Thursday, January 20, 2022

5:50 PM
 
SUBJECT DESCRIPTION
An initiation to the activity and process of philosophical reflection as a search for a synoptic vision of life.
Topics to be discussed include the human experiences of embodiment, being in the world with others and
the environment, freedom, intersubjectivity, sociality, being unto death.

DOING PHILOSOPHY
- for the Greeks, Philosophy or philosophia means the “love of wisdom," but to know the idea of love and
wisdom is not enough if one denies doing it

WESTERN PHILOSOPHY
- The Western Tradition introduced intricate ideas concerning the rational capacities of man and how these
capacities can be used and developed.
- The recognition that a human person is a thinking being fundamentally supports the idea that we all have
the freedom to explore the world.
- Our study will focus on the three most renowned Greek philosophers, namely; Socrates, Plato, and
Aristotle.

SOCRATES
- Socrates was born about 470 B.C.E. in Athens, Greece. His appearance was frequently described as
grotesque.
- Despite his undesirable physical features, many young men would still gather around him to learn from his
intelligent discussions.
- His philosophy emanated from his way of life, a life that was not concerned about wealth and worldly
goods.
- His way of doing philosophy was by making dialogues with various people.
- His concern was to discuss with them profound ideas, such as justice, virtues, morality, life, and death.
- The philosophy of Socrates was focused on getting at the answers to the questions that are important and
relevant in everyone’s life.
- Consequently, he helped many people examine how they lived and understood their lives because, for
him, “An unexamined life is not worth living."
- Unfortunately, Socrates was charged with corrupting the minds of the youth. It can be said that his
manner of doing philosophy became the cause of his death.
 
PLATO
- A student of Socrates, he was born on about 428 and died about 347 B.C.E.
- He was the one who wrote down the dialogues of Socrates.
- One of Plato's famous stories and allegories is called the "Allegory of the Cave," which can be found in his
book The Republic. The allegory of the Cave explains the two worlds of Plato, the real world and the
unreal.
- Plato's way of doing philosophy sought to solve the question of the real and unreal. In other words, it
seeks the truth.
- For Plato, the truth is often forgotten at birth. However, a recollection of such truth happens when we
encounter actual objects
 
ARISTOTLE
- Aristotle was born about 384 B.C. He studied under Plato, and later, put up his school called Lyceum.
- Aristotle learned much of Plato’s philosophy but the path he took was different from his mentor’s interests
(Theory of Forms or Ideas).
- Aristotle put forward the notion that the forms have two categories, namely, the substance and accidents.
A substance can subsist on its own, while accidents need another thing to exist.
- Unlike Plato's Theory of Forms, the form for Aristotle exists in this world, which has substance and
accidents.
- Aristotle conveys that Plato was concerned with the abstract, referring to the world of ideas that can only
be reached by thoughts. However, the forms can be achieved using the senses.
- Aristotle introduced his ideas about empirical evidence or things that can be achieved and proven by
using the senses.
- Centuries later, this was picked up by St. Thomas Aquinas who said, "Nothing is in the intellect that was
not first in the senses." Thus, by using one's senses, one can gain knowledge.
 
 
Monday, February 7, 2022
12:16 PM
 
DISCOVERING PHILOSOPHICAL REFLECTION
THE UNIVERSAL AND THE PARTICULAR
WHY AM I HERE?
- understanding the universal and particular will clarify the nature of a philosophical question
- PARTICULAR: refers to a part of the whole
- UNIVERSAL: refers to the whole
- at first, this question may be a particular question as it can be reasoned with the immediate cause of your
action
- but, if we are to interpret this as a question of purpose, we see the totality of existence is involved
- we answer this question by considering our daily experiences
- it will be impossible to answer this question when we avoid to consider other aspects of human
experiences
- therefore, we will have to include the aspect who determines our purpose aside from what is our purpose
- to philosophize is to look at life from a holistic perspective
- PHILOSOPHY is different from Science
- according to German philosopher Martin Heidegger, a scientific question is always confined to the
particular
- PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS “leads into the totality of beings” and “inquires into the whole”
- beginning with a particular question that unavoidably goes to the roots, a philosophical question
eventually becomes a revelation about the whole reality
 
WHAT IS FREEDOM?
HOW DO WE ANSWER A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION?
- PHILOSOPHY has its own methods and criteria of proceeding with its inquiries
- these methods make up the various traditions in the history of philosophy
- every person who engages in a philosophical reflection must recognize that possible answers require
adequate justification or rational basis
- answers that sound right will simply not do. We can be misled if we are not careful
- PLATO warned us that things may be misleading, deceiving, and confusing in this world
- to know what is real requires intellectual effort and rational ability
- a person is responsible for the answers he/she hold on to, we are to blame in case we are fooled into
believing a falsehood
SO HOW DO WE GUARD AGAINST DECEPTIONS?
- God gave us intellect (faculty of reason) to figure things out
- we are given dignity and autonomy
- this faculty of reason allows us to pursue our questions so we can come nearer to the truth
- it is the best tool we have that enables us to deal with problems
- our mind goes beyond our instincts and pays attention to our emotions so we can effectively pursue
meaning and truth

