GST 211 Introduction to Philosophy, Logic, and Human Existence Lecture Notes PDF

COURSE CODE: GST 211 COURSE TITLE: INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY, LOGIC AND HUMAN EXISTENCE COURSE REQUIREMENTS: it is recommended by the Nigerian Universities Commission that only students with 75% attendance of lecture and contribution in the class will be given due consideration to write examinati...

COURSE CODE: GST 211 COURSE TITLE: INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY, LOGIC AND HUMAN EXISTENCE COURSE REQUIREMENTS: it is recommended by the Nigerian Universities Commission that only students with 75% attendance of lecture and contribution in the class will be given due consideration to write examination. The examination is graded at 70% while the class assessment (C.A) and mid-term assessment will be graded at 30%. COURSE LECTURER: Dr. Ezema Jane C. COURSE OVERVIEW: As an interdisciplinary course, we will explore the fundamental areas as well as questions that have challenged thinkers throughout history of human existence. In the areas of philosophy, logic, and human existence, we will carry out a survey on the nature of philosophical thinking as well as critical thinking through the introduction of logic and the rudiments of logical thinking and bring about; commendable human relations in our community of existence. Through rigorous and critical analysis of texts, discussions, and debates, we shall explore the following: COURSE CONTENTS: Meaning of philosophy Scope of philosophy Branches of philosophy Notions of philosophy Problems of philosophy Logic as tool of philosophy: Arguments: nature, types and forms Elements of syllogism Fallacies: formal and informal Laws of thought: The nine rules of inference Creative and critical thinking (activities) The impact of philosophy on human existence: Philosophy and politics Philosophy and religion Philosophy and human values Philosophy and human conduct Philosophy and character molding, etc. **WHAT PHILOSOPHY MEANS** Philosophy has diverse ways of understanding it. Many thinkers in different ways have made attempts in defining as well as explaining the term. Before delving into the various meanings and understanding of philosophy by different philosophers and thinkers, let us explore the root words that gave birth to the term. Philosophy if driven from two Greek words: "*Philein"* which means to "*Love*" and "*Sophia*" which means "*Wisdom*". When these two Greek words are combined, we have the root meaning as "the love of wisdom". This implies a burning desire to have certain knowledge about things around the universe we live in. in a bid to have this reasoned knowledge or understanding, the human mind is left with loads of things to juggle with. An outstanding attempt in understanding the word Philosophy is the one made by a Greek Philosopher known as Socrates (469/470BCE-399BCE). For him, philosophy begins with wondering. Wondering for him means a way of seeking wisdom in all human dealings and challenges. By wondering, one is open to various thoughts about a particular thing or many other things. Other predecessors who towed the same line of thought are Plato and Rene Descartes. While Plato saw wondering as the foundation of all philosophical investigation, Descartes saw wondering it as a stepping stone to his philosophy as found in his "Meditations on First Philosophy." Descartes started his philosophical enquiry by doubting everything (methodical skepticism) including his existence. At a point, he realized that act of doubting and wondering is a pointer to his existence, he therefore; came to terms with the popular dictum, "*corgito ergo sum*" which literally means, "I think, therefore; I am". Citing Christian James in his Book "Philosophy: *An Introduction to the Art of Wondering"* Charles Chukwudozie states that to philosophize is to wonder about right and wrong, love and loneliness, war and death. It means to wonder creatively about freedom, truth, beauty, time and a thousand other things. Philosophy is solely about creative thinking about things seen and unseen. This is why some thinkers such John Josper would opine that philosophy is a systematic interpretation of all experiences. Philosophy as a discipline; cuts across every other discipline of human existence. On this note, Otegbulu Gabriel describes philosophy as a big iroko tree with many branches. It is therefore considered as the mother of all disciplines. The assertion stays in tune with Plato's submission that philosophy is the only science which is the science of itself and of the other sciences as well. It is important to note that the conception of philosophy differs due to the very many epistemological backgrounds and different schools of thought. The way a metaphysician understands it differs from that of a logician as well as the empiricist and others. **THE BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY** Systematically, there are many branches of philosophy but in order to comprehensively venture into the branches, it is going to grouped into two: 1. Things in existence- these belongs to the things already in existence and mostly beyond our comprehension. There is the need to speculate on those things to find and attach meanings to them. It could be considered as speculative philosophy 2. Activities we create through our existence- here; the will and thoughts transform our actions. It is powered by the external use of actions based on pre-informed motives. It can as well be seen as practical philosophy 1. **Metaphysics:** the word metaphysics is driven from "*meta"* which means "*beyond*" and "*physika"* which implies the "*physical".