3080

OSUN STATE UNIVERSITY, OSOGBO

COURSE MANUAL
ON
PHILOSOPHY AND LOGIC
GNS 204

DEPT OF PHILOSOPHY

Course Description
This is a compulsory course designed for undergraduate students in the university. The course
guides students on the techniques of studying to achieve academic success. It further equips
students with the skills of constant critical re-examination of beliefs and assumptions by keeping
the imagination awake and encouraging efficiency of intellect and mental acuity. The course is
one avenue of assisting students to be thinkers rather than mere reflectors of other people’s
thoughts. It will include practice in constructing logically sound arguments as well as analyzing
those of others. Some studies of informal fallacies are also included. The course enables
students to think more clearly and debate more effectively on intellectual issues in general. The
overall direction of the course is to introduce the students to the basic concepts and issues in
philosophy and logic, in order that the students learn to think critically and to appreciate some of
the philosophical problems and know how to find answers to those problems by themselves.
Course Objectives

By the end of this course, students will be able to:

1. Apply philosophical thoughts on daily activities

2. Integrate philosophical thoughts in different field of study.

3. Enhance students’ skills as a thinker and debater.

Introduction
This reading material is an introduction to Logic and Philosophy for GST 204 that teaches the
study and practice of forms and methods of argumentation in ordinary, symbolic languages and
critical reasoning. It further includes analysis and assessment of arguments in English,
symbolizing sentences and arguments, constructing formal proofs of validity in sentential and
quantificational logic; however it will be improper to dive into Logic without starting with the
core subject matter which is Philosophy. Most people ordinarily study philosophy in a university
as a course not because of personal understanding or interest in this field; rather some accept the
offer to study philosophy as their least option instead of forfeiting their admission chance. But
that has nothing to do with the nature of the disciplines as a least academic option for any
students seeking admission in our university, contrary to this presupposition. We will be very
glad if this book serves as an eye opener to the study of philosophy and logic to readers in
general and the students of Osun State University offering GNS 204 in particular . The book
will engender interest of all tertiary school students to cultivate a taste for abstract ideas and
theoretical arguments. .

Table of Contents
Introduction
LECTURE ONE: PHILOSOPHY
 What Does It All Mean?
 The Concept of Philosophy
 Definition of Philosophy from Different Epochs
 Methods of Philosophy
 Value of philosophy to Human Existence

LECTURE TWO: BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY

 Metaphysics
 Epistemology
 Ethics

LECTURE THREE: LOGIC

 Relevance of logic
 Types of Logic
 Other Branches of Philosophy

LECTURE FOUR: HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY

 Thales
 Anaximenes
 Anaximander
 Heraclitus

LECTURE FIVE: ARGUMENT

 What is an argument?
 Importance of Studying Argument in Logic
 Clarification between Explaining, Summarizing and Arguing
 Terms connected with Arguments
 Recognizing Arguments
 Conclusion Locators
 Features of Argument

LECTURE SIX: FORMS OF ARGUMENT

 Forms of Argument
 Non –Argument
 Attributes of Non Arguments

LECTURE SEVEN : TYPES OF ARGUMENTS

 Structure of Argument
 Inductive Argument
 Features of an Inductive Argument
 Differences between Inductive and Deductive Argument

LECTURE EIGHT: STATEMENT, PROPOSITION AND TRUTH TABLE ANALYSIS

 Differences between Sentences and Statements
  Types of Statements
 Propositional statements and the logical connectives
 Compound Statements and Truth Table Validity
 Conjunction
 Alternation:
 Material conditional statement
 Material Bi-conditional Statement;

LECTURE NINE : FALLACY

 Formal or pure fallacy
 Verbal or Semi-logical fallacy
 Informal or Material fallacies
 Fallacies of weak induction
 Fallacies of relevance
 Circumstantial ad hominem
 Fallacies of presumption
 Fallacy of Accident
 Straw Man

LECTURE TEN : LANGUAGE, MEANING, AND COMMUNICATION

 The Role of Language in Constructing Arguments
 Information
 Direction
 Feelings and Emotions
 Ceremony
 Separation
 Deliberate Use
 Meaning and Impact

LECTURE ELEVEN : LAWS OF THOUGHT

 Law of identity
 Law of contradiction
 Law of Excluded middle
Philosophy and Logic at fleeting look

LECTURE ONE
PHILOSOPHY
Objectives
Towards the end of the lecture, students would be able to:
i. Explain in detail the meaning of Philosophy
ii. Distinguishing between layman understanding and Professional conception of
philosophy
iii. Define philosophy in the strict, technical and professional sense
iv. Discuss the methodology use in philosophizing
What Does It All Mean?
To many people who are ignorant of the subject, philosophy as a field of study is usually considered
to be a useless and abstract discipline while others see it as an exclusive, upper class course,
which is suitable for those who are out of touch with reality. Most people also consider it as a
sceptical and distrustful subject that makes one antireligious and anti-God. For the students in
tertiary institutions, especially in Africa and particularly in Nigeria, philosophy does not in any
visible way—unlike law, business management, economics, medicine or accountancy— promise
a fulfilling future prospect necessary for survival. The centre of philosophy lies in certain
questions which the reflective human mind finds naturally puzzling, and the best way to begin
the study of philosophy is to think about them directly. Once you have done that, you are in a
better position to appreciate the work of others who have tried to solve the same problems.
Philosophy is different from science and from mathematics, unlike science it doesn't rely on
experiments or observation, but only on thought. And, unlike mathematics, it has no formal
methods of proof. It is done just by asking questions, arguing, trying out ideas and thinking of
possible arguments against them, and wondering how our concepts really work.

The main concern of philosophy is to question and understand very common ideas that all of us
use every day without thinking about them. For instance, an historian may ask what happened at
some time in the past, but a philosopher will take the issue beyond what happened in time past
but focus on some fundamental question such as:, "What is time?" A mathematician may
investigate the relations among numbers, but a philosopher will ask, "What is a number?" A
physicist will ask what atoms are made of or what explains gravity, but a philosopher will ask
how we can know there is anything outside of our own minds. A psychologist may investigate
how children learn a language, but a philosopher will ask, "What makes a word mean anything?"
Anyone can ask whether it is wrong to sneak into a movie without paying, but a philosopher will
ask, "What makes an action right or wrong?"
We couldn't get along in life without taking the ideas of time, number, knowledge, language,
right and wrong for granted most of the time; but in philosophy we investigate those things
themselves. The aim for doing this is purely to push our understanding of the world and
ourselves a bit deeper. Obviously it isn't easy. The more basic the ideas you are trying to
investigate, the fewer tools you have to work with. There isn't much you can assume or take for
granted in philosophy. So philosophy is a somewhat dizzying activity, and few of its results go
unchallenged for long.

Philosophy as an intellectual activity can be variously defined, depending on whether the

emphasis is placed on its method, its subject-matter or its purpose. The very first question which
is of much importance is to define and discuss the nature of philosophy. This inquiry into the
nature of philosophy is called “meta-philosophy”. Philosophy is an open-ended, pioneering
discipline, forever opening up new areas of study and new methods of inquiry. Here we will
discuss the meaning of philosophy and try to define philosophy.

The Concept of Philosophy

When a student of philosophy or a professional philosopher is asked the three-lettered question,

“what is philosophy” the standard reply is that philosophy has no universally accepted definition.
A student of philosophy may just look at you and expect that the reply should satisfy your
curiosity. Whereas, a professional philosopher may go on to give what will end up being an
abstract, obscure and winding definition which also has the effect of making you uncomfortably
silent. Thus, asking the question “what is philosophy” seem to be asking for a simple sentence definition
to the layman, thinking that philosophy can be given in the form of one word answer. But obviously, it is
not the case that we can give an answer to the question in a brief phrase. It is not just possible to give a
definition which will encompass all what philosophy entails. Because of the complex nature of the
discipline, it is not easy to define philosophy in a way acceptable to every philosopher. For instance, it is
easy to ask a student of biology or chemistry what the definition of their respective disciplines are and get
a straight forward answer. But this is not possible with philosophy.

Philosophy as a discipline does not have a universal definition. Apart from this, there is no general
agreement about the definition of philosophy. Different philosophers give, or offer different answers to
the question, “What is philosophy”. We get as many answers to the question just as many philosophers
there are. So the first problem a student of philosophy encounters is that of the definition of philosophy.
Different philosophers run away from defining the subject or they mostly do so according to their various
schools of thought, culture and even tradition. That is why for most introductory textbooks on
philosophy, the best way to define philosophy is to do philosophy. The fact that there are many
definitions to the word “Philosophy “ does not means that we should be disappointed simply because we
cannot get a universally accepted definition of Philosophy. However, there are some definitions which
may rightly engage our attention

Consider the following definitions:

• Philosophy is an attempt to understand the universe as a whole;

• Philosophy is an examination of man’s moral responsibilities and social obligations;

• Philosophy is an effort to fathom out the divine intentions and the place of human beings
with reference to these intentions;

• Philosophy is an effort to ground the enterprise of natural science;

• Philosophy is the rigorous examination of the origins, extent, and validity of human ideas;
• Philosophy is an exploration of the place of will or consciousness in the universe;

• Philosophy is an examination of the values of truth, goodness, and beauty;

• Philosophy is an effort to codify the rules of human thought in order to promote rationality
and the extension of clear thinking;

These definitions tell us two fundamental things:

1. The first is that philosophers coined the discipline from different fields,
backgrounds and experiences, and this fact informs the interests and concerns
they will ultimately reflect upon.
2. The second thing we should know is that though these definitions are vague and
indefinite, especially for someone being introduced into his/her first philosophy
course.

However, we can deduce one significant fact about philosophy. For the Greeks, philosophy took
its meaning from philosophia or the “love of wisdom.” Etymologically, philosophy means love
of wisdom but functionally it means both the seeking of wisdom (process) and the wisdom
sought (product). Therefore, philosophy means love of wisdom not “love of knowledge”. That is
an important distinction. The pioneers of philosophy were interested in the kind of knowledge
that enables human to live a good life and that kind of knowledge is what we call “wisdom”.

Going by this literal meaning, a philosopher is always preoccupied with the search for truth and
wisdom. He pays little attention to the conclusions he searches in the cause of his search. His
search is endless because the truth is infinite. He wants to keep himself always engaged in this
pursuit of truth rather than its possession. The meaning of philosophy has baffled the
philosophers and thinkers from ancient times.

Definition of Philosophy from Different Epochs

Aristotle and Plato described philosophy as a reflection of human experience. That is, man’s
experience of himself and objective reality. Aristotle in his understanding asserts that
philosopher is he who seeks for truth. That is, philosopher is he whose heart is fixed on reality.
In his own view, Aristotle defined Philosophy as the knowledge of truth. Epicurus defines
philosophy as an activity which secures happy life by means of discussion and argument.

More so, Philosophy can be defined as a critical approach to human life, all objective events and
to all scientific knowledge, which is the essence of all knowledge, sciences and the human life.
Here are some other definitions of philosophy given by famous philosophers:

 Philosophy is that which grasps its own era in thought.” [ Hegel]

 Philosophy is an interpretation of the world in order to change it.” [ Karl Marx]
 Philosophy is the acquisition of knowledge.” [Plato]
 Philosophy is the science which investigates the nature of being, as it is in itself.
(Aristotle]
 Philosophy is a science of sciences [Comte]
 Philosophy in full sense is only man’s thinking, thinking about generalities rather than
particular [William James]
Philosophy is the science and criticism of cognition. Bertrand Russell says that the difference
between philosophy and science is of the degree not of kind. Prof. Dewey also said that the roots
of philosophy and science are the same.
Let us now see how we can arrive at a deeper understanding of the character of philosophy from
this basic definition.

Lawhead (2003), in his analogy, asks us with this simple and funny question: If a philosopher is
a lover of wisdom, what then is the connection between philosophers and lovers? What comes to
the mind is nothing but Relationship! The search for the character of philosophy and
philosophical understanding can be compared with being in an emotional relationship (Lawhead,
2002: xxvi). When two people get together in a relationship, they are immediately confronted
with a whole lot of problems that require their attention if they are going to make a sense out of
that relationship, and give meaning to it. A successful relationship, therefore, requires that both
of them continually work at it to keep up its excitements and explore each other’s personality.
That relationship will begin to collapse the moment both of them relax and think the relationship
has been figured out as something that does not require their input again. A philosopher is also a
lover of wisdom who is always in an ongoing quest to explore new ideas, reexamine old ones
and confront undiscovered dimensions of human experience. We can therefore modify our initial
definition of philosophy by seeing it as a reflective or meditative human attempt to
systematically and critically study human experience. This also reflects in Makinde’s definition
of Philosophy. In his view, Philosophy is defined as a reflective activity which involves nature
and human existence in nature. It is an attempt to arrive at a reasoned answer to important
questions Omoregbe in his assertion defines Philosophy as rational search for an answer to
some fundamental issues that arises in human’s mind when we reflect on human experience.

In his view, Balogun consider philosophy as the application of philosophical tools to the study
of philosophy. This implies that Balogun conceives philosophy as a process of critical
investigating of life which requires some methods. His position on this definition indicates that
philosophy is not a way of cooking an abstract issue. Philosophy generally is the study of general
and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason,
mind, and language. Philosophy is the passionate pursuit of knowledge of the real and the good

From the various definitions considered, the goal of philosophy is the knowledge of the truth
about the reality and the values. High motivation and a right attitude play an important role in the
achievement of the goal of philosophy. Therefore, we need to focus and carry out our ambitions
good intentions in philosophy. Especially we need some methods for carrying out the business of
philosophy.
Why study philosophy?
Philosophy makes a central contribution to the educational enterprise through its demands upon
intellectual activity. Education in philosophy involves becoming aware of major figures and
developments in the history of philosophy, learning up-to-date techniques and accepted answers
to philosophical questions, and learning critical, interpretive, and evaluative skills that, in the
overall scheme of things, may be considered to be of greatest value.
Graduates of the philosophy programme are expected to have come to terms with difficult texts
dealing with advanced philosophical arguments. These readings are often quite diverse in
method and content. Further, a variety of written works is part of the philosophy student's
assignments, and it is expected that these assignments be carefully composed and thoughtfully
addressed. Finally, informed discussion is essential to philosophy and philosophical education.
This verbal interaction is expected to occur as a routine part of course offerings.
Much of what is learned in philosophy can be applied in virtually all human endeavours. This is
because philosophy touches so many subjects and its methods can be used in any field.
The study of philosophy helps us to enhance our ability to solve problems, our communication
skills, our persuasive powers, and our writing skills. Below is a description of how philosophy
helps us develop these various important skills.
General Problem Solving Skills: The study of philosophy enhances a person's problem-solving
capacities. It helps us to analyze concepts, definitions, arguments, and problems. It contributes to
our capacity to organize ideas and issues, to deal with questions of value, and to extract what is
essential from large quantities of information. It helps us, on the one hand, to distinguish fine and
subtle differences between views and, on the other hand, to discover common ground between
opposing positions. It also helps us to synthesize a variety of views or perspectives into one
unified whole.
Communication Skills: Philosophy contributes uniquely to the development of expressive and
communicative powers. It provides some of the basic tools of self-expression - for instance,
skills in presenting ideas through well-constructed, systematic arguments - that other fields either
do not use or use less extensively. Philosophy helps us express what is distinctive in our views, it
enhances our ability to explain difficult material, and it helps us to eliminate ambiguities and
vagueness from our writing and speech.
Persuasive Powers: Philosophy provides training in the construction of clear formulations, good
arguments, and appropriate examples. It, thereby, helps us to develop our ability to be
convincing. We learn to build and defend our own views, to appreciate competing positions, and
to indicate forcefully why we consider our own views preferable to alternatives. These capacities
can be developed not only through reading and writing in philosophy, but also through the
philosophical dialogue, both within and outside the classroom, that is so much a part of a
thorough philosophical education.
Writing Skills: Writing is taught intensively in many philosophy courses, and many regularly
assigned philosophical texts are also excellent as literary essays. Philosophy teaches interpretive
writing through its examination of challenging texts, comparative writing through emphasis on
fairness to alternative positions, argumentative writing through developing students' ability to
establish their own views, and descriptive writing through detailed portrayal of concrete
examples. Concrete examples serve as the anchors to which generalizations must be tied.
Structure and technique, then, are emphasized in philosophical writings. Originality is also
encouraged, and students are generally urged to use their imagination to develop their own ideas.
The general uses of philosophy just described are obviously of great academic value. It should be
clear that the study of philosophy has intrinsic rewards as an unlimited quest for understanding
of important, challenging problems. But philosophy has further uses in deepening an education,
both in college and in the many activities, professional and personal, that follow graduation. Two
of these further uses are described below.
Understanding Other Disciplines: Philosophy is indispensable for our ability to understand
other disciplines. Many important questions about a discipline, such as the nature of its concepts
and its relation to other disciplines, are philosophical in nature. Philosophy of science, for
example, is needed to supplement the understanding of the natural and social sciences that
derives from scientific work itself. Philosophy of literature and philosophy of history are of
similar value in understanding the humanities, and philosophy of art (aesthetics) is important in
understanding both the visual and the performing arts. Philosophy is, moreover, essential in
assessing the various standards of evidence used by other disciplines. Since all fields of
knowledge employ reasoning and must set standards of evidence, logic and epistemology have a
general bearing on all these fields.
Development of Sound Methods of Research and Analysis: l Another value of philosophy in
education is its contribution to our capacity to frame hypotheses, to do research, and to put
problems in manageable forms. Philosophical thinking strongly emphasies clear formulation of
ideas and problems, selection of relevant data, and objective methods for assessing ideas and
proposals. It also emphasizes development of a sense of the new directions suggested by new
hypotheses and questions one encounters while doing research. Philosophers regularly build on
both the successes and failures of their predecessors. A person with philosophical training can
readily learn to do the same in any field.
Among the things that people educated in philosophy can do are the following:
 They can do research on a variety of subjects.
 They can get information and organize it.
 They can write clearly and effectively.
 They can communicate well, usually both orally and in writing.
 They can generate ideas on many different sorts of problems.
 They can formulate and solve problems.
 They can elicit hidden assumptions and articulate overlooked alternatives.
 They can persuade people to take unfamiliar views or novel options seriously.
 They can summarize complicated materials without undue simplification.
 They can integrate diverse data and construct useful analogies.
 They can distinguish subtle differences without overlooking similarities.
 They can also adapt to change, a capacity of growing importance in the light of rapid
advances in so many fields.
 And well educated philosophers can usually teach what they know to others. This ability is
especially valuable at a time when training and retraining are so often required by rapid
technological changes.
These abilities are quite general, but they bear directly on the range of careers for which
philosophers are prepared. Philosophers have the skills necessary for an enormous range of both
academic and non-academic jobs. The kind of basic education which philosophical training
provides is eminently useful in some major aspects of virtually any occupation.
Below are lists of philosophy courses that are particularly appropriate for people studying,
aspiring to, or working in disciplines outside of philosophy, as these philosophy courses help to
deepen one's understanding of other fields of study, to answer some of the fundamental questions
that arise in other disciplines, and to clarify the relationship between one discipline and another
field of study
Methods of Philosophy
Human reason is the method used by philosophy in inquiring about the nature of things.
Philosophical method is the study of how to do philosophy. A common view among
philosophers is that philosophy is distinguished by the methods that philosophers follow in
addressing philosophical questions. There is not just one method that philosophers use to answer
philosophical questions. Some common features of the methods that philosophers follow include:

i. Doubt: Notice doubts that one has about the meaning or justification of some common,
everyday belief one has.
ii. Formulate a problem; formulate the doubts in a philosophical problem, or question.
Explain the problem very clearly and carefully.
iii. Offer a solution: Offer a solution to the problem: either something like a philosophical
analysis or a philosophical explanation.
iv. Argument; Give an argument or several arguments supporting the solution.
v. Dialectic: Present the solution and arguments for criticism by other philosophers, and
help them judge their own.

There are some methods of philosophy which play an important role to do philosophy. These can
be named as:

1. The Socratic Method

2. The Rational Dialogue
3. The Method of Criticism
4. The Speculative Method
5. The Descriptive Method
6. Inductive Method
7. Deductive Method
8. Dialectical Method
9. The. Method of Analysis
10. The Method of Synthesis
11. Method of Intuition
The above said methods are generally used in philosophical speculations. It is an important part
to the study of philosophy

APPROACHES TO PHILOSOPHY
The methods employed in philosophical reasoning and enquiries include the basic
presuppositions of scientific approach in general; but over and above these methods,
philosophical processes endeavour to discover ways of considering and knowing the facts
implied in the phenomena of experience. Before entering into a detailed discussion of the proper
methods of philosophy, we will do well to remember the principles laid down by the philosopher
Descartes. In his Discourse on Method, Descartes gives an outline of the procedure he follows in
philosophical enquiry:
The first of this is to accept nothing as true which I did not clearly recognize to be so; that
is to say, carefully to avoid precipitation and prejudice in judgments, and to accept in
them nothing more than was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I could
have no occasion to doubt it. The second was to divide up each of the difficulties which I
examined into as many parts as possible, and as seemed requisite in order that it might be
resolved in the best manner possible. The third was to carry on my reflections in due
order, commencing with objects that were the most simple and easy to understand, in
order to rise little by little, or by degrees, to knowledge of the more complex, assuming
an order, even if a fictitious one, among those which do not follow a natural sequence
relatively to one another. The last was in all cases to make enumerations so complete and
reviews so general that I should be certain of having omitted nothing.
The true philosophic method should not be lopsided, should not be biased to any particular or
special dogma, but comprehend within itself the processes of reflection and speculation and at
the same time be able to reconcile the deductive and the inductive methods of reasoning. The
philosophy of the Absolute rises above particulars to greater and greater universals, basing itself
on facts of observation and experience by the method of induction and gradual generalisation of
truths, without missing even a single link in the chain of logic and argumentation, reflection and
contemplation, until it reaches the highest generalisation of the Absolute Truth; and then by the
deductive method comes down to interpret and explain the facts of experience in the light of the
nature of this Truth. This is a great example of the most satisfactory method of philosophical
enquiry.
Philosophy being the way of the knowledge of Truth, its method must be in agreement with the
nature of Truth. In philosophy and religion the end always determines the nature of the means.
What we know is not entirely different in nature from the essential constitution of the means by
which we know it. The immediate objects of our experience here are the entities of the physical
universe, and the means of our knowledge of them are our senses which, too, partake of physical
characteristics. Hence the method that philosophy employs in its approach to Truth is much
dependent upon what conception we have of philosophy and of the nature of the goal of
philosophy. Our goal may be matter, mind or Spirit, and accordingly we may become either
materialists, idealists or mystics. Our instrument of knowledge may be the senses, understanding,
reason or intuition. And our theories of knowledge may lead us to be empiricists, rationalists,
transcendentalists, absolute idealists or spiritual intuitionists. All these theories resort mainly to
two processes; contemplation of what is considered to be indubitable and real, and a searching
analysis and critical study of empirical experience, including all the methods and conclusions of
science. The former helps us to a greater knowledge of the goal of philosophy, and the latter to a
disavowal of false values and vindication of the methods and fundamental principles of
philosophy. The theories of knowledge and reality generally subject the existing ones to a critical
investigation as to their nature and contents and found strong systems of thought after protracted
contemplation on the possible nature of reality.

SCEPTICISM AND AGNOSTICISM

Philosophy is said to have begun with wonder. The marvel of creation evokes the admiration of
man, and its mysteriousness excites his wonder; and this wonder naturally leads to a serious
enquiry into the nature of things, for man is not content to rest in a state of awe based on
ignorance and is curious to know the truth behind the enthralling wonder of the world. He
investigates, speculates, argues and discusses, and comes to a settled opinion of the nature of
things in this wonderful world. This becomes his philosophy. Modern man, however, seems to
have stepped into the region of philosophy through doubt and sceptical thinking. Man
commenced doubting the validity of authority and dogma no less than that of accepted traditional
beliefs. Descartes started with doubting everything, even the validity of thought itself. Later,
Kant, too, followed the critical method of enquiry in philosophy. Bradley was of the opinion that
the chief need of philosophy is “a sceptical study of first principles.” However, he adds: “By
scepticism is not meant doubt about or disbelief in some tenet or tenets. I understand by it an
attempt to become aware and to doubt all preconceptions.”

The technique of doubt in philosophical pursuits has however, the danger of the possibility of
falling into a hopeless maze of rank scepticism, with no ground left even for the sceptic to stand
on, or into agnosticism, which is a smug way of coolly forgetting the basic significations of the
sceptical outlook and speciously arguing that nothing definite can be known in reality.
Scepticism as a principle to be followed at the commencement of the application methods in
philosophy is really praiseworthy, for, all philosophy, as above said, begins in wonder and doubt.
A secret and irresistible urge to know that which presents itself as something extending beyond
the scope of human knowledge and a simultaneous dissatisfaction with the surface view of things
is the foundation of all enterprise in philosophy. Though philosophy may begin in doubt, it
should not end in doubt; for, then, the very purpose of philosophy would be defeated. If the
sceptic is left to confine himself to his position of universal doubt and disbelief, he becomes
guilty of dogmatism. When he tries to free himself from dogmatism, he cuts the ground from
under his own feet. This is the fate of the sceptical approach, which overreaches itself and
stultifies its own purpose. Only an acute and sincere thinker like Descartes could detect this error
in entertaining universal doubt and come to the wise conclusion that the existence of the doubter
himself cannot be doubted. His philosophy began with doubt but ended in absolute certainty
regarding the nature of reality. Scepticism as a method of philosophy has value only when it is
aware of its limitations and scope, and not when it tries to assume a metaphysical status.

Agnosticism is easily the consequence of the thoroughgoing sceptical outlook, and it reaches the
conclusion that the reality of things cannot be known, for almost the same reasons as those
advanced by the sceptic. Knowledge of reality is impossible, inasmuch as we have no means of
knowing it. It may appear that the agnostic position is in some way better than the findings of the
sceptic, as the sceptic disposes of all questions by disbelief outright, due to his conviction of
there being no possibility of arriving at any certainty regarding anything, while the agnostic only
denies the chance of our having any knowledge of it. But the theory as a whole is, obviously,
untenable. “Its essential defect is that it is based on the unconscious assumption that man is
somehow an alien in the very world which gave him birth and in whose bosom he lives and
moves and has his being, that he is doomed to look at the universe through the medium of forms
and categories of thought, which are, so to speak, mental spectacles of foreign manufacture” (D.
M. Edwards: The Philosophy of Religion p. 185). “To say that reality is such that our knowledge
cannot reach it, is a claim to know reality; to urge that our knowledge is of a kind which must
fail to transcend appearance, itself implies that transcendence. For, if we had no idea of a
beyond, we should assuredly not know how to talk about failure or success. And the test, by
which we distinguish them, must obviously be some acquaintance with the nature of the goal”
(F. H. Bradley: Appearance and Reality, p. 1). Agnosticism as a method fails, because to assert
that we know only appearance and cannot know any reality beyond it, we must already possess
some knowledge of reality, which alone could possibly enable us to have any knowledge of the
distinction between appearance and reality.

EMPIRICISM AND RATIONALISM

Empiricism as a method of philosophy is mainly confined to sense-experience. It urges that all

knowledge obtained by the senses is of what is already existent outside themselves and that
reason has its function in carefully judging the nature of the perceptive material provided to it by
the senses. The laws of reason, according to empiricism, are copies of and controlled by
knowledge which is a posteriori. No a priori knowledge in the sense of what rationalism
contends to be present in reason is ever possible. Rational concepts are by-products of the
experiential material. The source of knowledge is sense-experience and not mind or reason. The
method of acquiring knowledge is inductive. Ideas are reducible to sensations. Knowledge
cannot be gained by merely finding that the opposite, which is inconceivable, as rationalism
holds, and truth cannot be established by the fact that to deny it implies, somehow, its
reaffirmation. A priori knowledge independent of sense-experience is inconceivable. There are,
therefore, no universal and necessary self-evident truths that are adumbrated by rationalism. So
goes the bold empiricism.

The defect of empiricism lies in the fact that the senses are untrustworthy as means of right
knowledge. Sense-percepts have being or reality only in relation to the constitutions of the
respective senses, and never independently. Minus the characteristics of the senses, our empirical
percepts are nothing, which is equal to saying that we know, in an objective way, only what is
already contained in the very nature of the senses subjectively. This is certainly not a reliable or
valid knowledge of reality. The background of the sense-percepts ever remains unknown to us,
and the attitude which we develop towards the things in themselves that lie beyond the reach of
the senses is naturally one of doubt. It only means that we have to become sheer sceptics with
regard to the nature of reality. In the West, Locke’s empiricism naturally paved the way for
Hume’s scepticism. The sceptic’s attitude has a very harmful reaction on the progress of
philosophy, for, if we are to carry scepticism to its logical limits, there can never be any such
thing as universal and necessary truths, and all that we know would be, at least on the
suppositions of Hume, mere fragmentary and disconnected shreds of events, which would
convey no meaning at all, due to lack of causal relation and necessary connection among
themselves. Doubt and disbelief of every settled opinion is not only non practicable but is
detrimental to the very position of the doubter himself, for, a systematic doubter who seriously
pursues his method without deceiving himself has to doubt his own judgments, in order that he
may avoid the charge of peremptoriness in his search for truth. This, however, he cannot do.
What he really does is to doubt all other positions except his own! A dogmatic adherence to
one’s own convictions where other views are possible is not the characteristic of a true
philosophic method. To know that we do not know implies the acceptance of some criterion of
certainty, some knowledge which we already possess without any trace of doubt. Truth,
goodness and beauty lose their meaning and value when unconditional doubt sweeps into our
hearts. Life becomes an empty affair, with no intelligible aim before it. Empiricism is the
precursor of scepticism, and as a method of enquiry into the nature of Truth, it is incomplete and
fallible.

