INTRODUCTION

TO PHILOSOPHY
COURSE CODE: PHIL 1101

DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AND

LIBERAL ARTS
 INTRODUCTION

The following readings are selected for the students to meet the
requirements of the course entitled “Introduction to
Philosophy”. The basic purpose of this course is to familiarize
students with philosophy and its fundamental question and
problems. With this prospect the readings are divided into two
sections. The first section is based on the readings that endeavor
to define philosophy, grasp its subject-matter, explain its major
disciplines, and explore inter disciplinary dimensions of
philosophy. The second section is based on readings on the
history of early Greek philosophers from Thales to Anaxagoras,
the purpose of which is to access the fundamental questions of
philosophy raised by early philosophers and their attempts to
answer them. In the appendix section of this course pack there
are few excerpts from the original texts of two major early
Greek philosophers Parmenides and Heraclitus for the use of
instructors to refer to them while teaching or for the students
to just have a glance of earliest texts of philosophy.

Talha Shahab
Department of Philosophy and Liberal Arts
 Contents
Section (I)
i. What is Philosophy? (From Philosophy: An Introduction by John
Herman Randall)
ii. Branches of Philosophy (From Elements of Philosophy by Ouis
Kattsoff)
iii. Basic Concepts of Logic (From A Concise Introduction to Logic by
Patrick J. Hurley)
iv. The Role of Reason and Experience in Human Knowledge (From
Philosophy: An Introduction by John Herman Randall)
v. The Nature of Art: Three Interpretations (From Philosophy: An
Introduction by John Herman Randall)

Section (II)
(From Critical History of Greek Philosophy by W.T. Stace)

i. The Ionics
ii. The Pythagoreans
iii. The Eleatics
iv. Heraclitus
v. Empedocles
vi. The Atomists
vii. Anaxagoras

Appendix
i. Original Text of Parmenides and Heraclitus (From Phoenix Series)
1 Basic Concepts
1.1 Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions
1.2 Recognizing Arguments
1.3 Deduction and Induction
1.4 Validity, Truth, Soundness, Strength, Cogency
1.5 Argument Forms: Proving Invalidity
1.6 Extended Arguments

1.1  rguments, Premises,

A
and Conclusions
PREVIEW Suppose a student with whom you are in a long-term relationship happens to see you
sitting close to someone else in the library. The person you have been dating for months now accuses
you of cheating and threatens to break off the relationship. You, in turn, try to prove that the event in
the library was perfectly innocent and amounted to nothing. To do this, you need an argument. In this
section you will learn about arguments and their basic components, premises and conclusions.

Logic may be defined as the organized body of knowledge, or science, that evaluates
arguments. All of us encounter arguments in our day-to-day experience. We read them
in books and newspapers, hear them on television, and formulate them when commu-
nicating with friends and associates. The aim of logic is to develop a system of methods
and principles that we may use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and
as guides in constructing arguments of our own. Among the benefits to be expected
from the study of logic is an increase in confidence that we are making sense when we
criticize the arguments of others and when we advance arguments of our own.
An argument, in its simplest form, is a group of statements, one or more of which
(the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the
others (the conclusion). Every argument may be placed in either of two basic groups:
those in which the premises really do support the conclusion and those in which they
do not, even though they are claimed to. The former are said to be good arguments
(at least to that extent), the latter bad arguments. The purpose of logic, as the science that

Your personal learning experience—learn anywhere, anytime.