THE VALUE OF PHILOSOPHICAL REFLECTION

SOCRATES' LEGACY
- know thyself;
the unexamined life is not worth living; and
virtue is knowledge of good and bad
- SOCRATES was able to philosophize by asking questions
- this series of questioning and answering to engage philosophical reflection is known as the SOCRATIC
METHOD
- we need to reflect our beliefs and views because we are responsible for these
- what we believe to be true becomes the basis of our actions
- if we know something, we share it to the others and if we don’t know something, we learn from others who
know
- a life worth living is a life that examines what one thinks
- examination of our beliefs or thoughts provides us with the opportunity to know ourselves better
- we need to know ourselves because we make choices daily
- the choices we make, in turn, create who we are
- PHILOSOPHICAL REFLECTION is essential because we do not realize what we truly believe in until we
are challenged to defend them
- SOCRATES desired to know himself and his world
- he believed that the only way to find it out is to pause, think, and share the thoughts to learn more

EVERY PERSON UST CONFRONT THE QUESTION " WHO AM I?"

- knowledge of oneself is crucial in life where we make choices daily
- if we do not know ourselves, we make wrong life decisions
- we would pursue things that are not suitable to us and would not make us happy
- we will have many regrets in the end
- if we do not ask ourselves who we are, we will end up feeling miserable without understanding why

VIRTUE IS KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND BAD

- asking philosophical questions provides us insights on what is truly good and bad for us
- knowledge is virtue because to truly know what is good leads to the actual doing of what is good
- when what we say and what we do are not in sync, what we claim to know is doubtful
- in other words, ignorance is revealed through actions
- suffering stems from ignorance, when we hold on to views that are narrow and selfish, we cause suffering
to others, and we will not find peace
- Philosophical activity is to cure ignorance
- Philosophical reflection enlightens us and makes us better persons

 
Monday, January 31, 2022
12:07 PM
 
THE “PILOSOPO” AS A FILIPINO SOCIAL CRITIC
THE FILIPINO “PILOSOPO”
- in Philippine society, the Filipino word for ‘philosopher’ is pilosopo
- however, this was understood negatively as a person who reasons poorly
- oftentimes, the “pilosopo’s ” faulty reasoning is entertaining because in a sense, one is skilled in evading
arguments by pretending to address them
- in Logic, this reasoning is called a fallacy, it is an argument that has error and is deceiving
- we need to be very careful in our argumentation so that we may not be deceived into believing the lie as a
truth
- people who lack training in Logic are the ones who are easy to be misleaded and persuaded in accepting
something is true

RIZAL'S FILIPINO PILOSOPO

- in Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere, we have met his personification of an ideal Filipino philosopher through
Pilosopo Tasyo
- unlike the common connotation on “pilosopo”, Tasyo is like Socrates as someone who expressed views in
life such as in politics and society
- his views are deep and difficult to understand, that’s why they view him as a fool
- his thoughts are unsettling and radical. While common people find comfort in mere acceptance of the
status quo, he seek wisdom
- through Tasyo, Rizal would like a Filipino “pilosopo” to observe, think, see clearly, and speak the truth
- common people do not seek the truth because they are already contented with what they think they know,
and further reflection is inconvenient for them
- our world needs people who seek truth and share the truth. We need a pilosopo to engage others to find
the truth and to live by it
JOURNEY TO TRUTH
REALITY
REALITY AS A PHENOMENON
- when we philosophize, we think of something
- that something is called reality
- what makes up reality are the things that appear to us in this world – the objects we try to understand
- philosophical reflection investigates a phenomenon
- in philosophy, a phenomenon is any object, fact, or occurrence perceived or observed
- in general, phenomena are the objects of the senses (e.g., sights and sounds) as contrasted with what is
apprehended by the intellect
- the world is constituted as lived, experiences, thought of, understood and investigated as a phenomenon
EXAMPLE:
LOVE
- when we want to know what is true love, our investigation involves the phenomenon of love
- love is a nonphysical phenomenon with a physical manifestation
SPACE
- space in it physical sense can be investigated
- if we saw a grafitti, the colors and objects painted catches our attention (this is the physical sense)
- the message it conveys keeps us thinking (nonphysical manifestation)

SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY

- both Science and Philosophy seek to understand the world
- the difference is the process or how they proceed to treat phenomenon
- in Science, observation through experiments and calculations are the data used to arrive at a conclusion,
the specific phenomenon to be understood is isolated to yield valuable information
- Philosophy uses phenomenon to form the basis for truth
- the phenomenon is studied, not by isolating it from others, but by examining the relations it has with other
phenomena
- there are more aspect of human experience that connect to what we call love
- most of them are not seen in the eyes
- all those are considered in philosophy as part of what comprises reality
EXAMPLE:
LOVE
- in Science, love as a phenomenon may be objectively explained through biology
- if a ‘kiss’ is a manifestation of love, we cannot make sense “true love” by saying that it is a physiological
event of mutual and interlocking voluntary muscular contractions of the mouth
- in philosophy, we “see” the mutual surrender of the human will for the other person
 
