INTRODUCTION TO THE

PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN

PERSON
1ST QUARTER LESSON SUMMARIZE
INTRODUCTION
In these lesson, learners will have more knowledge about
the Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person.
Some lessons that never been tackle to the previous school
years. By these power point student will be have idea what
is philosophy and other thing they need to know and learn.
OBJECTIVES
At the end of lesson , the learners expected to:
1. Identify the General Types of Philosophy.
2. Identify and analyze the reasons behind the perception that philosophy is a futile activity.
3. Identify the different ways of distinguishing certain kinds of truth.
4. Illustrate the differences among the correspondence coherence and pragmatic theories or
method of truth.
5. Realize that accepting people for what they are is a manifestation of care, love respect and
responsibility.
6. Understand the entersubjectivity recognizes each other as persons.
WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental questions,
such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind,
and language. Such questions are often posed as problems to be
studied or resolved. Philosophy have five general type which is,
thematic types, positional types. Methodological types, regional
or geographical types and history types.
THE FIVE GENERAL
TYPES OF PHILOSOPHY
1)Thematic types 1)Regional or
2)Positional types geographical
3)Methodological types
types 2)Historical types
 THEMATIC TYPES
Under this group are what they called branches of
philosophy and what we shall call disciplinal
philosophies. The branch of philosophy are classified
according to the major topics of philosophical
investigations.
Branches Of Topic Philosophical Some Main Concern
Philosophy Investigation
Logic Reasoning The distinction b/w correct and incorrect forms
of reasoning
Epistemology Knowledge The kinds, sources and conditions of knowledge
Metaphysics Reality, Existence Whether reality consist of physical objects only,
or of both physical and nonphysical objects.
Ethics Morality The appreciate moral principles meaning of
moral judgments.
Aesthetics Beauty Criteria for judgement about beauty
Social and political The State Legitimizing the state, limits of the
philosophy state’s political power, social and
distributive justice.
Philosophy of Science Difference b/w scientific and non
science scientific statements induction
Philosophy of Religious Beliefs Meaning of religious statements,
region existence of god problem of evil
Philosophy of Meaning of linguistics Meaning of propernames definite
language expressions
Philosophy of mind Mind Whether the mind of physical or not,
properties of the mind, possibilities
of the mind possibility of artificial
intelligence.
 POSITIONAL TYPES
Positional types correspond to what are called philosophical
school of thoughts or philosophical view. Under this
classifications are the kinds of philosophy that are distinguished
form one another according to the solution that is being proposed
for a certain issue.
SOME PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS
Branch Of Philosophy Some Philosophical View

Metaphysics Materialism, Idealism, Dualism, Monism, Pluralism

Epistemology Rationalism, Empiricism, Critical Philosophy, Pragmatism

Ethics (Normative) Consequentialism, Deontology, Virtue Ethics

Social And Political Socialism, Liberalism, Capitalism, Social Contractarianism

Philosophy
Logic Intentional Logic, Extensional Logic, Aristotelian Logic.
Mathematical Logic
 Philosophy Of Atheism, Theism (Monotheism Polytheism Pantheism Pantheism),
Region Religious Pluralism

Aesthetic Platonic Aesthetic, Human Aesthetic, Kantian Aesthetic, Postmodern

Aesthetic, Feminist Aesthetic

Philosophy Of Ideal Language Philosophy, Ordinary Language Philosophy,

Language Referential Theory Of Meaning, Use Theory Of Meaning, Speech Art
Theory
Philosophy Of Mind Dualism, Materialism, Epiphenomenalism, Physicalism,
Functionalism, Computationalism, Biological Naturalism

Philosophy Of Realism, Instrumentalism, Falsifications, Constructivism, Intuitivism,

