Introduction to the

Philosophy of the
Human Person
Supplementary Learning Material

Lesson 2: Methods of Philosophizing

 What I Know

Select the keyword that best fits the statement in each item. Write the chosen letter
on a separate sheet of paper.

1. Which fallacy literally means hitting the person below the belt instead of
focusing on the issue at hand?
A. mora licensing
B. equivocation
C. argumentum ad baculum
D. ad hominem

2. According to Husserl, the success of natural science lead to the gradual

scientific rejection of .
A. spirit
B. matter
C. nature
D. existence

3. Who institutionalized the pragmatic method of philosophizing?

A. John Dewey
B. Socrates
C. Ludwig Wittgenstein
D. George Hegel

4. What is Husserl’s point of view with regards to consciousness?

A. The study of consciousness is the same as the study of nature
B. The study of human consciousness differs from the way scientists
study nature.
C. It does not matter whether we study consciousness similarly or
differently than the way scientists study nature.
D. Husserl was not interested in the study of consciousness.

5. This fallacy is committed when one reaches a generalization based on

insufficient evidence.
A. ad misericordiam
B. false analogy
C. hasty generalization
D. post hoc

2
6. Which among these headlines presented information that are fair, objective,
and moderate?
A. It’s time to consider other means of cash aid distribution
B. Other countries around the world have much better means in cash
aid distribution
C. Government vows to faster distribution of coronavirus aid
D. We can also learn lesson from Vietnam how they distribute their cash
aid

7. Which among these headlines has no errors in terms of spelling, grammar,

and content?
A. Robredo Chides Government for Unclear Communication on New
Quarantine Rules
B. Robredo Blames the Government as They Don’t Have Clear Rules in
Quarantine
C. Robredo Charge the Government as Culprit of Confusion in Quarantine
D. Robredo blames those in Executive Branch for Communication’s
Unclear

8. Which among the following statements contain substantiated

generalizations?
A. “Drug war a massive failure”—Robredo
B. Robredo lies to world, shames the nation and herself in UN message
C. The real albatross on Leni Robredo’s neck
D. Let Leni plan on her own drug war

9. Which among the following authors could be the most credible according to
his or her Twitter account’s background?
A. Banat By – Simpleng tao na mahilig bumanat
B. Atom Araullo- Journalist. @ UNHCPPh Goodwill Ambassador
C. AkoNgaSY Lyco- Speak now or be silent forever. Follow me I will not
follow you
D. Senyora- Full time haciendera and professional husgadera

10. Which among the following publishers pose no particular agenda or bias?
A. Bulag Ang ABS-CBN sa Katotohanan by Antonio Brigas
B. ABS-CBN Naipasara Sanhi ng Di Pagrenew ng Prangkisa by GMA
News
C. Nararapat Lamang na Huwag ng Magbukas ang ABS-CBN by Balat
Sibuyas
D. Bye Bye Kapamilya by the Avengers

3
 Lesson
Methods of Philosophizing
1
Truth is one of the significant lessons in philosophy. It has been a topic of discussion
in its own right for many years. Moreover, its value and influence to man’s life cannot
be denied.

What’s In
ACTIVITY: Unscramble Letters (Critical Thinking)
Directions: Unscramble the following letters to identify the concept being described.
UNSCARMBLED LETTERS DESCRIPTION ANSWER:

It is a mental grasp of reality reached either

LWKEDNGO by perceptual observation or by a process of
reason based on perceptual observation.
This is a science devoted to the discovery of
EGLYEIOSPTMO the proper method of acquiring and
validating knowledge.

It is an abstract or generic idea generalized

NCPTEOC from particular instances.

This knowledge is validated which means

RUTHT that it is highly based on the facts of reality.

It is a group of statements, one or more of

which (the premises) is claimed to provide
NTGRUAEM
support for, or reason to believe one of the
others (the conclusion)

4
 What’s New
ACTIVITY: Comic Strip (Critical Thinking, Communication, Character)
Directions: Analyze the comic strip and answer the following questions.

