INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY

BY KAHARI MUGO

CHAPTER ONE

DEFINITION OF PHILOSOPHY
Introduction

This lecture introduces you to the meaning of the term “philosophy.” We will begin with an
etymological definition followed by other definitions.

Etymological Definition
Physics or chemistry or medicine is NOT just a “group of facts” about physical things or
chemicals or sicknesses. They are ways of thinking about certain kinds of things. To really
become a physicist or a chemist or medical doctor is to have acquired an INTELLECTUAL
HABIT of thinking in a certain way about certain things.

The term “philosophy” is derived from a combination of two Greek words, namely philia (love)
and Sophia (wisdom) meaning “love of wisdom.”
You may therefore, define philosophy as “love of wisdom.” This definition has persisted for
more than two thousand years.

In text Question
But what does love of wisdom mean? The founding fathers of philosophy explained love of
wisdom as follows:

It is said that the first one to call himself a philosopher was Pythagoras, a Greek who lived
somewhere between 570 and 495 B.C.E. and spent most of his life in southern Italy.
He is of course known by his famous mathematical theorem.

● When once asked if he was wise, he replied that no one could be wise but a god, but that
he was a lover of wisdom.

● To love something does not mean to posses it but to focus our life on it. Whereas
Pythagoras introduced the term philosopher, it was Socrates who made it famous.

● For Socrates (467- 399 B.C.), love of wisdom entails the pursuit of truth and nothing but
objective truth. He said that the philosopher was one who had a passion for wisdom and
who was intoxicated by this love.
 ● For Plato (427-347, it is gaining the vision of absolute ideas, that is, one must be able to
discover what the character of universal reality is.

● Aristotle (384-322), a follower of Plato reinforces the view when he stated that
philosophy is the investigation of all things, which takes into account logical rules in the
determination of the true nature of reality.

● Thus philosophy means to be in the habit of seeking to be wise about the

human experience. It is human attempt to understand human situation
in a fundamental way in order to gain wisdom.

● Philosophy can also be understood as an Evaluation of Our Concepts and Beliefs

about Human Experience
Let us take an example of a common experience-happiness. Let’s say a Mr. Scott believes that
what makes people happy is the possession of money and property. To this, a person who has
learned the philosophical habit will not take this claim for granted. He will instead want to be
wise about it. He/she will for instance want to know whether anyone is happy when he or she
possesses money and property, he or she will ask and
probably figure out whether happiness is equal to property and money. He will raise not only
actual questions asked, but also possible or purely logical questions:

What is money? What is property? What is happiness? Is happiness possible through something
else rather than money and property?

And so on. This is the kind of habit of mind, which is called “philosophy.” You should realize
that is quite a thoughtful, contemplative and reflective exercise.

● You may, also define philosophy as evaluation of our concepts and judgments of
reality, knowledge and belief in so far as such judgments constitute human experience.

● Philosophy as a Body of Concepts and an Activity Thus defined, the term

“philosophy” refers to both:A body of concepts or theories and standards An activity
As a body of concepts, philosophy is the work of philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle
and so on.
As an activity, it is work which is characterized by deliberate critical examination and
discussion of our concepts, judgments, policies, rules, theories and standards. It is a way of
thinking about reality.

Take note
You may, therefore, also define philosophy as the following contemporary prominent
philosophers have done in their attempt to enlighten us on philosophy.

● Philosophy is an activity of showing the fly the way out of the fly bottle, or the battle
against the bewitchment of our minds with the use of knowledge. Wittgenstein
 ● An activity undertaken by human beings who are deeply concerned about who they are,
and what everything means (Honer, Hunt and Okholm, Invitation to Philosophy).

● The systematic, critical examination of the way in which we judge, evaluate and act, with
the aim of making ourselves wiser, more self-reflective, and better men and women
(Wolf, 2000:p.4).

● It is the contemplation or study of the most important questions in existence with the end
of promoting illumination and understanding a vision of the whole (Pojman, 1993:p.3).

● Philosophy can also be defined as the search for fundamental beliefs that are rationally
justified.

METHODS OF PHILOSOPHY

Philosophy is an adventure, which demands hard work and intellectual rigor. Like an
adventure there is no where exactly you will end up, but if you persist, you will gain some
valuable insights, and hopefully an altered perspective on your world- Paul Voice,
University of South Africa, Pretoria.

Note that in lecture one, we observed that deliberative reasoning is fundamental to

philosophy and its principles. If you can remember this, here are some of the techniques
which are employed in such an activity.

ANALYSIS
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) defined “analysis” as the classification of a word or entity by
genre and differentia, that is, analysis is the classification of a word or entity by placing it
in a large class called the genre and then differentiating it from other members of that class.
A very good example of this form of analysis is found in the Dictionaries. You should look
up in the Dictionaries and see how they define concepts.

However, analysis does not only consist in this kind of classification only. Analysis is also
the listing of the most important characteristics of the thing to be analyzed, that is, outlining
what constitutes the essence of a thing. Both forms of analysis are common and extremely
useful.

SYNTHESIS
Just as important as analysis is synthesis. Synthesis is to relate the thing to be known to
something already familiar. Essentially, it is the attempt to reveal the thing to be known as
part of some larger whole, e.g. an established philosophical rule, policy or standard.
DIALECTIC

This is the method originally associated with Socrates (467-399 B.C.). But it was later
adopted and developed by George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). For Socrates,
dialectic method consists in clarifying phenomena or the words and terms that reflect
them through discussion of their central concepts. In this dialectics, he acted out as a
“mid-wife” of ideas. He does not seek to impose his views in the process but through
question and answer method, he seeks to evoke independent positions of his students and
followers on selected issues. That method was so effective that it has become one of the
classic techniques of education.
Hegel, a German philosopher considered dialectic as a method through which ideas
develop. When beginning with an idea (“thesis”) its opposite (“antithesis”) develops until a
middle ground (“Synthesis”) is reached. This becomes a fresh thesis.

Socrates hope in utilizing this method was that in weeding out incorrect understandings, he
and his conversational partner would be moving toward clearer pictures of the true
answer. Because Socrates believed that the truth about the ultimate issues in life lay deeply
hidden within us, this process of unpacking he truth within was like that of a mid-wife
helping a mother in labor bring forth her child.

PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY

Introduction
In this lecture we will introduce you to the problems of philosophy. You have no doubt that
when a philosopher engages in a philosophical discussion, he discusses philosophical
problems. How does one distinguish philosophical problems? Definitely not all problems
are philosophical problems. This lecture seeks to introduce you to the nature of
philosophical problems.

What is a Problem of Philosophy?

Philosophical problems involve fundamental ideas (belief assumptions or concepts),

fundamental ideas are the most likely to invite philosophical investigation, Fundamental
idea is one upon which the truth of many other, more specific, ideas depends. A belief that
God Exists, for example, is a fundamental belief underlying the truth of many Christians
scriptures.

Characteristics of a philosophical problem

A problem of philosophy or philosophical problems can be identified in various ways. Here

are basic ways:
A problem of philosophy is an issue which is interpretable in various ways, such that it
does not have a definite answer. It is what the eminent scholar Emmet Barcalow (1992:4-5)
calls an “open question.” Barcalow defines an “open question” as any controversial issue
where not all the parties concerned agree regarding what the proper answer is, even
though there may be strong opinions regarding it.

Let us give an example of a philosophical problem: “What is the meaning of

knowledge/piety?” Socrates poses this question in the Socratic dialectics. At the outset,
knowledge is posed as a problem, since they seem to be the same as wisdom. The problem
of the meaning of knowledge is aggravated further when knowledge seems indefinable
when Theatetus cited examples as a way of defining it.

