Intro to Philo 2nd Quarter Reviewer
Lesson 5. Logic
ARISTOTLE (384–322 B.C.)
“Wisdom starts with understanding
yourself.”
• Aristotle was born around 384 b.c.
• In 338 b.c., Aristotle returned to
Macedonia and began tutoring the
thirteen-year-old son of King Philip
II, Alexander (later known as “the
Great”).
• While Plato’s Academy (which was
now directed by Xenocrates) was
still the major school in the city,
Aristotle decided to create his own
school, the Lyceum.
While Aristotle focused on many different
subjects, one of his most significant
contributions to the world of philosophy
and Western thought was his use of LOGIC.
• He believes that logic is a tool used
to attain knowledge and was
therefore the very first step in the
learning process.
• Logic enables us to discover errors
and establish truths.
• In his book, Prior Analytics, Aristotle
introduced the notion of the
syllogism, which turned out to be
one of the most important
contributions to the field of logic.
• Logic is the science of argument
evaluation.
The Laws of Logic
• These are the rules of correct
reasoning.
• Laws of logic are also called “rules of
inference.”
• Correct reasoning can never violate
a law of logic.
• There are many laws of logic. But
three are considered the most basic
or primary. (1) The Law of Non-
contradiction; (2) The Law of
Excluded Middle; (3) The Law of
Identity.
• They are by nature “TRUE”. They
can’t be falsified.
• They are immaterial, universal, and
invariant/ unchanging by nature.
• They are not dependent on space,
time, physical properties, or human
nature.
• They are not the product of the
physical universe (space, time,
matter) because if the physical
universe were to disappear, logical
absolutes would still be true.
• They are not the product of human
minds because human minds are
different-not absolute.
The Law of Non-Contradiction
• This law states that a proposition
and its negation cannot both be true
at the same time and in the same
sense.
• Proposition - is the meaning of a
given sentence.
• A negation is the opposite of the
original proposition. It is formed by
adding “It is not the case that” in
front of the original proposition.
• So, if the proposition is “The sky is
blue,” then the negation would be
“It is not the case that the sky is
blue.”
• Is it true that “The Sky is blue, and it
is not the case that the sky is blue,”?
• Therefore, “P” and “Not-P”, is
always false.
The Law of Excluded Middle
• It states that either a proposition is
true, or its negation is true.
• So, if we have a proposition – let’s
call it “P”, and if that proposition is
false, then the proposition “not-p”
would have to be true. Conversely,
if P is true, then Not-p is false.
• A proposition always has the
opposite truth value of its negation.
The Law of Identity
• Something is what it is and isn't
what it is not.
• It simply states if p then p.
• That is, if p is true, then p is true.
• “A thing is itself.”
Syllogism
Major Premise: All men are mortal (major
premise)
Minor Premise: Socrates is a man (minor
premise)
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal
(conclusion)
• The major premise contains a term
from the predicate of the
conclusion.
• The minor premise contains a term
from the subject of the conclusion.
• The conclusion combines major and
minor premise with a “therefore”
symbol (∴)
• When all the premises are true and
the syllogism is correctly
constructed, a syllogism is a
logical argument.
Deductive Argument
• Deductive Argument, or deduction,
is one of the two basic types
of logical inference.
• A logical inference is a connection
from a first statement (a “premise”)
to a second statement (“the
conclusion”) for which the rules of
logic show that if the first statement
is true, the second statement should
be true.
All men are mortal (major premise)
Socrates is a man (minor premise)
Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion)
***As long as both premises are true, the
conclusion must be true as well.
***This kind of reasoning, where one fact
leads to another, is called entailment.
Entailment
• Once we know that: All men are
mortal (major premise)
• And that Socrates is a man (minor
premise)
• Those facts entails Socrates is mortal
(conclusion)
• Deductive argument begins with
universal quantifiers (All)- in this
case, what we know about human
mortality- and reasons down to the
specific- Socrates in Particular.
