DISTINGUISH OPINION

FROM TRUTH
(A LEARNING COMPETENCY IN PHILOSOPHY)
 DISTINGUISH OPINION FROM TRUTH IN PHILOSOPHY:
DOXA AND EPISTEME

• PROFESSOR JENSEN DG. MAÑEBOG EXPLAINS THAT DOXA MAY REFER TO

COMMON BELIEF AND POPULAR OPINION, WHEREAS EPISTEME IS
INTERPRETED AS MORE OF A JUSTIFIED, TRUE BELIEF.
• FUNDAMENTALLY, DOXA MEANS BELIEF; THE BELIEF HELD BY A PERSON (OR
A CERTAIN GROUP OF PEOPLE) ABOUT A CERTAIN MATTER. HAVING
DOKEIN (SEEMING) AS ITS ROOT WORD, DOXA EXPRESSES HOW
SOMETHING APPEARS TO SOMEONE.
 DISTINGUISH OPINION FROM TRUTH IN PHILOSOPHY:
DOXA AND EPISTEME
• FOR EXAMPLE, AN EVENT A APPEARS TO PERSON B. WHEN BASED ON THAT APPEARANCE, B
ISSUES JUDGMENT (DOXAZEIN) THAT A IS SO AND SO, HE (B) CREATES A DOXA. IN THIS EXAMPLE,
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TERM DOXA IS ALSO UNDERSTOOD AS OPINION.
• TRUTH (OR EPISTEME) DEALS WITH LESS RELATIVE AND LESS SUBJECTIVE VIEWS AND REFLECTS
OBJECTIVE OBSERVATIONS. STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN LONG WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE WHICH
WERE LATER CONFIRMED BY SCIENCE (E.G. THAT THE EARTH IS ROUND OR SPHERICAL) ARE GOOD
EXAMPLES OF EPISTEME OR TRUTH AS THEY ARE OBSERVATIONAL, EMPIRICAL, AND PROVABLE.
• PROF. MAÑEBOG EXPLAINS THAT A STATEMENT OF FACT POSSESSES OBJECTIVE CONTENT AND IS WELL-
SUPPORTED BY THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. ON THE OTHER HAND, A STATEMENT OF OPINION IS ONE
WHOSE CONTENT IS EITHER SUBJECTIVE OR NOT WELL SUPPORTED BY THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.
DISTINGUISHING OPINION FROM TRUTH
 METHODS OF
PHILOSOPHIZING
(THAT LEADS TO WISDOM AND TRUTH)
 1. “THE ELENCHUS” (SOCRATIC METHOD)

• THE SOCRATIC METHOD IS A PURPOSEFUL QUESTIONING OF SOMEONE TO TEST THE COHERENCE,

CONSISTENCY, AND CREDIBILITY OF WHAT HE SAID.
• THE TERM “ELENCHUS” IS HELLENISTIC GREEK FOR INQUIRY OR CROSS-EXAMINATION. IT IS A KIND OF
INQUIRY OR EXAMINATION THAT DISCLOSES PEOPLE TO THEMSELVES, MAKING THEM SEE WHAT
THEIR OPINIONS REALLY AMOUNT TO.
 1. “THE ELENCHUS”
(SOCRATIC METHOD)
• SOCRATIC METHOD LEADS TO WISDOM AND TRUTH
FOR IT ASKS A SERIES OF INCISIVE QUESTIONS TO
DETERMINE WHETHER A SUPPOSED KNOWLEDGE
COULD RATIONALLY BE JUSTIFIED, DEFENDED, AND
ACCEPTED WITH CLARITY AND LOGICAL
CONSISTENCY.

