Intro to Philosophy

1st Semester (Midterms)

Regrading Opinion and Truth causally explain it as well. Thus, in the

syllogism.
Doxa et Episteme
➢ a belief held by someone regarding Syllogism
something, which was one of the main subjects ➢ A valid deductive argument having two
of investigation by skeptics. premises and a conclusion
➢ came from the root word ‘dokein’ (seeming). ➢ The traditional type is the categorical
It refers to how something appears to be syllogism in which both premises and the
someone. conclusion are simple declarative statements
➢ based from that appearance, one may issue that are constructed using only 3 simple terms
judgment (doxazein). between them, each term appearing twice (as a
➢ partial point of view subject and as a predicate)
➢ In logic, syllogism is an argument
Episteme establishes the validity of a proposition.
➢ often translated as true knowledge ➢ Although, proofs may be based on inductive
➢ scientific knowledge logic, in general the term ‘proof’ connotes a
➢ ‘scientific’ means ‘certainty’ rigorous deduction.
➢ quite akin to holistic perspective ➢ In formal axiomatic systems of logic and
➢ An opinion that has been qualified mathematics, a proof is a finite sequence of
well-formed formulas (generated in accordance
Aristotle’s 5 Virtues of Thought with accepted formation rules) in which:
A. Techne – Artistry or craftsmanship (1) each formula is either an axiom or is derived
B. Phronesis – Prudence or practical wisdom from some previous formula or formulas by a
C. Nous – Intuition or understanding valid inference
D. Episteme – Scientific knowledge (2) the last formula is that which is to be
E. Sophia – Philosophic wisdom proved. For proof by cases, see dilemma.
For Aristotle. Knowing something without The Truth and Opinion
qualification (epuistasthai) entails knowing
“the cause by which the thing is, that is the Truth
cause of the thing, and that this cannot be ➢ statement about the way the world actually is
otherwise”
Belief
Posterior Analytics ➢ refers to the acceptance that a statement is
true or that something exists
Aristotle (384-322 BCE)
➢ claims that each science consists of a set of Proposition
first principles, which are necessarily true and ➢ statement about the object of belief
knowable directly, and a set of truths, which are
both logically derivable form and causally The object of belief is the representation of the
explained by the first principles. fact found in the world or truth conditions about
the world.
➢ The demonstration of a scientific truth is
accomplished by means of a series of Theories and Nature of Truth
syllogisms—a form of argument invented by
Aristotle—in which the premises of each Correspondence Theory of Truth
syllogism in the series are justified as the ➢ the key to truth is the correspondence
conclusions of earlier syllogisms. between prepositions and the world
➢ A belief is true if there exists a fact to which
➢ In each syllogism, the premises not only it corresponds. If there is no such entity, the
logically necessitate the conclusion (i.e., the belief is false.
truth of the premises makes it logically
impossible for the conclusion to be false) but
Intro to Philosophy
1st Semester (Midterms)

Coherence Theory of Truth Personal Domain Truths are tested

➢ the truth of any proposition consists in its against the
coherence with some specified set of consistency and
propositions authenticity of the
➢ the truth conditions of a proposition are person who claims it.
based on other propositions.
➢ A belief is true if only it’s a part of a
coherent system of beliefs Concept
➢ an abstract idea
Pragmatic Theory of Truth ➢ “building blocks” of knowledge
➢ A proposition is true if it’s useful to believe
it Terms
➢ utility is the essential mark of truth ➢ words that express concepts
Domains of Truth Knowledge
➢ definition is tough to come by.
Objective Domain
➢ scientific truths A person knows a fact if:
➢ pertains to the natural world that maintains a ➢ the person believes the statement to be true;
relative independence from perspective and ➢ the statement is fact true; and
attitude of human being that perceive them ➢ the person justified in believing the
statement to be true.
Social Domain
➢ truths are analogous with of a general Stages in the Apprehension of Concepts
agreement of consensus on what is right and Before Knowledge Becomes Possible
what is wrong.
Perception
Personal Domain ➢ concerned with the nature of perceptual
➢ truths are analogous to sincerity experience and the status of perceptual data, in
➢ the truths we claim needs corresponding particular how they relate to beliefs about, or
actions that will establish trust. knowledge of, the world.
Truths can also be understood as what has Two types of perception
passed procedures of justification.
A. External Perception
Justification ➢ happens when we perceive things using our
➢ the process of proving the truth or validity of five senses (results in a percept)
a statement.
B. Internal Perception
➢ happens when we use our imagination and
Domains of Truth Corresponding memory (results in an image)
Justification Abstraction
Objective Domain Truths are tested ➢ involves the use of intellect where we grasp
against empirical what is universal among the different particulars
evidence that we have observed from perception (results
in a concept)
Social Domain Truths are tested
against their Judgment
acceptability to a ➢ involves making a knowledge claim by at
particular group in a least two concepts and putting them together to
particular time in make a statement that could be either true or
history false about the world (results in a proposition).
Intro to Philosophy
1st Semester (Midterms)

