Summary By Kess

THE DEFINITION OF PHILOSOPHY

 Philosophy begins in wonder! When you start to wonder about reality and pose ultimate questions, then philosophy has started.
Ultimate questions are questions that science cannot answer and ordinary human reason cannot easily deal with it.
 The Christian civilization started an Anthropomorphic Philosophy (the attribution of human characteristics to God.). So the
Christian principles developed Europe into a serious civilization.
 The work of Philosophy is to keep posing questions not asked in science or any other place for the pursuit of the ideal. This is why
philosophy has been called normative discipline. It tries to produce the best norm about life and non-life!
 There is a definitional problem in philosophy. This is because there are many diverse ideas that have shaped its history, a history
that is at least 3000 years old! Philosophical ideas were already present in the poems of Homer and Hesiod and it is believed that
these works helped to develop philosophy in Greece.
 Attempts to define philosophy has in themselves become a philosophical problem. The question “what is philosophy?” has been
termed a bad question by many philosophers. This is because there could be as many definitions of philosophy as there are
philosophers. So when you ask “what is philosophy?” many philosophers will ask you: ‘what do you mean’? “Are you asking of
the philosophy of Socrates? Aristotle? Descartes? Augustine? Or what?” So a good student of philosophy will like to look more on
the nature of the attempts at definitions to discover that there are no generally accepted definitions but definitions, that are mostly
correct but which cannot satisfy all philosophers.
 Aristotle made it clear that the father of all disciplines is philosophy since all emanated from it.

Etymology of Philosophy
 According to its etymology, the word philosophy comes from the Greek words philosophia, from the root of the word Philein or
Philos, which means to love, and Sophia, which means wisdom. So etymologically philosophy means the love of wisdom. This
sense appears again in the Latin word SAPIENTIA, (wisdom) the word used in the middle Ages to designate philosophy.
 The Greek philosopher Socrates who lived in the fourth century BC is the father of criticism in philosophy. According to Socrates,
an unexamined life is not worth living. That is unless you critically examine an idea we live by, we cannot live by that idea.
Socrates himself died because of his ideas in philosophy.
 The then rulers of Greece called Thirty Tyrants, disliked Socrates because his critical taught is perceived as something that
corrupts the youth. They arrested Socrates at the charge of corrupting the youth. He was sentenced to death by drinking a poison
called Hemlock.
 In defining philosophy, there are some vital points to note. We must always note that the following points are either implied in each
possible definition given in philosophy. Philosophy Is:
a) The Attempt To Acquire Knowledge
b) By Rational And Critical Means
c) About Topics That Do Not Seem Amenable To Empirical Investigation.
 We can see that these three candidates for definition of philosophy are indeed what distinguish philosophy from all other disciplines.
o Condition (a) Distinguishes philosophy from creative disciplines such as literature or music.
o Condition (b) Distinguishes philosophy from mysticism and some varieties of religion.
o Condition (c) Distinguishes philosophy from the empirical sciences.
 Not being easily persuaded by common ideas and always questing what people believe in what is called critical reasoning, it an
important tool of philosophy.

SOME DEFINITIONS OF PHILOSOPHY

 Plato defined philosophy as the acquisition of knowledge about the world

 Aristotle defined philosophy as the study of first causes and principles
 St Thomas Aquinas defined it as the study of wisdom
 The French modern philosopher Rene Descartes defined philosophy as the pursuit of wisdom.
 The English philosopher John Locke defined it as the true knowledge of all things.
 The German philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein defined philosophy as the analysis of language.
 The Nigerian philosopher Olusegun Oladipo defined philosopher as a system of criticism.

From the above, I have always accepted the definition given by the philosopher B.F STANILAND to be a great definition. She
defined philosopher as
‘A CRITIQUE OF THE WAY WE LIVE BY’.
MR MALACHI IGWILO defines philosophy as “A CRITICAL ENTERPRISE.”
Summary By Kess

THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY

 To begin with, absolutely speaking, we should say that the history of philosophy opens with the first appearance of man upon earth.
Every man, in whatsoever time and place he lives, cannot but ask himself: "Why do I live on this earth?" and attempt to give some
answer to the question. For this reason it is said that man is naturally philosophical, and that he is philosophizing even when he
believes that he is not and even when he denies the existence of philosophy.
 The history of Philosophy is divided into the following period:
■ Ancient ■ Medieval
■ Modern and ■ Contemporary period.

