You are on page 1of 106

The Blue and

Brown Book of
M P G Sioco
Comprehensive Lecture Guide
for Philosophical Analysis by
Students for Students

Course Module for PHILO I


First Edition (2012)

Tan, Randell Kelvin C.


for: Department of Social Sciences
College of Arts and Sciences
University of the Philippines Manila
2
Dedicated to:

Maria Paula G. Sioco


and to all
students of Philosophical Analysis
at the
University of the Philippines Manila

Cover Photo: Blue book used by students at the University of the Philippines. Retrieved December 26, 2012
from http://iskwiki.upd.edu.ph/index.php/Bluebook

© 2013 by Randell Kelvin Co Tan


Published by Randell Kelvin Co Tan

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any form or by any means, without permission in
writing from the author. Soft copies may not be distributed to anyone, or posted online to be available for
download, without permission in writing from the author.

Printed in the Philippines

3
i Preface
This module has been created by the author in response to a dire need for a
comprehensive, organized and complete lecture material for Philosophy I (Philosophical
Analysis) taught by Associate Professor Ma. Paula G. Sioco at the University of the Philippines-
Manila. Philosophy I is a three (3)-unit GE (General Education) course under the SSP (Social
Sciences and Philosophy) cluster taught in all University of the Philippines campuses
nationwide. Like most other GE subjects, Philosophy I has a fixed syllabus, but the specific
methods of teaching, as well as any additional lecture material, are subject to the discretion of
the instructor handling the subject. Thus, he or she is free to slightly deviate from the said
syllabus, as long as the content remains relevant. Since this course module is tailored for
students of Prof. Sioco, it is expected that students of other Philosophy I instructors would not
be able to find this module of much use, although any student of Philosophy I should be able
to get the gist of what this module is talking about.

Prof.   Sioco’s   requirements   in   Philosophy   I   are   very   objective;;   each   examination,  


assignment, quiz and TTD (Things-to-Do) are given fixed weights or percentages; in addition,
the examination questions give heavy importance to memory of terminologies, names and
quotations. Even if there is a required Philosophy I textbook (Acuña, 2006) written by the
proponent of the said GE course, Prof. Sioco deviates from the text and instead presents the
lectures through PowerPoint presentations, whose soft copies are never distributed to students.
Thus, students are expected to painstakingly copy the text displayed on the Presentation while
listening to her brilliant discussions at the same time. While this tedious practice might be
standard for almost all other classes in the University, it is exceedingly inconvenient to do so in
her class because of the large amount of text displayed on one slide at any given time and the
unpredictable speed in which she shifts the slides. Most students are unable to actually copy
everything displayed in the Presentation. Since her objective examinations are largely based
on her PowerPoint presentations (and not on Acuña’s   textbook),   passing   them   at   the   very  
least with incomplete notes can be a challenging task. This is where this course module finds
itself a useful tool for students across the university.

Why   the   title   “The   Blue   and   Brown   Book   of   Ma.   Paula   G.   Sioco?”   A   brief   introduction  
regarding   the   real   “Blue   and   Brown   Books”,   by   the   eminent   Ludwig Wittgenstein, will shed
more light on this matter. The following introduction has been copied and edited from various
Internet sources that are mentioned and acknowledged at the end of this preface.

Considered by some to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, Ludwig


Wittgenstein played a central, if controversial, role in 20th-century analytic philosophy. There
are two commonly recognized stages of Wittgenstein's thought—the early and the later—both
of which are taken to be pivotal in their respective periods. The early Wittgenstein is
epitomized in his “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”. By showing the application of modern logic
to metaphysics, via language, he provided new insights into the relations between world,
thought and language and thereby into the nature of philosophy. It is the later Wittgenstein,
mostly recognized in the “Philosophical Investigations”, who took the more revolutionary step
in critiquing all of traditional philosophy including its climax in his own early work. The nature
of his new philosophy is heralded as anti-systematic through and through, yet still conducive
to genuine philosophical understanding of traditional problems.

4
The 'Blue Book' is a set of notes dictated to Ludwig Witgenstein's Cambridge students in
1933-1934, while the 'Brown Book' was a draft for what eventually became the growth of the
first part of Philosophical Investigations. They are an indication of the direction Wittgenstein's
thinking took during these years. Wittgenstein had only three copies of these notes made, and
circulated them only among close friends. However, interest in them was such that many
further copies were made and circulated. One set of notes were wrapped in blue paper, one
set in brown paper, which accounts for the names "Blue Book" and "Brown Book."

Simply put, we could formulate an analogy here: Blue and Brown Books: Wittgenstein ::
Blue and Brown Book of MPG Sioco: Sioco! Both are lecture notes, both originated from
professors, both discuss philosophy, and both were transcribed by their students. Perhaps one
exception  that  can  be  pointed  out  is  that  Wittgenstein’s  lectures  filled  up  two  books  (thus,  the  
‘Blue  Book’  and  ‘Brown  Book’),  while  Prof.  Sioco’s  lectures  on  Philosophy I is enough to fill up
only one book. As a result, the author has decided to christen the module with two colors in its
title: Blue and Brown! (It  also  comes  as  a  coincidence  that  blue  books  are  UP  “trademarks”.)

As the subtitle of the module suggests, it is a philosophy module written by students for
students. To be clear, the author of this module is a former Philosophy I student of Prof. Sioco
during the First Semester of Academic Year 2012-2013, and the target readers of this module
are also his fellow students. This module is actually a collection of lecture notes that the
author copied by hand during discussions, encoded on a laptop, and formatted for his studying
convenience. To overcome the challenges that note-taking   during   Prof.   Sioco’s   lectures
presented, the author has resorted to two important breakthroughs:

1. To borrow a set of Philosophy I notes from an above-average student who has


already taken up Philosophy I during the previous semester, therefore eliminating
most of the need to copy all the notes of Prof. Sioco from scratch;
2. To collaborate with another blockmate by asking her to record the entirety of Prof.
Sioco’s   lectures   while   the   author   patches   up   the   incomplete   information   of   the  
previous  semester’s  notes,  thus  enabling  complete  transcribing of the salient points
of  Prof.  Sioco’s  lectures  afterward.

In a fit of generosity, the author has also distributed soft copies of these individual
lectures to his blockmates for their studying convenience as well. Now, in order to make this
treasure trove of knowledge more accessible to the general public (more accurately, University
of the Philippines-Manila students), the author has compiled all the aforementioned individual
lectures into one single PDF file, with all the proper formatting fit for a simple book included. A
printed hard copy version is also available upon request (See the end of the preface for
contact   information).   The   sound   recordings   of   Prof.   Sioco’s   lectures   are   obtainable   as   well,  
although another special request and an additional fee is strictly required.

Features of the text include, but are not limited to:


1. Proper title page and table of contents, with an updated syllabus (Oct. 2011)
exclusive to Prof. Sioco only;
2. Content divided into six major units according to each particular branch of
philosophy, including an introduction;
3. Lecture notes are presented in bulleted (outline) format – each lecture day
constituting one chapter under the particular unit, with date of last edition (and date
of original lecture for Units III, IV, V and VI) indicated;

5
4. Almost all of the text presented in the module are either copied word-for-word from
Prof.   Sioco’s   PowerPoint   presentations,   or   transcribed   word-for-word from her
lecture recordings. Any Filipino words are translated into English, unless a direct
translation does not exist for the former;
5. Illustrations   and   diagrams   faithfully   reproduced   from   Prof.   Sioco’s   PowerPoint  
Presentation or her board notes;
6. Outside references or sources, if found to be of major use as a supplement to the
lectures are included if possible;
7. Inspirational quotations from various authors can be found at the end of each
chapter of Units III, IV, V and VI;
8. Appendix which includes scanned reproductions of all the handouts that Prof. Sioco
provides (most of the content in the handouts are also encoded in the main body of
the text);
9. Listing of all the assignments, quizzes and other requirements are also included in
the appendix, thus enabling the student to prepare ahead of time. Insider tips and
suggestions on how to   tackle   these   requirements   and   get   at   least   a   “check”   (full  
credit) can also be read.

How should the Blue and Brown Book of MPG Sioco be used, then? This module is
designed  to  be  used  as  a  textbook  for  Prof.  Sioco’s Philosophy I classes. Students may write
annotations or notes on the sides or margins of the pages of this module during discussions.
The module is also comprehensive enough to be used as the sole material to be reviewed for
each of the three (3) long examinations that Prof. Sioco gives, since as said above, the
PowerPoint Presentations and handouts are the lone bases of her examinations (The textbook
by Acuña provides additional information, but need not be reread at all while preparing for the
tests.) Her objective examinations usually consist of these mainstay test types: true or false,
matching type, identification (which philosopher said what?), and enumeration. Other novel
test types may also appear at times, but continue to remain as objective as possible.
Memorization of terms and quotations is an absolute must, but fortunately, these are all
provided   in   this   module.   The   prospect   of   getting   a   “1.00”   or   “1.25”   under   Prof.   Sioco’s  
Philosophy I is highly attainable should a student be armed with this module, composed by
students for students.

Unfortunately, since this module is not prepared by Prof. Sioco herself (who should be
the most competent authority to write a module for her subject anyway), this module is prone
to the slightest errors and oversights. Even if these mistakes are not grave and detrimental
enough   to   cause   “5.00”   failures   or   unnecessary   embarrassments   during   her   classes,   any  
inaccuracies committed are always meant to be rectified. However, since the author himself
has already passed Philosophy I (with flying colors guaranteed), it is up to you – the current
students of Prof. Sioco – to search and report any errors in this module to the author, for the
benefit of future generations. If the amassed corrections and additions to the content of the
text accumulate to a certain amount upon the discretion of the author, a second edition is in
order.

To summarize, shortcomings of the text which are up for future revision, if readers are
able to provide suggestions or inputs include:
1. The first chapter under the first unit (Introduction to Philosophy) is the only lecture
day which was not recorded. As a result, its content may not be as organized and
complete as compared to the other lectures. If someone would be able to record a
more comprehensive version of her lecture that day, it would be highly appreciated.
6
2. Some of the formatting, particularly the layout and spacing, may not be as
consistent or as neat as one wishes it to be, especially for those who expect a
professionally formatted book.
3. This module is already very comprehensive (as repeatedly stated above), however,
since philosophy is an inductive field, new knowledge is meant to be added to the
already existing framework of this module. Thus, any accurate and helpful addition
to the content is welcome. Any accepted additions will be included in the second
edition, if possible.
4. As said before, any revision of the existing content due to errors, misspellings,
misinformation or wrong formatting is also welcome. They will be addressed in the
second edition, if possible.

To contact the author for special requests, orders, suggestions, additions or revisions:

Randell Kelvin Co Tan


Mobile: +639272089453
E-mail: triumph_rayquaza0921@yahoo.com.ph
Address: Biology Laboratories
3rd Floor, Rizal Hall
4th Floor, Gusaling Andres Bonifacio
College of Arts and Sciences
University of the Philippines Manila (2015)
Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila

Note: Mobile number may change without prior notice. The e-mail address,
however,  wouldn’t.

It is hoped by the author that no matter what grade the readers of this module would
get  (“1.00”  or  “5.00”,)  they  would  find  Philosophy  I  an  “empowering  subject…(which  will  teach  
you  to)  make  your  own  choices  (in  life)”  (Sioco,  2012)  

Cheers!

RANDELL KELVIN CO TAN


December 26, 2012
14:48

Sources:
Biletzki, A., & Matar, A, "Ludwig Wittgenstein", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
Retrieved from <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/wittgenstein/>.
Sparknotes. (n.d.) Blue and brown books. Retrieved December 17, 2012 from
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/blueandbrown/context.html
Wittgenstein, L. (1965). The blue and brown books. Harper Collins: New York.

7
ii Brief Contents
i Preface 4
ii Brief Contents 8
iii Table of Contents 9
iv Syllabus 10

I Introduction: The Nature of Philosophy 15


II Philosophy of Language: Analysis of Concepts 22
III Epistemological Analysis: Analysis of Knowledge Claims 33
IV Ethics or Moral Reasoning: Analysis of Ethical Systems 40
V Deductive Reasoning: Analysis of Deductive Arguments 57
VI Inductive Reasoning: Analysis of Natural Arguments 70

v Appendices 78
vi Supplementary Material 106

8
iii Table of Contents
i Preface 4
ii Brief Contents 8
iii Table of Contents 9
iv Syllabus 10
I Introduction: The Nature of Philosophy 15
1 Introduction to Philosophy 16
2 The Pre-Socratics 17
II Philosophy of Language: Analysis of Concepts 22
1 Words and Concepts 23
2 Wittgenstein 25
3 Ambiguity 28
4 Vagueness; On Definitions 30
III Epistemological Analysis: Analysis of Knowledge Claims 33
1 Introduction to Epistemology 34
2 Sources of Knowledge; Rationalism 35
3 Empiricism; Kantian Synthesis; Epistemic Obligation 38
IV Ethics or Moral Reasoning: Analysis of Ethical Systems 40
1 Introduction to Ethics 41
2 Moral Values and Conduct 44
3 Classical Ethical Theories (Part I) 46
4 Classical Ethical Theories (Part II) 52
V Deductive Reasoning: Analysis of Deductive Arguments 57
1 Introduction to Deductive Logic 58
2 Truth Table Method of Validity 60
3 Rules of Inference; Formal Proof of Validity 65
VI Inductive Reasoning: Analysis of Natural Arguments 70
1 Introduction to Inductive Logic 71
2 Generalization; Evaluation of Arguments 75
v Appendices 78
1 Excerpts from the Philosophical Investigations 79
2 Notes on Ethics 82
3 Practice Examination on Epistemology and Ethics 84
4 Notes on Deductive Logic 97
5 Notes on Inductive Logic 101
6 Tips on Surviving Philosophy I Under Prof. Sioco 102
vi Supplementary Material 106
9
iv Syllabus
Course Code: Philosophy I
Course Title: Philosophical Analysis
Credit: 3 units lecture
Course Description: The course deals with important philosophical concepts, skills and
principles selected and collated from many areas in philosophy of
language, logic, philosophy of science, ethics and epistemology.

Course Requirements:
Three (3) Long Examinations 65%
Things-to-do (Skills Application) 15%
Seatwork (SAQs)
Assignments
Quizzes
Integration/Reaction Paper (10 full pages minimum)
Attendance 20%

TOTAL 100%

Course Objectives: At the end of the course, the students should be able to:
1. Apply the important concepts, skills and principles of philosophical
analysis in their everyday life;
2. Distinguish, evaluate and compose three basic types of arguments,
namely, deductive, inductive and evaluative;
3. Develop critical analysis and open-mindedness in applying the different
ethical principles in dealing with moral issues and dilemmas.

Course Outline:

I. Introduction – The Nature of Philosophy


A. Analytic and Speculative Philosophy
B. Eastern and Western Philosophy
C. The Nature of a Philosophical Problem – Philosophy as a Second-order Inquiry
D. The Beginnings of Western Philosophy
1. The Pre-Socratics
a. Thales
b. Anaximander
c. Anaximenes
d. Pythagoras
e. Parmenides
f. Heraclitus
g. Empedocles
h. Anaxagoras
i. Zeno
j. Leucippus
k. Democritus
2. Socrates and Plato
3. Aristotle

10
II. Philosophy of Language – Analysis of Concepts
A. Words and Concepts – The Problem of Meaning
B. Intension and Extension of Concepts
C. Using the Same Language
D. Classification of Concepts
E. Ambiguity – Fallacies of Ambiguity
F. Vagueness
1. Linear Vagueness
2. Vagueness of Family Resemblance
G. Definitions
1. Rules of Definition
2. Analytic Definitions

- - - F I R S T L O N G E X A M I N A T I O N - - -

III. Epistemological Analysis – Analysis of Knowledge Claims


A. Analysis of Statements
B. Rationalism  and  Empiricism;;  Kant’s  Synthesis
C. Types of Knowledge Claims
D. Theories of Truth
E. Obligation as a Critical Thinker

IV. Ethics or Moral Reasoning – Analysis of Ethical Systems


A. Ethics and Morality
1. The Nature of Mores
a. Ethical Relativism
b. Ethnocentrism
2. Only Men are Moral
a. Conduct
b. Moral Judgment
c. Moral Decision
3. Necessary Conditions of Morality
a. Freedom
b. Obligation
B. Types of Ethical Systems
1. Ethical Absolutism – Plato
2. Ethical Naturalism – Aristotle
3. Deontological Ethics – Kant
4. Utilitarianism – Mill
5. Intuitionism – Moore
6. Emotive Theory – Ayer
7. Pragmatism – James
C. Application of the Above Ethical Concepts and Theories in the Analysis of Moral Issues
and Dilemmas
1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Pre-Marital Sex
4. Cloning
5. Other Dilemmas

- - - S E C O N D L O N G E X A M I N A T I O N - - -

11
V. Deductive Reasoning/Logic – Analysis of Deductive Arguments
A. The Subject Matter of Formal Logic
B. Logical Analysis of Statements
1. Representing Compound Statements
2. Truth Values of Compound Statements
C. Valid, Sound and Fallacious Arguments
D. Representing Arguments
E. Truth Table Method of Proving Validity
F. Rules of Inference - Basic and Complex Argument Forms
G. Formal Proof of Validity

VI. Inductive Reasoning/Philosophy of Science – Analysis of Natural Arguments


A. The Subject Matter of Informal Logic
B. The Nature of Induction
C. Degrees of Reliability of Inductive Reasoning
D. Generalization
E. Informal Fallacies
F. Appraising Arguments (Deductive, Inductive, Evaluative)

- - - T H I R D L O N G E X A M I N A T I O N - - -

Textbook/Workbook:

Acuna, AE (2006). Philosophical Analysis (7th ed). Quezon City: UP Department of Philosophy.

Students are advised to bring their textbook every meeting.

Suggested Readings:

Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations.


Descartes, R. Why I am a Thinking Thing.
Mill, JS. Utilitarianism.
Kant, I. The Categorical Imperative.
Ayer, AJ. The Emotive Theory.
James, W. The Pragmatic Criterion of Truth.
Plato. The Vision of the Good.
Aristotle. The Nature of the Good.

Handouts given to students as supplementary materials for the course are provided in this book.

12
Other References:

Black, M. Critical Thinking. New York: Prentice-Hall Inc.


Boyce, WD. Moral Reasoning. London: University of Nebraska Press.
Copi, I. Introduction to Logic. Manila: National Bookstore Inc.
Fogelin, R. Understanding Arguments. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.
Hempel, CG. Philosophy of Natural Science. New York: Prentice Hall Inc.
MacKinnon, B. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. Wadsworth Publishing.
Mander, AE. Logic for the Millions. New York: Philosophical Library.
Mandelbaum, M. ed. Philosophical Problem. New York: Philosophical Library.
Matson, W. A New History of Philosophy Vol. 1 (Ancient and Medieval).
Moore, WE. Creative and Critical Thinking. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Mothershed, JL. Ethics. New York: Henry Hold and Co.
Nagel, E., & Brandt, R. Meaning and Knowledge. New York: Harcourt, Brace Inc.
Solomon, RC. Morality and the Good Life. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.

Things-to-Do Requirements:

First Set: Submission is set on the first regular meeting right after the first examination.

Unit I:
1. Module 3 -- A, C, D (a, b and c only) – Give at least three examples for each.
2. Module 5 – A and B only - Give at least three examples and explain your reason for these
examples.
3. Module 6 – Give two examples for each type of definition.

Second Set: Submission is set on the first regular meeting right after the second examination.

Unit II: Unit V:


1. Module 4 – A, B and C – Give and do at 1. Module 1 – Do A and B.
least two examples. D is optional. 2. Module 2 – Do the TTP.
2. Module 5 – A, B (a, b and c) only – Give at 3. Module 4 – Choose any two from the given
least two examples for each. TTP is list.
optional. 4. Module 6 – Optional. You may choose to
analyze at least one among the given
dilemmas.

Third Set: Submission is set on the date of the third and last examination.

Unit III: Unit IV:


No required TTD for submission. Exercises or 1. Module 4 – A, B and C - Give at least two
handouts will be given instead. examples. D is optional.
2. Module 7 – Choose and do one from the
given list.
3. Module 8 – Optional but highly
recommended as supplementary reading
since this is a good venue for the
application of the skills learned from the
previous lessons. You may do A, B and C –
Choose at least one from the given list.

13
This list is the minimum Things-to-Do requirement for the course to ensure a passing grade for
this part. However, students are free to do more than what is specified above, but not to exceed 100%
of what is required in the book. For those who would opt to do more than the above mentioned
minimum TTD requirements, they will be given a maximum 5% additional bonus making the total
percentage of their grade for this part 105%.

Format for the Integration Paper:

1. Typewritten/computer encoded
2. Double-spaced
3. Font size: 12
4. Font style: Times New Roman
5. One inch margin on all sides
6. Short bond paper
7. Do not put a space to separate one paragraph from the next.
8. Allot only four spaces to separate your name and title from the content (the first page must
contain at least 18 lines of content)
9. The pages following should have at least 21-22 lines.