Types of Knowledge part. This is the vice versa of deductive

reasoning because a particular idea comes first
A. Formal Knowledge before the general idea.
➢ corresponds to knowledge in the formal
science whose main concern is the validation of B. Sense
their knowledge claims within the formal ➢ has to do with the use of the five senses,
system in their respective discipline. including sensory extending devices for
purposes of verifying our empirical claims, and
B. Empirical Knowledge thus leading to empirical knowledge.
➢ uses the faculty of experience and sense
perception in order to establish their knowledge C. Intuition
claims. ➢ deals with the immediate or direct
recognition of self-evident truths
Sources of Knowledge
D. Authority
A. Reason ➢ hearsay or testimony or others
➢ an analytic faculty that is able to determine ➢ is by nature secondary, and secondhand fact–
the truth of analytic statements. claims are always difficult to validate
Two types of Reasoning Opinion
➢ A statement of judgment of a person about
A. Deductive reasoning something in the world.
➢ the kind of reasoning usually used in ➢ A statement of judgment that is in need of
mathematics and is the more certain of the two further justification
as it involves ‘drawing out’ valid conclusion
from previously known facts Evaluating Opinions
➢ specific conclusion following a general ➢ A philosophical mind must be prepared to
theory. examine arguments supporting an opinion
➢ when you are using deductive reasoning,
your conclusion will correct if all the statement Arguments
you say is correct. ➢ An argument is a group of statements that
serve to support a conclusion
In this type of reasoning, conclusion comes first, ➢ It is made up of claim (the conclusion of an
followed by main points, and the last will be the argument) and premises (the reasons used to
supporting data, facts, examples, and evidence. support the conclusion).
General idea comes first before the specific or ➢ Not all arguments are good argument, we
particular idea. can all fake arguments.
B. Inductive reasoning Fallacies
➢ usually used in science and is less certain as ➢ groups of statements that appear to be
it involves jumping from some things you have arguments, but fails to support the conclusion.
observed to making universal statement about
all things Common Logical Fallacies:
➢ forms are usually dependent on sensation to
give us initial facts or ideas in the first place. Argumentum Ad Hominem
➢ makes specific observations and then draws ➢ occurs when an author attacks his opponent
a general conclusion instead of his opponent’s argument
➢ when using inductive reasoning, correct Example: Trina thinks guns should be outlawed
observations will not necessary lead you to a but Trina doesn’t go to church, so we shouldn’t
correct general conclusion listen to her.
In this type of reasoning, supporting data, facts, Argumentum Ad Misericordiam
examples, and evidences come first followed by
the main points and conclusion will be the last
Intro to Philosophy
1st Semester (Midterms)