Science Reductionism, Coherentism.
METHODOLOGICAL TYPE
Philosophies are also classified according to the
kind of philosophical method that they used. This
is called philosophies the methodological
movements, approaches, and traditions.
SOME INFLUENTIAL MYTHOLOGICAL TYPES OF
PHILOSOPHY
Analectic Linguistic analysis. Logical analysis, conceptual
philosophy analysis
phenomenology Bracketing of presuppositions or suspension of
judgements, direct experiential analysis
hermeneutics Textual analysis
marxism Historical and dialectical materialism
feminism Gender analysis

postmodernism Deconstruction and power analysis

 REGIONAL TYPES
Under this classification are the kinds of
philosophies that are distinguished from one
another according to the geographical location
in which philosophizing transpires or flourishes.
At the most general level, the regional (or geographical) types of
philosophy are often divided into two major kinds, Western
philosophy and Eastern philosophy. Under each of these two
major kinds are what can be called national philosophies, referring
to philosophical activities happening in particular countries or
nations Examples of national philosophies in the West are
German Philosophy, French philosophy, Greek philosophy,
British philosophy, and American philosophy. While examples
of national philosophies in the East are Indian philosophy,
Chinese philosophy, Japanese philosophy, and our very own
Filipino philosophy.
 The regional types generally refer to philosophical activities that occur or the
flourish in particular regions. But some attach to regional types of philosophies some
other characteristics believed to be unique to each of these philosophies, which are
brought about by cultural, religious, and nationalistic or ideological considerations or
sentiments.
For instance, some distinguish Eastern Philosophy from Western Philosophy by
citing certain features that are considered unique to each type of philosophy, like that
Western philosophy tends to emphasize distinctions and oppositions while Eastern
Philosophy tends to emphasize commonalities and sermonizes.
The same is true of national philosophies some believe that a particular national
philosophy has certain unique features that differentiate it from other national
philosophies. And this has made possible to regard, rightly or not, certain types of
philosophizing that happen in a certain region as alien or as not really belonging to that
region as when one say, for instance, that a particular type of philosophizing that
happens in the East is non-Eastern or that happens in the West is ron Western, or, in our
cases, that happens in the Philippines is non-Filipino.
HISTORICAL TYPES
Under this classification are the kind of
philosophies that are distinguished from one
another according to the historical period in
which philosophizing occurred.
 The historical of philosophy, especially in the West, is conveniently divided into four
periods; namely, the Ancient Period, the Modern Period, the Medieval Period, and the
Contemporary Period. Consequently, Ancient Philosophy refers to philosophies that
flourished curing the Ancient Period, Medieval philosophy to philosophies during the
medieval period, Modern philosophy, to philosophies that flourished during the Modern
period, Contemporary philosophy to philosophies that flourished during the Contemporary
period.