• What’s great about deductive
argument is that the truth of the
premises must lead to the truth of
the conclusion. When this happens,
we say that the argument is VALID.
Another example:
• All men are mortal (major premise)
• Socrates is a man (minor premise)
• Therefore, Socrates is was Plato’s
teacher (conclusion)
• **This argument is INVALID,
because nothing about human
mortality can prove that Socrates
was Plato’s teacher.
Another example:
All men are mortal (major premise)
Socrates is a man (minor premise)
Therefore, Socrates is was Plato’s teacher
(conclusion).
• What’s interesting though, is that
the argument does happen to have a
true conclusion, which leads us to
another issue. And that is: Validity
• Validity is not the same as truth.
• All valid really means is if the
premises are true, then your
conclusion can’t be false. Regardless
if your conclusion is true but does
not support the premises, then the
argument is still invalid, it just
happens to be true.
So, if your premises don’t guarantee the • We are able to trust in our senses,
truth of your conclusion, then you can end perception and reasoning.
up with some really crappy arguments. Like
• We can do science.
this one:
• All of our experiences now makes
Premise 1: All cats are mammals
sense.
Premise 2: I’m a mammal
Examples:
Conclusion: Therefore, I’m a cat
Premise 1. The Bitter gourd I ate last week
***this is another example of an invalid was bitter.
argument because the conclusion doesn’t
Premise 2. The bitter gourd I ate yesterday
entail from the premises.
was still bitter.
**well all cats are mammals, but not all
Conclusion: Therefore all bitter gourds are
mammals are cats.
bitter.
Premise 1. Last week – Monday, was traffic.
However, you can actually have a perfectly
Premise 2. Yesterday – Monday, was also
valid argument and still have a false
traffic.
conclusion, if any of your premises are false.
Conclusion: Therefore, every Monday will
For example:
be traffic.
Premise 1: All humans came from monkeys
Premise 2: My student Mariano is a human
Premise 1. My Boyfriend who cheated on
Conclusion: Mariano came from monkey
me loves to say flowery words.
**This is still a valid argument, it is just that
Premise 2. I met another guy the other day
the “MAJOR PREMISE is FALSE. Because
who loves to say flowery words.
again, Validity is different from Truth.
Conclusion: Therefore, every guy who loves
Inductive Argument
to say flowery words are probably cheaters.
• Inductive Argument, also called as
Inductive Reasoning or Philosophy
of Induction Premise 1. The sun has risen the other day.
• Using past experience to predict the Premise 2. The sun has risen today.
future.
Conclusion: Therefore, the sun would
• It relies on the predictability of probably rise tomorrow and everyday.
nature to reveal that the future is
likely to resemble the past.
Premise 1. The sun set the other day 6pm.
• In order to understand Induction,
and actually do induction… NATURE Premise 2. The sun set yesterday 6pm.
MUST BE UNIFORM
Conclusion: Therefore, the sun will probably
• God as the creator, has given the set today and everyday 6pm.
universe a fixed order…
• Genesis 8:22 22 While the earth
Premise 1. Sir Jordan conducted his quiz last
remains, seedtime and harvest, cold
week – Wednesday.
and heat, summer and winter, day
and night, shall not cease.” Premise 2. Sir Jordan conducted his quiz
yesterday – Wednesday.
• Hebrews 1:3 God upholds the
universe by the word of his power. Conclusion: Therefore, Sir Jordan will
always conduct his quiz every Wednesday.

Premise 1. This fire is hot.
Premise 2. This fire (another fire) is hot.
Premise 3. This fire (another fire from
another place) is hot.
Conclusion: Therefore, every fire is hot.
Lesson 4. Epistemology
• Epistemology is the key component
to any theological or philosophical
system.
• Metaphysics, ethics, and political
theory can only be established on an
epistemological basis.
• Without a standard, a ground basis
for belief (epistemology), one
cannot know what a true theory of
reality is; nor can he know how we
must determine what is right and
wrong; nor can he know what the
proper political theory is.