THE ANCIENT PERIOD

 The ancient period is characterized by the somewhat romantic engagement with life and the absence of unnecessary worry about
the meaning of life since, it was believed, the gods are in control of things. The people only needs to worship the gods adore them
and be at the various festivals of the gods and life must continue without question. All things were answered in terms of myth,
mostly coming from the imputations of Homer, Hesiod and Pindar.
 However, the spirit of the ancient period began to change when certain men from Ionia, in south of Greece or Asia Minor, began
to ask important questions that border on the very fundamental spirit of the time. These Ionians are now regarded as the forerunners
of philosophy since they departed more or less from the religious and mythical spirit of the age into questioning, scientifically,
the root of all things. These men were later called cosmologists because their questions centered on discovering the stuff from
which the entire universe is made of. These men included:
 Thales (624-546 B.C),
 Anaximanes (585-528 B.C) and
 Anaximander (610-546 B.C)
 These men looked at the breathtaking beauty of their surroundings and the unanswered questions of their lives to ponder this very
fundamental question of reality. What is the stuff of which the universe is made up of?
 According to Thales, answering this very question, ‘water is the primary substance of the universe’.
 Anaximander like Thales looking for the primary substance of reality submitted that none of the known elements, perhaps water,
fire, soil etc. can constitute the stuff of reality. He located this stuff in what he called boundless. Boundless according to
Anaximander has no physical stuff but forms the whole of reality. Because he was a younger contemporary of Thales, Thales
position influenced him into saying that life itself came from water.
 Another Ionian, Anaximanes differs from this other two. His position also mirrors that search for the original stuff of the universe.
He submitted that air is the stuff of reality since air gives life to all forms of life so it must be central to the fundamental
attributes of reality. He accused Anaximander of using meaningless term in submitting that boundless is the stuff of reality.
 Pythagoras (570-497) of Samos, another Greek city, tried to answer the question concerning the search for the original substance.
His position is that the original stuff of reality is number. This mirror is interest in mathematics. He also believed in transmigration
of the soul and he and his followers do not eat beans because the thought it is alive with souls.
 Another pre-Socratic philosopher of note is Heraclitus (540-480). He thought that the fundamental stuff of reality is fire. He also
believed that there is no being is the scheme of things. All changes and creates illusion of stability. In other words, there is flux in
all things. There is always conflict in all things seen.
 Parmenides (c. 510). Unlike Heraclitus, insists that reality is permanent. In other words, there is no flux. All things are the way
they appear to us. They are permanent.
 Socrates (470-399 B.C) is the philosopher who instituted disputation among philosophers, disputations that goes on even today.
Socrates did not write anything. All we know about him came to us through the writings of his student Plato.
 Plato (428-348B.C), a student of Socrates who followed him everywhere wrote voluminously. His is one of the most prominent
philosopher of the ancient period. His writings and influence runs deep to the extent that an American Philosopher named Alfred
North Whitehead said that all of philosophy is nothing but an extended footnote to Plato.
 Aristotle’s (384-322) philosophy centered on refuting Plato especially in his theory of forms. His main contention was that contrary
to what Plato thought, there is nothing like the world of form. Aristotle’s prominence also centered on his invention of syllogistic
logic. He submitted that arguments follow always from a set of closely related premises which gives credence to the conclusion.
For instance the following argument is an example of Aristotle’s logic:
 Mary is the mother of Jesus.
 Jesus is God.
 Therefore Mary is the Mother of God
 Aristotle also wrote extensively on ethics, the science of morality. His NICHOMACHEAN ETHICS is regarded as the most
elaborate text on morality in the ancient period.
 Many groups sprang up to seek adherence among people most notably the Epicureans, Stoics and Skeptics.
 A group known as Skeptics emerged to doubt everything that was in current during their time. They said that humans are
incapable of knowing anything at all and therefore doubting at all times becomes the best virtue. This school was founded
by Pyrrho (361-241B.C).
Summary By Kess

MEDIEVAL PERIOD

 As the skeptics were ravaging the world, the Christian worldview was taken hold throughout Europe including in Greece. SO there
are many things to explain on the part of the Christians in terms of doctrine and purpose of God that explanation fell on the part of
St. Augustine who was converted from paganism to Christianity having been listening to the lectures of St. Ambrose another Bishop
of the Catholic Church.
 It must be noted that the medieval era is regarded as the period of Catholic hegemony where the Pope and his Bishops decides
what people must believe and what they must do to be friends with God. So the medieval era was replete with the things of God.
 It was Augustine who challenged all the pagan and skeptical arguments of his day making the church bolder, at least in arguments,
to decide for people of this era.
 The medieval era, also known as the middles ages is represented by the lack of criticism and dearth of scientific world view. The
Catholic Church hold sway at this period making some people refer to it as the dark ages of Europe.
 The medieval era helped to usher in the great intellectual revolutions of the modern era since the thoughts of Augustine and Aquinas
help to introduce argumentation and critical thinking, concepts that were very important for the development of the Modern era.

