SHS

Introduction to Philosophy
of the Human Person
Week 2: Module 2
Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person
Grade 11/12: Week 2: Module 2
First Edition, 2020

Copyright © 2020
La Union Schools Division\
Region I

All rights reserved. No part of this module may be reproduced in any form
without written permission from the copyright owners.

Development Team of the Module

Author: Polly Anne F. Rovero, T-I

Editor: SDO La Union, Learning Resource Quality Assurance Team
Illustrator: Ernesto F. Ramos Jr., P II

Management Team

Atty. Donato D. Balderas, Jr.

Schools Division Superintendent

Vivian Luz S. Pagatpatan, Ph. D

Assistant Schools Division Superintendent

German E. Flora, Ph. D, CID Chief

Virgilio C. Boado, Ph. D, EPS in Charge of LRMS

Lorna O. Gaspar, EPS in Charge of Intro to Philosophy of the Human Person

Michael Jason D. Morales, PDO II

Claire P. Toluyen, Librarian II

 Introduction to
Philosophy of the
Human Person
Week 2: Module 2

ii
 Target

This module was designed and written with you in mind. It is here to help
you master the nature of philosophizing. The scope of this module permits it to be
used in many different learning situations. The language used recognizes the
diverse vocabulary level of students. The lessons are arranged to follow the
standard sequence of the course. But the order in which you read them can be
changed to correspond with the textbook you are now using.

The learning material is divided into three lessons, namely:

 Lesson 1- Knowledge and Truth

 Lesson 2– Methods of Philosophy that lead to Wisdom and Truth
 Lesson 3- Evaluating Truth from Opinion

After going through this learning material, you are expected to:
1. Distinguish opinion from truth (Ic-2.1);
2. Realize that the methods of philosophy lead to wisdom and truth (Id-2.2);
3. Evaluate truth from opinions in different situations (Id-2.3).

4
Lesson
1
Knowledge and Truth

Jumpstart

ACTIVITY1: Unscramble Letters (Critical Thinking)

Directions: Unscramble the following letters to identify the concept being described.

SCRAMBLED LETTERS DESCRIPTION ANSWER

It is a mental grasp of reality
reached either by perceptual
LWKEDNGO observation or by a process of
reason based on perceptual
observation.
This is a science devoted to the
discovery of the proper method
EGLYEIOSPTMO
of acquiring and validating
knowledge.
It is an abstract or generic idea
NCPTEOC generalized from particular
instances
This knowledge is validated
RUTHT which means that it is highly
based on the facts of reality.
It is a group of statements, one
or more of which (the premises)
NTGRUAEM is claimed to provide support for,
or reason to believe one of the
others (the conclusion)

Great Job! Later as you continue

reading this learning materials we will
see if your answer is correct.

5
 Discover

WHAT IS EPISTEMOLOGY?

There is no one correct definition of epistemology. The one that I’m going to
use came from the philosopher Ayn Rand:
“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:
1. To show how we can acquire knowledge.
2. To give us a method of demonstrating whether the knowledge we acquired
is really knowledge (i.e., true).
Since knowledge plays a central role in epistemology let us briefly described
its nature.

THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE

According to Ayn Rand knowledge is a “mental grasp of reality reached either

by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual
observation” (Rand 1990).
When you know something (be it the behavior of your friend, the movement
of the planets, or the origin of civilizations) you understand its nature. You identify
what it is. And it stays with you. Knowledge is a retained form of awareness
(Binswanger 2014).
So how do you acquire knowledge? Miss Rand’s definition gives us two ways:
First, we can acquire knowledge using our senses: seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling,
and smelling. How do you know that the table is brown? Because you see it. How
do you know that fire is hot? Because you feel it. This method of acquiring
knowledge is called empiricism and it has many adherents in the history of
philosophy such as John Locke, George Berkley, David Hume.
Second, we can acquire knowledge by thinking with the use of our minds
(what philosophers call the rational faculty). This is what rationalism advocates.
(Some well-known rationalists in history are Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza and
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz).
However thinking is just half of the story of knowing (in fact the second half).
The reason is that thinking involves content. To think is to think of something. You
cannot think about nothing. This is where sense perception enters the picture by
feeding our minds with data coming from the outside world so that we can have
something to think about

