MODULE

IN

SSPE112
INTRO TO PHILOSOPHY
AND LOGIC

JAY-R C VARONA
Compiler
1
 COURSE OUTLINE

SSPE112 – Introduction to Philosophy

DURATION TOPICS / ACTIVITIES

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?
Week 1-2 BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY

Week 3-4 CRITICAL THINKING

Week 5-6 INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING

Week 7-8 PRESOCRATICS-BIRTH OF PHILOSOPHY

Week 9-10 SOCRATIC METHOD

PLATO’S APOLOGY
Week 11-12

Week 13-14 Bertrand Russell's 'The Problems of Philosophy

2
WEEK 1-2

DESIRED LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

-To be able to understand what Philosophy is

-To be able to know the parts of Philosophy

Introduction

The goal of this text is to present philosophy to newcomers as a living discipline with
historical roots. While a few early chapters are historically organized, my goal in the
historical chapters is to trace a developmental progression of thought that introduces
basic philosophical methods and frames issues that remain relevant today. Later
chapters are topically organized. These include philosophy of science and philosophy of
mind, areas where philosophy has shown dramatic recent progress.

This text concludes with four chapters on ethics, broadly construed. I cover traditional
theories of right action in the third of these. Students are first invited first to think about
what is good for themselves and their relationships in a chapter of love and happiness.
Next a few meta-ethical issues are considered; namely, whether they are moral truths
and if so what makes them so. The end of the ethics sequence addresses social justice,
what it is for one’s community to be good.
Our sphere of concern expands progressively through these chapters. Our inquiry
recapitulates the course of development into moral maturity.

Over the course of the text I’ve tried to outline the continuity of thought that leads from
the historical roots of philosophy to a few of the diverse areas of inquiry that continue to
make significant contributions to our understanding of ourselves and the world we live in.

What is philosophy?

Many answers have been offered in reply to this question and most are angling at
something similar. My favorite answer is that philosophy is all of rational inquiry except
for science. Perhaps you think science exhausts inquiry. About a hundred years ago,
many philosophers, especially the Logical Positivists, thought there was nothing we
could intelligibly inquire into except for scientific matters. But this view is probably not
3
right. What branch of science

Addresses the question of whether or not science covers all of rational inquiry? If the
question strikes you as puzzling, this might be because you already recognize that
whether or not science can answer every question is not itself a scientific issue.
Questions about the limits of human inquiry and knowledge are philosophical questions.

We can get a better understanding of philosophy by considering what sorts of things

other than scientific issues humans might inquire into. Philosophical issues are as
diverse and far ranging as those we find in the sciences, but a great many of them fall
into one of three big topic areas, metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

Branches of Philosophy

1. Epistemology
Epistemology is the study of “knowledge.” Epistemology deals with the process by
which we can know that something is true. It addresses questions such as:
A. What can I know?
B. How is knowledge acquired?
C. Can we be certain of anything?

Within epistemology there are two important categories rationalism and empiricism.

Rationalism stresses reason as the most important element in knowing. Rationalism

holds that knowledge is gained primarily through the mind. It also asserts that we are
born with innate ideas that precede any experiences we may have with our physical
senses.

Empiricism' on the other hand' asserts that all our knowledge comes from our five
senses. To use the terminology of the empiricist' John Locke' our minds are a “blank
slate” at birth. Thus knowledge comes from our experiences.

2. Metaphysics
Metaphysics is the study of “reality.” +ore specifically it is the study of reality that is
beyond the scientific or mathematical realms. (The term “metaphysics” itself literally
means “beyond the physical.” (The metaphysical issues most discussed are the
existence of ,od' the soul' and the afterlife.

3. Ethics
Ethics is the study of moral value' right and wrong. Ethics is involved with placing value
to personal actions' decisions' and relations. Important ethical issues today include

4
abortion' sexual morality' the death penalty' euthanasia' pornography' and the
environment.

4. Logic
Logic is the study of right reasoning. It is the tool philosophers use to study other
philosophical categories. Good logic includes the use of good thinking skills and the
avoidance of logic fallacies.

5. Aesthetics
Aesthetics is the study of art and beauty. It attempts to address such issues as:
a.
b.
c. rds by which art can be judged?
d.

Critical thinking is a term that we hear a lot, but many people don't really stop to think
about what it means or how to use it. This lesson will tell you exactly what it means and
make you realize that the average person largely ignores critical thinking.
Critical Thinking Defined
Critical thinking means making reasoned judgments that are logical and well-thought out.
It is a way of thinking in which you don't simply accept all arguments and conclusions
you are exposed to but rather have an attitude involving questioning such arguments
and conclusions. It requires wanting to see what evidence is involved to support a
particular argument or conclusion. People who use critical thinking are the ones who
say things such as, 'How do you know that? Is this conclusion based on evidence or gut
feelings?' and 'Are there alternative possibilities when given new pieces of information?'

Additionally, critical thinking can be divided into the following three core skills:

Curiosity is the desire to learn more information and seek evidence as well as being
open to new ideas.
Skepticism involves having a healthy questioning attitude about new information that
you are exposed to and not blindly believing everything everyone tells you.
Finally, humility is the ability to admit that your opinions and ideas are wrong when
faced with new convincing evidence that states otherwise.

Using Critical Thinking Skills

Many people decide to make changes in their daily lives based on anecdotes, or stories
from one person's experience. For example, let's say that your aunt told you that she
takes a vitamin C supplement every day. Additionally, she told you that one morning
she was running late for work and forgot to take her vitamin C supplement. That
afternoon, she developed a cold. She now insists that you take vitamin C every day or
you will get sick, just like she did in her story. Many people hearing this story would just
accept this and think, 'To avoid getting sick I should take vitamin C.'

5
Although this type of logic is very common, it lacks critical-thinking skills. If we examine
this anecdote a little more carefully, you should be able to understand why. For starters,
we don't know where the idea for vitamin C stopping illness even came from. Why did
your aunt decide to take vitamin C rather than vitamin D, or any other vitamin?

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully

conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information
gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or
communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on
universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy,
precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and
fairness.

It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all

reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical
grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences;
objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference. Critical thinking — in
being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes — is incorporated in
a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical
thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking,
and philosophical thinking.

Critical thinking can be seen as having two components: 1) a set of information and
belief generating and processing skills, and 2) the habit, based on intellectual
commitment, of using those skills to guide behavior. It is thus to be contrasted with: 1)
the mere acquisition and retention of information alone, because it involves a particular
way in which information is sought and treated; 2) the mere possession of a set of skills,
because it involves the continual use of them; and 3) the mere use of those skills ("as
an exercise") without acceptance of their results.

Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in
selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service of
one’s own, or one's groups’, vested interest. As such it is typically intellectually flawed,
however pragmatically successful it might be. When grounded in fair-mindedness and
intellectual integrity, it is typically of a higher order intellectually, though subject to the
charge of "idealism" by those habituated to its selfish use.

Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone is subject to
episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought. Its quality is therefore typically a matter
of degree and dependent on, among other things, the quality and depth of experience in
a given domain of thinking or with respect to a particular class of questions. No one is a
critical thinker through-and-through, but only to such-and-such a degree, with such-and-
such insights and blind spots, subject to such-and-such tendencies towards self-

6
delusion. For this reason, the development of critical thinking skills and dispositions is a
life-long endeavor.