1. Look at the comic strip. Do you agree with the reasoning of the person inside
the car? Why or why not?

2. If you are the biker, how would you react to the remarks of the person inside
the car?

What is It

Philosophers generally believe that reason is the road to wisdom. However they have
different interpretations of what reason consists of and some philosophers even
challenge the pre-eminence of reason in the pursuit of wisdom.

I. METHODS OF PHILOSOPHIZING

Here, we are going to explore some of the methods of philosophizing that

philosophers employ. According to Wilber (2006) Think of wisdom as the summit of
the mountain with different paths to get there. We are going to study the different
paths to wisdom the philosophers offer.

5
1. The dialectic method
This method of philosophizing was conceived by the
Greek philosopher Socrates, (born 470 BCE) one of the
great philosophers of the ancient world.
Unfortunately, he did not leave any written words and
everything people know about him came from the
Dialogues written by his famous student, Plato.

Socrates’ aim was to achieve what he called the good SOCRATES

life which is based on the proper care of one’s soul (psyche in Greek). The soul,
according to Socrates, can be properly taken care of if we make it as good as
possible (Stumpf 2008). Since by its very nature the soul’s activity is to know,
the soul can only be good if we employ it in the activity of having a clear
awareness of the meaning of some words (Stumpf 2008). When we have a clear
awareness of what justice is, we harm our soul if we act contrary to what we
know, like harming others (which is the opposite of being just).

However, how can we achieve a clear understanding of words? We can achieve

this by an act of “disciplined conversation” (Stumpf 2008) which Socrates
compared to an intellectual midwife. Socrates called this method dialectic.
The method appears simple but anyone subjected by Socrates to this method
eventually felt its intense rigor.
The method starts with eliciting the definition of a
certain word from a person who appears to be
familiar (or “pretends” to be familiar) with its
meaning. Socrates then points out the imperfections
of the understanding of the person through a series
of questions. What Socrates desires is for the person
to realize his ignorance and contradictions, and
thereby correcting his own mistakes and arriving at
GEORGE HEGEL
a complete knowledge of
the true meaning of the word.
The method, however, does not sit well with the ruling elites of Athens (the city
where Socrates lived). They accused him of not worshiping the Greek gods

6
and corrupting the youth. His defense (which was dramatically recorded in
Plato’s dialogue the Apology) was a model of “forceful argument” (Stumpf 2008)
but it fell on deaf ears. In the end, he was forced to drink poison. Socrates was
the first philosopher to die fighting for truth.

The Socratic Method was modernized and treated in a different way by George
Wilhelm Hegel, a German philosopher. Hegel was an idealist. He believed that
the ideas of the human minds have access of what the world is like. People are
social beings and could be completely influenced by other people’s ideas. An
individual’s mind is influenced by means of a common language, customs of
one’s society, and the cultural institutions that one belongs to. Hegel refers
this to “Spirit” as the collective consciousness of a society which is responsible
for honing one’s consciousness and ideas.

Hegel also believed that the Spirit is constantly changing and evolving.
According to Hegel, the spirit changes through dialectic. First, there is an idea
about the world (much like a thesis), which has a natural characteristic of
having errors which give rise to the antithesis.
The thesis and antithesis can be eventually resolved by creating a synthesis
which is a new idea comprised of the essentials of both the thesis and the
antithesis.
To Hegel, society and culture follow this design, and one could understand all
of human history without the use of logic or empirical data simply by using
logic (Klein, 2013).

7
2. The Pragmatic Method
Hundreds of years after the death of Socrates, a new philosophy emerged as
inspired by the idea of change initiated by the evolutionary thoughts of Hegel
and Darwin in 19th century America. This philosophy became known as
pragmatism. It was started by Charles S. Pierce (1839-1914), popularized by
William James (1842-1910) and institutionalized in American culture by John
Dewey (1859-1952).

