Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person PDF

Introduction to the PHILOSOPHY of the Human Person EDRICK D. M. CRUZ Subject Teacher HUMSS Department INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON WHAT WILL TRY TO FOCUS! YOU LEARN?...

Introduction to the PHILOSOPHY of the Human Person EDRICK D. M. CRUZ Subject Teacher HUMSS Department INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON WHAT WILL TRY TO FOCUS! YOU LEARN? What is philosophy? Reflect on their daily experiences What are the branches of from a holistic point of view; philosophy? Acquire Critical and Analytical What is the purpose of questioning Thinking skills; and reflecting to philosophy? Apply their critical and analytical In the Philippine context, what is a thinking skills to the affairs of daily pilosopo? life; What is the difference between a Become truthful, environment- universal and a particular? friendly and service-oriented; Actively committed to the development of a more humane society; and Articulate their own philosophy of life. SUBJECT DESCRIPTION Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person is an initiation to the activity and process of philosophical reflection as a search for a synoptic vision of life. Topics to be discussed include the human experiences of embodiment, being in the world with others and the environment, freedom, intersubjectivity, sociality, being unto death. The learner should be able to demonstrate a capacity for a critical and analytical reflection from the perspective of a holistic and profound vision of life. The goal is to have in-depth understanding of the meaning and process of doing philosophy of the human person as an embodied being in the world and the environment as a means towards a holistic understanding of life. In addition, the learner is able to understand that doing philosophy within the context of the human person as free, intersubjective, immersed in society, and oriented towards their impending death will lead to a deeper understanding of the human person. PREFACE There are times that we react to a certain situation without consciously understanding what we mean to say. Sadly, when confronted with certain ideas that might be the opposite of our beliefs, we get hurt and attack the person instead of the argument. We tend to support only those aligned with our beliefs, even if it lacks truth-value. These days, we are bombarded with a lot of information. In social media, some information being shared and circulated are true while some are not. How do we know that something is true? How do we differentiate truth from opinion? How can philosophy help us to arrive at a certain truth?  WHAT’S INSIDE? II. Methods of Philosophizing A. Schools of Thought as Useful Ladders a. Hermeneutical Role b. Philosophical Analysis c. Phenomenological-Existential Method B. Distinguishing Opinions from Truths a. Epistemology b. Knowledge Acquisition c. Knowledge Validation d. Truth and Opinions e. Theories of Truth f. Conditions of Knowledge C. Reasoning and Fallacies a. Deductive Argument b. Inductive Argument c. Some Common Fallacies STARTING POINT Try to unscramble the following letters to identify the concept being described.  Methods of Philosophizing A. Schools of Thought as Useful Ladders HERMENEUTICAL ROLE. Hermeneutics as the methodology of interpretation is concerned with problems that arise when dealing with meaningful human actions and the products of such actions, most importantly texts. As a methodological discipline, it offers a toolbox for efficiently treating problems of the interpretation of human actions, texts, and other meaningful material. Hermeneutics looks back at a long tradition as the set of problems it addresses have been prevalent in human life, and have repeatedly and consistently called for consideration: interpretation is a ubiquitous activity, unfolding whenever humans aspire to grasp - whatever they interpret and deem significant. Due to its long history, it is only natural that both its problems, and the tools designed to help solve them, have shifted considerably over time, along with the discipline of hermeneutics itself. The article focuses on the main problem; areas and presents some proposals that have been put forward for tackling them effectively. PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS. The older a word, the deeper it reaches. (Wittgenstein NB, 40). This supplement collects together various definitions and descriptions of analysis that have been offered in the history of philosophy (including all the classic ones), to indicate the range of different conceptions and the issues that arise. (There are also some remarks on related topics such as analyticity, definition, and methodology more generally.) In most cases, abbreviated references are given; full details can be found in the Annotated Bibliography on Analysis, in the section mentioned in curly brackets after the relevant definition or description. Where there is more than passage quoted from a particular author, passages are numbered in chronological order of composition (as far as that can be determined). PHENOMENOLOGICAL-EXISTENTIAL METHOD. Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object. An experience is directed toward an object by virtue of its content or meaning (which represents the object) together with appropriate enabling conditions. Phenomenology as a discipline is distinct from but related to other key disciplines in philosophy, such as ontology, epistemology, logic, and ethics. Phenomenology has been practiced in various guises for centuries, but it came into its own in the early 20th century in the works of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty and others. Phenomenological issues of intentionality, consciousness, qualia, and first-person perspective have been prominent in recent philosophy of mind. B. Distinguishing Opinions from Truths EPISTEMOLOGY. Came from the Greek word Episteme and Logos meaning knowledge and study. Study the nature of knowledge and justified beliefs. Specifically, it analyzes the nature of knowledge and how to relate into a similar such as truth, deals with the nature, sources, limitation, and validity of knowledge. It explains the following: How we know what we claim to know? How can we find out what we wish to know? How can we differentiate truth from falsehood? “Epistemology is a science devoted to the discovery of the proper method of acquiring and validating knowledge” (Rand 1990). The purpose of epistemology therefore is two- fold: To show how we can acquire knowledge. To give us a method of demonstrating whether the knowledge we acquired is really knowledge (i.e., true). KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION. From the Indian point of view, knowledge is named as Vidya. It involves facts about reality as well as cognitive changes. Knowledge, as defined by Oxford dictionary, is What is known in a particular field; Awareness gained by experience of fact or situation; The theoretical and practical understanding of a subject. Religious Interpretations: Various religions have interpreted knowledge differently Hindu Scriptures presents two kinds of knowledge (A) Paroksh Gyan: It is second-hand knowledge obtained from books, hearing lectures etc. (B) Aproksha Gyan: It is knowledge obtained by direct experiences. According to Quran Knowledge comes from God and various habits encourage the acquisition of knowledge. According to Christianity Knowledge is one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. KNOWLEDGE VALIDATION. The first step in validating one’s knowledge is to ask oneself the following question: “How did I arrive at this belief, by what steps?” (Binswanger 2014). Thus, you have to retrace the steps you took to acquire the knowledge, “reverse engineer” the process (Binswanger 2014). This is what Dr. Peikoff calls reduction (Peikoff 1990). One will therefore realize that the steps you took to acquire knowledge (perception-concept-proposition-inference) are the same steps needed to validate knowledge (but in reverse order). Thus, what the ancient pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus said is true when applied to epistemology: “the way up [knowledge acquisition] is the way down [knowledge validation]” (quoted by Dr. Binswanger2014). If we perform the process of reduction we will realized that all true knowledge rest ultimately on sense perception. “A belief is true if it can be justified or proven through the use of one’s senses” (Abella 2016). Consider the following statements (Abella 2016): I am alive. I have a body. I can breathe. You can only validate the above statements if you observed yourself using your senses. Feel your body. Are you breathing? Feel your pulse. Observe your body. Is it moving? These and countless examples provided by your senses proved that you’re alive (Abella 2016). Not all statements however can be validated directly by the senses. Some beliefs or ideas need a “multi-step process of validation called proof’ (Binswanger2014). Nevertheless proof rests ultimately on sense perception. Statements based on sense perception are factual and if we based our beliefs on such facts our beliefs are true (Abella 2016). For example the belief that human beings have the right to life rests on the following claim: 1. Human beings are rational animals. 2. Animals (including human beings) are living organisms. And of course the fact that we are alive can be demonstrated perceptually as shown above. A third way to determine if the statement is true is through a consensus (Abella 2016). If the majority agrees that a statement is true then it is true. However there are certain limitations to this approach. Far too many times in history false ideas became popular which ultimately leads to disaster. For example the vast majority of Germans during the time of Adolph Hitler believed that Jews are racially inferior. This is obviously false supported by a pseudo biological science of the Nazi. The result of this false consensus is the extermination of millions of Jews in many parts of Europe. A fourth way to determine whether a statement is true is to test it by means of action (Abella 2016). For example you want to know if a person is friendly. Well the best way to find out is to approach the person. Thus the famous Nike injunction of “Just do it” is applicable in this situation. TRUTH AND OPINIONS. Identifying truth however can sometimes be tricky. The reason is that there are times when we strongly held an idea that we feel “deep down” to be true. For example, religious people strongly believed that there is life after death. Some people who embraced