THE METHOD OF PHILOSOPHY

Analytic Method
- Thinking that is logical and systematic must not be haphazard or confused; it should be clear
thinking which makes the necessary distinctions, separating clearly what is essential, what matters
from what is accidental and of less importance. Such thinking is primarily analytical.
- It cuts issues into parts, analyses concepts and statements with an attempt to clarify and justify their
meanings.
- It aims at synthesizing i.e. putting things together and therefore, seeing things in their totality and
as interrelated within an overall framework.
- It emphasises on dividing each problem and theory into smallest essential components in order to
analyze each unit carefully aiming at clarifying the concept in order to understand their meaning
and implications.

Speculative Method
- It is a systematic attempt to analyze all reality by understanding its place in relation to other fields
of inquiry. It is understood as an all-encompassing theory of the universe and the place of human
beings within the order of things. As such it is a non-verifiable narrative of the whole of reality.

- It is a way of theorizing that goes beyond verifiable observation; specifically, a philosophical

approach informed by the impulse to construct a grand narrative of a worldview that encompasses
the whole of reality. Its business is to take over all aspects of human experience, to reflect upon
them, and to try to think out a view of Reality as a whole.
- It is concerned with why anything exists, or why consciousness appears in nature, or why we ask
purposive questions. Speculative philosophers focus on actuality, or existence in the active sense.
Speculative method thus affirms existence in some ultimate sense. It would therefore be incorrect
to categorize speculative philosophy as fundamentally idealistic.
- Speculative method of Philosophy is the endeavour to frame a coherent, logical, system of general
ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted. By this notion of
‘interpretation’ we mean everything of which we are conscious, as enjoyed, perceived, willed, or
thought, about.
- Speculative reason, sometimes called theoretical reason or pure reason, is theoretical (or logical,
deductive) thought, as opposed to practical (active, willing) thought. ... On the other hand,
practical reason is the power of the mind engaged in deciding what to do.
- Speculative thought participates actively in its self-explanatory principles and such self-
participation is seen as leading to strong or stronger, theories of existence of reality than any weak
theory of existence could envisage.
- Speculative Method of philosophy denotes a broad range of philosophical approaches and
traditions that cluster around metaphysics and systematic treatments of existence, consciousness
and free will. ...
- In a sense all philosophy is speculative insofar as it deals with universal ideas. Speculative
philosophy is creatively assertive; it posits ideas, proposes concepts or interpretations that do not
otherwise exist; it is concerned with novel explanations pertaining to persistent philosophical
problems; it is not especially empirical, in general

Deductive Method
- A deductive method is normally found in arguments. An argument is a set of propositions in which
the truth of one of the propositions is claimed to be established on the basis of the truth of the other
propositions (a statement or sentence that is either true or false). An argument can briefly be
understood as a set of premise(s) and a conclusion.

1
 For example:-
P1. All men are mortal
P2. Socrates is a man
C. Socrates is mortal

- The above argument is a perfect form of a deductive argument. A deductive argument is one in
which there is a claim that if the truth of its premises is granted, then its conclusion is also true as
a matter of logical necessity. In a good deductive argument the truth of the premises taken together
implies nothing else but the truth of its conclusion. In other words, the meaning of the premises
taken together implies the meaning of its conclusion. There are few elements to be observed in a
deductive method:-

i) Deductive method moves from universal or general proposition to particular

proposition or case
ii) Deductive method emphasis on the logical truth i.e. the question of validity and invalid
in an argument validity emphasis on the form or structure or relationship between the
premises and conclusion to be true and therefore a valid argument is one in which the
truth of the premises necessarily guarantees the truth of its conclusion e.g.

P1. All human beings are rational beings

P2. Africans are human beings
C. Africans are rational being

- Deductive method therefore is an attempt to arrive at truth.

Inductive Method
- In an inductive method or argument, the truth of the premises, if granted, only offers a partial or
high probable support to the truth of its conclusion. In other words, if the truth of the premises of
an inductive argument is granted, then the truth of its conclusion is only probable, that is, not
guaranteed e.g.
P1. Most Luos like eating fish
P2. Okiambe likes eating fish
C. Therefore probably Okiambe is a Luo

There are 100 mangoes in a basket.

70 of the mangoes picked at random are found to be rotten.
Therefore probably all the 100 mangoes in the basket are rotten.

