ASSIGNMENT (70%)

MAY 2023 SEMESTER

SUBJECT CODE : MPU 3193

SUBJECT TITLE : FALSAFAH & ISU SEMASA

LEVEL : BACHELOR

STUDENT’S NAME : LEONG YUNG KIE

MATRIC NO. : E30405230013

PROGRAMME : BACHELOR OF EDUCATION

ACADEMIC FACILITATOR : ENCIK AMIR MUNSHI

LEARNING CENTRE : ONLINE

TASK 1 (A)
Question: Identify and discuss the branches of philosophy found from the Video 1 and
types of logical fallacies from the Video 2. You must state the minutes from any scenes of
the videos that are relevant to your discussion.

VIDEO 1: Branches of Philosophy

The philosophy that consists in video 1 will be Philosophy of Politics.

Definition of Philosophy in Politics:

Political philosophy is the philosophical study of government, focusing on issues pertaining
to the nature, authority, and connections between public officials, institutions, and
organizations. It might be characterized as philosophical thought on how to best organize our
communal life, including our political institutions and social behaviors like our economic
system and family structure. The ideas and defenses of political opinions are the focus of
political philosophy.

Minutes of Scene & Explanation:

Minutes Explanation

0:21 – 0:25 Aristotle is a great Philosopher and the founder of Western political
theory.

0:30 – 0:44 Types of government organised by political rule.

1:00 – 2:07 Aristotle classification on forms of government.

2:10 – 2:35 Plato’s opinion on politics.

2:42 – 2:47 Influence of Plato on the forms of government.

3:10 – 3:14 Critics about the forms of government.

This video is all about opinion of famous Philosopher about forms of government, discussion
and critics. Therefore, it is a Philosophy of Politics video.
VIDEO 2: Types of Logical Fallacies

The fallacy that consists in video 2 will be Ad Hominem Fallacy.

Definition of Ad Hominem Fallacy:

A personal attack on a speaker's character is known as the Ad Hominem fallacy. The focus is
on the opponent's character, which is unrelated to the topic at hand, rather than the argument
itself.

Minutes of Scene & Explanation:

Minutes Explanation

0:42 – 0:47 The opponent claimed that he is late due to car brake. Instead of
discussing about the car brake, he teased him that he should have
been early.

1:08 – 1:27 Opponents shows unbelievable on Simpsons speech. Simpsons

criticised him that he need to use hearing pops and personal attack
him that he is too old to be on stage even if he is just 2 years elder
than Simpsons.
Task 1 (B)

Question: Out of the two videos, identify the one that you prefer or like. Write a 500-word
essay of your justification and relate the answers to your life experiences.

Out of the two videos, I personally like video 2 more. Video 2 is in cartoon form
which is more interesting and easier to understand. In addition, the content in video 2 is more
to real life experiences. As we know that Ad Hominem is about personal attack. Here are
some examples of this argument that I have came across.

Scene 1
Me: Shall we eat dinner together later?
Friend: Now, thats the reason why you keep gaining
weight! You knew so many nice places with good food!

Scene 2
Me: Emily, have you done the school holiday homework
?
Colleague: Are you here to check if im done so that you
can report and complain to teacher?

Although this insultation is just a minor part of our life, it could become a toxic to our life.
Therefore, it is important that we are aware of this fallacy and learn how to handle it.

First and foremost, whether or not the ad hominem argument is valid or flawed will
determine how we should respond to it. There are a number of methods we can refute an
invalid ad hominem argument.

1. Mention how the attack is irrelevant.

This can be accomplished by pointing out that the personal jab has nothing to do with
the topic at hand and by exposing our opponent's flawed logic. When doing this, it's
important to avoid taking a defensive stance. If required, we should instead go on the
attack and challenge our opponent to explain how their personal jab relates to the
topic at hand.

2. Directly answer the attack.

 Even though the Ad Hominem attack is unfounded, we might want to address it
thoroughly in some situations since it might have an impact on how the discussion
turns out. This can be accomplished by replying to the attack in a way that is
comparable to how we would answer to a valid Ad Hominem argument.

3. Neglect the assault.

We have the option to continue the conversation without responding to the
disparaging remarks made by our opponent. This can sometimes be effective,
especially when ignoring the insults helps us seem more respectable by demonstrating
that we won't lower ourself to our opponent's level. Even when the assault is wholly
unfounded and irrelevant to the conversation, this isn't always an option, particularly
when we feel that not responding may harm us in some manner.

