Branches of Philosophy PDF

ON THE BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY (MODULE 1.B) In our earlier discussion, we have already covered the definitions of Philosophy both in its etymological and nominal definition. From the latter definition we have centered our discussion on the formal object of Philosophy, i.e. Being. We have come to un...

ON THE BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY (MODULE 1.B) In our earlier discussion, we have already covered the definitions of Philosophy both in its etymological and nominal definition. From the latter definition we have centered our discussion on the formal object of Philosophy, i.e. Being. We have come to understand that the scope of its meaning shall continue to elude our understanding without delving into the different branches of Philosophy. So far we have discussed that the branches of Philosophy are divided into 2, the PURE and the APPLIED. The pure philosophies address the nature of the mind providing us with theories to help us understand things within nature. And the applied philosophies attempt to explain the structure and behavior of social institutions base on accepted and prevailing theories provided by the pure philosophies. The Pure philosophies have 2 sub categories: Theoretical and practical. The theoretical is intended exclusively for cognitive appreciation of beings while the practical is directed towards perception. Under the theoretical branches, We have identified Metaphysics, Ontology, Theodicy, Cosmology, and Epistemology. In summary: Metaphysics - derived from Meta meaning beyond and Physikon for the physical universe. We understand it to be the study of the very meaning of Existence and everything that pertains to it. It’s formal object is Being per se or Essence. NOTE: Do recall at this point the Doctrine of Hylemorphism and the concepts contained therein. Ontology - is a sub branch of Metaphysics. Its formal object is being-beings that looks into the nature of existing things either as possible or actual beings. Theodicy - known to be the branch of philosophy that is responsible for its title as the handmaid of theology. From the word Theos meaning God and dike generally understood as justice, Theodicy is understood as the study on the Justice of God. Again, I’d like to point out that justice here does not refer to retribution but the Truth about the nature of God. Epistemology - is the branch of Philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge including veracity, formation and retention. Cosmology - For the Greeks, the universe is not just an aggregation of astronomical bodies but it is instead an intelligent, orderly system that is believed to resonate in every aspect of reality including human experience. As such, the study of the intelligence of the universe and and the acceptance of certain theories has always affected our attempts to create social structures and in defining our very own values. Furthermore, Cosmology also deals with questions governing the physical universe including questions on space, time, motion and causality. Another branch classified under the theoretical division is Psychology. Considered to be one of the oldest branches of Philosophy, it is involved in the study of Human Nature. It is argued that its beginning started with Socrates and his famous statements that “An unexamined life is not worth living”, hence, we should “know Thyself”. The word psychology is derived from the words Psyche, commonly understood as Soul, Spirit or mind; and logos meaning “study of”. Philosophical Psychology although related with Clinical Psychology should not be taken as the same. While both deal with human nature, the former is interested in the nature of the mind and the powers of the soul including the study of reason and volition. The latter on the other hand is more concerned with the physiological bases of human behaviour such as the nervous system and neuro-chemical changes in the human body to name a few. Going to the Practical branches of Philosophy, I’d like to reiterate that these branches are not intended simply for knowledge but to improve/alter/effect changes of our perception through a deeper understanding of things. As I like to say to students, the theoretical branches makes our mind beautiful but it is the practical branches that makes our lives a bit more colourful by helping us learn how to appreciate things differently. The practical branches of philosophy are Aesthetics, Social Philosophy, Semantics, Logic and Ethics. Aesthetics - could be considered as the foremost branch of the practical philosophies. It is after all dealing with the way we appreciate the beauty in things. Its origin came from the word “aestetikon” meaning “one who understands standards or simply an expert”. Today we might call them to be “Critics” be it in the arts, politics, culinary etc. By formal definition, Aesthetics is defined as the science of Beauty and the appreciation of the Arts. I have to stress however that beauty is not just SEEN in the arts but in everything. I have highlighted the word seen because I want to point out that beauty is not within the object projected to us. No object, living or otherwise can do that. Instead, beauty is something we ourselves project to the thing we are appreciating. It is a subjective experience. To understand what I have just said, note that beauty is not a quality of an object per se but rather is it is the state of the perceiver. While history might argue that beauty is any set of standard be it in terms of symmetry or a specific composition, we need to ask the question first why do we consider symmetry and composition beautiful in the first place? The answer is simple: Some people find symmetry and certain composition combination pleasing. In other words Beauty is whatever we find pleasurable to us. Some might be satisfied with a quality of a thing while others might find the exact same quality revolting. Thats not really surprising, after all “beauty is upon the eye of the beholder”. It must be noted that beauty also has a hierarchy. The closer to matter(senses) the lower the degree, naturally, as experienced pleasure goes further from matter and closer to the intellect the higher the degree of beauty become. It is the very reason why scenic paintings that simply require visual appreciation are much cheaper than abstract ones that demand mental reflection. What is being sold is the difference in the degree of beauty between the two types of paintings. Another branch of Philosophy is Social Philosophy. Considered to be the youngest among the major branches of Philosophy. From the word “socius” roughly translated as “others”, its main subject matter is to explain theories about societies and how people behave in it. Over time, it has evolved and has given birth to contemporary fields of inquiry such Sociology, Anthropology, Political