Lesson 1:

The Bigger Picture

Most philosophers and
students of Philosophy have
asked a lot of complex, even
seemingly absurd questions
that both shook and shaped
the world. When we are
presented with these
questions, we find ourselves
taking time to think of an
answer.
Wisdom is generally referred to
as an insight, skill or
intelligence. This is the state of
having an experience,
knowledge and good judgment.
In Philosophy, we define
wisdom as the right application
of knowledge.
While the term Philosophy was coined by
Pythagoras, it is usually attributed to the ancient
philosopher, Socrates. He was regarded as a true
philosopher – a true lover of wisdom. During his
time, he would proceed to the marketplace of
Athens, where most people could be found,
and ask them questions about almost anything.
Socrates’ method of asking questions, providing
an answer, asking further questions, and so on is
known as the Socratic method or the Socratic
Dialogue. It is considered as a form of dialectics,
is a two-way process that works between two
parties discussing a central idea.
Let us take an example between two people who
are trying to define the word “chair”.
Eventually, the Socratic Dialogue makes us
rethink of the concepts and ideas we think we
already know. It is a careful examination of our
own minds and thoughts. Sometimes, we feel
so certain of our decisions only to prove ourselves
wrong.
Socrates: What is a “chair”?
Person 2: A chair is a furniture on which one can sit
on.
Socrates: So, because I can sit on the table, does it
mean it’s also a chair?
Person 2: No, a chair is created to be sat upon.
Whereas a table is not. It is defined by its
purpose.
Socrates: I see. If I use a chair as a tool to elevate
my body and reach the ceiling, does it mean
it is no longer a chair because it is not serving its
purpose?
A German idealist, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel presented another form of a dialectical
method similar to the Socratic Dialogue and is
continuously developing. He presented it in three
levels – a thesis, an antithesis, and a synthesis.
The thesis is one’s prevailing idea or situation. It
is our current perception of the world and all
its aspects that affect us. It is a proposition that
claims to be true. The antithesis is the idea that
opposes the thesis. These are the problems we
encounter in the situations we find ourselves in.
The synthesis is the product of struggle between
the thesis and antithesis. Eventually, it becomes
the new thesis which would find itself an
antithesis and produce a synthesis. It is a cycle
that is in constant flux and is continuously
evolving.
For example, during the Medieval period, it was a
widely accepted fact that the Earth is flat and
that the Sun revolves around it. Eventually,
scientists and discoverers opposed the idea
by proclaiming that the Earth is not flat, and the
Sun does not revolve around it.
These two have been used not only in Philosophy,
but also by scholars who have made some of the
biggest decisions in the world. Both can be used
in simple concepts, and in the immense problems
the world finds itself to be in. These methods
allow us to reevaluate our decisions that would
impact our lives and the world we live in.
The Value of Human
Knowledge
In an evolutionary perspective, human beings are
animals that are considered to be apex predators.
Although considering the fact that, in terms of
physical strength or speed, human beings will be
classified as the weakest or the slowest.
Lesson 1:
Questioning Truth and
Knowledge
People often claim certainty with their
statements and present their own opinions
masked as truth. Some do it deliberately, while
many others commit it without realizing that
they are. And some recipients of such statements
accept it without second thoughts nor any form of
verification.
In the study of Philosophy, the branch that
inquires about the features, extent and
limitations of human knowledge is called
Epistemology; episteme which means ‘knowledge’
and logos which means ‘study’ or ‘discourse’. It is
a study that attempts to answer the question,
‘How do we truly know something?’.
There are instances when we believe we know
something – an idea, event, situation, facts,
skills, etc. but when asked or scrutinized, we
eventually realize that we may not truly know it.
What are, then, the necessary conditions for us to
accept that we truly know something?
In Epistemology, there are three different kinds of
knowledge:

Personal Knowledge is the knowledge that we

acquire as we experience the world. Since we
were born, we started to acquaint ourselves with
the way the world is –‘common sense’ knowledge.
An example will be knowledge about gravity: if I
jump in the air, I know that I’d certainly fall.
Secondly, Practical Knowledge, also known as
Procedural Knowledge, is a type of knowledge
that is particular for skills, like knowing how to
cook, how to ride a bicycle, how to play the
guitar. This is the type of knowledge that you can
practice, and usually involves motor function.
Propositional Knowledge is the type of knowledge
that makes a claim: it proposes something to be
true. For example, your classmate tells you that
there is a ghost on the third floor of the building.
He is ‘proposing’, he is making a claim.
Propositional Knowledge declares that there is
‘truth’ in the statement, it involves a whole
certainty of the truth.
Propositional Knowledge is the focus of
Epistemology. Since statements that contain
Propositional Knowledge claim something to be
true, the mission of Epistemology is to seek
questions and criteria of the extent of the truth
that Propositional Knowledge claims.
There are three main criteria that must be met in order for a
certain proposition or claim to be considered as ‘knowledge’.