- It is reasoning from particular cases to arrive at a general conclusion. It is usually used in scientific
reasoning or experiments in that to arrive at a general scientific theory, there is always several
experiments done to arrive at the same result or to validate the result

Generally, both deductive and inductive methods emanating from the rational function of philosophy
emphasizes on coherent set of ideas, synthesis of thought and comprehensive system of thought has the
bearing on technical philosophy. They have greatly been influenced by the widely – felt need for
scientific analysis. Inspired thus by the sciences, philosophers seeks to analyse concepts, statements
and languages used in different contexts in order to clarify and justify meanings. This general function
of philosophy is referred as method of logical reasoning. Its function of analysis and synthesis has made
philosophers to be painted as too logical and too rational. They seem to rely almost exclusively on the
mind as the sole source of knowledge. As a result, philosophers have often been called “idealists” who
live in an ivory tower and who are not down to earth.

2
The Phenomenological Method

Phenomenology was started by Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), and later own developed by Heidegger.
Among others members of this school I mention Edmund Husserl, Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-
1961), Hans Georg Gadamer (1900-). The phenomenological method is to describe the phenomena in
the flow of consciousness as it occurs in intended human experience. Phenomenology strives for an
essential description of phenomena, as they are in consciousness, in their own pure, pristine and original
manner. To the things themselves, the famous phenomenological motto, which means a turning towards
phenomena that might have been locked from sight by the taken-for-granted assumptions, or by the
prevalent common sense of our daily coping, or indeed by philosophical or scientific theories or
explanations already in place (Husserl 1982).

Phenomenology attempts to describe phenomena faithfully and presupositionlessly, without expecting

to arrive at any understanding of them from any starting point other than the facticity of an always and
already experienced world (Heidegger 1962, Husserl 1970, Merleau-Ponty 1962). As Merleau-Ponty
(1962) noted: “Phenomenology can be practised and identified as a manner or a style of thinking”, that
is, as a method, not an epistemological or ontological theory:

“Phenomenologydoes not subscribe to a ‘standpoint’ or represent any special ‘direction’; for phenomenology
is nothing of either sort, nor can it become so long as it understands itself. The expression ‘phenomenology’
signifies primarily a methodological conception” (Heidegger 1962: 50)

Husserl’s call is to turn to the directly perceived things themselves, denying representation theories of
perception, as John Locke put it, I have ideas in my mind, but the problem is whether those ideas
correctly represent objects outside the mind in the external world. Husserl is against a representational
epistemology that took root in early 20th Century. Phenomenology attempts to describe sheer
experience, whatever is experienced by consciousness without any presupposition, without any
metaphysical additions, without the intrusion of science, without the intrusion of Aristotle’s substance
metaphysics.

The phenomenological method is structured in the following 4 phases:

(1) Mental phase (intentionality)
(2) Performing the Reduction (epoche)
(3) Investigating the Essence (Eidetic reduction): Watching Modes in Which the Essence
Appears
(4) Interpreting Concealed Meanings (The transcendental Ego: a pole which interprets
things of our conscious experience)

First, the phenomenologist begins with intentionality; that is, directing his mind to the object of his
mental apprehension. To objects that appear to his conscious experience. It is more of a mental process
that does not assume the nature of the object that presents itself.

The second phase is that of “epoche”; the Greek concept which means bracketing. This means that the
phenomenologist should bracket the natural standpoint. The natural standpoint is the belief in our mind
that all our experience are intentional acts and objects; and these are caused by natural things in the
human body. That is to say, normally when I experience the world, I assume that my experience is
actually taking place in the physical world described by science that somehow causes my experiences.
The whole point of the natural standpoint that experience is inside and is causally related to the natural
world is to be suspended or bracketed. This means that Husserl is a bit abstemious than Descartes. He
is not saying that the natural standpoint is false; he is not saying even that we should doubt its truth as
in Descartes. He is simply asking us to put it out of place, without making any judgment about the

3
 causation of our experiences, about whether our experiences represent extra-mental objects, or the role
of consciousness in nature.

The third element of the method is called “eidetic” reduction. “Eidetic” comes from the Greek word
eidos, which means Form or Idea. What Husserl means is that eidetic reduction is the attempt to
discover the eidos or essences of each type of intentional act or object. So the phenomenologist should
bracket everything idiosyncratic or unique to him or herself, and tries to describe the essence or form
of each kind of intentional act with its specific type of intentional object. Literally speaking, if I am a
phenomenologist, I performing the epoche, I fix my attention on my perception of material objects, so
at this moment, I’m perceiving a series of material objects in this room, am not making any decision
whether material objects exist outside my mind or not, I am not concerned about such things. I’m just
saying I perceive objects that are opaque to light, that are solid, that resist my touch; I experience them
in their natural characteristics.