Another Brief Conceptualization of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the

highest level of quality in a fair-minded way. People who think critically consistently
attempt to live rationally, reasonably, empathically. They are keenly aware of the
inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked. They strive to
diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies.

They use the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers – concepts and principles that
enable them to analyze, assess, and improve thinking. They work diligently to develop
the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility,
intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason. They
realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their
reasoning abilities and they will at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human
irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, uncritically accepted social rules and taboos,
self-interest, and vested interest.

They strive to improve the world in whatever ways they can and contribute to a more
rational, civilized society. At the same time, they recognize the complexities often
inherent in doing so. They avoid thinking simplistically about complicated issues and
strive to appropriately consider the rights and needs of relevant others. They recognize
the complexities in developing as thinkers, and commit themselves to life-long practice
toward self-improvement. They embody the Socratic principle: The unexamined life is
not worth living , because they realize that many unexamined lives together result in an
uncritical, unjust, dangerous world.

~ Linda Elder, September, 2007

Why Critical Thinking?

The Problem
Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is
biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life
and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our
thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in
thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.

7
A Definition
Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in
which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of
the structures inherent in thinking and
Imposing intellectual standards upon them.

The Result

A well cultivated critical thinker:

Raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely; gathers
and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively comes
to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and
standards; thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and
assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences;
and communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.

Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-

corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and
mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving
abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.

8
Week 1-2 Activity

Name: ___________________________ Date: _____________-

Section: __________________________

DIRECTIONS: Answer each questions below. Your essay should be well organized and
as carefully written
As you can make it.

1. How Philosophy is important in the lives of human beings?

2. Why do we need to use our critical thinking skills?
3. Why people should embody Ethics?

9
WEEK 3-4
DESIRED LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

-To be able to know the role of arguments in critical thinking

-To be able to identify different arguments

CRITICAL THINKING

In this lesson, you'll consider what makes a good argument that involves critical thinking.
You'll also learn the shortcomings of using opinions to try to prove a claim is valid.

Learning from the Facts

Have you ever held an opinion about something and you turned out to be wrong?
Somehow you discovered the facts and realized, 'Oops, I goofed,' and had to recognize
the new information as valid.

In this lesson, you'll consider the value of a logical approach when aiming to prove
something is valid and correct. You'll compare this approach to using subjective
opinions rather than facts. You'll also spend some time considering the role of intuition
in philosophical traditions.

Texting and Driving

There are people out on the roads as we speak who believe they can text and drive at
the same time and stay effective at both tasks. They've done it before, and they've
survived to do it again.

What evidence do they have that this behavior isn't really dangerous? Perhaps they
know others who've done it and haven't yet had an accident. Or, they themselves do it
and have had no close calls yet.

What if a person who thinks it's possible to text and drive at the same time were to
construct an argument about their claim? Let's look at whether a person is using critical
thinking skills if they make this argument.

An Argument without Evidence

Zoey often drives distracted, and she's willing to take a stab at explaining why she
thinks it's not a problem. She starts off by saying, 'In my opinion, people are too worried
about what may or may not happen.' Is Zoey's argument strong in this case? Not at all.
She's using her general opinion to express a viewpoint that has no basis in any solid
reasoning except that she thinks people worry too much overall.

What if she was pressed to give evidence as to why it's safe to drive and text at the
same time? Zoey might respond by saying, 'I've never had an accident. My friends have

10
never had accidents.' She is using a very minimal sample of people to prove her point,
which is not effective evidence in this case given how many people drive on the road.

What if we presented Zoey with statistics that have been gathered by those that do
have access to what causes great numbers of drivers to crash? According to the official
website of the U.S. Government that deals with distracted driving, 'Engaging in visual-
manual sub-tasks (such as reaching for a phone, dialing and texting) associated with
the use of hand-held phones and other portable devices increased the risk of getting
into a crash by three times.' The research was released by the Virginia Tech
Transportation Institute, which utilized official reports of real-life accidents as examples.
This makes a much more compelling case. Zoey may have a harder time refuting this
specific data that estimates that a person is three times more likely to get in a crash, a
significant jump up from the usual level of risk.

Opinions vs. Justified Claims

What about in philosophy, where there may or may not be statistics and concrete data
like the distracted driving information from Virginia Tech? Even when there is not a vast
amount of data available, many philosophers still aim to make arguments using critical
thinking.

A critical thinking approach avoids relying on subjective opinions. Subjective opinions

are ones that are based on our interpretation of very limited information and making
judgment calls before weighing the evidence. Often, opinions rely on emotional
responses and assumptions we have made about an issue, rather than careful,
conscious thought.

So, subjective opinions have their shortcomings. This doesn't make opinions worthless.
We often have to make these types of judgments in life. Yet when you are making an
argument in philosophy, a person will want to focus more heavily on justified claims, or
conclusions that are valid and sound based on evidence.

Traits of Critical Thinkers

Open-mindedness
Critical thinkers are open and receptive to all ideas and arguments, even those with
which they may disagree. Critical thinkers reserve judgment on a message until they
have examined the claims, logic, reasoning, and evidence used. Critical thinkers are
fair-minded and understand that a message is not inherently wrong or flawed if it differs
from their own thoughts. Critical thinkers remain open to the possibility of changing their
view on an issue when logic and evidence supports doing so.

11
Analytic Nature
Critical thinkers are interested in understanding what is happening in a message.
Critical thinkers ask questions of the message, breaking it into its individual components
and examining each in turn. Critical thinkers dissect these components looking for
sound logic and reasoning.

Systematic by Method
Critical thinkers avoid jumping to conclusions. Critical thinkers take the time to
systematically examine a message. Critical thinkers apply accepted criteria or
conditions to their analyses.

Inquisitive
Critical thinkers are curious by nature. Critical thinkers ask questions of what is going on
around them and in a message. Critical thinkers want to know more and take action to
learn more.

Judicious
Critical thinkers are prudent in acting and making judgments. Critical thinkers are
sensible in their actions. That is, they don’t just jump on the bandwagon of common
thought because it looks good or everyone else is doing it.

Truth-Seeking Ethos
Critical thinkers exercise an ethical foundation based in searching for the truth. Critical
thinkers understand that even the wisest people may be wrong at times.

Confident in Reasoning
Critical thinkers have faith in the power of logic and sound reasoning. Critical thinkers
understand that it is in everyone’s best interest to encourage and develop sound logic.
More importantly, critical thinkers value the power of letting others draw their own
conclusions.

Recall that critical thinking is an active mode of thinking. Instead of just receiving
messages and accepting them as is, we consider what they are saying. We ask if
messages are well-supported. We determine if their logic is sound or slightly flawed. In
other words, we act on the messages before we take action based on them. When we
enact critical thinking on a message, we engage a variety of skills including: listening,
analysis, evaluation, inference and interpretation or explanation, and self-regulation.

Next, we will examine each of these skills and their role in critical thinking in greater
detail. As you read through the explanation of and examples for each skill, think about
how it works in conjunction with the others. It’s important to note that while our
discussion of the skills is presented in a linear manner, in practice our use of each skill
is not so straightforward. We may exercise different skills simultaneously or jump
forward and backward.