• Epistemology, the philosophical
study of the nature, origin, and
limits of human knowledge.
• The term is derived from the Greek
epistēmē (“knowledge”) and logos
(“reason”), and accordingly the field
is sometimes referred to as the
theory of knowledge.
• Epistemological Basis = knowledge
• It is the study of knowledge and how
we acquire knowledge.
• It is the study of the nature and
scope of knowledge and justified
belief.
• It analyzes the nature of knowledge
and how it relates to similar notions
such as truth, belief and
justification.
• It is a question of “How do you
know what you know?”.
• According to Plato, in order for one
to have knowledge of something,
three conditions have to be
satisfied. This is known as the
tripartite theory of knowledge.
According to the tripartite theory of
knowledge:
• Knowledge is when a true belief is
justified.
• Therefore, if a person believes
something to be true, and then it
ends up being true through
justification, then that person
knows it.
The three conditions of the tripartite
theory of knowledge are:
• Belief: A person can’t know
something to be true without first
believing that it is true.
• Truth: If a person knows something,
then it must be true. If a belief is
false, then it cannot be true, and
therefore, it cannot be known.
• Justification: It is not enough to
simply believe something to be true.
There must be a justification
through sufficient evidence.
Belief
• From greek word Πίστις “pistis”
which means – faith, loyalty, trust,
reliability and conviction.
• “Belief is the attitude we have
whenever we take something to be
the case or regard it as the truth.” -
Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy
***
• Presupposition - a belief or
proposition that is held to be true
even before any argumentation or
discussion happens.
What is Truth?
• The Correspondence, Coherence,
and Pragmatic Theory of Truth.
• Correspondence Theory of truth-
Truth is that which corresponds to
reality. Truth is that which
corresponds to facts about the
world.
 • Coherence Theory of truth- A belief • In regard to evidence. How can two
is true if and only if it is part of a highly educated people view
coherent system of beliefs. evidences differently? Is Evidence
the issue? No! Rather, it is the belief
• Pragmatic Theory of Truth - It is true
we take to the evidence.
because it is useful.
• We interpret evidence according to
• Truth, then, is considered to be a
what we already believe to be true.
condition or “pre-condition of
knowledge — if there is no • It is a WORLDVIEW issue.
universal absolute objective truth,
How is Knowledge Acquired?
there can be no knowledge at all. –
Paul Kleinman 1. “A Priori”
• Therefore, if truth did not exist, then 2. “A Posteriori”
neither would knowledge.
*Both Latin phrases were popularized by
• Hence, truth precedes knowledge. Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason,
one of the most influential works in the
• Truth is actually one of our
history of philosophy. – Wikipedia
necessary presuppositions.
*Immanuel Kant is one of the single most
• We don’t reason to get to truth,
important philosophers to have ever lived.
rather – truth is already
His work forever changed the shape of
presupposed – before believing in
Western philosophy.
anything.
*Born on April 22, 1724, in Königsberg, East
Relativism
Prussia, Kant came from a large and modest
• Relativism is the idea that views are family.
relative to differences in perception
and consideration.
• A priori (or non-empirical), where
• There is no universal, objective
knowledge is possible independently
truth according to relativism; rather
of, or prior to, any experience, and
each point of view has its own
requires only the use of reason (e.g.
truth.
knowledge of logical truths and of
• “The universe that we observe has abstract claims);
precisely the properties we should
• A posteriori (or empirical), where
expect if there is, at bottom, no
knowledge is possible only
design, no purpose, no evil, no
subsequent, or posterior, to certain
good, nothing but pitiless
sensory experiences, in addition to
indifference.”
the use of reason (e.g. knowledge of
― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A the color or shape of a physical
Darwinian View of Life object, or knowledge of
geographical locations).
• In order for there to be knowledge,
there must be justification of these *Empirical – through experience
true beliefs.
*Non-Empirical – Apart from experience
• This means that in order to acquire
knowledge, a true belief must have
sound reasoning and solid evidence
to support its claims.