We will explore this briefly to complete the methods since

a thorough presentation of this theory was already
provided in module 2.1.
According to the pragmatists, philosophy seems to offer a
set of beliefs about human beings and his relationship to
the world. Pragmatists offer no such beliefs. Rather, they
seek to make philosophy relevant by solving real life
JOHN DEWEY problems. It is purely a philosophy of method and not of
substance.

What pragmatism aims is to test the dogma of science, religion and philosophy
by determining their practical results. The pragmatic test is: if I practice this
belief, will it bring success or failure? Will I solve problems or create problems?
Successful experience is the verification process of truth for the pragmatists
(Stumpf 2008).

3. The Phenomenological Method

The phenomenological method was conceived by
Edmund Husserl (born in 1859), one of the greatest
intellects of of the 19th century. His ideas and method
influenced the thoughts of some of the 20 th century
philosophical giants: Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul
Sartre, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty among others.

What prompted Husserl to develop phenomenology? To answer this,

EDMUND we have
HUSSERL
to look back at Husserl’s time and place: the 19 th century Europe. At that time,

8
science was on the ascendancy prompted by the great discoveries of Galileo,
Newton, and Darwin among others. Husserl himself was impressed by the
achievements of science. Unfortunately, according to Husserl, science brings a
certain attitude which is counterproductive to the human soul: the naturalistic
attitude (or simply naturalism).

Naturalism in this context is the idea that everything can be explained in terms
of matter or the physical. Since man is not only physical (i.e. body) but also
spiritual, this naturalistic attitude brings a distorted view of man by banishing
the spiritual from the world which includes the banishment of ideas, values,
and cultures (Husserl, 1965).

To counter the naturalistic tendency, Husserl returned to the idea of the

thinking self which was given preeminence by the 17 th century French
philosopher, Rene Descartes. More specifically, the layman’s term given to the
thinking self is “one’s immediate experience.”

Husserl’s main purpose was to build a philosophy free from any biases or
preconceived ideas. One can only do this if one returns to immediate
experience. Husserl said that he was only looking to “things and facts
themselves, as these are given in actual experience and intuition” (quoted by
Stumpf 2008). This experience is not the objective world of science separate
from us, but the world as it appears to us or (borrowing the term of the 18 th
century German philosopher Immanuel Kant) the phenomenal world - hence,
the term phenomenology.

However, our beliefs about human beings and the world prevent us from seeing
clearly this immediate experience which he calls “pure subjectivity”. Thus, to
know the truth, we have to put aside one by one all our limiting beliefs about
the world which represents our biases. Husserl calls this process
phenomenological epoche (epoche is the Greek word for bracketing).
Bracketing is not ignoring. It is an act of stepping back at our biases and
prejudices to make sure that they do not influence the way we think. Only facts
provided by immediate experience must influence us.

9
4. The Primary and Secondary reflections
Another influential intellectual movement which had its roots in the 19th
century ideas of Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-
1900) was existentialism.

Kierkegaard’s ideas were in part a reaction against the overly ambitious system
building the philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831).
On the other hand, Nietzsche’s ideas were a reaction
against the religious and rational value system still
prevalent in 19th century Europe (Stumpf 2008).
While Kierkegaard was religious and Nietzsche was
atheistic (atheism is the denial of the supernatural),
they both grounded their philosophy on the personal
choices of the individual which becomes one of the
important tenets of existentialism.

GABRIEL MARCEL In the 20th century, Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)

and his partner, Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986) popularized atheistic
existentialism while Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) and Karl Jaspers (1883-1969)
promoted religious existentialism. Religious existentialists saw certain
parallels between existential ideas and religious themes like the fall of Adam
and Eve which can be compared to the theme of inauthentic existence in
existentialist philosophy (Stumpf 2008).
After that brief overview on existentialism, let us focus our attention on one
existentialist method identified by Gabriel Marcel: the primary/secondary
reflection.