The first criteria is belief. When one makes a

claim, he must have faith that his claim is true.
For example, your teacher promised your class
that those who will get a score of at least 90 in
the project would be exempted from taking the
final examination.
The second criteria is truth. Belief is necessary
for us to claim that we know something. However,
our beliefs may be wrong as well. It is possible for
our beliefs to be mistaken and not meet with the
truth. This means that even with the belief that
your exempted, but because your belief did not
correspond to the truth, then you did not know
that you will be exempted.
Knowledge, then, requires a true belief. However,
there is a need for a proof, or at least, a reason
for us to believe that a certain proposition is
true. It is here where the last criteria enters –
justification. If your classmate proposes that
Rizal was a better hero than Bonifacio, he must
provide you a reason for you to accept his
proposition.
In one of Plato’s dialogues, he proposed that to
truly know means having the ability to explain
and reason about it. Hence, a valid justification
accompanied with strong evidence and/or proof
is what separates an opinion from facts. It is what
completes the nature of knowledge itself.
Lesson 2: Our Logical
Investigations
The traditional study of logic can be traced back
to the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, who
is called the “Father of Logic”, for having the
first recorded study of the subject. For him, logic
is an organon which translates in English as “a
tool” or an instrument that the mind utilizes in
order to arrive at the Truth.
For Aristotle, reason and logic should be the bases
of our acceptance of ideas. Some people appeal
to authority, to power, to pity, etc. But, those
appeals are invalid. One should accept an idea
simple because it is valid, true, sound – because
it is logical.
For example, you are walking around a park when
you saw a man and a woman. The man’s right arm
is on the woman’s shoulder. One can proceed to
an opinion that these two are a couple. However,
upon a closer look, they share some physical
aspects – they have the same eyes, the same
complexion, and some other physical similarities.
This mainly relates to our previous lesson
especially on the part of justification. We are
now referring to a valid justification, and not just
any kind. But, how do we know if our justification
is valid, sound, and logical?
The process of Aristotelian logic revolves around
three step-by-step mental operations: Simple
Apprehension, Judgment, and Reasoning.
Simple Apprehension is the first logical process of
the mind. It is the process of grasping an idea
into the mind. This means being able to hold a
certain concept in one’s mind. If, for example,
you heard the word ‘tree’, there is a certain
picture that flashes in your mind.
Since Simple Apprehension results into the mind
holding an idea, these ideas become terms once
we express them in language and put a label on
them.
The second logical process is Judgment. It asserts
whether a certain concept is related to another
concept. This results into a Proposition which is a
claim of something to be true. Such that, “All
monkeys are brown.” This statement contains two
terms (ideas) – monkey and brown, and it asserts
that there is a connection between these two.
The third logical process of the mind is called
Reasoning. Reasoning, then, collects and
connects Propositions in order to prove something
to be true. It is usually composed of three
Propositions that contain a central topic which is
called a Syllogism.
This is an example of a Syllogism:
All monkeys are brown.
Sulya is a monkey.
Hence, Sulya is brown.
A Syllogism, therefore, is a form of an argument
that attempts to prove the claims of Propositions.
Even with these processes, one cannot have the
guarantee that he/she would become infallible.
However, we can minimize our mistakes in
reasoning, and be more critical of the statements
that we encounter. These process, when carefully
followed, could result to a more analytical and a
sharper mind.
Lesson 4:
Fallacies: Why and
Where?
You may now have a great appreciation of your
capabilities as a human being. However, we must
be careful in crossing the line to being too proud.
Although the human mind is extraordinary, it also
has its limitations. After all, we are not
omniscient.
Upon further studies of Logic, one would realize
that proper and strict valid reasoning employs
rules. Even if we rely on the rules and follow
them as much as we could, they only govern the
structure of an argument. We may have an
argument that is in conformity with the rules but
may not be in conformity with reality.
This means we check not only the structure and
the rules, but we also check the content and
truthfulness of our arguments. In terms of errors,
we can commit them against both in the structure
and the content.
In Logic, errors or mistakes in reasoning are
called fallacies. The term came from the Latin
word faller which means ‘deception’ or ‘false’.
Hence, fallacies are false reasoning. If a
reasoning or argument committed a fallacy, it
does not necessarily mean that its conclusion is
already false.
However, that is not always the case. Take this
argument as an example:
Everything natural is good for the body.
Vegetable are natural.
Therefore, vegetables are good for the body.
There are hundreds, maybe even thousands of
fallacies out there. But, the generally-accepted
ones are classified into three: Irrelevance,
Presumption, and Ambiguity.
The Fallacies of Irrelevance are committed when
the conclusion does not have a connection or a
‘relevance’ to the premises of the argument.
Examples of these fallacies are Argumentum - ad
Hominem, ad Baculum, ad Ignorantiam, ad
Misericordiam, and Tu Quoque Fallacy.
The Fallacies of Presumption are arguments that
jumps to a certain conclusion even without a
strong evidence. Sometimes, make presumptions
in order to organize the affairs in our lives, but
there is a tendency for us to overdo it. We
commit the fallacy when we speak with certainty,
even if we have no proof of it.
Fallacies that fall under this classification are
Fallacy of Composition/Division, Fallacy of
Complex Question, Slippery Slope Fallacy, False
Cause Fallacy.
The Fallacies of Ambiguity are committed due to
our limitations in language. The 20th philosopher
Ludwig Wittgenstein knew this limitations in
language, and thought in his concept of Logical
Atomism that it is the task of philosophy to
rectify the mistakes we commit due to the
limitations of our language.
The way we convey our ideas into language could,
sometimes, result in ambiguous and vague
statements that are open to interpretation.
Fallacies that fall under this classification are
Fallacies of Equivocation, Fallacies of Amphiboly,
Fallacies of Accent.
Note that there is a high probability that you’ve
also committed to fallacies. But let us bear in
mind that we are having this discussion for the
purpose of bettering ourselves and the way we
think.
Examples: Fallacy of Irrelevance

