Introduction to Philosophy.

Philosophy can be defined as a human attempt to systematically study the most fundamental
aspects of our human experience to arrive at beliefs that are conceptually clear, rationally
coherent, and experientially coherent. (W. F. Lawhead). Etymologically: Formed from the 2
Greek words “Philos” meaning to love and “Sophie” meaning Wisdom. It is study of reality
through their ultimate cause.
 Fundamental components/constituents of the human experience are Man, God, and The
Universe (The world). Hence Philosophy is Regina Sciencia [Queen of science, oldest
body of knowledge], and Thales of Miletus was the first ever recorded western
philosopher.
 Law: Ordnance of reasoning made by those in positions of authority.
 If God does exist, then He is the summation of existence, and all creation actively
participates in His existence, making God the necessary being, and creation, the
contingent being.
 Democritus and Leucippus were the forefathers of atomic physics and lived in about 600
BC.
 Philosophy is a systematic study (Follows a step-by-step approach/process)
 Rational coherence means that a body of work must be non-contradicting, and all
propositions must agree with one another.
 It is important to note that reality does not change, but rather, our perception does.
 Dispositions that make man reason philosophically/incline us to ask philosophical
questions include:
a) Curiosity: By nature, man desires to know and acquire knowledge about the universe.
b) Wonder: Feeling of awe in an immense universe.
 The initial focus of philosophy was Cosmo-centric, and hence, focused on the Universe.
 Branches of Philosophy include:
a) Metaphysics (Ta meta to physika): The study of being. It is divided into cosmology
and ontology. Where cosmology is defined as the study of the universe- its origins,
evolutions, and the laws that keep it in perfect order and ontology studies the
numerous things that exist and their interactions with one another. The first person to
properly use the word metaphysics was Andronicus of Rhodes, who compiled the
works of Aristotle. A being is anything that is, that can be known, that can be thought
of, and that which is not nothing. Beings can either be real (concrete, like man, or
animal), or imaginary (logical beings like love, and faith).
b) Anthropology: The study of man through the lens of their society, culture, and
development. It is the study of the origin and development of human cultures and
societies.
c) Axiology: this is the study of values. It can be split into ethics, and aesthetics.
i) Ethics is the study of the moral value of human actions.
ii) Aesthetics is the study of the value of art in all its forms (music, literature,
paintings, sculptures etc.)
d) Theodicy/Natural Theology: Study of the knowledge of God arriving form purely
logical human reasoning
e) Epistemology: The study of knowledge. Branch of Philosophy that enquires into the
nature, origin, validity, and scope of knowledge.
f) Applied philosophy: Philosophical questions in other disciplines e.g., philosophy of
science, philosophy of law, philosophy of education etc.

 Philosophy has its periods that lasted through different time frames which are known as:
 a) Ancient period: This is subdivided into the Socratic and the presocratic period.
i) Presocratic period (600 BC to 400 BC): The primary focus in this period was the
cosmos/the universe, and hence, philosophers of that time were known as/called
cosmologists. (From Thales of Miletus to the Sophists)
ii) Socratic period (400 BC to about 100 AD): “Man, know thyself, for an
unexamined life is not worth living.”- Socrates.
This period focused on self-examination and discovery of the human nature.
Focus shifted from the universe to man. (Included Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and
Alexander the Great).
The transition between the ancient and the medieval period was characterized by the
philosophies of St. Augustine.
b) Medieval period (2nd to 14th Century): In this period, philosophers sought to
understand the world from the standpoint of creation. It was heavily influenced by
religious themes and Human rights/dignity also became a much larger topic of
discussion. Also regarded as the “dark ages” because of the inquisitions, witch trials,
and crusades. (Included St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Anselm, St. Bonaventure)
Between the medieval period and the modern period, we had the Renaissance (rebirth) period
of classical philosophy, that lasted till the 16th century.
c) Modern period (16th to late 19th century): Period of scientific discovery, where people
found it less and less necessary to depend on God for explanation of phenomena.
Gave rise to atheism. Focus on issues of knowledge, skepticism, justification.
Rationalism and Reliance on science. Individualism. Characterized by the
philosophers Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant.
d) Contemporary Philosophy (Postmodern philosophy, late 19th century till date): Where
we are now. Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) · Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) ·
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) · Gottlob Frege (1848–1925), Slavoj Zizek.

 The objectivity of morality must be contextual and must be analyzed/evaluated through:

i) Intention
ii) Circumstance
iii) The action itself. (The moral object)
 Every field of study has both a material and a formal object.
i) Material Object: The reality itself that the field studies.
ii) Formal Object: The perspective/lens through which the material object is studied
through.
For example, with medicine as a field of study, the humans are the material object,
while the human health is the formal object.

Critical Thinking.

