Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those

connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek word philosophia, which literally means "love of wisdom. The introduction of the terms "philosopher" and "philosophy" has been ascribed to the Greek thinker Pythagoras. The ascription is said to be based on a passage in a lost work of Herakleides Pontikos, a disciple of Aristotle. It is considered to be part of the widespread body of legends of Pythagoras of this time. "Philosopher" was understood as a word which contrasted with "sophist" (from sophoi). Traveling sophists or "wise men" were important in Classical Greece, often earning money as teachers, whereas philosophers are "lovers of wisdom" and not professionals. Philosophy is the academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; in particular, the rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality (metaphysics), the resources and limits of knowledge (epistemology), the principles and import of moral judgment (ethics), and the relationship between language and reality (semantics). Philosophy is the particular doctrines relating to these issues of some specific individual or school the philosophy of Descartes. As complex as the modern world has become, it seems unlikely that most of what surrounds us is actually the result of the ancient practice of philosophy. Everything from the structure of democratic governments to due process of law, from a physicians Hippocratic oath to computer software, has its roots in philosophy. Sadly, philosophy as a course of study is disappearing from our nations colleges, yet its focus on analytical thinking and problem solving is more vitally important today than ever. Philosophy is an academic discipline that exercises reason and logic in an attempt to understand reality and answer fundamental questions about knowledge, life, morality and human nature. The ancient Greeks, who were among the first to practice philosophy, coined the term, which means love of wisdom. Those who study philosophy are called philosophers. Through the ages, philosophers have sought to answer such questions as, what is the meaning and purpose of life? How do we know what we know? Does God exist? What does it mean to possess consciousness? And, what is the value of morals? Philosophers attempt to answer such questions through the philosophical method. The method usually begins when a philosopher examines his own beliefs and begins to doubt their validity. From his doubt, questions emerge. Before answering a question, the philosopher thoroughly analyzes it to ensure it is clearly and properly defined. This helps narrow the path to the most precise answer. Next, the philosopher proposes possible answers to the question and provides reasoned arguments to support each one. The arguments are then critiqued by other philosophers, who may give rebuttals. Through this process of criticism and judgment, known as dialectic, philosophers attempt to prove the rationality of their beliefs and discover fundamental truths. Its no coincidence that the philosophical method has

much in common with the scientific method. Indeed, early science was known as natural philosophy. Philosophers like Aristotle developed the concepts of inductive and deductive reasoning that form the basis of modern scientific study. The roots of the physical sciences like physics and geology can be traced back to ancient philosophy. Philosophy itself is generally considered a type of social science, like sociology or psychology. Thats because early philosophy was primarily concerned with describing the best way to live and organize society. From that spawned many other disciplines: economics, political science, law, linguistics, literary and art criticism, and theologyalong with sociology and psychology. Though many of philosophys original topics have evolved into other fields of study over time, the discipline remains rich and varied. Modern philosophy contains six main branches of thought, each with their own unique focus.

FIVE BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY

1. Epistemology - is the study of knowledge. Epistemology deals with the process by which we can know that something is true. It addresses questions such as: -What can I know? -How is knowledge acquired? -Can we be certain of anything? *Within epistemology there are two important categoriesrationalism and empiricism. Rationalism stresses reason as the most important element in knowing. Rationalism holds that knowledge is gained primarily through the mind. It also asserts that we are born with innate ideas that precede any experiences we may have with our physical senses. Empiricism, on the other hand, asserts that all our knowledge comes from our five senses. To use the terminology of the empiricist, John Locke, our minds are a blank slate at birth. Thus knowledge comes from our experiences. 2. Metaphysics - is the study of reality. More specifically it is the study of reality that is beyond the scientific or mathematical realms. The term metaphysics itself literally means beyond the physical. The metaphysical issues most discussed are the existence of God, the soul, and the afterlife. 3. Ethics - is the study of moral value, right and wrong. Ethics is involved with placing value to personal actions, decisions, and relations. Important ethical issues today include abortion, sexual morality, the death penalty, euthanasia, pornography, and the environment. 4. Logic - is the study of right reasoning. It is the tool philosophers use to study other philosophical categories. Good logic includes the use of good thinking skills and the avoidance of logic fallacies. 5. Aesthetics - is the study of art and beauty. It attempts to address such issues as: -What is art? -What is the relationship between beauty and art? -Are there objective standards by which art can be judged? -Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?