OUR REALITY
- situations we find ourselves in and the perceptions we acquire as we go through life became the very
bases and the stimuli to philosophize
- our way of seeing things is founded on our personal experiences from childhood until we philosophize on
it
- the books we have read and even movies we have watched influence our own views
- the reference is made from something subjective
- this is truth-ing at work
- when we speak about reality, we are in no way claiming that our view is the only correct view
- as we are not of supreme intelligence, we can never claim that the reality we talk about is the way things
really are
- german philosopher Immanuel Kant pointed out reality through empiricism and rationalism
- according to Kant, all things that we see and perceive through
senses are not things as they really are, but things-as-they-appearto-us (empiricism), our mind then uses
its categories or processes these things to understand the phenomena (rationalism)
- therefore, our reality is subjective
- it is always in our nature to find truth and meaning
- we may be finite beings, but we are special and unique because we are drawn toward those that are
beyond us
- we are intrigued by perfection, beauty, immortality, among other things
- we seek to surpass our limits because we have the power to do so through reason or intellect
- our humanity then becomes our greatest endeavor
- that is why our life is best directed to knowing ourselves better and understanding our humanity

DOXA AND EPISTEME

TRUTH VS. OPINION
- to know the truth is different from believing what is true.
- this is the reason why we distinguish truth from opinion.
- in ancient Greece, knowledge (episteme) is different from opinion (doxa)
- when people argue, we often hear the words, “that’s your opinion!” when somebody is tired arguing
- this usually settles the conflict as the speaker was confident since an opinion was neither right nor wrong
- that’s why on the internet, many were just posting and arguing on issues which they will defensively claim,
“this is my opinion!”
- some would even say that since we are in a democratic country, everyone is entitled to his/her own
opinion
- but what is an opinion? generally, an opinion is a personal claim, a belief, or a personal stance on a
particular subject matter
- for instance, the statements, "my teacher is the best!" or "i think there is no class on Monday" are
examples of opinions
- these opinions are based on personal experiences and, therefore, relative. however, opinions are
sometimes based on facts
- if they are based on facts, do they equate to the truth?
- John Corvino (2015) offers a philosophical distinction between an opinion and a fact. for him, a statement
of fact has objective content and is well-supported by the available evidence
- on the other hand, a statement of opinion is one whose content is either subjective or not well supported
by the available evidence
- in short, an opinion refers to what a person thinks about something but is lacking evidence
- in this sense, the criterion of objectivity, which is a necessary condition of facts, is what separates an
opinion from a fact
- another problem that arises is how to understand truth statements
- we must note that not all those who claim that they are telling the truth are revealing the truth. we see
many people on social media, claiming that their position on an issue is correct and true
- we may be deceived if we do not verify whether these claims are indeed true or not
- what is essential is to doubt the things we see on social media to investigate further their reliability
- truth has been one of the main questions in philosophy, and many theories have dealt with this question
- one of these theories is the correspondence theory, this theory maintains that both the knower's mind and
the thing being perceived must correspond to each other
- truth is grasped when there is conformity between the mind and the thing outside the mind
- however, since our senses may get easily deceived, it is necessary always to inquire if what we have in
mind is not a mere illusion
- therefore, we need to discern matters seriously to know the truth, we should consider both what we think
and what the thing reveals to us
- truth is neither an opinion nor a fact. it is universal, undisputed, verified through facts, and even
transcendent, beyond a reasonable doubt
- in other words, the truth will always be true no matter what a person thinks and speaks
- truth does not change; an opinion, however, usually changes through time, thus, the truth remains, no
matter how convincing an opinion is
- the question that remains now is how to seek the truth

 
Friday, February 4, 2022
10:53 AM
 
LOGICAL FALLACIES
- common errors in reasoning that break the logic of your argument
- when your argument has Logical Fallacies it will appear to be deceptive in that it looks better to you than it
really is
- common because they are so easy to overlook, often being a result of our subconscious human
psychology
- you can see them take form in a number of ways: Illegitimate arguments
Irrelevant points and data
Weak connections between points
Exaggerations and jumping to conclusions
- all of these forms lack evidence and are fundamentally broken
- still, they are easy to overlook as they are so natural to make
- we only recognize them when we step back and take a deeper, more rational look at the points
 
SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY
- an argument where one asserts that a relatively small step, action, or event will set off a chain reaction of
related events
- the chain reaction of events is more extreme than the initial one
- people fall into the Slippery Slope when they are trying to emphasize their point
- they know that connecting multiple events or points together will make their overall argument seem
stronger
- even if there is only a tiny relationship between two things, they connect them together anyways
- even if two things are related it doesn't necessarily mean that they are connected and that one will lead to
the other
- connecting them leads to unnecessary and overly extreme conclusions
- be careful to only connect things that are 100% reliant on each other, where there is causality
- EXAMPLES: "If I don't get this job, I'm screwed. I'll never increase my salary and my partner will leave
me"
"You can never eat chocolate if you want to be healthy. First it's one piece a day, then two,
then three – next thing you know you're eating a whole box and becoming obese!"