* Literally, it means beyond the physical. It refers to a knowledge or principle of reality that is given within and outside of the human sensory organs. In contemporary philosophical jargon, it refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality. It studies the nature of being and its' existence. It enquires into the nature of things given beyond experience. Metaphysics also includes the revision of the nature of the human mind, the meaning of existence, the nature of space and time, and causality. It is also seen as the science of reality as different from appearance. This is to say that it is interested in the essence of things and not basically; their appearances. Metaphysics is also known as first philosophy. There are many identified branches of metaphysics such as cosmology, rational psychology, philosophical anthropology, ontology and natural theology. For the purposes of this study, we shall include ontology and cosmology. a. **Ontology:** this branch of metaphysics that deals with the study of beings (both material and immaterial) it ventures into ideas such as; substance, essence, accident, cause and many others. b. **Cosmology:** this is the branch of metaphysics that studies the universe. It is interested in the composition, structure, origin of the universe. The cosmological outlook of the universe projects into some critical questions and the inventions of the universe from different epistemological backgrounds. On this note, many theories of the understanding of the universe such as the evolution, creationist, Darwinism, etc; abound. 2. **Epistemology**- this is a derivative of two Greek words; "*episteme*" meaning "knowledge" and "*logos*" meaning "theory". Epistemology simply implies, 'the theory of knowledge'. The word knowledge in the philosophical sense lays emphasis on factual provision of evidences. It insists that one cannot lays claims to knowledge of that which can be faulted. This branch of philosophy raises questions such as; what is knowledge? how can knowledge be acquired? Can acquired knowledge be doubted? What are the sources of knowledge? Is experience a source of knowledge, if so, are there other sources of knowledge? Can we know the feelings of other people? etc. 3. **Logic-** the term logic; is a derivative of the Greek word "Logos" which means reasoning or discourse. It is also known as the science of reasoning or the theory of correct reasoning. It studies propositions and their uses in argumentation and helps in detecting or demarcating valid reasoning from invalid reasoning. **PRACTICAL ORDER OF PHILOSOPHY** **Aesthetics-** Aesthetics is gotten from the Greek word "*aisthetikos*" which implies perspective or put simply, perception of the senses. This branch of philosophy is interested in value judgements about art and it studies the philosophical foundations behind the idea of beauty. It is an evaluation of different forms of art. Its areas of interest are: the work of art, the process of perceiving and experiencing a work of art, and the ways of accessing the works of art as well as other works in terms of its/ their beauty of ugliness. It implies an individual explanation or analysis of the sensory perceptions and imaginations of the works of art. It is also called the science of beauty. **Axiology-** axiology is a derivative of the Greek root words *Axios'* and '*Logos'* Worth or Value and Logic or Theory simultaneously Axiology according to Mubeshera Tufail is the branch of philosophy which deals with quality or value It studies the standards of judgments about values. Many thinkers see both ethics and aesthetics as branches or offshoot of axiology. On a specific note, philosophers would argue that in studying the values of man, the determiners of the choices made by man is influenced and this for him; gives direction to life. According to Uduma Orji Uduma, axiology means the study of value; it is the philosophical study of goodness or value. Axiology is a pointer to the essence of value in our everyday experience. The sense of accessing value is a necessity and should be considered a common knowledge that is worth achieving in every sphere of human life. We talk about subjective and objective values in terms of adjudging them to be good or bad, beautiful or ugly, right or wrong, etc. Through these assessments, valuational statements are made in terms of good and bad. Remember, good and bad are values in themselves. It is the knowledge of the "good" that paves way for the knowledge of "bad". This is to say that it is the existence of "good" that gives meaning to the "bad". **PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY** Over the centuries, various challenges have been encountered in the course of philosophizing. These challenges are so overwhelming and constantly evolving, such that their persistence has not been curbed till date. Some of the identified are as follows: 1. The problem of change and permanence 2. The problem of appearance and reality 3. The problem of causality 4. The problem of freewill and determinism 5. The problem of unity and diversity 6. The problem of mind-body interaction **THE PROBLEM OF CHANGE AND** **PERMANENCE** In the history of philosophy, it is one of the earliest problems that has been discovered. It is obvious in nature that changes occur, but despite these changes, there still exists permanence and continuity. As ridiculous as this may sound, one wonders between change and permanence, p into the same river twice. In explicating this position, he states that the moment you step into the moving water, the