philo midterm Flashcards by v v

is merely your perspective on things. It may

be based on facts, but the facts speak for themselves.

An opinion

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

The opinion you form based
on the facts is nothing more than an—Because it’s not a fact, it can
neither be right or wrong.

interpretation.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

It is provable by a third party, can be independently

replicated and leads to predictions precise enough to be tested.

fact.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

We can improve our ability to communicate by learning to be efficient and
accurate. There is a piece of wisdom that says “If you propose to speak, always ask
yourself if it’s true, if it’s necessary and if it’s kind”. Try to make it through one day
doing this and take note of how you feel.
Many of us default to sarcasm in our daily communication and this is nothing more
than a defense mechanism. Speaking only true, necessary and kind words will
cause you to see just how much of your speech is not designed to contribute, but
rather to defend or ridicule.

Actionable Advice

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

“To say of what
is that it is, or of what is not that it is not,
is true.” In other words, the world
provides “what is” or “what is not,” and
the true saying or thought corresponds
to the fact so provided. This idea
appeals to common sense and is the
germ of what is called the
correspondence theory of truth. As it
stands, however, it is little more than a
platitude and far less than a theory. Indeed, it may amount to merely a wordy
paraphrase, whereby, instead of saying “that’s true” of some assertion, one says
“that corresponds with the facts.” Only if the notions of fact and correspondence
can be further developed will it be possible to understand truth in these terms.

aristotle (384–322 BCE):

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

is an accepted statement. It agrees with facts and

reality.

TRUTH

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

needs to be supported by factual evidence. If
there is no evidence, or there is insufficient evidence, then
the statement is an opinion. Logic does not prove anything.
No truth must be verifiable and be able to undergo rigorous
testing.

Truth

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent
one. Reality is the real business of physics.
Relativity teaches us the connection between the
different descriptions of one and the same reality.
The cult of individual personalities is always, in my
view, unjustified.

albert einstein

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

believed that there are truths to be
discovered; that knowledge is possible. Moreover,
he held that truth is not, as the Sophists thought,
relative. Thus, for —, knowledge is justified, true
belief. Reason and the Forms. Since truth is
objective, our knowledge of true propositions must
be about real things.

Plato

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

is a judgement, viewpoint, or statement that is
not conclusive, rather than facts, which are true
statements.

An opinion

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

is referred to as an opinion. It has
something to do with how someone feels about something.
Others may agree or disagree with a viewpoint, but they
are unable to prove or disprove it. This is what makes
anything an opinion. Unlike facts, opinions are neither true
nor false. A belief, attitude, meaning, decision, or feeling
may all be expressed through an opinion.

A personal belief

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

● As per my view
● The officer thinks that
● Experts suspect that
● The results argued

Opinion

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

He wrote one of the early
textbooks in the field of critical thinking, the useful and
charmingly written, Argument: A Guide to Critical
Thinking (McGraw Hill, 1978). –was a founding
member of the Association for Informal Logic and Critical
Thinking.

Perry Weddle

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

the “Whose?” test: It always makes sense to ask “ whose opinion is it?
but never “Whose fact is it?”

Perry Weddle

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Most people will passionately defend what they believe to be true whether it’s true
or just opinion. People state what they believe to be true. They used certain
methods to defend what they believe-whether true or not.

Methods of Philosophizing

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

is a general or established way or order of doing anything.

A method

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

is typically employed by philosophers when they present their ideas,
concepts and arguments in an orderly and systematic manner not only in aiding
reputation but also to make them less prone to making flawed arguments.

The method of

philosophy

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Conceptual Analysis
Logical Analysis.
Method of Systematic Doubt.
Phenomenological Method.
Philosophical Dialogue.
Historical Method.
Comparative-Descriptive Method.
Comparative-Constructive Method.
Deconstructive Method.

METHODS OF PHILOSOPHY EMPLOYED BY PHILOSOPHERS:

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Its analysis concept. Science analyzes facts through observation,experimentation
and sense experience. Facts are known but concepts are understood. (It is a
known fact that the Philippines was discovered by Magellan).

An ordinary person can understand the facts about
Magellan unless he understands the concept of
discovery.

Conceptual Analysis

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

It’s a method of determining whether the assertion offered as reason for
accepting the assertion justifying that
acceptance in the way the speaker intended.
The purpose of logical analysis is not to win in
an argumentation
but to use the argument as a means of
deciding which belief option is the
most and closest to the truth.

Logical Analysis.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

The “doubt” as a method of philosophy is called the methodological doubt
or indubitable or sometimes referred to as Cartesian doubt advocated by
Rene (1596-1650) a French philosopher.

When we begin to think philosophically, the first
thing we should do is to doubt everything of
which we cannot be absolutely certain. Since,
there are many beliefs (true or false)
That surrounds us, the person must distance
himself from the whole mixture of beliefs.