HASTY GENERALIZATION FALLACY

- occurs when one forms a general conclusion about something based on only a small amount of evidence
or information
- personal experiences have a strong influence on us
- seeing or feeling something first hand makes you remember it more clearly, both in your mind and
emotionally
- it's then easy to generalize and apply your opinion of it to everything because it's so clear in your mind
- but just because one small thing has occurred in your life does not mean it applies everywhere else, even
if it's important to you
- your personal experience is unique
- it's better to gather more data before forming any strong opinions
- EXAMPLES: "The first day of class was so slow, we only went over the outline! The rest of the year is
going to be boring"
"I ordered from Pizza Hut last week and the delivery guy gave me the wrong pizza on his first
day! Definitely not ordering from there again"

GENETIC LACY FALLACY

- an assumption of judgement where one assumes that something or someone is the same as their history
- It disregards the current context and any changes that may have happened since the history
- this fallacy happens because history is often the clearest evidence that one has available
- the more easily we can recall information, the more strongly it influences our judgement of the subject in
question
- our brains ignore the need for any complex thinking and go for the simple answer: the future will be the
same as the past
- yet changes over time and indeed the current context have a strong effect on things
- people, situations, and entire societies are dynamic
- it's more practical to consider history as an extra data point in your calculations, but not the only one
- EXAMPLES: "He started his career working at an ice cream shop; even though he's worked his way up
the chain, I don't think we can give someone like that the CEO position"
"Volkswagen is an evil car company because their cars were designed by Hitler's army
during World War II"

BEGGING THE CLAIM FALLACY

- happens when the points of an argument already assume that a particular conclusion is true
- It is in effect a commitment to the conclusion without honest consideration of the evidence
- this is an incentivized fallacy in the sense that one typically falls into it when they are incentivized to make
the conclusion
- you might really want a particular conclusion to be true because it feels good or benefits you in some way
- you make points that already support the conclusion by default
- but we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions just because they make us feel good; that's no argument!
- an argument should be based on facts, data, and logical reasoning
- be sure to take your emotions and any personal incentives out of the equation when making an argument
- EXAMPLES: "The MacBook Pro is the best laptop computer because no one makes better laptops than
Apple"
"This cereal is really healthy, it's made of all natural ingredients"

CIRCULAR ARGUMENT FALLACY

- occurs when one restates their argument in a different way rather than actually proving it
- instead of doing the hard work required to find and present evidence, the arguing person tries to force
their point by restating it
- technically speaking, the Circular Argument is logically valid
- if you say the original statement that you're trying to prove in a different way, then your statements
effectively act as supporting points for each other
- point (A) supports point (B) and point (B) supports point (A)
- any time someone challenges your conclusion, you have an endless loop of support to back it up
- the problem is that you're never have any real evidence
- so while your argument might sound smooth, it isn't based on any solid information or rationale
- EXAMPLES: "The United States is the best place to live because it’s better than all the other countries"
"Joe is an excellent communicator because he speaks really well"

EITHER/OR FALLACY
- happens when one considers only two options, even though the situation has multiple options
- the two options are usually the most extreme of those available
- people fall into the Either/or Fallacy when they attempt to simplify their problem
- with multiple options to choose from, it's easier to reduce the problem down to just the two most extreme
options
- this isn't ideal, but looks "good enough", especially when the other options are completely forgotten
- but simplifying the problem may lead to a non-optimal or outright bad solution
- extreme options often overlook critical details that more moderate options take into account
- better to look at all the options equally and eliminate them based on facts and logical reasoning
- EXAMPLES: "Look, either we stop driving cars right now or the earth is going to be destroyed"
"If you eat that one piece of chocolate, your diet will be ruined"

AD HOMINEM FALLACY
- happens when one attacks the character of a person, rather than their opinions or arguments
- the attacks are often petty and totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand
- the cheapest and most cowardly of the Logical Fallacies
- it takes a lot less thought, and less courage, to attack a person than it does to form an actual argument
- it's pretty easy to spot – whenever someone switches from logical arguing to irrelevant insults, you know
that it's Ad Hominem at work
- if you find people falling into this fallacy when arguing with you, just ignore their insults and bring the
conversation back to the facts
- if you find yourself falling into it then slow things down, take the time to think of a more concrete and
logical argument
- EXAMPLES: "Mike's idea for this project isn't going to work, he never graduated from Harvard like I did"
"You could never understand how hard I work at the office, you're just fat"

BANDWAGON APPEAL FALLACY

- when one presents what most people think in order to convince someone else to have the same belief
- they are telling that new person to "hop on the bandwagon" because everyone else is doing it
- the pressure of the crowd is incredibly powerful when it comes to persuasion
- from a social perspective, people want to fit in
- from a logical perspective, it's seems smart to follow the crowd
- if everyone else came to a certain conclusion, perhaps there's a good chance that it's correct – or so we
think
- but that's not the way life works
- the same social constructs that worked for others might not be the right fit for your unique situation
- just because 10 or 1000 or even millions of people came to a particular conclusion doesn't make it right
- just ask Galileo about the people who thought the earth was the center of the universe
- EXAMPLES: "200,000 people have already voted for me, can I count on you?"
"C'mon dude, everyone goes out on Friday night! Why would you work-out today of all
days?"