6
 Explore

ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE

From your previous Learning Material, you already have an idea what is
knowledge. Let us now explore the first part of epistemology: the process of
acquiring knowledge.
In this learning material, we’ll learn about Methods of acquiring knowledge
or we can say different ways of knowing knowledge. Philosophers and educationists
have bought out specific methods of acquiring knowledge. Thus there are different
ways of knowing knowledge. Before going any further let us have a brief recap of
knowledge. So what is Knowledge?
1. From the Indian point of view, knowledge is named as Vidya. It involves facts
about reality as well as cognitive changes.
2. 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.
3. 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.

Some methods of knowledge acquisition are given below.

Figure 1: Methods of Knowledge Acquisition

Let us now have an explanation of them one by one.
1. Appeal to authority

7
 o Comes from authority or specialist in a particular field of knowledge.
o For example scientists, philosophers, professor, economists etc.
o Teachers are accepted as an authority and great source of knowledge by
learners.

2. Appeal to Tradition
o We depend on our traditions for the solution of many problems we might face
in our life.
o So, we have accepted various traditions of our forefathers or our culture.
o Everything that we have accepted from our traditions might not always be
valid.
o Over the period of time, people have rejected those wrong traditions which
were once valid.
o Therefore we should always evaluate the knowledge acquired from traditions
before accepting it.
3. Appeal to Senses
o Knowledge is drawn through five senses.
o The more the senses are involved in process of acquiring knowledge, more
comprehensive would be the knowledge acquired.

4. Inductive and Deductive methods

o The inductive method starts with particular examples. Here learner tries to
arrive at a certain conclusion. This may lead to the formulation of a law,
generalization or principle.
o In deductive method learner starts with a generalization or rule, then he
comes to particular examples.
o So we can say that knowledge is gathered both by inductive and deductive
methods.

5. Appeal to experiences:
o Knowledge can also be gathered by experiences.
o Our personal experiences or experiences of other people are the most familiar
and fundamental sources of knowledge.
o We learn many things from our day to life and what goes around us.

6. Intuition
o The knowledge gained out of intuition is spontaneous and sudden.
o Senses and mind are not involved during intuition.
o Anyone can experience it at different points of time.

7. Concentration and meditation

o Concentration is a mental activity where the person concentrating focuses his
mental energy on aids like a candle flame, idea. breathing, mantras etc.
o In meditation person meditating concentrates for a longer period of time.
Both of them are foundations of attaining knowledge.
o While meditating or concentrating a person can make inferences. He can
even make a link of facts of knowledge to something meaningful.

8
8. Observation and related processes:-
Four sub-processes of attaining knowledge are observation, explanation,
prediction and control.
o Observation can be internal or external. It can even be a scientific
observation.
o An explanation is the elaboration of facts of knowledge in a logical manner.
o Prediction is a process related to cause and effect. In this process, results are
predicted. One needs to understand about causes and their effects.
o Control is the process in which results are filtered out by exercising control
on certain factors.

9. Problem Solving:-
Here the solution of the problem being solved becomes the part of knowledge.
So, problem-solving is also an effective tool to acquire knowledge.

Deepen

THE NATURE OF TRUTH

Now that we know how we know, it’s time to see whether the knowledge we
acquired is “really” knowledge i.e., is true. This is the second part of epistemology:
validating one’s knowledge.
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. Binswanger
2014).
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

9
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’ (Binswanger
2014). 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 VS OPINION

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

10
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.
FACT OPINION

A fact is a statement that can be proven An opinion is a statement of belief which

true or false. may or may not be backed up by facts,
but cannot be proven true or false.

Is objective Is subjective

Is discovered Is created

States reality Interprets reality

Can be verified Cannot be verified

11
Lesson Methods of Philosophy that lead to
2 Wisdom and Truth

Jumpstart

Activity 2: FACT or BLUFF.

Directions: Identify whether the following statements are FACT or BLUFF.