MODERN ERA

 The modern period was technically ushered in when Martin Luther confronted the church making it possible for people to question
all the teaching of the church up till now held sacrosanct (must be kept Sacred).
 Martin Luther had been an Augustinian monk who questioned the corruption in the Church and lead to the division in the church
which we see today.
 However, it was the philosophical works of Francis Bacon and not that of Luther that really ushered in the modern period in the
history of philosophy. He submitted that knowledge will be achieved through leaning the order and process in nature. His positions
ushered in the renaissance, a period of rebirth in Europe, where those things that were destroyed by the ignorant church were
recovered. Arts, paintings, scientific enquiries were recovered leading to the blossoming of philosophy in another very profound
way.
 The works of Rene Descartes (1596-1650A.D), made him the father of modern philosophy. He introduced rationalism, the belief
that human mind can lead to knowledge. His main position is one can think, then that person is capable of achieving knowledge.
His statement COGITO ERGO SUM---I think therefore I am, became the mantra of modern philosophy since it allowed people
to think for themselves in the pursuit of knowledge. Descartes arrived at Cogito through what he called methodic doubt.
 Another modern philosopher, David Hume (1711-1776 AD) denied Descartes’ position and insisted that knowledge is from the
sense. His position is called empiricism. Hume introduced several positions that triggered a battle between the empiricists and the
rationalists. He attacked our inductive nature by saying that by habit is not knowledge at all since it cannot be proved true.
 Many other modern philosopher are either for rationalism, otherwise known as continental rationalism or they are for empiricism.
Many of them did great works in the political philosophy area and morality. People like John Locke (1632-1704), Jean Jacques
Rousseau (1712-1788), Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and George Berkeley (1685-1753) all are great modern philosophers.

CONTEMPORARY PERIOD

 The contemporary period is our period. It is filled with contradictions in terms of the possibility of human knowledge. The new
physics has told us that human knowledge is nothing but conjectural and must always be prone to faults and failures. As a result of
this, there is despair among philosophers who seek to understand the scope of human knowledge.
 The modern period is aptly described as post-modern in terms of its contrariness to the modern period. The modern period offered
the possibility for knowledge while this post-modern period offered nothing. Everything is contextualized. If everything is
contextualized, then knowledge is missing in the scheme of things. This is why ideas like feminist epistemology, Social
epistemology; genetic epistemology is striving in the contemporary era.
Summary By Kess

BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY
 Philosophy is divided into four main branches called first order branches of philosophy. These branches are:
 Epistemology
 Metaphysics
 Logic and
 Ethics.
 There are also three minor, first order branch of philosophy which are:
 Aesthetics
 Hermeneutics and
 Socio-political philosophy.
 There are numerous other branches of philosophy called second order branches. They are all called ‘philosophy of….’ They include
all possible human learning and their interaction with philosophy. The prominent ones include:
o Philosophy of science Philosophy of Education Philosophy of Medicine
o Philosophy of Law Philosophy of Mathematics Philosophy of Music
o Philosophy of Social Sciences Philosophy of Religion Philosophy of Language
o Philosophy of Sports Philosophy of Computing etc.
 These second order branches strive on how philosophy places these disciplines under critical examination

EPISTEMOLOGY

 Etymologically, the word epistemology comes from two Greek words, EPISTĒMĒ and LOGIOS or logos. The combination of these
words, means, STUDY OF KNOWLEDGE as against study of opinion, opinion in Greek is call doxā.
 The typical epistemological questions are
o Is it possible to know something so certainly that we will never doubt it?
o What is the scope and limits of human knowledge?
o What can be known? What is truth?
o Is it possible for humans to know the truth? Etc
 Epistemology is that branch of philosophy that studies knowledge and also attempts to answer the basic and important question:
What distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge?
 Following the Renaissance, two main epistemological positions dominated philosophy: EMPIRICISM, which sees knowledge as
the product of sensory perception, and RATIONALISM which sees it as the product of rational reflection.
 Nearly all philosophers since Plato categorize knowledge as a form of Justified True Belief otherwise called JTB. Even Immanuel
Kant, the great German philosopher accepted knowledge to be JTB.
 In 1963 when Edmund Gettier published in the journal Analysis a three-paged philosophical paper titled “Is Justified True belief
Knowledge? The publication of this paper changes the course of epistemology and prompted an avalanche of responses from many
other philosophers.

