COURSE CODE: GST 211

COURSE TITLE: INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY, LOGIC

AND HUMAN EXISTENCE
COURSE REQUIREMENTS: it is recommended by the Nigerian
Universities Commission that only students with 75% attendance of
lecture and contribution in the class will be given due consideration to
write examination. The examination is graded at 70% while the class
assessment (C.A) and mid-term assessment will be graded at 30%.
COURSE LECTURER: Dr. Ezema Jane C.
COURSE OVERVIEW: As an interdisciplinary course, we will explore
the fundamental areas as well as questions that have challenged
thinkers throughout history of human existence. In the areas of
philosophy, logic, and human existence, we will carry out a survey on
the nature of philosophical thinking as well as critical thinking through
the introduction of logic and the rudiments of logical thinking and
bring about; commendable human relations in our community of
existence. Through rigorous and critical analysis of texts, discussions,
and debates, we shall explore the following:
COURSE CONTENTS:
Meaning of philosophy
Scope of philosophy
Branches of philosophy
Notions of philosophy
Problems of philosophy
Logic as tool of philosophy:
Arguments: nature, types and forms
Elements of syllogism
Fallacies: formal and informal
Laws of thought:
The nine rules of inference
Creative and critical thinking (activities)
The impact of philosophy on human existence:
Philosophy and politics
Philosophy and religion
Philosophy and human values
Philosophy and human conduct
Philosophy and character molding, etc.

WHAT PHILOSOPHY MEANS

Philosophy has diverse ways of understanding it. Many thinkers in
different ways have made attempts in defining as well as explaining the
term. Before delving into the various meanings and understanding of
philosophy by different philosophers and thinkers, let us explore the
root words that gave birth to the term. Philosophy if driven from two
Greek words: “Philein” which means to “Love” and “Sophia” which
means “Wisdom”. When these two Greek words are combined, we have
the root meaning as “the love of wisdom”. This implies a burning
desire to have certain knowledge about things around the universe we
live in. in a bid to have this reasoned knowledge or understanding, the
human mind is left with loads of things to juggle with.

An outstanding attempt in
understanding the word Philosophy is
the one made by a Greek Philosopher
known as Socrates (469/470BCE-
399BCE). For him, philosophy begins
with wondering. Wondering for him
means a way of seeking wisdom in all
human dealings and challenges. By
wondering, one is open to various
thoughts about a particular thing or many other things.
Other predecessors who towed the same line of thought are Plato and
Rene Descartes. While Plato saw wondering as the foundation of all
philosophical investigation, Descartes saw wondering it as a stepping
stone to his philosophy as found in his “Meditations on First
Philosophy.” Descartes started his philosophical enquiry by doubting
everything (methodical skepticism) including his existence. At a point,
he realized that act of doubting and wondering is a pointer to his
existence, he therefore; came to terms with the popular dictum,
“corgito ergo sum” which literally means, “I think, therefore; I am”.
Citing Christian James in his Book “Philosophy: An Introduction to the
Art of Wondering” Charles Chukwudozie states that to philosophize is
to wonder about right and wrong, love and loneliness, war and death. It
means to wonder creatively about freedom, truth, beauty, time and a
thousand other things. Philosophy is solely about creative thinking
about things seen and unseen. This is why some thinkers such John
Josper would opine that philosophy is a systematic interpretation of all
experiences. Philosophy as a discipline; cuts across every other
discipline of human existence. On this note, Otegbulu Gabriel
describes philosophy as a big iroko tree with many branches. It is
therefore considered as the mother of all disciplines. The assertion
stays in tune with Plato’s submission that philosophy is the only
science which is the science of itself and of the other sciences as well.
It is important to note that the conception of philosophy differs due to
the very many epistemological backgrounds and different schools of
thought. The way a metaphysician understands it differs from that of a
logician as well as the empiricist and others.

