S is P’.

- The final relationship to be considered is that between A and I, and that between E and O.
- An A-proposition and its corresponding I-proposition are said to be subalternates of each other, and
similarly between E an O.
- Given the truth of “All statesmen are politicians” what can we say of about the truth-value of the statement
“Some statesmen are politicians”?
- If all are, then certainly some (at least one) must be
- Hence from the truth of A-proposition we can infer the truth of I-proposition.
- Similarly, if “No statesmen are politician” is true, it must be that at least one statesmen is not a politician.
- Hence, from the truth of E-proposition we can infer the truth of O-proposition also.
- Now how about from I-proposition to A-proposition? From the fact that “some statesmen are politician,”
can we infer that all are? Obviously we cannot. But neither can we infer its falsity.
- Hence from the truth of I-proposition we can neither infer the truth nor the falsity of A-proposition; from
the truth of I-proposition the truth-value of A-proposition is undetermined.
- In other words, the truth of I-proposition in and of itself tells nothing definite about the truth-value of A-
proposition
WEEK FIVE
CONVERSIONS OF PROPOSITIONS IN LOGIC
 What is conversion?
- Converting a categorical proposition consists of reversing the proposition of the subject and predicate
- Thus “all S are P” becomes “all P are S”
- Equally, E and I propositions convert simply; that is, ‘No S is P’ is equivalent in truth value to ‘No P is S’,
and ‘Some S is P’ is equivalent in truth value to ‘Some P is S’.
Original Proposition Converse
A: All S are P All P are S
E: No S are P No P are S
I: Some S are P some P are S
O: Some S are not P some P are not S
- Note that some conversions are valid whereas others are not valid.
- Hence the question to ask is whether the inference is valid.
- Let us begin with the conversion of an A-proposition.
- Is it true that if “All trees are Plant” then “All plants are trees”? Clearly it is not.
- Conversion of an A-proposition is therefore invalid.
WEEK FIVE
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
- The concept of a syllogism is based on the notion of deductive argument and we shall build it up and
reflect on it in much more detailed manner. So if you have not understood the concept of deductive
argument, you need to go back and read it once more before you can proceed.
- There are two types of syllogisms. We have hypothetical syllogism and categorical syllogism.
- Here we shall consider the categorical syllogism where we can now apply some of the things we have
discussed

WEEK FIVE
Categorical Syllogism
 Definition
A categorical syllogism is a:
 Deductive argument consisting of two premises and containing (exactly)
three terms namely the Major, Minor and the Middle.
 Each term occurs twice.
 Two of them occur once in the conclusion and once in the premises,
 The third occurs in each of the premises but not in the conclusion.
 The predicate of the conclusion is called the Major term, and it is found both
in the first premise and the conclusion
 The subject of the conclusion is called the Minor term and it is found both in
the second premise and the in conclusion
 The term that occurs in both premises but not in the conclusion is called the
Middle term.
NOTE: Make sure you include all the above elements in a definition or else the definition
will be invalid.
WEEK FIVE
FORMS AND VALIDITY OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
1) Form of a categorical syllogism

- A syllogism is said to be in standard form.
- A standard form categorical syllogism, is one in which the Major premise (that is the premise containing
the major term) is written first.
- The minor premise (the premise containing the minor term) appearing second.
- And then the conclusion. Examples of standard form categorical syllogism would be:
No Americans are Europeans (E)

Some Zambians are Europeans (I)
Therefore, Some Zambians are not Americans (O)
• In this above syllogism, the first proposition is E-proposition and the Major term is “No Americans”
and is the subject of the proposition where as the Middle term is “European” and is the predicate of
premises
WEEK FIVE
 The second proposition is the I-proposition. The Minor term is “Zambian” and is the subject of the
proposition whereas the Middle term is “Europeans “ and is the predicate of the same proposition
 The third proposition is O-proposition. The Minor term is “Some Zambians” and is the subject of the
proposition whereas the Major term is “Americans” and is the predicate of the same proposition.
2) Mood of a syllogism
Now we need to note that what constitute the standard form of a syllogism is both the Mood and Figure.
- The mood of a syllogism consists of type of proposition contained in it.

