Austin Community College The Ultimate Nature of Reality Discussion

Q1.Choose one of the following questions to answer:

Begin by stating your position and offering your best argument in its favor.

Then consider what you take to be the best potential objection to your argument or position.

Finally, defend your argument or position from the potential critique.

Q2. 100-150 WORDS. Critically engage with a peer’s post. Some ways to critically engage with a peer:

Avoid simply agreeing with their position wholeheartedly or just responding to your peer by restating the argument you make in your own post.

Peer’s Post:

What is the ultimate nature of reality?

I think that reality is ultimately chaos that has no true meaning.  Life is chaos, something that even though it might be bound to universal rules. The world has seemingly infinite possibilities,  possibilities we may not fully understand why they happen. Everyone has had something unpredictable in life, things happen that nobody can predict. Nobody can predict the mindset of a child that has been born,  even if it can be something that is influenced, ultimately nature always has a role in how a person might react, and because of this even people are unpredictable. With the knowledge we have, we can always try to guess something will happen. If a kid falls off a high tree he will indeed get hurt, though some have taken such falls and not have a  scratch on them. It is best to try to adapt to the chaos of life and embrace it even.

Certain things can be influenced however. If you type the “f” key  on your keyboard you can likely expect the letter “f” to pop up,  likewise if you replicate an experment showing that water boils at at a  certain temperature, then it will likely boil when you keep using that  temperature. However the f key when you presss it can get stuck, at  times it can accidentally switch over how the keyboard works on your  computer (such as making a QWERTY keyboard a DVORAK keyboard) and you  may end up typing a “u” instead. Likewise replicating an experiment can  sometimes yield different results. Maybe the boiling temperature boils  when it reaches five minutes instead of ten, likewise altitude has an  effect on how the temperature boils, so said water may not even boil at  all. Overall life and reality is unpredictable, maybe not totally random  but unpredictable, therefore in terms of metaphysics it would be chaos.

Introduction to Philosophical Reasoning
Andrew D. Bassford, 2021
Professor of Philosophy, Austin Community College
Direct and Indirect Evidence1
The world is a certain way, regardless of how we think about it. As we go
through life, we form mental representations of it and its objects around us.
Some of those representations may adequately correspond to reality, and
some may not. Those that do are said to be true; those that do not, false. We
call these representations our beliefs. We want our beliefs to be true. True
beliefs tend to be more useful for navigating through reality than false ones.
For example, if I desire a sandwich and I believe the refrigerator contains
sandwiches, that will not only dictate my actions, but will make my actions
effective at attaining my desires. Desires without beliefs are unfulfillable
through my actions. Moreover, we also like knowledge for its own sake. We’d
all rather be connected to reality than some mere illusion, however comforting.
Unfortunately, it is not always easy to tell the true beliefs from the false ones.
So, how can we determine whether our representations of the world accurately
correspond to it or not?
Beliefs are verified or falsified by evidence. There are two basic types of
evidence: direct evidence and indirect evidence. There are some beliefs that can
be verified or falsified simply by observation. This is a form of direct evidence.
You can tell whether or not it is raining simply by looking outside. You can tell
whether the bath water is warm by putting your hand in it. We not only form
some of our beliefs in this way, but we also directly justify them in this way too.
But not every belief can be verified or falsified via observation. Some beliefs can
only be verified or falsified indirectly. For example, how do you know what year
1
This section quotes extensively from David Kelley’s (1998) chapter, “Basic Argument
Analysis,” from his The Art of Reasoning, Norton.
Bassford 2021u: Intro to Philosophical Reasoning
Page 1 of 15
you were born? Obviously, you did not witness your own birth. You were told
about it by your parents, who did experience the event, and you trust what they
told you. In the same way, you know that George Washington was the first
president of the United States because you learned it from a history teacher or
a textbook. In this case, neither the teacher nor the writer of the textbook
witnessed Washington’s presidency, any more than you did. But they learned
about it from other people, who learned it from still others, extending back in
a chain to people who were alive in 1788 and kept records at that time. We take
many beliefs to be verified or falsified in this way—by the indirect evidence of
testimony. Because we can communicate what we experience, human beings
can merge their separate representations of the world onto one giant canvas.
Testimony is one kind of indirect evidence. Still another important kind
of indirect evidence is reasoning. The basic idea of reasoning in general is that
we exploit the relationships among beliefs to extend our knowledge beyond
what we have experienced directly. Beliefs form complex truth-dependence
relationships with one another. Some beliefs are such that, if one of them is
true, so too must the other one. For example, if all men are mortal and Socrates
is a man, it must also be the case that Socrates is mortal too. Other beliefs are
such that, if one of them is true, the other must be false. For example, if Gerald
is a giraffe and no giraffe has gills, it must also be the case that Gerald does not
have gills either. And still others are such that, if one is true, the other one is
likely to be true (or false), as well. For example, if 1,000 samples of water have
boiled at 100 degrees Fahrenheit, it is likely that all water will boil at 100 degrees
Fahrenheit under similar conditions. Reasoning thus allows us to verify or falsify
beliefs which may transcend the collective experience of human beings
altogether. It is through the indirect evidence of reasoning, coupled with
observation, that we have learned about the origins of our planet, the reaches
of outer space, the inner life of atoms, and so on—none of which has been
directly observed by anyone.
Bassford 2021u: Intro to Philosophical Reasoning
Page 2 of 15
Argument Analysis
Just as beliefs may be true or false, so too reasoning may go well or poorly.
Logic is the philosophical science of good and bad reasoning. Logicians study
and codify good (and bad) truth-dependence relationships among beliefs into
basic general kinds. They have discovered many such patterns, both good and
bad, over the last few millennia. The basic unit of analysis in logic is the
argument. An argument is a set of beliefs (or statements), at least one of which
is taken to be true on the basis of the others. Another way to put this is that an
argument is some belief plus the reasons offered in its support. The belief that
is taken to be true on the basis of the others is called the argument’s conclusion.
The beliefs offered in support of the conclusion are called the argument’s
premises. The mental movement we make from the premises to the conclusion
is called the argument’s inference. In an argument, one infers the conclusion
from the premises. Although one often reasons from their own beliefs, one can
apply reasoning to any set of beliefs or statements. In this class, we will often
simply suppose that certain premises are true to see what follows from them.
Recognizing Arguments
Inference is the hallmark of every argument. Arguments are often expressed in
a series of written statements. If a passage of text contains an inference, its
function is to express an argument; otherwise, it has some different function.
For example, consider this passage:
Cable television can provide the viewer with more channels
than broadcast television, and it usually delivers a higher
quality picture. For these reasons, the number of cable
subscribers will probably continue to grow rapidly.
This passage expresses an argument. The premises of the argument are (1)
Cable television can provide the viewer with more channels than broadcast
television, and (2) Cable television usually delivers a higher quality picture than
broadcast television. On the basis of these claims, the author then make an
Bassford 2021u: Intro to Philosophical Reasoning
Page 3 of 15
inference to the conclusion that (3) The number of cable subscribers will
probably continue to grow rapidly. In other words, (1) and (2) are the reasons
why the author of the passage believes that (3) is true.
Passages of text can perform many functions; expressing an argument
is only one of them. For example, consider this passage, which does not express
an argument:
The first cable companies served remote rural communities.
These communities were too far from any broadcast station
to receive a clear signal over the air. Tall towers, usually
located on hills, picked up the signals and distributed them to
individual homes.
There are no premises or conclusions in this passage, because there is no
inference present. The author of this passage seems just to be recounting a
history of cable television. No belief here is taken to be true on the basis of any
of the others. Besides expressing arguments, passages of text can: recount a
history, advertise some product, plea for help, threaten, express a poem, tell a
story, praise a heroic act, and so on.
Passages of text that express arguments often use certain words that
signal to the reader that an argument is present, as well as how to identify its
major parts. Logicians call these indicator words. There are premise indicator
words and conclusion indicator words. Here are some common premise
indicator words: since, because, for, given that, assuming that, the reason is
that, in view of the fact that…etc. For example:
Since cable companies are now serving the suburbs and cities,
they pose a competitive challenge to broadcast television.
We can tell that there is an argument present here, because there is a premise
indicator word in front of the first part of the passage (“since”), signaling that
the author is taking some claim to be true on the basis of it. Now here are some
common conclusion indicator words: therefore, thus, so, consequently, as a
result, it follows that, hence, which implies that… etc. For example:
To be a lawyer, you need to be good at keeping track of
details, and Lonny is terrible at that, so he shouldn’t go into
law.
Bassford 2021u: Intro to Philosophical Reasoning
Page 4 of 15
We can tell that this passage expresses an argument too, because the final part
of it contains a conclusion indicator word (“so”), signally that it should be read
as the conclusion of a process of reasoning. These words and phrases are often
used in nonargumentative contexts too, such as when I say “I have been
studying philosophy since I was in high school,” or when I say “I have given you
this handout so that you can understand the basics of argumentation.” So, our
indicator words are not perfect. They are, nonetheless, reliable, and good
writers often use them to signal these purposes. You are encouraged to use
them in your own writing too.
Philosophy is a dialectical discipline, meaning philosophers conduct their
investigations through arguments. With practice, it will become easier to
identify when a passage contains an argument. There are, unfortunately, no
hard and fast rules for doing this.
Standard Form
In this course, we will encounter many arguments. The goal, in each case, is to
analyze and evaluate them, to determine whether their conclusion is worth
believing or not. To facilitate this process, we will frequently use what logicians
call standard form to represent our arguments. Standard form is a way of very
clearly presenting arguments. We begin by breaking up a complex passage into
its logically independent statements. (Usually, these will correspond to
individual statements, or statements within a compound sentence. But, as we
have seen, sometimes an argument can unfold over the course of a single
sentence.) We give each of those statements a number. We then list all of the
statements as a numbered list, putting the premises first and the conclusion
last. Next to every line containing a premise, we write in brackets “[Premise].”