*
Maria Paula G. Sioco, PhD
Associate Professor in Philosophy
Department of Social Sciences
College of Arts and Sciences
University of the Philippines Manila
Revised as of October, 2011

* The signature you see on this page is adopted from the classcard signature of the professor
14
15
1 Introduction to Philosophy
Last edited: 7.23.12 20:05
o Psychologically and  socially:  “We  need  a  
 Philo – sophia (love of wisdom) God”
o Term invented by Pythagoras o Opium of the people -> religion (Marx)
o Mother of all disciplines o Hard to live a life without a greater
o Aristotle (Father of Biology) omnipotent God
o Thales (father of Western philosophy) o Cathartic effect (the mind can
 Philosopher at every science compensate for whatever you lack
 Phusis (still no distinction between science, physically)
religion and philosophy)  Analytic philosophy:
 Philosophy was revolutionary o Friedrich   Waismann:   “A   philosophic  
 Curiosity, rationality -> offer explanation on question  is  not  solved;;  it  dissolves.”
things in nature -> coherent universe -> cosmos o Which came first? Chicken or egg?
governed by laws, explained by man, plot Language is not clear -> clarify!
his/her own destiny (Language games)
 Veering away from myths and legends o Examine the concepts we take for
 Speculative and analytic philosophy granted in everyday life
 Philosophy is a second-order inquiry (higher o Philosophy is vision – remove blindness;
than sciences) scrutinize and criticize your beliefs,
 Source of knowledge is the faculty of reason biases, prejudices etc. (like hatred
o Tabula rasa: experience is the answer, towards Muslims and colonial mentality)
according to an empiricist  The beginnings of Western philosophy were
 Three characteristics of a philosophical question speculative in nature because they were the
by Isaiah Berlin: first ones who veered away from the old
o Very broad or general paradigm of myths and legends.
o No standard methodology  Miletus, Turkey (ancient Greek city in
o It seems to have no practical utility (one present-day Turkey)
won’t  get  rich  with  it) o Turkey, Bulgaria (Macedonia), parts
 Philosophy refines methods of other disciplines of Italy (including Naples or Elea
(like the sciences) and Akragas, Sicily)
 Speculative philosophy:
o Metaphysical (nature of reality or
universe)
o One unifying substance to explain the
nature of reality and the things around
us
o Beyond the physical realm
 Western philosophy:
o Search of knowledge for its own sake
o Scientific knowledge
o Because   of   man’s   curiosity   and  
rationality; reasoning ability
o Not according to gods or goddesses
 Eastern philosophy:
o Religion and philosophy
o Following a certain way of life
o Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism etc.
o Pain and suffering, justification and
explanation
o Karma, persecution of Jews, Messiah
o Zoroastrianism: Avatar will save the
world if evil dominates

16
2 The Pre-Socratics
Last edited: 6.23.12 17:35

THE MILESIANS THREE MILESIANS


 Gave the first non-mythical account of the  THALES (640-550 BC)
nature of things o Mathematician (introduced geometry
 Invented critical/dialectical thought about the from Egypt)
world; veering away from myths and legends o Businessman of olive oil monopoly
 Philosophy started in Miletus because: o Astronomer (predicted eclipses)
o Center of trade and commerce – as o One of the famed seven sages of
chief incubator of intellectual Greece
innovation (shrewdness) o Magnetism is evidence of life (ex.
o Cross-cultural fertilization - lodestone) – hylozoist (believer that
sympathetic tolerance to other the universe is alive)
cultures o Believes that the Earth is flat, so when
o Absence of a priestly caste - no you reach the edge, you fall (did not
organized profession whose prestige say the exact shape like rectangular
and livelihood becomes a primary etc)
consideration in society; myths and o Fundamental substance from which all
beliefs were not as influential as in things proceed is water
other societies  Water as liquid, solid, vapor,
o Individualism – dialectics and rain or dew
argumentation; to broadcast your  Ocean as father of all things-
opinion and prove them wrong Poseidon
 Ancient civilization: society was everything  Water for growth of
while individual, nothing; except for rules or vegetation
priests
 Phusis – nature of things, what they are, how  ANAXIMANDER (610-540 BC)
they come into being, no distinction between o First prose writer, 30 years younger
science, philosophy and religion than Thales
 Importance: man should have assumed the o Material cause and first element of
existence of a coherent universe and should things was the infinite (apeiron) from
have looked for one underlying reality as a which arises all the heavens and the
substratum or cause for everything worlds within them; purely
 Curiosity – man as a rational being philosophical rather than scientific
 PROTAGORAS – man is the measure of all  No precise
things characteristics/attributes
 It is eternal, ageless and it
encompasses all the worlds
QUESTIONS WHICH SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY
o There was an eternal notion which
DEVELOPED
brought about the origin of the world
1. What is everything made of? o First attempt to draw a map
2. How do things come to be, change and pass o The earth is suspended in space and is
away? cylindrical in shape
3. What permanent substance or substances exist o Man was originally from sharks whose
behind appearances? (Unifying principle gestation period is the same with
behind multiplicity of things in the world) humans
 Assumed that the universe was a  “At   first,   human   beings   arose  
cosmos – an orderly system governed in the inside of fishes, and
by logos or laws which could be after having been reared like
discovered by logical thought and by sharks and become capable of
observation protecting themselves; they
were finally cast ashore and
took  to  land.”
 ANAXIMENES (588-524 BC)
o Student of Anaximander
o Underlying substance is air
(rarefaction and condensation)
 “Air   differs   from   substance,  
because of its rarefaction and
condensation (Fire when Note: 1The Oblong numbers are those that can be
dilated to become rarer arranged in a rectangle one unit wider than it is high;
becomes wind/condensed air; each is twice a Triangular number. The Oblongs have
condensed further, it becomes sides in the ratios 1:2, 2:3, 3:4, 4:5, 5:6,....
water; water condensed still Retrieved:
1
more is earth; condensed as http://www.mathgym.com.au/history/pythagoras/pythnum.htm

much as can be is stone.


 "Just as our soul, being air,  HERACLITUS (about 500 BC)
holds us together, so do o From Ephesus (where M. Mary came
breath and air encompass the from)
whole world." o Known   as   “the   Dark”   due   to   the  
o First Earth theory: Earth and other mystical nature of his philosophy
heavenly bodies are like saucers o Most plagiarized philosopher (Only
floating in air (flying saucers) thing that is permanent in this world is
change)
o Emphasized the permanence of
OTHER PRE-SOCRATICS
change in reality as a state of flux or
 PYTHAGORAS (about 531 BC) becoming
o Made philosophy a religion or a way of  “You   can’t   step   twice   into   the  
life (leader of a religious cult) same rivers, for freshwaters
o Philosophy and mathematics = are  ever  flowing  in  upon  you…  
purification of the soul We both step and do not step
o Dignity and sanctity of the into the same rivers; we are
contemplative life (Plato and Aristotle) and   are   not.”   (The river has
o Pythagoras believed in the changed; you have changed)
transmigration of the soul  “This world, which is the same
o Things are made of numbers for all, no one of gods or men
(something is sacred about it) has made. But it was ever, is
 Number 5: marriage now, and ever shall be an ever
 Number 10: perfect number living fire, with measures of its
 Ten heavenly bodies kindling, and measures going
by inventing a out.”   (He   did   not   believe   that
counterearth to make fire is the primal substance; he
it ten uses this example to illustrate
o Principle of numbers are the odd change)
(limited/finite) and the even
(unlimited/infinite)  PARMENIDES (about 450 BC)
o Triangular numbers o Found the Eleatic school, now in
o Square numbers Naples, Italy
o Oblong numbers o Reality is being (indestructible,
complete, immovable, has no
beginning and end, no such thing as
change, we are all interconnected)
o A continuous plenum or object which
we are all part of
 If we are all interconnected;
no motion, no empty space
o The first logician (system: depends
entirely on logical deduction and not
on experiment and observation)
o No state of becoming, only being

18
 EMPEDOCLES (493-433 BC) in a mass of other atoms to
o Akragas in Sicily (gay magician) form consciousness or life
o Homosexuality was accepted in society  Consciousness – quivering and
(the ideal relationship was between an dancing of the atoms of the
old and young man) soul, clustered with other
o A poet, one of the founders of the new atoms of the body, spreads
art of rhetorical and balanced prose; throughout the body, is
wrote poems for PAUSINIUS, his inhaled and exhaled, and as
lover long as its quantity remains
o An evolutionist: survival of the fittest constant, life and
theory consciousness continue.
o Earth is composed of four elements:  Sleep – slight deficiency in
earth, fire, air and water (pluralist = soul atoms
not just one substance, unlike the  Fainting or coma- serious
monoists mentioned above) deficiency
o Love and strife: two contrasting forces  Death – complete loss; when
with which he attributes change, the soul atoms are dispersed
motion, development and dissolution and are lost in a crowd of soul
o With magical powers, he believed that atoms with which the universe
he can totally cure a person who had is suffused and the body
been nearly dead for 24 months deserted and disintegrates
through his magic into constituent atoms
o Believed he was immortal; thus he
jumped into the mouth of Mt. Etna, a
 ZENO OF ELEA (490 BC)
volcano, and died
o Pupil of Parmenides
o Dialectics – method of taking up the
 ANAXAGORAS (about 480 BC)
hypothesis of your opponent and
o Matter is infinitely divisible
deducing contradictory conclusions
 “There   are   as   many   seeds   or  
from it (not Socrates)
elements as there are kinds of
o Arguments against motion (through
things, and however much of
logic chopping)
it is divided, each part will
o No motion, no empty space
contain elements of everything
o Against infinite divisibility
else.”
o Arguments against motion:
o Nous (mind): an external cause which
 Achilles can never catch up
accounts for motion, growth and
with the tortoise in a race
change, infinite and self-ruled,
course.
greatest strength and power over all
 The arrow in flight is at rest.
things (origin of the idea of God)
o If matter is neither infinitely divisible
 Nous is infinite and self-ruled
nor composed of a finite number of
and mixed with nothing, but it
divisible, it must be a continuum.
is alone, itself by itself…     It  
Parmenides was right! Reality is being.
has knowledge about
everything and the greatest 2
Zeno's Paradox may be rephrased as follows.
strength; and Nous has power
Suppose I wish to cross the room. First, of course, I
over all things, both greater must cover half the distance. Then, I must cover
and smaller, that have life. half the remaining distance. Then, I must cover half
the remaining distance. Then I must cover half the
 LEUCIPPUS & DEMOCRITUS (Leucippus = remaining distance . . . and so on forever. The
teacher) consequence is that I can never get to the other
o Atomic theory: reality is made up of side of the room.
atoms and the void
What this actually does is to make all motion
o Accepted Zeno’s   arguments   against  
impossible, for before I can cover half the distance I
infinite divisibility and asserted the
must cover half of half the distance, and before I
existence of ultimate particles or can do that I must cover half of half of half of the
atoms distance, and so on, so that in reality I can never
o Atomic theory of the soul: move any distance at all, because doing so involves
 Soul – made up of atomic moving an infinite number of small intermediate
particles like those of fire (soul distances first.
atoms). They cluster together
19
Now, since motion obviously is possible, the The problem with this paradox is its assumption
question arises, what is wrong with Zeno? What is of the properties of motion. Motion is intrinsically
the "flaw in the logic?" If you are giving the matter related with the passage of time so if you were to
your full attention, it should begin to make you reduce the amount of time that passes to zero—
squirm a bit, for on its face the logic of the situation such as a single point in time—in order to observe
seems unassailable. You shouldn't be able to cross the   motion   of   the   arrow   you   reduce   it’s   motion   via  
the room, and the Tortoise should win the race! Yet translation to zero as well. In fact, motion at a
we know better. Hmm. single point in time is not observable at all as a
difference in position. The only measure of motion
Rather than tackle Zeno head-on, let us pause at   a   point   is   it’s   kinetic   energy   but   Zeno’s   arrow  
to notice something remarkable. Suppose we take paradox does not take kinetic energy into account
Zeno's Paradox at face value for the moment, and resulting in a paradox.
agree with him that before I can walk a mile I must
first walk a half-mile. And before I can walk the
To   answer   the   question   ‘How   does   the   arrow  
remaining half-mile I must first cover half of it, that
move?’   you can think of it like this. The arrow
is, a quarter-mile, and then an eighth-mile, and
appears motionless at a single point in time but still
then a sixteenth-mile, and then a thirty-secondth-
has kinetic energy or velocity at that one point. If
mile, and so on. Well, suppose I could cover all
you were to go to the next point in time however
these infinite number of small distances, how far
infinitesimally small the next increment of time is
should I have walked? One mile! In other words,
you would then observe an incremental
displacement of the arrow as determined by its
kinetic energy. It is through the translation of time
and its kinetic energy that the arrow has
displacement at each point. Thus, motion is
achieved.
At first this may seem impossible: adding up an
infinite number of positive distances should give an Retrieved:
infinite distance for the sum. But it doesn't – in this 2
http://www.mathacademy.com/pr/prime/articles/zeno_tort/
case it gives a finite sum; indeed, all these 3
http://milesmathis.com/zeno.html
distances add up to 1! A little reflection will reveal 4
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/zeno's-paradox
that this isn't so strange after all: if I can divide up
a finite distance into an infinite number of small
distances, then adding all those distances together TABLE OF TERMINOLOGIES:
should just give me back the finite distance I
Do  you  know  ‘em  all?
started with. (An infinite sum such as the one above
is known in mathematics as an infinite series, and Milesians Phusis Soul
when such a sum adds up to a finite number we say
that the series is summable.) Thales Hylozoist Consciousness
Anaximander Apeiron Sleep
Now the resolution to Zeno's Paradox is easy.
Obviously, it will take me some fixed time to cross Anaximenes Flux Fainting or coma
half the distance to the other side of the room, say
Pythagoras Plenum Death
2 seconds. How long will it take to cross half the
remaining distance? Half as long – only 1 second. Heraclitus Pluralist Logic chopping
Covering half of the remaining distance (an eighth
of the total) will take only half a second. And so one. Parmenides Nous Cross-cultural
And once I have covered all the infinitely many sub- fertilization
distances and added up all the time it took to
Empedocles Counterearth Center of trade
traverse them? Only 4 seconds, and here I am, on
and commerce
the other side of the room after all.
3
Another paradox of Zeno concerns an arrow Leucippus Lodestone Absence of a
flying through the air. Zeno states that at each priestly caste
instant the arrow must be imagined to be
Democritus Water Individualism
immobile—frozen in one spot. If it is frozen at each
instant it must be frozen at all instants. If it is Zeno of Elea Rarefaction Curiosity
frozen at all instants it must not be moving.
Therefore motion is an illusion. Protagoras Flying saucers Fire
4
Zeno’s  Arrow  Paradox  attempts  to  prove  that   Pausinius Atomic theory Sharks
motion is impossible by using an arrow analogy. If
an arrow was shot but you only observed it at a
point in time the arrow would be still at this point, it
would be motionless. If the arrow is motionless at
any point in time how does the arrow move?

20
Simple Exercise (40 points)
Who believed in the following philosophies? Or
who do the descriptions below refer to? Choose
from among the names mentioned above.

/40
1. Founder of dialectics, not Socrates
2. Atomic theory
3. Infinite divisibility of matter
4. Survival of the fittest
5. Reality is being
6. Permanence of change
7. Philosophy and mathematics as purification for
the soul
8. Underlying substance is air
9. Apeiron
10. Fundamental substance is water
11. Hylozoist
12. Cylindrical Earth
13. Heavenly bodies are like flying saucers
14. Religious cult leader
15. The Dark
16. Continuous plenum or object
17. Homosexual
18. Nous
19. Soul, consciousness, sleep, coma, death
20. Logic chopping
21. Achilles, tortoise, arrow
22. Quivering and dancing of soul atoms is life
23. Origin of the idea of God
24. Founder of the new art of rhetorical and
balanced prose
25. We must depend on logical deduction and not
on experiment and observation
26. You  can’t  step  twice into the same river
27. Dignity and sanctity of the contemplative life
28. Rarefaction and condensation of air
29. First cartographer
30. Believed that the Earth is flat
31. Magnetism is evidence of life
32. Seven sages of Greece
33. Man was originally from sharks
34. Transmigration of soul
35. 5, 10, odd, even, oblong, triangular, square
36. The world was, is and will be an ever living fire
37. No state of becoming, only being
38. First pluralist
39. Love and strife are two contrasting forces
40. Immortal magician
BONUS: 41. Phusis

“The pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Parmenides taught


that the only things that are real are things which never
change... and the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher
Heraclitus taught that everything changes. If you
superimpose their two views, you get this result:
Nothing is real.”
― Philip K. Dick

21
22
1 Words and Concepts
Last edited: 7.22.12/20:26

WORDS AND CONCEPTS o Meanings of words are given; not


 Concepts: building blocks of knowledge; no discovered.
truth value o We just assign the meanings to
words.
o There are no right or wrong names
How does a word acquire meaning? for things (Freedom of stipulation
 Start as sounds/noises (googol, sandwich, which  we  don’t  usually  practice)
boycott, narcissism, hippie, hardcore,  We can call a chair as a
archaic Old English words like sayeth, thou) “table”   so   long   as   all   of   us  
 A community of users would use the same understand; however, this
noise to mean the same object. will not facilitate effective
 Meaning evolves through time. communication.
 SIGNS VS SYMBOLS o Thus, we follow the rule of common
o Natural signs are called SIGNS. usage.
Artificial and arbitrary signs are o Common usage (following the usage
called SYMBOLS. that has been associated with this
o Natural signs: thermometer reading, noise) is a guide to meaning, but
nimbus clouds for rain, smoke for not to truth.
fire  Different matter to establish
o Symbols: traffic lights, siren, entirely;;  when  you  say  “The  
swastika, dove for peace, crucifix cat   is   on   the   mat,”   there  
o We can make the dove into a must be a cat, mat and the
vulture if we all agree that the cat  is  really  on  the  mat.”  
vulture is cute; we can change the  Shakespeare: A rose by any other name
tune of the siren would smell as sweet.
o We can change all these, but we  SUMMARY: Words are merely labels of
choose not to. If they are things.  We  don’t  usually  change  the  labels.
artificial/arbitrary, they are symbols.
o Agreed meaning
Why do concepts have no truth value?
o Words are artificial and arbitrary
signs and they are the most
complicated system of symbols. Stages in the development of a concept for
 Two characteristics for words to acquire knowledge to be possible:
meaning (role of culture):  PERCEPTION (more neutral than
o Arbitrary and artificial signs that observation: searching for something; does
become symbols (secret codes) not make us different from animals)
o Conventional – medium of o External: Using 5 senses ->
agreement among members of precepts
community o Internal: Imagination/memory ->
 Five relations of words to things (J. evolve images from precepts
HOSPERS) – most efficient way of  ABSTRACTION (intellect – makes us
communication different from animals): simple
o Words stand for things in the apprehension of the concept where we
broadest  sense  of  the  word  “thing” grasp what is universal in the different kinds
 Anything is a thing as long of  precepts/images  that  you’ve  seen  around  
as you express it through you.
words. We assigned o The simple apprehension of the
meanings to words. essence of a general term
 We use words to express o Now, you recognize something is a
our innermost feelings, tree (for example)
emotions etc. o General term for tree, chair, table
 Say what you mean, mean o Abstract a general term for sand or
what you say. hair (we cannot assign a proper
name for every bit of them)
23
 JUDGMENT: completes the act of the mind;
affirm or deny something about the concept
-> product is statements (T/F)
o The   sky’s   blue   – element of T/F
would come in
o Simple act to complete the act of
the mind
o Put two concepts together and
pronounce an agreement or
disagreement: Man is a fish (F)
o Statements have an assertion that is
either true or false about the world.
 “That  which  is  red  is  colored”  
(T) – concept of red is
already contained in the
concept of color
 “The   cat   is   on   the   mat”   –
you cannot discover the
truth or falsity of the
statement by examining the
key   terms   “cat”   and   “mat”;;  
there must be an actual
state of affairs
o Concept -> statements ->
arguments -> reasoning (completes
the act of the mind)
 Different uses of words (mean what you say VS
say what you mean = DIFFERENT)
o Informative
o Evaluative – moral, aesthetic, religion,
scientific, technological values
o Evocative – express feelings, emotions:
“I  love  you”
o Imperative – command
o Interrogative – ask questions
o Persuasive – persuade with use of
emotions
o Directive - following directions
o Recreational – green jokes
o Performatives – church rituals of a priest

24
2 Wittgenstein
Last edited: 7.23.12/18:50

LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN  Three-volume work which


replaced Aristotelian Logic
 April 26, 1889 – April 29, 1951 (Cancer; England)  Able to deduce all known truths
 Vienna, Austria of mathematics from very few
 Youngest of 8 children premises
 Son of wealthy steel magnate o Logical positivism was an improvement
 Very eccentric of   logical   atomism;;   used   Russell’s  
 Lived frugally referential theory of meaning
 Home schooled until 14, took up aeronautical
engineering at the University of Manchester The problem of meaning (Where does it
 Studied Mathematical Logic at Cambridge reside?)
University with Bertrand Russell, inspired by
philosophy; had an intellectual relationship even
if Wittgenstein was effeminate  GOTTLOB FREGE (1848-1946): professor of
 Donated   his   father’s   fortune   to   a   poets’   Math in University of Vienna, Germany
foundation o Private tutor of Wittgenstein
 During World War I, he wrote the Tractatus – o Ueber Sinn und Bedeutung (On Sense &
the bible of logical positivism (philosophy + Nominatum/Reference)
empiricism; observation + rationalism)  All proper names expresses its
 Received a PhD for the Tractatus during 1929 sense and stands for or
 Depression; felt he could do no more for designates its purpose
philosophy; contemplated suicide  The grasping of a sense does
 Became an elementary teacher for six years not with certainty warrant a
teaching mathematical logic in the outskirts of corresponding nominatum.
Austria; since he had short patience, he was  There is something more than
banished afterward the referent and this is the
 Became a gardener; designed an octagonal sense/meaning of the phrase.
mansion for his sister  A) The morning star is the same
 Accepted teaching job of philosophy at Trinity as the evening star
College  B) The morning star is the same
 Was awarded a professorial chair previously held as the morning star
by George Edward Moore  Both of the above represent one
 Eccentric: if he   doesn’t   feel   like   teaching   at   10   planet and that is Venus
AM,   he   won’t;;   however,   some   of   his   loyal    But you would know that A) has
disciples would wait for his brilliant moments to more sense than B) because
come (around 6 PM), then he would teach meaning foes not reside in the
endlessly until he got extremely tired. nominatum or reference but it is
 Blue and brown books -> ten years after in the sense. There is something
Tractatus was the birth of Philosophical more than the referent and this
Investigations (repudiation of his early work) -> is the sense or the meaning of
published by his disciples posthumously two the phrase.
years after his death  JOHN STUART MILL
 Started a new philosophy: ordinary language o Singular or proper names only denote
philosophy the referent but they do not connote
 The Tractatus was the bible of logical positivism any attributes belonging to these
o Gave the impetus that it was possible to individuals.
create an ideal language o Meaning resides in connotation, not in
o Provided metaphysical justification for the denotation (common names)
the possibility of an ideal language because it gives you the attributes or
o He set the framework/paradigm traits or qualities belonging to a
o Actual grammatical syntax provided by particular class.
Bertrand  Russell  and  Alfred  Whitehead’s  
Principia Mathematica
 BERTRAND RUSSELL
o Meaning resides in the denotation
(pointing an object) SYMBOLS ONTOLOGY
o Meaning of proper names are the
objects denoted by them Language isomorphism World
o Referential theory of meaning –
meaning of a word is the object denoted
by it Proposition isomorphism Facts
Statements
 Best way to teach a language is
through the use of ostensive
Elementary picture theory Atomic
definition (pointing to the 3
Propositions of reality facts 3
referent of the word) Ex. This is
a chair. That is a table.
 Embedded in the framework of 4
Simple names picturing Simple
Principia Mathematica 4
relation objects
o Denoting phrases never have meaning
in themselves, but every proposition in
whose verbal expression they occur has
a meaning. referential theory
 Example:   “This”   and   “that”   as   of meaning
exact denoting phrases (naming relation)
o A phrase may be denoting yet not
denote anything.
 Example: square circle (does PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS
FDFDFDF
not exist); the present king of  Referential theory of meaning (1) VS use-
France is bald (there is no theory (19, 23, 40, 43)
French king at present) o “Every   word   has   a  
o First form of logical positivism (logical meaning…..stands.”
atomism) o You understand the meaning of the
 Vienna Circle of Philosophers – word if you employ it (criterion)
wanted to create a unified ideal o Artificial language – disappearing of
language for the sciences form of life (shared with others)
 TRACTATUS LOGICO PHILOSOPHICUS
o No exact definition of language
o Philosophy aims at the logical
games in order to avoid logical
clarification of thoughts
positivism. He did not give a
o Two entities that correspond with each
definition of language game
other: Realm of symbols (expressed
using language) and realm of ontology because it would be exact –
(given in the world; what is real) according to logical positivism.
o Isomorphic: what you see as real can be o Everything is a language game
expressed as a language (1 to 1 except for a private language since
correspondence) only one can understand that (no
o 3 Limits of language mean the limits of rules for correctness; nobody else
my world, whereof one could not speak understands; not useful) Private
thereof one must be silent. language has no form of life.
o Every elementary proposition is a o If you impose an ideal language,
picture of reality (atomic facts) these forms of life will disappear.
o Sum total of reality is your world o If   you   don’t   know   the   language  
o No language, no reality to express game played (act of pointing is a
because you use language to express language game in itself); then you
the what you find in reality wouldn’t   know.   He   demolished  
o Cognitive grasp about the world is ostensive definition.
limited by the language we use o Social activities are part of language
o 4 For every simple name, there is only
games
one simple object that goes with it
o Everything expressed in language is real.
If one is silent, it is not real.
o Logical atomism
26
 Ideal language (91, 98, 101 and 107) VS employment of the
ordinary language (116) expression, then you know
o Should not be after complete its meaning; then you know
exactness (presence of green jokes) its understanding.
o Sometimes ambiguity, vagueness or  The criterion for
hypocrisy is the rule of the language understanding the meaning
game. of a word is its employment.
o We are in a social world; you cannot  Strawson – emphasized
be honest about everything. linguistic conventions (rules)
o Where there is sense, there must be governing its correctness
perfect   order   (“Kunin   mo   nga   un    Role of philosophy (124, 126) and summary
kuwan/ano.”) o Don’t  think,  but  look.
o We   don’t   always   have   to   say   what   o Look and see.
we mean. o Every sentence in our language is in
o “Logic”   – artificial requirement (PI order as it is.
107) o Where there is sense, there must be
o “Back   to   rough   ground”   – back to perfect order even in the vaguest
ordinary language (PI 107) sentence.
 Ostensive definition (1) o Philosophy may in no way interfere
o Counterexample: five red apples with the actual use of language; it
o Describing something is not can in the end only describe it. For
accurately defined by pointing it cannot give it any foundation
o The act of pointing and naming either. It leaves everything as it is.
objects can only be used in the o Philosophy simply puts everything
context of language games before us, and neither explains nor
o Cannot point out abstract things (If deduces anything (PI 126)
we point at a red shirt and say that o Danger of thinking like logical
it is red, what is red?) positivists:
 Essential property (65) vs family  Wittgenstein’s   advice:   Don’t  
resemblance (66, 67) think but look. Look and see.
o Essential properties appear mostly  They theorized. They think
in the sciences (Pi=3.1416) in terms of their
o The   strength   of   the   thread   doesn’t   construction of how the
lie in one fiber but by the criss- world should be.
crossing of many fibers (does not  Making reality conform to
reside in one essential property but one’s  theory
an overlap)  “The   order”   – the ideal; it
 Analysis in terms of simple and complex should be this only; must be
o Absolute analysis (what he did, see exact (PI 132)
diagram) o Application   in   life:   “Learn   to   love  
o Breaking down the object into yourself   a   bit   more”   – avoid self-
simple parts (No!) – broom divided fulfilling prophecies
into stick and brush
o You have to analyze the language
** Wittgenstein – to understand the meaning of a
game used (depends for biologist,
word is to understand how it is used in a given
chemist, merchant etc)
language game
o There is no absolute standard for
What do you mean by that?
simple and complex. There is no
kind of absolute analysis. In what sense are you using the word?
o Two philosophers who followed his ** Speaking the same language – using the same
philosophy: word in more or less the same way – playing the
 Ryle: Emphasized the same language game
importance of employment
as the meaning; when you
know the rules of the