flow continues; thereby, making it impossible to step into the same water-shed twice. The major realistic principle that is operational; is that of change and nothing more. He states that everything that exist is in the state of constant flux. That is to say that all things are ephemeral. For him, change is the only permanent thing. In another contribution to the history of the problem of change and permanence in philosophy, **Parmenides,** change does not occur, what we see as change is nothing but the illusion of the senses. For him, our knowledge is vague and we are deceived by our senses. Reason and truth are the only sources of reliability. The senses deceive us and keep us away from reality. These perceptions of these philosophers on the account of change and permanence differs and, in a bid to reconcile it, **Empedocles** of Andragas maintains the position that both contributions have elements of truthfulness in them. For him, some elements are subject to change while some others do not change. Clarifying his positions further, he maintains that there are four basic elements: air, fire water and earth which does not change into another element. These four elements according to him, are the basic realities of life and every other thing that exists is made up of these identified elements. When these elements either combine or separate, something new comes into existence. On this account, he supports the idea that everything changes with time and therefore affirms the idea of change. The coming into being and extinction of other elements is a possibility through the combination or separation of elements. **Anaxagoras** in defense of change took another direction in his explanation. He believes what is called change is the domination of particle. The domination is what gives every particle their distinct features and when it occurs, a new particle is formed. **Democritus** gave his explanation of change using the atomist theory. For him, atoms are the basic forms of reality and they are as well, the smallest part of matter. They are small such that they cannot be either seen or divided. They also differ in shapes and sizes. As they move about in void, they clash, as they clash, they bring something new into existence and when they separate, something passes out of existence. **THE PROBLEM OF APPEARANCE AND REALITY** Lots of thoughts and ideas exhume the human mind when the issue of appearance and reality is presented. The question is, is appearance same as reality? The appearance of things may not really depict their reality. There are somethings which appears real but they are nothing but illusions. For instance, when a mirage is seen when we travel along road, it appears as a pool of water, but on getting closer, it's nothing but illusions. Appearance of the same object differs in its interpretation from different people. For instance, when an object is placed at a point and different people take different positions to analyze it, they will eventually give varying descriptions of same object. On this account, great thinkers such as Plato and Descartes present their skepticism on the knowledge of the senses. For them, the knowledge of the world cannot be understood through the senses. For Plato, the essences or ideas of things cannot be known through the senses but rather; in the world of forms. **THE PROBLEM OF CAUSALITY** Causality by implication simply means the production of subsequent effect by the activity/activities of another. It also means an influence by which one event contributes to the production of another event. To explain the concept of causality further, four types of causes were identified. 1. Material cause 2. Formal cause 3. Efficient cause 4. Final cause **The Material Cause** is the type of cause made by matter. It comprises of the material stuff to which something is made. It does not exist in itself, but rather comes from the combination or influence of one or more objects on the other. Example, a chair is made up of wood, nails, cover cloths and other working tools such as saw, scrapper, smoother, etc. **Formal Cause** can be described as the essential nature of a thing; that which qualifies a thing as distinct from the other. It is the pivotal nature of the pattern or shape of a thing which differentiates it from the other. **Efficient cause** of a thing is the agent that is responsible for responsible for bringing another thing into being **Final Cause** is the end in view or the purpose for which a thing is made. Cause generally is rooted in the idea of the teleologists who believe that everything is "intended for an end and moving towards an end." Explicating the notion of cause and effect further, David Hume used the demonstration of the billiard ball. If a white billiard ball that is at rest is acted upon by a moving black billiard ball, when it hits the white one, it sets it in motion. When such happens, we record that one event comes after the other. What it means for him, is that the movement of the white ball was not because it was acted on, but because it's an event that supersedes the other. The assumption that a thing is caused by the other does not exist in reality but the mind and associated with habit. When we talk about cause and effect, we speak of what we expect, rather than what is reasonable. **THE PROBLEM OF** **FREEWILL AND DETERMINISM** Freewill denotes the idea that each individual has the tenacity of making choices of their actions while determinism holds that all human events are as a result of predetermined effect. Popkin and Stroll would argue that the deterministic argument sustains