1
1 evaluates arguments, is thus to develop methods and techniques that allow us to distin-
guish good arguments from bad.
As is apparent from the given definition, the term argument has a very specific
meaning in logic. It does not mean, for example, a mere verbal fight, as one might have
with one’s parent, spouse, or friend. Let us examine the features of this definition in
greater detail. First of all, an argument is a group of statements. A statement is a sen-
tence that is either true or false—in other words, typically a declarative sentence or a
sentence component that could stand as a declarative sentence. The following s­ entences
are statements:
Chocolate truffles are loaded with calories.
Melatonin helps relieve jet lag.
Political candidates always tell the complete truth.
No wives ever cheat on their husbands.
Tiger Woods plays golf and Maria Sharapova plays tennis.
The first two statements are true, the second two false. The last one expresses two state-
ments, both of which are true. Truth and falsity are called the two possible truth ­values
of a statement. Thus, the truth value of the first two statements is true, the truth value
of the second two is false, and the truth value of the last statement, as well as that of its
components, is true.
Unlike statements, many sentences cannot be said to be either true or false. Ques-
tions, proposals, suggestions, commands, and exclamations usually cannot, and so are
not usually classified as statements. The following sentences are not statements:
Where is Khartoum? (question)
Let’s go to a movie tonight. (proposal)
I suggest you get contact lenses. (suggestion)
Turn off the TV right now. (command)
Fantastic! (exclamation)
The statements that make up an argument are divided into one or more premises
and exactly one conclusion. The premises are the statements that set forth the reasons
or evidence, and the conclusion is the statement that the evidence is claimed to support
or imply. In other words, the conclusion is the statement that is claimed to follow from
the premises. Here is an example of an argument:
All film stars are celebrities.
Halle Berry is a film star.
Therefore, Halle Berry is a celebrity.
The first two statements are the premises; the third is the conclusion. (The claim that
the premises support or imply the conclusion is indicated by the word “therefore.”) In
this argument the premises really do support the conclusion, and so the argument is a
good one. But consider this argument:
Some film stars are men.
Cameron Diaz is a film star.
Therefore, Cameron Diaz is a man.

2 CHAPTER 1 Basic Concepts

In this argument the premises do not support the conclusion, even though they are
claimed to, and so the argument is not a good one.
1
One of the most important tasks in the analysis of arguments is being able to distin-
guish premises from conclusions. If what is thought to be a conclusion is really a prem-
ise, and vice versa, the subsequent analysis cannot possibly be correct. Many ­arguments
contain indicator words that provide clues in identifying premises and conclusion.
Some typical conclusion indicators are
therefore accordingly entails that
wherefore we may conclude hence
thus it must be that it follows that
consequently for this reason implies that
we may infer so as a result
Whenever a statement follows one of these indicators, it can usually be identified as
the conclusion. By process of elimination the other statements in the argument are the
premises. Example:
Tortured prisoners will say anything just to relieve the pain. Consequently, torture is not
a reliable method of interrogation.
The conclusion of this argument is “Torture is not a reliable method of interrogation,”
and the premise is “Tortured prisoners will say anything just to relieve the pain.”

Premises Claimed
evidence

What is claimed to follow

Conclusion from the evidence

If an argument does not contain a conclusion indicator, it may contain a premise

indicator. Some typical premise indicators are
since in that seeing that
as indicated by may be inferred from for the reason that
because as in as much as
for given that owing to
Any statement following one of these indicators can usually be identified as a premise.
Example:
Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs, since the use of these drugs can
jeopardize the development of the fetus.

