APH 101: INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY

Contact Hours: 42 Hrs

Course Description

Definitions of philosophy and their analysis; the popular and academic conceptions of
philosophy; branches of philosophy: Logic, Metaphysics, Epistemology and Axiology;
Philosophy and other disciplines; philosophical methods of inquiry; the value or importance of
philosophy; schools of thought.

Course Outline
Module 1: Understanding Philosophy
Unit 1: Meaning and nature of philosophy
Unit 2: Conceptions of philosophy
Unit 3: Features of philosophy
Unit 4: Method of philosophy
Module 2: The Value of Philosophy
Unit 1: The value of philosophy to the individual who studies it
Unit 2: The value of philosophy to other disciplines
Unit 3: The value of philosophy to the society
Unit 4: Prospects for philosophy
Module 3: Philosophy and Other Disciplines
Unit 1: The concern of philosophy with other disciplines
Unit 2: Philosophy of religion
Unit 3: Philosophy of science
Unit 4: Philosophy of the social sciences
Module 4: Branches of Philosophy
Unit 1: Metaphysics
Unit 2: Epistemology

1
Unit 3: Ethics
Unit 4: Logic
Mode of Delivery
a) Class presentations
b) Class discussions
c) Prior reading from books, journals and handouts
d) A few lectures Instructional Materials.

Instructional Materials
Lectures notes.
Selected reading materials.
Course Assessment
a) Students are expected to sit for two (2) Continuous Assessment Tests; A
term paper and a sit-in test amounting to 30% of overall
examination marks.
b) Students are expected to sit for end of semester examination amounting to
70%.

References for Further Readings

Anselm K. Jimoh, 2014. Philosophy, A guide for Beginners. Ibadan: Ebony Books & Kreations.
Grayling, A. C. 1995. Philosophy 1, A guide Through the Subject. Oxford: University Press.
Grayling, A. C. 1998. Philosophy 2, Further Through the Subject. Oxford: University Press.
Hospers, J. 1973. An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Noam Chomsky, 1979. Language and Responsibility, trans. by John Viertel. New York:
Pantheon Books.
Donald Sherer, Peter A. Facione, Thomas Attig, and Fred D. Miller. 1979. Introductory
Philosophy, Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Joseph Margolis, 1968. An Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Pierre Hadot, 1995. Philosophy as a Way of Life. Ed. Arnold I. Davidson, trans. Michael Chase.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Olusegun Oladipo, 2008. Thinking About Philosophy, A General Guide. Ibadan: Hope
Publications.

2
Isaiah Berlin, 1978. “The Purpose of Philosophy,” in his Concepts and Categories. London: The
Hogarth Press.

UNIT 1: MEANING AND NATURE OF PHILOSOPHY

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
3.0 Main Content
3
3.1 Meaning of Philosophy
3.1.1 The Historical Approach
3.1.2 The Language Approach
3.1.3 Philosophy as Worldview
3.2 Nature of Philosophy
3.2.1 Philosophy as Questions and Answers
3.2.2 Philosophy as a Criticism
3.2.3 Philosophy as a Programme of Change
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
Welcome to this discussion on the meaning and nature of philosophy. By its very topic, you
should realise that there are two parts that make-up our examination of philosophy here. There is
the part on meaning, on the one hand, and there is the part of nature, on the other hand. Thus, we
are going to deal with the meaning as well as the nature of what philosophy is. It is assumed that
by now, you have heard of philosophy and perhaps, have been wondering what it is all about.
The discussion in this unit is meant to introduce you to what philosophy is, by providing you
with a knowledge of the basics of what characterises the discipline of philosophy. Let me even
say that it is not just this unit that would introduce you to philosophy, the whole of the module
will provide you with knowledge of what you need to know, so as to be at home with studying
philosophy.
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
By the end of this unit, you should be able to:
• define philosophy
• explain key concepts in philosophy
• identify essential characteristics of philosophy

3.0 Main Content

The content of this unit will be examined in the following headings: (i) the meaning of
philosophy; and (ii) the nature of philosophy.
In examining the meaning of philosophy, we would look at some approaches to the definition of
philosophy. These will include the historical approach, as well as an approach that sees

4
philosophy as the analysis of language. As regards the nature of philosophy, we would look at
philosophy as a set of questions and answers, philosophy as criticism, and philosophy as a
program of change.
3.1 The Meaning of Philosophy
Let me begin by saying that the task of defining philosophy is not much different from that of
defining any discipline. By this, I mean that it is often the experience that for a discipline with
the character and history as philosophy, there would be as many definitions as there are experts
in the discipline. With this said, from etymology, the word philosophy is a combination of two
Greek words, Philo (meaning love) and Sophia (meaning wisdom). When conjoined, philosophy
then becomes the love of wisdom and a philosopher, a lover of wisdom. In ancient times, a lover
of wisdom could be related to any area where intelligence was expressed.
This could be in business, politics, human relations, or carpentry and other skills. In this sense,
philosophy was used to describe the whole of life in antiquity. In contrast to this, some modern
definitions restrict philosophy to what can be known by science or the analysis of language. So,
as used originally by the ancient Greeks, the term “philosophy” meant the pursuit of knowledge
for its own sake, and comprised all areas of speculative thought, including the arts, sciences and
religion.
In today’s intellectual society, there is a popular use of the word philosophy. Philosophy is a
term applied to almost any area of life. Some questions may express this general attitude: what is
your philosophy of business? banking? driving a car? or your philosophy of the use of money? If
this popular use of the word were to prevail, one may admit that anyone who thinks seriously
about any subject is a philosopher. If this general definition is accepted, then everyone rightly
qualifies to become a philosopher, but this would be ignoring the understanding of philosophy in
the strict, technical and professional sense as academic disciplines or study.
Put differently, If this loose definition prevails, it would mean that a philosopher is anyone who
says he is a philosopher. Because of this inadequacy, it becomes apparent that we have to look
elsewhere for a definition of philosophy. And so, because the original meaning of the word,
philosophy, does not give us much for specific content, we will turn to descriptive definitions. A
descriptive definition of philosophy is such that it seeks to describe its functions, goals, and
reasons for existence. In the following pages, a number of these definitions will be set forth and
examined. But let me reiterate what I said earlier regarding having as many definitions as there
are philosophers. This would come as a note of caution to the student who is just beginning to
have first contact with philosophy. The beginner may despair over diverse definitions. Students
who come from a scientific background frequently expect concise, clear, and universally
accepted definitions. This will not be true in philosophy and it is also not universally true
concerning all issues in any science or non-scientific study or discipline. The diversity of opinion
in philosophy becomes a source of embarrassment for the beginner when asked to explain to
parents or unknowing friends, just what a course in philosophy is all about. It might naturally be
expected that philosophy, being one of the oldest disciplines or subjects in academia, should
achieve some uniformity or opinion in terms of definition, but this is not exactly the case. Yet, in

5
spite of diversity of opinions, philosophy is important. Plato declared that philosophy is a gift the
gods have bestowed on mortals. This may reflect man’s ability to reason about the world as well
as man’s life within it. Socrates’ famous statement, “Know thyself,” reflects this aim of
philosophy. Plato also warned against the neglect of philosophy. He wrote that “land animals
came from men who had no use for philosophy. . . .” In light of this, it might help to inform you
that men live by philosophies.
3.1.1 The Historical Approach Remember our question: what is philosophy?
According to the historical approach, philosophy is the study of historical figures who are
considered philosophers. One may encounter the names of Thales, Philo, Plotinus, Socrates,
Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Don Scotus Erigena, Immanuel Kant, David
Hume, Karl Marx, Georg Wilhelm Fredrick Hegel, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and
many more. All these are known philosophers. But one may ponder as to what actually holds
them together within the philosophical bracket, since they are so diverse in many of their views?
One answer lies in their common set of problems and concerns. Many were interested in the
problems of the universe: its nature and origin; the issue of man’s existence, good and evil,
politics, and other topics.
The argument for the historical approach is that no real understanding of philosophy can be had
unless one understands the past. Philosophy would be impoverished if it lost any of the names
above. Some argue that knowing the history of philosophy is required for a positive appreciation
of philosophy, and necessary if one is to make creative contributions to the advancement of
philosophy.
This definition of philosophy has its problems: (i) it tends to limit philosophy to the great minds
of the past and makes it an elitist movement, (ii) it restricts philosophy to an examination of past
questions and answers only, (iii) it is not really different from the study of history of ideas. This
would make philosophy a sub-unit of history.
The value of the historical approach is that it introduces the student to the great minds of the past
and the confrontation one has with philosophic problems that are raised by thinking people in all
ages. This is desirable in itself even though this is not the best definition of philosophy.
The history of thought shows that philosophers are always concerned with, or motivated by,
life’s fundamental questions, or what is sometimes referred to as the ‘Big Questions’, such as:
How should we live? Is there free will? How do we know anything? What is real? or, What is
truth? While philosophers do not agree among themselves on either the range of proper
philosophical questions or the proper methods of answering them, they do agree that merely
expressing one’s personal opinions on controversial topics like these is not doing philosophy.
Rather, philosophers insist on first attaining clarity about the exact question being asked, and
then providing answers supported by clear and logically structured arguments. Such well-
constructed and logically structured arguments are meant to primarily analyse and critique such
fundamental questions and the ideas we live by in every facets of our existence. Philosophy is
thus a critical and rational activity concerned with the most fundamental questions of human

6
existence and an analysis of usually taken-for-granted worldviews, beliefs, knowledge claims
and ideas about human existence.
Hence core philosophical activity is summed up in three questions: What is real (the
metaphysical/ontological concern)? How do we know (the epistemological concern)? What is the
moral life (the axiological/moral concern)?
4 3.1.2 Philosophy as the Analysis of Language
This is one of the more extreme definitions of philosophy. This definition began as an emphasis
in philosophy at the beginning of the 20th century. A growing revolt took place against the
metaphysical systems in philosophy. Metaphysical systems in philosophy explained everything
from the standpoint of a great idea like ‘mind’ or ‘spirit.’ The reaction was primarily against the
philosophy of idealism which is a highly developed metaphysical philosophy. The analysis-of-
language-emphasis rejected metaphysics and accepted the simple, but useful modern standard of
scientific verification.
Their central thesis is that only truths of logic and empirically verifiable statements are
meaningful. What does scientific verification mean in this context? If you can validate or
reproduce an experiment or whatever, you can say it is true. If there is no way to reproduce or
validate the experiment in the context of science, there was then no claim for truth. How do
verification and language work together?
Try this example. How do you know when to take a statement as referring to a fact? We can use
three sentences: (i) God is love, (ii) Nairobi is in Kenya, and (iii) love is wonderful. These
sentences are constructed in a similar manner. But only one is factual, in that it can be
scientifically verified. Many people travel every day to Abuja and anyone who doubts can go see
for himself. But you cannot scientifically verify that love is wonderful, and that God is love. I
can say factually that I love a person and may even witness events that point to this, but how can
I verify the word “wonderful”? God is not seen and love is not seen scientifically. Are these
statements meaningful?
The conclusion reached by the philosophers (known as analytic philosophers) who champion the
language approach is that anything not verifiable is nonsense. All of the systems of the past that
go beyond verification are to be rejected as nonsense. This means that the realm of values,
religion, aesthetics, and much of philosophy is regarded only as emotive statements. An emotive
statement reflects only how a person “feels” about a topic. Declaring that love is wonderful is
only to declare that I feel it is wonderful. I may seek your agreement on the issue, but again it is
not an objective truth, but two “feelings” combined.
Other analytic philosophers moved beyond the limitations of the verification principle to the
understanding of language itself. Instead of talking about the world and whether things exist in
the world, they talk about the words that are used to describe the world. This exercise in
“semantic ascent” may be seen in contrasting talk about miles, distances, points, etc., with talk
about the word “mile” and how it is used. Language philosophers such as W. V. O. Quine spend
entire treatises on the nature of language, syntax, synonymous terms, concepts of abstractions,

7
translation of terms, vagueness and other features of language. This is a philosophy about
language rather than being interested in great issues that have frequently troubled the larger
tradition of philosophers.
It is important to state at this point, that language analysis as the definition of philosophy,
changes philosophy from being a subject matter into a tool for dealing with other subject matters.
It becomes a method without content.
This definition is as one-sided as the definition is rejected. The analysis of language has been an
important part of philosophy from the time of Socrates and others to the present. But language
connected with verification and restricted by that principle places great limitations on areas that
philosophy has often regarded as important. This limitation is seen particularly in the areas of
morals and ethics. Morality cannot be verified in a scientific way. But it does seem obvious that
we can discuss actions and adopt some means of objective evaluation in terms of reason.
Moreover, it does not seem obvious that some moral distinctions are merely “emotive feelings.”
It appears quite reasonable and acceptable to most people that there is a big difference between
paddling a child by a concerned parent, and the child-abusing parent whose discipline kills the
helpless child. If verification is required for the statement – it is wrong to kill the child – then all
moral standards are at an end, and philosophy is turned into non-meaning-making activity.
At its simplest, philosophy is the study of knowledge, or “thinking about thinking”, although the
breadth of what it covers is perhaps best illustrated by a selection of other alternative definitions
given below:
• Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what
sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine
knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).
• Philosophy is an investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or
values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods (American Heritage
Dictionary).
• Philosophy is the study of the ultimate nature of existence, reality, knowledge and goodness, as
discoverable by human reasoning (Penguin English Dictionary)
• Philosophy is the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics
(Word Net)
• Philosophy is the search for knowledge and truth, especially about the nature of man and his
behaviour and beliefs (Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary)
• Philosophy is the rational and critical inquiry into basic principles (Microsoft Encarta
Encyclopaedia)
• Philosophy is the study of the most general and abstract features of the world and categories
with which we think: mind, matter, reason, proof, truth, etc. (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy)