• THE SOCRATIC METHOD MAKES PHILOSOPHICAL

INQUIRY A COMMON HUMAN ENTERPRISE, OPEN TO
EVERY MAN. A PERSON USING THE ELENCHUS DOES
NOT DEMAND ALLEGIANCE TO A CERTAIN
PHILOSOPHICAL DOGMA, RATHER, HE USES
COMMON SENSE AND COMMON SPEECH.
1. “THE ELENCHUS” (SOCRATIC METHOD)
 2. THE “METHODIC DOUBT” (CARTESIAN
PHILOSOPHY)
• THE “METHODIC DOUBT” IS ALSO CALLED CARTESIAN PHILOSOPHY BECAUSE IT WAS INTRODUCED BY
FRENCH PHILOSOPHER AND MATHEMATICIAN RENE DESCARTES (1596-1650), DUBBED AS THE “FATHER OF
MODERN PHILOSOPHY.”
• THE METHODIC DOUBT IS A SYSTEMATIC PROCESS OF WITHHOLDING ACCEPTANCE AS TO THE TRUTH OR
FALSEHOOD OF BELIEFS UNTIL THEY WERE DEMONSTRATED OR RATIONALLY PROVEN TO BE TRUE OR
FALSE. IT IS A PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS OF DOUBTING OR BEING SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE TRUTH OF A
PERSON’S BELIEFS.
• WHAT DESCARTES DID WAS CATEGORIZE ALL STATEMENTS ACCORDING TO TYPE AND SOURCE OF
KNOWLEDGE: (A) KNOWLEDGE FROM EXPERIENCE OR EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE, (B) KNOWLEDGE FROM
TRADITION OR AUTHORITY, AND (C) MATHEMATICAL KNOWLEDGE.
 2. THE “METHODIC DOUBT” (CARTESIAN
PHILOSOPHY)
• USING THE METHODIC DOUBT, PROPOSITIONS FROM EACH CLASS ARE SCRUTINIZED, THAT IF A WAY CAN
BE THOUGHT TO DOUBT THE TRUTH OF ANY STATEMENT, THEN ALL OTHER STATEMENTS OF THAT CLASS
ARE ALSO DISMISSED AS DUBITABLE, THOUGH NOT NECESSARILY FALSE.
• RENE DESCARTES SUPPOSED THAT BY ELIMINATING ALL STATEMENTS AND TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE WHOSE
TRUTH CAN BE DOUBTED IN ANY WAY, WE WILL FIND SOME INDUBITABLE CERTAINTIES OR TRUTHS THAT
CANNOT BE DOUBTED.
2. THE “METHODIC DOUBT” (CARTESIAN
PHILOSOPHY)
• NEVERTHELESS, RENE DESCARTES DISCOVERED
CERTAINTY IN THE FACT THAT SINCE HE
DOUBTS, HE THUS EXISTS. HENCE, HIS WELL-
KNOWN DICTUM, “COGITO ERGO SUM” (I
THINK, THEREFORE I AM).
• DESCARTES BELIEVED THAT A PERSON
CANNOT DOUBT THAT HE THINKS, BECAUSE
WHEN HE DOUBTS, HE IN EFFECT THINKS,
SINCE DOUBTING IS A FORM OF THINKING.
FROM THIS, DESCARTES INFERRED THAT A
PERSON THINKING MUST BE EXISTING, SINCE
THERE HAS TO BE SOMEBODY EXISTENT
DOING THE PROCESS CALLED THINKING.
 3. THE “LIVED EXPERIENCE” (PHENOMENOLOGICAL
METHOD OR INQUIRY)
• PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD STUDIES PHENOMENA, THAT IS, OBJECTS AND EVENTS AS PERCEIVED
AND UNDERSTOOD IN THE HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS, AND NOT OF ANYTHING INDEPENDENT OF
CONSCIOUSNESS. PHENOMENOLOGY IS A METHOD OF PHILOSOPHY THAT FOCUSES ON THE ESSENCE
OF LIVED EXPERIENCE.
 3. THE “LIVED EXPERIENCE” (PHENOMENOLOGICAL
METHOD OR INQUIRY)
• PHENOMENOLOGY EXAMINES PHENOMENA AS DISTINCT FROM THAT OF THE NATURE OF BEING. IT
CENTERS ON HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE OBJECTS OF DIRECT EXPERIENCE. THE METHOD WAS
DEVELOPED LARGELY BY THE GERMAN PHILOSOPHERS EDMUND HUSSERL AND MARTIN HEIDEGGER.
 3. THE “LIVED EXPERIENCE” (PHENOMENOLOGICAL
METHOD OR INQUIRY)
• PHENOMENOLOGY IN RESEARCH DEALS WITH HUMAN EXPERIENCE AND HOW PEOPLE EXPERIENCE. THIS
METHOD EXAMINES STRUCTURES OF CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE AS EXPERIENCED FROM A FIRST-PERSON
POINT OF VIEW (SUBJECTIVE STANDPOINT).