that God is the causal agent in the universe and He alone, determines all things. The combination of both ideas on freewill and determinism is a paradoxical one. Its unification seems impossible as their views differs. The question that comes to mind in the sight of freewill and determinism is, if God is the determinant of all events and actions of the human person, how come the existence of punishment in the society? If humans are as free as proposed in the idea of freewill, why are human beings blamed or praised for their actions? What is the essence of human freedom if everything or action in the universe is caused? If there's nothing like human freedom, why are there laws in existence? The concept of freewill and determinism in the history of philosophy has generated more complications than resolutions till date. It asks lots of questions without having satisfactory answers. **THE PROBLEM OF UNITY AND DIVERSITY** The idea of unity and diversity has gained attention by the Ionians, each of them has a different and noble way of the understanding, as well as the explanation of realities pertaining the concepts. Unanimously, the Ionians believes that reality is one. For them, all things are one and are basically made of one stuff. The discrepancy that is inherent of the Ionians is the terminologies for depicting this one reality or stuff of the universe. While Thales of Miletus held that the basic reality or stuff of the universe is water, Anaximander who is a student of his, held his distinct opinion by stating that the basic stuff of the universe is the "*infinite* or *indeterminate*". on another hand, Anaximenes who was also an associate of Anaximander came up with his own idea of the basic stuff of the universe by authenticating the air. For him, air is the ultimate stuff of the universe. The amazing thing to ask is; in all the conceptions of the universe, is unity tenable in the midst of diversifications? In explaining the concept of unity and diversity further, the Idealists in the ancient period of philosophy saw reality in a monistic form. For them, reality is one and absolute. That absolute reality is God who establishes himself in different forms. For them, reality is one but manifests itself in many forms. The pluralists disagreed with the monists, stating that in the universe, there are varieties and multiplicities of substances and that the unity of all things cannot be guaranteed in the face of integral multiplicities. While the earliest Ironians believed in unity in the midst of diversity of all things in the universe, the idealists kicked against it and upholds that the reality that is considered one, manifests itself in many forms. Therefore, the pluralists deny the existence of unity in the universe. **THE PROBLEM OF MIND AND BODY INTERACTION** The mind-body problem has been a persistent problem in the history of philosophy and has lingered till the 21^st^ century and still counting. The ability to identify and explain the relationship of the mind with the body has been a challenging one. This area in philosophy has attracted the attention, thoughts and various question in the area of the relationship between the mind and the body. Questions such as: 1. Is the mind different from the body? 2. Is the mind the same as the body? 3. If the mind and the body are separate, how then do they relate? 4. If the mind and the body relate, where is the meeting point? 5. Why is it that when the mind wills an action, the body will act accordingly? 6. Why is it also that when pain is inflicted on one part of the body, all the parts of the body; including the mind, feels that pain which emanated from just a source In a bid to answer some these questions, many theories have been generated as follows: **The theory of Interactionism** Rene Descartes was one of the prominent thinkers that made attempts in responding to the mind body problem. For him, there is a valediction between the mind and the body. He made the distinction by identifying the mind as an immaterial or spiritual substance that thinks and identified the body with matter, whose characteristic nature is extension. The explanation of the mind-body problem as given by Descartes produced lots of controversies as to the relation of both. In an attempt to add supporting flesh to his position, he maintains that the mind and the body interacts at the pineal gland. Subsequent other questions were asked as to the location of the pineal gland and the mode of interaction but he failed in its clarification. As a result of this failure, he was criticized of producing as escape route by saying that the mind and the body interacts at the pineal gland. **EPIPHENOMENALISM** Epiphenomenalism is a mind-body theory which states that the mind is the function of the brain or a *by-product of the brain*. Other thinkers such as George Santayana conceives of the relationship between mind (mental event) and body (material event) by the introduction of what he called the mountain stream. For him, when the water from the mountain falls on the rock, it produces babbling sound. The sound produced is the by-product of the landing water on the rock. Just like smoke is the effect of or by-product of burning flame or fire. Epiphenomenalists for Egbeke Aja interested in the sensations, images, feelings, thoughts and emotions that are produced by the actions of the brain. Matter for him, is primary and as well, the only real thing. The mind as we may call it is nothing but shadows that appears as a result some necessary conditions. OCCASIONALISM A prominent French man in the history of philosophy which is known as Nicholas