THE BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY

Systematically, there are many branches of philosophy but in order to
comprehensively venture into the branches, it is going to grouped into
two:
1) Things in existence- these belongs to the things already in
existence and mostly beyond our comprehension. There is the
need to speculate on those things to find and attach meanings to
them. It could be considered as speculative philosophy
2) Activities we create through our existence- here; the will and
thoughts transform our actions. It is powered by the external use
of actions based on pre-informed motives. It can as well be seen
as practical philosophy
The branches of philosophy can be submerged into the speculative
and practical philosophy as follows:
SPECULTIVE ORDER OF PHILOSOPHY
1) Metaphysics: the word metaphysics is driven from “meta”
which means “beyond” and “physika” which implies the
“physical”. Literally, it means beyond the physical. It refers to a
knowledge or principle of reality that is given within and
outside of the human sensory organs. In contemporary
philosophical jargon, it refers to the studies of what cannot be
reached through objective studies of material reality. It studies
the nature of being and its’ existence. It enquires into the nature
of things given beyond experience. Metaphysics also includes
the revision of the nature of the human mind, the meaning of
existence, the nature of space and time, and causality. It is also
seen as the science of reality as different from appearance. This
is to say that it is interested in the essence of things and not
basically; their appearances.
Metaphysics is also known as first philosophy. There are many
identified branches of metaphysics such as cosmology, rational
psychology, philosophical anthropology, ontology and natural
theology. For the purposes of this study, we shall include
ontology and cosmology.
a) Ontology: this branch of metaphysics that deals with the
study of beings (both material and immaterial) it ventures
into ideas such as; substance, essence, accident, cause and
many others.
 b) Cosmology: this is the branch of metaphysics that studies
the universe. It is interested in the composition, structure,
origin of the universe. The cosmological outlook of the
universe projects into some critical questions and the
inventions of the universe from different epistemological
backgrounds. On this note, many theories of the
understanding of the universe such as the evolution,
creationist, Darwinism, etc; abound.

2) Epistemology- this is a derivative of two Greek words;

“episteme” meaning “knowledge” and “logos” meaning
“theory”. Epistemology simply implies, ‘the theory of
knowledge’. The word knowledge in the philosophical sense
lays emphasis on factual provision of evidences. It insists that
one cannot lays claims to knowledge of that which can be
faulted. This branch of philosophy raises questions such as;
what is knowledge? how can knowledge be acquired? Can
acquired knowledge be doubted? What are the sources of
knowledge? Is experience a source of knowledge, if so, are
there other sources of knowledge? Can we know the feelings of
other people? etc.
3) Logic- the term logic; is a derivative of the Greek word
“Logos” which means reasoning or discourse. It is also known
as the science of reasoning or the theory of correct reasoning. It
studies propositions and their uses in argumentation and helps
in detecting or demarcating valid reasoning from invalid
reasoning.

PRACTICAL ORDER OF PHILOSOPHY

Ethics- Ethics is coined from the Greek word “ethos”, meaning
character, conduct or behaviour. Ethics solely deals with the study of
human behaviour in relation to others in the society. This is why it is
considered as behavioural philosophy.
Ethics can also be identified as moral philosophy. “Moral” is derived
from the Latin word “Mores” which categorically implies character,
behaviour, customs etc. it deals with “what is” and “what ought to be.
This to say that it tries to understand what makes human life and
living together worthwhile and what must be done in consideration of
acting morally right. Ethics is pivotal in the organization of human
society.
Aesthetics- Aesthetics is gotten from the Greek word “aisthetikos”
which implies perspective or put simply, perception of the senses. This
branch of philosophy is interested in value judgements about art and it
studies the philosophical foundations behind the idea of beauty. It is an
evaluation of different forms of art. Its areas of interest are: the work of
art, the process of perceiving and experiencing a work of art, and the
ways of accessing the works of art as well as other works in terms of
its/ their beauty of ugliness. It implies an individual explanation or
analysis of the sensory perceptions and imaginations of the works of
art. It is also called the science of beauty.
Axiology- axiology is a derivative of the Greek root words Axios’ and
‘Logos’ Worth or Value and Logic or Theory simultaneously
Axiology according to Mubeshera Tufail is the branch of philosophy
which deals with quality or value
It studies the standards of judgments about values. Many thinkers see
both ethics and aesthetics as branches or offshoot of axiology. On a
specific note, philosophers would argue that in studying the values of
man, the determiners of the choices made by man is influenced and this
for him; gives direction to life.
According to Uduma Orji Uduma, axiology means the study of value;
it is the philosophical study of goodness or value. Axiology is a pointer
to the essence of value in our everyday experience. The sense of
accessing value is a necessity and should be considered a common
knowledge that is worth achieving in every sphere of human life. We
talk about subjective and objective values in terms of adjudging them
to be good or bad, beautiful or ugly, right or wrong, etc. Through these
assessments, valuational statements are made in terms of good and bad.
Remember, good and bad are values in themselves. It is the knowledge
of the “good” that paves way for the knowledge of “bad”. This is to say
that it is the existence of “good” that gives meaning to the “bad”.

PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY
Over the centuries, various challenges have been encountered in the
course of philosophizing. These challenges are so overwhelming and
constantly evolving, such that their persistence has not been curbed till
date. Some of the identified are as follows:
1) The problem of change and permanence
2) The problem of appearance and reality
3) The problem of causality
4) The problem of freewill and determinism
5) The problem of unity and diversity
6) The problem of mind-body interaction
THE PROBLEM OF CHANGE AND PERMANENCE
In the history of philosophy, it is one of the earliest problems that has
been discovered. It is obvious in nature that changes occur, but despite
these changes, there still exists permanence and continuity. As
ridiculous as this may sound, one wonders between change and
permanence, p into the same river twice. In explicating this position, he
states that the moment you step into the moving water, the flow
continues; thereby, making it impossible to step into the same water-
shed twice. The major realistic principle that is operational; is that of
change and nothing more. He states that everything that exist is in the
state of constant flux. That is to say that all things are ephemeral. For
him, change is the only permanent thing.
In another contribution to the history of the problem of change and
permanence in philosophy, Parmenides, change does not occur, what
we see as change is nothing but the illusion of the senses. For him, our
knowledge is vague and we are deceived by our senses. Reason and
truth are the only sources of reliability. The senses deceive us and keep
us away from reality.
These perceptions of these philosophers on the account of change and
permanence differs and, in a bid to reconcile it, Empedocles of
Andragas maintains the position that both contributions have elements
of truthfulness in them. For him, some elements are subject to change
while some others do not change. Clarifying his positions further, he
maintains that there are four basic elements: air, fire water and earth
which does not change into another element. These four elements
according to him, are the basic realities of life and every other thing
that exists is made up of these identified elements. When these
elements either combine or separate, something new comes into
existence. On this account, he supports the idea that everything changes
with time and therefore affirms the idea of change. The coming into
being and extinction of other elements is a possibility through the
combination or separation of elements. Anaxagoras in defense of
change took another direction in his explanation. He believes what is
called change is the domination of particle. The domination is what
gives every particle their distinct features and when it occurs, a new
particle is formed.
Democritus gave his explanation of change using the atomist theory.
For him, atoms are the basic forms of reality and they are as well, the
smallest part of matter. They are small such that they cannot be either
seen or divided. They also differ in shapes and sizes. As they move
about in void, they clash, as they clash, they bring something new into
existence and when they separate, something passes out of existence.
THE PROBLEM OF APPEARANCE AND REALITY
Lots of thoughts and ideas exhume the human mind when the issue of
appearance and reality is presented. The question is, is appearance
same as reality?
The appearance of things may not really depict their reality. There are
somethings which appears real but they are nothing but illusions. For
instance, when a mirage is seen when we travel along road, it appears
as a pool of water, but on getting closer, it’s nothing but illusions.
Appearance of the same object differs in its interpretation from
different people. For instance, when an object is placed at a point and
different people take different positions to analyze it, they will
eventually give varying descriptions of same object.
On this account, great thinkers such as Plato and Descartes present
their skepticism on the knowledge of the senses. For them, the
knowledge of the world cannot be understood through the senses. For
Plato, the essences or ideas of things cannot be known through the
senses but rather; in the world of forms.
THE PROBLEM OF CAUSALITY
Causality by implication simply means the production of subsequent
effect by the activity/activities of another. It also means an influence
by which one event contributes to the production of another event. To
explain the concept of causality further, four types of causes were
identified.
1. Material cause
2. Formal cause
3. Efficient cause
4. Final cause
The Material Cause is the type of cause made by matter. It comprises
of the material stuff to which something is made. It does not exist in
itself, but rather comes from the combination or influence of one or
more objects on the other. Example, a chair is made up of wood, nails,
cover cloths and other working tools such as saw, scrapper, smoother,
etc.
Formal Cause can be described as the essential nature of a thing; that
which qualifies a thing as distinct from the other. It is the pivotal
nature of the pattern or shape of a thing which differentiates it from the
other.
Efficient cause of a thing is the agent that is responsible for
responsible for bringing another thing into being
Final Cause is the end in view or the purpose for which a thing is
made.
Cause generally is rooted in the idea of the teleologists who believe
that everything is “intended for an end and moving towards an end.”
Explicating the notion of cause and effect further, David Hume used
the demonstration of the billiard ball. If a white billiard ball that is at
rest is acted upon by a moving black billiard ball, when it hits the white
one, it sets it in motion. When such happens, we record that one event
comes after the other. What it means for him, is that the movement of
the white ball was not because it was acted on, but because it’s an event
that supersedes the other. The assumption that a thing is caused by the
other does not exist in reality but the mind and associated with habit.
When we talk about cause and effect, we speak of what we expect,
rather than what is reasonable.
THE PROBLEM OF FREEWILL AND DETERMINISM
Freewill denotes the idea that each individual has the tenacity of
making choices of their actions while determinism holds that all human
events are as a result of predetermined effect. Popkin and Stroll would
argue that the deterministic argument sustains that God is the causal
agent in the universe and He alone, determines all things. The
combination of both ideas on freewill and determinism is a paradoxical
one. Its unification seems impossible as their views differs.
The question that comes to mind in the sight of freewill and