Argumentum ad Hominem translates to “an

argument to the man” or “an attack to the man”.
In an argument, what we should address is the
argument itself. It attacks the person who is
speaking the argument rather than to the
argument itself.
Example:

Person A: Logic is an extremely important and

useful subject.
Person B: You believe that because you're an idiot
and you need logic.
Argumentum ad Baculum translates to “an appeal
to the stick”. The stick is used as an instrument
to punish a child in order to force him to behave
in ways his parents want him to. Hence, this
fallacy appeals to force or authority – whether
physical or economical.
Example:

Richard: Anna, you have to tell the board that my

proposal is the best one. Else, I will fire you.
Note here that Richard is forcing Anna to do as he
wishes and threatens her as an appeal to
punishment.
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam or “an appeal to
ignorance” is a fallacy being used to argue the
non-existence of something due to a lack of
knowledge. For instance,
Richard: I did not see Anna’s e-mail in my inbox.
Therefore, she did not send it.
In this example, Richard equates his not seeing
Anna’s e-mail to a conclusion that she did not
send it. Although it is possible that it went to a
different folder in his e-mail and a number of
other possibilities.
Argumentum ad Misericordiam is “an appeal to
misery”. This is usually in a form of verbal
and/or physical crying. It appeals to one’s
emotion so the person will be convinced.
Example:
Person A: You can't have a cigarette now. The
hospital has a rule against smoking when you're
in an oxygen tent.
Person B: You've just got to let me have one. You
can't believe what those doctors have done
to me. My life the last three days has been a
living nightmare.
Tu Quoque Fallacy or “an appeal to hypocrisy” is
a fallacy we commit by justifying our wrong
actions because somebody has done it as well.
Person A: You can’t cut classes today we have a
big exam later.
Person B: Oh! come on, you’ve no right to lecture
me, you have also cut classes last week.
Examples: Fallacy of Presumption

Fallacies of Composition/Division is about the

relation between parts and whole. Fallacy of
Composition happens when we mistakenly assume
that what is true for the parts must also be true
for the whole. For Fallacy of Division, it is the
other way around – we assume that what is true
for the whole must also be true for the parts.
Example:

Fallacy of Composition: The dog’s tail is brown,

his eyes are brown, his ears are brown. So, the
dog is brown.
Fallacy of Division: The dog is white. So, his tail is
white, his eyes are white, his paws are white.
Fallacy of Complex Question happens when we
raise a major questions that has implicit minor
questions. And when the major question is
answer, the implied questions is also answered.
Example:

Person A: Richard, how many bottles of rum did

you finish last night?
Person A’s question assumes that Richard drank
last night, and that his drink was rum.
Slippery Slope Fallacy consists of a sequence of
claims that will cause another event which
will cause another event and so on. It is also
known as a “domino theory”. An example will be,
If I had a flat tire, I won’t be able to get to work,
which would lead for me to have a sanction,
which is bad in my records. Hence, I won’t be
able to get promotion due to a flat tire.
False Cause Fallacy is committed when two
following events occur, and we jump into the
conclusion that the first event caused the second
event although no connection between them can
be found.
Example:

Event 1: Richard enters Anna’s hospital room to

visit her.
Event 2: Anna gets a migraine.
Person A: You shouldn’t have visited her, Richard,
you’re the cause of her migraines.
Examples: Fallacy of Ambiguity

Fallacy of Equivocation happens when we use a

single term with two or more meanings
(an equivocal term) in our argument and end up
in a confusing manner. As an example,
A ruler has 12 inches. G.M.A is a ruler. Hence,
G.M.A has 12 inches. The term ruler connotes as
both a measuring instrument and a leader.
The Fallacy of Amphiboly, on the other hand,
happens when our whole sentence, instead of
just a term, has two or more meanings.
Example:

The ancient Greek king Croesus wanted to attack

the Persian empire. Before he did, he sent
for the Oracle to get an advice. The Oracle said,
“If Croesus goes to war, he will destroy an
empire.” With this advice, Croesus went to war
and lost.
The Fallacy of Accent is committed when our
statements differs on meaning once we put
emphasis on certain words.

Here is an example:

I did not pass the exam last year.

There are still so much more fallacies that
we can commit. There are even philosophers
whose works have been dedicated to some
fallacies itself like G.E. Moore’s naturalistic
fallacy, in which he said that the most basic
terms in its most natural state like the term good
is indefinable and any attempt to do otherwise
would be futile.