 Essentially, thinking is making sense of the world around us (reality). It’s a purposeful,
organized cognitive process we use to make sense of our world. Is an expression of our
rational capacities as human beings. Rationality involves understanding the relationship
between ends and means, as well as the values involved.
 It is important to note that animal behavior is instinctual, not rational. Animal behavior
follows the pattern of Stimuli Response, while that of humans follows the pattern
of Stimuli Reason Response. Animals have sensitive intelligence, not
human intelligence.
 Operant conditioning: Association desired/undesired actions with either rewards or
punishments, in order to either increase, or decrease the frequency/possibility of the said
actions reoccurring.

Paragraph one analysis (In the notes)

Fallacies/gaps in critical thinking from this paragraph are include:
a) Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy (Argumentum ad Ignorantium): Just because you have
not personally experience/witnessed something, does not mean it does not exist.
Reality exists outside your bubble.
b) Appeal to false Authority: This is done when you refer to an unqualified figure as an
authority over. A field they have limited or even no knowledge on.
c) Appeal to popular opinion (Argumentum ad populum): This fallacy essentially says
that although majority may carry the vote, it may not carry/hold the truth. It
essentially building your argument based on the consensus rather than actual,
verifiable truth.
d) No statistical evidence and letting emotions override our reasoning.
Paragraph two analysis (In the notes)
Fallacies/gaps in critical thinking from this paragraph are include:
a) Appeal to force (Argumentum ad Baculum): Using force as a way to convince people
while arguing, rather than actual logical reasoning. Bullying rather than convincing.
b) Red-Herring Fallacy: Trying to divert attention from the main point/central topic of
the argument.
c) Appeal to fear: Using fear tactics to boost your argument rather than logical
reasoning.
d) False Equivalence.
e) Appeal to pity: Pity is not a valid enough reason to cover up inconsistency in
arguments.
f) Argumentum ad hominem: Attacking the other person(s) in an argument, rather than
the argument in itself. This is often times a sign of defeat/an indirect admission of
logical inconsistency.

Two types of thinking include:

Critical thinking: problem analysis (Evaluative)
Creative thinking: problem solving (Generative)
Both are non-mutually exclusive.

Critical thinking is a systematic way of thinking thar gives clarity, coherence, and
confirmation to our ideas, inferences or judgements. It’s the ability to think clearly and
rationally about what to do or what to believe.

 Steps in critical thinking include:

i) Observation
ii) Gathering of data
iii) Analysis of Data and Inferences
iv) Critique of inferences from data
v) Judgement of data
 Critical thinking will help you: Examine all facts, identify and avoid fallacies, verify
information, and ask “why?”.
 Pillars of critical thinking are:
a) Conceptual clarity: Concepts and words are the vehicles of our ideas. The analysis of
propositions begins with the definition of concepts. It is extremely important to begin
discourse with concept clarification.
b) Experiential confirmation: Facts that our ideas must correspond with facts that are
objects in the world (Truth).
c) Coherence of Ideas: There must be an agreement of the body of propositions with
each other, they should not contradict one another.
 The Greek Agora was the marketplace of ideas and knowledge transaction.

Analysis: The breaking down of concepts into smaller components to understand it at the
most fundamental level.

Nature and scope of Philosophy.

 Paul Tillich says that “the nature of philosophy can be defined by philosophy itself, and
there is nothing beyond philosophy for which a further appeal can be made.” This means
that the understanding of a philosophical statement can only be done through a
philosophical approach and that philosophy assumes nothing outside of itself. Hence, the
take-off of any philosophical enterprise is the rejection of any court of appeal outside of
it.
 Philosophy seeks to:
a) Analyze the foundations and presuppositions of other disciplines and understand their
principles in order to clarify the meaning of vague words and concepts.
b) Understand the fundamental truths surrounding reality in a bid to develop a
comprehensive conception of human reality/experience.
c) Critically evaluate our core beliefs/principles.
 Pedagogy: a way of teaching, the method or practice of it.

Western Philosophy began in Greece (Asia Minor, Miletus) in the 6th century, and because of
the cross-cultural stimulation that happened at Aegean area which was home to many
sea/trade routes and ports, questions were asked, and ideas were exchanged. Before that, we
had Poetry and Mythology. The Poets had an important role in Greek culture and society,
because they served both ethical (spoke about destiny, fate, and the distinguishing between
right and wrong) and religious (Told stories about the gods, and their various interventions in
time) functions. They developed, preserved, and conveyed the historical, religious, and
scientific truths of our time, and attempted to answer cosmological questions about the origin,
structure, and working of the universe.

 “Myths represent attempt to explain the unfamiliar and mysterious in terms of what is
familiar and observable. They are symbolic expressions of how the deepest concerns of
human life fit into a large-scale picture of the cosmos” (W.F. Lawhead).