The mathematical method of rationalism takes reason to be the sole means of acquiring
philosophical knowledge. According to it, the objective universe is known, arranged and
controlled by the a priori laws of reason. The universe is an expression of the innate rational
nature of the knowing subject. The criterion of truth is not sensory but intellectual, rational and
deductive. The mathematical methods of deduction are most suited to a proper philosophy.
Knowledge is gained when the opposite of what is inconceivable is discovered. Truth can be
established by the fact that to deny it implies its reaffirmation in one way or another. True
knowledge is a priori and is independent of sense-experience. This knowledge is self-evident,
and so it implies universal and necessary truths. But even rationalism taken exclusively cannot
escape the charge of being non-critical in regard to its own position. How can the rationalist be
sure that what he knows through his rational powers is uncontradicted knowledge? What one
thinks to be a self-evident truth need not necessarily be so. There is nothing, whatsoever, to
prove that the principles that the rationalist logically deduces from his a priori premises really
correspond to the actual characteristics of the world of experience. The geometrical method of
reasoning may be very pleasing to the philosopher, but it need not carry with it the stamp of
universal validity. The self-evident nature of the truths discovered independently by rationalism
has been called in question. Many of the so-called self-evident truths turn out to be private to
their owners and do not enjoy universal acceptance. Even in regard to the principles of logic and
the laws of thought, there is no universal agreement. The rationalist is certain about the ability of
reason to give him uncontradictable knowledge. He forgets, however, that reason cannot be taken
as an infallible instrument of knowledge and that its only function is the critical examination,
verification and judgment of the knowledge that we obtain through the senses. Direct or
immediate knowledge is given to us relatively in sense-perception, and absolutely in intuitional
revelation, but not in reason. Reason has a purely negative value and is not a positive means of
knowledge. The senses and intuition provide us with knowledge which reason cannot contradict,
though it can criticize and judge them. There are certain facts, of course, which we cannot know
through the senses; but this does not mean that reason can know them. It is only in spiritual
intuition that they are realized. Unless the innate ideas of the rationalist are equated with the
infallible revelations of intuition, they cannot carry much weight in the light of an experience
which presents itself before us as having the value of reality. If what is called a self-evident truth
is confined to reason alone, its validity is capable of being doubted. Only when it is taken to
mean a spiritual realization of Reality does its truth rise above the realms of doubt and criticism.

THE CRITICAL METHOD OF KANT

The critical or transcendental method of philosophy employed by Kant takes stock of the
arguments of empiricism and rationalism and builds a new system of tremendous importance in
the history of philosophic thought. Kant follows the method of the analysis of the conditions and
limits of knowledge. He points out that, though the material of our knowledge is supplied by the
senses, the universality and the necessity about it comes from the very nature and constitution of
the understanding, which is the knower of all things in the world. But the world which we thus
know through synthetic a priori knowledge is not the real world, for, it is built by the materials
supplied by the senses, which gain the characters of universality and necessity when they are
brought into shape by the categories provided by the understanding. The world of reality cannot
be known by the powers that man possesses at present. If we had been endowed with a
consciousness-in-general or an intellectual intuition uninfluenced by the judgments and
categories of the understanding, it would have been possible for us to know the reality as such;
but as this kind of consciousness is not possessed by us, we cannot know reality. What we know
are just empirical facts or phenomena constructed by percepts and concepts common to all men.
The postulates of reality that reason advances are only necessities felt by it and not realities in
themselves.

In the philosophy of Kant, reason reaches its limits and also becomes conscious of these limits.
The strata of the senses, understanding and reason are thoroughly investigated and critically
examined and their weaknesses exposed. So far all is good. But Kant would seem to many to
discourage all efforts towards the acquisition of a knowledge of reality, making the very search
for knowledge a hopeless affair. To him, knowledge is a synthetic relational product of the
logical self. He feels that the ideals of metaphysics which the reason cherishes are just regulative
principles which seem to have no reality beyond being mere hypotheses. He makes philosophy in
the sense of metaphysics impossibility, holding that all knowledge is phenomenal. One of the
defects of his system lies in his thinking that intuition is confined to sense-perception. He seems
to feel that man cannot have non-mediate experience except through sensory contact. Though he
is profound enough to conceive of an intellectual intuition transcending the senses and
understanding, he does not raise it beyond a mere logical concept which does not share the
nature of reality. Though theoretically possible, his intellectual intuition seems to have no
practical value. The fact, however, appears to be that Kant was not aware that he himself had in
him intimations of this intellectual intuition, while he declared the world to consist of
appearances and posited the things-in-themselves as unknown but existing realities. He comes to
the borderland of reality and then retraces his steps, as if frightened by its stupendousness.
Swami Sivananda would join hands with Kant in holding that the world is phenomenal; but to
him, the intuition of Reality is not a mere intellectual possibility but the very basis of life itself.
Swami Sivananda recognizes that the Supreme Self, which is the foundation of all existence, is
to be known in a unique and non-rational way and that this Self-knowledge cannot be expressed
through the categories of the understanding, which work in agreement with the material provided
by the senses. The knowledge which one has of the Self cannot be ground in the mill of the
senses and reason, for, it is non-relative and constitutes an integral comprehension. It is beyond
all conceivable proofs of knowledge, for it is the basis of all proof. To Kant, God is an object of
faith, but to Swami Sivananda He is an object of experience. It is only when we narrow down the
experience to the logical and empirical realms that we are inclined to dub it as a postulate. The
philosophy of Swami Sivananda does not begin with postulates; it is an exposition of spiritual
experience.

THE DIALECTICAL METHOD OF HEGEL

Kant’s critical method was taken much further and completed by Hegel in a staggering system of
idealism built by means of what he termed the dialectical method. This method of Hegel consists
in the constructive dialectical process of opposition and reconciliation. Thesis, antithesis and
synthesis are its moments. The existence of the finite and its assertion of itself as such is the
thesis. This thesis naturally evokes the existence and assertion of the finite that is its opposite.
This is its antithesis. The relation between the thesis and the antithesis implies a reconciliation of
these two in a higher synthesis brought about by the evolving force of the Whole, which
transcends the isolated factors of the existence and the assertion of the thesis and the antithesis.
This reconciliation results in the cooperation of the thesis and the antithesis and in a blend of the
existence and the assertion of the unity of the synthesis. Then this synthesis itself becomes a
thesis to which there is an antithesis. The two again get unified and transcended in a still higher
synthesis. This process of dialectical unification in higher and higher syntheses continues in
various grades, progressively, until the Absolute is reached, where all contradiction is finally and
fully reconciled. For Hegel, the forms and matter of Kant constitute an organism in which they
blend to make up the universal Whole. Forms are one with matter; thought is one with reality;
knowledge is being. The internal and external are identical processes. The categories of Kant are
the framework, not merely of thought, but of reality itself.

According to Hegel, logic and metaphysics are one and the same. The study of reason is the
study of reality, and metaphysics is the science of reality. The real is the rational, and the rational
is the real. Hegel dismisses Kant’s idea that the categories of knowledge are outside reality and
cannot be applied to the realm of reality. In criticism of Kant he says that “thoughts do not stand
between us and things, shutting us off from things; they rather shut us together with them.” He
contends that the categories of knowledge are present in the universal nature of reality itself and
are not confined merely to the knowing subject. The categories become the processes of the
development of thought through the dialectical movement of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, or
affirmation, negation and reconciliation. Knowledge becomes identical with reality. Thought and
being get blended together in the Absolute.
Hegel gives us a concept of Reality. But he is not concerned with the possibility of realising it in
one’s being. A careful study will show that the dialectic of Hegel does not give us knowledge of
Reality, but only tabulates and examines the categories involved in one’s attempt to grasp
rationally the nature of Reality. Swami Sivananda’s absolutism is very different from Hegel’s,
though there are many resemblances between the two. We shall have occasion to discuss these
systems in greater detail in the course of our study. For the present it is enough to know that
Swami Sivananda stands for intuition and realisation or Anubhuti, and not merely for a rational
concept of it. The method of Hegel will not find it easy to establish how thought and reality,
logic and metaphysics, are ultimately one. It is only with difficulty that one can prove the
presence of the categories of knowledge in the framework of reality. The dialectic as conceived
by Hegel will fail in this attempt. Hegel, too, had a touch of a super-rational inspiration in him,
without which he could not have posited the unity of the Absolute, which is beyond sense-
perception, though he was very much averse to anything that could not be subjected to the laws
of reason. The real is grasped only in being.

OTHER METHODS

The Socratic method of philosophical disquisition consists in arguing out the entire anatomy of
the subject in question, in the manner of a dialogue. The prima facie view is refuted by exposing
the inconsistencies and contradictions involved in accepting it as true. The teacher professes
entire ignorance all the while, finally eliciting the truth from the mouth of the questioner himself,
by the ingenious method of subtle examination, through questioning, dividing and analysis. This
technique of argument is based on a complete knowledge of the fundamental component
elements of the subject of the argument and their relation to the constitution and condition of the
intellect and reason of the opposite party concerned in the discussion, and also on grounding the
argument in the most basic facts acceptable to that party. The Socratic method can be summed
up in the following processes: (1) The assumption of an ignorance of truth by the teacher, which
has been called the Socratic irony: This attitude of intellectual humility and basing oneself on the
most fundamental of propositions in an argument is, as with Descartes, essential to unravel the
depths of truth. (2) The method of dialogue or conversation as an effective technique in the
discovery of truth: This is based on a grasp of the presence of the knowledge of the true and the
good in every person at the bottom of his being, in spite of hasty conclusions that one may make
regarding things due to immature observations and pet prejudices. This common ground of truth
among men can be brought out to the surface by careful analysis, argument and investigation, by
question and answer. This is often called the art of philosophic midwifery. (3) The establishment
of correct concepts or definitions before trying to know their application in life’s particular
instances. (4) The art of proceeding from the observed particular facts to more general truths, i.e.,
adopting the inductive method of reasoning. The method of Socrates is also deductive in the
sense that it draws out the consequences and implications of certain concepts and judges their
validity.

The analytical method of Socrates was followed by the synthetic dialectic of Plato, which
concerned itself with discovering the causal relation between thought and being. Plato’s dialectic
method mostly consisted in the grouping of scattered particulars into a single concept or idea and
the dissection of this concept or idea into classes, i.e., the generalisation and arrangement of the
idea. The arriving at a fact depends on the establishment of a correct concept or notion or
principle. It is not possible to know, for example, what the true is or who a good man is, unless
we first settle in our knowledge the nature of truth and goodness.

According to the pragmatic method, everything is real when it tends to fruitful activity and
results. The character of fulfilling the primal interests of man should be the guiding principle in
philosophy. Human interest is the touchstone of philosophical endeavour, of all activity—
physical, mental, moral or spiritual. Values are to be judged by results, and the test of truth is
workability. We need not discuss here the methods of the logical positivists, the naive realists,
and the like, as these are not very relevant to endeavours directed towards arriving at absolute
truth. The psychological method of Descartes, consisting of enquiring into the origin of ideas,
Bergson’s intuitional method in biological evolution and Spinoza’s geometrical method, are
other techniques of great consequence.

The way of the Rig-Veda and the earlier Upanishads is purely intuitional. Seers entered into the
heart of Reality in intense concentration of mind, in meditation, ecstasy, rapture and attunement,
and proclaimed to the world in their simple language and powerful style that Nature is, in truth,
one. The Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Sankhya and Mimamsa philosophies bolstered up a thoroughly
realistic method of the analysis of experience. The Yoga system pursued the psychological
techniques of inner discipline, while the Vedanta followed the purely spiritual approach to life,
backing it up with a rigorous logical scrutiny and examination of experience. But, all these
Indian systems have one thing in common: to them all, philosophy is an intensely practical affair,
the art of wise living, the way of the attainment of salvation and freedom of the self.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL METHOD

The method of philosophy in general is not to study things piecemeal, as physical science does,
but to make a comprehensive study of the totality of experience provided to us through all
avenues of knowledge. Science has its special provinces of observation and experiment; but
philosophy, having as its goal the solution of the riddle of existence in its completeness, cannot
be content with partial observation through the senses. In its vast studies philosophy takes into
consideration the objects of experience derived not only through the senses, understanding and
reason, but through mystical communion and realisation, with which science, evidently, has no
concern in the least. Philosophy is a critical reflection on what is implied in experience, in order
to enable man to come in direct contact with it. All men have, no doubt, experience, but not all
are endowed with that higher faculty of reflecting upon what is buried deep in experience. This
higher reflection is the function of the philosopher, and it is this that distinguishes him from the
mass of mankind. The common man takes the world to be physical in its constitution, isolated
from his own subjective self, and believes in the independence of the laws of Nature over which
he seems to have no control. But it is a superior understanding that discovers the super-sensible
fact of the organic relation, which the outward universe has with man’s essential intelligence.
Man is not a puppet pulled by strings held by an arbitrary Nature. Life is not a mere marionette-
play, in which man made to dance by strings pulled by a capricious director. The universe is
friendly, and man is not only an organic part of it but has in him the potentiality of knowing,
ruling and coming into at-one-ment with it. Philosophy, therefore, corrects the commonsense
notions of the unreflective mind and thus becomes a great panacea for the ills of life caused by
ignorance and impotency on the part of man.

The validity of genuine philosophical truths lies in their universality and necessity, and are not in
need of any further verification of their tenability. They are illuminated by the torch of intuition,
and hence any external verification of their validity is not only not necessary but meaningless.
They are always characterised by immediacy, universality and necessity and, consequently, by
infallibility and perfect veracity. They hold good for all minds in all conditions, for they spring
from the depths of knowledge. There are certain features of reality pervading even ordinary
experience, recognisable through subtle contemplation and reflection. It is the purpose of
philosophy to study these pervasive features of reality making themselves felt in experience, so
that by means of these visible features man may be in a position to rise directly to an intuition of
what they feebly indicate. It is a mistake made by many thinkers to reject all super-rational
experience as irrational and to debar it from the field of philosophical studies. Facts that reason
cannot know are not therefore infra-rational. When it becomes impossible for reason to
comprehend certain truths, it is not rational to reject them as anti-rational. We cannot subject
super-sensible facts to the categories of our knowledge, but they can be logically deduced from
such facts, without our being irrational. What the commonplace student of philosophy actually
means when he says that super-sensory realities are irrational is that they are totally dissimilar to
all phenomena that are known to him through the senses. Dissimilarity to rational concepts is not
always irrationality. What is beyond reason is known in a knowledge which is private from the
point of view of the one who has it, but universal in itself. The impossibility of communicating
such knowledge through the usual visible means of the world has led many to the false notion
that it does not exist at all. Concepts evolved from sense-experience are powerless in judging the
nature of the ultimate Cause of all causes—the indubitable Self. No one can deny his own self or
his being conscious of his self; nor can one deny that this consciousness is beyond the senses and
reason.

The Value of Philosophy to Human Existence

THE NEED FOR A THEORY OF LIFE

Philosophy is generally defined as love of wisdom or the knowledge of things in general by their
ultimate causes, so far as reason can attain to such knowledge. It is a comprehensive and critical
study and analysis of experience as a whole. Whether it is consciously, deliberately and
rationally adopted on conviction or consciously or unconsciously followed in life through faith
or persuasion, every man constructs for himself a fundamental philosophy as the basis of life, a
theory of the relation of the world and the individual, and this shapes his whole attitude to life.
Aristotle called metaphysics the fundamental science, for; a correct comprehension of it is
enough to give man a complete knowledge of every constituent or content of human experience.
All persons live in accordance with the philosophy of life that they have framed for themselves,
consciously or unconsciously. Even the uneducated and the uncultured have a rough and ready
philosophy of their own. Life without a philosophy is unimaginable. It is only when we confine
the concept of philosophy to the laboured edifices of academic men that we are inclined to think
that only a few in the world have any philosophy, or study or understand it. Even those who hold
that there is no need of any philosophy have a secret philosophy of their own. They have a theory
of reality, though it may consist only in denying it altogether. They have a theory of the world,
though it may be only one of crass material perception, or of a superstitious belief in the
supremacy of the personalities and forces of myth and fable. We have an ethics, an epistemology
and even a logic of our own, though it may be purely personal or limited to a certain group of
persons of kindred ideas and temperaments. Under these conditions, it is certainly advisable for
us to frame a systematic and intelligent philosophy for our life, after critically examining and
understanding the nature of the world and our experiences in it, at least so far as it is possible for
the powers that we are endowed with. And if we consistently carry our sincere efforts, with
critical intelligence, to their logical limits, we will find that philosophies are not pet theories or
private affairs of different individuals, but from a science and an art of human life taken into
completeness. We would then arrive at a philosophy, not of this or that school, but of humanity
in general. We would reach a most catholic and flexible theory of the universe and its contents,
acceptable to all men of reason, a universal philosophy based on experiences that are common to
all persons. Difficulties and problems, however, arise only because of our definitions of
experience or of the limits we set to it. We may limit philosophy to sense-experience, to
understanding, to reason or to intuition. Finally it is only intuition that enjoys the greatest
universality of scope and dives deepest into the mysteries of existence. A perfect philosophy
ought therefore to be one springing from an intuition of Reality.

John Dewey describes the constitution of philosophy as expressing a certain attitude, purpose,
and temper of conjoint intellect and will, rather than a discipline whose boundaries can be neatly
marked off. The Indian sage would, however, add intuition as forming the foundation of the
functions of the intellect and will, which usually work with the material supplied by the senses.

Philosophy is a complete world-view, a Weltanschauung, a general attitude of intellect, will and

feeling, to life. It gives an explanation of the universe at large, by appeal to what is discoverable
as the deepest of known facts. It is not a mere description of the details or bits of physical
observation. We call an explanation philosophical when it is broad enough to be harmoniously
related to the other views of life and fulfils the needs of all the faculties of man to the highest
degree of satisfaction, using ultimate principles, and not mere empirical facts, in establishing its
validity.

“Philosophy, indeed, in one sense of the term, is only a compendious name for the spirit in
education,” says William James. It is only in this sense of the process of the education and
unfoldment of the spiritual spark in man that philosophy is worth its name. To teach a doctrine in
a dogmatic and forced way is one thing, and to do it in a rational and appealing way in its
greatest fullness is another. The latter is the task and the way of philosophy. Its value in
imparting true culture to man, to make him wise and useful both to himself and to others is
inestimable. Philosophy wakes us from our ‘dogmatic slumber’ and makes us critica1 in our
outlook, opening before our eyes huge vistas of the majesty and reality of the unknown, giving
us strength to stand firm on our own legs and to assert our rightful citizenship of the universe.
Our whims, fancies and prejudices are broken, and philosophy makes us free and catholic in our
attitudes. The philosopher is raised above the usual clinging to immediate practical needs and is
enabled to roam fearlessly in the empyrean of the joy springing from within. This is the privilege
of the true philosopher who gains access to Reality, and it is not available to those who are sunk
in earthliness, bound by material urges and content with what they see with their physical eyes.

SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY

It is often said that philosophy is not as useful as science, that science has made much progress
and that philosophy is lagging behind, that science has its great utility, while philosophy has
none. This complaint comes mostly from partial observers of the strides of science in making
inventions of instruments that save us labour and time and thus make for comfort in our daily
life. But, this, of which man boasts so much, is applied science, and not science, as such. When
we find man at a loss to know how to use the leisure provided to him by applied science, and
how to find time to do what is really solacing to him in his life, where and of what use, we ask, is
the great advance that science has made in knowledge, with all its herculean efforts. What about
the morality of man today, and what civilisation and culture is he endowed with? Where comes
the pride of mere applied science when selfishness, greed and jealousy are its masters, when it
threatens to make an end of man himself, and when it tightens the knot that binds man to the
prison-house of misery raised by himself on the basis of belief in things that only tantalise him
and then perish? Man has applied science, but not philosophy, for his life. And even where
science is applied, it is done in the manner of giving a sword in the hands of a child or of a
person shorn of sanity. Philosophy has really made more progress than science, trying to save
man from the folly of ignorance and misconduct, raising him from the state of the animal man
and blessing him with the light o love, service and sacrifice and making him aware of the need
for the dedication of the self to a purpose lifted above all human needs. The riches of science,
bereft of the wisdom of philosophy, become pernicious possessions, to be dreaded rather than
loved and adored. What advantage can one reap from scientific inventions without moral,
economic, political and administrative wisdom, without the blessedness of a peaceful and happy
life that embraces the universe as its loving friend, nay, its very self? Let not man pride himself
over the advance of science; it has only invented tools without giving man the knowledge to use
them in the right way; these tools become dreadful monsters when there is none to direct them
with sagacity.

Science can describe the how of fragments of sense-observation; but it is impotent to interpret
and explain the meaning and value of what is thus observed—the why of visible phenomena.
Philosophy is not dry intellectual gymnastics; it is the wisdom of life reached after careful
reflection and investigation, without which life is but a dismal failure. It was Socrates who said
that those who lack right knowledge deserve to be stigmatised as slaves. And Plato was emphatic
when he pronounced the truth that, unless philosophers become kings or the existing kings
acquire the genuine wisdom of philosophy, unless political power and philosophy are combined
in the same person, there will be no deliverance for cities, nor yet for the human race. Plato here
declares an eternal truth, a truth which holds good for all times and climes; administrators should
first and foremost be philosophers, not merely lovers but possessors of wisdom.

The renowned scientist, Sir Arthur Eddington, says that our true personality and consciousness
are not parts of observed phenomena but belong to the background of phenomena. According to
him, our deeper feelings are not of ourselves alone, but are glimpses of a reality transcending the
narrow limits of one particular consciousness. The stuff of the world, to him, is finally a limitless
mind or consciousness. We know a particular world because it is that alone with which the
consciousness interacts. He gives matter, in the end, the character of ‘knowability,’ and regards it
as grafted on a spiritual substratum. Reality is fundamentally spiritual, is general consciousness.
And he further makes the discovery that, where science has progressed the farthest, the mind has
but regained from Nature that which the mind has put into Nature. Here, Eddington obviously
rises from physics and enters the realm of philosophy and mysticism. This is what all men of
deep reflective thinking are in the end obliged to do. Whitehead would receive nothing into the
physical scheme that is not discoverable as an element in subjective experience. He feels that the
poets are entirely mistaken and that they should address their lyrics to themselves and
congratulate themselves on the excellency of the human mind. Sir James Jeans uses Plato’s
simile and says that science is studying merely a reflection on the walls of the cave of a play that
is being shown outside in sunlight. The substantiality as well as the objectivity of things is due to
their subsistence in the mind of an eternal Spirit. To Bertrand Russell, mind and matter alike are
logical constructions, and the distinction between the psychical and the physical is not
fundamental. The difference between mind and matter is not in their substance but in their
arrangement. Max Planck does not think that consciousness can be explained in terms of matter
and its laws. He regards consciousness as fundamental and matter as a derivative of
consciousness. Einstein reverently contemplates the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself
through all eternity and is content to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the
intelligence manifested in Nature. R. A. Millikan says that a purely materialistic philosophy is
the height of unintelligence. And finally we have Eddington, again, accepting that the absence of
the faculty of an intuitive perception of the divine presence is a kind of mental deficiency. It is
enough if we observe here that the great geniuses of science have felt the need for a higher study
and experience than that provided to man by physical science.

The problem of causality has raised questions that stress the need for philosophy. Science
believes that every event has a cause and resorts to a kind of linear argument, thinking that to be
a cause means just to be antecedent in time. Our movement from effects to causes leads us
nowhere, and we find ourselves landed in a hopeless pursuit. The question of an ultimate cause
cannot be answered by science. The end or purpose of action is, to it, enveloped in darkness. If
the order and method of events in the universe is determined, not by the way in which we are
accustomed to observe cause-and-effect-relation, but by the laws of a living organism directed by
a unitary force, science cannot but find itself in a fool’s paradise. When there is mutual
interaction among the constituents of the universe, the commonsense view of causality falls to
the ground. We require a reflective higher study, which is provided by philosophy, in order to
come to a satisfactory conclusion regarding the true scheme of things. An enquiry into the nature
of facts observed by science leads us to epistemology and metaphysics. Our very denial of all
possibility of knowing the nature of Reality implies our rightful claim to know it. It is impossible
for us to desist from working for the noble cause to which philosophy awakens us.

Philosophy is liberating
Philosophy is valuable for its effects on those who study it. I have heard many peers telling me
that it was “life changing” and that particular philosophers have made such an impression on
them that they feel “liberated” by them. The most important value of Philosophy is that it makes
us realize that we are all prisoners of our own comprehensive doctrines. Much like the prisoners
in Plato’s allegory of the cave, philosophers may feel that they have only seen shadows of reality
prior to their philosophical journey. The world is black and white, there is little substance, it is
simple and most of us are dogmatic until we have the courage to ask deep questions about the
simplest, but most important questions in life like: “why do we exist?” “what happens when we
die?” “what is a good life?” “what is happiness?” “why does the sun rise every morning and set
every evening?” The effect of asking such questions is that it broadens our world. And
philosophy is exactly doing that.
Philosophy makes us more imaginative
When Philosophy is asking deep questions, probing through the surface of reality, it requires us
to become more imaginative. Philosophy invites us to look beyond the status quo and look for
new possibilities. I was once in an International Political Theory class, which was filled with
Political Science and Political Theory students, where we discussed the role of education for a
citizenry. Everyone was saying that we should allow more people to go to school as if schooling
would be a basic human right. I was the only one who raised the question: “do we really need
more schooling or can schooling itself be more harmful? And are there other ways to educate
ourselves outside of schooling?” Of course I mentioned several philosophers of education like
Ivan Ilyich and Paolo Freire who were extremely critical of schooling. Although such critical
questions about schooling may come from anyone, I think Philosophers due to their formal
critical training are more likely to ask these types of questions.
Philosophy sustains our speculative interest in the universe
If we only care about knowledge that has been proven or at least have not been falsified, we
would be missing something that philosophers provide. We, human beings, have a deep interest
in the speculative and the metaphysical. “Is there a God?” “Is absolute truth possible?” “Is pre-
birth the same as death?” “Why do we love?” Such questions are most often the most important
questions for people. They can give us more solace or meaning in life.
Philosophy trains our mind
Studying Philosophy is extremely tough. It does not surprise me that in general Philosophy
students are among the best performers on their SATs and GREs. Philosophical problems are not
easy to solve and some may never be solved. It requires relentless logical thinking skills and
constant argumentative investigations. I find this challenge extremely invigorating, but I
understand if some may find it frustrating.
Philosophy keeps us humble and prevents us from becoming dogmatic
One of the most important lessons that Socrates taught us was that he was the wisest, because he
knew that he knew so little. This philosophical attitude keeps us humble in our knowledge and
prevents us from becoming dogmatic. Often, when philosophers study philosophical questions
they end up with more philosophical questions. It can be a train ride towards no destination.
However, in its close relation as applicable to our society, we shall attempt to highlight the role
of philosophy in our contemporary Nigerian society under the following subheadings:

Philosophy and Ethnic Relation in Nigeria:

Nigeria is a multi-ethnic nation. Nigeria today has more than 250 ethnic groups. Each of the
ethnic groups has a distinct language that characterizes the particular group. Ethnic relation in
Nigeria is such that it is characterized by division, hatred and rancor. Nigeria is a place where the
Hausa person feels at home only with a fellow Hausa person. The same thing is applicable to
other ethnic groups. There is a kind of natural hatred of one ethnic group against another. This is
where the study of philosophy plays a major role. Our knowledge of substance and accidents in
metaphysics (a branch of philosophy) shows that every human person shares one substance – the
humanity of the human person. The humanness of the Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba, Efik or Ijaw is not
lesser or higher than the humanness of the Fulani, Tiv, Idoma, Esan or Egede as the case may be,
we all share same humanity. The fact that one is an Igbo, Yoruba or Hausa is simply accidental
to the being of the individual person. In this regard therefore, the study of philosophy will
certainly play a vital role to unite Nigeria together. It will help Nigerians to realize the existential
fact that there is no essential difference among all the ethnic groups in Nigeria. This is a
significant role that philosophy plays in or should play in our contemporary Nigerian society.
This understanding will bring about good relationship among the various ethnic groups in
Nigeria.
Philosophy, by its very nature, therefore, enables man to fit in well in interpersonal, inter-ethnic
and international relationships. It makes for order in the society and for world peace. The idea of
human nature and rights from where the declaration of human rights came originated from
philosophies of such people as St. Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jacque
Rousseau and others.
The point being made here is that the study of philosophy provides us with the necessary
ingredients for good and authentic human relation that is devoid of tribal sentiments. It provides
for an unbiased assessment of human behaviour irrespective of one’s ethnic affiliation.