➢ Appeal to pity or emotion. Used by people False Dichotomy

who want to win people by manipulating their ➢ rests on the assumption that there are only
emotions. two possible solutions, so disproving one
Example: “Ubusin mo yang pagkain mo! Hindi solution means that other solution should be
mo alam kung gaano karaming tao ang utilized, it ignores other alternative solutions
nagugutom ngayon.” Example: The teacher gives too many A’s and
therefore must be fired because grade inflation
Argumentum ad Baculum is unfair to other students
➢ Appeal to force. Used when people who
want to win an argument issues threats to their Hasty Generalization
opponents. ➢ occurs when the proponent uses too small of
Example: “Teacher to class: ‘If you don’t stop a sample size to support a sweeping
pointing out that what I said was wrong, the generalization
next person who will contradict me will get a Example: Sally couldn’t find any cute clothes
failing grade in this subject’.” at the boutique and neither could Maura, so the
boutique doesn’t have any cute clothes.
Argumentum Ad Traditionem
➢ asserts that a premise must be true because Post Hoc or False Cause
people have always believed it or done it. ➢ assumes that correlation equals causation or,
Example: “Kahit noon pa man, lagi na tayong in other words, if one event predicts another
nagpapasintabi sa mga nuno sa punso kaya event it must have also caused the event
dapat gawin mo rin yun kung ayaw mong Example: The football team gets better grades
malasin.” than the baseball team, therefore playing
football makes you smarter than playing
Argumentum Ad Verecundium baseball.
➢ appeal to an improper authority such as a
famous person or a source that may not be Missing the Point
reliable ➢ the premise of the argument supports a
Example: ”My Math teacher diagnosed me of specific conclusion but not the one the author
having Borderline Personality Disorder. She is draws
well respected in our school, so what she said Example: Antidepressants are overly
might be true.” prescribed which is dangerous, so they should
clearly be made illegal.
Argumentum Ad Populum
➢ attempts to prove an argument as correct Spotlight Fallacy
simply because many people believe it to be so. ➢ occurs when the author assumes that the
Example: 80% of people are for the death cases that receive the most publicity are the
penalty, therefore, the death penalty is moral. most common cases
Example: 90% of news reports talk about
Appeal to Authority negative events. Therefore, it follows that 90%
➢ the author claims his argument is right of events that occur in the real world are
because someone famous or powerful supports negative
it
Example: We should change the drinking age Straw Man
because Einstein believed that 18 was the ➢ the author puts forth one of his opponent’s
proper drinking age weaker, less central arguments forward and
destroys it, while acting like this argument is
Begging the Question the crux of the issue
➢ happens when the author’s premise and Example: My opponent wants to increase
conclusion say the same thing teachers’ pay but studies have shown that
Example: Fashion magazines don’t hurt professors with tenure don’t work as hard at
women’s self esteem because women’s their job to improve themselves.
confidence is intact after reading the magazine.
Intro to Philosophy
1st Semester (Midterms)

Biases Example of Biases

➢ a disproportionate weight in favor of or
against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is Correspondence Bias
closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. ➢ tendency to judge a person’s personality by
his or actions, without regard for the external
Biases in Philosophy factors or influence.
Cognitive Bias Confirmation Bias
➢ tendency to look for and readily accept
A. Confirmation Bias information which fits one's own beliefs or
➢ The tendency to look for information that views and to reject ideas or views that go
confirms our existing preconceptions, making it against it.
more likely to ignore or neglect data that
disconfirms our beliefs Framing
Example: For example, when we compare ➢ focusing on a certain aspect of a problem
ourselves with others, we are more likely to while ignoring other aspects.
remember other people's mistakes and less
likely to think of our own. Hindsight
➢ the tendency to see past events as
B. Framing Bias predictable, or to ascribe a pattern to historical
➢ The tendency to be influenced by the way in events
which a problem is formulated even though it
should not affect the solution Conflict of Interest
Example: Whether a patient decides to go ➢ a person or group is connected to or has a
ahead with a surgery can be affected by whether vested interest in the issue being discussed
the surgery is described in terms of success rate
or rate of failure, even though both numbers Cultural Bias
provide the same information. ➢ analyzing an event or issue based on cultural
standards
C. Overconfidence effect
➢ Many people tend to over estimate their Regarding Methods of Philosophizing
abilities. Surveys across most areas of expertise
indicate that more than half of the people think A. Elenchus or Socratic Method
that they are better than the other half with ➢The word elenchus is a Latin term elengkos
respect to that expertise. which means “argument of refutation”
➢ It involves putting forward an objection to a
Probability Bias certain belief or thesis for purposes of
scrutinizing said beliefs or thesis statements
A. Gambler’s fallacy ➢ finding holes in their theories and patching
➢ The error of thinking that a random event them up
can be influenced by past random events
Example: Thinking that because a certain use of critical thinking, reasoning, and logic
number has just come up in a lottery, it is less
likely (or more likely) to come up in the next Six types of Socratic Method
round.
Clarifying concepts
B. Clustering Illusion ➢ questions get students to think more about
➢ occurs when individuals perceive patterns or what they are asking or thinking about, prove
clusters in random data, even when there is no the concepts behind their argument, get them to
actual pattern or clustering present. This bias is go deeper
rooted in the human tendency to find meaning – What exactly does this mean?
or relationships in information, even when none – How does this relate to what we have been
exist. talking about?
– Can you give me an example?
Intro to Philosophy
1st Semester (Midterms)

