FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OYE-EKITI

GST 205

PHILOSOPHY, LOGIC AND HUMAN EXISTENCE

1|P age
 MODULE 1

THE MEANING OF PHILOSOPHY

The word Philosophy is derived from two Greek words “Philo” meaning “I Love” and “Sophia”
meaning wisdom. Thus, Philosophy is literarily taken to be the love of wisdom, wisdom here could
be interpreted as knowledge. Therefore, Philosophers are lovers of knowledge. It is commonplace
in philosophy to hear philosophers say “Philosophy has no universal definition. This is because
Philosophy has to do with how we perceive or how we see things. And as such, no two people
conceive or see things the same way. Thus, philosophers themselves do not agree on the nature,
scope and definition of the discipline of Philosophy. By implication, Philosophy has therefore been
defined or explained in many ways by different Philosophers:

Philosophy began in Greece around the early 5th century B.C. arose basically to inquire about the
nature of things to ascertain their root cause. It was later submerged by theology during the rise of
Christians during the fall of the Roman Empire. That could be said to be the first period of
Philosophical activities.

Its second period was about the eleventh to the fourteenth century which was dominated by the
Catholic Church. This period came to an end during the period of the great reforms when the states
started breaking the hold that the Catholic Church had on them.

The third period was around the seventeenth century BC and was greatly dominated and influenced
by the discoveries in science. However traditional religious beliefs still played a major role. In this
period there were major scientific discoveries but few of the philosophers at this period were still
orthodox and viewed nature from the catholic standpoint, but the advancement of the state was
still more important to them than the church.

One can infer that it is often man’s curiosity about the essential nature of things that often trigger
philosophical inquiries . Philosophers are more interested in asking questions than in answering
them. Questions like; who am i? Where am i from? What am i doing here? Where am I going to?
These philosophical questions that philosophers often ask are general or universal in nature rather
than specific or particular. Philosophical questions or dialogues most often are universal and the
Philosophers asking them don’t answer them specifically.

2|Page
According to Plato, a Philosopher is a man whose heart is fixed on reality.[1] For Aristotle,
Philosophy begin in wonder, wonder about the knowledge of the truth…[2]. According to Ludwig
Wittgenstein, Philosophical problems emanated from linguistic confusion caused by linguistic
bewitchment of our intelligence by ordinary language and the solution is logical analysis and
clarification of meaning.[3] According to Kolawole Olu-Owolabi, this definition of Philosophy
started with David Hume, elaborated by G.E Moore and finally reified by Ludwig Wittgenstein.
This conception is purely dedicated to the mission of making clear that which is mysterious or
fluid. Its essential project is to provide rational explanation for those ideas that are fundamental to
human existence.[4] For Staniland, Philosophy is the criticism of the idea we live by…[5].
Schwitzgebel defines philosophy as all thought to the person with the right turn of mind [6].
Philosophy has also been defined as the personal search for truth in any field by rational means
[7].

1. Conceptions and Goals of Philosophy

To this end, we can now see various conception sketched at by various definitions considered
above. It is therefore legitimate for us to outline various definitions and classified them under
conceptions of Philosophy.

i. Philosophy as a critical or reflective and contemplative discipline (Rational or

Scientific Inquiry)
ii. Philosophy as a logical or argumentative enterprise (Logic)
iii. Philosophy as the search for ultimate or fundamental reality (Metaphysics)
iv. Philosophy as an Ideology (Karl Marx political theory)
v. Philosophy as a science of human conduct (Ethics)
vi. Philosophy as a Conceptual Analysis (David Hume, G.E Moore and Wittgenstein)

H.S Staniand’s definition reveals some fundamental ingredients that are quintessential to
philosophizing as highlighted in the conceptions of philosophy above namely; critical, reflective,
and argumentative nature of philosophy. Suffice it to say at this juncture that, any human
endearvour that is to pass as rigorous, critical, reflective, or scientific as the case may be must
manifest the self-reflective or critical nature of philosophy whether in the field of Mathematics,

3|Page
medicine, Law, Robotic Engineering or Rocket or Nuclear Science. In the light of this, Rene
Descartes declares:

An exercise is critical if and only if it avoids any kind of dogma or triviality.. it

is philosophical if nothing is taken for granted and nothing is accepted without
rigorous scrutiny and criticisms and scientific if no assumption is taken without
rational probe…
Broadly speaking, Philosophy sets the theoretical basis for all disciplines. It is a theoretical activity
aiming, like all theoretical activities, at discovering the truth. It has a subject matter, and specific
discipline methods, though it is unclear what exactly they are. Reflecting on the foregoing, it is
clear that Philosophy raises pertinent questions about the world, the knowledge of it and what can
be done about it. Philosophical questions can be answered by three construed areas of philosophy;
metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Metaphysics includes part of philosophy of mind,
language and science. The other part of these philosophies belongs to epistemology, which
examines the cognitive contact with the world. Ethics is the normative branch of philosophy
covering in part, philosophies of law, social philosophy, and aesthetics. Philosophy is perhaps one
of the oldest fields of study or intellectual discipline. It is the foundation of most intellectual
discuss. It is related to all intellectual disciplines. As the name rightly implies ‘’the love of
wisdom’’ the business of philosophy was basically the quest for every kind of knowledge. The
etymological origin of philosophy involved the study of the totality of human nature/knowledge.
It was a very broad discipline which delved into every aspect of human endeavour for the quest of
knowledge.

In recent times, the focus of philosophy has become narrower than it was in ancient time because
of the paradigm shifts in the fields of knowledge. This does not mean that philosophy has lost its
traditional essence as the umbrella concept, covering all other intellectual discipline. In recent
times, Philosophy is still interacting with all other disciplines through its process of
departmentalisation. It has not completely lost its role as the foundation of all knowledge.

Philosophy has been considered the mother of all areas of knowledge, it is expected that philosophy
plays a monitoring role, be in touch and keep abreast of the developments in the other disciplines
in order to sustain the norms and values of knowledge production Philosophy is also interested in
law and the related issue of the relationship between its ideas and ethical principles guiding them.
Philosophy is interested in all other areas of human knowledge and is always interested in any new
discipline that is for human use and the tool philosophy adopt to do this, is Ethics; which prescribes
what ought to be and how things ought to be done. Philosophers most often deals with the probe
or inquiry into the essential nature of things, therefore many philosophers have come to give

4|Page
philosophy different definitions based on approach. Basically, philosophers attempt to define
philosophy from two points of view. One is the technical and the other, the academic sense.
Philosophy has also been viewed as the ‘’ criticism of the ideas we live by’’ the word criticism is
often times misunderstood by some scholars who are not philosophers. Criticism is used in this
sense as the rational

2. Branches of Philosophy
Broadly speaking, scholars have identified about seven areas in philosophy namely: Metaphysics
(the study of ultimate reality), Axiology (the theory of value or rather the study of value),
Epistemology (theory of Knowledge), Ethics (the study of Morality, human behaviours and
conducts), Political Philosophy (the normative study of political concept like liberty, freedom,
justice, right, authority, political state, political system, equity and jurisprudence), Aesthetics (the
study of beauty) and Logic (the science of human reasoning). However, to meet the need of this
study, we shall only limit ourselves to the four basic branches of philosophy. Philosophy has four
major branches and these branches are:

i. Metaphysics
ii. Epistemology
iii. Logic
iv. Ethics

i. Metaphysics

The word ‘Metaphysics’ is derived from two Greek words (meta and physika). The word ‘meta’
means beyond or after while ‘physika’ means physical realm or physical world. Thus, metaphysics
means the study of ultimate reality beyond the physical realm. Metaphysics has often been defined
as the inquiry into what is after or beyond the grasp of senses. This definition is born out of
dilemma of Andronicus of Rhodes who edited Aristotles’s works; after collecting most of
Aristotle’s work under the title of “physics”, was at lost about what title to give to others that fell
outside the concern of human physical world. He decided later to call the works “after the works
on physics” (that is, meta-physis) [9]. Andronicus of Rhodes Dilemma is believed to have
motivated Arthur Schopenhauer’s view of Metaphysics as the “knowledge that goes beyond the
possibility of experience and nature but renders nature possible”.[10]

5|Page
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the study of ultimate realities; realities
beyond our physical world such as; angel, gods, deities, heavens, spirit, death, destiny, fatalism,
pre-determinism, ghost, destiny, dualism, monism, plurality, universality and particularism.
Metaphysics can be divided into two main branches:

• Ontological metaphysics: The study of ontological realities outside human terrestial

world e.g. ghost, death, devil, gods, spirit, reincarnation etc
• Cosmological metaphysics or Universal Science: This is a branch of metaphysics
that studies realities within human universal but beats human imagination namely:
weather, climate, aliens, ufos, earthquake, volcano, hurricane, galaxies, planetary
bodies, metrological study, astronomical realities etc.
These two branches of metaphysics offer a more balanced approach to approaching and
interrogating metaphysical concerns. A proper definition will therefore see metaphysics as the
study of (the totality of being and existence), that is, the nature and structure of reality in all its
embracing and comprehensive forms. It seems man is perpetually condemned to probe into
metaphysical inquiries, even scientific minded researchers. It is in the light of this that Immanuel
Kant declared that, the tendency toward metaphysics is an irresistible one:

Man has natural curiosity to know, he wants to understand and be able to explain what he sees
and experience in the world, and what he sees in this world leads him beyond what he sees to
metaphysical world of what he does not see but wanting to explain. The death of a loved one makes
him wanting to probe into death, life-hereafter and then heavens and God…He would naturally
have to go beyond the physical world to explain the mystical, the mysterious and the spiritual. [11]

This is how humans are constantly and irresistibly drawn into the realm of metaphysics daily.
Notable among the known classical metaphysicians are: Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes,
Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Democritus and Leucippus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Rene
Descartes, Alfred North Whitehead, Leibnitz, Gorge Berkley, Immanuel Kant, Bertrand Russell,
Gottlob Frege etc.

6|Page
 ii. Metaphysical Questions

Metaphysics deals with questions such as: What is the nature of ultimate reality? What does it
mean for something to exist? Why are things the way they are? Does God exist? What is death?
Is reincarnation true? What is destiny? What is immortality? Is there life hereafter? What is the
difference between appearance and reality?

• Metaphysical Doctrine:
• Idealism: Genuine knowledge is an idea in human mind (i.e real knowledge is innate
and mind dependent).
• Materialism: Matter is real. Genuine knowledge is the knowledge of the world we
gain through human senses and perception.
• Monism: Reality is one and absolute.
• Dualism: Reality is of two categories namely: mind and body, spiritual and physical
• Pluralism: Reality is many and multiplicity.
• Fatalism: What would be would be irrespective of human action and inaction…Fate
and destiny is preprogrammed.
• Determinism: Humans have the power to decide their own fate (we decide our fate by
our effort) men are gods.
• Appearance and Reality change and permanence.

iii. Epistemology

Epistemology has its root in two Greek words (episteme and logos or logy). Going back to history,
the Greek words ‘episteme’ literally means ‘knowledge’ and the ‘logy or logos’ means the study.
Etymologically, epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It is the branch of philosophy that
studies the nature, Problem, limit, scope and structure of knowledge. Epistemology is one of the
most important aspects of philosophy since philosophy itself is essentially an inquiry into the
nature of human knowledge. And much more than this, central to every philosophical inquiry is
the concern about the ingenuity of what we claim to know and how we came about that knowledge.

7|Page
Therefore, epistemology is mainly concern about justification for knowledge (i.e proof and
evidences), criteria for knowledge (method and means of inquiry).

Epistemological Questions:

• Epistemological Doctrine:
• Rationalism: Is the epistemological doctrine advocated by Socrates (Plato), Rene
Descates, Bertrand Russell, Immanuel Kant and other rationalists. According to this
doctrine, genuine knowledge is the knowledge acquired through reasoning.
• Empiricism: Rationalism is another competing doctrine in epistemology that opposes
rationalist thesis. For the empiricist, genuine knowledge is the knowledge of the
external world we acquire via human senses. For the empiricists, seeing is believing.
Chief among the empiricist are: Aristotle, David Hume, John Locke, George Berkerly,
G.E Moore and others.
• Skepticism: Scepticism is another epistemological attitude that subjects every human
claim to doubt. Chief among the skeptists are: Gorgia, Protagoras, David Hume etc.

iii. Ethics:
We may consider ethics to be the "Science of Conduct.” Ethics includes the
iv. fundamental ground rules by which we live our lives. Philosophers such as Socrates
and
v. Plato have given guidelines for ethical behaviour. Many ethicists consider
emerging
vi. ethical beliefs to be legal principles, i.e., what becomes an ethical guideline today is
made
vii. into to a law, regulation or rule

Ethics comes from the Greek word ‘ethos’ which means character or ways of behaviour. It refers
to a generally accepted set of principles and standards used by an individual, institution, profession
or society in general (as part of social ethics, professional ethics etc) to guide their thoughts,

8|Page
behaviour and actions; to determine the goodness/badness or rightness/wrongness of thoughts,
behaviour and action. Ethics is essentially about making the right choices/decisions.

iv. Logic:
Logic is the study of the principles and methods of correct reasoning. Put more technically, it is
the study of principles and methods of valid inference. It is not, as is it is often supposed that, logic
is the science of thinking as such. for thinking can take many forms, such as remembering,
intuiting, imagining, and freely associating, which however interesting in themselves, are of little
consequence to the logician. Our concern is with reasoning only. It is true that all reasoning
involves thinking, but all thinking is not reasoning. Some thinking does not involve reasoning.
There are two major type of logic namely: Formal or Deductive Logic and Informal or Inductive
Logic.