Philosophy and the Political Sphere in Nigeria:

As a nation, Nigeria has experienced different political dispensations. It is true that the human
person is a political animal but it is also true that politics as it is being practiced in Nigeria
cannot grow or even develop without the aid of philosophy. Our politicians need at least a little
dose of philosophy in order to be truly rational in all their dealings. In the political sphere, a dose
of philosophy, especially, is necessary to enable us to appreciate our political heritage. The fact
that ideas rule the world points to the practical role philosophy plays or should play in Nigerian
politics. It takes a good dose of philosophy for one to understand and evaluate the essential needs
of one’s people.
The role of philosophy in the political sphere in Nigeria will be much more appreciated in the
area of policy-making. Philosophers or rather those who have had some training in philosophy
are better equipped to help Nigerian government to articulate good polices that will touch the
lives of the people positively.
The philosophers are better qualified to play the role of helping to determine societal values,
development and progress. Philosophy will go a long way towards helping Nigerian Politicians
to desist from the politics of acrimony and bitterness. Since philosophy upholds the dignity of
human nature, Nigerian politicians will certainly benefit from it given that it will dispose them to
be fair in all their dealings. Philosophy certainly will help all Nigerians to be true citizens and to
have regard for the constituted authority. This singular role of philosophy in the political sphere
is further described.
“[Philosophy] makes us citizens of the universe, not only of one walled city at war with all the
rest. In this citizenship of the universe consists man’s true freedom and his liberation from the
thraldom of narrow hopes and fears’’.
Philosophy and the Religious Sphere in Nigeria: Philosophy has a major role to play in the way
and manner religion is understood and practiced in Nigeria. From our knowledge of metaphysics,
we learnt that everything that is, derived its being from the being that is by necessity. This being
that is by necessity is what religious people call God. This is a simple philosophical knowledge.
The implication of this understanding is that there is only one Supreme Being that is approached
differently. The knowledge of philosophy will help the contemporary Nigerians to appreciate the
fact that each of us is unique and as such every religion is unique. It is philosophy that should
help us to respect the views of others, be it religious views or otherwise. Basic philosophical
knowledge will make Christians, Moslems and Traditional Worshipers in Nigeria to tolerate each
other without any form of violence or hatred. So because of the fact that philosophy is love of
wisdom, it will dispose Nigerians to appreciate the good aspects of each religious group in
Nigeria. In this regard, Christians and Moslems are to see themselves as collaborators and not as
enemies. This is the ‘magic’ of philosophy.
Philosophy will help us to quench the incessant religious violence that is often experienced in
our country. This means that our youth will no longer be pushed to cause violence and mayhem
in the society in the name of religion. Philosophy will provide Nigerian youths with the stamina
to question certain commands / orders of the so-called religious leaders that are not in
consonance with human rationality. Philosophy, as stated above, tries to find out reason for
accepting anything.
In this sense, it has a very important role to play in our contemporary society that is bedevilled
with many rogues and charlatans in the name of religious leaders. Today many families are
divided because of one prophecy or the other from one ‘man of God’ or the other. Many people
have been deceived in the name of religion. Many Nigerians today are at the mercy of the so-
called religious leaders. Come to think of it, when a pastor tells a young lady that she needs
prayer and went further to undress her, then something else is fishing. The important role of
philosophy in the religious sphere is that it helps us not to accept anything in the name of religion
without some basic rational justification. Philosophy frees us from dogmatism and the
imprisonment of irrational religious beliefs.
Philosophy and Economic Development:
In a general parlance, economic development has to do with the production and distribution of
goods and services for the good of human society. Philosophy has what it takes to develop
Nigerian economy. Philosophy, we must recall, is a reflective activity. And it takes only a
reflective mind to bring about economic growth and development. It will not be an overstatement
to say that Nigerian economic problem is hinged on the lack of philosophical training. It is clear
that when the mind is developed, it will certainly affect other aspect of human endeavour.

Philosophy may not be a practical study or of immediate practical utility, but it contains what is
finest and noblest in human life, because it is concerned not with the production of material
wealth, but with the advancement of the wealth of the mind. One thing that is clear is that a
developed mind translates to developed economy. There is a close relationship between a
philosopher and an entrepreneur. A good philosopher is a good entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship
has to do with the process of generating ideas and venturing into business risks for the purpose of
making profits It takes only a reflective mind to generate ideas; and it also takes a reflective
mind to actualize these ideas. Philosophy has to do with creativity. And this is what Nigeria
needs. We need philosophy to sharpen our creative mind for the purpose of economic growth and
development in Nigeria. It is clear that all developed economies of the world have basic
philosophical foundation. There is no doubt that an average Nigerian needs some level of
philosophical training in order to bring about national economic development. Truly ideas rule
the world. We know that there is a branch of philosophy called Philosophy of Economics which
has to do with inquiries concerning rational choice, appraisal of economic outcomes, institutions
and processes and the ontology of economic phenomena. This branch of philosophy has a
significant role to play towards the growth and development of Nigerian economy.
Philosophy and Social Change:
By a simple definition, social change means any form of alteration in the social order of the
society. It is a kind of paradigm shift. The basis of social change is the transformation in the
thought processes of the human person. The study of philosophy can bring about social change in
Nigeria. This is possible because philosophy sharpens our minds and liberates us from the
shackles of prejudices of our age. With this sharpened and correct state of mind, Nigerians can
now question certain cultures and traditions that contradict human rationality. Such practices that
do not fall in line with reason are to be discarded or modified. This is where the radiant light of
philosophy shines that brings about social change. Philosophy provides us with the intellectual
disposition and stamina to jettison varied superstitious beliefs in our locality. “Philosopher can
preserve the status quo or change it. By his training, a philosopher is in a position to expound the
values of the society more clearly. He can provide the system or the status quo with the
theoretical and intellectual justification it requires”. The point here is that philosophy is
foundational to social change. Such traditions that discriminate people as caste system,
racism/tribalism, child marriage, autocracy, man’s inhumanity to man, gender discrimination, etc
are not in consonance with philosophical reasoning. Philosophy can provide Nigerians with
mental disposition to reason correctly and to reject harmful and irrational practices in the name
of culture and tradition.
CONCLUSION
The attempt of this paper so far has been to justify the important role of philosophy in our
contemporary society. We have tried to do justice to it. However, the claim of the researcher is
not that the aforementioned is all there is about the role of philosophy in our contemporary
Nigerian society. The value of philosophy cannot be overemphasized. The point here is that
Nigeria as a people need philosophy. We cannot do without it. Any attempt to run away from
philosophy will certainly portend doom for the nation. One thing we must note is that philosophy
helps to develop human mind to reason correctly and rationally. When the mind is properly
developed rationally, it will translate to human and societal development. This is a simple logic!
The Roman Catholic Church, in her wisdom, recognized the important role of philosophy. This
is why it is obligatory for a person training for Catholic priesthood to study philosophy at least
for two years. This is to enable the would-be priest to develop his mental faculty and to be
rationally disposed, as a leader, to respond to the needs of the people of God. In fact, philosophy
is essential not only for seminarians and priests, but also for proper human development in
general.
The problem with Nigeria (as with some other underdeveloped nations of the world) is the
relegation of philosophy to the background. For sure, philosophy brings about authentic human
relationship which is needed for national development. We strongly wish to state with Stace that
“whether we like it or not, we cannot escape philosophy; because on whatever road of
knowledge we travel, philosophy lies in wait for us”. This is an existential fact that must not
elude Nigerians. Let us quickly conclude by saying that the study of philosophy disposes one to
fit in very well in the labor market. It is needless to say that a philosopher is a good administrator
and a good manager of persons and objects. I therefore, recommends for at least a little dosage of
philosophical training for all, especially in our elementary, secondary and tertiary institutions.

LECTURE TWO

Branches of Philosophy

Objectives

The branches of Philosophy are explored in this study session so that the students can:

i. Get in-depth understanding on how philosophy operate

ii. Know the importance of each branches of philosophy examined
iii. Understand the relevance of each of the branches of philosophy to all field of studies
iv. Relate the relevance of each of these branches to their worldview

The Main Branches of Philosophy are divided as to the nature of the questions asked in each
area. The integrity of these divisions cannot be rigidly maintained, for one area overlaps into the
others. The questions that philosophy asks are so many and varied that there is the need to divide
these questions into different categories. Dividing them into categories only serves the
significant purpose of enabling us to separate the questions so that we can better approach the
task of constructing the worldview from an intelligible and less confusing perspective. However,
they may appear in a better light once we are able to put them in certain clusters according to the
similarity of their concerns. What we call the branches of philosophy is just the unfolding of the
critical questions that go into the making of our worldviews. There are three fundamental
questions that form the core of any worldview: What is ultimately real? How do we know this
reality and justify it? If we know this reality, how then should we live our lives meaningfully and
with value? These three questions equally form the core branches of philosophy: Metaphysics,
Epistemology and Ethics. Logic is also a legitimate branch of philosophy. However, its concern
is also part of the epistemological subject matter. In other words, logic is about testing our
reasons and reasoning process to ensure they are justified especially in our attempt to know what
is real. We will now look at each of the branches of philosophy, and their core questions.

Metaphysics

Metaphysics is concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the
world. Cosmology and ontology are the two traditional branches of metaphysics. Cosmology
seeks to understand the origin, evolution, structure, and ultimate fate of the universe at large, as
well as the natural laws that keep it in order. Ontology is the investigation into what types of
things there are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another. Ontology deals
with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be
grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and
differences. Before the development of modern science, scientific questions were addressed as a
part of metaphysics known as "natural philosophy." The scientific method, however, made
natural philosophy an empirical and experimental activity unlike the rest of philosophy, and by
the end of the eighteenth century, it had begun to be called "science" in order to distinguish it
from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics became the philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical
character into the nature of existence.

Some general definitions of what metaphysics entails can be defined as follow:

• The philosophy of being and existence;

• The knowledge that goes beyond the possibility of experience and beyond nature, which
renders nature possible;
• “metaphysics sets itself more systematically and unusually than any other science, to ask what
after all is meant by being real”;

• The aim of metaphysics is to account for all there is;

• Metaphysics examines the real nature of things as opposed to their apparent constitution;

• Metaphysics studies the basic constituents of the world by investigation into the nature of
reality;

• Metaphysics is the exploration of the most general features of the world.

All these definitions simply tell us that metaphysics is simply the theory of reality, or what is
real. This makes it the most comprehensive of all enquiries that human beings are involved in.
This is because the most basic or fundamental question anyone can ask about anything is: What
is? This question is an inquiry into the most ultimate principles that lie beneath all that exists,
observable or not. What is it then that motivates us to ask about the reality of things? What
motivates philosophers to inquire into the nature of what is real?

Consider a minor example, Imagine that you are woken from a deep sleep by a persistent noise.
The first unconscious thing you do is to try and place what the noise is and where it is coming
from. If you are able to do this, you are all right. If you are not able to fit the noise into anything
you have known, then you become somewhat troubled. Your confusion does not come because
you are hearing a persistent noise around 3 am; you are confused mainly because the noise does
not seem to have a place in the classificatory scheme of all the noises you know. You are not
even certain it is a “noise.”

Metaphysical problems arise when we are not able to perceive immediately how the things
around hang together. We become more confused when what we normally take to be true reveal
some inconsistency and contradiction on a closer look. Let us look at a more serious example.
Commonsense tells us that we have minds and bodies. We believe the mind is not physical but
the body is. Commonsense further tells us that both the mind and the body relate with each other.
For instance, where you are sitting reading this book, you can decide (decision is a mental
function) that you want to stand up, and then you really stand up. You can decide to close your
eyes, and then your eyes close. When you come into contact with a sharp object, your body
passes a message to your mind that the object is causing pain, and you quickly remove your
hands. We take these commonsensical facts for granted until we begin to ask questions: Since the
mind is not physical, where is it located? What kind of entity is a mind if it hidden to all our
sensory organs? Again, if it is not physical, how is it possible for it to affect the body which is
physical? How is it also possible for the body which is physical to affect the mind? (To really
understand these questions, consider the possibility of the air lifting a heavy stone). After
considering these questions, we discover that we are no longer comfortable with what
commonsense tells us about what is real. On your own, try ruminating on this metaphysical
problem: If a tree falls in the forest, will that tree make any noise if there is nobody there to hear
it?

The beginning of Greek philosophy was marked by the attempt of the early Greek philosophers
to answer the question: What is really there? This question can be interpreted to mean: What is
that ultimate stuff or material from which everything existing is made? This question was the
result of their observation of so many things around them, and their attempt to read some kind of
pattern or design into what they have observed. Some of them concluded that everything that is
real is made up of water; some other argued it is air; some other still argued it is a combination of
earth, water, fire and air. With this understanding, we can now re-categorise some of our earlier
questions that are metaphysical: What is the universe? Is it made up primarily of matter? Or,
does it also contain non-material things like spirits? How can I know and explain what the
universe contains? What is ultimately real? Are there other kinds of reality apart from the
physical world? What is time? What is space? What is mind? What is matter? What is the
relationship between the two? Why are we in this world at all? Were we created by God or we
are just part of purely natural processes without any divine element? Is there a God? If so, what
sort of being is God? What is the nature of God? What kind of creature am I? Do we have a soul
that will survive the death of our bodies? Or, do we cease to exist totally once our bodies die? Is
there a life after death? Are we free to determine our actions, or are these actions determined by
other forces beyond our control?

Epistemology

There is an agreement on the basic definition of epistemology. Etymologically, Epistemology is

defines as the theory of Knowledge. Their central questions include the origin of knowledge, the
place of experience in generating knowledge and the place of reason in doing so. The
relationship between knowledge and certainty, and between knowledge and the impossibility of
error, the possibility of universal skepticism and the changing forms of knowledge that arise
from new conceptualizations of the world.

Epistemology is concerned with the nature, origin, scope, possibility, and limit of human
knowledge. The word epistemology comes from two Greek words: episteme (meaning
“knowledge”) and logos (meaning “theory”). Conveniently, then, epistemology is often called
the theory of knowledge. This branch of philosophy is a necessary one that follows behind
metaphysics. This is because if we eventually agree on what we count to be real and unreal, the
next obvious question we must ask is: How do we get to know what is real (as different from
what is not real). In other words, by saying some things are not real; we are implying that there
are some things which are real. How do we go about making that distinction? That is the function
of philosophers we call epistemologists. The three chief questions that concern epistemology are:

 What is knowledge (or what does it mean to say “I know”)?

 How do we get knowledge?
 Can what we call “knowledge” be so sure that we cannot doubt it?

When you talk in ordinary conversation, you make distinction between what you believe and
what you know. You also believe that one is stronger than the other. When you say “I believe
that so and so”, what you intend to tell us is that there is the possibility that what you believe at
that point may turn out to be false. However, when you say, “I know that so and so,” what you
mean is that what you claim you know is true and cannot be faulted. This distinction between
what you know and what you believe is based on the assumption that there are so many things
we can claim to know in the world. You can name some of them: you think you know that there
is presently a book in front of you; that you are a man/woman; that you are alive; that 2 + 2 = 4;
that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west; that Abuja is the capital of Nigeria; that Trump
is the current president of the United States; that the earth moves round the sun; that PHCN is
epileptic; and so on. The question is: Can you really be certain that you know all that you claim
to know?

So many people have claimed similar knowledge in the past which turned out to be wrong or
false. Like so many people, you also take some of these claims for granted without any attempt
at reflecting on them to see whether or not they can withstand some deep scrutiny. Take an
example. One of your basic knowledge claims is that you are alive and conscious now. This
implies that you are not sleeping or dreaming. If you are asked how you know that you are not
sleeping. You may be surprised at that question and may be replied: “Of course, I’m not! My
eyes are wide open, I can see you before me, I am also conscious of everything around me.
Therefore, I can’t be sleeping or even dreaming.” It would definitely appear that you have given
a very good answer.

Let’s see whether your answer can withstand critical examination. Almost everyone dreams. I
want you to remember your most vivid dream. This dream would have to be so real that when
you woke up, you were so disoriented and confused it took you a while to understand where you
were. It could either be that you were so sad the dream is gone or you were very happy it ended.
Now, what caused your confusion about the dream? You were certainly confused because the
dream was so real to you while it lasts. You actually thought it was happening! The question then
is: If your dreams have been so real as to be similar to reality, how do you know you are not
presently in a very elaborate dream from which you will wake up very soon? You cannot appeal
to your sense for two reasons.

 One, your senses were also available to you when you dream. You see, feel, smell, taste
and hear things around.
 Two, your sense have deceived you in the past. How do you know they are not deceiving
you now?

This example brings out clearly the significance of epistemology in our overall worldview. It is
concerned with our claims to knowledge and the methods we employ in arriving at what we
claim to know. Epistemology serves as the standard of evaluating our knowledge claims so we
would be better able to differentiate between true claims and false claims. Most of the claims we
make are about the physical world around as well as claims about the people we are in
relationship with: friends, spouses, enemies, government officials, neighbours, children, and so
on. Imagine that you have put in about twenty years into a marriage and it turned out you were
completely wrong about your wife/husband. Imagine that you so trust your friend with your
life’s secret and it turns out s/he was actually an enemy acting like a friend. Imagine that without
any adequate criteria to differentiate between truth and error, you assumed that a building is
strong…and the same building almost collapsed on you! Further imagine that your neighbour
whom you thought to be a good friend turned out to be a robot in spite of all your uncritical
assumptions that s/he is actually human!
This tells us that the degree to which your epistemology is correct is the degree to which you will
understand reality and the world around you. It is also the degree to which you can use that
knowledge to promote your life and goals. How many people however have some form of theory
of knowledge? Do you have a theory of how to move from belief to knowledge? If you are asked
what it means to know what you claim to know, what would be your answer? Let us see whether
you can be led to some kind of answer. If I ask you how you know that there is a book presently
in front of you, your answer would be that you can see and touch the book. This answer tells us
that our senses are very important in getting information about the world around us. Yet, these
senses are not usually correct. You sometime mistook the smell of Jollof rice for that of suya.
You have also confused a stranger for someone you thought you knew. Your eyes tell you the
sun is a small disc in the sky, yet we know the sun is much bigger than the earth. If you take the
world at face value, we would end up making so many serious and irreversible mistakes that
would make life itself unbearable. At best, what the sense could give us should be called opinion
or belief rather than knowledge. So, if I ask you what is in front of you, rather than saying “I
know it is a book,” you should rather say “I believe it is a book.” How then do you move from
this belief to knowledge? It has been suggested that knowledge is a combination of three
elements: truth, belief and justification (or reasons for the belief). When you say, “I know that
there is a book in front of me now,” for us to know that it is a piece of knowledge,
(a) it must actually be true that there is a book in front of you (if it is something else, then you
can’t claim it is a book);
(b) you must actually believe that there is a book in front of you (it is not correct to say “I know
there is a book in front of me, but I don’t believe it”); and

(c) Apart from the book being there in front of you, and your belief that it is there, you must also
have a reason for believing that the book is there. If I ask you, how do you know that the book is
in front of you, you can’t reply “I just know.” There must be some reasons which assure you that
the book is really in front of you. We can now go on to see which of our earlier questions are
epistemological in nature: How can I know the reality outside of me? How do I know anything at
all? What is knowledge (or what does it mean to know anything at all?)? What is truth? Do the
senses tell us anything about the world? Is sense experience (through my five sense organs) the
only source of knowledge and truth? Or, are there other ways of knowing? If God exist, can we
prove he/she/it exists? Are there ways of arriving at truth apart from the senses and human
reason? How do we recognize what is good and what is bad?
It however shows that epistemology is concerned with the types of knowledge that are
adequate. Philosophers such as George Berkley and Thomas Aquinas have itemized various
forms of knowing as the basis of human knowledge. Among the forms of knowing identified
by the philosophers include:
Empirical knowledge.
Intuitive Knowledge
Mystical Knowledge
Knowledge of others; and
A priori knowledge.

However, these forms of knowledge are summed into three basics which include:
Empirical statement
Logical Statement; and
Evaluative statement

Ethics

This is also a branch of philosophy that study the values in human behavior or the study of moral
problems: e.g., (1) the rightness and wrongness of actions, (2) the kinds of things which are good
or desirable, and (3) whether actions are blameworthy or praiseworthy. More so, we can define
ethics in a broader form as follow:

• The study of moral standards and how they affect human conduct;

• The branch of philosophy which helps in clarifying moral terms and concepts;

• The branch of philosophy which teaches us how to live the good and happy life in the society;
• The aspect of philosophy which investigates human conducts in so far as such conducts can be
said to be right or wrong;

• The systematic study of the fundamental principles of morality;

• It gives general guidance concerning what to do, what to seek, and how to treat others.

Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is perhaps the most accessible and human of all the
branches of philosophy. This is simply because it is concerned with the rightness and the
wrongness of our actions and behaviours. It is very significant in human life because we are
living in the human society where our behaviours and actions are so different from the next
person that without any guide/standard, conflicts and anarchy become inescapable. We can
therefore escape or reduce these conflicts by setting down certain moral rules by which our
relationships are managed and organized.

On the other hand, your own action as a person would be random, directionless and without
value if there are no yardstick to measure your actions. You would not even have any idea of
which goal or ambition to pursue and how to pursue it. Ethics deals with human value, but not
the entirety of all the values that exists. There are political values as well as values relating to art
and other beautiful things. Ethics is only concerned with human moral value; that which is
worthwhile for us as human to pursue by way of our actions and behaviours. It examines the
value we place on action and the reason for our actions. Your action stands for the process of
doing something in order to achieve a goal. You will agree also that the way we behave and act
has some connection with the kind of person we are or our character. In this sense, ethics is also
concerned with the analysis of our character and how that influences our action.

The word “ethics” comes from the Greek word ethos which means “character” or “manners.”
There are three fundamental dimensions from which we can understand the work of ethicists.
The most important is the attempt to determine the rightness and wrongness of human actions.
This dimension of ethics is called normative ethics. Ethics in this sense is an attempt to come up
with a rational and defensible theory about what makes any action right or wrong. If I steal a cup
of Rice from my neighbour.s food bank in order to save my family from impending starvation
during Covid-19 compulsory lockdown by Osun State government, is my action right or wrong?
To answer this ethical question, an ethicist wouldn’t just say, “yes, it is right,” or “of course, it is
a wrong action!” Rather, he would come up with general principles upon which to base all wrong
actions and all right actions which would serve as guides for anything we want to do.

There are several principles which such an ethicist could consider. First, s/he could say for
instance, that the rightness and wrongness of any action should be judged in terms of the
consequences of that action. Thus, if my stealing the rice saves the lives of my children and wife,
it must be a right action. If I didn’t steal the rice and my family perished, then my action must be
a wrong one.
Another principle the ethicist might choose is that the rightness or wrongness of any action is
determined by the nature of the action itself, and not its consequences. Thus, my stealing the rice
to save my family from starvation and eventually death would be a wrong action because
stealing is wrong in itself, whatever consequence comes out of it. An example of the first
principle is to say that an action is right if it promotes my best interest alone sometimes to the
detriment of others. If an action neglects you, then it must be a wrong action. This is called
ethical egoism. You would rather call it self-centeredness. These principles or standards then act
as guide for you whenever you are faced with a particular decision to make.

We have seen that ethics has to do with the formulation of those principles upon which we can
decide the rightness or wrongness of an action. This could either be the consequence of an action
or the nature of that action itself. Before we look at another issue, let us briefly consider a further
point. Ethicists are also interested in the question of whether or not the moral principles we have
been talking about apply to everybody equally or whether it is the situation that determines the
rightness or wrongness of an action. Can we say, for example, that abortion is right because in a
particular case, it prevented the death of the mother? Or, is abortion wrong in all cases without
exception? Is marrying one’s sister right in one culture and wrong in another? Or, is it wrong
everywhere?

The second dimension of the issues that ethicists deal with has to do with the analysis of the
concepts and terms that we use in making ethical judgments. Moral judgment refers to the
activity of judging whether or not an action, a person, something or an institution has a moral
attribute. The problem, however, is that many of us make this kind of judgment without a proper
understanding of what we are saying. For example, if you say, “Blessing is a good person” or
“The government is doing the right thing,” what are you really saying? What do you mean by
“good” and “right” as well as “wrong” and “bad”? The dimension of ethics that considers the
issue of where our moral terms and principles come from, and what they mean, is called meta-
ethics. There are three questions that come under meta-ethics.

1. The first question is: Are moral standards and principles dependent on the agreement of
human beings or are they existing on their own? The first possible answer to this question
is that moral values and standards are objective and can be found either in God’s command
or in nature. We therefore know that stealing is wrong or that keeping promise is right
 because God has implanted that command in all human beings irrespective of colour or
culture.
2. The second answer to the question is that moral standards are not God’s commands, but are
just what societies have approved to be either right or wrong. If I say “kissing your wife in
public is wrong”, I say that because my society frowns at it. If an American says ‘kissing
your wife in public is right,” then that American society approves kissing in public.

The second question in meta-ethics is: What motivates human beings to be moral? Or, why
should I be moral? Why should I behave right and good? Let us look at the three possible
answers that have been suggested for these questions.

 The first answer is that we are motivated to be moral because we have been endowed
with an inner sense of right and wrong; which tells us naturally and automatically the
right way to achieve happiness in life.
 The second answer is that we are motivated to be moral because we are selfish beings
always looking for what is in our own interests. If I lead an old woman across the road, I
actually have a selfish reason behind what I did.
 The third answer is that it is either our emotions or our reason that motivates us to do
good or right things. If you decide to walk about naked on the streets, then you must
have a reason for doing it.

The third question in meta-ethics is: What is the meaning of “good,” “right,” “wrong,”
“immoral,” “moral,” “bad,” “ought,” and so on? This aspect of meta-ethics is purely linguistic.
To answer this question, some would say that when we use these concepts, we are only
expressing our emotion and desires about something. If you say, for instance, “You ought to give
money to the motherless babies’ homes,” what you are really saying is “I like giving money to
motherless babies’ homes, you should also do so.” In other words, you are only trying to make
me like what you like. Others argue that when you use these terms, you are not referring to your
emotions at all, but to certain natural qualities like pleasure.

The last dimension of the issues that ethics is concerned with is the resolution of specific moral
dilemmas and controversies that human beings face daily in life. A moral dilemma is a certain
situation which requires making a choice between two opposing courses of action. Each of these
courses of action has good reasons in support of it. For example, you borrowed a cutlass from a
friend yesterday with a promise to return it whenever he would request for it. Today, the friend
comes to you very furious, and asks for the cutlass. You know he has the intention of killing
someone with it. You are then faced with a moral dilemma: if you give him the cutlass, you are
assisting him to kill; if you do not give him, you are breaking a promise. You have good reasons
for giving him the cutlass, and you also have good reasons for not giving him at all. Which is the
best course of action to take?
Applied ethics is that dimension that enables you to make a right decision in this situation. It
combines the strategy you have gained in normative ethics and meta-ethics to analyse such issues
like abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, suicide, cloning, genetic engineering, organ transplant,
artificial insemination, sex change, masturbation, Homosexuality, surrogate motherhood, capital
punishment, embryo research, stem cell research, death, racial discrimination, war, the
environment, animal rights, and so on.
Finally, let us now look at those questions that are ethical in nature: Do we have any obligation
to help other people? Or, are we obliged to follow the dictates of our own interests? Am I
justified in obeying the state? If yes, when am I justified in disobeying? What makes a law a
good law? How do we determine what is good and what is bad? What is good? What is evil? Is
there an objective standard of good and bad? Or, are we the determinant of whether our actions
are good or bad? Does our morality depend on religion? How should we live? What makes a life
a good life? What are the virtues of a human being? Shall we aim at happiness or at knowledge,
virtue, or the creation of beautiful objects? If we choose happiness, will it be our own or the
happiness of all? Is it right to be dishonest in a good cause? Can we justify living in opulence
while people are starving elsewhere in the world? If conscripted to fight in a war we do not
support, should we disobey the law? What are our obligations to the other creatures with whom
we share this planet and to the generations of humans who will come after us?
 LECTURE THREE

Logic

Objectives

At the end of this lecture, it is expected that the students should be able to:

i. Know what logic as a discipline actually means

ii. Define logic in the strict and professional sense
iii. Identify the fundamental principles or laws which every reasoning process must
conform with for it to be correct
iv. State the value and relevance of logic to our daily life and field of studies

What is logic?

