SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL  

Introduction to 
the Philosophy of 
the Human   
Person  
Quarter 1 
– Module 
2.1:   
Methods of 
Philosophizing  
Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person – Grade 11
 
Alternative Delivery Mode
Quarter 1 – Module 2.1: Methods of Philosophizing
First Edition, 2020

Republic Act 8293, section 176 ​states that: No copyright shall subsist in any work of
the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or
office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit.
Such agency or office may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of
royalties.

Borrowed materials (i.e., songs, stories, poems, pictures, photos, brand names,
trademarks, etc.) included in this module are owned by their respective copyright holders.
Every effort has been exerted to locate and seek permission to use these materials from their
respective copyright owners. The publisher and authors do not represent nor claim ownership
over them.

Published by the Department of Education

Secretary: Leonor Magtolis Briones
Undersecretary: Diosdado M. San Antonio

Development Team of the Module

Writers: ​Neofidel Ignacio B. Ramirez, Gener C. Irinco, Michael S. Bernal,
Paciano B. Ferrer

Editor: ​Amalia Solis, Education Program Supervisor

Reviewers: ​Michael S. Bernal, Paciano B. Ferrer, Gener C. Irinco,
Nastasia V. Besin, Ernie Ronel Tirol Mabahague (Content)
Marianne Carol Rodia Esteban (Language)

Illustrator:
 Layout Artist:

Management Team: ​Malcolm S. Garma, Regional Director

Genia V. Santos, CLMD Chief
Dennis M. Mendoza, EPS In Charge of LRMS
Regional ADM Coordinator
Maria Magdalena M. Lim, CESO V Schools Division Superintendent
Aida H. Rondilla, CID Chief
Lucky S. Carpio, EPS In Charge of LRMS

Printed in the Philippines by ________________________

Department of Education – National Capital Region

Office Address: ____________________________________________

____________________________________________
Telefax: ____________________________________________ E-mail
Address: ____________________________________________

11

Introduction to 
the Philosophy 
of the Human 
Person  
Quarter 1 – Module 2:   
Methods of Philosophizing

Introductory Message  
For the facilitator:  
Welcome to the ​Inroduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person ​Alternative 
Delivery Mode (ADM) Module on ​Methods of Philosophizing  
This  module  was  collaboratively  designed,  developed  and  reviewed  by  educators 
both  from  public  and  private  institutions  to  assist  you,  the  teacher  or facilitator in 
helping  the  learners  meet  the  standards  set  by  the  K  to  12  Curriculum  while 
overcoming their personal, social, and economic constraints in schooling.   
This  learning  resource  hopes  to  engage  the  learners  into  guided  and  independent 
learning  activities  at  their  own  pace  and  time.  Furthermore,  this  also  aims  to  help 
learners  acquire  the  needed  21st century skills while taking into consideration their 
needs and circumstances.  
In addition to the material in the main text, you will also see this box in the body of 
the module:  
  
Notes to the Teacher  
This contains helpful tips or strategies that   
will help you in guiding the learners. 

As  a  facilitator  you  are  expected  to  orient  the  learners  on  how  to  use  this  module. 
You  also  need  to  keep  track of the learners' progress while allowing them to manage 
their  own  learning.  Furthermore,  you  are  expected  to  encourage  and  assist  the 
learners as they do the tasks included in the module.   

2  
For the learner:  
Welcome to the Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person Alternative 
Delivery Mode (ADM) Module on ​Methods of Philosophizing​!  
The  hand  is  one  of  the  most  symbolized  part  of  the  human  body.  It is often used to 
depict  skill,  action  and  purpose.  Through  our  hands  we  may  learn,  create  and 
accomplish. Hence, the hand in this learning resource signifies that you as a learner 
is  capable  and  empowered  to  successfully  achieve  the  relevant  competencies  and 
skills at your own pace and time. Your academic success lies in your own hands!  
This  module  was  designed  to  provide you with fun and meaningful opportunities for 
guided  and  independent  learning  at  your  own pace and time. You will be enabled to 
process the contents of the learning resource while being an active learner.  
This module has the following parts and corresponding icons:  

What I Need to Know This

​ will give you an idea of the skills or 
competencies you are expected to learn in 
the   
module.   
 What I Know This
​ part includes an activity that aims to check what 
you already know about the   
lesson to take. If you get all the answers   
correct (100%), you may decide to skip this   
module.   
What’s In This
​ is a brief drill or review to help you link the current 
lesson with the previous one.  

What’s New ​In this portion, the new lesson will be introduced to you in 
various ways such as a   
story, a song, a poem, a problem opener, an   
activity or a situation.  
What is It This
​ section provides a brief discussion of the lesson. This 
aims to help you discover and   
understand new concepts and skills.  
What’s More ​This comprises activities for independent practice to 
solidify your understanding and   
skills of the topic. You may check the   
answers to the exercises using the Answer   
Key at the end of the module.  
What I Have Learned This
​ includes questions or blank 
sentence/paragraph to be filled in to process  
what you learned from the lesson.  
What I Can Do ​This section provides an activity which will help you 
transfer your new knowledge or skill   
into real life situations or concerns. 

3  
Assessment ​This is a task which aims to evaluate your level of mastery 
in achieving the learning   
competency.   
Additional Activities In
​ this portion, another activity will be given to 
you to enrich your knowledge or skill of the   
lesson learned. This also tends retention of   
learned concepts.  
Answer Key ​This contains answers to all activities in the module.  