The forth level is that of interpretation of the concealed meanings. Once I look at these experiences, I
try to describe any universal and necessary features of those experiences and in every visual perception
intention of a three dimensional object part of that object is always hidden at the back. That is to say,
there is always something about every intentional object that is not presented in a single intentional act
of perception. Husserl uses the concepts of perception and apperception, presentation and
appresentation to describe this whole level of interpretation.

All this set of reductions are simply ways of trying to get to what he thinks of as the most basic, inner,
determinative, causal sphere of my consciousness, which determines everything else in experience.
The phenomenologist then is an ideal non empirical scientist. Historically it looked like if you studied
experience, you are an empiricist. The empiricists presuppose the existence of nature (Locke, Berkeley
and Hume), they presuppose that I’m looking at experience but means I analyse the ideas in my mind
and I relate them to what is likely to be the cause of things in the external world. Husserl doesn’t want
to do that; he wants to perform an ideal study more like a mathematician or a geometer; someone who
contemplates what a triangle is and figures out its essential features with the mind; but he wants to bring
that kind of ideal thought experiment to whatever appears in consciousness. So, he wants a non-natural,
non-empiricist ideal analysis of experience. In this, he thinks he has something new that no one had
before. Husserl’s real basic aim was to produce a pre-scientific systematic study of the essences of
things where things mean whatever appears in consciousness, whatever appears as fundamental
evidence in conscious life. As phenomenologists, the business is to describe the flow of human
experience.

What is the relevance of this kind of new science that is non naturalistic, scientific in a broader sense
but not a natural science and not psychologistic analysis of the types of intentional acts and objects?
The fundamental aim of phenomenology is the phenomenological research for the understanding of
nature. Phenomenology will become a foundation of all other disciplines. And that means experience
is more philosophically fundamental than natural science. Phenomenology is a challenge to modern
technological forms of expressing reality, where reality always appears in a calculative and constrained
manner, as standing-in-reserve for optimization: make profit.

Dialectical Method
Dialectic method was originally devised by Socrates to induce humility and aporia in the interlocutor. It is
a question-answer procedure to get into the depth of the concepts and used to bring forth for examination
the structure of reality. Dialectic is an activity of concept-formation. Since we are forming concepts, new
ones discarding old ones, it is not strange that our concepts and definitions of words don’t stand still. In

4
dialectic one examines one’s assumptions, one’s basic concepts, and one arrives at better assumptions and
concepts.

Dialectic method is called the Socratic Method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic
method, or Socratic debate, which is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals,
based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying
presumptions.

In dialectic you will regularly find a definition (or answer to a question) set up, then implications drawn out
from it until the definition obviously contradicts itself, then a new definition is set up, again its implications
lead to contradiction; a new one is again set up, and so on (Thesis, antithesis and synthesis). It is important
to see the organization of the argument as such a series of attempted answers to the same question, each of
which is drawn out to implications, thereby leads to contradict itself, hence is broken, so that a new one is
set up and the whole business begins again.

It is a dialectical method because it involves a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is
questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themselves in some way, thus weakening the
defender’s point.

This Socratic Method is basically a method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found
by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. It searches for general, commonly
held truths that shape beliefs and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The
basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group
discover their beliefs about some topic, exploring definitions or logoi (singular logos) and seeking to
characterize general characteristics shared by various particular instances.

Socratic Circle

A Socratic Circle (also known as a Socratic Seminar) is a pedagogical approach based on the Socratic
Method, which uses a dialogue approach to understand information in a text. Its systematic procedure is
used to examine a text through questions and answers founded on the beliefs that all new knowledge is
connected to prior knowledge, that all thinking comes from asking questions, and that asking one question
should lead to asking further questions. A Socratic Circle is not a debate. The goal of this activity is to have
participants work together to construct meaning and arrive at an answer, not for one student or one group
to “win the argument”.