- Thus, the mood of the syllogism in example above is { EIO }
- In other words, the first premise is and E-proposition, the second premise is an I-proposition and the
conclusion is an O-proposition. Therefore the mood is { E,I,O }
3) Figure
- The figure of the syllogism is determined solely by the position of the Middle term.
- There are four possible positions of the Middle term is the premises.

WEEK FIVE
1. When the Middle term is the subject of the Major premise and the predicate of the Minor premise,
the syllogism is said to be in the First Figure
2. When the Middle term is the predicate term of both the premises, the syllogism is in the Second
figure. Example
All intelligent students are humans (A)
Some Cavendish students are humans (I)
Therefore Some Cavendish students are intelligent ( I )
{ A I I } = MOOD
3. If the Middle term is the subject of both the premises, then the syllogism is in Third figure.
4. A syllogism is in the fourth figure when the middle term is the predicate term of the major
premise, but the subject of the minor
Exercise: give examples of syllogism in first, third and fourth figures

WEEK FIVE
VALIDITY OF CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
- There are six rules on the basis of which any categorical syllogism can be determined valid or invalid.
- Each of the rules is such that any syllogism that violates it, is automatically said to be invalid and when
does not violate then it is valid.
- Thus each rule is separately a necessity for validity and are jointly a sufficient condition for validity.
- Thus a syllogism cannot be said to be valid just because it obeys one of the rules, though it can be said to
be invalid if it violates any one of them. The following are the rules
1. Rule one: A valid categorical syllogism must contain only three terms, each of which is used in the
same sense throughout the argument
2. Rule two: In any valid categorical syllogism the middle term must be distributed at least once
3. Rule three: In any valid categorical syllogism, no term may increase its distribution, that is, no term
may move from being undistributed in the premise to being distributed in the conclusion
4. Rule four: No valid categorical syllogism can contain two negative premises
5. Rule five: In order for a categorical syllogism to be valid, the conclusion cannot be negative unless
one premise is negative as well. In other words, for categorical syllogism to be valid, if the
syllogism’s conclusion is negative, one of its premises must be negative as well.
WEEK SIX
TOPIC 6
FALLACIES AND PARADOXES
-Discuss the concept of Fallacy and Paradox
-Identify different forms fallacies with examples
-Explain different types of paradoxes with examples

WEEK EIGHT
UNIT 8
FALLACIES AND PARADOXES
Introduction
In this unit, which falls under logic, we shall explore on the notion of Fallacy and Paradox. We shall bring
out the definition of both concepts and proceed by presenting the forms of fallacies and types of paradoxes.
There will be examples to demonstrate the forms of fallacies and types of paradoxes.

WEEK SIX
FALLACIES
 Definition of fallacy
- Is a type of argument that may seem to be correct but which upon very close examination turns out not to
be so.
- A fallacy is usually very persuasive and so appears very good and logical.
- There are two broad divisions of fallacy. They are ‘Formal' and ‘Informal' fallacies.
- Formal fallacies have to do with the violation of certain rules of valid inference.
- Informal fallacies are errors in reasoning that we may fall into either because of carelessness or
inattention, or because we want to trick others into accepting our position based on convictions that are not
relevant to the issue at hand.

WEEK SIX
CATEGORIES OF FALLACIES
- Informal fallacy, which is our main concern here, can be classified into three broad categories.
 Fallacies of relevance,
 Fallacies of ambiguity
 Fallacies of presumption.
We shall focus on the fallacies of relevance and fallacies of ambiguity
A. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE
The following are some of fallacies of relevance:
1. Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum)
- Committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to cause the acceptance of a conclusion,
instead of appealing to reason.
- Also committed when someone in a position of power threatens to bring down unfortunate consequences
upon anyone who dares to disagree with a proffered proposition. Example :
‘Zambia should join the Non-Aligned Nations if she wants the Non-Aligned Nations to buy her
Copper.'
WEEK SIX
2. Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)