1. Oranges are always yellow or orange.

2. The egg came first than the chicken.
3. The chances of a coin landing on heads are the same chances of landing
on tails. It’s fifty – fifty.
4. A person whose mother tongue is very different from English will never
lose his/ her accent when moving to the United States.
5. A cloud weighs like 100 elephants.
6. Pangea was the name of the Earth’s original continent
7. You are taller in the morning than on the evening.
8. By the age of eighteen, your brain stops growing.
9. Muscle tissue is three times more efficient at burning calories than fat.
10. Vatican is the smallest country.

Discover

In knowing the truth or falsity of a statement, we generally use the following

Theories of Truth.

Three Different Theories of Truth

The Correspondence Theory 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

12
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:

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?

13
 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, then one 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:

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 “It
is useful to believe that my spouse is faithful” does not at all mean the same as “It
is true that my spouse is faithful.” Granted, it may be the case that true beliefs are

14
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.

Explore

Activity 3: Theories of Truth (Critical Thinking)

Direction: Identify the different theories of truth on the following statements. Write
your answer on a separate sheet of paper
.
1. There is a water fountain in front of the Cultural Center of the Philippines.
2. Bachelors are unmarried men.
3. The sun will rise tomorrow.
4. A dream board is necessary for dreams to come true.
5. What is more important to me at this time is my family.
6. A wooden table is a solid object.
7. Ghost and vampires exist.
8. 2+2=4
9. Cats are animals.
10. The Sky is blue.

Deepen

This chapter shall demonstrate the various ways of doing philosophy. In

search for wisdom, the learner must evaluate arguments and ways of expressing
one's beliefs, emotions, and opinions. This section shall introduce methods or ways
of looking at truth and what be considered as mere "opinions."
Philosophizing is to think or express oneself in a philosophical manner. It
considers or discusses a (matter) from a philosophical standpoint.
In phenomenology, truth is based on the person's Consciousness; while in
existentialism, truth is based in exercising choices and personal freedom; in

15
postmodernism, it is accepted that truth is not absolute, (i.e., cultural); and-in logic,
truth is based on reasoning and critical thinking.

1. The dialectic method

This method of philosophizing was conceived by the Greek philosopher

Socrates, (born 470 BCE) one of the great philosophers of the ancient world.
Unfortunately, he did not leave any written words and everything people know
about him came from the dialogues written by his famous student, Plato.
Socrates’ aim was to achieve what he called the goof life which is based on
the proper care of one’s soul (psyche in Greek). The soul, according to Socrates, can
be properly taken care of if we make it as good as possible (Stumpf 2008). Since by
its very nature the soul’s activity is to know, the soul can only be good if we employ
it in the activity of having a clear awareness of the meaning of some words (Stumpf
2008). When we have a clear awareness of what justice is, we harm our soul if we
act contrary to what we know, like harming others (which is the opposite of being
just).
However, how can we achieve a clear understanding of words? We can
achieve this by an act of “disciplined conversation” (Stumpf 2008) which Socrates
compared to an intellectual midwife. Socrates called this method dialectic. The
method appears simple but anyone subjected by Socrates to this method eventually
felt its intense rigor.
The method starts with eliciting the definition of a certain word from a
person who appears to be familiar (or “pretends” to be familiar) with its meaning.
Socrates then points out the imperfections of the understanding of the person
through a series of questions. What Socrates desires is for the person to realize his
ignorance and contradictions, and thereby correcting his own mistakes and
arriving at a complete knowledge of the true meaning of the word. The method,
however, does not sit well with the ruling elites of Athens (the city where Socrates
lived). They accused him of not worshiping the Greek gods and corrupting the
youth. His defense (which was dramatically recorded in Plato’s dialogue the Apology)
was a model of “forceful argument” (Stumpf 2008) but it fell on deaf ears. In the
end, he was forced to drink poison. Socrates was the first philosopher to die
fighting for truth.
The Socratic Method was modernized and treated in a different way by
George Wilhelm Hegel, a German philosopher. Hegel was an idealist. He believed
that the ideas of the human minds have access of what the world is like. People are
social beings and could be completely influenced by other people’s ideas. An
individual’s mind is influenced by means of a common language, customs of one’s
society, and the cultural institutions that one belongs to. Hegel refers this to
“Spirit” as the collective consciousness of a society which is responsible for honing
one’s consciousness and ideas.
Hegel also believed that the Spirit is constantly changing and evolving.
According to Hegel, the spirit changes through dialectic. First, there is an idea
about the world (much like a thesis), which has a natural characteristic of having
errors which give rise to the antithesis.