27
3 Ambiguity
Last edited: 7.22.12/17:15

CLASSIFICATION OF CONCEPTS o THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS: rendered


 Intension and extension of concepts observable through human intervention by
 INTENSION – characteristic, description of a sensory extending devices (telescopes,
concept microscopes etc.) Ex: germs, viruses, black
 EXTENSION – members of a concept holes (micro and macro universe)

o Ex. Triangle  Abstract – exists only in the mind; have their


 Closed plane manifestations in the real world
figure contingent o Circle (approximation of drawing)
Set of  Bounded by intension o Democracy, capitalism etc – effigies to
necessary straight lines translate these ideas into empirical forms
intensions  Having three sides forming three o Love, happiness (Coca-Cola)
angles with 180 degrees
strict intension  Fictitious – clearly delineated but purely imaginary
in the realm of fantasy (example: imaginary friend)
o Contingent intension: common o Intrasubjectivity – only one person can see
characteristic (shared by other plane it (ghosts; crystal ball)
figures)  Pseudo-experts: Sister Mimi and
o Strict intension: defining/peculiar Agoo Apparition; gimmick of faith
characteristics (unique characteristic only healers
for triangles) o Intersubjectivity – shareable, when others
o We could add some more stricter can check on your claim
intensions: right angle -> right triangle
o Very specific intensions – become essential  Evaluative – moral issues, values, letter of
properties boyfriend   (you   value   it;;   others   don’t);;   stealing  
o Direct relation: As intension increases, the cellphones (attach economic value to a thing);
extension decreases (inversely religious and aesthetic values
proportional)
o Green lines – not an essential property of  Metaphysical – beyond the physical realm
triangles o Ex:  Plato’s  metaphysical  system  is  a  world  
o Mammary glands is peculiar to mammals, full of forms and ideas. Everything that
common to humans (shared by other you see in this world is only a secondary
beings, not just man) copy of the idea that exists out there in
o Ability to fly is not applicable to birds (not the world of forms and ideas. That chair is
all birds fly!) Flight is not included in the merely a copy. You recognize its chairness
intension  of  the  word  “bird.” because you have an idea of a chair that
o Rationality is peculiar to humans. exists in the world of forms and ideas.
o Being green (color) is peculiar to green o Ex:   Descartes:   “I   think   therefore   I   am”   -
things He could imagine his mind existing without
the need for a body.
o Ex: God, magic
TYPES OF CONCEPTS
 Empirical – middle universe, unaided senses (we
AMBIGUITY
could touch, taste, feel, observe); hybrid concepts
in the sciences: sensory extending devices (SEDs),  When a term has acquired many uses or many
operations exclusive intensions and the context does not
specify which of these is being used
o DISPOSITIONAL: with observable  When a word has been associated with at least
dispositions or tendencies; cannot be seen two or more customary meanings (slippery words)
by merely looking; Ex: magnetism,
elasticity, solubility, IQ (operation:
dissolving sugar in water)
 Fallacies of Ambiguity: o COMPOSITION – what is true of the part is
o EQUIVOCATION – Key term or word also true of the whole; from distributive to
changes its meaning in the same line of the collective use of nouns
reasoning  Every part of the machine is light
 Which came first, the chicken or in weight. Therefore, the machine
egg? is light in weight.
 Napoleon Quince, nakatikim ka na  A bus uses more gas than a car.
ba ng quince anyos? (alak o Therefore, all buses use more gas
babae?) than all cars.
 All laws must be obeyed (law of  Each person's happiness is a good
peace and order). E=mc2 is a law to that person, and the general
(scientific law). Therefore, E=mc2 happiness, therefore, a good to
must be obeyed. the aggregate of all persons.
 Green joke (double meaning)  Each manufacturer is perfectly
 If a man who turnips cries, Cries free to set his own price for the
not when his father dies, 'Tis a product he produces. So there can
proof that he had rather, Have a be nothing wrong with all
turnip than his father. manufacturers getting together to
 Pupil: Would you be mad at me fix the prices of the articles made
for something I did not do? by all of them.
Teacher: Of course not. Pupil:  The universe is spherical in form
That’s   good   because   I   did   not   do   because all the constituent parts
my homework. of the universe – that is, the sun,
 Nothing is better than good grades. moon and planets – appear in this
Bad grades are better than form. (“Because”   is   not   an  
nothing. Therefore, bad grades indicator of the premise set.)
are better than good grades.  Since all humans are mortal, the
 Msgr. Mendoza incensed the human race must someday come
bishop. to an end.
o AMPHIBOLY – loose and awkward way in o DIVISION – from whole to part; collective
which words are formulated mainly due to to distribution; what is true with the whole
faulty grammatical construction is true with the parts
 Newspaper with shotgun headlines  A machine is complex. Therefore,
(sensationalism)   Ex:   Miriam   (‘s   every part is complex.
driver) is dead  American Indians are disappearing.
 One paragraph; one sentence That man is an American Indian.
construction without breaks Therefore, that man is
 Clean and decent dancing every disappearing.
night except Sundays.  Every third child born in New York
 The farmer blew out his brains is a Catholic. Then Protestant
after taking affectionate farewell families living there should have
of his family with a shotgun. no more than two children.
 I’ve  looked  everywhere  in  this  area   (population of New York -> family)
for an instruction book on how to
play the accordion without success.
o ACCENT – way of speaking may mean
different things; different intonation/accent
 If you come to know this person
as I know him, you will have the
same regard for him as I do.
(sarcasm)
 We should not speak ill of our
friends.
 Nothing is too good for her.
 I cannot recommend this book too
highly.

29
4 Vagueness; On Definitions
Last edited: 7.22.12/18:36

VAGUENESS  Slum area


 When the intension of the concept has become  Characteristics:
so loose and unclear that it becomes difficult to overcrowded, no water,
apply (or to identify the members); the problem no toilet, dirty
is in the difficulty of setting the limits of the environment
applicability of the concepts; no convention set  But some areas are
 Borderline cases VS paradigm cases better than others;
o Borderline: you and me are pretty; these areas lack one or
where vagueness occurs only more of the
o Paradigm: Katy Perry is beautiful; we characteristics
won’t  argue  about  that;;  not  vague mentioned above; so
 It is not that if something is vague; therefore it some would say  that  it’s  
is useless (we use it in ordinary language: not a slum area
“Mainit  ang  kape  ko.”  “Madumi  yan.”) anymore, while others
 Types of vagueness: would say it is still a
o LINEAR – when you can imagine the slum area
concept existing in a continuum and  Happiness
there is no convention attached to its  Different definitions of
usage as to when to draw the limits of happiness
its applicability; varying degrees;  It’s  all  in  the  mind
between extremes  Movies with nudity
 Bald, hairy, shaggy (hair at the  Different categories or
sides) standards of
 Tall  and  short  (If  6’  is  tall,  and  5’   pornography/obscenity
is  short,  what  is  5’6”  then?)  Paradigm case: XXX
 Colors: fuchsia red, red, red  How about Rated R?
violet etc  Beauty, contentment and misery
 Cold and warm (If 373 K is (no scale)
warm, and 273 K is cold, what  Some characteristics may be
is 300 K then?) heavier in weight or more
o VAGUENESS OF FAMILY RESEMBLANCE: important than others
when a concept has formed a set of  Birds of the same feather flock
disjunctive characteristics (joined by together (share same definition,
“or”)   and   there   is   no   convention   have more things in common)
attached to its usage as to how many of
these characteristics must a case DEFINITION
possess for the concept to be applicable
 Linguistic device that gives an explanation
to that particular case.
or demonstration about the use of a word
 Parts: a) definiendum: terms to be defined
b) defiens: defining properties
(genus: wider concept of
traits)
(differentia: species)
c) denotata: provides typical
examples
 Principle of relativity of the definition o A liar is a person whose sinuosity of
o Must be understood by the audience speech is due to a superficial
 If a two year old child would succedaneum for veracious reality.
ask what is salt? Must not o A blush is a temporary erythema
be:   “Salt   is   a   compound   of   and calorific effulgence of the
Na and Cl with impurities physiognomy, aeteologized by the
not greater than 1% of its perceptiveness of the sensorium, in
total  density” a predicament of inequilibrity, from
 Reportive definition (conventional use of the a sense of shame, anger or other
term) cause, eventuating in a paresis of
o Provide information how a term is the vase-motorial, muscular
being used in the same way in filaments of the facial capillaries,
numerous language games whereby, being divested of their
 Ex: lexical definition (from elasticity, they become suffused
dictionary) – reports about with a radiance emanating from an
standard or conventional intimidated praecordia.
use of a term (verbal o Paradox is the poisonous flower of
definition) quietism, the iridescent surface of
 Stipulative definition the rotting mind, the greatest
o Specialized way of using concepts depravity of all.
o Proposes to use a term in a special o To explain is to strip reality of the
way (technical terms and appearance covering it like a veil, in
operational definitions) order to see bare reality itself.
 Operational definition (hybrid concepts in o A cynic is a man who knows the
the sciences) price of everything and the value of
o To render what is initially nothing.
unobservable on the observable o A bore is a person who talks when
plane, for the purpose of verification; you want him to listen.
hands-on; the defiens becomes  Must neither be too broad nor too narrow;
public and repeatable must be exact (the definiendum and
o States that a term is applicable to a definiens must be interchangeable as
given case if and only if the subject and predicate)
performance of specified operations o Logic is the science that guides the
in that case yields a specified result mind to truth. The science that
o P.W. Bridgeman (The Logic of guides the mind to truth is logic.
Modern Physics, 1928) (too broad)
 We may mean by any o A teacher is a person who gives
concept, nothing more than instruction to children. (too narrow)
a set of operations. A o Patriotism is loyalty to the civic
concept is synonymous with group to which one belongs. (too
the set of operations. narrow)
o INSTRUMENTAL – uses sensory o By good, I understand that which
extending devices for observation we certainly know is useful to us.
and measurement (macro and micro (too narrow)
universe)  Must be positive, not negative, whenever
o Paper and pencil; verbal; thought possible
experiments (psychological exam; o Exceptions: Negative/privative ideas
IQ test, Taylor Anxiety Manifest Test) o Orphan – absence of parents
o Baldness- absence of hair
o Immortality – may be stated in the
RULES FOR DEFINING
positive
 The definition must be clearer than the
o Faith may be defined briefly as an
thing being defined (avoid figurative,
illogical belief in the occurrence of
obscure and metaphorical language)
the improbable.
o A kiss is the anatomical
o Honesty is the absence of the intent
juxtaposition of two orbicularis oris
to deceive.
muscles in a state of contraction.

31
o A fanatic is a man who cannot
change   his   mind   and   won’t   change  
the subject.
 Avoid circular definition, arguing in circles
(and synonyms)
o Example: Happiness is the state of
being happy.
o Ginebra is the best team in the PBA.
Why? Because they won in the
championship. Why? Because they
are the best team in the PBA.
o Base means that which serves as a
base.
o The meaning of the word, according
to Wittgenstein, is what is explained
by the explanation of the meaning.
o We see that all men mean by justice,
according to Aristotle, that kind of
state of character which makes
people disposed to do what is just
and makes them act justly and wish
for what is just.
o The conscience forbids an act that is
wrong; an act that is wrong is
something that the conscience
forbids.
 Avoid defining by giving only examples
(ostensive definitions)
o Example: Fruits are mangoes,
apples and pears.

32
1 Introduction to Epistemology
Last edited: 8.1.12/13:53 Lecture: 7.31.12

 EPISTEMOLOGY o Principle of Identity


o Branch of philosophy that deals with the
 If a statement is true, then it is
validation or verification of knowledge
true.
claims
 P -> P (P implies P is always
 Cat is on the mat – empirical
true)
 (2)(5)=10 – analytical
 Not P implies not P.
 Any statement will always imply
 5 TYPES OF SENTENCES
itself.
o Interrogative  (What’s  the  time?)           merely
uttered;  Any statement is identical to
o Imperative (Shut the door)
no truth or itself.
o Exclamatory (Ouch!) falsity o Principle of Excluded-Middle
o Expletive (I wish I were beautiful) involved
 A statement is either true or
o Declarative – expresses a statement
false and nothing else (No such
with element of truth or falsity
middle  ground  as  “tralse”)
 Because it has cognitive
 Pv ~ P (disjunction always true)
meaning; assertion is something
 When you consider the
about the world
disjunction of P and not P, if P is
 Result of the third stage called
true, then not P is false. Thus,
“judgment”
the disjunction is true.
 Philosopher’s   construct   so   that  
 If P is false, then not P is true.
they could explain the theory of
Thus, the disjunction is still true.
knowledge and make
 For the disjunction to be false,
knowledge possible
both disjuncts must be false.
o Fallacy of a complex question: Have you
stopped cheating in exams? Have you
stopped beating your girlfriend? “The only thing that makes life possible is permanent,
(underlying assumptions) intolerable uncertainty: not knowing what comes
next.”
 THREE LAWS OF THOUGHT (Aristotle)
― Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness
How do we think?

o Principle of Non-contradiction
 A statement cannot be both
true and false at the same time
and in the same respect
 P · ~ P (the conjunction of P
and not P is always false)
 Whiteboard cannot be both
white and not white at the same
time.

34
2 Sources of Knowledge; Rationalism
Last edited: 8.19.12/00:14 Lecture: 8.10.12
 SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE (Analytic VS
Empirical)
Source of Type of Theory of Type of Source of Type of Type of
knowledge statement truth knowledge Theory of truth
knowledge statement knowledge
Formal
Empirical
sciences
EXPERIENCE sciences
REASON (logic,
Analytic Coherence Empirical Correspondence (biology,
(a priori) (a
geometry,
posteriori) physics,
mathematics)
sociology)

o Arguing within the linguistic,


o The dog is on the mat.
mathematical or logical system; no
 You will notice that the predicate
additional information
you   added   “on   the   mat” is not
o By mere examination of the key terms in
included  in  the  definition  of  a  “cat”)
the statement, we see that the subject is
 You are adding additional
already in the predicate and vice versa;
information that can be verified
validation   within   the   system   (“is”   of  
with the actual state of affairs
identity)
o The sun will rise tomorrow. (We must wait
o Denial of analytic statements will lead to
for tomorrow to claim such)
absurdity and contradiction.
o INDUCTIVE REASONING
 The faculty of reason could not
 Reggie’s  dissected  cat  smells bad.
accept that you deny these
 JM’s  dissected  cat  also  smells  bad.
statements.
 The   professor’s   dissected   cat  
o DEDUCTION (question-begging statements)
smells bad as well.
o Appealing to definitions: A bachelor is an
 Therefore, all dissected cats smell
unmarried male; therefore, no bachelor
bad.
has a mother-in-law (consequence of the
 Accumulation of information; then
definition  of  the  word  “bachelor”)
we make an inductive inference
o Framework of mathematics: start from
based  on  what’s  given  to  us
very few premises (Principia Mathematica)
o Denial of empirical statements is plausible.
Other Examples: Other Examples:
o That which is red is colored. o BS Biology students in the University of
o A puppy is a young dog. the Philippines-Manila are smart.
o 999 + 1 = 1000 o There are 365 mountains on the other side
o A rhombus has five equal sides. (False) of the moon.
o A spinster has no brother-in-law.  Verification in principle: we cannot
o Black cats are black. go to the dark side of the moon
o All brothers are males. and count the actual number of
o Water is composed of two hydrogen atoms mountains there
and one oxygen atom. o My dog meows.
o It is logically impossible to fall upwards. o My fish barks.
o A sheep is a wool-bearing mammal. o My sheep does not bear wool.
 Analytic statements are also known as:  Empirical statements are also known as:
o Truths of reason – because analytic faculty o Truths of fact
of reason alone is enough o Matters of fact (term by Elmer Sprague)
o Matters of logic o Synthetic statements
o Truth of language o A posteriori - concluding something with
o Formal statements the aid of experience
o A priori – concluding something without
the aid of experience
o “Is”   of   identity – subject and predicate
identical
 RATIONALISM  THREE INDUBITABLE PREMISES OF KNOWLEDGE
o Faculty of reason as the only reliable (starting points as substances)
sources of knowledge (substances) o SELF:
 As a transcendental faculty of  Given the method of systematic
reason that could guarantee doubt, you can even doubt your
certain knowledge doubt! QUESTION: How can you
 Metaphysical - not found in this now prove that you exist, when
world; beyond the physical realm you’re  doubting  given  your  doubt?
 By virtue of thinking alone, that is  ANSWER: Extension (or the body)
enough for you to prove that you is merely an accidental property!
exist.  That’s   why   he   could   imagine  
o Baruch Espiñosa, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz himself existing with the mind but
(concept of monads), Rene Descartes without the body.
(knowledge of substances)  He   can’t   do   without the act of
 RENE DESCARTES (mathematician) thinking! Thus, doubting is a form
o He could imagine his mind existing without of thinking!
the need for a body.  Thinking could not exist in a
o For knowledge to be certain, it must begin vacuum. Thus, there must be an
from clear and distinct ideas. Thus, it must owner of these thoughts and
have a structure like an inverted pyramid. therefore,   the   “I”   (or   “self”)   exists  
 Like mathematics! (Begin from as a substance. I exist!
very few starting points, then  Dubito cogito existo
proceed) (I doubt) (I think) (I exist)
 Cogito ergo sum
(I think therefore I am)
 The   “I”   that   does   the   doubting,  
the  “I”  that  does  the  thinking,  and  
therefore the self exists as a
substance.
 Therefore, you are A THINKING
Starting point of knowledge THING!
o GOD
 We think (and doubt)
o Method of systematic doubt: to arrive at  To know is more perfect than to
clear and distinct ideas which are doubt.
nonsensical to doubt (because the  Even if you doubt, how come you
moment you doubt, then you contradict can still think of the idea of the
yourself) perfect being?
 Systematize your doubts  Something that is imperfect like
 Doubt everything that can be you (because you doubt) would
doubted not have generated the idea of a
 You can doubt the existence of perfect being yourself.
your parents, ancestry, origin,  You are able to think of the idea of
family etc. until you arrive at clear a perfect being and you could not
and distinct ideas which are have generated it sui generis
nonsensical to doubt (uniquely) because something
 Aim through doubting: to discover perfect could not have come from
the three indubitable premises of something imperfect like you.
knowledge  Therefore, there must have been a
perfect being responsible in
placing the idea of the perfect
being in your mind.
 Therefore, a perfect being must
necessarily exist, because non-
existing is a form of imperfection.

