Methods of

Philosophizing
Jenny Lou Maullon – Guansing
Teacher, San Luis Senior High School
 Answer the following
questions:
 What is philosophy?
 What are the branches of
philosophy? Define each.
 Who compose the Greek
Triumvirate?
 Answer the following
questions:
 What is Filipinos’ philosophy
of time?
 Generally, what is meant by
the value “loob”?
 Answer the following
questions:
 What is the meaning of
abundance?
 Activity: Charade
 the class will be divided into
four groups
 each group will guess the word
acted out
 the group who can guess the
most words/phrases will win
 Activity: Charade
Reminders:
Words will be acted out
through the use of
gestures/hands
 No whispering or talking is
allowed during the activity
 Activity: Brain Teasers
 Eskimos are very
good hunters, but they
never hunt penguins.
Why not?
 Activity: Brain Teasers
 You are in a cabin and it is
pitch black. You have one
match on you. Which do you
light first: the newspaper, the
lamp, the candle, or the
fireplace?
 Activity: Brain Teasers
 There was an old man who
lived by himself. He felt tired so
he went into the bathroom,
went to the toilet, and then
turned the light off before going
to bed.
 Activity: Brain Teasers
The next morning there was a
news flash on the radio that a
boat crashed. The man
opened the window and
jumped out. Why?
Introduction:
Methods of
Philosophizing
Philosophizing – to think or
express oneself in a
philosophical manner
- considers or discusses a
matter from a philosophical
stand point
Phenomenology – truth is
based on the person’s
consciousness
Existentialism – truth is
based in exercising choices
and personal freedom
Postmodernism – it is
accepted that truth is not
absolute (i.e. cultural)
Logic – truth is based on
reasoning and critical
thinking
 Phenomenology
Edmund Husserl founded
phenomenology which is a
philosophical method. This
focuses on careful inspection
and description of phenomena
 Phenomenology
or appearances, defined
as any object of conscious
experience, that is, that
which we are conscious.
 In Husserl’s Logical
Investigations, he argued
against psychologism: the thesis
that truth is dependent on the
peculiarities of the human mind,
and that human mind is
reducible to psychology.
 In other words, it was an argument
against the very thesis that he
himself had argued in his first book
on the philosophy of arithmetic. His
continuing effort was dedicated to
developing a method for finding
and guaranteeing the truth – that
method was phenomenology.
 The word “phenomenon”
comes directly from the Greek
phainomenon, meaning
“appearance.” Immanuel Kant,
German philosopher, had used
the same word to refer to the
world of our experience.
Husserl intends a similar meaning
except for the crucial fact that for
him, it does not imply a contrast
between the appearance and
some underlying reality, between
the phenomenon and a
“noumenon” or “thing-in-itself.”
That, according to Husserl, is
where trouble starts, when one
supposes that what one
experiences is not or might not
be the truth.
 Phenomenology is the
scientific study of the essential
structures of consciousness. By
describing those structures,
Husserl believes that we can
find certainty, which philosophy
has always sought.
This process entails a method or
a series of continuously revised
methods – for taking up a
peculiarly phenomenological
standpoint, “bracketing out”
everything that is not essential,
thereby understanding the
basic rules or constitutive
processes through which
consciousness does its work of
knowing the world.
 Husserl’s phenomenology is
the thesis that consciousness is
intentional. Every act of
consciousness is directed at
some object or another, possibly
a material object or an “ideal”
object (e.g. mathematics).
The phenomenologist can
distinguished and describe the
nature of the intentional acts of
consciousness and the intentional
objects of consciousness, which
are defined through the content
of consciousness.
Notably, one can describe the
content of consciousness and
accordingly, the object of
consciousness without any
particular commitment to the
actuality or existence of that
object.
Thus, one can describe the
content of a dream in much
the same terms that one
describes the view from a
television or a scene from a
novel.
The inspection and description are
supposed to be effected with any
presuppositions, including any as to
whether such objects of
consciousness are “real” or
correspond to something
“external,” or to what their causes
or consequences may be.
This method uncovers the
essential structures of
experience and its objects. The
sorts of experiences and
phenomena that
phenomenologists have sought
to describe are highly varied.
For instance, time
consciousness, mathematics,
and logic; perception and
experience of the outside world;
our experience of our bodies;
and moral, aesthetic, and
religious experiences.