Next to the conclusion, we write “[From…],” noting the lines from which the
conclusion has been inferred. An example will help elucidate this process.
Consider this passage, which contains an argument:
Welfare is a form of expropriation: it takes money out of one
person’s pocket and puts it into someone else’s. Since the
function of government is to protect individual rights,
Bassford 2021u: Intro to Philosophical Reasoning
Page 5 of 15
including property rights, it should not be running welfare
programs.
In this passage, there are three logically independent statements present: (1)
Welfare is a form of expropriation, (2) The function of government is to protect
individual rights, and (3) The government should not be running welfare
programs. Statements (1) and (2) are the premises, and statement (3) is the
conclusion. We can convert this passage into standard form like this:
1. Welfare is a form of expropriation. [Premise]
2. The function of government is to protect individual rights. [Premise]
3. The government should not be running welfare programs. [From (1) &
(2)]
Put this way, it is easier to understand how the argument is working. It is also
easier to evaluate the argument. We will return to that point in a moment.
Evaluating Arguments
Not all arguments are created equal. Some are very good, and some are very
bad. Every argument can be evaluated according to two criteria: the truth of
their premises, and the validity of their inferential force.
In a good argument, all of the premises are true, and the premises do in
fact support the conclusion. In this way, good arguments give us good reason
to believe their conclusion. Bad arguments, on the other hand, lack one of these
features. There are three ways an argument might fail to give us good reason
to believe its conclusion. First, the argument may contain a false premise. For
example:
1. All fish are mortal. [Premise]
2. Socrates is a fish. [Premise]
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. [From (1) & (2)]
Premise (2) of this argument is false. Socrates is not a fish, but a human being.
And so, here we have a bad argument. A second way an argument may fail to
Bassford 2021u: Intro to Philosophical Reasoning
Page 6 of 15
give us good reason is by containing premises which do not actually support
the conclusion. For example:
1. All fish are mortal. [Premise]
2. Socrates is mortal. [Premise]
3. Therefore, Socrates is a fish. [From (1) & (2)]
Both of the premises in this argument are true. However, the conclusion is
clearly false. This shows us that the premises of this argument do not actually
support the conclusion: Just because Socrates is mortal does not mean that
he’s a fish! Arguments with good inferential force are said to be valid;
arguments with bad inferential force, invalid.
And finally, some arguments are doubly bad—not only do they contain
false premises, but the premises do not even support the conclusion. For
example:
1. Only women can get pregnant. [Premise]
2. Socrates is a woman. [Premise]
3. Therefore, Socrates is pregnant. [From (1) & (2)]
This is clearly a terrible argument. Socrates is not a woman, but rather a man.
That’s the first problem. And the second problem with the argument is that,
even if both of the premises were true, it still would not follow that Socrates is
pregnant. The first premise says that only women can get pregnant; it does not
say that all women are pregnant, which is what it would need to state for the
argument to provide good reason for thinking that Socrates is pregnant. This
argument is therefore invalid, as well.
Good arguments are sometimes called sound. A sound argument is an
argument in which all of the premises are true, and in which the inferential force
of the argument is valid (i.e., the premises actually support the conclusion). Bad
arguments are unsound. An unsound argument is an argument in which either
one of the premises is false, or else the inferential force of the argument is
invalid (i.e., the premises do not actually support the conclusion). In reasoning,
we aim to produce only sound arguments.
Bassford 2021u: Intro to Philosophical Reasoning
Page 7 of 15
Simple and Complex Arguments
Some arguments are simple, and some are complex. In this course, we will
focus on simple arguments, but it is still good to discuss complex arguments,
since complex arguments are more familiar to us in daily life, and many of the
writings we will read in this class contain both simple and complex arguments.
A simple argument is an argument which contains only one inference.
That is, some reasons are presented in favor of some conclusion, and that is the
only act of reasoning contained within the passage: The premises of the
argument are assumed as true, and no argument is offered in support of them.
All of the examples we have looked at so far have been simple arguments, such
as this one:
To be a lawyer, you need to be good at keeping track of
details, and Lonny is terrible at that, so he shouldn’t go into
law.
Put into standard form, this argument looks like this:
1. To be a lawyer, you need to be good at keeping track of details.
[Premise]
2. Lonny is terrible at keeping track of details. [Premise]
3. Therefore, Lonny should not go into law. [From (1) & (2)]
This argument contains only one inference, and so is a simple argument. We
can tell that this is so because there is only one conclusion in the argument (line
3), signaled by only the one instance of “[From…]” in its standard form. The
premises here are simply taken to be true, and the author reasons on the basis
of them.
Other arguments are complex. A complex argument is an argument
which contains more than one inference. That is, some reasons are presented
in support of some conclusion, but the author does not simply assume that they
are true: They also offer an argument in support of one or more of the premises.
For this reason, complex arguments may be said to contain sub-arguments,
arguments embedded within the passage’s main argument. Here is an example
Bassford 2021u: Intro to Philosophical Reasoning
Page 8 of 15
of a complex argument, which is produced from modifying our previous
example:
To be a lawyer, you need to be good at keeping track of
details, but Lonny is terrible at that. Just yesterday, I asked
him to go to the grocery store to buy coconut milk, but he
bought regular milk instead. For these reasons, Lonny should
not go into law.
Put into standard form, this argument looks like this:
1. To be a lawyer, you need to be good at keeping track of details.
[Premise]
2. Just yesterday, I asked Lonny to go to the grocery store to buy coconut
milk, but he bought regular milk instead. [Premise]
3. Therefore, Lonny is terrible at keeping track of details. [From (2)]
4. Therefore, Lonny should not go into law. [From (1) & (3)]
As we can see, this argument contains two inferences, and so is a complex
argument. We can tell that this is so because there are two conclusions here
(lines 3 and 4), signaled by two instances of “[From…]” in its standard form.
Here, premise (1) is assumed without argument, but premise (3) is not: Line (3)
serves as both the conclusion of one argument and the premise of another. As
a result, this argument takes the form of a complex chain, where one link both
supports and is supported by another.
Authors often offer complex arguments whenever one of the premises
of their main argument is controversial. Almost every premise in philosophy
(especially moral philosophy) is controversial, and so complex arguments are
common. Whenever an argument is simple, it usually contains two premises
and only one conclusion. Logicians call simple arguments that take this form
syllogisms. Whenever an argument is complex, it may contain any number of
premises and conclusions. Complex arguments, however, can always be
represented as two or more simple arguments. For example, the previous
complex argument might also be represented like this:
1. Just yesterday, I asked Lonny to go to the grocery store to buy coconut
milk, but he bought regular milk instead. [Premise]
2. Therefore, Lonny is terrible at keeping track of details. [From (1)]
Bassford 2021u: Intro to Philosophical Reasoning
Page 9 of 15
3. To be a lawyer, you need to be good at keeping track of details.
[Premise]
4. Lonny is terrible at keeping track of details. [Premise]
5. Therefore, Lonny should not go into law. [From (3) & (4)]
Debates
Usually whenever people in ordinary life talk about “arguments,” they really
have in mind what logicians would call debates. An argument is a static, solitary
piece of reasoning. Debates, on the other hand, are dynamic and happen
between two reasoners (or between a reasoner and herself). Participants in a
debate are called interlocuters. We will enter into a debate with an author every
time we meet. Sometimes we will examine debates that already exist; other
times, we will examine debates that I have created for us; and still other times,
you will be asked to create a debate yourself. All of your writing assignments in
this class will ask you to construct a debate.
A debate occurs whenever an argument is presented and is then
critically challenged. As we know, there are two ways to challenge an
argument: One can either reject one of its premises, or one can reject the
inferential force of the argument. Both strategies would seek to show that the
initial argument is unsound. A challenge to an argument is called an objection.
The argument that one offers to show that either one of the initial argument’s
premises is false or otherwise that they do not actually support its conclusion
is called a critical argument, or a critique. Here is an example of a critique.
Suppose one is presented with the following argument:
Jerry will likely have difficulty in his computer science class this
semester. After all, he is not mechanically competent.
Put into standard form, this argument runs:
1. Jerry is not mechanically competent. [Premise]
2. Therefore, Jerry will likely have difficulty in his computer science class.
[From (1)]
Bassford 2021u: Intro to Philosophical Reasoning
Page 10 of 15
One might object to this argument by arguing that the premises do not actually
support the argument’s conclusion. For example, a critic might argue that:
But Jerry did well in computer science last semester.
Consequently, this argument gives us no good reason for
thinking Jerry will have difficulty in his computer science class
this semester.
Another way one might critique this argument is by denying that its premises
are true. In this case, there is only one premise in the argument. A critic might
argue that:
It’s false that Jerry is not mechanically competent. He built his
own stereo system last weekend, and anyone who can built a
stereo system is clearly not mechanically incompetent. So,
this argument gives us no good reason for thinking that Jerry
will struggle in his computer science class.
If either critical argument is sound, then the critic’s objection is successful and
the initial argument will have been shown to be unsound.
Authors do not often rest content once their arguments have been
critiqued. A defense is a reasoner’s critical response to a critique of their initial
argument. A reply is the author’s argument they offer to show that the
objection to their argument fails. For example, in response to the first critique
mentioned above, the author may reply that:
Jerry only did well in his computer science class last semester
because the class required mostly programming skills. Jerry is
indeed competent at programming. But this semester is
focused more on the hardware aspect of computer science,
and so will require some mechanical competence.
And in response to the second critique, the initial interlocuter may argue that:
It is true that Jerry built his own stereo last semester. But this
isn’t a testament to his mechanical competence: It has already
since malfunctioned.
If either reply succeeds, then the critique of the argument fails, and the defense
is successful.