8
• Philosophy is the careful thought about the fundamental nature of the world, the grounds for
human knowledge, and the evaluation of human conduct (The Philosophy Pages)
3.2 The Nature of Philosophy
In this sub-section, we would examine the nature of philosophy under the headings of (i)
philosophy as a set of questions and answers, (ii) philosophy as a programme of change and (iii)
philosophy as a criticism. To be sure, these do not exhaust how the nature of philosophy may be
conceived and understood. They only provide some basic in-roads for describing the nature of
philosophy.
3.2.1 Philosophy as a Set of Questions and Answers
There is a long list of topics philosophy is interested in. Some of these are more interesting and
up-to-date than others. Is the world of one or more substances? Is it matter, mind, or other? Is
man only a body? Is he, or does he have a soul? Does God exist? Many other questions could be
incorporated here. Some of these questions have several proposed solutions, while others cannot
be answered decisively. For example, the question: Does God exist? can only be answered in
terms of a probability situation, as no scientific proof can decide the question either way. Some
questions have been answered to the satisfaction of many philosophers for a long period of time
only to be raised again. One example of this is the old question of Socrates’ days about man
being born with knowledge, called innate knowledge. For centuries, this was accepted by a
variety of people. But John Locke seems to have solved the matter for many philosophers that
man is not given innate ideas at birth. Hence, he must gain his knowledge through experience.
Now in contemporary thought, Noam Chomsky has raised the question again in proposing what
he calls “generative grammar.” He rejects the view of Locke that language is learned empirically.
When we learn a language, we are able to understand and formulate all types of sentences that
we have never heard before. This ability to deal with language is regarded by Chomsky as innate,
something we have inherited genetically. So, the issue comes anew.
But other questions have not met with the same successful responses for such a long period of
time. However, it may be argued that describing the nature of philosophy as a set of questions
and answers is not unique by any means, as other disciplines or studies could also be described
by the questions they seek to answer.
If this description will be accepted as integral to the nature of philosophy, then it is important to
set forth the particular kinds of questions that are restricted to the description of the nature of
philosophy. Obviously, the answers to the problem of pollution are not the kinds of questions
one deals with in philosophy. But the relation of man’s body to his mind is one of the kinds of
questions that philosophers have regarded as their own.
Philosophical questions (unlike those of the sciences) are usually foundational and abstract in
nature. Philosophy is done primarily through reflection and does not tend to rely on experiment,
although the methods used to study it may be analogous to those used in the study of the natural
sciences. In common usage, it sometimes carries the sense of unproductive or frivolous musings,

9
but over the centuries it has produced some of the most important original thought, and its
contribution to politics, sociology, mathematics, science and literature has been inestimable.
Although the study of philosophy may not yield “the meaning of life, the universe and
everything”, many philosophers believe that it is important that each of us examines such
questions and even that an unexamined life is not worth living. It also provides a good way of
learning to think more clearly about a wide range of issues, and its methods of analysing
arguments can be useful in a variety of situations in other areas of life.
3.2.2 Philosophy as a Program of Change
Karl Marx declared that the role of philosophy is not to think about the world, but to change it.
Philosophy is not to be an ivory tower enterprise without relevance to the world of human
conditions. A contemporary Marxist has asked:
What is the point in subtle epistemological investigation when science and technology,
not unduly worried about the foundations of their knowledge, increase daily their mastery
of nature and man? What is the point of linguistic analysis which steers clear of the
transformation of language (ordinary language!) into an instrument of political control?
What is the point in philosophical reflections on the meaning of good and evil when
Auschwitz, the Indonesian massacres, and the war in Vietnam provides a definition
which suffocates all discussion of ethics? And what is the point in further philosophical
occupation with Reason and Freedom when the resources and the features of a rational
society, and the need for liberation are all too clear, and the problem is not their concept,
but the political practice of their realization?
The criticism of Herbert Marcuse is a stinging one. But the question of change is not one for
philosophy per se. Philosophy has no built-in demand that can be the end product of one’s
thinking. It seems natural that one who is thinking seriously about the problems of man should
seek good solutions. It seems natural also that one having good solutions should seek to carry
them out. But it is also possible for one to have good solutions and only contemplate them
without any action. There is no inherent mandate in philosophy for a program of action, although
it may be tacitly assumed that some good action will come forth.
Philosophy is in contrast generally to a movement like Christianity which has a built-in
motivation for changing the world by the conversion of people to its cause. Traditional
philosophy has concerned itself more with academic questions. But there is the underlying
assumption: if you know what is right and good, you will proceed to do it.
Another view of philosophy with an emphasis on doing, or change, is that of Alan Watts. Watts
describes philosophy from the standpoint of contemplation and meditation. He starts with the
conclusion of the language philosophers: all language about philosophy is meaningless. If this is
true, then philosophy should be silent and learn to practice oriental mysticism which is
characterized as “idealess contemplation.”
According to this view, the aim of meditation is to get to the Ground of Being. What is the
Ground of Being? In a simple way, it can be described as the all-pervasive Spirit that is the only

10
basic reality of the world. Everyone is part of the Great Spirit. The aim of philosophy is not to
think, but to achieve union with the Great Spirit.
The idea of change is different between Marcuse and Watts. The Marxist idea of change is to
change the material world and man will be better. Watt’s view of change is to forsake social
change for all change is futile. The real change is to attain oneness with the impersonal world-
soul. The world of the material is transient, and the visible world is not the real world. Even the
Ground of Being, or the Great Pervasive Spirit is changing and manifesting itself in various
forms. There is a subtle contradiction in Watt’s philosophy. The Ground of Being continues to
produce human beings who must continually deny their own being to be able to return to the
Ground of Being. This denial of one’s own being reflects the fact that the Ground of Being is
constantly making a bad thing come into being.
Another variation on the theme of mystic contemplation – the attempt to attain oneness with God
– is seen in the thought of men such as M. Eckhart and Plotinus. Their philosophy encourages a
contemplative role. While Eckhart and Plotinus are motivated from a religious or quasi-religious
motive like Watts, they do not promote the revolutionary social change as advocated by the
Marxists.
3.2.3 Philosophy as a Criticism
The idea of philosophy being “criticism” may be explained or understood by looking at one of
the philosophers who embodied this understanding of the nature of philosophy. Socrates is one
of the earliest to engage in philosophic criticism. For Socrates, criticism referred to critical
thinking involving a dialectic in the conversation. A dialectic, one must keep in mind, is a
running debate with claims, counter-claims, qualifications, corrections, and compromises in the
sincere hope of getting to understand a concept.
This may be seen briefly in Plato’s Republic (Bk. I). Socrates asked Cephalus what his greatest
blessing of wealth had been. Cephalus replied that a sense of justice had come from it. Socrates
then asked: what is justice? The conversation then involved several people including
Thrasymachus who claimed that justice was a mere ploy of the strong to keep the weak in line.
Socrates rejected the tyrant-theory as irrational and the dialectic went on in pursuit of the
question: what is justice?
Criticism is the attempt to clear away shabby thinking and establish concepts with greater
precision and meaning. In this sense, John Dewey noted that:
philosophy is inherently criticism, having its distinctive position among various modes
of criticism in its generality; a criticism of criticism as it were. Criticism is discriminating
judgement, careful appraisal, and judgement is appropriately termed criticism wherever
the subject-matter of discrimination concerns goods or values.
Another example of criticism is the philosophic movement associated with the name of Edmund
Husserl who is the father of phenomenology. Phenomenology is a method of criticism aiming to
investigate the essence of anything. The essence of love, justice, courage, and any other idea may

11
be dealt with critically, and a tentative conclusion reached. Such criticism is vital to philosophy
as well as to other disciplines.
Criticism must not be confused with scepticism. Scepticism as an idea connotes a critical spirit.
It is the tendency of not being easily satisfied with simple or superficial evidence and striving to
accept only incorrigible beliefs that are absolutely certain. The sceptics strive to establish that
there is the need to cast doubt on the existence of all things if that is not possible, then we can
affirm that objective knowledge is unattainable. On the other hand, criticism is carried on for the
pursuit of purer, or better knowledge. Sometimes scepticism may be viewed as a stepping stone
to knowledge. Unfortunately, scepticism frequently degenerates to irresponsible negativism.
When this happens, scepticism becomes a wilful, self-serving activity rather than the pursuit of
knowledge.
Criticism as the activity of philosophy has been fairly popular in the contemporary scene. Robert
Paul Wolff describes philosophy as the activity of careful reasoning with clarity and logical rigor
controlling it. Such an activity has strong faith in the power of reason, and it is an activity in
which reason leads to truth.
Similarly, Donald Scherer, Peter Facione, Thomas Attig, and Fred D. Miller, in their
Introduction to Philosophy, describe philosophy as beginning with an attitude of wonder.
Philosophical wonder “leads to serious reflection on the more fundamental or more general
questions that emerge in a variety of particular cases.” This sense of wonder leads to activities in
which one raises questions concerning the meaning of terms, the attempt to think things through
systematically, and comprehensively, to have good reasoning in the thought process, and then
evaluate various options.
Joseph Margolis suggests that doing philosophy is an art and philosophers pursue their creative
work in different ways. Studying philosophers of the past is done for the purpose of analysing
the ways they sought to deal with philosophical problems. Consequently, there is no prevailing
way of working, to which professionals everywhere are more or less committed. Milton K.
Munitz suggests that “philosophy is a quest for a view of the world and of man’s place in it,
which is arrived at and supported in a critical and logical way.” Following this:
. . . philosophy is a radical critical inquiry into the fundamental assumptions of any field
of inquiry, including itself. We are not only able to have a philosophy of religion, but also
a philosophy of education, a philosophy of art (aesthetics), of psychology, of
mathematics, of language, and so forth. We can also apply the critical focus of
philosophy to any human concern. There can be a philosophy of power, of sexuality,
freedom, community, revolution – even a philosophy of sports. Finally, philosophy can
reflect upon itself; that is, we can do a philosophy of philosophy. Philosophy can, then,
examine its own presuppositions, its own commitments.
Criticism as a description of the nature of philosophy makes it such that philosophy is taken as a
method of going about thinking rather than the content of the subject. Criticism will help one
acquire a philosophy of life, but criticism is not the philosophy itself. Generally, when one asks
about philosophy, the intention relates to a subject matter rather than a method of approach. This

12
would make it possible for all critical thinkers on any critical topic to regard themselves as doing
philosophy.
4.0 Conclusion
The thoughtful reader has now probably come to the conclusion: a single and universal definition
of philosophy is nearly impossible. Another may say: why can’t all of these be used for a
definition? The idea of pooling the best element of each definition – known as eclecticism – has
a certain appeal. That is, there is some truth in an eclectic approach to defining philosophy. In
this vein, philosophy would not be the same without criticism; no philosopher worth his salt
would consider an important discussion without resorting to an analysis of the language; and
neither is it strange to see a philosopher attempting to put his beliefs in practice so as to bring
about some positive change. All of these may help the beginning student to understand the
meaning and nature of the discipline of philosophy
5.0 Summary
The lecture began with the attempt to provide the meaning of philosophy by examining the
etymology (root words) of philosophy. In this sense, it was shown that philosophy refers to the
“love of wisdom”. Wisdom here describes the way of life that is grounded on the idea of
practical wisdom; not just conceptual or theoretical wisdom, so to speak. Our discussion of the
nature of philosophy further in the unit prompted us to examine philosophy as a set of questions
and answers; philosophy as a programme of change and philosophy as criticism. In all,
philosophy represents the attempt to understand the world by asking fundamental questions that
bother on the human condition.

UNIT 2: CONCEPTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Philosophy as Worldview
3.2 Philosophy as a Way of Life
3.3 Philosophy as a Discipline
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
7.0 References/Further Reading

13
1.0 Introduction
This discussion on the conception of philosophy is meant to introduce you to a number of basic
perspectives to how philosophy may be conceived. By its very topic, there are, at least, three
ways by which we may conceive of philosophy. Conceiving philosophy in these ways helps us
provide broad understanding of the discipline of philosophy. For instance, one sense in which the
notion of philosophy is employed is in relation to an individual’s general attitude towards life
and relationships – attitudes grounded on certain guiding principles. And so, the discussion in
this unit is meant to introduce you to what philosophy is, by providing you with broad
conception of what characterises the discipline of philosophy. Let me say, as indicated in the first
unit of this module, that this unit is meant to further introduce you to philosophy; it is meant to
provide you with broader knowledge of what you need to know, so as to be at home with
studying philosophy.
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
By the end of this unit, you should be able to:
• Identify a number of conceptions of philosophy
• Explain, at least, two of these conceptions of philosophy
• Highlight essential characteristics of these conceptions of philosophy
3.0 Main Content
The conceptions of philosophy to be discussed as the content of this unit will be examined under
the following heading: (i) philosophy as a worldview; (ii) philosophy as a way of life; and (iii)
philosophy as a discipline. In examining these conceptions of philosophy, it is pertinent to state
that these do not exhaust all available perspectives of conceiving philosophy.
3.1 Philosophy as a Worldview (Weltanschaüung)
Let us begin by stating that early Greek philosophers attempted to describe the world in its
simple make-up. One of such early Greek philosophers was Thales. He asserted that water was
the important material (primary stuff) of the universe, from which all things came. For him,
water can, at least, assume the three basic states of all things – liquid, solid (as ice) and gaseous
(as vapour). In a similar vein, there have been many other proposals from other philosophers. But
the main issue concerns the nature of the universe. A worldview, or Weltanschaüung as the
Germans term it, involves more than the question of the universe. A worldview is the attempt to
come to a total outlook of the universe as it relates to the make-up of matter, man, God, the right,
the nature of politics, values, aesthetics, and any other element in the cosmos that is important.
A worldview, will therefore include views on man, social responsibilities and politics amongst
others. In fact, any discipline or study having a bearing on the meaning of man will have
relevance for a worldview. This will include biology, anthropology, psychology, sociology,
theology, and other related disciplines. A worldview is an attempt to think coherently about the
world in its completeness.