16
 The thesis and antithesis can be eventually resolved by creating a synthesis
which is a new idea comprised of the essentials of both the thesis and the
antithesis. To Hegel, society and culture follow this design, and one could
understand all of human history without the use of logic or empirical data simply
by using logic (Klein, 2013).

Figure 2: The Dialectic

2. The Pragmatic Method

Hundreds of years after the death of Socrates, a new philosophy emerged as

inspired by the idea of change initiated by the evolutionary thoughts of Hegel and
Darwin in 19th century America. This philosophy became known as pragmatism. It
was started by Charles S. Pierce (1839-1914), popularized by William James (1842-
1910) and institutionalized in American culture by John Dewey (1859-1952).
According to the pragmatists, philosophy seems to offer a set of beliefs about
human beings and his relationship to the world. Pragmatists offer no such beliefs.
Rather, they seek to make philosophy relevant by solving real life problems. It is
purely a philosophy of method and not of substance.
What pragmatism aims is to test the dogma of science, religion and
philosophy by determining their practical results. The pragmatic test is: if I practice
this belief, will it bring success or failure? Will I solve problems or create problems?
Successful experience is the verification process of truth for the pragmatists
(Stumpf 2008).

3. The Phenomenological Method

The phenomenological method wa conceived by Edmund Husserl (born in

1859), one of the greatest intellects of the 19th century. His ideas and method
influenced the thoughts of some of the 20th century philosophical giants: Martin
Heidegger, Jean – Pau Satre, and Maurice Merleau – Ponty among others.

17
 What prompted Husserl to develop phenomenology? To answer this, we have
to look back at Husserl’s time and place: the 19th century Europe. At that time,
science was on the ascendancy prompted by the great discoveries of Galileo,
Newton, and Darwin among others. Husserl himself was impressed by the
achievements of science. Unfortunately, according to Husserl, science brings a
certain attitude which is counterproductive to the human soul: the naturalistic
attitude (or simply naturalism).
Naturalism in this context is the idea that everything can be explained in
terms of matter or the physical. Since man is not only physical (i.e. body) but also
spiritual, this naturalistic attitude brings a distorted view of man by banishing the
spiritual from the world which includes the banishment of ideas, values, and
cultures (Husserl, 1965).
To counter the naturalistic tendency, Husserl returned to the idea of the
thinking self which was given preeminence by the 17th century French philosopher,
Rene Descartes. More specifically, the layman’s term given to the thinking self is
“one’s immediate experience.”
Husserl’s main purpose was to build a philosophy free from any biases or
preconceived ideas. One can only do this if one returns to immediate experience.
Husserl said that he was only looking to “things and facts themselves, as these are
given in actual experience and intuition” (quoted by Stumpf 2008). This experience
is not the objective world of science separate from us, but the world as it appears to
us or (borrowing the term of the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant)
the phenomenal world - hence, the term phenomenology.
However, our beliefs about human beings and the world prevent us from
seeing clearly this immediate experience which he calls “pure subjectivity”. Thus, to
know the truth, we have to put aside one by one all our limiting beliefs about the
world which represents our biases. Husserl calls this process phenomenological
epoche (epoche is the Greek word for bracketing). Bracketing is not ignoring. It is
an act of stepping back at our biases and prejudices to make sure that they do not
influence the way we think. Only facts provided by immediate experience must
influence us.

4. The Primary and Secondary reflections

Another influential intellectual movement which had its roots in the 19th
century ideas of Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-
1900) was existentialism. Kierkegaard’s ideas were in part a reaction against the
overly ambitious system building the philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
(1770-1831).
On the other hand, Nietzsche’s ideas were a reaction against the religious
and rational value system still prevalent in 19th century Europe (Stumpf 2008).
While Kierkegaard was religious and Nietzsche was atheistic (atheism is the denial
of the supernatural), they both grounded their philosophy on the personal choices
of the individual which becomes one of the important tenets of existentialism.
In the 20th century, Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and his partner, Simone de
Beauvoir (1908-1986) popularized atheistic existentialism while Gabriel Marcel
(1889-1973) and Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) promoted religious existentialism.