Bassford 2021u: Intro to Philosophical Reasoning
Page 11 of 15
Critics, likewise, do not often rest content once their objections have
been rebutted. The result is that the conversation may continue on, with new
arguments offered in defense of the critique, and new critiques offered against
those defenses of the critique. A rejoinder is the critic’s critical response to their
initial author’s reply to the critique. A surrejoinder is the author’s critical
response to the critic’s rejoinder. Any given argument may evoke numerous
critiques, which may evoke numerous replies, which make evoke numerous
rejoinders, which may evoke numerous surrejoinders. The result is a complex
dialogue with many layers. Here is a schematic of a debate to help you keep the
terms in memory. Suppose there are two reasoners, Alfred and Bert:
A: Initial Argument
B: Critique
A: Reply
B: Rejoinder
A: Surrejoinder…
and so on. Each state in the conversation will contain an argument, and so, like
the initial argument, can be put into standard form and evaluated accordingly.
Sometimes students new to philosophy are confused as to why the
author of a text appears to contradict themselves so much. If you are reading a
text and you get this impression from it, this is most likely because the author
of the text is considering objections, replying to them, considering further
rejoinders, and so on. Philosophical writing is dialogical rather than linear. A
linear piece of writing advances from premises to some conclusion, and that is
it. It represents the thoughts of one reasoner alone. Dialogical writing, by
contrast, not only advances from premises to some conclusion or conclusions,
but it also stops along the way to consider and reply to potential objections.
Every piece of philosophical writing, in this way, contains a debate: a kind of
dialogue within a monologue. As you read through a philosophy essay, it may
be helpful to make notes in the margins to keep track of where you are in the
debate at any given moment. Whenever I read, I often add notes like “Reply 1”
or “Surrejoinder 2,” etc.
Bassford 2021u: Intro to Philosophical Reasoning
Page 12 of 15
Just as there are premise and conclusion indicator words, signaling to
you that a passage of text contains an argument, there are also debate indicator
words, signaling to you that the author of the text is considering a dissenting
voice. Common objection indicator words are: however, but, one might object
that, on the other hand, it might be said that… and so on. Common defense
indicator words are: in reply, on the contrary, in defense, to that I respond
that… and so on. With practice, it will become easier to identify when a passage
or series of passage contains a debate. But like argument identification, there
are, unfortunately, no hard and fast rules for identifying debates.
Critiques and Counterarguments
In a successful debate, an argument is presented and the critic critically
responds to it. In an unsuccessful debate, both reasoners end up talking past
one another. Another way to put this is that in a successful debate, the critic
offers a critique rather than a mere counterargument. A critique is an argument
that focuses on the initial argument and attempts to show why the argument
fails to rationally establish its conclusion. A counterargument, on the other
hand, is simply a new argument in favor of the opposite conclusion: It does not
actually engage with the initial argument at all. For example, were you to offer
an argument to the effect that the government should not be running welfare
programs, I would offer a critique if I were to focus on that argument and try
to undermine it, either by showing that one of your premises is false or that
they fail to prove the conclusion. I would have only offered a counterargument
if instead I simply offered a new argument for why the government should be
running welfare programs. There is a place in debates for both
counterarguments and critiques, but we need to be careful to not confuse the
two.
Bassford 2021u: Intro to Philosophical Reasoning
Page 13 of 15
Eristical and Dialectical Debates
Many people do not like engaging in debates, because they dislike what they
perceive to be the inherently hostile and adversarial nature of them. There are
two kinds of debate. One of them is, indeed, very nasty, and one is right to avoid
them. The other, however, is not and is often very pleasant and intellectually
stimulating.
An eristical debate is the kind of debate that occurs between
adversaries—the kind which is characteristic of the presidential debates or the
courtroom. In an eristical debate, the participants present their case before a
judge with the goal of convincing the judge that they are right and their
opponent is wrong, or otherwise that they should be chosen for some special
favor over their opponent. Eristical debates may be thought of as intellectual
wrestling matches. Interlocuters in an eristical debate will often use any means
at their disposal to achieve their desired outcome, including appealing to
emotion, appealing to authority, making fun of their opponent, changing the
subject, and so on.
A dialectical (or forensic) debate, on the other hand, is not adversarial
but fundamentally cooperative. In a dialectical debate, the participants
consider an issue together and each agree to adopt opposing stances with the
goal that, by critically discussing the best arguments in favor of each position,
the strongest position will prevail. Together, they come up with the best
objections and replies to their arguments, and they do not mind if the position
they have chosen turns out to be the false one. Whereas in eristical debates,
the desired outcome for each participant is victory, in dialectical debates, the
desired outcome for both participants is truth. Any move that persuades a
judge is permissible in eristical debates, but only moves that present genuine
evidence are permissible in dialectical debates. That is, interlocuters may appeal
to direct observation, testimony, science, mathematics, and so on.
Philosophical discourse is intended to be dialectical, not eristical.
Some of you may be familiar with the notion of an appeal in
argumentative writing, a concept which is often taught in introductory
composition courses. An appeal is used in those contexts to refer to whatever
Bassford 2021u: Intro to Philosophical Reasoning
Page 14 of 15
the author offers the reader in their attempt to persuade them. A ethos appeal
is an appeal to a person’s character or authority. A pathos appeal is an appeal
to emotion. And a logos appeal is an appeal to fact or logic. An alternative way
to understand the distinction between eristics and dialectics is that, in eristics,
all three appeals are permissible, whereas in dialects, only logos appeals are
permissible.
References
Most of this document is the result of my own thinking. However, in preparing
this handout, I have also taken several examples directly from the following
two sources:
•
•
Kelley, David (1998). The Art of Reasoning. Norton.
Vaughn, Lewis (2016). The Power of Critical Thinking. Oxford UP.
I would also like to acknowledge, and express my thanks to, my friend, Ross
Preuss Greene, for helping me edit an earlier version of this document.
Bassford 2021u: Intro to Philosophical Reasoning
Page 15 of 15
Introduction to Philosophy
Lecture 1, Introduction: What is Philosophy?
Prof. Andrew D. Bassford
Austin Community College
Φ
Lecture 1 Readings
• Louis Pojman’s “What is Philosophy?” From
his Philosophy: The Quest for Truth. 2006.
• [OPTIONAL] Celestine Bittle’s “Introduction
to Logic.” From his Logic: The Science of
Correct Reasoning. 1937.
• Also be sure to check out the Additional Resources
videos and comics!
Introduction to Philosophy
• This is an introductory course in philosophy.
Philosophy is taught in some high schools in
America and Europe, but the discipline may be
unfamiliar to many. So before embarking on
our study together, let’s first discuss what
philosophy is, its different branches, its
history, and how philosophy works.
• As you’ll soon discover, philosophers disagree about
nearly everything—even what philosophy is and
how it’s supposed to work! I’ll give you my
understanding of the subject, but take it with a
grain of salt.
What is Philosophy?
• “Philosophy (literally meaning ‘the love of wisdom’ in Greek) is the
contemplation or study of the most important questions in
existence with the end of promoting illumination and
understanding, a vision of the whole. It uses reason, sense
perception, the imagination, and intuitions in its activities of
clarifying concepts and analyzing and constructing arguments and
theories as possible answers to these perennial questions”
(Pojman 2006: 1).
• “… Philosophy is a practice of giving reasons in support of one’s
beliefs and actions. Its ultimate goal is to arrive at a rationally
justified position on one’s beliefs about the important issues of life,
including what is the best way to live one’s life and organize
society. Philosophy consists in the rational examination of
worldviews, metaphysical theories, ethical systems, and even the
limits of reason” (Pojman 2006: 11).
• In short, philosophy is the attempt, using reason alone, to answer
the Big Questions about the human condition.
• Philosophy is a very peculiar discipline. Here are some important
features of it:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Philosophy is a science (broadly construed).
Philosophy is a purely rational science.
Philosophy is a speculative science.
Philosophy has no material object, but is distinguished from the other
sciences by its formal object.
5. Philosophy is a dialectical science.
6. Philosophy is an ancient intellectual tradition.
• Let’s say a bit more about each of these features.
1. Philosophy is a science.
• ‘Science’ has a variety of meanings. By calling philosophy a ‘science,’ I
mean to use the term broadly. Broadly speaking, a science is any
systematic body of knowledge, or any intellectual enterprise whose end
goal is to produce such a body of knowledge. In this sense, there are many,
many sciences, which might include physics, mathematics, literary analysis,
sociology, theology (perhaps), and every other systematic intellectual
human endeavor.
• The ultimate goal of philosophy is to produce a systematic and
comprehensive worldview—how everything, in the broadest sense of the
term, hangs together, in the broadest sense of the term.
2. Philosophy is a purely rational science.
• This is in contrast to an empirical science. (We’ll talk more later about this
distinction.) A science is empirical if its primary source of data derives from our
senses. Biology is an example of this. Biologists examine, say, a plant specimen
and then form their knowledge base of the plant based off of what they have
observed.
• A science is rational, on the other hand, if its primary source of data derives from
reason alone. Mathematics is an example of this. (Consider that you can’t actually
see a number, and there are probably no perfect circles in reality.) In a rational
science, we start from some common assumptions and rules, and then we
proceed to learn more about the subject by thinking through the consequences of
those assumptions.
• Philosophy is a purely rational science in this sense. We have many basic
assumptions about, e.g., morality, knowledge, and the nature of reality; we start
there and then try to work out any inconsistencies in our worldviews to produce
the best model.
3. Philosophy is a speculative science.
• This is in contrast to a practical science. A science is practical if the science is pursued for
the sake of some practical end, and its value is instrumental to it in this way. Cooking and
nursing are examples of sciences of this sort. No one would study cooking or nursing if
they were not also interested in cooking something or becoming a nurse.
• A science is speculative, by contrast, if the it is pursued simply for its own sake, and its
value is thought to be intrinsic to it in this way. Physics and literary analysis are examples
of sciences of this sort. The physicist simply wants to know how material objects move
and change, pure and simple. The literary analyst simply wants to appreciate the text
more—there is no other practical end.
To help illustrate the difference, consider the relation between physics and physical engineering.
Engineering is a practical science; physics is its corresponding speculative science.