Logic is a very exciting and interesting study. Although it requires more effort nevertheless it
remains the best channel that helps to learn how to reason better. Logic helps one to learn
strategies for thinking well, and how to avoid common error as well as effective techniques for
evaluating argument. It is an instrument of reasoning, and is central to our intellectual
investigations. But what are the exact uses that we need to be able to make of it and how do we
define logic?
The term logic according to Wilfrid Hodges (1983) is ambiguous, in his view, it can refer to
collection of language that possess particular structure, or to study of the rules of sound
arguments which occur in ordinary, natural language. It can as well be described as the theory of
the consequence relation. More so, Copi in his view defines Logic as the study of the methods
and principles used in distinguishing good (correct) from bad(incorrect) reasoning. In
Nancy’s(1990) view, Logic is the science that appraises reasoning as correct or incorrect.
Kahane on his parts defines logic as an attempt to distinguish between correct (valid) from

incorrect (invalid) argument. Ambrose Bierce’s definition of logic is that it is the art of thinking
and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human
misunderstanding. Etymologically, logic is derived from the Greek word Logos which means
study, or discourse.
• It is the study of propositions and their use in argumentation;

• It is concerned with reasoning, and especially the distinction between good reasoning and bad
reasoning;

• It is the general theory of the proposition;

• It is the theory of reasoning;

• It is the science dealing with the principles of valid reasoning and argument;

• It is the study of the rules of right reasoning;

• It is the study of the laws of thought

Basically, one can notice that in the above definitions the words which stand out clearly are
reasoning and argumentation. We can therefore state that the study of logic is the study of correct
and incorrect reasoning and argument. The systematic study of logic as a formal process of
reasoning started with Aristotle (384-22BC), hence, Aristotle was the founding father of Logic.

Logic, theoretically, is enunciating the principle of reasoning. Reasoning is about thinking. Thus,
logic is about how we think. It therefore means that logical principles enhance and strengthen
man’s thinking skills or man’s habits of thought. The core of logic has always been the study of
inference. Logic is the study of methods and techniques or principles of distinguishing correct
and incorrect reasoning. This imply that the study of the principles of reasoning especially of the
structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in
deductive reasoning is the major concern of logic

Let us start with this point that logic did not originally begin as a legitimate branch of
philosophy. It started only as a tool (organon) that assists the philosophers in fashioning an
orderly and clear understanding of the problems and questions they are dealing with. Aristotle
rejected logic as one of the theoretical sciences like mathematics, physics and metaphysics. Its
only relevance is that it is a tool which these sciences use in facilitating their research. It was
only later that logic started acquiring the status of a discipline, a branch of philosophy, with its
own subject matter. However, like we said earlier, this subject matter cannot be entirely divorced
from that of epistemology. If epistemology is concerned with our knowledge of reality, the
concern of logic is how we successfully justify between good reasons and bad reasons. Logic is
fundamentally about arguments. An argument is made up of propositions or declarative
statements, which can be true or false. The concept and nature of argument shall be discuss in
detail later in this course. If you say, for instance, “Obama is the first black president in the US,”
you have uttered a statement that can be true or false. Logic essentially is an attempt to
understand certain kind of relation that holds between propositions

Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and logic are considered to be the primary or traditional
branches of philosophy. However, philosophy is also made up of a whole set of other concerns
that we can call the “Philosophy of …” For instance, the philosopher is concerned with the work
of the historian and especially the historian’s claim about the past. The philosopher is also
concerned with politics, especially (a) the claim that politics can be regarded as a science; and
(b) the concern of how we can order our human society in order to live a good life. The other
areas of human endeavours that the philosopher is concerned with are: Law, education, science,
religion, psychology, economics, business, computer, language, literature, culture, environment,
art, and so on. All these disciplines and vocations are called first order disciplines. To be first
order implies that they have a particular and specific range of subject matter they are dealing
with. Philosophy is also in this sense a first order discipline. However, philosophy transcends
being a first order discipline in the sense that it can also be called a second order discipline. In
this sense, philosophy extends the method of critical analysis to the examination of the first order
subject matter of these other disciplines.

RELEVANCE OF LOGIC
1. Logic helps us to separate correct reason from incorrect one through a techniques
2. Logic helps us to think fast
3. Logic helps man in his bid to take rational decision
4. Logic is very helpful in communication. it gives us the ability to communicate more clearly
and effectively
5. Logic strictly lays down the rules which the mind must follow in order to arrive at truth
and thereby minimize error
6. The study of logic enhances clarity of thoughts and systematization of principles needed
for philosophical reasoning.
7. The study of logic and mastery of its fundamental principles enhances the recognition
and avoidance of errors in reasoning.
8. Logic equips one with the skills needed for effective and forceful presentation of view in
an argument.
9. Logic serves as a watchdog and the science of the weight of evidence in philosophy in
particular and its associated branches and social life in general.
10. The study of logic is intellectually rewarding for its theoretical interest, practical utility
and for the art of developing one to become critic
11. Logic equally helps to clarify and effectively learn how to use language and ideas
precisely in order to enhance understanding
12. Logic, as a matter of study, familiarizes one with the vocabulary of logic, technology and
linguistic symbols. Such concepts like inference, logical fallacy, sophistry, analogy,
argumentum etc convey a kind of knowledge that can be at best, be understood within
logical lexicon
13. Above all, according to Blaise Pascal, “since all our dignity lie in though” then we must
in agreement with him strive to think well. Thus training in logic help to bring the
relation of the discipline to the concerns of our daily lives into clearer perspectives

Types of Logic

There is no agreement on the number of types of logic in existence as there is no limit to the
number of philosophers in existence. However, for academic purpose the following are some
of the types of logic identified as they featured at one point or the other:

1. Informal Logic: this is sentential or propositional logic

 2. Formal logic: this is the opposite of sentential logic. In other words, it is a logic of
symbols and implication
3. Truth functional logic: this types of logic deals with truth –value analysis
4. Modal logic: this is also knows as Multi-value logics. It can also be interpreted as the
logic of possible worlds
5. Categorical logic: this is also refer to as Aristotelian or traditional logic. It is the logic of
inclusion and exclusion
6. Epistemic Logic: this types of logic examines the relationship between knowledge and
belief
7. Mathematical Logic or symbolic: Bertrand Russell defines mathematical logic as “The
subject in which nobody knows what one is talking about, nor whether what one is saying

is true . Symbolic Logic proper can be said to have its beginnings in the nineteenth
century, through such thinkers as Pierce, Jevons, Schroeder, Venn, De Morgan and
particularly George Boole, after whom Boolean Algebra is named. Boole was a
completely self-educated school master, who wrote An Investigation of the Laws of
Thought
8. Prepositional logic: the logic of validity of argument forms and of the fundamental
elements of logical schema
9. Deontic Logic: the Deontic logic is tense logic which is all about the past, present and
the future event
10. Inductive Logic: the logic of induction, analogy and of experimental inquiry
11. Deductive Logic: the logic of deduction and formal proof of validity
12. Dialectical Logic: this is an act of informal logic, it is a form of logic that goes with
dialogue

Other Branches of Philosophy:

 Philosophy of Education: Fairly self-explanatory. A minor branch, mainly concerned with
what is the correct way to educate a person. Philosophical investigation on who an educated
person his, difference between education and indoctrination, despotic attitude in education
and many more. Classic works in this area include Plato’s Republic, Locke’s Thoughts
Concerning Education, and Rousseau’s Emile.
 Philosophy of History: Fairly minor branch (not as minor as education), although highly
important to Hegel and those who followed him, most notably Marx. It is the philosophical
study of history, particularly concerned with the question whether history (i.e. the universe
and/or humankind) is progressing towards a specific end? Hegel argued that it was, as did
Marx. Classic works include Vico’s New Science, and Hegel and Marx’s works.
 Philosophy of Law: Also called Jurisprudence. Study of law attempting to discern what the
best laws might be, how laws came into being in the first place, attempting to delimit human
laws from natural laws, whether we should always obey the law, and so on. Law isn’t often
directly dealt with by philosophers, but much of political philosophy obviously has a bearing
on it.
 Philosophy of Mathematics: Concerned with issues such as, the nature of the axioms and
symbols (numbers, triangle, operands) of mathematics that we use to understand the world,
do perfect mathematical forms exist in the real world, and so on. Principia Mathematica is
almost certainly the most important work in this field.
 Philosophy of Language: Ancient branch of philosophy which gained prominence in the last
century under Wittgenstein. Basically concerned with how our languages affect our thought.
Wittgenstein famously asserted that the limits of our languages mark the limits of our
thought. Classic works include Plato’s Cratylus, Locke’s Essay, and Wittgenstein’s Tractatus
Logico-Philosophicus.
 Philosophy of Politics: Closely related to ethics, this is a study of government and nations,
particularly how they came about, what makes good governments, what obligations citizens
have towards their government, and so on. Classic works include Plato’s Republic, Hobbes’
Leviathan, Locke’s Two Treatises, and J.S. Mill’s On Liberty.
 Philosophy of Mind: Study of the mind, attempting to ascertain exactly what the mind is,
how it interacts with our body, do other minds exist, how does it work, and so on. Probably
the most popular branch of philosophy right now, it has expanded to include issues of AI.
Classic works include Plato’s Republic and Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations,
although every major philosopher has had some opinion at least on what the mind is and how
it works.
 Philosophy of Religion: Theology is concerned with the study of God, recommending the
best religious practices, how our religion should shape our life, and so on. Philosophy of
 religion is concerned with much the same issues, but where Theology uses religious works,
like the Bible, as it’s authority, philosophy likes to use reason as the ultimate authority.
 Philosophy of Science: Study of science concerned with whether scientific knowledge can
be said to be certain, how we obtain it, can science really explain everything, does causation
really exist, can every event in the universe be described in terms of physics and so on. Also
popular in recent times, classic works include Hume’s Treatise on Human Nature, Kripke’s
Naming and Necessity, Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

LECTURE FOUR

History of Philosophy

Objectives

The main objectives of this topic are to:

i. Identify the main argument of the early philosophers

ii. Discuss the historical changes and development in the history of philosophy
iii. Examines the influence of some philosophers in the history of philosophy

Introduction

This unit discusses in brief the history of philosophy from Ancient period. It examines the
theoretical foundations of the practice, application, and social consequences of history and
historiography. The history of philosophy as history, then, is a discipline in which the
philosophical positions, principles, and arguments of philosophers are presented, analyzed, and
explained in the historical contexts of their times It is similar to other area of studies – such as
philosophy of science or philosophy of religion. The history of philosophy is also philosophy to
the extent that it contributes to ongoing philosophical inquiry. This is done when historians
present their results in terms today's philosophers can understand. We will look at quite a few of
the known philosophers for familiarity and to see how rich the traditions are. One can however
ask whether or not a given historical philosophical position holds up against or contributes to
today's philosophical views on the same or similar issues. In sum, the history of philosophy both
as history and as philosophy is the presentation, analysis, and explanation of philosophy in
historical context.
THALES.
According to Aristotle, the founder of the Ionic physical philosophy, and the founder of Greek
philosophy, was Thales of Miletos. According to Diogenes Laertios, Thales was born in the first
year of the thirty-fifth Olympiad (640 B.C.), and his death occurred in the fifty-eighth Olympiad
(548-545 B.C.). He attained note as a scientific thinker and was regarded as the founder of Greek
philosophy because he discarded mythical explanations of things, and asserted that a physical
element, water, was the first principle of all things. There are various stories of his travels, and in
connection with accounts of his travels in Egypt he is credited with introducing into Greece the
knowledge of geometry. Tradition also claims that he was a statesman, and as a practical thinker
he is classed as one of the seven wise men. A work entitled 'Nautical Astronomy' was ascribed to
him, but it was recognized as spurious even in antiquity. Thales asserts
“And as for all the stars and the moon and the years and the
months and all the seasons, can we hold any other opinion
about them than this same one—that inasmuch as soul or
souls appear to be the cause of all these things, and good
souls the cause of every excellence, we are to call them
gods, whether they order the whole heavens as living
beings in bodies, or whether they accomplish this in some
other form and manner? Is there any one who
acknowledges this, and yet holds that all things are not full
of gods?
Most of the early students of philosophy thought that first principles in the form of matter, and
only these, are the sources of all things; for that of which all things consist, the antecedent from
which they have sprung, and into which they are finally resolved (in so far as being underlies
them and is changed with their changes), this they say is the element and first principle of things.
As to the quantity and form of this first principle, there is a difference of opinion; but Thales, the
founder of this sort of philosophy, says that it is water (accordingly he declares that the earth
rests on water), getting the idea, I suppose, because he saw that the nourishment of all beings is
moist, and that warmth itself is generated from moisture and persists in it (for that from which all
things spring is the first principle of them); and getting the idea also from the fact that the germs
of all beings are of a moist nature, while water is the first principle of the nature of what is moist.
And there are some who think that the ancients, and they who lived long before the present
generation, and the first students of the gods, had a similar idea in regard to nature; for in their
poems Okeanos and Tethys were.
Some say that the earth rests on water. We have ascertained that the oldest statement of this
character is the one accredited to Thales the Milesian, to the effect that it rests on water, floating
like a piece of wood or something else of that sort. And Thales, according to what is related of
him, seems to have regarded the soul as something endowed with the power of motion, if indeed
he said that the loadstone has a soul because it moves iron. . Some say that soul is diffused
throughout the whole universe; and it may have been this which led Thales to think that all
things are full of gods.
Thales posits water as the element, but it is the element of bodies, and he thinks that the soul is
not a body at all. And in speaking thus of Thales he adds with a degree of reproach that he
assigned a soul to the magnetic stone as the power which moves the iron, that he might prove
soul to be a moving power in it; but he did not assert that this soul was water, although water had
been designated as the element, since he said that water is the element of substances, but he
supposed soul to be unsubstantial form.
For Thales, also, he thought all things to be full of gods, the gods being blended with them; and
this is strange. Of those who say that the first principle [αρχη] is one and movable, to whom
Aristotle applies the distinctive name of physicists, some say that it is limited; as, for instance,
Thales of Miletos, son of Examyes, and Hippo who seems also to have lost belief in the gods. He
says that the first principle is water, and they are led to this result by things that appear to sense;
for warmth lives in moisture and dead things wither up and all germs are moist and all nutriment
is moist. Now it is natural that things should be nourished by that from which each has come;
and water is the first principle of moist nature . . .; accordingly they assume that water is the first
principle of all things, and they assert that the earth rests on water. Thales is the first to have set
on foot the investigation of nature by the Greeks; although so many others preceded him, in
Theophrastos's opinion he so far surpassed them as to cause them to be forgotten. It is said that
he left nothing in writing except a book entitled 'Nautical Astronomy.'
It is said that Thales of Miletos, one of the seven wise men, was the first to undertake the study
of physical philosophy. He said that the beginning (the first principle) and the end of all things is
water. All things acquire firmness as this solidifies, and again as it is melted their existence is
threatened; to this are due earthquakes and whirlwinds and movements of the stars. And all
things are movable and in a fluid state, the character of the compound being determined by the
nature of the principle from which it springs. This principle is god, and it has neither beginning
nor end.
Thales was the first of the Greeks to devote himself to the study and investigation of the stars,
and was the originator of this branch of science; on one occasion he was looking up at the
heavens, and was just saying he was intent on studying what was overhead, when he fell into a
well; whereupon a maidservant named Thratta laughed at him and said: In his zeal for things in
the sky he does not see what is at his feet. 1 And he lived in the time of Kroesos. Thales of
Miletos regards the first principle and the elements as the same thing. But there is a very great
difference between them, for elements are composite, but we claim that first principles are
neither composite nor the result of processes.
So we call earth, water, air, fire, elements; and we call them first principles for the reason that
there is nothing antecedent to them from which they are sprung, since this would not be a first
principle, but rather that from which it is derived. Now there is something anterior to earth and
water from which they are derived, namely the matter that is formless and invisible, and the form
which we call entelechy, and privation. So Thales was in error when he called water an element
and a first principle. Thales the Milesian declared that the first principle of things is water, [This
man seems to have been the first philosopher, and the Ionic school derived its name from him;
for there were very many successive leaders in philosophy. And Thales was a student of
philosophy in Egypt, but he came to Miletos in his old age]. He says that all things come from
water and all are resolved into water.
The first basis for this conclusion is the fact that the seed of all animals is their first principle and
it is moist; thus it is natural to conclude that all things come from water as their first principle.
Secondly, the fact that all plants are nourished by moisture and bear fruit, and unless they get
moisture they wither away.
Thirdly, the fact that the very fire of the sun and the stars is fed by the exhalations from the
waters, and so is the universe itself.
Thales said that the mind in the universe is god, and all is endowed with soul and is full of
spirits; and its divine moving power pervades the elementary water. Thales and his fellows say
that spirits are psychical beings; and that heroes are souls separated from bodies, good heroes are
good souls, bad heroes are bad souls. The followers of Thales assert that matter is turned about,
varying, changing and in a fluid state, the whole in every part of the whole. Thales and his
successors declared that the first cause is immovable. The followers of Thales and Pythagoras
hold that bodies can receive impressions and can be divided even to infinity; and so can all
figures, lines, surfaces, solids, matter, place, and time. The physicists, followers of Thales, all
recognize that the void is really a void.
Thales maintains that Necessity is most powerful, for it controls everything. Thales and his
successors hold that the universe is one. They hold that the sphere of the entire heaven is divided
into five circles which they call zones; and of these the first is called the arctic zone, and is
always visible, the next is the summer solstice, the next is the equinoctial, the next the winter
solstice, and the next the antarctic, which is invisible. And the ecliptic in the three middle ones is
called the zodiac and is projected to touch the three middle ones. All these are cut by the
meridian at a right angle from the north to the opposite quarter. The stars consist of earth, but are
on fire. The sun also consists of earth. The eclipses of the sun take place when the moon passes
across it in direct line, since the moon is earthy in character; and it seems to the eye to be laid on
the disk of the sun. The moon is lighted from the sun. Thales and his contemporaries agree with
the mathematicians that the monthly phases of the moon show that it travels along with the sun
and is lighted by it, and eclipses show that it comes into the shadow of the earth, the earth
coming between the two heavenly bodies and blocking the light of the moon. The earth is one
and spherical in form. It is in the midst of the universe.
Thales and Demokritos find in water the cause of earthquakes. Plants are living animals; this is
evident from the fact that they wave their branches and keep them extended, and they yield to
attack and relax them freely again, so that weights also draw them down. For Thales of Miletos,
who first studied these matters, said that water is the first principle of things, while god is the
mind which formed all things from water. If gods exist without sense and mind, why should god
be connected with water, if mind itself can exist without a body?
In summary Aristotle attributes the following four views to Thales:
1. The earth rests on water. (De Caelo 294a28)
2. Water is the archê of all things. (Metaph. 983b18)
3. The magnet has a soul. (De Anima 405a19)
4. All things are full of gods. (De Anima 411a7)
 Thales is often credited with trying to explain everything in terms of water. (Either
everything is made of water, or everything came from water.)
 This is a kind of monism: the reduction of a host of complex phenomena to a single,
simple basis. This is a prevailing philosophical theme.
 ANAXIMENES.
ANAXIMENES of Miletos(Miletus) son of Eurystratos, was the pupil or companion of
Anaximandros(Anaximander). According to Apollodoros, quoted by Diogenes, he was born in
the sixty-third Olympiad (528-524 B.C.). Diels has, however, made it seem probable that this
date refers to his prime of life, rather than to his birth. Of his life nothing is known. Anaximenes
arrived at the conclusion that air is the one, movable, infinite, first principle of all things. For he
speaks as follows: Air is the nearest to an immaterial thing; for since we are generated in the
flow of air, it is necessary that it should be infinite and abundant, because it is never exhausted.
Most of the earlier students of the heavenly bodies believed that the sun did not go underneath
the earth, but rather around the earth and this region, and that it disappeared from view and
produced night, because the earth was so high toward the north. He regarded the first principle
as unlimited, but not as undefined, for he called it air, thinking that air had a sufficient
adaptability to change. Some say that the universe always existed, not that it has always been the
same, but rather that it successively changes its character in certain periods of time; as, for
instance, Anaximenes and Herakleitos(Heraclitus) and Diogenes. Anaximenes and Anaxagoras
and Demokritos(Democritus) say that the breadth of the earth is the reason why it remains where
it is. Anaximenes says that the earth was wet, and when it dried it broke apart, and that
earthquakes are due to the breaking and falling of hills; accordingly earthquakes occur in
droughts, and in rainy seasons also; they occur in drought, as has been said, because the earth
dries and breaks apart, and it also crumbles when it is wet through with waters.
Anaximenes regarded air as the first principle. According to Anaximenes, the early philosopher,
we should not neglect either cold or heat in being but should regard them as common
experiences of matter which are incident to its changes. He says that the compressed and the
condensed state of matter is cold, while the rarefied and relaxed (a word he himself uses) state of
it is heat. Whence he says it is not strange that men breathe hot and cold out of the mouth; for the
breath is cooled as it is compressed and condensed by the lips, but when the mouth is relaxed, it
comes out warm by reason of its rarefaction.
Anaximenes of Miletos(Miletus) agrees that the essential nature of things is one and infinite, but
he regards it as not indeterminate but rather determinate, and calls it air; the air differs in rarity
and in density as the nature of things is different; when very attenuated it becomes fire, when
more condensed wind, and then cloud, and when still more condensed water and earth and stone,
and all other things are composed of these; and he regards motion as eternal, and by this changes
are produced.1
Anaximenes, himself a Milesian, said that infinite air is the first principle, from which arise the
things that have come and are coming into existence, and the things that will be, and gods and
divine beings, while other things are produced from these.
In his philosophical analysis, the form of air is as follows: When it is of a very even consistency,
it is imperceptible to vision, but it becomes evident as the result of cold or heat or moisture, or
when it is moved. It is always in motion; for things would not change as they do unless it was in
motion. It has a different appearance when it is made more dense or thinner; when it is expanded
into a thinner state it becomes fire, and again winds are condensed air, and air becomes cloud by
compression, and water when it is compressed farther, and earth and finally stones as it is more
condensed. So that generation is controlled by the opposites, heat and cold. And the broad earth
is supported on air;1 similarly the sun and the moon and all the rest of the stars, being fiery
bodies, are supported on the air by their breadth. And stars are made of earth, since exhalations
arise from this, and these being attenuated become fire, and of this fire when it is raised to the
heaven the stars are constituted. There are also bodies of an earthy nature in the place occupied
by the stars, and carried along with them in their motion. He says that the stars do not move
under the earth as others have supposed, but around the earth, 5 just as a cap is moved about the
head. And the sun is hidden not by going underneath the earth, but because it is covered by some
of the higher parts of the earth, and because of its greater distance from us. The stars do not give
forth heat because they are so far away. Winds are produced when the air that has been
attenuated is set in motion; and when it comes together and is yet farther condensed, clouds are
produced, and so it changes into water. And hail is formed when the water descending from the
clouds is frozen; and snow, when these being yet more filled with moisture become frozen; 6 and
lightning, when clouds are separated by violence of the winds; for when they are separated, the
flash is bright and like fire. And a rainbow is produced when the sun's rays fall on compressed
air;2 and earthquakes are produced when the earth is changed yet more by beating and cooling.
Such are the opinions of Anaximenes. He says that air is the first principle of all things, and that
it is infinite in quantity but is defined by its qualities; and all things are generated by a certain
condensation or rarefaction of it. Motion also exists from eternity. And by compression of the air
the earth was formed, and it is very broad; accordingly he says that this rests on air; and the sun
and the moon and the rest of the stars were formed from earth. He declared that the sun is earth
because of its swift motion, and it has the proper amount of heat.
Afterwards Anaximenes said that air is god,[and that it arose] and that it is boundless and infinite
and always in motion; just as though air without any form could be god, when it is very
necessary that god should be not only of some form, but of the most beautiful form; or as though
everything which comes into being were not thereby subject to death. Anaximenes declared that
air is the first principle of things, for from this all things arise and into this they are all resolved
again. As our soul which is air, he says, holds us together, so wind [i.e. breath, πνευμα] and air
encompass the whole world. He uses these words 'air' and 'wind' synonymously. He is mistaken
in thinking that animals are composed of simple homogeneous air and wind; for it is impossible
that one first principle should constitute the substance of things, but an active cause is also
necessary; just as silver alone is not enough to become coin, but there is need of an active
cause, i.e. a coin-maker; [so there is need of copper and wood and other substances].
Anaximenes claims that Infinite worlds exist in the infinite in every cycle. The world is
perishable. The sky is the revolving vault most distant from the earth. The stars are fixed like
nailheads in the crystalline (vault). The stars shine for none of these reasons, but solely by the
light of the sun. The sun is broad [like a leaf]. The stars revolve, being pushed by condensed
resisting air. The form of the earth is like a table. The dryness of the air, due to drought, and its
wetness, due to rainstorms, are the causes of earthquakes. The soul to Anaximenes is like air in
its nature.
Anaximander (Anaximandros)
ANAXIMANDROS of Miletos was a companion or pupil of Thales. According to Apollodoros
he was born in the second or third year of the forty-second Olympiad (611-610 B.C.). little is
known of Anaximander life; Zeller infers from the statement of Aelian to the effect that he led
the Milesian colony into Apollonia, that he was a man of influence in Miletos. He was a student
of geography and astronomy; and various inventions, such as the sundial, are attributed to him.
His book, which was referred to as the first philosophical treatise in Greece, may not have
received the title until after his death. It soon became rare, and Simplicius does not seem to have
had access to it. it is generally agreed that the following phrase is from
Anaximandros.1'Immortal and indestructible,' 'surrounds all and directs all.' (To that they return
when they are destroyed) of necessity; for he says that they suffer punishment and give
satisfaction to one another for injustice.
For some who hold that the real, the underlying substance, is a unity, either one of the three
[elements] or something else that is denser than fire and more rarefied than air, teach that other
things are generated by condensation and rarefaction. And others believe that existing opposites
are separated from the unity, as Anaximandros says, and those also who say that unity and
multiplicity exist, as Empedokles and Anaxagoras; for these separate other things from the
mixture There is no beginning of the infinite, for in that case it would have an end. But it is
without beginning and indestructible, as being a sort of first principle; for it is necessary that
whatever comes into existence should have an end, and there is a conclusion of all destruction.
Wherefore as we say, there is no first principle of this [i.e. the infinite], but it itself seems to be
the first principle of all other things and to surround all and to direct all, as they say who think
that there are no other causes besides the infinite (such as mind, or friendship), but that it itself is
divine; for it is immortal and indestructible, as Anaximandros and most of the physicists say.
 There is another method, according to which they do not attribute change to matter itself,
nor do they suppose that generation takes place by a transformation of the underlying
substance, but by separation; for the opposites existing in the substance which is infinite
matter are separated, according to Anaximandros, who was the earliest thinker to call the
underlying substance the first principle. And the opposites are heat and cold, dry and
moist, and the rest.
But it is not possible that infinite matter is one and simple; either, as some say, that it is
something different from the elements, from which they are generated, or that it is absolutely
one. For there are some who make the infinite of this character, but they do not consider it to be
air or water, in order that other things may not be blotted out by the infinite; for these are
mutually antagonistic to one another, inasmuch as air is cold, water is moist, and fire hot; if one
of these were infinite, the rest would be at once blotted out; but now they say that the infinite is
something different from these things, namely, that from which they come. In order that
generation may actually occur, it is not necessary to prove that the infinite should actually be
matter that sense can perceive; for it is possible that destruction of one thing is generation of
another, provided the all is limited. For some say that there is only one underlying substance; and
of these some say that it is water, some that it is air, some that it is fire, and some that it is more
rarefied than water and denser than air; and these last say that being infinite it surrounds all the
heavens. It is natural that this very thing should be unintelligible to those who say that at first
when the earth was moist and the universe including the earth was warmed by the sun, then air
was formed and the whole heavens were dried, and this produced the winds and made the
heavens revolve. So not only is it very properly admitted that all things are generated from not-
being, but also that they all come from being: potentially from being, actually from not-being;
and this is the unity of Anaxagoras (for this is better than to say that all things exist together, and
it is the mixture of Empedokles and Anaximandros. Wherefore they (the Syrians) reverence the
fish as of the same origin and the same family as man, holding a more reasonable philosophy
than that of Anaximandros; for he declares, not that fishes and men were generated at the same
time, but that at first men were generated in the form of fishes, and that growing up as sharks do
till they were able to help themselves, they then came forth on the dry ground.
Among those who say that the first principle is one and movable and infinite, is Anaximandros
of Miletos, son of Praxiades, pupil and successor of Thales. He said that the first principle and
element of all things is infinite, and he was the first to apply this word to the first principle; and
he says that it is neither water nor any other one of the things called elements, but the infinite is
something of a different nature, from which came all the heavens and the worlds in them; and
from what source things arise, to that they return of necessity when they are destroyed; for he
says that they suffer punishment and give satisfaction to one another for injustice according to
the order of time, putting it in rather poetical language. Evidently when he sees the four elements
changing into one another, he does not deem it right to make any one of these the underlying
substance, but something else besides them. And he does not think that things come into being
by change in the nature of the element, but by the separation of the opposites which the eternal
motion causes. On this account Aristotle compares him with Anaxagoras. Some of the physicists
say that the sea is what is left of the first moisture; for when the region about the earth was
moist, the upper part of the moisture was evaporated by the sun, and from it came the winds and
the revolutions of the sun and moon, since these made their revolutions by reason of the vapours
and exhalations, and revolved in those regions where they found an abundance of them. What is
left of this moisture in the hollow places is the sea; so it diminishes in quantity, being evaporated
gradually by the sun, and finally it will be completely dried up.
Anaximandros was a pupil of Thales. He was a Milesian, son of Praxiades. He said that the first
principle of things is of the nature of the infinite, and from this the heavens and the worlds in
them arise. And this (first principle) is eternal and does not grow old, and it surrounds all the
worlds. He says of time that in it generation and being and destruction are determined. He said
that the first principle and the element of beings is the infinite, a word which he was the earliest
to apply to the first principle. Besides this, motion is eternal, and as a result of it the heavens
arise. The earth is a heavenly body, controlled by no other power, and keeping its position
because it is the same distance from all things; the form of it is curved, cylindrical like a stone
column; it has two faces, one of these is the ground beneath our feet, and the other is opposite to
it. The stars are a circle 2 of fire, separated from the fire about the world, and surrounded by air.
There are certain breathing-holes like the holes of a flute through which we see the stars; so that
when the holes are stopped up, there are eclipses. The moon is sometimes full and sometimes in
other phases as these holes are stopped up or open. The circle of the sun is twenty-seven times
that of the moon, and the sun is higher than the moon, but the circles of the fixed stars are lower.
Animals come into being through vapours raised by the sun. Man, however, came into being
from another animal, namely the fish, for at first he was like a fish. Winds are due to a separation
of the lightest vapours and the motion of the masses of these vapours; and moisture comes from
the vapour raised by the sun1 from them; and lightning occurs when a wind falls upon clouds and
separates them. Anaximandros says that the infinite is the sole cause of all generation and
destruction, and from it the heavens were separated, and similarly all the worlds, which are
infinite in number. And he declared that destruction and, far earlier, generation have taken place
since an indefinite time, since all things are involved in a cycle. He says that the earth is a
cylinder in form, and that its depth is one-third of its breadth. And he says that at the beginning
of this world something productive of heat and cold from the eternal being was separated there
from, and a sort of sphere of this flame surrounded the air about the earth, as bark surrounds a
tree; then this sphere was broken into parts and defined into distinct circles, and thus arose the
sun and the moon and the stars. Farther he says that at the beginning man was generated from all
sorts of animals, since all the rest can quickly get food for themselves, but man alone requires
careful feeding for a long time; such a being at the beginning could not have preserved his
existence. Anaximandros says that the first principle is older than water and is eternal motion; in
this all things come into being, and all things perish. Anaximandros says that the first principle of
things is the infinite; for from this all things come, and all things perish and return to this.
Accordingly, an infinite number of worlds have been generated and have perished again and
returned to their source. So he calls it infinite, in order that the generation which takes place may
not lessen it.
But he fails to say what the infinite is, whether it is air or water or earth or some other thing. He
fails to show what matter is, and simply calls it the active cause. For the infinite is nothing else
but matter; and matter cannot be energy, unless an active agent is its substance. Anaximandros
declared that the infinite heavens are gods. Anaximandros claims that infinite worlds exist in the
infinite in every cycle and these worlds are equally distant from each other.
The world is perishable.
The heavens arise from a mixture of heat and cold.
The stars are wheel-shaped masses of air, full of fire, breathing out flames from pores in
different parts.
The sun has the highest position of all, the moon is next in order, and beneath it are the fixed
stars and the planets.
The stars are carried on by the circles and the spheres in which each one moves.
The circle of the sun is twenty-eight times as large as the earth, like a chariot wheel, having a
hollow centre and this full of fire, shining in every part, and sending out fire through a narrow
opening like the air from a flute. The sun is equal in size to the earth, but the circle from which it
sends forth its exhalations, and by which it is borne through the heavens, is twenty-seven times
as large as the earth. An eclipse takes place when the outlet for the fiery exhalations is closed.
The circle of the moon is nineteen times as large as the earth, and like the circle of the sun is full
of fire; and eclipses are due to the revolutions of the wheel; for it is like a chariot wheel, hollow
inside, and the centre of it is full of fire, but there is only one exit for the fire. The moon shines
by its own light. The moon is eclipsed when the hole in the wheel is stopped.
Anaximandros said that lightning is due to wind; for when it is surrounded and pressed together
by a thick cloud and so driven out by reason of its lightness and rarefaction, then the breaking
makes a noise, while the separation makes a rift of brightness in the darkness of the cloud. The
soul is like air in its nature. Anaximandros said that the first animals were generated in the
moisture, and were covered with a prickly skin; and as they grew older, they became drier, and
after the skin broke off from them, they lived for a little while. It was the opinion of
Anaximandros that gods have a beginning, at long intervals rising and setting, and that they are
the innumerable worlds.
Heraclitus
Introduction
Heraclitus born around 500 B.C. in Ephesus, north of Miletus in Asia Minor. He was known in
antiquity as “the obscure.” And even today, it is very difficult to be certain what Heraclitus was
 talking about. As Barnes says “Heraclitus attracts exegetes as an empty jampot wasps; and each
new wasp discerns traces of his own favourite flavour.”
The reason for this is Heraclitus’s dark and aphoristic style. He loved to appear to contradict
himself. Some of his doctrines sound incoherent and self-contradictory even if he did not perhaps
intend them that way. One thing seems certain: Heraclitus had an extremely negative reaction to
Milesian thought. For the Milesians, what is real is fixed and permanent; change somehow had to
be explained away. They understood changes as alterations of some basic, underlying, material
stuff which is, in its own nature, unchanging. Heraclitus reversed this: change is what is real.
Permanence is only apparent.
Heraclitus had a very strong influence on Plato. Plato interpreted Heraclitus to have believed that
the material world undergoes constant change. He also thought Heraclitus was approximately
correct in so describing the material world. Plato believed that such a world would be
unknowable, and was thus driven to the conclusion that the material world was, in some sense,
unreal, and that the real, knowable, world was immaterial.
The unity of opposites
1. A number of fragments suggest that Heraclitus thought that opposites are really one. What does
this mean? Does Heraclitus think that hot = cold, that mortality = immortality, etc.? Does he
think, in general, that each property F that has an opposite F' is identical to its opposite? Is the
unity of opposites thesis best understood (in logical symbols) as: ∀F(F = F)?This is not likely.
The fragments suggest, rather, that he thinks that opposites may be present in the same thing,
or coinstantiated. That is, that one and the same thing may be both hot and cold, pure and
polluted, etc. But what claim is Heraclitus making about the coinstantiation of opposites? Here are
a couple of possibilities:
a. Some object instantiates at least one pair of contrary properties.
b. Every object instantiates every pair of contrary properties.
Similarly, he contends that “day and night are one” and “the same thing is both living and
dead.”But here he is describing cases in which one opposite succeeds another, not cases in which
a single object is simultaneously characterized by both opposites. This succession of opposites
(day following night, death following life) gets to the key idea: change. To say that every object
manifests some pair of contrary properties in this sense (successively) is just to say that every
object undergoes change. So the doctrine of “unity of opposites” is , for Heraclitus, a way of
making the point that every object is subject to change and is, indeed, always undergoing some
kind of change or other.
It’s possible, however, that Heraclitus’s idea of a unity of opposites involved more than just the
succession of opposed states that occurs in cases of change. His example of a bow or a lyre may
illustrate a kind of opposition in which the opposites are simultaneously They do not understand
how, though at variance with itself, it agrees with itself. It is a backwards-turning attunement like
that of the bow and lyre.
The Logos
1. Heraclitus stresses the importance of (what he calls) “the logos”. This term can have a
variety of meanings: word, statement, reason, law, ratio, proportion, among others What
kind of a thing, then, is a logos? There does seem to be some genuine content to
Heraclitus’s notion of logos. These are its main ingredients:
a. There is an orderly, law-governed process of change in the universe.
b. The unity of diverse phenomena is to be found not in their matter, but in
their logos. Indeed the very identity of an object depends not on the matter that
composes it, but on the regularity and predictability of the changes it undergoes.
c. The lyre is a good example of a logos in action. The orderly balance of opposed
forces is what keeps the lyre functioning. The harmony of the lyre is an instance
of the logos.
d. Another good example in which the nature of a thing is given by its logos, and by
the changes it undergoes, rather than by a list of its ingredients, is found in his
discussion of the mixed drink that the Greeks called kykeon (here translated
“posset”) — a mixture of wine, barley and grated cheese even the
posset (kykeon) separates if it is not being stirred.
His point is that the continued existence of a certain kind of thing depends on its
undergoing continual change and movement. What makes something a posset is
not just what it’s made of (not just any collection of wine, barley, and cheese is a
posset), but how it behaves, what kind of process it undergoes.
In a way, then, the logos for something are rather like a recipe. That is, it is more
than a list of ingredients. It includes an account of how they are put together, and
how they interact.
Problem about Identity and Persistence
The puzzling doctrine for which Heraclitus is best known is reported by Plato. Heraclitus says
that everything moves on and that nothing is at rest; and, comparing existing things to the flow of
a river, he says that you could not step into the same river twice.
Plutarch, no doubt following Plato, also ascribes this idea to Heraclitus. The idea is this: since
the composition of the river changes from one moment to the next, it is not the same
(numerically the same) river for any length of time at all. Note that Plato thinks that Heraclitus
uses the river as an example of what he takes to be a general condition: everything is like a river
in this respect. That is, nothing retains its identity for any time at all. That is: there are no
persisting objects.
The Flux Doctrine
1. This is the view that everything is constantly altering; no object retains all of its
component parts, or all of its qualities or characteristics, from one moment to the next.
2. Plato attributes the Doctrine of Flux to Heraclitus. And it is because he thought
Heraclitus was a Fluxist that he thought Heraclitus denied that there were any persisting
objects.
3. But even if Heraclitus was a Fluxist (which is far from clear) it does not follow that he
had to deny that there are persisting objects. If an object is more like a process than like
a static thing, then one and the same object can endure even though it is undergoing
constant change.
4. Heraclitean Fluxism
a. It is unlikely that Heraclitus was an extreme fluxist. His discussions of change in
general, and the river fragments in particular, suggest that he thought that change
and permanence could co-exist, that is, that an object could persist in spite of
continually undergoing change in some respect or other.
b. If you step in the same river, you step in different waters: the river is still
(numerically) the same river even though it has changed (compositionally), in
that it (the same river) is now composed of different waters.
c. So it is unlikely that Heraclitus denied that there are persisting objects.
 LECTURE FIVE