What Is Thinking?
Thinking is an internal mental process that uses information as input, integrates that information into previous learned material and the result may be knowledge or may be nothing. Problem solving, planning, information integration, and analysis are four kinds of thinking. Imagination, also called the faculty of imagining, is the ability of forming images and sensations when they are not perceived through sight, hearing, or other senses. Imagination helps provide meaning to experience and understanding to knowledge; it is a fundamental faculty through which people make sense of the world, and it also plays a key role in the learning process. A basic training for imagination is listening to storytelling (narrative), In which the exactness of the chosen words is the fundamental factor to "evoke worlds". It is a whole cycle of image formation or any sensation which may be described as "hidden" as it takes place without anyone else's knowledge. A person may imagine according to his mood, it may be good or bad depending on the situation. Some people imagine in a state of tension or gloominess in order to calm themselves. It is accepted as the innate ability and process of inventing partial or complete personal realms within the mind from elements derived from sense perceptions of the shared world. In What Way Does Logic Study Forms of Thought? So we see that logic does not study forms of thought empirically. So in what way does it study them? We can see this point when we reflect on what we are interested in when we closely investigate forms or structures of claims. We are interested in knowing what makes good claims and bad claims. If we are interested in other aspects; for example, if we want to know what factors are responsible for one to make a claim he is making, then the question becomes empirical and thus is not the subject matter of logic. Thus, logic is a normative discipline in that it looks at what is good or bad, and not at what is or is not. It studies forms of though normatively, and the aim of logic is to provide a normative theory to find out the method for detecting and producing any good arguments, and for detecting and avoiding bad arguments. Well, so why do we want to avoid bad arguments and accept good arguments? For one thing, it is of human nature that humans do not want to be deceived. We want to know the truth, and very often the truth would have been inaccessible if not for the use of reasons by humans, reason being the tools humans can rely on to know things which are beyond the power of the senses alone. If we don't have a clear and effective method by which we can separate good from bad arguments, then we just have no effective way to sort out truths from falsehoods or wrong-headed claims. Thus, logic is necessary as a human tool. It is about the only thing humans can use when they deal with the unseen or things that cannot be perceived directly. It is the backbone of science. Logic, then, is a normative discipline. It does not aim at saying what reality is like, but it tries to point out when an argument form is correct and when not. 'Correctness' and 'incorrectness' are normative concepts because you cannot find instances of correctness or incorrectness in the same way as you can find instances of whales or horses.

Arguments
We have just had a look at arguments. Now we are in a position to examine them closely. You have just read that arguments are what you have when you argue with your friends or with other persons. But that's a rather unilluminating definition. We need to separate between logical arguments and arguments people have when they are fighting. In this course we will pay attention to the former. However, there are some correspondences between the two. When people fight verbally, sometimes their aim is to try to convince the other side to agree with them. And often they use logical arguments to do that, but sometimes they don't. That's why a fight is a fight, and not a debate or a discussion. However, the logical argument part is interesting to logic because it deals directly with correct or incorrect forms of thought mentioned earlier. Since forms of thought are expressed in arguments. Logic naturally studies arguments, but before that we need to be clear as to what a logical argument is. We have seen that in arguments we try to get the other party to be convinced of any proposition we want him or her to be convinced. And we use reasons as support for that. Thus, logical arguments can be divided into two parts. The first part, called premises, work as supplier of information and reasons for the other part, called conclusion. This is the basic structure of arguments. Thus we can have a more formal definition of arguments to be sets of propositions consisting of two parts -- premises and conclusion. The premises provide reason or evidence for the conclusion, which is the whole point of the argument. You can see that if we lack any part of an argument, we don't really have an argument. Suppose you have only the conclusion part, you only have a claim and not an argument. But if you have only the premises, you don't have an argument either because no one knows what point you want to get across. For example, suppose you are arguing that Chula students should not wear uniforms to use the old example in the argumentative writing course, and suppose your reason is that it's out of style to wear uniforms anywhere, then you are making an argument. Your conclusion is that Chula students should not wear uniforms. Your premise is that it's out of style to wear uniforms. Actually if you are observant enough you'd find that in order to conclude that Chula students should not wear uniforms from the premise that wearing uniforms is out of style, you need another premise -- one should not do things that are out of style. We will deal with this topic extensively when we have gone deeper in the course. An argument actually can have no more than one conclusion because if you have more than one you need to provide separate reasons for each of them. But an argument can easily have more than one premise because in order to show conclusively that the conclusion should be accepted we can employ any number of premises we like, and very often just one premise will not do. Arguments can be divided into two kinds according to whether the conclusion can be conclusively proven to be true if the premises are true. If it can, then the argument is a deductive. But if not, then the argument is inductive. Deductive arguments are those whose conclusions must be true, or can be false, if all the premises are true. Inductive arguments, on the other hand, are those whose conclusions can at most be probable, but they are never conclusive. The reason is that conclusions in deductive arguments are in fact already stated in the premises, or more precisely the conclusions of a valid deductive arguments can be shown conclusively to follow logically from the premises through some mechanical means (as we shall see in Venn's Diagram). On the other hand, there can be no valid inductive arguments because their conclusions state something more than what is already there in the premises. In other words, the conclusions of inductive arguments cannot be conclusively shown to follow, or not to follow, from the premises. What can be shown is only how probable the conclusions are when