Ancient philosophy includes the philosophies of the Ancient Greek philosopher

(foremost of which are the Pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle) and of the Roman
philosophers (such as Seneca and Marcus Aurelius'). The Medieval period comes after the
Ancient period and muchly runs until the late fifteenth century of Renaissance. Medieval
philosophy includes the philosophies of St. Augustine, Boethius, John Duns Scotus, and
St. Thomas Aquinas, among others. The Modern period comes after Medieval period and
runs until the late of nineteenth century.
 Modern philosophy includes the philosophies of the Rationalists (Descartes,
Spinoza, and Leibniz) and Empiricists (Hume, Berkeley, and Locke) of this period,
Kant, the German Idealists (Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel), Schopenhauer, and
Nietzsche The Contemporary period covers the philosophical developments of the
twentieth century up to the present day; and it includes the philosophies of
Heidegger, Sartre, Wittgenstein, Austin, Searle, Quine, Davidson, Rawls, the
postmodern thinkers (such as Derrida, Foucault, tyotard, and Lacan) the Frankfurt
School (Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, Fromm, Habermas, and others), the logical
positivists (such as Carnap, Schlick, Wasmann, and Ayer), the hermeneutic thinkers
(such as Gadamer, and Ricouer) and so many others.
IMPORTANCE OF
PHILOSOPHY IN TWO
WAYS
In this lesson we intend to demonstrate the importance of philosophy in two ways. The first, we
shall be our aim in the present section, is to show that the arguments supporting the view that
philosophy is a useless or futile activity are mistaken. The second, which shall be our aim in the
next section, is to identify some of the major achievements of philosophy, in our discussions in the
both sections, we shall use the ideas of Bertrand Russell in his essay "The Value of Philosophy
(Russell 1980, Chapter 15, 89-94) as our guide. In some points, we shall simplity Russell's ideas,
while in some points we shall elaborate on and further add to his ideas.
We can gather from Russell's discussion that there are two main reasons behind
the charge that philosophy is a futile activity. The first is the indefiniteness of
philosophy with regard to the answer that it provides to philosophical questions.
Simply, this means that philosophy does not provide final answers to the
questions that it deals with, for the answers it offers differ from one philosopher
to another; and there are seems to be no objective ways to determine whose
answer is better. For this reason, it is thought that philosophizing would just lead
to nowhere and thus would just be a waste of time and energy. The second is the
impracticality of philosophy. This means that the activity of philosophizing has
no practical benefits in that b does not help to us in our efforts to satisfy our
material needs such as those related to the nourishment of our body.
These two characteristics attributed to philosophy actually
contrast with science. For unlike philosophy, science provides
definite answers to the questions that deal with, or an
objective means of resolving issues that it handles. And for
unlike philosophy, science, through its inventions and
technologies, provides us with more efficient ways of
satisfying our material and survival needs. Because of this
contrast, we see science as the ideal model of valuable
undertaking, which philosophy fails to achieve or even
approximate.
It is true that philosophy is indefinite in its answers to philosophical questions,
but this only because of the kind of questions that philosophy deals with it is not
the goal of philosophy to deal with the kind of questions that's science deals
with The question that science deals with, are those questions, are those
questions already known with some degree of certainty to be capable of being
answered in a precise and definite way. Scientific questions are questions in
which it has already been established that there is a precise and objective means
of answering the questions. In contrast, the questions deals with in the
philosophy, the philosophical questions, are questions in which it has not
established yet whether there is precise and objective means of answering these
questions. In sum, while science deals with definitely answerable questions,
philosophy deals with the indefinitely answerable ones
Most scientific questions did not start out as scientific questions.
They started out as philosophical questions, questions that were
thought to be indefinitely answerable. One reason for this was the
unavailability of the technology that could test hypotheses. For
instance, prior to the invention of the telescope, hypotheses about the
stars and the universe could not be tested. (Think also of the
invention of the microscope.) Another reason was the imprecise
formulation of the questions. For instance, it was only when
mathematics was used as the language of science that certain
questions how become clearly scientific.
When the philosophy deals with the scientific questions (the indefinitely
answerable questions), one primary goal is precisely to determine whether such
questions can eventually become scientific whether they could eventually be
answered in some definite way Philosophy examines all possible angles to these
questions, all possible formulation for these questions, and all possible answer to
these questions. It engages in debates, advancing and criticizing arguments and
answering objections, In order to ascertain which perspective is the most
promising or offers the best possible explanation (in terms of coherence,
comprehension, and predictive power.). The moment that a philosophical
questions is proven to be answerable in some definite way, the question becomes
a scientific question and ceases to be philosophical one The question is thus
related to science to conduct more detailed and methodical researches to find the
definite answer.
Russell gave the example of the science of psychology. which used to be
part of philosophy But in one more recent time, we can give the example
of the discipline of artificial intelligence (a branch of computer science
dealing with the construction of intelligent machines). The question of
whether there could be machines that could think like humans was
originally a purely philosophical question (see Turing 1950). But after
some time, scientists started conducting researches on how to actually
construct those machines. At the present, the said question is still partly
philosophical and partly scientific but some philosophers and scientists
are predicting that it will just be a matter of time that it will be a purely
scientific questions. (See Chalmers 2010).
In short, philosophy does not preliminary work for science in finding definite
answers to certain questions And so, if we value science for the definiteness
of its answer to the questions that deals with, the more we should value
philosophy for making it possible for science to deal with such questions.
Given this, it is thus simply wrong to think that just because there are no
definite answers to philosophical questions, or that philosophers do not seem
to agree on how to answer philosophical questions, then philosophy is just a
waste of time and energy. With regard to the charge of being an impractical
activity, it is true that philosophy does not directly satisfy our material needs.
But as Russell explains, this is only philosophy is focused on satisfying another kind of
valuable human needs the needs of the mind. That we have this other kinds of needs that we
also value, in addition to our material needs, is shown by the fact that one most or all of our
material needs have already been satisfied we still have question about how to further
improve the quality of our lives. Russell says that suppose our society has already provided
our economics needs such that nobody among us is living in poverty, still we will be
confronted with the questions about how to improve the quality of our lives. Such questions
must surely then be about our nonphysical needs, the needs of our mind, which we equality
value These nan physical needs may be varied, for they may concern better human
relationships, better spiritual life, and a better and deeper understanding of our place or
purpose in the world we live in. In other words, these are the kinds of questions that religion
and philosophy address with their own particular means -generally faith and divine
inspiration for religion and human reason for philosophy.
In addition, while philosophy mainly addresses the needs of
the mind, which are valuable in themselves, some of the tools
of philosophy, such as logic and the skills of critical thinking,
can also be used to address questions directly related to the
satisfaction of our material needs. A more efficient use of the
scientific Inventions and technologies, to address our material
needs would require good decision-making, which in turn
would require good reasoning skills.
 TWO FOLLOWING WAYS
First, it is simply wrong to limit what is
valuable in life to the satisfaction of our
material or practical concerns. Our
nonphysical needs, the needs of our mind, are
equally valuable. If our material needs
concern our physical existence and survival,
our nonmaterial needs concern the quality of
our life and human relations.
Second, it is also wrong to think that
philosophy, though focused on addressing
our mental needs, cannot contribute to how
we can best satisfy our material needs.
Satisfying our material needs would also
require adequate reasoning skills, which
can be provided by philosophy.
 SOME MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS

As one of the goals of philosophy is to provide a holistic view of life,

philosophy supplements what is lacking in scientific explanations to come up with
holistic explanations of things or events in the world. Aristotle's division of causes
into four kinds is a good model for explaining how philosophy does this. Aristotle
believes that there are material, formal, final, and efficient types of cause; and
that a complete explanation of something must account for its four kinds of cause.
 Second, philosophy contributes to the developments of some disciplines or areas of
philosophy. During the ancient period, the Pre-Socratic philosophers (the Greek philosophers
before Socrates) broke away from mythological explanations of natural processes (explaining
events in nature by the actions of the gods) and started the methods of explaining these processes
in terms of observation and reasoning. Generally, this gave birth to what we now call the
scientific method. During the Medieval Period, philosophy was regarded as the handmaid of
Christian Theology. Prominent philosopher- theologians during this period (such as St. Thomas
Aquinas and St. Augustine) used philosophy (the philosophies Plato and Aristotle, in particular) to
clarify, justify, and show the consistency of Christian doctrines and teachings, such as the beliefs
in the Existence of God and angels, the Holy Trinity, and the consistency of God's divine
attributes (being all-knowing, all powerful, and all-good) with human freedom and the existence
of evil in the world.
Third, philosophy, through its investigation in the area of ethics, provides ethical guidelines
for the use of modern technology With the invention of modern technology, new ethical
issues arise. Take for instance, the technological advancements in the area of biomedicine
which have introduced new procedures in reproduction (such as in-vitro fertilization,
surrogacy, prenatal screening, and gender selection) and treatment of diseases (such as
genetic therapy and enhancement, organ transplantation, dialysis, and the use of ventilators),
among others, have given alise to new ethical issues. There are also the technological
advancements in the area of computing, which have given rise to new ethical issues such as
piracy, cyber bullying, hacking, and pornography. Other ethical issues arising from the
development of technology include the possibility of human cloning, stem-cell research, and
the use of humans and animals in scientific experimentation for medical and business
purpotes These new ethical issues require new and update approaches, which philosophy
supplies through the different areas of applied or practical ethics which include bioethics,
environmental ethics, computer ethics, and business ethics
 Fourth, philosophy, through its investigations in the area of social and
political philosophy, has significantly contributed to the social
transformation. Consider, for instance, the political revolutions that were
inspired by the works of political philosophers like John Locke and Karl
Marx. In addition our present concept of democracy, which includes the
principles of separation of power, (separation of executive, Judicial, and
legislative branches of government for checks and balances), was largely
the product of the ideas of some philosophers (like John Locke and
Montesquieu).``
And fifth, philosophy continues to explore what is possible and consequently
expand the boundaries of knowledge or of what we can know. We earlier noted
the philosophy deals with questions in which there is no rertainly whether these
questions could be answered in some definite ways We further noted that one
objectives of philosophy here is to determine whether such questions can become
scientific questions. According to Russell (1980), even if it so happens that some
of these questions do not become scientific ones, philosophy will continue to deal
with these questions for the following reasons. One is for us to get insights about
the human condition in terms of the limits of what we can know about ourselves
and the world around us. Another is to keep our sense of wonder that drives us to
explore alternative ways of looking at things, which eventually liberates us from
the oppressive power of customs and the prejudices of our times over our lives.
In sum, some of the major achievements of philosophy are as follows:
• philosophy supplements scientific

• explanations to come up with holistic explanations, contributes to the

developments of some

• disciplines, provides ethical guidelines for the use of modern

technology, contributes to social

• transformation, and expands the boundaries of knowledge.