Malebranche, who existed between 1638-1715 propounded the theory of occasionalism. In his understanding, at occasions, certain events of the body occurs but God who capacitated with the possibility of all knowledge causes the accompanying mental events. In his understanding, the actions of the body is controlled by the omniscience nature of God and gives meaning to the mental (mind) activities of the body. This is to say that whenever an action is achieved two chief actors contributed to that facticity (man and God simultaneously). Cornman argues that, God causes and regulates all mental activities of the body. The moment a bodily event occurs, the subsequent mental event following instantly; is caused by God. In the analogy of the proponents of occasionalism, there was no instance of analysis of the relationship of the mind and the body. PRE-ESTABLISHED HARMONY The German Philosopher, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz propounded the theory of pre-established harmony. In his explanations of this theory, he maintains that both the bodily actions, as well as the accompanying mental activities takes place as a pre-established plan of God. The analysis offered by Liebniz supports the idea that for any action to take place, it has been pre- established or ordained by God. It is more like a written script which must be acted accordingly. He is of the opinion that the mind and body are two independent entities but has been programmed by God to act accordingly. LOGIC AS TOOL OF PHILOSOPHY The rationality of the human person is undebatable. Rationality is a natural endowment bequeathed unto the human person for enhancement and growth. Man's thinking ability enhances the other levels of mental activity known as rationality. In as much as man is seen to be a specie of animal, it I s the thinking as well as rational and communication ability of the human species that differentiates him from the other lower animals. We can outrightly say that rationality involves thinking but thinking alone does not entail rationality. Rationality supersedes thinking as it indulges many mental processes. Rationality is interested transcending from mere thinking to a farfetched activity of the mental. For instance, when we see a mirage which is an optical illusion along a road, the immediate resolution is that there is a shed of water along the road. This is exactly what thinking does, but reasoning will lure you into further enquiries to ascertain the facticity. It is on the note that logic comes into timeline. When a thinking activity attains the level of (critical) reasoning, logic then comes into play. **What is Logic** Different thinkers in distinct and different capacities have made varying attempts in explaining and expanding the term in order to achieve clarity. The word logic is gotten from the Greek word "Logos" which means reasoning or discourse. The term logic is associated basically with the nature of truth and the very many rigorous ways of arriving at the truth. In the conception of Prof. Ome Emmanuel et al in the book, ***Philosophy and Logic for Everybody,*** Logic is that division which reflects upon the nature of thinking itself. It attempts to answer such questions such as: a. What is correct reasoning? b. What distinguishes a good argument from a bad one? c. Are there methods to detect fallacies in reasoning; if so, what are the methods? Logic is interested in responding to the questions as poised above and more. Logic is keen to issues relating to the structures of human thought as well as the principles or laws governing the concept of valid reasoning. It is involved in the validation of the principles which serves as a guide to correct reasoning. Logic lays the foundation for the search or quest for authentic knowledge. As a result, logic can be said to be interested in "**providing the rational justifications for all encounters**". The simplification and symbolization of sentences is a tool adopted in the logical process to achieve the desired knowledge. On this note, Emmanuel J. Ibuot has argued that logic involves the deployment of artificial language or symbols to represent entire statements (propositions), which could be declarative in ordinary language. The aim of the deployment of the artificial language is to import a logical slogan which overrides ambiguity in logical thinking. **SCOPE OF LOGIC** It can be figured out that the quest for knowledge in human beings is aided by logic. Logic is confined within the realms of human reasoning or activities of the mind. This is simply to say that logic fails in the quest/acquisition of knowledge at the point where the human mind fails to function properly, whether in the formal or informal sense of logical thinking. It's our interest in this course to lay emphasis on formal logic. This is because formal logic models us in the right-thinking direction; the act of thinking and arguing validly. Logic in enormous ways; helps in detecting the errors encountered in thinking and reasoning using the logical tools or laws of logical analysis. On this note, it is pertinent to understand that logic plays its role of knowledge enhancement through the mental activities, from the elementary aspect or level of human life; through its development of making personal decisions, to complicated decisions which may include the settlement of disputes. Logic as an indispensable branch of philosophy has its scope of ensuring understanding using the presented logical flows to draw valid conclusions in the arts, sciences and basically; in technological advancements. ARGUMENT **What does it mean to argue?