At the end of this module you will also find:  

 References T​ his is a list of all sources used in developing this module. 

The following are some reminders in using this module:  

1. Use the module with care. Do not put unnecessary mark/s on any part of the 
module. Use a separate sheet of paper in answering the exercises. 2. Don’t forget 
to answer ​What I Know b​ efore moving on to the other activities included in the 
module.  
3. Read the instruction carefully before doing each task.  
4. Observe honesty and integrity in doing the tasks and checking your answers. 
5. Finish the task at hand before proceeding to the next.  
6. Return this module to your teacher/facilitator once you are through with it.  
If  you  encounter  any  difficulty  in  answering  the  tasks  in  this  module,  do  not 
hesitate  to  consult  your  teacher  or  facilitator.  Always  bear  in  mind  that  you  are 
not alone.  
We hope that through this material, you will experience meaningful learning and 
gain deep understanding of the relevant competencies. You can do it!  

4  

What I Need to Know  

This  module  was  designed  and  written  with  you  in  mind.  It  is  here  to  help  you 
master  the  nature  of philosophizing. The scope of this module permits it to be used 
in  many  different  learning  situations.  The  language  used  recognizes  the  diverse 
vocabulary  level  of  students.  The  lessons  are  arranged  to  follow  the  standard 
sequence  of  the  course.  But  the  order  in  which  you  read  them  can  be  changed  to 
correspond with the textbook you are now using.  
The module is divided into two lessons, namely:  
∙ ​Lesson 1- Knowledge and Truth  
∙ ​Lesson 2– Theories of Truth  
MOST ESSENTIAL LEARNING COMPETENCIES  
After going through this module, you are expected to:  
1. Distinguish opinion from truth;  
2. Realize that the methods of philosophy lead to wisdom and truth 
Specific objectives:   
1. Identify the meaning, importance, and source of knowledge.  
2. Describe, the steps/processes of acquiring knowledge.  
3. Explain how validating one’s knowledge leads to truth.  
4. Compare/contrast different theories of truth. 

5  

What I Know  
Select the keyword that best fits the statement in each item. Write the chosen letter 
on a separate sheet of paper.  
1. The Correspondence Theory of truth asserts that truth must 
a. be agreed by upon by two people  
b. corresponds with experience and fact  
c. be based on myth and reality  
d. be agreed by upon by three people only  
2. This theory of truth is the agreement of things with one another. 
a. Pragmatic Theory of Truth  
b. Correspondence Theory of Truth  
c. Coherence Theory of Truth  
d. Dialectical Theory of Truth   
3. The truth of a belief is tested by its satisfactory results when it is put into 
operation.  
 a. Pragmatic Theory of Truth  
b. Coherence Theory of Truth  
c. Correspondence Theory of Truth  
d. Dialectical Theory of Truth   
4. This theory of truth deals with the consistency of the truth of statements 
claimed within the system that is being used.   
a. Correspondence Theory of Truth   
b. Coherence Theory of Truth  
c. Pragmatic Theory of Truth  
d. Dialectical Theory of Truth   
5. You know that “Snow is white" if and only if snow is white.   
a. Correspondence Theory of Truth  
b. Coherence Theory of Truth  
c. Pragmatic Theory of Truth  
d. Dialectical Theory of Truth   
6. Truth is a property of an extensive body of interrelated statements; hence, 
statements have degrees of truth and falsity.  
a. Coherence Theory of Truth  
b. Pragmatic Theory of Truth  
c. Correspondence Theory Truth  
d. Dialectical Theory of Truth   
7. This theory of truth is tantamount to the belief in the good or practical 
consequence that an idea would bring.  
a. Coherence Theory of Truth  
b. Pragmatic Theory of Truth  
c. Correspondence Theory of Truth  
d. Dialectical Theory of Truth  

6  
8. It is the idea that something is true if it accurately describes the world. 
a. Pragmatic Theory of Truth  
b. Correspondence Theory of Truth  
c. Coherence Theory of Truth  
d. Dialectical Theory of Truth   
9. A statement is not known to be true if the fact corresponding to the 
statement is not, in principle, verifiable in some manner.   
a. Correspondence Theory of Truth  
b. Coherence Theory of Truth  
c. Pragmatic Theory of Truth  
d. Dialectical Theory of Truth   
10. You can never know something is true until you can test its validity. If 
you cannot test it, you cannot know it.   
a. Pragmatic Theory of Truth  
b. Coherence Theory of Truth  
c. Correspondence Theory of Truth  
d. Dialectical Theory of Truth   
11. Formal discussion entails process.   
a. argument  
b. lecture  
c. discussion  
d. debate  
 12.Informal discourse does not entail tedious preparation. 
a. lecture  
b. debate  
c. argument  
d. discussion  
13.It is true if it is in exact conformity to what is observed in their actual 
status and relations.   
a. rational  
b. concrete  
c. reasonable  
d. empirical  
14.Light Railway Transit is a train.   
a. common senses  
b. complex confirmation  
c. self-evident  
d. corresponds to argument  
15.Reason is the chief source and test of truth.   
a. Rational  
b. Concrete  
c. Reasonable  
d. Empirical  