 KNOWING THE
TRUTH
"THE NATURE OF TRUTH? WHAT IS TRUTH, AND WHAT ARE ITS KINDS?”
IN THIS CHAPTER, WE SHALL EXAMINE THE NATURE OF TRUTH AND THE DIFFERENT WAYS OF KNOWING IT.
WE SHALL FIRST CLARIFY WHAT TRUTH IS BY EXAMINING THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT CAN BE SAID TO BE
TRUE AND HOE THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF TRUTH COME ABOUT. AFTERWARDS, WE SHALL EXAMINE HOW
TRUTH IS RELATED TO KNOWLEDGE AND REASONING.
 The first thing that we need to understand about truth is that it is a kind of property whose opposite is falsity.
Sometimes that is said to be true, which we express as "the truth" or "a truth", is said to have the property of truth or of
being true. For instance, in the sentence "Jose speak the truth", what is being asserted is the things that Jose speaks about
are true or have the property of being true.
The things that can be properly said to be true, or to which we can properly attribute the property of truth, are referred
to by philosophers as the "bearers of truth." And there usually are three candidates for the bearers of truth; namely, beliefs,
statements and sentences (see Dowden, n.d., and Glanzberg 2014). Thus, we say, for instance, that the sentence is true, the
statement is true, or the belief is true. For our purposes, however, we shall only consider beliefs and statements as the
bearers of truth. The reason is that not all sentences can be either true or false. When we say that sentences can be true,
what we have in mind are the declarative sentences only. We do not say of a question, an exclamation, or an imperative
that it is either true or false. But the declarative sentences can also be used outside of their ordinary use, which is to
described facts or events in the world. For instance, we sometimes also use a declarative sentence to issue a command.

THE BEARERS OF
TRUTH
 What we call a statement, which philosophers also call a "proposition" refers to a
linguistic expression whose function is to advance a claim about the world. This
claim may be about things or events in the world or about relation of ideas. This
claim can be true or false; and hence the statement is either true or false. So,
statement are usually expressed by declarative sentences when declarative sentences
are used in their normal way, that is, to described things in the world. But if a
declarative sentences is used otherwise, say to issue a command; it is not a
statement. A question, on the other hand, if used to express a claim, in this light, is
also a statement. For these reasons, statement, not sentences, are properly speaking
the bearers of truth.

THE BEARERS OF
TRUTH
Statements, as we have noted, are truth bearers because they make claims, either in terms of
describing the world or asserting relations of ideas. Since statement are linguistic expressions,
statements therefore are the linguistic expression of our claims. We, however, can also make
the same claims mentally through our beliefs. Beliefs, in this regard, are the mental expression
of our claims. They only difference between the statement " two and two are four" and the
belief that "two and two are four" is that the statement is expressed linguistically while the
belief is made in the mind. Sometimes it is said that statements are expressions of beliefs, bed
which makes beliefs as more basic than statements. But we can determine the truth of a
statement without associating it with a belief. For instance, to determine whether the statement
"The table is brown" we just have observe whether the table the statement is referring to is
actually brown. And the same is true of a belief, we can determine its truth without associating
it first with a statement. Thus we can, for example, directly say that the belief that humans are

The bearers of
mortal is true.

truth
One possible confusion is between truth and a fact. A fact is something that occurs
in the world, and it is what makes a certain statement true. For example, what
makes that statement "there is a cow in the rice field" true is the fact that there is a
cow in the rice field. But then we can also meaningfully say "it is true that there is
a cow in the rice field." When we say this, we are using the word "true" to mean a
"fact" such that what we actually mean here is that "it is a fact that there is a cow in
the rice field." Strictly speaking, that there is a caw in the rice field is either a fact
or not, not either true or false (unless the existence of the cow in the rice field is
taken as a representation of another fact). For what is true here is the statement.
"There is a cow the rice field"; and it is true because there is the fact that there is a
cow in the rice field.