Philosophy and Other Disciplines

• Philosophy is perhaps one of the oldest fields of study or intellectual discipline. It is the
foundation of most intellectual discuss. It is related to all intellectual disciplines. As the
name rightly implies ‘’the love of wisdom’’ the business of philosophy was basically the
quest for every kind of knowledge. The etymological origin of philosophy involved the
study of the totality of human nature/knowledge. It was a very broad discipline which
delved into every aspect of human endeavour for the quest of knowledge.

• The reason why philosophers are interested in discussing the forms and contents of other
disciplines is because of the nature of their discipline and the role philosophy had played
over the ages to ensure that human knowledge despite its diversities and varieties is
consistent and coherent with one another. Philosophy being the first intellectual enterprise
took it upon itself despite the break up and advancements of other disciplines from their
root foundation philosophy to continue to adjudicate in matters and issues generated by
other disciplines.

• The critical tendency of philosophy is what also makes its involvement with other
disciplines pertinent. H.S Stanilad has defined philosophy as the criticism of the ideas we
live by. Because philosophy is critical, it can apply its critical analysis to other intellectual

9|Page
 disciplines and by this make them live up o the expectations of humanity. Philosophy being
the starting point of all intellectual disciplines is also their point of interactions.

In recent times, the focus of philosophy has become narrower than it was in ancient time
because of the paradigm shifts in the fields of knowledge. This does not mean that
philosophy has lost its traditional essence as the umbrella concept, covering all other
intellectual discipline. In recent times, Philosophy is still interacting with all other
disciplines through its process of departmentalisation. It has not completely lost its role as
the foundation of all knowledge.

Philosophy has been considered the mother of all areas of knowledge, it is expected that
philosophy plays a monitoring role, be in touch and keep abreast of the developments in the
other disciplines in order to sustain the norms and values of knowledge production.

Relationship Between Logic and Philosophy

Logic is the branch of philosophy that deals with the study of the model of correct reasoning and
the Justification of our claims or statements. It is with this tool that philosophy validates theories,
hypothesis, statements, arguments, prepositions and fallacies to ascertain its truth or validity. The
tool of inductive and deductive reasoning, rational and objective validation is one of the tools of
philosophy that has been in existence since the quest for knowledge by philosophers to validate
claims of knowledge in order to eliminate incorrect and erroneous statements about the nature of
things and this tool has helped scientist through the decades to arrive at clear and precise theories
and facts. Another reason is because philosophy is capable of verifying whether the methods and
techniques employed by each discipline is appropriate for the subject and focus of each of the
discipline. Philosophy for instance because of its traditional tools can evaluate whether or not the
empirical methodology is appropriate for studying social phenomena given the capacity of social
agents to be dynamic and also their ability to be deliberately deceptive by giving wrong
information to the empirical researcher.

10 | P a g e
 MODULE 2

EPISTEMOLOGY: THE THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE

'Epistemology' comes from the Greek words 'episteme' meaning Knowledge and “logos meaning
discourse or science. Epistemology is an area of philosophy concerned with the nature and
justification of human knowledge. It is that field of philosophical inquiry which investigates the
origin, nature of knowledge, methods, validity and limits of knowledge.

Epistemologists, historically, have concerned themselves with such questions as:

a) What is knowledge?
b) How is knowledge acquired?
c) What are the criteria for determining whether something is true or justified?
d) What are the limits of knowledge?
Epistemology seeks to explore the nature of knowledge itself, the methods by which we acquire
knowledge, and the factors that justify or support our beliefs. It explores the various ways in which
we can justify beliefs, including through perception, reason, testimony, and experience.

Throughout history, philosophers have proposed different theories and perspectives within
epistemology, such as empiricism (the idea that knowledge comes primarily from sensory
experience), rationalism (the belief that reason or innate ideas are the primary sources of
knowledge), and scepticism (doubt or suspension of judgment about various knowledge claims).

Epistemology is fundamental in shaping our understanding of how we know what we claim to

know and plays a crucial role in various fields, including philosophy, science, psychology, and
even everyday decision-making processes.

 Epistemology’s concern with knowledge is different from the concern of the sciences with
knowledge
 The sciences aim to produce knowledge about things.
 Epistemology is concerned with what it means to use the word knowledge and what are
the criteria that must be satisfied for one to know.
What is knowledge

Knowledge is cognition or awareness. It is the cognitive aspect of consciousness in general.

To know means to perceive or apprehend, understand or comprehend. It is a relationship between

the one that knows and what is known, that is between the subject and object of knowledge.

11 | P a g e
The Nature of Knowledge and Belief

The following can be noted as concerning the nature of knowledge and belief.

i. Knowledge can be broadly defined as justified true belief. It's what we accept as true based
on evidence, reasoning, and experience. This understanding is crucial because it
differentiates knowledge from mere belief. When we say something is knowledge, we
claim it as a true representation of reality supported by valid reasons.

ii. Beliefs are convictions or attitudes we hold about the world, often without requiring
empirical evidence or proof. They can be based on personal experiences, upbringing,
cultural influences, or even intuition. Beliefs shape our perceptions and understanding of
the world, but they may not necessarily align with what we can objectively consider as
knowledge.

iii. It's important to note that while knowledge strives for truth and is supported by evidence,
it's still subject to revision and refinement. This is due to the limitations of our
understanding and the possibility of new information challenging what we once believed
to be true.
iv. Knowledge often relies on various ways of knowing: empirical evidence, reason, intuition,
and testimony. For instance, empirical evidence comes from observation and
experimentation, while reason involves logical thinking and deduction. Intuition refers to
immediate understanding without conscious reasoning, and testimony involves trusting
information from others.

Here are five key differences between the nature of knowledge and belief:

a) Justification: Knowledge is justified true belief. This means that it is supported by evidence
or reasons that are considered to be adequate and reliable. Belief, on the other hand, does
not require justification. It can be based on personal experience, faith, intuition, or other
factors, even if there is no external evidence to support it.
b) Truth: Knowledge is true, meaning that it accurately reflects reality. Belief, however, can
be true or false. There are many beliefs that are widely held but that are not supported by
evidence or that are contradicted by other known facts.
c) Certainty: Knowledge is often characterized by a high degree of certainty. We are confident
that our knowledge is true, and we are willing to act on it accordingly. Belief, on the other
hand, can be more tentative and uncertain. We may believe something, but we may not be
absolutely sure of its truth.
d) Objectivity: Knowledge is considered to be objective, meaning that it is not dependent on
individual beliefs or opinions. It is something that can be agreed upon by different people,
regardless of their personal biases or perspectives. Belief, on the other hand, is more
subjective and can vary from person to person.
e) Modification: Knowledge is open to modification in the light of new evidence or reasoning.
If we discover that our knowledge is no longer true, we are willing to revise it. Belief, on

12 | P a g e
 the other hand, can be more resistant to change. People may be reluctant to give up their
beliefs, even if they are presented with evidence that contradicts them.

Theories of Knowledge

Theories of knowledge are formulated to answer some epistemological questions. One such
question is can we know?

1. Scepticism

Generally, scepticism is the view that some or all knowledge is impossible.

Scepticism is a philosophical stance that questions the possibility of knowledge or justification in

some domain or in general. It is the philosophical attitude of doubting everything and claiming the
impossibility of knowledge

Scepticism, as a philosophical standpoint, challenges our fundamental beliefs and knowledge

claims by questioning the possibility of attaining certainty or justified true belief. It is an approach
that urges us to critically examine the foundations of our beliefs, emphasizing doubt and inquiry
as essential tools in the pursuit of knowledge.

Sceptics argue that our beliefs about the world are ultimately uncertain and that we cannot know
anything for sure. This has far-reaching implications for our understanding of the world, our ability
to make decisions, and our very concept of reality.

Types of Scepticism

There are many different forms of scepticism, but they can be broadly divided into two main
categories:

a) Global scepticism: Global sceptics doubt the possibility of knowledge in general. They
argue that we cannot know anything about the external world, our own minds, or even our
own existence. Usually, global scepticism attempts to undermine the possibility of forming
justified beliefs. Global sceptics target all beliefs or all beliefs about the external world
(which amounts to most beliefs).
b) Local scepticism: This is a restricted kind of scepticism. Local sceptics doubt the
possibility of knowledge in specific areas or domains. It does not deny that we can know
in its entirety; it only denies the possibility of knowledge in certain spheres. For example,
some local sceptics doubt the possibility of knowing anything about morality, while others
doubt the possibility of knowing anything about the past.
c) Scientific Scepticism: Scientific or methodological scepticism. This is a critical attitude
to knowledge. It is the opposite of dogmatism. It takes knowledge to be justified true belief
and asks us to justify our knowledge because of the possibility of error. It argues that human
beings are fallible creatures

13 | P a g e
2. Empiricism and ationalism

Empiricism and rationalism are two major epistemological theories that have shaped our
understanding of knowledge and its acquisition. These theories offer distinct perspectives on how
knowledge is obtained and the sources we rely on to justify our beliefs.

a) Empiricism

Empiricism posits that knowledge is derived from sensory experience and observation of the
external world. It argues that all concepts and ideas are ultimately derived from our interactions
with the physical environment. Empiricists believe that our minds are like blank slates or tabula
rasa at birth, and all knowledge is acquired through sense perception, which is then processed and
organized by our minds. This perspective is often associated with philosophers such as John Locke,
David Hume, and George Berkeley.

According to empiricists, the only things we can truly know are those that we can directly
experience through our senses. They emphasize the importance of observation, measurement, and
evidence in the formation of beliefs. Empiricism also highlights the crucial role of induction, which
involves drawing generalizations and forming theories based on patterns observed in the sensory
data. Inductive reasoning helps us make predictions and form scientific laws or explanations.
Empiricists argue that knowledge is contingent and subject to revision based on new experiences
and evidence.

However, empiricism faces several challenges. One of the main criticisms is the problem of
induction. Even if we observe a consistent pattern, it doesn't guarantee that the pattern will continue
to hold in the future. For example, if we observe a thousand white swans, the inductive reasoning
would suggest that all swans are white. However, the discovery of black swans in Australia
challenges this generalization. This problem raises questions about how we can justify our beliefs
based solely on sensory experiences.

b) Rationalism

In response to the question can we know, rationalism claims that knowledge is possible and that
we can provide a satisfactory justification to our knowledge claims. Rationalism presents a
contrasting approach to knowledge acquisition that is different from empiricism. Rationalists, such
as René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, and Baruch Spinoza, argue that reason and internal mental
processes, rather than sensory experiences, are the primary sources of knowledge. Rationalism
contends that some fundamental truths exist a priori, independent of experience.

Rationalism is a theory of knowledge that regards reason or the intellect as the primary source of
knowledge about reality and truth.

14 | P a g e
A rationalist believes that certain knowledge is innate within us or derived through reason alone.
They argue that reason has the ability to uncover universal truths and establish logical connections
between concepts. Rationalists emphasize the deductive method of reasoning, which involves
deriving specific conclusions from general principles. By building on these foundational
principles, rationalists develop complex systems of knowledge.

Rationalism finds its application in mathematics and formal logic, where the validity of certain
principles and theorems can be demonstrated through pure reason. It also argues that abstract
concepts, such as morality and ethics, can be understood through rational reflection rather than
sensory experiences.

However, rationalism also faces criticism. One challenge is the lack of consensus on the existence
of innate ideas. Empiricists may question the claim that certain knowledge is inherent in all
individuals, contending that our minds are not inherently equipped with any pre-existing
knowledge. Another critique is that rationalism may lead to speculative and abstract theories that
may not correspond to the real world. This divergence from empirical verification can be seen as
a limitation when seeking to establish concrete knowledge.

Theories of Truth

The nature of truth has long captivated the minds of philosophers, prompting a profound
examination of its essence and implications. Numerous theories have emerged, each seeking to
unravel the complexities of this fundamental concept.

a) The Correspondence Theory

The correspondence theory, championed by thinkers like Bertrand Russell and G.E. Moore, asserts
that truth is determined by a statement's correspondence to reality. A statement is true if and only
if it accurately reflects an existing state of affairs in the world. For instance, the statement "The
Earth is round" is true because it aligns with the observable fact that our planet is indeed a sphere.

b) The Coherence Theory

In contrast to the correspondence theory, the coherence theory, championed by philosophers like
Franz Brentano and A.J. Ayer, emphasizes the internal consistency of beliefs as the hallmark of
truth. A statement is true if and only if it coheres with a broader network of established beliefs,
forming a seamless tapestry of knowledge. The statement "The Earth is round" finds coherence
with other well-established scientific principles, lending credence to its truth value.