The primary model of explanation available to pre-scientific people was that of human
motives and actions. Hence, the gods of the ancient Greeks were very human. They acted
according to familiar purposes and aims. However, they were also anthropomorphic in the
sense that they were driven by passion, lust, and petty jealousies; they were easily
offended, vengeful, deceitful, and played favorites. In short, their enormous power was
 equaled only by their raging immaturity. The Greek gods had a division of labor: there
was a separate god for each area of life—war, love, trade, hunting, agriculture, and so on.
Both the favorable and the unfortunate events in life were attributed to the anger or the
goodwill of this or that god. In short, even though they seem like extravagant fantasies to
us, the myths of the poets tried to provide a comprehensive view of the world and the
individual’s place in it.

Early philosopher were pe-scientific scientists, mainly cosmologists who asked questions
about:
i) The natural world
ii) Natural order
iii) Natural processes
iv) Basic elements
v) Causal agents/processes that account for change
vi) Origin of the cosmos
The philosophical line of thought in this period were
 Reflection on the physical cosmos
 Reflection on the moral order.
 Earlier great poets, dramatists and historians believed that the cosmic
order (observable in nature) is also a moral order (the idea of cosmic
justice which they believed to exist in the processes of nature).

 They tried to answer the problem of ONE and MANY.

 In the Qualitative Sense: The question is whether there is ONE basic element
that accounts for everything (Monism) or whether there are MANY basic
elements (Pluralism).
 In the Quantitative sense: Is there one single all-inclusive sphere in which
everything consists or are there many numerically distinguishable things.

This conflict in reasoning led to epistemic conflicts between Eastern and

Western philosophies/ideologies. The question asks whether there is one, all-
inclusive, solid kind of sphere or whether there are numerically many
distinguishable things. The initial tendency of the Milesian Philosophers was
to look for one basic element that accounts for everything “Urstuff of
archtype.” However, ancient Greek mythologies accounted for 4 basic
elements associated with the 4 necessities of man:
 Water – Thirst (Thales said everything came from water)
Aristotle speculates that Thales reasoned from the fact that water is
essential to life and the seeds of all things are moist to the conclusion
that water is the fundamental element. Additional reasons may have
occurred to Thales to support his conclusion that everything is
transformed water. For example, liquid water can be transformed into a
gas (steam), and it also can be changed into a solid (ice). Furthermore,
water comes from the air in the form of rain and returns back to the air
as mist. When water evaporates from a dish, it leaves a sediment
(apparently turning into earth), while digging down into the earth will
lead us to water. Finally, living in Miletus and being surrounded by
water may have made it seem probable to Thales that everything
comes from water. Although we don’t know what Thales’s real
 arguments were, the fact that his immediate successors offered rational
support for their theories makes it likely that Thales did too. He was a
material monist, thinking that everything came from only one thing
(element) and hence had a singular explanation.
 Fire – Warmth (Heraclitus said everything came from an everlasting
fire). The image of a fire does capture a large portion of Heraclitus’s
vision of the world. A fire is a process rather than a substantial object.
It is constantly changing yet remains the same. Finally, fire transforms
everything it touches. Substances are fed into the fire and are
changed into something else. Yet although things change, there is a
balance to nature and the total amount of reality remains the same.
 Earth – Food
 Air – Breath (Anaximenes proposed that everything came from air)
He may have come to this theory on the basis of several observations.
First, air is much more pervasive than water, so it is a better candidate
for the fundamental substance. Second, air is central to all nature. It is
neccessary for the existence of fire and can be found in water and in
the earth. Third, he may have noticed that water falls when not
supported, but air is self- supporting. Therefore, water cannot support
the earth as Thales claimed. However, since air can support itself, it
can conceivably support the heavenly bodies as well, just as a light
breeze can float a leaf. Finally, air sustains life. It is the primary
difference between the living and the dead. Anaximenes believed the
soul was identical to air. When we breathe our last breath and then
expire, air (which is the soul) leaves the body.

 Pythagoras proposed that everything came from mathematics/numbers.

The Pythagoreans taught that there was an order and unity to the
cosmos and that it was mathematical in nature. Hence, numbers lie at
the base of reality. In fact, they believed numbers have a reality of
their own. This notion may seem strange to the average person. But
consider the fact that numbers have objective properties that must be
discovered. They are not something that we invent or make up.
According to the Pythagoreans, mathematical points produce lines,
conjunctions of lines create plane figures, and multiple plane figures
form solids. Hence, from mathematical points we can understand our
entire universe. We can reason about lines and planes without
thinking of physical bodies, but we cannot understand physical
objects without understanding the lines and planes embedded within
them.