Here is another way of telling a philosophical problem. A philosophical problem is a

problem that is basic in the sense that it has to be sorted out before all related
problems can be, meaningfully resolved. Look at example on “Analysis of Concepts”
again, by William James (1842-1910). James (1967:366-368) clarified the concept “going
round” by distinguishing between two sense of the term. By doing so, he managed to
resolve the dispute- “the man went round the tree, and the squirrel was on the tree, but did
the man go round the squirrel?”- since it transpired that neither of the apparently opposing
parties in the debate were disagreeing what the other meant by the term going round; that in
fact, there was no genuine disagreement between them.

Philosophical problems often emerge when certain principles or beliefs conflict with
one another-when the same facts may be interpreted in different way and seemingly
inconsistent way. For example:

i) Mystics claim to have direct, intensely moving experience to God. They do not
simply feel closeness to God as one might in prayer; they feel that their own
consciousness is temporary “emerging” with an infinite spirit. Psychologists,
however, are likely to interpret these experiences as nothing more than special
hallucination.

ii) George Bush referred freedom as “almighty God’s gift to each man and woman
in this world”, which in his opinion morally requires America to spread it. But
the terrorists fighting America believe that they are commanded by God to
resist. Both sides cannot be correct, and if it is the other that is mistaken, how do
we know that? We might try to settle thing by polling the world to see to what
most people think. But those who regard democracy as pervasive won’t accept
the democratic assumption or which that solution depends.

iii) Homosexuality a claim that is unnatural versus claim from the victims it is
natural
Here are other examples of philosophical problems:
Are you reading the book you are reading right now? Or are you dreaming that you are
reading it, and part of that dream is that you are asked whether you are reading it right
now?
This issue is a philosophical problem because it raises question of the precise meaning of
wakefulness and sleep, and/or the question how you know that you are asleep or awake.
Note that the issue cannot be meaningfully settled until these other issues are tackled first.
Even in an ordinary conversation people must know how certain concepts are used
otherwise they will be talking past each other instead of to each other. Note that a
philosophical problem is also basic in the sense that it is about the very foundations of our
thought.
Let us look again at the example we started with in lecture 1. You will probably believe that
having a well paying job will make you happy? But what is happiness? Is it having lots of
money and property? Or is happiness being at peace with yourself and the world? Are
education and health not sources of happiness?

Note that these are many philosophical problems about which philosophers seek to be wise.
Here are more examples of philosophical problems:

Have You Ever Wondered about the Following?

● Whether you exist?

● Why there is something in the universe rather than nothing?
● Why do you and everything else exist? What are the origins of all that exists?
● Do you/others posses a soul or mind or self?
● What is space/ what is time?
● What is eternity?
● If God exists, what is he/she/it like?
● Why is there evil yet an all powerful God exists.
● What can the human know about the world?
● What is truth?
● What is belief?
● What is the meaning of knowledge?What are the sources of true knowledge? What
is the use of knowledge? Is knowledge the same as certainty?
● Which actions are right? Which actions are wrong? Are values absolute or relative/
what is morality? What moral standards ought to govern us and why? Can society
survive without morality? Why should anyone be moral?
● What is reasoning? How does reasoning differ from thinking? What are the rules of
correct reasoning? How does one distinguish between bad arguments from a good
one?

Remember that there are many philosophical problems and they arise in all areas of
life.

Note: Philosophical problems involve questions about meaning, truth, and logical
connections of fundamental ideas that resist solutions by empirical sciences or appeal to
religious authority.
PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS

One very important point is that to understand a subject of philosophy, we should look at
The questions it tries to answer. Sometimes philosophy is mistakenly associated with occult
studies such as astronomy or witchcraft. Business people and politicians sometimes use the
terms “economic policy” and economic philosophy interchangeably. Again, some people
think that a philosophical opinion is no more than a kind of personal prejudice. Moreover,
many students associate philosophy exclusively with humanistically oriented studies, not
realizing that mathematics and science too involve philosophical issues, philosophy covers
a lot of territory.

Here are examples of philosophical questions.

1. To what extent do we have a moral obligation to people we don’t know? For that
matter to what extent do we have a moral obligation to nonhuman living things?
How about the environment, do have a moral obligation to it?

2. What are the ethically legitimate functions and scope of government? What form of
government is best? What is the proper connection between religion and the state?
Questions like these separate the Democrats from Republicans, Conservatives from
Liberals, Communists from Capitalists, and Theocrats from Democrats.

3. Do people have natural rights, if so how do we know that? Where do they come
from? What makes one person’s list of rights superior to another person’s?

4. Is there God? Perhaps just as important, Does it make any difference whether there
is or isn’t a God.

5. Do ends justify means?

6. What, if anything, is the self? Is a person more than a physical body? Do people
have free will?

7. What is Truth? Beauty? Art?

8. Is it possible to know anything with absolute certainty
9. Does the universe have a purpose? Does life? Is there order in the cosmos?
Independent of what the mind puts there?

10. What is time?

11. Could anything have happened before the Big bang?
12. Do I have freedom or am I determined by forces beyond my control?

What makes these question philosophical questions? One answer is that philosophical
questions deal with our most basic concepts such as God, meaning, freedom, moral
rightness etc.
There are questions like; if there is nobody around, does a tree falling in the forest make a
sound? This can be resolved by distinguishing between sound viewed as the mental
experience of certain waves contacting certain sensory organs and sound as the waves
themselves. If sensory organs are absent, it is said there can be no sound-as-experienced,
but there can still be sound-as-waves.
Philosophy, however asks not simply whether a tree falling in the forest makes a sound if
there is nobody, but rather if nobody is there is there even a forest? Is there even a
universe?

Thus the questions for philosophers are whether things depend for their existence on
being perceived and, if so, how we know that.

Of course one can reflect on an issue and alone arrive at some position regarding it.
However, it is more productive when that issue is brought to the attention of the public
audience and debated because, and then one can test his/her own view against others.
Philosophy therefore, is more fruitful when it is carried out as a debate or discussion.

CHARACTERISTICS OF PHILOSOPHY

Introduction
In this lecture we will further survey the characteristics of philosophy. This survey will
enable you to have a deeper understanding of philosophy.

Characteristics of Philosophy

● A Fundamental Feature of Philosophy is the Attempt to Seek for Wisdom by

Reasoning, Argument or Discussion.

● Philosophy Inquires into the Possible Consequences of Beliefs.

In ordinary conversation such as in politics, sometimes the concept philosophy is used. But
often it is used as a statement of vision or to refer to any belief held. This is a loose sense of
the word “philosophy.” In this sense, everyone is a philosopher, since nearly everyone
posses an opinion or idea about nearly anything. However, “philosophy” in the strict sense
means the attempt to examine and evaluate logical implications in human conceptions of
reality, tracing what people say, and revealing the logical implications. Not every statement
is philosophical in this sense.

● Philosophy is Critical and Evaluative

To be able to inquire into possible consequences of beliefs, a philosopher criticizes ideas,
questions them, raises arguments and counter-arguments, reflects, tests the validity of
reasoning involved, contemplates and postulates possible alternative answers. It is not
philosophical if a discourse is uncritical derived.
Philosophy is both a creative and critical discipline. Creativity comes in when philosophers
generate theories as part of their efforts to respond to philosophical concepts. The critical
part comes in because philosophers have to compare competing theories. They discuss and
evaluate the theories to see which is the most likely to be true.

● Philosophy Seeks for what is most Reasonable to Believe

When society yields competing theories, a decision must be made. Only one of these
theories can be true. Philosophers are committed to examining and evaluating the theories to
determine which is the most reasonable to believe, or which is the most likely to be true.