The bearers
of truth
 KINDS OF TRUTH
Statements and beliefs are either true or false. There are, however, certain questions or
considerations about certain aspects of the truth or falsity of statements and beliefs, which have
given rise to different kinds of truth. Not arranged I a particular order, let examine some of these
questions and different kinds of truth, as we shall later show, are closely related.

First is the question whether the truth of a belief or statement is
established or arrived at by means of sense experience or reason.
This question gives rise to the difference between empirical truth
and rational truth. Empirical truth is established by means of sense
experience, while statements such as "A triangle has three sides"
and mathematical statements such as "Five and rational truth is
established by means of reason. For example, the truth of
observational five are ten" is a rational truth. Empirical truth is
technically described as posteriori, which means that it can only
be known after some relevant experience. On the other hand,
rational truth is technically described as a priori, which means that
it can be known before some relevant experience. Thus, the truth
of "It is raining" is a posteriori, while the truth "Five and five are
ten is a priori.
Second is the question of whether or not knowing the truth of a statement or
beliefs extends our knowledge or adds to what we already know. This question
is technically expressed by some philosophers in terms of whether the predicate
of a true beliefs or statements is already contained in the information provided
by its subject. In any case, this question gives rise to the difference between
synthetic truth and analytic truthAll empirical truths are synthetic truths.
Knowing that the table is brown, for instance, extends our knowledge about the
table. We know that a table is and knowing that is colored brown adds to what
we know already about a fable On the other hand, definitions and identity
statements are good examples of analytic truths. In the definition The triangle
has three sides the information about having three sides is already contained in
the information about being trial Thus, knowing that a triangle has three des does
not extend our knowledge about triangle The same is true knowing that a
bachelor is an unmarried male, there is no extension of knowledge that happens.
Third is the question of whether or not a statement or
beliefs is true in all possible situations. This gives
rise to the difference between contingent truth and
necessary truth. Contingent truth is not true in all
possible situations, whereas necessary truths The
statement The table brown" is only true in a situation
where there is a table that happens to be brown in
color, but in another situation where there is no table
or the table happens to be black in color, the
statements is no longer true. But the statements "A
triangle has three sides" is true in all possible
situations in which it is said or uttered. In simpler
terms, a contingent truth is not always true while a
necessary truth is always true.
Fourth is the question of the following of whether the truth of a
belief or statement can only be known by the person who has
the belief or makes the statement. This gives rise to the
difference between private truth and public truth Private truth
can only be known by the person who has the belief or makes
the statement considered to be true, while public truth can, in
principle, be known by everyone (by " in principle" we mean
that occurrence or presence of the necessary condition like the
knowing person is a normal adult). The truth of psychological
statements, or statements about one's own mental states is
usually a private truth. But empirical and rational truths are
public truths, For example, that my skin is cut and bleeding is a
public truth; but that I feel great pain is the result is a private
truth. Only I can directly know that I am in great pain, but
everyone in principle can know that my skin is cut and bleeding
 Fifth is the question of whether or not the truth of a
belief or statement is dependent on the attitudes,
preferences, or interests of person or a group of persons.
This gives rise to the difference between subjective truth
and objective truth. Subjective truth is dependent on the
attitudes, preferences, or interests of a person or a group of
persons; while objective truth is not Value judgments such
as aesthetic judgments are usually subjective; while factual
judgment are objective. For instance, the truth of the
statement or judgment that rock music is the best kind of
music is subjective for it will depend on one's musical
preferences. But the truth of the statement that rock music
is one of the major kinds of music is objective, for whether
one likes rock music or not the statement "Rock music is
one of the major kinds of music" remains to be true.
Sixth is the question of whether belief of statement is
acknowledge to be true by everyone or only by some people.
This gives rise to the difference between universal truth and
relative truth. Something is a universally true if its truth is
acknowledged by everyone, while something relatively true if
its truth is acknowledged only by some people. Objective
truths are usually universal truths as well; while subjective
truths are usually relative truths as well. That rock music is a
major musical genre or category is acknowledge to be true by
one everyone; but that rock music is the best kind of music is y
acknowledged by some people, for some people have a
different idea of what is the best kind of music
Seventh is the question of whether the truth of belief is
arrived at through the process of deductive reasoning or
inductive reasoning. This gives rise to the difference
between certain truth and probable truth. Deductive truth,
the truth of the statement arrived at through the process