Argument
Objectives

The main objectives of this topic are to:

i. Make a clarity between dispute and persuasive expression

ii. Give a precise definition to the word argument from the technical perspective
iii. Know how we can recognize an argument
iv. Determine the basic rudiments of an Argument

What is an argument?
In many contexts, ‘argument’ can mean disagreement, dispute, fight, or a heated, vitriolic debate.
This occurs whenever two or more people engage themselves in a vital discussion which brings
in disagreement. This implies that an argument goes beyond disagreement, it gives us deeper
meaning than this general notion. In other words, an argument can be conceived from two major
angles. These are argument from the general people’s perception and argument from the
philosophical view or what we call argument from the logical point of view.
In logic, we have a more technical understanding of what an argument is. An argument can be
defined as an intellectual reasoning and not a short-match. According to Flage (1995), an
argument is a set of proposition in which one or more propositions are said to provide reason or
evidence for the truth of another proposition. According to Achilike (1999), an argument is a
trade of reasoning, consisting of a sequence of ground and a claim. In logic, we understand an
argument to be something that provides reasons to believe some claim. The claim that the
argument is arguing for is called the conclusion of the argument. The reasons that are adduced in
the conclusion’s favour are known as the premises of the argument. An argument attempts to
persuade its audience to accept its conclusion by providing premises that the audience is
expected to accept and showing that they support the conclusion. Our lives are filled with
arguments. According to Ade-Ali (2003) an expression can be classified as an argument
provided the following feature:
i. An Argument is a formulation in words or symbols of premises and conclusion that is
inferred from the premises
ii. An argument is an embodiment of propositions in which one is claimed to follow from
the others which are regarded a providing evidence, support or ground for the truth of the
conclusion
iii. An argument is a set of statement in which one or more statement (premises) are said to
provide reason, evidence or proof for the truth of another proposition (conclusion)

An argument is a group of propositions, one of which, called the conclusion, is affirmed on the
basis of the others, which are called premises. An argument is always the smallest unit of
argumentation. At least two propositions or statements form an argument otherwise it is not
argument. But not all the statements are arguments. Some non argumentative uses of statements
such as in reports illustration, explanatory statements, conditional statement etc. are sometimes
confused with arguments as earlier stated, at least two statements or propositions form an
argument. In the case of two propositions only one must be the premise while the other must be
the conclusion. Generally, an argument is any group of propositions of which one is claimed to
follow from the others which are regarded as providing support or ground for the truth of that
one. An argument is more or less a formulation, in words or symbols, of premises and of a
conclusion that is inferred from them.
Each day we make and listen to myriad arguments. These arguments are on matters both
personal and political, both mundane and profound. Our ability to rationally decide what we
think about these matters depends upon our ability to evaluate these arguments well.
Consider the following examples:
1. I can’t understand people who say that smokers should not be allowed to smoke in public
places. I think anyone should be allowed to smoke anywhere.
 2. People should be allowed to smoke anywhere. Smoking is not illegal and millions of
people get huge pleasure from it.
In the example 1, it is clearly stated that the speaker expresses a clear disagreement. One can
identified from the expression that the speaker only based his position on those who want to
restrict the right of the smokers. There is no justification or reason to back up his position. Thus,
such assertion or expression is therefore group under disagreement or dispute. The speaker did
no more than disagree with people who think that smoking should not be allowed in public
places. He doesn’t provide anything that we make people have a change of mind on the issue.
Furthermore, in the second example, one can vividly see that the expression in this argument
goes beyond disagreement, the expression further state some reasons to back up his position.
From the example 2, the speaker provided reasons for his position, which also persuade people to
accept his position. Thus an argument in logic goes beyond disagreement, it is not enough to
disagree, there must be an attempt to persuade someone that one position is preferable to another.
Based on the example 2, the speaker gave us two reasons why people should be allowed to
smoke in anywhere. This argument can be break down into two;
i. People should be allowed to smoke anywhere (conclusion) . This can be expressed
as the claim or the position of the speaker. This is the position the speaker is trying to
establish
i. Smoking is not illegal (premise)
ii. Millions of people get huge pleasure from smoking. (Premise). These are the
evidence used to backup the position by arguer. This is an attempt to get beyond
simple disagreement.
Generally speaking, an argument consists of two things:
i. Arguments have reason
ii. Arguments are meant to be persuasive

Importance of Studying Argument in Logic

One of the reasons why we need to study argument is the fact that men engage in daily dialogue
which most time lead to fight based on the lack of knowledge of what and method of argument.
Going by the explanation given above as well as mastering the nature of argument, one will be
better to handle issues pertaining argument. There is no doubt saying that argument is found
everywhere. It is found in newspaper and magazine, on television and radio, in school and
colleges subject, every debate, every court etc. some are good arguments, while some are bad.
Some are so familiar that one would not think of them as argument, some will even challenge our
beliefs. The study of argument equips us with the skills in assessing argument. It also makes us
to develop our own argument in a logical manner, especially if we are to become competent at
dealing with argument in academic subject.
Aside the above reason, the study of argument is important in the sense that its study helps man
becoming competent in judgment making. Being competent at a subject is much more than
knowing.
Clarification between Explaining, Summarizing and Arguing
It must be well clarify that it is not everything that has the appearance of an argument that is
actually refer to as argument. It must be reminded that in addition to reason and conclusions an
argument should be intended to be persuasive in nature
i. Explaining
Let us examining this example: the Bus comes into the car park at 6:35pm, all passengers
disembark 30minutes later. Therefore, the policemen will be on duty by 7:00pm.
Going through this example, one will assume that it has the form of an argument, with what
appear to be the two reasons supporting the conclusion. However, through the knowledge of the
nature of argument, we can see that the expression is not persuasive, the expression is doing no
more than explaining what will happen. Thus we can distinguish between explanation and
argument in terms of the purpose for which they are produced.
This is not to say that explanations are of no interest in critical thinking. Every argument rely on
a particular explanation to support its conclusion
ii. Summarising
Another way of producing the form of an argument without having its persuasive purpose is in
summarizing. Take for instance this expression:
Buying a house will involve spending time on looking at lots of very often unsuitable properties.
It will also involve spending money on things like surveys. In addition, it will require plenty of
patience and determination. So house buyers will need to have time, money, patience and
determination.
From this example, the word “so” often indicates the presence of a conclusion. But in this case of
expression, “so” is not used as a conclusion of the expression. The three sentences might also
look like reason for an argument, but the final sentence does no more with what comes before it
than to summarise the content. It is not a conclusion based on reasoning. We can compare the
above example with this
iii. Arguing
Example: Buying a house will involve spending time on looking at lot of very often unsuitable
properties. It will also involve spending money on things like surveys. In addition, it will require
plenty of patience and determination. Most people have little time, not much money, and very
little patience or determination. So it is not worth their while trying to buy a house.
As we can see from this expression, the final statement is not a summary of what comes before.
It draws a conclusion based on the previous reasoning. In other words, conclusion goes beyond
what has been stated before.
Thus the distinction between summarising and arguing is a very important one to remember, in
the sense that it focuses our attention on the relationship between reason and conclusion. We talk
of our conclusion being drawn from the reasoning. So that the reason provide sufficient support
for the conclusion

Terms connected with Arguments

There are basic terms connected with the form of argument, its recognition, identification and
assessments are multifarious. Among the terms include: “inference” “reasoning”, and “proof”.
Premise, conclusion, ground claim etc. Ideally, we should understand that “inference”
“reasoning”, “proof” and “argument” are not exactly synonymous but are all technically and
intrinsically connected. How can we define or describe each of these terms in a logical sense.

Inference: an inference is a mental act of reaching a conclusion from one’s premises. It is a

process of inferring a conclusion from the list of stated premises. It can also be described as a
process by which one propositions is arrived at and affirmed on the basis of one or more other
propositions accepted as the starting point of the process.

Reasoning: this is a mental activity of marshalling one’s premises, reflecting upon their weight
and making inferences. While all reasoning is thinking, it is not the case that all thinking is
reasoning. The logician, however, is concerned primarily with the correctness of the completed
process of reasoning.
A Proof: this is an argument or evidence that succeeds in establishing the truth of its conclusion.
However, in weaker sense, a proof is a demonstration that certain conclusion which strictly
follow from certain premises even though there may be no reason to accept the premises and no
reason to accept the conclusion

Ground: this can be described as the specific facts that are brought up to support a claim.
Ground answers the question “Why”. This logically implies that grounds are reasons offered to
support an argument. This is under wise refer to as the premises. Ground can be provided by
many sources, such as experiment, observation, common knowledge, factual fact etc

Claim: claim is the destination of an argument, and it is always referred to as the conclusion.
Whenever an argument is stated, the first step in recognizing such an argument is to identify the
claim. i.e what exactly is the position or the conclusion of the arguer. In most of the argument,
the claim starts with: thus, hence, therefore, consequently, it follows that, this implies that, we
can conclude that, I maintain that, this proves that, this point to the conclusion that, etc.

It must also be cleared that in some cases, an argument does not need to have claim locators. It is
our responsibility through the knowledge of critical thinking to identify the claim of an
argument.

Recognizing Arguments

As we stated above, it is not always obvious whether the passage constitutes an argument or not.
Given that it is an argument, it is not always obvious which sentences are premises, which are
conclusions, and which sentences are extraneous (asides which are not a part of the argument).
Some clues are hence provided by indicator words. For instance, if any of the following words
precede a statement which occurs in an argument, then that statement is almost certainly the
argument’s conclusion. In identification of an argument, the conclusion of the argument must be
logically and clearly differentiated from the premises. Though, there is no mechanical accuracy
or logical techniques for doing this, however, there are some useful guides that signal the
presence of the conclusion and of the premises of an argument. This is usually what is regarded
as conclusion locator and the premise locator. Though there is no exhaustive list of such locators,
but there are some conclusion locators which in most cases point to the fact that what follows is
the conclusion of the argument. These conclusion locators include among others the following:
Conclusion; conclusion is that proposition, within the argument, that is arrived at on the strength
or basis of the information provided by the premises, simply put, conclusion means to come or
brings to an end. In any valid argument, the conclusion follows from the premises.

Conclusion Locators

Therefore consequently conclusively

Hence so by and large
Must Should ought
In sum be which shows that
It follows that we can conclude that we may infer that
Which implies that which proves that I submit that
My position is that which points to the fact nevertheless…
It resolved that

Premise; premise is also one of the basic concepts in logic. It is known as evidence or claim.
Basically, a premise refers to that proposition or statement, within an argument, which provides
support for or grounds for asserting the conclusion of that argument. In a valid argument, the
premises imply the conclusion.

In the same vein, the under listed “premises locators” normally gives an impression that what
follows each of them is a premise of the argument though the list is not exhaustive

Since for the following reasons

One follows from
First in view of the fact that
In addition may be deduced from
Moreover may be inferred from
Besides as shown by
Assuming that in as much as
For because… et al
Given that where as
In order to identify an argument properly one should be able to recognize the variations in these
locators especially in a complex argument. Argument locators are pointers that easily help in
identifying or recognizing either the conclusion or the major premises of an argument
However, often, indicator words are missing, and one must infer from the context and other clues
both:
1) Whether the passage is an argument; and
2) Which statements are premises and which are conclusions.
For (1), it is important to consider the author’s goal in writing the passage. If their goal is to
persuade the reader, then the passage is an argument. If their goal is anything else, then it is not
providing an argument. In particular, if the passage is providing an explanation, or providing
information, then it is not an argument. Stories may contain indicator words like ‘because’ and
‘consequently’, but this does not mean that they are arguments. For instance, if I tell you:
Blessing is visiting New York because her company was hired to do a workshop there on how to
put an end to pandemic corona virus in Africa.
My goal is not to persuade you that Blessing is visiting New York. Rather, I’m simply telling
you something about why she is there. This is not an argument, even though it contains the
indicator word ‘because’.

Features of Argument
1. Every argument must always have a conclusion
2. In an argument at least one part will acts as reason for a conclusion while the other part
will serve as conclusion
3. The conclusion of an argument is the main purpose of the argument, expressing what the
arguer wants to persuade others to accept
4. An argument must have a minimum of one reason. Beyond that, there is no limit to the
number
5. The reason must necessarily support, the conclusion, even if the premise is poor
6. Aside the major premises, in some cases argument thus have assumption, mini premises
auxiliaries and enthymemes

An argument is a collection of statements, one of which is designated as the conclusion, and

the remainder of which are designated as the premises.

Note that this is not a definition of a good argument. Also note that, in the context of ordinary
discourse, an argument has an additional trait, described as follows.

Usually, the premises of an argument are intended to support (justify) the conclusion of the
argument.
Before giving some concrete examples of arguments, it might be best to clarify a term in the
definition. The word ‘statement’ is intended to mean declarative sentence. In addition to
declarative sentences, there are also interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory sentences. The
sentences that make up an argument are all declarative sentences; that is, they are all statements.
The following may be taken as the official definition of ‘statement’.

A statement is a declarative sentence, which is to say a sentence that is capable of being

true or false.

The following are examples of statements.

it is raining

I am hungry

2+2 = 4

God exists

On the other hand the following are examples of sentences that are not statements. are you
hungry?

shut the door, please

Observe that whereas a statement is capable of being true or false, a question, or a command, or
an exclamation is not capable of being true or false. Note that in saying that a statement is
capable of being true or false, we are not saying that we know for sure which of the two (true,
false) it is. Thus, for a sentence to be a statement, it is not necessary that humankind knows for
sure whether it is true, or whether it is false. An example is the statement ‘God exists’.

Now let us get back to inferences and arguments. Earlier, we discussed two examples of
inferences. Let us see how these can be represented as arguments. In the case of the smoke-fire
inference, the corresponding argument is given as follows.

there is smoke (premise)

therefore, there is fire (conclusion)

Here the argument consists of two statements, ‘there is smoke’ and ‘there is fire’. The term
‘therefore’ is not strictly speaking part of the argument; it rather serves to designate the
conclusion (‘there is fire’), setting it off from the premise (‘there is smoke’). In this argument,
there is just one premise. In the case of the missing-person inference, the corresponding
argument is given as follows. (a2) there were 20 persons originally (premise) there are 19
persons currently (premise) therefore, someone is missing (conclusion) Here the argument
consists of three statements – ‘there were 20 persons originally’, ‘there are 19 persons currently’,
and ‘someone is missing’. Once again, ‘therefore’ sets off the conclusion from the premises. In
principle, any collection of statements can be treated as an argument simply by designating
which statement in particular is the conclusion. However, not every collection of statements is
intended to be an argument. We accordingly need criteria by which to distinguish arguments
from other collections of statements. There are no hard and fast rules for telling when a
collection of statements is intended to be an argument, but there are a few rules of thumb. Often
an argument can be identified as such because its conclusion is marked. We have already seen
one conclusion-marker – the word ‘ therefore’. Besides ‘therefore’, there are other words that are
commonly used to mark conclusions of arguments, including ‘consequently’, ‘hence’, ‘thus’,
‘so’, and ‘ergo’. Usually, such words indicate that what follows is the conclusion of an argument.
Other times an argument can be identified as such because its premises are marked. Words that
are used for this purpose include: ‘for’, ‘because’, and ‘since’. For example, using the word ‘for’,
the smoke-fire argument (a1) earlier can be rephrased as follows.

(a1′) there is fire

for there is smoke

Note that in (a1′) the conclusion comes before the premise. Other times neither the conclusion
nor the premises of an argument are marked, so it is harder to tell that the collection of
statements is intended to be an argument. A general rule of thumb applies in this case, as well as
in previous cases.

In an argument, the premises are intended to support (justify) the conclusion.

To state things somewhat differently, when a person (speaking or writing) advances an

argument, he(she) expresses a statement he(she) believes to be true (the conclusion), and he(she)
cites other statements as a reason for believing that statement (the premises).
 LECTURE SIX

Forms of Argument

Objectives

At the end of this lecture, students should be able to:

i. Distinguish between what makes up simple argument from complex argument

ii. Determine when a series of statements becomes an argument
iii. Determine some rudiments of an argument
iv. Differentiate between argument and non argument

In our earlier discussion, general notion and characteristics of argument was extensively
examined. It is therefore worthy of note to point out at this juncture that the fundamental task of
logic is argumentation. As mentioned earlier, an argument by structure must have premises
which must provide sufficient support for the truth of the conclusion that is affirmed on the basis
of the premises. However there are two ways of analyzing argument. Our focus in this chapter is
to discuss forms through which every argument appears. Basically an argument can be of two
forms, these are:

a. Simple or complex Argument

b. Inductive or Deductive Argument

A simple argument by definition is an argument containing one, two, or three ideas stated in a
simple version. Such an argument is always straight forward to understand. It normally contains
one, two or three statement as premises with another statement to conclude. The claim of simple
argument is supported by one or more ground. But the grounds are not further supported by
reason. That is :

Ground Claim

P1

P2 C
This diagram illustrates a simple argument with
two grounds (P1 and P2) and a conclusion (C). However, it is possible to have an argument with
just a premise and the conclusion. This and the above diagram can be explained using the
following examples:

Example 1: Cheating in an examination can sometimes be justified. After all, lawyers are
allowed to consult their books in court whenever they are facing difficulty.

P1: all lawyers are allowed to consult their books in court whenever they are facing difficulty

Con.: cheating in an examination can sometimes be justified

Example 2: The dust is prevented; this is because the ground is wet.

P1: This is because the ground is wet

Con. : The dust is prevented

The above is an example of a simple argument in which the conclusion is stated first before the
premise

Example of Simple Argument where the conclusion appear last

Example 1; if you were of the world, the world would love its own, but because you are not of
the world, though I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hate you (John 15: 19).

P1: If you were of the world, the world

Would love you
P2: You are not of the world
_______________________________
Con.: The world hates you
Example 2: the life of every civilized community is governed by rules. Neither peace of mind
for the present nor intelligent planning for the future is possible for people who either live
without rules or cannot abide by the rules they make. Making rules for the community and
enforcing them is the job of government. No community can be truly civilized, therefore without
an effective and reasonably stable government. (Carl Cohen)

P1: the life of every civilized community is governed by rules

P2: neither peace of mind for the present nor intelligent planning for the future is possible for
the people who either live without rule or cannot abide by the rules they make.