14
Such understanding of worldview may be seen to underlie James categorisation of philosophy as:
The principles of explanation that underlie all things without exception, the elements
common to gods and men and animals and stone, the first whence and the last whither of
the whole cosmic procession, the conditions of all knowing, and the most general rules of
human action – these furnish the problems commonly deemed philosophic par
excellence; and the philosopher is the man who finds the most to say about them.

It is imperative to note that there are many worldviews that are contrary to one another. Look at
the following brief examples: (i) Lucretius, in his essay on nature, developed a worldview based
on the atomic nature of all things. Everything that is, is atomic. Even the souls of men and gods
are composed of atoms. When atoms disintegrate, things, souls, and gods also disintegrate. Only
atoms are permanent. Lucretius dealt with many other facts of existence, but they are all related
to the atomic nature of things. In contrast to the simple atomism of Lucretius is the (ii)
philosophy of Hegel which views all reality from the standpoint of mind, or Absolute Spirit.
Spirit is the only reality. What looks like matter is really a sub-unit of Spirit. Hegel interpreted
politics, the world, and man from the single vantage point of Spirit or Mind. A worldview that
sort of stands at the mid-point or hybrid between (i) and (ii) above would be the philosophy of
realism which asserts that mind and matter are both equally real. Matter is not mind, nor is mind
merely matter in a different form. Samuel Alexander’s book, Space, Time, and Deity, give an
example of this third viewpoint.
The three examples above are attempts at worldviews. Neither example is compatible with the
other. Neither thinker would accept the other’s views. But all are seeking explanations of human
existence that result in worldviews.
The modern era of philosophy – since the turn of the 20th century – has seen considerable
rejection of the worldview conception of philosophy. In spite of this rejection, it has a time-
honoured tradition behind it. Aristotle has a sentence that is widely quoted about this emphasis:
There is a science which investigates being as being, and the attributes which belong to
this in virtue of its own nature. Now this is not the same as any of the so-called special
sciences, for none of these treats universally of being as being. They cut off a part of
being and investigate the attribute of this part.
This conception of philosophy provides an integrated view of philosophy that makes it such that
looking at the universe as a whole involves questions which cannot be ignored or isolated one
from another but should be put together to form an integrated whole, or total view of the world..
In short, the purpose of philosophy, seen as a worldview, is to guide human life; it is to ensure
that the journey of life is not undertaken without a sense of direction and discretion. Conceiving
philosophy as a world-view sounds good, but it too has problems. One basic criticism is that the
systems of philosophers – Lucretius, Hegel, and others – have been limited by the basic motif, or
guiding principle that is adopted. The principle is too limited and when applied, it makes a
mockery out of some areas of human existence. For example, Lucretius’ materialism or atomism

15
is true to some extent, but it makes a mockery out of mind and is inconsistent with freedom or
denies it. Other limitations exist in other worldviews. To put it positively, a world-view should
be based on the best possible models, principles, or motifs. They are however not established
dogmas, but should be set forth tentatively, as existential challenges and changes may require
their revision from time to time.
3.2 Philosophy as a Way of Life
Let me begin by saying that the phrase ‘Philosophy as a Way of Life’ is closely associated with
the French philosopher and researcher of ancient philosophy Pierre Hadot, whose work gained
prominence in the English-speaking world in 1995 with the publication of a book called
Philosophy as a Way of Life. In the chapter from which the volume gets its title, Hadot claims
that in antiquity “philosophy was a way of life,” a “mode of existing-in-the-world, which had to
be practiced at each instant, and the goal of which was to transform the whole of the individual’s
life.”
Philosophy was conceived as a love of wisdom, and wisdom, Hadot says, “does not merely cause
us to know: it makes us ‘be’ in a different way.” Hadot goes on to illustrate the ways in which a
wide range of ancient philosophers presented the task of philosophy as something therapeutic,
something aimed at overcoming mental disturbances so that the practitioner can attain some kind
of inner tranquillity. Hadot contrasts this with philosophy as it is usually practised today:
“Ancient philosophy proposed to mankind an art of living. By contrast, modern philosophy
appears above all as the construction of a technical jargon reserved for specialists.” Having said
that, Hadot also refers to a number of post-antique philosophers whom he thinks still hold on to
this ancient conception of philosophy. He suggests that both Rene Descartes and Baruch Spinoza
held on to this way of thinking about philosophy, as did Schopenhauer and Frederick Nietzsche,
and Hadot thinks that it is no coincidence that none of these thinkers held university positions.
The important point in the present context is that this is not only how philosophy was once
conceived long ago, but also a live metaphilosophical option that has been taken up by
philosophers throughout the history of philosophy and can still be taken up today. But what does
the expression, “Philosophy as a way of life,” imply? It may be taken to involve the following
things: first, that the ultimate motivation of philosophy is to transform one’s way of life; second,
that there ought to be some connection and consistency between someone’s stated philosophical
ideas and their behaviour; and third that actions are ultimately more philosophically significant
than words.
In this vein, philosophy may be seen to resonate with what Isaiah Berlin called “the power of
ideas,” that is, the ability of philosophy to transform the life of an individual, or even an entire
society. As he puts it, the concepts and categories with which people think “must deeply affect
their lives.” One of the best definitions of “Philosophy as a Way of Life,” can be found in
Friedrich Nietzsche’s Schopenhauer as Educator:
I attach importance to a philosopher only to the extent that he is capable of setting an
example. ... The philosopher must supply this example in his visible life, and not merely
in his books; that is, it must be presented in the way the philosophers of Greece taught,

16
 through facial expressions, demeanour, clothing, food, and custom more than through
what they said, let alone what they wrote.
Or, as he puts it a little later on in the same work, “the only possible criticism of any philosophy,
and the only one that proves anything, is trying to see if one can live by this philosophy.” This
Nietzschean image was taken up by Michel Foucault when he wrote, “couldn’t everyone’s life
become a work of art? Why should the lamp or the house be an art object, but not our life?”
If we go back to ancient Greek philosophy, we read in Plato’s Apology, Socrates’ saying that his
principal concern is a desire to live a philosophical life. This is implicit throughout the text but
there are a few passages that stand out. The first of these is when Socrates tries to describe his
philosophical mission. He presents it as a duty to live as a philosopher, examining himself and
others. Later, in response to his accusers who have condemned him to death, he says, “you have
brought about my death in the belief that through it you will be delivered from submitting the
conduct of your lives to criticism.”
This idea that the task at hand is to examine lives is repeated in another passage where he says
that the best thing anyone can do is to examine themselves and others, adding that a life without
this sort of examination is not worth living.32 For Socrates, then, philosophy is an activity
directed at trying to figure out how to live well, subjecting our current way of life to
examination. This of course leads to a desire to know various things and attempts to define
various things, not least what is good and what is not good, but the motivation, even if it remains
implicit, is clear: Socrates wants to find out how to live well – and not just for the sake of
knowing how to live well, but because above all else, he actually wants to live well, to enjoy a
good life, whatever that might turn out to be.
This remains the motivation throughout the early Socratic dialogues. In the Gorgias, for instance,
Socrates insists on the seriousness of their discussion by reminding his interlocutors that it is
about “what course of life is best.”
It seems, then, that we have a clear metaphilosophical division between Socrates and Aristotle.
Both are committed to the pursuit of knowledge and both offer an image of an ideal life
involving the pursuit of knowledge, but nevertheless, there is a clear difference when we turn to
their ultimate motivations. Socrates pursues knowledge in order to live a philosophical life, while
Aristotle lives a philosophical life in order to pursue knowledge. This is a subtle but, I think,
important difference.
Aristotle’s scientific image of philosophy is a disinterested pursuit of knowledge for its own
sake; Socrates’ humanistic image of philosophy is concerned with what it means to be human
and how to live a good human life. The subsequent history of Western philosophy has seen both
of these conceptions of philosophy flourish at different times, sometimes in combination, and
sometimes apart.
In the light of what we have discussed so far, we might now point to three distinct views about
philosophy as a way of life. These are:

17
1. The claim that philosophy as a way of life is a distinct tradition within Western philosophy,
different in form and motivation from both analytic and continental philosophy, dominant in
antiquity and present ever since, albeit marginalized in recent times.
2. The claim that philosophy as a way of life is a humanistic approach to philosophy, to be
contrasted with a scientific approach and, as such, perhaps sharing more in common with the
works of some continental philosophers than it does with most analytic philosophers.
3. The claim that philosophy as a way of life is one pole inherent to all philosophy, sometimes
marginalized but always present to a greater or lesser extent. A further consideration to be made
here concerns whether we may do philosophy in order to transform our lives, or in order to
comprehend the world? Following Stern’s view that all really good philosophy does both, we
may say that the notion of Philosophy as a Way of Life involves the claim that the ultimate
motivation is the Socratic: one to transform one’s life; with the caveat, as Stern points out, that
for this to be philosophy at all, that motivation cannot be at the expense of a commitment to the
truth, for that is part of what makes it philosophy.
Stern’s account has a lot to recommend it. All really good philosophy worthy of the name, takes
seriously the central idea of Philosophy as a Way of Life, but never at the expense of the desire
to understand the world as it is. This means that it cannot be merely a project aimed at making us
feel good, because truths can sometimes be uncomfortable. In short, if we want to think of
philosophy as something engaged, practical, and life changing, we need to be careful not to
reduce it to something we do just to make us feel better. Thus, Philosophy as a Way of Life
ought not to be conceived merely as a form of therapy. The same applies, if we avoid talk of
happiness and instead focus on selfformation or self-cultivation as the goal of philosophy.
3.3 Philosophy as a Discipline
Conceived as a discipline, philosophy may be taken as a rational inquiry. In this sense,
philosophy is an activity that consists in a systematic search for truth, knowledge or the
principles of reality. Such a search is actually described as rational when it is done following
certain pattern of reasoning. What this means is that philosophy as a discipline is carried out
according to certain procedures or method, principles and norms, canons and rules, which are
taken to be universal and foundational to the discipline.
It is in this sense that philosophy is taken to be the pursuit of truth, a search for the knowledge of
reality as well as an understanding of man’s place in the universe. A further understanding to
philosophy as a rational inquiry may be gained by stating that philosophy as a discipline is
essentially an activity in search for knowledge that embodies the instrument of language. In other
words, as an activity, philosophy adopts language in navigating the entirety of reality or aspects
of it. Indeed, in the discipline of philosophy the instrument of language is employed in accessing
and assessing the world or the human environment or nature, or reality as a whole. As it is
understood, language is taken as the veritable instrument of thought and communication. It is to
be noted that language as referred to here, does not only indicate verbal language; it also refers to
other forms of expressive communication such as sign language.

18
In employing the instrument of language, philosophy consolidates on its being a rational and
critical activity that employs the principles and methods of logical analysis to interrogate existing
beliefs, claims, assumptions, ideas, positions and dispositions, resulting in a clearer and better
understanding of reality, whether social, political, cultural, spiritual or moral. To this extent,
philosophy raises questions that are directed at subjecting our beliefs and worldviews to critical
interrogation and analysis, following the method of logic and coherence in thought.
And so, by deploying the tools of logic, conceptual analysis, criticalness, coherence and
systematicity, the philosopher is able to navigate the human condition and come up with those
fundamental, normative, transcendental and overarching general principles and methods that
underlie human knowledge, reasoning, actions and the understanding of being. In this vein, the
discipline of philosophy clarifies and sanitises human experiences and conditions, and ultimately
reveals how things ought to be. It is to this extent that philosophy is not just primarily critical; it
is generally analytical and ultimately constructive.
In the light of the foregoing, the philosopher attempts to remove all unclarities, ambiguities,
vagueness, confusions or obscurities, so as to arrive at a better understanding of reality. This, it is
believed, would enhance choices and actions. In the words of the French philosopher and
scientist, Rene Descartes, the technique of investigation or procedure of reasoning which is able
to yield reliable knowledge is that which follows the system of logic, starting from, as it is done
in deductive system of logic, some intuitively axiomatic premises, and proceeding through
necessary.
Another sense in which philosophy as a discipline may be understood is represented as
philosophy being a “body of knowledge, a system of beliefs, theories, hypotheses and claims.”
Here, we find claims represented in rather ‘completed’ bodies of knowledge, identifiable in
branches of philosophy, such as epistemology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, and so on.
Epistemology, for instance, is that branch of philosophy concerned with discovering the
fundamental, or underlying, normative principles and methods concerning knowledge, and how
this is distinguished from mere opinion. This is the point of epistemology as theory of
knowledge.
As a discipline (a body of knowledge), philosophy also manifests in the area of metaphysics,
which has to do with the theory of reality. Questions raised here include: “What is reality, and
how is it different from mere appearance?” “What is the nature of the stuff of which reality is
made – matter or form (spirit)?” Seen as such, the task of metaphysics is to establish that body of
knowledge which consists in a framework of criteria for what it is for a thing to be. This body of
knowledge or system of discourse is sometimes referred to as ontology.
Furthermore, there is ethics or moral philosophy which deals with the rightness or wrongness of
human conduct, while logic attempts a discovery of the principles and methods of correct
reasoning. By this, philosophy as a discipline, has to do with aspects of the world, reality, human
conduct, the meaning, purpose and goal of life and existence, as well as order and coherence in
human reasoning.
4.0 Conclusion