36
 Thus, a perfect being (God)  CRITICISMS
necessarily exists because you o SELF:
doubt.  Descartes begged the question.
o MATERIAL OBJECTS  Dubito cogito existo – he
 He   began   his   treatise:   “Is   he   smuggled the conclusion
dreaming?  Is  this  real?” “therefore  I  am”
 We could not always rely on our  There is already the I that does
senses. Senses may sometimes the doubting, the I that does the
deceive us (Example: moon moves thinking and therefore the I that
while we are in a speeding car, the exists in the conclusion.
pencil bends when placed in a  It was a question begging
glass of water, railroad tracks argument.
seem to converge in the distance  He used the model of mathematics
etc.) to prove his point (deductive)
 But even so, we still have to o GOD:
consider that material objects exist  Existence must be prior to essence.
as substances because God exists  You must first exist!
as a perfect being.  How do you know that the
 When we perceive material objects, apple is red? Sweet?
they should be there.  You must first see it or
 Why? Because God could not will taste  it  before  you’ll know!
that we would always be deceived  Existence must be a prior
by our senses, and that this would condition before you could
is merely an illusion. enumerate its
 If He is a perfect being, it is not characteristics.
included in his characteristics to be  You must first exist so that
a deceiver. we could know what you
 Therefore, when we perceive look like/ we would know
material objects, they must also your characteristics. You
necessarily exist because GOD IS must be there; you must
A NONDECEIVER. be seen by us!
 Therefore, material objects exist
as substances.
“And although I have seen nothing but black crows in
 But sometimes, there is a
my life, it doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a
malignant demon when we make
white crow. Both for a philosopher and for a scientist,
mistakes in judgment of the will.
it can be important not to reject the possibility of
 It is either:
finding a white crow. You might almost say that
 Making genuine mistakes
hunting for 'the white crow' is science's principal task.”
in the judgment of will/will
― Jostein Gaarder, Sophie's World
judges without fully
understanding
 Or because of this
malignant demon who
always tries his best to
deceive us

37
3 Empiricism; Kantian Synthesis; Epistemic Obligation
Last edited: 8.19.12/22:19 Lecture: 8.14.12

 EMPIRICISM – experience as source of o Adopted by logical positivists; made a


knowledge distinction between the two types of
knowledge
o John Locke – “TABULA   RASA”   – the mind  Formal sciences
as a blank sheet of paper  Empirical sciences
 It is up to experience to fill this o Given this, how do we experience cause
sheet up with data or materials and effect as provided in our experiences?
Do we experience causality?
o George Berkeley (bishop) – “ESE   ES   o According to Hume, NO. It was because
PERCIPI” when two ideas always appear
 “To  be  is  to  be  perceived” contiguously in time and space, our mind
 How does one know that you exist? establishes an association due to habit and
Somebody else must be perceiving custom; thus inferring that one is the
you. How sure are we that things cause and the other its effect. (Example:
in the other room still exist even if smoke and fire)
no one is there to perceive them? o Animal inference – we make the inference
 We need an ultimate perceiver to of causality based on experiences, habits
perceive all these things even if no and customs. We make the connection!
one is there to perceive it so that o Basis of induction (assuming that nature is
we would have knowledge about uniform in its causality)
material objects o Association of ideas -> cause and effect <-
 He was inconsistent because he habit and custom (habits of association)
insisted that there must be some
ultimate perceiver who is God so  IMMANUEL  KANT’S  SYNTHESIS
we can guarantee things that we o Attempted to synthesize two opposing
cannot see. BUT PROBLEM: Who views: rationalism and empiricism
perceives God? o The   two   don’t   need   to   contradict   each  
 Not a true-blooded empiricist other! He assumed that WE have been
given two faculties so that knowledge
o David Hume – consistent empiricist would become possible for us:
 Direct perception paradigm  Faculty of pure reason
 If there are no impressions or  Faculty of pure intuition of space
ideas, there will be no knowledge and time
 Experience as source of o Wrote   a   treatise   entitled   “A   Critique   of  
knowledge; based on impressions Pure  Reason”,  where  he  was  able  to  prove  
and ideas that you could not have knowledge with
pure reason alone!
 Hume’s  Fork
o Accept only two meaningful types of
statements depending on the source of
knowledge that you could accept
o Accepted by logical empiricists (later on
logical positivists) -> analytic statements
based on the analytic faculty of reason
o 1) Relations of ideas –> become analytic
statements (based on reason)
o 2) Matters of fact –> based on experience
as sources of knowledge
 EPISTEMIC OBLIGATION AS A CRITICAL
AND INDEPENDENT THINKER
o Never accept the truth of any statement or
belief unless there is adequate evidence
for it (healthy skepticism)
o Adequacy of evidence depends on oneself.

 EPISTEMIC DISTINCTION
o Known – empirical sciences; evidences in
fact and in principle
 Evidence in fact: readily available;
provable
 Evidence in principle:
hypothetically produced
o Knowable – an extrapolation from the
known
 Ex. DNA, cloning, black holes
o Unknowable – unprovable claims; in
principle, no evidence can be produced to
support the claim
 Ex. life after death, reincarnation,
parapsychology

= synthetic a priori knowledge/propositions


(Two faculties must merge! What is real for you is your
phenomena!) “We look not at the things which are what you would
call seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the
things which are seen are temporal. But the things that
 Reality is a construct of the mind (constructivism)
are not seen are eternal.”
 KANT’S  CATEGORIES  OF  UNDERSTANDING
― Madeleine L'Engle
o Quantity: unity, plurality, totality
o Quality: reality, negation, limitation
o Relation: cause and effect “They won't listen. Do you know why? Because they
o Modality: possibility and impossibility, have certain fixed notions about the past. Any change
existence and non-existence etc. would be blasphemy in their eyes, even if it were the
truth. They don't want the truth; they want their
traditions.”
 There is always an aspect called the noumena
which in principle is unknowable; an ― Isaac Asimov, Pebble in the Sky
unadulterated, uninterpreted reality.
 The thing-in-itself/reality as it is
 Once you look at the world, you perceive it
according to how your mind is structured
to look at it. So, there would always be an
aspect of reality that would forever be
unknowable to you.
 Selective perception: Not all things in life
you can perceive (limited stimuli)
 There will always be a part in reality that is
beyond our grasp
 Practical reason: key to our knowledge and
morality

39
40
1 Introduction to Ethics
Last edited: 8.20.12/00:12 Lecture: 8/17/12

 ETHICS  IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING ETHICS


o Ethics (root word: ethos/ethnos) – the o Our ethics are continually changing – to
systematic questioning and critical understand the nature of these changes.
examination of the underlying principles of  When we deal with morality, we
morality; a study of values and their have to examine our values. Our
justification ethics and values change over
o Ethos/ethnos of a society – the core of time.
attitudes, beliefs and feelings that give  Example: conservatism may
coherence and vitality of a people change in the next ten years
o Could be spelled out explicitly in laws but o We live in an ethically pluralist society – no
much of the ethos rest in the hearts and single code of ethics but different values
minds of the people; in what they expect and rules; different groups of people that
of each other and of themselves; what may conflict with each other
they like/dislike; what they value/disdain;  Different priorities in life; different
what they approve/disapprove etc. values
 Oldest unwritten yet unchanging o To enable us to choose between
constitution: British Magna Carta alternative courses of action or opposing
o Nature of evaluative statements – value of values.
things: you give importance to something  Clashing of values that we are
o Deals with questions about values faced with
o Moral principles seem to make absolute  Example: teenage pregnancy –
and universal claims while many ethical abort the baby? Or continue with
rules seem to be more optional and the pregnancy even if this would
relative to a particular society bring shame on you?
 Deontological ethics – universal  We should know better when we
claim are studying ethics. We cannot be
o Morality (mores/social customs) – study of judgmental because the decision
moral goodness or badness, the rightness to abort can be justified (We must
or wrongness of an act take into consideration the context
 Normative ethics – norms for of the person when he or she
standard behavior; deals with made the decision.) We should
specific questions of right or transcend the labels of morality
wrong; good and evil; and tries to and immorality.
settle on some concrete rules of o Ethical values are often in conflict –
correct behavior (Christian ethics – conflicting goals and customs; enables us
Ten Commandments) to reconsider our ethical priorities.
 What is good? What is the o Morality is always an interplay between
right thing to do? two aspects:
 Metaethics – deals with more  Point of view of the moral agent
abstract questions concerning the (individual) who will make choices
meaning and justification of ethical  Point of view of society
concepts and principles  We will feel embarrassed
(Introduction of George Edward because we defied the
Moore’s  Principia  Ethica) mores of the society
 What is your justification?
 Higher level of questioning

41
 Nicobar Islands in Melanesia –
Family pottery causes blindness (because
the first potter became blind)
 Feng shui
Church Peers  Honor crimes
 Acid attacks in Pakistan and
Afghanistan
Media School
 MORES – emerge from folkways
o Are the folkways themselves with the
Moral agent
connotation of what is right and true with
(FREE, MORAL RATIONAL BEING)
the element of societal welfare embodied
1 Factors that influence the values of a moral agent, a in them (to protect and preserve society as
free, rational being a whole)
o What ought to be done?
 AN ESSAY OF SUMNER (anthropologist) o From the point of view of the individual:
Character and behavior that is expected of
you as a moral individual
o From the point of view of society: Social
rules which limit or govern our behavior
o Mores - form of control to govern our
behavior; no such thing as absolute
freedom
o Like folkways, they are unformulated and
undefined, not from rational reflection
o Involuntary and product of natural
necessity
o Initially, there were no police force or laws
to regulate them, but later the necessity
for enforcement develops as society grows
o HOW ARE FOLKWAYS FORMED?
 Developed from experience  LAWS
 Handed down by tradition o From the mores, emerge laws and
 Admit of no exception (you must institutions.
obey) o POSITIVE – formulated and defined,
 Yet, they change to adapt to new product of rational reflection, verification
conditions over time. and criticism (permit to carry firearms,
o CHARACTERISTICS OF FOLKWAYS Penal Code of the Philippines, Constitution)
 Universal in the group o CUSTOMARY – common law from their
 Uniform customs and taboos (British Magna Carta
 Imperative (like commands) in the hearts and minds of the people;
 Invariable unwritten)
o SOURCES OF FOLKWAYS o Is what is legal, moral? It should be,
 Tradition (it has been done in the because laws come from mores. But there
past) are so many exceptions, because laws
 Imitation (from other cultures; K- have many loopholes.
Pop) o Is what is moral, legal? Not all the time,
 Authority (what the elders say; since not all are positive laws. Some are
pseudo-knowledge) common/customary laws.
o Some folkways are based on pseudo-
knowledge or formed by accident:
 Superstitions
 Molembo tribe – white men cause
pestilence

42
 INSTITUTIONS
o CRESCIVE – take shape in the mores
 Ex. religion, property, marriage
o ENACTED – from rational reflections,
invented
 Ex. banking system, land titling
system
o The morality of a group at a time is the
sum total of the taboos and prescriptions
in the folkways by which right conduct is
defined.
o What is immoral is something that is
contrary to the mores of the time and
place.

1 Image retrieved from esolnpghs.blogspot.com

“But with dogs, we do have "bad dog." Bad dog exists.


"Bad dog! Bad dog! Stole a biscuit, bad dog!" The dog is
saying, "Who are you to judge me? You human beings
who’ve had genocide, war against people of different
creeds, colors, religions, and I stole a biscuit?! Is that a
crime? People of the world!"

"Well, if you put it that way, I think you’ve got a point.


Have another biscuit, sorry.”
― Eddie Izzard, Glorious

43
2 Moral Values and Conduct
Last edited: 8.31.12/9:56 Lecture: 8/28/12

 QUOTE   FROM   SAKINI’S   TEAHOUSE OF THE  ETHNOCENTRISM – the view of things in which
AUGUST MOON: one’s   group   is   the   center   of   everything and all
“World filled with delightful variation others are scales and rated with reference to it.
o Regionalism/racism/biases (Ex: All Muslims
Illustration.
who wear turbans and veils are terrorists)
In  Okinawa…  no  locks  on  doors.
o We impose our notion of what is right on
In  America…  lock  and  key  big  industry. others
Conclusion?  When does a value become a moral value?
Bad manners good business. o Value experience – everything that you
choose (food you chose to eat, clothes you
In   Okinawa…   wash   self   in   public   bath   with   nude lady
chose to wear, hair style etc.)
quite proper
 Side-taking part of our experience
Picture of nude lady in private room quite improper.
– priorities
In  America…  statue  of  nude  lady  in  park  win  prize. o Values – as imperatives which are
But nude lady in flesh in park win penalty. priorities that make a claim upon our
Conclusion? actions; limited in their scope of relevance
in our lives
Pornography  question  of  geography.”
 Ex: food, life, friends, education,
 ETHICAL RELATIVISM – refers to the diversity
heath, money, beauty
of moral standards and values in different cultures
o Moral value – imperatives with unlimited
and societies. The morals of an age are never
priorities in their scope of relevance in our
anything but the consonance between what is
lives
done and what the mores of the age requires.
 “X  ought  to  be  promoted  in  so  far  
Values have no basis outside the minds of those
as purposive human action is
who prize them.
concerned”
 Different practices in other cultures are different
 They claim precedence over other
from our notion of what is right:
values because you are willing to
o In Lebanon, men are legally allowed to
set aside other values
have sex with animals, but the animals
 Money as a value – as a
must be female. Having sexual relations
means to achieve an end
with a male animal is punishable by death.
 Money as a moral value –
o In Bahrain, a male doctor may legally
endless pursuit of money,
examine a woman's genitals, but is
willing to set aside other
prohibited from looking directly at them
values like family, respect
during the examination. He may only see
for others etc.
their reflection in a mirror.
 Could be attached to other values
o There are men in Guam whose full-time
job is to travel the countryside and
deflower young virgins, who pay them for
the privilege of having sex for the first
time. Reason: Under Guam law, it is
expressly forbidden for virgins to marry.
o In Cali, Colombia, a woman may only have
sex with her husband, and the first time
this happens, her mother must be in the
room to witness the act.
o Acid attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan
o Music, dancing and education for women
against the beliefs of the Muslim
fundamentalists
 CONDUCT o Based on our moral beliefs, moral
o Deliberate human action of some values and principles, we have the
decisive or active agency (involves tendency to make moral judgments on
rational reflection) how others should conduct themselves
o Only men are moral; we possess or behave. We are so quick to render
rationality moral judgments on others. (Ex: After
 Typhoon Ondoy is not immoral the   hostage   taking:   “Dapat   kasi   ito  
when it brought about ginawa  nila.”)
destruction. o MORAL JUDGMENT: with reference to
o Pre-reflective morality: with no explicit other people or groups
moral decision o MORAL DECISION: moral judgment
 Morality that we bestow to with   reference   to   the   judge’s   own  
animals future action
 Compromise term of scholars  A choice reflects only our preference but a
who cannot agree on whether decision entails that we have the intent to do it
animals have morality or not actually in the future.
 “Morality  before  reflection”  Intellectual choice VS practical choice
 If a dog steals food, then the o Intellectual: normative responses (Ex:
master   shouts   “Where   is   my   in the examination, we say no to
food?”   and   the   dog   suddenly   abortion)
hides in a corner, it is not the o Practical: but in real life, if the
product of rational reflection. situation calls for it, abortion might be
 Rather, it is the product of taken into consideration.
conditioning, because the dog o We are a class of all classes which are
has learned to associate non-members of themselves (we
shouting with fear or anger. consider ourselves as exceptions to
The   dog   didn’t   reflect   on   the moral rule or principle which we
whether the master has eaten impose on other people)
already or not (based on  Russell:   “We   have   in   fact   two   kinds   of  
instincts) morality, side by side, one which we
o What do the choices that we make preach but do not practice, and another
signify? which  we  practice  but  do  not  preach.”
o What are the two necessary conditions o We are all hypocrites to a certain
for morality to occur? extent
 In the process of budgeting o Best foot forward (Ex: Mr. Friendly)
our actions, we have to make o “The  grass  is  greener  on  the  other  side  
choices to be able to plan our of  the  fence.”
lives
 FREEDOM – to be able to
make choices and to act on
“We keep on being told that religion, whatever its
them
imperfections, at least instills morality. On every side,
 OBLIGATION – to be obliged
there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case
to make choices and budget and that faith causes people to be more mean, more
our own lives selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid.”
- Christopher Hitchens
o WE ARE NOT FREE TO BE UNFREE.
You are obliged to exercise your
freedom.

45
3 Classical Ethical Theories (Part I)
Last edited: 9.1.12/22:53 Lecture: 8/31/12

 CONFLICT BETWEEN SOCRATES/PLATO AND  What you perceive as good is good


THE SOPHISTS for you. (And you and you and so
o An ideal relationship between the two of on and so forth)
them  Every man would have his own
o Early Dialogues - Socrates did not write measure of all things in this world
anything. Plato wrote the dialogues as good. Different levels or
wherein Socrates is the main character. standards of goodness.
o Middle Dialogues – Plato’s  Republic  Therefore again, that would not
o Late Dialogues – 26 only attributed to Plato; make sense. You could not talk
not well-known; examples are Titus and about morality if there are so many
Timaeus standards of it. For us to make
o Plato’s  family  is  rich  (oligarchy in Athens) sense of morality, there must be
o The family expected Plato to become a one absolute standard.
politician, but it did not push through  “Good”  is  very  relative.
because of the concoctive charges of the o THRASYMACHUS: Justice and
Sophists against Socrates. righteousness is in accordance with the
o Socrates was unjustly tried (he chose to interest of the stronger party.
face his accusers instead of going to exile)  If you are the ruler, then what you
and was found guilty later on. say as just, because you happen to
o He was forced to drink the boiled decoction be stronger, is right. Then you
of the root of the hemlock plant, which was have the monopoly of what is true,
poisonous, for it can cause numbness and good, right, just etc.
seizures.  It would be very subjective;
o After Socrates died, Plato was so broken- according to the perception of the
hearted that he wanted to vindicate the ruler.
name of Socrates through the Dialogues of  Might makes right!
Plato (you can find in here the dialectical or o Plato is the first one to say that there is a
Socratic method) basis of good.

I. PLATO
 SOPHISTS
o Known as the wise ones because they o ‘The   Republic’,   ‘Crito’,   ‘Euthypro’,   ‘Meno’,  
claimed that they could teach wisdom as a ‘Allegory   of   the   Cave’,   ‘Phaedo’,  
“techne”   or   skill;;   they   were   the   first   ‘Symposium’
professional teachers who exacted money o Absolutist and an idealist – there must be
for their services because they have some absolute basis of morality that lies in
mastered the art of rhetorics and the world of forms and ideas (Ed’s   note:  
persuasion abbreviated from this point on as WFI)
o Received a negative connotation when o The real objects of knowledge must be
Plato   and   Socrates   debunked  the   Sophists’   something that is changeless and eternal.
teachings. They could only be found not in this world,
o GORGIAS: Virtue is not one but many; but in another world – the WFI.
virtue  depends  on  one’s  status  in  life. o Everything that you find in this world is
 If that is the case, according to merely a secondary copy of the ideas that
Plato, how can there be any sense exist out there in the WFI.
in talking about morality or what is  This chair is merely a secondary
good and right, if there are many copy of the idea of the chair that
virtues? There must be some exists out there.
absolute basis for it. o How do you recognize  the  “chairness  of  the  
o PROTAGORAS: For things that are that chair?”   Because   you   recognize   its   essence  
they are, for things that are not that they or idea that participates in the particular
are not, man is the measure of all things. chair that you perceive in this world.
o What is the primary objective?  We are after reality – the pure
 To be nearer to the WFI knowledge of the WFI.
 To recognize the perfect
knowledge
 PLATO’S  METAPHYSICAL SYSTEM
 To have direct contact with it; not
to be going further away from it
o Because this world is only a secondary
copy, this is a world of appearances; aporia
or ignorance
 “Plato’s  Allegory  of  the  Cave”  – the
prisoner chained in the cave all his
life thought that the shadows in
the cave comprised reality
 When he was set free and when
he went up, it represents the
enlightenment of the soul; the
o Before you were born, how did you have
ascent of the soul into the true,
knowledge?
the good and the beautiful.
 You have perfect and direct
 The source of all this is the sun – it
knowledge with the WFI because
represents the idea of the good
you were part of the world soul.
which is the highest idea and the
 But the moment when you were
most difficult idea to be perceived.
born, the moment that your soul
The sun represents the good in
joins the body, the body has the
that allegory.
effect somehow of corrupting the
o Hierarchy:
soul. It makes the soul forget what
 Easiest to be perceived – ideas
it knew before it joined the body.
about material objects
o Knowledge is remembrance. How?
 Followed by mathematical and
 You have to go through a life of
abstract ideas
contemplation.
 Most difficult – the idea of the
 The unexamined life is not worth
good
living (from Socrates)
 Your soul must be enlightened!
o Root of idea of dualism between mind and
o "In the world of knowledge, the last thing
body:
to be perceived and only with great
 Christianity and 12th century
difficulty is the essential Form of Goodness,
scholasticism: the body is evil and
which is the source of whatever is right
the soul is good.
and good for all things, it is sovereign in
 St. Augustine incorporated the
the intelligible world and the parent of
ideas of Plato into Christianity.
intelligence and truth… Without a vision of
 Later on, St. Augustine would
this Form, no one can act with wisdom,
pronounce that God is good; good
either in his life or in matters of the state."
is God – the highest idea.
o “The soul of every man possesses the
 Then, St. Thomas Aquinas would
power of learning the truth and the organ
incorporate   Aristotle’s   idea   of   the  
to see it with; and that, just as one would
prime mover as his proof of the
have to turn the whole body around in
existence of God (unmoved mover).
order that the eye should see light instead
o “Virtue is knowledge. Knowledge is wisdom.
of darkness, so the entire soul must be
Knowledge is remembrance.”
turned away from the changing world, until
 Knowledge, because you forgot, is
its eye can bear to contemplate reality and
just a matter of remembering what
that supreme splendor called the Good.”
the soul knew before it joined the
o You must bear away from the changing
body (through the act of
world – what is that changing world?
contemplation).
 This world! A world of appearances
and illusions. This could not be the
basis of knowledge. This is just
aporia or ignorance.