RED HERRING FALLACY

- consists of avoiding the real issue by diverting to a tangential point
- done to avoid having the argument and instead bring up a point that's easier to make and defend
- coming up with a strong argument that directly addresses the key issue is difficult, especially when it has
to be done on the spot like in an interview or debate
- this difficulty is magnified when the issue in question is something important or sensitive
- people fall back to a Red Herring Fallacy to make an easier and still perfectly valid point
- it doesn't address the real issue, but often passes through simply because it still makes sense
- although Red Herrings might make logical sense, they are unproductive since they do not address the key
issue
- the most productive argument is one that deliberately focuses on the real target
- EXAMPLES: "Climate change may be bad, but the current industry for fossil fuels creates over 2 million
jobs"
"The layoffs of all non-citizens last quarter did not affect the release of our new line of
smartphones; customers are loving it!"

STRAW MAN FALLACY

- simplification of an opponent's viewpoint followed by an attack on the simplified version
- simplified viewpoint overlooks contextual details that are important for a clear understanding
- all about assumptions
- instead of digging in to understand the true meaning of the opposing side's argument, one assumes the
worst motive and least intelligence
- this jumping to conclusion makes attacking the opposing viewpoint easy – it's been so over-simplified that
it sounds absurd and even offensive
- jumping to conclusions so rashly is never a good thing
- from a social perspective, it's disrespectful to the opponent as their viewpoint is not given fair thought
- from a logical perspective, it's dangerous as critical details are easily missed
- EXAMPLES: "If you don't support raising the minimum wage then you must hate all poor people"
"Mike: 'If we're going to get a pet, I'd rather have a dog'.
Kathy: 'What makes you hate cats so much?'"

MORAL EQUIVALENCE FALLACY

- compares minor actions to much more serious ones, suggesting that they are equivalent
- this suggestion is made regardless of the nature or magnitude of the actions
- can be thought of more simply as exaggerating
- a person experiences an action or event that affects them emotionally
- they then exaggerate it way out of proportion due to those emotions
- the emotions are so strongly felt that they drive the judgement of moral equivalence
- but different actions or situations should never be judged in the same way
- each one has a different context and affects people differently
- they should be judged based on their own specific context and application to ensure fair consideration
- EXAMPLES: "Taxes are basically the same as theft because the government takes your money with the
threat of violence if you don't comply"
"Kitchen knives and guns can both kill people – therefore we should allow both to be sold in
department stores"

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY FALLACY

- the opinion of an authority figure is used as evidence to support the argument
- this figure of authority is usually a well-known person, like a deep expert or social figure
- attempts to defer the burden of proof to an authority figure
- people trust authority figures by default even if they don't know them personally
- saying that "this well-known person agrees with my opinion" looks like a strong defense to most people
- the problem is that authority figures are not always right
- the opinion of one person may not apply to your specific situation, even if they're really smart
- better to consider authority opinion as a regular data point, at most perhaps with extra weight
- but it shouldn't be the only point in your argument or decision making process
- EXAMPLES: "This is the best sandwich shop in LA, Brad Pitt said so in his interview last week"
"How do I know this stock will go up? Well, Elon Musk tweeted about it just yesterday and
he's rich"

SLOTHFUL INDUCTION FALLACY

- happens when an argument's conclusion is denied, even when there is strong and clear evidence
- the denial is coupled with the denying person pointing to luck and coincidence
- when someone is passionate about a certain belief they'll do anything they can to stick to it, even if it
means avoiding clear evidence against it
- you may present a solid argument, but the other person falls back to Slothful Induction saying that your
information is based on luck or coincidence
- it's an easy defense to make and very hard for you to prove otherwise – even something that's 99.99%
sure can be argued
- the problem of course is that anything can be considered lucky or coincidental if a person believes that it
is
- when making an argument or decision, there has to be some point where we draw a line and say "good
enough evidence"
- EXAMPLES: "I don't believe in climate change, the evidence that scientists collected is probably just the
coincidence of the position of the sun and earth"
"Jacky has been in 5 car accidents in the past 4 months, yet she insists that she's a good
driver because the traffic and weather were bad on all 5 accidents"

CORRELATION/CAUSATION FALLACY
- refers to a situation where a conclusion of causation is made, when in fact there is only correlation
- CAUSATION: one action or event has directly influenced another
- CORRELATION: there is a relationship between two things
- Correlation by its definition is weaker than causation
- a correlation implies a weak relationship; causation implies a direct connection
- assuming a causation when there is only a correlation is a mistake in interpretation
- that is, a similarity is being interpreted as an equivalence
- be careful when making such interpretations
- even if two things are highly correlated, that does not necessarily mean that there is causation
- for causation to occur, there must be a direct connection, 100% reliance between the two events or
actions
- EXAMPLES: "The students enrolled in private tutoring have worse grades than those who aren't;
therefore, student who get tutored do worse in school"
"Since the 1950s, the number of driving-related deaths has gone down by 50% while global
warming has also increased. Therefore, global warming reduces deaths on the road"