The phenomenological standpoint
is achieved through a series of
phenomenological “reductions”
that eliminate certain aspects of our
experience from consideration.
Husserl formulates several of these
and their emphasis shifts throughout
his career.
1. The first and best known is the epoch
or “suspension” that he describes in
Ideas: General Introduction to Pure
Phenomenology, in which the
phenomenologists “brackets” all
questions of truth or reality and simply
describes the contents of consciousness
(Husserl’s Ideas borrowed from early
Skeptics and Descartes)
2. The second reduction
eliminates the merely
empirical contents of
consciousness and focuses
instead on the essential
features, the meanings of
consciousness.
Thus, Husserl defends a
notion of intuition that
differs from and is more
specialized than the
ordinary notion of
“experience.”
Some intuitions are eidetic,
that is, they reveal necessary
truths, not just the
contingencies of the natural
world. These are the essence
of phenomenology.
In sum, what interest the
phenomenologists are the contents
of consciousness, not on things of
the natural world as such. In Ideas,
Husserl distinguishes between the
natural world and the
phenomenological standpoint.
The former is our ordinary everyday
viewpoint and the ordinary stance
of the natural sciences, describing
things and states of affairs. The
latter is the special viewpoint
achieved by the phenomenologist,
as he or she focuses not on things
but our consciousness of things.
 Answer the following:
 What did we do
yesterday?
 What is philosophizing?
 How is truth viewed in
phenomenology?
Activity: (Notebook)
Answer the following:
• Why did you choose that
word?
• What other words or ideas
can you think of that is related
to the word chosen?
Existentialism: On Freedom
One’s search for truth may be
based on one’s attitude or
outlook such as existentialism.
Unlike phenomenology,
existentialism is not primarily a
philosophical method.
Neither is it exactly a set of
doctrines but more of an
outlook or attitude
supported by diverse
doctrines centered on
certain common themes.
These themes include:
-The human condition or the
relation of the individual to
the world;
-The human response to that
condition;
These themes include:
-Being, especially the
difference between the
being of person (which is
“existence”) and the being
of other kinds of things;
These themes include:
-Human freedom;
-The significance (and
unavoidability) of choice
and decision in the
absence of certainty;
These themes include:
-The concreteness and
subjectivity of life as lived,
against abstraction and
false objectifications
 The existentialists share
a concern for the
individual and personal
responsibility. Existentialism
is often thought to be
antireligious; nevertheless,
there has been a strong
current of Christian
existentialism, beginning
with the 19 th century
Danish philosopher,
Kierkegaard.
 As the first existentialist,
Kierkegaard insisted that
the authentic self was the
personally chosen self, as
opposed to public or
“herd” identity.
 Nietzsche took this
view of opposition of the
genuine individual versus
the public “herd”
identity.
 Both Kierkegaard and
Nietzsche influence
Heidegger whose conception
of ownness came to
dominate contemporary
existentialist thought.
 Existentialism’s relationship to
phenomenology is a matter of
some controversy. However, some
philosophers, such as Jean-Paul
Sartre, have employed
phenomenological methods to
arrive at or support their specific
variations on existential themes.
 Our search for truth by
means of critical thinking is a
rational choice.
Existentialism, with Sartre, a
French philosopher,
emphasizes the importance
of free individual choice,
regardless of the power of
other people to influence
and coerce our desires,
beliefs, and decisions.
 Sartre argued that
consciousness (being-for-
itself) is such that it is always
free to choose (though not
free not to choose) and free to
“negate” (or reject) the given
features of the world.
 According to Sartre,
one is never free of one’s
“situation,” but one is
always free to “negate”
that situation and to (try to)
change it.
To be human, to be
conscious, is to be free
to imagine, free to
choose, and
responsible to one’s life.
Sartre’s philosophy
would have particular
poignance in the midst
of horrors of war and
occupation.
The positive notion authenticity
(“good faith”) remained a
problem for Sartre, however, and
one of the continuing criticisms of
existentialism is the obscurity and
the seeming elusiveness of the
ideal of authenticity.
 The notion of authenticity is
not new. Socrates already
concerned himself with the
authenticity of the self – the
genuineness of his thoughts
and actions, “the good of his
soul.”
He sought not mere
opinions but knowledge,
particularly self-knowledge
and prescribed not just
right action but virtue,
being “true to oneself.”