Method of Systematic Doubt.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) a German philosopher is
postulated to transcendental phenomenology. The
phenomenon which means to appear. In the
phenomenological
method, we describe ourselves and the world around us

on the basis of subjective experience, which is often referred to as “Lived
experience”.

Phenomenological Method.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

A spoken dialogue is much more effective in giving life to ideas. The
usefulness of this method is that it brings a
philosopher into contact with many ideas in a short
period of time, especially when there are more than
two opinions being argued. It also creates a
community mentality in which those of different
viewpoints are engaged in real conversation for the
common goal of truth seeking.

Philosophical Dialogue.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

There is value in explaining the implications of an argument in a society.
Negative implications do not simply imply an absence of truth, nor do positive
one’s imply its presence. Historical method is the collection of techniques and
guidelines that historians use to research and write histories of the past. In the
philosophy of history, the question of nature, and the possibility of a sound historical
method is raised within the sub-field of epistemology. In which a topic is considered
in terms of its earliest phases and followed in an historical course through its
subsequent evolution and development.

Historical Method.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

This is a valuable learning tool, since we often come to understand concepts in relation to what we already know. Comparative philosophy—sometimes called cross-cultural philosophy—is a subfield of philosophy in which philosophers work on problems by intentionally setting into dialogue sources from across cultural, linguistic, and philosophical streams.

7. Comparative-Descriptive Method.

Creating new ideas, which are extremely important to the process of truth seeking. Comparative Philosophy is a peer-reviewed, open-access/non-profit international journal of philosophy, with emphasis on the constructive engagement of distinct approaches to philosophical issues, problems, themes from different philosophical traditions (whether distinguished culturally or by style/orientation)

8. Comparative-Constructive Method.

Its value is that it allows a thinker to challenge his own cultural preconceptions and thus gain a somewhat more objective point of view. What it does not do is to prove an argument incorrect, since it simply points out that there is a reason to doubt. This approach is most commonly used when looking at situations regarding ethics.

9. Deconstructive Method.

does not necessarily prove anything. Many people can play games of rhetoric and logic and suggest a proof. This is not true. Truth must be verifiable and be able to undergo rigorous testing. The methods of philosophy, thus, can lead to wisdom and truth.

LOGIC

FOUR METHODS OF PHILOSOPHIZING:

1. LOGIC 2. EXISTENTIALISM (Søren Kierkegaard Father of Existentialism) 3. ANALYTIC 4. PHENOMENOLOGY EDMUND HUSSERL

was the first philosopher to devise a logical method. Aristotle understood truth to mean the Agreement of knowledge with reality; truth exists when the mind’s mental representation, otherwise known as ideas, correspond with things in the objective world.

Aristotle

Reasoning is the concern of the logician. This could be reasoning in science, medicine, in ethics and law, in politics and commerce, in sports and games, and the mundane affairs of everyday living.

1. LOGIC

One’s search for the truth might be based on one’s attitude or outlook. Is not primarily a philosophical method. Neither is it exactly a set of doctrines but more on outlook or attitude supported by diverse doctrines centered on the certain common themes:

2. EXISTENTIALISM (Søren Kierkegaard Father of Existentialism)

Can language objectively describe truth? For the philosophers of this tradition, language cannot objectively describe truth. Ludwig Wittgenstein was born in 1889 in Vienna , Austria when the city was still part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. An analytical philosopher who believed that language is socially conditioned. The world solely in terms of our language games - that is our linguistic, social constructs. Truth, as we perceive it, is itself socially constructed.

3. ANALYTIC

Phenomenon” comes directly from the Greek, meaning “appearance. Edmund Husserl founded phenomenology, which is essentially a philosophical method. This focuses on careful inspection and description of phenomena or appearances, defined as objects of conscious experience, that is, that which we are conscious of. In his LOGICAL investigation, he argued against psychologism; the thesis that truth is dependent on the peculiarities of the human mind, and that philosophy is reducible to psychology. His continuing effort was dedicated to developing for finding and guaranteeing the truth - that method was phenomenology. The consciousness is intentional. Every act of consciousness is directed at some object or another, possibly a material object or an “ideal” object.

4. PHENOMENOLOGY | EDMUND HUSSERL

1. Existentialism gets its name from an insistence that life is only understandable in terms of an individual’s existence, his particular life experience. It says a person lives (has existence) rather than is (has being or essence), that every person’s experience of life is different from another’s, and that individuals’ lives can be understood only in terms of their commitment to living responsibly.

. Existence before essence

.Existentialism unites reason with the irrational portions of the psyche, insisting that people must be taken in their wholeness and not in some divided state; that the whole of a person contains not only intellect, but also anxiety, guilt and the will to power, which can change and sometimes overwhelm reason.