19
The student would have by now, seen the various ways philosophy may be conceived. It is
however pertinent to note, as stated before, that the perspectives to conceiving philosophy
mentioned here do not exhaust the ways in which philosophy may be conceived. That said, the
discussion of some of the ways philosophy may be conceived, presented in this unit, with the
definitions of philosophy offered in the first unit further expands the student’s horizon for
understanding philosophy. To be sure, the possibility of conceiving philosophy in the above
examined ways reveal the far-reaching inclusiveness of philosophy.
5.0 Summary
This discussion on the conception of philosophy introduced the student to a number of basic
perspectives regarding how philosophy may be conceived. Three conceptions of philosophy:
philosophy as a worldview; philosophy as a way of life; and philosophy as a discipline were
examined. Conceiving philosophy in these ways helps in providing a broad understanding of
philosophy. As such, as worldview, philosophy is employed in relation to an individual’s general
attitude towards life and relationships – attitudes grounded on certain guiding principles; as a
way of life, philosophy refers to a mode of existing-in-the-world, with the goal of transforming
the whole of the individual’s life; and as a discipline, philosophy describes the study of the
subject-matter in a more technical context, much like other disciplines as political science,
economics and history.
UNIT 3: FEATURES OF PHILOSOPHY
Contents 1
.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Some Basic Features
3.1.1 Analysis
3.1.2 Clarity
3.1.3 Criticism
3.1.4 Coherence
3.1.5 Conciseness
3.2 Logic and Argument
3.3 Language of Philosophy
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary

20
1.0 Introduction
In this lecture, we shall discuss some of the features that mark out philosophy as a
discipline. The discussion shall be broken into what we have referred to as (i) basic
features, (ii) logic and argument, and then (iii) language of philosophy. We have decided
to discuss logic and argument, and language of philosophy separately because they
represent key features that easily identify philosophy as a discipline. For one, the
language of philosophy should be able to convey the philosopher’s intended meaning in
examining subject-matters; that is, the philosopher’s mastery of language should be such
as to reveal the philosophic disposition to addressing issues. This philosophic disposition,
to be sure, is marked by a heuristic attitude whereby the philosopher does not assume a
position to be the final statement about such issues. Rather, the philosopher presents
claims with the understanding that the discovery of more details regarding a particular
subject-matter may result in the revision of the claims of the philosopher. And so, the
discussion in this unit is meant to introduce you to the features of philosophy by
providing you with an understanding of important features of philosophy. Let me say, as
stated in previous units, that this unit is meant to continue the introduction of the
student to the discipline of philosophy.
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
By the end of this unit, you should be able to: i. Identify a number of basic features of
philosophy and ii. Explain some of these key features of philosophy
3.0 Main Content
The content of this module will be examined in the following headings: (i) Some Basic
Features; (ii) Logic and Argument; and (iii) Language of Philosophy.
3.1 Some Basic Features
The basic features to be examined include (i) Analysis; (ii) Clarity; (iii) Criticism; (iv)
Coherence; and (v) Conciseness.
3.1.1 Analysis
By analysis is implied the reduction of complex ideas or explication of human situations
into understandable, relational concepts. Through analysis, essential concepts are
extracted from experience so that they may be more easily understood and debated.
According to A. P. Martinich, analysis is analogous to definition. Definitions are
explicitly about giving the meanings of words; analyses are explicitly about giving the
necessary and sufficient conditions for concepts. Since words express concepts,
definitions are the linguistic counterparts to analyses. Every analysis, like every
definition, consists of two parts, an analysandum and an analysans.
The analysandum is the notion that needs to be explained and clarified, because there is
something about it that is not understood. The analysans is the part of the analysis that
explains and clarifies the analysandum, either by breaking it down into parts or by

21
specifying its relations to other notions. An analysis tries to specify in its analysans
necessary and sufficient conditions for the concept expressed in the analysandum.
Necessary conditions are those that the analysans must contain in order to avoid being too
weak, while sufficient conditions are those that are enough to guarantee that the concept
in the analysans is satisfied.
Analysis can be defective for some reasons, three of which include: if it is circular, too
broad, or too weak. An analysis is circular if the analysandum, or its key term occurs in
the analysans. It is too broad just in case it is possible to give an example of the notion
being analyzed that does not satisfy all the conditions specified in the analysans;
conversely, an analysis is too weak just in case it is possible to describe something that
satisfies all the conditions set down in the analysans, but is not an instance of the
analysandum. Generally, analysis must fulfil its primary goal of understanding. As such,
the idea of analysis presupposes that the object of philosophical analysis is the attainment
of the understanding through a simplification of the text in question. When analysis is
done without understanding and simplicity, the goal has been defeated.
3.1.2 Clarity
All too often, we simply take for granted or assume that humans have common
experiences that lead to commonly held understandings of what we communicate to each
other. We are, after all, thrown into the same world with many already established, taken
for granted ideas of what is entailed in human experience. One responsibility the
philosopher has is to challenge and ultimately clarify those constructs we use to make
sense of the world; constructs often taken for granted rather than clarified and truly
understood. But ‘clarity’ is itself a complex concept with many dimensions. However, in
philosophy, the dimension that stands out most of all is precision, which involves
avoiding ambiguity, vagueness and indeterminacy.
A work in philosophy should not be ambiguous, vague or indeterminate if it must be
clear. For a philosophical write-up not to be ambiguous, the specific or particular sense in
which words and concepts are used must stand out. A writer should not assume that the
audience already knows the meaning or the sense in which he or she uses a concept.
Rather, it is his or her duty to make the sense of a word or concept stand out in the work.
To avoid vagueness, an author must express his or her thought clearly and coherently.
A poorly expressed thought or one that is not coherent in meaning only blurs clarity. And
so, concepts and ideas must be established very firmly to avoid indeterminateness. The
ability to do these makes for clarity.
3.1.3 Criticism
Criticism means making judgments as to value. Philosophers judge the instrumental or
practical value of ideas, concepts, theories, precepts and perspectives; and in this critical,
interpretive mode, they build new and better conceptual understandings. They ask
questions such as whether a particular proposal to deal with a situation works, and if not,

22
how can such proposal be improved on? Criticism allows a researcher or writer in
philosophy to investigate and then mediate experience and thereby formulate solutions to
problems; problems of a specific type. It is also clear that in extracting conceptual
constructs that drive actual practice (rather than from some imagined practice),
philosophy is a very qualitative, experiential method.
Criticism can be destructive or constructive as evident in the history of philosophy.
Destructive criticisms are primarily aimed at rubbishing or rendering irrational and
untenable a particular theory, idea, belief, thought or knowledge claim. For instance, the
positivists’ attack on metaphysics is more often than not, destructive.
Constructive criticism on the other hand seeks to identify problems in a particular theory,
idea, belief, thought or knowledge claim, with the primary goal of reconstructing it or
making it better. Constructive criticism is encouraged for better scholarly sportsmanship,
as no idea is full proof or without the need for some revision, improvement or correction.
3.1.4 Coherence
A philosophical assertion or claim or position is coherent if its parts are logically and
orderly consistent and related. An integral part of coherence is continuity, that is, the way
such philosophical claim or assertion moves from one part to another toward its goal. A
claim that twists and wanders, seemingly not directed to any particular goal, is defective
even if each part of such assertion is charged with great rhetorical energy. There are
many ways in which coherence is achieved in essays. Sometimes, one part of an essay
coheres with another because they share a subject matter. In addition to sharing a specific
subject matter, sentences hang together in other ways. One of these ways is through stock
phrases that mark the boundaries of large parts of an assertion.
3.1.5 Conciseness
Conciseness, as a feature of philosophy, combines brevity and content. Being concise
means conveying a lot of information in a brief space. Brevity, perhaps, does not call for
much comment. It is desirable because it typically makes fewer demands on the reader’s
attention and understanding. Although brevity is a good policy, it admits of exceptions.
Sometimes the rhythm of language recommends a wordier sentence. It is sometimes
necessary to use more, rather than fewer, words in order to stretch out the content of a
sentence and thereby make it more intelligible to your reader.
Further, brevity does not guarantee efficiency; it concerns only how something is said
and not at all what is said. In determining the efficiency or economy of a sentence or
essay, one must consider content in addition to brevity.
A brief but vacuous sentence does not communicate more efficiently than a prolix but
informative one. Thus, it is not in itself desirable to sacrifice content for the sake of
brevity, although this might be desirable for some other reason: to vary sentence length or
to prepare the reader for some complicated explanation. Thus, brevity and content must
be balanced. That is the force of the admonition to be concise.

23
3.2 Logic and Argument
Logic, in its traditional sense, is the study of correct inference. It studies formal structures
and non-formal relations which hold between evidence and hypothesis, reasons and
belief, or premises and conclusion. It is the study of both conclusive and inconclusive
inferences or, as it is also commonly described, the study of both entailments and
inductions.
Specifically, logic involves the detailed study of formal systems designed to exhibit such
entailments and inductions. More generally, though, it is the study of those conditions
under which evidence rightly can be said to justify, entail, imply, support, corroborate,
confirm or falsify a conclusion.
Logic is thus the science of reason involved in the business of evaluating arguments by
sorting out good ones from bad ones, using sound principles or techniques of good
reasoning. Arguments, as understood in logic, consist of arguing for a position by means
of conclusive or highly probable evidence. Hence, in an argument, there is a conclusion
(the position being held or argued for) and premise(s) (the evidence(s) or reason(s) for
holding the position).
In some arguments, premises provide conclusive or undeniable grounds for accepting the
conclusion; these arguments are referred to as deductive arguments. In such arguments, it
will be a contradiction to accept the premises and deny the conclusion. In some other
arguments, the premises provide only sufficient but not conclusive or necessary basis for
accepting the conclusion; thus, making the conclusion only highly probable. In this case,
the argument is an inductive one where one does not fall into a contradiction by accepting
the premise and denying the conclusion.
The importance of logic as the principles and techniques for good reasoning and well
constructed arguments becomes obvious as a feature of philosophy. This indicates that
integral as a feature of philosophy is making sound arguments and analyses, providing
good reasons for holding a position or supporting one, and engaging in a logical and
coherent assessment of arguments.
Logic, as the science of reasoning, provides the needed training for the philosopher. This
is why Logic is a core discipline in any philosophy curriculum. That logic is very
essential for good reasoning in general, accounts for the reason why every student in a
tertiary institution in Nigeria is made to be trained, at least, in the elementary aspects of
logical tools and techniques, particularly at the first year of study. This is because the
formators of the country’s education curriculum are well aware that every student needs
logic for good reasoning and assessment of arguments in any field of study.
Philosophy’s case is not exceptional. In fact, philosophy students are privileged to
excavate deeper into the rich soil of logic over and over again before graduation. The
obvious preferential treatment accorded philosophy students in the study of logic stems
from the fact that logic is the philosophy student’s most effective tool in carrying out his

24
or her assignment. In fact, logic is ingrained in the study of philosophy and can never be
left out of it at any point in time.
For example, the student is trained on the laws of thought, namely the law of identity, the
law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle, and how or where they can be
applied. The student is also taught the fallacies that should be avoided when arguing for a
position, such as the fallacies of relevance and fallacies of ambiguity. The student is also
trained in the techniques and rules of formal logic and how breaking such principles can
weaken an argument. For instance, in a syllogistic argument, one does not use a particular
term in two sense. The term ‘ruler’ could mean a measuring tool or a leader of a people.
When the term is used in a syllogistic argument, it must be used in just one of the senses
to avoid ambiguity or vagueness. If this rule is broken, the writer commits the Fallacy of
Equivocation. Also, the fact that a term is used in more than one sense in the same
argument suggests implicitly that the argument contain more than the required number of
three terms that a good syllogism should have. The argument also therefore commits the
Fallacy of Four Terms. Consider the following example:
A ruler straightens things
David is a Ruler Therefore,
David should straighten things
In the argument, the term ‘ruler’ is used in different senses and can be misleading. This
makes the argument fallacious. The philosopher is also trained by the use of brain tasking
calculations and exercises in formal logic, involving the application of valid rules to
arguments such as the rules of inference, the rule of replacement, the rule of conditional
proof and the rule of indirect proof. The application of these rules exercises the brain and
makes the student to think faster and sharply about issues. Therefore, the importance of
logic and argument as a feature of philosophy cannot be overlooked.
Related to the deployment of arguments in philosophy to make a claim, is the question of
who bears the burden of proof in an argument. Roughly, the person who asserts or
otherwise relies upon the truth of a proposition for the cogency of his position bears what
is usually referred to as the burden of proof. It should however be stated here that it is
impossible to prove every proposition. In every science, some propositions are
considered as basic or taken-for-granted assumptions. They are simply assumed without
proof. In geometry, these principles are axioms, which traditionally were considered self-
evident.
In this vein, there are many propositions, which, although are not self-evident, need not
be proven every time they are used, since the evidence for them is very familiar. For
example, it need not be proven that the world is round and very old; that humans use
languages to communicate, and so on. On the other hand, in most contexts, you should
not simply assume that only one object exists or that non-human animals use languages to
communicate. These are controversial views and need support.