** When we use the word "argue", it means to spring up reasons in support or against opinion/s or discourse/s. Argument simply means the ability of providing evidences for an acclaimed opinion or idea. Statements or propositions are offered to support arguments. They are the basic reasons and the yardstick for making inferences. When a scholar engages in an argument, he or she does so; drawing reasonable inferences from the provided propositions as well as evidence/s. An argument does not and cannot take place in a vacuum. It has structures that guides the logicality deduced from the presented propositions. THE NATURE OF AN ARGUMENT An argument is made of proposition which appears in premises that aid the conclusion. The premises of an argument simply means those propositions that form evidence for the conclusion of an argument or those propositions from which inference can be made conclusively. The premises is considered to be one or more propositions given as evidence or a form of justification for another proposition known as the conclusion. Basically, the first two proposition serves as the premises while the third proposition serves as the conclusion in most argumentative cases. The premises is made up of the statements which give evidence for, or reasons for accepting the conclusion while the conclusion includes statements or propositions which is implied to be established on the footnotes of other statements (known as the premises). Premises provides the fertile ground on which proposition/s can be affirmed or denied. It serves as a roadmap to determining the conclusions without running into any form of contradiction. The premise serves as the fleshy and skeletal support to the attainment of the conclusion. With the assurance provided by the premises, fallacious conclusions are detected without antagonism. Let us examine the propositions below: All Maduka University Students are arrogant (first premise) Michael is a student of Maduka University (second premise) Therefore, Micheal is intelligent (conclusion) In logic, two types of premises are identified as follows; the major and the minor premises. The major premise serves as the base for drawing the required inference while the minor premise serves as a support to drawing the conclusions. The ingredients of a conclusion in any statement in wholly dependent on the propositions as provided by the premises. It could be in the first, middle or last proposition in the cases where there are more than two premises. In the above proposition, the defence for the conclusion is driven from the first and second premise. It is pertinent to also know that each of the keyword is to appear twice from the first and second premise to the conclusion. It is worthy to note that the position in which one defends is the conclusion. The conclusion must be drawn from the propositions or arguments presented Let's take a look at the following propositions, and examine whether it meets the rules of inferring from the premises to the conclusion. All Maduka University students are smart Jane is a student of Maduka University Therefore, Jane is smart. From our explanations so far, we will find out that there is a logical connection and consistency from the premises to the conclusion Let's also examine this: All male lecturers are intelligent Dr. Benard is a male lecturer, Therefore, Dr. Benard is insane. **DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF AN ARGUMENT** In Logic, the search for the validity of an argument is the interest and not the truth/true nature of the argument. The logical process of drawing inference from the premises to the conclusion could be successfully done without arriving at a truthful standpoint but the validity of the argument remains unshakeable. On this note, arguments could be considered to be "correct or incorrect", "valid or invalid". A valid argument can be considered as one which the logical flow is consistent. An argument which is true in nature can be logically false or vice-versa as far as it does (not) obey the rules or laws of logic. The assurance of a valid argument is guaranteed by the deductions from its premises. The premises as well as the conclusion can be false but yet, the argument is valid. Let us examine the argument below: 1. All Christians are dedicated to the work of God. Deborah is a Christian Therefore, Deborah is dedicated to the work of God. 2. To become a student, you must pass JAMB examination James is a student Therefore, James passed his JAMB examination The presented argument passed the rules of logic as well as the rules of inference. In other words, the argument is valid as the premises and conclusions necessarily meets the conditions for the conclusion, but when this argument is thoroughly examined, it may not be true. This is because, there are possibilities that Deborah is not dedicated to the work of God and yet; she is a Christian and James too did not pass JAMB as he may have gained his admission as a student through direct entry, (pre-degree, pre-science, IJMBE etc). IDENTIFYING AN INVALID ARGUMENT An invalid argument is that in which conclusions does not follow from the premises, when the premises lack the required elements for the authentication of the conclusion, then we can say that such argument is invalid. For instance: All mothers are women All children have mothers (dead or alive) Therefore, all women are females When we check the logical consistence of this argument, we eventually discover a big lapse moving from the premises to the conclusion. The keywords are not consistent and as a result, does not meet with the logical rules or laws and therefore, considered as invalid. The premises are true, the conclusion is also true but the argument is invalid following the logical rules.  