● Philosophy is a Second Order Activity

The philosopher David Best (1978:67) explains this character of philosophy best by using
an example. He takes an example of a moralist and contrast what he/she does with a moral
philosopher? A moralist engages in a moral discourse or practices which may include
recommending to others what their moral obligations are, what living appropriately and
inappropriately is, what are expected rewards and punishment, and criticizing others for
moral failure. On the other hand, a moral philosopher is one who is not as much concerned
with substantive questions or injunctions. By contrast, the philosopher operates at the higher
(logical) level, concerned, for example, with such issues as what people mean when they
engage in moral recommendation, moral judgments, what reasoning is engaged in support
of moral judgments and whether it is justified. In this case, then, the first order activity is
engaging in moral discourses and practice, the second order activity, which is
philosophizing, is engaging in logical evaluation. Because philosophy is second order
discipline, no wonder it is sometimes defined as, talk about talk about the world, or thought
about thought about the world.

● Philosophy Seeks to be Comprehensive and about Fundamentals

In an attempt to arrive at a decision, philosophy considers all evidence, actual and possible.
It may be evidence from common sense, science or philosophy itself. It may be common
sense, scientific or philosophical beliefs that are investigated. A philosophical inquiry is
aimed at the foundations of our thoughts and therefore concerned with the fundamental
nature of that thought and reality.

THE VALUE OF PHILOSOPHY

Bertrand Russell (1991) conceptualized the value of philosophy as follows.

The [person who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in life
prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation
and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the cooperation or content
of his deliberative reason --- Bertrand Russell (1991)

Broad Values of Philosophy

a) Thinking for Yourself
Over two millennia ago, the Greek philosopher, Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) wrote: Let no one
when young, delay to study neither philosophy, nor when he is old grow weary of its study.
For, no one can come early or too late to secure the health of his soul.
He wrote these words at a time of socio-economic and political turmoil in his society. And
remember the words of Socrates: the unexamined life is not worth living. These words were
true then as they are today. Although we might express Epicurus sentiments differently
today, they remain basically true especially at this time when social change is equally rapid.
When in such upheaval, at times rapid change, it is necessary for people to examine their
presuppositions- to question their beliefs- in short, to think for themselves since then
traditions, customs, and habits will not suffice when dealing with new situations. At such
times if people don’t think for themselves, someone else must think for them. You benefit
from studying philosophy because it inculcates in you the habit of thinking for
yourself. The idea of thinking for yourself occupies a central position in the entire study of
any course of philosophy. For, when you are able to think for yourself, you have become a
philosopher. Some of you already possess this ability necessary for philosophy. However,
you have much to gain from a formal study of philosophy because it helps provide the much
needed techniques and experience necessary in helping to achieve efficiency and rigor in
your reasoning. By bringing you knowledge of thoughts of past philosophers, you can
measure your own views against theirs. Without this kind of exposure, your own thinking is
unlikely to take you very far. It is, therefore, important that anyone wishing to see himself or
herself truly educated should undertake a formal learning of philosophy

b) Pursuit of Wisdom
The intrinsic value of philosophy is to seek for wisdom. A wise person, however, is not
necessarily one who believes himself or herself to know. Socrates once suggested that it is
easier for someone who is ignorant to learn more than one who claims to know. For, then
the one who claims to know, supposing himself to know, resist all attempts to know. A wise
person, on the other hand accepts that he/she does not know. Thus, probably it is true that a
wise person is the seeker of knowledge.

In the professions and professional subjects like Business, law, politics, sociology, etc., the
person who has learned the philosophical attitude means that he/she pursues a broad
approach to knowledge. Such a person is twice useful in various aspects of his organization
and profession, since he/she will not only posses professional knowledge and expertise, he
or she will seek a comprehensive approach to problems, and besides, is able to isolate
multiplicities and focus on the essentials. Since philosophical problems arise in all spheres
of life, ability to identify and deal with them is an advantage.
Why should you study philosophy then? We reiterate that if you wish to be truly educated
you should study philosophy.

c) Specific skills
The study of philosophy will enhance your ability to:
Think, speak and communicate clearly and critically.
Form original and creative solutions to problems.
Develop reasoned arguments for ones’ own views.
Appreciate views different from your own.
Analyze complex issues.
Investigate difficult questions in a persistent and systematic manner.
Appreciate the vision of the truth, and nothing but objective truth.
 Think deeply, broadly and objectively.

Note
Troy Jollimore said: the list of things you can’t do with a background in Philosophy is
shorter than the list of things you can.

Without philosophy no one can lead a life free from fear or worry. Seneca

Life involves passions, faith, doubts, and courage, the critical inquiry into what these
things mean is Philosophy. Josiah Royce

Without philosophy, we could be little above animals. Voltaire

Objection
Although philosophy has benefit, certainly it is not without limitation. Consider the claim
that:
There are at least 2 kinds of people who cannot be philosophers, namely
Infants and
The mentally ill
Infants and the mentally ill cannot exercise reason of age and health respectively.

ROLE OF PHILOSOPHY TO STUDENTS

Departments of philosophy around the world have sought to assert their relevance in the
scramble for students, they have presented various write-ups on the benefits of studying
philosophy, many of which are readily available on the Internet. Among the benefits that
they cite are that interaction with philosophical works helps a person to develop a better
sense of his or her own values and goals, refines his or her abilities to think and
communicate, encourages him or her to be more open to experiences in life that are
especially challenging, and stimulates him or her to be better prepared to thoughtfully
consider various questions that he or she encounters. Furthermore, many philosophy
department websites display statistics indicating that philosophy majors score consistently
higher than students in all other non-scientific disciplines in Graduate Record Examinations
(GREs) and other standardized exams designed to gauge a student's likelihood of success in
graduate and professional studies. The statistics indicate that philosophy majors also
compete favorably with science majors in such examinations.

Uses of Philosophy

As discussed above, the values of philosophy and uses of philosophy are related.
Much of what is learned in philosophy can be applied in virtually any endeavour. This is
both because philosophy touches on so many subjects and, especially, because many of its
methods are usable in any field.
General Uses of Philosophy

General Problem Solving. The study of philosophy enhances, in a way no other activity
does, one's problem solving capacities. It helps one to analyze concepts, definitions,
arguments, and problems. It contributes to one's capacity to organize ideas and issues, to
deal with questions of value, and to extract what is essential from masses of information. It
helps one both to distinguish fine differences between views and to discover common
ground between opposing positions. And it helps one to synthesize a variety of views or
perspectives into a unified whole.
Communication Skills. Philosophy also contributes uniquely to the development of
expressive and communicative powers. It provides some of the basic tools of
self-expression - for instance, skills in presenting ideas through well-constructed, systematic
arguments - that other fields either do not use, or use less extensively. It helps one to express
what is distinctive of one's view; enhances one's ability to explain difficult material; and
helps one to eliminate ambiguities and vagueness from one's writing and speech.
Persuasive Powers. Philosophy provides training in the construction of clear formulations,
good arguments, and apt examples. It helps one develop the ability to be convincing. One
learns to build and defend one's own views, to appreciate competing positions, and to
indicate forcefully why one considers one's own views preferable to alternatives. These
capacities can be developed not only through reading and writing in philosophy, but also
through the philosophical dialogue, in and outside the classroom, that is so much a part of a
thoroughgoing philosophical education.
Writing Skills. Writing is taught intensively in many philosophy courses, and many
regularly assigned philosophical texts are unexcelled as literary essays. Philosophy teaches
interpretive writing through its examination of challenging texts, comparative writing
through emphasis on fairness to alternative positions, argumentative writing through
developing students' ability to establish their own views, and descriptive writing through
detailed portrayal of concrete examples: the anchors to which generalizations must be tied.
Structure and technique, then, are emphasized in philosophical writing. Originality is also
encouraged, and students are generally urged to use their imagination and develop their own
ideas.
Uses of philosophy in educational pursuits

The general uses of philosophy just described are obviously of great academic value. It
should also be clear that the study of philosophy has intrinsic rewards as an unlimited quest
for understanding of important, challenging problems. But philosophy has further uses in
deepening an education, both in college and in the many activities, professional and
personal, that follow graduation.