25
3.3 Language of Philosophy
In a rather general sense, we communicate through language. In fact, communication is
not possible if the speaker and the hearer or the writer and his or her audience do not
understand each other’s language of communication. All we have to say, the points we
are making, the analyses we do, or the arguments we put forward are only possible
through the tool of language. Hence, a strong mastery of the language by which we
communicate and which our audience understand, is very essential as a feature of
philosophy.
Olusegun Oladipo identifies two major reasons why language is an essential tool of
philosophy. First is the obvious reason that philosophical ideas and theories are expressed
in language, which is why a philosopher ought to have a good mastery of the language he
or she communicates in. When the philosopher has such mastery, he or she is able to
express himself or herself with clarity and precision of thought and without vagueness
and ambiguity of speech: a much-desired objective in philosophy. This also accounts for
the pursuit of meaning in philosophy which involves the clarification of concepts and
terms employed in a philosophical essay to express our ideas and viewpoints.
Second, mastery of language places the philosopher in an advantageous position over
professionals in other disciplines. The philosopher uses language to sort out human
experiences, reveal the connection that exist between things and events, create and
construct concepts to represent multiplicity of events and experiences and generally
become more enlightened about the nature of the world and the place of humankind in it.
John Stuart Mill is thus compelled to compare the role of language in philosophical
inquiry to the role of telescopes in astronomical inquiry. He says therefore that:
Language is evidently and by the admission of all philosophers, one of the principal
instruments or helps of thought and any imperfection in the instrument, or in the mode of
employing it, is confessedly liable... For a mind not previously versed in the meaning and
right use of the various kinds of words to attempt the study of methods of philosophizing
would be as if someone should attempt to become an astronomical observer having never
learnt to adjust the focal distance of his optical instrument, so as to see distinctly.
From the foregoing, it is evident that language – in the context of philosophy, the right of
words to convey the intended meaning – is indispensable to philosophy and the
philosopher. As stated earlier, the philosopher’s mastery and use of language should be
such as to aid him or her in addressing issues in the philosophic way. The philosophic
way or disposition, to be sure, is defined by a heuristic attitude whereby the philosopher
does not assume a position to be the final statement about such issues. Let me state here
that the heuristic attitude is an experiential one wherein the philosopher relies on
available data to arrive at conclusions. Such conclusion, however, are tentative, given that
the availability of further experiential details that where not earlier known may cause a
revision of conclusions that were made before. With this understanding, the philosopher’s
language is usually put in ways that presents claims with the understanding that the

26
discovery of more details regarding a particular subject-matter may result in the
modification of the claims of the philosopher.
4.0 Conclusion
Let us conclude here by stating that the features of philosophy described above are
integral to any understanding of philosophy. It is therefore important that the student is
conversant with these features as they mark out a work in philosophy, whether a piece of
writing or a more extensive work such as a long essay which the student would write at
the end of the undergraduate degree programme or other such writing in the course of
studying for a degree in philosophy. With this in view, it is pertinent that the student 5.0
Summary In this unit, we examined a number of features of philosophy. Summarily,
these features are key to understanding the basics of philosophy, particularly as they are
integral to what makes an inquiry philosophical. As such, philosophical inquiry into
questions and issues involves, among other things, applying the method of philosophical
criticism and analysis that include coherency, clarity and conciseness.
5.0 Summary
In this unit, we examined a number of features of philosophy. Summarily, these features
are key to understanding the basics of philosophy, particularly as they are integral to what
makes an inquiry philosophical. As such, philosophical inquiry into questions and issues
involves, among other things, applying the method of philosophical criticism and analysis
that include coherency, clarity and conciseness.

UNIT 4: METHOD IN PHILOSOPHY

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Method in Philosophy contra Method in Science
3.2 Method in Philosophy
3.2.1 Socratic Method
3.2.2 Dialectical Method
3.2.3 Cartesian Method
3.2.4 Phenomenological Method
3.2.5 Speculative Method

27
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
In this lecture, we will examine the nature of the method of philosophy, which is distinct
from that of science. An attempt will be made to elaborate on a number of methods
employed in philosophy, with a view to getting the beginner in philosophy to become
conversant with the various methods of philosophising. This is because if he or she is
familiar with the different methods that are usually employed in philosophy, such
beginner will be able to grasp faster the nature of arguments in philosophy. He or she can
also choose a suitable method when carrying out a particular research. There are a
number of methods that have been used by philosophers down the history of philosophy
in engaging in philosophical inquiry. They include but are surely not limited to the
Socratic Method, the Speculative Method or the Method of Abstraction, the Cartesian
Method or Method of Doubt, the Dialectical Method, and the Phenomenological Method.
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
By the end of this unit, you should be able to: iii. Describe the nature of philosophical
method iv. Identify particular methods in philosophy v. Explain some methods used in
philosophy
3.0 Main Content
The content of this unit will be examined under two headings: (i) method in philosophy
contra method in science and (ii) methods of philosophising. In examining the method of
philosophy, we shall contrast it with the method employed in science. The method of
philosophy admits of a number of other methods which includes, but not limited to the
Socratic Method, the Dialectical Method, the Cartesian Method, the Phenomenological
Method and the Speculative Method. Our discussion of these methods in the second
subsection of this unit will familiarise the beginner with the various methods employed in
philosophy.
3.1 Method in Philosophy contra Method in Science
Science as an academic discipline studies natural objects and events in the universe in
order to discover regularities and laws governing them. Scientific research or writing
does not create the natural world. Rather, it proceeds by experimentation and records
what has been observed by description. Science is thus primarily a descriptive discipline,
although every now and then, theoretical constructs in science bears elements of
normativity that quickly turns them to philosophical issues, particularly in epistemology
and the philosophy of science.
To say that science is descriptive is to say that science describes the natural objects and
events in the universe as they are. It does not focus on painting a normative picture of the

28
world or providing a normative understanding of the universe. Its approach to the
universe is ideally experimental and descriptive.
Philosophical inquiry, on the other hand, is primarily normative or prescriptive; it is
concerned with how things ought to be viewed rather than how they are viewed or
understood. Its inquiry into the nature of reality, knowledge and values does not require
the observation of particular things or events or the gathering of particular data but a
prescriptive interpretation and analysis of already available data, generalisations and
information about the universe.
Put differently, questions such as: what is real? Is there an ultimate reality? How do we
know what we claim to know? What makes an action moral? What is the best form of
human society and the state? cannot be resolved by merely describing things and events
in the universe. Rather they are best resolved through a rational prescriptive inquiry into
the nature of things.
This does not in any way imply that philosophical inquiry does not need the services of
science or vice versa. While philosophers may, from time to time, make use of scientific
generalisations or results, they generally avoid the scientist’s specialised business of
collecting and arguing about empirical data. Sometimes, empirical evidence from
psychology, physics or other fields of inquiry can be put to good use in philosophical
arguments. But a research in philosophy must be ready to explain exactly why such
empirical evidence is relevant and exactly what normative principles one can draw from
it.
Apart from this, philosophers still find a lot to argue about even when they put empirical
questions aside. For one thing, the question of: What sort of empirical evidence would be
needed to decide the answer to a question? might itself be a non-empirical question that
philosophers discuss. For another, philosophers spend a lot of time discussing how
different claims (which may be empirical) relate logically to each other. For example, a
common philosophical project is to show how two or more views cannot be held
consistently with each other, or to show that although two views are consistent with one
another, they together entail an implausible third claim.
Therefore, an important distinction between inquiry in science and in philosophy is the
famous is/ought distinction or the descriptive/prescriptive distinction. While science
provides us with a description of the world, philosophy offers a normative analysis of the
world and of human existence. Flowing from the descriptive/prescriptive distinction, the
object of study in scientific and philosophical researches varies.
In general, when we research or write, it is always about something or someone.
Research always has an object in focus. But the kind of object varies based on the nature
of the discipline. Science as basically a descriptive discipline, describes objects and
events in the physical universe. Its sub-disciplines in the natural, social and applied
sciences are specialised in the study of a particular object or sphere of the material
universe. Biology studies and describes the nature and contents of biological components

29
and organisms of the universe. Chemistry has the chemical constituents of the material
universe as its object of study. Psychology is the scientific study of human brain
processes and mental states. Hence, every specialised scientific discipline has a
specialised and identifiable object of study.
But it is difficult to identify or specify the subject-matter or object of study of philosophy
the way we can specify the concerns of scientific disciplines such as economics, biology,
chemistry, physics, and psychology. It is thus not surprising for new students in
philosophy to ask their tutor after some lectures, what exactly they are studying. The
difficulty of identifying the object of study of philosophy does not imply that
philosophical inquiry, research or writing is not intended toward something. It is however
the case that unlike scientific disciplines which studies specific objects in the universe,
reveal specific information about them by gathering particular individuated facts or data
about their objects of study, the subject-matter of philosophy is general in nature.
Philosophical questions are not intended toward a specific object in the universe nor are
they meant to reveal specific information about their nature through the individual data
collected. Rather, philosophical questions are general in nature. This is because dealing
with such research questions in philosophy does not require the gathering of specific data
or the accumulation of particular facts. It rather involves how best to explain and analyse
the already available facts to make sense of them in the search for answers for the
ultimate questions of reality, knowledge and value.
Philosophical research and writing are identified not only by the general nature of the
subject-matter they address but also by their fundamental nature. Not every scientific
research interests each one of us in our everyday lives. The study of planetary bodies and
how life can survive there, or the accumulation of information of the psychology of a lion
may not immediately interest us even if there are reasons to believe that in the long run,
such information may be useful for mankind.
However, every philosophical question that drives research in philosophy should interest
any rational human being because the questions are essentially concerned with human
existence and survival and the answers given them, and the answers we accept about
them directly affect how we behave. Thus, questions about reality, knowledge, morality,
or the ideal state are not trivial but fundamental.
Thus, while scientific research has specific subject-matter, philosophical inquiry deals
with general and fundamental questions about reality, knowledge and value. To engage in
scientific inquiry is to describe, to experiment and to draw conclusions. To engage in
philosophical inquiry is to theorise, to analyse, to critique, to raise questions, and to pose
as problematic, that which we investigate.
From the foregoing, science has a popular method of studying the natural universe, which
has become so popular and infamous it is being imposed on other disciplines or forms of
life as ‘the’ model rather than ‘a’ model of research. This method is referred to as the
scientific method. The scientific method is generally regarded as the procedure employed

30
in carrying out research in the sciences or, put differently, it is concerned with principles
of evaluation of statements in the empirical sciences. As R. S. Rudner explains, “…the
methodology of a scientific discipline is not a matter of its transient techniques but of its
logic of justification. The method of science is, indeed, the rationale on which it bases its
acceptance or rejection of hypothesis or theories.”
Thus, when people talk of the scientific method, they are simply referring to the general
properties and consideration that are used in the confirmation or refutation of a
hypothesis in the various sciences; that is, the common way in which hypotheses are
assessed or researches are carried out in the sciences. As a method of research, the
scientific method is said to be identified with a number of procedural stages, phases or
steps.
Scholars are generally not unanimous about the exact number of the research stages in the
scientific method. According to H. Siegel, that there is no consensus on the exact number
of stages in the method does not imply that the scientific method cannot be characterized
generally as consisting in, for example, a concern for explanatory adequacy, however that
adequacy is conceived, an insistence on testing, however testing is thought to be best
done, and a commitment to inductive support.
Kwasi Wiredu provides a characterisation of the scientific method. According to him, the
method of science involves hypothesis, experiment and observation. Scientific method
has in practice attained a high degree of complexity, but, in bare essentials, it is
characterised as follows: The mind is challenged by a problem for a solution; such that,
however plausible the solution may be, it is not immediately asserted as true. It is merely
entertained as a hypothesis, a tentative proposal, to be put to the test.
But before that, its significance has to be explored; that is, its logical implications have to
be unravelled in conjunction with other known facts. This is the stage of the elaboration
of the hypothesis, which often requires techniques of deduction. The result, however, is
always of the logical form of an implication: “if the hypothesis is true, then, such and
such other things should be the case. The stage is then set for empirical confirmation and
disconfirmation.”
Straightforward observation or very technical experimentation may be called for in this
stage of confirmation or disconfirmation. If results turn out not to be in agreement with
the implications of the hypothesis, it is said to be falsified. It is, accordingly, either
abandoned or modified. On the other hand, if results prove to conform to the elaborated
hypothesis, it is said to be confirmed. It is the confirmed hypotheses that are regarded as
laws and constitute the main corpus of scientific knowledge.
According to Siegel, what is striking about the method of science is its commitment to
evidence and to the form of reasoning as described above, which is what ensures the
objectivity and rationality of science. In other words, science is rational to the extent that
it proceeds in accordance with such a commitment to evidence or form of reasoning. This
is what gives the scientific method its popularity.