determinism is, if God is the determinant of all events and actions of
the human person, how come the existence of punishment in the
society? If humans are as free as proposed in the idea of freewill, why
are human beings blamed or praised for their actions? What is the
essence of human freedom if everything or action in the universe is
caused? If there’s nothing like human freedom, why are there laws in
existence?
The concept of freewill and determinism in the history of philosophy
has generated more complications than resolutions till date. It asks lots
of questions without having satisfactory answers.
THE PROBLEM OF UNITY AND DIVERSITY
The idea of unity and diversity has gained attention by the Ionians,
each of them has a different and noble way of the understanding, as
well as the explanation of realities pertaining the concepts.
Unanimously, the Ionians believes that reality is one. For them, all
things are one and are basically made of one stuff. The discrepancy that
is inherent of the Ionians is the terminologies for depicting this one
reality or stuff of the universe. While Thales of Miletus held that the
basic reality or stuff of the universe is water, Anaximander who is a
student of his, held his distinct opinion by stating that the basic stuff of
the universe is the “infinite or indeterminate”. on another hand,
Anaximenes who was also an associate of Anaximander came up with
his own idea of the basic stuff of the universe by authenticating the air.
For him, air is the ultimate stuff of the universe.
The amazing thing to ask is; in all the conceptions of the universe, is
unity tenable in the midst of diversifications?
In explaining the concept of unity and diversity further, the Idealists in
the ancient period of philosophy saw reality in a monistic form. For
them, reality is one and absolute. That absolute reality is God who
establishes himself in different forms. For them, reality is one but
manifests itself in many forms. The pluralists disagreed with the
monists, stating that in the universe, there are varieties and
multiplicities of substances and that the unity of all things cannot be
guaranteed in the face of integral multiplicities. While the earliest
Ironians believed in unity in the midst of diversity of all things in the
universe, the idealists kicked against it and upholds that the reality that
is considered one, manifests itself in many forms. Therefore, the
pluralists deny the existence of unity in the universe.
THE PROBLEM OF MIND AND BODY INTERACTION
The mind-body problem has been a persistent problem in the history of
philosophy and has lingered till the 21st century and still counting. The
ability to identify and explain the relationship of the mind with the
body has been a challenging one. This area in philosophy has attracted
the attention, thoughts and various question in the area of the
relationship between the mind and the body. Questions such as:
1. Is the mind different from the body?
2. Is the mind the same as the body?
3. If the mind and the body are separate, how then do they relate?
4. If the mind and the body relate, where is the meeting point?
5. Why is it that when the mind wills an action, the body will act
accordingly?
6. Why is it also that when pain is inflicted on one part of the body,
all the parts of the body; including the mind, feels that pain which
emanated from just a source
In a bid to answer some these questions, many theories have been
generated as follows:
The theory of Interactionism
Rene Descartes was one of the prominent thinkers that made attempts
in responding to the mind body problem. For him, there is a valediction
between the mind and the body. He made the distinction by identifying
the mind as an immaterial or spiritual substance that thinks and
identified the body with matter, whose characteristic nature is
extension.
The explanation of the mind-body problem as given by Descartes
produced lots of controversies as to the relation of both. In an attempt
to add supporting flesh to his position, he maintains that the mind and
the body interacts at the pineal gland. Subsequent other questions were
asked as to the location of the pineal gland and the mode of interaction
but he failed in its clarification. As a result of this failure, he was
criticized of producing as escape route by saying that the mind and the
body interacts at the pineal gland.
EPIPHENOMENALISM
Epiphenomenalism is a mind-body theory which states that the mind is
the function of the brain or a by-product of the brain. Other thinkers
such as George Santayana conceives of the relationship between mind
(mental event) and body (material event) by the introduction of what he
called the mountain stream. For him, when the water from the
mountain falls on the rock, it produces babbling sound. The sound
produced is the by-product of the landing water on the rock. Just like
smoke is the effect of or by-product of burning flame or fire.
Epiphenomenalists for Egbeke Aja interested in the sensations, images,
feelings, thoughts and emotions that are produced by the actions of the
brain. Matter for him, is primary and as well, the only real thing. The
mind as we may call it is nothing but shadows that appears as a result
some necessary conditions.
OCCASIONALISM
A prominent French man in the history of philosophy which is known
as Nicholas Malebranche, who existed between 1638-1715 propounded
the theory of occasionalism. In his understanding, at occasions, certain
events of the body occurs but God who capacitated with the possibility
of all knowledge causes the accompanying mental events. In his
understanding, the actions of the body is controlled by the omniscience
nature of God and gives meaning to the mental (mind) activities of the
body. This is to say that whenever an action is achieved two chief
actors contributed to that facticity (man and God simultaneously).
Cornman argues that, God causes and regulates all mental activities of
the body. The moment a bodily event occurs, the subsequent mental
event following instantly; is caused by God. In the analogy of the
proponents of occasionalism, there was no instance of analysis of the
relationship of the mind and the body.
PRE-ESTABLISHED HARMONY
The German Philosopher, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz propounded the
theory of pre-established harmony. In his explanations of this theory, he
maintains that both the bodily actions, as well as the accompanying
mental activities takes place as a pre-established plan of God. The
analysis offered by Liebniz supports the idea that for any action to take
place, it has been pre- established or ordained by God. It is more like a
written script which must be acted accordingly. He is of the opinion
that the mind and body are two independent entities but has been
programmed by God to act accordingly.