12
Without an open-minded mind, you can never be a great success. ~ Martha
Stewart

Listening
In order to understand listening, we must first understand the difference between
listening and hearing. At its most basic, hearing refers to the physiological process of
receiving sounds, while listening refers to the psychological process of interpreting or
making sense of those sounds.

Every minute of every day we are surrounded by hundreds of different noises and
sounds. If we were to try to make sense of each different sound we would probably
spend our day just doing this. While we may hear all of the noises, we filter out many of
them. They pass through our lives without further notice. Certain noises, however, jump
to the forefront of our consciousness. As we listen to them, we make sense of these
sounds. We do this every day without necessarily thinking about the process. Like many
other bodily functions, it happens without our willing it to happen.

Critical thinking requires that we consciously listen to messages. We must focus on

what is being said – and not said. We must strive not to be distracted by other outside
noises or the internal noise of our own preconceived ideas. For the moment we only
need to take in the message.

Listening becomes especially difficult when the message contains highly charged
information. Think about what happens when you try to discuss a controversial issue
such as abortion. As the other person speaks, you may have every good intention of
listening to the entire argument.

However, when the person says something you feel strongly about you start formulating
a counter-argument in your head. The end result is that both sides end up talking past
each other without ever really listening to what the other says.

Analysis
Once we have listened to a message, we can begin to analyze it. In practice we often
begin analyzing messages while still listening to them. When we analyze something, we
consider it in greater detail, separating out the main components of the message. In a
sense, we are acting like a surgeon on the message, carving out all of the different
elements and laying them out for further consideration and possible action.

Let’s return to Shonda’s persuasive speech to see analysis in action. As part of the
needs section of her speech, Shonda makes the following remarks:

Americans today are some of the unhealthiest people on Earth. It seems like not a week
goes by without some news story relating how we are the fattest country in the world. In
addition to being overweight, we suffer from a number of other health problems. When I
was conducting research for my speech, I read somewhere that heart attacks are the

13
number one killer of men and the number two killer of women. Think about that. My
uncle had a heart attack and had to be rushed to the hospital. They hooked him up to a
bunch of different machines to keep him alive. We all thought he was going to die. He’s
ok now, but he has to take a bunch of pills every day and eat a special diet. Plus he had
to pay thousands of dollars in medical bills. Wouldn’t you like to know how to prevent
this from happening to you?

If we were to analyze this part of Shonda’s speech (see Table 6.2), we could begin by
looking at the claims she makes. We could then look at the evidence she presents in
support of these claims. Having parsed out the various elements, we are then ready to
evaluate them and by extension the message as a whole.

Evaluation

When we evaluate something we continue the process of analysis by assessing the

various claims and arguments for validity. One way we evaluate a message is to ask
questions about what is being said and who is saying it. The following is a list of typical
questions we may ask, along with an evaluation of the ideas in Shonda’s speech.

Self-Regulation

The final step in critically examining a message is actually a skill we should exercise
throughout the entire process. With self-regulation, we consider our pre-existing
thoughts on the subject and any biases we may have. We examine how what we think
on an issue may have influenced the way we understand (or think we understand) the
message and any conclusions we have drawn. Just as contradictory evidence doesn’t
automatically negate our claims or invalidate our arguments, our biases don’t
necessarily make our conclusions wrong. The goal of practicing self-regulation is not to
disavow or deny our opinions. The goal is to create distance between our opinions and
the messages we evaluate.

The Value of Critical Thinking

In public speaking, the value of being a critical thinker cannot be overstressed. Critical
thinking helps us to determine the truth or validity of arguments. However, it also helps
us to formulate strong arguments for our speeches. Exercising critical thinking at all
steps of the speech writing and delivering process can help us avoid situations like
Shonda found herself in. Critical thinking is not a magical panacea that will make us
super speakers. However, it is another tool that we can add to our speech toolbox.

14
Week 3-4 Activity

Name: ___________________________ Date: _____________-

Section: __________________________

DIRECTIONS: Answer each questions below. Your essay should be well organized and
as carefully written
As you can make it.

1. EXPLAIN. Without an open-minded mind, you can never be a great success. ~

Martha Stewart
2. What is value of critical thinking?
3. Why do we need to study the roles of arguments in critical thinking?

15
WEEK 5-6
DESIRED LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

-To be able to differentiate deductive to inductive reasoning

-To be able use inductive and deductive reasoning in evaluating situation

Inductive and deductive reasoning are often confused. This lesson introduces the
concept of reasoning and gives you tips and tricks to keeping inductive and deductive
reasoning straight.

Using Reasoning

Andrew and Kevin are studying for their upcoming speech final. They have to define
inductive and deductive reasoning and provide examples of each. Kevin says he has a
great example for deductive reasoning: 'Every time it hails, I get a dent in my car. Every
time it hails, my dad gets a dent in his car. Every time it hails, my brother gets a dent in
his car. Every time it hails, everyone will get a dent in their cars.'

Andrew says that Kevin does not have an example of deductive reasoning, but it is
better as an example for inductive reasoning. Who is right?

In this lesson, you will learn about the concept of reasoning and how it is used in
conjunction with logic for inductive and deductive arguments.

Reasoning and Logic

First, let's discuss the concept of reasoning. Reasoning is the action of constructing
thoughts into a valid argument. This is something you probably do every day. When you
make a decision, you are using reasoning, taking different thoughts and making those
thoughts into reasons why you should go with one option over the other options
available. When you construct an argument, that argument will be either valid or invalid.
A valid argument is reasoning that is comprehensive on the foundation of logic or fact.

Now let's discuss propositional logic. Inductive and deductive reasoning are both forms
of propositional logic. Propositional logic is the branch of logic that studies ways of
joining and/or modifying entire propositions, statements or sentences to form more
complicated propositions, statements or sentences. For our purposes, this means that
propositional logic uses a series of facts and reasoning to develop a conclusion.
Inductive and deductive reasoning use propositional logic to develop valid arguments
based on fact and reasoning. Both types of reasoning have a premise and a conclusion.
How each type of reasoning gets to the conclusion is different.

16
Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning is reasoning where the premises support the conclusion. The
conclusion is the hypothesis, or probable. This means that the conclusion is the part of
reasoning that inductive reasoning is trying to prove. Inductive reasoning is also referred
to as 'cause and effect reasoning' or 'bottom-up reasoning' because it seeks to prove a
conclusion first. This is usually derived from specific instances to develop a general
conclusion.

Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader
generalizations and theories. Informally, we sometimes call this a “bottom up” approach
(please note that it’s “bottom up” and not “bottoms up” which is the kind of thing the
bartender says to customers when he’s trying to close for the night!). In inductive
reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns
and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally
end up developing some general conclusions or theories.

Kevin and Andrew are now arguing about

math. Kevin says that all big brothers are
good at math. Andrew is an only child, but
he's pretty sure that this argument cannot be
valid.

Kevin makes a conclusion based on the

following premises: 'My older brother is good
at math. My friend's older brother is good at
math. My neighbor's big brother is a math
tutor. Therefore, all older brothers are good at math.'