SECTION 1.1 Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions 3

1 The premise of this argument is “The use of these drugs can jeopardize the d ­ evelopment of
the fetus,” and the conclusion is “Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs.”
In reviewing the list of indicators, note that “for this reason” is a conclusion ­indicator,
whereas “for the reason that” is a premise indicator. “For this reason” (except when fol-
lowed by a colon) means for the reason (premise) that was just given, so what follows
is the conclusion. On the other hand, “for the reason that” announces that a premise is
about to be stated.
Sometimes a single indicator can be used to identify more than one premise. Con-
sider the following argument:
It is vitally important that wilderness areas be preserved, for wilderness provides es-
sential habitat for wildlife, including endangered species, and it is a natural retreat from
the stress of daily life.
The premise indicator “for” goes with both “Wilderness provides essential habitat for
wildlife, including endangered species,” and “It is a natural retreat from the stress of
daily life.” These are the premises. By method of elimination, “It is vitally important
that wilderness areas be preserved” is the conclusion.
Some arguments contain no indicators. With these, the reader/listener must ask
such questions as: What single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow from the oth-
ers? What is the arguer trying to prove? What is the main point in the passage? The
answers to these questions should point to the conclusion. Example:
The space program deserves increased expenditures in the years ahead. Not only does
the national defense depend on it, but the program will more than pay for itself in terms
of technological spin-offs. Furthermore, at current funding levels the program cannot
fulfill its anticipated potential.
The conclusion of this argument is the first statement, and all of the other state-
ments are premises. The argument illustrates the pattern found in most arguments that
lack indicator words: The intended conclusion is stated first, and the remaining state-
ments are then offered in support of this first statement. When the argument is restruc-
tured according to logical principles, however, the conclusion is always listed after the
premises:
P1: The national defense is dependent on the space program.
P2: The space program will more than pay for itself in terms of technological spinoffs.
P3: At current funding levels the space program cannot fulfill its anticipated potential.
C: The space program deserves increased expenditures in the years ahead.
When restructuring arguments such as this, one should remain as close as possible
to the original version, while at the same time attending to the requirement that prem-
ises and conclusion be complete sentences that are meaningful in the order in which
they are listed.
Note that the first two premises are included within the scope of a single sentence
in the original argument. For the purposes of this chapter, compound arrangements of
statements in which the various components are all claimed to be true will be consid-
ered as separate statements.

4 CHAPTER 1 Basic Concepts

 Passages that contain arguments sometimes contain statements that are neither
premises nor conclusions. Only statements that are actually intended to support the
1
conclusion should be included in the list of premises. If, for example, a statement serves
merely to introduce the general topic, or merely makes a passing comment, it should
not be taken as part of the argument. Examples:
The claim is often made that malpractice lawsuits drive up the cost of health care. But if
such suits were outlawed or severely restricted, then patients would have no means of
recovery for injuries caused by negligent doctors. Hence, the availability of malpractice
litigation should be maintained intact.
Massive federal deficits push up interest rates for everyone. Servicing the debt
gobbles up a huge portion of the federal budget, which lowers our standard of living.
And big deficits also weaken the value of the dollar. For these reasons, Congress must
make a determined effort to cut overall spending and raise taxes. Politicians who ignore
this reality imperil the future of the nation.
In the first argument, the opening statement serves merely to introduce the topic, so it
is not part of the argument. The premise is the second statement, and the conclusion is
the last statement. In the second argument, the final statement merely makes a passing
comment, so it is not part of the argument. The premises are the first three statements,
and the statement following “for these reasons” is the conclusion.
Closely related to the concepts of argument and statement are those of inference and
proposition. An inference, in the narrow sense of the term, is the reasoning process
expressed by an argument. In the broad sense of the term, “inference” is used inter-
changeably with “argument.” Analogously, a proposition, in the narrow sense, is the
meaning or information content of a statement. For the purposes of this book, however,
“proposition” and “statement” are used interchangeably.

Note on the History of Logic

The person who is generally credited as the father of logic is the ancient Greek phi-
losopher Aristotle (384–322 b.c.). Aristotle’s predecessors had been interested in the
art of constructing persuasive arguments and in techniques for refuting the arguments
of others, but it was Aristotle who first devised systematic criteria for analyzing and
evaluating arguments.
Aristotle’s chief accomplishment is called syllogistic logic, a kind of logic in which
the fundamental elements are terms, and arguments are evaluated as good or bad
depending on how the terms are arranged in the argument. Chapters 4 and 5 of this
textbook are devoted mainly to syllogistic logic. But Aristotle also deserves credit for
originating modal logic, a kind of logic that involves such concepts as possibility, ne-
cessity, belief, and doubt. In addition, Aristotle catalogued several informal fallacies, a
topic treated in Chapter 3 of this book.
After Aristotle’s death, another Greek philosopher, Chrysippus (280–206 b.c.), one
of the founders of the Stoic school, developed a logic in which the fundamental ele-
ments were whole propositions. Chrysippus treated every proposition as either true or
false and developed rules for determining the truth or falsity of compound propositions