METAPHYSICS

 The word metaphysics came from a man called Andronicus. He was editing some works by Aristotle when he discovered that
some of the writings cannot simply be described as philosophy since they lie outside what could be regarded as physics. This means
that the works are beyond physics. So Andronicus used the word, metaphysics to describe those words.
 Meta literally means after or beyond while physics means sensible things or things we can study and appraise using our five senses.
So the subject matter of metaphysics is being. Being here means the fundamental substrate of existence.
 Metaphysics studies “being qua being” and its relationship with the real or sensible objects. This is way above what Aristotle
thought about metaphysics.
 Metaphysics also studies causes of things. That is, how existence came to be. This necessarily entails issues about the existence
and capabilities of God. This also leads us to the study of categories of being. In summary, when we look at life itself, we see that
there are many things that we do not see given the fact that we are finite beings, restricted to a place at a time. These unseen things,
those things that lie beyond the scope of our sense is aptly what metaphysics studies.
Summary By Kess

ETHICS
 Ethics is another branch of philosophy that studies morality in terms of its origins, nature, types, and purpose. It studies the meanings
of the concepts that arise in the course of our moral interpretations like: good, bad, right, wrong, accepted, etc.
 The field of ethics, also called moral philosophy, involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and
wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas:

■Metaethics (Investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean.)

■Normative Ethics (It takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct)

■Applied Ethics (This involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights,
environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear war.)

LOGIC
 Logic is another branch of philosophy that is central to the whole enterprise of philosophy. It is about method of reasoning.
 Logic is a branch of philosophy concerned with the distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning. It commonly comprises
both deductive and inductive arguments.
 There are distinctions in logic between types of reasoning, arguments, or inferences. In a deductive argument, the truth of the
premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion; in an inductive argument, the truth of the premises merely makes it
probable that the conclusion is true.

AESTHETICS
 Aesthetics is understood to be a study of all that is beautiful in life usually expressed in the intensions of the observing individual.
 Aesthetics may be defined narrowly as the theory of beauty, or more broadly as that together with the philosophy of art, studies
the whole idea of beauty and ugliness.

HERMENEUTICS
 This is a minor first order branch of philosophy whose only preoccupation is interpretation of human expressions. It asks the
questions: what does it mean? Each time words are written or said, it takes on numerous meanings as soon as someone tries to
explain it to another.
 Hermeneutics tires to use philosophical tools to determine the better interpretation among multiple interpretations based on
history, culture and language.

SOCIAL-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
 Social-Political philosophy studies the society quite differently from the way a social scientist studies it. Social-political philosophy
looks at the concepts or words that arise in social and political interactions with the view to understanding them for better
application.

BASIC CONCEPTS IN PHILOSOPHY

Many concepts have appeared in philosophy and have even spread to other disciplines. These concepts represent philosophy’s register
or concepts. Studying the concepts will give us the clearer idea of what philosophy is.

Rationalism:
 This is an epistemological school of thought that says that knowledge is possible only through human reasoning.
 Some of its proponents are, René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, Baruch Spinoza, Plato, Immanuel Kant, and many numerous others.
Empiricism:
 This is another epistemological school of thought that counters the position of the rationalists. The proponents of this school insist
that human knowledge is only possible through experience. In other words, the five senses remain the only viable avenue from
which we can get knowledge.
 Proponents of this school are David Hume, Rudolf Carnap, Aristotle, J.J.C. Smart and others, especially philosophers of the
enterprise of science.
Summary By Kess