4. Accept the attack and carry on.

Similar to ignoring an Ad Hominem attack, except we explicitly recognize it before
continuing the conversation. This doesn't necessary imply that we must concur with
the assault; rather, it indicates that we must demonstrate our awareness of it, which
may be preferable to completely ignoring it. We can achieve this by saying something
like, "I get that you believe that I am X, but it has nothing to do with what we're
talking about here, so I'm not going to address it."
Task 2

Q1. What have I learned from this course?

Philosophy, which is defined as the love of wisdom, is the endeavor of trying to comprehend
the world in all of its facets. The four pillars of philosophy are logic, the history of
philosophy, theoretical philosophy (metaphysics and epistemology), and practical philosophy
(ethics, social and political philosophy, and aesthetics).
Theoretical philosophy asks questions about knowledge such as “Is anything
absolutely certain?” and “Does God exist?” Studying Practical Philosophy exposes us to
such questions as: How ought we to live our lives?
The study of Logic teaches us what distinguishes good from bad reasoning and
thereby enables us to think critically. In History of Philosophy, we learn how the greatest
thinkers in the history of humankind answered these and similar questions. All of these areas
of interest are grounded in facts and responsive to the theories put forth by experts in a
myriad of disciplines, such as physics and psychology.

Q2. Was the completion of this assignment a smooth process?

Programming for computers is incredibly simple. The moment we take up a book and do
something, the computer will tell us if we did it correctly or incorrectly. Some subjects, like
physics or math, are more difficult. We can go through difficulties with known answers and
evaluate the outcome. Additionally, we can publish proofs online, and readers will point out
any mistakes we made.

On the opposite end of that range is philosophy. I might go through life never
realizing that we misunderstood anything or made a simple mistake, much less where I went
wrong. This makes studying philosophy on my own quite challenging. In order for other
people to disagree with me and point out flaws in my logic, I really need to communicate
with them. The conventional setting for doing this is in college classes. But taking a course
online is also an option. In an ideal world, I discovered many groups where our views can
intersect. Otherwise, it's simple to become a victim of group-think.
Q3. What should I have done better in the process of completing this assignment?

It is extremely beneficial to have access to professors because my lecturer essentially gave

me a comprehensive review of a body of material as well as a road map for how to absorb it.
I frequently have a brief list of recommended readings after watching a Mr. Amir description
video. This isn't always the case, though, and occasionally I'll have to figure it out on my
own. I occasionally have to rely on phi papers, reference counts (if a paper has been cited
1,000 times, I might as well read it too), and whatever general knowledge there is on the
subject if I can't use this resource.

Q4. What are the long term implication of this subject on myself as a full-time working
adult and a student?

I think it's important to remember—as it is also true in many other fields—that learning in
philosophy can be distinguished between skill knowledge and factual knowledge. That is,
there is a big difference between philosophy as in critical thinking skills and reasoning
ability, versus philosophy as in facts regarding the history of philosophy and conceptual
ideas.

Almost all philosophy courses include both sides of the argument (they promote and
aid in the development of sound reasoning in the context of accepted ideas or the history of
philosophy), but the former idea is, in my opinion, where philosophy is most helpful (in terms
of practical application). One of the abilities that philosophy appears to emphasize the most,
in my experience as a college graduate who has taken numerous courses in a wide variety of
fields, is critical thinking. Of course, I can only speak from one university's perspective
(others may not highlight this as much), but I bet that many people who have taken
philosophy courses in college would agree with this assertion.

And being able to think critically has enormous benefits for a variety of real life
circumstances; therefore, it is not even reasonable to begin naming them all, as doing so
would be misleading to the full range of advantages. Every decision we must make in life, no
matter what the situation, will always be based on our capacity for logic. In this manner,
having good thinking skills can make me a better manager, consumer, writer, reader, voter,
leader, parent, sibling, or friend...
Task 3

Topic 1: What use is Philosophy to you? Elaborate your answer.

Topic 2: Describe ‘Practical Philosophy’ and give relevant examples to illustrate your
description.
Topic 3: Differentiate deductive, inductive and abductive reasoning.
Topic 4: Explain the concept of man through ONE of the following perspectives:
( Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Western philosophy and Taoism )
Topic 5: Differentiate Rationalism and Empiricism.