7  
Lesso Knowledge and Truth 
n​ ​1 
Have you ever experienced believing in something you thought is true but in the end 
you  discovered  that  it  is  false?  For  example  you  feel  that  the  person  standing  in 
front  of  you  is  a  true  friend  who  will  never  betray  you  but  in  the end he did betray 
you.  Or  during  an  examination  period  you  feel  strongly that “A” is the right answer 
for  item  number  12  but  it  turned  out  to  be  “B.”  Or  you  feel  that  your  belief(s)  can 
guide  you  in  the  correct  path  only  to  discover  that  that  it  leads  to  disaster.  These, 
and  countless  examples  from  your  experiences,  show  that there is a BIG difference 
to what we feel is true and what is really true.  
According  to  philosophy  if  you  want  to  know  the  truth  you  have  to  use,  not 
emotions,  but  thinking.  To  think  however  is  an  act  of  choice  which  is  not  always 
done  properly.  Sometimes  we  need  guidance  to  straighten  our  thoughts.  This  is 
what module 2 provides. Welcome to the province of epistemology.   
 What’s In  
Direction: Make a ​Hashtag (#) (​ at least five) of what you have learned about the 
significance of Epistemology or act of knowing from the previous lesson.   
#______________________________________________________________________
#______________________________________________________________________
#______________________________________________________________________
#______________________________________________________________________
#______________________________________________________________________

Notes to the Teacher  

As facilitator, you should make your student be aware that in   
acquiring knowledge, the ultimate goal is the ​truth​. More than   
this, you should accompany them while they navigate in every   
step of the mental processes starting from a) simple   
apprehension, b) proposition, and c) inference. 

8  
are living in a very challenging time that 
some people call the “New Normal.” In 
this time things that we usually take for 
granted like the freedom to travel, 
  entertainment like concerts and movies 
and yes, even haircuts, are hard to come 
by. Not only that the economy is 
bleeding to death with thousands losing 
their jobs and countless businesses 
closing. And we must not forget the 
thousands of people who were infected 
and lost their lives. All of this happened 
Source:
because we have one tiny enemy which 
What’s New  
https://www.shutterstock.c​ om/search/scientist+sketch

we can’t see   

Right now we 

but is deadly: the Covid 19 virus.  
No  wonder  scientists  in  giant  pharmaceutical 
companies  are  in  a race to develop the  vaccine for this 
virus.  The  survival  of  human  civilization  may  depend  on  their  achievement. And in 
all  of  this  mankind  is  relying  on  one  thing  which  can  defeat  the  virus:  the 
knowledge  inside  the  head  of  every  scientist  developing  the  cure.  Without 
knowledge the vaccine needed to end this pandemic is impossible.  
Our  reliance  however  on  knowledge  is  not  new.  Even  before 
the  Covid  19  pandemic  people  are  already  relying  on 
knowledge  for  their  survival.  Without  knowledge  on  how  to 
create  a  fire,  how  to  cook  one’s  food,  how  to  build  a shelter, 
how  to  build  dams  to  control  flooding,  how  to  create laws to 
preserve  order  in society  and yes even how to think properly, 
we  would  still  be  in  a  prehistoric  cave.  Knowledge  literally 
enabled  mankind  to  survive  and  reach  the  present  level  of 
our civilization.  
It  is  on  the  recognition  of  the  supreme  importance  of 
knowledge  that  gave  rise  to  the  branch of philosophy known 
as  epistemology.  Let  us  therefore  explore  the  meaning, 
foundation and importance   
of epistemology.    EPISTEMOLOGY?   
Source: ​https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Charles Darwin-as-an-earthworm-scientist-caricature-from
the-journal-Punch-published-in_fig3_42387382

What is It W​ HAT IS 

There is no one correct definition of epistemology. The one that I’m going to use 
came from the philosopher Ayn Rand:  
“Epistemology is a science devoted to the discovery of the proper method of 
acquiring and validating knowledge” (Rand 1990).  
The purpose of epistemology therefore is two-fold:  
9  
1. To show how we can acquire knowledge.  
2. To give us a method of demonstrating whether the knowledge we acquired is 
really knowledge (i.e., true).  
Since knowledge plays a central role in epistemology let us briefly described its 
nature.   

THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE  

A​ccording to Ayn Rand knowledge is a “mental grasp of reality reached either by perceptual 
observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation” (Rand 1990).   
When you know something (be it the behavior of your friend, the movement of the planets, or 
the  origin  of  civilizations)  you  understand  its  nature.  You  identify  what  it  is.  And  it  stays 
with you. Knowledge is a retained form of awareness (Binswanger 2014).  
So how do you acquire knowledge? Miss Rand’s definition gives us two ways: First, we can 
acquire knowledge using our senses: seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling, smelling. How do you 
know that the table is brown? Because you see it. How do you know that fire is hot? 
Because you feel it. This method of acquiring knowledge is called empiricism and it has 
many adherents in the history of philosophy such as John Locke, George Berkley, David 
Hume.  

The Empiricists ​(from left to right) John Locke, George 

Berkley, and David   

Hume  

Second, we can acquire knowledge by thinking with the use of our minds (what philosophers 
call  the  rational  faculty).  This  is  what  rationalism  advocates.  (Some  well-known  rationalists 
in history are Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz).  