Anaximander said everything came from Apeiron (He was the first philosopher to ever give
the modern idea of God). A boundless, ever-existent thing that existed outside the boundaries
of the universe. He postulated eternal motion, along with the apeiron was the originating
cause of the world.
THE PROBLEM OF CHANGE.
Heraclitus proposed that the only thing constant is change. He suggested that all the
“objects” we talk about are really a collection of processes and used the metaphor of a river
to make his point. Although scholars are divided on what his exact words were, he said
something to the effect that “you cannot step into the same river twice.” In one sense, the
river may seem to be the same over time. We can identify it by name, such as “the
Mississippi River.” However, in another sense, while the name remains the same, the waters
are constantly changing and we are not dealing with the same physical entity. One writer in
the first century quoted Heraclitus as saying, “We step and do not step into the same rivers,
we are and are not”. This suggests that we are like that river, constantly changing and never
staying the same. We see this philosophy very clearly in Heraclitus’ explanation for the
origin of the universe. Since fire itself isn’t necessarily an object, but a process that is
constantly changing, if an eternal fire is the source of all things that exist, then all things that
exist must have properties of their origin (they must constantly be changing as well).

Parmenides proposed that “whatever exists, exists, and there is nothing apart from that which
exists”. Essentially:
(1)  Anything we can think or speak about either exists or doesn’t exist.
(2)  Anything that doesn’t exist is nothing.
(3)  We cannot think or speak about nothing.
(4)  So, we cannot think or speak about what doesn’t exist.
(5)  Therefore, anything we can think or speak about exists.

For Parmenides, the fundamental reality of Being can be spoken of as the “what is.” Beings
are unchangeable and imperishable, because if being could change, what would it change
into? It couldn’t change into being because being already exists, so it would become nothing,
but according to Parmenides, non-being was inconceivable. Essentially, beings/things
themselves do not change, and that if they do change, they change from being, to non-being,
which is inconceivable, so therefore, beings do not change.

We see that there is a paradox about change. When you visit relatives whom you’ve not seen
since you were very young, they may say, “My, how you have changed!” But what are they
saying? Obviously, they are saying you are different from the way you were. However, you
are not different from your younger self in the way you are different from your sister. In
some sense you are the same person. You are the same, and you are not the same. Both
Heraclitus and Parmenides sought to dissolve the paradox of change with extreme solutions.
Heraclitus said that everything in the world of experience is changing and permanence is
merely an illusion. Parmenides and his fellow Eleatics eliminated the problem by claiming
that permanence is fundamental and change is merely an appearance. Although each
position was diametrically opposed, they both assumed monism, that reality is essentially
only one sort of thing. If Heraclitus is right, we can never then claim to possess knowledge
because there is nothing stable enough in the world that we can properly know, however, if
Parmenides is right, then reality is false, because change is obviously a fact of life.

Aristotle (Plato?) settled this dilemma by establishing the difference between substantial and
accidental change. He defined substantial change as change of something (from one thing to
another) and accidental change as on something (alteration of a substance). In accidental
change, there is always a substance to underlie the change, where unlike substantial change,
something either comes to be, or passes away. An accidental change is a change that involves
modifying a thing in some way without changing what it essentially is while a substantial
change is change whereby a substance comes into, or passes out of, existence.
These definitions on the different natures of change effectively settled the dilemma between
Heraclitus and Parmenides. On Heraclitus side, using the river example, the change being
undergone is accidental in nature, because the river is still a river, even though the properties
(read: accidents) of the river have changed over time. Change is constant, however not in the
way Heraclitus though it was. On Parmenides side, our definition of substantial change
sufficiently nullifies the proposition of the nature of change he put forward. If things do
change fundamentally, and are transformed from one state to another, they do not transform
from being to non-being, they simply just enter another form of being, which is not nothing,
as Parmenides thought.

Problems in philosophy include:

 The problem of religion
 The concept of God and God’s existence
 The problem of evil
 The problem of knowledge
 The mind-body problem
 The problem of freedom.

Propositional Logic
Logic can be defined as the science of correct reasoning. It studies the stages of an argument
from premise to conclusion. It is the study of the First Principles. It is a science because of its
systematic approach, and because its object is truth. It is an art because it teaches us to reason
correctly. It is a normative science by virtue of its concern for norms and standards of good
reasoning. It is the live wire of philosophy. It’s material object is human reasoning, it’s
formal object is human reasoning through the lens of validity.

Logic and the operations of the Human Mind.

a) Simple Apprehension: This involves grasping the nature of things and forming
concepts about them. Making observations, and creating mental pictures about them.
b) Judgement: whereby concepts relate to one another. We form judgements when terms
are related to one another by affirmation or denial. A judgement is either true or false
depending on whether what is separated or unified by the intellect is separated or
unified in reality.
c) Inference/Reasoning: Whereby we arrive at the knowledge of unknown truths from
knowledge of known truths.