47
 The moment that you know the o Stratified (no moving up and down among
good, you would immediately classes)
pursue it, because virtue is o Poets and artists must be banished from
knowledge. Knowledge is wisdom. the republic of Plato.
Therefore, virtue is wisdom. It is  Things that you see in this world
not   like   a   technique   or   “techne”   are merely secondary copies from
that could be taught as claimed by the WFI.
the Sophists because there is an  If an artist recreates the figure of a
absolute basis for you to become chair on canvas, then he or she is
wise. creating a tertiary copy of reality.
 For Plato, to know the good is You are veering away further from
immediately to pursue it. No one the WFI instead of going nearer it.
does wrong knowingly. Why is it o In the republic of Plato, infanticide existed.
that you are not doing what is  Regulation of the warrior class:
good? Because you have not yet  Abolition of the family
remembered! But the moment that  Abolition of the ownership
you know, you would automatically of property
become virtuous and therefore  Equality of men and
wise! women
 Cases of infanticide:
 PLATO’S  REPUBLIC  The bravest and most
 Myth of the three metals: courageous guardians will
o Bronze soul – slaves be given more chances of
o Silver soul – warriors intercourse with women
o Gold soul – philosopher-kings given them. If your union
o Gold soul (souls are born of gold): happens to have any
 “Until   philosophers   are kings, then deformed offspring, they
will this our State have a possibility will   be   “put   away   in   some  
of life and behold the light of day.” mysterious unknown place
 Why? Because their souls are born as  they  should  be.”  
of gold. They are pure and have  Abnormal brave child
not been corrupted so badly by the  Offspring of two cowards
body. brought together through
 They are the best qualified persons the drawing of lots.
to lead the republic towards the  “Community  of  pleasure  and  pain”
pursuit of the good life.  Everyone will be grieved
 They could easily remember, for the same incident or
through a life of contemplation, moment
the idea of the good.  Everyone is your children,
o Silver soul: wife and husband.
 Auxillaries or guardians of the state  If there will be invaders,
o Bronze soul: you will do everything to
 Slaves or the working class defend your republic.
o If each part of the state is doing the job  You bear children for the
that is intended of it to do, then there will state.
be justice in the state because you are not o What  is  Plato’s  version  of  platonic  love?
trying to be what your nature is not.  Love of the WFI always as the
o At the same time, there will justice in the main objective of our existence in
soul if the rational part of the soul rules this world. Not brotherly or sisterly
over the irrational part including the love.
appetites. o Plato died during a banquet.
o There will be injustice if the appetites
would try to rule the rational part.
o There will be injustice in the state if the
slaves would try to become a ruler because
that is not their nature.

48
II. ARISTOTLE  THE SUPREME GOOD IS HAPPINESS. To
achieve  excellence  or  “eudaemonia”.
o Macedonian; charged with rebellion or
Happiness 1. Self-sufficient: renders life
sedition because he was the tutor of
(eudaemonia) desirable and lacking in
Alexander the Great (who wanted to take
nothing.
down Athens); chose to be exiled.
o Died of stomach ailment at Chalsis 2. Final: an end in itself; final end.
o Brightest student of Plato
o Became   disheartened   when   Plato’s   1. Intellectual virtue: an
Virtue
academy was passed on to a useless (achieve exercise in your rational
relative; he thought that as the brightest happiness principles from which right
student of Plato, the academy should be with behavior can proceed (What
passed on to him. virtue) to do?)
o He founded his own school called the 2. Moral virtue: an exercise of
“Lyceum.” the mean for feelings and
o They were called the peripathetics (From actions (How to do?)
the   root   word   “peripathos”   – the walk;  GOLDEN MEAN
walking along the walk)
o Consciously veered away from the platonic
influence; thus, he became a naturalist and - excess mean deficiency --->
teleologist.
o He dropped everything about the o Midpoint of excess and deficiency (or two
absolutism and idealism of Plato. vices)
o He wrote about so many things: o It is a mark of virtue if you could only
‘Nicomachean  Ethics’,  ‘Politics’,  ‘Psychology’,   observe the mean or midpoint; not excess
‘Physics’  etc. or deficiency.
o St. Thomas Aquinas was able to o “Virtue is a settled disposition of the mind
incorporate   Aristotle’s   ideas   into   his   as regards to the choice of actions and
Christian doctrines. emotions, consisting in the observance of
o Nicomachean ethics – named after his son the mean relative to us, this being
Nicomachus determined by principle…   It   is   a   mean  
o He married the niece of the King of state  between  two  vices.”
Macedonia for his second wife for financial  Principle -> mark of our intellectual
purposes. He would be free to philosophize virtue
all day long!  Observance of the mean relative to
us –> mark of our moral virtue
 DOCTRINE OF POTENTIALITIES  They go hand in hand. It is always
o Unlike Plato, Aristotle believed that we relative - according to each
possess   our   own   “telos”   (purpose   or   goal)   person’s  capacity and need.
within us – because we have our own  Ex: food: Schwarzenegger
“entelecheia”  (having  purpose  within)   and Liza Macuja will have
o Doctrine of Potentialities: We have our own different means.
potential. o What is the requirement for the attainment
Nutritive Sentient Rational of virtue?
Plants >>>>>  “It is an activity that requires a
>>>>> >>>>> complete lifetime, for one swallow
Animals
does not make a summer, nor
Man >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> does one fine day. Similarly, one
day or a brief period of happiness
o “Man”  refers  to  “male  citizens  of  the  polis”  
does not make a man supremely
– those who have property; those who
blessed  and  happy.”
participate directly in the polis.

49
 “…to feel these feelings (fright, o “Nothing   can   possibly   be   conceived   in   the  
anger, desire, pity, pleasure, pain) world and even out of it, which can be
at the right time, on the right called good without qualification, except
occasion, towards the right people, good  will.”
for the right purpose and in the o This goodwill is responsible for the
right manner, is to feel the best recognition of duty.
amount of them, which is the o “The   will   stands   between   its   a priori
mean amount—and the best principle which is formal and its a posteriori
amount is of course the mark of incentive  which  is  material.”
virtue.” o “Duty is the necessity of an action done
 Will you consider Aristotle’s   from respect for the law…   To   have   moral  
golden mean in the worth, an action must be done from duty.”
following situations?
 Anger:   “I   will   only   throw    CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:
two chairs instead of four o “According to duty”   – hypothetical
because   I’m   observing   the   imperative that is based on the effect
mean.” which is expected from the action;
 Love:   “I   will   only   kiss   you   conditional statements; if P then Q; if I do
twice, not more than that, this, then I will get this; cause and effect
because that would be in  Husband 1 admits that he is so in
excess.” love with his wife. Because of this,
 Food: diet programs he gives her gifts every special
 Life is not a boring, flat line! (like occasion.
what Aristotle believes.) It is  If I make her happy, then I will
difficult to observe the mean in become happy also (based on his
your life all the time! emotions)
o We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence,  His actions do not have moral
then, is not an act, but a habit. worth.
 How do you become moral? You  He is doing it based on inclinations;
always have to cultivate or develop and he is not following an
the habit of always observing the objective law of morality.
mean.  He is just following his own
hypothetical imperative based on
his emotions and feelings which
III. IMMANUEL KANT
could change later on!
o Strict parents; son of a saddle-maker  After a while, he could his lose his
family feelings; then, he will not do
o Goes out for a walk at 3 PM every time in anything anymore to please his
his village wife because he does not love her
o Never got married anymore!
o University of Königsberg professor  You should remove your emotions
o A deontologist (from  the  Greek  word  “dein”   so that you could see if your action
which  means  “duty”) is correct or not!
o ‘Foundations  of  the  Metaphysics  of  Morals”,   o “From duty”   – categorical imperative
‘A  Critique  of  Pure  Reason.’ (black and white distinction)
 Husband 2 admits that he has lost
 KANT’S   METAPHYSICS and KNOWLEDGE OF any emotions or feelings for his
MORALITY (see next page) wife. But still, because he is a
o Merging of pure reason and pure intuition husband, he recognizes that it is
of space and time. his duty to give her gifts every
o It is practical reason that is responsible for special occasion.
our recognition of the foundation of  Husband 2 has moral worth!
morality. (following the objective law of
o It is practical reason that would give way morality)
to our recognition of the will – good in
itself.

50
 Even  if  you  don’t  want  to  do  it,  you    If you only focus on the effect, it is
do it because it is your categorical considered as a hypothetical
imperative! (Ex: Students that imperative.
study – we do things in life even if o “A   maxim is the subjective principle of
we  don’t  want  to  do  them  because   volition. The objective principle is the
we have to do them in life!) practical law, that I should follow such a
 Michael Phelps should save Hitler, law even if it thwarts all my inclinations.”
if Phelps sees Hitler drowning, o “To   test   whether   an   act   is   consistent   with  
because he is still a member of the Duty: Can I will that my maxim become a
kingdom of ends. He should be universal law?”
considered an end in himself. This o Universalizability   principle:   “Act   only   on  
act is universalizable – because that maxim through which you can at the
you are saving a human life! same time will that it should become a
 Abortion is wrong – in no condition universal  law.”
would abortion be right under  Applicable to administrators –
deontological ethics, because you favoritism should not be
are using the fetus as a means to implemented; it can demoralize
your selfish end. You should others
consider the fetus as an end in  Teachers and professors
itself – as belonging to a kingdom  Parents with favorites
of ends. Thus, you should preserve
the life of the baby.  KANT’S   FORMULATIONS   OF   THE  
 Lying is not universalizable – CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:
otherwise, we would become a o Act only on that maxim (intention)
society of liars. There are actions whereby you can, at the same time, will
that are wrong in themselves. But that it should become a universal law.
there are mitigating circumstances o Act as if the maxim of your action were to
why people lie sometimes! You become, by your will, a universal law of
can’t  be  honest  always. nature.
 Ex: A is chasing B with a o Always act so as to treat humanity,
knife. B  hides  in  C’s  house.   whether in yourself or in others, as an end-
A  asks  C:  “Where  is  B?” in-itself, never merely as a means.
o “To   duty, every other motive must give o Always act as if to bring about, and as a
place, because duty is the condition of the member of a Kingdom of Ends (that is, an
will good-in-itself, whose worth transcends ideal community in which everyone is
everything.” always moral.)
o “Thus, the moral worth of an action does
not lie in the effect which is expected from
it.”

51
4 Classical Ethical Theories (Part II)
Last edited: 9.5.12/22:23 Lecture: 9/4/12

I. JOHN STUART MILL  QUALITY OF PLEASURE (VS quantity of


pleasure)
o A teleologist (The end of an action or its
purpose should be based on its
consequences)
o 'Utilitarianism', 'On Liberty', 'On the
Functions of Government', etc.
o Happiness - the ultimate end (summum
bonum); the foundation of morality
o "Actions are right in proportion as they
tend to promote happiness; wrong as
they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness. (Greatest Happiness
Principle). By happiness is intended Conceive the notion of equality (as an
pleasure and the absence of pain." aspect of justice)
o Bentham's Hedonic Calculus: What is Everyone is assumed equal – to protect our
good in any situation can be democracy and social welfare; even if equality is just
demonstrated and quantified in terms of a myth of democracy (see Quotation 3)
the amount of pleasure that it could
 QUOTATIONS:
bring about.
o "It is better to be a human being
1. Intensity
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better
 Which would you choose: eating
to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool
ice cream or reading an ethics
satisfied."
book?
 Mental pleasures are better than
 Given two pleasures, the more
physiological pleasures.
intense the pleasure you can
 If you are the pig or the fool, it
get, then it is better.
means that you only know one
2. Duration
side of the coin; that is why you
 Don’t   eat   too   fast.   Savor   every  
choose the lower kind of
mouthful!
pleasure.
3. Certainty
 If you are the man or Socrates,
 How likely its occurrence would
it mean that you should know
be
better; you should choose the
4. Propinquity
intellectual or higher type of
 How near at hand it is (Is it in
pleasure.
front of you already, or will you
o "Happiness is a good…   that   each  
still have to earn for it?)
person's happiness is a good to that
5. Fecundity
person, and the general happiness,
 How likely it would be followed
therefore, a good to the aggregate of all
by other pleasures (bonus
persons."
pleasure!)
 Fallacy of composition (what is
6. Purity
true of the part must also be
 How likely that it would not be
true of the whole)
followed by pain (pure,
 Assumed that intellectual
unadulterated pleasure)
pleasure would automatically be
7. Extent
sought by human beings
 The number of people to be
because we know the higher
affected by it (The more, the
type of pleasure; we could
merrier!)
experience it. (Mill lived an
intellectual life)

52
 But for ordinary people,  QUOTATIONS:
between reading ethics and o "I believe the good to be definable and
eating ice cream, it is not true. yet still say that good, itself, is
In real life, perhaps we are all indefinable."
fools and pigs to a certain  As substantive (complex) – the
extent. things that are good
o "Each person's happiness counts the  The good student; the
same as everyone else's." (rich vs poor good book; the horse as
have equal happiness) a complex entity
o JEREMY BENTHAM: "Everybody to count  Analyze   the   “horse”   by  
for one, nobody for more than one." reducing it into its
o Mill's Loophole: All persons have a right simplest parts using
to equality of treatment except when definition
some recognized social expediency  As an adjective or quality that
requires the reverse." you attach to a thing (simple)
 Who would judge who is socially  Indefinable
expedient?  It is already a simple
 If there are 11 people who are notion; it could not be
drowning, and the lifeboat could reduced further; it has
save only 10, who would you no parts
sacrifice so that the others could o "A definition states what are the parts
live? The oldest, the fattest, the which invariably compose a certain
thinnest? whole; and it is in this sense that 'good'
 If for example, 6 or 7 of the 10 has no definition because it is simple
have already decided on the and has no parts."
person to die (majority), then  Example: definition by example
you could trample on the rights or illustration; by synonym; by
of the others. description etc. deal only with
 Notion   of   “tyranny   of   the   things which are good.
majority”   – who are you to  BERTRAND RUSSELL:
judge who deserves to die? Knowledge by description:
 Inverted pyramid (social justice Describe how this person looks
for the poor - utilitarianism) like (picture of the person in
mind)
 Knowledge by acquaintance:
II. GEORGE EDWARD MOORE
Yellow color cannot be
o An intuitionist and analytic philosopher described to a color-blind
(Principia Ethica, 1903) person; it is already simple. You
o He believed that there is a third source have to be acquainted with
of knowledge called intuition: the direct “yellow”   directly   to   be   able   to  
or immediate apprehension of recognize   “yellow”,   just   like  
knowledge as self-evident truths; i.e., “good.”  
intuition of moral goodness is objective  No amount of description would
and self-evidently true suffice for you to have
o In Principia Ethica, he used the meta- knowledge of the “good,” just
ethical approach in criticizing the other like  the  color  “yellow”.
philosophers when   they   asked   “What   is  You must have the intuition of
good?” They may actually ask two what  is  “good”  so  that  you  could  
questions: recognize goodness.
1. What things are good?  Knowledge of moral goodness is
2. How is good to be defined? objective and self-evidently true.
o Employed analytic movement in ethics:
analysis in terms of simple and complex
(reduce a chair to simple parts)

53
o Good: Denotes a simple and  Two Meaningful Types of Statements
unanalyzable property which is According to the Criterion of Verification:
indefinable.
 You have to intuit the good; use
Theory of Theory of
your intuition as the direct or Statement Source
truth knowledge
immediate apprehension of
knowledge.
o Similar  to  Plato’s  philosophy: Analytic Reason Coherence Formal
 “The soul of every man Example: A bachelor is an unmarried male.
possesses the power of learning
the truth and the organ to see it Empirical Experience Correspondence Empirical
with; and that, just as one
would have to turn the whole Example: The cat is on the mat.
body around in order that the
eye should see light instead of o Statements (T/F) vs. sentences (merely
darkness, so the entire soul uttered; no truth value)
must be turned away from the o Cognitive meaning: Contains an
changing world, until its eye can assertion that is verifiable as either true
bear to contemplate reality and or false
that supreme splendor called  If you are an anthropologist
the Good.” and you are trying to study
o Naturalistic fallacy: Any attempt to the behavior of the Ifugao
equate good with any other term. people, you would observe
 To define a non-natural term that women who want to
like good with a natural term get married will go to a
like pleasure. house during a celebration.
 The realm of good could be Men who want to marry can
bigger than the realm of go to that house and
pleasure. choose a woman, with a
 They cannot be logically one-year   “warranty   and  
equivalent with each other. guarantee on parts and
 Not everything that is good is services.”
pleasurable.  If   the   woman   can’t   bear   a  
child in a year, the man can
III. ALFRED JULES AYER exchange her for another
woman during the next
o An emotivist (Language Truth and Logic,
festival.
1936)
 It is good for them because
o Logical positivism - The role of
they want to perpetuate
philosophy is the logical analysis of
their tribe.
language (scientific)
 In this way, we are using
o Ordinary language philosophy –
descriptive ethical symbols.
contradicted logical positivism
Anyone else who would
 Criterion of verification: How do
verify these facts can also
you verify the principle of
observe the same practices
verification? (became a
(thus, these facts are
metaphysical assumption)
verifiable.)
 For logical positivists, they tried
o Emotive meaning: To express and
to limit the scope of knowledge
influence feelings and attitude; to evince
and human experience:
the same feeling in others
evaluative statements (religious
 Normative ethical symbols
and aesthetic) are meaningless
and unverifiable!

54
 QUOTATIONS:  QUOTATIONS:
o "Ethical concepts are pseudo-concepts o "The truth of an idea is not a stagnant
and, therefore, unanalyzable." property inherent in it. Truth happens to
o "The presence of an ethical symbol in a an idea."
proposition adds nothing to its factual  It is true now because you are
content." so in love with your girlfriend or
o “It  is  only  normative  ethical  symbols  and   boyfriend at that moment. He or
not descriptive ethical symbols that are she is the most considerate, the
held by us to be indefinable in factual most generous, the prettiest etc.
terms." (at   first.)   It   happens;;   it’s   not   a  
 Because ethical concepts are stagnant property.
meaningless  But when you break up, he will
o RUDOLF CARNAP: "A value statement is become false later on, since
nothing else than a command in a there is no more good and
misleading grammatical form." practical consequence in
 "Cheating is wrong" may mean believing that your boyfriend is
the ff: a good man. He or she is now
1. Don't cheat. (Imperative) the ugliest, the most selfish etc.
2. I wish you wouldn't cheat. o "What do verification and validation
(Expletive) pragmatically mean? They again signify
3. I disapprove of you certain practical consequences of the
cheating; you should disapprove of verified and validated idea."
it, too. (Emotive)  In short, its verification and
validation would again lead you
to the good or practical
IV. WILLIAM JAMES
consequence that you can get
o A pragmatist ("The Pragmatic Criterion from believing in that idea.
of Truth") o "The true, to put it briefly, is only the
expedient in the way of our thinking,
Truth -> Good/practical consequences -> just as the right is only the expedient in
Validation / verification -> Expediency -> the way of our behaving."
Cash value  This is why, it is applicable to
o What is true, leads to good or practical ethics (with what we consider
consequences. as good or true -> our behavior)
o Therefore, the validity and the o “Grant   an   idea   or   belief   to   be   true…  
verification of an idea, grant an idea to what concrete difference will its being
be true, lies on its expediency or the true make in anyone's actual life? What
practical cash value that you could get in short, is the truth's cash value in
out of that experience. experiential terms?"
o Usage in everyday life:  In other   words,   you’re   always  
o We are not doing something asking,   “What   good   would   it   do  
without us expecting something to   me?   What   is   in   it   for   me?”  
in return. We always do things for a
o What is in it for us? What good reason.
or practical consequence will o "Meanwhile, we have to live today by
our doing something bring to us? what truth we can get today and be
What is the practical cash value ready tomorrow to call it falsehood."
of that idea?  Unfortunately, when you break
 Examples: What is true? What is up with your boyfriend, he is
right? already false.
 When we were five years old,
we believed in Santa Claus. But
now,  we’re  all  grown  up  already.  
We have outgrown this belief.
 In the same manner, your
parents still stay together even
if they are fighting already.

55
Perhaps they see a good and o Problem: We are full of regrets. We are
practical consequence in staying not so forgiving of our mistakes. Get
together. over it and grow up!
o Criticism against pragmatism: o Avoid conditional statements (If-then: If
 What is good and practical for I were pretty/rich/sexy etc. BUT  YOU’RE  
me may not be good and NOT!   It’s   a   waste   of   time!   Don’t   dwell  
practical for you. on the past!)
 Who would judge what is good o It’s   a   counterfactual   conditional   – the
and practical for whom? For basis is a false statement!
whose benefit are you talking
about?
 It would now lead to a cycle of “Have the courage to say no. Have the courage to
vicious relativism. face the truth. Do the right thing because it is right.
 Parents fighting: Who would be These are the magic keys to living your life with
followed? The one who holds integrity.”
the money; or the one with a - W. Clement Stone
strong personality.
 Relationship among nations: “Relativity applies to physics, not ethics.”
 The USA would not - Albert Einstein
make us their satellite
without any apparent “Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is
benefit. We are one of watching.”
their borderless markets
now (everything is
smuggled and imported;
local products do not
stand a chance)
 Spratlys conflict
between Philippines and
China, and USA
intervention in the
Pacific
 THRASYMACHUS:
Justice and
righteousness is in
accordance with the
interest of the stronger
party. Might makes
right!

CONCLUSION
 The goal of ethics is to let us internalize that:
o We should know better.
o We are a free, moral rational being.
o We could make our own choices and
deliberate upon our actions.
o We could justify our actions.
o We should not allow anyone to call you
immoral or to render moral judgments
on you.
o Even   if   you   say   “I   am   a   pig!   I   want  
pleasure  of  the  body,”  so  as  long  as  you  
could justify your actions,   it’s   alright!  
That does not make you less of a
human being if you are just honest with
yourself.

56
57
1 Introduction to Deductive Logic
Last edited: 9.19.12/21:57 Lecture: 9/14/12
 DEFINITION OF LOGIC AND A BRIEF HISTORY
o Study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning (structure or
logical form of the argument)
o A critical analysis and development of the structures of reliable inference
o A system of representing arguments so that we can do away with the ambiguity and vagueness
associated with ordinary language
o Russell   and   Whitehead’s   Principia Mathematica which proved all known truths of mathematics from
very few premises.
o Critics wanted the Principia Mathematica to discover all possible truths but it was later proved to be
impossible.
 REASONING
o The search for a statement or set of statements that can be made to yield a new statement
o Reasoning entails inference
 INFERENCE
o Technical term that logicians use for this process (reasoning)
 ARGUMENT
o An expression of this process of inference (or a product of this process)
 WHY DO WE STUDY LOGIC?
o Examine mistakes in reasoning
o Logic is considered as an art as well as a science
 As a science, we must be aware of the accepted rules that logicians would consider as
universal norms or standards – like mathematics!)
 As an art, we must be able to apply logic in our everyday life.
o Prescriptive/normative science vs descriptive (it does not describe how facts stand)
o Develop techniques and methods for testing the correctness of the different kinds of reasoning

 DEDUCTIVE vs INDUCTIVE REASONING


Deductive Inductive
 Logical form or structure (question-begging; a  Content or data from experiences (empirical – we
closed system; independent of experiences or how try to add information like in the process of
facts actually stand) research)
Example: If Obama is the US president, then Obama is Example: Swan #1 in a lake is white. Swan #2 in
famous. Obama is famous. Therefore, Obama is the US another lake is white. Swan #3 in yet another lake is
president. white. Therefore, I conclude that all swans are white.
(Invalid argument even if you have a true set of (Are you sure that all swans will be white? No! There
premises and a true conclusion, but because the would always be an element of probability. It is always
structure is incorrect.) possible that experience will prove you wrong later on)
Example: If the moon is made of green cheese, then Example: The sun will rise tomorrow.
Socrates is an angel. The moon is made of green (The verification will entail that there should be
cheese. Therefore, Socrates is an angel. tomorrow and tomorrow etc. We cannot verify this
(Valid argument, by virtue of the form. The sillier the now.)
examples are, the better – so that we would not be
confused with the difference between the truth based
on facts, and the logical truth or truth table matrix)
How do the premises of the argument support the conclusion?
 With logical necessity/logical certainty (since we  Probability (warranted assertability or a definitive
are just analyzing within the system) positive degree of possibility since the evidence is
still not there when such claims are made)
Theory of truth used
 Coherence  Correspondence
Other characteristics
 Normative or prescriptive  Descriptive (content is important)

58
o IRVING KOPI: The logician is not the arbiter of facts but of the forms (correct structure of arguments)
in which inferences are made.
 Therefore, we claim that the logician is concerned with the structure of the statement. The
logical structure of every deductive argument follows the form of an implication or a
conditional statement where the antecedent is a conjunction of the premises, and the
consequent is the conclusion of the argument. Thus, we say that in a valid arguemnt, the
premises must imply the conclusion.