 
The Rationalists ​(from left to right) ​Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz  

However  thinking  is  just  half  of  the  story  of  knowing  (in  fact  the second half). The reason is 
that  thinking  involves  content.  To  think  is  to  think  of  something.  You  cannot  think  about 
nothing.  This  is  where  sense  perception  enters  the  picture  by  feeding  our  minds  with  data 
coming from the outside world so that we can have something to think about.  

10  
ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE  
Let us now explore the first part of epistemology: the process of acquiring 
knowledge. ​1. Reality  
To  know  is  to  know  something. This “something” is what philosophers call reality, existence, 
being.  Let  us employ the term existence. Existence is everything there is (another name for it 
is  the  Universe  [Peikoff  1990]).  It  includes  everything  we  perceive  (animals,  plants,  human 
beings,  inanimate  objects) and everything inside our heads (e.g., our thoughts and emotions) 
which represents our inner world.  
Existence is really all there is to know. If nothing exists knowledge is impossible. 
2. Perception  
Our  first  and  only  contact  with  reality  is  through  our  senses.  Knowledge  begins  with 
perceptual  knowledge.  At  first  the  senses  give  us  knowledge  of  things  or  entities  (what 
Aristotle  calls  primary  substance):  dog,  cat,  chair,  table,  man.  Later  we  became  aware  not 
only  of  things  but  certain  aspects  of  things  like  qualities  (blue,  hard,  smooth),  quantities 
(seven  inches  or  six  pounds),  relationships  (in  front  of,  son  of)  even  actions  (jumping, 
running,  flying).  These  so  called  Aristotelian  categories  cannot  be  separated  from  the 
entities  that  have  it.  Red  for  example  cannot be separated from red objects; walking cannot 
be separated from the person that walks, etc.  

3. Concept  
After  we  perceive things we began to notice that some of the things we perceive are similar to 
other  things.  For  example  we  see  three  individuals  let’s  call  them  Juan,  Pablo  and  Pedro 
who  may  have  nothing  in common at first glance. But when we compare them with another 
entity,  a  dog  for  example,  suddenly  their  differences  become  insignificant.  Their  big 
difference to a dog highlights their similarity to one another (Binswanger 2014)  
We  therefore  grouped  them  into  one  class  or  group,  named  the  group  (“man”  or  “human 
being”)  and  define  what  that  group  is  to  give  it  identity  (Peikoff  1990).  We  now  have  a 
concept  which  according  to  one  dictionary  means  “an  abstract  or  generic  idea  generalized 
from particular instances” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)  
The  first  concepts  we  formed  are  concepts  of  things  like  dog,  cat,  man,  house,  car.  These 
elementary  concepts  are  called  first  level  concepts  (Rand  1990).  From  these  first  level 
concepts  we  can  form higher level concepts through a process which Rand calls “abstraction 
from abstractions” (Rand1990).  
Let us describe the two types of abstraction from abstractions: wider generalizations (or 
simply widenings) and subdivisions (or narrowings) (Binswanger 2014):   
Wider  generalization  is  the  process  of  forming  wider  and  wider  concepts.  For  example  from 
Juan,  Pedro and Pablo we can form the concept “man”. Then from man, dog, cat, monkey we 
can  form  a  higher  and  wider  concept  “animal”.  And  from  plant  and  animal  we  can  form  a 
still  higher  and  wider  concept “living organism”. As we go up to these progressive widenings 
our knowledge increases.  
Subdivisions  consist  of  identifying  finer  and  finer  distinctions.  For  example  “man”  is  a  first 
level  concept  that  we  can  subdivide  according  to  profession  (doctor,  entertainer,  fireman, 
teacher),  or  race  (Asian,  Caucasian  [white],  black),  or  gender (man, woman, lesbian, gay), or 
nationality  (Filipino,  Chinese,  American)  among  other  things.  As  we  go  down  these 
progressive narrowings our knowledge of things subsumed under a concept increases.  
11  
The  result  of  this  progressive  widenings and narrowings is a hierarchy (or levels) of concepts 
whose  based  is  sense  perception.  As  we  move  further  from  the  perceptual  base  knowledge 
becomes  more  abstract  and  as  we  move  closer  to  the  perceptual  level  knowledge  becomes 
more concrete.  
4. Proposition  
When  we use concepts in order to classify or describe an “existent” (a particular that exist be 
it  an  object,  a  person,  an  action  or  event,  etc)  (Rand  1990)  we  use  what  philosophers call a 
proposition  (Binswanger  2014).  A  proposition  is  a  statement  that  expresses  either  an 
assertion  or  a  denial  (Copi,  2002)  that  an  existent  belongs  to  a  class  or  possess  certain 
attribute.  
Proposition  is  usually  expressed  in  a  declarative  sentence.  When  I  say,  for  example,  that 
“Men  are  mortals”  I  am  making  an  assertion  of  men  which  are  affirmative  in  nature  (thus 
the  statement  is  an  affirmative  proposition).  When I make an opposite claim however, “Men 
are  not  mortals”  I  am  denying  something  about  men  and  thus  my  statement  is negative in 
nature (thus the proposition is called a negative proposition)  
An  affirmative  proposition  therefore  has  the  following  structure:  “S  is  P”  (where  S  is  the 
subject,  P  is  the  predicate  and  “is”  is  the  copula  stating  the  logical  relationship  of  S  and  P) 
while the negative proposition has the structure “S is not P” (“is not” is the copula expressing 
denial).  
Notice  that  statements  like  “Men  are  mortals”,  “Angels are not demons”, and “Saints are not 
sinners”  can  either  be  true  or  false.  “Truth  and  falsity  are  called  the  two  possible  truth 
values of the statement” (Hurley 2011). (Later were going to explore the nature of truth).  
5. Inference  
How  do  we  demonstrate  that  the  statement is true? By providing an argument. According to 
Hurley  an  argument  “is  a  group  of  statements,  one  or  more  of  which  (the  premises)  are 
claimed  to provide support for, or reason to believe one of the others (the conclusion) (Hurley 
2011). To clarify this definition let’s give an example using the famous Socratic argument:  