democracy may passionately embraced the idea that the majority is always right. Or on a more personal level you may feel strongly that your sister is “selfish”. However we must not confused strongly held beliefs with truth. Truth is knowledge validated and when we say validated we mean they are based on the facts of reality. You must understand dear student that the facts of reality are independent of your thoughts, feelings or preferences (Ayn Rand calls this the primacy of existence [Rand 1982]). That is the characteristic of truth. For example the statement “Jose Rizal died in 1896” is true. You may not like that statement or deny it strongly. That does not change the fact that the statement is true because it is based on what really happened in the past. There are many sources that can validate the truth of that statement if one cared to look. However when you say that “Jose Rizal is the greatest man who ever lived” you are stating your preference and not facts. This is an opinion. Now it is true that there are many facts about Rizal but that statement is asserting something that is beyond what the facts state. That statement represents not facts but your interpretation of facts which may reveal your biases. To summarize an opinion has the following characteristics: 1. Based on emotions 2. Open to interpretation 3. Cannot be confirmed 4. Inherently biased While truth is: 1. Based on the facts of reality 2. Can be confirmed with other sources 3. Independent of one’s interpretation, preferences and biases Likewise, when we critique sources, we must first understand the difference between fact and opinion. THREE DIFFERENT THEORIES OF TRUTH THE CORRESPONDENCE THEORY OF TRUTH is probably the most common and widespread way of understanding the nature of truth and falsehood. Put quite simply, the Correspondence Theory argues that “truth” is whatever corresponds to reality. An idea which corresponds with reality is true while an idea which does not correspond with reality is false. It is important to note here that “truth” is not a property of “facts.” This may seem odd at first, but a distinction is being made here between facts and beliefs. A fact is some set of circumstances in the world while a belief is an opinion about those what those facts are. A fact cannot be either true or false, it simply is because that is the way the world is. A belief, however, is capable of being true or false because it may or may not accurately describe the world. Under the Correspondence Theory of Truth, the reason why we label certain beliefs as “true” is because they correspond to those facts about the world. Thus, the belief that the sky is blue is a “true” belief because of the fact that the sky is blue. Along with beliefs, we can count statements, propositions, sentences, etc. as capable of being true or false. The idea that truth consists in whatever matches reality can be traced back at least as far as Plato and was picked up in the philosophy of Aristotle. However, it was not long before critics found a problem, perhaps best expressed in the paradox formulated by Eubulides, a student of the Megara school of philosophy which was regularly at odds with Platonic and Aristotelian ideas. According to Eubulides, the Correspondence Theory of Truth leaves us in the lurch when we are confronted with statements such as “I am lying” or “What I am saying here is false.” Those are statements, and hence capable of being true or false. However, if they are true because they correspond with reality, then they are false and if they are false because they fail to correspond with reality, then they must be true. Thus, no matter what we say about the truth or falsehood of these statements, we immediately contradict ourselves. This does not mean that the Correspondence Theory of Truth is wrong or useless and, to be perfectly honest, it is difficult to give up such an intuitively obvious idea that truth must match reality. Nevertheless, the above criticisms should indicate that it probably isn’t a comprehensive explanation of the nature of truth. Arguably, it is a fair description of what truth should be, but it may not be an adequate description of how truth actually “works” in human minds and social situations. THE COHERENCE THEORY OF TRUTH is probably second in popularity to the Correspondence Theory even though it often seems to be an accurate description of how our conception of truth actually works. Put simply: a belief is true when we are able to incorporate it in an orderly and logical manner into a larger and complex system of beliefs or, even more simply still, a belief is true when it fits in with the set of all our other beliefs without creating a contradiction. Sometimes this seems like an odd way to actually describe truth. After all, a belief can be an inaccurate description of reality and fit in with a larger, complex system of further inaccurate descriptions of reality, according to the Coherence Theory, that inaccurate belief would still be called “truth” even though it didn’t actually describe the way the world really was. Does that really make any sense? Well, possibly … the reason is because statements can’t really be verified in isolation. Whenever you test an idea, you are also actually testing a whole set of ideas at the same time. For example, when you pick up a ball in your