Idealism:
 This is a metaphysical school of thought that sees reality from the point of view of ideas. Ideas reside in the mind and reality is
spiritual. It all means that what we see out there in the world are mere appearances that really exist in the mind.
 Proponents of this school of tough is George Berkeley, Hegel, Plato and others
Materialism:
 This is another metaphysical school of thought that believes that the basic substance of reality is material in nature.
 Philosophers in this school of thought are: David Hume, J.J. C. Smart, Paul Kurtz, Bertrand Russell, among many others.
Physicalism:
 This is a form of materialism that stipulates that all so-called mental phenomenon, like meal ideas, images in the mind, spiritual
entities, etc, all have a physically based explanation. Members of this school believe that reality is basically physical and all talks
about mind or spirit are merely manners of speaking.
 Philosophers in this school of thought are J.J.C. Smart, D.M. Armstrong, U.T. Place, Paul Kurtz, etc
Existentialism:
 This is the idea that existence precedes essence. The existentialist believes that existence is the primary concern of everyone and
not some form of essence. By implication, this means that we are gods unto ourselves and can always do anything and be willing
to take responsibility.
 Some existentialist philosophers are Miguel Unamuno, Jean Paul Sartre, Martin Buber, Søren Kierkegaard, etc.
Atheism:
 Atheism as a concept arises from the discussions going on in the philosophy of religion. Atheism is an epistemological position
that insists there is no God or even supernatural reality. It is the opposite of theism.
 Prominent philosophers who are atheists are Bertrand Russell, Paul Kurtz, Richard Rorty, Paul Feyerabend, Paul and Patricia
Churchland.
Agnosticism:
 This is another concept that arises from the discussions in philosophy of religion. Agnosticism is the idea that in the absence of
evidence for the existence or lack of existence of God, we should suspend judgment. So, anyone who do not conclude whether
God exist or not is an agnostic.
 A prominent agnostic is Nelson Mandela.
Pragmatism:
 Pragmatism is a philosophical school of thought that believes that the truth is what works at any given time and does not depend
on any external judgment.
 Major pragmatics are Richard Rorty, William James, Sanders Pierce.
Post-modernism:
 Post-modernism is the temper of the contemporary period in the history of philosophy. The essential thesis of post-modern
discourse is that there cannot be any idea that can be placed above other ideas.
 Prominent post modernists are: Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend, and Richard Rorty.
Feminism:
 This concept came about as a result of post-modern temper. Feminists are those that want greater intellectual, moral, and personal
freedom for women.
 Feminists have developed the concept of SITUATEDNESS to explain the special condition of women both in terms of
epistemology and biology. This has extended to theology where feminists question the prevalence of male images in Christian
religion and literatures. For instance, the feminist bible has been translated to show that God is a female and her utterances and
injunctions feminine.
Oriental philosophy:
 Oriental philosophy represents eastern philosophy.
 The major character of Oriental philosophy is the difficulty it poses when we want to separate it from religion. It is seem to be both
religion and philosophy interacting in a wonderful way.
Thomism:
 Thomism refers to the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican Monk in the Catholic Church whose philosophy helped to
shape Christian religion, the Catholic Church and the whole middle ages.
 All the works he has done and commentaries on them, together with believing in them is called Thomism.
Summary By Kess

Positivism:
 Positivism is the belief that science is the only viable explanatory model in reality. Positivists crown science and bring it to the
center.
 Any phenomenon not understood by science is regarded as nonsense and therefore should be discarded.
 Prominent Positivists are: Moritz Schilick, Rudolf Carnap, and Otto Neurath.

Deism:
 Deism is the idea that God exists but does not interfere in human affair.
 Deists believe that, God is in limbo and has no interest in human affairs. So, for them they cannot waste time studying God, praying
to him or seeking his intervention here on earth.
Faith:
 The word faith has been of great interest to religious people and yet the word is a part and parcel of everyday life.
 Faith is an epistemological disposition. It says essentially that, one can have a full knowledge of something without substantial
evidence.
Knowledge:
 Knowledge is a very intriguing concept in philosophy because of its rarity.
 Many philosophers called skeptics have submitted that knowledge is not possible because of the human condition.
 Over the centuries, knowledge has come to mean something we have concrete evidence or justification for.
 Philosophers over the years answer the skeptic's denial of knowledge by submitted that knowledge is justified true belief, JTB.
 JTB means that for a piece of information to be knowledge, it must be true and we must be justified in believing such
information.
 Being justified here means that our circumstances must assure us that indeed what we are now learning is true and cannot be false
unless new information becomes available to change that.
 JTB came to be viewed as knowledge until 1963 when Edmund Gettier shattered the comfortable appeal of JTB by positing
several conditions where JTB may masquerade as knowledge when indeed it is not..
Anthropomorphism:
 This concept is seen as the main fallacy committed by modern day Christians and Muslims.
 Anthropomorphism is the idea that God is like a man and behaves like one.
 It is also the belief that God answers prayers in the same way humans consider request from other people.
 Also, it is a belief that God has a body and mind that resembles that of humans.