31
But philosophical inquiry cannot be associated with any such particular method of study
due to the general nature of its inquiry. Thus, although philosophy is a rational inquiry,
there is no one single method of carrying out its inquiry, as is the scientific method.
Rather, there are varieties of methods based on the philosophical school of thought. To be
sure, every rational inquiry, such as philosophy, begins with doubt and ends with the
establishment of belief which also becomes a source of further inquiries. However, in
philosophy, there is no singular and generally accepted process of arriving at established
beliefs or theories as we may find in science. There are varying methods.
3.2 Methods of Philosophising
The history of philosophical inquiry brings to our attention such philosophical methods as
the Socratic method, the Dialectical method, the Cartesian method, the Phenomenological
method, the Speculative method, or the method of abstraction. It would be stated here
that it is essential that students and researchers are familiar with the multiple methods of
philosophy and apply them in the best suited research cases since the particular issue
being researched or written on may determine the method adopted. We would therefore
examine these methods, while mentioning that these do not exhausts the methods used in
philosophising.
3.2.1 Socratic Method
The Socratic method, which draws from Socrates’ method of philosophising, consists of a
number of stages. Following Socrates, as such, he first presents his philosophical views in
an everyday conversation-like situation, casually mentioning them to his companion and
engaging their interest. Second, he would point out a certain philosophical concept that
needs to be analysed. Third, he would profess ignorance and ask his companion his
opinion on the matter. When given the other person’s answer, Socrates would analyse
their definition by asking questions that expose its weakness or wrongness.
Once again, the person would provide another definition, revised more clearly this time,
and again Socrates would repeat the process of questioning, exposing the weakness of the
revised definition. They continue in this way until the clearest definition of the question
is reached. In this manner, Socrates would also cause the other person to realize his own
ignorance, which is the first step, according to Socrates, to wisdom. Socrates also
employed in his method, the use of the reductio ad absurdum form of argument, which
means “reducing to an absurdity.”
He would begin by assuming that his companion’s offered definition is true but then
show that it logically implied either an absurdity or a conclusion that contradicted other
conclusions previously drawn by his companion. By exposing a false statement from the
proposition, he skilfully proved that the assumption, rationally, must be false. Although
sometimes quite frustrating to one, Socrates’ use of the method, combined with the
reduction ad absurdum argument, proved effective and eye-opening.
3.2.2 Dialectical Method

32
The Dialectical method is a method of argument or exposition that systematically weighs
contradictory facts or ideas, with a view to the resolution of their real or apparent
contradictions. In other words, it involves disputation or debate particularly intended to
resolve differences between two views, rather than to establish one of them as true. It is
thus the process of reconciliation of contradiction either of beliefs or in historical
processes. This method, as such, reconciles the seeming differences between what is
usually referred to as a thesis with its antithesis, in a synthesis. This synthesis, which is
the reconciliation between the thesis and the antithesis, becomes a new thesis, which will
later on be reconciled with its antithesis in a new synthesis. In this way, knowledge
progresses.
This method is more pronounced in the works of G.W.F. Hegel and Karl Marx. Hegel
applied the method in arriving at truth by stating a thesis, developing a contradictory
antithesis, and combining and resolving them into a coherent synthesis. It is also seen in
the Marxian process of change through the conflict of opposing forces, whereby a given
contradiction is characterized by a primary and a secondary aspect, the secondary
succumbing to the primary, which is then transformed into an aspect of a new
contradiction.
3.2.3 Cartesian Method
The Cartesian method of philosophy is associated with the philosopher Rene Descartes,
in whose thought the method is pronouncedly used. It is a process of finding solutions to
philosophical problems on a presuppositionless basis. It involves rejecting anything one
may have known about an issue at hand and approaching the issue on a “clean slate”.
Descartes’ philosophy was deeply rooted in his desire to ascertain pure and certain
foundations for knowledge. In order to accomplish this, he felt that he could not rely on
what he had been taught, or what he thought he knew, as he could not be absolutely
assured that this was pure and uncorrupted information. Thus, he set out to formulate
clear and rational principles that could be organized into a system of truths from which
accurate information could be deduced. The principle that he came up with as a starting
point for his philosophy was that of methodic doubt, that is, to doubt everything.
Descartes believed that we should not rely on our observations of the world around us, as
these perceptions could be deceiving. Consequently, Descartes believed that only those
truths which he derived using reasoning, that is, reason and intuition alone, were reliable.
This method is also referred to as Descartes’ methodic doubt
3.2.4 Phenomenological Method
The phenomenological method is one of the most prominent philosophical method of the
twentieth century popularised by Edmund Husserl. It aims to describe, understand and
interpret the meanings of experiences of human life. It focuses on research questions such
as what it is like to experience a particular situation. Husserl emphasised the centrality of
the human context in understanding life; that is, researchers and readers of research can

33
understand human experience because they are participants in the human condition. Thus,
the task of understanding is to retain continuity with what is already experientially
evident and familiar to us as humans.
As a method of inquiry, it is based on the premise that reality consists of objects and
events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything
independent of human consciousness. The method is not intended to be a collection of
particular facts about consciousness but is rather supposed to furnish us with facts about
the essential natures of phenomena and their modes of givenness. Borrowing from
Descartes methodic doubt, the method employs phenomenological reduction in carrying
out its research; that is, the bracketing of all we know about a phenomenon and
approaching it presuppositionlessly in order for the thing to open itself to our
consciousness just as it is.
3.2.5 Speculative Method
The speculative method or the method of abstraction involves the researcher’s ability to
explore imagination as a vast territory of enchanted possibilities. When philosophers are
faced with questions that transcends what sense experience can answer, they tend to
speculate within the ambit of reason. To be sure, what may give rise to such questions are
always within the realm of experience but in trying to answer them, philosophers usually
apply the method of speculation and abstraction in a logical and rational manner. Plato’s
speculation about the world of forms and the robust description of such a world as if it
were real and tangible is a clear case of abstraction resulting from a philosopher’s
dilemma on why certain things change and others do not, on what could be real as
different from what appears to be real.
4.0 Conclusion
To effectively research in philosophy, it is clear from the above that we must not only be
aware of the features of philosophical inquiry but master the methods that have
characterised philosophical research. We are also to master the principles and techniques
of good reasoning so as to be able to detect fallacious arguments in what we read, as well
as when we write for others to read. We necessarily should be in full control of our
language of communication and be willing to clarify the concepts we use in our
discourse. It is also essential that we are familiar with the methods of research in
philosophy and apply the appropriate method in particular research cases. 5.0 Summary
In the course of the unit, we learnt that philosophical inquiry is different from scientific
inquiry mainly due to philosophy’s normative character, and the general character of its
subject-matter and variety of methods. In this vein, we learnt that philosophy does not
have an identifiable, partial domain as its subject matter. It attempts to think about issues
in the widest context. If it were a discipline focused only with an aspect of reality, it
could at least be vaguely comprehended as being something other than, say, mathematics
or sociology; that is, something that studies this domain as opposed to that. Philosophy

34
leaves nothing out, and hence leaves us without the contrasting foil that would allow us to
say what it is.

Module 2: The Value of Philosophy

Unit 1: The value of philosophy to the individual who studies it
Unit 2: The value of philosophy to other disciplines
Unit 3: The value of philosophy to the society
Unit 4: Political philosophy and social engineering
UNIT 1: THE VALUE OF PHILOSOPHY TO THE INDIVIDUAL
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Value of Epistemology to the Individual
3.2 Value of Logic to the Individual
3.3 Value of Ethics to the Individual
3.4 Value of Metaphysics to the Individual
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
Welcome to this discussion on the value of philosophy to the individual who studies it.
We shall be discussing the value of philosophy to the individual by examining the
importance of the four cardinal branches of philosophy to the individual who studies
them. Philosophy amongst other descriptions is the criticisms of the various ideas that
inform our knowledge, mode of reasoning, values and beliefs. Its value or importance to

35
the individual person cannot be overstated. As individuals, we need knowledge to be able
to understand and deal with the world - epistemology equips us for that. We need to have
the ability to think properly and respond to our existential issues from a standpoint that is
devoid of errors - logic furnishes us with that. We need also to come to terms with the
fact that we do not live in isolation and for this reason, the way we live our lives as
individuals has ripple effects on others, therefore, we ought to imbibe the acceptable
ways of conduct - ethics brings us to this understanding. Finally, we need to appreciate
the fact that as individuals, we are ambassadors of different realities, such as the mental
and the physical even though we may differ on which is prior - metaphysics aids our
awareness of this fact. In this unit, we shall examine the relevance of these various sub-
branches of philosophy to the individual who studies them.
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
By the end of this unit, you would be able to;
• State the value of epistemology to the individual
• Explain the relevance of logic to the individual
• Identify the value of ethics to the individual
• Explicate the value of metaphysics to the individual
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Value of Epistemology to the Individual
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that seeks to answer questions concerning the
possibility of knowledge and how knowledge claims can be justified. One of the basic
tasks of epistemology is to proffer justifications for knowledge claims such that when a
person says he knows something, he or she can be certain about knowing it and would
not be guessing or trapped in the natural attitude of equating belief with knowledge or
opinion with truth. Traditionally, knowledge has been defined as ‘Justified True Belief’
in which case, when a person claims to know something, he or she must be justified in
knowing it, the claim must be true and that person must believe the claim. We can say
categorically then that the basic task of epistemology is the quest for certainty of
knowledge. Without certainty of knowledge, it becomes difficult to make a distinction
between a true state of affairs and one that is misconceived. On many occasions, we
would have found ourselves strongly affirming and holding on to positions which
eventually turn out not to be the case i.e. holding onto appearances as though they were
realities. Let us assume that you were to take part in an examination by 8am of the
following day. You went to bed, woke up at an unknown time, looked through the
window and the weather was totally dark. So, you assumed it was not dawn yet and went
back to bed only to wake up few moments later with the weather so clear and the clock
reads 9am. You wondered what could have gone wrong, not knowing that a brief moment
of eclipse of the sun had occurred at the time you first woke up. This is an example of

36
what we call the Gettier problem. You had a justified time belief which turned out to be
untrue. Epistemology has taught us to move beyond this level of Justified True Belief in
search for a fourth condition that would lead to certainty. Epistemology equips the
individual with a more critical spirit in dealing with a situation like the one mentioned
above. We shall now itemise and discourse a few of the values of epistemology to the
individual.
1. It Takes Away Fear and Gives Us Better Understanding of Our World
Epistemology helps us to better understand our world by clarifying our thoughts
and shining the light of knowledge on our uncertainties. We can imagine a world
where a person is not certain about anything. Every moment of the life of such a
person will be marked with fear, wonder and shock. Such a life will not be worth
living. There were periods in history when life was replete with speculations and
doubts. During these periods, people did not have as much knowledge and
information that is available to us in our world today. A simple thunder from the
sky was said to mean that the gods were having a fight, but we now know that
thunder is caused by the rapid expansion of the air surrounding the path of a
lightning bolt. An eclipse of the sun was interpreted as a sign that the gods were
angry at the evils of humankind but we now know that when the moon orbits or
moves around earth, it sometimes appears between the sun and the earth. When
this happens, the moon blocks the light of the sun from reaching the earth, thereby
casting its own shadow on the earth and causing partial and sometimes total
darkness to fall upon the earth. The appearance of rainbow in the sky after a
rainfall was said to mean that God would have destroyed the world with water but
on a second thought, He did not. But we now know that when light (i.e. from the
sun) enters a water droplet, slowing down and bending as it goes from air to
denser water, the light reflects off the inside of the droplet, separating into its
component colours. When light exits the droplet, it makes a rainbow. After
arriving at new and informed information through a number of regular and
scientifically calculated occurrences of the above events, people no longer have
fear because they have knowledge. They could tell why and when to expect a
thunder, they could predict the coming of the next eclipse and even make plans to
watch it, they could tell why there is a rainbow in the sky and stand to appreciate
its beauty. This is why it can be said that the extent to which our epistemology is
right, is the extent to which we could have proper understanding of the world
around us. For this reason, errors in epistemology will give us a poor and distorted
picture of reality.
2. Epistemology Inspires the Individual to Self-Examination Selfexamination is
the quest for the knowledge of the self. History of philosophy has shown that
there is the need for the knowledge of the self before the pursuit of the knowledge
of the world. It is more like saying that there is the need to learn how to rule or
control ourselves before seeking to control the world or further still, being able to
govern one’s family before seeking to govern the state. Hence, knowledge of the

37
 microcosm precedes knowledge of the macrocosm. Without the examination of
one’s life, life would have no worth or value. Worth is the quality that renders
something desirable, useful or valuable. A person cannot decide whether
something has worth without examining it and making that decision. Worth is not
something that is necessarily good or bad, although society would generally hold
on to worth as being something good. Worth is what people use to define why
they still live. If their life has worth, they will continue to live and enjoy life. In
this way, the Socratic dictum ‘an unexamined life is not worth living’ is important
because without examining one’s life, a person cannot determine its worth, and
therefore has no reason to want to live. Epistemology in this regard makes us
cautious and less likely to embrace ideas and beliefs uncritically. This is why
Socrates’ claim as stated above that ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’
inspires in a person a deep and critical thought about life and shows that only in
striving to come to know ourselves and to understand ourselves do our lives have
any meaning or value.
3. Epistemology Helps Us to Form the Right Questions and Opinions about the
World What you already know serves as foundation for your predictions and
expectations of things to come. We rely on our experiences in making judgments
about the world. Experiences help us to formulate the right questions and inform
our opinions about the how and the why of events taking place around us. When
our questions are not clear, our thinking will lack clarity and distinctness and it
shows that, our belief is beclouded with unsubstantiated assumptions. Any belief
formed on the basis of unjustified opinions lacks clarity, distinctness and,
ultimately, usefulness. Such an opinion will not contribute to our knowledge and
will likely be ineffective and incapable of being justified by us. Epistemology
which raises questions about how we come to know the things we claim to know
and the justifications for such claims is at the forefront of ensuring that our
knowledge claims are able to withstand the criticisms of the skeptics.
3.2 Value of Logic to the Individual
In module 4, unit 2, the term logic is described in at least three different and correct
senses which are as follows;
i. Logic is the totality of all the laws guiding human thoughts which is predicated on
the fact that the ability to think or reason forms a basic and fundamental part of
the nature of human beings. We were told that the laws guiding human thoughts
are mostly self-evident in such a way that for human reasoning to make sense it
must conform to some basic laws and when any part of the laws is violated in the
course of an argument or reasoning, a listener would most likely identify that
something is wrong. Therefore, the laws need not be written down anywhere as
we can have direct and immediate knowledge of their violations in expressions.
ii. Logic is the principles guiding the operations of a mechanism. We were told that
this description is informed by the fact that gadgets function according to the

