LESSON 2

Methods of
Philosophizin
g
 What is
Philosophizing?

Philosophizing is to think or express oneself

in a rational and logical manner. It considers or
discusses a matter from a philosophical
standpoint:
• In phenomenology, truth is based on the person's
consciousness;
• In existentialism, truth is based on exercising
choices and personal freedom;
• In postmodernism, it is accepted that truth is not
absolute (i.e., cultural); and
• In logic, truth is based on reasoning and critical
thinking.
 What is
Philosophizing?
A. Phenomenology: On
Consciousness
Phenomenology focuses on careful inspection
and description of phenomena or appearances based on
what we are conscious of (Johnston 2006). Basically, it
refers to our ideas. In Logical Investigations, Husserl
argued against philosophy as reducible to psychology.
 - The word "phenomenon"
comes directly from the
Phenomenon Greek (φαινόμενον,
phainómenon), meaning
"appearance."

Immanuel Kant – a
German philosopher, had
used the same word to
refer to the world of our
experience.
 Husserl intended a similar
meaning except for the crucial fact that
for him, it does not imply a contrast
between the appearance and some
underlying realities, between the
phenomenon and a "noumenon" or
"thing-in-itself."
 Edmund Husserl founded phenomenology, which is
essentially a philosophical method. Husserl (2005) studied
about reality and the structures of consciousness. The
phenomenological method is a series that continuously
revises our perceptions of reality. Phenomenology removes
or "brackets out" the nonessentials.
 In this sense, the human mind is conscious of its
environment, intentional and directed at a material object or
idea.

A phenomenologist distinguishes thought processes

as it perceives objects of reality. The phenomenological
standpoint is achieved through a series of phenomenological
"reductions" that eliminate certain aspects of our experience
from consideration.
 Both phenomenology and postmodernism reject
modernity and its contributions (e.g., science and
technology). Progress, as seen by both, is cruel and
damaging.

Similar to phenomenology, postmodernism draws

attention to individual perceptions of what is authentic. Truths
are based on what the person makes and not on structures,
unqualified truths, or regulations.
 B. Existentialism: On Freedom

Existentialism – is not necessarily a philosophical

method but more of an outlook or attitude supported by
varied principles centered on shared themes.

• Our search for truth by means of critical thinking is a

rational choice.
 • Existentialism, with Sartre, a
French philosopher,
emphasizes the importance of
individual choice, regardless of
coercion of our beliefs and
decisions.

• This means that the human will's ability to make

choices in any situation gives human choice meaning.
• Sartre argued that consciousness (being-for-itself) is
such that it is always free to choose (though not free
not to choose) and free to "negate" (or reject) the given
features of the world.

• One is never free of one's "situation," Sartre told us,

but one is always free to "negate" that situation and to
(try to) change it.
C. Postmodernism: On Cultures

"Postmodernism" rejects the convictions, aspirations,

and pretensions of modern Western tradition.

Postmodernism is more of an attitude and a

reaction to modernism which is a worldview of order,
logic, and authority based on knowledge (Shields 2012).
 Whereas humanism stresses the importance of
human dignity, posthumanism aspires to transcend
human nature.
Posthumanism advocates the use of science and
technology to alter human condition, for instance, natural
processes of reproduction, aging, and death.
The posthuman is likened to techno sapiens
including clones, cyborgs, and other forms of human-
machine interfaces.
D. Analytic Tradition
"Is truth objective?" In his later works, Ludwig
Wittgenstein argued that language cannot objectively
describe truth.

He claimed that language is

socially conditioned, which means the
meaning of words is created by what
people have agreed upon.
 For the latter Wittgenstein, there is no objective
meaning. We understand the world solely in terms of our
language games, that is, our linguistic, social constructs.

Truth, as we perceive it, is itself socially

constructed. Truth can change depending on what people
have decided it to be.
 Logic and Critical Thinking: Tools in
Reasoning
In the first lesson, logic was discussed as one of
the branches of philosophy. Logic and critical thinking
consider these three concepts in interpreting the
meaning of facts:

1. Cultural systems
2. Values
3. Beliefs
 Critical thinking helps us uncover bias and
prejudice and become open to new ideas not necessarily
in agreement with our previous thoughts.

Warnings, pieces of advice, beliefs, or opinions

lack a claim that establishes provability. There is no
argument that is without evidence or reason supporting
its conclusion.
 A factual claim must present evidence or
reasons (Hurley 2011). Consider this passage, "A dark
tan may seem eye-catching though current researches
show that excessive sun exposure may cause skin
cancer."
 Two Parts of an Argument

Premises - statements that claim to present the

evidence or reasons, for instance, consider: Human
cloning is evil.

The statement that the evidence is claimed to support

or imply is the conclusion. In this case, the conclusion:
Human cloning should never be allowed.
 2 Basic Types of Reasoning

DEDUCTIVE INDUCTIVE
Inductive reasoning is
Draws conclusion from based on observations in
usually one broad order to make
judgment or definition and generalizations. This means
one or more specific from many specific
assertion, often an examples and instances, a
inference. person can make a general
guess.
Example:
For example, many people
All truth-seekers are are holding their umbrellas,
prudent. (Major premise) the ground is wet, and the
Kong Zi is a truth-seeker. wind is strong, so probably
(Minor premise) it is raining. This reasoning
Therefore, Kong Zi is is often applied in
prudent. (Conclusion)
As we will be using many essays and other forms of
written assignments and seatworks, it is important to
consider building a strong and valid reasoning.