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE FALLACY

- arises when one forms their argument based on points from their own personal experiences
- induces bias in the argument, drastically increasing the chances of making a mistake
- most relatable form of evidence you can ever get is from yourself
- things you see, the experiences you have, and the memories you imagine
- a lot easier make those points into an argument than it is to gather robust evidence
- makes a lot more sense in your head as you remember those things more clearly
- but personal experiences are too biased to count as evidence
- a strong argument should be objective, taking biases out of the equation
- requires a well-trained mind to think in a more general and systematic manner
- EXAMPLES: "I eat bacon every day and I'm skinny. Trust me, bacon is good for losing weight"
"The past 10 stocks I bought at 11 AM went up by at least 3% before I sold then at 3 PM. 11
AM is the best time to buy stocks"

MIDDLE GROUND FALLACY

- one argues for the middle point between two options
- the two options are opposing each other, on opposite sides of the topic in question
- when there's a heated argument between two extreme options, it's easier to just select the middle point as
a default
- it's "fair" because it's in the middle, giving half and half to each side
- usually done to avoid conflict by making a decision that is "good enough" for both arguing groups
- total cop-out
- the middle might not be the best solution
- by defaulting to the middle ground, you are deliberately avoiding the task of working through the problem
to find out what the real best answer is
- EXAMPLES: "My friend Bob says it's OK to skip class, but my other friend Mike said I should never skip.
Therefore, I'll only skip half of my classes"
"I did some research and figured our house is worth $1,000,000. But Kathy just offered us
$800,000. We'll settle for the middle price of $900,000"

SUMMARY
LOGICAL FALLACIES
- common errors in reasoning that can break your argument
- they're quite hard to detect as they often result from your built-in human psychology
- the good news is that by being aware of them, you can learn how to deal with them effectively and make
your arguments stronger
 
Slippery Slope- assuming that there will be a big chain reaction
Hasty Generalization- generalizing small things to apply to everything
Genetic- the present is the same as the past
Begging the Claim- making points that assume your conclusion is already true
Circular Argument- point (A) supports point (B) and point (B) supports point (A)
Either/or- reducing a situation down to only two options even when more exist
Ad Hominem- attacking the person instead of the argument
Bandwagon Appeal- if everyone else is doing it then it must be good
Red Herring- diverting to a tangential point to avoid the real issue
Straw Man- assuming the other person has a bad motive or is unintelligent
Moral Equivalence- exaggerating the seriousness of things based on how they made you feel
Appeal to Authority- taking the opinion of authority figures as gospel
Slothful Induction- denying a conclusion by assuming luck or coincidence
Correlation/Causation- concluding that two things are directly connected when they are in fact only highly
correlated
Anecdotal Evidence- making an argument based on biased personal experiences
Middle Ground- picking the middle of the options as a default because it's "fair"

 
Tuesday, February 22, 2022
10:19 AM
 
METHODS OF PHILOSOPHIZING
- various ways of attaining truth or wisdom
- let us not forget the literal meaning of philosophy: "love of wisdom" or the search for truth
- but there is not only one way of searching for the truth
- from ancient philosophy to contemporary philosophy, these methods are varied and evolving

SOCRATIC METHOD
- process of asking open-ended questions that are committed to finding the truth
- form of a dialogue in which people discuss and analyze a specific subject matter
- cross-examination
- a strategy of teaching any subject matter between a teacher and a student (Zack, 2010)
- How does one employ the Socratic Method?
Usually, Socrates would ask questions based on what the person believes.
- may often disappoint us when we discover something we did not intend to say
- sometimes, we become uncertain of our beliefs once we start to question them
- that is why Socrates urges us to examine ourselves, including our beliefs and assumptions in life, when
he said, "An unexamined life is not worth living."
- at first, the Socratic Method seems to be annoying because the questions seem to be unending
- nevertheless, a person has nothing to be afraid of when being asked about anything and discovers
something new and realizes his ignorance
- Socrates' wisdom proceeds from his awareness of his own ignorance
- but asking questions intelligently is a way to resolve our own ignorance, and the Socratic Method will lead
us to find the truth
- It must be emphasized that this method is different from asking questions for the sake of asking them.
Rather, the Socratic Method is the art of asking a question that is committed to the truth. It aims for moral
improvement, to make us wise and virtuous persons (Cain, 2007; Kreeft, 2014).
- sometimes this method may result in one feeling ashamed, however, when one uses this method, he/she
does not seek to harm or destroy a person; instead, the goal is to correct one's opinions and lead him/her
to the truth
- Peter Kreeft (2014) suggests some points on how to apply the Socratic Method, especially with difficult
people, such as those who do not believe in finding the truth together, those who are subjectivists, or those
who refuse to believe that they lack the truth, and the other has it.
1. Establish a Socratic relationship. You are not the teacher, but you are the listener. You are not the
one who knows what is right, but you are the one who needs to be shown what is right.
2. Get the person’s belief, contention, or conclusion. (What is the person really saying?)
3. Understand how the person uses the terms that he uses to avoid ambiguity (What does the person
really mean?).
4. Ask for reasons or supporting evidence. Take note that you must maintain the attitude of a person
who wants to be led by the master or teacher to clarify the claim, not as someone who will ask for reasons
for the sake of refuting it. (Why do you say that…?)
5. Once the person has given his claim, terms, and reasons, make sure to show your understanding of
them by rephrasing them in your own words. In this way, you will let the person feel that you are on the
same track and not letting the person be alone, as if nobody understands him/her.
6. When the person sees that you are on his side, you can start the next level: exploration. You may
go either 'upstream' or 'downstream'. Explore the person's original argument, that is, either go with his/her
premises or reasons, or with the conclusions and their consequences. Suppose that the problem is not the
terms or the logic of the argument but the propositions (or the statements themselves in the given reasons
and conclusion) that need to be investigated. Suppose you believe that the conclusion is false. In that case,
you may take either the two paths: a) Upstream strategy is to show the person what questionable premises
or reasons are necessary to prove his claim, or b) Downstream strategy is to show the person what
questionable conclusions entail when the claim or conclusion is taken as a reason or premise.
7. Use options to give the person a choice. You may provide constructive dilemmas to not let the
person perceive the inadequacy of his/her reasons.
8. You may also match your style with the personalities of the person you are inquiring.