2. Reason is unable to deal with the depths of life

.People have slowly been separated from concrete earthly existence. It is believed that individuals live in a fourfold condition of alienation: from God, from nature, from other people, and from our own “true” selves. People have become hollow, powerless, faceless. At a time in our history when mankind’s command over the forces of nature seems to be unlimited, existentialism depicts human beings as weakened, ridden with nameless dread.

3. Alienation

The necessity is laid upon people to make moral choices based on their own sense of responsibility. The existentialists claim that each of us must make moral decisions in our own lives.

4.Fear and Trembling and Anxiety.

According to the existentialists, for individuals alienated from God, from nature, from other people and even from themselves, what is left at last but Nothingness? This is, simply stated, how existentialists see humanity: on the brink of a catastrophic precipice, below which yawns the absolute void, black Nothingness, asking ourselves, “Does existence ultimately have any purpose?”

5. The encounter with nothingness.

Sooner or later, as a theme that includes all the others mentioned above, existentialist writings bear upon freedom. All of these ideas either describe some loss of individuals’ freedom or some threat to it, and all existentialists of whatever sort are considered to enlarge the range of human freedom.The ability to run my life by my terms, be able to express myself the way I think is appropriate.

6.Freedom.

Who is the source of the information? What are her qualifications, background, or reputation? Is she an authority in the issue? What is the source of the claim? Is the source reliable?

1. Source and authority

How reliable is the person making the claim? How long has he or she spent studying the issue? How wide is his/her experience concerning the subject matter? Does the claim contain unsubstantiated generalizations? Are the premises provided really relevant to the conclusion?

2. Reliability and relevance

What is the main and corollary purpose of the author or source? Who are the intended readers or audiences? Is the message intended to convince or persuade, or is it a plain propaganda? What is the context in stating the opinion?

3. Purpose and context

Is the one giving a stance biased towards or against the issue? Does she exhibit partiality, preference, or prejudice for or against an issue? Is the language used emotional or inflammatory? Are proofs offered or the basis is a mere preconceived idea?

4. Bias and preconception

Does the source make an effort to prove or substantiate the opinion? Are there authentic documents provided? Does the information represent just a single opinion or a range of various pertinent opinions? Are there sufficient pieces of evidence for the conclusion? Are all of the significant variables considered?

5. Assumption and hasty generalization (Fallacious)

Four factors determine the truthfulness of a theory:

Congruence Consistency Coherence Usefulness

is the part of philosophy concerned with the forms of truth. It asks: “how do we know that something is true?” and “what bar for truth should we use to evaluate claims?” In epistemology, there are four ‘classical’ or ‘common’* theories of truth. Of course, a field with a name like ‘epistemology’ sounds high-falutin’ and impractical, but in reality we reach for these theories in our day-to-day lives, in order to determine what is true and what is fake; we do this even if we don’t know their names.

Epistemology

— that whatever corresponds to | observable reality is true.

The correspondence theory of truth

— that claims are true if they follow logically | and coherently from a set of axioms (or intermediate propositions).

● The coherence theory of truth

— that what is true is what everyone agrees to | be true.

● The consensus theory of truth

that what is true is what is useful to you, or | beneficial for you.

● The pragmatic theory of truth —

is centered in the analysis and construction of arguments.

Logic

is distinguishing facts and opinions of personal feelings . --- helps us uncover bias and prejudices and open to new ideas not necessarily in agreement with previous thought.

Critical | thinking

Two Types of reasoning:

1. Inductive is based from observations in order to make generalizations (applied in prediction, forecasting, or behavior) 2. Deductive draws conclusions from usually one broad judgement or definition and one more specific assertion, often an inference.

is based from observations in order to make generalizations | applied in prediction, forecasting, or behavior

1. Inductive

draws conclusions from usually one broad judgement or definition and one more specific assertion, often an inference.

2. Deductive

is a defect in an argument other than its having false | premises. To detect fallacies, it is required to examine the arguments content.

A fallacy

A specific kind of appeal to emotion in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his/ her opponents feelings of pity or guilt.

a. Appeal to pity

Whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa

b. Appeal to ignorance

Logical chain of reasoning of a term or a word several times but giving a particular word a different meaning each time.

c. Equivocation

This infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.

d. Composition

One reason logically that something true of a thing must be true of all or some of its parts.

e. Division

This fallacy attempts to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.

f. Against the Person

An argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for the conclusion.

g. Appeal to force

Arguments that appeal or exploit people’s vanities, desire for esteem, and anchoring on popularity.

h. Appeal to the people

This fallacy is also referred to as a coincidental correlation, or correlation not causation.

i. False cause

One comments errors of one reaches an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence.

j. Hasty generalization

This is a type of fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

k. Begging the question