- This fallacy occurs when in the course of arguing, one appeals to pity rather than reason.
- An appeal to pity tries to win acceptance by pointing out the unfortunate consequences that will otherwise
fall upon the speaker and others, for whom they will then feel sorry.
- Example:
I am a single parent, solely responsible for the financial support of my children. If you give me this
traffic ticket, I will lose my license and be unable to drive to work. If I cannot work, my children and I
will become homeless and may starve to death. Therefore, you should not give me this traffic ticket.
3. Appeal to Emotion (argumentum ad populum)
- This fallacy is committed when you appeal to the emotion of the people to win their assent to a conclusion
unsupported by good evidence
- the appeal to emotion relies upon emotively charged language to arouse strong feelings that may lead an
audience to accept its conclusion.

WEEK SIX
3. Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)

- This is the mistaken supposition that there is some connection between the truth of a proposition and
some feature of the person who asserts or denies it.
- When the opinion of someone famous in an another area of expertise is appealed to in order to
guarantee the truth of a claim outside the province of that authority's field.
- Consider this example:
“Mr. Charles, a Lecturer of Philosophy at the Cavendish University, believes that the sum of the four
angles of a rectangle is 135 degrees.
Therefore the sum of the four angles of a rectangle is 135 degrees.
4. Argument Against the Man (argumentum ad Hominem)
- There are two varieties of this argument.
- The ‘abusive' variety of ad hominem is committed when instead of trying to disprove the truth of
what is asserted, one attacks the person who made the assertion.
- The circumstantial variant of this fallacy occurs when instead of arguing logically, one argues against
the circumstance of the opponent.

WEEK SIX
Consider the following two examples, the first committing the abusive variety and the second the
circumstantial:
1. Mr. Brown's arguments for pre-marital sex should be dropped because he is a
womanizer.
2. Rev. Father John should accept my position that abortion should be abolished because this is
compatible with his faith as a Catholic.
5. Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

- This fallacy is committed when one posits that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not
been proved false or that it is false because it has not been proved true.
- The following passage commits this fallacy:
“No one has conclusively proven that there is no intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter. Therefore,
there is intelligent life on the moons of Jupiter”.

WEEK SIX
B. FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
- Fallacies of ambiguity trades upon ambiguous words.

- An ambiguous word, phrase or sentence is one that has two or more distinct meanings.
- The following are examples of fallacies of ambiguity:
1. Fallacy of Equivocation
- This fallacy is committed when you use a word in more than one sense in an argument.
- An equivocation trades upon the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in one of its meanings in one of
the propositions of an argument and also in another of its meanings in a second proposition. For
example:
Only man is rational
No woman is a man
Therefore, no woman is rational.
Here, the word ‘man' is used in different senses in the two premises of the argument. So the link they
seem to establish between the terms of the conclusion is spurious.
WEEK SIX
2. Fallacy of Division
- This fallacy involves an inference from the attribution of some features of an entire class, to the possession
of the same feature by each of its individual parts or members.
- Example:
America is a rich and great country.
Peterson is an American.
Therefore Peterson is rich and great.
3. Fallacy of Composition
- This fallacy involves an inference from the attribution of some features of every individual members of a
class, to the possession of the same feature by the entire class.
- For example:
“to argue that since every course I took in college was well-organised, therefore my college education
was well-organised, is to commit this fallacy”.

WEEK SIX
4. Fallacy of assent
- The fallacy of assent is committed in an argument whose deceptive but invalid nature depends
upon a change or shift in meaning.
- The way in which the meaning shifts in the fallacy of assent depends upon which parts of it may
be emphasized or accented.
Consider this example:
“Peter turned in his assignment on time today

Therefore Peter usually turns in his assignments late”.
Here, because certain words in the premise are emphasized or stressed, the argument acquires a
different meaning and so becomes fallacious.

WEEK SIX
THE PARADOX
 Definition:
- Statement or sentiment that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps
true in fact.
- Conversely, a paradox may be a statement that is actually self-contradictory (and therefore false) even
though it appears true.
CLASSIFICATION OF PARADOXES
Four classes of paradoxes:
- Veridical Paradoxes: which produce a result that appears absurd but can be demonstrated to be
nevertheless true.
- Falsidical Paradoxes: which produce a result that not only appears false but actually is false.
- Antinomies: which are neither veridical nor falsidical, but produce a self-contradictory result by properly
applying accepted ways of reasoning.
- Dialetheias: which produce a result which is both true and false at the same time and in the same sense.