This approach is based on the belief that participants seek and gain deeper understanding of concepts in the
text through thoughtful dialogue rather than memorizing information that has been provided for them.
While Socratic Circles can differ in structure, and even in name, they typically involve the following
components: a passage of text that students must read beforehand and two concentric circles of students:
an outer circle and an inner circle. The inner circle focuses on exploring and analysing the text through the
act of questioning and answering. During this phase, the outer circle remains silent. Students in the outer
circle are much like scientific observers watching and listening to the conversation of the inner circle. When
the text has been fully discussed and the inner circle is finished talking, the outer circle provides feedback
on the dialogue that took place. This process alternates with the inner circle students going to the outer
circle for the next meeting and vice versa. The length of this process varies depending on the text used for
the discussion. The teacher may decide to alternate groups within one meeting, or they may alternate at
each separate meeting.

The most significant difference between this activity and most typical classroom activities involves the role
of the teacher. In Socratic Circles the students lead the discussion and questioning. The teacher’s role is to
ensure the discussion advances regardless of the particular direction the discussion takes.

5
Questioning methods in Socratic Circles

Socratic Circles are based upon the interaction of peers. The focus is to explore multiple perspectives on a
given issue or topic. Socratic questioning is used to help students apply the activity to their learning. The
pedagogy of Socratic questions is open-ended, focusing on broad, general ideas rather than specific, factual
information. The questioning technique emphasizes a level of questioning and thinking where there is no
single right answer.

Socratic circles generally start with an open-ended question proposed either by the leader or by another
participant. There is no designated first speaker; as individuals participate in Socratic circles, they gain
experience that enables them to be effective in this role of initial questioner.

The leader keeps the topic focused by asking a variety of questions about the text itself, as well as questions
to help clarify positions when arguments become confused. The leader also seeks to coax reluctant
participants into the discussion, and to limit contributions from those who tend to dominate. She or he
prompts participants to elaborate on their responses and to build on what others have said. The leader guides
participants to deepen, clarify, and paraphrase, and to synthesize a variety of different views.

The participants share the responsibility with the leader to maintain the quality of the Socratic circle. They
listen actively in order to respond effectively to what others have contributed. This teaches the participants
to think and speak persuasively using the discussion to support their position. Participants must demonstrate
respect for different ideas, thoughts and values, and must not interrupt each other.

Questions can be created individually or in small groups. All participants are given the opportunity to take
part in the discussion. Socratic Circles specify three types of questions to prepare:

Opening questions generate discussion at the beginning of the seminar in order to elicit dominant
themes.
Guiding questions help deepen and elaborate the discussion, keeping contributions on topic and
encouraging a positive atmosphere and consideration for others.
Closing questions lead participants to summarize their thoughts and learning and personalize what
they’ve discussed.

Characteristics of the Method

The method is skeptical. It begins with Socrates’ real or professed ignorance of the truth of the matter under
discussion. This is the Socratic irony which seemed to some of his listeners an insincere pretense, but which
was undoubtedly an expression of Socrates’ genuine intellectual humility. This skepticism Socrates shared
with the Sophists and, in his adoption of it, he may very well have been influenced by them. But whereas
the Sophistic skepticism was definitive and final, the Socratic is tentative and provisional; Socrates' doubt
and assumed ignorance is an indispensable first step in the pursuit of knowledge.

It is conversational. It employs the dialogue not only as a didactic device, but as a technique for the actual
discovery of opinions amongst men, there are truths upon which all men can agree, Socrates proceeds to
unfold such truths by discussion or by question and answer. Beginning with a popular or hastily formed
conception proposed by one of the members of the company or taken from the poets or some other
traditional source, Socrates subjects this notion to severe criticism, as a result of which a more adequate
conception emerges. His method, in this aspect, is often described as the maieutic method. It is the art of
intellectual midwifery, which brings other men’s ideas to birth. It is also known as the dialectical method
or the method of elenchus.

It is conceptual or definitional in that it sets as the goal of knowledge the acquisition of concepts, such as
the ethical concepts of justice, piety, wisdom, courage and the like. Socrates tacitly assumes that truth is

6
embodied in correct definition. Precise definition of terms is held to be the first step in the problem solving
process.

The Socratic Method is empirical or inductive in that the proposed definitions are criticized by reference to
particular instances. Socrates always tested definitions by recourse to common experience and to general
usages.

The method is deductive in that a given definition is tested by drawing out its implications, by deducing its
consequences. The definitional method of Socrates is a real contribution to the logic of philosophical
inquiry. It inspired the dialectical method of Plato and exerted a not inconsiderable influence on the logic
Aristotle.