 VALID
o The premises imply the conclusion TRUTH TABLE OF VALIDITY:
 SOUND P : Q : P -> Q
o Valid T T T
o Factually true
T F F (Invalid)
 EFFECTIVE
F T T
o Valid
o Sound F F T
o Carries conviction

“Logic will get you from P to Q. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
― Albert Einstein

59
2 Truth Table Method of Validity
Last edited: 9.27.12/22:04 Lecture: 9/18/12
4. BICONDITIONAL OR EQUIVALENCE ( ≡ )
TYPES OF COMPOUND STATEMENTS P if and only if Q (consequent) P Q 𝐏   ∙  𝐐
One simple statement – capital letter P is equivalent to Q T T T
 If and only if I am hungry, T F F
1. CONJUNCTION ( · ) then I eat. (E ≡H)
and also however F T F
but although moreover F F T
P Q 𝐏   ∙  𝐐
still yet nevertheless
 Only true if both conjuncts are T T T
true T F F TRUTH TABLE METHOD
 Not all uses of these logical
F T F 1. Given the compound statement:
connectives are meant for
conjunction. F F F ~ (J ∙ D) ≡ (~ J ∙ ~D)
o R and J are lovers.

2. DISJUNCTION ( v ) 2. Determine the number of possible true and


P or Q false value combinations. Use the formula 2
P Q 𝐏  𝐯  𝐐
either P or Q where x is the number of letters involved in the
P unless (Q) T T T statement. In this case, 2 = 4.
 Unless it rains, the ground is T F T
1T
wet. (W v R) F T T
 The ground is wet unless it
2T
rains. (W v R) F F F 4/2: 1F
 Only false when both 1T
conjuncts are false. 2F
NEGATION ( ~ tilde) 1F

Neither P nor Q -> ~  (P  v  Q)  or  (~P   ∙ ~Q)


It  is  not  the  case  that… So, for the first letter, the combination will be
It  is  false  that…
TTFF. Then, divide by 2 to get the
It  is  not  true  that…
combinations for the second letter. Thus, for
 Negative prefixes: He is impatient. ~P
the second letter, the combination will be TFTF.
 Jane and Dick will not both be elected. ~  (J   ∙ D)
 Jane and Dick will both not be elected. ~  J   ∙ ~  D
~ (J ∙ D) ≡ (~ J ∙ ~D)
3. IMPLICATION OR CONDITIONAL ()
Function of form or structure, not content; T T
hence, it may be called as material implication
T F
If P (then) Q
P Q 𝐏 →  𝐐 F T
Q if P (antecedent)
P only if Q (consequent) T T T
F F
In case P, Q T F F
Given that P, Q F T T 3. As  for  negations,  get  the  reverse  of  the  T’s  and  
On condition that P, Q
F F T F’s   under   the   original   letter. So, if J has TTFF,
P implies Q
~J has FFTT.
P entails Q
Provided that P, Q
~ (J ∙ D) ≡ (~ J ∙ ~D)
 W R Only if it rains, the ground is wet
 QP P is necessary for Q T T F F
 ~  (Q → P) P is not necessary for Q
 ~  (P → Q) It is not the case that P implies Q T F F T
 ~  P  v  ~  Q Never P nor Q
 If Hitler is benevolent, then we are all monkeys. (T, F T T F
F)
o Sarcasm  (If  I’m  beautiful,  I  will  kill  myself) F F T T
 Counter-factual statements (If only I did this; If I
win in the lottery) (See page 64)
60
4. Solve for the truth value of each compound
statement. Start with the ones in parentheses.

~ (J ∙ D) ≡ (~ J ∙ ~D)

T T T F F F

T F F F F T

F F T T F F

F F F T T T

5. Get the negation of (  J  ∙  D).

~ (J ∙ D) ≡ (~ J ∙ ~D)

F T T T F F F

T T F F F F T

T F F T T F F

T F F F T T T

6. Get the biconditional of the two parts: ~(   J   ∙   D)


and (~  J  ∙  ~D).

~ (J ∙ D) ≡ (~ J ∙ ~D)

F T T T T F F F

T T F F F F F T

T F F T F T F F

T F F F T T T T

 CONTINGENT: Combination of T and F in result


 TAUTOLOGOUS: All T
 CONTRADICTORY: All F

61
ANSWER KEY:

1. ~~(~I  v  ~  L)
2. M → (L → S)
3. (I  v  L) ∙ ~(I ∙ L)
4. (~N  v  G)  v  S
5. (~I  v  E) →   ~L
6. F ∙ (D ∙ A)
7. (~S  v  M) → R
8. ~(C ∙ L)  v  E
9. ~M ∙ (M → S)
10. ~~(~E  v  ~L)
11. [S → (P → L)] ∙ (~P → ~S)

12-21. The tinman got his heart and the scarecrow got
his brains only if Dorothy could not have gone back to
Kansas. But if the scarecrow did not get his brains,
then the tinman at least got his heart and Dorothy went
back to Kansas. So really, the scarecrow got his brains.

1. Represent the statements vertically.


(T   ∙ S) → ~K
~S → (T ∙ K)
∴S
2. Represent the statements horizontally. Join
each sentence with conjunction. Do not forget
to put braces on the premises before the
conclusion.

{[(T   ∙ S) → ~K] ∙ [~S → (T ∙ K)]} → S

3. Determine the number of possible true and


false value combinations. 2 raised to 3 = 8.

1T
2T
4T 1F
2F 1T

8/2= 1F
1T
2T
4F 1F
2F 1T
1F

62
4. Note: For three letters:

A B C  D

A B C D  E

Therefore, the statement is INVALID.

22-31. If people are entirely rational, then either all of a


person’s   actions   can   be   predicted in advance or the
universe is essentially deterministic. Not all of a
person’s   actions   can   be   predicted   in   advance.   Thus,   if  
the universe is essentially deterministic, then people are
not entirely rational.

32-46. There is no self-sufficient creature. If the devil


1. Represent the statements vertically.
does not exist and there is no radical evil in creation,
R → (P  v  D) then moral virtue is attainable. If the devil exists, then
~P there is no self-sufficient creature. There is no radical
evil in creation if there is no self-sufficient creature.
∴ D → ~R
Therefore, moral virtue is attainable.

2. Represent the statements horizontally. Join


each sentence with conjunction. Do not forget 1. Represent the statements vertically.
to put braces on the premises before the  ~S
conclusion.
(~D ∙ ~E) → V

{[R → (P  v  D)] ∙ ~P} → (D → ~R) D → ~S


~S → ~E
3. Determine the number of possible true and ∴V
false value combinations. 2 raised to 3 = 8.
1T 2. Represent the statements horizontally. Join
2T each sentence with conjunction. Do not forget
4T 1F to put braces on the premises before the
2F 1T conclusion.

8/2= 1F
{~S ∙ [(~D ∙ ~E) → V] ∙ (D → ~S) ∙ (~S → ~E)}
1T
2T →V
4F 1F
2F 1T 3. Determine the number of possible true and
1F false value combinations. 2 raised to 4= 16.
Thus, the first set would be 8T and 8F. The
second set would be 4T 4F 4T 4F; the third 2T
2F 2T 2F 2T 2F 2T 2F and so on.

4. The final truth table would prove INVALIDITY.


See next page for the complete table.

63
Note on Paradoxes of Material Implication (see
page 60):

All arguments follow the form of an implication


statement and the truth table therefore, of an
implication statement, so that if there is such a thing as
a paradox of material implication, there must also be a
paradox of validity.
First paradox of material implication – So long as the
consequent is true, then it could be implied by any true
or false antecedent whatsoever.
Paradox of validity – As long as the conclusion is true, it
could be implied by any true or false premise set
whatsoever. The only thing that an invalid argument
states is that you could not have a true set of premises
and a false conclusion based on the logical form,
because that will render your argument invalid.
Second paradox of material implication – So long as the
antecedent is false, then it could imply any true or false
consequent whatsoever.
Paradox of validity – You could have a false set of
premises and a false conclusion. So long as you follow
the correct logical form, then the argument is valid.
(Counter-factual conditional – “If   I   were   smart,   then   I  
would not get a 5.0 in Philosophy I)

64
3 Rules of Inference; Formal Proof of Validity
Last edited: 9.29.12/11:03 Lecture: 9/21/12

VALID FALLACIOUS Table on RULES OF INFERENCE (Basic and Complex


1. Conjoining 1. Adding a Deductive Argument Forms)
conjuncts (conj) conjunct FORMAL PROOF OF VALIDITY:
P Q P Q If Mr. Smith   is   the   brakeman’s   next   door   neighbor,  
Q P ∴P  ∙  Q                ∴Q  ∙  P then Mr. Smith lives halfway between Detroit and
∴P  ∙  Q                ∴Q  ∙  P Chicago. If Mr. Smith lives halfway between Detroit
2. Separating and Chicago, then he does not live in Chicago. Mr.
2. Separating
Smith   is   the   brakeman’s   next   door   neighbor.   If   Mr.  
conjuncts (simp) disjuncts
Robinson lives in Detroit, then he does not live in
P  ∙  Q P  ∙  Q PvQ PvQ
Chicago. Mr. Robinson lives in Detroit. Mr. Smith
∴    Q                        ∴  P ∴    P                        ∴  Q lives in Chicago or else either Mr. Robinson or Mr.
3. Adding an 3. Affirming an Jones lives in Chicago. If Mr. Jones lives in Chicago
alternative (add) alternative then the brakeman is Jones. Therefore, the
P Q brakeman is Jones.
PvQ PvQ
∴P  v  Q                ∴Q  v  P 1. Symbolize the statements vertically. Number
P Q
the premises as well. Put the conclusion
∴  Q                          ∴  P
beside the last premise given. Use a
4. Disjunctive 4. Denying an diagonal line to separate.
syllogism (DS) alternative
PvQ PvQ PvQ PvQ 1 SW
~P ~Q P Q
2 W  ~L
∴  Q                                  ∴  P ∴  ~  Q                  ∴  ~  P
3 S
5. Modus ponens 5. Affirming the
(MP) consequent 4 D  ~I
PQ PQ 5 D
P Q
6 L v (I v C)
∴  Q                                   ∴P
7 CB /∴  B
6. Modus tollens 6. Denying the
(MT) antecedent
PQ PQ 2. Prove the validity of the premises above by
using the rules of inference. The total
~Q ~P
number of proofs is usually given. In this
∴  ~  P                                   ∴~Q
case, there are six steps.
7. Hypothetical 7. Misplaced
syllogism (HS) middle 1 SW
PQ PR 2 W  ~L
QR QR 3 S
∴  P   R ∴PQ
4 D  ~I
8. Constructive 8. Pseudo
dilemma (CD) dilemma
5 D
(P  R)    ∙    (Q   S) (P  R)    ∙    (Q   S) 6 L v (I v C)
PvQ RvS 7 CB /∴  B
∴RvS ∴PvQ
8
9. Destructive 9. Pseudo
dilemma (DD) dilemma
9
(P  R)     ∙     (Q    S) (P  R)    ∙    (Q   S) 10
~Rv~S ~P v ~Q 11
∴ ~P v ~ Q ∴ ~R v ~S
12
13
65
3. Beside the proofs, put (x,y) where x and y 5. Statements 6 and 9 can be used to arrive at
are the numbers of the statements used in the proof of I v C based on disjunctive
arriving at the particular proof. Also write syllogism.
the particular rule of inference used in
arriving at the particular proof beside (x,y).
1 SW
As for the first proof, we take statements 1
and 2, and arrive at S  ~L based on the 2 W  ~L
rule of hypothetical syllogism.
3 S
4 D  ~I
1 SW
5 D
2 W  ~L
6 L v (I v C)
3 S
7 CB /∴  B
4 D  ~I
5 D 8 S  ~L (1, 2) HS

6 L v (I v C) 9 ~L (3, 8) MP

7 CB /∴  B 10 IvC (6, 9) DS


11
8 S  ~L (1, 2) HS
12
9
13
10
11
6. Modus ponens can be used again to arrive
12 at the proof of ~I using statements 4 and 5.
13
1 SW
4. Take statements 3 and 8. We arrive at ~L 2 W  ~L
based on modus ponens.
3 S

1 SW 4 D  ~I

2 W  ~L 5 D

3 S 6 L v (I v C)

4 D  ~I 7 CB /∴  B

5 D 8 S  ~L (1, 2) HS
6 L v (I v C) 9 ~L (3, 8) MP
7 CB /∴  B 10 IvC (6, 9) DS

8 S  ~L (1, 2) HS 11 ~I (4, 5) MP

9 ~L (3, 8) MP 12

10 13

11
12
13

66
7. If we take statements 10 and 11, disjunctive e. There may be more than one
syllogism can prove C. method to prove validity. However,
the shorter method is preferred
1 SW (The one with the least steps)

2 W  ~L
SEATWORK (36/35 points)
3 S
Prove the validity of the following premises using
4 D  ~I the rules of inference.
5 D
6 L v (I v C) 1-6.
7 CB /∴  B
8 S  ~L (1, 2) HS 1 (F ∙ ~P)  ~S

9 ~L (3, 8) MP 2 F∙W

10 IvC (6, 9) DS 3 W  ~A

11 ~I (4, 5) MP 4 A v ~P /∴  ~S

12 C (10,11) DS 5
13 6
7
8. Finally, to arrive at B (the conclusion), we
8
can invoke modus ponens to statements 7
and 12. 9
10
1 SW
2 W  ~L
7-15.
3 S
4 D  ~I 1 ~(T  ∙  U)  ∙  ~(Y  ∙  V)
5 D 2 ~S  [(VW)  ∙  (X   Y)]
6 L v (I v C) 3 (T  ∙  U)  v  [(~S   V)  ∙  (~S   X)]
7 CB /∴  B 4 S  (T  ∙  U) /∴  W  v  Y
8 S  ~L (1, 2) HS 5
9 ~L (3, 8) MP 6
10 IvC (6, 9) DS 7
11 ~I (4, 5) MP 8
12 C (10,11) DS 9
13 B (7, 12) MP 10
11
9. Some points to remember:
a. Numbers may be interchanged. For 12
example, you can use (2,1) instead 13
of (1,2) for the eighth line (or first
proof).
b. You cannot add or remove numbers Note: There are two possible proofs for 7-
inside (x,y.) Example: (1,2,3) HS for 15. However, the one with the fewer proofs
the eighth line or first proof is is preferred.
wrong; as well as (2) HS.
c. There must always be a rule of
inference supporting each proof.
d. The sequence of steps shown here
need not be followed in the exact
order to be considered as correct.

67
16-22. ANSWER KEY

1 [(A v ~B) v C]  [D  (E ≡  F)]


1-6.
2 (A v ~B)  [(F ≡ G)  H]
1 (F ∙ ~P)  ~S
3 A  [(E ≡ F)  (F ≡ G)]
4 A /∴  D   H
2 F∙W
3 W  ~A
5
4 A v ~P /∴  ~S
6
7 5 F (2) simp

8
6 W (2) simp
7 ~A (3, 6) MP
9
10 8 ~P (4, 7) DS
9 F  ∙  ~P (5, 8) conj
11
10 ~S (1, 9) MP

23-30.
7-15.
1 S v [(W ∙ D)  J]
2 ~S ∙ W
1 ~(T  ∙  U)  ∙  ~(Y  ∙  V)
3 ~D  ~W
2 ~S  [(VW)  ∙  (X   Y)]
4 WR /∴  J ∙ R
3 (T  ∙  U)  v  [(~S   V)  ∙  (~S   X)]
5 4 S  (T  ∙  U) /∴  W  v  Y
6 5 ~(T  ∙  U) (1) simp
7 6 ~S (4, 5) MT
8 7 (VW)  ∙  (X   Y) (2, 6) MP
9 8 (~S  V)∙  (~S   X) (3, 5) DS
10 9 ~S v ~S (6) add
11 10 VvX (8. 9) CD
12 11 WvY (7, 10) CD

31-36.
1 ~(T ∙ U) ∙ ~(Y ∙ V)
1 (J  R) ∙ (~J  E) 2 ~S  [(VW) ∙ (X  Y)]
2 RI 3 (T ∙ U) v [(~S  V) ∙ (~S  X)]
3 [(J  R)  ∙  (R   I)]  [(J  ∙  I)  v  (~J  ∙  ~I)] 4 S  (T ∙ U) /∴  W v Y
4 (J  ∙  I)   T 5 ~(T  ∙  U) (1) simp
5 (~J  ∙  ~I)   D /∴  T  v  D 6 ~S (4, 5) MT
6 7 (VW)  ∙  (X   Y) (2, 6) MP
7 8 (~S  V)∙  (~S   X) (3, 5) DS
8 9 VW (7) simp
9 10 ~S  V (8) simp
10 11 V (6, 10) MP
11 12 W (9, 11) MP
13 WvY (12) add

68
16-22.
“Contrary wise, if it was so, it might be; and if it
1 [(A v ~B) v C]  [D  (E ≡  F)] were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's
logic.”
2 (A v ~B)  [(F ≡ G)  H]
- Lewis Carroll
3 A  [(E ≡ F)  (F ≡ G)]
4 A /∴  D   H

5 (E ≡ F)  (F ≡ G) (3, 4) MP
6 A v ~B (4) add
7 (F ≡ G)  H (2, 6) MP
8 (E ≡ F)  H (5, 7) HS
9 (A v ~B) v C (6) add
10 D  (E ≡ F) (1, 9) MP
11 D  H (8, 10) HS

23-30.

1 S v [(W ∙ D)  J]
2 ~S ∙ W
3 ~D  ~W
4 WR /∴  J ∙ R
5 ~S (2) simp
6 W (2) simp
7 D (3, 6) MT
8 R (4, 6) MP
9 (W ∙ D)  J (1, 5) DS
10 W∙D (6, 7) conj
11 J (9, 10) MP
12 J∙R (11, 8) conj

31-36.

1 (J  R) ∙ (~J  E)
2 RI
3 [(J  R)  ∙  (R   I)]  [(J  ∙  I)  v  (~J  ∙  ~I)]
4 (J  ∙  I)   T
5 (~J  ∙  ~I)   D /∴  T  v  D

6 JR (1) simp


7 (J  R)  ∙  (R   I) (2, 6) conj
8 (J  ∙  I)  v  (~J  ∙  ~I) (3, 7) MP
9 [(J  ∙  I)   T]  ∙  [(~J  ∙  ~I)   D] (4, 5) conj
10 TvD (8, 9) CD

69
70
1 Introduction to Inductive Logic
Last edited: 10.3.12/17:31 Lecture: 9/28/12

 FALLACIES (Non-sequitur: It does not follow) o Argumentum ad populum


o Mistakes in reasoning  Bandwagon effect
o These are arguments that purport to be  All TV stations, fast food chains
valid or sound when in fact they are not; and radio stations are number 1
but they carry some plausibility or  “Del Monte tomato sauce. Loved
attractiveness in them precisely because by  mothers  nationwide.”
they are persuasive and they copy the o Argumentum ad verecundiam
sound of valid and sound arguments.  Appeal to a false authority
o FORMAL – based on an incorrect logical  Manny Pacquiao endorsing vinegar
form (Example: fallacy of affirming the  Kris Aquino endorsing toilet cleaner
consequent) (Can you imagine her cleaning the
o INFORMAL toilet bowl?)
 Fallacies of ambiguity – because of o Argumentum ad ignorantiam
the language use, words could  Guilty unless proven otherwise
become very slippery and they  “You   must   be   the   one   who   stole  
could actually shift meanings my jewelry because you cannot
 Equivocation prove  otherwise.”
 Amphiboly  Thinking like a child
 Accent o Complex question
 Composition  Have you stopped cheating in
 Division examinations?
 Fallacies of relevance  Have you stopped beating your
girlfriend?
 FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE (or irrelevance) –  Mom suspects child of taking
issues that are irrelevant to the case on hand (thing) without permission. She
asks,   “Where   did   you   put   my  
o Argumentum ad hominem (thing)?”
 Attack directly against the person  Underlying assumptions which
or his or her circumstances could not be taken for granted
 Insults to the person o Petitio principii
 Name-calling for teachers  Circular definitions; arguing in
 Circumstances:   “You   are   like   this   circles
because you are an illegitimate  Given P. Why P? Because Q. Why
child.” Q? Because P.
o Argumentum ad baculum  Not adding information or facts
 Appeal to force or the threat of o Post hoc, ergo, propter hoc
force  “After   this,   therefore,   because   of  
 Emotional   threat   or   blackmail:   “If   this”
you   do   not   do   this,   let’s   break   up    Attribute false causes
already.”  “I   failed   in   the   examination  
o Argumentum ad misericordiam because I did not use my lucky
 Pity; soft spot pen.”
 “Mom,   I   need   money   badly    Superstitious beliefs
because your only child is so o Strawman
miserable and lonely  in  UPM.”  Reducing  the  opponent’s  argument  
 “Professor,   I   need   to   pass   this   to its weakest version and tackling
course   because   I’ve   already   taken   the weak version instead of the
it four times and my grandma is original argument (without the
already  sick  with  heart  disease.” opponent realizing this reduction)