WEEK SIX
Some famous paradoxes include:
 Russell's Barber Paradox:
- If a barber shaves all and only those men in the village who do not shave themselves, does he shave
himself?
 Grandfather Paradox:
- Suppose a time traveler goes back in time and kills his grandfather when the latter was only a child.
- If his grandfather dies in childhood, then the time traveler cannot be born. But if the time traveler is never
born, how can he have travelled back in time in the first place?
 Zeno's Dichotomy Paradox
-Before a moving object can travel a certain distance it must get halfway there.
-Before it can get halfway there, it must get a quarter of the way there.
-Before travelling a quarter, it must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.
-As this sequence goes on forever, an infinite number of points must be crossed, which is logically
impossible in a finite period of time, so the distance will never be covered.

WEEK SIX
 Zeno's Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise
-If Achilles allows the tortoise a head start in a race, then by the time Achilles has arrived at the tortoise's
starting point, the tortoise has already run on a shorter distance.
-By the time Achilles reaches that second point, the tortoise has moved on again, etc, etc. So Achilles can
never catch the tortoise.
 Zeno's Arrow Paradox
-If an arrow is fired from a bow, then at any moment in time, the arrow either is where it is, or it is where it
is not.
-If it moves where it is, then it must be standing still, and if it moves where it is not, then it can't be there.
Thus, it cannot move at all.

WEEK SIX
 Theseus' Ship Paradox:
-After Theseus died, his ship was put up for public display.
-Over time, all of the planks had rotted at one time or another, and had been replaced with new
matching planks.
-If nothing remained of the actual "original" ship, was this still Theseus' ship?
 Sorites (Heap of Sand) Paradox:
-If you take away one grain of sand from a heap, it is still a heap.
-If grains are individually removed, is it still a heap when only one grain remains?
-If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?
 Hempel's Raven Paradox:
-If all ravens are black, then in strict terms of logical equivalence, everything that is not black is not a
raven.
-So every sighting of a blue sweater or a red cup confirms the hypothesis that all ravens are black.

WEEK SEVEN
TOPIC 7: ASSIGNMENT
CA 1

WEEK 8
TOPIC 8
GOD/ALLAH AND EVIL
(PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION)
-Discuss the arguments that God / Allah exists.
-Explain the forms of evil
-Describe the attributes of God.

WEEK EIGHT
A. PROOF OF GOD’S EXISTENCE

1. Proof of God by Anselm of Canterbury: Ontological argument.
- Developed by St. Anselm.

- It proceeds from the idea of God/Allah to God/Allah as a reality, as existent.
- This argument has been developed in a syllogistic form and it runs as follows:
God is that than which no greater can be thought.
But that than which no greater can be thought must exist, not only
mentally, in idea, but also extra mentally.
Therefore God exists, not only in idea, mentally, but also extra mentally
Proof by Necessity of Divine conservation by Augustine
- States that the power of the Creator and His omnipotent and all-swaying strength is for each
and every creature the cause of its continued existence, and if this strength were at any time
to cease from directing the things which have been created, at one and the same time both
their species would cease to be and their whole nature would perish.
- Now that continue to exist is a clear mirror of God’s existence

WEEK EIGHT
Proof for the existence of God/Allah by Thomas Aquinas
- There are five ways of proving that there is a God according to Thomas
1. Proof based on change.

- We see things changing and changing is being changed by something else.
- Things changing are on the way to realization, whereas things causing change are already realized.
- So what changes cannot as such be causing the change, but must be get changed by something else.
- Therefore, we need to necessary state some first cause of change not itself being changed by anything and
this is what everybody understands by God/ Allah
2. Proof based on the notion of cause.
- In the observable world, causes derive their causality from other causes.
- We can never observe something causing itself.
- However, deriving of causality must stop somewhere for in the series of causes an earlier member causes
an intermediate and the intermediate a last and this would go to the infinite.
- But one is force to suppose some first cause, to which everyone gives the name of God/Allah.