P3: making rules for the community and enforcing them is the job of government

Con.: No community can be truly civilized, without an effective and reasonably stable
government

The above examples are referred to as simple argument. In each of the premises given above
neither P1, P2 nor P3 is being supported for justification

A complex argument by nature normally contains as many argument as possible. It could take
various patterns like debate, a write up, conference paper et al. The structural feature of such an
argument is that it normally has a theme, with so many premises and conclusion(s). in complex
argument, the premises supporting the claim or conclusion may also be supported by one or
more reasons. This implies that in a complex argument the premise of original argument has now
become the conclusion of another which we can be refer to as sub-argument. There are some
structural features which appear to differentiate a complex argument from a simple argument.
These features include;

a. Very many major premises i.e stronger claims

b. Mini premises supporting each or some of the major premises i.e additional supporting
claims for the stronger ones
c. Major conclusion. i.e the major themes or the position being defended
d. Auxiliary conclusion. i.e additional supporting claims or ancillary evidence for the
position being defended

Complex argument can be explained structurally in the following format:

Premises conclusion

P1 Fig 1
P2 Con

premises conclusion
Pa P1
fig 2
Pb
premises conclusion

Pa fig 3
Pb P2

we can analyse the above diagram of a complex argument thus, P1 which is the conclusion of Pa
and Pb in fig 2 serves as the major premise of a complex argument in fig 1, while Pa and Pb in
fig 2 are reasons to support P1 which now serve as the conclusion for Pa and Pb in fig 2. More
so, P2 which is the conclusion of Pa and Pb in fig 3 serves as the second major premise of a
complex argument in fig 1, while Pa and Pb in fig 3 are reasons to support P2 which now serve
as the conclusion for Pa and Pb in fig 3

Examples of a complex argument

Example 1: As at this moment, there is not yet a known solution to the pandemic virus called
Covid -19 in the world. This however shows why the affected patients hardly survive this deadly
disease. In fact, all known medical researches both in the world and the advanced nations of the
world have not only proved abortive but also the failure of medical technology. No wonder that
African Doctor’s claim to the discovery of the vaccine to COVID -19 failed to see the light of
the day despite self celebration. Besides, the killer disease is as stubborn as the previously known
diseases like Ebola, Laser fever whose solutions are not yet fully found. In view of the above, we
can contend that the causes of such incurable virus like COVID-19, Ebola and the like are not
only metaphysical but that the solutions to them require a kind of science informed by
metaphysics

The above complex argument can be analyzed thus:

Main Argument
Premises Conclusion

P1: there is not yet a known solution to the Con: The causes of virus like COVID-19,
pandemic virus called Covid -19 in the world Ebola and the like are not metaphysical but
P2: the killer disease is as stubborn as the that the solution of them require a kind of
previously known diseases like Ebola, Laser science informed by metaphysics
fever whose solutions are not yet fully found
P3: African Doctor’s claim to the discovery
of the vaccine to COVID -19 failed to see the
light of the day despite self celebration

Sub Argument

Premises Conclusion

Pa 1: the affected patients hardly survive this P1: there is not yet a known solution to the
deadly disease pandemic virus called Covid -19 in the world
Pb 1: all known medical researches both in
the world and the advanced nations of the
world have not only proved abortive but also
the failure of medical technology
From the above argument, we noticed that premise one (P1) of our main argument provide
reasons to back up the position of the arguer.

Example 2: there are two ways of settling personal dispute: rational argument and physical
combat. Physical combat is an unhelpful method of settling dispute. For one thing, it opens the
disputants to the risk of needless injury. Furthermore, the loser in the physical combat may not
be the wrong party. What is more, physical combat creates a climate of hostility, which goes on
long after the fight. Consequently, personal dispute should be resolved by rational argument

Main Argument

Premises Conclusion
P1: there are two ways of settling personal Con: personal dispute should be resolved by
dispute: rational argument and physical
 combat rational argument
P2: Physical combat is an unhelpful method
of settling dispute
Sub-Argument
Pa2: physical combat opens the disputants to Con: Physical combat is an unhelpful method
the risk of needless injury of settling dispute
Pb2: the loser in the physical combat may not
be the wrong party
P3: physical combat creates a climate of
hostility, which goes on long after the fight

Non –Argument

So far, we have discussed what an argument is all about, we have also examined how we can
identify it. But most time people equate every expression to be an argument, it is on this premise
that we need to identify what can constitute to be non- argument.

Non- argument can be described generally as an assertion made, that lacks the following
attributes Premises, propositions, and conclusions. The pieces of arguments may usually be easy
to spot in the expression. Take for instance we hear people making some kind of these assertion

 God exists, and the Bible is true!

 Obafemi Awolowo was the best President Nigeria never had!
 Global warming is a great danger to life and civilization.
 Corona virus is pandemic
None of these are arguments; instead, they are all just assertions. They could be transformed into
arguments if the speaker was to offer evidence in support of their claims, but until then we don't
have very much to so forth that can make the assertion belong to the category of argument. One
sign that you just have a strong assertion is the use of the exclamation points. Thus whenever you
see a lot of exclamation points, it's probably a very weak assertion.

Attributes of Non Arguments

1. Hypothetical: in our daily activity, one common non-argument which we will probably
encounter too often is the hypothetical proposition. This form of propositions is mostly based on
imagination, not on the real or actual fact. Take for instance the following assertions:
  If you want to improve the economy, you have to lower taxes.
 If we don't act quickly, the environment will be damaged beyond repair
These assertions look like arguments, but they aren't: they are simply conditional statements of
the if-then type. The part following the if is called the antecedent and the part following the

then is called the consequent, this will be discussed in detail in our next chapter. In none of
the expression cases above do we see any premises which would supposedly support the

conclusion. To create a genuine argument when we see such claims, we have to focus on the
antecedent of the conditional and ask why it should be accepted as true.
To better understand the difference between an argument and a hypothetical proposition; let us
look at these two very similar statements:
 If today is Tuesday, tomorrow will be Wednesday.
 Because today is Tuesday, tomorrow will be Wednesday.
Both of these statements express similar ideas, but the second is an argument while the first is
not. In the first, we have an if-then conditional. The author is not asking readers to make any
inferences from any premises because it is not being claimed that today is, in fact, Tuesday.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it doesn't matter.
The second statement is an argument because "today is Tuesday" is being offered as a factual
premise. From this claim, it is being inferred — and we are asked to accept this inference — that
tomorrow is, therefore, Wednesday. Because it is an argument, we can challenge it by
questioning what today is and what day truly follows today.
2. Commands, Warnings, and Suggestions: Another type of non –argument or pseudo argument
can be found in the following examples
 You must perform your duty to God, your Creator.
 We must stop the government from interfering with people's private property.
 People must make sure that international corporations don't get too much power
None of these are arguments, in fact, they aren't even propositions. A proposition is something
which can be either true or false, and an argument is something offered to establish the truth
value of the proposition. But the statements above are not like that. They are commands, and
cannot be true or false — they can only be wise or unwise, justified or unjustified.
Similar to commands are warnings and suggestions, which are also not arguments: for instance
look at this example that fall under suggestion;
 You should take foreign language classes while at college.
3. Explanations: this is also one of the expression that is sometimes confused with an argument.
Let us Contrast the following two statements:
 I am a progressive, so I voted for the progressive candidate.
 Damilare didn’t vote in the progressive primary, so he must be a Democrat.
In the first statement, no argument is being offered. It is an explanation of an already-accepted
truth that the speaker voted for the progressive candidate. However, the second expression is a
bit different, here we are being asked to infer that “Damilare must be a Democrat" from a
premise that” Damilare didn't vote in the progressive primary". Thus, it is an argument.

Exercise: look at the following passages; identify which of the expression can be classified as an
argument and which is not. State the premises and the conclusion in the expression

1. Satellite television companies are increasingly bidding for the exclusive rights to televise
live sport. Most people don’t subscribe to satellite television. The technology of
television is changing rapidly
2. Most people who visit zoological garden want to see lots of animals. Display about
endangered species, however well-presented can never excite us in the same way as real
lions and elephants. Zoological garden need to concentrate on providing lots of living
animals rather than displays about them
3. Some zoological zone are trying to save endangered species in order to return them to the
wild. Wildlife program on television are very popular. Yankari park provide an
opportunity for people to see animals wandering freely
4. Traffic-calming measures are increasingly necessary in residential area. Cars are
traveling much too fast along residential street. Imposing speed limits has not slowed
down the speed at which cars travel.
5. Many countries have a national lottery. The Nigeria‘s national lottery was introduced in
2010 and the level of participation in it has been much higher than the original estimates
predicted. One of the worrying features of the National lottery is that, following its
introduction, the amount spent on gambling in the country has gone up. The lottery must
have encouraged people to think of gambling as a solution to their financial problems.
 But people who have won large amounts by doing the football pools or the lottery have
not necessarily felt any happier as result.

LECTURE SEVEN

Types of Arguments

Objectives
Towards the end of this lecture, students should be able to:
i. State with clarity the property of an arguments
ii. clarify argument into either inductive or deductive in nature
iii. State the attribute between inductive and deductive argument
iv. Distinguish between good and bad arguments

The goal in Logic is to separate out the good arguments from the bad. Here’s one very good
property that an argument can have: it can be deductive or inductive.
a. Deductive Argument
b. Inductive Arguments

Deductive Argument: A deductive argument is an inference in which the conclusion follows

necessarily from the premises. It is an argument if it is formally arranged in a series of lines so
that each line is a premise and is inferred from earlier lines by means of some principles of
inferences. In short, from universal law or principle, we deduce a particular. An argument is
deductive if the author intends it to be so strong that it is impossible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion to be false, or in other words, that the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. A
deductive argument attempts (successfully or unsuccessfully) to provide full proof of the conclusion. In a
deductive argument, the premises provide enough or absolutely conclusive ground for its
conclusion. A deductive inference will be valid when its premises and conclusion are so related
that it is absolutely impossible for the premises to be true unless the conclusion is true, otherwise
invalid. In another sense, a valid inference is an argument whose premises are truth functionally
implied by the conclusion and if not invalid

It should be noted that the validity of an argument or of a deductive inference does not in any
way guarantee the truth of the argument to the fact. Hence it is illogical, and therefore incorrect
to speak of a true argument when you mean a valid argument, or of a valid conclusion when you
mean a true conclusion. Given this, if a syllogism or a deductive argument complies with the
formal rules, it is valid, if not, not. Once the conclusion of an argument or of a deductive
inference conclusively follows from the premises it is valid even though both premises and
conclusion may not be true to fact

Example;

1. Pr 1: All fish are cold blooded

Pr 2: Whales are fish

Therefore: Whale are cold blooded
Thus, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises and inferences. In this way, a true
premise is supposed to lead to a definitive proof truth for the claim (conclusion). Here is a classic
example:

Pr 1: Socrates was a man

Pr 2: All men are mortal
Con.: Socrates was mortal
As we can see, if the premises are true (and they are), then it simply isn't possible for the
conclusion to be false. If we have a correctly formulated deductive argument and we accept the
truth of the premises, then we must also accept the truth of the conclusion; if we reject it, then we
are rejecting logic itself. There are those that argue, with some irony, that politicians are
sometimes guilty of such fallacies—rejecting deductive conclusions against all logic.

Deductive Argument Evaluation

By way of evaluation, for a deductive argument to be valid at least the following conditions must
be fulfilled. In other words, a deductive argument is valid if and only if;

1. The premises imply the conclusion

2. The premises entail the conclusion
 3. The conclusion follows from the premises
4. The premises necessitate the conclusion
5. The conclusion can be inferred from the premises.

Types of Deductive Argument

i. Those that goes from General to Particular

ii. Those that goes from General to General
iii. Those that formulated to some Rules of Inference (laws of logic) i.e according to :
i. Rule of modus Ponens (M.P)

Example; Pr 1: if Nigeria is in Africa, then Nigeria is in the Third World (Material

conditional statement)
Pr 2: Nigeria is in Africa (Antecedent Affirmed)

Therefore, Nigeria is in the third world (Consequent Affirmed)

This law state that in any argument, if a material conditional statement (first premise) is given
and its antecedent (second premise) is true, then its consequent must be true and must follow.

ii. Rule of Modus Tollens (M.T)

Example: Pr 1: if Nigeria is in Africa, then Nigeria is in the Third World (material

conditional statement)

Pr 2: Nigeria is not in the third World country (consequent Denied)

____________________________________________________________
Therefore: Nigeria is not in Africa (Antecedent Denied)
This rule holds that in an argument, if the material conditional statement (first premise) is true,
and its consequent is false, then its antecedent must be false

Structure of Argument

A deductive argument is determined entirely by its form. Consider these arguments.

Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is valid if it has a form that would make it impossible for the premises to
be true and the conclusion false, or if the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
To test whether an argument is valid, you should first imagine that the premises are true—
whether or not they actually are—and then ask yourself, without appealing to any other
knowledge you have, could you still imagine the conclusion being false? If you can, the argument
is invalid. If you can't, then the argument is valid.
Note that validity does not have to do with the actual truth or falsity of the premises. It only has to
do with what would follow from them if they were true. A valid argument can have false
premises.

For example:
Pr1: All toasters are items made of gold.
Pr 2: All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Con.: Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.
It may be hard to imagine these premises as true, but it is not hard to recognize that if they were
true, the conclusion would also be true.
So there's more to an argument's being a good one than validity. To be a good argument, an
argument must also have true premises. An argument with true premises is called factually
correct.
A sound argument is an argument that is both valid and factually correct. Sound arguments
always have true conclusions.
Example : Sound and factually correct (Valid) Argument

All men are human being (True)

All Fathers are Men (True)

Therefore, All fathers are human being (True)

A valid argument may have false premises with either a true or a false conclusion.

Example: Unsound but Valid Argument

All women are human beings (True)

All duck are Women (False)

----------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, All Ducks are Human beings (False)

Thus, for a valid argument, the following conditions must be satisfied.

1. An argument is valid if the premises can’t all be true without the conclusion also being
true.
 2. An argument is valid if the truth of all its premises forces the conclusion to be true.
3. An argument is valid if it would be inconsistent for all its premises to be true and its
conclusion to be false.
4. An argument is valid if its conclusion follows with certainty from its premises.
Therefore, an argument is valid if it has no counterexample, that is, a possible situation that
makes all the premises true and the conclusion false

Invalid and Unsound Argument

An invalid argument may have true or false premises, and a true or false conclusion. The only
combination that is ruled out is a valid argument with true premises and a false conclusion.
Example:

All metals conduct Electricity (True)

Plywood is a metal (False)
------------------------------------------------------------
Plywood is an Iron (False)
Inductive Argument

An inductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be strong enough that, if
the premises were to be true, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion is false. So, an
inductive argument’s success or strength is a matter of degree, unlike with deductive arguments.
This is an argument, sometimes considered bottom-up logic, it is one in which premises offer
strong support for a conclusion, but one that is not a certainty. This is an argument in which the
premises are supposed to support the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are true, it is
improbable that the conclusion would be false. Thus, the conclusion follows probably from the
premises and inferences. An inductive argument is a non-deductive inference in which the
conclusion expresses an empirical conjecture that goes beyond what the premises claim. In this
type of argument, the conclusion logically implies an item of information not necessarily implied
by the premises, and that which can be confirmed or refuted only on the basis of evidence drawn
from sense experience. An Inductive argument is a kind of argument that proceeds from the
experienced (particular) to the inexperienced (general), from the known to the unknown.

An argument is inductive if the author intends it only to be so strong that it is improbable that the
premises could be true and the conclusion false, or in other words, that the conclusion is likely if
the premises are true. An inductive argument only attempts (successfully or unsuccessfully) to
provide evidence for the likely truth of the conclusion, rather than outright proof.
Example1 :
 Pr 1: Kanu is a Nigerian and a football player

Pr 2: Okocha is a Nigerian and a football player

Pr 3: Igalo is a Nigerian and a football player

Therefore: All Nigerian are football players

Example 2:

Pr 1: Idi Amin was a dictator and was ruthless

Pr2: Samuel Doe was a dictator and was ruthless

Pr3: Kabila is a dictator

Therefore, Kabila is ruthless

Features of an Inductive Argument

1. An inductive argument move from particular instance to particular conclusion

Example: Pr 1:
2. The inductive argument that move from particular instance to general

Example: Pr 1: Blessing is a Philosophy student and she is from Osun State

Pr2: Faith is a Philosophy student and she is from Osun state

Pr3: Fumilade is a philosophy student and she is from Osun State

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Con,: Therefore, Most philosophy students are from Osun State

3. Inductive argument is either strong, weaker, good or bad, adequate or inadequate

Example: Weak Inductive Argument
Pr1: Mango, a fruit is yellowish in colour in seasoned
Pr2: Orannge, a fruit is yellowish colour in seasoned
Pr 3:Pineapple, a fruit is yellowish colour in seasoned
Con.: therefore Avocado, a fruit is also yellowish in season
 4. Inductive Argument has no limit to the number of premises. That is inductive has more
than two premises
5. Inductive reasoning has a very good potency in the field of experimental discovery and
research
6. It also serves as a useful organ for obtaining new knowledge about the world.
7. Inductive strength is not a matter of personal preference; it is a matter of whether the
premise ought to promote a higher degree of belief in the conclusion.

An argument is inductively strong if and only if its conclusion is sufficiently probable given its
premises. This means that inductive strength is the kind of thing that comes in degrees. Some
arguments can be inductively stronger than others. We can say that an argument is inductively
strong if and only if its premises probability its conclusion above that threshold

Differences between Inductive and Deductive Argument

The distinction between deductive and inductive argumentation was first noticed by Aristotle
(384-322 B.C.E.) in ancient Greece. The difference between deductive and inductive arguments
does not lie in the words used within the arguments, but rather in the intentions of the arguer.
However, some of the characteristic difference between inductive and deductive argument are
listed below:

i. In deductive argument, the entire premise do not only support but also guarantee the
conclusion while in inductive, the premises only support, but do not guarantee the
conclusion.
ii. Deductive reasoning offers certainty but inductive reasoning can offer very high
degree of probability but not certainty
iii. Deductive argument is limited to two premises while in Inductive argument there is
no limit to the number of premises
iv. Deductive argument is classified as valid or invalid, sound or unsound but Inductive
argument is either good or bad, weak or strong, adequate or inadequate
v. In Deductive argument, conclusion contains less information than the premises, there
is no information in the conclusion which cannot be found in the premises, while in
 the Inductive argument, conclusion contains more information than the premises. It
even goes into future.
vi. Deductive argument is not so useful to scientists but Inductive reasoning is of vital
importance to scientist. Sampling theory, commonly used in the science owes its
origin from this, thus may expand our knowledge about the world in a way that is
impossible for deductive arguments to achieve. Thus, while deductive arguments may
be used most often with mathematics, most other fields of research make extensive
use of inductive arguments due to their more open-ended structure. Scientific
experiment and most creative endeavors, after all, begin with a "maybe," "probably"
or "what if?" mode of thinking, and this is the world of inductive reasoning
vii. inductive arguments draw conclusions by appeal to evidence, or authority, or causal
relationships while deductive argument draw conclusion from facts
 LECTURE EIGHT

STATEMENTS, PROPOSITIONS AND TRUTH TABLE ANALYSIS

Objectives

It is hoped that at the end of this study, students should be able to:

i. define and differentiate sentence from statement using logical tools

ii. known how and why to symbolize some statements in logic
iii. know how to determine the truth value of a compound statement in logic
iv. recognize and identify signs or symbols use for all compound statements structures

Statement, Proposition and truth Table Analysis

Statements are important in logic because they constitute an important area of study and also
compose what are regarded as premises and conclusion in any given informal argument.
Sentence as to do with expression of language in relation to one or more objects. In other words
sentence is considered to be combination of words. To the linguists’ a group of words must
comprises of subject and predicate or object before it can be refer to as sentence. However, this
is not applicable to statement in logic, while the grammarians will see sentence and statement to
be synonymous, the other is the case in logic

Take for instance the following expression:

i. What is your name? Question

ii. Can we be a close friend Question
 iii. Obey before complaining Command
iv. Oh God! Exclamation
v. Blessing is a Philosophy while Ayola is from Osun State (Statement and Declarative
sentence)
vi. All Philosophy students are brilliant (statement and declarative sentence)

From the above examples, it is revealed that example I & II, are expression begging for an
answer, we cannot know if they are true or false. Example III is a command that is waiting for
full compliance, Example IV, is an exclamation, which is just an expression. The categories of
these examples do not belong to the class of statement, though one can group them to be a
sentence either complete or incomplete sentence. On the other hand, example (v) and (vi) can be
described as statement and the same time as sentence. One might be forced to ask for clarity on
this position.

A statement in logic is an assertion subject to truth value analysis of either being true or false.
Statements are sentence whose truth-value can be determined without difficulty. That is
statements are declarative sentence or statement, therefore all statement are sentences, although
not all sentences are statements. It is a truism that Exclamation, questions and command do not
qualify to be classified as statements the reason is that there is no way of determining whether
they are true or false. Thus, while the grammarians are so much interested in sentence, the focus
of logic centered on statement in which its truth-value can be determined with easy. Logicians
are more interested in statement than sentence because statement are more exact, meaningful,
specific and straight forward than sentences which in some situation are not meaningful, in all
cases more so, the truth value cannot be determined in most cases. Statement can also be defined
as a propositional sentence whose truth value can easily be deduced. In order words, a
proposition is a technical name for a statement and it is used to express what is assertible

Differences between Sentences and Statements

The difference between sentences and statements as identified by Ade Ali (2008) are in the sense
that:

i. While all statements are meaningful, not all sentences are meaningful
ii. All statements are subjects to truth value analysis of either being true or false not
both, but it is not the case to sentences, not all sentences can be said to be true or
 false. In some situations, wishes, anxieties, request etc are all sentences which are not
known to be true or false
iii. While all statements are cognitively clear and straight forward some sentences are
vague and ambiguous and rhetoric
iv. Sentences are known to be tautologous and fallacious , true statements are not
tautologous

STATEMENTS VERSUS PROPOSITIONS

Henceforth, by ‘logic’ I mean deductive logic. Logic investigates inferences in terms of the
arguments that represent them. Recall that an argument is a collection of statements (declarative
sentences), one of which is designated as the conclusion, and the remainder of which are
designated as the premises. Also recall that usually in an argument the premises are offered to
support or justify the conclusions. Statements and sentences in general, are linguistic objects, like
words. They consist of strings (sequences) of sounds (spoken language) or strings of symbols
(written language). Statements must be carefully distinguished from the propositions they
express (assert) when they are uttered. Intuitively, statements stand in the same relation to
propositions as nouns stand to the objects they denote. Just as the word ‘water’ denotes a
substance that is liquid under normal circumstances, the sentence (statement) ‘water is wet’
denotes the proposition that water is wet; equivalently, the sentence denotes the state of affairs
the wetness of water. The difference between the five letter word ‘water’ in English and the
liquid substance it denotes should be obvious enough, and no one is apt to confuse the word and
the substance. Whereas ‘water’ consists of letters, water consists of molecules. The distinction
between a statement and the proposition it expresses is very much like the distinction between
the word ‘water’ and the substance water.
There is another difference between statements and propositions. Whereas statements are always
part of a particular language (e.g., English), propositions are not peculiar to any particular
language in which they might be expressed. Thus, for example, the following are different
statements in different languages, yet they all express the same proposition – namely, the
whiteness of snow.
snow is white
der Schnee ist weiss
la neige est blanche
In this case, quite clearly different sentences may be used to express the same proposition. The
opposite can also happen: the same sentence may be used in different contexts, or under different
circumstances, to express different propositions, to denote different states of affairs. For
example, the statement ‘I am hungry’ expresses a different proposition for each person who
utters it. When I utter it, the proposition expressed pertains to my stomach; when you utter it, the
proposition pertains to your stomach; when the president utters it, the proposition pertains to
his(her) stomach.
FORM VERSUS CONTENT
Although propositions (or the meanings of statements) are always lurking behind the scenes,
logic is primarily concerned with statements. The reason is that statements are in some sense
easier to point at, easier to work with; for example, we can write a statement on the blackboard
and examine it. By contrast, since they are essentially abstract in nature, propositions cannot be
brought into the classroom, or anywhere. Propositions are unwieldy and uncooperative. What is
worse, no one quite knows exactly what they are! There is another important reason for
concentrating on statements rather than propositions. Logic analyzes and classifies arguments
according to their form, as opposed to their content (this distinction will be explained later).
Whereas the form of a statement is fairly easily understood, the form of a proposition is not so
easily understood. Whereas it is easy to say what a statement consists of, it is not so easy to say
what a proposition consists of. A statement consists of words arranged in a particular order.
Thus, the form of a statement may be analyzed in terms of the arrangement of its constituent
words. To be more precise, a statement consists of terms, which include simple terms and
compound terms. A simple term is just a single word together with a specific grammatical role
(being a noun, or being a verb, etc.). A compound term is a string of words that act as a
grammatical unit within statements. Examples of compound terms include noun phrases, such as
‘the president of the U.S.’, and predicate phrases, such as ‘is a Democrat’.
For the purposes of logic, terms divide into two important categories – descriptive terms and
logical terms. One must carefully note, however, that this distinction is not absolute. Rather, the
distinction between descriptive and logical terms depends upon the level (depth) of logical
analysis we are pursuing. Let us pursue an analogy for a moment. Recall first of all that the core
meaning of the word ‘analyze’ is to break down a complex whole into its constituent parts. In
physics, matter can be broken down (analyzed) at different levels; it can be analyzed into
molecules, into atoms, into elementary particles (electrons, protons, etc.); still deeper levels of
analysis are available (e.g., quarks). The basic idea in breaking down matter is that in order to go
deeper and deeper one needs ever increasing amounts of energy, and one needs ever increasing
sophistication. The same may be said about logic and the analysis of language. There are many
levels at which we can analyze language, and the deeper levels require more logical
sophistication than the shallower levels (they also require more energy on the part of the
logician!) In the present text, we consider three different levels of logical analysis. Each of these
levels is given a name – Syllogistic Logic, Sentential Logic, and Predicate Logic. Whereas
syllogistic logic and sentential logic represent relatively superficial (shallow) levels of logical
analysis, predicate logic represents a relatively deep level of analysis. Deeper levels of analysis
are available. Each level of analysis – syllogistic logic, sentential logic, and predicate logic – has
associated with it a special class of logical terms. In the case of syllogistic logic, the logical
terms include only the following: ‘all’, ‘some’, ‘no’, ‘not’, and ‘is/are’. In the case of sentential
logic, the logical terms include only sentential connectives (e.g., ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘if...then’, ‘only if’).
In the case of predicate logic, the logical terms include the logical terms of both syllogistic logic
and sentential logic. As noted earlier, logic analyzes and classifies arguments according to their
form. The (logical) form of an argument is a function of the forms of the individual statements
that constitute the argument. The logical form of a statement, in turn, is a function of the
arrangement of its terms, where the logical terms are regarded as more important than the
descriptive terms. Whereas the logical terms have to do with the form of a statement, the
descriptive terms have to do with its content. Note, however, that since the distinction between
logical terms and descriptive terms is relative to the particular level of analysis we are pursuing,
the notion of logical form is likewise relative in this way. In particular, for each of the different
logics listed above, there is a corresponding notion of logical form. The distinction between form
and content is difficult to understand in the abstract. It is best to consider some actual examples.
In a later section, we examine this distinction in the context of syllogistic logic. As soon as we
can get a clear idea about form and content, then we can discuss how to classify arguments into

those that are deductively correct and those that are not deductively correct.
Types of Statements

Statements can be group into two main classes,

a. The first way is whether they are simple or compound statements.

 b. The second way of classifying statement is whether they are either in affirmative or
negative

A simple statement conveys or contains an idea.

Example: ( i). Osu is in Ago-Iwoye, Abuja is in Nigeria

(ii). Faith is a cool headed philosophy student

These examples consist of just an expression, which is single idea.