The Pragmatic Theoryc)

The pragmatic theory, championed by thinkers like Charles Sanders Peirce and William James,
deviates from the traditional focus on correspondence or coherence, instead emphasizing the
practical consequences of beliefs. A statement is true if and only if it leads to beneficial outcomes

15 | P a g e
and promotes human progress. The statement "The Earth is round" proves its worth by enabling
accurate navigation and scientific advancements.

Each of these theories offers a unique perspective on the nature of truth, highlighting its
multifaceted nature. The correspondence theory grounds truth in the external world, while the
coherence theory emphasizes its internal consistency. The pragmatic theory links truth to its
practical value, while the deflationary theory views it as a linguistic construct.

Theories of Justification

Justification refers to the reasoning or evidence that supports the validity or truthfulness of a belief,
claim, or knowledge. There are various theories of justification proposed in epistemology, the
branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Some of the prominent theories include:

Foundationalism: Foundationalism posits that certain beliefs are justified without relying on
other beliefs and serve as the foundation upon which other beliefs are built. These foundational
beliefs are typically self-evident, incorrigible, or based on indubitable evidence. Descartes' belief
in "I think, therefore I am" is an example of a foundational belief.

Coherentism: Coherentism asserts that the justification for a belief arises from its coherence with
a set of interconnected beliefs or a comprehensive system of knowledge. Instead of relying on
foundational beliefs, coherence theorists argue that the consistency and logical interconnectedness
among beliefs determine their justification. According to coherentism, the mutual support among
beliefs enhances their justification.

Reliabilism: Reliabilism emphasizes the reliability of the cognitive processes or methods used to
arrive at a belief. It suggests that a belief is justified if it is produced by reliable cognitive processes
or methods, regardless of whether the belief coheres with other beliefs or is based on foundational
principles. Reliabilism focuses on the process or method used to acquire beliefs rather than the
content of the beliefs themselves.

Evidentialism: Evidentialism emphasizes the role of evidence in justifying beliefs. It contends

that beliefs are justified to the extent that they are supported by appropriate evidence or reasons.
Evidentialists argue that beliefs should be proportionate to the evidence available and that beliefs
lacking sufficient evidence are not justified.

These theories of justification offer different perspectives on how beliefs can be considered
justified or rational. Epistemologists often debate and refine these theories, recognizing that no
single theory may fully capture the complexity of justification in all cases.

16 | P a g e
 MODULE 3

METAPHYSICS: THE NATURE OF REALITY

What is Metaphysics?
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, existence,
and the relationship between mind and matter. It is the attempt by philosophers to characterize
existence as a whole. It seeks to discover the general normative criteria for what is real,
distinguishing it from what merely appears to be real but is not.

The term "metaphysics" is derived from the Greek words “meta” and “physika”. The prefix meta
means "after" or "beyond," while “physiká” refers to "physics" or "natural things." Therefore, the
literal translation of "metaphysics" is "after physics.". It is this etymology that seems to influence
Arthur Shopenhauer’s definition of metaphysics as “knowledge that goes beyond the possibility
of experience and beyond nature, which renders nature possible”.

The word ‘metaphysics’ is derived from a collective title of the fourteen books by Aristotle that
we currently think of as making up Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Aristotle himself did not know the
word. (He had four names for the branch of philosophy that is the subject matter of Metaphysics:
‘first philosophy’, ‘first science’, ‘wisdom’, and ‘theology’.) At least one hundred years after
Aristotle’s death, an editor of his works (in all probability, Andronicus of Rhodes) titled those
fourteen books “Ta meta ta physika”—“the after the physicals” or “the ones after the physical
ones”—the “physical ones” being the books contained in what we now call Aristotle’s Physics.
The title was probably meant to warn students of Aristotle’s philosophy that they should attempt
Metaphysics only after they had mastered “the physical ones”, the books about nature or the natural
world—that is to say, about change, for change is the defining feature of the natural world.

The works collected under metaphysics dealt with more abstract and conceptual topics beyond the
realm of physics, such as first principles, being, and existence. The term "metaphysics" has since
come to refer to the branch of philosophy that studies these fundamental questions about reality.
It encompasses a wide range of topics, including ontology (the study of being), cosmology (the
study of the universe), and epistemology (the study of knowledge).

The etymology of "metaphysics" reflects its position as a discipline that goes beyond the physical
world and explores the realm of the abstract and conceptual. It is a testament to the enduring human
quest to understand the fundamental nature of reality and our place within it.

The Nature of Metaphysics

a) Metaphysics is the study of fundamental reality. It seeks to understand the nature of

existence, being, and the universe as a whole. Metaphysics is not concerned with the
physical world as we experience it, but rather with the underlying principles that govern it.

17 | P a g e
 b) It is the most fundamental branch of philosophy. This is because the questions asked in
metaphysics have implications for other areas such as epistemology and ethics and until
metaphysical questions are settled, it is difficult to proceed in other areas.

c) Metaphysical questions cannot be answered through scientific means such as

observation and experiment.

d) Metaphysics is the most comprehensive and general of all disciplines. This is because
while other disciplines deal with specific aspects of reality and being, metaphysics with
reality and being in general. Also, the questions metaphysicians ask are not about this or
that particular thing but concern virtually all members of the class of things to which the
questions are related. For instance, the problem of free will and determinism is not about
whether the actions of Mr. Ajanlekoko are free or determined the reference is to all humans.

e) Metaphysics is characterized by its abstract and conceptual nature. It does not deal
with concrete objects or events, but rather with abstract ideas such as time, space,
causation, and consciousness.

f) Metaphysics is a foundational discipline. It provides the groundwork for other branches

of philosophy, such as epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics. For instance, physics explores
the physical world, but it relies on metaphysical concepts like time, space, and causation
to make sense of its observations. Similarly, psychology studies the mind and human
behaviour, but it also draws upon metaphysical concepts like consciousness and free will.

g) Metaphysics is a controversial and contested field. There is no single, agreed-upon

definition of metaphysics, and there are many different schools of thought on metaphysical
issues.

The Subject Matter of Metaphysics

The subject matter of metaphysics is the totality of being and existence. This is to say that
nothing seems to lie outside of its scope. Its study ranges from what is physical to what is beyond
the physical. Aristotle calls it first philosophy which is the study of being qua being.

Aspects or Divisions of Metaphysics

There are four divisions of metaphysics with each division addressing different questions. They
are as follows:

1. Ontology

Ontology is the study of the nature of existence, or what it means for anything to exist. It focuses
on what exists, what kind of things exists and how they relate to each other

18 | P a g e
It is all about categorizing and understanding different types of beings, their properties and the
relationship between them.

Ontology, derived from the Greek words for "being" ("on") and "study" ("logia"), is a branch of
metaphysics that explores the fundamental nature of being and existence. It investigates what
exists, how things are categorized, and the relationships between different entities. Ontology seeks
to answer questions like:

What are the basic building blocks of reality?

How can we distinguish between different categories of being, such as material objects, abstract
concepts, and mental states?

How are entities related to each other?

Is basic reality found in matter or physical energy (the world we can sense), or is it found in spirit
or spiritual energy?

Is it composed of one element (e.g., matter or spirit), or two (e.g., matter and spirit), or many?

Is reality orderly and lawful in itself, or is it merely orderable by the human mind?

Is it fixed and stable, or is it changing? Is this reality friendly, unfriendly, or neutral toward
humanity?”

Main Categories of Ontology

Ontology often deals with the following fundamental categories of being:

Substances: These are enduring objects that possess properties and stand in relations to other
entities. Examples of substances include individual people, trees, and planets.

Properties: These are characteristics or attributes that belong to substances. Examples of

properties include color, size, and shape.

Relations: These are links or connections between substances. Examples of relations include being
taller than, being next to, and being a member of.

States of affairs: These are configurations of substances and properties that are temporary or
situated in time and space. Examples of states of affairs include being in a room, being happy, and
being in love.

Ontological Questions and Theories

Ontological inquiry has been a central concern of philosophers throughout history. Some
prominent ontological questions include:

19 | P a g e
What is the relationship between mind and matter? Is the mind a physical substance or something
non-physical?

Do abstract concepts like numbers or universals exist independently of our minds? Or are they
merely mental constructs?

Is there a distinction between necessary and contingent being? Are some things necessarily existent
(e.g., the laws of logic), while others are contingent (e.g., particular objects)?

There are various ontological theories that attempt to answer these questions and provide a
framework for understanding the nature of existence. Some influential ontological perspectives
include:

Materialism: This view holds that only physical matter exists, and all mental phenomena are
ultimately reducible to physical processes.

Idealism: This view holds that only minds and ideas exist, and the physical world is a product of
consciousness.

Pluralism: This view holds that there are multiple fundamental categories of being, not just one.

Nominalism: This view holds that there are no universals, just individual objects and their unique
properties.

Realism: This view holds that universals exist independently of particular objects.

Ontology's Importance and Implications

Ontology plays a crucial role in shaping our understanding of reality, gst 2and influencing our
philosophical, scientific, and even everyday beliefs. It provides a framework for making sense of
the world around us, understanding ourselves and others, and engaging in meaningful discourse.

2. Cosmology:

Cosmology consists of the study of theories about the origin, nature, and development of the
universe as an orderly system. Questions that relate to cosmology include: “How did the universe
originate and develop? Did it come about by accident or design? Does its existence have any
purpose? What is the ultimate fate of the universe?

Now, while the scientific field of cosmology often deals with empirical observations and
mathematical models to understand the universe, the philosophical branch of cosmology, nestled
within metaphysics, ventures into the more foundational and speculative realm. Philosophical
cosmologists may ponder questions that go beyond empirical evidence, such as the nature of time,
the existence of other universes (if any), and the possible underlying structures and principles
governing the cosmos.

20 | P a g e
Cosmology's Relationship with Ontology

• While cosmology and ontology are distinct branches of metaphysics, they share a close
connection. Ontology provides the conceptual framework for understanding the
fundamental nature of the universe, while cosmology offers insights into the universe's
grand narrative and the entities that compose it.
• Cosmological theories and observations can inform ontological debates, providing
evidence to support or challenge various ontological perspectives. For instance, the
discovery of dark matter and dark energy has challenged traditional understandings of
matter and energy, prompting ontological reevaluations.
• Ontological insights, in turn, can shape cosmological investigations. For example, the
question of whether the universe is finite or infinite has implications for our understanding
of its ultimate fate and the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

3. Theology
Theology is that part of religious theory that deals with conceptions of and about God. “Is there a
God? If so, is there one or more than one? What are the attributes of God? If God is both all good
and all powerful, why does evil exist? If God exists, what is His relationship to human beings and
the real world of everyday life?”

4. Anthropology
Anthropology deals with the study of human beings and asks questions like the following: What
is the relation between mind and body? Is the mind more fundamental than the body, with the body
depending on the mind, or vice versa? What is humanity’s moral status? Are people born good,
evil, or morally neutral? To what extent are individuals free? Do they have free will, or are their
thoughts and actions determined by their environment, inheritance, or a divine being? Does each
person have a soul? If so, what is it? People have obviously adopted different positions on these
questions, and those positions influence their political, social, religious, and educational ideals and
practices.

Metaphysical Theories
Metaphysical theories are attempts to answer fundamental questions about the nature of reality and
existence. Let us consider some of the theories.

a) Idealism
The central thesis of idealism is that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual. In idealism, the
mind and its thoughts or ideas are considered the primary substance of reality, and the physical
world is seen as secondary, a manifestation of the mind's processes. The roots of idealism can be
traced back to the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who posited that the material world is just a
shadow of a more real world of ideas or forms.

21 | P a g e
Different idealists approach the concept in various ways. Some are absolute idealists, like Georg
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who contended that reality is an expression of a rational, abstract, and
all-encompassing mind. Others, like Bishop George Berkeley, proposed subjective idealism,
suggesting that objects only exist to the extent that they are perceived by a consciousness.

Strengths of Idealism
- Idealism emphasizes the importance of consciousness and provides a robust framework to discuss
ideas, values, and the self.
- It naturally lends itself to discussions of ethics and aesthetics, where subjective experiences take
centre stage.
- Idealism is significant in religion and spirituality, where concepts transcend mere physical forms.

Weaknesses of Idealism
- It often struggles to account for the empirical and objective aspects of reality that are well-
documented and reliably predictable.
- In its extreme forms, it can lead to solipsism, the idea that only one's mind is sure to exist, which
is a challenging position to defend or prove.

b) Materialism
Materialism posits that reality is fundamentally physical or material in nature. Materialists assert
that everything that exists is matter, subject to the laws of physics, and that any mental or spiritual
experiences are results of material interactions. This view was prominent in the philosophy of the
ancient atomists like Leucippus and Democritus, who argued that all phenomena in the universe
are the result of atomic movements.