For Marcel, reflection is not just a disinterested look at experience. It emerged

when something valuable is at stake. Marcel gave an example of a watch.
Suppose you try to take a watch from your pocket. To your surprise, the watch
that you expect to be there is not there. A break from your ordinary routine
happened. From this break, reflection appears in the form of a question: Where
is my watch? Then, a host of questions, connected to the first one, followed:
Where was the last time I’ve seen my watch? Was there a hole in my pocket?
You try to retrace your steps from this moment back to the time when you last
saw your watch.

10
 From this example, you will see that reflection arise when there is a disruption
from your normal routine and when something valuable is at stake.
Then, Marcel identified two levels of reflection: primary reflection and
secondary reflection. Marcel applied these two levels of reflection to the most
fundamental question: Who am I?

Nowadays, we try to answer this question by filling up a form given by our

school for example. The form asked us to write our name, age, gender, address,
name of parents, etc. To answer this, of course we have to think to distinguish
who we are (the self) against other things (the non-self or objects). This is the
primary reflection.

Yet, we had an uneasy feeling that all the information we put on the form
(although true) do not fully capture who we really are (Marcel 1970). We view
that our self is bigger and more expansive than what is there on the form. Thus,
we are not merely thinking but we are thinking about thinking and about the
process we perform in answering the form. This is the secondary reflection.

The result of secondary reflection is a more expansive view of the self until it
embraces the world. Thus, the separation of the self and the world brought
about by primary reflection were united by the secondary reflection.

5. The Analytic Method

Another reaction to the Hegelian system building
philosophy is the analytic approach initiated by
philosophers at Cambridge University (England):
George Edward Moore (1873-1958), Bertrand Russell
(1872-1970) and Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951).
The task of analytic approach is not to create another
system of ideas to counter the Hegelian system but to
LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN
clarify how philosophers used words through an
analysis of language (Stumpf 2008). As quoted by Stumpf, Wittgenstein said
that ‘the object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thought’ so that ‘the
result of philosophy is not a number of philosophical propositions, but to

11
make propositions clear”. Analytic philosophers employed various methods of
linguistic analysis such as the principle of verification and logical analysis
(Rudolf Carnap). What we are going to use is the method of Wittgenstein.

We can divide Wittgenstein’s philosophy in to the earlier Wittgenstein and the

latter (or the new) Wittgenstein. The earlier Wittgenstein followed the idea of
his mentor and close friend Bertrand Russell who view language in only one
way: stating facts. Wittgenstein’s first book (the only one published during his
lifetime) Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1919) reflected this idea.

However he soon realized that words had multiple functions depending on the
context to which it occurs. Wittgenstein used the analogy of “tools in a tool box”
(Wittgenstein 1968). If we look at the tools inside a tool box ‘there is a hammer,
pliers, a saw, a screw driver, a ruler, a glue pot, glue nails and screw. The
functions of words is as diverse as the functions of these objects’ (quoted by
Stumpf 2008).

What Wittgenstein wants is to analyze language in the way actual people used
it in ordinary situations and not to construct an ideal language based on logic
and mathematics like what Russell seems to be doing.

To analyze language, we have to realize that it follows rules. If there are rules
in every aspect of life, there are certainly rules on how we put together and
communicate words. Wittgenstein believed that these rules are like the rules of
games (Wittgenstein 1968)-language games. For example, the usage of words
like “demand”, “supply”, “money”, “price” in the context of economics differ
from its usage in everyday life. These are technical words and they follow certain
rules (i.e. the language game) within that discipline that affects the way these
words are used.

12
 Lesson DIFFERENT FALLACIES
2
You have just learned that it is not enough to acquire knowledge but you should
analyze if that knowledge you have acquired is truthful or not. Philosophizing involves
the gift of speech and the gift of intelligence that enable us to reason out and detect
the falsity or truthfulness of a statement. When one reasons out, he/she expresses his
opinion and when others disagree, then argument begins. In philosophical parlance
argument is not an emotional reptilian word war or a territorial show of force between
persons but a philosophical method in knowing the truth of a certain phenomenon or
reality. It is a set of statements which includes the premises and conclusion (the latter
is the one that claims the truth of the premises) (Cornejo & Ebia, 2017).

