LESSON 2

OBJECTIVES
 TO DISTINGUISH OPINION FROM TRUTH
 TO ANALYZE SITUATIONS THAT SHOW THE
DIFFERENCE
 TO REALIZE THAT THE METHODS OF PHILOSOPHY
LEAD TO WISDOM AND TRUTH
 TO EVALUATE OPINIONS
THINK ABOUT THIS…
 WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TRUTH AND
AN OPINION?
 INSERT VIDEO
METHODS OF PHILOSOPHIZING
• PHILOSOPHIZING IS TO THINK OR EXPRESS
ONESELF IN A PHILOSOPHICAL MANNER.
• IT CONSIDERS OR DISCUSSES A MATTER
FROM A PHILOSOPHICAL STANDPOINT.
• IN PHENOMENOLOGY, TRUTH IS BASED ON
A PERSON’S CONSCIOUSNESS.
IN EXISTENTIALISM, TRUTH IS BASED IN
EXERCISING CHOICES AND PERSONAL
FREEDOM
IN POSTMODERNISM, IT IS ACCEPTED
THAT TRUTH IS NOT ABSOLUTE
IN LOGIC, TRUTH IS BASED ON
REASONING AND CRITICAL THINKING
A.. PHENOMENOLOGY
• EDMUND HUSSERL FOUNDED
PHENOMENOLOGY, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A
PHILOSOPHICAL METHOD.
• FOCUSES ON CAREFUL INSPECTION AND
DESCRIPTION OF PHENOMENA OR
APPEARANCES, DEFINED AS ANY OBJECT OF
CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE, THAT IS, WE ARE
CONSCIOUS OF.
• THE WORD “PHENOMENON” COMES DIRECTLY FROM
THE GREEK PHAINOMENON MEANING “APPEARANCE”.
• IMMANUEL KANT, A GERMAN PHILOSOPHER HAD
USED THE SAME WORD TO REFER TO THE WORLD OF
OUR EXPERIENCE.
• FOR HUSSERL, IT DOES NOT IMPLY A CONTRAST
BETWEEN THE APPEARANCE AND SOME UNDERLYING
REALITY, BETWEEN THE PHENOMENON AND A
‘NOUMENON” OR “THING-IN-ITSELF”
* IT IS THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF THE ESSENTIAL
STRUCTURES OF CONSCIOUSNESS. BY MEANS OF
“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.
• CONSCIOUSNESS IS INTENTIONAL. ONE CAN
DESCRIBE THE CONTENT OF CONSCIOUSNESS
AND ACCORDINGLY, THE OBJECT OF
CONSCIOUSNESS WITHOUT ANY PARTICILAR
COMMITMENT TO THE ACTUALITY OF
EXISTENCE OF THAT OBJECT.
• 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.
PHENOMENOLOGICAL REDUCTIONS THAT ELIMINATE CERTAIN
ASPECTS OF OUR EXPERIENCE
 1. EPOCHE OR “SUSPENSION” THAT HUSSERL
DESCRIBES IN WHICH PHENOMENOLOGISTS
“BRACKETS” ALL QUESTIONS OF TRUTH OR REALITY
AND SIMPLY DESCRIBES THE CONTENTS OF
CONSCIOUSNESS.
 2. ELIMINATION OF EMPIRICAL CONTENTS OF
CONSCIOUSNESS AND FOCUSES INSTEAD ON THE
ESSENTIAL FEATURES, THE MEANINGS OF
CONSCIOUSNESS.
• HUSSERL’S 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.
 IT IS THE CONTENTS OF CONSCIOUSNESS, NOT ON
THINGS OF THE NATURAL WORLD IS THE PRIME
INTEREST OF PHENOMENOLOGISTS.
 IDEAS OF THE NATURAL WORLD IS FOR OUR ORDINARY
EVERYDAY VIEWPOINT AND THE ORDINARY STANCE OF
THE NATURAL SCIENCES, DESCRIBING THINGS AND
STATES OF AFFAIRS.
 IDEAS OF PHENOMENOLOGICAL STANDPOINT IS THE
SPECIAL VIEWPOINT ACHIEVED BY
PHENOMENOLOGISTS AS HE OR SHE FOCUSES NOT ON
THINGS BUT OUR CONSCIOUSNESS OF THINGS.
GUIDEPOST FOR DISCUSSION
1. WHY DO WE ASK QUESTIONS?
2. WHY DO WE ASK FOLLOW UP
QUESTIONS? WHAT IS OUR END GOAL?
3. WHAT KIND OF ANSWERS ARE WE
SEEKING?
4. WHAT DO WE GET FROM FINDING THE
TRUTH?
B. EXISTENTIALISM : ON FREEDOM
• ONE’S SEARCH FOR TRUTH MIGHT BE BASED ON
ONE’S ATTITUDE OR OUTLOOK.
• EXISTENTIALISM IS DIFFERENT FROM
PHENOMENOLOGY BECAUSE IT IS NOT PRIMARILY A
PHILOSOPHICAL METHOD. IT IS MORE OF AN
OUTLOOK OR ATTITUDE SUPPORTED BY DIVERSE
DOCTRINES CENTERED ON COMMON THEMES.
THEMES ON EXISTENTIALISM
 1. THE HUMAN CONDITION OR THE RELATION
OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE WORLD
 2. THE HUMAN RESPONSE TO THAT
CONDITION
 3. BEING, ESPECIALLY THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE BEING OF PERSON(WHICH IS
EXISTENCE) AND THE BEING OF OTHER KINDS
OF THINGS
 4. HUMAN FREEDOM
 5. THE SIGNIFICANCE (AND UNAVOIDABILITY) OF
CHOICE AND DECISION IN THE ABSENCE OF CERTAINTY
AND;
 6. THE CONCRETENESS AND SUBJECTIVITY OF LIFE AS
LIVED, AGAINST ABSTRACTIONS AND FALSE
OBJECTIFICATIONS
 JEAN PAUL 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.
 HE ARGUES THAT CONSCIOUSNESS(BEING-FOR-
ITSELF)IS ALWAYS FREE TO CHOOSE(THOUGH NOT
FREE NOT TO CHOOSE) AND FREE TO “NEGATE” (OR
REJECT)THE GIVEN FEATURES OF THE WORLD.
 TO BE HUMAN, TO BE CONSCIOUS, IS TO BE FREE TO
IMAGINE, FREE TO CHOOSE, AND RESPONSIBLE FOR
ONE’S LIFE.
 SOCRATES ALREADY CONCERNED HIMSELF WITH
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SELF – THE
GENUINENESS OF HIS THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS.
 HE SOUGHT NOT MERE OPINIONS BUT
KNOWLEDGE, AND PRESCRIBED NOT JUST RIGHT
ACTION BUT VIRTUE, “BEING TRUE TO ONESELF”
 ST. AUGUSTINE WAS CONCERNED WITH THE
SPIRITUAL NATURE OF THE “TRUE” SELF AS
OPPOSED TO THE INAUTHENTIC DOMAINS OF
DESIRE AND THE BODY. THE INDIVIDUAL TRIES TO
DESCRIBE HIS OWN CONSCIOUS PROCESS.
 JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU WAS ADAMANT ABOUT
THE ESSENTIAL GOODNESS OF THE “NATURAL”
SELF IN CONTRAST TO THE “CORRUPTION”
IMPOSED BY SOCIETY
DO THIS…
. BASED ON THE
1