Understanding Other Disciplines. Philosophy is indispensable for this. Many important

questions about a discipline, such as the nature of its concepts and its relation to other
disciplines, do not belong to that discipline, are not usually pursued in it, and are
philosophical in nature. Philosophy of science, for instance, is needed to supplement the
understanding of the natural and social sciences which one derives from scientific work
itself. Philosophy of literature and philosophy of history are of similar value in
understanding the arts. Philosophy is, moreover, essential in assessing the various standards
of evidence used by other disciplines. Since all fields of knowledge employ reasoning and
must set standards of evidence, logic and epistemology have a general bearing on all these
fields.
Development of Sound Methods of Research and Analysis. Still another value of
philosophy in education is its contribution to one's capacity to frame hypotheses, do
research, and put problems into manageable form. Philosophical thinking strongly
emphasizes clear formulation of ideas and problems, selection of relevant data, and
objective methods for assessing ideas and proposals. It also emphasizes development of a
sense of the new directions suggested by the hypotheses and questions one encounters in
doing research. Philosophers regularly build on both the successes and the failures of their
predecessors. A person with philosophical training can readily learn to do the same in any
field.

C) Uses of Philosophy in non-academic careers

It should be stressed that the non-academic value of a field of study must not be viewed
mainly in terms of its contribution to obtaining one's first job after graduation. Students are
understandably preoccupied with getting their first job, but even from a narrow vocational
point of view it would be short-sighted to concentrate on that at the expense of developing
potential for success and advancement once hired. What gets graduates initially hired may
not yield promotions or carry them beyond their first position, particularly given how fast
the needs of many employers alter with changes in social and economic patterns. It is
therefore crucial to see beyond what a job description specifically calls for. Philosophy need
not be mentioned among a job's requirements in order for the benefits derivable from
philosophical study to be appreciated by the employer, and those benefits need not even be
explicitly appreciated in order to be effective in helping one advance.
It should also be emphasized here that - as recent studies show - employers want, and
reward, many of the capacities which the study of philosophy develops: for instance, the
ability to solve problems, to communicate effectively, to organize ideas and issues, to assess
pros and cons, and to boil down complex data. These capacities represent transferable skills.
They are transferable not only from philosophy to non-philosophical areas, but from one
non-philosophical field to another. For that reason, people trained in philosophy are not only
prepared to do many kinds of tasks; they can also cope with change, or even move into new
careers, more readily than many others.
Regarding current trends in business, a writer in the New York Times reported that
"businessmen are coming to appreciate an education that at its best produces graduates who
can write and think clearly and solve problems" (June 23, 1981). A recent long-term study
by the Bell Telephone Company, moreover, determined that majors in liberal arts fields, in
which philosophy is a central discipline, "continue to make a strong showing in managerial
skills and have experienced considerable business success" (Career Patterns, by Robert E.
Beck). The study concluded that "there is no need for liberal arts majors to lack confidence
in approaching business careers." A related point was made by a Senior Vice President of
the American Can Company:
Students with any academic background are prepared for business when they
can educate themselves and can continue to grow without their teachers, when
 they have mastered techniques of scholarship and discipline, and when they are
challenged to be all they can be (Wall Street Journal, February 2, 1981).

As all this suggests, there are people trained in philosophy in just about every field. They
have gone not only into such professions as teaching (at all levels), medicine, and law,
but into computer science, management, publishing, sales, criminal justice, public
relations, and other fields. Some professionally trained philosophers are also on
legislative staffs, and the work of some of them, for a senior congressman, prompted him
to say:
“It seems to me that philosophers have acquired skills which are very
valuable to a member of Congress. The ability to analyze a problem
carefully and consider it from many points of view is one. Another is the
ability to communicate ideas clearly in a logically compelling form. A
third is the ability to handle the many different kinds of problems which
occupy the congressional agenda at any time.” (Lee H. Hamilton, 9th
District, Indiana, March 25, 1982.)

In emphasizing the long-range benefits of training in philosophy, whether through a

major or through only a sample of courses in the field, there are at least two further points
to note. The first concerns the value of philosophy for vocational training. The second
applies to the whole of life.
First, philosophy can yield immediate benefits for students planning post-graduate work.
As law, medical, business, and other professional school faculty and admissions
personnel have often said, philosophy is excellent preparation for the training and later
careers of the professionals in question. In preparing to enter such fields as computer
science, management, or public administration, which, like medicine, have special
requirements for postgraduate study, a student may of course major (or minor) both in
philosophy and some other field.
The second point here is that the long-range value of philosophical study goes far beyond
its contribution to one's livelihood. Philosophy broadens the range of things one can
understand and enjoy. It can give one self-knowledge, foresight, and a sense of direction
in life. It can provide, to one's reading and conversation, special pleasures of insight. It
can lead to self-discovery, expansion of consciousness, and self-renewal. Through all of
this, and through its contribution to one's expressive powers, it nurtures individuality and
self-esteem. Its value for one's private life can be incalculable; its benefits in one's public
life as a citizen can be immeasurable.

Principal functions of philosophy

Integration of experience: The universe as we experience it is both diverse and unified.
Reasoned thought helps us to integrate and harmonize these apparently opposed aspects of
reality.
Nurturing of our awareness and sensitivity: Reasoned thought assists us to not only
understand the universe but also ourselves as part of it. Self-examination enhances the
consciousness of our own limitations and capabilities. This awareness and sensitivity is
crucial in assisting us to adapt to the challenging and complex situations of life.
Clarification and justification of belief: Beliefs are the basis of our actions. Reasoned
thought about our beliefs enables us to ensure that they are well-founded and thus rationally
justifiable. If our actions are to be effective in enhancing our well-being, they should be
founded on explicit, clear, distinct and rationally justifiable beliefs.
Bridging the gap between theory and practice: Philosophy raises questions regarding the
meaning, foundations, purpose, justification, verification and application of theories in the
pragmatic context. This is useful in ensuring that theories inform practice appropriately.
Philosophy also evaluates practice and raises questions regarding the extent to which
practice confirms and conforms to theory and why.
Providing a condition for the freedom of the mind: Philosophy seeks to liberate us from
the slavery of ignorance and irrationality. It helps us to examine our own beliefs,
assumptions and prejudices. It assists us to act rationally and justly. This in turn broadens
our realm of freedom and enhances our capacity to act and respond responsibly, intelligently
and creative.

CHAPTER TWO: SECTION A

BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY

Introduction
By now you should be able to define philosophy, its approach and explain the basic nature
of philosophical problems. You can then, survey the branches of philosophy. Like any other
discipline, philosophy has its branches. A branch of philosophy is a field of philosophical
problems and related theories and concepts. There are 2 kinds of branches of philosophy.
These are main branches and allied (applied) branches. Main or basic branches are those
issues of philosophy from which all the other branches of philosophy are derived.
Applied branches of philosophy are so called because they derived from the basic branches;
they participate, or depend on the truth of theories and concepts developed in the basic
branches to address their problems of concern.

MAIN BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY

Metaphysics
This is the branch of philosophy in which philosophers inquire into terrestrial and extra
terrestrial concerns of existence like space, time, causality, souls, bodies and God. Two
basic questions of metaphysics are: What is being and what are its fundamental features and
properties? For example, what is the ultimate nature of all that exists/ what does cause
mean? Where is the universe? How many universes are there? We do commonly say that
one thing caused another, but how do we distinguish accidental correlations from causal
connections? What makes a thing what it is and not another? Is an object a substance or a
set of properties? What is human nature? Does humans/tress possess souls? Is there a world
soul? Do machines think?
All these problems are problems of metaphysics. Some of the questions are about the
expanse of the universe, these are called cosmological problems. Some of them are
ultimate/basic nature of reality, they are called ontological problems. Some of them are
about nature and extent of the soul and spiritual reality. They are rational psychology.