You've probably heard people use this type of reasoning in life. We know this can't be
true. You probably know that being an older brother doesn't inherently make you good
at math. What Kevin has done is made a generalized conclusion: all older brothers are
good at math based on three premises of specific instances: Mine, my friend's and my
neighbor's older brother are all good at math. These specific instances are not
representative of the entire population of older brothers. Because inductive reasoning is
based on specific instances, it can often produce weak
and invalid arguments.

You can remember inductive reasoning like this:

inductive reasoning is bottom-up reasoning; it starts
with a probable conclusion and induces premises.

Deductive Reasoning

17
Deductive reasoning is reasoning where true premises develop a true and valid
conclusion. In the case of deductive reasoning, the conclusion must be true if the
premises are also true. Deductive reasoning uses general principles to create a specific
conclusion. Deductive reasoning is also known as 'top-down reasoning' because it goes
from general and works its way down more specific.

Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this
is informally called a “top-down” approach. We might begin with thinking up a theory
about our topic of interest. We then narrow that down into more specific hypotheses that
we can test. We narrow down even further when we collect observations to address the
hypotheses. This ultimately leads us to be able to test the hypotheses with specific data
– a confirmation (or not) of our original theories.

For example, 'All cars have engines. I have a car. Therefore, my car has an engine.'

These two methods of reasoning have a very different “feel” to them when you’re
conducting research. Inductive reasoning, by its very nature, is more open-ended and
exploratory, especially at the beginning. Deductive reasoning is narrower in nature and
is concerned with testing or confirming hypotheses. Even though a particular study may
look like it’s purely deductive (e.g., an experiment designed to test the hypothesized
effects of some treatment on some outcome), most social research involves both
inductive and deductive reasoning processes at some time in the project. In fact, it
doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that we could assemble the two graphs above into
a single circular one that continually cycles from theories down to observations and
back up again to theories. Even in the most constrained experiment, the researchers
may observe patterns in the data that lead them to develop new theories.

Deductive reasoning uses given information, premises or accepted general rules to

reach a proven conclusion. On the other hand, inductive logic or reasoning involves
making generalizations based upon behavior observed in specific cases.

How do we identify flaws?

The Logical Reasoning section includes a number of questions that ask you to identify a
weakness in an argument’s reasoning. You’ll be presented with an argument that is
flawed in some way. Your task? To describe why the argument isn’t sound.

18
How do we recognize Flaw questions?

In Flaw questions, you’ll see:

 A full argument in the passage, with a main conclusion and supporting evidence.
 Choices that contain descriptions of different flaws.

Questions of this kind are worded in a variety of ways:

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

The argument commits which one of the following errors of reasoning?

The argument’s reasoning is questionable because the argument fails to rule out the
possibility that

The reasoning above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

Top tip: Pay attention to the end of the question. Some Flaw questions will actually give
you some “bonus language” at the end of it—for instance, the third example above ends
with, “the argument fails to rule out the possibility that”. This clue tells you to be on the
lookout for a possibility that the arguer has overlooked. This is a specific kind of flaw, so
you already have more information than you would have if the question asked “Which
one of the following errors of reasoning does the argument commit?”

You should assume that the argument is defective in some way. Your job is to figure out
how, and to select the choice that accurately describes an error or weakness.

Flaw: A reasoning error or defect; a feature of an argument's reasoning that keeps the
argument from delivering the degree of support that it claims to deliver for its conclusion.

19
Week 5-6 Activity

Name: ___________________________ Date: _____________-

Section: __________________________

Directions: Read each example. Respond to the prompt that follows.

Inductive Reasoning

The bakery sold 316 apple pies last week. The bakery sold 225 lemon Cakes. No more
than 200 were sold of any other kind of product. Apple pies are currently the most
popular item in the bakery.

1. Underline the specific facts. Circle the conclusion.

Deductive Reasoning

Humans cannot survive in temperatures over 200°F. Temperatures on the planet

Mercury average over 300°F. Humans, therefore, cannot survive unprotected on the
planet Mercury.

2. Underline the general premise. Double underline the specific situation. Circle the
specific conclusion.

Deductive Reasoning

All snakes lay eggs. Chickens lay eggs too. Therefore, chickens must be snakes.

3. Explain why the conclusion is flawed.

20
WEEK 7-8
DESIRED LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

-To be able to know the birth of philosophy

-To be able construct meaning along the presocratic

This lecture covers the advent of philosophy. It first differentiates philosophy from
religion, drawing parallels to modern science. It then establishes the basic questions of
Pre-Socratic philosophy: What is matter? and What causes change? The rest of the
lecture demonstrates how these questions developed as they were tackled by
generations of Pre-Socratic philosophers. Finally, it makes plain our incredible debt to
the Pre-Socratic.

Observing Reality around Us

Look out the window at the world around you. What do you see? Whether you said the
curtains, a dog, trees or the sun, what you're talking about is matter. Now look harder at
those things you saw. What are those things doing? The curtain billows in the breeze.
The dog scratches itself. The trees grow. The sun shines as it moves across the sky. All
this moving, growing, billowing and scratching are examples of change. As you reflect
on what you see, you might wonder 'What is matter?' and 'What are all these things
made of?' You might also wonder 'What causes these changes?'

If you were an ancient person, you would look to religion to answer these questions.
The sun is the god Helios, driving his fiery chariot across the sky. As a modern person,
you know that this answer is wrong. The sun is a gigantic fusion reactor, floating in the
void of space. It only appears to move across the sky because the earth is spinning
beneath it.

So, what differentiates our modern understanding of the sun from the ancient one? The
ancient perspective looks to religion for explanations. Religious explanations tend to be
rather inflexible things, so people end up believing ridiculous things for centuries, like
the sun is a fiery chariot or a dung beetle pushing a giant flaming turd across the sky.
Despite the fact that no one has seen any horses or beetles (at least, not sober).

By contrast, we look for our explanations in nature, in forces we can perceive and
understand. Though none of us has ever been to the sun, we can observe similar
phenomena here on earth. After observation, we can come up with general rules about
nature. We can then apply what we learned about nature on earth to make conjectures
about the sun. Moreover, we're not married to any specific theory. 'The sun is fire' is not
a law or a dogma; it's just an idea. And because it's just an idea, we can identify
problems with it:

21
How could a fire's heat reach so far?
How can you have a fire in a vacuum?
How come the sun doesn't burn out?

Because we subject our theories to critical analysis, false explanations can be refuted.
And as we take in new observations, we can come up with new theories to overcome
these problems, making refinements along the way. In short, by observing nature, we
can understand how it works. We can explain the universe, not by reference to the
divine, but by reference to the mundane experiences and observations that make up our
lives. Today we call this process science. In ancient Greece, they called it philosophy.
The word 'philosophy' is composed of the Greek word philos, meaning 'love of,' and
sophia, meaning 'wisdom.' Philosophy is literally the 'love of wisdom.'

The Presocratics

When we think of Greek philosophy, our minds leap immediately to Socrates, Plato, and
Aristotle. Yet Greeks had been engaging in philosophy for nearly 200 years before
Socrates was born. These philosophers are known today as the Presocratics.
Presocratic philosophers attempted to tackle the same questions we began this lecture
with: 'What is the universe made of?' and 'Why do things change?' These questions
seem to have begun as a matter of linguistics rather than science.