38
 predesigned codes or programs which control them. By this, no gadget such as
computer, phone or watch can function beyond what it has been designed or
programed for, otherwise, it would be said to be malfunctioning.
iii. Logic is the branch of philosophy that deals with the study of the basic principles,
techniques or methods for evaluating arguments. We were told that logic is
concerned with the nature of statements, how statements are combined to form
arguments, the inferences that follow from the arrangement of statements in
arguments as well as the determination of the validity or invalidity and soundness
or unsoundness of such arguments.
When talking about the value of logic to the individual, we should also remember that
philosophy generally is basic to all areas of human inquiry, be it the basic sciences, the social
sciences, the arts or humanities, but logic itself is the basis on which philosophy thrives. Just as
philosophy deals with reasoning so does logic deal with the study of the proper way to reason.
We should also note that as human beings we cannot escape philosophy just as we also cannot
escape logic. Any person or society that rejects logical or sound philosophical principles runs
into chaos and disorder. Therefore, knowledge of logic helps the individual to escape chaos and
disorder. Logic is further relevant to the individual in the following ways:
1. It Enhances Problem Solving Ability and Saves Time: With the knowledge of logic, the
individual is able to solve complex problems by breaking them down into a number of simpler
problems. In this way, logic allows for precision in problem solving by doing away with
irrelevant components of the problem thereby saving time. The individual can apply the
knowledge of logic to a wide range of problems. The application of logic increases efficiency
and makes the individual more effective in dealing with problems.
2. It Enhances Reasoning Ability: With the knowledge of logic, the individual is able to think in
a systematic and organised manner. Logic equips the individual with the knowledge of
distinguishing correct reasoning from incorrect or fallacious one. Logic is an important skill
when analysing other people’s opinions and beliefs for the purpose of ridding them of errors.
When an individual cannot detect logical fallacies in what he or she sees, reads or hears, then he
or she will be unable to discern what is true from what is wrong in the real world. In real life
situations, we cannot underestimate the usefulness of logic as it puts us in a position to better
evaluate arguments and debates from domestic matters to political, religious and economic
matters involving the wider society.
3. It Helps the Individual to Avoid Unnecessary Conflicts: Conflicts often result from
misconceptions, misunderstandings, differences in orientation as well as from an outright abuse
of persons. Individuals often move away from the content of an argument to directly attacking
the opponent. In logic, this is known as argumentum ad hominem (abusive) otherwise referred to
as ‘argument against the man’. This could lead to serious conflict but knowledge of logic makes
it clear to us that such an approach is fallacious and should be avoided. For example, ‘Malik
called Ade a dirty person. Mind you, Malik is an Hausa man and they are known to be very
dirty’. This could lead to a serious conflict, as it is very unlikely that Malik would take such an
abuse with a pinch of salt. Ad hominem (abusive) is a type of fallacy that plays out often on a

39
daily basis. This is so because people tend to quickly discredit the claim of an inconsistent
individual and even calling such an individual a hypocrite. The warning here is that the claim of
an inconsistent person needs not be jettison on account of the person’s known inconsistencies,
rather, every claim should be evaluated on its own merit even if the author of the argument wears
the toga of inconsistency. It may be convenient to say that the kettle is inconsistent by calling the
pot black but this does not remove the fact that the pot is actually black. Therefore, an
inconsistent person can, of course come up with a valid claim. By so doing, every arguer
deserves a fair hearing anytime any day in argumentation otherwise, this could lead to conflict.
3.3 Value of Ethics to the Individual
In module 4, unit 3, we said that ethics has a very close link with morality and that the idea of
morality can be traced to when humans started living in societies and began to distinguish
between good or acceptable and bad or unacceptable ways to relate with each other. We also said
that it is these acceptable and unacceptable ways that developed into customs, ways of life and
codes of conduct of a people which now constitute the interest and subject matter of ethics.
Ethics was described as “a code or set of principles by which men live.” It is a branch of
philosophy also known as moral philosophy that prescribes how men ought to behave and live
the ‘good life’. One value of ethics is that it guides the way we make moral judgements about
anything. The way individuals or societies judge human actions to be either right or wrong shows
the value they place on such actions. This is why we hear of taboos and we hear of praise or
blameworthy actions. For an action to be judged wrong for example, it must have violated at
least a part of the moral codes or laid down rules which usually attract blame or punishment.
Other ways ethics is valuable to the individual include:
1. Ethics Prescribe the Standard for Peaceful Co-existence: A life of morality is a necessity for
human beings given the condition that humans coexist. Ethics prescribes the standards for moral
life and human activities would be meaningless and purposeless without it. Ethics provides the
basis upon which we make social progress. This is so because without ethics, we would be living
a predatory life where the only rule would be the survival of the fittest. Ethics is a system of
principles that helps us tell right from wrong and good from bad. Ethics can give real and
practical guidance to our lives. Ethical values like honesty, trustworthiness, responsibility and
the likes help guide us along a pathway to deal more effectively with moral issues by eliminating
those behaviours that do not conform to our sense of right and wrong. It is all about the choices
we make. We constantly face choices that affect the quality of our lives. We are aware that the
choices that we make have consequences, both for ourselves and for others and we are also
aware of our responsibility for our actions.
2. The Study of Ethics helps us to be Humane in Our Actions: The ability to reason at a greater
capacity is what makes us different from other animals. Rationality helps us to put a limit to our
actions with the consideration of how they affect other beings, in a manner in which other
animals would not. Being humane means focusing on one’s own humanity and the humanity of
others. It means being interested in treating other people with respect and care just as one wants
to be treated. It is generally expected that humans act in a humane manner. This is because
unlike other animals, we have a rational choice either to be predatory and cruel or to be kindly

40
and helpful to others. When a person shows indifference to the plights of others or treats people
wickedly, we sometimes ask if the person is a human being. That is because being morally
considerate is part of being human. Gopalkrishna Gandhi says that Hitler’s torturing of his
prisoners would shame Satan, if such a creature exists because he was as real as his poison gases
and tooth-extractors. He added that Apartheid South Africa had its torturers trained in Algeria to
inflict pain without leaving any signs on the body. Concluding that, the actions of Hitler and
Apartheid South Africa were inhumane because they were heinous, brutish and lack morality.
3. Application of Ethical Principles is Therapeutic to the Individual: In our everyday life, we are
confronted with different and often difficult situations which require us to make moral
evaluations that would lead to our choices. Experience has shown that in most cases, whenever
we make immoral choices, we become unhappy and uncomfortable. However, when we do
otherwise, the reverse is the case. No matter how unpopular or unfavourable our choices may be,
provided they were the right choices, we tend to be happy, free and at peace with ourselves.
Therefore, making the right moral decisions reduces stress. Ultimately, ethics is important
because it improves our way of life. By being moral, we enrich our lives and the lives of those
around us.
3.4 Value of Metaphysics to the Individual
In module 4, unit 4, Metaphysics is defined as a branch of philosophy that deals with
fundamental questions about the nature of reality. From its etymology, metaphysics is said to be
derived from the Greek word meta-physika meaning after physics or transcending the physical.
Among philosophers, we were told that the term metaphysical has come to have the distinct
sense of having to do with what lies beyond what is visibly available to the senses. But in its
simplest form, metaphysics represents a science that seeks ultimate knowledge of reality which
broadly comprises the physical and the non-physical. Metaphysics as is generally understood
therefore attempts to furnish us with knowledge of the physical reality and a reality transcending
the world of science, common sense or the phenomenal world. One important value of
metaphysics therefore is its ability to evaluate and furnish us with the knowledge of reality.
Without an explanation or an interpretation of the world around us, we would be helpless in
relating or dealing deal with reality. We would be unable to give any meaning to life and
consequently see no reason for preserving it. The degree to which our metaphysical worldview is
correct is the degree to which we are able to comprehend the world, and act accordingly. Other
importance of metaphysics includes the following:
1. It Exposes Man to the Fact that His Very Nature is Metaphysical: As a discipline, metaphysics
has an important value to man. Man practices metaphysics just as he breathes, without thinking
about it. Man has often been defined as a metaphysical animal, which, apart from telling us that
man is a reasoning animal, it strongly indicates the characteristic power of reason that involves
looking beyond the empirical to the absolute. Man, therefore, from this standpoint, is by his very
nature metaphysical. This means that there is in him something incapable of expression in simple
natural terms, something which always goes beyond nature and which is to be described as
spiritual.

41
2. It Prepares an Individual for the Responsibilities and Uncertainties of Life: A belief in
determinism or freewill gives an individual a certain orientation and outlook to life. Determinists
believe that a human being’s future is pre-ordained and is therefore beyond the individual’s
control or influence. People who hold this view are more likely to worry less and resign to fate.
A belief in freewill on the other hand gives individuals a kind of outlook to life that makes them
responsible for their actions and consequently, being able to chart the course of their future.
Deciding whether one believes in determinism or freewill is important as it relates to how we
interact with the world and respond to events happening around us. Therefore, metaphysics
prepares an individual for the responsibilities and uncertainties of life.
3. It helps in the Clarification of Our Thoughts and Beliefs: This is so because, when properly
pursued, metaphysics enhances analytical and interpretive capacities that are applicable to any
subject matter and in any human context. It cultivates in a person the capacities and appetite for
self-expression and reflection, for sharing of ideas, for life-long learning, and for dealing with
problems for which there are no easy answers. The human mind contains thoughts by which we
influence our personal life experiences. We may never be able to step outside of our own mind
and look back upon it to see what it is like. However, we can infer from our experiences what is
going on in our minds. The first thing most of us notice when we observe the workings of our
mind are thoughts. The mind seems to be filled with them, constantly moving in and out and
producing all manner of bodily effects. The study of metaphysics gives us better understanding
of the workings of the mind. Thoughts with metaphysical orientations are inescapable part of
human existence. Almost everyone has been puzzled from time to time by metaphysical
questions like ‘What is the meaning of life?’, ‘Did I have any existence before I was born?’ and
‘Is there life after death?’ Most people have some kind of personal outlook on life in relation to
the above questions. With the knowledge of metaphysics, people are able to clarify what they
believe, and they can be stimulated to think about ultimate questions.
4.0 Conclusion
The value of philosophy to the individual as have been shown in the course of this unit cannot be
overemphasised. Epistemology puts the individual in a good position to better understand his or
her world by clarifying his or her thoughts and shining the light of knowledge on uncertainties of
life. With the knowledge of logic, the individual is able to solve complex problems by breaking
them down into a number of simpler problems. Ethics shows that a life of morality is a necessity
for human existence and coexistence, and metaphysics, a very important branch of philosophy
prepares an individual for the responsibilities and uncertainties of life.
5.0 Summary
In this unit, we have been able to show the value of philosophy to the individual who studies it.
This we did by examining the value of the various sub-branches of philosophy to the individual
that studies them. Epistemology equips the individual with the knowledge to understand and deal
with the world. Logic helps the individual to avoid fallacies and unnecessary conflicts that may
result from misconceptions and misunderstandings. Ethics helps the individual to imbibe
principles for moral evaluations and acceptable ways of conduct, while metaphysics furnishes

42
the individual with knowledge of the ultimate reality and with the capacity for dealing with
problems for which there are no easy answers.

UNIT 2: THE VALUE OF PHILOSOPHY TO OTHER DISCIPLINES

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Value of Philosophy to Law
3.2 Value of Philosophy to Education
3.3 Value of Philosophy to Religion
3.4 Value of Philosophy to Business
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Self-Assessment Exercise
7.0 References and Further Readings
1.0 Introduction
Having discussed the value of philosophy to the individual who studies it in unit one, we shall in
this unit examine the value of philosophy to other disciplines such as law, education, religion and
business. In time past, all humans’ information of the world and of themselves were grouped
under philosophy. As this body of knowledge expanded, however, it was broken down and
specific disciplines took their root from there. This is how medicine, physics, biology, sociology,
psychology, law and the likes gained their divorce from philosophy and philosophy came to be
known as the mother of all disciplines. This idea was aptly expressed by Descartes, who
compared philosophy to a tree with metaphysics as its roots, physics as its trunk and all the other
sciences comprised in the three main disciplines of medicine, mechanics and ethics as its
branches. Another reason why philosophy is described as the mother of all disciplines is because
no theory in science, art, socio-political or any other discipline performs the highest role of

43
creating a worldview and methodology. This is an area to which philosophy is specifically
privileged as it deals not only with the relationships between humans and the universe, but also
with principles, categories and laws, revealing the place of humans in the world and their relation
to the world. For this reason, the notions of worldview and methodology are not parts but
functions of philosophy.
Harry Schofield’s narration of how Philosophy came to be known as the mother of all disciplines
is a little more interesting. He noted that, at different times, Philosophy brought forth offspring.
These were called science, theology, history, mathematics and each of these ‘children of
philosophy’ gathered a store of knowledge of his own. Ultimately, when their store of knowledge
was great, Philosophy called her children to her and asked them to show her what knowledge
they had discovered. Being older, and wiser than her children, she was able to derive great
meaning from what knowledge each provided. She herself acquired no factual knowledge, but,
by putting side-by-side all the knowledge that her children brought to her, she was able to
develop an overall understanding of all the variables. Sometimes there were gaps in the overall
pattern. On such occasions, Philosophy did not produce knowledge of her own or criticise her
offspring for providing her with insufficient information. Instead, she made suggestions that
would fill in the gaps and interpretations that would provide greater coherence in the picture.
2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
By the end of this unit, you would be able to;
• Discuss the value of philosophy to law
• Enumerate the relevance of philosophy to education
• Explain the value of philosophy to religion
• Identify the importance of philosophy to business
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Value of Philosophy to Law
There are many distinctions between ethics and laws. Ethics comes from people’s awareness of
what is right and what is wrong while laws are written and approved by governments. It means
that ethics may vary from people to people because different people may have different opinions
on a certain issue, but laws describe clearly, what is illegal no matter what people think. To some
extent, just like philosophy, the definition of ethics is not conclusive but laws are defined and
precise. An action can be legal, but morally wrong. For example, the racial discrimination of
apartheid South Africa was backed by law and was considered to be legally right but at the same
time, it was immoral. In the same way, mercy killing may be illegal in certain countries but
considered moral given certain conditions. Some of the ways philosophy is relevant to law are:
1. Philosophy will help a Lawyer to Reason Clearly:
The value of philosophy to the lawyer cannot be over emphasised. Philosophy will help
him or her to reason clearly, express him or herself precisely and to put his or her