DIALECTICAL METHOD
- can be traced back to Socrates' or Plato's method
- the term "dialectics" is derived from the Greek word dialego, which means to debate or discuss
- in the quest for truth, this is a method of questioning or arguing a premise
- although the dialectical method has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy, the dialectical method we often
use is the one developed mostly by modern philosophers, such as Hegel and Marx.
- It is a method of studying and understanding the real development and change (Cornforth, 2015).
- Reality is in constant conflict. The dialectical method arises from the opposing realities, and even
contradictions are derived from applying the philosophical categories (Borchert, 2006).
- hence the formula of the dialectical method is a thesis versus antithesis results in synthesis, on the one
hand, a thesis refers to a claim
- may be a hypothesis, speculation, declaration, belief, conclusion, or a certain reality
- on the other hand, an antithesis refers to a thesis that negates or opposes the given thesis
- once the thesis and the antithesis clash, another thesis will arise, called a synthesis
- SYNTHESIS: result of the conflict of the thesis and antithesis
- however, a synthesis becomes a new thesis that will be opposed by another antithesis, which will result in
another synthesis
- this process goes on and on until it reaches its pure synthesis
- must be noted that the result of thesis antithesis conflict should not be regarded as favoring one side as if
one side wins over the other
- unlike a debate that has a winner and loser, the dialectic method, on the other hand, is not concerned
about winning or losing but about seeking new ideas that arise from a conflict
- thus, the dialectical method admits the presence of the conflicts, proceeds from the whole truth of the
conflict and gives birth to a new thesis: the synthesis
- nowadays is from the models Georg Hegel and Karl Marx
- Hegel’s dialectic shows how opposite find resolution.
- his view on reality as in constant conflict laid the foundation of his dialectics from the premise that humans
never begin their existence from scratch, but always within some kind of context – a context that changes
sometimes radically within a single generation. In other words, humans are historical beings
- Hegel’s dialectics arises from the logic of his argument above: a thesis versus antithesis results in
synthesis.
- THESIS(Rene Descartes explained the world through a rationalist philosophy.) ⟶ ANTITHESIS(David
Hume contradicted this through His empiricism.) = SYNTHESIS(So, Immanuel Kant resolved it with his
compromise in Critique of Pure Reason.)
- arises from the opposing realities, and even contradictions are derived from applying the philosophical
categories
- the thesis refers to a claim, it may be a hypothesis, speculation, declaration, belief, conclusion, or a
certain reality
- the antithesis refers to a thesis that negates or opposes the given thesis
- one the thesis and antithesis clash, another thesis will arise, called a synthesis
- this synthesis is a result of the conflict of the thesis and antithesis
- this synthesis will then become the new thesis and will be opposed by another antithesis, the process will
go on
- THESIS(Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure reason…) ⟶ ANTITHESIS(…but Georg Hegel thought this
couldn’t explain growth through history.) = SYNTHESIS(Hence, Hegel resulted to the theory of dialectics.)
- it must be noted that the result of thesis-antithesis conflict should not be regarded as favoring one side as
if one side wins over the other
- unlike a debate that has a winner and loser, the dialectic method is not concerned about winning or losing
but about seeking new ideas that arise from a conflict
- thus, the dialectical method admits the presence of the conflicts, proceeds from the whole truth of the
conflict and gives birth to a new thesis: the synthesis
- Philosophers may have differences in using the dialectical method.
- however, they all agree on the relevance of this method in searching for the truth or discovering a new
idea

PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD
- the word phenomenology comes from the two Greek words: phainomenon, which means appearance,
and logos, which means study or reason
- PHENOMENON: appears to the consciousness of the mind
- PHENOMENONOLOGY: investigates the essence of nature of the things that appear to a person
- EDMUND HUSSERL: phenomenology is "the science of the essence of consciousness"
- Husserl's phenomenological method is the most original or also called pure phenomenology.
- emphasizes the person's lived experience to get to the true meaning of reality
- Husserl distinguishes "natural attitude" and "phenomenological attitude."
- NATURAL ATTITUDE: belief that the reality outside the person is relative to and separate from the
person who experiences it
- however, the knowledge that a person will gain from this kind of attitude is not real or true knowledge
- PHENOMENOLOGICAL ATTITUDE: process whereby a person suspends his/her beliefs or the
things he/she has learned from the natural attitude
- "We entirely lack a rational science of man and of the human community."
Science aspires to certainty about the world.
But science is empirical: it depends on experience.
Experience is subject to assumptions and biases.
So, experience by itself is not science.