Epistemology
Epistemology is the inquiry into philosophical issues about knowledge, like justification,
belief, doubt and certainty. Basically it is concerned with methods of justification, or the
issue of how we know. Such concerns, can one ever defeat doubt/ how does one distinguish
belief from truth? What is knowledge? While you may say you know how to swim, can you
say the same about a duck or a dog swimming/ is reason the source of true knowledge? Can
the senses account for all knowledge?
Some branches of philosophy like philosophy of science and logic are said to have branched
off from epistemology because they are essentially about the method of knowing.
Because epistemology is concerned with criteria for the justification of knowledge, it is
sometimes referred as criteriology. Another name for it is gnoseology, from its concern with
gnosis, Greek for “knowledge.”

Ethics
Ethics is the branch of philosophy in which philosophers inquire into concerns regarding
morality. For example, what ought to be the general rule of conduct? What is a good life?
Why should anyone be moral? Why shouldn’t one be selfish? Should we allow doctors to
practice abortion? Is corruption evil? Does law make actions right? Are actions right
because God commands them, or does God command them because they are right? Do
consequences make an act right? Can the logical study of morality resolve morality issues?

Ethics has 3 main approaches of study. Descriptive ethics is the outline of moral practices
and injunctions. Normative ethics is the approach of ethics which seeks to outline the norms
that govern moral conduct to evaluate them and make recommendations about what moral
rules ought to be followed. Metaethics is the approach of ethics which examines and
analyses moral terms and concepts to clarify their meanings and logical implications. For
example, the ethicist George Moore discusses the meaning of the concept “good’ and argues
that it is indefinable. He is an example of a Metaethicist.

Logic
Logic is a branch of philosophy of which philosophers inquire into concerns about
reasoning. For instance, when is reasoning good? Can claims be established beyond
reasonable doubts? What makes one potential explanation better than another? How is
formal determination of an argument possible? Logic has 2 main approaches formal and
symbolic logic.
Formal logic is the approach with the sequence of claims and judgments, or with what the
form or structure of good reasoning is like.
Symbolic logic translates natural language arguments into mathematical forms that allow
formal determination of an argument’s validity.

APPLIED BRANCHES
There are many applied branches of philosophy as there is social and cultural reality. We
will mention only some of the more common branches.

In text Question
Did you know that philosophy inquires into art and beauty?

Aesthetics
Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy where philosophers discuss philosophical concerns
regarding art and beauty. For instance, what is beauty? How do we distinguish art from
non-art? Is beauty objective or is it subjective? What is the social responsibility of the artist?
What is the purpose of art? Are music, dance and poetry arts? What are the rights of the
artists?

Political Philosophy

Political philosophy focuses on the state and seeks to determine its justification and
ethically proper organization. It is the examination of philosophical concerns in politics, like
what is politics? What is the nature of a good government? What is the origin of
government? Are governments necessary?

Philosophy of Law
Philosophy of law (also known as jurisprudence) is the investigation into philosophical
concerns of law like, is justice according to law just? What is law? What are the sources of
just law? Is there absolute law? Why is law necessary? Is it right to obey bad law? What
should constitute evidence in law? Is affirmative action lawful?

Philosophy of Religion
Philosophy of religion is the branch of philosophy in which philosophers investigate into
philosophical concerns in religion, like what is the nature of religious language and acts?
Does God exist? Does evil exists? Are there devil worshippers? Is morality possibly without
religion? Is good possible outside religion? What is the nature of faith? Is faith impossible
without religion?

Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of science is the inquiry into philosophical concerns about science. For example,
does science provide true knowledge? What is the precise method of scientific knowledge?
Can science answer cosmological questions? Can science tell whether God exists or not?

Philosophical of Social Science

Philosophy of Social Science is the branch of philosophy which examines philosophical
concerns specifically about the social sciences. For example, are they objective? Can there
be an objective science of human action, which the social sciences claim to be? What is the
place of values in human action? What are universal explanations in the social sciences?

Philosophy of History
Philosophy of History is the philosophical investigation regarding concerns in history, like
what is history? Is history cyclical or is it unilinear? Or rather, does history repeat itself?
What is the force behind history? Can history predict the future? Can it explain the past?
What is the nature of historical explanation?

ETHICS

TELEOLOGICAL AND DEONTOLOGICAL THEORIES

Introduction
In this lecture we will examine two competing theories, teleological and deontological
theories. Teleological and deontological theories are theories which have been developed by
philosophers as standards or criteria which we can use in determining the rightness or
wrongness of an action, decision, policy or rule.

Definition of Teleological and Deontological Theories

Teleological theories are those theories which assert that the rightness or wrongness of an
act depends on its results or consequences. It is the end results or the consequences of an act
or even a decision, a policy or a rule that determines whether or not it is moral. Human
conduct, actions, decisions, policies or rules are moral if their end results or consequences
are otherwise.
In order, therefore, to determine whether an act, a decision, a policy or a rule is moral one
must be able to tell whether its consequences will be beneficial. Further to the good
consequences, the act in question should be able to produce a greater balance of benefits
over evil than any available alternatives. For teleologists, moral life is ideally meant to
maximize goodness or happiness to people. Moral life is intended to lead to a good and
happy life.
Deontologists do not believe in the idea that actions are good or wrong depending on their
end results or consequences. Instead, they believe that actions are good or wrong because of
their innate features or absolute characteristics.

A deontological theory, therefore, is the view that actions or rules are moral because of
certain characteristics which they posses and that based on these characteristics they become
our obligations or duty to perform them or not. The moral quality of an act is determined by
its inherent or absolute quality, without any reference to the consequences they bring about
or the end that may be achieved.
Indeed, deontologists have no doubt that good consequences are likely to follow from good
actions and evil from evil actions. What they refuse is the attempt to use the consequences
as the determinants of moral right and wrong.

Teleological Theories
There are two teleological theories: ethical egoism and utilitarianism

Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism is the view that a person should act so as to maximize his or her own good or
benefits.

According to Mappes (1996: 6), ethical egoism states that, a person ought to act so as to
promote his or her own self-interest. An action is morally right if, when compared to
possible alternatives, its consequences are such to generate the greatest balance of good over
evil for the agent. The impact on other people is irrelevant except as it may indirectly affect
the agent.
Ethical egoism seems all rational because the theory is said to be derived from the nature of
human beings as postulated by psychological egoism. Psychological egoism states that
human beings are by nature selfish and only interested in their own good. There is a natural
tendency in every human person to seek for his or her own advantage or welfare at the
expense of others. This is argued is true even in cases where we think that certain people are
acting solely for the benefit of others.

The philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), seemed to defend psychological egoism

when he contended that humans are naturally bestial. Their life in the primitive state is
solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. In this state of nature, they engage in perpetual strife.
They possess no ethics, no standards of right and wrong, justice or injustice nor a sense of
private property. Thus, he recommended the ruleship of people by an absolute monarch with
absolute powers (Hobbes, 19) another proponent of psychological egoism is John Locke
(1632-1704). However, Locke (19) held that in the primitive state humans are naturally
good and seek for happiness. He contended that since we are constituted in such a way that
we approve or do those acts from whose consequences we can benefit, and disapprove or
avoid doing those from whose consequences we stand no chance to benefit, ethical egoism
ought to be the standard o morality.

However, the theory of ethical egoism appears to go against the spirit of morality. One of
the main objectives of morality is to control selfishness which ethical egoism appears to
advocate. Indeed, it is in everybody’s interest that none of us acts selfishly; otherwise social
life will be disrupted. Locke’s ideas here are noteworthy. He believes that selfishness and
altruism are not necessarily opposed. He thus states that because human beings are all alike
in pursuing their own self interest, what is good for one person will be good for others.
Consequently, no one can further his/her own self-interest in any more effective way than by
doing good to other people (ibid)

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the
one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing total benefit and reducing
suffering or the negatives. This theory is an economic analysis that is human-centered
(anthropocentric) and has a moral foundation. It is tradition stemming from the late 18th-
and 19th-century by English philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart
Mill.
In utilitarianism, an act, a rule, a decision or even a policy is moral if its consequences bring
about the greatest happiness, or benefits for the greatest number of people of more
alternative actions or rules, the one whose outcome has the greatest number of people is the
right one and the moral one affected by the act, rule, decision or policy. It means that when
faced with two or more alternative actions or rules, the one whose outcome has the greatest
number of people is the right one and the moral one.