which was widely regarded as the epitome of

Probing assumptions objectivity.
➢ questions make students think about the
presuppositions and unquestioned beliefs on ➢ According to Descartes, no one must rely
which they are founding their argument wholly on experience as source of knowledge. It
– What else could we assume? is for the very reason that experience, itself
– What would happen if? founded on sensation, is deceiving. Since it is
hard to distinguish the sensation while dreaming
Probing rationale, reasons, and evidence from the sensation when one is awake, no one is
➢ when students give rationales for their guaranteed that what he experiences now is
arguments, dig into that reasoning rather than reality and not just a dream. Knowledge from
assuming it is a given authority, too, must be doubted. It is for the
– Why is that happening? same reason that an authority is also likely to
– What evidence is there to support what you deceive other people by the power he holds.
are saying? Even mathematical knowledge must also be
doubted. With this, we can say that in a
Questioning viewpoints and perspectives Cartesian viewpoint, no one holds the
➢ most arguments are given from a particular monopoly of truth.
position. So attack the position. Show that there
are other, equally valid viewpoints. ➢ Doubt everything until what is left is already
– Who benefits from this? beyond doubt. Descartes found certainty in the
– Why is it better than or different from? fact that because he doubts, he exists. Hence the
famous "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore, I
Probing implications and consequences exist.)
➢ the argument a student gives may have
logical implications that can be forecast ➢ However, doubting is not for the sake of just
– Does this data make sense? not believing everything. It is deducting all
– Are they desirable? reasons for doubt in order to establish certainty.
– How do [these assertions] fit with? In law, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty"
– What are the consequences of the lies in the premise that unless strong evidence is
assumption? put forward, an accused is free of any charges.
Questioning the question ➢ In acquiring knowledge, one has to remove
➢ you can also get reflexive about the whole all things that are doubtful. This spells the
thing, turning the question on itself. Bounce the difference between a conviction that still
ball back into their court harbors some reason which may lead to doubt
– Why do you think I asked this question? (persuasio) and conviction based on a reason so
– What does that mean? certain that it can never be shaken by any
stronger reason (scientia).
The Socratic Method is designed so that people
will come to realize what their opinions, C. Phenomenology (Lived Experience)
long-held and deep-seated at times, really ➢ the rational explanation or study of the
amount to. phenomena
B. The Methodic Doubt (Cartesian Philosophy) ➢ Immanuel Kant in his celebrated synthesis of
➢ One of the things that make Rene Descartes the rationalism-empiricism debate, has this to
a famous and a very important figure in the say: "I can never know the thing as it is in itself
history of thought is his answer to the (noumenon); all I can know is the thing as it
epistemological question: "How can I know?" appears to me (phenomena)." Phenomena, then,
His answer is to doubt everything. For only is the appearance of things.
after doubting can one find certainty.
➢ Descartes systematically subjected every ➢ ‘Appearances’ of things, how ever do not
purported source of knowledge under doubt: refer to sense-data. e.g. color, shape, sound,
experience, authority, and even mathematics odor, taste and texture, which one gets from
Intro to Philosophy
1st Semester (Midterms)

