Chapter 1 Philosophy and Logic

____________________________________________________________________________
__
Philosophy

The word philosophy was coined by the Greek philosopher and mathematician named
Pythagoras (c.a. 580-490 B.C.). It was derived from the Greek word φιλοσοφία (philosophia, rom
philein which means to love and sophia which means wisdom). Etymologically, philosophy is the
love of wisdom, and a philosopher is a lover of wisdom. However, philosophy is not merely a
desire or falling in love with wisdom, but an enterprise whereby one exercises his or her
curiosity and intelligence in the quest of truth. But what is wisdom? ls it a body of knowledge, a
bank of insights gleaned from life experiences, or a set of theories that promise ultimate
understanding and explanation of about everything in the world?

The Greek philosopher and teacher, Socrates (469-399 B.C.) believes that wisdom is attained by
searching for truth which begins with knowing oneself (gnoti seauton "know thyself"). The wise
man is he who knows that he knows nothing. Socrates does not intend toconfuse us with a
paradox. He simply means that to be wise is not to be trapped in a particular knowledge or
truth, but to persevere and to be courageous in the quest for truth
orwisdom. His wisdom is a philosophy of constant quest and never a mere acquisition of a body
of knowledge.

Philosophy has been defined in many ways by as many philosophers as there are philosophies.
None of these definitions could completely account for what philosophy reallyis. In fact,
philosophers differ and often contradict each other. This gives an impression of weakness of
philosophy as a discipline among the uninitiated and the outsiders. It also accounts for a
declined interest in philosophy and its consequent estrangement from many. The Cebuano
words "pilisupu ka ng daku" (although it actually means a sophist who uses persuasive and
deceptive arguments) testifies to the ill-repute if not gross misunderstanding of what
philosophy is.

Admittedly, philosophy lacks or does not have a universal method, a sine qua non in the
sciences. However, this is not a fault or a defect; rather the lack or absence of a
universalmethod is inherently compatible with philosophy' s very own nature. A method
imprisons;and a universal method in philosophy will not only imprison but will also kill it. The
variegatedness of philosophies and their proponent philosophers reveals the plurality of ways in
which reality can be studied. Truth is neither a coin which has only two sides nor is it a dice
which has only six sides. Truth is multi-faceted!

Perhaps, the best way to understand philosophy is to do philosophy, that is, to engage in a
philosophical enterprise by unleashing one's curiosity, imagination, and creativity in order to ask
the right questions; embarking into a philosophical journey of searching for the right answers;
making stops in order to subject these answers to critical reflections; and
Asking further right questions out of the given answers. Reality is inexhaustible and a mystery.
Hence, the search for truth is infinite!

Philosophizing begins not with an answer but with a question-questions that do not at all come
with a guarantee of answers. Questioning is liberative because it redeems us from blind
acceptance and an unquestioning outlook of everything around us. It is also a radical revolt
because the act of questioning penetrates the core of cores of the most banl human affairs as
well as things of greatest importance. Philosophy is also a discipline of personhood. When one
asks questions, he or she asks them as a meaning-seeking and meaning-giving subject,
autonomous and independent yet always finding himself or herself in a situation.

Philosophy is a serious business, yes, but it is not necessarily a via dolorosa or a road of
suffering. On the contratry., Philosphy is “ that dear delight” as Plato says; it is supposed to be a
sightseeing adventure and a delightful one because it enriches experience. Emerson puts it
beautifully: “To the philosopher, all things are friendly and sacred, all events profitable, all days
holy, all men divine.”

The Branches of Philosophy

Generally, philosophy may be classified into two, namely, theoretical and practical. On
the one hand, theoretical philosophy consists of fields that deal with a body of knowledge or
principles without necessarily resorting to their practical applications. On the other hand,
practical philosophy is composed of fields that pertain not only to a set of principles or body of
knowledge but also to its practical applications.

Traditionally, the major fields of philosophy are the following:

Metaphysics- inquires into the ultimate nature of reality. Cosmology and Ontology are
traditionally considered branches of metaphysics.

Ontology- the most fundamental branch of metaphysics that deals about the question on
the nature of being and existence as well as their relationships and categories.

Epistemology- the study of the nature of human knowledge

Ethics or Moral Philosophy – the study of principles that determine the goodness or
wrongness of human actions.
 Axiology – the study on the nature, criteria, and metaphysical status of

values. Aesthetics – the philosophy of art or theory of beauty

Theodicy - the philosophical investigation into the existence and nature of God Philosophy of

Man – a search for truth about human nature and what it means to be fully human Political

Philosophy – the philosophical justification of state and government forms Linguistics – the

philosophical study of language

Notes on the History of Logic

The word logic was coined by Zeno (336-264 B.C ), the founder of the Stoic school. It
was derived from the greek word λογική (logike) which means reasoning and is closely
related to Λογότυπα ( logos) which denotes “word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason,
or principle.” Aristotle (384-322 B.C) is the acknowledged “Father of Logic”. Aristotle considered
logic as an organon (instrument or tool) because it serves as preliminary to the study of all
branches of knowledge. He discussed deductive logic in Prior Analytics and induction in
Posterior analytics. The fundamental elements of Aristotelian logic are terms. Chrysippus
(279-206 B.C) device a logic whose fundamental elements are the whole propositions. There
were no significabt works on logic for about one and a half centuries after the death of
Chrysippus.