While a compound statements contain more than one idea. It is made up of two or more ideas.
Parts or components of compound statements are joining together by connective, such as “and”,
“but” “although” “either …or”. ”unless” “Neither…nor”,”if…then”, “if and only if”.etc

Example: (i) Damilare will not gives you his Philosophy not unless Thomas promise to conducts
the tutorial class

(ii). Either Damilola will attends the workshop or Gbotemi speaks for the whole class

(iii). If Funmilade comes for the party then Ajao will be the master of the ceremony

(iv) Nigerians will obey the stay safe policy if and only if there is palliative for all the
citizen

Propositional statements and the logical connectives

In logic, two or more statements come together to form what is called compound or complex
statement. In this case, two or more statements are made up of two simple statements and contain
at least two ideas to form a proposition. The components of a compound statement are joints
together by what is called connectives this is also called copula, while the part or component
that comes before any of these connectives is refer to as conjunct. Among these common
connectives are: “and”, “but” “either…or”, “neither…nor”, “if…then”…if and only if…” etc.
All these connectives are group into four categories in logic these include:

i. Conjunction
ii. Alternation or Disjunction
iii. Material conditional
 iv. Material bi-conditional

Symbolically, the following categories of copula can be represented with the following symbolic
signs:

(1) - negation, not

(2) . Conjunction, and
(3) ∨ disjunction, or Alternation, either-or
(4) ↄ implication, material conditional, if-then
(5) ≡ equivalence, material Bi-conditional, if and only if

Propositions can be combined to form more complex propositions by using the so-called logical
Connectives. The principle logical connectives are the following mentioned.
Example: let P: represent: UNIOSUN is in Nigeria
q : represent: Nigeria is in west Africa
Thus for a compound statements, we can have the following statements with their symbolic
representations
1. Negation : UNIOSUN is not in Nigeria -P
2. Conjunction : UNIOSUN is in Nigeria and Nigeria is in Africa p.q
3. Alternation or Disjunction: Either UNIOSUN is in Nigeria or Nigeria is in Africa pvq

4. Implication or Material Conditional: If UNIOSUN is in Nigeria, then Nigeria is in Africa pↄ q

5. Equivalence, material Bi-conditional: UNIOSUN is in Nigeria if and only if Nigeria is in Africa.
p≡ q
All the above statements can also be negated using the negation “not” or “it is not the case” for
all the statements. Thus we can have the following
-P It is not the case that p

-(pq)
- (pvq)

- (pↄq)
- (p≡ q)
The second way of classifying statement is whether they are either in affirmative or negative
An affirmative statement is a form of statement in which the feature is true which has not been
denied, while a negated statement is any statement that has been denied.
 Truth-value statement’s Attributes
In order to analysis the truth value of a statement, the following must be considered. A statement
can either be:

i. True or false
ii. Necessarily True: this implies that the statement could be true in all possible situations.
E.g All unmarried males are bachelor
iii. Necessarily False: this implies that the statement could be false in all possible situation
e.g All mothers are virgin
iv. Contingently True: this means that the statement could be known to be true for a period
of time. E.g. Alhaji Mohammed Buhari is the president of Federal republic of Nigeria
( this kind of statement could be known to be true for a period of time say 2015 till 2023)
v. Contingently false: the statement could be known to be false for a period of time. e.g.
Chief Olusegun Obasanjo was the elected president of federal republic of Nigeria on May
29, 2015 .
Example; Affirmative: Copper is a metal

Negative; Copper is not a metal

Compound Statements and Truth Table Validity

In logic, the volume of every argument is reduced to symbolic letters and the connective is also
reduce to signs such as (.), v, ↄ, ≡ .

Type of Compound Statement

1. Conjunction; a conjunction is a compound statement joined together by the connective

“and” or comma. Conjunction consist of two or more conjuncts and it is true when all it
component are true. It is false when at least one of the components is false. Some other
stylistic variant of conjunct include: but, although, yet, even though, comma, etc

P Q p.q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F
 F
Thus p . q is true only in the first of the four possible cases, i.e. when both p and q are true. The
Proposition p. q is called the conjunction of p and q, and is read “p and q.”
This table tells us how the truth-value of a conjunction proposition that form ‘p q’ is determined
by the truth-values of ‘p’and ‘q’. If we understand the circumstances under which ‘p’ and ‘q’ are
true, then this definition gives us enough to understand the circumstances under which ‘p q’ is
true.
2. Alternation: an alternation (Disjunction) is a compound statement whose component or parts
are joined together by the connective either…or. Alternation is true when at least one of its
components is true and false when their entire components are false. An alternation is joint
together by the symbol called “vel” or “wedge”, “ v” . the stylistic variant for disjunction is
“unless”

P Q Pvq
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F

There are two sense of alternation; these are alternation in the inclusive sense and alternation in
the exclusive;

a. Inclusive Senses(weak sense); in this type, an alternation is accepted as false only when both
component are false otherwise true

P Q Pvq
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
b. Exclusive (strong sense); in this sense an alternation is true when at least one, and at most one
component is true, it is false when its two component are true and also when both component are
false. That is it is false when both components have identical truth value.
 P Q Pvq
T T F
T F T
F T T
F F F

3. Conditional Statement: there are three major type of conditional statement; General conditional;
counter-factual(subjective)conditional and material conditional/ material implication
i. General conditional statement: this type of statement is made up of a conjunction of
an infinite number of material conditionals. Owning to the fact that it contains or
affirms a large number of individual conditional statements. It is very difficult to
determine its truth value. Example;

If anything is a motor car, then it has an engine.

If anything is a mother, then she has at least an offspring

ii. Counterfactual (Subjunctive) Conditional: in this type of statement, one affirms the
consequent, when one already knows that the antecedent is false. Example;

If Nigeria is in Europe, then Nigeria would be a giant economy.

If Bishop Adetubo were the Nigerian president, then the theology school would have become
full university.

Material conditional statement; this type of conditional statement is unlike the first two
discussed. For the truth value of material conditional statement can be determined with ease. It is
a statement whose component statement is true in every case except when its antecedent is true
and the consequent is false. The symbol “ↄ” is known as the horseshoe. The immediate conjunct
which precedes the horseshoe is known as the antecedent. The immediate conjunct which
follows the horseshoe is known as the consequent. A material conditional is true if and only if
either its antecedent is false or its consequent is true.
 P Q PↄQ
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

Note that it is only in material conditional statements that binary operator is not symmetric. That
is, while ‘p .q’ has the same meaning as ‘q. p’, ‘ pv q’ as the same meaning as ‘q v p’, and ‘p ≡q’
has the same meaning as ‘q ≡ p’, ‘Pↄq’ does not have the same meaning as ‘q ↄ p’.

4. Material Bi-conditional Statement; a material bi-conditional statement is a compound

statement whose two components are joined together by the connective “if and only
if”. A material bi-conditional statement is true when its two components have identical
truth value.(when both components are true and when both components are false)
otherwise false.

P Q P≡q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T

Parentheses
One can combine simple propositions into compound ones in many ways, and parentheses are
often needed to avoid ambiguities. For example, if we write p. q v r it is impossible to tell which
of the following is meant:
(1) p is true and (q v r) is true.
(2) Either (p. q) is true or r is true.
If we mean (1), we should write p. (q ∨ r). If we mean (2), we should write (p . q) ∨ r.
 LECTURE NINE

FALLACY

Objectives

At the end, this study aim towards achieving the following objectives:

i. Understand the meaning of fallacies

ii. Classify fallacies into different categories
iii. Know how to detect fallacies in our daily expression

In logic, fallacy is defined as error in reasoning. Simply because an argument contains false
premises is not enough to make the argument fallacious. It must make a mistake in inferring the
conclusion from the premises. When an argument commits a fallacy, something has gone wrong
with the inference from the premises to the conclusion.

Thus, fallacy is any logically defective argument that is capable of misleading people into
thinking that is logically correct. A fallacious argument usually seems to be sound but is not
upon careful scrutiny. For instance the form of the fallacious argument does not, in any way
guarantee that if the premises are true, the conclusion is also true. There are some errors in
reasoning that tend to be psychologically persuasive, logicians call this error fallacies. Therefore
a fallacy is an error in reasoning that tends to be psychologically persuasive. It is an invalid
argument that has the deceptive appearance of being valid.

There is no universal classification of fallacies. However, some scholars of logic classified

fallacy into more than two hundred in form. Their mode of clarification is neither universal nor
rigid. According to Flage in his text books on logic, and as we have it in most text books in
logic, there has always been a tentative classification ,these are: formal and informal fallacies.
The difference between formal and informal fallacies is that, a formal fallacy always involves the
explicit use of an invalid form which is not the case with informal fallacy. Flage, however
divided informal into four:

i. Fallacies of ambiguity
ii. Fallacies of relevance
iii. Fallacies of presumption; and
 iv. Fallacies of weak induction

Formal or pure fallacy: In this kind of fallacy, the defect arises as a result of lack conformity
with a type of argument. It is a fallacy that we may diagnose as bad simply by looking at the
argument’s form. For instance, the following is a formal fallacy

P1: If Russia invades Ukraine, then Russia wants war.

. P2: Russia wants war.
------------------------------------------------------------------
. So, Russia will invade Ukraine

This type of fallacy happens for instance, when the middle term is undistributed.

The following fallacies are regarded as the most important example of formal fallacies with the
use of symbols for clarity purpose;

i. Fallacy of Affirming the consequent

Example: if P then q
Q
:. P
In this case, instead of affirming the antecedent of the argument as the second premise and then
affirm the consequent as the conclusion, the consequent is been affirmed as the second premise,
while antecedent is taken as the conclusion of the argument.
ii. Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent

Example: if P then q
Not P
:.not q
iii. Fallacy of drawing an Affirmative conclusion from a Negative premises(ACNP)
iv. Fallacy of four terms
v. Fallacy of Exclusive premises(EP)

Example: No goats are human being

Some human beings are not rational
 :. Some goats are not rational
vi. Existential fallacy(EF)

Example: All Greeks are human beings

All human beings are mortal
:. Aristotle, a Greek was mortal

vii. Fallacy of illicit process of the Major term(IMA)

viii. Fallacy of illicit process of the Minor Term(IMI)
ix. Fallacy of Undistributed Middle(UM)
a. Verbal or Semi-logical fallacy: in this type of fallacy, there is always a sentence of
some sort of valid forms of argument but not exactly because of a word or words used in
different senses. This is most observable in the fallacies of ambiguity. That is when
words lack precise meaning.

Material or informal fallacy: this form of fallacy is committed when language is miss-used, i.e
informal fallacy are psychologically persuasive but not logically persuasive. An informal fallacy
is a fallacy which we cannot diagnose by simply inspecting the argument’s form; in order to
diagnose the fallacy, we must look additionally to the arguments content. Here whether valid or
not the argument is fallacies because:

i. The premises are false

ii. Appeals are mainly to feelings
iii. There is no structure of argument at all
iv. Argument is not directed to the thesis in question.

Informal or Material fallacies are grouped into four categories as follow:

i. Fallacies of Ambiguity: these are fallacies that occur because little or no attention is paid to
meaning of words in argument. Meaning change is a common feature for these fallacies that
owe their origin to problems in the use of language: Equivocation, Amphiboly, composition,
Division and Accent.
a. Equivocation: an argument commits this type of fallacy if the persuasive form of the
conclusion depends upon the meaning of a word which shifts in the context of the argument.
That is when a word is use more than one in a sentence which gives different meaning.
 Example: The provost of College of Humanities and culture in her red book has brought to
book those cultists in the college that failed to renounce their cultism; she promises to book
them for proper prosecution

b. Amphiboly: Fallacy of amphiboly is usually committed when word or phrase in a sentence

lack precise meaning. That is when some word(s) or phrase(s) in a sentence is vague. In this
kind of situation the meaning of the argument is indeterminate. The fallacy occurs when
multiple meanings of a sentence are used in a context where:

i.) validity would require a single meaning, and

ii.) The multiple meanings are due to sentence structure.

Example: Promise says that you don’t keep your promises because it’s in your interest to do so.
People who don’t keep their promises are immoral. So, you are immoral.

Example: Ayoola kicked Dammy on the field, so Gbotemi slapped her

In the above example, the amphibolous fallacy identified is the word “her” although the meaning
of the word her is well known but it is not clear who the word “her” is being refer to in the
argument.

c. Composition: This is a fallacy of inferring a conclusion that speaks of a group collectively

from a premise that speaks of the group distributively, especially when the conclusion does not
follow. The fallacy of composition occurs when:

1) a property of the parts of an object is improperly transferred to the object itself, or

2) a property of the individuals belonging to a group is improperly transferred to the group. That
is when the attribute of an individual or part are assigned to a group or whole respectively.

Example: Atoms are invisible, and I am made of atoms. So I am invisible.

Example: Every part of the world is caused. So, the world is caused

c. Division: this is the opposite side of fallacy of composition. The fallacy of division occurs when
a property of an object is improperly transferred to the parts of the itself, a property of a group is
improperly transferred to the individuals belonging to the group
 Example: Corona Virus infection spread from Wuhan in China. So, all Chinese are carrier of
corona virus

Example: the average scores of UNIOSUN’s Logic class is 60%

Adeola is a member of UNIOSUN’s logic class

Therefore, Adeola’s logic scopre is 60%

d. Accent: this form of argument is mostly you by the newspaper to emphasis some words.
This fallacy occurs as a result of the way in which some words are stress in an argument. In
most cases such stress words are either bold, quotes or in italics form.

Example: “Kyari joins Abiola”

Example : “Super Eagle of Nigeria at war with The Elephant of Ghana”

e. Fallacies of weak induction: fallacies in this category occur because the premises offer only
some, but not enough evidence for the conclusion. It is important to state that the evidence
provided is relevant to the conclusion; nonetheless, it is simply not adequate. The following
fallacies are to be treated here: hasty generalization(Converse accident),Argumentum ad
Ignoratian (Argument from Ignorance), Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to
Authority),false cause, Gambler’s fallacy and weak Analogy
a. Hasty generalization (Converse accident): this is a form of an inductive argument where an
attribute locate in a part is given to whole. It is hasty generalization fallacy when the arguer
over confidently infers a sweeping conclusion from a weak evidence. Hasty generalization is a
leaping to a conclusion when the evidence is too weak to make the conclusion very probable

Example; the first twenty lady students that Vice-chancellor met at college of Humanities and
Culture, ikire campus when he was there for management meeting of the University were ladies
of Philosophy Department, therefore, all girls in College of Humanities and Culture are
Philosophy students

b. Argumentum ad Ignoratiam (Argument from Ignorance): An appeal to ignorance occurs

when somebody argues in favour of a conclusion that we don’t antecedently have any reason to
accept (or which we antecedently have reason to reject) on the grounds that there’s no evidence
 either way. Alternatively, it occurs when somebody argues against a conclusion that we don’t
antecedently have any reason to reject (or which we antecedently have reason to accept) on the
grounds that there’s no evidence either way . Summarily, it is a form of fallacy which claims that
a proposition is true simply because it has not been proved false or a proposition is false simply
because it has not been proved true

Example: The studies purporting to show that barefoot running is good for you have been
discredited. However, there aren’t any studies showing that it’s not good for you , So, you
running barefoot.

Example: There’s no evidence showing that there’s life on other planets. So we should stop
Looking for it, it’s not there.

Example: there is no Satan, since no one has been able to prove its existence

The Wishful Thinking Fallacy

This fallacy is committed when someone concludes that something must be true in virtue of what
he or she wants to be true (or doesn't want to be false) instead of what the evidence suggests.
Unfortunately, just because there are better consequences to something's being true rather than
false does not provide evidence that it is true.

Example: The idea of life in a universe without God would be frightening and depressing, and
very difficult to accept. Therefore, God must exist.

c. Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority): this fallacy is committed when one

uncritically accept the position of an arguer who is not an expert in a particular field. When the
arguer appeals to the views of someone outside his authority, yet reference is made to him as if
such person is an expert or legitimate authority. In this circumstance, the arguer might be a
legitimate authority in a particular area.

Example: The Catholic father, Rev. fr Mbaka says that the cause of COVID-19 is as a result of
Chinese attempt to introduce 5G device in the world, hence using of 5G for whatever purpose
must be condemn by the faithful citizens
 Looking at the above example, the catholic father is not an expert in technology, therefore father
Mbaka cannot serve as the legitimate reverence point to ascertain the rightness or wrongness of
the device.

Example: Pope is a saint. Therefore, he must be correct when he says that “the world is
spherical” and that 2+2= 4

d. False cause: this form of fallacy can be referring to as what we can call African mentality
thinking. It is an error in reasoning process whereby past event is attributed to be the cause of
another event. In other words, false cause fallacy occur when an argument that misidentifies the
cause of an event and draws a conclusion. Similar fallacy to false cause fallacy is Post hoc
propter Hoc. This also assume that one event is the cause of another simply because it occur
first. In Yoruba concept of causal explanation, Sodipo argues that metaphysical or supernatural
forces often mediate in their causal explanation of event. One of the example given by Sodipo to
illustrate his thesis is the popular Yoruba aphorism:

“Aje ke lana, omo ku l’oni,tani ko mo pea je to ke lana l’o pa omo je”

(yesterday evening the witch made her presence known through her cries, this morning the child
died, who does not know that the witch caused the death of the child) (Balogun,2018)

Example: the increase in the price of cigarettes might have caused the decline in the total
number of smokers

e. Gambler’s fallacy: Gambler fallacy is a form of argument that occur when one argues that the
probability of an events resurfacing has increased because of its sequential frequent occurrence
in a series. That is, it is an argument which state that the probability of an event reoccurrence
has reduced or increased
Example: the head of the coin turned up eleven times in a sequence

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the probability that the 12th throw will be head has increased

f. Weak Analogy: this form of fallacy is committed when the difference between the compared
objects or event is glaring, thus making a conclusion in support of such argument look
untenable
 Example: Health of every citizen in the country is sacrosanct to the government, hence just as it
is permissible for the citizen to be given health service, it is also sacrosanct for the government
to provide free health service for its citizen without paying a token

f. Fallacies of relevance: these include Appeal to force (Argumentum ad Baculum), Appeal to

pity(argumentum ad Misericordian),Appeal to popular feeling/ Mob Appeal( Argumentum ad
populum), Fallacy of Attacking the person (Argumentum ad Hominem), fallacy of Irrelevant
Conclusion (Ignorato Elenchi), Red Herring fallacy. Fallacy of Accident
a. Appeal to force (Argumentum ad Baculum),: An ad baculum fallacy occurs when a
conclusion is defended, or an argument attacked, by making a threat to the well-being of those
who make it (or implying that bad things will happen to those who accept the conclusion or
argument). That is, appeal to force fallacy is committed whenever some force or threat is
employed, so as to compel someone to accept a conclusion or the argument. In this form of
fallacy, there must be that impression that failure to accept the argument will amount to
undesirable consequence on the person. This form of fallacy is mostly use by the law
enforcement in other to obtain information from suspects under duress

Example: Dr Ajasco argues that workers are entitled to more of the education trust fund than
management because they contribute more to the product. But no institution wants to hire an
employee with radical views like that. That’s why Dr Ajasco has been unemployed for so long.
So it doesn’t matter how much workers contribute; workers are entitled to what they get. If you
think otherwise, you’ll end up out of work like Dr Ajasco

Example: Father to the Son; “Go ahead!, Go to law school and get qualified!, do whatever you
like with your life, but if you do not return and become a priest, I will disown you”

b. Appeal to pity (Argumentum ad Misericordian): this type of fallacy is otherwise called

emotional fallacy. Such fallacy occurs when argument appeals to mercy or clemency in any form
of argument rather than to facts and reason, in order to make the argument or conclusion
acceptable. In this situation, failure to accept the argument will lead to some undesirable
consequences.
Example: student to Lecturer: Sir I beseech you in the name of your mother and the God you
serve, to award me a good grade in your Logic course. For failure in the course would make my
studentship cease and my sponsor disown me as their daughter,
 Example : My Boss, I am due for promotion and higher wages. You know that I have many
hungry wives, children and many jobless relations to feed, many of my students also look up to me
for their financial support unless you want them to suffer and most likely lifeless.
c. Appeal to popular feeling/ Mob Appeal ( Argumentum ad populum) : Ad populum is a fallacy
which attempts to argue for a conclusion by in some way appealing to people’s innate desire to be
accepted or desired by others. It can occur when an arguer appeal to nationalism, Or, it could occur
when an arguer appeals to the audience’s desire to have mainstream opinions. In other words when
sentiment is appealed to in order to persuade one to join a particular line of thought which others
have been following. Another name for this kind of fallacy is called join the bad wagon
argument ;

Example: All my friends are now studying law

Therefore, I must study law

Example: come 2023, when INEC will conduct another general election into the office of
president, the opposition party we emerge winner, because most Nigerians do not enjoy Buhari’s
administration

d. Argument against / Attacking the Person (Ad Hominem)

This fallacy is committed when an argument or position is rejected not in virtue of its logical
merits, but rather in virtue of the character, personality, background or motivation of the person
giving the argument or holding the position.

However, a position can be true, and an argument can be sound, no matter how deplorable the
person is. Who holds a belief has nothing to do with whether or not it is true.
This is a fallacy in which one fails to properly engage with another person’s reasoning. An ad
hominem is a way of responding to an argument that attacks the person rather than the argument.
It comes in three ways. An abusive ad hominem attempts to discredit an argument by
discrediting the person making that argument. In other words, the arguer is being attack by
abusing instead of attacking the mean argument.

Example 1: After Jumoke argued before Congress that healthcare should include birth
control, since it is used to combat ovarian cysts, Adeolu responded with: “What does it say about
the college co-ed Jumoke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that
 she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a
prostitute.”

Example 2: the managing director insisted that the company could not increase its pay offer
since profits were expected to fall substantially over the coming year. But she has been convicted
of drink- driving twice in the past three years, so union should not believe her profit forecast.
They should press ahead with the strike.

In the two examples given, the arguers were being attacked instead of the argument presented. In
the example 1 the conclusion that Jumoke goes about requesting to be paid to have sex was
attacked as against her main argument that healthcare should include birth control. While in
example 2, the managing director’s sincerity is dismissed on pretty obviously irrelevant ground.
This attacks the arguer without attacking the argument, in that there is no good reason given for
not believing in her profit forecast. This kind of fallacy is mostly appearing in some
newspaper. It is frequently used method of discrediting someone with whom the paper disagrees.
What I call the "who's to say" fallacy is an instance of ad hominem reasoning. E.g.: "Descartes
has argued that all persons consist of two distinct substances: a material body and an immaterial
mind. But who is Descartes to say what is true of all persons?"

Fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignorato Elenchi): this type of fallacy is also committed
when one drawn conclusion which is irrelevant to the premises.

Example: Corona virus is pandemic and has turned most developed nation into state of
confusion,

Therefore, Donald Trump should be impeach from the office of presidency

b. Circumstantial ad hominem attempts to discredit an argument by calling attention to some

circumstantial features of the person making the argument (even though those features might
not in and of themselves be bad-making features). That is, the opponent would want to offer the
reason or circumstance which would want to offer the reasons or circumstance which would
lead him to accept the conclusion rather than reasons why the conclusion is true.

Example: President Mohammed Buhari should not be voted in for second term in office come
2023. Why, most retired military officers do not have human feeling in their blood stream.
 a. A tu quo que (what about you): this fallacy attempts to discredit an argument by
pointing out that the person making the argument themselves hypocritically rejects the
conclusion in other contexts. For example,

Example: Newton Gingrich called for Bill Clinton to be impeached for lying about his affair

with Monica Lewinsky. However, at the same time, Gingrich was lying about his own affair.

So, Clinton ought not to have been impeached.

In this case, the argument swings free of the person who happens to be making it. Even if the
person who happens to be advancing the argument has some personal flaw, or stands in
principle, somebody else without those flaws could make the very same argument.

Example 2; you accused me of having extra marital affairs because it is ungodly and sin to
marital life; I can hardly accept your argument because you know that you take at least seven
bottle of Beer per day. Is that not dangerous and more harmful to human health?

Fallacies of presumption: these are fallacies committed, when there is assumption in the
argument’s premises of what the arguer is out to prove. Two of such fallacies are complex
question and Begging the Question (petito principii).

a. Fallacy of Complex Question: this fallacy is mostly committed when two or more questions
are asked together. That is when question is loaded based on unstated assumptions. In this
situation answer to one question allow one to draw a conclusion regarding the other question.
This kind of fallacy is committed when one unconsciously give YES or No answer to the
question. It is also mostly use by the lawyer in law courts.

Example 1: Have you stop cheating during examination?

Example 2: Coker, come and demonstrate before this honorable court how you cut the wedding
cake

b. Begging the Question (petito principii): this kind of fallacy is otherwise refers to as circular
reasoning. Such fallacy of begging the question is committed when an arguer indirectly restate
the same argument in a circular order. In other words, such fallacy is committed when the
conclusion of the argument is nothing but restatement of the premise already stated.
Example: Thomas is fearless,
_______________________
Thomas is courageous

Example : God exists because the Bible tells us so, we know what the Bible tells us must be true
because it is the revealed words of God

Red Herring Fallacy: in this kind of fallacy, the respondent fails to address whichever argument
or issue that the arguer raised. That is red herring fallacy is committed when the argue’s
attention is distracted because the respondent is hard to pin down. Such an argument is mostly
committed during interview. In this situations the interviewer most of the time evading the issue
at stake. The red herring fallacy occurs when somebody presents premises which might be
psychologically compelling, but which are irrelevant to the conclusion. As such, every other
fallacy constitutes an instance of the red herring fallacy. It is the most general fallacy of
irrelevance.

Example: so many politicians in Nigeria provide palliative to federal Government, as a support

to fight COVID-19, most especially those nailed by EFCC as corrupt Politicians among which
we have the PDP stakeholder. Is the planning of these people not a means of buying the way
to the government for assistant in their investigation?

Politician: are you a true Nigerian?

Interviewer: Yes, I am very much a true Nigerian

Fallacy of Accident: this type of fallacy is committed when one apply general rule to a particular
situation which suppose not to be applicable. In other words, when one forgets that there are
some exceptional cases that some rules are not applicable to a particular situation, but because
of common perception of people one uses the rule.

Example: Governor Wike of River state asking the River state commissioner of police to arrest
and prosecute the two pilot officers working for world Health organization for flying into his
state without his approval, which violate his earlier Lockdown order assent to by his
government

Example 2: the Ambulance driver jumped the red traffic light. Therefore, the driver has
committed a traffic offence and he must be prosecuted accordingly.
Straw Man
A straw man fallacy occurs when one misrepresents somebody else’s position or argument
(usually making it more simplistic or naive than their actual position or argument), and then
argues against the misrepresented position or argument, rather than the person’s actual position
or argument. That is straw man fallacy is committed when we highlight what we tale to be its
weakest elements and then exploit these weakness. When argument is distorted in order to
exploit weakness we have what is of often referred to as straw man argument. The significance
of this argument is that instead of dealing with the real argument, we are dealing with
insubstantial version of it ( with none of the original’s substance and strength). The distorted
version is then attacked as if the real version had been

Example: Tai Solarin has argued against prayer in the public schools. Obviously Tai Solarin
advocates atheism. But atheism is what they used to have in Russia. Atheism leads to the
suppression of all religions and the replacement of God by an omnipotent state. Is that what we
want for this country? I hardly think so. Clearly Tai Solarin’s argument is nonsense

Example: the urban cyclist is increasingly intolerant of other forms of urban transport.in their
campaign to get more cycle lanes in our cities they use every opportunity to attack the private
motorist. They see the car as the cause of a vast of respiratory diseases, and of a host of other
urban problems, including crime. But they ignore all the positive contributions which the
private cars gas made to modern life. It has given people freedom, to go out with their family,
to visit friends and relatives and to make things such as shopping much easier. Until the cycle
is prepared to approach the subject of urban transport in a more reasonable way, it should not
be listened to.

The straw man fallacy committed in this example is that the urban cycle lobby is described as
having a campaign to get more cycle lanes in cities. The urban cyclist see the car as the cause of
respiratory disease and other crime, they ignore all the positive contributions. This can be
described as unreasonable, the reasonableness of the cycle lane issue is not considered. In this
way the cycle lobby is attacked by means of a straw man
 LECTURE TEN
Language, Meaning, and Communication

Objectives
It is hoped that at the end of the study, students should be able to:
i. Define and discuss some major functions of language
ii. Know some models of linguistic analysis
iii. Define and discuss forms of communication
The Role of Language in Constructing Arguments
Although it might sound inconsequential or even irrelevant to bring up such basic matters as
language, meaning, and communication into field of logic. These three concepts are the most
fundamental components of arguments, even more fundamental than propositions, inferences,
and conclusions. We cannot make sense of an argument without being able to make sense of the
language, meaning, and purpose of what is being communicated in the first place.

Language is a delicate and complex instrument used to communicate an incredible number of

different things which either pleasant or unpalatable to human sense, this sort of language come
in form of communication. Thus, language is a communication process, however language in this
sense is limited to verbal communication, but for our purpose here we can reduce the universe of
communication to four basic categories: information, direction, emotion, and ceremony. These
four basic categories of expression can more so be divided into two; the first two are often
treated together because they express cognitive meaning while the latter two commonly express
emotional meaning.
In general, we can specify a language by doing three things:
1) Giving the vocabulary for the language,
2) Giving the grammar of the language—that is, specifying which ways of sticking together the
expressions from the vocabulary are grammatical, and
3) Saying what the meaning of every grammatical expression is.
For instance, in English, the vocabulary consists of all of the words of English. The grammar for
English consists of rules saying when various strings of English words count as grammatical
English sentences. The meaning of every English sentence is given by providing a dictionary
entry for every word of English and providing rules for understanding the meaning of sentences
in terms of the meanings of the words appearing in the sentence. The first two tasks are the tasks
of specifying the syntax of the language. The final task is the fast of specifying the semantics of
the language
Information
The communication of information may be the most frequently thought use of language, but it
probably not as dominant as most believes it to be. The basic means of conveying information is
through statements or propositions ( as discussed in our previous study; a proposition is any
declaration that asserts some matter of fact, as opposed to an opinion or value) — the building
blocks of arguments. Some of the “information” here might not be true because not all arguments
are valid; however, for the purposes of studying logic, the information being conveyed in a
statement may be either false or true.

The informative content of a statement may be direct or indirect. Most statements in arguments
will probably be direct — something basic like “all men are mortal.” Indirect information may
also be communicated if you read between the lines. Poetry, for example, conveys information
indirectly through techniques such as metaphors.

Direction

Communicating direction occurs when we use language to cause or prevent an action. The
simplest examples would be when we scream “Stop!” or “Come here!” Unlike the
communication of information such as to command, commands can’t be true or false. On the
other hand, the reasons for giving commands may be true or false and hence be amenable to
logical critique.