The First Principles (Do not need demonstration, as they are self-evident)
PRINCIPLE OF IDENTITY: A thing is itself, and not another thing.
PRINCIPLE OF EXCLUDED MIDDLE: This states that there is no middle between being
and non-being.
PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON/CAUSALITY: This states that there is
sufficient reason for everything that exists. No sufficient being is self-caused.
PRINCIPLE OF CONTRADICTION: it is not possible for something to be and not be
simultaneously.
The Four Causes according to Aristotle.
MATERIAL CAUSE: The substance which the contingent being is made of. (A hunk of
bronze is the material cause of a bronze statue).
EFFICIENT CAUSE: This is the origin/process that produces the being in question. (In the
case of a statue, the efficient cause would be the sculptor and his tools). It is what is
responsible for actualizing the being’s potential. Efficient causes can either be immediate
(our parent causing us) or ultimate (God causing everything).
FORMAL CAUSE: This is the essence of the item. The form being actualized in its matter,
that which makes a being the sort of thing it is. It is form and shape for inanimate objects, and
rationality and shape for humans.
FINAL CAUSE: The end/purpose the being is meant to fulfil. The primary function of the
being. For humans, it is happiness.

Three parts of a logical structure are Terms, Propositions, and Syllogisms.

i) Terms: Terms are conventional words that refer the mind to something. They are
the smallest unit of a logic structure and are incapable of expressing truths on their
own. For them to do that, they must be connected using other terms and verbs to
form sentences/propositions.
ii) Propositions: This is a collection of terms which expresses a judgement. It
expresses an action of the mind to which truth or falsity may be attributed.
Placing before someone the result of an act of judgement. Every proposition
consists of a subject (the underlying term about which something is asserted), a
predicate (what is asserted), and a copula/verb (connection between the subject
and the predicate).
Propositions can either be conditional (Hypothetical “if/then’s”, and Disjunctive
“either/or’s”) or unconditional (Categorical. Propositions that affirm or deny
without condition(s))

CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS
A categorical proposition is a proposition that affirms or denies that some class S
is included in some other class P, either in whole or in a part. They are categorical
propositions because they are about classes or categories (a collection of objects
that have some specified characteristics in common).
The standard forms are the four possible ways that categorical propositions can be
expressed. These are formed from the class relations.
a) A – Universal Affirmative (Affirmo)
Every member of the first class is also a member of the second class. The quantifier is
only for the subject, hence the subject is distributed, while the object is undistributed,
hence, we cannot argue in the reverse.
“All Computer Science students of PAU are Lagosian.”
All S is P.
b) E – Universal Negative (negO)
The first class is wholly excluded from the second class. There is no migration of one
class into another. And since there is no distribution on both sides, we can argue in the
reverse.
“No Computer Science Student of PAU is Lagosian.”
No S is P.
c) I – Particular Affirmative (affIrmo)
Here, at least one member of the first class designated by the subject term is also a
member of the class designated by the predicate term. The first class is partially
 included in the second class. Some migrate, some stay back, hence, since both are
distributed, we can argue in the reverse.
“Some Computer Science students of PAU are Lagosian.”
Some S are P.
d) O- Particular Negative (negO)
At least one member of the subject class is excluded from the object class. There is a
partial external migration. Assuming that because some are not, some are, is a fallacy
of hasty generalization.
“Some Computer Science Students of PAU are not Lagosian”
Some S are not P.

Note:

 Propositions whose predicates as well as their subjects are mathematical

wholes, or quantities, are mathematical or quantitative propositions. As their
subjects are always total, never partial, they are always symbolized by A or E,
never I or O .
 An argument can be valid, but not sound. A valid argument is one in which the
conclusion logically follows the premise while a sound argument is one that is
valid, but the propositions put forward are also confirmed in reality.

OPPOSITION OF PROPOSITION
 According to Bittle, The logical opposition of propositions can be defined as the
logical relations that exist between propositions having the same subject and
predicate, but differing in quantity, quality, or both. There are four types of
oppositions of categorical propositions and four relations resulting from those
oppositions. (subcontrary, contrary, subalternation, contradictory)
 There are eight logical conclusions from the logical opposition of propositions:
a) If A is true, I is true, and O and E are false.
b) If A is false, I and E are doubtful, and O is true.
c) If E is true, O is true, and A and I are false.
d) If E is false, A and O are doubtful, I is true.
e) If I is true, O and A are doubtful, E is false.
f) If I is false, E and O are true, A is false.
g) If O is true, A is false, I and E are doubtful.
h) If O is false, A and I are true, E is false.
Note: When a Particular is false, the corresponding universal and the other particular are true.
E.g., when I is false, E is true, and O is true.

DEFINITION AND MEANING.