WEEK EIGHT
3. Proof based on contingent and necessary beings.

- Some of the things we come across can be but need not be, thus they are sometimes in being and
sometimes not.
- Not everything therefore is the sort of thing that need not be.
- Some things must be, and these may or may not owe this necessity to something else.
- One is forced to suppose something which must be, and owes this to nothing outside itself.
- Indeed, itself is the cause that other things must be.
- And this is what call God/Allah.
4 Proof based on the gradation observed in things.
- Some things are better, truer, more excellent than others.
- Such comparative terms describe varying degrees of approximation to a superlative.
- For example, things are hot and hotter.
- When many possess some property in common, the one most fully possessing it causes it in the others.
- For example, fire, as Aristotle says, the hottest of all things, causes all other things to be hot.
- Something therefore causes in all other things their being, their goodness, and whatever other perfection
they have. And this is what we call God/Allah.

WEEK EIGHT
5. Proof based on the guidedness of nature.
- Goal-directed behavior is observed in all bodies obeying natural laws, even when they lack awareness.
- But nothing lacking awareness can tend to a goal except it be directed by someone with awareness and
understanding.
- The arrow for example requires and archer.
- Everything in nature, therefore is directed to its goal by someone with understanding and this we call
God/Allah

WEEK EIGHT
C. ATTRIBUTES OF GOD/ALLAH
a. God/Allah is one, creator of everything and self-existent
- There is one and only one God/Allah.
- He is the creator of very thing and there was no pre-existing matter from which God/Allah created the
world for this would be a contradiction.
- The world had a beginning in time and this beginning was God/Allah’s responsibility and as such
God/Allah sustains the existence of the world.
- He did not come into existence because of something else and He does not remain in existence because of
anything else and He will not cease to exist because of something else.
- He is therefore self-made and sustains His own existence
b. God/Allah is transcendent
- God/Allah transcends the world processes and happenings.

- He is considered to be operating from above or apart from the world.
- God/Allah is conceived of as operating beyond the ordinary world of human experience, outside of
ourselves and distinct from the world He created.

WEEK EIGHT
c. God/Allah is Immanent
- The God/Allah is not outside us or distinct from the universe.

- God/Allah as the creator is conceived to be operative within the structure of the universe.
- He is therefore viewed as playing a vital part in the process within the universe and in the lives of
people. Therefore God is Immanent
d. God /Allah is Incorporeal
- God/Allah is generally conceived as that which is not a material physical thing.

- He does not occupy space as such and is therefore not perceptible to the bodily senses.
e. God/Allah is omnipresent and omniscient
- God/Allah’s omnipresence means that at given any place he is present, He knows what is happening
and can affect it.
- He is omniscient because nothing anywhere can happen without His knowledge and He can influence
or rather alter any and everything.
- His presence is spiritual rather than corporeal. God’s everywhere-ness or there-ness is not physical but
spiritual.
WEEK EIGHT
f. God/Allah is eternal
- He is an unchanging duration.
- God/Allah has neither duration nor location in time otherwise this would contradict His being self-existent
and His transcendence as well.
- He defies the category of time as he is always young and always old despite the passing of time.
- Thus God/Allah is ageless.
- Therefore he is eternal.
G. God /Allah is Intelligent, orderly, and purposeful
- There exists within the universe an orderliness that is universal and dependable.
- Some form of organization or law appears to be present in the world.
- There must be a mind behind this, a mind that sees to it that things are organized.
- God/Allah is responsible for the lawful and orderly running of the universe and for its intelligibility.
- The lawful and orderly processes within the world lend themselves to the intelligent analysis,
comprehension and purpose.
- Thus God/Allah is an intelligent being that acts with a purpose
WEEK EIGHT
CONCEPT OF EVIL
 Definition
- Evil can be defined as, a “privation.” Privation in this sense is to be understood in two ways.
- In a broader sense, it means lack or absence of the good.
- Secondly, it designates the absence of some good which should be present.
- Thus, Thomas Aquinas defines evil as the privation of some good which should be present.
- Literary, evil is that which brings suffering on people.
 Types of Evil
- Different types of evil affect humanity differently. These are Natural, Moral and metaphysical evil
- Natural evil: Defined as all the sufferings which are caused either by the unintentional action of human
agents for which human agents cannot be held morally blameworthy or by non-human causes.
- Moral evil defined as “all the instances of sufferings mental and physical which are caused by the
intentional and willful actions of the human agents for which human agents can be held morally
blameworthy.”
- Metaphysical evil arises from the mere finitude of created beings; that is to say from the absence of a
perfection not required for the natural
WEEK NINE
TOPIC 9
METAPHYSICS
-Explain the concept of metaphysics
-Discuss the terms “substance”, accidents, necessary being, contingent being.
-Explain the concept of existence.