IMAGE, HOW IS
TRUTH PERCEIVED?
AS FOUR
SANDWICHES OR AS
FOUR FREEDOMS?
2. HOW CAN TRUTH
HAVE DIFFERENT
INTERPRETATIONS?
C.POSTMODERNISM: ON CULTURE
 POSTMODERNISM BECAME VERY POPULAR AS THE
NAME FOR A RATHER DIFFUSE FAMILY OF IDEAS
AND TRENDS THAT IN SIGNIFICANT RESPECT
REJECTS, CHALLENGES OR AIMS TO SUPERCEDE
“MODERNITY”
 IT IS NOT PHILOSOPHY. IT HOLDS A PATTERN,
PERHAPS A CRY IN DESPAIR, IT TALKS ABOUT
WORLD PHILOSOPHY, THE PHILOSOPHY OF MANY
CULTURES BUT SUCH TALK IS NOT A PHILOSOPHY
EITHER.
 FOR INSTANCE, REALITY CANNOT BE KNOWN NOR
DESCRIBED OBJECTIVELY BY POSTMODERNISTS.
 POSTMODERNISTS BELIEVED THAT HUMANITY SHOULD
COME AT TRUTH BEYOND THE RATIONAL TO THE NON-
RATIONAL ELEMENTS OF HUMAN NATURE, INCLUDING
THE SPIRITUAL.
 TO ARRIVE AT TRUTH, HUMANITY SHOULD REALIZE
THE LIMITS OF REASON AND OBJECTIVISM.
 BEYOND RAISING INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS OF TRUTH,
POSTMODERNISTS STICK WITH SOMETHING
RELATIONAL, HOLISTIC APPROACH.
 POSTMODERNISTS VALUE OUR EXISTENCE IN THE
WORLD AND IN RELATION TO IT.
D. ANALYTIC TRADITION
 “CAN LANGUAGE OBJECTIVELY DESCRIBE TRUTH?”
 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 PERCEIVED 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
E. LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING: TOOLS IN REASONING
 LOGIC IS ONE OF THE MAIN BRANCHES OF
PHILOSOPHY
 IT 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..
TWO TYPES OF REASONING
 1. INDUCTIVE REASONING IS BASED FROM
OBSERVATION IN ORDER TO MAKE
GENERALIZATIONS. IT IS OFTEN APPLIED IN
PREDICTION, FORECASTING, OR BEHAVIOR.
 2. DEDUCTIVE REASONING DRAWS CONCLUSION
FROM USUALLY ONE BROAD JUDGMENT
ORDEFINITION AND ONE MORE SPECIFIC ASSERTION,
OFTEN AN INFERENCE.
TAKE FOR INSTANCE:
 ALL PHILOSOPHERS ARE WISE. (MAJOR
PREMISE)