• Philosophy is a speculative science, on the whole. The philosopher simply pursues wisdom
for its own sake. Like the lover of fine art or food, the philosopher is a lover of wisdom.
4. Philosophy has no proper material object.
• It is very peculiar in this way. All other (or almost every other) sciences are
in part defined by what it is the science investigates or represents our
knowledge about. This is called the science’s material object—the matter
about which it is concerned. Biology is the study of life. Psychology is the
study of the psyche. But philosophy has no material object. There is no one
thing that philosophy is about.
• Rather, philosophy is distinct from the other sciences in virtue of its formal
object. A science’s formal object is the way in which the science
investigates whatever it is that it investigates. Physics is an empirical,
experimental science, for example. Even though philosophy has no unique
material object, it does have a unique formal object: It is our most general,
purely rational science. In a sense, philosophy is about everything…
Branches of
Philosophy
Logic
Metaphysics
Topical
Philosophy
Epistemology
Historical
Philosophy
Special
Branches
Axiology
Ancient
Ethics
Philosophy of
Mind
Medieval
Aesthetics
Philosophy of
Language
Modern
Philosophy of
Religion
Contemporary
Philosophy of
Science
Etc.
5. Philosophy is a dialectical science.
• That is, philosophy is primarily conducted via critical conversation and debate
(dialogue; literally “speech between two or more people”). Philosophy is a game
of giving and asking for reasons; a process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis; a
careful, discursive examination and analysis of arguments, critiques, objections,
replies, rejoinders, surrejoinders, and the occasional profound intellectual
revolution. (More on these distinctions later.)
• Philosophers disbelieve that all opinions are created equal. The goal is to state the
true opinion and to back it up with valid or cogent reasoning. “The unexamined
life is not worth living” (Socrates, 399 BC).
• The next two lectures are devoted to introducing us to the dialectical method in philosophy.
Abortion
is wrong!
• It can be very difficult to
consider fundamental beliefs
carefully, rationally, and
dispassionately. Many people
seem to arrive at their basic
beliefs about the nature of
reality as though they were
divinely inspired:
• Others seem to arrive at
their basic philosophical
opinions by default,
because it is what they
have been taught and
what everyone else
around them believes
and expects them to
believe.
• Still others seem to arrive at
their worldviews by using
“reasoning,” but reasoning
undisciplined and completely
untutored by formal logic and
principles of rationality. As a
result, their moral beliefs end
up resembling conspiracy
theories:
• But the hallmark of philosophical
and dialectical reasoning is the
formation of beliefs only after the
serious consideration of every
plausible competing opinion.
• That is how we will consider
philosophical issues in this course.
For every topic, plausible opinions
will be presented, critiqued, and
defended. Truth, if there is any to
be had, must be forged in the
critical fires of the dialectic.
6. Philosophy is an ancient intellectual tradition.
• In fact, philosophy has the title to being the oldest intellectual tradition in
human history, with the exception of, perhaps, mathematics. Some of our
earliest philosophical writings stretch back to 600 BC—that’s over two and
a half millennia ago! Compare this to psychology, which began around
1880 AD, and to modern physics, which began around 1600 AD.
• Usually the term “philosophy” is meant to refer to philosophy in the
Western tradition—to the tradition that includes famous figures like:
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Mill, Nietzsche, Sartre, etc. However,
philosophy also originated (independently, apparently) in the East,
especially in parts of Ancient China and Ancient India. In this class, we’ll
read figures from both traditions.
Some Historical
Philosophers
Ancient (750 BC – 476 AD)
Socrates (399 BC)
Plato (347 BC)
Aristotle (322 BC)
Zhuangzi (286 BC)
Sextus Empiricus (210 AD)
Medieval (476 – 1350)
N/A
Modern (1350 – 1900)
Rene Descartes (1650)
John Locke (1704)
Nicolas Malebranche (1715)
George Berkeley (1753)
David Hume (1776)
Soren Kierkegaard (1855)
Contemporary (1990 – Present)
Alan Turing (1954)
G. E. Moore (1958)
Albert Camus (1960)
Bertrand Russell (1970)
Gilbert Ryle (1976)
So… What is Philosophy?
• “Philosophy (from the Greek philos, to love, and
sophia, wisdom; ‘love of wisdom’) is the science of
beings in their ultimate reasons, causes, and
principles, acquired by the aid of human reason
alone.” (Bittle 1937)
• Philosophers have generally taken several
questions as central:
• What is there? (And, what, in particular, am I?)
• How do I know?
• What should I do?
Course of Study
Lecture 1, Introduction
What is Philosophy?
Lecture 2, Logic
Introduction to Philosophical Reasoning, part 1
Lecture 3, Logic
Introduction to Philosophical Reasoning, part 2
Lecture 4, Epistemology
Skepticism about the External World, part 1
Lecture 5, Epistemology
Skepticism about the External World, part 2
Lecture 6, Epistemology
Skepticism about the External World, part 3
Lecture 7, Metaphysics
Minds, Brains, and Machines, part 1
Lecture 8, Metaphysics
Minds, Brains, and Machines, part 2
Lecture 9, Metaphysics
Minds, Brains, and Machines, part 3
Lecture 10, Metaphysics
Minds, Brains, and Machines, part 4
Lecture 11, Axiology
The Meaning of Life, part 1
Lecture 12, Axiology
The Meaning of Life, part 2
Lecture 13, Conclusion
The Value of Philosophical Study
Next time:
• Lecture 2, Logic—Introduction to Philosophical Reasoning, part 1
In the next lecture, we will begin investigating how philosophers conduct their
investigations. We will begin our logic survey with the subject of argument analysis and
evaluation; then we will discuss the notion of a dialectical debate and the basic
components of one.
Introduction to Philosophy
Lecture 2, Logic: Philosophical Reasoning (Part 1)
Prof. Andrew D. Bassford
Austin Community College
Readings for Lecture 2
• Andrew Bassford. “Introduction to Philosophical
Reasoning.” In-class handout.
• [OPTIONAL] David Conception’s “Reading Philosophy.”
• [OPTIONAL] Simon Rippon’s “Writing Philosophy.”
Introduction to Logic
• Logic is the philosophical study of correct reasoning. It comprises the
study of the “laws of thought” that guide us towards the formation of
justified, true beliefs.
• Logic is a normative discipline, in that it tells us how we ought to reason.
It should be contrasted with cognitive psychology, a descriptive science,
that tells us how we in fact reason. Reasoning can go well or poorly, and
the logician is concerned to understand those principles that underlie
reasoning when it goes well.
• The fundamental concept in logic is the notion of an argument.
Arguments
• The term “argument” is generally used in ordinary conversation to denote a
wide-range of things: squabbles, debates, shouting matches, critical discourse,
back-talk, and sometimes even fist fights. In this class, we will use the term in a
much narrower sense.
• For present purposes, we can define an argument as a set of at least two
declarative statements (sometimes called “propositions”), one of which (the
conclusion) is thought to logically follow from the others (the premises). The
connection by which the conclusion is said to follow from the premises is
called an inference. We “infer” the “conclusion” from the “premises.” An
argument is a claim plus the reason(s) offered in its support.
• We’ll use the term “argument” as synonymous with “reasoning” and
“evidence.” So when sometime says “what’s your reason / evidence for
thinking X?,” that’s equivalent to asking “from what premises do you infer X—
what’s your argument?”
Warning: Don’t Confuse with Debates
• This notion of an argument is very different from the notion of a debate.
• A debate consists of at least one person, A, offering an argument in
favor of some conclusion, and another person, B, either critiquing that
argument or offering an argument in favor of the direct opposite of the
conclusion of A’s argument. That is, a debate is comprised of at least
two arguments.
• We’ll say a bit more about debates later. But for now, let’s return to the
fundamental notion of an argument and argumentative analysis.
• Example of an argument:
• “Cable television can provide the viewer with more channels than broadcast
television, and it usually delivers a higher quality picture. For these reasons, the
number of cable subscribers will probably continue to grow rapidly.”
• What are the premises in this argument? What is the conclusion?
• Premise 1: Cable television can provide the viewer with more channels than
broadcast television.
• Premise 2: Cable television usually provides a higher quality picture than
broadcast television.
• Conclusion: The number of cable subscribers will probably continue to grow
rapidly.
• Example of non-argument:
• “The first cable companies served remote rural communities. These communities
were too far from any broadcast station to receive a clear signal over the air. Tall
towers, usually located on hills, picked up the signals and distributed them to
individual homes.”
• No premises or conclusion. Not an argument; just historical narrative.
• Important to distinguish arguments from explanations, exposition,
descriptions, narratives, pleas, threats, illustrations, and other forms of
speech. All and only arguments contain inferences.
• In philosophy, it’s very rare for an author to be “just stating the facts,”
telling story, etc.
• Do the following passages express arguments or not? If so, what
are the premise(s) and conclusion(s)? If not, what is the function of
the text?
• “Since cable companies are now serving the suburbs and cities, they pose
a competitive challenge to broadcast television.”
• Yes, this passage does express an argument.
• Premise: Cable companies are now serving suburbs and cities.
• Conclusion: Cable companies pose a competitive challenge to broadcast
television.
• “More than half the homes in the country subscribe to cable
television. Basic cable service usually includes local TV channels,
such as the three networks, and one or more news channels. For an
additional fee, subscribers can also receive movie channels and
other specialized programs.”
• No, this passage does not express an argument. This appears to just be
information for a potential cable subscriber.
• No premises or conclusion (because only arguments have premises and
conclusions).
Standard Form
• Throughout semester, will be encountering, analyzing, and evaluating moral arguments.
• It can be very useful to put every argument we encounter into a kind of “standard form” for
ease in evaluation.
• “Since cable companies are now serving the suburbs and cities, they pose a competitive
challenge to broadcast television.” Standard form:
1. Cable companies are now serving the suburbs and cities. [Premise]
2. They pose a competitive challenge to broadcast television. [From (1)]
• Put this way, it’s easier to see what’s being assumed and what’s being inferred. We’ll discuss
why this is important momentarily.
