I



I.  Defining Philosophy

The best place to start in our attempt to define philosophy is with the etymology of the word itself.  Most people are aware that the term is derived from two Greek words: philo (love) and sophia (wisdom).  Philosophy, then, literally means "the love of wisdom."  We each have a sense of what love means, but what exactly is wisdom?   Although there are many different ideas about what wisdom is, we can define it as "the proper understanding about the nature of reality."  The wise person, then, has a correct understand about his own nature, the nature of the universe and the nature of God (if, in fact, God actually exists).  This understanding at the same time informs and influences the way he lives his life. A person is wise, in other words, if he has a correct understanding about how things actually are and lives his life accordingly.

Philosophy has also been connected with the quest for the truth.  The Greek philosopher Pythagoras, for example, maintained that unlike the other human beings who are concerned with the hustle and bustle[1] of life,   "the philosopher seeks for truth."   The aim of philosophy, however, is  not this truth or that truth, my truth or your truth, but "The Truth".  The truth that philosophy searches for is a truth that applies to all people at all times.  This truth has been referred to as a transcendent truth, because it is not restricted to individual perceptions of what is true or false.

So now we know that philosophy involves a quest for the truth for the sake of [2] wisdom.  The next question we have to ask is how do we acquire this truth.   Socrates, the father of western philosophy, once said:  "The greatest good for human beings is daily to discuss virtue, and all those other things about which you hear me conversing and examining myself and others, for the unexamined life is not worth living."  According to Socrates, philosophy involves a critical examination of reality that is characterized by rational inquiry[3].  A rational form of inquiry is one that is based exclusively on sound[4] arguments and not on opinions, feelings or beliefs.  Of course, there is nothing wrong with having opinions, feeling or beliefs about important matters, but the discipline of philosophy asks us to be able to justify why we hold these opinions, feelings or beliefs.  If we want to be engaged in philosophical discourse, therefore, we need to support our views using logic rather than emotions.

Based upon what has been described above, our working definition of philosophy will look something like the following:

PHILOSOPHY = "A critical examination of reality characterized by rational inquiry that aims at the Truth for the sake of attaining wisdom."

 

[pic]

II. What Philosophy is Not

One important thing to consider when defining philosophy is to consider what philosophy is not. Most students come to philosophy when studying some natural or social scientific discipline like biology, nursing, economics, or psychology. These students may assume that philosophy is like science, and get frustrated when they are given no standard textbook in philosophy that clearly lists out important facts and formulas to memorize as well as exercises with clear cut problems and answers to complete. But philosophy is not science. Both philosophy and science are focused on good reasoning, but scientific reasoning is grounded in mathematical precision and experimental isolation of variables while philosophical reasoning is more based in expansive, one-on-one[5] dialogue and argument.

Philosophy also should be distinguished from religion. Just how to distinguish as well as relate reason with faith or philosophy with religion is a big controversy. If the relation is one of dependence, does philosophy ultimately depend on religious revelation to guide it, or conversely[6], is religious faith just a preliminary position for the layman[7] while those who really know the truth are able to ground their beliefs philosophically? These are issues to be taken up in the philosophy of religion as well as in theology.

Finally, it is also important to clearly distinguish philosophy from art. To experience art is to be struck intuitively by something that can hardly be reduced to a cold and clear cut description. Intuition and feeling, privacy and individuality, spontaneity and creativity are primary in any artistic (or what is called "aesthetic") experience. Philosophy, as the love of wisdom, also has an important emotional and intuitive side. But philosophy is ultimately based on dialogical reasoning and not on private, ineffable[8] experience.

So philosophy is not science, religion, or art. It is its own thing.

II. Branches of Philosophy

The discipline of philosophy has traditionally been broken into five main branches or areas of study:

1.  Metaphysics (or ontology) is the study of reality.  Some of the questions that Metaphysics deals with are: (1) What is ultimate reality? (2) Is it one thing or is it many different things? (3) Can reality be grasped by the senses or is it transcendent? (3) What is the mind and what is its relation to the body?