The heart of the problem was the word esti, the Greek word for 'to be.' If the sun is gas,
then the sun is not a man in a chariot. If the sun is here, then the sun is not there. These
may seem like perfectly logical statements to us, but logic had not yet been invented
when the first philosophers began writing in 600 BCE. What upset the Presocratics was
not so much whether the sun was a gas or a man in a chariot; no, what worried the
Presocratic philosophers was that the sun both is and is not. It seemed wrong to the
Presocratics for the sun, or anything else, to not be. Everything must be something at all
times, no matter what changes we might see.

The Monists
Thales was a monist who believed everything was made of water

For Thales' student, Anaximander (610-546 BCE), the constant could not be something
with set characteristics, like water. Instead, he argued that the universe was made up of
some stuff without any characteristics at all and that matter gains its characteristics (hot
and cold, hard and soft, wet and dry) from being separated from this undefinable whole.

Anaximander's student, Anaximenes (585-528 BCE), decided that this stuff without
qualities was air. The other basic elements, earth and water, were made by
compressing air, while fire was made by spreading air out thinly.

22
We call these first three philosophers the Monists because they believed the universe to
be made of just one material. They are also called the Milesian School because they all
came from the city of Miletus.

The Pythagorians

Meanwhile, on the Island of Samos, Pythagoras (582-496 BCE) proposed a very

different constant for the universe: numbers. We all remember Pythagoras for his
famous theorem, a^2 + b^2 = c^2, but Pythagoras was not trying to help you calculate
the sides of a right triangle when he came up with this theorem. He was trying to explain
a basic constant in the universe. He would demonstrate this constant like this:

Pythagoras would have a person draw a right triangle. He would then use tiles to make
a square on each side. (This is where we get the word 'squared.') He'd then have
people count the number of tiles on each side, and lo and behold, the number of tiles on
the hypotenuse always equaled the sum of the tiles from the other two sides.
Pythagoras had realized through doing this over and over and over again that no matter
the size or shape of the right triangle, the number of tiles in the squares of the sides
always equaled the number of squares on the hypotenuse. While the many triangles we
perceive might seem different, they all follow the same constant rule.

This was not the only constant Pythagoras discovered. Pythagoras was also the first to
explain the mathematical ratios of music. No matter how long a string is, another string,
one-sixth its length, would produce a chord. Realizing that these sorts of ratios pop up
everywhere, Pythagoras supposed that numbers and ratios were the main constants of
the universe.

Pythagoras noticed a number of constant mathematical ratios in the universe

Heraclitus

Heraclitus of Ephesus (535-475 BCE) had a very different idea. For Heraclitus, the only
constant was change. He believed the opposing forces of the universe were constantly
trying to tear the world apart. These opposites were only held together by natural law, or
logos. He compared this to the two ends of a bow pulling away from each other. This
pulling is meaningless on its own. Left to their own devices, the two opposing ends will
just make a worthless stick. Yet held together by the string of natural law, they make a
powerful, dynamic tool. Like Pythagoras, Heraclitus had decided that the constants of
the universe were not in matter itself, but rather in how matter behaves. From him, we
received the adage 'All things change, so that all things may remain the same.' His
ideas would later be revived in chaos theory.

The Eleatics

23
Directly opposed to Heraclitus was Parmenides of Elea (510-440 BCE). Parmenides
was so hung up on the is/is not problem that he denied all change or difference in the
universe. His work is some of the most difficult to understand, but basically, he
postulated that the entire universe was one giant sphere of unidentifiable stuff. In this,
he copied Anaximenes in thinking that to have the characteristics of everything, the
main stuff of the universe had to have no characteristics of its own. Yet Parmenides
went further by denying that this stuff ever broke up to form other things. For him, the
universe just is. It never was not. It always will be. To suggest that an apple is different
from an orange is to say that the apple is not an orange, and this is not acceptable. He
also insists that things cannot move. To say that the apple falls from a tree is to say that
the apple is not on the tree any longer. Of course, to believe in Parmenides' account,
one must ignore all the evidence of one's senses. This might not seem very scientific,
but it is certainly philosophical. Parmenides' philosophy would have lasting implications
on future philosophy, by placing ideas on a higher order than observation.

Another resident of Elea, Zeno (490-430 BCE), attempted to demonstrate Parmenides'

theory with a series of paradoxes. In these paradoxes, Zeno tried to prove that things
like change and motion were impossible. A single example should suffice:

Xenophanes: Anthropomorphism and Pantheism

Xenophanes (c. 570–c.478 BCE) was a self-taught poet and philosopher who attacked
traditional notions of the gods and offered a conception of God as identical to the
cosmos as a whole. Born in the Ionian city of Colophon, near Miletus, Xenophanes left
home when around 25 to be a traveling poet throughout the Greek cities, and for some
time settled in the city of Elea. A story relates how a fellow philosopher once said to
Xenophanes that he was unable to find a wise person. Xenophanes replied, “That’s very
likely, since it takes a wise person to discover a wise person.” Xenophanes authored
several works in poetic form, and recited them publicly during his travels. Of the
surviving material from them, three topics that he discusses are especially important in
philosophy.

First, he holds that our concepts of things are often relative to the perceiver; he
writes, “If god had not made brown honey, people would think that figs are far sweeter
than they do think of about them.” This may be the first written account of the
philosophical position of relativism, namely, the view that the truth of some important
claims depends on the views of some individual or social group. Xenophanes’ example
of the sweetness of figs focuses specifically on the information that we receive through
our senses. Figs indeed taste sweet to us, but the level of sweetness that we assign to
figs depends on whether we’ve ever had honey, which is much sweeter. Perceptual
relativism like this is rather innocent, but other areas of relativism are more controversial,
such as the view that whether the rock in front of me actually exists or whether the
reality of the rock depends on the views held by me or some social group. From his
fragmentary writings, it’s not clear how far Xenophanes pushed the issue of relativism,
although some Greek philosophers after him indeed pushed it to its extreme.

24
 A second area of focus for Xenophanes is his satirical attack on
anthropomorphic conceptions of the gods, particularly as held by Homer, Hesiod and
Pythagoras. Anthropomorphism is the tendency to ascribe human qualities to non-
human things, and this occurs in religion when we describe divine beings as having
human qualities. He writes,

"Homer and Hesiod have ascribed to the gods everything that is shameful and
disgraceful to mortals: theft, adultery and deception of each other."

"If oxen and horses or lions had hands, and could paint with their hands and produce
works of art as people do, horses would paint the forms of the gods like horses, and
oxen like oxen, and make their bodies in the image of their own kinds."

"The Ethiopians make their gods black and snub-nosed, the Thracians say theirs have
blue eyes and red hair"

25
Week 7-8 Activity

Name: ___________________________ Date: _____________-

Section: __________________________

Directions: Answer each questions below. Your essay should be well organized and as
carefully written
As you can make it.

1. What are the two possible meanings of Thales’ claim that water is the primary
stuff of nature?
2. EXPLAIN. Heraclitus had decided that the constants of the universe were not in
matter itself, but rather in how matter behaves.
3. According to Pythagoras, what role do numbers and ratios play in the larger
scheme of reality?