WEEK NINE
INTRODUCTION
According to authors like Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas, Arthur Schopenhauer, Richard Taylor and
some of such other philosophers, metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the
questions of the ultimate constituent and origin of the universe. It deals with questions of First principles,
Causality and Essence. In this unit, we will explain the concept according to Aristotle.
 Etymological Definition
- The term metaphysics comes from the Greek words "Meta" a prefix meaning after or beyond and the
nous "Phusis" meaning nature. The latter is taken to mean “Physics”.
- Metaphysics can be translated as the study of things that lie "beyond the physical" world or beyond the
observable world. And that which is beyond the physical or reality is the substance. T
- herefore in Aristotelian terms, metaphysics is the study of “substance”

WEEK NINE
SUBSTANCE AND ACCIDENTS

 SUBSTANCE
- A substance is most commonly defined as “that which is capable of being independent existence.”
- This conception of substance can be traced back to Aristotle.
- The phrase “capable of independent existence” is usually taken to mean that which can be conceived of as
existing by itself and independent of all else.
- To explain or illustrate this let us consider the example of a red ball.
- a red ball can be conceived of, or imagined, as existing by itself.
- This can be shown by either of the following two thought experiments.
- In the first, imagine the ball being progressively destroyed.
- Could the ball be destroyed leaving the only red?
- Or could red be created leaving without the ball?
- The answer seems to be negative in all in both cases and the reason is fairly simple.
- There must be something: a ball, an apple or something to be red; red cannot exist by itself.
- This something else that must exist to allow for the existence of red is call called substance.

WEEK NINE
 ACCIDENTS
- Things which cannot exist by themselves, that is items whose existence are dependent on the existence of
substance, are referred to as accidents.
- These accidents tend to qualify or be true of substance.
- Thus the accident is that which in itself has no independent or self-sufficient existence, but only inheres in
a substance.
- However, in Aristotelian sense, an accident is construed differently. Here, accident is distinguished from
essence.
- The ESSENCE of something is defined as that which that thing must have in order to be a thing of
that kind. An accident, on the other hand, is an inessential property, that which may be attributed to
a substance without being essential to that substance.
- For instance, a girl may be blonde, but she must be female:
- blondeness in this example is an accident, femaleness of femininity is not but part of the essence of a girl
to be female, but not part of the essence of a girl to be blonde.
- A girl is necessary female and a girl is not necessarily blonde.

WEEK NINE
 NECESSARY BEINGS AND CONTINGENT BEINGS

- Metaphysicians divide all things that exist into two categories. These are:
- Necessary beings: defined as beings that “cannot not exist”
- Contingent beings: defined as being that could fail to exist
- The double negation in the above definition of necessary beings is, of course deliberate.
- Two negations cancel each other and the result is an affirmative statement.
- The double negation implies that a necessary being is a being that can exist. This is, it has to be.
- The double negation is therefore meant to capture the necessity involved in the existence of necessary
beings.
Note that:
- There is no general agreement among metaphysicians as to whether there are indeed necessary beings.
- God if He exists is the most plausible candidate.
- Almost all metaphysicians agree that we ourselves, as well as all ordinary objects we encounter in the
world, are contingent beings.
- All these beings or existent, could have failed to come into existence.
- If things had been different, any or all of these might never have been.
WEEK TEN
TOPIC 10
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE AFRICAN PHILOSOPHY
-Identify the trends of African philosophy.