2.  Epistemology is the study of knowledge.  Among the questions that Epistemology deals with are: (1)  What is knowledge?  (2) Is knowledge acquired exclusively through the senses or by some other means?   (3) How do we know that what we perceive through our senses is correct?

3.  Ethics is the study of right and wrong in human action.  Some of the questions treated by the field of Ethics are:  (1) What is right?  (2) Are there any objective standards of right and wrong?  (3) Are moral values absolute or relative?

4.  Aesthetics is the study of beauty.  Among the questions Aesthetics deals with are: (1) What makes a thing beautiful?  (2) Are there any objective standards of beauty?

5. Logic is the study of the principles of right reasoning.  Logic is the basic tool that philosophers use to investigate reality.  Among the questions raised by Logic are: (1) What makes an argument valid or invalid  (2) What is a sound argument?  

These are the main branches of philosophy.  Throughout its history, however, the discipline of philosophy has also been used as a tool to investigate other domains of life. 

For example:

• philosophy of God

• philosophy of religion

• political philosophy

• social philosophy

• philosophy of science

• philosophy of law

Logic in A Nutshell

by Michael S. Russo

Molloy College, Dept. of Philosophy

 

 Right now you are probably thinking to yourself: "Who needs logic anyway?"  The answer, quite simply, is:  you do!  Sure, you can probably go though your whole life without a logical thought in your head.  Many people actually do.  But wouldn't you prefer to be able to respond someone else's arguments with some well constructed ones of your own?  To convey your own ideas in a way that is most likely to persuade those around you?

As Aristotle understood several thousand years ago, logic is a tool that is useful in all fields of human endeavor.  So the better versed you are in logic,  the more successful you are likely to be in whatever profession you choose to enter--whether it's teaching, nursing, social work or even garage mechanics. 

This little guide has been created for those who absolutely no background in Philosophy.  My promise to you is that, if you take the time to go through the exercises that have been prepared for you, by the time you finish working your way through this site you will be able construct some sound arguments of your own and to spot the faulty arguments of those around you.  

 

What is an Argument?

The best way to understand what an argument is, is to contrast it with what it is certainly not--namely an opinion.  An opinion is simply a belief or attitude that is held about someone or something.  We express our opinions all the time: we love or hate certain films, different types of food, other people.  For the most part, however, people's opinions are based almost exclusively upon their feelings about certain matters and rarely if ever do they feel compelled to support their opinions with any kind of evidence.

An argument is something a bit different than this.    It is an attempt to formulate reasons in support of one's claims in order to convince others that these claims are true. For example, compare the statements of the following individuals who have entered into an impromptu discussion about the Clinton presidency over a few beers at a local bar:

Joe:  I think Clinton was a lousy President.

Pete:  How can you say that?  A good president is someone who keeps the country on the right track economically, who works with Congress to get important legislation passed, and who keeps the country out of messy wars.  Clinton certainly did all that, didn't he?

Joe:  I have the right to my opinion.

What is the basic difference between the statements of Joe and Pete regarding the legacy of the Clinton presidency?  As opposed to Joe, who is simply expressing his opinion, Pete is trying to give reasons in support of his views.  In other words, he is attempting to argue his position by citing facts which he believes will demonstrate the truth of his claim that Clinton was a good president.

Opinions are worthless:  even the most irrational person can formulate an opinion about virtually any matter under the sun.  Arguments, on the other hand, are the building blocks of philosophy, and the good philosopher is one who is able to create the best--that is, the most sound and persuasive--arguments possible.

Let's go on now to examine two different types of arguments:  inductive and deductive.

Inductive and Deductive Arguments

A.  Inductive Arguments

1. argument from particular observations to general conclusions.

2. leads to probable conclusions, not necessary ones.

3. arguments can be better or worse depending on degree of probability.

Examples:

Eddie has failed to follow through with his education, in his relationships with women, and with the jobs that he has previously held, therefore he will probably not follow through on this assignment.

 

Many people who smoke seem to get cancer. 

Thus, if you want to avoid getting cancer, don't smoke.

 

B.  Deductive Arguments

1. argument from the general to the particular.

2. leads to certain conclusions.

3. arguments are valid or invalid.