Modern materialism often aligns with physicalism—the viewpoint that everything is physical or
as supervening on the physical—and is influenced by scientific discoveries that have explicated
more and more phenomena in terms of matter and energy.

Strengths of Materialism
- Materialism is strongly supported by the natural sciences, making it practical and relatable to
everyday experiences.
- It provides clear mechanisms for interactions and phenomena in the universe, making
explanations falsifiable and testable.
- By focusing on the physical, materialism supports technological progress and pragmatic
applications in society.

Weaknesses of Materialism
- Materialism can struggle with explaining conscious experience—known as the "hard problem of
consciousness."
- It may de-emphasize or unduly reduce human experiences like love, justice, or beauty to mere
material interactions, which some argue strips them of their true essence.

The debate between idealism and materialism has, thus, been a long-standing tug-of-war
concerning the primary nature of reality. Each offers deep insights, but also poses profound

22 | P a g e
questions that push the limits of philosophical inquiry. The question of whether mind or matter
takes precedence continues to shape much of our philosophical, scientific, and cultural discourse.

c) Dualism and Monism

Dualism and monism are metaphysical theories that propose contrasting views on the nature of
reality, particularly the relationship between mind and matter.

i) Dualism

Dualism posits that reality consists of two distinct and separate substances or entities: mind
(consciousness, soul) and matter (physical entities). It maintains that mind and matter interact or
coexist but are fundamentally different in nature.

Proponents of Dualism:

1. René Descartes: Descartes' substance dualism claimed that there are two fundamentally different
substances: res cogitans (thinking substance or mind) and res extensa (extended substance or
body). He argued that the mind and body interacted through the pineal gland, which served as the
interface between the immaterial mind and the physical body.

2. John Eccles: Eccles proposed a version of dualism known as interactionist dualism. He argued
that mental events can influence physical processes in the brain and that the mind and body
interact, but they are distinct entities.

Criticisms of Dualism:

Dualism faces several criticisms, including:

1. Interaction problem: Dualism struggles to explain how an immaterial mind can interact with a
physical body without violating the laws of physics.

2. Epiphenomenalism: Critics argue that if the mind is purely immaterial and non-physical, it
should have no causal influence on the physical world.

ii) Monism

Monism posits that there is only one fundamental substance or principle underlying reality, mental
and physical phenomena being different aspects or manifestations of this fundamental substance.

Types of Monism:

1. Idealistic Monism: This is the view that the ultimate reality is mental or spiritual in nature. It
suggests that everything, including matter, is a manifestation or projection of mind or

23 | P a g e
consciousness. Proponents of this view, such as George Berkeley and some forms of Advaita
Vedanta, argue that the physical world is illusory and only the mental or spiritual realm is real.

2. Materialistic Monism: This for of monism (also known as physicalism) asserts that the
physical world is the sole and ultimate reality. It posits that everything, including consciousness
and mental phenomena, can be explained solely in terms of physical processes. Proponents of this
view, such as Thomas Hobbes and most modern scientific perspectives, argue that mental states
are reducible to brain activity.

Criticisms of Monism

Monism encounters various criticisms from different perspectives, including:

1. Ignoring the complementary nature of mind and matter: Critics argue that monism fails to
account for the complementary nature of mental and physical phenomena in human experiences.

2. Oversimplifying reality: Critics contend that monism oversimplifies the complexity of reality
by reducing everything to a single substance or principle.

To sum it up, dualism and monism are contrasting metaphysical theories that offer different
explanations for the nature of reality. Dualism proposes the existence of two separate entities: mind
and matter, while monism suggests a single fundamental substance. Understanding these theories
provides insight into philosophical perspectives on the relationship between mind and matter,
contributing to a deeper understanding of reality.

METAPHYSICAL PROBLEMS

Free Will and Determinism

Free will and determinism are two opposing views on the nature of human action. Free will is the
idea that humans have the ability to make choices freely, without being constrained by prior causes
or external forces. Determinism, on the other hand, is the idea that all events, including human
actions, are predetermined by prior causes and that humans do not have the ability to make truly
free choices.

The debate between free will and determinism has been raging for centuries, and there is no easy
answer. There are strong arguments to be made on both sides of the issue.

1) Appearance and Reality

The problem of appearance and reality is the question of whether what we perceive as reality is
actually real. This is a difficult question to answer, as our perceptions of the world are always

24 | P a g e
filtered through our senses and our minds. We can never be sure that what we see, hear, taste,
touch, or smell is an accurate representation of objective reality.

There are a number of different philosophical theories about the nature of appearance and reality.
Some philosophers believe that there is only one reality, and that our perceptions are simply
imperfect copies of this reality. Others believe that there are multiple realities, and that each
person's perception of the world is their own unique reality.

2) Change and Permanence

The problem of change and permanence is the question of whether things change over time or
whether they remain permanent. This is a difficult question to answer, as we can observe both
change and permanence in the world. For example, we can see that a child grows into an adult, but
we can also see that the child's identity remains the same throughout this process.

There are a number of different philosophical theories about the nature of change and permanence.
Some philosophers believe that everything is in a constant state of flux, while others believe that
there is an underlying permanence to all things.

3) Mind-Body Problem

The mind-body problem is the question of how the mind and the body interact with each other.
This is a difficult question to answer, as we do not fully understand the nature of the mind or the
body.

There are a number of different philosophical theories about the mind-body problem. Some
philosophers believe that the mind is a separate entity from the body, while others believe that the
mind is simply a product of the brain.

These are just a few of the many metaphysical problems that philosophers have grappled with over
the centuries. These problems are still being debated today, and there is no easy answer to any of
them. However, the pursuit of answers to these questions is what keeps philosophy alive and
relevant.

THE ATTACK ON METAPHYSICS

The attack on metaphysics refers to various critiques and challenges that have been posed against
the discipline of metaphysics throughout history. Metaphysics is concerned with fundamental
questions about the nature of reality, existence, being, and the underlying structure of the world.
Criticisms against metaphysics have come from various philosophical traditions and perspectives:

i. Logical Positivism: This movement in the early 20th century argued that metaphysical
statements are meaningless because they cannot be empirically verified. According to
logical positivists, metaphysics lacks empirical evidence and therefore fails to meet the
criteria of meaningful discourse.
25 | P a g e
 ii. Existentialist Critique: Existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger
criticized traditional metaphysics for its tendency to overlook the concrete, individual
human existence in favor of abstract, universal principles. They argued that metaphysical
systems often neglect the subjective, lived experiences of individuals in their quest for
abstract truth.
iii. Postmodern Critique: Postmodernism questions the idea of a unified, objective reality
and challenges the foundational assumptions of metaphysics. Postmodernists argue that
reality is fragmented, shaped by language, culture, and various perspectives, thereby
undermining the notion of a singular metaphysical truth.
iv. Scientific Critique: Some critics claim that advances in science have made certain
metaphysical concepts obsolete or irrelevant. For instance, the discoveries in physics, such
as quantum mechanics, have challenged traditional metaphysical assumptions about the
nature of reality, causality, and determinism.

While these critiques have offered valuable insights into the limitations and challenges faced by
metaphysics, they haven't entirely invalidated the discipline. Metaphysics continues to evolve,
adapting to new challenges and incorporating insights from various fields, including philosophy,
science, and even spirituality. Many philosophers argue that despite its limitations, metaphysics
remains an essential and ongoing inquiry into fundamental questions about existence and reality.

26 | P a g e
 MODULE 4

ETHICS: MORALITY AND VALUE

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with moral principles and values. It asks questions
about what is right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust. Ethics also tries to provide a
foundation for making moral decisions. It can also be defined as the study of questions of morality,
the search to understand what is right, wrong, good, and bad. It is the branch of philosophy that
systematically studies moral ideals and goals, motives of choice, and patterns of good and bad
conduct.

Ethics is the most practical and human aspect of philosophy. While one may wonder why we are
looking at metaphysical or epistemological issues which sometimes look abstract, no one seems
perplexed about ethical issues since they are things we daily relate with. We often ask, for instance,
what makes an action right or wrong, good or bad. We also ask whether it is moral to commit
suicide or abortion or undertake mercy killing.

Ethics studies the morality of human conduct and the basic principles of moral behaviour. It
basically deals with human beings and how they relate to humans, animals and the environment in
a bid to live the good life. In other words, ethics seeks to give us general guidance on what to do,
what to seek and how to treat others. It is concerned with the rational construction of a rational
system of moral principles and consequently helps us to think more clearly about our principles of
action and unravel the logical knots in our reasoning about ethical matters. Moral philosophers are
concerned with the task of analysing the nature of moral judgements, moral terms and moral
behaviour. Moral philosophers look into moral actions in order to understand their nature. They
seek to know what is in an action that makes it right or wrong. In other, words, they look into the
grounds upon which moral actions or judgments are justified

APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF ETHICS

There are three approaches to the study of ethics, namely, normative and meta-ethics. Ethical
theories and discussion are either normative or meta-ethical theories.

Descriptive Ethics

Descriptive ethics is a branch of moral philosophy that seeks to understand and describe the ethical
beliefs, practices, and behaviours of individuals or groups without necessarily making normative
judgments about whether those beliefs or behaviours are right or wrong. It is a scientific approach
to ethical inquiry. Descriptive ethics, often called comparative ethics, takes us on a fascinating
journey exploring the multifaceted landscape of human moral beliefs and practices. Unlike its
prescriptive counterpart, which dictates "how we ought to behave," descriptive ethics explores the
"what is" of morality. It's a scientific lens through which we observe and understand the diverse
tapestry of moral codes and values woven across societies, cultures, and individuals.

27 | P a g e
Descriptive ethics is based on empirical foundation and uses scientific methods like anthropology,
psychology, and sociology to gather data on moral reasoning, decision-making, and cultural
norms. It focuses on ethical diversities within a culture or between different cultures and peoples.
Its main aim is understanding rather than prescription, that is, the goal is not to tell people how to
live, but to illuminate the underlying logic and motivations behind their moral choices.

Normative Ethics

Normative ethics is the moral philosophy that seeks to determine the principles or rules that ought
to govern human behaviour. It is the attempt to decide or prescribe values, behaviours and ways
of being and pursuits that are right or wrong, good or bad, admirable or condemnable. It is
concerned with establishing norms or standards for evaluating actions as morally right or wrong.
Unlike descriptive ethics, which analyses and describes existing moral practices, normative ethics
is prescriptive in nature, offering guidance on how individuals and societies should act. The
outcome of normative ethics are prescriptions derived from asking normative questions. These
prescriptions include acceptable moral standards and codes. Consequentialism, deontology and
virtue ethics are examples of normative ethical theories

Meta-ethics

Meta-ethics is the ethical inquiry that is concerned with understanding the language of morality
through an analysis of the meaning of ethical terms such as good, bad, wright, wrong and ethically
related concepts sicu as happiness, virtue, character etc. Meta-ethics plunges us into the
philosophical bedrock of morality, asking the fundamental questions: What is morality? Where do
our moral ideas come from? Is there such a thing as objective right and wrong? Unlike normative
ethics, which focuses on what we ought to do, meta-ethics ponders the foundation upon which
those "oughts" stand.

One important aim of meta-ethics is not to discover what is good, right or moral, but what we mean
when we say something is good, right or moral. In other words, meta-ethics is concened with the
examination and analysis of ethical concepts. En example of a meta-ethical theory is emotivism

Meta-ethics is also concerned with the nature of moral judgements. Its questions whether moral
judgments are akin to factual statements (e.g., "The sky is blue") or something else entirely? It also
queries whether they universal and objective, or whether they can be relative to cultures and
individuals?

Meta-ethics shapes how we interpret and apply normative ethics. If you believe in objective moral
facts, it guides you towards finding and following them. If not, it prompts you to consciously
choose and justify your own moral frameworks. Meta-ethical concerns influence diverse fields
like law, religion, politics, and even science fiction. Engaging with meta-ethics cultivates critical
thinking, intellectual humility, and an appreciation for the complexity of morality.

28 | P a g e
ETHICAL THEORIES

The determination of whether an action is right or wrong is done by an appeal to theories,

approaches and codes of conducts such as codes religious or professional codes. Ethical theories
are systematic frameworks used to analyse and understand what constitutes morally right and
wrong behaviour. They can also be understood as philosophical attempts at explaining and
systematising human morality. The theories provide a basis for making ethical decisions in
complex situations where the right course of action is not always clear.

1. Deontology
Deontology is an ethical theory that emphasizes the importance of duty and the morality of actions,
independent of their outcomes. It focuses on the inherent nature of actions rather than the
consequences they produce. Deontology derives its name from the Greek word "deon," meaning
duty or obligation, emphasizing the importance of adhering to moral duties and principles. It's
often contrasted with consequentialism, a doctrine where the consequences of one's actions are the
ultimate basis for judging the rightness or wrongness of those actions.