LOGIC AS TOOL OF PHILOSOPHY

The rationality of the human person is undebatable. Rationality is a
natural endowment bequeathed unto the human person for
enhancement and growth. Man’s thinking ability enhances the other
levels of mental activity known as rationality. In as much as man is
seen to be a specie of animal, it I s the thinking as well as rational and
communication ability of the human species that differentiates him
from the other lower animals. We can outrightly say that rationality
involves thinking but thinking alone does not entail rationality.
Rationality supersedes thinking as it indulges many mental processes.
Rationality is interested transcending from mere thinking to a
farfetched activity of the mental. For instance, when we see a mirage
which is an optical illusion along a road, the immediate resolution is
that there is a shed of water along the road. This is exactly what
thinking does, but reasoning will lure you into further enquiries to
ascertain the facticity. It is on the note that logic comes into timeline.
When a thinking activity attains the level of (critical) reasoning, logic
then comes into play.
What is Logic
Different thinkers in distinct and different capacities have made
varying attempts in explaining and expanding the term in order to
achieve clarity. The word logic is gotten from the Greek word “Logos”
which means reasoning or discourse. The term logic is associated
basically with the nature of truth and the very many rigorous ways of
arriving at the truth.
In the conception of Prof. Ome Emmanuel et al in the book,
Philosophy and Logic for Everybody, Logic is that division which
reflects upon the nature of thinking itself. It attempts to answer such
questions such as:
a) What is correct reasoning?
b) What distinguishes a good argument from a bad one?
c) Are there methods to detect fallacies in reasoning; if so, what are the
methods?
Logic is interested in responding to the questions as poised above and
more. Logic is keen to issues relating to the structures of human
thought as well as the principles or laws governing the concept of valid
reasoning. It is involved in the validation of the principles which serves
as a guide to correct reasoning. Logic lays the foundation for the search
or quest for authentic knowledge. As a result, logic can be said to be
interested in “providing the rational justifications for all
encounters”. The simplification and symbolization of sentences is a
tool adopted in the logical process to achieve the desired knowledge.
On this note, Emmanuel J. Ibuot has argued that logic involves the
deployment of artificial language or symbols to represent entire
statements (propositions), which could be declarative in ordinary
language. The aim of the deployment of the artificial language is to
import a logical slogan which overrides ambiguity in logical thinking.
SCOPE OF LOGIC
It can be figured out that the quest for knowledge in human beings is
aided by logic. Logic is confined within the realms of human reasoning
or activities of the mind. This is simply to say that logic fails in the
quest/acquisition of knowledge at the point where the human mind fails
to function properly, whether in the formal or informal sense of logical
thinking. It’s our interest in this course to lay emphasis on formal logic.
This is because formal logic models us in the right-thinking direction;
the act of thinking and arguing validly. Logic in enormous ways; helps
in detecting the errors encountered in thinking and reasoning using the
logical tools or laws of logical analysis. On this note, it is pertinent to
understand that logic plays its role of knowledge enhancement through
the mental activities, from the elementary aspect or level of human life;
through its development of making personal decisions, to complicated
decisions which may include the settlement of disputes. Logic as an
indispensable branch of philosophy has its scope of ensuring
understanding using the presented logical flows to draw valid
conclusions in the arts, sciences and basically; in technological
advancements.