Feelings and Emotions

Finally, language may be used to communicate feelings and emotions. Such expressions may or
may not be intended to evoke reactions in others, but when emotional language occurs in an
argument, the purpose is to evoke similar feelings in others to influence them to agreeing with
the argument’s conclusion(s).

Ceremony
I indicated above that the ceremonial use of language is used to communicate emotional
meaning, but that isn’t entirely accurate. The problem with ceremonial language is that it can
involve all three other categories at some level and can be very difficult to interpret properly. A
priest using ritual phrases may be communicating information about the religious ritual, invoking
predicted emotional reactions in religious adherents, and directing them to begin the next stage
of the ritual — all at once and with the same half dozen words. Ceremonial language cannot be
understood literally, but neither can the literal meanings be ignored.
In ordinary discourse, we don’t encounter all four categories of communication in their “pure”
form. Normally, people’s communication makes use of all sorts of strategies at once. This is also
true of arguments, where propositions that are intended to convey information may be phrased in
a manner designed to evoke emotion, and the entire thing leads to a directive — some order that
is supposed to follow from accepting the argument in question.
Separation
Being able to separate emotional and informational language is a key component of
understanding and evaluating an argument. It isn’t unusual for the lack of substantive reasons for
accepting the truth of a conclusion to be masked by the use of emotional terminology —
sometimes deliberately, sometimes not.
Deliberate Use
The deliberate use of emotional language can be seen in many political speeches and commercial
advertisements; these are carefully constructed to get people to share an emotional reaction to
something. In casual conversation, emotional language is likely less deliberate because the
expression of emotion is a natural aspect of how we communicate with one another. Almost no
one constructs normal arguments in a purely logical form. There is nothing inherently wrong
with that, but it complicates the analysis of an argument.
Meaning and Impact
Regardless of the motive, extracting the emotional language to leave just the raw propositions
and inferences is important to ensure that you evaluate the right things. Sometimes we have to be
careful because even a single word can have a literal meaning which is entirely neutral and fair,
but which also carries the emotional impact that affects how a person will react.
Consider, for example, the terms “bureaucrat” and “public servant” ; both can be used to
describe the same position, and both have neutral meanings in their most literal sense. The first,
however, will often arouse resentment while the latter sounds far more honorable and positive.
Only the term “government official” can sound truly neutral and be lacking in either positive or
negative impact (for the time being, at least).
Conclusion
If we want to argue well and do a good job at evaluating the arguments of others, we need to
learn how to use language well. The better we are at structuring our thoughts and ideas, the better
we will be able to understand them. That, in turn, will enable us to express them in a variety of
ways (helping others to understand you) as well as allow you to be able to identify flaws which
need to be fixed. This is where skills with logic and critical reasoning come in — but notice that
skills with language come first.

LECTURE ELEVEN
Laws of Thought
Objectives
This lecture section is hoped to achieve the following objectives:
i. Identify and explain the three related laws of logic
ii. Define and discuss the law of identity
iii. Define and discuss the law of contradiction
iv. Define and discuss the law of excluded middle
v. See if there are similarities or dissimilarities among them
As logic plays a prominent role in philosophy, so thus the law of thought to logic. Laws of
thought are most relevant in logic like any other concepts. It is one of the instrument uses to
separate correct reason from incorrect one. This implies that principle and process of reason of
logic are not arbitrary. Every thinking process must obey certain policy for it to be correct. This
law of thought is dated back to founder of traditional logic called Aristotle. Aristotle laid down
these three principles or laws of thought which are now our main concern in this aspect.
Aristotle was the first person to investigate the patterns and processing of reason. He discovered
logic. For that alone, he counts high in the pantheon of the most influential people in history.
Logic provides the basis for proof and demonstration using natural language. Prior to Aristotle,
mathematicians had shown arithmetic and geometrical means to proof. It was the power of such
abstract proofs that led Plato to place an inscription over the front gate of the Academy reading;
"Let no one enter who is not a geometer." From this background, Aristotle extended the formal
study of reasoned proof to a method that applies formal analysis to real human language.
Philosophy, science, and technology have followed the path pioneered by Aristotle ever since.
Aristotle wrote several extensive works on logic, which taken together are known as The
Organon or the instrument, by which he meant that logic is an instrument for advancing
knowledge.
Aristotle was not merely pointing out ways that people should think; he was describing the
fundamental principles by which thought can occur at all. At this foundation he marked three
laws of thought, which remain basic in logic to the present. According to this great Greek
philosopher (Aristotle), he classified the laws of thought in to three; these are

 Law of identity
 Law of contradiction
 Law of Excluded middle
1. Law of identity:
The law of identity can always be stated as follow: “P is P”. in this aspect our “p” represent
anything whatsoever. That is the law of identity states that if any statement is true, then it is true.
In other words, every statement is identical with itself. Thus, for statement P is P implies that
statement P is what P portrait. A is A, B is B, everything you say presupposes that thing. It must
be noted that law of identity does not give specific information concerning the qualities of P,
rather it only tells that P is P. that is whatever P happen to be, the thing is itself and nothing else.
Law of identity is always true. However law of identity is also refer to as tautological statement
by the logicians because statement P is P is a necessary truth, it can never be false.
Example: Damilare, a bachelor is unmarried
2. Law of Contradiction
This is the second laws of thought in logic; some textbooks in logic also refer to this law as law
of non-contradiction. This law is applicable to every logical process and it state that no
statement can both be true and false at the same time, that is nothing can both be P and not P.
according to this law, if this is P then it cannot at the same time be –P.
Example: The provost and Dean of College of Humanities and Culture, Osun state University as
act 2019/2020 academic session is Dr.(Mrs) Temitope Balogun. This statement is true. I cannot
claim that it is false at the same time. Or if I say that this is a book, it cannot be anything else
than a book. Thus it must be one or another; it cannot be both true and untrue. Thus law of
contradiction emphasis that a statement can either be true or untrue, and not be both. If it
happens to be P and –P then it becomes self - contradictory. The only way to avoid self –
contradictory in logic is to obey the law of non-contradiction,
3. Law of Excluded Middle
The law of excluded middle is the third law of thought; it states that any statement is either true
or false. Everything is either P or –P. as it indicates the law of excluded middle excludes the
middle ground between P and –P, i.e there is no such middle ground. The law is to the effect that
if a statement is not true, then it is false, and if it is not false, then it is true. It cannot choose to be
neither. For example:
It is either Damilare is a bachelor or married man. Damilare cannot be neither a bachelor nor
unmarried. You cannot refuse to be this and also refuse to be the other.
These are given not just as nice rules of thumb to follow or ways that one should think. Aristotle
identified these as necessary conditions for thought. People sometimes try to produce counter
examples to these Laws by pointing out how statements can become true or false depending on
the conditions; e.g. "It is raining" might be true now, but was false yesterday" or "it is half way
between raining and not-raining." But these attempts always involve changing the reference of
the statement. Once we get the reference of the statement clear and explicit, it does not seem
possible for a statement to make sense and violate these laws

Philosophy and Logic at fleeting look

(1) Philosophy may be defined in terms of wisdom The lay man conceives of philosophy denote
the guiding principles and ideas we live by.
(2) Socrates, Plato, Aristotle all this contemporary identified philosophy with contemplative
enterprise
(3) To avoid vagueness and ambiguity, philosophy helps in the use and concept in the languages
we use.
(4) Karl Marx’s stand on the fact that philosophy may help the individual to understand their
social and political environments.
(5) By nature philosophy is abstract and general, rigorous and self-critical and it’s a second-order
subject.
(6) Philosophy is classified into (i) traditional (ii) Applied branch
(7) The traditional branches include-logic, metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.
(8) Logic is defined as the science of critical reasoning which stipulated rules and principals that
guild human reasoning

MEANING, SCOPE, BRANCHES AND METHODS

1. Philosophers with analytic mind tend to approach philosophical enquires through evaluation,
analytic and clarification
2. Philosophy may be defined in terms of WISDOM
3. During the Socratic period, philosophy came to be identified with the contemplative enterprise
i.e during the Socratic period came to be identified with the reasoning faculty.
4. In the process of contemplative enterprise i.e think ‘to consider’ or ‘to examine’ philosophy
becomes an instrument with which men search for the truth above life and the universe.
5. Philosophy’s main function is the contemplative approach is an examination of the USE and
MEANING of our words and concept in the language we use.
6. Karl Max’s support Philosophy can be defined in terms of ideology.
7. Karl Max appreciates the fact that philosophy may help individuals to understand their social
and political environments.
8. Karl Max categorized the understanding as GOALS or ENDS.
9. Joad claimed philosophy is interested in everything that exists.
10.By nature philosophy is self-critical, rigorous, general and abstract.
11.Philosophy by its nature is classified as second order subject.
12.Philosophy does not rely on the scientific methods i.e. observations and experiments, rather it
proceeds by way of rational process and justification i.e philosophy examines the science
assumptions and tend to justify it by rational process i.e based on reason or logic.
13.Philosophy as an academic discipline is classified into two branches, which are
TRADITIONAL and APPLIED BRANCHES.
14.Traditional branches include Logic, Metaphysics, Epistemology and Ethics or Axiology while
applied branches include philosophy of science, law, language, religion, history, mathematics, e.
t. c.
15.The problems associated with the traditional branches are nature of reality, about the common
belief that objects are known as they are (native realism), that wrong and right are relative terms
and so on.
16. LOGIC is the science of critical reasoning and which specify rules and principles that guide
human reasoning.
17.Metaphysics originated from Greek word ‘Meta ta physka’ meaning the book after the book
of nature.
18.Aristotle defines metaphysics as being qua being i. e. the study of existence or reality as such.
19.Epistemology is described as attempts to know the reality behind our world.
20.Ethics deals with the issue that relate to moral obligations, duties we owe to fellow human
beings.
21. Joad defined ethics as the theory of right or wrong.
22. Analytic method of philosophy is used to clarify, evaluate, claims about concept, beliefs or
assumptions.
23. Speculative method is the method of philosophy that integrates various ideas that arises out
of philosophy discourse.
24. Prescriptive method is used in terms of choice e.g. choice to make in political arrangement.

SOME TYPICAL PHILOSOPHY PROBLEMS

1. Philosophers unlike the scientific classified problems as puzzle in need of Clarification
2. The Liberation i.e. the people that believed that people should have the freedom to do and
think as they like holds that men conscious acts are autonomous choices among a number of real
possibilities pen to him.
3. Determinist i.e. people that belief that people are not free to do as they wish contends that
every including man’s conscious acts are caused by factors external to us.
4. Libertarian belief that man is rational being capable of making choice.
5. Determinist argues that our environment culture, social and politic often determines how we
live our lives.
6. The body is said to be physical i. e. a material entity which occupies space and time while the
mind is said to be mental, a non-material entity that does not occupy space.
7. Descartes argued that mind and body do not interact.
8. Theories like psychophysical, parallelism, double aspect theory, bundle theory, identity
theory, epiphenomenalism was postulated to dissolve the mind and body problems, all these
theories are reduced into two monism and dualism.
9. Sense data theory is also called indirect realism.
10.Heraclitus, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel are of the opinion that reality is changing.
11.Philosophers such as Parmenides, Socrates and Plato contend that reality is permanent.
12.Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Democritus and Aristotle believe that both permanence and change
exist in harmony.
13.Heraclitus argues that nothing is permanent.
14.Euthanasia means mercy killing “which is the act of inducing painless death on a person for
reason assumed to be merciful”.
15.One of the Plato original doctrine is the theory of Ideas and forms.
16.Aristotle first developed the doctrine of universal as alternative to Plato’s theory of Ideas or
Forms.
17.The problem between universal and particulars is that universal can exist independently of
particulars.
18.Socrates Philosopher is known for any written text.

PERIODIZATION OF PHILOSOPHY
1. The Philosophy of the Pre-Socratic age(about the 6th century BC) was predominately Cosmo-
centric.
2. The first of the philosophers of the pre-Socratic age was Thales often referred to us as Thales
of Miletus and argued to be of Phoenician birth.
3. Alexandria academy came to existence in the pre-Socratic period
4. Thales suggested ‘hydro’ water as the main stuff of the universe.
5. Anaximander suggested an indeterminate boundless called APEIRON.
6. Anaximenes thought of air and the original stuff of the universe.
7. Zenophanes (between 570-475BC) argues that human knowledge cannot arrive at certain
truth, but only at mere opinion.
8. Protagoras is known for his mathematical theory called Pythagoras theory.
9. Democritus and his master Leucippus set the foundations of science by identifying atom as the
smallest indivisible particles of an element.
10.The Socratic age (469-322BC) is the period when philosophy changed from being cosmo-
centric i. e. “universe” to anthropocentric i. e. Human.
11.The Sophists is the first Philosophy of his period (Socratic age).
12.Socrates (469-399BC) said to have reacted to the negativist philosophy of the sophists.
13.Socrates is best known for his ideas that an unexamined life is not worth living.
14.The most important philosophers of Socratic age were Plato (427-347BC)and Aristotle (384-
322BC).
15.Socrates is the master of Plato, whereas Plato is the master of Aristotle.
16.Philosophy in the Socratic age was predominantly speculative.
17.Plato is known for his political and epistemological contributions while
Aristotle is Metaphysics.
18.Academic age is the period the peripatetic school introduced by Aristotle became well known.
19.Epicurus founded the Epicurean garden in Athens.
20.The Leno founded the Stoa (a Greek term for porch).
21.Early Skepticism was referred to as pyrohonism or academics.
22.The Philosophy of the medieval period is Theocentric.
23.In the medieval period, St. Anselm of Canterbury was famous for his Ontological argument
for God’s existence.
24.St. Bonaventre original name was Giovanni Fidanza and made a rigid destruction between
Philosophy and theology.
25.In the medieval period Avicenna (Ibn sina) a Persian and Averrois, a Spaniard were the
important figures of the Islamic Philosophic traditions though they are not Arabs but they wrote
in Arabic language.
26. The modern period is also referred to as the age of the science.
27.Ageof renaissance is also called an age of adventure.
28.Francis Bacon (1561-1626) opines that application of scientific method is keys to knowledge.
29.The difference between the mind of man and the mind of animal is that
man is able to form sign and names to describe their sensations.
30.At the period of modern foundationalist school age, the church has considerably lost its hold
on people mind’s and mode of thinking.
31.The medieval thinkers wrote in Latin while the modern philosophers wrote in different
vernaculars. The medieval Philosophers wrote commentaries. Modern Philosophers wrote
original works.
32.Descartes is of the opinion that mind and the mechanical material world are related.
33.David Hume, George Berkley and John Locke were the philosophers of empiricism.
34.John Locke a realist believes that the external world exist independent of the mind.
35.David Hume a skeptic tries to bring empiricism to a consistent logical conclusion.
36. William Amo, a Ghanian (1700-1769) of the idealist school wrote “Dejure Maurorum in
Europa”
37.The contemporary period is characterized as the age of the method and analysis, age of
language, words, symbol and concepts.

A SYSTEMATIC SURVEY OF SCHOOL OF THOUGHT ON PHILOSOPHY

1. The Afrocentrism is viewed from the perspective of the African person.
2. Karl Popper contends that human reason is unlimited with regard to criticism yet limited to the
regard with its power of prediction.
3. The most important idea of Popper’s Philosophy relates to the basic theme that something can
come out of nothing.
4. Popper maintained that values cannot be reduced to facts: mind cannot be reduced to
machines.
5. Existentialism is the Philosophy of existence.
6. Existentialism as a school of thought is often linked to the Danish Philosophy “Soren
Kiekegaard”
7. Existentialism is concerned with the concrete experiences of the individual, the quality of life,
the choices we make. etc.
8. One general belief of the existential school of thought is that A man has freedom and self-
determining individual who has unique personality.
9. Jean Paul Satre opines that man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.
10.Existentialism is a message of hope in a rather hopeless world.

LOGIC
1. Logic as science possesses the truth Art possesses utility.
2. Logic assists the students to improve their own power of cogent reasoning.
3. History has it that Aristotle was the first scholar to develop LOGIC as an academic discipline.
4. One important aspect of Aristotle logic is SYLLOGISM.
5. A syllogism is an argument in which a conclusion is drawn from two statements a major and a
minor premise.
6. Okafor (1990) postulated that thinking is a natural attribute of man and everyone can reason to
an extent concerning certain things.
7. The ancient Greek organized the art of reasoning into a logical reasoning into a logical system
of rules, principle and laws.
8. Parmenides formulated the principles of identity and non-contradiction.
9. Zeno a follower of Parmenides comes about the idea of logical paradoxes i. e. explaining the
contradicting statement in a way following the rules of logic.
10. Logic is study to show that it does not only deal with reasoning.
11. Logic is used to express ideas clearly and to analyze arguments for correct reasoning.
12. There are three laws of thought (i) Law of identity (ii) Law of non-contradiction(iii) The law
of excluded middle.
13. Law of identity states that what is true is true i. e. (A is A).
14. Law of non-contradiction states that it is impossible for the same thing to happen at the same
time i.e. ~ (P ~ P)
15. Law of excluded middle states that there is no middle point in an argument or statement is
either ‘true or false’
16. A sentence is defined as the unit of language that expresses a complete thought.
17. .A priori sentence is a way of knowing the truth value or meaning of a statement by message.
18. .A posteriori statement is a way of knowing the truth value or meaning of a statement by
sense experience.
19. A proposition is a type of logical meaning of which affirmation or denial is possible
20. Propositions have to be true or false.
21. There are two kinds of statements, Analytic and Synthetic.
22. In an analytical proposition, the logical predicate of a sentence is contained in the sentence e.
g. CAC is a church.
23. Synthetic proposition is known by sense experience.
24. Synthetic propositions are knowable to a Posteriori while Analytic propositions are knowable
to A Prior.
25. Example of a synthetic proposition “It is raining”.
26. A statement can also be proposition.

LOGIC, LANGUAGE AND SOCIETY

1. Logic is defined as the idea method in techniques of reasoning.
2. Aristotle says “man is a rational animal”
3. The natural capacity and disposition is referred to as informal logic and natural logic.
4. Everything concerning the activity of man originates in thought.
5. Formal logic is guided by formulated rules.
6. Giles St. Aubyn write up is synonymous to formal logic.
7. Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead developed formal logic.
8. Wittgenstein defines language as the totality of propositions which pictures reality.
9. Language can be divided into two namely VERBAL i.e. Oral, vocal or spoken, medium and
non-medium and NON-VERBAL e.g. drum language, trumpet language and sign language.
10.John Locke says “all meaning of words is private”.
11.Ludwig Wittgenstein’s says language is intrinsically social and not private.
12.Language is an invention that is unique to man.
13.Ordinary or natural language is the everyday language that we speak while ideal language
involves signs, symbols to clearly express ideas e.g. logic, jurisprudence, chemistry, etc.
14.Aigbodioh classified pidgin English, creolized language and Esperanto as“Artificial-natural
language”.
15.Language is a by-product of communication.
16.Language is used for communication.
17. Stipulated definition refers to as nominal or verbal definition i.e. “the meaning given to a
new term when introduce the first term” it has no true value.
18.The word Ostensive is derived from the Latin word “Osteridere” which means to show.
19.Ostensive definition deals with demonstrated, pointing or referring.
20.Russell says there are two kinds of words, object word and dictionary word. Objective word
has ostensive definition.
21.Persuasive definition is an expression of emotion to influencing attitude to an issue or event.
22.Précising definition is a definition that requires specificity.
23.Atomic proposition is a proposition that states that a certain thing has a certain quality e.g
BIDEMI is a student of AAUA.
24.Logic is derived from Greek word “Logikos” which means belonging to speech or speaking
or belonging to the reason or rational.
25.Thinking makes use of Language of Thought (L.O.T).
26.German philosopher J.G. Hamann says reason is language.
27.According to Durmett language operates as a code of thought.
28.Chomsky opines that language is a tool of thought.
29.Sapir says language does not exist independently of culture.
30.Logic, language and society are Man-centered.

MEANING AND NATURE OF ARGUMENTS

1. An argument is described as group of propositions providing support for a claim.
2. In an argument, there are two sets of propositions “PREMISE” and“ CONCLUSION”. A
Premise is the supportive proposition while Conclusion is the proposition that enjoys the support.
3. An argument can be described as a chain of reasoning in which conclusion is inferred from a
premise.
4. Indicators are English words either preceding the reason for making a claim or claim being
made.
5. Premise indicators include because, since, for, as , WHILE conclusion indicators include so,
therefore, hence, thus, it follows that, we may infer that, we may conclude that.
6. The supportive preposition is called PREMISE while the preposition that enjoys the support is
the CONCLUSION.
7. The combination of premise and conclusion makes up Argument.
8. The rule for supplying missing proposition is called the principle of charity.
9. There are two types of argument namely; Deductive and Inductive Argument.
10.A deductive argument is an argument in which the premises provide a conclusive evidence
for the conclusion.
11. A deduction argument may be syllogistic or conditional.
12.Enthymemic argument is an argument that will have premises without a conclusion.
13.A deductive argument is either valid or invalid.
14.An argument is said to be valid if the conclusion follows entirely from its premises, while it is
invalid if its conclusion does not follow entirely from the premises.
15.The validity of an argument is not determined by the truth or falsity of its preposition.
16.A sound argument is a deductively valid argument in which all its premises and conclusion
are true while unsound argument is the one in which the premises only provide support for
conclusion. Inductive argument is one in which the premises only provide support for
conclusion.
17.An inference is an act of drawing as conclusion from one or more premises.

CATEGORICAL PREPOSITIONS AND KINDS OF INFERENCES

1. A categorical proposition is one in which is either an affirmation i.e. something is the case or
negation i.e. denying that is the case.
2. An inference is immediate when conclusion is drawn from one premise.
3. An inference drawn from a premise through the mediation of another premise or some other
set of premises is called Mediate Inference.
4. The traditional square of opposition provides examples of immediate inference.
5. If two propositions are contradictories then it follows that they cannot be false together.
6. Propositions that are contraries cannot be true together but can be false together.

SYLLOGISTIC ARGUMENTS AND VENN DIAGRAM TECHNIQUE

1.Syllogisms are special deductive kind of arguments.
2. A syllogistic argument contains three propositions two of which arepremises are usually stated
while the last is conclusion
3. In syllogistic argument, the Major premise is stated first followed by minor premise then
conclusion.
4. Venn was a logician that introduced ways of representing categorical proposition in terms of
equations and inequalities.
5. In a syllogistic argument the Major premise is stated first followed by minor premise then
conclusion
6. In syllogistic argument, the two premises are usually stated while in conclusion comes last in
the series.
7. A term or class is a collection of things.
8. If a class is such that it has no member, such a class is said to be an empty class.
9. The complement of a class refers to all things that do not belong to a class.

FALLACIES
1. Fallacy is used to refer to any mistaken idea or false belief.
2. Any form of incorrect argument is a fallacy
3. Any incorrect argument is an argument that does not follow the rules of Logic.
4. Irvin Copi (1987) defines fallacy as an argument that may be psychologically
persuasive i.e an argument seems to be correct but not.
5. Fallacy is divided into two namely formal and formally fallacies
6. Formal fallacy denotes certain pattern or form of illogical inference i.e. the conclusion is based
on sound reasoning.7. Informal fallacy denotes an error in reasoning.
8. Informally fallacy can be categorized into i.e. fallacy of relevance and fallacy of ambiguity.
9. ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM (Abusive) is the type of fallacy of relevance i.e when a
person’s character or ability is attacked.
10.ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM (Circumstantial) is a fallacy that a person’s belief or
circumstances is argued.

Revision Questions on Logic and Philosophy

Attempt these questions
1. What is philosophy
2. Who will you regarded as a philosopher
3. Why is philosophy regarded as the mother of all discipline
4. When can we say philosophy as an academic field of study begin, and where does it start
from
5. What do you understand by the pregnancy of philosophy
6. Discuss the complex nature of Philosophy
7. Differentiate between popular and professional conception of philosophy
8. Mention and discuss the core branches of philosophy that we have
9. Of what relevance are the core branches of philosophy relevant to human life
10. Discuss the relationship between philosophy and other fields of study
11. Mention and discuss the different sources of knowledge
12. What is logic
13. State with example some concepts logic cannot do without
14. Are the following an Argument?
i. War occur because human desire to control other human
ii. The good don’t always die young because Mother Teresa was a good person
iii. Waging war is always wrong because it involves killing human beings and killing
human is wrong
15. Differentiate with example between inductive and Deductive argument
16. How do you identify an argument
17. What is proof of argument
18. With example, explain the following
i. Sound and valid argument
ii. Valid but unsound argument
iii. Invalid argument
iv. Contingently true argument
19. Why is language an important aspect in logic
20. Determine the truth value of the following statements
i. A. B
ii. ( A v C). E
iii. B ≡ (C v A)
iv. p. (q ∨ r)
21. Complete the following truth table analysis:
 P Q P≡q
T T
F
T F
F T
22. Identify the fallacies in the following reasoning
i. Since all plants produce chlorophyll, the Mandillas Motor plant in lagos produce
Chlorophyll
ii. “Save soap and waste paper”
iii. Mr Femi Falana, the legal luminary has said it all. Those so call Chinese medical
experts that came to the country to render medical assistance in order to combat
COVID 19 must be wrong in claiming that corona virus is not generic.
iv. There has not been any cure for pandemic Covid -19 since November, so Covid-19
cannot be cured
v. Blessing, my pet is a well behaved girl. A girl with a good character. This is because I
have never heard anyone saying something bad about her
23. Give the stylistic variant of material conditional statement
24. Differentiate between sentence and statement
25. What is proposition

Bibliography and Suggestions for further Reading

Achilike, J.S. (1999), Fundamental of Logic, Ibadan: Ben-El publisher ltd
Ali S.A, and Fadahunsi.A. (1995), Introduction to Philosophy and Logic, Ibadan, Paper Back
publishers Ltd
Ali. S.A.(1997), Arguments and Logical Reasoning in Odugbemi O.O et al (Eds) , Essential of
general Studies I, Ago-Iwoye: Ogun State University CESAP publication
Ali. S. A.(2003), Logic Made Easy, Ijebu –Ode: Vicco International press
Balogun,O.A,(2018), African Philosophy: Reflections on Yoruba Metaphysical and
Jurisprudence, Nigeria: Xcel publishers Ltd
Barker, S.F. (1965), Element of Logic, New York, McGraw-Hull Book Company
Bello,A.G.A,(2000), Introduction to Logic, Ibadan; Ibadan university press, pls
Brink-Budgen, R (1996), Critical thinking for Students, United kingdom: British Library
publication
Cohen, M and Nagel, E. (1978), Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method, London and
Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul
Copi, I.(1982), An Introduction to Logic 7th ed. New York: Macmillan Ltd
_________(1978), symbolic Logic 5th Ed. New York: Macmillan Ltd
Dukor, M. (2008), Symbolic and Philosophical Logic, Lagos: Essence Library
Fadahunsi, A,(1999.ed), Philosophy and Society: An Introduction for Beginners, Ibadan: Hope
Publications
Fadahunsi. A.(ed) .(2004); Philosophy: An Anthology, Ibadan: Hope Publisher Ltd
Flage D,(1995), Understanding Logic: Englewood Cliffs, N. J Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Gabbay D.M. and Guenthner F. (2005), Handbook of Philosophical Logic 2nd Ed. Vol 12:
Netherlands. Springer publishers Ltd
Gabbay, D. M.(ed). (2007), Handbook of the History of Logic, Volume 8, United Kingdom:
British Library publication
Gallow, J. D, (2015), Lecture Note on Logic, New York; University printing press
Hodges, W. (2001), “Classical Logic I : first Order Logic” in Goble L. (ed); The Blackwell guide
to Philosophical Logic, USA; British Library publication
Kowalski, R, (2011), Computational Logic and Human Thinking, Cambridge: Cambridge
University press
Lawhead,W.F(2003), The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy;
Belmont, C.A,Wadsworth
Okafor, F.U.(1990), An Outline for Beginners, Enugu: Auto-Century publishing co. ltd
Omoregbe, J. I,(1989),Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study , Lagos: Joja Publishers Ltd.
Oyeshile, A.O and Ugwuanyi, O.L,(1997), Elements of philosophy and Logic, Benin City:
Favourite printers Ltd
Popkin, R.H et al (1982), Philosophy made Simple; London: Heienemann publishers
Popper, K.(1977), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London: Hutchinson.
Quine, W. O,(1967), Method of Logic, Revised Ed. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winson
Salmon, W. (1975), Logic, Englewood Cliffs, N. J Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Smullyan, R.M, (2014), A Beginner’s Guide to Mathematical Logic, New York: Dover
Publications, Inc.
Uduigwomen, A.F, (1995), Modern Logic in Uduigwomen A.F and Ozumba, G.O (eds),
Philosophy and Logic, Calabar; Centaur publishers
Weddle, P,(1981), Argument: A Guide to Critical Thinking, New York: McGraw Hill Ltd.
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@chhaylin/the-value-of-studying-philosophy