Clearness of ideas is essential in correct thinking. Vagueness and Equivocation are stumbling
blocks on the path to truth.
A definition is a statement that explains what a thing is. It is preceded by an accurate
comprehension of the thing itself. A definition is a mental process in which the nature of a
thing is clarified in relation to the other elements involved in it.
TYPES
1) Real Definition: This is a statement describing what a thing is in itself. It reaches out
for the nature, purpose, end, or properties of a thing.
e.g., “man is a rational animal”
animal is his proximate genus, while rationality is his specific differentia.
2) Nominal Definition: This is a statement that explains what a word is. It makes use of
synonyms, etymology, and history of the defined term. E.g., Philosophy being
“Philae” + “Sophia”.
3) Descriptive Definition: This is a form of definition used in the natural sciences. It
aims at highlighting the positive (but not essential) qualities of a being. It has the
aspects of distinctive definition, accidental definition, causal definition, and genetic
definition.
ELEMENTS OF A GOOD DEFINITION
 It should be precise and clear
 It must be with simple words and language
 It should be univocal
 It is affirmative/positive
 It should highlight proximate genus and specific differentia.
Problems of Definitions:
 Fallacy of incongruous definition: a definition too broad, or too narrow.
 Fallacy of circular Definition: Occurs when you use the same word to define itself.
E.g., Logic is the science of logical thinking.
 Fallacy of negative definition: Defining things by what they are not.
MEANING
Human communication is centred on meaning. It therefore follows that, in logic, meaning
should be considered. There are three main theories of meaning
1. Referential theory of meaning
2. Ideational theory of meaning
3. Behavioural theory of meaning
ARGUMENTS
An argument is a process of reasoning in which a justification and explanation is given for a
particular judgement or conclusion. It is the live- wire of logic and philosophy. An argument
is a connected series of statements, sentences, or propositions (premises) that give rise to
some kind of statement, sentence, or proposition (conclusion). It’s a way of showing
something is true by providing good reasons for such claims. In argumentation, we go from
one idea that is known to be true to another idea that is recognized to be true based on the
truthfulness of the first idea.
Every Argument has a premise, and a conclusion.
A premise is a supporting statement. It is the starting point of an argument containing the
truth from which the inferential move begins.
A conclusion is a supported statement. It is what is accepted to be true based on the premises
provided. The nature of relations between the premise and conclusion account for the validity
and soundness of an argument.
 An argument can be valid, but not sound. A valid argument is one in which the
conclusion logically follows the premise (structural correctness) while a sound
argument is one that is valid, but the propositions put forward are also
confirmed in reality (content of the premises are true).
FORMS OF ARGUMENTS
a) Conjunctive arguments (A . B): This is a form of argument in which the truth or
falsity of the two separate propositions are considered. You can’t isolate one term and
take it as false while you take the other as true. E.g., “Ruth is a student of PAU and
she studies Computer Science.”
A . B.
Therefore A.
Therefore B.
b) Disjunctive Argument (A v B): Here, we deal with two statements that are mutually
exclusive, hence if one is true, the other must be false, and vice versa.
“Either Ruth goes for Tade’s party, or she goes to Church”
A v B.
A therefore -B
or
B therefore -A
c) Hypothetical Argument (Conditional): This is a form of argument in which if a certain
condition is met, then certain conditions will follow. The first premise is the
antecedent, and the second is the consequent.
“If you read for exams, you will pass”
If X, then Y.
X
Therefore, Y
OR
If X, then Y
-X
Therefore, -Y
d) Categorical arguments: These are arguments that affirm or deny that a class S is
partially or fully contained in another class P.

In arguments, you can’t accept premises, and reject the conclusion. In order to reject an
argument, you have to reject one or more of its premises. Arguments may not always come in
the simple form of two premises, one conclusion, however, for every single argument, there
can only be one conclusion/judgement.

TYPES OF ARGUMENTS/REASONING PROCESSES.

a) Deductive Argument: This is a type of argument in which a particular conclusion is
drawn from a universal instance. The conclusion necessarily follows the premise. It is
the common method of philosophy.
e.g. All men are mortal - Universal affirmative
Kunle is a man – Particular affirmative
Kunle is mortal – Particular affirmative

b) Inductive Reasoning: This is an argument type in which a universal conclusion is

drawn from particular/singular instances. It is a common method of statistics. The
conclusions do not necessarily follow the premise. (How categorical propositions I
and O ascend with falsity to A and E respectively). It is by nature hypothetical
because conclusions are a matter of possibility.