At the heart of deontology is the belief that people are obliged to act in accordance with a set of
principles or rules, regardless of the results those actions might produce. The most influential
deontologist is Immanuel Kant, an 18th-century philosopher who argued that ethical principles
must be universalizable and that one's action should accord with a maxim one would will to be a
universal law. Kantian deontology prescribes that each rational being is ethically bound to act only
from a sense of duty; when deciding how to act, the consequences of one's actions are considered
to be irrelevant.

Kant's Categorical Imperative is the central philosophical concept in deontological moral theory.
It comes in several formulations, but one of the primary versions is, "Act only according to that
maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Essentially,
this means that if you're not okay with everyone in a similar situation acting in the same way, then
it’s not an ethical action.

Key Features of Deontological Ethics

1. Moral Absolutism: Unlike relativistic frameworks, deontology holds that certain actions are
absolutely right or wrong, regardless of their contexts or consequences.

2. Duty over Results: Deontologists argue that certain actions are required or forbidden no matter
the outcome. Telling the truth is often cited as such a duty; a deontologist would argue that it is
always wrong to lie, even if lying might bring about good consequences.

3. Rights and Respect for Individuals: Deontology posits that individuals have rights that should
not be violated, which means treating them as ends in themselves and not merely as means to an
end.

29 | P a g e
4. Rule-based: Deontology is concerned with the adherence to moral rules or duties. These duties
are to be followed even if breaking them would lead to better overall outcomes.

5. Motivation and Goodwill: For Kant and many deontologists, the morality of an action is also
dependent on the agent's motivation. An action is right only if it is performed out of a sense of
duty and with good intentions.

Criticisms of deontological ethics often focus on its rigidity and potential for conflicting duties.
Critics argue that it can lead to moral paradoxes where different rules can imply different actions
in the same situation. Furthermore, the emphasis on intent can seem perplexing when harmless
actions performed with bad intentions are considered morally worse than harmful actions
performed with good intentions.

Despite these criticisms, deontology remains a significant and influential ethical framework. It
appeals to those seeking moral standards that do not change based on societal or personal waxing
and waning of outcomes. For many, it provides a robust foundation for human rights, professional
ethics, and the rule of law, operating as a bulwark against the purely instrumental use of persons
or the ends-justifying-the-means reasoning that can lead to trampling of individual rights.

2. Consequentialism

Consequentialism is an ethical theory that suggests that the consequences of one's conduct are the
ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Simply put, it's
a results-based approach: if an action results in a positive outcome, it's deemed good; if the action
leads to a negative outcome, it's considered bad. This is to say that in considering whether an action
or decision is good or bad, right or wrong, the consequences are more relevant than intentions
motives and the feelings of the agent. It is an “end justifies the means” theory.

The most well-known form of consequentialism is utilitarianism, which was developed by Jeremy
Bentham and later expanded by John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism posits that the best action is the
one that maximizes overall happiness or pleasure and minimizes pain or suffering. This is often
summed up in the principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number." According to
utilitarianism, An action, decision or policy is good of it promotes the happiness of the greatest
number of people.

However, consequentialism isn't without its complexities and criticisms:

a. Measurement of Consequences: One central issue is how to measure and compare the
consequences of actions. Happiness and suffering can be subjective, and their valuation may differ
among individuals.

b. Unintended Consequences: Actions can have unforeseen results. It can be challenging to

predict all the consequences of an action, making ethical decision-making using a consequentialist
framework potentially problematic.

30 | P a g e
c. Demandingness Objection: Critics argue that consequentialism may demand too much of
individuals. For instance, if one could increase the overall good by giving away all of their
possessions, consequentialism might imply that they are morally required to do so.

d. Justice and Rights: Consequentialism might justify actions that are seen as unjust or a violation
of individual rights if those actions lead to a greater overall good, which can be ethically disturbing
for many.

Despite these challenges, consequentialism remains a significant and influential ethical theory. It
prompts consideration of the broader implications of actions and encourages us to think beyond
our intentions and the immediate circle of influence. In a world where actions can have far-
reaching impacts, such thinking is increasingly relevant. Consequentialism continues to be a vital
part of discussions in applied ethics, especially in areas like public policy, economics, and medical
ethics where the outcomes of decisions can affect large numbers of people.

3. Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is a branch of moral philosophy that emphasizes character, rather than rules
(deontology) or consequences (consequentialism), as the key element of ethical thinking and
decision making. Unlike other approaches, virtue ethics primarily focuses on the kind of person
one should be, rather than on the specific actions one should perform. What makes an action
moral from the point of view of virtue ethics is that the action aligns with and reflects virtuous
traits or qualities, such as honesty, courage, compassion, and justice. Virtue ethics emphasizes
the development of good character and the cultivation of virtues as essential components of
moral decision-making.

The roots of virtue ethics lie in ancient philosophy, with the work of Plato and Aristotle playing a
central role. Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" is one of the most influential texts in the tradition.
He proposed a list of virtues, each a mean between two extremes of character; for instance,
courage is a mean between rashness and cowardice.

Virtue ethics focuses on the development of good character traits. Rather than following a set of
rules, one should cultivate virtues through practice and habituation. The idea is that by becoming
a virtuous person, one will make the right choices when moral dilemmas arise.

Virtue ethics can be especially appealing because it deals with broader questions of character and
the complexities of human life, rather than simply providing a set of rules to follow. It
emphasizes moral education, the importance of moral community, and the role of the emotions in
moral life.

Critics argue that virtue ethics doesn't provide clear guidance on how to act in specific situations
and that it may lead to ethical relativism, where virtues can vary greatly between different

31 | P a g e
societies. Furthermore, it can be challenging to determine what the 'mean' actually is in practice
and how to apply it to complex moral situations.

In summary, virtue ethics offer a rich and nuanced way of thinking about moral life that
emphasizes the importance of developing a virtuous character to navigate the complexities of
life. It champions the idea that wisdom and character are central to ethical living, which
complements, rather than replaces, other ethical theories that focus on actions or consequences.

MORAL OBJECTIVISM AND MORAL RELATIVISM

The discussion relating to moral objectivism and moral relativism related to question of the nature
of moral judgements.

Moral Objectivism
Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are not absolute or universal, but rather are
culturally, individually, or situationally determined. This means that what is considered morally
right or wrong can vary from one society to another or from one person to another, and there is no
single moral standard that applies to all people at all times. There are several types of moral
relativism:

1. Cultural Relativism: This view holds that moral standards are rooted in cultural beliefs and
practices. Thus, different cultures may have different moral norms, and it is not appropriate to
judge one culture's morals by the standards of another.

2. Individual Relativism (Subjectivism): Here, morality is determined by individual choice, with

each person deciding what is right or wrong for themselves, potentially leading to as many moral
systems as there are people.

3. Situational Relativism: This suggests that what is morally right or wrong depends on the
specifics of the situation, not on absolute or universal laws.

The main criticism of moral relativism is that it may lead to moral paralysis or an inability to
critique harmful practices if they're ingrained in a specific cultural or individual framework. If
everything is relative, it may be difficult to argue against practices like slavery or discrimination
if they're accepted within certain cultural or individual contexts.

Moral Relativism
Moral objectivism, on the other hand, posits that there are universal moral truths that apply to all
people, regardless of culture, personal belief, or context. According to this view, certain actions
are inherently right or wrong, and these truths can be discovered through reason, experience, or
perhaps some moral intuition or revelation. Moral objectivism can be subdivided as well:

1. Absolutism: This strong form of objectivism claims that there are eternal, unchanging moral
principles that apply in all situations.

32 | P a g e
2. Utilitarianism: A form of consequentialism which suggests that the morality of an action is
determined by its outcomes. The most moral action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or
utility.

3. Deontological Ethics: This is a duty-based approach that asserts that certain actions are morally
required or forbidden, regardless of their consequences. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant are
associated with this view.

Critics of moral objectivism argue that it can be inflexible and fail to account for complex, real-
world scenarios where moral truths may not be so clear-cut. Furthermore, there's the challenge of
proving the existence of objective moral truths in a diverse world with many conflicting moral
perspectives.

Both views raise compelling arguments and pose significant questions like: Is it possible to have
any sort of international human rights standard under relativism? Can there be moral progress
(such as the abolition of slavery) if all morality is relative? On the flip side, how can objectivists
justify which morals are the true universal standards?

The debate between moral relativism and moral objectivism is complex and ongoing, as it grapples
with the very foundations of ethical theory and touches upon issues of tolerance, cultural
understanding, and the nature of moral truth itself.

THE NATURE OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Human beings seek accountability. People want to know who is responsible for certain actions and
who is accountable for the consequences of those actions. Moral responsibility refers to the
obligation or duty that an individual may have to act or refrain from acting in a certain way, based
on what is considered morally right or wrong. It's about being held accountable for the
consequences of your actions or choices, both good and bad. It also refers to the extent to which a
person is believed to be blameworthy or held accountable for certain decisions or conducts.

Here are some key aspects of moral responsibility:

Agency: The ability to make choices and act independently is typically seen as a prerequisite for
moral responsibility. Some argue that if someone's actions are entirely controlled by external
forces, they cannot be truly responsible for them.

Knowledge: To be held morally responsible for something, you generally need to be aware of the
potential consequences of your actions. For example, if you unintentionally bump into someone
and apologize, you may not be considered morally culpable. However, if you know someone is
allergic to peanuts and give them peanut butter despite their warnings, the situation is different.

33 | P a g e
Intention: In many cases, the intention behind an action is just as important as the action itself.
Someone who accidentally hurts someone may be seen as less morally responsible than someone
who intentionally harms them.

Moral codes: Different cultures and societies have different moral codes, which dictate what is
considered right and wrong. Moral responsibility often involves following these codes and acting
in accordance with the values they represent.

It's important to note that the concept of moral responsibility is not absolute or universally agreed
upon. There are many different philosophical theories about what constitutes moral responsibility,
and how it should be applied in specific situations. Additionally, cultural and social norms can
influence how individuals hold each other accountable.

Here are some examples of how moral responsibility plays out in real life:

A doctor who makes a mistake during surgery might be held morally responsible for the harm
caused to the patient, depending on their level of knowledge, skill, and intention.

A person who witnesses a crime but chooses not to report it might be considered morally
responsible for allowing the crime to continue.

A politician who makes decisions that benefit themselves at the expense of the public might be
seen as morally responsible for the negative consequences of those decisions.

Ultimately, the question of moral responsibility is a complex one that requires careful
consideration of many factors. There is no single answer that will satisfy everyone, but
understanding the different perspectives on this topic can help us make more informed and ethical
decisions in our own lives.

APPLIED ETHICS

Applied ethics is a branch of moral philosophy that deals with the application of ethical theories
and principles to real-world situations and issues. Unlike theoretical ethics, which explores abstract
concepts and principles, applied ethics focuses on the practical aspects of ethical decision-making
and seeks to address specific moral dilemmas in various fields. This branch of ethics aims to
provide guidance on how individuals and organizations should behave in specific contexts.

In applied ethics, ethical theories such as consequentialism, deontology and virtue ethics are often
used to analyze and evaluate specific situations. The goal is to provide practical guidelines for
making morally sound decisions in complex and often ambiguous real-world scenarios. Ethical
codes, professional standards, and legal frameworks may also play a role in guiding ethical
behaviour within specific professions and industries. Overall, applied ethics seeks to bridge the

34 | P a g e
gap between abstract moral principles and their practical application in diverse fields of human
activity.

Key areas of applied ethics include:

1. Bioethics: this include medical ethics, reproductive ethics and genetic ethics. Medical Ethics
is concerned with ethical issues in medicine and healthcare, such as the doctor-patient relationship,
informed consent, end-of-life decisions, and organ transplantation. Reproductive ethics deals with
moral considerations related to reproductive technologies, abortion, and issues surrounding
pregnancy and childbirth. Genetic Ethics explores ethical questions arising from advances in
genetics, including genetic testing, gene editing, and cloning.

2. Environmental Ethics: This area examines the moral obligations and responsibilities
individuals and societies have towards the environment. Topics include climate change,
biodiversity conservation, pollution, and sustainable development.

3. Business Ethics: this addresses ethical considerations in the business world, including corporate
social responsibility, fair labour practices, environmental sustainability, and ethical decision-
making in business operations.

4. Information Ethics: This explores ethical issues related to the use and dissemination of
information and technology. This includes privacy concerns, digital rights, intellectual property,
and the ethical implications of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence.

5. Media Ethics: This addresses ethical considerations in journalism, advertising, and

entertainment. Topics include truthfulness, freedom of the press, and the responsibility of media
professionals to the public.