However, there are arguments that are erroneous or based from faulty
reasoning called Fallacies (Abella, 2016). Unconsciously, we are culprits of this in our
daily interaction with people including our families and friends. Even TV commercials
intentionally employ some faulty reasoning to convince their target market to
purchase their products. Lawyers outwit each other by employing some fallacies to
defend their clients. I am sure you are familiar with the famous “Flip Top Battles”
group in today’s digital world. Shall we say a modern dialectical approach which
appeal not only to the mind but also to our aesthetic sense? They entertain audience
and it is awesome how they display their wit to outsmart each other in a poetic
manner. It becomes an art and aesthetically superb, but if you go beyond
entertainment and analyze their statements there are a lot of faulty reasoning going
on. Below are some of the Fallacies which we believe you need to be aware of. Abella,
Roberto D. in his book “Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person” laid
down some of these fallacies:

13
 FALLACY Short Description
1.Argumentum ad Hominem came from Latin word
Hominem “homo” which means man. This
“Attacking the fallacy literally means hitting the
Person” person below the belt instead of
focusing on the issue at hand.
2. Argumentum ad Baculum is a Latin word which
Baculum means scepter or stick. A scepter is
(Appeal to Force) a symbol of authority. Normally it
is the Pope who carries it in his
hands. This is committed when a
person uses threat or force to
advance an argument.
3. Argumentum ad Misercordiam came from Latin
Misercordiam word Misericordia which means
(Appeal to Pity) pity or compassion. A person uses
emotion such as pity to convince
someone
Examples
“How can we believe him
when he talks about social
distancing, he is a lawyer who
is a liar.”
“TV Patrol is the best news
program on TV. If you don’t
believe me, I won’t let you
watch the TV.
“Forgive me officer, there are
lot of boarders in this
apartment including myself.
Only the owner was issued a
quarantine pass. We don’t
have food, we can’t give our
ATM to the owner. That’s why
I went out. So I did not violate
the Bayanihan Act Heal as
One.”

4. Argumentum ad Populum is the Latin word for “I’m sure you want to have an
Populum people. Most of TV commercials i phone. Almost 80% of your
“Appeal to people”/ are guilty of this argument which schoolmates are using it.”
Bandwagon fallacy exploit people’s vanity, desires,
etc.
5. Argumentum ad Traditio means tradition. All of us in the family, from
Tradition Advancing an idea since it has our ancestors up to now,
“Appeal to Tradition” been practice for a long time. are devout
Catholics, so it is only right
that you will be
baptized as a Catholic.
6. Argumentum and Ignorantiam a Latin word for According to Zecharia
Ignorantiam ignorance. Whatever has been Sitchin, the author of the book
“Appeal to Ignorance” proven false must be true and vice “Cosmic Code, “Adam was
versa the first test tube baby. Since
nobody proves otherwise,
therefore it is true.”

7. Petitio Principii According to Merriam Webster’s “God exists because the Bible
(Begging the dictionary (www.merriam- says so. The Bible
Question)

14
 webster.com>dictionary>petitiopr
incipii)
, it is a fallacy in which a
conclusion is taken for granted in
the premises. Also called-“circular
argument.”
8. Hasty This fallacy is committed when
Generalization one reaches a generalization
based on insufficient evidence
is inspired. Therefore we
know that God
Exists.”
Our neighbor who is a police
officer was convicted of being
a drug dealer, therefore, all
police officers are drug
dealers.

9. Cause and Effect Assuming that the effect is related
to a cause because both events
occur one after the other.
“My teacher didn’t collect
the homework two weeks
in a row when my friend
was absent. Therefore, my
friend being absent is the
reason why my teacher
doesn’t collect
the homework.”

10. Fallacy of Infers that something is true of a “You are a doctor, therefore
Composition part, is true of a whole you came from
a family of doctors.”
11. Fallacy of Division Infers that something is true of “Your family is smart,
the whole, must also be true on its therefore you are
parts smart.”
12. Fallacy of Using the same term in a different “Humans walk by their legs.
Equivocation situation with different meaning. The table has legs.
Therefore the table
walks by its legs.”