of deductive reasoning, is certain; whereas inductive
truth, the truth arrived at trough the process of inductive
reasoning, is merely probable For instance, the truth of
the statement "Pedro is mortal," which is deductively
inferred from the truth of the statements "All humans are
mortal" and "Pedro is human," is certain. On the other
hand, the truth of the statement "Juan is hospitable,
which is inductively inferred from the truth of the
statements "Most Filipinos are hospitable" and "Juan is a
Filipino," is merely probable
Eight and last is the question of under what area of study
does the topic or content of a belief or statement that is held
to be true falls. This gives rise to a number of kinds of truth,
as many as there are different areas of study. We may call
these truths disciplinal kinds of truth. For instance, we have
religious truth, scientific truth, psychological truth, biological
truth, and economic truth. Simply, religious truth concerns
the truth of religious statements of beliefs, scientific truth the
truth of scientific statements of beliefs; psychological truth
the truth of psychological statements or belief, and so on.
Some of these kinds of truth intersect with or are closely related to one
another. For instance, as we have already noted, empirical truths are
usually synthetic and contingent truths while rational truths are usually
analytic and necessary Deductive or certain truths are also necessary
truths and inductive or probable truths are also contingent truths Objective
truths are usually universal truths as well, and subjective truths are usually
relative truths as well Regarding truths in the various areas of learning,
such as religious, scientific, and psychological truths, they can consist of
other kinds of truths as well such as contingent, necessary, objective. and
subjective truths
WAYS OF KNOWING
 After knowing the bearers of truth and seeing how the truth takes different
forms, let us now examine the various ways of knowing the truth, or, in
particular, of determining the truth of a given statement or belief. These ways of
knowing, which we shall call methods of truth, can be distinguished into the
general and the particular kinds. The general methods of truth refer to the
methods of truth described in what philosophers usually call theories of truth,
mainly consisting of the correspondence, coherence, and pragmatic theories (see
Glanzberg 2014). of truth are actually ways of explaining the truth of what
makes a statement or belief true; but since they also include general ways of
knowing the truth, we shall refer to these three theories as the three general
methods of truth. The particular methods of truth, on the other hand, refer to the
specific ways of applying the general methods of truth. The particular methods
of truth that we shall briefly examine are observation, reasoning, intuition,
mystical experience, and the appeal to authority.
According to the general method of correspondence, we can
know whether a statement/belief is true by examining
whether the statement/belief corresponds to, or represents, a
fact in the world. If the statement/belief does correspond to a
fact, then the stamen/belief if true; if does not, then it is
false. For example, the statement "The sky is blue" is true
because it represents or corresponds to the fact that the sky is
blue; while the statement "Water is not wet" is false because
it does not correspond to a fact as there is no form of water
that is not wet.
 According to the general method of coherence, we can know whether a
statement/belief is true by examining whether the statement/belief coheres
with the rules of the relevant system. If the statement/belief coheres with
these rules, then it is true; if it does no, then it is false. For example, the
statement "Three and three are six" is true because it coheres with the rules
of the mathematical system. Another, the statement "A square has four
sides" is true because being a definition it coheres with the rules of
language (or the language of geometry, to be specific). But the statements
"Two and four are ten" and "Bachelor are married to males" are both false
because the first statement violates the rules of mathematical while the
second one violates the rules of language.
 And according to the general methods of pragmatism, we can
know whether a statement/belief is true by examining the
consequences of holding or accepting the statement/belief to be
true. If holding the statement/bellef to be true results in beneficial
consequences, then it is true; if does not, then it is false. The usual
examples to illustrate this method are statements or beliefs which
we hold to be true though there are no objectives means to verify
their truth. For instance, some people who think that there are
ghosts or vampires base their belief in the fact that they find it
useful to hold such belief-like explaining unusual phenomena and
dealing with their fears.
Some philosophers debate on which among these three general methods is the correct one or one that works for all
kinds of statements or beliefs. It is not however, necessary to subscribe to the view that there must only be one
method that works for all. We can use any of the three depending on which is appropriate given the kind of
statements or beliefs that we are considering. There are, however, instances, in which people disagree on which
theory of truth correctly explains the truth of their statements or beliefs. For instance, there may be people who
believe in vampires not because they think that it is a useful belief but because they really think that there are
vampires in the world. For these people then, what makes their belief about vampires true is that is corresponds to
or represents actual creatures in the world, which they justify by some kind of experience that they had or by the
accounts by some people.