26
WEEK 9-10
DESIRED LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

-To be able to know who is Socrates

-To be able evaluate the Socratic Method

Socrates was an ancient Greek philosopher considered to be the main source of

Western thought. He was condemned to death for his Socratic method of questioning.
Who Was Socrates?
Socrates was a scholar, teacher and philosopher born in ancient Greece. His Socratic
method laid the groundwork for Western systems of logic and philosophy.

When the political climate of Greece turned against him, Socrates was sentenced to
death by hemlock poisoning in 399 B.C. He accepted this judgment rather than fleeing
into exile.

Early Years
Born circa 470 B.C. in Athens, Greece, Socrates's life is chronicled through only a few
sources: the dialogues of Plato and Xenophon and the plays of Aristophanes.

Because these writings had other purposes than reporting his life, it is likely none
present a completely accurate picture. However, collectively, they provide a unique and
vivid portrayal of Socrates's philosophy and personality.

Socrates was the son of Sophroniscus, an Athenian stonemason and sculptor, and
Phaenarete, a midwife. Because he wasn't from a noble family, he probably received a
basic Greek education and learned his father's craft at a young age. It's believed
Socrates worked as mason for many years before he devoted his life to philosophy.

ontemporaries differ in their account of how Socrates supported himself as a

philosopher. Both Xenophon and Aristophanes state Socrates received payment for
teaching, while Plato writes Socrates explicitly denied accepting payment, citing his
poverty as proof.

27
Socrates married Xanthippe, a younger woman, who bore him three sons: Lamprocles,
Sophroniscus and Menexenus. There is little known about her except for Xenophon's
characterization of Xanthippe as "undesirable."

He writes she was not happy with Socrates's second profession and complained that he
wasn’t supporting family as a philosopher. By his own words, Socrates had little to do
with his sons' upbringing and expressed far more interest in the intellectual development
of Athens' other young boys.

Life in Athens
Athenian law required all able-bodied males serve as citizen soldiers, on call for duty
from ages 18 until 60. According to Plato, Socrates served in the armored infantry —
known as the hoplite — with shield, long spear and face mask.

He participated in three military campaigns during the Peloponnesian War, at Delium,

Amphipolis and Potidaea, where he saved the life of Alcibiades, a popular Athenian
general.

Socrates was known for his fortitude in battle and his fearlessness, a trait that stayed
with him throughout his life. After his trial, he compared his refusal to retreat from his
legal troubles to a soldier's refusal to retreat from battle when threatened with death.

Plato's Symposium provides the best details of Socrates' physical appearance. He was
not the ideal of Athenian masculinity. Short and stocky, with a snub nose and bulging
eyes, Socrates always seemed to appear to be staring.

28
However, Plato
pointed out that
in the eyes of his
students,
Socrates
possessed a
different kind of
attractiveness,
not based on a
physical ideal
but on his
brilliant debates
and penetrating
thought.

Socrates always
emphasized the
importance of
the mind over
the relative
unimportance of
the human body.
This credo
inspired Plato’s
philosophy of
dividing reality
into two separate
realms, the world
of the senses
and the world of
ideas, declaring
that the latter
was the only
important one.

Philosophy
Socrates
believed that
philosophy
should achieve
practical results
for the greater
well-being of
society. He

29
attempted to establish an ethical system based on human reason rather than
theological doctrine.

Socrates pointed out that human choice was motivated by the desire for happiness.
Ultimate wisdom comes from knowing oneself. The more a person knows, the greater
his or her ability to reason and make choices that will bring true happiness.

Socrates believed that this translated into politics with the best form of government
being neither a tyranny nor a democracy. Instead, government worked best when ruled
by individuals who had the greatest ability, knowledge and virtue, and possessed a
complete understanding of themselves.

Socratic Method
For Socrates, Athens was a classroom and he went about asking questions of the elite
and common man alike, seeking to arrive at political and ethical truths. Socrates didn’t
lecture about what he knew. In fact, he claimed to be ignorant because he had no ideas,
but wise because he recognized his own ignorance.

He asked questions of his fellow Athenians in a dialectic method — the Socratic Method
— which compelled the audience to think through a problem to a logical conclusion.
Sometimes the answer seemed so obvious, it made Socrates' opponents look foolish.
For this, his Socratic Method was admired by some and vilified by others.

During Socrates' life, Athens was going through a dramatic transition from hegemony in
the classical world to its decline after a humiliating defeat by Sparta in the
Peloponnesian War. Athenians entered a period of instability and doubt about their
identity and place in the world.

As a result, they clung to past glories, notions of wealth and a fixation on physical
beauty. Socrates attacked these values with his insistent emphasis on the greater
importance of the mind.

While many Athenians admired Socrates' challenges to Greek conventional wisdom and
the humorous way he went about it, an equal number grew angry and felt he threatened
their way of life and uncertain future.

Trial of Socrates
In 399 B.C., Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth of Athens and of impiety, or
heresy. He chose to defend himself in court.

Rather than present himself as wrongly accused, Socrates declared he fulfilled an

important role as a gadfly, one who provides an important service to his community by
continually questioning and challenging the status quo and its defenders.

30
The jury was not swayed by Socrates' defense and convicted him by a vote of 280 to
221. Possibly the defiant tone of his defense contributed to the verdict and he made
things worse during the deliberation over his punishment.

Athenian law allowed a convicted citizen to propose an alternative punishment to the

one called for by the prosecution and the jury would decide. Instead of proposing he be
exiled, Socrates suggested he be honored by the city for his contribution to their
enlightenment and be paid for his services.

The jury was not amused and sentenced him to death by drinking a mixture of poison
hemlock.

Socrates' Death
Before Socrates' execution, friends offered to bribe the guards and rescue him so he
could flee into exile.

He declined, stating he wasn't afraid of death, felt he would be no better off if in exile
and said he was still a loyal citizen of Athens, willing to abide by its laws, even the ones
that condemned him to death.

Plato described Socrates' execution in his Phaedo dialogue: Socrates drank the
hemlock mixture without hesitation. Numbness slowly crept into his body until it reached
his heart. Shortly before his final breath, Socrates described his death as a release of
the soul from the body.

31
Week 9-10 Activity

Name: ___________________________ Date: _____________-

Section: __________________________

Directions: Answer each questions below. Your essay should be well organized and as
carefully written
As you can make it.

1. Explain the Socratic Method

2. How Socrates was being accused?
3. How Socrates died?

32
WEEK 11-12
DESIRED LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

-To be able to know Plato’s Apology

-To be able evaluate the charges against Socrates

PLATO’S APOLOGY

Plato's The Apology is an account of the speech Socrates makes at the trial in which he
is charged with not recognizing the gods recognized by the state, inventing new deities,
and corrupting the youth of Athens. Socrates' speech, however, is by no means an
"apology" in our modern understanding of the word. The name of the dialogue derives
from the Greek "apologia," which translates as a defense, or a speech made in defense.
Thus, in The Apology, Socrates attempts to defend himself and his conduct--certainly
not to apologize for it.

For the most part, Socrates speaks in a very plain, conversational manner. He explains
that he has no experience with the law courts and that he will instead speak in the
manner to which he is accustomed: with honesty and directness. He explains that his
behavior stems from a prophecy by the oracle at Delphi which claimed that he was the
wisest of all men. Recognizing his ignorance in most worldly affairs, Socrates concluded
that he must be wiser than other men only in that he knows that he knows nothing. In
order to spread this peculiar wisdom, Socrates explains that he considered it his duty to
question supposed "wise" men and to expose their false wisdom as ignorance. These
activities earned him much admiration amongst the youth of Athens, but much hatred
and anger from the people he embarrassed. He cites their contempt as the reason for
his being put on trial.