44
 thoughts across to the audience firmly. Philosophy will teach the lawyer how to detect
bad argument and identify the fallacies in it. Philosophy makes a lawyer to notice the
difference between a true statement and a false one, a validity argument and an invalidity
one as well as a sound argument and an unsound one. It is not enough for a lawyer to
master the facts of his case and the laws backing it, it is also important for him to present
his argument in a logical manner. This is where philosophy comes in to assist him to
achieve his professional responsibilities.
2. Philosophy acts as Gadfly to the Enterprise of Law:
Philosophy focuses on the analysis of the concept, purpose and meaning of law, and the validity
and morality of such laws. It is part of the vocation of the sub-discipline of philosophy called
philosophy of law to investigate the boundaries and limits of laws and the need to have a good
understanding of the relationship between law and other bodies of norms. Philosophy of law also
studies reasoning or logic behind rules and principles, thereby underscoring the importance of
logic to the legal enterprise. This is because a legal system that operates without coherence and
consistency, but with obvious contradictions and multiple standards cannot lay claim to justice,
and therefore cannot promote social stability or order.
3. Philosophy Seeks to Provide a General Account of the Nature of Law:
The account is general in the sense of targeting universal features of law that hold at all times
and places. It does this through the tools of conceptual analysis. Whereas lawyers are interested
in what the law is on a specific issue in a specific jurisdiction, philosophers of law are interested
in identifying the features of law shared across cultures, times, and places. Taken together, these
foundational features of law offer the kind of universal definition philosophers are after.
3.2 Value of Philosophy of Education
Ikuli and Ojimba gave a general view of the relationship between philosophy and education thus:
Philosophy determines the direction towards which education has to go. It inspires educational
theory as well as practice. Thus, education is the laboratory in which philosophic distinctions
become concrete and are tested. Philosophy is wisdom and education transmits that wisdom from
one generation to another. Philosophy represents a system of thought, while education embraces
that thought in the content of instruction. Furthermore, while philosophy embodies a way of life,
education represents the preparation for life. Philosophy is the knowledge obtained through
natural reason, while education is the development of that reason as well as other powers of the
mind. Every aspect of education has a philosophical base. Philosophy provides aims for
education and these aims determine the curriculum, the methods of teaching as well as the school
discipline. Furthermore, great philosophers have been great educationists. Philosophers like
Aristotle, Plato, Gandhi and many more have been great educators. They reflect their
philosophical views in their educational schemes. Socrates, for instance, has given the world his
Socratic method of questioning and cross-questioning. His philosophical views reflect in his
educational scheme.69 Other ways in which philosophy is important to education are;
1. Students Get Great Benefits from Learning Philosophy:

45
The tools taught by philosophy are of great use in employment as well as in further education.
Even though the questions usually asked by philosophers are abstract, the tools philosophy
teaches tend to be highly sought-after by employers. Philosophy students learn how to write
clearly, and to read closely, with a critical eye. They are taught to spot bad reasoning and to
avoid it in their writings and in their works.
2. Philosophy enhances the Students’ Cognitive Abilities:
According to James Wallace Gray, there is some scientific evidence that philosophy can benefit
people in many ways. He stated that statistics have shown that philosophy majors do well in a
variety of standardized tests and that even children around the age of ten were found to have
benefited from philosophy in their education. He went on to say that one hundred and five
children in the penultimate year of primary school aged approximately ten years were given one
hour per week of philosophical-inquiry based lessons for 16 months compared with control
children. The result was that the philosophy children showed significant improvements on tests
of their verbal, numerical and spatial abilities at the end of the 16-month period relative to their
baseline performance before the study. After two years, these same children were made to go
through cognitive abilities test at a time the children were nearly at the end of their second year
of secondary school. He noted that the children had not had any further philosophy-based lessons
but the benefits of their early experience of philosophy persisted. He confirmed that the
philosophy-taught children who the researchers were able to track down showed the same
cognitive test scores as they had done two years earlier and by contrast, 44 control children who
did not take the philosophical-inquiry based lessons actually showed a trend towards a
deterioration in their inferior scores from two years earlier.
3. Philosophy Introduces the Concept of Morality to Education:
Education is a process of socialisation through which the child internalises the basic cultural
values, mores and essential tools that will aid the child to survive sustainably in the society.
Therefore, if education is to fulfil its purpose of catering for some aspects of human needs in the
society, it is important that it should be given a touch of morality. According to Ekanem and
Ekefre, the necessity and inseparability of morality in education can be seen in Rousseau’s
responses to whether the arts and the sciences have been beneficial to humanity. Rousseau in one
of his famous essays responded in the negative when he said: since learned men began to appear
among us, good men have disappeared. What Rousseau alluded in his response is the fact that the
education of those ‘learned men’ was devoid of morality. As a result of lack of morality in the
education of these ‘learned men’ their education was not beneficial to mankind since it could not
fulfil the purpose of catering for the needs of human nature. In addition, education is an
intentional activity. The entire process of planning and implementation of education is structured
or designed purposefully and it is made to be futuristic. This intentionality and purposefulness
made education to be value-driven. This explains the fact that educational ends are driven, and
are expressed by what we value as individuals and as a group in the society. Human beings are
not just products of biological reproduction, but are indeed moral and cultural.
3.3. Value of Philosophy of Religion

46
Philosophy in relating with religion is interested in subjecting religious beliefs, rites, attitudes
and modes of experiences to rational criticisms, with the aim of offering justifications for them.
Since beliefs invariably determine rites, moral attitudes and modes of experience, Inagbor and
Osarhiemen are of the view that philosophers of religion have largely focussed on beliefs that are
doctrinal in nature. They believe that philosophers seek to establish what might be called the
metaphysical background of the doctrinal system of particular religions which focused on
worldviews, ultimate sources and nature of the universe, the nature of man and his place in the
universe as well as the ultimate end of man. The views of the above scholars on the positive
values of philosophy to religion can be summarised thus;
1. Philosophers of religion seek to justify the place and relevance of religion in the world. They
are overly optimistic about the capabilities of human reason and of religion itself, although some
other scholars admit that there might well be aspects of religion that reason cannot justify
because it is not sufficiently equipped to probe them.
2. Another point is that philosophers of religion whose orientation is deterministic see the world
as already completely emancipated. For this reason, there is no prospect in criticising or
defending it. All that needs to be done is to merely investigate religion, to describe and compare
its realities without making value judgements.
3. There is yet another point which seems not to recognise anything good in religion in that
religion has been nothing less than a potent force for conflict in the society all through history.
While this is partly true, it must be stated that some good enjoyed by man are attributable to
religion.
4. Philosophy of religion is very important to religion as a discipline and this is not unconnected
with the fact that philosophy, as have been said, is the mother of all disciplines. Philosophy of
religion could change the way we view religious matters in a positive manner. This is because it
impacts our worldviews and religion forms a very important part of that worldview. Philosophy
of religion raises questions about the origin of the world and of everything in it, including
ourselves. Without philosophy, we may take every dogma as a truth and never question anything.
The mind needs to expand to see beyond what is merely believed and philosophy encourages one
to question all religious assumptions in search of credible justifications.
3.4 Value of Philosophy of Business
The relationship between philosophy and business is often linked, but not limited to ethics.
Business is a set of interrelated activities or any lawful activity engaged in or carried on with the
view of making profit. The basic economic unit in which this set of activities is performed is the
business enterprise. Therefore, it is imperative to define the business enterprise as an
organisational context within which men, ideas, materials and machines and other resources are
harnessed and combined for the purpose of providing needed goods and services, in order to
make profit and remain in existence.
In other to achieve the intentions of any business, one basic objective is to establish a proper
structure that defines the rules and responsibilities when it comes to recruitment and job

47
description within the context of the business enterprise. It is however important to note that
unless the employees and employers of business enterprise demonstrate the appropriate ethical
behaviour in the execution of assigned duties, ultimately, enhancing the corporate image of the
business outfit in the environment will be difficult. Employees who demonstrate unethical
behaviours do not promote the well-being of the organisation and therefore, unless such a
negative behaviour is jettisoned, it becomes impossible for them to make the desired
contributions. This is where the role of philosophy from the perspective of ethics becomes very
significant. Ethics as we already know refers to “a code or set of principles by which men live.”
It is a branch of philosophy, also known as moral philosophy that prescribes how men ought to
behave and live the ‘good life’. However, business ethics has to do with the study of what
constitutes right and wrong, or good and bad human conduct in any business environment. These
right and wrong or good and bad conducts make up the codes of ethics of any particular business.
In Jones’ view, codes of ethics are “formal standards and rules based on beliefs about right or
wrong that managers can use to help themselves make appropriate decisions with regard to the
interests of their stakeholders”. The following have been identified by Michael Josephson as
ethical principles for business organizations
i. Honesty: Individual should be honest and truthful in all their dealings and they should
not deliberately mislead or deceive others through misrepresentations,
overstatements, partial truths, selective omissions, or any other means.
ii. Integrity: They should demonstrate personal integrity and the courage of their
convictions by doing what they think is right even when there is great pressure to do
otherwise; they should be principled, honorable and upright; they should fight for
their beliefs and not sacrifice principle for expediency or be hypocritical or
unscrupulous.
iii. Promise-Keeping and Trustworthiness: They should be worthy of trust. They should
be candid and forthcoming in supplying relevant information and correcting
misapprehensions of fact, and they should make every reasonable effort to fulfill the
letter and spirit of their promises and commitments. They should not interpret
agreements in an unreasonably technical or legalistic manner in order to rationalize
non-compliance or create justifications for escaping their commitments.
iv. Loyalty: They should be worthy of trust, demonstrate fidelity and loyalty to persons
and institutions by friendship in adversity, support and devotion to duty; they should
not use or disclose information learned in confidence for personal advantage. They
should safeguard the ability to make independent professional judgments by
scrupulously avoiding undue influences and conflicts of interest. They should be loyal
to their companies and colleagues and if they decide to accept other employment,
they should provide reasonable notice, respect the proprietary information of their
former employer, and refuse to engage in any activities that take undue advantage of
their previous positions.
v. Fairness: They should be fair and just in all dealings; they should not exercise power
arbitrarily, and should not use overreaching nor indecent means to gain or maintain
any advantage nor take undue advantage of another’s mistakes or difficulties. They

48
 should be fair, manifest a commitment to justice, equal treatment of individuals,
tolerance for and acceptance of diversity and open-minded.
vi. Concern for Others: They should be caring, compassionate, benevolent and kind;
they, like the Golden Rule, should help those in need, and seek to accomplish their
business objectives in a manner that causes the least harm and the greatest positive
good.
vii. Respect for Others: They should demonstrate respect for human dignity, autonomy,
privacy, rights, and interests of all those who have a stake in their decisions; they
should be courteous and treat all people with equal respect and dignity regardless of
sex, race or national origin.
viii. Law Abiding: They should abide by laws, rules and regulations relating to their
business activities.
ix. Commitment to Excellence: They should pursue excellence in performing their
duties, be well informed, prepared, and constantly endeavour to increase their
proficiency in all areas of responsibility.
x. Leadership: They should be conscious of the responsibilities and opportunities of
their position of leadership and seek to be positive ethical role models by their own
conduct and by helping to create an environment in which principledreasoning and
ethical decision-making are highly prized. xi. Reputation and Morale: They should
seek to protect and build the company’s good reputation and the morale of its
employees by engaging in no conduct that might undermine respect and by taking
whatever actions are necessary to correct or prevent inappropriate conduct of others.
xi. Accountability: They should acknowledge and accept personal accountability for the
ethical quality of their decisions and omissions to themselves, their colleagues, their
companies, and their communities.
4.0 Conclusion
In relation to law, we have said that it is not enough for a lawyer to master the facts of his
case and the laws backing it, but that it is also important for him or her to present his or her
argument in a logical manner. This is where philosophy comes to play its role. In education,
Philosophy teaches students how to write clearly, and to read closely with a critical eye, for
the purpose of spotting bad reasoning. In religion we noted that philosophy seeks to justify
the place and relevance of religion in the world and in business, philosophy teaches how to
be fair, manifest a commitment to justice, equal treatment of individuals, tolerance for and
acceptance of diversity and open-mindedness.
4.0 Summary
In this unit, we have been able to show that philosophy acts as gadfly to the enterprise of law
by cubing its excesses. We noted that if education is to fulfil its purpose of catering for some
aspects of human needs in the society, it is important that it should be given a touch of
morality. We also said that philosophy of religion could change the way we view religious
matters in a positive manner because it impacts our worldviews and religion forms a very
important part of that worldview. Finally, we have been able to show that, business ethics has

49
to do with the study of what constitutes right and wrong, or good and bad human conduct in
any business environment and that these right and wrong or good and bad conducts make up
the codes of ethics of any particular business.

50