FALLACIES
In every day discussions and communications, there are many violations of the rules of logic. These violations are called fallacies.
Usually, an argument of whatever kind, with any subject sphere is generally constructed in such a way as to prove its conclusion true.
But any argument can fail to fulfill this purpose in two ways.
 One is by assuming a false proposition as one of its premises.
 Second, an argument may fail to establish the truth of its conclusion by relying upon premises that do not imply the conclusion.
In other words, an argument whose premises do not support its conclusions is one whose conclusion could be false even if all its premises
were true. In cases of this kind, the reasoning is bad and the argument is said to be fallacious. A fallacy therefore is an error in
reasoning.
There are two kinds of fallacies:
1. Formal Fallacies: This deals with advanced forms of modal logic and other advanced logic
2. Informal Fallacies: This deals with our everyday interactions. Informal fallacies are usually hard to detect unless one is very
conscious of it through training in philosophy.
There are many types of Informal Fallacies but we will only deal with a few very important ones. The names of the fallacies are usually
written in Latin but not all of them have Latin names.

Argumentum ad Hominem:
There are two types of argumentum ad hominem-abusive and circumstantial. Argumentum ad hominem results when someone is making
an argument but involves premises, especially regarding the person involved, that is not necessary. Abusive is when the premise added
Summary By Kess

is meant to insult and circumstantial is when the person adds a premise he or she cannot avoid to make a point and yet the premise is
not necessary there.

For example, if one is asked to assesses the viability of the class GES 302 objectively. The person may conclude that the class is of no
use. But in saying this, the person may include the premise that ‘the teacher of the class is stupid! It is possible for the person to make
argument that the class is worthless without insulting the teacher. But one the person involved abusing the teacher; the person has
committed a fallacy called argumentum ad hominem, abusive. The same can be true in all arguments where someone is involved. Also,
if on the other hand the person was asked to analyze the part of the class that made it worthless, the person can say a lot also without
involving the teacher. But if the teacher is tied to one of the premises and the premise is viable and lend support to the conclusion that
the class is worthless, then the person has committed the fallacy argumentum ad hominem, circumstantial. This argument is one of the
commonest fallacies committed in everyday discussions.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam(Appeal to Authority): when a premise before a conclusion is based on the authority of something or
a person, then the argument commits the fallacy argumentum ad Verecundiam. For instance, if one is asked to prove the existence of
God and one jumps just on the authority of the Bible, as authoritative text, that person has committed the fallacy argumentum ad
Verecundiam. It could result in any king of argument especially involving proving something. The fallacy is committed whenever there
is call to any form of authority as if that authority is infallible.

Argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity): This fallacy is committed when someone introduces a ‘pity’ argument in a
discussion. For instance, in court where a criminal is being tried, a lawyer may ask the judge to dismiss the case since the criminal is
the only child and had lost his parents at an early age. This lawyer is committing the fallacy argumentum ad misericordiam. The lawyer
could have stock to the facts of the cases without trying to appeal to the compassionate side of the judge. In that case there will be no
fallacy committed. But once pity is introduced to influence the case, then the fallacy argumentum ad misericordiam is committed.

Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to force): This fallacy is committed when a force clause is introduced in an argument. For instance,
if one, in arguing why we should remain Nigerians; introduce a premise that force will be used if w try not to remain Nigerians, then
that person commits the fallacy argumentum ad baculum.

Argumentum ad populum( Appeal to emotion): This fallacy is committed when one want to appeal to the emotion of people.
Advertisers are prone to this fallacy. If in advertising for books and the advertiser introduces what will make us cry, that advertiser is
committing a fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

Fallacy of hasty generalization: This fallacy is common in the world. This fallacy is committed when all the necessary premises
needed for arriving at a conclusion is missing and yet we go ahead to arrive at a conclusion. For example the statement “Yoruba people
are lazy” is an example of this fallacy. Also the statements ‘Women are stupid’, ‘the black man is stupid’, ‘the white man is great’,
‘Jews are great’, are all examples of this fallacy. One can disprove all of this statement if there is a single case contravening them.
Example, if you say that the white man is great and you discover single white man who is not great; the conclusion is faulty and commits
the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Fallacy of relevance: This fallacy is committed when one reached a conclusion that is not necessary in an argument. For instance, if
you are asked why Winners Church is a stupid church and you concluded that it is because the pastor has a private jet, you have
committed the fallacy of relevance because there are many other things important required in such inquiry which you neglected and run
to irrelevant conclusion.
Summary By Kess

LOGIC, ARGUMENTS & EXAMPLES

Logic is a first order branch of philosophy that studies the methods and principles used to distinguish correct reasoning from
incorrect reasoning.
Human reasoning itself makes use of arguments. An argument is divided into two parts: premises and conclusions. In other words, an
arguments is a group (s) of proposition of which one is clamed to follow from the others, which are regarded as providing
support of grounds for the truth of that one.