Take note
Two characteristics are central to utilitarianism:
The consequences of the act must bring about the greatest happiness or benefits
The number of beneficiaries must be the greatest possible.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) asserted that;

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters: pain and
pleasure. It is for them alone to point ought what we ought to do, as well as to determine
what we shall do. On the one hand, the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain
of causes and effects, are fasted to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in
all we think. Every effort we can make to throw off our subjects, will serve but to
demonstrate and confirm it… the principle of utility recognizes this subject, and assumes it
for the foundation of that system, the object of which is to rear the fabric of felicity by the
hands of reason and law.
Human beings are seen by Bentham as pleasure-seeking and pain-avoiding creatures. All
human activities and thoughts are an attempt to avoid pain and seek pleasure. Whatever
gives pleasure is good and therefore moral, but whatever gives pain is bad and therefore
immoral. Pain and pleasure are the foundation of utilitarianism according to him.

Strength of utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is attractive as a moral principle for many reasons. Consider the following;
It is a theory with attractive as a moral principle for many reasons. Consider the following
situation,
Do what will promote the most utility. It is good to have a simple action-guiding principle,
applicable for every occasion, even if it may be difficult to apply.
Utilitarianism accords with the basic underlying principle of morality i.e. that morality
should promote the welfare of moral agents. Morality should aim at making the world a
better place for people.

Some Problems with Utilitarianism

It is not possible to determine the consequences of some actions immediately. The intricacy
of life and events in human environment makes it difficult to predict or know the
consequences of most of many activities. In such cases, therefore, it becomes difficult to
employ the theory of utilitarianism. Consider the following examples:

When Kenyan troops went to Somali to get rid of Ashabbab Militia, this led to peace in
parts of Somali including taking control of Kishmayu town. But inside Kenya there are
attacks all over with Alshabab taking responsibility. Was going to Somali the right thing to
do

Or

When the Americans dropped the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this stopped
the war. However, some terrible consequences are still emerging. Was the dropping of the
bomb the right thing to do?

It is practically difficult to measure how much happiness or pleasure an action can bring
about.
Utilitarianism has the possibility of it justifying actions that are repugnant to the rules of
justice and human rights. For example, the principle can easily deprive a minority of basic
rights so long as our actions contribute to the general welfare.

Kant’s Deontology
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) insisted that morality cannot be based on emotions or feelings
but instead should be based on reason. In his Critique of Practical Reason, he argued that
moral principles are the object of “rational choice”. Human beings, being rational are
capable of deliberating, deciding on and following rules, and making free choices.
According to Kant, deontology requires an unconditional or absolute reference point for
moral behavior. This reference point he called ‘pure practical reason’. Each individual is
rational, able to reason and arrive at the right decision regarding his or her actions.

By our nature as rational beings, each individual can arrive at this right decision without
appeal to any external authority. Morality is more than rituals, customs and ethos of a
particular group, culture or society or emotive reactions towards others. He views morality
as the same for everyone, everywhere, built into the structure of human kind.
He believed that through human reason, human beings are capable of arriving at universal
moral rules and principles. He was strongly opposed to suggestions that morality is and can
be relative. Of the view that an action is right or wrong, not because of its end result but
because of the principle or maxim or intention that guides the action, and the moral agents’
motives or intentions for carrying out the act.

In fact, for Kant, what makes an action moral is the principle guiding the act. An action
done with or out of good will is a good act. A good will is necessary for any action to be
counted as moral or good. Kant placed a lot of premium on the good will as the only thing
that is good in itself and that nothing else is moral or good unless accompanied by the
good will. This applies to all types of virtues. Anybody who displays any type of virtue that
is not accompanied by the good will, then both the virtue and the agent are not moral. He
believes that when a person performs any act as a result of the good will he or she will be
acting from a sense of duty.

Having a good will means acting with the right intentions, according to the right maxim or
principles, doing one’s duty for its own sake rather than for personal gain, or out of what
Kant calls ‘inclinations’ (desire, emotions, mood, whim, inspiration or sympathy).
Thus a person acts from a sense of duty when he or she performs the act for duty’s sake,
because he or she has an obligation to perform the act, and not because of any other
considerations, personal or otherwise. A categorical imperative is an unconditional
directive or principle that prescribes how we ought to act as required by the moral sense,
irrespective of the outcome that is personally derived. It is a general rule in accordance with
which we are all expected to act and have by virtue of the fact that we are rational. A
categorical imperative is a universal principle that determines the morality of our acts.
The recognition that we have a duty need not be further supported by some realization of
self-interest; it is enough that we recognize our duty, and because we are rational, we want
to do it.

Actions done out of good will are the actions that should be universalized.

In text question

The following scenario provides an example of moral reasoning.

Suppose that all your life you have been trying to be a good person, doing your duty as you
see it and seeking to do what is for the good of you fellow men. Suppose also, that your
fellow men dislike you and what you are doing and even regard you as a danger to the
society, although they cannot really show this to be true. Suppose, further that you are
indicted, tried and condemned to death by the jury of your peers, all in manner which you
correctly consider to be quite unjust. Suppose finally, that while you are in prison awaiting
execution, your friends arrange an opportunity for you to escape and go into exile with your
family. They argue that they can afford the necessary bribes and will not be endangered by
your escaping; that if you escape, you will enjoy a longer life; that your family will be better
off; that your friends will still be able to see you; and be able to see you; and that people
generally will think that you should escape.

Should you take the opportunity? Apply relevant ethical theories and principles to justify
your answer.

DECISION MAKING
- Decision making is a mental process by which we make choices among alternatives.

- To live is to act. To act is to decide. Everyday life is an endless sequence of decisions.

- Some of the decisions are small and inconsequential and some are large and life
determining.

Need for Rational Decision Making and Problem Solving

When the pattern of decision making is rational:

❖ We live a rational life.

❖ Maximize our chances of happiness,
❖ Maximize chances of happiness, leading to successful living and fulfillment.

Role of Philosophy in Decision Making and Problem solving

❖ Enhances the rationality of decisions and problem solving.

❖ Raises decision-making and problem-solving to the level of conscious and deliberate
choice.
❖ Helps us to avoid short-term and spontaneous decision- making and problem-
solving
Categories of Decisions we Make.

- Decisions can be categorized into

❖ Basic Human needs- we all make choices and decisions as to how to satisfy these
needs
❖ Chosen Values- we also make choices and decisions in relation to the values that we
impose upon ourselves.
❖ Implications to the wellbeing of others.

Common Patterns of Irrational/Unethical Decision Making

1. Deciding to behave in ways that undermine our welfare.

2. Not to engage in activities that contributes to our long term welfare.

3. Deciding to behave in ways that undermine another’s welfare.

4. Deciding to associate with people who encourage us to act against our own welfare and
others welfare.

Main Reason for Irrational/Unethical Decision Making

-Immediate gratification and short-term gain i.e. we make decisions with immediate
pleasure and the short run uppermost in our minds, we tend to be driven by hedonistic
tendencies.

- Indeed our minds seem to be ‘wired’ for immediate and short- run gratification

Big decisions

There are two kinds of big decisions to learn to watch for in one’s life.