• When putting arguments into standard form, we break up the
passage into its basic important bits of information (propositions).
We then number each proposition, putting the premises first and
the conclusion second. We then label in parentheses or brackets
after the proposition whether it is a premise (is simply being
assumed in the argument), or whether it is a conclusion (is being
inferred from some premise, and if so, from what premises
exactly).
• There are no hard and fast rules for determining whether a
passage contains are argument or not, and, if so, which among its
statements function as premises, which function as conclusions,
and which function as neither. This requires good judgment and a
knowledge of the pragmatics of linguistic discourse.
• Nonetheless, logicians have noted that arguments tend to be
expressed using what might be called certain “indicator words,”
words or phrases that are often used to signal that some
proposition is a premise, conclusion, objection, reply, and so on.
These words do not only signal arguments, and not every argument
contains them. But it might be useful to note just a few of them.
• Premise Indicator Words:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Because,
Since,
For,
Whereas
Secondly,
It follows that
Given that
As shown or indicated by
The reason is that
• Tim must be feeling stressed out, given that he hasn’t eaten all day and
he usually has a very hearty appetite.
• Conclusion Indicator Words:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In summary,
Thus,
Therefore,
So,
Hence,
Accordingly,
Consequently
As a result
We may infer,
Which entails that
• Tim said he wasn’t at the party on Friday, but Anne was there and says that
she saw him. Therefore, either Tim is lying or Anne is mistaken.
(See the Concepcion article on “Reading Philosophy,” posted to our Blackboard,
for some additional important kinds of indicator words.)
• “To be a lawyer, you need to be good at keeping track of details, and Lonny is
terrible at that, so he shouldn’t go into law.”
• What are the premises of this argument? What is its conclusion? How
can you tell? How would we put this argument into standard form?
1. To be a lawyer, you need to be good at keeping track of details. [Premise]
2. Lonny is terrible at keeping track of details. [Premise]
3. Lonny should not go into law. [From (1) & (2)]
• Notice that it doesn’t matter that this argument unfolds in just one sentence.
Three propositions (units of information, claims, possible beliefs) are present in
the passage, plus an inference, and so it’s still an argument.
• Try this one too:
• “Welfare is a form of expropriation: it takes money out of one person’s
pocket and puts it into someone else’s. Since the function of government
is to protect individual rights, including property rights, it should not be
running welfare programs.”
1. Welfare is a form of expropriation. [Premise]
2. The function of government is to protect individual rights, including
property rights. [Premise]
3. The government should not be running welfare programs. [From (1) &
(2)]
Evaluating Arguments
• One reason standard form is useful is because it helps us to better
evaluate arguments that we encounter. In this course, you’ll likely
be asked to critique at least one argument every week.
• There are two (and only two) ways to rationally critique an
argument:
• Reject one of its premises.
• Reject the logical force of one of its inferences.
• There is no other way to rationally object to an argument. It is not
enough simply to disagree with the conclusion. Because unless there’s
a problem with the premises or inferences, the conclusion is supported.
Consequently, you contradict yourself to reject it without first critiquing
its supporting argument.
• Nor is it enough to just offer an argument in support of the opposite
conclusion. Because, again, unless there’s a problem with the original
argument, then you’ve just created a paradox for yourself, because now
you have reason both to believe and disbelieve the same claim.
• Therefore, if you are asked to critique an argument on an assignment,
you must either reject one of its premise or reject the logical force of
one of its inferences, and you must justify your reason for doing so.
Otherwise, you have not actually critiqued the argument.
1. Whales are fish. [Premise]
2. All fish lay eggs. [Premise]
3. Therefore, whales lay eggs. [From (1) & (2)]
• How best to object to this argument?
• Reject premise (1). According to contemporary marine biology, whales are
in fact mammals. Therefore, while (3) would follow from (1) and (2), (1) is
false, so (3) is unsupported.
1. Laura is a woman. [Premise]
2. Only women can get pregnant. [Premise]
3. So, Laura must be pregnant. [From (1) & (2)]
• How best to object to this argument?
• Reject that (3) follows from (1) and (2). It is true (suppose) that Laura is a
woman, and it is true that only women can get pregnant, but this does not
mean that all women are pregnant. Laura might be a woman who is not
pregnant. Therefore, even if (1) and (2) are true, we cannot infer (3) from
them.
• Logicians use some technical terms to refer to good and bad
arguments. If the premises of an argument actually support its
conclusion (regardless of whether the premises are true or not),
the argument is said to be valid. If the premises do not actually
lend support to the conclusion, then the argument is invalid.
• If an argument has all and only true premises and it is valid, then it
is sound. If an argument contains either a false premise or is invalid,
then it is unsound.
• The goal of all reasoning is to produce sound arguments.
Simple and Complex Arguments
• We’ve so far looked at examples of simple arguments. Simple
arguments are arguments that contain only one inference. That is, only
one instance of reasoning takes place.
• Complex arguments are arguments that contain more than one
inference. In a complex argument, multiple instances of reasoning take
place.
• In a simple argument, one asserts some premises and simply takes them
as true without arguing for them. In a complex argument, on the other
hand, the author of the argument actually tries to prove the premises on
which the argument is based. As a result the premises of the main
argument are also separate conclusions of the sub-arguments.
• Simple Argument:
• To be a lawyer, you need to be good at keeping track of details, and Lonny is
terrible at that, so he shouldn’t go into law.
1. To be a lawyer, you need to be good at keeping track of details.
[Premise]
2. Lonny is terrible at keeping track of details. [Premise]
3. Therefore, Lonny should not go into law. [From (1) & (2)]
• This is a simple argument because it contains only one inference:
namely, the inference from statements (1) and (2) to statement (3).
• Complex Argument:
• To be a lawyer, you need to be good at keeping track of details, but Lonny is terrible at that.
Just yesterday, I asked him to go to the grocery store to buy coconut milk, but he bought
regular milk instead. For these reasons, Lonny should not go into law.
1. To be a lawyer, you need to be good at keeping track of details. [Premise]
2. Just yesterday, I asked Lonny to go to the grocery store to buy coconut milk, but he
bought regular milk instead. [Premise]
3. Therefore, Lonny is terrible at keeping track of details. [From (2)]
4. Therefore, Lonny should not go into law. [From (1) & (3)]
• This is a complex argument because it contains multiple inferences. The first is the
inference from (2) to (3). And the second is the inference from (1) and (3) to (4). Here,
the author ultimately wants to show that Lonny should not go into law, but they have
taken the time to justify their reasons for he is bad at keeping track of details, as well.
• Do the following passages express simple or complex arguments?
• I think I should become a doctor, because doctors make a lot of money. In
order to travel, you need to make a lot of money, and I want to travel.
• This is a complex argument. Standard form:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Doctors make a lot of money. [Premise]
In order to travel, you need to make a lot of money. [Premise]
Therefore, doctors are able to travel. [From (1) & (2)]
I want to travel. [Premise]
Therefore, I should become a doctor. [From (3) & (4)]
• Two teenagers saw the movie, “Natural Born Killers,” and went out on a killing
spree. A number of teenagers who have committed violence at schools have
spent many hours playing video games filled with murder and violence. This goes
to show that we must have some stricter controls on the content of
entertainment that is viewed by teenagers.
• This is a simple argument. Its standard form:
1.
Two teenagers saw the movie, “Natural Born Killers,” and went on a killing
spree. [Premise]
2. A number of teenagers who have committed violence at schools have spent
many hours playing violent video games. [Premise]
3. Therefore, we must have stricter controls on the content of entertainment that
is viewed by teenagers. [From (1) & (2)]
• We must resist all efforts to allow the government to censor entertainment.
Freedom of speech and expressions are essential to a democratic form of
government. As soon as we allow some censorship, it won’t be long before
censorship will be used to silence the opinions critical of the government. The
next thing we know, we will have no more freedom than the Germans did under
Hitler.
• This is a simple argument. Its standard form:
1. Freedom of speech is essential to a democratic form of government. [Premise]
2. If we allow censorship, it won’t be long before censorship will be used to silence
the opinions critical of the government. [Premise]
3. If we allow censorship, we will have no more freedom than the Germans did
under Hitler. [Premise]
4. Therefore, we must resist all efforts to allow the government to censor
entertainment. [From (1), (2), & (3)]
• It is rarely economical for two companies to lay cables in the same area
and compete directly. This suggests that cable television is a natural
monopoly, which should regulated by the government.
• This is a complex argument. Its standard form:
1. It is rarely economical for two companies to lay cables in the same area
and compete directly. [Premise]
2. Therefore, cable television is a natural monopoly. [From (1)]
3. Therefore, cable television should be regulated by the government.
[From (2)]
Debates
• Now that we have a basic understanding of arguments, let’s turn
to the related notion of a debate. Arguments are static, solidary
pieces of reasoning, where one moves from premises to
conclusion. Debates, on the other hand, are dynamic and take
place between two or more interlocuters.
• A debate occurs whenever an argument is presented and then
critically challenged. Debates usually take place between two or
more people, a proponent and a critic, but they can also take place
with only one person (when we have a debate with ourself).
• Debates are complex conversations. They have different layers.
Here are some useful terms for keeping track of complex debates.
• Initial argument: The opening argument presented by someone.
• Critique: The argument offered by way of challenge to the initial
argument. Also called a critical argument. Also called the objection.
• Reply: The argument offered in defense of the initial argument from the
critique. Also called the defense.
• Rejoinder: The argument offered in critique of the reply.
• Surrejoinder: The argument offered in defense of the reply.
• Throughout this course, we’ll be spending our time examining
philosophical debates. Sometimes the authors of our text will give
us a debate; sometimes I will create one for us; and very often, you
will be asked to create one too. All of your writing assignments
basically ask you to create a debate.
• Let’s take a look at an example of a debate, that way we can see
how this work. Suppose there are two people, Alfred and Bert.