 St. Agustine was
concerned with the
spiritual nature of the “true”
self as opposed to the
inauthentic demands of
desire and the body.
 Jean-Jacques Rousseau
was adamant about the
essential goodness of the
“natural” self in contrast to
the “corruption” imposed
by society.
Although existentialism has been
on the wan since 1960s. It has
enjoyed exceptional prominence,
even popularity, for a philosophical
movement, in part because of its
literary expressions by writers such
as Sartre, Albert Camus, Simone de
Beauvoir, and Gabriel Marcel.
Postmodernism: On Cultures
“Postmodernism” has come
into vogue as the name for a
rather diffuse family of ideas
and trends that in significant
respect rejects, challenges, or
aims to supersede “modernity”;
the convictions, aspirations,
and pretensions of modern
Western thought and
culture since the
Enlightenment.
Post modernism is not a philosophy. It
is at best a holding pattern, perhaps
a cry of despair. It rightly talks about
world philosophy, the philosophy of
many cultures, but such talk is not a
philosophy either. Reality cannot be
known, nor described objectively by
post modernists.
 The American philosopher
Richard Rorty, notably
developing themes from
pragmatism and certain
quarters of analytic philosophy
and bringing these together
with Continental themes,
challenged the modern
rationalist presumption that
philosophy or any branch of
knowledge can find secure
foundations or achieve
genuine representation of
reality.
 Postmodernists believe
that humanity should come
at truth beyond the rational
to the non-rational
elements of human nature,
including the spiritual.
 Postmodernists
consider that to arrive at
truth, humanity should
realize the limits of
reason and objectivism.
 Beyond exalting individual
analysis of truth,
postmodernist adhere to a
relational, holistic approach.
Postmodernists value our
existence in the world and
relation to it.
 Analytic Tradition
“Can language
objectively describe truth?”
For the philosophers of this
tradition, language cannot
objectively describe truth.
 For Ludwig Wittgenstein, an
analytic philosopher, language is
socially conditioned. We
understand the world solely in
terms of our language games –
that is, our linguistic, social
constructs. Truth, as we perceive it,
is itself socially constructed.
 Analytic philosophy is the
conviction that to some significant
degree, philosophical problems,
puzzles and errors are rooted in
language and can be solved or
avoided by a sound
understanding of language, and
careful attention to its workings.
 “Analysis” refers to a
method; owing a great
deal to the pioneers,
Bertrand Russel, G.E.
Moore, Wittgenstein, and J.
L. Austin.
 Critics are correct to point
out the fixation with language
and logic as one aspect of
the trivialization of philosophy
with which they charge the
analytic movement.
In any case, the last two to
three decades have seen, on
the one hand, increased self-
searching as to the limitations
of the analytic approach and
more efforts to apply it to such
deeper questions.
Logic and Critical Thinking:
Tools in Reasoning
Logic is centered in the analysis
and construction of arguments.
Logic and critical thinking serve as
paths to freedom from half-truths
and deceptions.
 Critical Thinking is
distinguishing facts and opinions
or personal feelings. In making
rational choices, first, we
suspend beliefs and judgments
until all facts have been
gathered and considered.
Though facts are important,
critical thinking also takes into
consideration cultural systems,
values, and beliefs. Critical
thinking helps us uncover bias and
prejudice and open to new ideas
not necessarily in agreement with
previous thought.
 Two Basic Types of
Reasoning:
• Inductive Reasoning
• Deductive Reasoning
Inductive Reasoning
– Based from observations in
order to make generalizations
- Often applied in prediction,
forecasting or behavior
Deductive Reasoning
– draws conclusion from
usually one broad judgment
or definition and one more
specific assertion, often an
inference
For instance:
All philosophers are Major premise
wise.
Confucius is a Minor premise
philosopher.
Therefore, Conclusion
Confucius is wise.
Validity and
Soundness of an
Argument
 Based on the previous
example (or syllogism), if the
two premises are constructed
logically, then the conclusion
must follow logically the
argument is valid.
This does not necessarily
mean that the conclusion is
true or false. Validity comes
from a logical conclusion
based on logically structure
premises.
Strength of an
Argument
 Inductive arguments
cannot prove if the premises
are true which also determine
the truth of the conclusion.
Induction proves only
probable support to the
conclusion.