18
Religious existentialists saw certain parallels between existential ideas and
religious themes like the fall of Adam and Eve which can be compared to the theme
of inauthentic existence in existentialist philosophy (Stumpf 2008).
After that brief overview on existentialism, let us focus our attention on one
existentialist method identified by Gabriel Marcel: the primary/secondary
reflection.
For Marcel, reflection is not just a disinterested look at experience. It
emerged when something valuable is at stake. Marcel gave an example of a watch.
Suppose you try to take a watch from your pocket. To your surprise, the watch that
you expect to be there is not there. A break from your ordinary routine happened.
From this break, reflection appears in the form of a question: Where is my watch?
Then, a host of questions, connected to the first one, followed: Where was the last
time I’ve seen my watch? Was there a hole in my pocket? You try to retrace your
steps from this moment back to the time when you last saw your watch.
From this example, you will see that reflection arise when there is a
disruption from your normal routine and when something valuable is at stake.
Then, Marcel identified two levels of reflection: primary reflection and
secondary reflection. Marcel applied these two levels of reflection to the most
fundamental question: Who am I?
Nowadays, we try to answer this question by filling up a form given by our
school for example. The form asked us to write our name, age, gender, address,
name of parents, etc. To answer this, of course we have to think to distinguish who
we are (the self) against other things (the non-self or objects). This is the primary
reflection.
Yet, we had an uneasy feeling that all the information we put on the form
(although true) do not fully capture who we really are (Marcel 1970). We view that
our self is bigger and more expansive than what is there on the form. Thus, we are
not merely thinking but we are thinking about thinking and about the process we
perform in answering the form. This is the secondary reflection.
The result of secondary reflection is a more expansive view of the self until it
embraces the world. Thus, the separation of the self and the world brought about
by primary reflection were united by the secondary reflection.

5. The Analytic Method

For Ludwig Wittgenstein, an analytic philosopher, language is socially

conditioned. We understand the world solely in terms of our language games—that
is, our linguistic, social constructs. Truth, as we perceive it, is itself socially
constructed.

Analytic philosophy is the conviction that to some significant degree,

philosophical problems, puzzles, and errors are rooted in language and can be
solved or avoided by a sound understanding of language and careful attention to its
workings. "

19
  Two basic types of reasoning:
1. Inductive reasoning is based from observations in order to make
generalizations. This reasoning is often applied in prediction, forecasting, or
behavior.

2. 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.

20
Activity 5: Let’s Apply It!

Directions: Fill in the table below with the main proponents of methods of
philosophizing. For each method, answer the questions: “How can you find truth
using this method?” and “On what real-life situation can you apply this method?”

On what real-life
How can you find
Methods of Main situation can you
truth using this
Philosophizing Proponent(s) apply this
method?
method?

Dialectic

Pragmatic

Phenomenological

Primary and
Secondary
Reflections

Analytic

21
Lesson
3
Evaluating Truth from Opinion

Jumpstart

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 are some
of the usually committed errors in reasoning and thus, coming up with false
conclusion and worse, distorting the truth.

FALLACY SHORT DESCRIPTION EXAMPLES

Hominem came from the Latin
Argumentum ad word “homo” which means “How can we believe him
Hominem or man. This fallacy literally when he talks about social
“Attacking the means hitting the person below distancing, he is a lawyer
Person” the belt instead of focusing on who is a liar.”
the issue at hand.
Baculum is a Latin word which
means scepter or stick. A
scepter is a symbol of authority. “TV Patrol is the best news
Argumentum ad
Normally it is the pope who program on TV. If you don’t
Baculum (Appeal
carries it in his hands. This is agree with me, I won’t let you
to Force)
committed when a person uses watch the TV.”
threat or force to advance an
argument.
“Forgive me office, there are
lot of boarders in this
apartment including me.
Misercordiam came from Latin
Only the owner was issued a
Argumentum ad word Misercordia which means
quarantine pass. We don’t
Misercordiam pity or compassion. A person
have food, we can’t give our
(Appeal to Pity) uses emotion such as pity to
ATM to the owner. That’s why
convince someone
I went out. So I did not
violate the Quarantine
Protocol.”
Argumentum ad Populum is the Latin word for
Populum (Appeal people. Most of TV commercials “I’m sure you want to have an
to people/ are guilty of this argument Iphone. Almost 80% of your
Bandwagon which exploit people’s vanity, schoolmates are using it.”
Fallacy) desires, etc.
Argumentum ad Tradition means tradition. “All of us in the family, from