SECTION 1.1 Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions 5

 6. Stepping on a cat’s tail is a        condition for making the cat yowl. 1
★7. Burning leaves is a        condition for producing smoke.
8. Paying attention is a        condition for understanding a lecture.
9. Being exactly divisible by 4 is a      condition for a number being even.
★10. Uttering a falsehood is a        condition for telling a lie.
VII. P
 age through a book, magazine, or newspaper and find two arguments, one with
Visit Aplia for indicator words, the other without. Copy the arguments as written, giving the ap-
section-specific
problem sets. propriate reference. Then identify the premises and conclusion of each.

1.3 Deduction and Induction

PREVIEW You are walking through campus on the way to class when suddenly you hear a loud
pop-pop-pop. Simultaneously you see three people fall to the ground. One is screaming for help, and
the other two are lying motionless. Immediately you take cover behind a nearby tree. Why do you do
this? Because it looks like an assailant is shooting people and you might be the next victim. Is it certain
you will be hit? No, but there is a reasonable degree of probability. This section takes up the distinction
between certain and probable reasoning.

The idea that arguments come in two forms, deductive and inductive, was first as-
serted by Aristotle. In the intervening centuries, deduction and induction have become
a settled fixture not only in logic but in our intellectual culture. Countless books, both
fiction and nonfiction, have referred to it. Einstein wrote a paper on it. And a huge
number of textbooks ranging from philosophy to education, business to psychology,
and chemistry to anthropology explore the subject. So what is the difference between a
deductive and an inductive argument? Briefly we can say that deductive arguments are
those that rest on necessary reasoning, while inductive arguments are those that rest on
probabilistic reasoning.
Stated more precisely, a deductive argument is an argument incorporating the claim
that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true. On the
other hand, an inductive argument is an argument incorporating the claim that it is im-
probable that the conclusion be false given that the premises are true. Two examples:
The meerkat is closely related to the suricat.
The suricat thrives on beetle larvae.
Therefore, probably the meerkat thrives on beetle larvae.
The meerkat is a member of the mongoose family.
All members of the mongoose family are carnivores.
Therefore, it necessarily follows that the meerkat is a carnivore.
The first of these arguments is inductive, the second deductive.

SECTION 1.3 Deduction and Induction 33

1 In deciding whether an argument is inductive or deductive, we look to certain ob-
jective features of the argument. These features include (1) the occurrence of special
indicator words, (2) the actual strength of the inferential link between premises and
conclusion, and (3) the form or style of argumentation. However, we must acknowl-
edge at the outset that many arguments in ordinary language are incomplete, and be-
cause of this, deciding whether the argument should best be interpreted as deductive
or inductive may be impossible.
The occurrence of special indicator words is illustrated in the examples we just con-
sidered. The word “probably” in the conclusion of the first argument suggests that the
argument should be taken as inductive, and the word “necessarily” in the conclusion
of the second suggests that the second argument be taken as deductive. Additional
inductive indicators are “improbable,” “plausible,” “implausible,” “likely,” “unlikely,” and
“reasonable to conclude.” Additional deductive indicators are “certainly,” “absolutely,”
and “definitely.” (Note that the phrase “it must be the case that” is simply a conclusion
indicator that can occur in either deductive or inductive argments.)
Inductive and deductive indicator words often suggest the correct interpretation.
However, if they conflict with one of the other criteria (discussed shortly), we should
probably ignore them. Arguers often use phrases such as “it certainly follows that”
for rhetorical purposes to add impact to their conclusion and not to suggest that the
argument be taken as deductive. Similarly, some arguers, not knowing the distinction
between inductive and deductive, will claim to “deduce” a conclusion when their argu-
ment is more correctly interpreted as inductive.
The second factor that bears on our interpretation of an argument as inductive or
deductive is the actual strength of the inferential link between premises and conclu-
sion. If the conclusion actually does follow with strict necessity from the premises, the
argument is clearly deductive. In such an argument it is impossible for the premises to
be true and the conclusion false. On the other hand, if the conclusion does not follow
with strict necessity but does follow probably, it is often best to consider the argument
inductive. Examples:

All entertainers are extroverts.