 An inductive argument
that succeeds in
providing probable
support is a strong
argument.
 An inductive
argument that fails to
provide probable
support is a weak
argument.
 A strong argument
with true premises is
said to be a cogent.
 For example:
Jay: Do you think Congressman
Gerry will be re-elected?
Yna: I doubt it. His district has
become more conservative in
recent years. Also, 63% of the
registered voters in his district are in
the Opposition.
This argument is both a
statistical argument and a
predictive argument, which
are two common patterns of
inductive reasoning. Also, the
conclusion does not follow
necessarily from the premises.
 Answer the following:
 What is philosophizing?
 Under this method, truth is
based on person’s
consciousness.
 Answer the following:
 What method is used when
truth is based on reasoning
and critical thinking?
 In _____________, truth is
accepted that truth is not
absolute.
 Answer the following:
 In this method truth is
based in exercising choices
and personal freedom.
 Activity:
 Share your experiences on
the times you did not use
reason in your life but rather,
you relied more on emotions
or opinions of other people.
What have they learned from
this experience?
 Answer the following:
 How is truth perceived?
 How can truth have
different interpretations?
 Quiz:
 Look closely on this image
and answer the following
questions:
 Quiz:
 Based on the image, how
is truth perceived? As four
sandwiches or as four
freedoms? Defend your
answer.
 Answer the following:
 What are the methods of
philosophizing that we talked
about? Differentiate each?
 To which method can you
relate the most? Why?
Activity:
Fallacies
 A fallacy is a defect in
an argument other than its
having false premises. To
detect fallacies, it is
required to examine the
argument’s content.
Here are some of the
usually committed errors in
reasoning and thus,
coming up with false
conclusion and worse
distorting the truth.
Appeal to pity
(Argumentum ad
misericordiam)
 A specific kind of appeal
to emotion in which someone
tries to win support for an
argument or idea by
exploiting his or her
opponent’s feelings of pity or
guilt.
Example:
Student: “Can you please round up
my grade?”
Teacher: “I’m sorry but my policy is
not to round up.”
Student: “But I studied really hard
for this test and my parents will be
mad if I don’t get a good grade.”
Example:
Student: “Can you please round up
my grade?”
Teacher: “I’m sorry but my policy is
not to round up.”
Student: “But I studied really hard
for this test and my parents will be
mad if I don’t get a good grade.”
Appeal to ignorance
(Argumentum ad
ignorantiam)
- Whatever has not
been proved false must
be true, and vice
versa.
- Occurs when a person uses
another person’s lack of
knowledge on a particular
subject as an evidence that
their own argument is
correct
Example:
“You can’t prove that there
are no Martians living in
caves under the surface of
Mars, so it is reasonable for
me to believe there are.”
Equivocation
 This is a logical chain of
reasoning of a term or a
word several times, but
giving the particular word a
different meaning each
time.
Example:
Human beings have hands;
the clock has hands.
He is drinking from the
pitcher of water; he is a
baseball pitcher.
Composition
 This infers that something
is true of the whole from the
fact that it is true of some
part of the whole. The
reverse of this fallacy is
division.
Example:
Each brick in that building
weighs less than a pound.
Therefore the building
weighs less than a pound.
Division
 One reasons
logically that something
true of a thing must also
be true of all or some of
its parts.
Example:
His house is about half the
size of most houses in the
neighborhood. Therefore,
his doors must be about 3
½ feet high.
Against the Person
(Argumentum ad
hominem)
 Attempts to link the
validity of a premise to a
characteristic or belief of
the person advocating
the premise.
 However, in some
instances, questions of
personal conduct,
character, motives, etc.
are legitimate if relevant to
the issue.
Example:
You may argue that
God doesn’t exist, but
you are just following a
fad.
 Appeal to force
(Argumentum ad
baculum)
 An argument where
force, coercion, or
threat of force, is given
as a justification for a
conclusion.
Example:
Melvin: Boss, why do I have to
work weekends when nobody
else in the company does?
Boss: Am I sensing
insubordination? I can find
another employee very quickly.
 Appeal to the
people
(Argumentum ad
populum)
 An argument that
appeals or exploits
people’s vanities, desire
for esteem, and
anchoring on popularity.
Example:
Ben: I will pray online.
Charlie: Why not g to
church?
Ben: Who will tag my prayer
there?
