I.

Doing Philosophy

Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person

Rex T. Rola
INTRODUCTION
Learning Standards
Content Standards Performance Standards

The learner understands the The learner reflects on a

meaning and process of concrete experience in a
doing philosophy. philosophical way.

Learning Competencies

1.1. Distinguish a holistic perspective from a partial point of view.

1.2. Recognize human activities that emanated from deliberate reflection.
1.3. Realize the value of doing philosophy in obtaining a broad perspective on life.
1.4. Do a philosophical reflection on a concrete situation from a holistic perspective.
Lesson Name: Partial Seeing
Time Frame: 90 minutes

Learning Objectives:

1. Define partial seeing.

2. Identify the inadequacies of partial seeing.
3. See the need to rise above partial seeing.
4. Realize that philosophy is not partial seeing.

Key Concepts:

Partial seeing
MOTIVATION
On Partial Seeing
Reference: “Blind Men and the Elephant”
by John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)

It was six men of Indostan,

To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approach’d the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy ____,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”
 The Second, feeling of the ____,
Cried, - “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ‘tis mighty clear,
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
 The Third approach’d the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming _____ within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” -quoth he,-
“Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the ____:
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” -quoth he,-
“This clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth, who chanced to touched the ___,
Said- “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”
 The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging ____
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” -quoth he,- “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
 And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
How did the elephant-
experience of the blind
men end?
Why did they dispute?
Why is each one partly
in the right?
If each one is right,
why are they
disputing?
INSTRUCTION
Thinking process (logic) behind the dispute
My view is my view. Your view is your view.

Mathematics: Principle of Equality

A=A

Logic: Principle of Identity

“What is, is.”

Parmenides of Elea
515-460 BCE
Thinking process (logic) behind the dispute
My view is not your view. Your view is not my view.

Mathematics: Principle of Inequality

A ≠ not-A

Logic: Principle of Noncontradiction

“What is, is not not-is.”

Parmenides of Elea
515-460 BCE
Thinking process (logic) behind the dispute
If your view is not my view, Y = -M
and my view is right, M
= R
then your view is not right. /∴ Y = -R

Mathematics: Principle of Transitivity

If A = B, and B = C, then A =C.

Aristotle of Stagira
384-322 BCE
Analyzing the Argument: Hypothetical Syllogism
If your view is not my view, Minor premise
and my view is right,
Major premise
then your view is not right. Conclusion

Aristotle of Stagira
384-322 BCE
Thinking process (logic) behind the dispute
If my view is not your view, M = -Y
and your view is right, Y = R
then my view is not right. /∴ M = -R

Aristotle of Stagira
384-322 BCE
Thinking process (logic) behind the dispute
Either my view or your view is right, never both.

Why must one

Logic: Principle of the Excluded Middle choose only
one, and never
“Either it is or it is not, never both.” have it both
ways?

Should the
dispute be the
Parmenides of Elea
end or should
515-460 BCE the dispute be
ended?
Practice
Application: Similar Experiences
What events have you experienced which involved a
dispute over limited views?

What were the problems generated by the dispute?

Enrichment
Reflection: The Blind Men and the Dispute
Can the blind men end the dispute all by
themselves?

Why can’t the blind men end the dispute all by

themselves?

How can the dispute be ended?

Is this openness to what is not-my-view a violation

of the principle of noncontradiction?
Openness to Other Views?

Has this solved the problem?

Assignment:
Think of ways the dispute
among the blind men can be
settled.
Evaluation:
Quiz
What else can we offer to help them see the elephant?
“Seeing the whole” as
“Having an Insight”
“Seeing with the Mind”
Practice:
Can we imagine other situations where one can
differentiate “seeing the part” and “seeing the
whole”?
Evaluation: Think-Pair-Share
1.What did we learn about what “Seeing the
Whole” is?
2.What did we learn about the difference
between “Seeing the Whole” and “Seeing the
Part”?
3.What did we learn about how to move from
“Seeing the Part” to “Seeing the Whole”?
Assignment:
1.Do all parts only need to be summed up and
ordered to make up a whole?
2.If not, what example of parts can you offer
that cannot be summed up and ordered to
make up a whole?
3.With such an example, how can these parts
be transformed into a whole?
Assignment:
1. Read about “Thales and Water” in Aristotle’s Metaphysics,
Book 1, part 3.
2. Read about “Philosophy as Love of Wisdom” in Plato’s The
Republic, Book V, chapter 19.