sensation. It does not even refer to the meaning and purified until one knows how much truth is
things have in themselves that one gets, through really in it.
abstraction or intellect.
➢ Then, enters the elenchus (argument of
➢ Appearances are 'richer in content,' in a refutation). Again, the process of scrutinizing
sense that more than the observable aspects of one's opinion is not for scrutiny's sake. It is not
things perceived, or the abstract qualities of the designed to shame someone or to make him
said things, they pertain to the meaning and appear foolish in front of others. Elenchus is not
significance of these things to the perceiving designed only to disprove someone's claims or
subject. opinions, though often times this becomes the
case. It may also be used to establish the truth in
➢ In short, phenomenology is not just about such opinions.
sensation or intellection but experience; the
marked difference between the two being The Methodic Doubt and the Foundation of
spelled by the difference between a passive Truth
observation and active engagement. It is
basically a conscious experience, a lived Descartes' method is also about purification of
experience. an 'opinion,' in this case 'knowledge' from
experience, based on authority or of
➢ According to German philosopher, Edmund mathematics, in order to see how much truth is
Husserl in his book "Intentionality", in it before it is used as foundation of one's life
consciousness means directedness, that is, "of and action. It is very much akin to the Socratic
experience towards things in the world." It elenchus with the only difference, perhaps, in
simply means that our minds react not to all the the process itself. While Socratic elenchus is
sense-data or even to what these data speak other-initiated, Cartesian "Methodic Doubt" is
about the things' essence. Our consciousness done by the self, although admittedly the
only reacts to the things through specific distinction is quite insignificant.
concepts, or ideas that give the thing its
meaning to us.
"Experience," as oftentimes said, "is the best
➢ Phenomenology is properly called the "first teacher." However, it is so only for those who
person point of view." It is like looking at the have the ability to properly learn the lesson
world from a personal, subjective lenses. therein taught. Oftentimes, man is led to believe
Statements beginning with "I think/ I believe/ I and act in a manner that he should not because
see/ I desire/ I do, with an emphasis on the "I" of erroneously responding to his experience.
may mean something entirely different to Like the person in Plato's 'cave', one must also
another. have questioned if the present 'world' he is in is
the real 'world' or not. Is the lesson one 'learned'
Regarding the Methods Leading to Wisdom from experience the real lesson the experience
and Truth wanted him to learn? Is my 'knowledge' about
things around me real knowledge?" But, unlike
The Elenchus and Scrutiny of the Doxa Plato's character, one must do the asking
➢ Now, a subjective point of view is not all the himself in order to save him from the tedious
time erroneous. Biases and prejudices are, and painful process of being dragged into the
according to one philosopher, important starting 'real world'.
points of a rational inquiry. After all, one sees
the world from his own eyes and not from the Again, doubting here is not merely for the sake
eyes of other persons. However, a subjective of disproving an opinion or a traditional belief.
point of view is somewhat limited. As such, it When one questions an authority, it is not for
cannot be used as the absolute guideline for the sake of disproving the authority. In fact,
actions in particular and life in general. It is a doubting or questioning must be done with the
good starting point, but definitely it is not the intention of making that "opinion," be it from
"end all and be all" of everything. It may be an experience, authority or 'objective' source, a
effective basis, but only after it is scrutinized knowledge that is as pure and unadulterated as
Intro to Philosophy
1st Semester (Midterms)

possible - a conviction, as Descartes said,

"based on a reason so strong that it can never
be shaken by any stronger reason." If, at the end
of the day, the opinion in question has been
proven false, then so be it. It is much better to
have it debunked than to build one's life on such
a weak foundation.
The “Lived Experience” and the ‘Tangible’
Truth
➢ Truth may never be absolute, but it has to be
'tangible'.
➢ It is not to say that there is no absolute truth;
there is - and all man's efforts as recorded in the
history of thought and idea are geared towards
attaining that Truth. However, it would also be
misguided and dangerous to believe that your
'truth' is absolute.

➢ Phenomenology, which emphasizes on the

meaning of things experienced to the one
experiencing it, is one such method that is about
subjectivity. It is looking at the world from the
first-person point of view. However,
subjectivity here is not about an unbridled
self-relying claim to truth. Subjective
understanding is "subjective" only insofar as
phenomenology is about finding meaning in
experience. It does not and must not be used to
establish a claim or a monopoly of truth.
➢ It is for this very reason that phenomenology
would not claim knowledge of things in
themselves. For example, when soebody
comments on a rainy Sunday morning, "This is
a wonderful morning," it does not mean that the
morning is absolutely wonderful. It may be for
him, but it may not be so for someone who has
just washed his laundry.