1. Those that have obvious long-term consequences e.g. basic parental decisions,
career choices, choices of mate etc.
2. Those whose long term consequences must be discovered e.g. Implications of our
daily habits behaviors values

Four Ways to Sound Decision – Making logic of decision making

1. To recognize that you face in important decision.

- This is to enable one avoid making the decision subconsciously, to let the
un-thought decisions creep into our lives
2. To accurately identify the alternatives. Failure arises in two ways:
- When we think something is an alternative when it is not (thinking
unrealistically)
- When we fail to see an alternative (thinking narrowly)
3. To logically evaluate the alternatives
- This needs to be done in line with our goals, purposes
4. To have the self discipline to act on the best alternatives
- This emphasizes the need to remain rational even in the face of temptations
to make emotional decisions etc.
-
N. B. Each of these factors presents potential problems to the thinker. These problems can
be seen in the kind of questions which arise at each stage (see thinking map)

Thinking Map in Handling Decisions and Recommendations

(i) What makes this decision necessary? Objectives

 (ii) What is recommended and on what grounds?
(iii)What are the options/ alternatives?
(iv)What are the possible implications and consequences of the various options – and
how likely are they?
(v) How important are these consequences for all those affected?
(vi)When I compare the alternatives in the light of their consequences, which is the
best? Or the recommended course best?
(vii) How can I carry through my decision? Contingency plans?

A skilled Decision maker is the one who:

(i) Puts more time in decision making as it more costly to deal with the negative effects
of a bad decision.
(ii) Is systematic and focused on the decision.
(iii)Deals with one major decision at a time.
(iv)Develops knowledge of one’s ignorance (this is a virtue of a critical and creative
thinker)

PROBLEM-SOLVING
- Problems are embedded in the fabric of our lives almost to the same extent that decisions
are.

- Every domain of decision making is also a domain in which we have to solve problems.
Hence the two are interlinked.

- Every decision has an impact on our problems either to minimize or to contribute to them

Important Facts about Problem Solving

- Some problems left alone solve or resolve themselves e.g. an irritating roommate
moves
- Most problems however do not go away by themselves, but must be dealt with
actively in one way or another.
- If not dealt with some/many problems get worse over the time and hence it is
advisable to solve problems before they come after you.
Categories of Problems

-Problems can be divided into two types:

1. Problems we ourselves have created by our decisions and behavior. These are easier
to solve by reversing earlier decisions or modifying behavior.
2. Problems created by forces outside of us
-Each of these can be divided into two groups

1. problems we can solve in part or whole

2. problems beyond our control
Evaluating patterns in your problem solving (things to avoid in problem solving)

-Irrationality in problem solving should be avoided.

- Irrational problem solving comes in at least forms:

1. Pseudo-solutions (solutions that seem to solve the problem but they do not).
2. Solutions that solve the problem at the expense of the rights and needs of others

- Both these forms involve self-deception. This arises because we seek to satisfy false needs
and obtain irrational ends.

What to do:

- Pseudo problems should be dissolved not solved

- Pseudo problems are dissolved by dissolving “false needs” and “irrational ends” that
have generated the problems in the first place.

How then do we identify false needs and irrational ends these arise when we seek to
satisfy false needs and obtain irrational ends?

We ask - Do I need or just want this?

- Is it possible to want things one doesn’t need?

- An irrational value or end/goal is the one that does more harm than good e.g.
practices that serve the interests of a few at the expense of the majority.

Big Problems

There are two kinds of big problems to watch in life:

1. Problems for which our responses will have obvious long term consequences
2. Problems whose long term consequences must be discovered.

Problem Solving Skills

- Otherwise known as dimensions of problem solving or logic of problem solving

1. Regularly re-articulate and re-evaluate goals, purposes and needs. This is because
problems are recognized as arising mainly from two sources:

(a) Obstacles or opportunities to reaching our goals or satisfying our needs

 (b) Misconceptions in defining goals, purposes and needs.
-Misconceptions/mistakes lie in our very definition of what is worth seeking or
achieving or what we think we need.
-Critical thinkers often revisit their conceptions of what is worth pursuing

- Humans often pursue what they ought not to pursue

- Human often seek excesses e.g. wealth, power, food
- Humans often make unreasonable demands on others e.g. demanding
others to believe what you believe, value, or act as we act
- Humans often set up inconsistent standards e.g. expecting others to be
satisfied with what we ourselves would not be satisfied with or be judged
by criteria that we would resent

2. Identify problems explicitly and analyze them.

- This enables to avoid being vague about the problem or hiding the
problem
- Some problems are complex and as such need be broken into their
separate parts
- State your problem clearly, accurately and precisely as you can

3. Figure out the information you needed and actively seek that information.
- Almost all the problem solving requires acquisition of key relevant
information.

4. Carefully analyze, interpret and evaluate the information .This enables one to:
- To make sense of and give meaning to the information
- To avoid falsehoods deceptions and distortions
- To check reliability and relevance of the source
- To make reasonable inferences

5. Figure out the alternatives for action and evaluate them.

- Information may lead you into different options and inferences
- Make sure that you are not misinterpreting the situation
- Distinguish what is under your control and what is not
- Evaluated options in terms of both the short term and the long term
implications, strengths and short-comings
- Be cautious of your action, sticking to the facts and being willing to
re-integrate what is happening
- Figure out the limitations you have – be it money, time, power etc

6. Taking a strategic approach to the problem

- Different problems require different strategies
 - For instance, in some situations the best way in responding to a problem may
be through wait and see strategy
- Most cases a more direct strategy is required
- Follow through whatever strategy identified

7. When you act, monitor the implications of your actions as they emerge. This enables one
to:
- Know whether the progress is in achieving the desired results/objectives
- Revise strategy or strategies at short moment should the situation so require.
- Re-look at our strategy and analysis of the problem as more information
becomes available
- Back track, and even shift direction if need arises.

Summary:
The important aspect shown in this lesson is the systematic procedure involved in decision
making and problem solving. It has demonstrated the important role of critical and creative
thinking in this process i.e. taking ample time and exploring all possible alternatives in view
of one’s decision on self and others.

Activity:
Apply the dimension of decision/ problem solving in choosing your courses/ subject at the
University.

In text question
Assume that you are a girl aged 14 years and a victim of sexual assault by your own
father. If you tell your mother who is a house wife the incident it’s likely to spark off
hatred and eventual divorce between your parents. If you keep it to yourself, you
will continuously be traumatized by this grisly and heinous act. And if the matter
leaks to the wider community, your father the sole bread winner for the family will
be jailed or face mob justice that may end his life, leaving you and your siblings
helpless and out of school. How would you proceed in making decision such that it
does not hurt any parties involved but at the same time be an forgettable lesson to
the offender ( your father)
 EPISTEMOLOGY

THEORIES OF TRUTH

Introduction
The concept of truth is one of the most basic concepts in logic. There are certainly lots of
controversies in philosophy about the nature of truth. However, for our purpose, we can
adopt Aristotle’s definition: To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is
false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true. (Metaphysics,
1011b25)

The basic idea here is that truth is a matter of correspondence to reality. If you say “Nairobi
is in Kenya,” then your statement is true since Nairobi is indeed in Kenya. Whereas
“Nairobi is in Zambia” is false since it is not the case. When a statement is true, logicians
like to say that it has T (truth) as its truth-value. When a statement is false, its truth-value is
F (falsehood). If a statement is neither true nor false, then we say it lacks a truth-value.

CORRESPONDENCE THEORY OF TRUTH

Narrowly speaking, a correspondence theory of truth is any view which postulates that an
idea or proposition is true if it agrees or corresponds with observable facts. For
example this statement implies a correspondence theory: “The room you are in is warm” is
true if and only if actually the room you are in is warm.

The correspondence theory was championed by Bertrand Russell (1991) in the 20th century.
But the term was applied much earlier and broadly to refer to any view explicitly embracing
the idea that truth consists in a relation to reality. Thus Plato (427-347B.C) holds a similar
notion as he argued that all the perceived realities have their own ideals to which they
resemble and derive their reality. Indeed the correspondence theory originates from realism.