Peter Abelard (1079-1142) was the first major logician in the Middle Ages. He originated
the theory of universals and improved Aristotelian logic by introducing formal validity of
arguments. About a half a century after, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) devised a system
that could be used to settle all forms of dispute. Because of this pioneering work, Leibniz is
regarded as the Father of Symbolic Logic.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) sustained the rapid developments of logic by reviving
interest in inductive logic. At the turn of the twentieth century, British philosophers Alfred
North Whitehead (1861-1947) and Bertrand Russel (1872-1970) oublished a major work on
logic, Principa Mathematic, an attempt to reduce pure mathematics to logic.

The Meaning of Logic

Let us begin by considering different ways in which logic us defined. Logic is defined a
number of ways:

• The study of the fundamental principles which govern the true nature of correct
inferential thinking (Malitao,2003)
• The study of the methods and principles used in distinguishing correct (good) from
incorrect (bad) arguments (Copi & Cohen, 1990)
• The Philosophical science of correct reasoning or inferential thinking; science of
correct and certain inference. (Piñon, 1995)
• The study of conditions for correct thinking. (Jayme, 2002)
• Science that evaluates arguments. (Huxley, 1997)

All the definitions of logic above are correct. In our course, we will adopt the classical view
which defines logic as a philosophical science and art of correct thinking and reasoning.

Logic as Scientia Scientiarum (Science of Sciences)

Logic as a science because it is a body of principles used to distinguish valid from invalid
arguments. This set of principles which are arranged systematically posseses an objective
character and has universal application. It is considered a science of sciences because all
theoretical expositions.

Logic as Ars Artium (Arts of Arts)

Logic is an art in so far as it consists of practical rules that direct the mind in the attainment of
truth. It is the art of arts because it directs the human reason, the prime cause of all forms of
arts, to proceed easily, orderly, and accurately.

The Material and Formal Objects of Logic

A material object of a study is that which is being studied. The material object of logic therefore
consists of mental operations, namely, apprehension, judgment, and reasoning. A formal object
of a study is for that which material object is being studied. Hence, the formal object of logic is
the correctness of the thinking and reasoning process.

Thinking and Reasoning

It is said that all reasoning is thinking, but not all thinking is reasoning. Thinking as used in logic
refers specifically to that mental activity which is directed to the attainment of the truth. This is
not to claim however that this kind of thinking is the only way of truth. There are many ways to
kill a cat, so to say, as there are as many ways by which one reaches Colon, the Philippine’s
oldest street, depending upon one’s point of departure. Reasoning on the other hand is a
distinct form
of thinking process, one that is basically inferential, and which can be determined to be valid or
invalid only if it is expressed in oral or written argument.

Argument

An argument consists of one or more prpositions (the premises) which are claimed to support
the conclusion, which is the statement that is being proved. Reasoning is said to be valid, that is,
correct and consistent provided that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.
Because Logic is concerned with arguments, it is necessary to be able to distinguish arguments
from those that are not. How does one recognize an argument? A passage is said to contain an
argument if and only if it offers something as evidence (premises) for something it claims to
prove (conclusions). I f there is a claim and the basis or bases of such claim, then there is an
argument.

Examples:

1. The present rice crisis is a result of a failure to implement a sustainable development

program to address problems of rice production and distribution.
2. Since the Catholic Church advocates preferential option for the poor, Catholic universities
should cater to students who are truly deserving and poor.

The first example states only a fact or opinion. It declares something but doesn’t make any
conclusions. So, it is not an argument. The second example is an argument which has it claim or
conclusion “Catholic universities should cater to students who are truly poor” and its premise or
basis “Since the Catholic Church advocates preferential option for the poor’’.

Deduction and Induction

There are two basic types of arguments or inference in logic, namely, deductive and inductive.
Every argument is said to have claim, that is, the premises provide grounds for the truth of its
conclusion. The fundamental difference between the two types of arguments therefore lies in
the nature of a claim with a respect to their conclusions.

Whereas in a deductive argument the conclusion is said to be valid or invalid, the conclusion in
an inductive argument is said to be valid if and when the premises to be true and the conclusion
false. In other words, if the premises which support the conclusion is considered bad or good
depending upon its probability or likelihood. We attribute cogency and strength to inductive
arguments. From the standpoint of deduction, all inductive are invalid.
The following examples may help us understand clearly:
All human are mortal.
Socrates is man.
Ergo, Socrates is mortal.

All monkeys are quadrupeds.

All lions are quadrupeds.
All bufallos are quadrupeds.
Ergo, probably all animals are quadrupeds.

The first example, a classic one, is a deductive argument because the conclusion is dawn from
the premise and the premises provide sufficient ground for the conclusion. It is in fac a valid
deductive argument. The second example is an inductive argument because even if the premises
are true, the same cannot provide certainty of the truth of the conclusion. In fact, in this
particular example, the conclusion can only be probably true, not certainly true.

A particular manner of differentiating deductive arguments from inductive arguments based on

the generality and particularity of the statement is Unsatisfactory and defective. Accordingly,
deductive arguments are said to proceed from particular to general or universal to particular
and inductive arguments proceed from particular to general or universal. This seems to be
defective. In fact, if we check back our previous example of an inductive argument, we will
notice that statements used are general or universal. Deductive arguments may also have
universal premises and conclusions. For example:

All animals are sentient.

All humans are animals.
Ergo, all humans are sentient.

Lastly, formal validity is the province of deductive logic while probability is the province of
inductive logic.