A premise is a proposition that shows reasons behind one’s adoption of a particular conclusion. A proposition on the other hand
is something that may be asserted or denied. That is, it has a yes or no answer.
Examples of Arguments with premises and conclusions

No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore any statement about life’s origins should be considered as
theory, not fact.

The above statement contains one premise and one conclusion.

Premise: No one was present when life first appeared on earth.
Conclusion: Therefore any statement about life’s origin must be considered as theory, not fact
The above example shows where the premise and conclusion appeared in two different sentences. It is also possible for the premise and
conclusion to appear in one single sentence as the following example testifies:

Since Christ started his own Church in the world and invested it on the apostles, anyone outside this church cannot be a follower
of Christ no matter the appearances the person puts up.
The above sentence contains one premise and one conclusion:
Premise: Since Christ started his own Church in the World and invested it on the apostles
Conclusion: Anyone outside this church cannot be a follower of Christ no matter the appearance the person puts up.

Some arguments may contain more than one premise but will always contain one conclusion. The following are some examples where
we have more than one premises and one conclusion.
Genes and proteins are discovered not invented. Inventions are patentable, discoveries are not. Thus, protein patents are intrinsically
flawed.
In the above, there are two premises and one conclusion.
Premise 1: Proteins are discovered not invented
Premise 2: Discoveries are not patentable, although inventions are.
Conclusion: Protein patents are intrinsically flawed.

Another example is:

Since Rome is the center of Christianity, the Bishop of Rome is the head of the church and he is called the pope. Therefore, the Pope as
a matter of necessity becomes the head of the universal Church.

Premise 1: Rome is the center of Christianity

Premise 2: The bishop of Rome is called the Pope
Conclusion: the Pope as a matter of necessity is the head of the universal church.

Also locating which statement in a group of propositions that could be labeled premises and conclusions is even more intriguing. This
is why some logicians have carefully identified certain words called ‘premise indicators’ to help beginners tract which sentence or
proposition is a premise or premises. It means that once these indicators appear before a sentence, then the sentence become a premise.
They have also itemized conclusions indicators some of which are listed below.

Premise indicators: since, because, for, as, follows from, inasmuch as, as was indicted, for this reason, etc
Conclusion indicators: therefore, hence, thus, so, accordingly, as a result, it follows that, I conclude that, which shows that, for this
reason, etc.
Summary By Kess

These indicators help us to know which proposition is the premise (s) and which one is he conclusion.
Remember there could be as many premises within an argument. But there can only be one conclusion. Note that it is possible to have
arguments without the indicators!

More arguments:
Being sick may be a body’s way for preventing damages in the internal organs. Next time we are sick, we should not be too alarmed.
The above argument does not have any indicators, but they are divided into premises and conclusions.
Premise 1: being sick may be the body’s way for preventing damages in the internal organs.
Conclusion: Next time we are sick, we should not be too alarmed.

The only way to discover the premises and conclusion is to first understand whether the argument is persuading us to believe in
something or to adopt a particular position.
We can do this by placing indications before statements to know if they would work in the statements. When it works, then we are able
to know which proposition is a premise or conclusion.
(Since) Being sick may be a body’s way for preventing damages in the internal organs. (So) Next time we are sick, we should not be
too alarmed.

In the above we can see that we effectively added the premise indicator Since to identify the premise of the argument. And added So, a
conclusion indicator to identify the conclusion.

It is also possible for a whole passage not to include an argument! This normally lead people to ask the question: What are you
saying? Or What do you mean?
Example:
Of all the major cities in the world, both those with costal lines and non costal ones, there are times typhoons hit them. Typhoons will
usually hit when people least expects. Centers of typhoon analysis are a major component in city life now. Technologies can detect
them and make pictures of them. Anyone who wants to see pictures of typhoon, metrology centers will certainly help.

The above contains no argument (s)

Another example:
Space technology is proving lucrative. We can go to space for the purpose of fun. Children will usually be space subjects in the future
when the commercial travel to space becomes viable. I think space will be central to life soon.

The above contains no arguments at all!

Like the previous one, they say nothing in particular and are not persuading us to adopt a position.

In summary, arguments are divided into two parts that may of may not be demarcated by premise of conclusion indicators. Many
passages appearing even in important documents have no arguments at all. We have to watch out

KINDS OF ARGUMENTS
There are two kinds of arguments: Deductive and Inductive Arguments
A deductive argument makes the claim that is conclusively supported by its conclusion. In other words, whenever you see a deductive
argument, the conclusion must follow as a matter of necessity from the premises.
Again deductive arguments argue from the general to the particular or it can argue from a particular proposition to another particular
proposition.