An argument is valid if and only if it is compulsory that all of the premises are true, the conclusion is also true and it follows the logical rules of consistency. once all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be also true. Here, it becomes impossible that all the premises are true and the conclusion is false.  An argument is said to be invalid when all the premises have been tested and confirmed to be true and yet, the conclusion contradicts the premises by having a false assertion or proposition. If this is possible, the argument is invalid.  It is pertinent to note that the validity and invalidity measures apply only to arguments, not statements. SOUND AND UNSOUND ARGUMENTS A sound argument can be said to be characterized by the assurance of a true premise as well as conclusion. In confirming if an argument is sound, one may not be assured of the truthfulness of the conclusion if the premises is found wanting in terms of the validation of its truthfulness. An argument may be valid but not sound. For an argument to be sound, it must possess the following: 1. It must be valid (it is one of the criteria but not the major deciding factor) 2. The premises must be true. 3. The conclusion must also be true On a very important note, it should be known that all sound arguments are valid but not all valid arguments are sound. In the same manner, all invalid arguments are unsound but not all unsound arguments are invalid. Below are some example examples of sound arguments: All fishes live in water (True) Catfish belong to the family of fish/s (True) Therefore, catfish lives in water (True) The arguments above depicts a logically sound argument. This is because all the premises are true and the conclusion is logically drawn from the premises to be logically true too. Let us also examine an unsound argument: All students of Maduka University are highly intelligent as they pay attention in class (false) It is expected that all the students who pay attention in class will pass in their examination ( true) Therefore, all students of Maduka University will pass their exams (false) In all our explanations so far, it is pertinent to note that what the logician is interested in is the consistency and logical flow of an argument from the premises to the conclusion. As far as an argument obeys and satisfies the rules or laws of logical inference, the validity is assured. The logician is interested in the validity and not the true nature of any argument. **Types of Argument:** Arguments have different ways of recognizing them. It could be in terms of their forms, components or characteristics. By implication, all personal discussions or communication strategies or activities cannot qualify as arguments. For an argument to qualify as such, it must possess the characteristics of (an) argument(s). There are basically two types of argument: **Deductive and Inductive Argument** **Deductive Argument** In this type of argument, the conclusion logically necessitates from the premises. The solid evidence that exists between the two indicates that it would be practically self-contradictory or inconsistent to deny the premises and affirm the conclusion. In this type of argument, the conclusion is drawn or deduced from the premises. The premise provides the evidences or information for the conclusion. By implication, this means that in deductive argument, the truth of the conclusion of any argument is wholly dependent on the premise and for the conclusion to be explicit, the conclusion must not go beyond what is given by the premise. An argument can be said to be empty if it does not meet the standard as presented above. Referring to the earlier example, we can explore what is given by deductive argument; All men must die Obi is a man Therefore, Obi must die. This argument invariably obeys the laws of deduction of an argument, ranging from the premise to the conclusion. There is another traditional way of understanding deductive argument which endorses the characterization of deductive inference and entails moving from general to particular subjects or objects. That is, moving from the truth of a whole to the truth of a particular. But this is not always the case as this characterization is misleading and cannot meet the standards it has placed at all instances. For example: If it is raining and wet outside, then students will not come for lectures It is raining and wet outside Therefore, students will not come for the lectures. In the above assertion, there is no instance of moving from general to particular subjects or objects and this debunks the traditional claims of deductive reasoning in an argument. Moreso, this is a conditional statement and not categorical statements. Furthermore, let us examine the following example: All meticulous people are successful All successful people are wealthy Therefore, all meticulous people are wealthy. This assertion or argument is categorical, though it didn't move from general to particular but obeys the rule of deduction. There are other exceptions which connotes statements which move also from particular to particular as against the traditional claims of deductive logic. Take a look at this: Chinonso is younger than Munachimso Munachimso is younger than Chinedu Therefore; Chinonso is younger than Chinedu. In this type of argument, the conclusion is wholly informed by the premises. Deductive arguments can only be characterized in terms of the relationship between the