FACTS VERSUS OPINION: FOCUS ON INFORMATION LITERACY

Today's students, many of whom do most of their research online, are able to
access a nearly limitless supply of information -- much of it came from unknown
sources. In fact, the very nature of the medium allows anyone with an Internet
provider and a small amount of skill to disseminate whatever information he or she
chooses. The result is a World Wide Web of overflowing information, on the other
hand, it also contains inadvertent ignorance and blatant biases.

A. IDENTIFYING THE FACTORS OF A QUALITY WEBSITE

15
Michigan State University reference librarian Terry Link suggests examining the
following factors when evaluating the quality of a Web site:
 Authority: Who is the author and what are his or her qualifications? Who is the
publisher and what is the purpose of the site?
 Verifiability: Are sources provided?
 Timeliness: Is the information current? When was it posted and/or last updated?
 Relevance: Does the material contain unsubstantiated generalizations?
 Bias: Is the language emotional or inflammatory? Does the information represent
a single opinion or a range of opinions?
 Orderliness: Is the page arranged in an order that makes sense? Are underlying
assumptions identifiable? Is the information consistent?
 Clarity: Is the information clearly stated? Does the author define important
terms?
 Validity: Do the facts presented support the conclusions?

Likewise, when we critique sources, we must first understand the difference between
fact and opinion.
FACT OPINION
A fact is a statement that can be proven An opinion is a statement of belief which
true or false. may or may not be backed up by facts,
but cannot be proven true or false.
Is objective Is subjective
Is discovered Is created
States reality Interprets reality
Can be verified Cannot be verified

B. THE EVALUATION PROCESS

In considering the kinds of sources or sites, Robert Harris, a professor of English
at Southern California College suggests that students should ask themselves,
"Which sources are likely to be fair, objective, lacking hidden motives, showing
quality control?" Harris recommends selecting sites that include as many of the
following as possible:
 the author's name, title, and/or position.
 the site's organizational affiliation, if any.
 the date the page was created or updated.

16
  contact information, such as an email or snail-mail address.
Once students have located sources that appear appropriate and credible, Harris
advises students to subject the sites to the CARS checklist for informational quality.
The four components of the CARS checklist are:
 Credibility: What about this source makes it believable?
 Accuracy: Is the information provided up-to-date, factual, detailed, exact, and
comprehensive?
 Reasonableness: Is the information fair, objective, moderate, and consistent?
 Support: Can the information be corroborated?

C. HOW DO I KNOW?
Harris suggests that, when evaluating those four components, students examine the
sites based on the following:
 Type -- determine whether the URL includes .gov (government), .edu or .ac
(educational/academic), .com (commercial), .org (nonprofit organization), or. ~
(personal page).
 Publisher -- determine whether the organization, agency, school, business, or
individual maintaining the site is likely to have a particular agenda or bias.
 Author -- determine the author's education, training, and background to find out
whether he or she is a trained expert, an experienced enthusiast, or an uninformed
observer.
 Structure -- determine whether the format is clear, logical, and easily navigable.
 Language -- determine whether the text contains emotional, inflammatory,
profane, or confusing language. Count the number of spelling, grammatical, and
typographical errors. Too many mistakes can indicate carelessness and suggest
informational errors as well.
 Dates -- determine when the information was published and/or updated. If
possible, check the publication dates of supporting data.
 Graphics -- determine whether images and animations take up a disproportionate
amount of space in relation to their informational value. Decide whether the
graphics convey information, add interest, provide interactivity, or simply
distract.
 Links -- determine whether the site's bibliography and/or links contain both
supportive and contradictory information.