They’re discussing whether or not their friend, Jerry, is likely to
succeed in his upcoming computer science course…
• Alfred’s Initial Argument:
• Jerry will likely have difficulty in his computer science class this semester.
After all, he is not mechanically competent.
• Question: What is the premise of this argument? What is the
conclusion?
1. Jerry is not mechanically competent. [Premise]
2. Therefore, Jerry will likely have difficulty in his computer science class.
[From (1)]
• Now, in response, Bert might offer one of two critiques. Suppose
he objects:
• Critique 1: But Jerry did well in computer science last semester.
Consequently, this argument gives us no good reason for thinking Jerry
will have difficulty in his computer science class this semester.
• As we know, there are only two ways to critique an argument:
Deny one of the premises, or deny that the premises prove the
conclusion. Question: Which sort of critique has Bert offered here?
• Bert has denied that Alfred’s argument is valid.
• Suppose instead that Bert were to offer this critique:
• Critique 2: It’s false that Jerry is not mechanically competent. He built his own
stereo system last weekend, and anyone who can built a stereo system is clearly
not mechanically incompetent. So, this argument gives us no good reason for
thinking that Jerry will struggle in his computer science class.
• Question: How has Bert critiqued Alfred’s argument? Has he denied that
the premises of the argument are true, or has he denied that the
argument is valid?
• Bert has denied that the premise of the argument is true. The premise was: Jerry
is not mechanically competent. Bert has argued that Jerry is in fact mechanically
competent.
• Critique 1: But Jerry did well in computer science last semester.
Consequently, this argument gives us no good reason for thinking Jerry
will have difficulty in his computer science class this semester.
• Now suppose Alfred were to reply:
• Reply 1: Jerry only did well in his computer science class last semester because the
class required mostly programming skills. Jerry is indeed competent at
programming. But this semester is focused more on the hardware aspect of
computer science, and so will require some mechanical competence.
• Question: How has Alfred replied to Bert’s objection? Has he denied a
premise of it, or has he denied that it is valid?
• Alfred has denied that Bert’s critical argument is valid.
• Critique 2: It’s false that Jerry is not mechanically competent. He built
his own stereo system last weekend, and anyone who can built a stereo
system is clearly not mechanically incompetent. So, this argument gives
us no good reason for thinking that Jerry will struggle in his computer
science class.
• Now suppose Alfred were to reply:
• Reply 2: It is true that Jerry built his own stereo last semester. But this isn’t a
testament to his mechanical competence: It has already since malfunctioned.
• Question: How has Alfred critiqued Bert’s objection? Has he denied a
premise of it, or has he denied that it is valid?
• Alfred has denied that Bert’s critical argument is valid.
• A, initial argument: Jerry will likely have difficulty in his computer science class this semester.
After all, he is not mechanically competent.
• B, critique 1: But Jerry did well in computer science last semester. Consequently, this
argument gives us no good reason for thinking Jerry will have difficulty in his computer
science class this semester.
• A, reply 1: Jerry only did well in his computer science class last semester because the class
required mostly programming skills. Jerry is indeed competent at programming. But this
semester is focused more on the hardware aspect of computer science, and so will require
some mechanical competence.
• B, critique 2: It’s false that Jerry is not mechanically competent. He built his own stereo
system last weekend, and anyone who can built a stereo system is clearly not mechanically
incompetent. So, this argument gives us no good reason for thinking that Jerry will struggle in
his computer science class.
• A, reply 2: It is true that Jerry built his own stereo last semester. But this isn’t a testament to
his mechanical competence: It has already since malfunctioned.
• B, rejoinder 1: …
• Objection indicator words
•
•
•
•
•
However,
But,
One might object that,
On the other hand,
It might be said that
• Example: Jerry is mechanically incompetent, so he’s likely to do
poorly in his computer science class. Now, one might object that
Jerry is mechanically competent. After all, he build his own stereo
last weekend…
• Defense indicator words
•
•
•
•
In reply,
On the contrary,
In defense,
To that I respond that
• Example: … But to that objection, I reply that Jerry’s stereo has
already malfunctioned. So, this does not contradict my claim that
he’s mechanically incompetent.
Eristics vs. Dialectics
• Many people do not like debates because of what they perceive to be
the inherent adversarial nature of them. Debates are often considered a
kind of verbal jousting match, and few wish to enter into them willingly.
• But there are two kinds of debate:
• Eristical debates
• Dialectical debates
• They are very different from one another. Eristical debates are, indeed,
often quite nasty. Dialectical debates, on the other hand, are not.
• Eristical debate
• An eristical debate is the kind of debate that occurs between adversaries—
the kind which is characteristic of the presidential debates or the
courtroom. In an eristical debate, the participants present their case
before a judge with the goal of convincing the judge that they are right
and their opponent is wrong, or otherwise that they should be chosen for
some special favor over their opponent. Eristical debates may be thought
of as intellectual wrestling matches. Interlocuters in an eristical debate will
often use any means at their disposal to achieve their desired outcome,
including appealing to emotion, appealing to authority, making fun of their
opponent, changing the subject, and so on.
• Dialectical debate
• A dialectical (or forensic) debate, on the other hand, is not adversarial but
fundamentally cooperative. In a dialectical debate, the participants consider an
issue together and each agree to adopt opposing stances with the goal that, by
critically discussing the best arguments in favor of each position, the strongest
position will prevail. Together, they come up with the best objections and replies
to their arguments, and they do not mind if the position they have chosen turns
out to be the false one. Whereas in eristical debates, the desired outcome for
each participant is victory, in dialectical debates, the desired outcome for both
participants is truth. Any move that persuades a judge is permissible in eristical
debates, but only moves that present genuine evidence are permissible in
dialectical debates. That is, interlocuters may appeal to direct observation,
testimony, science, mathematics, and so on.
• Philosophical discourse is intended to be dialectical, not eristical.
Critiques vs. Counterarguments
• Some debates are really effective; some, not so much. In an effective debate,
someone takes a stance and offers reasons in support of it, and then a critic
challenges those reasons. In an ineffective debate, both speakers just end up
“talking past one another.”
• Another way to put this is that in a good debate, a critic offers a critique, and
not merely a counterargument. A critique is an argument meant to challenge
an initial argument for some belief. A counterargument, on the other hand, is
simply an argument in favor of the opposite conclusion.
• If I were to offer an argument for why abortion is permissible, you would offer
a critique if you were to argue that my reasons are no good. You will instead
have offered a mere counterargument if you simply turned around and
offered an argument for why abortion is not permissible.
• Summary:
• In this lecture, we were introduced to arguments, and the different parts of an argument:
premises, conclusions, and inferences.
• We practiced identifying arguments and putting them into standard form.
• We discussed how to evaluate arguments.
• Then, we distinguished between simple and complex arguments and practiced identifying
them in ordinary prose.
• Finally, we examined the related notion of a debate. We learned about the different parts
and moves of every debate, as well as the difference between eristical and dialectical
debates.
• Next time, we’ll study some logical fallacies—patterns of faulty reasoning. That
way we can spot them as they occur in this class and in daily life.
What is Philosophy?
by Louis Pojman, 2006
American Philosopher, 1935-2005
“The unexamined life is not worth living.” (Socrates)
What is Philosophy?
Philosophy is revolutionary and vitally important to the good life. It starts from
an assumption, first announced by the founder of moral philosophy, Socrates
(ca. 470-399 B.C.), that the unexamined life is not worth living and that while
hard thinking about important issues disturbs, it also consoles. Philosophy, as
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) said over 2,000 years ago, begins with wonder at the
marvels and mysteries of the world. It begins in wonder in the pursuit of truth
and wisdom and ends in achieving a substantial amount of wisdom in a life lived
in moral and intellectual integrity. This is the classical philosophical ideal,
beginning with the ancient Greeks and continuing down through Thomas
Aquinas, René Descartes, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, and Fredrich
Nietzsche, to the present. Of course, this thesis about the worth of philosophy
is subject to rational scrutiny. Let me expand on that.
Philosophy is the love of wisdom (etymologically from the Greek philos,
meaning “love,” and sophia, meaning “wisdom”). It is the contemplation or
study of the most important questions in existence with the end of promoting
illumination and understanding, a vision of the whole. It uses reason, sense
perception, the imagination, and intuitions in its activities of clarifying concepts
and analyzing and constructing arguments and theories as possible answers to
these perennial questions. It is revolutionary because its deliverances often
disturb our common sense or our received tradition. Philosophy usually goes
“against the stream” or the majority, since the majority opinion is often a
composite of past intellectual struggles or “useful” biases. There is often
Page 1 of 14
deeper truth, better and new evidence that disturbs the status quo and that
forces us to revise or reject some of our beliefs. This experience can be as
painful as it is exciting. The loss of a received bias can depress. The gain of a
new, better idea can excite and enrich.
The pain may lead us to give up philosophical inquiry, and a great deal
of emotional health may be required to persevere in this pursuit. We may
retreat into unreason and obey the commandment of Ignorance: “Think not,
lest thou be confounded!” Truth (or what we seem justified in believing) may,
in the short run, not always be edifying. But in the end, the philosopher’s faith
is that the Truth is good and worth pursuing for its own sake as well as for its
secondary, practical benefits. Intelligent inquiry, which philosophy promotes, is
liberating, freeing us from prejudice, self-deceptive notions, and half-truths. As
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) put it:
The [person] who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life
imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the
habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have
grown up in his mind without the cooperation or consent of his deliberate
reason… .While diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are,
(philosophy] greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it
removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never
travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive the sense
of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar light.