information provided in the premises down to the conclusion. The premises provides conclusive grounds for the premises. At this juncture, let us take a look at the **Inductive Argument** **Inductive Argument** In this type of argument, the relationship that exist between the premises and conclusion is such that the premises does not give all the necessary evidence or the classified information for the establishment of the conclusion, rather, it presents some form of support. Inductive arguments can be said to be those arguments whose conclusions do not require the consistent flow from the premises, rather, it condenses the conclusion to probability. In this type of argument, there may be tendencies that the premises of an argument may be the true and the conclusion is false. In inductive reasoning, the rules of confirmation in terms of valid reasoning are not granted. It deals with the cases of probability in the conclusion of an argument. It is concerned with those evidences provided by the premises which renders the conclusion probable. Remember, in inductive argument, the premises does not entail the conclusion, rather, it provides some evidences for the conclusion Let us examine the following argument: Jonathan, a graduate of Maduka University is highly intelligent Paul, a graduate of Maduka University is also highly intelligent Therefore, Darlington, a graduate of Maduka University must be highly intelligent. Inductive argument can only be characterized as so when the premises of the argument render the conclusion probable. In summary, deductive arguments can be classified as arguments which follows with strict necessity from the premises to the conclusion while those rendered probable from the assertions presented in the premises and conclusion are considered as inductive arguments. **CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM** A syllogism could be said to be an argument which is made up of three propositions such that one of the propositions identified as the conclusion; follows from the others. Aristotle in his words is of the view that *"a syllogism is a discourse in which a certain thing being stated, something other than which is stated follows of necessity from being so"*, (Prior Analytica 24b 18). This means that whatever that is stated holds against whatever that is not stated. It is worthy to note that if the premises and the conclusion of a syllogism is categorical, the argument is a categorical syllogism. We have other types of syllogism, such as hypothetical syllogism and disjunctive syllogism but shall focus on categorical syllogism for the purposes of this course. TERMS IN CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM - The middle term appears twice in the premise and does not appear in the conclusion - The major term occurs and applies as the predicate of the conclusion. - The minor term is the subject of the conclusion. MOOD AND FIGURE OF CATEGOTICAL SYLLOGISM In the strict sense of the arrangement of categorical syllogism, the minor terms are stated firstly, and then; the major term is followed by the minor term. Syllogistic arguments can take up different forms. In as much as syllogism is embodied by three propositions, each of the proposition may take up any of the four forms of the syllogistic categories and could yield about sixty-four (64) other forms. It could be EAE, AEE, AAA, AAI, AAO, OOO etc. Take AAA proposition for instance: All singers are happy people All solo performers are singers Therefore, all solo performers are happy people The table below will give a clearer understanding of the standard form categorical syllogism Abr. Quantity Quality Form Example of its usage ------ ------------ ------------- ----------------------- ------------------------- A Universal Affirmative All S is P (SaP) All men are greedy E Universal Negative No S is P (SeP) No man is greedy I Particular Affirmative Some S is P (SiP) Some men are greedy O Particular Negative Some S in not P (SoP) Some men are not greedy In the tabular presentation of the standard form categorical syllogism, the A, E, I, and O proposition is traditionally taken from the Latin word, "*Affirmo*" which means to affirm and "*Nego*" which means to negate or deny. A&E represents universal propositions while the I&O represents the particular propositions. The A proposition denotes that all the members of the subject class is inclusive in the predicate class The E proposition denotes the entire members of the subject term is excluded from the predicate class. The I proposition asserts that only a part of the subject members referred to in a subject term is included in the predicate class. In the I proposition family, three types of particular affirmative propositions is obtainable as shown below Basic particulars: I. some students are so inconsiderate in their actions. II. some skill acquisition materials is needed. Plurative particulars I. a few students engaged in the course registration exercise. Most philosophers are free-thinkers Numerical particulars I. Four students of law failed the exam II. Five buses were deployed to convey the lecturers. The information provided by the plurative and the numerical particulars are specific compared to the information provided by the basic particular propositions The O proposition indicates that a part of the members referred to in a subject term is no included in the predicate class. It is also worthy to not that the application of basic, plurative and numerical particulars also applies to O propositions. Categorical propositions can take sixty-four (64) forms irrespective of the classified four forms.