Introduction to the Philosophy of

the Human Person

(Quarter 1 – Lesson 2.1)
Methods of Philosophizing

Lesson 1 Knowledge and Truth

WHAT IS EPISTEMOLOGY?

There is no one correct definition of epistemology. The one that I’m going to
use came from the philosopher Ayn Rand: “Epistemology is a science devoted to the
discovery of the proper method of acquiring and validating knowledge” (Rand 1990).
The purpose of epistemology therefore is two-fold:

1
 1. To show how we can acquire knowledge.
2. To give us a method of demonstrating whether the knowledge we acquired
is really knowledge (i.e., true).
Since knowledge plays a central role in epistemology let us briefly described its
nature.

THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE

According to Ayn Rand knowledge is a “mental grasp of reality reached either

by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual
observation” (Rand 1990). When you know something (be it the behaviour of your
friend, the movement of the planets, or the origin of civilizations) you understand its
nature. You identify what it is. And it stays with you. Knowledge is a retained form of
awareness (Binswanger 2014).

So how do you acquire knowledge? Miss Rand’s definition gives us two

ways:
First, we can acquire knowledge using our senses: seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling,
smelling.
How do you know that the table is brown? Because you see it. How do you
know that fire is hot? Because you feel it. This method of acquiring knowledge is
called
empiricism and it has many adherents in the history of philosophy such as John
Locke, George Berkley, David Hume.

The Empiricists (From left to right) John Locke, David Hume and George Berkly

Second, we can acquire knowledge by thinking with the use of our minds
(what philosophers call the rational faculty). This is what rationalism advocates.
(Some well-known rationalist in history are Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz).

2
 The Rationalist (From left to right) Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

However thinking is just half of the story of knowing (in fact the second half).
The Reason is that thinking involves content. To think is to think of something. You
cannot think about nothing. This is where sense perception enters the picture by
feeding our mind with data coming from the outside world so that we can have
something to think about.

ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE

Let us now explore the first part of epistemology: the process of acquiring
knowledge.

1. Reality - To know is to know something. This “something” is what philosophers

call reality, existence, being. Let us employ the term existence. Existence is
everything there is (another name for itis the Universe [Peikoff 1990]). It includes

3
everything we perceive (animals, plant, human beings, inanimate objects) and
everything inside our heads (e.g., our thoughts and emotions) which represents
our inner world.

Existence is really all there is to know. If nothing exists knowledge is impossible.

2. Perception - Our first and only contact with reality is through our senses.
Knowledge begins with perceptual knowledge. At first the senses give us
knowledge of things or entities (what Aristotle calls primary substance): dog,
cat, chair, table, man. Later we became aware not only of things but certain
aspects of things like qualities (blue, hard, smooth), quantities (seven inches or
six pounds), relationships (in front of, son of) even actions (jumping, running,
flying). These so called Aristotelian categories cannot be separated from the
entities that have it. Red for example cannot be separated from red objects;
walking cannot be separated from the person that walks etc.

3. Concept- After we perceive things we began to notice that some of the things
we perceive are similar to other things. For example we see three individuals
let’s call them Juan, Pablo and Pedro who may have nothing in common at first
glance. But when we compare them with another entity, a dog for example,
suddenly their differences become insignificant. Their big difference to a dog
highlights their similarity to one another (Binswanger 2014).

We therefore grouped them into one class or group, named the group (“man”
or “human being”) and define what that group is to give it identity (Peikoff 1990).

4. Proposition - When we use concepts in order to classify or describe an

“existent” (a particular that exist be it an object, a person, an action or event,
etc) (Rand 1990) we use what philosophers call a proposition (Binswanger
2014). A proposition is a statement that expresses either an assertion or a
denial (Copi, 2002) that an existent belongs to a class or possess certain
attribute.

Proposition is usually expressed in a declarative sentence. When I say, for

4
 example, that “Men are mortals” I am making an assertion of men which are
affirmative in nature (thus the statement is an affirmative proposition). When I
make an opposite claim however, “Men are not mortals” I am denying
something about men and thus my statement is negative in nature (thus the
proposition is called a negative proposition).

An affirmative proposition therefore has the following structure: “S is P”

(where S is the subject, P is the predicate and “is” is the copula stating the
logical relationship of S and P) while the negative proposition has the structure
“S is not P” (“is not” is the copula expressing denial).