False Cause
(post hoc)
 Since that event
followed this one, that
event must have
been caused by this
one.
 This fallacy is also
referred to as
coincidental correlation
or correlation not
causation.
Example:
Every day, I eat cereal for
breakfast. One time, I had a
muffin instead, and there was
a major earthquake in my city.
I’ve eaten cereals ever since.
 Hasty
Generalization
 One commits errors if
one reaches an
inductive generalization
based on insufficient
evidence.
Example:
Crystal had a terrible
experience with a
boyfriend. She decides
that all boys are mean.
 Begging the
Question (petition
principii)
 A type of fallacy in
which the proposition to
be proven is assumed
implicitly or explicitly in
the premise.
Example:
The reason everyone
wants the new “Slap Me
Silly Elmo” doll is because
this is the hottest toy of
the season.
Analyze Situations
that Show the
Difference between
Truth and Opinion
Applying Logic and
Fallacies in
Determining Truth
from Opinion
 At the beginning of
Tractatus, Ludwig Wittgenstein
speaks of the picture that we
can form of reality, and in
which, by way of a model, we
represent the existence and
non-existence of state of affairs.
 Tractatus identifies the
relationship between
language and reality and to
define the limits of science. It
is recognized as a significant
philosophical work of the
twentieth century.
 It is in the possibility of
agreeing or disagreeing
with reality, thus being
true or false, that the
meaning of the picture
lies.
 The same thoughts occur later
when Wittgenstein describes
spoken and written language,
that is, propositions, as one of
these pictures and defines its
meaning in terms of its capacity
of being true or false.
 The limits of what can
be said, therefore, are
defined by the logical
rules. The limits of my
language mean the limit
of my world.
 The logic of language
shows how elements fit states
of affairs and how state of
affairs in wider constellations
can be linked together; we
can decide on the basis of
this logic.
 Wittgenstein argues
that the world consists of
states of affairs, not of
things. These constellations
can be reproduced in a
picture.
 Everyday language
reproduces actual situations
but there are extremely
complicated and often
opaque when seen through
an impure use of words.
 Over the years, the purpose
of news reporting and journalism
had irrevocably changed. If the
purpose of a sentence is to
inform or state a fact, some of its
words must refer to things,
events or properties.
 In other words, some of its
words have cognitive
meaning. However, words
also have emotive meaning –
that is, they also may have
emotive whether positive or
negative overtones.
For example:
The US war on “terror” had
produced many emotively
charged expressions such as
“terrorists,” “axis of evil,”
“band of zealots,” “either you
are with us or against us.”
Similarly, “good,” “bad,”
“pretty,” “fag,” are emotively
charged as well. Some positive
or emotive overtones are
“democracy,” “strong republic,”
“good governance,” “civil
society,” “peace” and “love.”
 While “Politicians” and
“whisky” tend to have
mixed emotive meaning
“pencil,” “river,” and
“run” are neutral terms.
 Con artists take
advantage of the
emotive side of
language in two very
important ways.
 First, they use emotive
meaning masked as
cognitive meanings to
whip up emotions so that
reason gets overlooked.
 Second, they use
emotive neutral terms of
euphemisms to dull the force
of what they say and thus,
make acceptable what
otherwise might not be.
 The fallacy of the use of
emotional words happens
when one carefully employs
words and images that are
heavy with emotional
connotations in order to secure
the sympathies of others.
In most political speeches by
politicians and activists, words
and symbols have been
invested with rich meanings and
can easily arouse the emotions
and sympathies of the listeners,
viewers and readers.
 Ignorance can be cloaked
in a false aura of authority. This
fact casts serious doubt on the
general competence of
newsmagazine writers who
talks so flippantly on technical
matters.
 Handouts for instance are
fed to news reporters by
government agencies and
others who speak English. This
is why most news journal or
news reports give the same
details.
 Some correspondents
are also culturally
incompetent who are not
aware of the language or
customs of the countries
that they are sent.
Answer the following:
• What did we discuss last
meeting?
• How do con artists take
advantage of the emotive
side of language?
Answer the following:
• How do you apply logic
and fallacies in
determining truth from
opinion?
 Activity:
Identify whether the
following statements
violates critical thinking.
Also, determine if the
statement is opinion or truth
 Activity:
• Anna bought a bottle of
pain reliever because a TV
commercial claimed that
most hospitals prescribe it.