All men are mortals  

Socrates is a man.  
Therefore Socrates is mortal.  
Here we have three related statements (or propositions). The last statement beginning with 
the word “therefore” is what we call a conclusion. A conclusion is a statement that we want 
to prove. The first two statements are what we call premises (singular form: premise). A 
premise provides justification, evidence, and proof to the conclusion.  
An argument expresses a reasoning process which logicians call inference (Hurley 2011). 
Arguments however is not the only form of inference but logicians usually used “argument” 
and “inference” interchangeably.  
There are still many things to be discuss on the topic of knowledge acquisition. We only 
provided a brief overview of the topic.  
THE NATURE OF TRUTH  
Now that we know how we know, it’s time to see whether the knowledge we acquired is 
“really” knowledge i.e., is true. This is the second part of epistemology: validating one’s 
knowledge. 

12  
The  first  step  in validating one’s knowledge is to ask oneself the following question: “How did 
I  arrive  at  this  belief, by what steps?” (Binswanger 2014). Thus you have to retrace the steps 
you  took  to acquire the knowledge, “reverse engineer” the process (Binswanger 2014). This is 
what  Dr.  Peikoff  calls  reduction  (Peikoff  1990).  One  will  therefore  realize  that  the  steps  you 
took  to  acquire  knowledge  (perception-concept-proposition-inference)  are  the  same  steps 
needed  to  validate  knowledge  (but  in  reverse  order).  Thus  what  the  ancient  pre-Socratic 
philosopher  Heraclitus  said  is  true  when  applied  to  epistemology:  “the  way  up  [knowledge 
acquisition] is the way down [knowledge validation]” (quoted by Dr. Binswanger 2014).  
If  we  perform the process of reduction we will realized that all true knowledge rest ultimately 
on  sense  perception.  “A  belief  is  true  if  it  can  be justified or proven through the use of one’s 
senses” (Abella 2016). Consider the following statements (Abella 2016):  
I am alive.  
I have a body.  
I can breathe.  
You can only validate the above statements if you observed yourself using your senses. Feel 
your body. Are you breathing? Feel your pulse. Observe your body. Is it moving? These and 
countless examples provided by your senses proved that you’re alive (Abella 2016).  
Not all statements however can be validated directly by the senses. Some beliefs or ideas 
need a “multi-step process of validation called proof’ (Binswanger 2014). Nevertheless proof 
rests ultimately on sense perception.  
Statements based on sense perception are factual and if we based our beliefs on such facts 
our beliefs are true (Abella 2016).   
For example the belief that human beings have the right to life rests on the following claim:  
1. Human beings are rational animals.  
2. Animals (including human beings) are living organisms.  
And of course the fact that we are alive can be demonstrated perceptually as shown above.  
A  third  way  to determine if the statement is true is through a consensus (Abella 2016). If the 
majority  agrees  that  a  statement is true then it is true. However there are certain limitations 
to  this  approach.  Far too many times in history false ideas became popular which ultimately 
leads  to  disaster.  For  example the vast majority of Germans during the time of Adolph Hitler 
believed  that  Jews  are  racially  inferior.  This  is  obviously  false  supported  by  a  pseudo 
biological  science  of  the  Nazi.  The  result  of  this  false  consensus  is  the  extermination  of 
millions of Jews in many parts of Europe.  
A  fourth  way  to determine whether a statement is true is to test it by means of action (Abella 
2016).  For  example  you  want  to  know  if  a person is friendly. Well the best way to find out is 
to  approach  the  person.  Thus  the  famous Nike injunction of “Just do it” is applicable in this 
situation.   
TRUTH VS OPINION  
Identifying  truth  however  can  sometimes  be  tricky.  The  reason  is  that  there  are 
times  when  we  strongly  held  an  idea  that  we  feel  “deep  down”  to  be  true.  For 
example  religious people strongly believed that there is life after death. Some people 
who  embraced  democracy  may  passionately  embraced  the  idea  that the majority is 
always  right.  Or  on  a  more  personal  level  you  may  feel  strongly  that  your  sister  is 
“selfish”. 