PRE-FALLACIES
The object of Logic is Truth. Argumentation is the reasoning process that leads to truth.
However, along the path to truth, there are stumbling blocks which may prevent us from
keeping focus. Bumping into them could be as a result of carelessness, or
attitudes/worldviews that ore-dispose us to illogical thinking. They are:
a) SCEPTICISM: This is a philosophical position that casts doubt on the reality of truth
and denies that man can know truth. It can be extreme (there is no truth), or moderate
(there is truth, but it cannot be known), however there is minimal difference between
each type as truth that cannot be known is a useless as no truth at all.
Healthy/Selective is useful in critical thinking because it involves suspending
judgement until further information is made available.
b) EVASIVE AGNOSTICISM: This is a claim of lack of enough knowledge about a
particular issue which in turn prevents one from taking a definite stand. It is often a
position about religious issues. Evasive agnosticism is an act of intellectual laziness
and cowardice. Healthy agnosticism is an act of intellectual prudence. Evasive
agnosticism goes with vincible ignorance (i.e. not knowing something because one
did not make effort to know). Healthy agnosticism could be the result of invincible
ignorance (i.e. ignorance because there was no way one could have known)
c) CYNICISM: This is making emphatic negative judgements without sufficient reason
to do so. It is an act of prejudice (to judge beforehand) which breeds pessimism. It is
an illogical position because it uses unfounded premises to support a conclusion.
d) NAÏVE OPTIMISM: This is making emphatic positive judgements without sufficient
reason to do so. Making up your mind about a matter without it being properly
thought upon/ intelligently considered. It sets one up for future disappointment.
e) NARROW MINDEDNESS (bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia): This is the refusal
to consider certain alternatives because they don’t meet one’s prejudiced opinion
about what is worth pursuing or not. Opposed to open-mindedness (however, open
mindedness can still be dangerous if the mind is too porous, and anything can just be
taken in). Narrow mindedness can be healthy though, especially when trying to limit
scopes e.g. during a detective investigation.
 f) EMOTIONAL OUTBURSTS: Human emotions are volatile and may sometimes
undermine an argument if left unchecked. You must accept logical conclusions
whether they are in tune with your emotions or not. Tame your emotions, for they
can ruin your pursuit of truth.
Don’t just be logically consistent, but also make the search for truth the object of your
reasoning. Logic helps life, but life is not reducible to logic, emotions are a useful tool as
well. Sincerity is a necessary condition for sound reasoning, but not a sufficient
condition. You must be both sincere AND right. There is no virtue/point in professing
what one is convinced not to be true.
Logic is born out of common sense. Reasoning outside the dictates of common sense
undermine logical reasoning. It should denote, not dazzle.

FALLACIES
A fallacy is an error in reasoning. It is an argument which although at first may be
psychologically persuasive, is actually incorrect. It may seem to be correct, but upon
further examination, is actually false. Usually occurs whenever emotions override
feelings in an argument. Because the object of logic is truth, it is necessary for the mind
to be properly equipped with the right and necessary tools needed to guide the mind
across the path to truth.
CLASSIFICATION OF FALLACIES.
A) LOGICAL OR FORMAL FALLACIES.
These are fallacies that occur in the language or form of the statement. These are
fallacies that occur in the propositional architecture of the argument.
I) Fallacy of Equivocation: This is a fallacy that occurs when words are
used in an argument have double meaning, hence the meaning of the
word changes in the course of the argument. E.g.
“Stars are in the sky.
Falz is a star.
Therefore Falz is in the sky.”
II) Fallacy of Amphiboly: This is a fallacy that occurs as a result of the use
of an ambiguous phrase in a complete sentence. This fallacy involves
the use of phrases which have multiple interpretations due to defects
in grammar, sentence structure, or punctuation. E.g.,
“Farmer Bill dies in the house”
This could mean that a farmer name Bill dies in the house, or a Farmer
Bill which was to be passed by the house of representatives ends up
not being passed, hence it dies in the house.
III) Fallacy of Composition: This is a fallacy which consists of taking jointly,
what should be taken as separate. Essentially, confusing a universal
term for a collective term. E.g., All (each of ) the angles of a triangle
are (is) less than two right angles, but the three angles of a triangle
are all the angles of a triangle, therefore the three angles of a triangle
are less than two right angles. A man (can either lie down or stand up
at a time) who is lying down can stand up, therefore a man can lie
down and stand up at the same time.
 IV) Fallacy of Division: This is a type of fallacy which consists of taking
separately, what should be taken jointly. It undergirds forms of
discrimination and bigotry. E.g., This is when one illogically argues
that because something is true for the whole, it must be true for each
individual part/component.
B) MATERIAL FALLACIES: These are fallacies that occur in the subject matter of the
arguments, hence undermining the soundness of the argument as a whole. They are
also known as fallacies of presumption because either they assume the conclusion or
void the issue in view. They are further classified into three groups:
 Fallacies of Relevance: The most frequently committed/encountered fallacies,
which establish premises not relevant to the conclusion. They fail to provide
adequate reasons for believing the truth of their conclusions. Essentially, lack
of sufficient justification for accepting the conclusions arrived at as true.
They are eight in number:
R1- Argumentum ad populum (Appeal to populace)
This is an argument which supports a position by appealing to the shared
opinion of a large group of people (the majority, general public, etc.). The
presumed authority comes from the number of people who believe
something as true, rather than their credentials. This is very dangerous as
although majority may carry the vote, majority may not carry the truth.
E.g., “Everyone does it, so it’s not as bad as you think.”