hand and drop it, it isn’t simply our belief about gravity which is tested but also our beliefs about a host of other things, not least of which would be the accuracy of our visual perception. So, if statements are only tested as part of larger groups, the none might conclude that a statement can be classified as “true” not so much because it can be verified against reality but rather because it could be integrated into a group of complex ideas, the whole set of which could then be tested against reality. In this case Coherence Theory isn’t that far from the Correspondence Theory and the reason is that while individual statements may be judged as true or false based upon their ability to cohere with a larger system, it is assumed that that system is one which accurately corresponds to reality. Because of this, the Coherence Theory does manage to capture something important about the way we actually conceive of truth in our daily lives. It isn’t that unusual to dismiss something as false precisely because it fails to cohere with a system of ideas which we are confident are true. Granted, maybe the system we assume to be true is quite a way off the mark, but so long as it continues to be successful and is capable of slight adjustments in the light of new data, our confidence is reasonable. THE PRAGMATIC THEORY OF TRUTH determines whether or not a belief is true or not based on whether it has a useful (pragmatic) application in the world. If it does not, then it is not true. As with Coherence Theory, truth in this sense is nothing to do with the way the world ‘really is’ but is just a function of whether an idea can be used as a model to make useful predictions about what is going to happen in the world. As a result pragmatic truths can only be learnt through interaction with the world: we don’t discover truth by sitting alone in a room and thinking about it. There are, of course, a number of obvious objections that can be raised against the Pragmatic Theory of Truth. For one thing, the notion of “what works” is very ambiguous. What happens when a belief works in one sense, but fails in another? For example, a belief that one will succeed may give a person the psychological strength needed to accomplish a great deal but in the end, they may fail in their ultimate goal. Was their belief “true”? Furthermore, when a belief “works” in this sense, why call it “true”? Why not call it something like “useful”? A useful belief is not necessarily the same as a true belief and, what’s worse, is that people don’t typically use the word “true” in normal conversation to mean useful. For example, for the average person, the statement “Itis useful to believe that my spouse is faithful” does not at all mean the same as “Itis true that my spouse is faithful.” Granted, it may be the case that true beliefs are also usually the ones that are useful, but not always. As Nietzsche argued, sometimes untruth may be more useful than truth. Now, pragmatism may be a handy means for distinguishing truth from untruth. After all, that which is true should produce predictable consequences for us in our lives. In order to determine what is real and what is unreal, it would not be unreasonable to focus primarily upon that which works. This, however, is not quite the same as the Pragmatic Theory of Truth. C. Reasoning and Fallacies TWO BASIC TYPES OF REASONING INDUCTIVE REASONING is based from observations in order to make generalizations. This reasoning is often applied in prediction, forecasting, or behavior. DEDUCTIVE REASONING draws conclusion from usually one broad judgment or definition and one more specific assertion, often an inference. Take for instance: All philosophers are wise. (Major premise) Confucius is a philosopher. (Minor premise) Therefore, Confucius is wise. (Conclusion) Validity and Soundness of an Argument Based on the previous example (or syllogism), if the two premises are constructed logically, then the conclusion must follow logically, the deductive argument is valid. This does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is true or false. Validity comes from a logical conclusion based on logically constructed premises (Reed-2010). Strength of an Argument On the other hand, inductive arguments cannot prove if the premises are true which will also determine the truth of the conclusion. Inductive reasoning proves only probable support to the conclusion. An inductive argument that succeeds in providing such probable support is a strong argument. While an inductive argument that fails to provide such support is weak, a strong argument with true premises is said to be cogent. For example: Jay: Do you think Congressman Gerry will be re-elected? Yna: I doubt it. His district has become more conservative in recent years. Also, 63% of the registered voters in his district are in the Opposition. This argument is both a statistical argument and a predictive argument, which are two common patterns of inductive reasoning. Also, the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises. SOME COMMON FALLACIES. A fallacy is a defect in an argument other than its having false premises. To detect fallacies, it is required to examine the argument's content. Here aresomeof the usually committed errors in reasoning and thus, coming up withfalseconclusion and worse, distorting the truth.