• EXPERIENCE, IN PHENOMENOLOGICAL INQUIRY, CONTAINS NOT ONLY THE RELATIVELY PASSIVE
EXPERIENCES OF SENSORY PERCEPTION, BUT ALSO VOLITION, THOUGHT, IMAGINATION, EMOTION,
DESIRE, AND ACTION. IN OTHER WORDS, EXPERIENCE INCLUDES EVERYTHING THAT WE DO OR LIVE
THROUGH.
 PHENOMENOLOGY STUDY: EXAMPLES AND
APPLICATIONS
• FOR EXAMPLE, IN TREATING A SICK PERSON, PHENOMENOLOGY ZOOMS IN THE VEILED ASPECTS OF ONE’S
EXISTENCE SUCH AS COMPONENTS OF HIS AWARENESS LIKE INTUITION AND FEELING. THESE ARE NORMALLY
OFTEN OVERLOOKED WHEN DOCTORS ARE ABSORBED IN THE ANATOMICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL ASPECTS OF
THE PATIENT.
• PHENOMENOLOGY INTENDS TO EXPOSE ORIGINAL EXPERIENCE AND ITS MEANING. THUS, IN MEDICINE AND
INTENSIVE CARE NURSING, PHENOMENOLOGY PRESENTS A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OR ‘DIAGNOSIS’ THAT
CAN LEAD TO ENRICHED PRAXIS.
• PHENOMENOLOGY INTENDS TO UNDERSTAND HUMAN EXPERIENCE FROM AN INDIVIDUAL’S VIEWPOINT.
UNLIKE THE OBJECTIFYING AND REDUCTIONIST CHARACTER OF SCIENCE AND EMPIRICIST RESEARCH METHODS
THAT CUT DOWN A PERSON TO FIVE SENSES, PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD DEPICTS THE PATIENT AS A
WHOLE HUMAN BEING WITH VARIOUS HUMAN NEEDS OTHER THAN RECOVERING FROM A CERTAIN ILLNESS.
• PHENOMENOLOGY THUS TEACHES US TO LOOK AT HUMAN EXPERIENCE TO BRING A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO
VARIOUS ENDEAVORS LIKE HUMAN TREATMENT.
 4. DIALECTICAL METHOD (HEGELIAN DIALECTICS)
• DIALECTICAL METHOD IS ALSO CALLED HEGELIAN DIALECTICS AS THIS WAS PROPOSED BY GEORG
WILHELM FRIEDRICH HEGEL (1770-1831), A GERMAN PHILOSOPHER AND A SIGNIFICANT FIGURE OF
GERMAN IDEALISM.
• HEGELIAN DIALECTIC LEADS TO TRUTH (AND WISDOM) WHEN THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN A
PROPOSITION (THESIS) AND ITS ANTITHESIS IS RESOLVED AT A HIGHER LEVEL OF TRUTH (SYNTHESIS).
 DIALECTIC AS LEADING TO TRUTH
• “THE TRIAD” COMPRISING THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC:
• FIRST STAGE: A THESIS
• THIS REFERS TO A BEGINNING PROPOSITION
• OR STATEMENT OF AN IDEA.
• SECOND STAGE: THE ANTITHESIS
• THIS IS A REACTION THAT
• CONTRADICTS OR NEGATES THE THESIS.
• THIRD STAGE: THE SYNTHESIS
• IT IS A PROPOSITION THROUGH WHICH THE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE TWO POINTS ARE RESOLVED. HERE, THE
THESIS AND ANTITHESIS ARE RECONCILED TO FORM A NEW
STATEMENT
 HEGEL DIALECTIC EXAMPLE
• DIALECTICS MAY HELP TO DEVELOP ONE’S INGENUITY.
FOR INSTANCE, A MAN WANTS TO SLEEP IN THE OPEN
(THESIS), BUT MOSQUITOES MAKE HIS PLAN AWFUL
(ANTITHESIS), AND SO HE INVENTS THE MOSQUITO
NET(SYNTHESIS).
• THE HEGELIAN METHOD OF DIALECTICAL UNIFICATION
IDEALLY CONTINUES IN VARIOUS GRADES AS THE
SYNTHESIS ITSELF BECOMES A THESIS TO WHICH THERE
IS AN ANTITHESIS. THEN, THE TWO AGAIN BECOME
UNIFIED AND TRANSCENDED IN A STILL HIGHER
SYNTHESIS AND THE PROCESS WORKS PROGRESSIVELY.
THUS, THE DIALECTICAL METHOD LEADS TO A LINEAR
DEVELOPMENT FROM LESS SOPHISTICATED VIEWS TO
MORE REFINED ONES LATER.
 5. CRITICAL METHOD (KANT’S TRANSCENDENTAL
IDEALISM)
• THE SO-CALLED CRITICAL METHOD (ALSO CALLED KANT’S TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM AND CRITICAL
THEORY) SUGGESTS THAT IN KNOWING THINGS WE SHOULD FOCUS ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE
CONDITIONS AND LIMITS OF KNOWLEDGE. THE IDEA WAS INTRODUCED BY THE INFLUENTIAL GERMAN
PHILOSOPHER IN THE AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804).
 5. CRITICAL METHOD (KANT’S TRANSCENDENTAL
IDEALISM)
• THE CRITICAL METHOD OF KANT INDICATES A PRECISE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PHENOMENA AND
NOUMENA. NOUMENA ARE “THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES” (DAS DING AN SICH), THE REALITY THAT EXISTS
INDEPENDENT OF OUR MIND, WHILE PHENOMENA ARE APPEARANCES, THE THINGS AS THEY APPEAR TO
AN OBSERVER, THAT IS, REALITY AS OUR MIND MAKES SENSE OF THE THINGS.
• UNDER THIS CRITICAL METHOD OF KANT, BECAUSE ALL OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXTERNAL WORLD IS
SORTED THROUGH OUR MENTAL FACULTIES, WE CAN KNOW ONLY THE WORLD THAT OUR MIND CASTS
TO US, WE CAN NEVER KNOW WITH ASSURANCE WHAT IS OUT THERE. THUS, ALL OUR KNOWLEDGE IS
ONLY KNOWLEDGE OF PHENOMENA, SINCE NOUMENA ARE ESSENTIALLY UNKNOWABLE.
 5. CRITICAL METHOD (KANT’S TRANSCENDENTAL
IDEALISM)
• FOR KANT, THE CORRECT PHILOSOPHICAL METHOD IS NOT TO PONDER ON THE NATURE OF THE WORLD
AROUND US BUT TO DO A CRITIQUE OF OUR MENTAL FACULTIES, EXPLORING WHAT WE CAN KNOW,
DEFINING THE LIMITS OF KNOWLEDGE, AND ASCERTAINING HOW THE MENTAL PROCESSES THROUGH
WHICH WE MAKE SENSE OF THE WORLD INFLUENCE WHAT WE KNOW.
• THE CRITICAL METHOD TEACHES THAT TO GET THE ANSWERS TO OUR PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS IS TO
INVESTIGATE OUR MENTAL FACULTIES AND NOT TO DO A METAPHYSICAL SPECULATION OF THE UNIVERSE
AROUND US. FOR KANT, THE MIND IS NOT A PASSIVE RECEPTOR AS IT DYNAMICALLY FORMS OUR
PERCEPTION OF REALITY.
 5. CRITICAL METHOD (KANT’S TRANSCENDENTAL
IDEALISM)
• WE CAN LEARN FROM THE CRITICAL METHOD (KANT’S TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM) THAT REASON,
THOUGH A BENEFICIAL TOOL, MUST BE WELL CONTROLLED TO AVOID IMPULSIVELY ACCEPTING THINGS
FOR WHICH WE HAVE NO ENOUGH EVIDENCE.
• THE METHOD TELLS US THAT REASON IS NOT AN UNQUALIFIED GOOD, THAT IT MUST BE USED
ANALYTICALLY IN ORDER TO AVOID BEING LED TO THE WRONG PATH.
• AS A PHILOSOPHICAL ATTITUDE, THE CRITICAL METHOD ENABLES US TO DETERMINE WHICH QUESTIONS
REASON CAN ANSWER, AND WHICH ONES IT CANNOT. AS AN APPLICATION, THIS METHOD TEACHES US
TO GIVE UP THINGS WE DO NOT REALLY NEED, LIKE TRADITIONS AND MANMADE RELIGIOUS PRACTICES
THAT ARE BASELESS OR NEEDLESS FOR MORAL CONDUCT.
 6. INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING

• INDUCTION OR REASONING INDUCTIVELY IS FUNDAMENTALLY INFERRING A GENERAL CONCLUSION

FROM A COLLECTION OF PARTICULAR FACTS. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE MIGHT CONCLUDE THAT “ALL FLOWERS
ARE FRAGRANT” BECAUSE ILANG-ILANG, SAMPAGUITA, ROSE, AND ROSAL ARE FRAGRANT.
• INDUCTION IS ALSO INFERRING OR REACHING A CONCLUSION BASED ON OBSERVATIONS. FOR
INSTANCE, AFTER WITNESSING FOR YEARS THAT GRASSHOPPERS INVADE OUR RICE PLANTS DURING
SUMMER, WE MAY CONCLUDE THAT NEXT SUMMER OUR RICE PLANTS WILL AGAIN BE INVADED BY
GRASSHOPPERS.
• ON THE OTHER HAND, DEDUCTION IS A PROCESS OF REASONING IN WHICH REASONS ARE GIVEN IN
SUPPORT OF A CLAIM. AN ARGUMENT IS THUS DEDUCTIVE IF THE PREMISES CLAIM TO GIVE CONCLUSIVE
GROUNDS FOR THE TRUTH OF THE CONCLUSION.