Notice that statements like “Men are mortals”, “Angels are not demons”,
and “Saints are not sinners” can either be true or false. “Truth and falsity are
called the two possible truth values of the statement

5. Inference - How do we demonstrate that the statement is true? By providing an

argument. According to Hurley an argument “is a group of statements, one or
more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reason to
believe one of the others (the conclusion) (Hurley 2011). To clarify this definition
let’s give an example using the famous Socratic argument:

All men are mortals

Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Here we have three related statements (or propositions). The last statement
beginning with the word “therefore” is what we call a conclusion. A conclusion is a
statement that we want to prove. The first two statements are what we call premises
(singular form: premise). A premise provides justification, evidence, and proof to the
conclusion.

An argument expresses a reasoning process which logicians call inference

(Hurley 2011). Arguments however is not the only form of inference but logicians
usually used “argument” and “inference” interchangeably.

THE NATURE OF TRUTH

Now that we know how we know, it’s time to see whether the knowledge we acquired
is “really” knowledge i.e., is true. This is the second part of epistemology: validating
one’s knowledge.

The first step in validating one’s knowledge is to ask oneself the following question:
“How did I arrive at this belief, by what steps?” (Binswanger 2014).

5
The second way can be justified or proven through the use of one’s senses” (Abella
2016). Consider the following statements (Abella 2016):
I am alive.
I have a body.
I can breathe.
You can only validate the above statements if you observed yourself using your
senses. Feel your body. Are you breathing? Feel your pulse. Observe your body. Is it
moving? These and countless examples provided by your senses proved that you’re
alive (Abella 2016).

Statements based on sense perception are factual and if we based our beliefs on
such facts our beliefs are true (Abella 2016).

A third way to determine if the statement is true is through a consensus (Abella

2016). If the majority agrees that a statement is true then it is true. However there
are certain limitations to this approach. Far too many times in history false ideas
became popular which ultimately leads to disaster. For example the vast majority of
Germans during the time of Adolph Hitler believed that Jews are racially inferior. This
is obviously false supported by a pseudo biological science of the Nazi. The result of
this false consensus is the extermination of millions of Jews in many parts of Europe.

A fourth way to determine whether a statement is true is to test it by means of

action (Abella 2016). For example you want to know if a person is friendly. Well the
best way to find out is to approach the person. Thus the famous Nike injunction of
“Just do it” is applicable in this situation.

Domains of Truth

Objective Domain- this pertains to the natural world that maintains a relative
independence from the perspective and attitude of human beings that perceive them.
Scientific truth are covered by the objective domain.
Example: Water’s boiling point is 100˚C.

6
Social Domain- “truth” is analogous with (not the exact equivalent) of a general
agreement or consensus on what is right as opposed to what is wrong.
Example: In some religions, it is okay to have multiple partners or polygamy.
But in some, they teach to only have one partner or monogamy.
Nevertheless, we have to be constantly aware that these truths are “created”
or constructed by people. As such they can be changed through a critical
examination and deliberation among the members of a community.

Personal Domain- truth analogous with sincerity. The truths that we claim in this
domain need corresponding actions that will established trust.
Example: When someone tells you “I am telling you the truth.

TRUTH VS OPINION

Identifying truth however can sometimes be tricky.

The reason is that there are times when we strongly
held an idea that we feel “deep down” to be true.

For example, religious people strongly believed that

there is life after death.

7
 However we must not confused strongly held beliefs with truth. Truth is
knowledge validated and when we say validated we mean they are based on the
facts of reality.

You must understand dear student that the facts of reality are independent of
your thoughts, feelings or preferences (Ayn Rand calls this the primacy of existence
[Rand1982]). That is the characteristic of truth.

For example, the statement “Jose Rizal died in 1896” is true. You may not like that
statement or deny it strongly. That does not change the fact that the statement is
true because it is based on what really happened in the past. There are many
sources that can validate the truth of that
statement if one cared to look.

However when you say that “Jose Rizal is the greatest man who ever lived” you are
stating your preference and not facts. This is an opinion. Now it is true that there are
many facts about Rizal but that statement is asserting something that is beyond
what the facts state. That statement represents not facts but your interpretation of
facts which may reveal your biases.

To summarize an opinion has the following characteristics:

1. Based on emotions
2. Open to interpretation
3. Cannot be confirmed
4. Inherently biased

While truth is:

1. Based on the facts of reality

2. Can be confirmed with other sources
3. Independent of one’s interpretation, preferences and biases

Lesson 2 Theories of Truth

In knowing the truth or falsity of a statement, we generally use the following

Theories of Truth:

8
1. The Correspondence Theory of Truth:

The basic idea of the correspondence theory is that what we believe or

say is true if it corresponds to the way things actually are based on the facts. It
argues that an idea that correspond with reality is true while an idea, which
does not correspond to reality is false.