David Letterman is an entertainer.
Therefore, David Letterman is an extrovert.
The vast majority of entertainers are extroverts.
David Letterman is an entertainer.
Therefore, David Letterman is an extrovert.

In the first example, the conclusion follows with strict necessity from the premises. If
we assume that all entertainers are extroverts and that David Letterman is an enter-
tainer, then it is impossible that David Letterman not be an extrovert. Thus, we should
interpret this argument as deductive. In the second example, the conclusion does not
follow from the premises with strict necessity, but it does follow with some degree of
probability. If we assume that the premises are true, then based on that assumption it
is probable that the conclusion is true. Thus, it is best to interpret the second argument
as inductive.

34 CHAPTER 1 Basic Concepts

 55 Fragments: Translation

TRUTH

Fragment 2

Come, I shall tell you, and do you listen and convey the story,
What routes of inquiry alone there are for thinking:
The one - that [if] is, and that [if] cannot not be,
Is the path of Persuasion (for it attends upon truth);
5 The other - that [if] is not and that [if] needs must not be,
That I point out to you to be a path wholly unlearnable,
For you could not know what-is-not (for that is not feasible),
Nor could you point it out.

For comment, see Introduction p 7-8 with notes 15-21, 70, and Glossary
on atetheia, eon, esti, gignfckein, noein, peithein.

2.1 T: 'pay attention to the account when you have heard it'; C: 'listen
and lay my word to heart.' But see Introduction p 23 with n 67.
2.2 'thinking': some would translate 'knowing.' See M, 68-70, R 626.
The standard translation 'think' is, however, defended by Barnes,
Presocr. Phil, vol I, 158-9, 329, n 6. See also Gallop 66, 70-71, with n
41, and Glossary on noein.
2.3 T: 'the one [says]: "exists" and "it is not possible not to exist"'; M:
'the one, that—is—and that it is not possible that—be not—(55);
KR: 'the one way, that it is and cannot not-be'; B: 'The first, namely,
that It is, and that it is impossible for it not to be.'
2.5 T: 'the other [says]: "exists-not"and"not to exist is necessary"'; M:
'the other, that—is not—and that it is right that—be not—' (55);
KR: 'the other, that it I's-nof and needs must not-be'; B: The other,
namely, that It is not, and that it must needs not be.'
2.6 T: 'a path wholly unknowable'; M: 'a path from which no tidings
ever come' (55); KR: 'a path altogether unthinkable'; B: 'a path that
none can learn of at all'.
2.7-8 T: 'For you could not know that which does not exist (because it
is impossible) nor could you express it'; M: 'for you could neither
come to know that which is not •— (for it cannot be consummated)
nor could you single it out' (55); KR (similarly B): 'For thou couldst
not know that which-is-not (that is impossible) nor utter it.'
 HERACLITUS ON NATURE

Fragment 1

But of this account, which holds forever, people forever prove un-
comprehending, both before they have heard it and when once
they have heard it. For, although all things happen in accordance
with this account, they are like people without experience when
they experience words and deeds such as I set forth, distinguishing
(as I do) each thing according to (its) real constitution, ie, pointing
out how it is. The rest of mankind, however, fail to be aware of what
they do after they wake up just as they forget what they do while
asleep.

Fragment 2

That is why one must follow that which is (common) [ie, universal.
For 'common' means 'universal']. Though the account is common,
the many live, however, as though they had a private
understanding.

Fragment 3

[The sun's] breadth is (that) of a human foot.