 CONFUCIUS IS A PHILOSOPHER. (MINOR

PREMISE)

 THEREFORE, CONFUCIUS IS WISE.

(CONCLUSION)
F. FALLACIES
A FALLACY IS A DEFECT IN AN ARGUMENT
OTHER THAN ITS HAVING FAKE PREMISES.
TO DETECT FALLACIES, IT IS REQUIRED
TO EXAMINE THE ARGUMENT’S
CONTENT.
KINDS OF FALLACIES
 1. 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/HER OPPONENT’S FEELINGS OF
PITY OR GUILT.
 2. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE (ARGUMENTUM AD
IGNORANTIAM) – WHATEVER HAS NOT BEEN
PROVED FALSE MUST BE TRUE, AND VICE VERSA.
 3. EQUIVOCATION – 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.
 4. COMPOSITION – 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.
 5. DIVISION – ONE REASON LOGICALLY THAT
SOMETHING TRUE OF A THING MUST ALSO BE
TRUE OF ALL OR SOME OF ITS PARTS.
 6. AGAINST THE PERSON ( ARGUMENTUM AD
HOMINEM) – THIS 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.
 7. APPEAL TO FORCE (ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM)
– AN ARGUMENT WHERE FORCE, COERSION OR THE
THREAT OF FORCE, IS GIVEN AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR
CONCLUSION.
 8. APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE (ARGUMENTUM AD
POPULUM) – APPEALS OR EXPLOITS PEOPLE’S
VANITIES, DESIRE FOR ESTEEM AND ANCHORING ON
POPULARITY.
APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE
 9. 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.
 10. HASTY GENERALIZATION – ONE COMMITS
ERRORS IF ONE REACHES AN INDUCTIVE
GENERALIZATION BASED ON INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE. THIS FALLACY IS COMMONLLY BASED ON A
BROAD CONCLUSION UPON THE STATISTICS OF A
SURVEY OF A SMALL GROUP THAT FAILS TO
SUFFICIENTLY REPRESENT THE WHOLE POPULATION.
 11. BEGGING THE QUESTION (PETITIO PRINCIPII) –
THIS ISA TYPE OF FALLACY IN WHICH THE
PROPOSITION TO BE PROVEN IS ASSUMED IMPLICITLY
OR EXPLICITLY IN THE PREMISE.