Philosophy should result in a wider vision of life in which the impartial
use of reason results in an appreciation of other viewpoints and other people’s
rights and needs. It typically engenders an attitude of philosophical modesty or
fallibilism in the inquirer—an awareness that, since in the past many of my
firmest beliefs have been found to be false, the probability is that some of my
present convictions are false. But different people react differently to
philosophical inquiry. Some become radical skeptics, doubting what most
accept as commonsense beliefs. Some become even more dogmatic, finding in
philosophical method an instrument for certainty. Some nasty people seem to
be able to do philosophy quite well without being transformed by it. But for the
most part, those who have had the vision of a better life and have worked
through arguments on substantive issues relating to human nature and destiny
have been positively affected by the perennial pilgrimage. They march to a
different drummer and show in their lives the fruits of their travail. This ability
Page 2 of 14
to live by reflective principle in spite of and in the midst of the noise of the
masses is a hallmark of philosophy. This is illustrated by one of its heroes,
Socrates, who we [will] encounter [several times throughout this course].
Illustrations of Philosophy in Action
We mentioned that one of the tasks of philosophy is clarifying concepts. Let me
illustrate how this works with two different examples. The American
philosopher and psychologist William James (1842-1910), brother to the novelist
Henry James, was vacationing with friends in New England one summer. On
returning from a walk, he found his friends engaged in a fierce dispute. The
problem in question was this: Suppose a squirrel is clinging to the side of a tree
and you are trying to see the back of the squirrel. But as you walk around the
tree, the clever squirrel moves edgewise around the tree on its other side so
that you never get a look at the squirrel. The question was, Did you go around
the squirrel? Half the group contended that you did go around, and half
contended that you did not. What do you think is the answer?
Here is what William James said:
Which party is right depends on what you practically mean by “going
around’’ the squirrel. If you mean passing from north of him to the .east,
then to the south, then to the west, and then to the north of him again,
obviously the man does go around him, for he occupies these successive
positions. But if on the contrary you mean being first in front of him, then
on the right of him, then behind him, then on his left, and finally in front
again, it is quite obvious that the man fails to go round him, for by the
compensating movements the squirrel makes, he keeps his belly turned
towards the man all the time, and his back turned away. Make the
distinction, and there is no occasion for any further dispute.
Here was a dispute over the concept “going around something.” The
philosopher is trained to look at the frame of reference of the phrase, to note
its inherent ambiguity, and to unravel it, making things clearer. In this case,
once James had pointed out the equivocation in the idea of “going around,” all
dispute ceased. The first step in philosophy is to make your ideas (concepts,
notions) as clear as possible.
Page 3 of 14
A second illustration has to do with the difficult matter of whether
abortion is morally permissible. Often it is alleged that abortion is morally
wrong because it is the killing of innocent human beings. Putting this in
syllogistic form, we get the following:
1. It is morally wrong to kill innocent human beings.
2. Abortion is an act of killing an innocent human being.
3. Abortion is morally wrong.
On the face of it, this looks like a good argument, and it is often used in
opposition to abortion. There may be good arguments opposed to abortion,
but this one, as it stands, is not one of them.
Early on in the debate over abortion, philosophers like Michael Tooley
and Mary Anne Warren pointed out that the argument contains an
equivocation over the phrase human being. We use the term human being
ambiguously, sometimes meaning a biologic concept, the species Homo
sapiens, and other times meaning a psychological-moral concept, someone
who has the characteristics that make humans of special moral worth, such as
rationality or rational self-consciousness. We sometimes refer to this second
concept by the term person. It is human beings as persons, as having requisite
psychological qualities and not merely our membership in a biological group,
that gives us a serious moral right to life. But other beings may also have the
required psychological qualities. Perhaps apes, dolphins, and Galacticans are
also rationally self-conscious beings; then they would be persons. And there are
no doubt some Homo sapiens who are not minimally rationally self-conscious;
they would not be persons. Applying this insight to our argument, we need to
change the premises to read:
1. It is morally wrong to kill innocent persons.
2. Abortion is an act of killing an innocent member of the species Homo
sapiens.
3. Abortion is morally wrong.
Page 4 of 14
If the attempt at clarification has succeeded, this argument is not sound, for
the original term human beings was being used differently in the premises.
Philosophical Methodology
The hallmark of philosophical method is argument. Philosophers clarify concepts
and analyze and test propositions and beliefs, but their major task is analyzing and
constructing arguments. Bertrand Russell said that one aim of philosophy is to
begin with assumptions that no one would ever think of doubting and proceed
through a careful process of valid reasoning to conclusions so preposterous to
common sense that no one could help doubting. Indeed, in philosophy there is
no “political correctness.” No hypothesis, however outrageous to common
sense or conventional thinking, is ruled out of court, provided only that you
endeavor to support your claim with arguments, with good reasons. Otherwise,
anything goes.
Philosophical reasoning is closely allied to scientific reasoning in that
both look for evidence and build hypotheses that are tested with the hope of
coming closer to the truth. However, scientific experiments take place in
laboratories and have testing procedures through which to record objective or
empirically verifiable results. The laboratory of the philosopher is his or her
mind, where imaginative thought experiments take place; the study, where
ideas are written down and examined; and wherever conversation about the
perennial questions takes place, where thesis and counterexample /
counterthesis are considered. We will look more closely at this aspect in
[Pojman’s 2006 “A Little Bit of Logic” – our next reading].
Because philosophical questions are more speculative and
metaphysical, one cannot prove or disprove—or even confirm—most of the
important philosophical theses. This does not mean that progress is impossible.
On the contrary; I think that we can make progress in solving perennial
philosophical problems, as the discussion of various problems in this [course]
should indicate. However, a consensus that a problem has been solved still
permits the dissenters to offer counterexamples, and among those who deem
Page 5 of 14
the consensus correct, problems arise at a new level of discourse—on how best
to interpret the solution. For example, the majority of moral philosophers are
convinced that the thesis of moral objectivism (that is, there are universally
valid moral norms) is correct. Now the debate takes place on a different level
of discourse. Those who hold to moral objectivism disagree among themselves
about whether the grounds of moral objectivity is some form of intuitionism,
utilitarianism, contractualism, or practical reason. Thus, the debate goes on,
expanding the issue, refining the distinctions, and contributing to an
understanding of the further implications of the debate.
Furthermore, the relationship of philosophy to science is complicated,
for much of what theoretical scientists do could justifiably be called philosophy.
The term prove is best left to mathematics and logic, for scientists do not prove
their theories either. They do confirm them, however, with evidence. They make
predictions on what will occur under certain conditions in case their hypotheses
are true. In general, the sciences have made their way one-by-one out of the
family fold of philosophy to independence as they systematized their decisionmaking procedures. In the words of Jeffrey Olen,
The history of philosophy reads like a long family saga. In the beginning
there were the great patriarch and matriarch, the searchers for knowledge
and wisdom, who bore a large number of children. Mathematics, physics,
ethics, psychology, logic, political thought, metaphysics, … and
epistemology … —all belonged to the same family. Philosophers were not
just philosophers, but mathematicians and physicists and psychologists as
well. Indeed, in the beginning of the family’s history, no distinction was
made between philosophy and these other disciplines…
In the beginning, then, all systematic search for knowledge was philosophy. This
fact is still reflected in the modern university, where the highest degree granted
in all of the sciences and humanities is the Ph. D.—the doctor of philosophy.
But the children gradually began to leave home. First to leave were physics
and astronomy, as they began to develop experimental techniques of their
own. This exodus, led by Galileo (1564—1642), Isaac Newton (1642—1727),
and Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), created the first of many great family
crises. , . . Eventually, psychology left home.
Page 6 of 14
Branches of Philosophy
The four major areas of philosophy and some of the questions they raise are the
following:
1. Metaphysics (concerned with such issues as the nature of ultimate
reality)
▪ What is ultimate reality?
▪ Is there one ultimate substance (e.g., matter) or more (e.g.,
ideas, mind, and/or spirit)?
▪ Is there a God (or gods) who created us, to whom we owe our
allegiance?
▪ What is mind?
▪ How is the mind related to the body?
▪ Is there life after death, or is this life all there is?
▪ Am I free, or is every act determined by antecedent conditions?
▪ What is a self or person, and under what conditions can I be said
to be the same self or person through change over time?
2. Epistemology (regarding the nature of knowledge)
▪ What is knowledge?
▪ What can I know? Can I know anything at all? Or must I remain
skeptical about reality? Could I be mistaken about most of my
beliefs?
▪ How reliable is sense perception? Does it give me the truth about
the world?
▪ What is truth?
▪ How can I justify my beliefs?
▪ What, if any, are the limits of reason?
▪ Are there other ways to attain the truth besides rational inquiry,
for example, through faith?
3. Axiology (the study of values, including aesthetics, ethics, and political
philosophy)
Page 7 of 14
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
What is value?
Are values intrinsic in things or states of affairs, or are they simply
a product of sentient desire?
What is beauty?
Is art intrinsically good or bad, or is aesthetic beauty simply in the
eye of the beholder?
What makes an action right or wrong? Good or bad?
Are moral principles objectively valid, or are they relative to
culture?
Does morality depend on religion?
Which is the correct moral theory?
What is the correct political theory? How should society be
organized?
What justifies government? That is, why isn’t anarchy justified?
Or is it?
Is civil disobedience ever justified and under what
circumstances?
Are there natural rights, rights we have in virtue of our humanity?
Are all men equal, or is human equality a myth?
4. Logic (having to do with the laws of thought and forms of argument)
▪ What is a valid and sound argument?
▪ How can our belief in induction be justified?
▪ How does logic contribute to our knowledge and belief
justification?
▪ What is a logical fallacy, and what are some of the ways we go
wrong in our thinking?
Besides these central topics, secondary areas of philosophy work on
conceptual and/or theoretical problems arising within first-order
nonphilosophical disciplines. Examples of these are philosophy of science,
philosophy of psychology, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of language,
and philosophy of law. Wherever conceptual analysis or justification of a
theoretical schema is needed, philosophical expertise is appropriate. More
recently, as technology creates new possibilities and problems, applied ethics
(e.g., biomedical ethics, business ethics, environmental ethics, and legal ethics)
Page 8 of 14
has arisen. History plays a dialectical role with regard to philosophy, for not only
do philosophers do philosophy while teaching the history of philosophy, but
they also involve themselves in the critical examination of the principles that
underlie historical investigation itself, creating a philosophy of history.
