Ways of Doing Philosophy: Tools and Processes
Overview of Philosophical Tools and Processes
Philosophy utilizes two primary tools and processes to arrive at knowledge or truth:
Philosophical Questions
Logical Reasoning
Philosophical Questions and the Nature of Inquiry
The Origin of Philosophy: Philosophy was born out of ignorance. It is the acknowledgement of not knowing that drives inquiry.
The Cycle of Knowledge: If a person is ignorant, they ask questions. Through the persistent act of questioning, a person acquires increasing amounts of knowledge.
The Identity of the Philosopher:
A person ceases to be a philosopher the moment they stop questioning.
A philosopher is likened to a child possessing an inquisitive mind; they never stop asking questions or seeking answers.
Reason and Truth: Philosophy employs reason as the primary vehicle to reach certain knowledge or truth.
Socrates and the Socratic Method
Socrates ():
Considered the foremost philosopher of ancient times.
He never claimed to be "wise." Instead, he viewed himself as a "midwife" who assisted inquiring minds in achieving their own wisdom.
He believed that the practice of philosophy enabled individuals to live a life of virtue.
He formulated the Socratic Method, a means of examining topics through a series of questions to help learners analyze their own knowledge and truth.
The Socratic Method Nomenclature: Also known as the Method of Elenchus, Elenctic Method, or Socratic Debate.
Procedural Steps of the Socratic Method:
Begin by admitting ignorance.
Seek answers from someone who claims to possess knowledge.
Examine the provided answers through further questions.
Discover weaknesses or inconsistencies in the answers.
Arrive at a clearer, more refined understanding of the truth.
Socratic Method: Case Studies and Application
Example 1: Love and Anger
The Belief: "If you truly love someone, you should never get angry at them."
The Dialogue: The philosopher asks if the friend loves their parents, and if they have ever been angry with them. The friend admits to clashing with parents but confirms the love remains.
The Conclusion: The friend realizes that anger and love are not mutually exclusive; anger is a normal emotion that does not destroy love.
Example 2: Expectations and Communication (Tagalog Context)
The Belief (Maling Paniniwala): "Kung mahal mo talaga ang isang tao, dapat alam mo na agad ang iniisip o nararamdaman niya nang hindi niya sinasabi" (If you really love someone, you should immediately know what they are thinking or feeling without them saying it).
The Dialogue (Ang Usapan): The philosopher asks if humans can read minds. The friend admits they cannot. The philosopher then asks if it is fair to expect a partner to guess internal thoughts if no one can read minds.
The Takeaway: The friend realizes their expectation is unrealistic. Rather than being told they are wrong, they reach the conclusion independently: "Hindi nga naman siya manghuhula. Kailangan ko lang talaga sabihin sa kanya" (He/she isn't a fortune teller. I really just need to tell him/her).
Why the Socratic Method Works: People rarely argue with their own conclusions. Direct correction triggers defenses, while targeted, open-ended questions guide individuals to untangle their own thinking and discover truth personally.
Plato and the Dialectic Method
Plato ():
A student of Socrates who documented his mentor's teachings while incorporating his own original ideas.
His writings and teachings form the foundation of Western philosophy.
Founded the Academy, the first institution of higher learning in the Western world.
The Dialectic Method: A method of inquiry where two opposing ideas are discussed to arrive at new knowledge. It follows a specific triadic structure:
Thesis: The initial idea or proposition.
Antithesis: The opposing idea or the "clash."
Synthesis: The resolution or the "new truth" that emerges from the conflict.
Dialectic Method: Case Studies and Application
Example 1: Social Media and Youth
Thesis: Social media is evil, ruins attention spans, causes anxiety, and should be banned for those under .
Antithesis: Social media is essential for connection, skill-building, and community. Banning it isolates kids from the modern world.
Synthesis: Social media has dangers and benefits; therefore, it should be restricted rather than banned (e.g., monitored access for one hour daily until a certain age).
Example 2: Dog Training
Thesis: All dogs can be trained to sit on command.
Antithesis: Some dogs cannot be reliably trained to sit on command.
Synthesis: While most dogs are trainable, success depends on individual differences, limitations, and various external factors.
Example 3: Study Environments (Tagalog Context)
Thesis: Study in the library because it is quiet and allows for focus.
Antithesis: The library is too quiet and causes sleepiness; a café is better because it is lively and has coffee.
Synthesis: One needs an energetic but not overly noisy environment; the solution is to study in a café's quiet zone or bring coffee to the library.
Socratic vs. Dialectic Methods
Socratic Method: One person asks questions to "poke holes" in the logic of another until a mistake is realized. It is described as a "demolition job" of a bad idea.
Dialectic Method: Two opposing ideas battle to evolve into a superior third idea. It is described as a "construction job" using different perspectives.
Logical Reasoning and Aristotle
Defining Reasoning: The process of thinking about something in a logical way to form a judgment or conclusion.
Relationship to Philosophy: Philosophy is the pursuit of answering questions, while reasoning is the specific method used to attain those answers.
Logic: The specific branch of philosophy to which reasoning belongs.
Aristotle ():
A prominent student of Plato who attended the Academy.
Believed all views and ideas are based on perception; reality is defined by what we can sense and perceive.
Formulated a formal process for analyzing reasoning, which gave rise to Deductive Reasoning.
Types of Reasoning
1. Inductive Reasoning
Definition: Reasoning that moves from specific information to a broader generalization (specific to general).
Structure: Premise(s) + Hypothesis.
Examples:
Cats: Every cat observed purrs; therefore, all cats must purr.
Allergies: Every time you eat peanuts, you cough; therefore, you are allergic to peanuts.
Dogs (Tagalog): The first dog barked; the second dog barked; therefore, all dogs bark.
Apples: The first apple is red; the second apple is red; therefore, all apples are red.
Traffic: Cities that added bike lanes saw decreased accidents; therefore, adding bike lanes reduces traffic accidents.
Economics: Over five years, countries investing in education saw higher growth; therefore, investing in education leads to economic growth.
2. Deductive Reasoning
Definition: Reasoning that moves from a general rule to a specific conclusion (general to specific).
The Syllogism Structure:
Major Premise:
Minor Premise:
Conclusion:
Examples:
Mortality: All humans are mortal; your Philosophy teacher is human; therefore, your teacher is mortal.
Education: All SHS students passed Junior Education; Ana is an SHS student; therefore, Ana passed Junior Education.
Technology: Technology helps work efficiency; a laptop is technology; therefore, a laptop helps work efficiency.
Public Transport (Tagalog): All public vehicles are prohibited from overloading; Mang Juan's jeep is a public vehicle; therefore, Mang Juan's jeep is prohibited from overloading.
Humanity (Tagalog): All people have an end to their lives; Jose is a person; therefore, Jose's life has an end.
Health: If a person has a fever, they are sick; John has a fever; therefore, John is sick.
Law: If a law is unconstitutional, it must be struck down; the new surveillance law is unconstitutional; therefore, it must be struck down.
Equality: All men are created equal under the law; John and Smith are men; therefore, John and Smith are created equal under the law.
The Structural Foundation of Logic
Logic begins with the origin of ideas, terms, propositions (premises), and syllogisms.
These components form the basic structure of any argument.
Closing Wisdom: "The wise man never says everything he thinks, but always thinks everything he says."