ARGUMENT
What does it mean to argue?
When we use the word “argue”, it means to spring up reasons in
support or against opinion/s or discourse/s. Argument simply means the
ability of providing evidences for an acclaimed opinion or idea.
Statements or propositions are offered to support arguments. They are
the basic reasons and the yardstick for making inferences. When a
scholar engages in an argument, he or she does so; drawing reasonable
inferences from the provided propositions as well as evidence/s. An
argument does not and cannot take place in a vacuum. It has structures
that guides the logicality deduced from the presented propositions.

THE NATURE OF AN ARGUMENT

An argument is made of proposition which appears in premises that aid
the conclusion. The premises of an argument simply means those
propositions that form evidence for the conclusion of an argument or
those propositions from which inference can be made conclusively. The
premises is considered to be one or more propositions given as
evidence or a form of justification for another proposition known as the
conclusion. Basically, the first two proposition serves as the premises
while the third proposition serves as the conclusion in most
argumentative cases.
The premises is made up of the statements which give evidence for, or
reasons for accepting the conclusion while the conclusion includes
statements or propositions which is implied to be established on the
footnotes of other statements (known as the premises).
Premises provides the fertile ground on which proposition/s can be
affirmed or denied. It serves as a roadmap to determining the
conclusions without running into any form of contradiction. The
premise serves as the fleshy and skeletal support to the attainment of
the conclusion. With the assurance provided by the premises, fallacious
conclusions are detected without antagonism.
Let us examine the propositions below:
All Maduka University Students are arrogant (first premise)
Michael is a student of Maduka University (second premise)
Therefore, Micheal is intelligent (conclusion)
In logic, two types of premises are identified as follows; the major and
the minor premises. The major premise serves as the base for drawing
the required inference while the minor premise serves as a support to
drawing the conclusions. The ingredients of a conclusion in any
statement in wholly dependent on the propositions as provided by the
premises. It could be in the first, middle or last proposition in the cases
where there are more than two premises.
In the above proposition, the defence for the conclusion is driven from
the first and second premise. It is pertinent to also know that each of
the keyword is to appear twice from the first and second premise to the
conclusion.
It is worthy to note that the position in which one defends is the
conclusion. The conclusion must be drawn from the propositions or
arguments presented
Let’s take a look at the following propositions, and examine whether it
meets the rules of inferring from the premises to the conclusion.
All Maduka University students are smart
Jane is a student of Maduka University
Therefore, Jane is smart.
From our explanations so far, we will find out that there is a logical
connection and consistency from the premises to the conclusion
Let’s also examine this:
All male lecturers are intelligent
Dr. Benard is a male lecturer,
Therefore, Dr. Benard is insane.

DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF AN ARGUMENT

In Logic, the search for the validity of an argument is the interest and
not the truth/true nature of the argument. The logical process of
drawing inference from the premises to the conclusion could be
successfully done without arriving at a truthful standpoint but the
validity of the argument remains unshakeable. On this note, arguments
could be considered to be “correct or incorrect”, “valid or invalid”. A
valid argument can be considered as one which the logical flow is
consistent. An argument which is true in nature can be logically false
or vice-versa as far as it does (not) obey the rules or laws of logic. The
assurance of a valid argument is guaranteed by the deductions from its
premises. The premises as well as the conclusion can be false but yet,
the argument is valid.
Let us examine the argument below:
1) All Christians are dedicated to the work of God.
Deborah is a Christian
Therefore, Deborah is dedicated to the work of God.

2) To become a student, you must pass JAMB examination

James is a student
 Therefore, James passed his JAMB examination

The presented argument passed the rules of logic as well as the rules of
inference. In other words, the argument is valid as the premises and
conclusions necessarily meets the conditions for the conclusion, but
when this argument is thoroughly examined, it may not be true. This is
because, there are possibilities that Deborah is not dedicated to the
work of God and yet; she is a Christian and James too did not pass
JAMB as he may have gained his admission as a student through direct
entry, (pre-degree, pre-science, IJMBE etc).
IDENTIFYING AN INVALID ARGUMENT
An invalid argument is that in which conclusions does not follow from
the premises, when the premises lack the required elements for the
authentication of the conclusion, then we can say that such argument is
invalid. For instance:
All mothers are women
All children have mothers (dead or alive)
Therefore, all women are females