Socrates then proceeds to interrogate Meletus, the man primarily responsible for
bringing Socrates before the jury. This is the only instance in The Apology of the
elenchus, or cross-examination, which is so central to most Platonic dialogues. His
conversation with Meletus, however, is a poor example of this method, as it seems
more directed toward embarrassing Meletus than toward arriving at the truth.

In a famous passage, Socrates likens himself to a gadfly stinging the lazy horse which
is the Athenian state. Without him, Socrates claims, the state is liable to drift into a deep
sleep, but through his influence--irritating as it may be to some--it can be wakened into
productive and virtuous action.

Socrates is found guilty by a narrow margin and is asked to propose a penalty. Socrates
jokingly suggests that if he were to get what he deserves, he should be honored with a
great meal for being of such service to the state. On a more serious note, he rejects
prison and exile, offering perhaps instead to pay a fine. When the jury rejects his

33
suggestion and sentences him to death, Socrates stoically accepts the verdict with the
observation that no one but the gods know what happens after death and so it would be
foolish to fear what one does not know. He also warns the jurymen who voted against
him that in silencing their critic rather than listening to him, they have harmed
themselves much more than they have harmed him.

On Trial for Your Life

Imagine you are a philosopher, and you are on trial in a legal system you find to be
unjust. At your trial, you make your best effort to defend yourself. You feel you've been
living a life of service by contributing to the search for knowledge, but you're ultimately
deemed a criminal just for practicing your craft.

In this lesson, you'll imagine what it would be like to be in the shoes of the ancient
Greek philosopher Socrates. An account of Socrates' speech at his trial is recorded in
Apology, written by his follower Plato.

A Life of Philosophy
Since the name of Plato's text is Apology, you might assume that somewhere in the
account of his speech, Socrates is sorry for his actions. This is not the case at all. In this
context, the word apology has the meaning of an explanation or defense, not an
apology where you confess your guilt and say you're sorry. Instead, Socrates defends
the life he's led.

So, what kind of life has it been? Socrates was known for engaging those around him in
dialogue; conversations in which he asked questions to shed light on topics like, 'What
does it mean for something to be good?'. He encouraged the other person to question
their own assumptions as they considered these topics. Socrates particularly wanted his
students to learn to think for themselves. To top it off, he provided these services at no
cost.

The Charges
So, what were the criminal charges against Socrates, who gave a lot of time to these
conversations with those who wanted to learn from him?

He was accused of corrupting the youth and of impiety, a lack of respect for what is
considered sacred. At this time in Greek history, his philosophical questions went
against the grain of society. He also made a number of people look foolish in the
process of his questioning them. Some people were not happy about this.

We use Plato's Apology here as an introduction to philosophical thought. This is

because the actions of Socrates are what we now consider to be some of the main
activities of philosophy, such as asking questions and considering all possibilities.
Imagine all philosophy professors lined up to go to trial simply for engaging their
students in conversations to get them to think more critically.

34
What's particularly interesting about his defense is that Socrates uses the trial itself as
an opportunity to demonstrate his methods, asking questions and engaging in a
dialogue with his accusers.

Who Is the Wisest?

You might be thinking that Socrates sounds like he was a pretty smart cookie, at least
based on how Plato chose to represent him in his writing. So, did Socrates think he was
wiser than other people?

He discusses this topic at length in his defense. Years before, an oracle had prophesied
that no one would be wiser than Socrates. This prediction was strange to Socrates
because he was not knowledgeable in a number of areas. In fact, Socrates thought he
was ignorant in many respects. But as he learned over time, through conversations,
most people wise in certain areas assume that they're also wise in areas about which
they know very little.

35
Week 11-12 Activity

Name: ___________________________ Date: _____________-

Section: __________________________

Directions: Answer each questions below. Your essay should be well organized and as
carefully written
As you can make it.

1. What is the general content of Plato’s apology?

2. What is /are the charges being experienced by Socrates?
3. How the trial takes place?

36
WEEK 13-14
DESIRED LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

-To be able to evaluate the problems in Philosophy

-To be able determine the appearance and reality

Bertrand Russell's 'The Problems of Philosophy

Dream or Reality?

When you go to sleep at night, sometimes you dream. When you wake up from a dream,
you know you are back in reality. How do you know the difference between your dream
world and the reality around you when you are waking? What is reality exactly?

In The Problems of Philosophy, Bertrand Russell asks us to look more closely at what
we consider common sense about reality. He looks at a simple object - a table - and
uses this as a starting point for exploring some of the major challenges facing
philosophers.

Appearance and Reality

Russell says to consider that if we each look at a table, we will have our own idea for
what it is. But our perceptions of the table are not what the table actually is. Why? Well,
when you look at a table, you'll see that it is a certain color, texture, and shape. But are
these aspects of a table really the table itself?

Russell argues that no; they're not. If you move from where you're standing and see the
table from a different angle, and in a different light, you perceive the table differently.
Let's say at first you saw a dark brown table that was a bit like an oval shape, with a
smooth top. Then, you move your position and realize that from the new vantage point,
the table is actually light brown and rounder looking, with a top that has nicks in it from
lots of use.

You could revise your idea of what the table is now that you see it more closely - more
round than oval, lighter brown rather than darker, and not completely smooth on top.
Yet the table is not necessarily those things either. If you took a microscope and saw
the top more closely, you would see a whole different view of it that looked nothing like
a table at all. And, if you could see down to the atomic level, you would also view it as
something completely foreign to your idea of a table.

He points out that the colors, textures, and shapes are not the reality of the object, but
are sense-data, the things that are immediately known in sensation. This could also
include sounds and smells, for instance. Russell then asks, 'But if the reality is not what

37
appears, have we any means of knowing whether there is any reality at all? And if so,
have we any means of finding out what it is like?'

Then he points out how intriguing it is that a simple object could provoke such deep
philosophical questions, whereas before we had given a table no thought. In his words,
'Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has
become a problem full of surprising possibilities.' The table has sparked Russell to
consider some of the central problems of philosophy.

Physical Reality
You might wonder, why all the fuss about what is real? Isn't it obvious to say that we
have perceptions about things like tables? And isn't it common sense to say that tables
exist separately from our thoughts about them? Well, not all philosophers think of the
world in the same way as Russell. A very different view of reality says that what appears
to exist is really something mental, going on in our minds, similar to a dream.

Russell asks us to consider the following question: 'Is there a table which has a certain
intrinsic nature, and continues to exist when I am not looking, or is the table merely a
product of my imagination, a dream-table in a very prolonged dream?' Ultimately
Russell does not believe that the table is merely a product of our imagination, a
prolonged dream. He promotes the idea that there is a physical reality, separate from
the activities going on in our brains.

But there's a catch to his version of reality. He says we can't experience the reality of an
object directly, only indirectly. We can only get bits of information from our sense-data -
light brown, dark brown, smooth, rough, oval, or round, but we cannot really know the
reality of an object directly.

