Introduction to Philosophy of human Person

Quarter 1: Methods of Philosophizing

What is Epistemology?
“Epistemology is a science devoted to the discovery of the proper method of acquiring and
validating knowledge” (Rand 1990).
The purpose of epistemology therefore is two-fold:
1. To show how we can acquire knowledge.
2. To give us a method of demonstrating whether the knowledge we acquired is really
knowledge (i.e., true). Since knowledge plays a central role in epistemology let us briefly
described its nature.
THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE
According to Ayn Rand knowledge is a “mental grasp of reality reached either by perceptual
observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation” (Rand 1990). When
you know something (be it the behavior of your friend, the movement of the planets, or the origin
of civilizations) you understand its nature. You identify what it is. And it stays with you.
Knowledge is a retained form of awareness (Binswanger 2014).
So how do you acquire knowledge? Miss Rand’s definition gives us two ways:
First, we can acquire knowledge using our senses: seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling, smelling.
How do you know that the table is brown? Because you see it. How do you know that fire is hot?
Because you feel it. This method of acquiring knowledge is called empiricism and it has many
adherents in the history of philosophy such as John Locke, George Berkley, David Hume.
Second, we can acquire knowledge by thinking with the use of our minds (what philosophers
call the rational faculty). This is what rationalism advocates. (Some well-known rationalists in
history are Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz).
However thinking is just half of the story of knowing (in fact the second half). The reason is that
thinking involves content. To think is to think of something. You cannot think about nothing. This
is where sense perception enters the picture by feeding our minds with data coming from the
outside world so that we can have something to think about.
ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE
Let us now explore the first part of epistemology: the process of acquiring knowledge.
1. Reality
To know is to know something. This “something” is what philosophers call reality, existence,
being. Let us employ the term existence. Existence is everything there is (another name for it is
the Universe [Peikoff 1990]). It includes everything we perceive (animals, plants, human beings,
inanimate objects) and everything inside our heads (e.g., our thoughts and emotions) which
represents our inner world. Existence is really all there is to know. If nothing exists knowledge is
impossible.
 2. Perception
Our first and only contact with reality is through our senses. Knowledge begins with perceptual
knowledge. At first the senses give us knowledge of things or entities (what Aristotle calls
primary substance): dog, cat, chair, table, man. Later we became aware not only of things but
certain aspects of things like qualities (blue, hard, smooth), quantities (seven inches or six
pounds), relationships (in front of, son of) even actions (jumping, running, flying). These so
called Aristotelian categories cannot be separated from the entities that have it. Red for
example cannot be separated from red objects; walking cannot be separated from the person
that walks, etc.
3. Concept
After we perceive things we began to notice that some of the things we perceive are similar to
other things. For example we see three individuals let’s call them Juan, Pablo and Pedro who
may have nothing in common at first glance. But when we compare them with another entity, a
dog for example, suddenly their differences become insignificant. Their big difference to a dog
highlights their similarity to one another (Binswanger 2014) We therefore grouped them into one
class or group, named the group (“man” or “human being”) and define what that group is to give
it identity (Peikoff 1990). We now have a concept which according to one dictionary means “an
abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
The first concepts we formed are concepts of things like dog, cat, man, house, car. These
elementary concepts are called first level concepts (Rand 1990). From these first level concepts
we can form higher level concepts through a process which Rand calls “abstraction from
abstractions” (Rand1990). Let us describe the two types of abstraction from abstractions: wider
generalizations (or simply widening) and subdivisions (or narrowing’s) (Binswanger 2014):
Wider generalization is the process of forming wider and wider concepts. For example from
Juan, Pedro and Pablo we can form the concept “man”. Then from man, dog, cat, monkey we
can form a higher and wider concept “animal”. And from plant and animal we can form a still
higher and wider concept “living organism”. As we go up to these progressive widening our