 Activity:
• You’re either for us or
against us.
 Activity:
• I get disgusted with my science
classes. We study the “principle of
this” and the “theory of that.” Aren’t
there any laws? Why can’t scientists
make up their minds and stop
acting like they don’t know anything
for sure?
 Activity: (Notebook)
• What makes a person a
critical thinker?
• What do you think are the
characteristics of a critical
thinker?
 Realize the
Methods of
Philosophy that Lead
to Wisdom and Truth
 For Double (1999),
although philosophy is an
organized body of knowledge,
the subject matter of
philosophy is questions, which
have three major
characteristics:
philosophical questions
have answers, but the
answers remain in
dispute
philosophical questions
cannot be settled by
science, common
sense, or faith
philosophical questions
are of perennial
intellectual interest to
human beings
 The methodology or
method that philosophers
use to address
philosophical questions is
critical thinking.
 Critical thinking is the
careful, reflective,
rational and systematic
approach to questions of
very general interests.
 Critical thinking means
understanding of philosophy
and refraining from merely
giving claims but through
careful thought, one reasons
through argumentations.
 One tries to become a
“philosopher” because one
possesses and cherishes
above the rest of humanity
the “love of wisdom” which
is a part of all human
nature and because one
more reflectively and
critically brings to light and
examines the largest and
widest implications of the
life of all human beings.
 For Maboloc and
Pascua, critical thinking
is a lifelong process of
self – assessment that
further consists of:
• defining, analyzing,
and devising solutions;
• arriving at reasonable
and informed
conclusions
• applying understanding
and knowledge to new
and different problems
• willingness to change
one point of view
• continually examining
and re – examining
ideas; and,
• willingness to say “ I
don’t know.”
The attributes of a critical
thinker include:
• looks for evidence to
support assumptions
and beliefs
• adjusts opinions
• looks for proofs
• examines problem
• rejects irrelevant and
incorrect information
 If one accepts one’s
limits or has the courage
to say “I don’t know,”
then it becomes an
honest appraisal of say,
solving a problem.
Only if one is able to be willing
to change one’s point of view
based on arising evidence and
continually re-examining
ideas, can a more holistic
perspective of truth be arrived
at.
Evaluate Opinions
 Critical thinking
and logic are
important tools to
distinguish facts from
opinions.
 An opinion can be a
belief or judgment that
rests on the grounds
insufficient to produce
complete certainty.
 It is a personal view,
attitude, or appraisal or
personal feelings. Asking
relevant questions,
assessing arguments and
statements, looking for
evidence to support
assumption and beliefs,
and deciding rationally
what to believe or not are
important to evaluate
opinions.
 Answer the following:
• What are the
characteristics of
philosophical
questions?
• Critical thinking is a life –
long process of self –
assessment. What consists
this self – assessment
according to Maboloc and
Pascua?
• What are the attributes of
a critical thinker?
• It is a belief or judgment
that rests on grounds
insufficient to produce
complete certainty.
• It is a personal view or
attitude, or appraisal or
personal feelings.
 Activity:
• Learners will be divided into
small groups
• Each group will have to
discuss the following scenario
and present their answer in
class
 Activity:
• Scenario:
“There was a robbery in which
a lot of goods were stolen. The
robber(s) left in a truck. It is
known that:
(1) Nobody else could have
been involved than A,B,C. (2)
C never commits a crime
without A’s participation. (3) B
does not know how to drive.
So, is A innocent or guilty?”
 Answer the following:
• What characteristics
of a critical thinker do
you think you possess
or ought to have?
 Answer the following:
• How can a person be
a critical thinker?
• How can you find
wisdom and truth?
 Activity: What is Freedom?
Same group as previous
activity. Each group will
conduct an interview and
highlight the question: How
do you define freedom?
 The group may interview
their fellow classmates or
employees of the school. They
may document the interview
by taking pictures or videos of
the entire proceeding.
 They have to cite
philosophical insights
regarding the interview. The
presentation should not
exceed 3 minutes. The outputs
will be presented in class.
 Rubrics:
• Content (10 points)
• Organization (5 points)
• Creativity (5 points)
• Collaboration (5 points)
• Presentation (5 points)
 Assignment:
1. What is transcendence?
2. What is Atman?
3. What is the law of Karma?
4. What is Moksha?