When we check the logical consistence of this argument, we eventually

discover a big lapse moving from the premises to the conclusion. The
keywords are not consistent and as a result, does not meet with the
logical rules or laws and therefore, considered as invalid. The premises
are true, the conclusion is also true but the argument is invalid
following the logical rules.
An argument is valid if and only if it is compulsory that all of the
premises are true, the conclusion is also true and it follows the logical
rules of consistency. once all the premises are true, then the conclusion
must be also true. Here, it becomes impossible that all the premises are
true and the conclusion is false.
An argument is said to be invalid when all the premises have been
tested and confirmed to be true and yet, the conclusion contradicts the
premises by having a false assertion or proposition. If this is possible,
the argument is invalid.
It is pertinent to note that the validity and invalidity measures apply
only to arguments, not statements.
SOUND AND UNSOUND ARGUMENTS
A sound argument can be said to be characterized by the assurance of a
true premise as well as conclusion. In confirming if an argument is
sound, one may not be assured of the truthfulness of the conclusion if
the premises is found wanting in terms of the validation of its
truthfulness. An argument may be valid but not sound.
For an argument to be sound, it must possess the following:
1. It must be valid (it is one of the criteria but not the major deciding
factor)
2. The premises must be true.
3. The conclusion must also be true
On a very important note, it should be known that all sound arguments
are valid but not all valid arguments are sound. In the same manner,
all invalid arguments are unsound but not all unsound arguments are
invalid.
Below are some example examples of sound arguments:
All fishes live in water (True)
Catfish belong to the family of fish/s (True)
Therefore, catfish lives in water (True)
The arguments above depicts a logically sound argument. This is
because all the premises are true and the conclusion is logically drawn
from the premises to be logically true too.
Let us also examine an unsound argument:
All students of Maduka University are highly intelligent as they pay
attention in class (false)
It is expected that all the students who pay attention in class will pass
in their examination ( true)
Therefore, all students of Maduka University will pass their exams
(false)
In all our explanations so far, it is pertinent to note that what the
logician is interested in is the consistency and logical flow of an
argument from the premises to the conclusion. As far as an argument
obeys and satisfies the rules or laws of logical inference, the validity is
assured. The logician is interested in the validity and not the true nature
of any argument.

Types of Argument:
Arguments have different ways of recognizing them. It could be in
terms of their forms, components or characteristics. By implication, all
personal discussions or communication strategies or activities cannot
qualify as arguments. For an argument to qualify as such, it must
possess the characteristics of (an) argument(s). There are basically two
types of argument:
Deductive and Inductive Argument
Deductive Argument
In this type of argument, the conclusion logically necessitates from the
premises. The solid evidence that exists between the two indicates that
it would be practically self-contradictory or inconsistent to deny the
premises and affirm the conclusion. In this type of argument, the
conclusion is drawn or deduced from the premises. The premise
provides the evidences or information for the conclusion. By
implication, this means that in deductive argument, the truth of the
conclusion of any argument is wholly dependent on the premise and for
the conclusion to be explicit, the conclusion must not go beyond what
is given by the premise. An argument can be said to be empty if it does
not meet the standard as presented above.
Referring to the earlier example, we can explore what is given by
deductive argument;
All men must die
Obi is a man
Therefore, Obi must die.
This argument invariably obeys the laws of deduction of an argument,
ranging from the premise to the conclusion.
There is another traditional way of understanding deductive argument
which endorses the characterization of deductive inference and entails
moving from general to particular subjects or objects. That is, moving
from the truth of a whole to the truth of a particular. But this is not
always the case as this characterization is misleading and cannot meet
the standards it has placed at all instances.
For example:
If it is raining and wet outside, then students will not come for lectures
It is raining and wet outside
Therefore, students will not come for the lectures.
In the above assertion, there is no instance of moving from general to
particular subjects or objects and this debunks the traditional claims of
deductive reasoning in an argument. Moreso, this is a conditional
statement and not categorical statements.