Examples:

If abortion is the taking of a human life,

and if the taking of a human life is murder,

then it must be true that abortion is murder.

 

All southern Italians are hot-heads.

Don Chiccio is a southern Italian.

Therefore, Don Chiccio must be a hot-head.

 

Examining Deductive Arguments

 A.  Some Important Terms:

• arguments  occur when a group of statements (or premises) leads to another group of statements  (conclusions)

• a conclusion is the statement or argument designed to be supported or defended

• premises are the starting points of an argument.  They are used to defend the conclusion and are typically affirmed without any defense.

• look for premise indicators such as since, because, and for, which often precede premises.   Likewise conclusion indicators such as therefore, thus, hence, and consequently often precede conclusions.

Examples:

Since all mammals are warm blooded creatures,     [pr. 1]

and since a whale is a mammal,     [pr. 2]

it follows that a whale is a warm blooded creature.  [concl.]

 

If there are millions of habitable planets in our galaxy, then it seems likely that life has evolved on more than just this one.      [pr. 1]

There are millions of habitable planets in our galaxy.     [pr. 2]

Therefore it seems likely that life has evolved on more than just this one.     [concl.]

                    

B.  Some More Important Terms

• a valid argument is one in which the conclusions follow from the premises.

• an invalid argument is one in which the conclusions do not follow from the premises.

o note:  arguments can be valid or invalid.

• truth and falsity describe the properties of statements alone (i.e., do they accord with the facts)  

o note:  it is possible to have valid arguments with false statements and invalid arguments with true statements.

• sound arguments are those with true premises and whose arguments are valid.

Examples: 

The assassin of President Kennedy was either Oswald or some other party or parties.      [pr 1]  

It wasn't Oswald.    [pr 2]  

Therefore, it had to have been some other party or parties.  [concl]         

 

[This argument is clearly an example of a valid argument, since the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.  The only question is whether this argument is also sound.  In order for it to be sound the premises also have to be true.  One could argue against the truthfulness of premise 1 by maintaining that Oswald could have been involved in a conspiracy that included other parties as well.  One could also argue against the truthfulness of premise 2 by maintaining that the assassin was indeed Oswald.   The soundness[9] of the argument could thus be thrown into question by challenging the truthfulness of one or more of the premises.]

 

If a person can face death without bemoaning his or her fate, then that person truly deserves to be called courageous.  [pr. 1]

Sir Thomas More face death without bemoaning his fate.  [pr. 2]

Therefore, St. Thomas More deserves to be called courageous.  [concl]

 

[This argument certainly appears to be sound, since the premises are true and the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.  Truth + Validity = Soundness]

 

All pigs are cats   [pr. 1]

Babe is a pig   [pr. 2]

Therefore babe is a cat   [pr. 3]

 

[You might be tempted to jump to the conclusion that this is an invalid argument because it looks strange.  It is actually a valid argument, since the conclusion follows from the premises.  It is not sound, however, because premise 1 and the conclusion are false.]

 

If I bought a ticket on the Queen Elizabeth II, I would be broke.   [pr. 1]

I am broke.   [pr. 2]

Therefore I must have bought a ticket on the Queen Elizabeth II.  [concl]

 

[Let's accept that both premises are true.  The argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.  The person in question could be broke for reasons other than having bought a ticket on the QE II.  The argument therefore most assuredly unsound]

Argument Forms

A.  Argument Forms and Validity

• Principle:  validity depends on argument forms and not on the truth of the statements in the argument.

• 4 common argument forms:

• modus ponens

• modus tollens

• hypothetical syllogism

• disjunctive syllogism

• Arguments which have one of these forms will always be valid

 

B.  Valid Argument Forms

 

1.  Modus Ponens

 

|If P, then Q. | |If my pet hamster gave birth, then it must be female |

|P. | |My pet hamster has given birth. |

|Therefore Q. | |Therefore it must be female. |

 1b.   Invalid Form of Modus Ponens

|If P, then Q | |When the Dow Jones shows a decline for two months, we are in a recession |

|Q | |We are in a recession, |

|Therefore P | |so the Dow Jones must have shown a decline for two months |

 2.  Modus Tollens

|If P, then Q. | |If I owned property in Manhattan today, I would be rich. |

|- Q | |I am not rich. |

|Therefore - P | |Therefore, I don't own property in Manhattan. |

 