71
 To counter:  “Do  not  put  words  into   cannot directly observe what you
my mouth. That is not my original really want to see, so you are
argument.” looking for an analogous case.
o Red herring Before you do that, you must
 Bringing up irrelevant issues; establish the parallelism of the two
change of subject; diverting the cases first.
issue  False analogy – the parallelism is
 Government tactics or strategies questionable:   “My   grandfather   is  
when the issues are becoming too brave. Bonifacio is brave.
hot to handle (Ex. terrorists now in Therefore, my grandfather should
Manila/insurgents/NPA soldiers are become  a  hero  too.”
always to blame for explosions;  Organic shampoo commercial:
when CJ Sereno was being “Hair   begins   at   the   roots.”  
criticized for being psychologically Comparing the roots of a plant
unfit, the BIR brings up tax that grows well with added
evasion cases against Former CJ fertilizer, and the roots of human
Corona to divert the issue) hair, is fallacious (equivocation)
o Slippery slope EXAMPLES:
 “If  you  are pro-abortion; therefore,
1. Since you cannot prove that intelligence tests
you  are  as  evil  as  Hitler.”
are inaccurate, they must be accurate. (ad
 “If   we   allow   parents   to   select   the  
ignorantiam)
sex of their children, before long
2. We must reduce the size of public debt since
they will expect to pay all sorts of
Rosanna Roces, the well-known bold actress,
desirable attributes and we will
pointed out that this is essential. (ad
have the nightmare of designer
verecundiam)
babies.”  
3. Salesman   to   an   undecided   customer:   “Shall   I  
 “Legalizing   soft   drugs   such   as  
charge this TV set to your account or do you
cannabis will encourage
wish to pay cash?”  (complex question)
experimentation with hard drugs,
4. How can you accept his recommendation that
and before we know it, the streets
surgery should be performed? After all, Dr.
will be littered with syringe-crazed
Santos is a surgeon and surgeons are expected
junkies.”
to recommend operations. (ad hominem –
 “Showing   leniency   to   young  
circumstantial because the surgeon is to
offenders will spur them on to
benefit)
greater criminal acts, and before
5. This problem is wrong. It is wrong because
long, our houses will be under
there is a mistake in it. There is a mistake in it
siege from thieving and
because it is incorrect, and it is incorrect
murderous  youths.”
because it is wrong. (petitio principii)
o False dilemma
6. A: I only go to good movies. B: But how do
 A genuine dilemma is balanced –
you   know  that  they   are  good?   A:   Well,   I   don’t
You can choose between two
choose to go to them unless they are good.
alternatives A and B, and actually
(petitio principii)
argue both sides well.
7. Efren Bata Reyes pulled an excellent billiard
 Choosing between the devil and
game after he had an argument with his wife.
the deep blue sea.
Thus, he was able to play a good game
 You do not need to choose
because he had an argument with his wife.
between the two alternatives;
(post hoc, ergo, propter hoc)
there might be a third alternative
8. When did you start losing half of your weekly
or proposal.
paycheck at the racetrack? (complex question)
 You are the loser either way;
9. You cannot possibly accept his view that the
twisted or slanted towards one
employees need a raise; after all, he is the
side.
secretary of the labor union and he is paid to
o False analogy
make these statements. (ad hominem)
 An analogous argument, by its
10. If you convict this man, who will feed the
very nature, is a weak argument
mouths of his three hungry children? (ad
because you are just looking at or
misericordiam)
establishing a parallel case. You

72
 Two principles on which induction is grounded: o “Induction goes beyond the limits of
o Principle of causality validation but not beyond the limits of
o Principle of uniformity of nature justification.”
 In using the principle of induction, when you are o “We might justify induction as a tool for
trying to connect one isolated event with another, establishing reasonable beliefs (that they
you have to assume that nature is caused; that are valuable for their own sake) –
events are caused in this world. vindication as leading to reasonable beliefs.”
 You also have to assume that the causes and
effects that you have observed in the past will still  HERBERT FEIGL
be true today and will still be true tomorrow; that o There are two kinds of justification:
there is equilibrium in your life. 1. Validation – by showing that it is governed
by an accepted rule (e.g. rules of inference)
 BERTRAND RUSSELL – could not accept the 2. Vindication – by showing that a given
principle of induction decision, policy or act is well adapted to
o “How sure are you when you argue  “Swan achieving a certain end.
# 1-3 are white, therefore all swans are o Vindication – “adopting  methods  which  are  
white?” You are now making an inference best  suited  to  the  attainment  of  our  ends.”
from the observed cases to cases yet
unobserved.”
 F. L. WILL
o “You   are   now   proposing   that   since   this   is  
the evidence that you have on hand, it is
PAST PRESENT FUTURE 1
only supported with warranted assertability
17 yrs old Remote future
and you could not be sure because it is
always possible that experience will prove o “Will the Future be Like the Past”
you wrong. So you could not be sure – this o What is now part of the present will later
is  only  what  the  evidence  could  warrant.”   on become part of the past.
o Inductive leap – Russell tried to find a o What is part of the future later on will
justification for induction which is as clear become part of the present.
as deduction. o Imagine that you have been on Earth for
o the past 17 years of your life. From these
S1
S2 observed evidence inductive leap 17 years that you have been on this Earth,
S3 when  you  ask  the  question,  “Will  the  future  
∴ All unobserved be  like  the  past?”,  how  would  you  answer?  
o According to F. L. Will, there are two
o Solipsism – “I,   alone,   exist.” I could not
senses  of  the  word  “future”:
even rely on my past experiences and
 Future 1 – future that is like the
memories. I could only account for my own
past; it is confirmed by uniform
experiences at the moment that I am
experiences and instances of life.
experiencing them.
 For example: ten years
from now, you want to be
 MAX BLACK
successful doctors perhaps.
o “Induction, by definition, is  not  deduction.”
Still, it is part of our future
o “No   general   justification   of   induction   is  
that is confirmable and
either  possible  or  needed.”
observable because it is
o “The  idea  of  the  so-called inductive leap is
part of our experiences.
built into our conception of an inductive
 Future 1 is a part of the
argument.”
future that is like the past;
o Inductive demonstration – by using
confirmable instances that
principles that have been found to work
are not beyond the bounds
(induction is needed in everyday life)
of our experiences.

 WESLEY CHARLES SALMON


o “We   cannot   attempt   to   validate   the   basic  
inductive canons, we seek to vindicate
(justify) them.”

73
 Future 2 (future future) – remotest  It would entail big changes in
future (example: 1,000 years from terms of how we view the world
now) and in terms of how we explain
 Not within the framework things. Ex: changing the textbooks
or realm of our in the Middle Ages.
experiences  It took 200 years for the Church to
 All of the things that we recognize his discoveries when
would be imagining 1,000 they could no longer evade the
years from now are anomalies, and when more and
unknowable or something more  people  were  proving  Galileo’s  
beyond us. claim.
 We can only imagine; or  “Fear of the unknown”   – a natural
give speculations and human defense mechanism; no
conjectures about Future 2. one would immediately believe
 Future 2 is not confirmable; Galileo during his time. (Example:
it is not like the past When microwave ovens were first
because we have no way released, no one would buy them.
of confirming it. It took 10-15 years later for
o To summarize: Filipino households to fully accept
 Future 1: the future being like the this innovation)
past, confirmed by uniform  Another example: GMOs; cell
experiences and instances of life phones and brain cancer
 Future 2: not like the past because o Scientific revolutions – When normal
it is not empirically confirmable; science can no longer evade anomalies
unknowable that subvert existing traditions, there will
be a shift to a new set of commitments
 THOMAS KUHN and a new practice of science. This will
o “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, lead to the rejection of a scientific theory in
nd
1972 2 ed.” favor of another. (paradigm shift)
o Paradigm – an accepted model or pattern
with conceptual parameters
“Nature has established patterns originating in the
o A paradigm is a prerequisite for perception return of events, but only for the most part. New
itself. illnesses flood the human race, so that no matter how
 What is relevant data is many experiments you have done on corpses, you have
determined by your paradigm or not thereby imposed a limit on the nature of events so
your framework. that in the future they could not vary.”
o The interpretation of data presupposes a ― Gottfried Leibniz
paradigm.
 If these are my conceptual
parameters, when do I say if this is
relevant data or not? Our
methodology determines our
paradigm in our research.
o Normal science – there is a strenuous and
devoted attempt to force nature into its
conceptual boxes
 There is a tendency to suppress
novelties because it is subversive.
 Example: Since the priests before
believed that the Earth is at the
center of the universe, they
rejected   Galileo’s   discoveries   that  
the Sun is at the center.

74
2 Generalization; Evaluation of Arguments
Last edited: 10.3.12/19:25 Lecture: 10/2/12

There are two possible cases when we are making an  Cases with an open domain (imperfect cases):
inference from the observed to cases yet unobserved: where we cannot define the number of cases that
 Cases with a closed domain (perfect cases): Where we have to observe. Most of the generalizations
we can define the domain or the number of cases that we make in the real world have open domains.
that we have to observe (finite). This is where we Thus, we cannot definitely assign degrees of
can easily assign degrees of reliability on reliability as neatly as we can with the perfect
statements according to their inferential patterns. cases, but even if we cannot do this, we can still
Given 100 marbles inside a box: make a generalization using a universal statement
o Singular statement – “A  marble  is  white.” “all”  provided that the following two (2) conditions
 Required evidence: 1 marble are satisfied:
 Certain: no inductive inference o The observed cases or samples must be
o Particular statement – “Some marbles are representative of the class – but how does
white.” one determine that the sample is
 Required evidence: at least 1 ‘representative’?
marble  Try to look at and criticize data
 Certain: no inductive inference from surveys. Example: Channel 2
o General statement – “Most marbles are and 7 are always number 1
white.” because they paid for these self-
 Required evidence: 50% + 1 serving surveys.
marble (certain)  Unemployment rate in the
 10% or 10 marbles: degree of Philippines – check the inclusion
reliability is only probable and exclusion criteria. Example:
 30% or 30 marbles: highly After you graduate, you seek for
probable employment within a year, but you
 50% or 50 marbles: true beyond still do not get employed. You stop
reasonable doubt seeking employment after this
o Universal statement – “All marbles are year. You are not counted as
white.” unemployed because you are not
 Required evidence: 100% or actively seeking employment in a
complete enumeration year.
 30% or 30 marbles: probable  In a month, if your neighbor hires
 80% or 80 marbles: highly you to paint his fence or wash his
probable clothes for half a day only (in that
 99% or 99 marbles: true beyond month), and you earn some
reasonable doubt money in return, you are still
o “Almost all/nearly all”  – it depends on your considered employed.
notion, whether the required evidence is  The unemployment rate should
80% or 80%-90% realistically be higher.
o Please note that in ordinary discourse, the  Another example: The census is a
use   of   “a few”,   “several”   or   “many”   are   100% enumeration of the
purposely vague terms. population of the country
o Example:  How  many  is  “many”?   conducted by the NSO. There are
usually   “free   riders”,   or   other  
agencies of the government who
would add their own survey
questions to the ones that NSO
has already made for the census.
During 1989, the Population
Institute joined the census
surveying because they wanted to

75
address the problem of mortality FOUR (4) TYPES OF GENERALIZATION
rate. The resulting combined  Uniform generalization
questionnaire was so thick and full o Conducting an experiment or making a
of intrusive and invasive questions generalization inside a laboratory
like,   “How   many   times   have   you   where all the variables are controlled.
undergone abortion? Where and Under these controlled conditions, this
when?”   Of   course,   the   resulting   is what the generalization would be.
responses will be inaccurate and  Generalization by enumeration
unreliable because no household o Trying to observe a property: S1, S2, S3
would openly admit to having are white; therefore all swans are
gone through abortion to the NSO white
surveyor (a complete stranger to o Weakness: From these enumerated
the households). cases, you only look for the particular
 Del Monte tomato sauce – used by property that you are interested in.
9 out of 10 mothers. Ask this But there could be other
question:   “Who   conducted   the   characteristics or qualities that could
survey?”   make a significant difference! However,
 Question the reliability of the data you   won’t   search   for   these   because  
being presented. those are not what you are searching
 Some surveys have leading for.
questions – if you answer them,  Statistical generalization
they will get the answer that they o We are looking at the characteristics of
want because of how the question the whole class in terms of numbers or
was phrased. statistics, then you make a
 Channel 2 survey conducted generalization.
during 1989 (Channel 2 is still two o Statistics do not apply to particular
years  old)  claims:  “Number  1  from cases; not applicable to an individual
Luzon   to   Mindanao.”   They   did   not   (but the whole class)
want to release the data initially. o Example: UP medical board exams –
After some talking and gifts, the 99.39% passed; but this does not talk
researchers found out that there about the characteristics of the one
were only 150 subjects in the who flunked.
survey. (The devices installed on  Generalization by analogy – looking for a
televisions that monitor channel parallel case; establish parallelism first; weak
preferences were still costly at that argument because there is no direct
time.) In fact, these devices were observation
only found in Metro Manila,
Bulacan, Pampanga and Cavite.
TECHNIQUES OF EVALUATING ARGUMENTS
o No conflicting case has been observed –
the moment that a conflicting case has  Examine the claim of the conclusion. The claim
been observed, it is enough to render the of the conclusion must be very clear. Do you
universal statement false. have ambiguous or vague terms? Identify the
(Counterclaim) type of argument or reasoning involved.
o Fallacy of hasty generalization – when one o Deductive – form
argues from too few cases o Inductive – probability
 After your first break-up with an o Evaluative – inter-subjective
abusive boyfriend, you will consensus
therefore assume that all other  Do the premises provide strong, moderate or
boys are abusive as well. little support to the conclusion?
 When you get food poisoning from o Avoid making a hodgepodge of ideas
eating in a restaurant in making an essay or research paper;
some ideas may be irrelevant to the
proposed thesis

76
 Challenge the truth of the premises, especially
those   containing   “all”,   “most”   or   “almost   all”   HI PQ
claims.
I1, I2, I3… Q
 Challenge the truth of the conclusion by
producing counter examples. (like Wittgenstein H ∴P
in  his  book  “Philosophical Investigations”)

o DEDUCTIVE: Is it with logical necessity


TESTS FOR RELIABILITY OF A GENERALIZATION (that the premises must imply the
 Are there enough cases to support a universal conclusion?)
statement, or only a general one?  Correct logical form: modus
o Do not claim “all”   if   you   have   no   ponens
evidence. If you could not come up
with 30% of the evidence, do not PQ
claim  “all.”  Claim  only  “most,”  or  use  a   P
general statement.
∴Q
o In a general statement, you must have
at least 10% of the evidence.
Otherwise,  just  use  “many.” o EVALUATIVE: Is it with strong inter-
 Are the cases found in a variety of times, subjective consensus or wide public
places and circumstances? acceptance?
o The more the variety, then you could  Moral reasoning: What is good?
place more reliability in your What is bad?
generalization.  Deals with the mores, customs
 Has thorough search been made for any and traditions of our society or
conflicting case? (counterexample) community
o The more thorough the search for a  The notion of what is right in
conflicting case, and the more that the folkways according to
you could not find any of these William Sumner
conflicting cases, then the more  What is moral for you may not
reliability you could place in your be moral for me.
generalization.

“I have said that science is impossible without faith. …


DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN INDUCTIVE, DEDUCTIVE Inductive logic, the logic of Bacon, is rather something
AND EVALUATIVE ARGUMENTS on which we can act than something which we can
 What is the most important question to ask in prove, and to act on it is a supreme assertion of faith …
differentiating these three types of reasoning? Science is a way of life which can only flourish when
 Answer: HOW DO THEIR PREMISES SUPPORT men are free to have faith.”
THE CONCLUSION? — Norbert Wiener
In Calyampudi Radhakrishna Rao, Statistics and Truth
o INDUCTIVE: Is it with warranted (1997), 31.
assertability or probability?
 Given the hypothesis H, you
add an instance I that may
occur if H is true. And so, you
try to find as many instances
as possible so that you could
place more reliability in your H.
Thus, it renders H probable or
highly probable etc. The more
instances of I, the more
reliable H is.
 The fallacy of affirming the
consequent, which is fallacious
in deduction, is actually the
form of induction. (inductive
leap)
77
v Appendix
The appendices are the photocopied handouts provided by Professor Sioco
to her students as part of the lecture material to be mastered for the
corresponding examination. Most of the information in these handouts has
already been incorporated in the main pages of this module; however, the
original, scanned copies are nonetheless  provided  for  the  readers’  reference.  This
appendix includes a reviewer created by the author in order to test himself about
all   the   important   concepts   and   terms   for   Prof.   Sioco’s   second   examination.   An  
answer key is included with this self-made reviewer. The last part of the
appendix   includes   a   simple   guide   to   survival   under   Prof.   Sioco’s   “toxic”  
Philosophy I classes and also presents an easy-to-read listing of requirements
that are not indicated clearly in the syllabus presented in the preceding pages. It
is hoped by the author that the readers can use the information in Appendix No.
5  to  better  prepare  for  Prof.  Sioco’s massive requirements in advance.

1 Excerpts from the Philosophical Investigations 79


2 Notes on Ethics 82
3 Practice Examination on Epistemology and Ethics 84
4 Notes on Deductive Logic 97
5 Notes on Inductive Logic 101
6 Tips on Surviving Philosophy I Under Prof. Sioco 102

78
79
80
81
82
83
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES MANILA
College of Arts and Sciences
Department of Social Sciences
PHILOSOPHY I (Philosophical Analysis)

(Second Long Examination – Reviewer)


TOTAL POINTS: 255/250

I. FILL IN THE QUOTE AND IDENTIFICATION. (90 points; 2 pts each quote; 1 pt per
philosopher)
Direction: Fill in the blanks with the correct expression to complete the quotation.
Afterwards, identify the corresponding philosopher. Wrong spelling is marked wrong.

1. “To test whether an act is consistent with Duty:

_____________________________________________?”

2. "Actions are __________ in proportion as they tend to promote ____________; ____________ as

they tend to produce the __________ of ____________. By happiness is ______________ and

__________________."

3. "I believe the good to be _______________ and yet still say that good, itself, is

_____________________."

4. “___________________ are pseudo-concepts and, therefore, _____________________.”

5. “In the world of _______________, the last thing to be perceived and only with great difficulty is

the essential ____________________, which is the source of whatever is right and good for all

things, it is _______________ in the ________________world and the _____________of

____________________… Without a vision of this Form, no one can act with ______________,

either in his life or in matters of the state."

6. “The presence of an ____________________ in a proposition adds nothing to its factual content.”

7. “___________ is the necessity of an action done from respect for the ___________… To have

moral worth, an action must be done from _________.”

8. "Each person's happiness counts the _________________ as ____________________________."

9. “It is only _______________________ and not ______________________ that are held by us to be

indefinable in factual terms.”

10. “World filled with delightful ______________. Illustration: In Okinawa… ____________on

______. In America ________________________. Conclusion? ___________________________. In

Okinawa… ______________in ________________quite ______________. ________________ in

________________ quite improper. In America… ______________________ in park

84
_____________. But _________________ in _________ win penalty. Conclusion?

____________________________________.”

11. “What do __________________ and ____________________ pragmatically mean? They again

signify certain practical __________________ of the _____________ and ________________ idea.”

12. “_____________ is a settled disposition of the mind as regards to the choice of

___________________________, consisting in the observance of the ______________________, this

being determined by ______________… It is a ______________ between __________________.”

13. “_______________ to count for one, _______________ for more than one.”

14. "The __________, to put it briefly, is only the expedient in the way of our ________________, just

as the _________ is only the expedient in the way of our ___________________."

15. "Meanwhile, we have to live _________ by what truth we can get _________ and be ready

____________ to call it __________________."

16. “It is better to be a _____________________ than __________________; better to be

__________________ than _________________."

17. "A _______________- states what are the parts which invariably compose a certain ________; and

it is in this sense that 'good' has no definition because

_______________________________________."

18. “A value statement is nothing else than a _________________________________________."

19. “Grant an ________or ________ to be true… what concrete difference will its being true make in

_________________? What in short, is the truth's ___________ in _______________________

terms.”

20. “It is an activity that requires a ________________, for one ____________ does not make a

_________________, nor does one ___________. Similarly, one day or a brief period of

________________ does not make a man ______________________________.”

21. “The __________ of an idea is not a stagnant property inherent in it. ___________ happens to an

idea.”

22. "Happiness is a _________… that each person's happiness is a _______________________, and the

general happiness, therefore, a _________________________________________."

23. “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world and even out of it, which can be called

_______________________, except _________________.”

24. “The will stands between its ______________ principle which is ____________ and its

________________ incentive which is ____________________.”

85
25. “The _______ of every man possesses the power of ____________________ and the ________ to

see it with; and that, just as one would have to turn the ______________ around in order that the

eye should see ________________________, so the entire ___________ must be turned away from

the __________________, until its eye can bear to contemplate ___________- and that supreme

splendor called the ________.”

26. “To _________, every other motive must give place, because ________ is the condition of the

_______________________, whose worth transcends everything.”

27. “Thus, the _____________ of an action does not lie in the effect which is expected from it.”

28. “…to feel these feelings (fright, anger, desire, pity, pleasure, pain) at the right __________, on the

right ____________________, towards the right _______________, for the right _______________

and in the right _______________, is to feel the best amount of them, which is the

__________________—and the best amount is of course the mark of ______________.”

29. “A _____________ is the subjective principle of volition. The objective principle is the

____________________-, that I should follow such a law even if it thwarts all my

__________________.”

30. “We have in fact two kinds of morality, side by side, one which _____________ but

__________________, and another which ______________ but ___________________.”

II. CONCEPTUAL IDENTIFICATION. (98 points)


Direction: Identify the concept being described. Wrong spelling is marked wrong.

1. We live in a/an _____________ society – no single code of ethics but different values

and rules; different groups of people that may conflict with each other.

2. These are the three indubitable premises of knowledge.

3. It is morality with no explicit moral decision; this is usually bestowed to animals.

4. These are the two kinds of laws.

5. It refers to the diversity of moral standards and values in different cultures and societies.

6. Criticisms against pragmatism state that it would now lead to this cycle.

7. What is ________ is something that is contrary to the mores of the time and place.

8. Mill commits this fallacy.

9. It is any attempt to equate good with any other term.

10. Moore’s philosophy is similar to this philosopher.

11. He created the three laws of thought in epistemology.

86
12. According to Sumner, these are the notion of what is right for us; these are not a

product of rational reflection and developed unconsciously like natural forces.

13. This concept states that what is good in any situation can be demonstrated and

quantified in terms of the amount of pleasure that it could bring about.

14. It is the core of attitudes, beliefs and feelings that give coherence and vitality of a

people.

15. This virtue is an exercise of the mean for feelings and actions.

16. According to Aristotle’s doctrine, plants reach the (1) phase; animals reach the (2)

phase while humans reach the (3) phase.

17. This judgment is with reference to other people or groups.

18. It is the systematic questioning and critical examination of the underlying principles of

morality; a study of values and their justification.

19. Early Dialogues: __________________:: Middle Dialogues: Republic

20. He is Aristotle’s son.

21. It is the study of moral goodness or badness; the rightness or wrongness of an act.

22. Latin for “I think, therefore I am.”

23. If P is false, the not P is (1). Thus, the disjunction is (2).

24. These values claim precedence over other values because you are willing to set aside

other values.

