The Methods of Philosophizing
Download as PPTX, PDF3 likes1,525 views
This document discusses the differences between knowledge and opinion from ancient to modern philosophical perspectives. It begins with Plato's view that knowledge is certain while opinion is uncertain. Aristotle contributed the concept of syllogism as a logical method to demonstrate truths and opinions. Descartes believed that only clear, distinct ideas can form the basis of knowledge, not opinions which can be doubted. Derrida developed the theory of deconstruction to argue that appearances rather than essences underlie language. The document also examines correspondence theory, linguistic context, phenomenology, and existentialism in relation to understanding truth and opinion.
The Methods of Philosophizing
- 1. Methods of Philosophy J O U R N E Y T O T R U T H An Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person Prepared by: WILFREDO DJ P. MARTIN IV | SHS SETA
- 3. Jens Martensson Doxa and Episteme Understanding Opinion and Knowledge ► There is a variety of sources whenever views are discussed. ► Illusions should then be distinguished from what is reality. ► When we talk about knowledge (episteme), we are not concerned with mere belief or opinion (doxa). ► To know then is to be able to give rational justification
- 4. Jens Martensson P L AT O Ancient Roots Plato’s Views on Knowledge and Opinion ► He was often considered as the first to differentiate knowledge from opinion. ► For him, knowledge is certain whereas opinion is uncertain. ■ We remain ignorant when we rely on opinions for they are based on appearance and not reality. ■ Appearances are unreliable and deceptive ► His dialogues are activities directed toward discovering truths and acquiring knowledge. ► He performed dialectics as learned from his teacher Socrates.
- 5. Jens Martensson A R I ST OT L E Ancient Roots Aristotle’s Syllogism ► In demonstrating truth claim and opinion he developed SYLLOGISM: . ► A systematic representation of a single logical inference. It has three parts: a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. The parts are defined this way:. ■ The major premise contains a term from the predicate of the conclusion ■ The minor premise contains a term from the subject of the conclusion ■ The conclusion combines major and minor premise with a “therefore” symbol (∴) ► When all the premises are true and the syllogism is correctly constructed, a syllogism is an ironclad logical argument..
- 6. Jens Martensson Syllogism ► The most famous syllogism in philosophy is this: ■ All men are mortal (major premise) ■ Socrates is a man (minor premise) ■ ∴Socrates is mortal (conclusion) ► Notice that the major premise provides the predicate, while the minor premise provides the subject. As long as both premises are true, the conclusion must be true as well.
- 7. Jens Martensson Syllogism ► That first syllogism was pretty easy, since no one would ever argue with its premises. But syllogisms become more difficult when the premises are more complicated or debatable. For example: ■ Cats make good pets (major premise) ■ Dogs and cats are equally good as pets (minor premise) ■ ∴ dogs make good pets (conclusion) ► Is this argument true? It depends! Some people might disagree with the premises, or with the conclusion. It’s a matter of opinion. However, the logical validity of the syllogism is not a matter of opinion, because the conclusion really does follow from the premises.That is, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true as well.That makes it a logically valid syllogism regardless of whether or not you agree with the premises or the conclusion!
- 8. Jens Martensson Syllogism ► You can also have cases where a syllogism is logically sound, but factually incorrect. For example: ■ This car is expensive (minor premise) ■ All expensive cars are Ferraris. (major premise) ■ ∴ this car is a Ferrari. (conclusion) ► The major premise in this syllogism, of course, is wrong. In terms of its logical structure, there’s nothing wrong with the syllogism. But it’s based on a faulty assumption, and therefore the argument doesn’t work. If the major premise were true, then the conclusion would follow, which means the syllogism is perfectly logical. It just so happens that the premise isn’t true.
- 9. Jens Martensson R e n e D e s c a r t e s Modern Legacy DesCartes’ Views on Knowledge and Opinion ► He is considered as the Father of Modern Philosophy. ► For him, statements that are false, doubtful, or uncertain cannot be used as basis for knowledge. ► Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum. ► Clear and distinct ideas alone can become the foundation of all knowledge. ► Opinions are those that can be doubted and their lack of clarity makes them dubious whereas Knowledge is indubitable hence, certain.
- 10. Jens Martensson J a c q u e s D e r r I d a Contemporary Period Derrida’s Views on Knowledge and Opinion ► He developed the theory of deconstruction. ► For him, non-essential elements or appearances is the basis of everything that can be spoken or written. (opposing Plato’s concept of essence as knowledge) ► Derrida's approach consisted of conducting readings of texts looking for things that run counter to the intended meaning or structural unity of a particular text. Clear and distinct ideas alone can become the foundation of all knowledge. ► The purpose of deconstruction is to show that the usage of language in a given text, and language as a whole, are irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible.
- 11. Jens Martensson Questions of Truth and Opinion Understanding Correspondence Theory, LinguisticTurn, Phenomenology and Existentialism
- 12. Jens Martensson Correspondence Theory ► An idea is true if and only if it corresponds to the facts or events of the world ► The truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes that world. ► For example, "A cat is on a mat" is true if, and only if, there is in the world a cat and a mat and the cat is related to the mat by virtue of being on it.
- 13. Jens Martensson Linguistic Term Context Principle ► According to this principle, it is only in the context of a sentence that a word has meaning. ■ Sense- the meaning (connotation) ■ Reference- the extension (denotation) ► For example, the sense of “The Solar System is four billion years old” is different from “The Solar System is in existence for billions of years” ► Thus, the meaning of any given word (truth) must be derived from the context of whole sentences.
- 14. Jens Martensson Phenomenology ► The study of structures of experience, or consciousness. Literally, phenomenology is the study of “phenomena”: appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience things, thus the meanings things have in our experience. ► Studies conscious experience as experienced from the subjective or first person point of view. ► Experience is directed toward—represents or “intends”—things only through particular concepts, thoughts, ideas, images, etc.These make up the meaning or content of a given experience, and are distinct from the things they present or mean.
- 15. Jens Martensson ► Existentialism is a European philosophy that started in the mid-1800s and hit its stride in the years aroundWorld War II. It has two parts: ► Life has no inherent meaning. Nothing we do matters in an absolute sense.There is no God, no objective morality, and no cosmic “purpose” in life. ► That’s OK. Or even better than okay, because it means that life can have the meaning that we give it—that we are more important than any pre-conceived notions about our lives.
- 16. Jens Martensson ► If you have only the first part and not the second, you’d be considered a nihilist; with both parts, you become an existentialist.The reason it’s called existentialism is the idea that our actual existence—what we’re doing or experiencing at any given moment, is primary, rather than some absolute reality, like god, behind the scenes. So, existentialism is a positive alternative to nihilism. Existentialism also grew out of phenomenology, a philosophy which attempted to make a new firmer foundation for philosophy by only making statements about what you know to be true, 100%, without a doubt, which turns out to be only that you are having such-and-such an experience, right now.
- 17. Jens Martensson ► phenomenologists strongly justified the idea that your individual experience here and now is more real than any gods or abstract ideals. ► So, existentialists focus on individual experience and freedom; for existentialists, it’s OK that the universe has no inherent meaning, because that leaves us free to create our own meanings, which are more real, and may even turn out to be more beautiful and inspiring than the old universal certainties of religion and traditional philosophy. On the other hand, the risks are considerable; if meaning in life is entirely up to us, then what do we say to people who make their meaning by harming others? ►
- 18. Thank You