13  
However we must not confused strongly held beliefs with truth. Truth is knowledge 
validated and when we say validated we mean they are based on the facts of reality.   
You  must  understand  dear  student  that  the  facts  of  reality  are independent of your 
thoughts,  feelings  or  preferences  (Ayn  Rand  calls  this  the  primacy  of  existence 
[Rand  1982]).  That  is  the  characteristic  of  truth.  For  example  the  statement  “Jose 
Rizal  died  in  1896”  is  true.  You  may  not  like  that  statement  or  deny  it  strongly. 
That  does  not  change  the  fact  that  the  statement  is  true  because  it  is  based  on 
what  really  happened  in  the  past.  There  are  many  sources  that  can  validate  the 
truth of that statement if one cared to look.  
However  when  you  say  that  “Jose  Rizal  is  the  greatest  man  who  ever  lived”  you are 
stating  your  preference  and  not  facts.  This  is  an  opinion.  Now  it  is  true  that  there 
are  many  facts  about  Rizal  but  that  statement  is  asserting  something  that  is 
beyond  what  the  facts  state.  That  statement  represents  not  facts  but  your 
interpretation of facts which may reveal your biases.   
To summarize an opinion has the following characteristics:  
1. ​Based on emotions  
2. ​Open to interpretation  
3. ​Cannot be confirmed  
4. ​Inherently biased  
While truth is:  
1. Based on the facts of reality  
2. Can be confirmed with other sources  
3. Independent of one’s interpretation, preferences and biases   
Lesso THEORIES OF TRUTH 
n​ ​2 
In knowing the truth or falsity of a statement, we generally use the following 
T​heories ​ ​of Truth:  
1. ​The Correspondence theory of Truth​:   
The  basic  idea  of  the  correspondence  theory  is  that  what we believe or  
say  is  true  if  it  corresponds to the way things actually are based on the facts.  
It  argues  that  an  idea  that  correspond  with  reality  is  true  while  an  idea, 
which   ​does  not  correspond  to  reality  is  false.  For  example,  if  I say, “The sky 
is  blue”    ​then  I  looked  outside  and  saw  that  it  is  indeed  blue,  then  my 
statement  is   ​true.  On  the  other  hand,  if  I  say,  “Pigs  have  wings”  and  then  I 
checked  a  pig    ​and  it  does  not  have  wings,  then  my  statement  is  false.  In 
general,  statements   of beliefs, propositions, and ideas are capable being true 
or false.   
However, according the ​Eubulides, ​a student of the Megara school of  
philosophy, “the correspondence theory of truth ​leaves us in the lurch when  

14  
we  are  confronted  with  statements  such  as  “I  am lying” or “What I am saying  
here  is  false.”  These  are  statements  and  therefore,  are  capable  of  being  true  
or  false.  But  if  they  are  true  because  they  correspond  with  reality,  then  any  
preceding  statement  or  proposition  must  be  false.  Conversely,  if  these  
statements  are  false  because  they  do  not  agree  with  reality,  then  any 
preceding   ​statement  or  proposition  must  be  true.  Thus,  no  matter  what  we 
say  about    ​the  truth  or  falsehood  of  these  statements,  we  immediately 
contradict ​ ourselves.”   
This  does  not  mean  that  the  Correspondence Theory of Truth is wrong  
or  useless  and,  to  be  perfectly  honest,  it  is  difficult  to  give  up  such  an  
intuitively  obvious  idea  that  truth  must  match  reality.  Nevertheless,  the 
above    ​criticisms  should  indicate  that  it  probably  is  not  a  comprehensive 
explanation ​ of the nature of truth.  
 Arguably,  it  is  a  fair  description  of  what  truth  should  be,  but  it  may 
not    ​be  an  adequate  description  of  how  truth  actually  “works”  in  human 
minds and ​ ​social situations (​Cline, 2007)​ .  
Austin  Cline  argues,  it  is  important  to  note  here  that  “truth”  is  not  a 
property  of  “facts.”  This  may  seem  odd  at  first,  but  a  distinction  must  be 
made  between  facts  and  beliefs.  A  ​fact ​is  some  set  of  circumstances  in  the 
world  while  a  ​belief ​is  an  opinion  about  what  those  facts  are.  A  fact  cannot 
be  either  true  or  false  because  it  simply  the  way  the  world  is.  A  belief, 
however,  is  capable  of  being  true  or  false  because  it  may  or  may  not 
accurately describe the world.  
2. ​The Coherence Theory of Truth​:   
It  has  already  been  established  that  the  Correspondence  Theory 
assumes  that  a  belief  is  true  when  we  are  able  to  confirm  it  with  reality.  In 
other words, by simply checking if the statement or belief agrees with the way 
things  really  are,  we  can  know  the  truth.  However,  as  Austin  Cline  argues, 
this manner of determining the truth is rather odd and simplistic.  
Cline  said  that  a  belief  can  be  an  inaccurate description of reality that 
may  also  fit  in  with  a  larger,  complex  system  of  further  inaccurate 
descriptions  of  reality.  Thus,  by  relying  on  the  Correspondence  Theory, that 
inaccurate  belief  will  still  be  called  “truth”  even  though  it  does  not  actually 
describe actual state of things. So how do we resolve this problem?   
In  order  to  know  the  truth  of  a  statement,  it  must  be tested as part of 
a  larger  set  of  ideas.  Statements  cannot be sufficiently evaluated in isolation. 
For  example,  if  you  pick  up  a  ball  and drop it accidentally, the action cannot 
be  simply  explained  by  our  belief  in  the  law  of  gravity  which  can  be  verified 
but  also  by  a  host  of  other  factors  that  may  have  something  to  do  with  the 
incident, such as the accuracy of our visual perception.   
For Cline, only when statements are tested as part of a larger system 
of complex ideas, then one might conclude that the statement is “true”. By  
15  
testing  this  set  of  complex  ideas  against  reality,  then  one  can  ascertain 
whether  the  statement  is  “true”  or  “false”.  Consequently,  by  using  this 
method,  we  establish  that  the  statement  “coheres”  with  the  larger  system. In 
a  sense,  the  ​Coherence Theory ​is  similar  to  the  ​Correspondence Theory ​since 
both  evaluates  statements  based  on  their  agreement  with  reality.  The 
difference  lies  in  the  method  where  the  former  involves  a  larger system while 
the latter relies on a single evidence of fact.   
As  a  result,  ​Coherence  Theories  have  often  been  rejected  for  lacking 
justification  in  their  application  to  other  areas  of  truth,  especially  in 
statements  or  claims  about  the  ​natural  world,  empirical  ​data  in  general, and 
assertions  about  practical  matters  of  psychology and society, especially when 
they are used without support from the other major theories of truth.   
Coherence theories represent the ideas of rationalist philosophers 
such as Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 
 Hegel and the British philosopher F.H Bradley. Moreover, this method had its 
resurgence in the ideas of several proponents of logical positivism, notably 
Otto Neurath and Carl Hempel.   