25. According to this principle, if a statement is true, then it is true.

26. This branch of ethics deals with norms for standard behavior; deals with specific

questions of right or wrong; good and evil; and tries to settle on some concrete rules of

correct behavior.

27. This concept states how likely an occurrence of a pleasurable thing would be.

28. “When the sun goes down, the stars come out.” This statement is (2)

29. The Sophists were the first professional teachers who exacted money for their services

because they have mastered this art.

30. Matters of fact are based on this as sources of knowledge.

31. “Is of identity”, wherein the subject and predicate are identical, refers to this kind of

statements.

32. It is the oldest unwritten yet unchanging constitution.

33. When one considers the disjunction of P and not P, if P is true, then not P is (1). Thus,

the disjunction is (2).


87
34. This meaning seeks to express and influence feelings and attitude; to evince the same

feeling in others.

35. The role of philosophy is the logical analysis of language, according to this philosophy.

36. Among the five types of sentences, only this type expresses a statement with the

element of truth or falsity.

37. These are imperatives which are priorities that make a claim upon our actions; limited

in their scope of relevance in our lives.

38. According to this concept, we make the inference of causality based on experiences,

habits and customs.

39. Two questions that philosophers actually ask when they asked “What is good?”

40. These are the folkways themselves with the connotation of what is right and true with

the element of societal welfare embodied in them.

41. A posteriori knowledge gives rise to (1) statements, makes use of the (2) theory of

truth and is the basis of (3) sciences.

42. These are the two descriptions of happiness according to Aristotle.

43. Induction is related to this source of knowledge.

44. A priori knowledge gives rise to (1) statements, makes use of the (2) theory of truth

and is the basis of (3) sciences.

45. According to Sumner, this is the most expedient way of doing things.

46. They were known as the wise ones because they claimed that they could teach

wisdom as a “techne” or skill.

47. It is the view of things in which one’s group is the center of everything and all others

are scales and rated with reference to it.

48. A criticism against Descartes’ second indubitable premise of knowledge states that this

must be prior to essence.

49. Mill’s loophole states that all persons have a right to equality of treatment except

when this would require the reverse.

50. According to this principle, a statement is either true or false, and nothing else.

51. Among the two kinds of institutions, these take shape in the mores and are not

invented.

52. This deals with the validation and verification of knowledge claims.

53. The students of Aristotle’s academy were called by this term, from a root word

meaning the walk.


88
54. These are the two necessary conditions for morality to occur.

55. Synthetic statements refer to this kind of statements.

56. This group of people believes that the end of an action or its purpose should be based

on its consequences.

57. It is the direct or immediate apprehension of knowledge as self-evident truths.

58. This concept states how likely a pleasurable thing would be followed by other

pleasures.

59. This judgment is with reference to the judge’s own future action.

60. This concept, in principle, is unknowable; an unadulterated, uninterpreted reality; the

thing-in-itself or reality as it is.

61. According to the first indubitable premise of knowledge, this is merely an accidental

property.

62. Deduction is related to this source of knowledge.

63. This expression means that the mind is a blank sheet of paper.

64. According to this doctrine, the transcendental faculty of reason is the only reliable

source of knowledge.

65. Descartes introduced this method, whose goal is to arrive at clear and distinct ideas

which are nonsensical to doubt, because the moment you doubt, then you contradict

yourself.

66. This concept states the number of people to be affected by a pleasurable thing.

67. According to this principle, a statement cannot be both true and false at the same

time and in the same respect.

68. It is based on a hypothetical imperative that is based on the effect which is expected

from the action.

69. This expression means that to be is to be perceived.

70. It is the deliberate human action of some decisive or active agency.

71. This meaning contains an assertion that is verifiable as either true or false.

72. This is Aristotle’s academy.

73. According to Sumner, when all adapted the same way for the same purpose, it

became a mass phenomenon, thus, these were developed in connection. Examples are

habits and customs.

74. Unlike Plato, Aristotle believed that we possess (1) within us – because we have our

own (2).
89
75. This branch of ethics deals with more abstract questions concerning the meaning and

justification of ethical concepts and principles.

76. This concept states how unlikely a pleasurable thing would be followed by pain.

77. According to Sumner, this is the first task of life.

78. The morality of a group at a time is the sum total of these two things in the folkways

by which right conduct is defined.

79. This is our epistemic obligation as a critical and independent thinker.

80. This concept states how near at hand a pleasurable thing is.

81. According to Plato, this term means ignorance.

82. According to Kant, we must always act so as to treat humanity, whether in ourselves

or others, as (1), never merely as a (2).

83. People must be directly ____________ with “yellow” and “good” to be able to

recognize them.

84. Relation of ideas become this kind of statements based on the faculty of reason.

85. It is an ideal community in which everyone is always moral.

86. He was the brightest student of Plato.

87. It is the midpoint of excess and deficiency.

88. “The extensor carpi radialis is a muscle.” This statement is (1)

89. Denial of this type of statements leads to absurdity and contradiction.

90. GHP means this according to Mill.

91. These are the three epistemic distinctions.

92. According to this principle, any statement will always imply itself.

93. Morality is always an interplay between these two point of views,

94. These are the two kinds of pleasures according to Mill.

95. This virtue is an exercise in one’s rational principles from which right behavior can

proceed.

96. According to Kant, we must always act as if to bring about, and as a member of a (1).

97. Latin for “I doubt; I think; I exist.”

98. Gold soul: philosopher-kings:: Silver soul: ________________:: Bronze soul: slaves

90
III. CLASSIFICATION. (67 points; 1 point each)
Direction: Classify the following theories, concepts and beliefs according to the
corresponding philosopher. Write the complete name. Wrong spelling is marked as wrong.

1. Golden mean
2. Animal inference
3. Emotivist
4. Utilitarianism
5. Dialogues
6. God is a non-deceiver
7. Allegory of the Cave
8. Man as the measure of all things
9. Gold, silver and bronze souls
10. Method of systematic doubt
11. Nicomachean ethics
12. Constructivist view of reality
13. Substantive and simple terms
14. Banish poets and artists
15. Knowledge must be like an inverted pyramid
16. Entelecheia
17. Ese es percipi
18. We possess our own telos within us
19. Hedonic calculus (original author)
20. Virtue = knowledge = wisdom
21. Community of pleasure and pain
22. Deontologist
23. Ethical absolutism
24. Eudaemonia
25. Peripathetics
26. Aporia
27. Direct perception paradigm
28. Intellectual and physiological pleasure
29. Three indubitable premises of knowledge
30. The Pragmatic Criterion of Truth
31. A thinking thing
32. Intuitionist and analytic philosopher
33. Lyceum
34. Idealist
35. Knowledge is remembrance
36. Logical positivist
37. Dualism between mind and body
38. Teleologist
39. Cogito ergo sum
40. Summum bonum
41. Notion of equality as an aspect of justice
91
42. Noumena
43. Justice as an aspect of utility
44. Categorical imperative
45. Tabula rasa
46. Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals
47. Cognitive vs emotive meaning
48. World of forms and ideas
49. Dubito cogito existo
50. Naturalistic fallacy
51. Language Truth and Logic
52. Justice in accordance with the stronger party
53. Ethical naturalism
54. Mind existing without the body
55. Direct apprehension of knowledge as self-evident truths
56. Fork
57. The Republic
58. Faculty of pure reason and intuition of space and time
59. Good is indefinable
60. Infanticide
61. Loophole
62. Virtue is many; depends on one’s status
63. A Critique of Pure Reason
64. Metaethics
65. Principia Ethica
66. Doctrine of potentialities
67. Deontological ethics

FS AY 12-13/9.6.12/21:02

92
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES MANILA
College of Arts and Sciences
Department of Social Sciences
PHILOSOPHY I (Philosophical Analysis)

(Second Long Examination – Answer Key)


TOTAL POINTS: 255/250

I. Fill in the Quote and Identification (90 points)


See the lecture text for the exact quotations.
Each quotation is equivalent to two (2) points. The quotation must be
filled completely with the exact words as given in the lecture text. For
every incorrect blank, deduct one-half (1/2) point. If there are four or
more than four (4) incorrect blanks, no point is credited for that
quotation. If the quotation has less than four (4) blanks, deduct as is.
(Thus, effort points may be given)
Each philosopher is equivalent to one (1) point. Wrong spelling is
considered incorrect, and no points will be credited.

II. Conceptual Identification (98 points)


Each blank is worth one (1) point. If there is more than one (1) term
asked, all the terms must be given. Wrong spelling is considered
incorrect, and no points will be credited. Incomplete answers are also
considered wrong. No points will be given.

1. Ethically pluralist
2. Self, good, material objects
3. Pre-reflective morality
4. Positive, customary
5. Ethical relativism
6. Vicious relativism
7. Immoral
8. Composition
9. Naturalistic fallacy
10. Plato
11. Aristotle
12. Folkways
13. Hedonistic calculus
14. Ethos/ethnos
15. Moral virtue
16. Nutritive, sentient, rational
17. Moral judgment
18. Ethics
19. Socrates
20. Nicomachus
21. Morality
22. Cogito ergo sum
93
23. True
24. Moral values
25. Identity
26. Normative
27. Certainty
28. Empirical
29. Rhetorics and persuasion
30. Experience
31. Analytic
32. British Magna Carta
33. False, true
34. Emotive
35. Logical positivism
36. Declarative
37. Value
38. Animal inference
39. What things are good? How is good to be defined?
40. Mores
41. Empirical, correspondence, empirical
42. Self-sufficient, final
43. Experience
44. Analytic, coherence, formal
45. Groups (concurrence)
46. Sophists
47. Ethnocentrism
48. Existence
49. Social expediency
50. Excluded middle
51. Crescive
52. Epistemology
53. Peripathetics
54. Freedom, obligation
55. Empirical
56. Teleologists
57. Intuition
58. Fecundity
59. Moral decision
60. Noumena
61. Body/extension
62. Reason
63. Tabula rasa
64. Rationalism
65. Method of systematic doubt
66. Extent
67. Non-contradiction
68. According to duty
69. Ese es percipi
70. Conduct
71. Cognitive
72. Lyceum
73. Instincts
74. Telos, entelecheia
94
75. Metaethics
76. Purity
77. To live
78. Taboos, prescriptions
79. Never accept the truth of any statement or belief unless there is adequate evidence
for it
80. Propinquity
81. Aporia
82. End-in-itself, means to an end
83. Acquainted
84. Analytic
85. Kingdom of Ends
86. Aristotle
87. Golden mean
88. Analytic
89. Analytic
90. Greatest happiness principle
91. Known, knowable, unknowable
92. Identity
93. Self, society
94. Intellectual, physiological
95. Intellectual
96. Kingdom of Ends
97. Dubito cogito existo
98. Warriors

III. Classification (67 points)


Each blank is worth one (1) point. Answers with surnames only are
perfectly acceptable, although it is recommended that the complete
name be memorized as well. Here, only the surnames are provided.
Complete names may be found in the lecture notes. Wrong spelling of
surnames is considered incorrect, and no points will be credited.

1. Aristotle
2. Hume
3. Ayer
4. Mill
5. Plato
6. Descartes
7. Plato
8. Protagoras
9. Plato
10. Descartes
11. Aristotle
12. Kant
13. Moore
14. Plato
15. Descartes
16. Aristotle
17. Berkeley

95
18. Aristotle
19. Bentham
20. Plato
21. Plato
22. Kant
23. Plato
24. Hume
25. Aristotle
26. Plato
27. Hume
28. Mill
29. Descartes
30. James
31. Descartes
32. Moore
33. Aristotle
34. Plato
35. Plato
36. Ayer
37. Plato
38. Mill
39. Descartes
40. Mill
41. Mill
42. Kant
43. Mill
44. Kant
45. Locke
46. Kant
47. Ayer
48. Plato
49. Descartes
50. Moore
51. Ayer
52. Thrasymachus
53. Aristotle
54. Descartes
55. Moore
56. Hume
57. Plato
58. Kant
59. Moore
60. Plato
61. Mill
62. Gorgias
63. Kant
64. Moore
65. Moore
66. Aristotle
67. Kant

96
97
98
99
100
101
6 Tips on Surviving Philo I Under Prof. Sioco
On the Grading System. Prof. Sioco is very objective; each requirement is examined,
corrected,   recorded   and  given   its   appropriate  weight.   “Magic   grades”   are   non-existent for all
purposes. For your reference, one can approach Prof. Sioco by the start of the succeeding
semester to inquire about  the  breakdown  of  one’s  grades,  which  she  will  happily  show  to  you  
(although the author himself has never attempted to ask her). The bulk of the grading system
(65%) comes from the three long examinations, which as said before, are highly objective and
require a lot of memorization. 15% is allotted to the Things-to-Do, a set of activities focusing
on   the   application   of   philosophy   in   daily   life.   These   exercises   can   be   found   in   A.   E.   Acuña’s  
Philosophical Analysis (currently in its seventh edition), which will be tackled later. Finally, the
remaining 20% is a bit of a toss-up, including such requirements as SAQs, Quizzes,
Assignments, Reaction Paper and Attendance. They will be discussed shortly.

On Examinations. The bulk of her examinations (over 80 points each) is based on her
PowerPoint presentations; this module can serve as a complete substitute for those. However,
do not skip classes nor ignore her discussions; no module, however excellent, can be produced
that can serve as a sufficient substitute for attending class and listening to the great
philosopher explain abstract philosophical concepts and crack a few jokes. Again, her
examinations are highly objective; be sure to memorize, memorize, memorize. Names, terms,
ideas, quotations etc. The class is required to submit three sheets of yellow pad per person
before the first examination. Examination results will be released one week after.

On SAQs and Philosophical Analysis. Philosophical Analysis: Advanced Techniques


for Critical Thinking is the official textbook for all students taking Philsoophy I across all UP
campuses. It was written by Prof. Andresito E. Acuña, former Chair of the Department of
Philosophy at the University of the Philippines Diliman and the proponent of the said course. At
the time of writing, it can be bought directly at the department, College of Social Sciences and
Philosophy for around PHP 300.00. (Check with the department before purchasing, or ask Prof.
Sioco herself) Prof. Sioco requires that all students bring their copies of Philosophical Analysis
every meeting (even if said book would not actually be used for that day) – it has to be the
latest (green cover) and must be without any written answers. Photocopied versions are
tolerated, but it must be brought as one whole book bound piece, not its pages torn,
separated and stapled per chapter. The book is to be bought usually during the first or second
week of classes, while she is still discussing Introduction: The Nature of Philosophy (equivalent
to Unit I of this module.) What purpose does the book serve then, if her examinations are
based on her PowerPoint presentations? Before her discussion, she requires students to read
the  corresponding  chapters  in  Acuña’s  text,  and  answer  the  SAQ  (Self-Assessment Questions)
at   the   end   of   every   chapter.   A   general   rule   of   honesty   is   sought   here:   students   write   “TS”  
(time started) on a sheet of yellow pad paper, read the display text (preferably twice), answer
the SAQ, and correct it by themselves (answers are provided at the end of the SAQ). Of
course,   a   corresponding   “TF”   is   also   written. SAQs must be accomplished by the end of the
class, and submitted to the block head. The basis of grading the SAQs is not the total score,
of course: Cheating (or, more accurately, skipping to the answer key, merely copying the
answers   and   making   up   credible   TS   and   TF’s   to   save   time   and   effort) is rampant and easily
performed – Prof. Sioco usually leaves the room after assigning SAQs, never to return to the
class for that day. Instead, the SAQs are graded based on whether they were finished before
the meeting ended – according to her, anyway. How this would be an ideal manner of grading
even if the TS and TF can easily be manipulated  is  beyond  the  author’s  understanding.

102
On TTDs. Comprising 15% of the total grade, “things-to-do”, or skills application
exercises, as Prof. Sioco puts it in her syllabus, is a set of exercises that must be accomplished
by   the   end   of   the   corresponding   examination.   (For   example,   TTD’d   related   to   Epistemology
and Ethics, topics for the second examination, must be submitted by the date of the second
examination.) Prof. Sioco may change or extend the deadline a week after though – it
depends on the schedule and pace of discussion. There are three sets of TTD’s   to   be  
submitted, which can be found in Philosophical Analysis, at the end of each chapter. However,
not   all   TTD’s  in   Philosophical   Analysis   must   be   answered;;   Prof.   Sioco   has   already   designated  
which of them to answer in her syllabus. Answers are usually encoded on sheets of short bond
paper  and  placed  in  a  short  brown  envelope.  The  real  perk  in  TTD’s  are  the  bonus  points   – if
one chooses to answer additional exercises originally unassigned in the syllabus, a maximum
of five (5) points may be added, giving a total maximum score of 105% for that particular TTD.
A usual tactic of students includes giving more examples than what is specified – for instance,
students will give ten (10) examples instead of three (3) examples as stated in the syllabus.
Most times, the extra five (5) points can easily be awarded by answering a minimal number of
questions – you do not need to answer every single TTD under that topic to gain the bonus.
Prof. Sioco is very generous in grading TTDs - usual grades range from 85-100+ (an estimate).
It should be noted that the TTD for the third examination is shorter compared to the other two
because no TTD under deductive logic is required.

On Quizzes. To compensate for the lack of assigned TTDs (there are TTDs in
Philosophical Analysis but Prof. Sioco decides not to use them) under deductive logic (Unit V of
this module), she gives quizzes instead. These quizzes are usually worth twenty (20) points
total, but more or less may be given, depending on the particular semester. Topics include
Chapters 2 and 3 (Truth Table Method of Validity, Rules of Inference and Formal Proof of
Validity.) She may ask the class to decide whether to have a long quiz (a quiz covering both
topics at once), or multiple quizzes instead. For the truth table method, given a paragraph,
one is to represent each statement symbolically and construct the appropriate truth table
using the prescribed format. (Be strict with the symbols.) Usually, the paragraph is invalid; one
row will bear an invalid result. On the other hand, all the proofs are already provided for the
Formal Proof of Validity quiz. For example: I v C is already provided. One simply has to supply
the corresponding rules of inference (abbreviated) and the corresponding number(s) of the
statements of the original paragraph that were used in arriving at the said rule. For example:
(1,  2)  MT.  Review  the  “Some  points  to  remember”  section  on  page  67  for  more  information.  
Be reminded that before each quiz, Prof. Sioco will arrange the class (in a very time-
consuming manner) in definite rows and columns to minimize any sort of cheating – so please,
do not attempt to cheat, unless you want to be yelled at, kicked out of the room and be given
an automatic 5.00. Prof. Sioco herself corrects the Truth Table quiz; one of your classmates
will be the one responsible for checking your Formal Proof of Validity quiz.

On Assignments. Prof. Sioco is extremely strict with assignments; her grading system
is also unique for these requirements. All assignments follow the reaction or integration paper
format specified at the syllabus (except for the minimum of ten pages restriction.) The
questions for the assignments are roughly as follows (not her exact words for most):

Assignment No. 1
1. What is philosophy?
2. Differentiate analytic from speculative philosophy.
3. Differentiate Eastern and Western philosophy.

103
Assignment No. 2
1. Cognitive dissonance – Enumerate three (3) beliefs or principles that you hold dear.
Explain or justify why you believe in these principles so much; then, attack, criticize
and contradict these beliefs.

Assignment No. 3
1. Discuss Wittgenstein's theory of meaning and his notion of "language games".
Explain adequately.
2. What is an ideal language? Is Wittgenstein for or against the creation of an ideal
language? Explain coherently.
3. Explain clearly the role of philosophy and the following quotation: "Philosophy may
in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it,
for it cannot give it any foundation either...it leaves everything as it is."

Assignment No. 4
1. List down three (3) of your moral values, and the values you're willing to give up or
set aside just to promote these moral values. Also, justify why you consider each as
your moral value/s. Explain further. Usually, there are topics to be avoided, such as
God and family, but it depends on what Prof. Sioco will ban.

Be sure to pour all your effort in answering the assignment; three to four-liner
responses are unacceptable. Each assignment is due for submission the meeting immediately
after it is assigned. After all assignments have been submitted, Prof. Sioco will randomly pick
around five (5) students and ask them one of the questions in the assignment – sort of like a
recitation activity, so be sure to know what your assignment contains to prevent unnecessary
embarrassments. (Although Assignments No. 2 and 4 are personal opinions, so no recitation
there). Each assignment is graded with a system that follows (labels are purely the  author’s):

✓ m/n ?
Extremely good Very good Full credit Partial No credit/did
credit not pass

There may be other grading schemes used, but the above five are the most common
ones found in her record book. The usual grade is a check mark, which denotes full credit
given. Fractions denote partial credit given, presumably because of an insufficient answer in
one of the questions in the assignment. Stars are given for excellent work, usually one star.
Two stars are quite rare. On the other hand, question marks are given for works that do not
meet her standard – usually these are too short, rushed and lacking in information.
Assignments are not returned to the student, although the grades can be seen by the end of
the semester in her record book.

On the Integration Paper. The integration paper (akin to the term paper for other
Philosophy professors) is a ten-page (or more) reaction paper concerning the different ethical
issues and dilemmas that were encountered in the various films that Prof. Sioco will let her
students watch at regular intervals during the entire course of the semester. These movies
usually revolve around highly controversial themes, such as abortion, homosexuality etc. Some
examples of these movies (Prof. Sioco will assign a different set of movies per semester)
include: If These Walls Could Talk (both 1 and 2), The Crime of Padre Amaro, Osama, Kinsey
and Raise the Red Lanterns. Be sure to take note of the plot and the moral dilemmas
confronting the characters in each movie. The reaction paper should include ethics concepts
discussed in class (Unit IV in this module). Also be sure to pass TEN FULL PAGES minimum
(9.5 pages would not cut it.) Be punctual in passing it as well.
104
On Attendance. Attendance is regularly checked around ten (10) minutes after the
scheduled starting time of classes (for example, 4:10 PM if the class should start at 4:00 PM)
It is highly suggested that you come to class on time, and run on your way to Philo I class if
your previous class is from another college or another building far from RH or GAB (for
example,  NEDA).  Prof.  Sioco’s  mood  is  usually  aggravated by late students.

On Decorum. This is simple advice: come to class on time; bring your book every day;
pass requirements on time; do not talk to your seatmates too loud; do not use any gadgets
during lectures and examinations; do not cheat; study well for examinations; do not contest
your  wrong  answers  especially  if  Prof.  Sioco’s  answer  is  supported  by her deep understanding
of philosophy.  Remember  these  and  you’ll  be  fine  (i.e.,  you  will  not  be  verbally  assaulted.)

On 1.00s. 1.00s are not impossible to obtain; just score high in the examinations, and
get at least a check on all assignments. Also, do well in your integration paper.

“Now  you  can  say,  I  survived  under  Sioco!”


-M P G Sioco, 2012

Acuña, AE (2006). Philosophical Analysis (7th ed). 1 Quezon City: UP Department of Philosophy.

1
Retrieved from sulit.com.ph

105
109

You might also like