This leads us to the particular methods of truth. The question about the general methods of truth is, how does one
know whether a statement/belief does correspond to a fact, coheres with the rules of a system, or results in
beneficial consequences? To know this requires some specific methods. The particular methods are thus the
methods used to determine whether the general methods are satisfied. For our purposes, we shall briefly examine
the particular methods of observation, reasoning, intuition, mystical experience, and appeal to authority.
Observation (or perception) is the method used to check if
an empirical statement, a statement about an observable fact
in the world, correctly represents a fact in the world.
Observation can be internal or external. Internal observation
of our own thoughts and feelings. Some philosophers
identify internal observation with what is called
"introspection". External observation is ervation of things
"outside our mind or consciousness," the physical objects,
using our five organs of sense. External observation can be
done with or without the aid of sensory extending devices
such as the telescope and microscope. We generally use
internal observation to determine the truth of psychological
statements, or statements about our mental or conscious
states; while we use external observation to verify the truth
of physical statements or statement about physical or
material objects.
Reasoning, generally the process of knowing or
establishing truth by means of our reason can be done in a
variety of ways. It includes testing for coherence, whether
the two statements are contradictory or cannot be held to
be true at the same time. It also includes the process of
proving the truth of a statement or belief on the basis of
the truth of another statement or belief. This process,
called inference, can be done inductively or deductively
depending on whether the truth being proven is regarded
to be certain or merely probable.
The appeal to authority may take the form of a testimony of a reliable eyewitness,
information provided by an appropriate expert, and reliable documents, among others.
The required observation of reasoning to know a truth may have already been done and
documented by someone else. In this case, knowing this person's testimony, the
information that he provides, as well as his documents is also a way of knowing the
truth. When we, for Instance, would like to know whether a particular movie is already
being shown in public movie houses, we can rely on the testimony of someone who has
already seen the movie or has been in the malls lately, consult the newspaper or the
Internet, or perhaps call an authority in the management of public movie houses. One
common fallacy or error in reasoning is when we appeal to the wrong authority. For
instance, in a television ad, someone who is an authority in the game of basketball,
being a highly accomplished basketball player, endorses a product that is outside of or
has nothing to do with the game of basketball, say a dental product.
 Disagreements beliefs are
disagreements about facts which are
properly resolved by verifying the facts
at issue. The verification of facts can
be done either by directly observing the
facts, by examining relevant
documents, or by appealing to
appropriate authorities. An example of
a disagreement of this kind is the one
over whether a certain politician stole
money form the government.
Disagreements in attitude, on the other hand,
are disagreements over preferences, and they are
usually resolved by persuasion, if not by
compromise. In the case of persuasion, it can be
done either logically, such as when one's arguments
are consistent with the valid rules or deduction; or
illogically, such as when one's arguments commit
the so-called informal fallacies. An example of a
disagreement of this kind is the one over whether
divorce and same-sex marriage should be legalized
in our country.
 Lastly, merely verbal disagreements are disagreements that arise out
of the misunderstanding of the meaning of our linguistics expressions,
and they are properly resolved by clarifying the meaning of the
misunderstood linguistics expressions. An example is when two friends
are arguing over which movie to watch together only to find out later
that they have the same movie in mind.
Disagreements in belief and in attitude are considered genuine or real
disagreements, while merely verbal are not one. This is so because,
strictly speaking, there are no disagreements in the merely verbal
disagreements; it is just thought that there are. As such, merely verbal
disagreements are needless and a waste of time and energy. (It is a pity
that some relationships are ruined just because of merely verbal
disagreements.)
We see here that truth is involved only in
disagreements in belief; and this is because
belief, as we earlier saw, is one of the
conditions for knowing something to be
true. But disagreements; otherwise we may
find ourselves arguing about what is true
when we should not.