knowledge increases. Subdivisions consist of identifying finer and finer distinctions. For example
“man” is a first level concept that we can subdivide according to profession (doctor, entertainer,
fireman, teacher), or race (Asian, Caucasian [white], black), or gender (man, woman, lesbian,
gay), or nationality (Filipino, Chinese, American) among other things. As we go down these
progressive narrowing’s our knowledge of things subsumed under a concept increases. The
result of this progressive widening and narrowing’s is a hierarchy (or levels) of concepts whose
based is sense perception. As we move further from the perceptual base knowledge becomes
more abstract and as we move closer to the perceptual level knowledge becomes more
concrete.
4. Proposition
When we use concepts in order to classify or describe an “existent” (a particular that exist be it
an object, a person, an action or event, etc) (Rand 1990) we use what philosophers call a
proposition (Binswanger 2014). A proposition is a statement that expresses either an assertion
or a denial (Copi, 2002) that an existent belongs to a class or possess certain attribute.
Proposition is usually expressed in a declarative sentence. When I say, for example, that “Men
are mortals” I am making an assertion of men which are affirmative in nature (thus the
statement is an affirmative proposition). When I make an opposite claim however, “Men are not
mortals” I am denying something about men and thus my statement is negative in nature (thus
the proposition is called a negative proposition) An affirmative proposition therefore has the
following structure: “S is P” (where S is the subject, P is the predicate and “is” is the copula
stating the logical relationship of S and P) while the negative proposition has the structure “S is
not P” (“is not” is the copula expressing denial). Notice that statements like “Men are mortals”,
“Angels are not demons”, and “Saints are not sinners” can either be true or false. “Truth and
falsity are called the two possible truth values of the statement” (Hurley 2011). (Later were going
to explore the nature of truth).
5. Inference
How do we demonstrate that the statement is true? By providing an argument. According to
Hurley an argument “is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed
to provide support for, or reason to believe one of the others (the conclusion) (Hurley 2011). To
clarify this definition let’s give an example using the famous Socratic argument:
All men are mortals
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Here we have three related statements (or propositions). The last statement beginning with the
word “therefore” is what we call a conclusion. A conclusion is a statement that we want to prove.
The first two statements are what we call premises (singular form: premise). A premise provides
justification, evidence, and proof to the conclusion. An argument expresses a reasoning process
which logicians call inference (Hurley 2011). Arguments however is not the only form of
inference but logicians usually used “argument” and “inference” interchangeably. There are still
many things to be discuss on the topic of knowledge acquisition. We only provided a brief
overview of the topic.
TRUTH VS OPINION
Identifying truth however can sometimes be tricky. The reason is that there are times when we
strongly held an idea that we feel “deep down” to be true. For example religious people strongly
believed that there is life after death. Some people who embraced democracy may passionately
embraced the idea that the majority is always right. Or on a more personal level you may feel
strongly that your sister is “selfish”.
However we must not confused strongly held beliefs with truth. Truth is knowledge validated
and when we say validated we mean they are based on the facts of reality. You must
understand dear student that the facts of reality are independent of your thoughts, feelings or
preferences (Ayn Rand calls this the primacy of existence [Rand 1982]). That is the
characteristic of truth. For example the statement “Jose Rizal died in 1896” is true. You may not
like that statement or deny it strongly. That does not change the fact that the statement is true
because it is based on what really happened in the past. There are many sources that can
validate the truth of that statement if one cared to look.
However when you say that “Jose Rizal is the greatest man who ever lived” you are stating your
preference and not facts. This is an opinion. Now it is true that there are many facts about Rizal
but that statement is asserting something that is beyond what the facts state. That statement
represents not facts but your interpretation of facts which may reveal your biases.
To summarize an opinion has the following characteristics:
1. Based on emotions
2. Open to interpretation
3. Cannot be confirmed
4. Inherently biased