We will touch on many of these areas in this [course]: a little logic and
history of philosophy; philosophy of religion; epistemology; metaphysics,
including the mind-body problem, personal identity, immortality, and free will
and determinism; ethics; and the problem of the meaning of life. We will also
spend a little time with the question of whether there is meaning to life. These
are more than enough for an introduction to philosophy.
Giving and Asking for Reasons
Philosophical study is dialectic, proceeding as an intellectual conversation in which
thesis / counterthesis and hypothesis / counterexample continue in a way that
shows up the weaknesses of proposed solutions to the puzzles of existence and
leaves some answers as more or less plausible. In this conversation, all sides of
an issue should receive a fair hearing, and the reader is left to make up his or
her own mind on the issue. Hence, in this work, at least two opposing views are
set forth on almost every issue.
Philosophy, we noted, is centered in argument. It is a rational activity. You
may have questions about just what this means. Sometimes students,
especially in introductory classes, get annoyed, even angry, that their views are
subjected to sharp critical scrutiny or that the views of philosophers of the past,
who cannot defend themselves, get torn to pieces by their teacher. So they ask,
“So what if [so and so s] argument is unsound. Why do we always have to
follow the best reasons? Why don’t philosophers respect leaps of faith or our
nonrational beliefs?”
The initial response to this query is to ask whether the questioner wants
a rational answer or a nonrational one: “Do you want a reason for justifying
philosophical practice or just my own emotional prejudice?” Presumably, the
former is wanted. Indeed, the question “Why?” implies a reason is called for, so
Page 9 of 14
even a question about the appropriateness of reason must be addressed by
reason. If reason has limits, it is reason that discovers this fact and explains it.
The teacher may go on and point out that reason does recognize the
limits of reason. Immanuel Kant (1724—1804) tried to show these Emits in order
to make room for religious faith, and, more problematically, Søren Kierkegaard
(1813-1855) used rational argument to show that sometimes it is rational even
to go against reason. What does this mean?
Here we have to distinguish two kinds of reason: practical reason and
theoretical reason. Practical reason has to do with acting in order to realize a
goal. For example, you desire to be healthy and so carry out a regimen of
exercise, good nutrition, and general moderation. You have a goal (something
you desire), you ask what are the necessary or best means of reaching that goal,
and then, if you are rational in the practical sense, you act on your judgment.
Theoretical reason, on the other hand, has to do with beliefs. It asks, What is
the evidence for such and such a proposition or belief? What does reason lead
us to believe about such matters as the best way to stay healthy, the existence
of God, the existence of ghosts, or life after death?
Thus, we have two types of rationality: practical and theoretical, having
to do with actions and beliefs. Sometimes, however, these two types of
reasons may conflict. For instance, I may have evidence that my friend has
committed a crime. My evidence is substantial but perhaps not decisive. For
practical reasons, I may ignore or dismiss the evidence against him or her,
reasoning that to believe my friend is guilty would be an act of disloyalty or
greatly damage our relationship (for I cannot hide my feelings very well). Or I
may use theoretical reason to conclude that I should not use reason to analyze
the best way to make baskets while I am playing basketball, for the act of
shooting is more likely to succeed if I don’t think too much about what I am
doing, but just do it. Or when reading literature, I may want to turn off my
critical faculties to more fully enjoy the story.
If all this is accurate, it is sometimes rational not to be rational.
Paradoxical? Yes, but explainable and not contradictory. We are practically
rational in not always using theoretical rationality when engaged in some
activities. On one level, theoretical reason judges that we are justified in not
using theoretical reason when engaged in practical activities but that we are
Page 10 of 14
practically rational in acting spontaneously, following our feelings, making
leaps of faith.
These are cases, however, where theoretical reason is simply not an
issue, where practical reasons are justified by theoretical reasoning. The more
difficult question is, Is it ever right to allow ourselves to believe propositions
where there is insufficient reason? Should practical reason sometimes override
theoretical rationality? The British philosopher W. K. Clifford (1845-1879) said,
“No, it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon
insufficient evidence.”
One problem with Clifford’s absolute prohibition is that there seems to
be insufficient evidence to support it, and if so, it is self-referentially incoherent
(or self-refuting). Other philosophers—such as Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Søren
Kierkegaard, and William James—argue the reverse. Sometimes we are
(practically) justified in getting ourselves to believe against the conclusions of
(theoretical) reason, against the preponderance of evidence. We will examine
some of these philosophers and arguments in Chapter 11. Here we need only
point out that it is a live philosophical issue whether practical reason should
override theoretical reason.
Thus, philosophy is a practice of giving reasons in support of one’s beliefs
and actions. Its ultimate goal is to arrive at a rationally justified position on one’s
beliefs about the important issues of life, including what is the best way to live
one’s life and organize society. Philosophy consists in the rational examination of
worldviews, metaphysical theories, ethical systems, and even the limits of reason.
The Ten Commandments of Philosophy
Although a clearer understanding of the nature of philosophy will only emerge
while working through the arguments on the various issues you are going to
study, I want to end this introduction with a set of guidelines for philosophical
inquiry, “Ten Commandments of Philosophy,” which I hope will aid you in your
own pilgrimage as you build your own philosophy of life. They embody what I
take to be the classical philosophical perspective. You should test them, refine
Page 11 of 14
them, and possibly reject some of them or add better ones as you proceed in
your own pursuit of wisdom.
1. Allow the Spirit of Wonder to Flourish in Your Breast. Philosophy begins
with deep wonder about the universe and questions about who we are,
where we came from, and where we are going. What is this life all about?
Speculate and explore different points of view and worldviews. Do not
stifle childlike curiosity.
2. Doubt Everything Unsupported by Evidence Until Evidence Convinces You
of Its Truth. Be reasonably cautious, a moderate skeptic, suspicious of
those who claim to have the truth. Doubt is the soul’s purgative. Do not
fear intellectual inquiry. As Johann Goethe (1749-1832) said, “The masses
fear the intellectual, but it is stupidity that they should fear, if they only
realized how dangerous it really is.”
3. Love the Truth. “Philosophy is the eternal search for truth, a search
which inevitably fails and yet is never defeated; which continually eludes
us, but which always guides us. This free, intellectual life of the mind is
the noblest inheritance of the Western World; it is also the hope of our
future” (W.T. Jones).
4. Divide and Conquer. Divide each problem and theory into its smallest
essential components in order to analyze each unit carefully. This is the
analytic method.
5. Collect and Construct. Build a coherent argument or theory from
component parts. One should move from the simple, secure
foundations to the complex and comprehensive. As mentioned
previously, Russell once said that the aim of philosophical argument was
to move from simple propositions so obvious that no one would think
of doubting them via a method of valid argument to conclusions so
preposterous that no one could help but doubt them. The important
thing is to have a coherent, well-founded, tightly reasoned set of beliefs
that can withstand the opposition.
Page 12 of 14
6. Conjecture and Refute. Make a complete survey of possible objections to
your position, looking for counterexamples and subtle mistakes.
Following a suggestion of Karl Popper, philosophy is a system of
conjecture and refutation. Seek bold hypotheses and seek
disconfirmations of your favorite positions. In this way, by a process of
elimination, you will negatively and indirectly and gradually approach
the Truth. In this regard, seek to understand your opponent’s position,
for as John Stuart Mill wrote: “He who knows only his own side of the
case knows little of that. If he is equally unable to refute the reasons on
the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has
no ground for preferring either opinion.” Mill further urges us to face
squarely the best arguments our opponent can muster, for until we have
met those arguments we can never’ be sure that our position is superior.
The truth seeker “must know [the opponent’s arguments] in their most
plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the
difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and
dispose of, else he will never really possess himself of the portion of the
truth which meets and removes that difficulty.”
7. Revise and Rebuild. Be willing to revise, reject, and modify your beliefs
and the degree with which you hold any belief. Acknowledge that you
probably have many false beliefs and be grateful to those who correct
you. This is the principle of fallibilism, the thesis that we are very likely
incorrect in many of our beliefs and have a tendency toward selfdeception when considering objections to our position.
8. Seek Simplicity. This is the principle of parsimony, sometimes known as
Occam’s Razor. Prefer the simpler explanation to the more complex, all
things being equal. Of course, all things are not always equal.
Sometimes the truth is complex, but where two explanations are of
relatively equal merit, prefer the simpler.
9. Live the Truth. Appropriate your ideas in a personal way, so that even as
the objective truth is a correspondence of the thought to the world, this
lived truth will be a correspondence of the life to the thought. As
Page 13 of 14
Kierkegaard said, “Here is a definition of [subjective] truth: holding fast
to an objective uncertainty in an appropriation process of the most
passionate inwardness is the truth, the highest truth available for an
existing individual.”
10. Live the Good. Let the practical conclusions of a philosophical reflection
on the moral life inspire and motivate you to action. Let moral Truth
transform your life so that you shine like a jewel glowing in its own light
amidst the darkness of Ignorance.
Nondogmatically, pursue truth and wisdom, harken to the voice of
wisdom, and aim at letting the fruits of philosophy transform your life. This is
what Socrates meant when he said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”
My hope is that philosophy will add a vital dimension to your life. Let’s be on
our way, then, with a brief look… at the central method of philosophical
discourse, logic.
Summary
Philosophy, as its etymology suggests, is the love of wisdom. It begins with
wonder at the world, aims at truth and wisdom, and hopefully results in a life
filled with meaning and moral goodness. It is centered in clarifying concepts
and analyzing and constructing arguments regarding life’s perennial and
perplexing questions. In general, it involves hard thinking about the important
issues in life. There is no subject or issue necessarily beyond its domain.
Whatever seems vital to humankind is a candidate for philosophical
examination. Virtually all the sciences arose from philosophy, which continues
to ask questions wherever an empirical process is inadequate for a definitive
answer.
Page 14 of 14