17
 What’s More

ACTIVITY 1: FACT VS. OPINION (Critical Thinking)

Directions: Analyze the following statements. Write F if it is FACT and O if it is

OPINION. Write your answer before the number.
1. According to the latest survey, families are purchasing more household items on
credit.
2. You can hear all the news you need to know from the BBC Radio 1 news team.
3. The professor argues that the effect of carbon emissions on the surrounding
environment will only get worse.
4. The research team has discovered a new method for conducting this chemical
analysis.
5. The latest poll shows a marked increase in employee dissatisfaction.
6. I think public opinion will change over time.
7. This book is an enjoyable story of life in a small village.
8. The use of computers at the college has increased and the stationery budget has
doubled in the last few years.

ACTIVITY 2: I-BILIB (Critical Thinking, Communication,)

Directions: Analyze the following pictures. Write BILIB if the picture followed CARS
(Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness, and Supported) and write NOT if it did not
follow CARS according to Robert Harris. Afterwards, explain your answer.

18
ACTIVITY 3: LET’S APPLY (Critical Thinking, Character)

Directions: Fill in the table below with the main proponents of methods of philosophizing.
For each method, answer the questions: “How can you find truth using this method?” and
“On what real-life situation can you apply this method?”

On what real-life
How can you find
Methods of Main situation can you
truth using this
Philosophizing Proponent(s) apply this
method?
method?

19
 1. Dialectic

2. Pragmatic

3. Phenomenological

4. Primary and
Secondary
Reflections

5. Analytic

What I Have Learned

ACTIVITY: IMPORTANT POINTS TO PONDER

(Critical Thinking, Character, Communication)

Direction: Complete the statements below:

I learned that Truth is

I feel that Truth is important because

I commit to uphold the truth by

20
 What I Can Do

ACTIVITY 1: WIN AN ARGUMENT (Communication, Critical Thinking, Character,

Collaboration)
Directions: By using the graphic organizer of dialectic method below, answer the
question: How do you criticize someone’s opinion/argument in a way that makes sense and is
respectful? Try to talk or interview two persons that have contrasting idea about the
question, then write your own synthesis to their answers.

THESIS ANTI-

SYNTHESI
S

21
ACTIVITY 2: COMIC CON
(Critical Thinking, Character, Communication, Creativity)

Directions: Draw a comic strip that portrays ONE type of fallacy. Explain your work.

Explanation:

22
 Assessment

Select the keyword that best fits the statement in each item. Write the chosen letter
on a separate sheet of paper.

1. What type of fallacy is present in the statement, “Before we begin the debate,
everyone here should know that my opponent is a convicted felon”?
A. mora licensing
B. equivocation
C. argumentum ad baculum
D. ad hominem

2. According to Husserl, the success of natural science lead to the gradual

scientific rejection of .
A. spirit
B. matter
C. nature
D. existence

3. When Husserl described human experience as the immediate data of

consciousness, he meant .
A. Pure subjectivity
B. Pure objectivity
C. materialism
D. dualism

4. What is Husserl’s point of view with regards to consciousness?

A. The study of consciousness is the same as the study of nature
B. The study of human consciousness differs from the way scientists
study nature.
C. It does not matter whether we study consciousness similarly or
differently than the way scientists study nature.
D. Husserl was not interested in the study of consciousness.

5. What type of fallacy is present in the statement, “My father smoked four
packs of cigarettes a day since age fourteen and lived until age sixty-nine.
Therefore, smoking really can’t be that bad for you”?
A. ad misericordiam
B. false analogy
C. hasty generalization
D. post hoc

23
6. Which among these headlines presented information that are fair,
objective, and moderate?
A. It’s time to consider other means of cash aid distribution
B. Other countries around the world have much better means in cash
aid distribution
C. Government vows to faster distribution of coronavirus aid
D. We can also learn lesson from Vietnam how they distribute their cash
aid

7. Which among these headlines has no errors in terms of spelling, grammar,

and content?
A. Robredo Chides Gov’t for Unclear Communication on New Quarantine
Rules
B. Robredo Blames the Government as They Don’t Have Clear Rules in
Quarantine
C. Robredo Charge the Govrnment as Culprit of Confusion in Quarantine
D. Robredo blames those in Executive Branch for Communication’s
Unclear