Realisms is a view in metaphysics which assets that reality exists independently of a

perceiver’s awareness of it, and considers any kind of knowledge as an attempt to reflect
and know this reality. One of its earliest formulations is by Aristotle (384-322 B.C): “… to
say of what is that it is or of what is not that it is not…” but identical formulations can be
found in contemporary thinkers like John Locke (1632-1704).

Locke was an English epistemologist and philosopher, and author of several books in which
he outlines his philosophies. In his epistemological work, an essay concerning Human
Understanding, he asserted that perceivers know the external world through “ideas’ only.
Reality exits independently of those ideas which represent it in our minds.
Locke’s fundamental thesis is that all our ideas come from experience. The human mind at
birth, he wrote (echoing Aristotle), is essentially a tabula rasa, or blank slate. On this blank
slate, experience makes its imprint. External objects impinge on our senses, which convey
into the mind ideas, or, as we might prefer to say today, perceptions, of these objects and
their various qualities. In short, sensation furnishes the mind with all its contents. Nihil in
intellectu quod prius non fuerit in sensu—nothing exists in the mind that was not first in
the senses. This, of course, is familiar and plausible.

Take note
Note that the concept “ideas” has been used variously in philosophy too mean
representations, copies, images or perceptions of reality.

For Locke “ideas’ are copies of reality, in the mind. They represent the external world but
only as copies. Reality as it is in itself cannot be absolutely known; otherwise exists
independently of our perceptions.

Strength and Limitations of Correspondence Theory of Truth

Clearly, correspondence theory has its strength. For one, it appeals to common sense
understanding of what it is to say that an idea is true. Since, when we ordinarily say that an
idea is or a statement is true, it is because it corresponds with reality. However, this theory is
not without limitations. Here are some of them.
It cannot deal with metaphysical nor logical truth. For it can neither assert nor deny the truth
or falsity of metaphysical ideas like “God” and “absolute reality.”
This theory depends on observations. Observations is not only limited to the observables, it
is also dependent on factors of observation, like condition of the sensing organ; therefore it
is not always reliable for telling the truth.

COHERENCE THEORY
The coherence theory has two well-known versions based on two accounts of the coherence
relation. According to a more recent account of the relation, the coherence relation is simply
consistency. On this view, to say that a proposition coheres with a set of propositions is to
say that the proposition is consistent with the set. Another version is the view that coherence
is more than consistency.

That more than consistency, coherence entails a mutual supportiveness between

propositions in a given set of statements or a system of thought. The coherence theory
originated from metaphysics advocated for by a number of European idealist philosophers
notable among them are Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), and
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). It was later adopted by a number of
contemporary British and American idealist philosophers in the nineteenth and twentieth
century’s, such as Brand Blanshard.

Strength of Coherence Theory

Coherence theory can enable us to account for metaphysical ideas such as absolute reality
and infinity. For instance, the idea infinity can only be understood, in and as thought in so
far as it is an absolute, and in terms of its absolute characteristics.

Objections
Propositions can belong to perfectly coherent systems of thought but contradict with one
another. For example if coherence and correspondence may be taken as coherent systems
“coherence.”
If it true, as its underpinning idea “idealism” supposed, that we know only ideas, then what
is the origin of those ideas? This takes us back to the realist view that reality exists
independently.
In view of the above and many other objections, then it is impossible, then, it is unlikely that
truth is equivalent to the presence of mere coherence.

IDEALISM
Is the metaphysical theory that states reality nothing but perceptions in the minds of
perceivers. It is also an epistemological view which states that perceivers know nothing but
only their own perceptions or ideas. Thus idealism denies the possibility of knowing reality
as it is in itself. It denies that humans can ever attain such truth for the reason that it is
impossible to pass outside the limits of their own consciousness.

Hegel (1770-1831) is famous for many philosophical treatises, including The Philosophy of
Right and Philosophy of History. In his later publication he wrote that the real is the
rational and spirit the ultimate definition of the Absolute. In other words, only the coherent
thought of humanity depicts what is absolutely real. Further, the progress of human thought.
Human s cannot hope to reveal any reality outside the limitations of their own rational
thought.

George Berkeley (1685 – 1753)

Given Locke’s position above, Berkeley said, we cannot really know that a thing like
a basketball or a garden rake even exists. For according to Locke’s theory, it is not
the object we experience but rather our perceptions or ideas of it. This, then, is
Berkeley’s criticism of Locke’s theory. As satisfying as it might seem to common
sense, Locke’s position is the short road to skepticism. If we accept Locke’s theory,
then we cannot know that “sensible things,” things like basketballs and rakes and
even our own hands and feet, actually exist.

Berkeley began his criticism of Locke’s theory by noting that the objects of human
knowledge consist of “ideas” (1) conveyed to the mind through the senses (sense
perceptions), (2) perceived by the mind when the mind reflects on its own
operations, or (3) compounded or divided by the mind with the help of memory and
imagination. “Light and colors, heat and cold, extension (length) and figures
(shapes)—in a word the things we see and feel—what are they but so many
sensations, notions, ideas, or impressions on the sense?”
There exist, therefore, Berkeley said, ideas and the minds that have them.
However, Berkeley observed, people have the strange opinion that houses,
mountains, rivers, and all sensible objects have an existence outside the mind. But
that is a contradictory opinion, Berkeley suggested. “For what are the
forementioned objects but the things we perceive by sense? And what do we
perceive besides our own ideas or sensations? And is it not plainly contradictory
that any one of these, or any combination of them, should exist unperceived?”

PRAGMATISM

Sometimes, American pragmatism. The brightest lights of pragmatism were the “classic”
pragmatists C. S. Peirce (1839–1914), William James (1842–1910), and John Dewey
(1859–1952). In general, pragmatists rejected the idea that there is such a thing as fixed,
absolute truth. Instead, they held that truth is relative to a time and place and purpose and is
thus ever changing in light of new data

Pragmatism is any view or theory which contends that a true idea or statement is one which
“works.” The concept “work” is, however, variously interpreted. James is perhaps the most
widely-known of the founders of pragmatism. According to him, “true ideas” are those that
can be assimilated, verified, validated and corroborated. “False ideas’ are those that cannot.
By “validation, corroboration, verification and assimilation” he means that true ideas can be
made to “work” in the sense that they meet expectations and can lead to the success of
chosen actions. “Truth” for James, then, is a relation between ideas and the phenomena or
sense experience which corroborates them.

James thought that, in general, ideas that have been verified or falsified by the community
of scientific investigators enable us to make the most accurate predictions about the future
and therefore may be counted on to possess the highest degree of workability. However, he
also believed that, within certain parameters, you can will yourself to believe something, and
also that, within certain parameters, you are wise to make yourself believe something if
doing so benefits you. He didn’t mean that you should deceive yourself.

If you smoke, he wouldn’t advise you to believe that smoking promotes good health because
you would feel better if you believed it: in the long run, believing that smoking is healthy
won’t benefit you. But if you must either accept or reject a belief, and the evidence for and
against the belief weighs in equally, then believe as your “vital good” dictates, said James.
For example, if the hypothesis that God exit’s works satisfactorily for you in the widest
sense of the word, you are justified in believing it as true.

Objections
You can s raise several objections against this theory
According to pragmatism, such ideas as “God” and “Satan” are true only in so far as they
provide utility, for example, the satisfaction of our emotional needs or rational curiosity.

Russell (1872-1910), proponent of the correspondence theory, raised several objections

against pragmatic view of truth in his book The Problems of Philosophy.
Whereas the notion of truth is equated with usefulness, in everyday life, we distinguish
between these two terms as having different meanings. Even if usefulness is accepted as a
criterion of truth, it is difficult if not impossible to determine the results of upholding an
idea. What are to count as the consequences? How many years, months or days must you
wait to find out? Perhaps the effects may not become apparent long after your death.