The Problems of Philosophy advances an epistemological theory and a discussion of

truth. Bertrand Russell uses an analytic method to make distinctions concerning our
judgments about reality. He employs Cartesian radical doubt in the beginning as he
concentrates on our knowledge of the physical world. Claiming certain beliefs about the
table in his room, he wants to know if he really has any kind of knowledge through his
beliefs and, if so, what kind of thing is the table. He reasons that the table consists of
matter and that there is a method by which he can have knowledge of it. Seeing the
table involves an awareness of something, a patch of brown that is oval. He calls this
something a "sense-datum." It is not the sensation, but what the sensation is of. We
take the sense-data to be signs of the existence of physical objects. From the
experience of sense-data, we practice a rational process of inference to get to the
physical world.

In opposition to idealism, the view that "whatever can be known to exist, must be in
some sense mental," Russell defends the reality of both universals and particulars.
Universals are what particulars exemplify. Particulars are physical objects and are in
one place at a given time. Universals include qualities, like whiteness, or relations, like

38
"being to the left of." Russell allows for spatial, temporal, and causal relations. Since
idealists take everything to be mental, Russell thinks that they confuse the "act" of
sensation with the "object" of sense-data.

Russell believes that he has knowledge of his patch of sense-data by acquaintance and
that he has knowledge of the signified physical object, the table, by description. He
develops a distinction between knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by
description. He holds that we have immediate acquaintance only with our sense-data,
and we therefore have direct knowledge. On the theory of descriptions, there are two
kinds of terms that we use for an object, its name and definite descriptions. Russell's
chief example, later, is "Bismarck" or "The first Chancellor of the German Empire."
Employing descriptions enables us to think about and understand objects with which we
have no acquaintance. We can thereby have indirect knowledge of things.

Russell is generally supportive of our natural inclinations and accounts for intuitions in
his theory of truths. The major logical constructions intrinsic to Russell's theory are facts,
propositions, and complexes consisting of universals and particulars. Facts exist much
as we would ordinarily imagine—they are independent of human awareness. Particulars
and universals are related together in propositions. A proposition is a complex
philosophical expression of meaning. Russell's usage usually associates propositions
as statements about objects and their relations. A proposition can constitute knowledge
if it is appropriately arranged with universals and particulars. Russell makes this type of
arrangement clear, though it can be technically challenging. On the theory that Russell
develops, a true proposition is a correspondence between a belief and a fact.

Russell also gives a meaningful account of a priori knowledge. He advocates a Platonic

attitude toward universals, which are like Platonic "ideas." Arguing that it is possible to
have acquaintance with a universal without knowing of a single instance of that
universal, the possibility of a priori knowledge becomes comprehensible. We can also
have knowledge of general principles seeming to have the same degree of certainty as
knowledge derived from our own experiences.

The Problems of Philosophy provides an overview of major philosophical achievements.

Russell critically analyzes older arguments and responds to them equipped with his own
set of distinctions and apparatus. The context of problems that arises is universal,
however, and what interests us about reality and our knowledge of it is constant.

Russell's dialogue in this book proposes a forum for direct address and discussion.
Though Russell is the only character present in the discussion, and his voice modulates
between the informed philosopher interlocutor and the curious man on the street. He
enlists his readership in a declarative "we." Russell employs a mouthpiece that both
smoothest the difficult transitions between ideas and repeatedly subjects them to a built-
in critical voice. He promotes a persistent mode of questioning familiar to the
philosophical discipline, which structures much of the discussion. Each chapter builds

39
on previous ideas and prepares for the progress of more developed ideas. Therefore, it
is a very good idea to progress with his discussion, in order.

40
 Week 13-14 Activity

Name: ___________________________ Date: _____________-

Section: __________________________

Directions: Answer each questions below. Your essay should be well organized and as carefully written
As you can make it.

1. What is the concept of reality in Russells Problems of philosophy?

2. What do you think is/are the problem/s of philosophy

II. MULTIPLE CHOICE. UNDERLINE THE BEST ANSWER.

What method of inquiry, a token of Cartesian thought, does Russell use in the
beginning of The Problems of Philosophy?

 Absolute skepticism
 Empiricism
 Radical Doubt
 Analysis

2. Which of the following is Russell's key example of a physical object in the

external world?

 A window
 A table
 A balloon
 A hand

3. What was Kant's primary innovation, according to Russell?

 A priori knowledge that is not analytic

 Knowledge about experience
 Epistemology
 A priori knowledge that is not synthetic

4. Which of the following is the best example of sense-data?

 A ball of string
 A table

41
 A patch of color
 A mind

5. Whose is the metaphysical system that reconstructs the universe into a

harmonious whole from a single piece?

 Bishop Berkeley
 G. W. Leibniz
 Friedrich Hegel
 Immanuel Kant

6. What view of realism do Russell's critics say his philosophy advocates?

 Direct realism
 Platonic realism
 Anti-realism
 Analytic realism

7. What kind of knowledge does Russell first distinguish?

 Knowledge of Truths
 Knowledge of Appearance
 Knowledge of Reality
 Knowledge of Doubt

8. Which is the best definition of sense-data?

 Another word for sensation

 Our neurons
 Signs of physical objects
 None of the above

9. Which British philosopher does Russell believe to mistaken in his view of

idealism?

 Bishop Berkeley
 A. N. Whitehead
 Rene Descartes
42
 David Hume

10. Who were the rationalists?

 Locke and Hume

 Kant and Spinoza
 Hegel and Bismarck
 Descartes and Leibniz

11. What is Russell's main point of interest in discussing the rationalists?

 Their belief in reason

 Their belief in knowledge by way of "innate principles"
 Their belief in experience
 Their belief in knowledge by way of description

12. Who are the empiricists that Russell is interested in?

 Berkeley, Leibniz, and Bradley

 Kant and Leibniz
 Locke, Berkeley, and Hume
 None of the Above

13. What is the empiricist view of knowledge?

 Knowledge comes from experience

 Knowledge comes from logic
 Knowledge comes from thought experiments
 Knowledge is impossible

14. What concept does Russell use to begin his discussion of a priori knowledge?

 Innate principles
 Mathematics
 A Universal
 Intuition

15. Which of the following is the best example of a universal?

43
 A model of the solar system
 A patch of red
 A question
 A spatial relation

16. Which is the best example of a particular?

 Whiteness
 A white sheet of paper
 A piece of reasoning
 "Being to the left of"

17. Which of the following does Russell use in making his case for object terms
and object relations?

 Othello, Desdemona, Cassio, loving

 Hamlet, Ophelia, loving
 Othello, Desdemona, Cassio, hating
 Hamlet, Ophelia, Polonius, loving

18. From what theory does Russell draw his theory of universals?

 Berkeley's Theory of Ideas

 Hegel's Theory of the Universe
 Plato's Theory of Ideas
 Socrates' Theory of Knowledge

19. Knowledge by description is based on two criteria, of which one is ______ ?

 Knowledge of something by deduction

 Knowledge of something by acquaintance
 An indirect object
 Knowledge of some description

20. From what logical process do we gain knowledge of generalizations by way of

instances?

 Deduction
44
 Induction
 Comparison
 Describing

45
References

study.com/academy/course/philosophy-101-intro-to-philosophy.html
https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/apology/summary/

46