35 | P a g e
 MODULE 5

EXISTENTIALISM: THE MEANING OF LIFE AND HUMAN EXISTENCE

Existentialism is a philosophical movement that gained prominence in the 19th and 20th centuries.
It delves deeply into the complexities of human existence, grappling with fundamental questions
about life, individuality, freedom, and the search for meaning in a seemingly chaotic and
indifferent universe. Unlike traditional philosophical approaches, existentialism places a greater
emphasis on subjective human experience and the intricacies of individual existence, rather than
abstract metaphysical or systematic investigations.

Existentialism challenges the traditional philosophical paradigm by suggesting that humans do not
have pre-determined meanings or purposes. Instead, it argues that individuals are born into a void
of existential emptiness, lacking inherent significance, and must confront the formidable challenge
of giving meaning to their existence through their choices, actions, and personal experiences.

Existentialism is a philosophical and literary movement that emerged in the 20th century,
particularly in the aftermath of World War II. It revolves around the fundamental principles of
human existence, freedom, responsibility, and individuality. Existentialist thinkers address
questions related to the meaning of life, the nature of existence, and the individual's relationship
with the social, political, and ethical aspects of the world.

Existentialist Thinkers

Key existentialist thinkers such as Soren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre,
Martin Heidegger, and Albert Camus, among others, contributed distinct perspectives to this
philosophical discourse, enriching the movement with diverse interpretations and emphases. Their
philosophical treatises, novels, essays, and plays underscored the multifaceted nature of
existentialist thought, elucidating the intricacies of human consciousness, the pursuit of
authenticity, the anguish of existence, and the perpetual quest for meaning in an ostensibly absurd
and indifferent universe. Let’s touch briefly on tthem.

1. Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855): Often considered the precursor of existentialism,

Kierkegaard emphasized the subjective nature of truth and the importance of personal choice. He
argued that human existence is characterized by anxiety and despair, but individuals can find
meaning through faith, ethics, and the pursuit of personal authenticity.

2. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900): Nietzsche critiqued traditional philosophy, morality, and

religion, advocating for the affirmation of life in its genuine and creative aspects. He famously
proclaimed that "God is dead" and called for the emergence of the "Ubermensch" (superman) who
would reject societal norms and create their own values.

36 | P a g e
3. Martin Heidegger (1889-1976): Heidegger's philosophy centers on the concept of "Dasein,"
which means "being-there" in German. He emphasized the subjective experience of existence and
the importance of individual authenticity. Heidegger believed that individuals often fall into
inauthenticity by conforming to societal expectations and that true meaning can be found by
recognizing one's finitude and taking responsibility for one's own existence.

4. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980): Sartre is one of the most influential existentialist thinkers. He
argued that existence precedes essence, meaning that individuals create their essence through the
choices they make. Sartre emphasized the concept of freedom and the anguish that comes along
with it, rejecting any objective morality or predefined human nature. According to him, individuals
are responsible for their choices and the consequences that follow.

5. Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986): Often associated with feminist existentialism, de Beauvoir

examined the relationship between gender and existentialism. She argued that both women and
men experience existential conflicts but believed that women face unique challenges due to
societal expectations. De Beauvoir advocated for women's liberation from traditional gender roles,
asserting that existence is not limited to biology but should be defined freely by each individual.

6. Albert Camus (1913-1960): Camus explored the theme of the absurdity of existence, focusing
on the tension between humanity's search for meaning and the indifferent nature of the universe.
He famously wrote that "the only truly serious philosophical problem is suicide" since the
absurdity of life can lead individuals to question their existence. Still, despite the absence of
inherent meaning, Camus suggested that individuals should rebel against the meaninglessness of
life by creating their own values and engaging in authentic experiences.

7. Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973): Marcel emphasized the importance of human relationships and
personal encounters with others as the source of meaning and value. He criticized modern,
technological society, which he believed leads to alienation and objectification of individuals.
Marcel called for a return to concrete experience and existential engagement that recognizes the
uniqueness and dignity of every individual.

These existentialist thinkers have significantly impacted philosophy, literature, and various other
disciplines, shaping our understanding of the human condition, individuality, and the choices we
make in our lives. Their insights continue to inspire, challenge, and provoke contemplation on the
meaning of existence for many today.

EXISTENTIALIST THEMES

1. Existence Precedes Essence

One of the foundational principles that distinguishes existentialism from other philosophical
perspectives is the assertion that "existence precedes essence." Coined by the 20th-century

37 | P a g e
philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, this concept encapsulates a profound reorientation of traditional
philosophical notions, challenging the idea that individuals possess inherent, predetermined
meanings or purposes from the moment of their inception. This existentialist maxim propounds
that human beings are not born with a fixed essence or predetermined nature, in contrast to objects
or entities in the natural world. Instead, individuals are thrust into existence first, and only through
their lived experiences, choices, and actions do they carve out their essence.

To explore this tenet, it is essential to comprehend the historical and intellectual context in which
existentialism arose. The 19th and 20th centuries witnessed a seismic shift in philosophical
discourse, marked by the decline of traditional metaphysics and the rise of empirical sciences.
Existentialism, emerging as a reaction to this changing landscape, sought to grapple with the
implications of a world devoid of overarching meaning or divine guidance. Existentialist thinkers
rejected the notion of a preordained human nature, contending that individuals are not
predetermined entities with fixed purposes, but rather, they are thrust into an indifferent universe
with the freedom to shape their own destinies.

Sartre's articulation of "existence precedes essence" is intricately tied to the rejection of

essentialism, a philosophical stance that posits inherent qualities or characteristics that define an
entity. In the existentialist framework, the human being is portrayed as an 'existence' without a
predetermined 'essence.' This departure from essentialism signifies a radical departure from
traditional philosophical perspectives that ascribed fixed attributes to individuals based on
predetermined categories, such as human nature or divine plans.

The implications of this existentialist tenet are far-reaching, permeating various aspects of human
experience. It thrusts individuals into a state of radical freedom, emphasizing the responsibility to
define their essence through their choices. In this paradigm, the human experience is not a passive
unfolding of a preconceived plan but an active engagement with the world. It underscores the idea
that each person is the author of their own existence, tasked with navigating the complexities of
life and determining their values, beliefs, and identity.

Summaritly, "existence precedes essence" stands as a pivotal tenet in existentialist thought,

encapsulating a radical departure from traditional philosophical paradigms. It challenges the notion
of a predetermined human nature, thrusting individuals into a realm of radical freedom,
responsibility, and the perpetual quest to define their essence through authentic choices and lived
experiences. This existentialist maxim remains an enduring and thought-provoking cornerstone in
the exploration of human existence and the quest for meaning in an ostensibly indifferent universe.

2. Freedom and Responsibility

At the heart of existentialist philosophy lies the inseparable tandem of freedom and responsibility.
This key tenet, deeply embedded in the fabric of existentialist thought, posits that human beings
are endowed with radical freedom, granting them the power to shape their own existence.
However, this freedom is not without its weighty counterpart—responsibility. The existentialist

38 | P a g e
perspective contends that individuals are not only free to make choices but are also accountable
for the consequences of those choices. This intricate interplay between freedom and responsibility
forms a philosophical landscape that challenges conventional notions of determinism and
underscores the profound agency each person possesses in crafting the meaning of their own lives.

Existentialist thinkers, including Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, have delved into the
complexities of freedom and responsibility, offering nuanced insights into their dynamic
relationship. To comprehend this tenet comprehensively, it is essential to explore both the
existentialist understanding of freedom and the existential demand for responsible action.

Freedom in Existentialism: Existentialism's conception of freedom extends beyond the

conventional understanding of mere autonomy or the absence of external constraints. Rather,
existentialist freedom is characterized by radical autonomy—an unfettered agency that allows
individuals to determine the course of their lives. Sartre, in particular, argued for a radical form of
freedom that surpasses any predetermined essence or external influences. He famously declared,
"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything
he does."

This radical freedom is not a passive state but an active engagement with the world. Existentialists
reject the idea of a predetermined human nature or a divine plan, emphasizing that individuals are
not bound by external forces but are, instead, architects of their own existence. Freedom, in this
sense, becomes both liberating and burdensome—an empowering force that requires individuals
to confront the responsibility inherent in their choices.

Responsibility in Existentialism: The existentialist concept of responsibility emerges as a natural

consequence of the radical freedom bestowed upon individuals. If one is truly free to shape their
existence, they must also bear the weight of responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Existentialist responsibility is not a mere moral obligation imposed by external authorities; rather,
it is an inherent aspect of human existence.

Sartre's idea of "bad faith" underscores the evasion of responsibility—an act of self-deception
where individuals deny their freedom and shirk the accountability for their choices. Authentic
existence, according to existentialists, necessitates embracing responsibility fully, acknowledging
the impact of one's decisions on oneself and others.

The intertwining of freedom and responsibility becomes particularly evident in the existentialist
exploration of choice. Existentialists reject the notion of predetermined paths or moral absolutes,
asserting that individuals must navigate a world devoid of inherent meaning or guidance. In
making choices, they not only define their own essence but also contribute to the collective shaping
of human values and meanings.

Freedom and responsibility in existentialism transcend philosophical abstractions, permeating the

very core of human experience. The existentialist call for radical freedom challenges individuals

39 | P a g e
to confront the profound agency they possess in shaping their existence. Simultaneously, the
demand for responsibility underscores the inextricable link between freedom and accountability,
urging individuals to embrace the consequences of their choices authentically. This existential
dynamic, with its inherent challenges and dilemmas, remains a thought-provoking cornerstone in
the exploration of human agency, moral choice, and the pursuit of meaning in a world fraught with
uncertainties.

3. Authenticity and Inauthenticity

Existentialism, as a philosophical movement, places a profound emphasis on the concepts of

authenticity and inauthenticity. These notions explore the nature of human existence and the moral
imperative to live a life true to one's own values, beliefs, and individuality. Rooted in the
existentialist rejection of external norms and predefined roles, the exploration of authenticity
unfolds as a critical aspect of existentialist thought.

Authenticity: Authenticity, in the existentialist context, is a state of being true to oneself,

embracing one's freedom, and taking responsibility for one's choices. This concept, central to the
works of existentialist philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger, posits that
individuals must engage in genuine self-discovery, define their values, and lead lives that resonate
with their unique essence.

Sartre, in his seminal work "Being and Nothingness," underscores the idea that authenticity
requires individuals to acknowledge their radical freedom and actively shape their own existence.
Authentic living involves making choices that align with one's deepest convictions, irrespective of
societal expectations or external pressures. The authentic individual embraces the inherent
uncertainties of existence, confronting the existential void with a sense of purpose derived from
personal commitment and self-discovery.

Heidegger, on the other hand, introduced the concept of "authentic Being-toward-death."

Authenticity, for Heidegger, involves confronting the inevitability of death and using this
awareness as a catalyst for living an authentic life. By acknowledging the finite nature of existence,
individuals are prompted to prioritize meaningful experiences and genuine connections over
superficial pursuits.

Inauthenticity: Inauthenticity, conversely, represents a state of being where individuals betray

their true selves, succumbing to societal norms, external expectations, or conformist behaviours.
Existentialists argue that inauthentic living arises when individuals evade their freedom, deny their
responsibility, and adopt predefined roles dictated by societal conventions.

Sartre's notion of "bad faith" encapsulates inauthenticity—a self-deceptive act where individuals
deny their freedom, attributing their actions and choices to external factors or predetermined
circumstances. In this state, individuals relinquish their agency, allowing external influences to

40 | P a g e
dictate their lives. Inauthentic living, according to existentialists, is marked by a lack of self-
awareness and a refusal to confront the responsibilities that come with radical freedom.

The pursuit of authenticity in existentialism is not devoid of challenges. The inherent freedom and
responsibility that come with authenticity can evoke anxiety and existential dread. The authentic
individual is forced to confront the uncertainties and ambiguities of existence, navigating a path
without predetermined guideposts. However, existentialists argue that this struggle is an essential
aspect of human existence—a journey towards self-realization and the creation of genuine
meaning.

At the core of authenticity and inauthenticity lies the existentialist emphasis on choice.
Existentialists contend that individuals are defined by the choices they make, and authentic living
requires the conscious, deliberate selection of one's path. Confronting the myriad possibilities of
existence, individuals must make choices that resonate with their true selves, thereby contributing
to the ongoing process of self-definition.

Authenticity and inauthenticity serve as fundamental pillars in the existentialist exploration of

human existence. The call to live authentically beckons individuals to embrace their freedom, take
responsibility for their choices, and navigate the challenges of self-discovery. In contrast,
inauthentic living is viewed as a betrayal of one's essence, a surrender to external influences, and
a denial of the profound agency inherent in human existence. The existentialist discourse on
authenticity remains an enduring and thought-provoking guide for individuals seeking to navigate
the complexities of selfhood, morality, and the quest for meaning in a world filled with external
expectations and existential uncertainties.