8. Which among the statements contain substantiated generalizations?

A. “Drug war a massive failure”—Robredo
B. Robredo lies to world, shames the nation and herself in UN message
C. The real albatross on Leni Robredo’s neck
D. Let Leni plan on her own drug war

9. Which among the following authors could be the most credible according to
his or her Twitter account’s background?
A. Banat By – Simpleng tao na mahilig bumanat
B. Atom Araullo- Journalist. @ UNHCPPh Goodwill Ambassador
C. AkoNgaSY Lyco- Speak now or be silent forever. Follow me I will not
follow you
D. Senyora- Full time haciendera and professional husgadera

10. Which among the following publishers pose no particular agenda or bias?
A. Bulag Ang ABS-CBN sa Katotohanan by Antonio Brigas
B. ABS-CBN Naipasara Sanhi ng Di Pagrenew ng Prangkisa by GMA
News
C. Nararapat Lamang na Huwag ng Magbukas ang ABS-CBN by Balat
Sibuyas
D. Bye Bye Kapamilya by the Avengers

24
 Additional Activities
ACTIVITY: EVERYDAY FALLACIES (Critical Thinking, Communication, Character)

Directions:

A. Observe conversations of your parents and identify three (3) common fallacies.
B. Watch commercials on TV and news and take note of the fallacies committed.
Identify 5 fallacies and write your answers on a separate sheet of paper.

Critical Thinking Questions:

1. In your relationship with your family, what common fallacy or fallacies you
commit as an alibi for any wrongdoing? Narrate at least two occasions.

2. Do you think Fallacy can help us in finding the truth? Why or why not?

3. What methods of philosophizing do you think are most useful in finding the
truth? Explain?

25
References
Books

Abella, Roberto D. (2016). Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person.

Quezon City: C&E Publishing

Binswanger, Harry. (2014). How We Know. New York: TOF Publications.

Copi, Irving M. and Cohen, Carl (2002). Introduction to Logic (11 th edition). New
Jersey: Prentice Hall

Cornejo, N. & Ebia, E. Philosophy of Human Person. Mindshapers Co., Manila.2017

Hurley, Patrick J. (2011). A Concise Introduction to Logic (11th edition). Boston:
Cengage Learning

Klein, Paul S. (2013). Philosophy 101. California: Adams Media

Mabacquiao, N. (2017). Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person. Quezon

City: Phoenix Publishing.

Peikoff, Leonard (1990). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York: Dutt

26
Rand, Ayn (1990). Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (2 nd edition). New York: Meridian

Stumpf, Samuel Enoch & Fieser, James (2008). Socrates to Sartre and Beyond (8 th
edition). New Yok: McGraw Hill

Wilber, Ken (2006). Integral Spirituality. Boston: Integral Books

Websites

Biography.com Biography of Edmund Husserl (July 2020). Retrieved from:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edmund-Husserl

Biography.com Biography of John Dewey (July 2020). Retrieved from:

https://www.biography.com/scholar/john-dewey

Britanica. Biography of Ludwig Wittgenstein (July 2020). Retrieved from:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ludwig-Wittgenstein

Britanica. Biography of Socrates (July 2020). Retrieved from:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Socrates

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Gabriel Marcel (July 2020). Retrieved from:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/marcel/

Lazarus C. (2017). Facts, Truths, Beliefs, Opinions, and "Alternative Facts".

Psychology Today. Retrieved from:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201703/facts-truths-
beliefs-opinions-and-alternative-facts

Merriam-Webster. July 17, 2020, (n.d.). Petitio principii. In Merriam-Webster.com

dictionary. Retrieved from:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/petitio%20princip

St. Joseph’s College (2019). Evaluating Sources: Fact Checking, Fake News, and
Bias: Fact vs Opinion. Retrieved from:
https://brooklyn.sjcny.libguides.com/c.php?g=648836&p=4692986

Starr L.(2009). Fact, Fiction, or Opinion? Evaluating Online Information. Education

World. Retrieved from:
https://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr194.sh

27