22
Tradition Advancing an idea since it has our ancestors up to now, are
been practice for a long time. inclined with teaching, so it is
only right that you took up
education as your course.”
“According to Zecharia
Sittchin, the author of the
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam is a Latin word for
book ‘Cosmic Code, Adam
Ignorantiam ignorance. Whatever has been
was the first test tube baby.
(Appeal to proven false must be true and
Since nobody proves
Ignorance) vice versa.
otherwise, therefore it is
true.”
According to Merriam Webster’s
“God exists because the Bible
Petitio Principii Dictionary it is a fallacy in
says so. The Bible is inspired.
(Begging the which a conclusion is taken for
Therefore we know that God
Question) granted in the premises. Also
exists.”
called “circular argument”
“Our neighbor who is a Nurse
This fallacy is committed when is tested positive of COVID19,
Hasty
one reaches a generalization therefore, all Nurses are
Generalization
based on insufficient evidence positive of Corona Virus
Disease.”
“My Teacher didn’t collect the
Assuming that the effect is homework two weeks in a row
related to a case because both when my friend was absent.
Cause and Effect
events’ occur one after the Therefore my friend is the
other. reason why my teacher
doesn’t collect homework.”
“You are a doctor, therefore
Fallacy of Infers that something is true of
you came from a family of
Composition a part, is true of a whole
doctors.”
Infers that something is true of
Fallacy of “Your family is smart,
the whole, must also be true on
Division therefore you are smart.”
its parts
Using the same term in a “Humans walk by their legs.
Fallacy of
different situation with different The table has legs. Therefore,
Equivocation
meaning. the table walks by its legs.”

23
 Discover

Activity 6: Fact Vs. Opinion (Critical Thinking)

Directions: Analyze the following statements. Write F if it is FACT and O if it is

OPINION. Write your answer on a separate sheet of paper.

1. According to the latest survey, families are purchasing more household

items on credit.
2. You can hear all the news you need to know from the BBC Radio 1 news
team.
3. The professor argues that the effect of carbon emissions on the
surrounding environment will only get worse.
4. The research team has discovered a new method for conducting this
chemical analysis.
5. The latest poll shows a marked increase in employee dissatisfaction.
6. I think public opinion will change over time.
7. This book is an enjoyable story of life in a small village.
8. The use of computers at the college has increased and the stationery
budget has doubled in the last few years.

Explore

Activity 7: Important Points to Ponder

Direction: Complete the statements below:

I learned that Truth is____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

I feel that Truth is important because_____________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

24
__________________________________________________________________________________

I commit to uphold the truth by __________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Deepen

You have just learned that it is not enough to acquire knowledge but you
should analyze if that knowledge you have acquired is truthful or not.
Philosophizing involves the gift of speech and the gift of intelligence that enable us
to reason out and detect the falsity or truthfulness of a statement. When one
reasons out, he/she expresses his opinion and when others disagree, then
argument begins. In philosophical parlance argument is not an emotional reptilian
word war or a territorial show of force between persons but a philosophical method
in knowing the truth of a certain phenomenon or reality. It is a set of statements
which includes the premises and conclusion (the latter is the one that claims the
truth of the premises) (Cornejo & Ebia, 2017).