4. Absurdity

Absurdity as a theme in existentialism is a notion that often appears in the philosophical works of
renowned thinkers such as Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre. It revolves around the idea that
human existence is inherently devoid of objective meaning or purpose, ultimately leading
individuals to experience a profound sense of absurdity in their lives.

Absurdity, in this context, arises from the clash between the human desire for meaning and the
perceived meaninglessness of existence. Philosophers like Camus argue that life inherently lacks
any inherent purpose or rationality, leaving individuals to navigate a world that is, fundamentally,
absurd. Sartre famously stated, "Existence precedes essence," emphasizing that human beings have
no predetermined essence or preordained purpose; rather, they are responsible for creating their
own meaning in life.

The absurdity theme becomes central when individuals confront the human condition. The
existentialist philosophy posits that individuals are condemned to freedom - the constant burden

41 | P a g e
of making choices and decisions without any objective yardstick to guide them. This existential
angst arises from the feeling that every decision made is ultimately inconsequential, as life itself
is seen as without any ultimate significance.

The absurdity theme can be illustrated through the metaphor of Sisyphus, as presented by Camus.
Sisyphus, a character from Greek mythology, is doomed to spend eternity pushing a rock up a hill,
only to watch it roll back down, repeating the task continuously. Camus argues that Sisyphus
represents the human condition: perpetually engaged in meaningless efforts, knowing that there is
no ultimate purpose or success in his actions. It is within this never-ending cycle that Camus
uncovers a sense of rebellion against the absurd, suggesting that true freedom and fulfillment can
be found in accepting and embracing the absurdity of existence. This rebellion involves
acknowledging the absurdity of the universe while actively and creatively engaging with life. It
calls for a rejection of passive acceptance and an embrace of one's freedom to define meaning in
the face of an indifferent cosmos.

5. Anguish

Anguish, a pervasive theme in existentialism, encapsulates the profound psychological distress

and existential anxiety that individuals experience when confronted with the uncertainties and
complexities of existence. Existentialist philosophers, including Søren Kierkegaard, Jean-Paul
Sartre, and Albert Camus, examine the concept of anguish to explore the inherent challenges of
human freedom, responsibility, and the quest for meaning.

In existentialist thought, anguish emerges from the awareness of radical freedom—the daunting
realization that individuals must make choices without predetermined guidelines or external
assurances. This existential dread arises when individuals grapple with the weighty responsibility
of shaping their own destinies and confronting the inherent uncertainties of life.

Sartre, in particular, emphasizes the experience of anguish as a fundamental aspect of human

existence. The anguish arises when individuals recognize the burden of their freedom,
understanding that every choice made contributes to defining their essence. The angst is
heightened by the absence of predetermined values or moral absolutes, leaving individuals in a
state of perpetual uncertainty and self-examination.

Existentialist anguish is not merely a psychological or emotional state; it is an essential part of the
human condition. It reflects the inherent tension between the desire for meaning and the absence
of inherent purpose in the universe. Confronting anguish becomes a pivotal aspect of the existential
journey, prompting individuals to grapple with the challenges of self-discovery, authenticity, and
the perpetual quest for significance in an apparently indifferent cosmos.

6. Forlornness

42 | P a g e
Forlornness, a poignant theme in existentialism, encapsulates the profound sense of abandonment
and isolation that individuals experience in their existential journey. This theme explores the
inherent loneliness of human existence, emphasizing the individual's subjective experience of
being alone in a seemingly indifferent or absurd world.

Existentialist philosophers, including Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, explore the concept of
forlornness to convey the isolating nature of human freedom. In the absence of predetermined
meanings or external guidance, individuals are left to navigate the vast expanse of existence on
their own. This existential solitude arises from the understanding that each person must forge their
own path, make their own choices, and confront the uncertainties of life without the assurance of
an inherent purpose.

Sartre, in his existentialist exploration, underscores forlornness as an essential component of

human freedom. The isolation emerges from the radical responsibility individuals bear for their
choices, actions, and the construction of their own essence. The awareness of forlornness,
therefore, becomes a fundamental aspect of existential angst, as individuals grapple with the
weighty burden of creating meaning and identity in a seemingly indifferent universe.

Forlornness is not merely a physical or social state but a psychological and existential reality. It
heightens the individual's awareness of their distinct subjectivity and the absence of universal
guidance or inherent meaning. In this state of aloneness, individuals are compelled to confront the
stark reality of their existence and seek meaning in the face of a universe that may appear
indifferent or absurd.

Ultimately, the theme of forlornness in existentialism serves as a poignant reminder of the

individual's solitary journey in the quest for authenticity and meaning. It underscores the inherent
loneliness that accompanies the freedom to define one's own existence and the existential challenge
of finding significance amidst the vastness of an apparently indifferent cosmos.

EXISTENTIALISM IN LITERATURE AND ARTS

Existentialism, as a philosophical movement, has had a profound impact on literature and the arts.
Its emphasis on individuality, freedom, and the search for meaning in an absurd world has inspired
countless authors, playwrights, poets, and artists to explore and depict the complexities of human
existence.

In literature, existential themes can be found in the works of renowned writers such as Albert
Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, Franz Kafka, and Fyodor Dostoevsky. These authors often focus on the
inner lives and struggles of their characters, delving into existential angst, isolation, and the search
for personal identity.

43 | P a g e
Albert Camus, for example, is known for his novel "The Stranger" (also known as "The Outsider").
The story follows the life of Meursault, a detached and indifferent protagonist who grapples with
the meaninglessness of life and the absurdity of human existence. Camus portrays Meursault's
struggle against societal expectations, his resistance to conforming, and his ultimate acceptance of
the absurdity of his own actions.

Franz Kafka's works, such as "The Trial" and "The Metamorphosis," are renowned for their
portrayal of individuals trapped in absurd and incomprehensible situations. These stories explore
the themes of alienation, guilt, and the individual's struggle against an enigmatic and oppressive
system.

Existentialist ideas also permeate theatre. Jean-Paul Sartre, a prominent existential philosopher,
dabbled in playwriting and popularized the concept of "bad faith" through his plays such as "No
Exit." In this work, Sartre explores the existential hell of three characters locked together in a
room, forced to confront themselves and each other. The play raises questions about the nature of
human interaction, personal responsibility, and the essential truth of one's being.

Existentialist principles have also found expression in poetry. Writers like T.S. Eliot and Arthur
Rimbaud grapple with themes of human existence, alienation, and the search for authenticity and
purpose. Their works often reflect the disillusionment and anxiety that arise from the confrontation
with the absurdity of life.

In the visual arts, artists like Edvard Munch, Paul Gauguin, and Salvador Dalí have explored
existential themes through their paintings. Munch's famous work "The Scream" portrays a figure
trapped in a moment of existential dread, expressing the profound anguish and despair of human
existence. Gauguin's exploration of non-Western cultures and their more fundamental connection
to nature represents an existentialist response to societal norms and conventions. Dalí's surrealist
art, with its dreamlike and often disturbing imagery, challenges our perception of reality and
confronts the existential questions related to identity, time, and the self.

In general, existentialism has left an indelible mark on literature and the arts. Its exploration of
human existence, the absurdity of life, and the individual's search for meaning has provided a rich
and fertile ground for literary and artistic expression. Through diverse mediums, existentialist
works continue to provoke contemplation, stimulate reflection, and invite audiences to confront
their fundamental questions about life, purpose, and the role of the individual in the world.

44 | P a g e
 Module 6

INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC

1. Introduction

2. Nature and Meaning of Logic

Reasoning is a kind of thinking in which problems are solved, inferences take place, and
conclusions are drawn. All reasoning involves thinking but all thinking does not necessarily imply
reasoning. What then is reasoning and how can we identify good reasoning? Reasoning could be
defined as a systematized or organized chain-process of thought. Reasoning is a transition in
thought, where some beliefs (or thoughts) provide the ground or reason for coming to another.
High quality of reasoning is called logical reasoning or critical thinking. Logical reasoning can be
learned or improved. It is not a question whether you are naturally good at it or you‟re not. Rather,
every student or learner has the ability to reason well, and everyone is capable of improvement.
The usefulness of logical reasoning as a means to making more effective decisions about your own
life lies in decision about what to believe, accept and decision about what to do and when to do it.

3. What is Logic?

What is logic and what is its subject matter? Logic is the study of the principles and methods of
correct reasoning. Put more technically, it is the study of principles and methods of valid inference.
(Adeniyi & Ayedero, 2016). It is not, as is it is often supposed that, logic is the science of thinking
as such. for thinking can take many forms, such as remembering, intuiting, imagining, and freely
associating, which however interesting in themselves, are of little consequence to the logician. Our
concern is with reasoning only. It is true that all reasoning involves thinking, but all thinking is not
reasoning. Some thinking does not involve reasoning.

Logic simply put is a method and technique of distinguishing between valid, correct, sound, and
good reasoning (arguments) from invalid, incorrect, unsound and bad reasoning (arguments).
Logic is the general science of argument (Robert & Armstrong, 2005). It is chiefly concerned with
arguments. In logic, the term argument denotes any group of propositions consisting of conclusion
i.e (the proposition the argument is alleged to establish) and one or more premise(s) (propositions

45 | P a g e
offered as evidences for the conclusion). An argument therefore is made up of premises
(evidences) and a conclusion. Premises and Conclusion constitute the structure of an argument.
The propositions which are affirmed as providing support or reasons for the conclusion are the
premises of an argument. The concern of logic is not actual process of reasoning but rather the
correctness and soundness of products of reasoning. It should be noted that, philosophical
reasoning is argumentative by nature. Argument therefore involves chain of reasoning where by
certain inferences are made on the basis of others. What then is an inference?

4. Inference

An inference is a process by which one proposition is arrived and affirmed on the basis of one or
more other propositions accepted as the initial point of the process, and the end point comes with
the drawing of the conclusion from given set of premises (Adeniyi 2004). It has also been argued
in some quarters that inferences are statements we make about the unknown using the known as
their foundation (Ucheaga, 1992). Inference is endpoint of reasoning which may be characterized
as either inductive or deductive reasoning. Consider the example below:

All Ravens observed in Africa are black

All Ravens observed on Asia are black
All Ravens observed in South America are black
All Ravens observed in United State are black Inference.
Therefore, all Ravens are black

The inference drawn is the conclusion arrived at from the premises offered to support the
conclusion.

5. Proposition

A proposition is a statement of fact which can be appraised as either true or false. Propositions are
expressed in sentences, but the reverse is not the case of all sentences. Logicians are not interested
in all kinds of sentences. There is the need to distinguish those which express propositions and
those which do not. Let us briefly consider the following sentences:

Martins is a female lecturer.

Water boils at 100O Celsius.
The H.O.D is not available.

46 | P a g e
 Shut the door behind you!
Get out of my office!

Examples (i-ii) are propositional sentences because they can be true or false. On the contrary,
examples (iv-v) are ordinary command sentences which cannot be said to be true or false. At most,
they can either be said to be grammatical or ungrammatical whereas sentences that express
proposition are either true or false. Sentences that express proposition are called statements
(Adeniyi, 2004).

6. Argument

Literarily speaking, the word “argument” may suggest quarrel or squabbles, or conversational
disagreement. But this is just a layman understanding of an argument and a broader sense of usage.
Technically, in logic, argument means giving reasons for or against some claims. For purpose of
logical analysis, the components of an argument (premises and conclusion) are usually written in
a sequence whose last member is the conclusion. For the purpose of clarity, we shall briefly
consider some arguments and identify their premises and conclusions.

Example i:
Premise1= All men are mortal
Premise2= All mortal are predetermined to die
Premise3= Socrates is mortal
Conclusion= Socrates is predetermined to die

The argument above comprises of four propositions. The first three propositions are premises
which provide evidence for the alleged claim the last proposition that is, the conclusion of the
argument.

Example ii:
Premise1= All African countries are going through economic recession
Premise2= Nigeria is an African Country
Conclusion= Nigeria is going through economic recession

Note that, arguments are not always pattern in line with the pattern of our two examples above. In
some cases, the conclusion may be sandwiched within the body of the argument or it may even
start with the argument.

47 | P a g e
 Example iii
Premise1= All teenagers are students
Conclusion= and all my children are students
Premise2= since all children teenagers

In the above arguments, to identify the structure, that is, the premises and the conclusion, attention
has to be paid to contexts. We need to discover the issue at stake. However, the structure of many
arguments can be identified by the provision of certain indicators we may call premises and
conclusion indicators.