 

2b.  Invalid Form of Modus Tollens

 

|If P, then Q | |If I owned a hotel I would be rich. |

|-P | |I don't own a hotel. |

|Therefore, -Q | |Therefore, I am not rich. |

 3.  Hypothetical Syllogism

|If P, then Q | |If I get an A on my calculus final, I will get an A in the course. |

|If Q, then R | |If I get an A in the course, I will have a 3.5 average for the semester. |

|Therefore, if P then R | |Therefore, If I get an A on the final, I will get a 3.5 average for the semester. |

 4.  Disjunctive Syllogism

|P or Q | |Either we should fight the Spartan or retreat until help comes. |

|- Q | |We cannot afford to retreat. |

|Therefore, P | |Therefore, we should fight the Spartans. |

 

Logical Fallacies

A fallacy is a type of argument that is psychologically persuasive but completely invalid. Among the many different types of logical fallacies are the following:

1. Appeal to Force occurs when one uses or threatens to use force—whether physical, psychological or legal—in an attempt to coerce another person to accept their conclusion.

• "Oh Senators, I would strongly advise you to make Claudius our next emperor.  The Praetorian guard has already rallied around him, and I fear for this august body if you thwart their desires."

• "If you don’t convict this murderer, one of you may be his next victim."

2. Ad Hominum Attack: An attempt to refute the another’s position by attacking the person rather than the argument

• "I don’t think we should accept the councilman’s arguments in favor of Sunday shopping in our town. He’s a godless communist after all."

• "You shouldn’t listen to Billy-Bob’s argument because he spent a year in prison."

3. Argument from Ignorance: An attempt to argue that a proposition is true because it hasn’t be proven false or that a certain proposition is false because it hasn’t been proven true.

• "God is clearly the creator of the moral order. Try as hard as they may, ethicists have been unable to come up with any other explanation of the source of universal moral principles or why moral principles are binding on us."

• "The superb quality of her character can be demonstrated by the fact that I have never heard a word spoken against her."

4. Appeal to (Inappropriate) Authority involves using the testimony of someone who is an expert or authority in another field than the one under discussion.

• "My priest says that genetic engineering and in vitro fertilization are dangerous. Therefore, all experiments in this field should be stopped immediately."

• All this talk about global warming is a lot of hooey.  Why I just heard Rush Limbaugh say today that we have absolutely nothing to worry about."

5.  Hasty Generalization occurs when one uses unusual or atypical cases to support a general point covering all cases.

• "I know for a fact that drinking alcohol is evil. My father was an alcoholic and his drinking damned near ruined our family."

• I have a friend who lives near Bookhaven National Laboratories, who has just been diagnosed with breast cancer.  I think that we can safely conclude, then,  that the research being done at Brookhaven is responsible for the high rate of breast cancer on Long Island.

6.  Begging the Question occurs when a person assumes what the argument is trying to prove. [i.e., when the conclusion and premises are rewordings of each other]

• "To allow complete, unfettered freedom of speech is advantageous to the interests of the state. For it is clearly helpful to the community to have each individual freely express his or her own point of view."

• "You can’t expect eighteen-year-olds to vote intelligently, because they are too young to have good judgment about the issues."

7. Straw Man: An attempt to substitute for your opponents argument a simplistic caricature. By defeating the caricature (the straw man), the fallacious impression is created that you have defeated your opponent’s position.

• "Of course the Equal Rights Amendment must be defeated. Do you want men and women sharing the same toilet facilities?"

-----------------------

[1] Hustle & Bustle: ajetreo.

[2] For the sake: por el bien, el propósito de, por.

[3] Inquiry: pregunta, investigación (philosophical inquiry: investigación filosófica).

[4] Sound: sólido

[5] One-on-one: uno a uno.

[6] Conversely: a la inversa.

[7] Layman: lego (el que no tiene conocimientos de determinada materia, p.e. religión).

[8] Ineffable: indefable, indescriptible.

[9] Soundness: solidez o consistencia.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download