they are supposed to follow from the premises.

Here is an example of a deductive argument:

All the oranges in this basket are sweet. Therefore, this orange which I have just picked up from this basket must be sweet.

You can see that this argument is obviously valid. It can be valid because it is a deductive argument. That is, the conclusion can be verified through some mechanical means whether it must be true if all the premises are true. In this case, since the premise says all the oranges in the basket are sweet, there is no possibility of any orange in the basket not being sweet. On the other hand, consider this argument:
All the oranges I have tasted in this basket are sweet. Therefore, all the oranges in the basket (which certainly include those that I have not tasted) are sweet too.

This is an inductive argument. There is just no mechanical means we can use to determine whether the conclusion must be true or not if the premises are. In fact we can never be fully certain either that the conclusion must be true, or must not be true. The conclusion cannot be conclusively proven to be true or false. What we can do is to apply some rules regarding probability or statistics to help us understand in our own way how likely the conclusion is to be true. But "how likely the conclusion is to be true" is very different from "whether the conclusion is true." The traditional way of characterizing these two kinds of arguments is that a deductive argument is an argument whose conclusion does not state anything further or larger than the scope of what is already said in the premises, but the conclusion of an inductive argument does state more than what is said in the premises. In a way that is true; however, in some cases, like the modus ponens type of argument (If p, then q, but p; therefore, q), it is hard to see how the conclusion is already contained in the premises. Furthermore, advances in logical theory have shown that there can be no systems of mechanical means that can show every type of valid deductive arguments that they are really valid. But this is a hugely complex matter which should be left alone unless you are studying logical theory or higher mathematics. Thus we'd better abide by the conception that deductive arguments are those whose conclusions can be conclusively proven to follow logically from the premises or not, and that inductive arguments are those whose conclusions cannot be shown this way. If inductive arguments cannot offer conclusively proven conclusions, then what good are they? Well, they are of much use. The discipline of statistics is based on the whole idea of inductive arguments. As humans, we want to know more than our evidence strictly allows us to. Our capabilities of retaining known evidence are limited, and if we are not allowed to go on from the available evidence then our lives would be very limited indeed. We cannot know, for example, that the sun will rise tomorrow, for all our evidence are of the past risings of the sun, and we do not possess an evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow yet. We may argue from our accepted theory that the sun will rise, but then our theories are based on observations, and since their claims are much wider than observations, then the theories suffer from the same problem too. Since inductive arguments offer conclusion whose scope is wider than that of the premises, they allow us to know more things, even though there are always some chances that the conclusions might turn out not to be true. However, deductive arguments offer us instead the absolute certainty of the conclusion if the arguments themselves are valid.