WEEK TEN
- Kenyan philosopher Henry Odera Oruka has distinguished what he calls four trends in
modern African philosophy:
- ethnophilosophy, philosophical sagacity, nationalistic–ideological philosophy, and
professional philosophy.
- Oruka later added two additional categories: literary/artistic philosophy, such as the work of
literary figures such as Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, Wole Soyinka, Chinua Achebe, Okot p'Bitek,
and Taban Lo Liyong, and hermeneutic philosophy, the analysis of African languages in
order to find philosophical.
- In the next units will focus on explaining the four trends of African philosophy and the
critics .

WEEK ELEVEN
TOPIC 11
ETHNOPHILOSOPHY
LEARNING OUTCOME: at the end of this topic, you should be able to:
- Discuss this trend in the views of Placide, Leopold and Cheikah

- Explain the critics advanced against this trend

WEEK ELEVEN
- Treats African philosophy as consisting in a set of shared beliefs, values, categories, and assumptions that
are implicit in the language, practices, and beliefs of African cultures.
- In short, the uniquely African worldview.
- As such, it is seen as an item of communal property rather than an activity for the individual.
- Placide Tempels, argued that the metaphysical categories of the “Bantu people” are reflected in their
linguistic categories.
- According to this view, African philosophy can be best understood as springing from the fundamental
assumptions about reality reflected in the languages of Africa
- Leopold Senghor, argued that African approach to reality is based on emotion rather than logic, and
works itself out in participation rather than analysis, and manifests itself through the arts rather than the
sciences.
- Cheikh Anta Diop , challenged the view of Africans as essentially emotional and artistic, arguing that
Egypt was an African culture whose achievements in science, mathematics, architecture, and philosophy
were pre-eminent

WEEK TWELVE
TOPIC 12:
CA 2

WEEK THIRTEEN
TOPIC THIRTEEN
Professional philosophy
- Is usually identified as that produced by African philosophers trained in the Western philosophical
tradition, that embraces a universal view of the methods and concerns of philosophy.
- Those philosophers identified in this category often explicitly reject the assumptions of
ethnophilosophy and adopt a universalist worldview of philosophy that requires all philosophy to be
accessible and applicable to all peoples and cultures in the world.
- This is so even if the specific philosophical questions prioritized by individual national or regional
philosophies may differ.
- Some African philosophers classified in this category are Paulin Hountondji, Peter Bodunrin, Kwasi
Wiredu, Tsenay Serequeberhan, Marcien Towa and Lansana Keita

WEEK FOURTEEN
TOPIC 14
SAGACITY, NATIONAL-IDEOLOGY PHILOSOPHY & AFRICANA PHILOSOPHY
LEARNING OUT COME: AT the end of this topic, you should be able to:
- Discuss the philosophical sagacity trend

- Discuss the National –ideology trend
- Discuss the African philosophy
- Identify the proponents of these trends

WEEK FOURTEEN
Philosophical sagacity
- A sort of individualist version of ethnophilosophy, in which one records the beliefs of certain special
members of a community.
- The premise here is that, although most societies demand some degree of conformity of belief and
behaviour from their members, a certain few of those members reach a particularly high level of
knowledge and understanding of their cultures' worldviews; such people are sages.
- These sage go beyond mere knowledge and understanding to reflection and questioning—these become
the targets of philosophical sagacity.
- Critics of this approach note that not all reflection and questioning is philosophical.
- Also, on this view the only difference between non-African anthropology or ethnology and African
philosophy seems to be the nationality of the researcher.