science, history, etc. Today, we refer to this branch more popularly as Social science. Some of the main issues of Social Philosophy deals with human social ideals such as Freedom, Liberty and Justice to name a few. Semantics, deals with language, However, it should not be confuse with linguistics. While the latter generally studies vocabularies and taxonomies, the former deals with the very foundation of language. Etymologically, it is derived from the word “semes” understood as the “first”, suggesting that semantics deal with understanding the minimal or foundational elements of meaning that allows one to describe or understand words and symbols multilingually. Logic takes a peculiar stance, as some consider it to be a branch of philosophy, others consider it to be the method of philosophy and is therefore present in all the branches. Think of it as the scientific method that bundles all the hard sciences together. Logic is said to be derived from the Greek word Logos meaning the word or from the word Logike meaning thought, reason or discourse. Nominally it is defined as the science and art of valid inferential reasoning. While Logic may be considered as an inclusive term that signifies correct thinking, it is imperative to understand that there is no strict formula or method that will satisfy the distinction. For those who have taken up logic in senior High school, you might already be familiar with its types of thinking that would rationalised the possibility of multiple valid arguments. For those who are not able to learn logic in high school, note that there are basically two forms of logic that encompass the 4 types of reasoning namely: logic according to validity ie. formal and material logic; and logic according to inference ie. deductive and inductive. Below will be a brief definition of each. (I urge you to further look up descriptions and definitions of each for deeper understanding). 1. Formal Logic - type of thinking that is primarily interested in the validity of the argument base on form rather than on content. It is generally used (but not exclusively) in deductive reasoning. 2. Material Logic - type of thinking that is primarily interested in the validity of an argument according to content rather than in its form. 3. Deductive Logic - also known as top-down logic starts its argument from Universal statements to a more particular one eventually leading to a logically certain conclusion. It is a type of argument generally represented by a formal structure marked by the presence of a middle term (term that appears in all the premises except the conclusion. Note that the truth or falsity of the conclusion achieved in this kind of argument is always logically absolute. 4. Inductive logic - also known as bottom-up logic. This kind of argument has a special place in the hard sciences as it proceeds by having its premises serve as evidences in proving the already accepted truth or falsity of the conclusion. Unlike deduction, this type produces conclusions that are only be probable. Finally, the last branch of Philosophy that will be discuss is Ethics. Ethics deals with what is right and wrong in human behaviour and conduct. It asks questions like how do we determine the actions of a person as right or wrong, good or bad? What validates our actions and why? When should we use universally accepted standards over our personal values and vice-versa? Why do we and why should we hold onto things we commonly believe to be wrong or right? Ethics is derived from the word ethos meaning character. However, some people argue that the word was derived from the word “ethikos" which means actions arising from habit which connects the word ethics closer to the meaning of morality (at least in its latin form “moralis” or “mos” that means custom, tradition, will, or manners). Often, people interchange the word ethics and morality or worse consider it as one and the same. While they are significantly related, it must be noted that they are different and functions differently. To explain, we need to ask the questions: that when we look at a persons character, who normally makes the judgment? Is it the person being observe or is it the people who observes the person? Is it the persons place to insist his actions are right or it is reserved to the people around him? In terms of saying whether an action of a person is right or wrong, we normally let social standards dictate, after all no one will do something that they believe isn’t right, so for everyone, every action we make is right at the moment of committing the act. For example a person would lie because he believes making that lie will be good for everyone concerned and at that particular moment he believes his actions are right even though other people might believe otherwise. The person might change his mind and probably even feel guilt later on but the point is that his motive has been towards what he believes is right. If we let everyone be the sole judge of their actions of what is right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, we will be living in a very chaotic world. Hence, in judging peoples characters we let society dictate it and when we do we also identify that person to be either ethical or unethical. It is the reason why ethical standards are often contained in social norms such as our folkways, our mores, and our laws. Now I want you to focus on the example I gave and look into the part where I said that for the person lying, he’s lies “will be good for everyone” (one might justify it as a white lie). For that person he’s action might be socially unethical and unacceptable but it is still good and therefore, in his mind doesn’t make him a bad person. It is his moral belief and therefore, it is reserved for him to morally judge his action. In other words it is reserved for the person lying to discern whether his actions are good or bad and it is not the place of society to judge the morality of his action. To summarise, calling people ethical/unethical is reserved for the society but calling people moral/immoral is reserved to the person himself/herself judging his/her actions. Because of this distinction, it is possible for us to conceive of a person who is ethical but bad and unethical but good. For example, A good loyal soldier defending his country who believes that killing is bad but nonetheless is force to kill to fulfils his duty but feels remorse/guilt afterwards can be seen as being ethical but bad. But Jean Valjean in the movie Les Miserable who stole a loaf of bread for his starving family and was imprisoned for it, feels no remorse and even complains of social injustice. His case is a classic example of an act that can be seen as unethical but morally good. Take note of the code below: Moral = good — individual Ethical = right — society Immoral = bad — individual Unethical = wrong —society