Principles of Identity
A few days ago, Microsoft's Kim Cameron re-issued his "Laws of Identity" in a "short version" that is easier to understand.Here is my look at Kim's laws. You'll find my own thoughts about identity principles in bold italics below. People using computers should be in control of giving out information about themselves, just as they are in the physical world. This is a really great principle. But in thinking about this, it is important to remember that there are multiple scenarios. In the real physical world we aren't always in direct control about information about our identities. There are valid reasons this happens. E.g. a courier receives a shipment order from a vendor to ship goods we ordered. This issue is, did we have the ability to provide our consent. I would re-write the expression as:
People should be able to control or consent to the sharing of information about themselves.

Notice I didn't frame this as in the electronic world vs. physical world. I am also including situations where we are not directly involved in an exchange (such as between a merchant and courier). The minimum information needed for the purpose at hand should be released, and only to those who need it. Details should be retained no longer than necessary. Ok. This is good stuff. But there is a lot going on here that may lead towards information systems challenges in the future. Let me give you an example. A "birth date" is a pretty fundamental or "raw" piece of information. Because of this, we should restrict its use. Instead of using birth date, let's use "predicates" that ask questions about individuals. One example might be, "Is Over 18?". The predicate eliminates the need for a raw birth date, but it now implies more liability on the particular assertion. There may also be different reasons for creating a predicate that imply different meanings. For example, is this person an "Adult?" In this case, we have the problem of defining how the question is answered. Is it the Identity Provider that dictates whether someone is an adult? Or do the relying parties define what they mean by "Adult"? Or, does it depend on the jurisdiction of the person involved? Clearly there is a growing mapping problem that will be exposed as we move to minimized information and away from relatively simple raw data. Without declaration by all parties, we will continue to have mapping and interpretation problems going forwards. I would therefore contend.

The Principle of Non-Contradiction

A property cannot both belong and not belong to a subject at the same time and in the same respect. The PNC is the most certain principle. 1) It is not possible to be wrong about it. 2) If you know anything, you know it (all statements of knowledge imply it) But there are those who deny it, including Para-consistent logicians. One possible objection is that this law only appears to apply to our use of language, and the way in which we frame our reality. One might also go so far as to say that the principle is, or could be, both true and false. Quantum mechanics might suggest that often we can't know either way, or so must deem the principle to be void and meaningless in many situations. In response to the kinds of criticisms he could have anticipated or received, Aristotle said that those who deny the principle merely think they deny it, and that since they have knowledge they in fact do believe it. And in response to all those criticisms that still want to retain an understanding of truth and falseness, one can say that by simply asking the question, is the PNC true, you are assuming that it must either be true or false, and so affirming its truth. But if the principle is so self-evident, and the criticisms so weak, why bother to mention it? Aristotle thinks that not only will it give us a clearer understanding of the role the principle plays in logic and therefore in philosophy, but also once irrefutably established it informs other discussions, in particular. If the PNC is true, then not everything can be changing in every way, and so radical change must be false. If the PNC is true, then relativism as a theory of reality must be false. If Jack believes the sun is shining, and Jill believes it is not shining, then one of the two must be false. This in particular is where the PNC contradicts physics, and so questions either the PNC, the theories of quantum physics, or the nature of the quantum level in relation to the super-quantum level. on-contradiction, principle of (or law) The law of logic that it is not the case that (p & not-p). Contradiction is the final logical stopping point: if we can derive a contradiction from a set of premises, then at least one of them is false. If we ask what is so bad about contradiction, one answer is that a contradiction cannot be true (classically, if one conjunct p is true, then the other not-p is false, and vice versa, so they cannot be true together). Another answer is that from a contradiction anything whatsoever can be derived, which is true in classical logical systems.

PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON

The principle of sufficient reason states that anything that happens does so for a reason: no state of affairs can obtain, and no statement can be true unless there is sufficient reason why it should not be otherwise. The principle is usually attributed to Gottfried Leibniz, although the first person to use it was Anaximander of Miletus. Also Alexander R. Pruss argued the principle of sufficient reason relating with "ex nihilo nihil fit".The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason or cause. This simple demand for thoroughgoing intelligibility yields some of the boldest and most challenging theses in the history of metaphysics and epistemology. In this entry we begin with explaining the Principle, and then turn to the history of the debates around it. A section on recent discussions of the Principle will be added in the near future. Suppose you enter a farmers' market, pick out a few cucumbers and ask the merchant for the price. Five dollars a pound. A bit expensive, you may think, but you pay. Before you leave the stand two other people approach the seller with the very same question (How much are the cucumbers?). A dollar a pound, he says to the one; Ten dollars a pound, he tells the other. At least two of you are likely to attack the merchant with a simple question: Why the price discrepancy? Of course, you may simply leave the place if you have a simple explanation for the discrepancy (for example, that both you and the person who was asked to pay ten dollars a pound belong to commonly discriminated minorities). You may also conclude that the seller is just out of his mind (or that he or she is just conducting a psychological experiment). In all of these cases you will be entertaining an explanation for a fact that appears odd. But what kinds of facts demand an explanation? Do all factsincluding the most ordinary onesdemand an explanation? If you accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason (= PSR), you will require an explanation for any fact, or in other words, you will reject the possibility of brute, or unexplainable, facts. Formally, the Principle states (PSR): For every fact F, there must be an explanation why F is the case. The term Principle of Sufficient Reason [principe de raison suffisante/principium reddendae rationis] was coined by Leibniz, though Spinoza clearly preceded Leibniz in appreciating the importance of the Principle and placing it at the center of his philosophical system. The Principle seems at first sight to have a strong intuitive appealwe always ask for explanationsyet it is taken by many to be too bold and expensive due to the radical implications it seems to yield. Among the alleged consequences of the Principle are: the Identity of Indiscernibles, necessitarianism, the existence of a self-necessitated Being (i.e., God), the Principle of Plentitude, and strict naturalism. One can distinguish among various versions of the PSR according to the modal strength of the Principle and the extension of entities that fall under it. Arguably, the more interesting versions of the Principle are those which take it to be a necessary truth with unlimited extension (including both actual things and possibilia). The PSR is closely related, if not fully identical, to the principle ex nihilo, nihil fit (From nothing, nothing comes).

One of the most interesting questions regarding the PSR is why to accept it at all. Insofar as the PSR stipulates that all facts must be explainable, it seems that the PSR itself demands an explanation just as much. Several modern philosophers attempted to provide a proof for the PSR, though so far these attempts have been mostly unsuccessful. Another important problem related to the PSR is the possibility of self-explanatory facts and self-caused entities; particularly, one may wonder how these are distinguished from unexplainable, brute facts and uncaused entities. One may also wonder whether the PSR allows forprimitive concepts that cannot be further explained. Though there are several important precursors who, as we will see, seem to advocate the PSR before the modern period, we will begin our discussion with two main expositors of the Principle: Spinoza and Leibniz. Leibniz coined the term The Principle of Sufficient Reason and is arguably its best known exponent. His treatment of the PSR is noteworthy for its systematicity and the centrality that he accords it. According to him, all truths rest upon two great principles: the Principle of Contradiction (which says that a truth is necessary just in case its negation is a contradiction) and the PSR. The second great principle is often identified by Leibniz as the Principle of the Best instead of the PSR. The two principles are intimately connected. The sufficient reason for any contingent truth is that it is for the best. According to Leibniz, God's reason for creating the actual world is that it is the best of all possible worlds. The reason for this world is that it is the best. The reason for any contingent truth is that, since the existence of the actual world entails it, it is for the best. As before, our first interpretive questions when seeking to understand a philosopher's commitment to the PSR are what is in the domain of everything and what counts as a sufficient reason? There is some textual evidence that suggests that only contingent truths are in the domain of everything so that the PSR should be understood as saying that there is a sufficient reason for every contingent truth. (AG 150; LC L 4.10) If this interpretation is correct, then necessary truths, such as mathematical and metaphysical truths, need not have a sufficient reason. More frequently, however, Leibniz says that the sufficient reason for necessary truths is that their negation is a contradiction. (Monadology 36) Although necessary truths have sufficient reasons, they arguably don't rest on the PSR since they are true even in nonactual possible worlds where the PSR is false (which is presumably every nonactual possible world since no nonactual possible world is the best and thus God could have no sufficient reason to create it). Other texts suggest that events, not truths, are in the domain of the quantifier.