For example, if I say, “The sky is blue” then I looked outside and saw that it is
indeed blue, then my statement is true. On the other hand, if I say, “Pigs have
wings” and then I checked a pig and it does not have wings, then my statement
is false. In general, statements of beliefs, propositions, and ideas are capable
being true or false.

However, according the Eubulides, a student of the Megara school of

philosophy, “the correspondence theory of truth leaves us in the lurch when we
are confronted with statements such as “I am lying” or “What I am saying
here is false.” These are statements and therefore, are capable of being true
or false. But if they are true because they correspond with reality, then any
preceding statement or proposition must be false. Conversely, if these
statements are false because they do not agree with reality, then any
preceding
statement or proposition must be true. Thus, no matter what we say about
the truth or falsehood of these statements, we immediately contradict
ourselves.”

2. The Coherence Theory of Truth:

It has already been established that the Correspondence Theory

assumes that a belief is true when we are able to confirm it with reality. In
other words, by simply checking if the statement or belief agrees with the way
things really are, we can know the truth. However, as Austin Cline argues,
this manner of determining the truth is rather odd and simplistic.

9
 Cline said that a belief can be an inaccurate description of reality that
may also fit in with a larger, complex system of further inaccurate descriptions
of reality. Thus, by relying on the Correspondence Theory, that inaccurate
belief will still be called “truth” even though it does not actually describe actual
state of things. So how do we resolve this problem?

In order to know the truth of a statement, it must be tested as part of

a larger set of ideas. Statements cannot be sufficiently evaluated in isolation.
For example, if you pick up a ball and drop it accidentally, the action cannot
be simply explained by our belief in the law of gravity which can be verified
but also by a host of other factors that may have something to do with the
incident, such as the accuracy of our visual perception.

For Cline, only when statements are tested as part of a larger system
of
complex ideas, then one might conclude that the statement is “true”. By testing
this set of complex ideas against reality, then one can ascertain
whether the statement is “true” or “false”. Consequently, by using this
method, we establish that the statement “coheres” with the larger system. In
a sense, the Coherence Theory is similar to the Correspondence Theory since
both evaluates statements based on their agreement with reality. The
difference lies in the method where the former involves a larger system while
the latter relies on a single evidence of fact.

As a result, Coherence Theories have often been rejected for lacking

justification in their application to other areas of truth, especially in
statements or claims about the natural world, empirical data in general, and
assertions about practical matters of psychology and society, especially when
they are used without support from the other major theories of truth.

Coherence theories represent the ideas of rationalist philosophers such

as Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
and the British philosopher F.H Bradley. Moreover, this method had its
resurgence in the ideas of several proponents of logical positivism, notably
Otto Neurath and Carl Hempel.

3. The Pragmatist Theory of Truth:

The Pragramatic Theory of Truth states that a belief/statement is true if

it has a useful (pragmatic) application in the world. If it does not, then it is not
true. In addition, we can know whether a belief/statement is true by
examining the consequence of holding or accepting the statement/belief to be
true. For example, there are some people who think that there are “ghosts” or

10
“vampires” because they find it useful in explaining unusual phenomena and
in dealing with fears (Mabaquiao, 2016). So, if we are going to use the word
“truth”, we define it as that which is most useful to us.

However, there are objections against this theory of truth. For Austin
Cline, truth that is based on what works is very ambiguous. What happens
when a belief works in one sense but fails in another? Suppose a belief that
one will succeed may give a person the psychological strength needed to
accomplish a great deal but in the end he fails in his ultimate goal. Was his
belief “true”?

In this sense, Cline argues that when a belief works, it is more

appropriate to call it useful rather than “true”. A belief that is useful is not
necessarily true and in normal conversations, people do not typically use the
word “true” to mean “useful”.

To illustrate, the statement “It is useful to believe that my spouse is

faithful” does not at all mean the same as “It is true that my spouse is faithful.”
Granted
that true beliefs are also usually the ones that are useful, but it is not usually
the case. As Nietzsche argued, sometimes untruth may be more useful than
truth.

In sum, we can know if statements/beliefs are true if we look at each

statement/belief and determine if they correspond to facts, cohere with the
rules of the system and result into useful application.

It must be noted, however, that Philosophers “continue to argue with

eachother on which among these three general methods is the correct one or
onethat works for all kinds of statement or beliefs” (Mabaquiao, 59).
Nevertheless,it is not necessary to subscribe to only one method and consider
it to work for everyone. Perhaps it is better to use any of the three methods
that is appropriate for any given statement or belief that is being examined.

11