HOW TO APPLY THIS METHOD?

BRACKETING
- this process is also called epoché, which means to abstain
- the person's experience, beliefs, and learnings are bracketed or 'set aside' to see the thing in itself
- it is like peeling an onion; one has to peel off the outer layers to get its innermost part
- in philosophy, this refers to the unpacking of a certain reality
- thus, one has to let go of his/her biases and prejudices, enclose them, and put them aside
EIDETIC REDUCTION
- movement from fact to essence, a transcendental reality that refers to the immateriality of things, such as
thoughts, feelings, memories, etc
- seeks what is necessary to a thing, such as, ‘what makes a chair a chair’ or ‘what makes a book a book?’
- collects only those attributes from which a thing cannot be without them
- reduce the experience to its essence
- Love is a relationship between two people.
Now we ask: What is it I cannot change?, Can I change their age? Their sex? Their race? Their family
back?
The fact that it is the activity of giving, the disinterested giving of oneself to the other as he is.
EPOCHE
- What is my natural attitude towards love?
- in epoche, we need to suspend our natural attitude towards the object
 
HERMENEUTICS
- associated with the Greek god, Hermes, who was the messenger between gods and humans, derived
from hermêneuein or hermêneusai and hermêneia, which means "interpreting" or "interpretation"
- understanding of a particular reality
- as a method, hermeneutics "offers a toolbox for efficiently treating problems of the interpretation of human
actions, texts, and other meaningful material"
- there are various systems of hermeneutics, one is the hermeneutics of Friedrich Schleiermacher
- SCHLEIERMACHER'S SYSTEM: called as romanticist hermeneutics
- the aim of hermeneutics is "to capture the truth of the text," the truth is taken from how the author
originally meant something
- to achieve this, one starts from the subjective interpreter (or the reader himself), then considers the
historical and the cultural context to grasp the original authorial intention
- the reader should check the author's historical background and the period when the author said/wrote
something, hence, considering those factors will make the reader/interpreter dig out the truth of the text

HERMENEUTICS ON PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS

- Philippians 4:13 (ESV): I can do all things through him who strengthens me.
- Does this mean, whenever I do anything, God will make me successful in it?
In my studies? Love? Business? Dreams? Finances? But when life is not a bed of roses, then Paul must
have lied. Or maybe God doesn’t exist at all!
- SAINT PAUL: author
Who is Saint Paul?
: he is a Jew, an apostle of Jesus Christ
When did he live? What is his historical context?
: lived almost two thousand years ago when the Roman Empire dominated Europe and the
Mediterranean Region
What is the cultural and historical context of his epistle to the Philippians?
: the Philippians were a congregation of Christians in Philippi, Greece
: Paul wrote this letter while he is in prison, probably in Rome or in Ephesus
What is the original intention of Paul when he wrote this?
: the fourth chapter of the epistle talks about being steadfast in hardships and being
content whatever the circumstances (as seen in verse 11)
WHAT IS THE TRUTH IN THIS TEXT, THEN?
(Philippians 4:13 (ESV): I can do all things through him who strengthens me.)
- there is an interplay between the subject, object, and the truth/meaning
- this process only means that in seeking the truth of what the person has said, one must aim for what the
person has intended to say, considering the history and cultural background
- the subjective part may come from the interpreter because he/she is the one who reveals the meaning
- still, the interpreter's meaning is objectively taken from the text itself and how the author of the text
(words) is trying to convey
WHAT IS THE TRUTH, THEN?
- the search for truth is like a vocation – a calling
- there may be only one call, but there can be different ways of answering the call
- in other words, the methods of philosophizing may vary, but they are all guided by and directed towards
the truth
- a person may encounter opinions, facts, and truth while facing a certain problem, but it is a challenge to
determine each one of them
- the methods of philosophizing do not settle with mere opinions and facts, but they always love to
transcend and attain the truth
- hence, a person must be open to the call for truth even if it is against one’s opinion; and from here, he/she
must consider examining the immaterial element of the human person: the embodied spirit

• All these processes belong to the consciousness where it always points at something.
• It is for the person to find out the true meaning of the thing presented to him/her.
• In that case, the phenomenological method helps a person to examine his/her own experience of
something.
• How each person sees things may differ from one another, but with this phenomenological method, one
can understand the essence of one's lived experience.
• For instance, as a student, one will understand his/her student life through the phenomenological method
and draw a realization that explains the universal and necessary elements of the experience of something.
• Indeed, one's experience is never taken for granted in the search for truth.