3. The Pragmatist Theory of Truth:   

The Pragramatic Theory of Truth ​states  that  a  belief/statement  is  true 
if  it  has  a useful (pragmatic) application in the world. If it does not, then it is 
not  true.  In  addition,  we  can  know  whether  a  belief/statement  is  true  by 
examining  the consequence of holding or accepting the statement/belief to be 
true.  For  example, there are some people who think that there are “ghosts” or 
“vampires” because they find it useful in explaining unusual phenomena and  
in dealing with fears (Mabaquiao, 2016). So, if we are going to use the word 
“truth”, we define it as that which is most useful to us.   
However,  there  are  objections  against  this  theory  of  truth.  For  Austin 
Cline,  truth  that  is  based  on  what  works  is  very  ambiguous.  What  happens 
when  a  belief  works  in  one  sense  but  fails  in  another?  Suppose  a  belief  that 
one  will  succeed  may  give  a  person  the  psychological  strength  needed  to 
accomplish  a  great  deal  but  in  the  end  he  fails  in  his  ultimate  goal.  Was  his 
belief “true”?   
In  this  sense,  Cline  argues  that  when  a  belief  works,  it  is  more 
appropriate  to  call  it  useful  rather  than  “true”.  A  belief  that  is  useful  is  not 
necessarily  true  and  in  normal  conversations,  people  do not typically use the 
word “true” to mean “useful”.   
T​o illustrate, the statement “It is useful to believe that my spouse is faithful” 
does not at all mean the same as “It is true that my spouse is faithful.” 
Granted that true beliefs are also usually the ones that are useful, but it is 
not usually the case. As Nietzsche argued, sometimes untruth may be more 
useful than truth. 

16  
In  sum,  we  can  know  if  statements/beliefs  are  true  if  we  look  at  each 
statement/belief  and  determine  if  they  correspond  to  facts,  cohere  with  the 
rules of the system and result into useful application.   
It  must  be  noted,  however,  that  Philosophers  “continue  to  argue  with  each 
other  on  which  among  these  three  general  methods  is  the  correct  one or one 
that  works  for  all  kinds  of  statement  or  beliefs”  (Mabaquiao,  59). 
Nevertheless,  it  is  not  necessary  to  subscribe  to  only  one  method  and 
consider  it  to  work  for  everyone.  Perhaps  it  is  better  to  use  any  of  the  three 
methods  that  is  appropriate  for  any  given  statement  or  belief  that  is  being 
examined.   

What’s More  
Activity: Inquire and Discover  
 1. ​Read the passage from “Plato’s Allegory of the Cave”  
(Critical thinking, Communication, Character)  
“Some  prisoners  are  chained  inside  a  cave,  facing  the  back  wall. 
Behind  them is a fire, with people passing in front of it. The prisoners cannot 
turn  their  heads,  and  have  always  been  chained  this  way.  All  they  can  see 
and  hear  are  shadows  passing  back  and  forth  and  the  echoes  bouncing  off 
the  wall  in  front  of  them.  One  day,  a  prisoner  is  freed,  and  dragged  outside 
the  cave.  He  is  blinded  by  the  light,  confused,  and  resists being led outside. 
But,  eventually  his  eyes  adjusts  so  that  he  able  to  see  clearly  the  things 
around  him,  and  even  the  sun  itself.  He  came  to  realize  that  the  things  he 
thought were real were  merely shadows of real things, and that life outside of 
the  cave  is  far  better  than  his  previous  life  in  chains.  He  pities  those  still 
inside.  He  ventures  back  into  the  cave  to  share  his  discovery  with  the 
others—only  to be ridiculed  because he can hardly see (his eyes have trouble 
at  first  re-adjusting  to  the  darkness). He tried to free the other prisoners but 
they  violently  resisted  (the  other prisoners refuse to be freed and led outside, 
and they even tried to kill him)”.   
(​https://wmpeople.wm.edu/asset/index/cvance/allegory​)  
2. ​What does this story mean?  
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

3. ​How does this passage from Plato help you turn your attention toward the  
right thing (i.e., truth, beauty, justice and goodness)?  
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

17  
Activity: Empiricists vs. Rationalists ​(Critical Thinking, Communication) 
Directions: Using the Venn diagram below, write the differences and 
similarities between how empiricists and rationalists acquired knowledge.   