Furthermore, let us examine the following example:

All meticulous people are successful
All successful people are wealthy
Therefore, all meticulous people are wealthy.
This assertion or argument is categorical, though it didn’t move from
general to particular but obeys the rule of deduction.
There are other exceptions which connotes statements which move also
from particular to particular as against the traditional claims of
deductive logic.
Take a look at this:
Chinonso is younger than Munachimso
Munachimso is younger than Chinedu
Therefore; Chinonso is younger than Chinedu.
In this type of argument, the conclusion is wholly informed by the
premises. Deductive arguments can only be characterized in terms of
the relationship between the information provided in the premises
down to the conclusion. The premises provides conclusive grounds for
the premises.
At this juncture, let us take a look at the Inductive Argument
Inductive Argument
In this type of argument, the relationship that exist between the
premises and conclusion is such that the premises does not give all the
necessary evidence or the classified information for the establishment
of the conclusion, rather, it presents some form of support. Inductive
arguments can be said to be those arguments whose conclusions do not
require the consistent flow from the premises, rather, it condenses the
conclusion to probability.
In this type of argument, there may be tendencies that the premises of
an argument may be the true and the conclusion is false. In inductive
reasoning, the rules of confirmation in terms of valid reasoning are not
granted. It deals with the cases of probability in the conclusion of an
argument. It is concerned with those evidences provided by the
premises which renders the conclusion probable.
Remember, in inductive argument, the premises does not entail the
conclusion, rather, it provides some evidences for the conclusion
Let us examine the following argument:
Jonathan, a graduate of Maduka University is highly intelligent
Paul, a graduate of Maduka University is also highly intelligent
Therefore, Darlington, a graduate of Maduka University must be highly
intelligent.
Inductive argument can only be characterized as so when the premises
of the argument render the conclusion probable.
In summary, deductive arguments can be classified as arguments which
follows with strict necessity from the premises to the conclusion while
those rendered probable from the assertions presented in the premises
and conclusion are considered as inductive arguments.

CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
A syllogism could be said to be an argument which is made up of three
propositions such that one of the propositions identified as the
conclusion; follows from the others. Aristotle in his words is of the
view that “a syllogism is a discourse in which a certain thing being
stated, something other than which is stated follows of necessity from
being so”, (Prior Analytica 24b 18). This means that whatever that is
stated holds against whatever that is not stated. It is worthy to note that
if the premises and the conclusion of a syllogism is categorical, the
argument is a categorical syllogism. We have other types of syllogism,
such as hypothetical syllogism and disjunctive syllogism but shall
focus on categorical syllogism for the purposes of this course.
TERMS IN CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
• The middle term appears twice in the premise and does not appear
in the conclusion
• The major term occurs and applies as the predicate of the
conclusion.
 • The minor term is the subject of the conclusion.
MOOD AND FIGURE OF CATEGOTICAL SYLLOGISM
In the strict sense of the arrangement of categorical syllogism, the
minor terms are stated firstly, and then; the major term is followed by
the minor term.
Syllogistic arguments can take up different forms. In as much as
syllogism is embodied by three propositions, each of the proposition
may take up any of the four forms of the syllogistic categories and
could yield about sixty-four (64) other forms. It could be EAE, AEE,
AAA, AAI, AAO, OOO etc.
Take AAA proposition for instance:
All singers are happy people
All solo performers are singers
Therefore, all solo performers are happy people
The table below will give a clearer understanding of the standard form
categorical syllogism
Abr. Quantity Quality Form Example of its usage
A Universal Affirmative All S is P (SaP) All men are greedy
E Universal Negative No S is P (SeP) No man is greedy
I Particular Affirmative Some S is P (SiP) Some men are
greedy
O Particular Negative Some S in not P Some men are not
(SoP) greedy

In the tabular presentation of the standard form categorical syllogism,

the A, E, I, and O proposition is traditionally taken from the Latin
word, “Affirmo” which means to affirm and “Nego” which means to
negate or deny.
A&E represents universal propositions while the I&O represents the
particular propositions.
The A proposition denotes that all the members of the subject class is
inclusive in the predicate class
The E proposition denotes the entire members of the subject term is
excluded from the predicate class.
The I proposition asserts that only a part of the subject members
referred to in a subject term is included in the predicate class.
In the I proposition family, three types of particular affirmative
propositions is obtainable as shown below
Basic particulars:
I. some students are so inconsiderate in their actions.
II. some skill acquisition materials is needed.
Plurative particulars
I. a few students engaged in the course registration exercise.
Most philosophers are free-thinkers
 Numerical particulars
I. Four students of law failed the exam
II. Five buses were deployed to convey the lecturers.
The information provided by the plurative and the numerical
particulars are specific compared to the information provided by the
basic particular propositions
The O proposition indicates that a part of the members referred to in a
subject term is no included in the predicate class. It is also worthy to not
that the application of basic, plurative and numerical particulars also
applies to O propositions.
Categorical propositions can take sixty-four (64) forms irrespective of
the classified four forms.