Based on the previous

Validity and example (or syllogism),
Soundness of the deductive argument is
valid. Validity arises from
an Argument a logical conclusion based
on the two logically
constructed premises
(Reed 2010). However,
the conclusion is not
necessarily true or false.
 Multistage random
sampling and surveys are
examples of inductive
Strength reasoning. Random sampling,
for instance, in selecting
of an provinces first, then towns,
Argument then barangays, is always by
probability proportional to size
(pps). Cebu and Pangasinan are
provinces most frequently (but
not always) sampled. This
system is done by all reputable
survey institutions. Surveys try
to get many specific examples
 F. FALLACIES

A fallacy is a defect in an argument, and to detect

it, we examine the content of the argument.
 USUALLY COMMITTED ERRORS

1. Appeal to pity (Argumentum ad misericordiam)

- . A specific kind of appeal to emotion that is used
by exploiting his or her opponent's feelings of pity or guilt.

2. Appeal to ignorance (Argumentum ad ignorantiam)

- A fallacy following an assumption that whatever
has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa.
 USUALLY COMMITTED ERRORS
3. Equivocation
- A fallacy when a term or a particular word is used
in the same context but has a different meaning each time.
Example:
a. Human beings have hands; the clock has hands.
b. He is drinking from the pitcher of water; he is a baseball pitcher.

4. Composition
- This infers that something is true of the whole from
the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. The reverse of this
fallacy is division.
 USUALLY COMMITTED ERRORS
5. Division
- One reasons logically that something true of a
thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.

6. Against the Person (Argumentum ad hominem)

- This fallacy attempts to link the validity of a premise to a
characteristic or credentials of the person supporting the premise.
However, in some instances, questions of personal conduct,
character, and motives among others are legitimate if relevant to the
issue.
- Attacking the opponent instead of the opponent’s argument
 USUALLY COMMITTED ERRORS
7. Appeal to force (Argumentum ad baculum)
- An argument where strength, coercion, or the
threat of force is a justification for a conclusion.
 USUALLY COMMITTED ERRORS
8. Appeal to the people (Argumentum ad populum)
- An argument that appeals or exploits people's
vanities, desire for esteem, and anchoring on popularity.
 USUALLY COMMITTED ERRORS
9. False cause (post hoc)
- Since that event followed this one, that event must
have been caused by this one. This fallacy is also referred to as
coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.
 USUALLY COMMITTED ERRORS

10. Hasty generalization

- One commits errors if one reaches an inductive
generalization grounded on inadequate evidence. The fallacy is
commonly based on an expansive conclusion upon the statistics of a
survey of a small group that inadequately represents the whole
population.
 USUALLY COMMITTED ERRORS
Example:
Imagine a student named Sarah who meets three college students
from a particular university at a party. They are all friendly and
talkative. She concludes that all students from that university must
be friendly and talkative.

Why It's a Fallacy:

Sarah's conclusion is based on interactions with only three
individuals, which is not a representative sample of the entire
university's student body. Her conclusion lacks sufficient evidence
and generalizes about a large population based on limited
information.
 USUALLY COMMITTED ERRORS

11. Begging the question (petitio principii)

- This is a type of fallacy in which the proposition to
be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.
 USUALLY COMMITTED ERRORS
Example:
"Reading books is important because it's essential to read."

Why It's a Fallacy:

The statement assumes what it is trying to prove (that reading is

important) by using a premise (it's essential to read) that is
essentially restating the conclusion without providing any actual
evidence or reasoning. The argument is circular because it doesn’t
provide a reason for why reading is important beyond asserting that
it is necessary.
 DETERMINING TRUTH FROM
OPINION
Ignorance can be cloaked in a false aura of authority. This
fact casts serious doubt on the general competence of news
magazine writers who talk so flippantly about technical matters.

Handouts, for instance, are fed to news reporters by

government agencies and others who speak English. This is why
most news journals or news reports give the same details. Some
correspondents are also culturally incompetent who are not aware of
the language or customs of the countries that they are sent to (Copi
and Cohen 2010). In this case, trimming or omitting bits of data
occurs (Martin and Schinzinger 2013).
 DEBATE DISCUSSION
In a debate, arguments are concerned with matters that are
controversial. Sufficient information about issues must be provided
to make the audience aware of the controversy. The topic of the
debate or argument, therefore, must be timely and significant to the
public interest.
 DEBATE DISCUSSION
Further, clarity is essential as it defines goals and
resolutions to the issue. Clarity refers to how well a claim focuses
arguments on a particular set of issues. Without clarity, the issue will
be interpreted differently. It is also important to keep note that
delivery and skill in public speaking are also crucial in a debate.
People listen to facts, but they are moved by their emotions. This
means that the skill at delivering ideas and saying them in a
persuasive way also affects whether people will believe or reject an
idea.
 EVALUATE OPINIONS
Crtical thinking and logic are important tools to distinguish
facts from opinions. An opinion can be a belief or judgment that rests
on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. It is a personal
view, attitude, or appraisal or personal feelings. An opinion can be
insisted on another person even though the opinion itself is entirely
false and, in some cases, malicious
 THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING!

Joven Olaso Tataro [email protected] 0938-601-8826