WEEK FOURTEEN
4. Nationalist and ideological philosophy
- Might be considered a special case of philosophical sagacity, in which not sages but ideologues are the
subjects.
- Alternatively, it has been considered as a subcategory of professional political philosophy.
- In either case, the same sort of problem arises with retaining a distinction between ideology and
philosophy, and also between sets of ideas and a special way of reasoning.
- Examples include African socialism, Nkrumaism, Harambee

WEEK FOURTEEN
5. Africana philosophy
- Is the work of philosophers of African descent and others whose work deals with the subject matter
of the African diaspora.
- This is a relatively new (since the 1980s) and developing name given to African thought, and it is
given credible attention by professional organizations, including the American Philosophical
Association.
- Africana philosophy includes the philosophical ideas, arguments and theories of particular concern
to people of African descent.
- Some of the topics explored by Africana philosophy include: pre-Socratic African philosophy and
modern day debates discussing the early history of Western philosophy, post-colonial writing in
Africa and the Americas, black resistance to oppression, black existentialism in the United States,
and the meaning of "blackness" in the modern world.

WEEK FOURTEEN
5. Africana philosophy
- Is the work of philosophers of African descent and others whose work deals with the subject matter
of the African diaspora.
- This is a relatively new (since the 1980s) and developing name given to African thought, and it is
given credible attention by professional organizations, including the American Philosophical
Association.
- Africana philosophy includes the philosophical ideas, arguments and theories of particular concern
to people of African descent.
- Some of the topics explored by Africana philosophy include: pre-Socratic African philosophy and
modern day debates discussing the early history of Western philosophy, post-colonial writing in
Africa and the Americas, black resistance to oppression, black existentialism in the United States,
and the meaning of "blackness" in the modern world.

WEEK 15
TOPIC 15
PRESENTATION
 PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEMPORARY/MODERN THEORIES
1. Existentialism: Kierkegaard, Martin. H, J. Paul Sartre, Nietzsche etc

2. Phenomenology: Husserl Edmund
3. Hermeneutics: Daniel Schleiermarcher, Jorg-Hans Gadamer
4. Idealism: Hegel, Fitchet, A. Schoppenhauer
5. Scientific objectivism : scientific relativism: Karl Popper, Khun
6. Deconstructionism: Jacque derrida, Foucult Micheal
7. Materialism: Karl Max, F. Angels
8. Utilitarianism: Bentham Jeremy, Mill Stuart

REFERENCES

© 2016. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved
10/13/2023 117
7/23/2017 © 2019. Cavendish University. Private and Confidential

Fundamentals of Philosophy-Phy 111 Slides - 103507

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fundamentals of Philosophy-Phy 111 Slides - 103507

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OSOPHY

© 2016. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved

At the end of the course, you should be able to:

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 2

INTRODUCTION TO FUNDAMENTALS OF PHILOSOPHY .

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 3

Academic sense cont….

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 5

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 6

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 8

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 9

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 10

- When death comes it is a liberation.

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 11

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 13

- Helped to lay the foundations of the whole of Western Philosophy.

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 14

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 15

3. Aristotle (384 - 322 B.C.)

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 16

 The Age of Reason ( 17th c)

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 18

 The Age of enlightenment (18th c)

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 19

 The modern Age ( 19 – 20th century, mostly spoken of Contemporary era)

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 20

INTRODUCTION TO THE MAIN BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 21

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 22

Philosophy of the Mind Philosophy of religion Philosophy of Language

Philosophy of Education Philosophy of History Philosophy of Sciences

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 23

-Explain both etymological and general definition of ethics.

-Identify the branches of ethics.

-Explain the theories of ethics

-Apply theories of ethics in evaluating ethical issues

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 24

applied in arriving at decisions when faced with ethical social issues.

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 25

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 26

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 27

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 28

 The concept of Utility Calculus in utilitarianism

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 29

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 30

2. Economic Reasons and Commitment to a certain life style

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 31

4. Abortion checks Overpopulation and eliminates the handicapped

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 32

6. A Woman’s Right to an Abortion and Personal Integrity

1. Euthanasia removes Pain

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 33

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 35

- This imperative is supported by the following maxims:

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 36

APPLICATION OF DEONTOLOGY IN DECISION MAKING

 Deontological argument on Abortion

1. Fetus is rational, it cannot be used as Means to other Ends

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 37

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 38

10/13/2023 © 2019. Cavendish University. Rights Reserved 39

 Euthanasia is a Violation of the Hippocratic Oath

 Euthanasia is Against the Dignity and Sanctity of Human Life