Applying Logic and Fallacies in Determining Truth from Opinion:

Tractatus identifies the relationship between language and reality and to

define the limits of science. It is recognized as a significant philosophical work of
the twentieth century. It is in the possibility of agreeing or disagreeing with reality,
thus being true or false, that the meaning of the picture lies.
The limits of what can be said, therefore, are defined by the logical rules.
The limits of my language mean the limit of my world. The logic of language shows
how elements fit states of affairs and how state of affairs in wider constellations can
be linked together; we can decide on the basis of this logic.
Everyday language reproduces actual situations but there are extremely
complicated and often opaque when seen through an impure use of words

25
In news reporting and journalism:
If the purpose of a sentence is to inform or state a fact, some of its words
must refer to things, events, and properties. In other words, some of its words have
cognitive meaning. However, words also have emotive meaning-that is, and they
also may have emotive whether positive or negative overtones. For the author, the
United States war on “terror” had produced many emotively charged expressions
such as “terrorists”, “axis of evil”, “band of zealots”, and “either you are with us or
against us”
Some positive or emotive overtones are “democracy”, “strong republic”,
“good governance”, “civil society” and “love”. While, “Politicians” and “whisky” tend
to have mixed emotive meaning. “penil”, “river” and “run” are neutral terms.

Con artists take advantage of the emotive side of language

1. They use emotive meaning masked as cognitive meaning to whip up
emotions so that reason gets overlooked
2. They use neutral terms of euphemisms to dull the force of what they say,
and thus, make acceptable what otherwise might not be

Double (1999), although philosophy is an organized body of knowledge, the

subject matter of philosophy is questions, which have three major characteristics:

1. Philosophical questions have answers, but the answers remain in

dispute.
2. Philosophical questions cannot be settled by science, common sense, or
faith.
3. Philosophical questions are of perennial intellectual interest to human
beings.

The methodology or method that philosophers use to address philosophical

questions is critical thinking. Critical thinking is the careful, reflective, rational,
and systematic approach to questions of very general interest. Critical thinking
means understanding of philosophy and refraining from merely giving claims but
through careful thought, one reasons through argumentations. One tries to
become a "philosopher" because one possesses and cherishes above the rest of
humanity the "love of wisdom" which is a part of all human nature and because
one more reflectively and critically brings to light and examines the largest and
widest implications of the life of all human beings.

For Maboloc and Pascua (2008), critical thinking is a lifelong process of

self-assessment that further consists of:
 defining, analyzing, and devising solutions;
 arriving at reasonable and informed conclusions;
 applying understanding and knowledge to new and different problems;
 willingness to change one point of view;
 continually examining and re-examining ideas; and
 willingness to say "l don't know."

26
The attributes of a critical thinker include:
 Looks for evidence to support assumption and beliefs
 Adjusts opinions
 Looks for proof
 Examines problem
 Rejects irrelevant and incorrect information

27
 Gauge

Activity 8:

Direction: Select the keyword that best fits the statement in each item. Write the
chosen letter on a separate sheet of paper.

1. Which of the following scenarios demonstrates the scientific method?

A. Evaluating two physical activities regarding their ability to increase work
performance.
B. A lawyer is asking further questions about the suspect’s whereabouts
during the crime.
C. A mother is questioning her son’s real reason for his excessive absences
from school.
D. Testing and quantifying compassion which are all realities that do dwell
in the realm of materialism

2. Which of the following demonstrates the appeal to force fallacy?

A. If we can’t choose which cruise to go on, we can flip a coin to decide.
B. If you lose your job, you will need to apply for unemployment
compensation.
C. If you don’t agree to the terms of the annulment, I will spread rumors
about you all over town.
D. I should be able to go before you in line for vanilla ice cream because I
arrived at the shop first.

3. What would have been a better approach for Guinevere to convince her
friends that continuing to hike is safe?
A. Telling them about how one of her friends was ever hit by lightning.
B. Citing guidelines she had been provided by a park ranger for how to tell
when it is safe to continue.
C. Giving them the precise number of times that she herself had hiked up
the mountain without a problem.
D. All of the answers are correct.

4. Which among the statements is a fact as opposed to an opinion.

A. San Fernando City is not a pretty city.
B. Pasig is the best city in the Philippines.
C. Only awesome people live in the Naguilian.
D. The Philippines has around 104 million people.

5. If you read something that said that one thing was better than another,
and that made you have an emotional response, what did you likely just read?
A. Essay C. News
B. Fact D. Opinion

28
 6. Which of these is an opinion?
A. Philippines has around 104 million people.
B. Quezon City is the largest city in the Philippines
C. There are twenty towns in the Province of La Union
D. The beaches in San Juan, La Union are the best tourist spot.