While truth is:

1. Based on the facts of reality
2. Can be confirmed with other sources
3. Independent of one’s interpretation, preferences and biases

THEORIES OF TRUTH
In knowing the truth or falsity of a statement, we generally use the following Theories of Truth:
1. The Correspondence theory of Truth:
The basic idea of the correspondence theory is that what we believe or say is true if it
corresponds to the way things actually are based on the facts. It argues that an idea that
correspond with reality is true while an idea, which does not correspond to reality is false. For
example, if I say, “The sky is blue” then I looked outside and saw that it is indeed blue, then my
statement is true. On the other hand, if I say, “Pigs have wings” and then I checked a pig and it
does not have wings, then my statement is false. In general, statements of beliefs, propositions,
and ideas are capable being true or false. However, according the Eubulides, a student of the
Megara school of philosophy, “the correspondence theory of truth leaves us in the lurch when
we are confronted with statements such as “I am lying” or “What I am saying here is false.”
These are statements and therefore, are capable of being true or false. But if they are true
because they correspond with reality, then any preceding statement or proposition must be
false. Conversely, if these statements are false because they do not agree with reality, then any
preceding statement or proposition must be true. Thus, no matter what we say about the truth or
falsehood of these statements, we immediately contradict ourselves.”
This does not mean that the Correspondence Theory of Truth is wrong or useless and, to be
perfectly honest, it is difficult to give up such an intuitively obvious idea that truth must match
reality. Nevertheless, the above criticisms should indicate that it probably is not a
comprehensive explanation of the nature of truth. Arguably, it is a fair description of what truth
should be, but it may not be an adequate description of how truth actually “works” in human
minds and social situations (Cline, 2007). Austin Cline argues, it is important to note here that
“truth” is not a property of “facts.” This may seem odd at first, but a distinction must be made
between facts and beliefs. A fact is some set of circumstances in the world while a belief is an
opinion about what those facts are. A fact cannot be either true or false because it simply the
way the world is. A belief, however, is capable of being true or false because it may or may not
accurately describe the world.
2. The Coherence Theory of Truth:
It has already been established that the Correspondence Theory assumes that a belief is
true when we are able to confirm it with reality. In other words, by simply checking if the
statement or belief agrees with the way things really are, we can know the truth. However, as
Austin Cline argues, this manner of determining the truth is rather odd and simplistic. Cline said
that a belief can be an inaccurate description of reality that may also fit in with a larger, complex
system of further inaccurate descriptions of reality. Thus, by relying on the Correspondence
Theory, that inaccurate belief will still be called “truth” even though it does not actually describe
actual state of things. So how do we resolve this problem? In order to know the truth of a
statement, it must be tested as part of a larger set of ideas. Statements cannot be sufficiently
evaluated in isolation.
For example, if you pick up a ball and drop it accidentally, the action cannot be simply explained
by our belief in the law of gravity which can be verified but also by a host of other factors that
may have something to do with the incident, such as the accuracy of our visual perception.
For Cline, only when statements are tested as part of a larger system of complex ideas, then
one might conclude that the statement is “true”. By testing this set of complex ideas against
reality, then one can ascertain whether the statement is “true” or “false”. Consequently, by using
this method, we establish that the statement “coheres” with the larger system. In a sense, the
Coherence Theory is similar to the Correspondence Theory since both evaluates statements
based on their agreement with reality. The difference lies in the method where the former
involves a larger system while the latter relies on a single evidence of fact. As a result,
Coherence Theories have often been rejected for lacking justification in their application to other
areas of truth, especially in statements or claims about the natural world, empirical data in
general, and assertions about practical matters of psychology and society, especially when they
are used without support from the other major theories of truth. Coherence theories represent
the ideas of rationalist philosophers such as Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Georg
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and the British philosopher F.H Bradley. Moreover, this method had its
resurgence in the ideas of several proponents of logical positivism, notably Otto Neurath and
Carl Hempel.

3. The Pragmatist Theory of Truth:

The Pragramatic Theory of Truth states that a belief/statement is true if it has a useful
(pragmatic) application in the world. If it does not, then it is not true. In addition, we can know
whether a belief/statement is true by examining the consequence of holding or accepting the
statement/belief to be true. For example, there are some people who think that there are
“ghosts” or “vampires” because they find it useful in explaining unusual phenomena and in
dealing with fears (Mabaquiao, 2016). So, if we are going to use the word “truth”, we define it as
that which is most useful to us. However, there are objections against this theory of truth. For
Austin Cline, truth that is based on what works is very ambiguous. What happens when a belief
works in one sense but fails in another? Suppose a belief that one will succeed may give a
person the psychological strength needed to accomplish a great deal but in the end he fails in
his ultimate goal. Was his belief “true”? In this sense, Cline argues that when a belief works, it is
more appropriate to call it useful rather than “true”. A belief that is useful is not necessarily true
and in normal conversations, people do not typically use the word “true” to mean “useful”. To
illustrate, the statement “It is useful to believe that my spouse is faithful” does not at all mean
the same as “It is true that my spouse is faithful.” Granted that true beliefs are also usually the
ones that are useful, but it is not usually the case. As Nietzsche argued, sometimes untruth may
be more useful than truth.
In sum, we can know if statements/beliefs are true if we look at each statement/belief and
determine if they correspond to facts, cohere with the rules of the system and result into useful
application. It must be noted, however, that Philosophers “continue to argue with each other on
which among these three general methods is the correct one or one that works for all kinds of
statement or beliefs” (Mabaquiao, 59). Nevertheless, it is not necessary to subscribe to only one
method and consider it to work for everyone. Perhaps it is better to use any of the three
methods that is appropriate for any given statement or belief that is being examined.