7. Conclusion and Premise Indicators

To carry out logicians‟ task of distinguishing good from bad arguments, we must be able to
recognize arguments when they occur and must be able to identify the premises and the
conclusions of those arguments. When we confront a passage that we understand to be an
argument, how can we tell what its conclusion is, and what are its premises? We have already seen
that an argument can be stated with its conclusion first, last or sandwiched between its premises.
Hence the conclusion of an argument cannot be identified in terms of its position in the formulation
of the argument. How, then, can it be recognized?. Some words or phrases typically serve to
introduce the conclusion of an argument. Such expressions are referred to as “conclusion-
indicators”. The presence of any of them often, signal that what follows is the conclusion of an
argument (Copi Irving & Cohen Carl 2001). Here are partial list of conclusion indicators:

Therefore, Hence, And, So, Thus, Accordingly, It follows that, Proves that, Consequently, As a
result, For these reasons, Which entails, Which implies, which allow us to infer that, In
consequence, etc. Other words or phrases typically serve to mark the premises of an argument.
Such expressions are called “premise indicators”. The presence of any of them often signals that
what follows is a premise of an argument. Here is a partial list of premise indicators: Since,
Because, For, As, As indicated by, The reason is this, For the reason that, More so (See Adeniyi
& Ayedero 2016). Once an argument has been recognized, the words and phrases listed above help
to identify its premises and conclusions.

8. Types of Logic

48 | P a g e
Traditionally, reasoning in logic could be deductive (Formal Logic) or inductive (Informal Logic).
Formal logic is logic of “PURE FORM” while inductive logic or (Informal logic) is logic of
“CONTENT”. It is true that every argument involves the claim that its premises provide some
grounds for the truth of its conclusion, but only a deductive argument involves the claim that its
premises provide conclusive grounds for its conclusion (Copi Irving & Cohen Carl 2001, 61).
What exactly we are saying when we claim that deductive logic is a logic of “pure form” is all
about the relation that exists between the set of propositions that make up an argument. The
arrangement of the proposition is such that we can infer that one follows from others. Therefore,
formal or deductive reasoning (logic) can be said to be Valid or Invalid.

9. Inductive Logic

Inductive logic is an empirical science that concerns itself with what people do or say in their daily
activities. It is the logic of content rather than of form (Nwigwe, 1992). The most important thing
to stress is that informal logic is a supremely practical enterprise. It is directly concerned with
ordinary human activities as defending position, citing observed cases or event in making general
statements, attacking unsupported claims, and detecting misleading examples and bad analogies
or arguments. The concept of validity or invalidity is not applicable to inductive logic. Rather,
inductive logic can be said to be sound or unsound. The premises of an inductive argument may
not provide conclusive support for the conclusion. Hence, the conclusion of an inductive argument
only be said to be probable.

10. Deductive Logic

In a deductive (formal argument), the premises give absolutely conclusive grounds for the
conclusion. “Valid” and “Invalid” are used in place of “Correct” and “Incorrect” to characterized
deductive arguments. A deductive is valid when its premises and conclusion are so related that it
is absolutely impossible for the premises to be true unless the conclusion is true also (Copi Irving
2001). If a deductive argument is valid and, if all the premises of that argument are true, then the
conclusion must also be true. There can never be in a valid deductive argument with all true
premises and at the same time a false conclusion (Adeniyi, 2004). Thus, the term “Valid” and
“Invalid” is not applicable to inductive arguments. Inductive arguments differ among themselves
in the degree of likelihood or probability that their premises conferred upon their conclusions.

49 | P a g e
11. Truth and Validity

Propositions or statements can either be true or false. We cannot speak of arguments as being true
or false. Arguments are not properly characterized as being either true or false but rather as valid
or invalid. This distinction however, does not mean there are no connections between validity and
invalidity or truth and falsity of its premises and conclusion. While the notion of truth and falsity,
validity and invalidity are quite distinct, there is an important relation holding between them in
deductive argument. The fact is that, this connection may not be a simple one. For instance, a valid
argument may contain only true propositions. A good example is this argument:

All cats are mammals

All mammals have lungs
Therefore, all cats have lungs

Both the premises and conclusion of this argument are true proposition, but it is equally possible
for a valid argument to contain false propositions exclusively.

For example:

All boys are male students

All male students have wings
Hence, all male-students have wings

This is a valid argument, for if its premises were true, its conclusion would have to be true also,
even though they are actually false. Our two examples have shown that the validity of an argument
does not guarantee the truth of its component propositions. An argument may be valid or invalid
even if all its compound propositions are either true or false. An argument is only invalid if its
premises are true and its conclusion is false.

50 | P a g e
 MODULE 7

SYMBOLIC LOGIC: AN OVERVIEW

Introduction

Symbolic logic, also known as mathematical logic or formal logic, is an aspect of logic that studies
the use of symbols to represent logical relationships and operations. It plays a crucial role in
reasoning, argumentation, and the analysis of propositions. The major concerns of logic are
arguments. Logic deals with the means of testing the validity or invalidity of arguments. This
determination depends not on the contents of the argument but on their forms and structures. Most
arguments that are presented in ordinary language are often difficult to analyse because of the
varying vagueness of the words which make up the arguments. There is also the problem of the
ambiguity of their construction, the misleading idioms they may contain and the distractions which
may be occasioned by their emotive contents.

To avoid the above problems, logicians devise a means of reducing arguments to their forms by
the use of specialised symbols, Symbolic logic is the method of representing logical expressions
used in argumentation through the use of symbols and variables for easy manipulation and
appraisal. Thus we see the significance of symbolic logic. It also helps in

Benefits of Symbolic Logic

a) Precision and Rigor: Symbolic logic uses symbols and rules to represent complex ideas
with accuracy and clarity. This eliminates ambiguity often present in natural language,
allowing for precise evaluation of arguments and reasoning. Think of it as exchanging
fuzzy words for sharp mathematical tools.
b) Universality and Generality: Unlike natural languages specific to cultures, symbolic
logic's symbols hold universal meaning. This enables expressing rules of logic applicable
to any situation, independent of language barriers or cultural nuances. It's like creating a
global language of logic.
c) Automated Reasoning: Symbolic logic forms the foundation of much computational logic
and AI. By translating problems into symbolic form, computers can manipulate them
according to defined rules, enabling automated reasoning and problem-solving in various
fields. It's the underlying code that allows machines to "think."
d) Critical Thinking and Argument Analysis: Studying symbolic logic equips you with
skills to analyze arguments, identify fallacies, and construct valid reasoning. This critical
thinking ability applies not only to academic disciplines but also to everyday life, helping
you make informed decisions and evaluate information effectively.
e) Foundational for Various Fields: Symbolic logic plays a crucial role in diverse fields like
mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and computer science. It provides a common ground
for representing and analyzing complex structures and relationships, underpinning
advancements in these areas.

51 | P a g e
In essence, symbolic logic serves as a powerful tool for precise thinking, reasoning, and
communication across various disciplines. Its importance lies in its ability to bring clarity, rigour,
and universality to the process of thinking and problem-solving

Types of Symbols

i. Propositional Constants: these are upper-case letters which are used to represent specific
statements whose values remain unchanging in an argument. For instance P, Q, R, S.
ii. Propositional Variables: Act as placeholders for statements whose truth value can vary
depending on the specific situation or interpretation. Think of them as variables in math
equations, taking on different truth values ("true" or "false") based on the specific scenario.
E.g. m, n, o, p.
iii. Logical Connectives: these are statement connectives through which compound or
complex statements are formed from simple ones. They are logical operators whose
meaning and truth values are fixed.
a) Conjunction (•): Represents the logical AND operation.
b) Disjunction (∨): Represents the logical OR operation.
c) Implication (⊃): Represents the logical IF...THEN operation.
d) Biconditional (≡): Represents the logical IF AND ONLY IF operation.
e) Negation (~): Represents the logical NOT operation.

The Nine Rules of Inferences

The nine rules of inference are fundamental principles in symbolic logic that govern the process
of making valid logical deductions from given statements or propositions. These rules are crucial
for constructing and evaluating logical arguments. Here is a comprehensive explanation of each
rule:

1. Modus Ponens

- Statement: If 'P ⊃ Q' is true and 'P' is true.

- Conclusion: Then 'Q' must be true.

- Example: If it is raining (P implies Q), and it is indeed raining (P is true), then you can conclude
that the ground is wet (Q is true).

P⊃Q
P
∴Q

52 | P a g e
2. Modus Tollens:

- Statement: If 'P Q' is true and 'Q' is false.

- Conclusion: Then 'P' must be false.

- Example: If it is raining (P implies Q), and the ground is not wet (Q is false), then you can
conclude that it is not raining (P is false).

P⊃Q
~Q
∴ ~P

3. Hypothetical Syllogism:

- Statement: If 'P ⊃ Q' and 'Q ⊃ R' are true.

- Conclusion: Then 'P ⊃ R' must be true.

- Example: If it is raining (P implies Q), and if the ground is wet, then the grass is wet (Q implies
R), then you can conclude that if it is raining, the grass is wet (P implies R).

P⊃Q
Q⊃R
∴P⊃R

4. Disjunctive Syllogism:

- Statement: If 'P ∨ Q' is true and 'P' is false.

- Conclusion: Then 'Q' must be true.

- Example: If it is either sunny or rainy today (P v Q), and it is not sunny (P is false), then you can
conclude that it is rainy (Q is true).

PvQ
~Q
∴P

5. Conjunction:

- Statement: If 'P' is true and 'Q' is true.

- Conclusion: Then 'P • Q' must be true.

53 | P a g e
- Example: If it is both sunny (P is true) and warm (Q is true), then you can conclude that it is both
sunny and warm (P • Q is true).

∴P.Q

6. Constructive Dilemma

- Statement: If 'P ⊃ Q' and Q ⊃ R are true and P v Q is true

- Conclusion: Then 'Q ∨ R' must be true.

7. Absorption

- Statement: If P ⊃ Q is true

- Conclusion: It follows that P ⊃ (P • Q)

P⊃ Q

∴ P ⊃ (P • Q)

The rule states that in conditional statements, the antecedent implies the conjunction of both the
antecedent and the consequent. In other words, the antecedent of a conditional proposition can be
absorbed into the consequent of that proposition if it is conjoined with the original consequent.

8. Simplification:

- Statement: If P • Q is true.

- Conclusion: Then both 'P' and 'Q' must be true.

- Example: If it is both sunny and warm (P . Q is true), then you can conclude that it is sunny (P is
true) and warm (Q is true).

9. Addition

- Statement: If P is true.

- Conclusion: Then P ∨ Q must be true.

54 | P a g e
- Example: If it is sunny (P is true), then you can conclude that it is either sunny or rainy (P ∨ Q is
true).

∴PvQ

Understanding and applying these rules of inference is essential for constructing and evaluating
logical arguments in various fields such as mathematics, philosophy, and computer science. They
provide a systematic and reliable method for drawing valid conclusions from given premises.

Application of the Nine Rules of Inference

It is imperative that we first establish the habit of starting our demonstration from the conclusion
of an argument and working our way "backward" to the premises. This means that we should
always examine our conclusion first, determine what kind of statement it is, and consider how the
conclusion fits into the premises. We then attempt to apply specific "rules of thumb" to the
premises. Once we accomplish this, creating proofs will become quite simple.

Examples

1. (DvE) • (FvG)
/∴ DvE, Simplification

2. H⊃ I
/∴ (H⊃ I) v R, Addition

3. (A⊃ B) ⊃ D
A⊃ B
/∴ D, Modus Ponens

4. K⊃ L
M
/∴ (K⊃ L) • M, Conjunction

FALLACIES AND COMMON ERRORS IN REASONING

Reasoning is the foundation of sound judgment and clear communication. However, even the most
well-intentioned individuals can fall into traps that lead to flawed conclusions. Fallacies are errors
in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument, often by relying on irrelevant information

55 | P a g e
or faulty connections between ideas. Being aware of these common pitfalls can help you strengthen
your thinking and identify them in others' arguments.

There are two kinds of fallacies namely formal fallacies and informal fallacies

Formal fallacies: These may also be called logical fallacies or deductive fallacies. They are
deductively invalid arguments that typically commit easily recognizable logical errors. They can
also be defined as arguments that are incorrect because of incorrect logical structures. Formal
fallacies include the following:

i. The fallacy of Affirming the Consequent: This fallacy occurs when one mistakenly infers
the antecedent from the consequent in a conditional statement. It is an erroneous use of the
valid modus Ponens. For example: If it's raining, then the streets are wet. The streets are
wet, so it must be raining.
ii. The fallacy of Denying the Antecedent: In this fallacy, one incorrectly concludes the
denial of the consequent from the denial of the antecedent in a conditional statement. For
instance: If it's raining, then the streets are wet. It's not raining, so the streets must be dry.
This is a wrong application of the rule of modus Tolens
iii. The Fallacy of Undistributed Middle is a logical fallacy of deduction in which the middle
term of a syllogism is not distributed in at least one of the premises. According to the rules
of logic, a term is "distributed" when a sentence says something about everything the term
designates. A syllogism is invalid if both middle terms are undistributed.
Informal Fallacies: Informal fallacies are errors in reasoning that don't stem from the strict
structure of an argument, but rather from the content and context of the information presented.
This means they go beyond the surface logic and involve the meaning and broader implications of
the argument. While they might appear convincing on the surface, they ultimately lead to faulty
conclusions.

56 | P a g e