That is they usually start arguing from premises that are universally true to conclusions that are particularly true.
For Example:
All collages eat garri.
Bells is a collage
therefore Bells eat garri.
Summary By Kess

Another Example:
All Girls Are generous
Faith is a Girl
Therefore Faith is generous

The word all at the beginning of the argument connotes a universal just like the word every.
Example:
Every woman loves to be married
Marissa is a Woman.
So Marissa loves to be married.
The above argument mirrors deduction as well in its arguing from the general- “every woman loves to be married” to a particular
conclusion-“So Marissa loves to be married.

All types of the example given in deductive arguments, is called syllogisms

The terms Validity and Invalidity are the hallmark of deductive arguments.
If a deductive argument is valid, then, it is not invalid. If it is invalid then, it is not valid. There are no middle grounds. Only a deductive
argument can be valid or invalid.

A deductive argument is valid when its premises are true and its conclusion true. On the other hand, it is invalid when the premises did
not lead to the truth of the conclusion.

Example of Valid Deductive Argument

All Catholics believe in the intercession of Mary
Modi is a Catholic
Therefore, Modi believes in the intercession of Mary
The above is a valid deductive argument because the two premises lend credence to the truth of the conclusion. In other words, if the
premises lead to the adoption of the conclusion, then the argument is valid.

Another example read thus:

All materialists believe there cannot be a God out there
Russell is a materialist
Hence, he does not believe there is a God out there.
We can now state that valid arguments have something to do with the relationship between the premises and conclusions.
Invalid arguments are different from valid ones because, an invalid argument is the argument whose premises do not lead to the truth
of the conclusion
Example of Invalid Deductive Argument:
All men are womanizers
Kunle is a man
Therefore, Kunle does not womanize
Another example:
Every child goes to school at age 7
Bimbo is a child
She goes to market at age 7

The above arguments are invalid since we cannot establish the truth of the conclusion from the premises.

Please note that the truth value of all deductive arguments has nothing to do with their validity or invalidity.
The following argument may not be true for someone who is not a Christian and yet the argument will remain valid:
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God
Therefore Mary is the mother of God
Summary By Kess

Another example:
All gals are saints
Simbi is a gal
Therefore, Simbi is a saint.

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
Inductive argument is a type of argument that argues from the particular to the universal.
For example:
Nneka is a beautiful gal.
Bisi is Nneka’s friend
Therefore all Nneka’s friends are beautiful

In the above example, we can see that Nneka is a particular entity including Bisi whose attributes is generalized to all their friends.
There is nothing like validity or invalidity in Inductive arguments because the premises only give probable reasons for the adoption of
the conclusion.
Probability is the main character of Inductive arguments because the universal nature of inductive conclusions cannot be
immediately be verified.

Always remember that the premises of an Inductive argument only give probable reasons for the adoption of the conclusion.
All scientific arguments is based on inductive logic. In other words, because science argues from a limited number of experiments
carried out in laboratories, and then formulate general theories, the formulated theories are inductive conclusions since the
premises cannot lead us to absolutely accept the conclusion. The conclusion is always probable.

There is always an ordinary inductive reasoning at all times in our everyday experience. The kind of induction is called naïve
inductivism. For example the following argument is an example of naïve inductivism. Example:

The sun rises in the east.

The sun has always risen from the east
Therefore the sun will rise from the east always.
In the above example, the conclusion is only a probability and therefore naïve because we have no way of proving the conclusion.

In fact human beings are inductive animals. We always depend on induction to live normally. It is induction that makes it possible for
us to believe that the food in the cafeteria will not poison us simply because we have eaten before or because we know people we have
eaten it before.

Scientists makes us of scientific inductivism. This means that the formulation of scientific theories depends on finite or small number
of events in reality from which we get a theory that will explain the generality of cases in reality.

For example:
The scientific theory “The sun rises from the east”.
This conclusion is based on the premise that in all the cases observed, the sun has always risen from the east and therefore the
sun will always rise from the east. In fact there is no proof that the sun will rise from the east tomorrow.
Another example:
The scientific law: “Water boils at 100oC”. The law was arrived at because of all the cases of water boiling, it has always boiled
at 100oC and so it is believed inductively that next time water is being heated, it will boil at 100 o C. In fact there is no evidence
to support this conclusion.