7. Which question can help you determine whether a statement is a fact or

an opinion?
A. Is this statement provable either true or false?
B. Does this statement express an author’s personal belief, idea, or feeling
about a topic?
C. Both of A and B
D. Neither of A or B

8. Why do you think opinion is based on our own perception?

A. What might be our perception is different from others.
B. Our perception depends on the people that we encounter.
C. It strengthens our critical thinking skills and reasoning powers.
D. Without our opinion, we cannot give positive judgment to an issue.

9. Which statement best describe opinion?

A. Belief that can be proven.
B. Belief that cannot be proven.
C. A personal belief that makes sense
D. Statement which most people share.

10. Which among the following statements is true about truth?

A. It is for younger ages only.
B. Always end with conclusion.
C. Similar to self – actualization.
D. Requires logical and critical thinking.

11. What do you think is considered as opinion in the paragraph below?

Harley is six feet tall. He is a twelfth grade student of Naguilian Senior High
School. Just last week, he scored 24 points in the Municipal Meet
championship game. I think he will be a varsity player in college.
A. Harley is six feet tall.
B. I think he will be a varsity player in college.
C. He is a twelfth grade student of Naguilian Senior High School.
D. Just last week, he scored 24 points in the Municipal Meet championship
game.

12. Which sentence expresses an opinion?

A. It is easier to wrap a big gift than a small one.
B. We celebrate New Year every first day of January.
C. Christmas is the time of giving and sharing your blessings.
D. Paper lanterns are symbols of Christmas in the Philippines.

13. Which of the following is NOT an opinion statement?

A. Avril Lavigne is the greatest singer ever!
B. Nearly 65% of our teens are over – weight.
C. Chocolate cake is the most delicious kind of dessert.
D. I think that San Fernando City is the best state in which to live.

29
 14. What type of fallacy is present in the statement “Before we begin the
debate, everyone here should know that my opponent is a convicted felon”.
A. More Licensing C. Arumentum ad Baculum
B. Equivocation D. Argumentum ad Hominem

15. According to Husserl, the success of natural science lead to gradual

scientific rejection of ________.
A. Spirit C. Nature
B. Matter D. Existence

16. When Husserl described human experience as the immediate data of

consciousness, he meant ________.
A. pure subjectivity C. materialism
B. pure objectivity D. dualism

17. What type of fallacy is present in the statement, “My father smoked four
packs of cigarettes a day since age fourteen and lived until age sixty nine. Therefore,
smoking really can’t be that bad for you.”
A. Ad misericordiam C. Hasty Generalization
B. false analogy D. Post Hoc

18. Which among these headlines presented information that are fair,
objective, and moderate?
A. It’s time to consider other means of cash aid distribution
B. Other countries around the world have much better means in cash aid
distribution
C. Government vows to faster distribution of coronavirus aid
D. We can also learn lesson from Vietnam how they distribute their cash aid.

19. What type of fallacy is present in the statement, “Forgive me office,

there are lot of boarders in this apartment including me. Only the owner was
issued a quarantine pass. We don’t have food, we can’t give our ATM to the owner.
That’s why I went out. So I did not violate the Quarantine Protocol.”
A. Ad misericordiam C. Hasty Generalization
B. false analogy D. Post Hoc

20. What type of fallacy is present in the statement, “All of us in the family,
from our ancestors up to now, are inclined with teaching, so it is only right that
you took up education as your course.”
A. Ad misericordiam
B. Ad Baculum
C. Ad Populum
D. Ad Tradition

30
Key Answer

31
References
Books

Abella, Roberto D. (2016). Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person.

Quezon City: C&E Publishing

Cornejo, N. & Ebia, E. Philosophy of Human Person. Mindshapers Co., Manila.2017

Mabacquiao, N. (2017). Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person.

Quezon City: Phoenix Publishing

Website

https://physicscatalyst.com/graduation/methods-of-acquiring-knowledge/

http://mrhoyestokwebsite.com/Knower/Useful%20Information/Three%20Different%
20Theories%20of%20Truth.htm

http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/05/29/epistemology-correspondence-theory-of-
truth.htm

www.slideshare.net/mobile/jomarienelgarcia

32