Empiricists Rationalists 
​
 What I Have Learned  
Activity: Theories of Truth ​(Critical Thinking)  
Direction: Identify the different theories of truth on the following statements. Write 
your answer on the space provided before the number.   
1. There is a water fountain in front of the Cultural Center of the Philippines. 
2. Bachelors are unmarried men.  
3. The sun will rise tomorrow.  
4. A dream board is necessary for dreams to come true.  
5. What is more important to me at this time is my family.  
6. A wooden table is a solid object.  
7. Ghost and vampires exist.  
8. 2+2=4  
9​. Cats are animals.  
10. The Sky is blue.   

18  

What I Can Do  

Direction: Make a reflection paper on Truth.   
(​Critical Thinking, Character, Creativity, Communication​)  
Guide Question: ​What is truth? How you tell the truth to others?  
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________________________  
__________________________________________________________________________________ 

19  

Assessment  
Select the keyword that best fits the statement in each item. Write the chosen letter 
on a separate sheet of paper.  
1. Beliefs and statements are true if they are consistent with actual state of 
affairs.   
 a. correspondence   
b. coherence  
c. pragmatic  
d. deflationary  
2. Beliefs that lead to the best "payoff", that are the best justification of our 
actions that promote success, are truths.  
a. pragmatic theory  
b. semantic theory  
c. correspondence theory  
d. coherence theory  
3. Check the headline information fair, objective, and moderate a. 
It’s time to consider other means of cash aid distribution  
b. Other countries around the world have much better means in cash 
aid distribution   
c. Government vows to faster distribution of coronavirus aid  
d. We can also learn lesson from Vietnam how they distribute their cash 
aid  
4. Statements are true on the degree to which it "hangs together" with all the other 
beliefs in a system of beliefs.  
a. pragmatic  
b. coherence  
c. deflationary  
d. correspondence  
5. The five senses are useful tools to verify the truthfulness of propositions. 
a. coherence theory  
b. pragmatic theory  
c. correspondence theory  
d. semantic theory  
6. Why do we need epistemology?  
a. To overcome poverty  
b. To acquire and validate knowledge  
c. To become geniuses  
d. To succeed in life  
7. Knowledge is ultimately grounded on___________.  
a. Emotions  
b. Convictions  
c. Beliefs  
d. Sense perception 

20  
8. Philosophers who believed that knowledge is based on sense perception. 
a. Idealists  
b. Rationalists  
c. Empiricists  
d. Nominalists  
9. Identify which of the following statements is factual?  
1. My brother arrived at 11 pm.  
2. My brother always come home late because he is a good for nothing 
individual.  
3. Man is a living organism.  
4. Free trade simply promotes the selfish greed of businessmen. 
a. 1 and 4  
b. 2 and 3  
 c. 1 and 3  
d. 2 and 4  
10. Identify which statements above are mere opinions.  
a. 1 and 3  
b. 2 and 4  
c. 2 and 3  
d. 1 and 4   

Additional Activities  
Direction: Read an article/watch TV/listen to radio channel and follow the guide 
questions below: (​Critical thinking, Communication)  
Guide Questions:   
1. How do you assess the words and statement uttered/stated in the article, tv 
and radio?  
___________________________________________________________________________ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
___________________________________________________________________________  

2. Which of their statements can be considered truth? Why  

___________________________________________________________________________ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 

21  
References  
Books:  
Abella, Roberto D. (2016). Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person. 
Quezon City: C&E Publishing  
Binswanger, Harry. (2014). How We Know. New York: TOF Publications.   
Copi, Irving M. and Cohen, Carl (2002). Introduction to Logic (11th​ edition).
​
New 
Jersey: Prentice Hall  
Hurley, Patrick J. (2011). A Concise Introduction to Logic (11th​ edition).
​
Boston: 
Cengage Learning  
Mabacquiao, N. (2017). Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person. 
Quezon City: Phoenix Publishing.  
Peikoff, Leonard (1990). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York: Dutton   
Rand, Ayn (1990). Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (2nd
​ ​edition). New York: 
Meridian   
Stumpf, Samuel Enoch & Fieser, James (2008). Socrates to Sartre and Beyond (8th​  
edition). New Yok: McGraw Hill  
Wilber, Ken (2006). Integral Spirituality. Boston: Integral Books  

Websites:   
Adapted from articles by Austin Cline:   
http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/05/29/epistemology-correspondence-theory 
of-truth.htm accessed May 31​, 2020.   
http://mrhoyestokwebsite.com/Knower/Useful%20Information/Three%20Differen
t​ ​%20Theories%20of%20Truth.htm  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth  
https://wmpeople.wm.edu/asset/index/cvance/allegory 

22  
For inquiries or feedback, please write or call:

Department of Education - Bureau of Learning Resources (DepEd-BLR)

Ground Floor, Bonifacio Bldg., DepEd Complex

Meralco Avenue, Pasig City, Philippines 1600

Telefax: (632) 8634-1072; 8634-1054; 8631-4985

Email Address: blr.lrqad@deped.gov.ph * blr.lrpd@deped.gov.ph

23