R2- Ad misericordiam
This is a fallacy which tries to gain support for an argument by revealing
the unfortunate consequences that will otherwise befall the speaker who
we should feel sorry or pity for.
E.g., “How will my children fare if you put me in jail?”

R3- Argumentum and passiones (Appeal to emotions).

This involves trying to manipulate the emotions of the argument’s
recipient in order to win an argument. Can be to the emotion of fear (“If
you don’t want to die before your time, but this drug”, false advertising?),
Can be to the youth (“do you want old people making bad decisions in
government? Let’s kick those suckers out”), or even to society (“Look at
how thieving politicians live flamboyantly with our hard-earn money.
Let’s kill them and steal it back”).

R4- Argumentum ad baculum (Appeal to force).

This is a fallacy in which one uses force, or threat of force to get the other
arguing party to concede. Usually done when one has no strong reasons
to back up their position. Force, or threat of force is used to justify a
conclusion.
E.g., “If you don’t vote for Tinubu, I will burn down your shop”

R5- Argumentum ad hominem (Attack on the person)

This is a fallacious argument in which one attacks the person arguing,
rather than evaluating the actual argument.
 E.g., “Person 1: I think that James would make a great class president.
Person 2: How would he even do that? You don’t even know anything, as
big as your head is, there is nothing in it.”

R6- Red Herring Fallacy

This is a type of fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is introduced into the
argument in order to divert attention form the original topic of the
argument. In literature, this is often used in suspense novels in order to
mislead readers to make them make false conclusions.
E.g., “Person 1: COVID-19 is very contagious, so please, mask up!
Person 2: What about Tuberculosis? We don’t get masks for that, but you
expect me to believe it is more dangerous than covid? Please BFFR”

R7- Straw man fallacy

This is substituting the original argument, for a distorted (either extreme,
or minimized) version of the argument, and then arguing against that
instead.
E.g., “Person A: I really like apples
Person B: So that means you must hate oranges. You have no taste.”

R8- Fallacy of missing point (Irrelevant conclusion, Ignoratio elenchi)

This is an informal fallacy of presenting a conclusion that fails to actually
address the root cause of the argument at hand. Tries to provide
evidence for a conclusion A, but instead actually provides evidence for a
totally different conclusion B.
Person A: This man on trial stands accused of murder, and the penalty is
death! Murder is the most heinous of crimes, which deserves to be met
with an eye for an eye!
In this example of missing the point, Person A misses the point. In a trial
situation like this one, the point is not to determine whether the death
penalty is justified under criminal law. Rather, the point is, did this man
do it?
By not addressing whether the man on trial actually committed the crime,
Person A is missing the point.

 Fallacies of defective inductions: In these fallacies, the premises are relevant

to the conclusion, however, they are too weak and ineffective to be relied
upon as support for the conclusion. Hence, the conclusion does not logically
follow the premises.
D1- Ad verecundiam (Appeal to false authority)
This is when in an argument, a position is taken based on what an authority
figure has promoted/said/believes without regarding whether or not that
authority figure has sufficient knowledge on the subject matter at hand.
E.g., people who believed celebrities who gave false medical advice during
the covid-19 pandemic, without regarding whether or not they were qualified
to even give medical advice in the first place.
 D2- Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Argument from ignorance)
This is an assertion that a claim is either true or false, because of sufficient
evidence to the contrary. Assumes that something is true because it
cannot/has not been proven false.
E.g., “Although we know that the surface of the moon is not made of cheese,
we haven’t proven that its core cannot be made of cheese, hence the moon’s
core is made of cheese.”

D3- Fallacy of Hasty Generalization

This is a claim made on the basis of insufficient evidence, drawing a
conclusion about a large population, from a small, unrepresentative sample.
E.g., ‘I met a rude, black person once, and from that moment I knew all black
people were rude and mannerless.’
 Fallacies of Presumption: These are fallacies that occur when too much is
assumed in the premises, and the conclusions which are arrived at are based
on those unwarranted assumptions.

P1- Fallacy of Accident

This is a logical mistake of applying atypical, specific instances to a general
premise, in which those instances cannot be applied to. It makes the mistake
of applying a general rule, to a specific instance (accident) in which the rule is
inapplicable.
E.g., Saying men are capable of seeing is no basis for then saying blind men
are also capable of seeing, otherwise, they are not men.

P2- Fallacy of Complex question

This is a fallacy of phrasing a question in a way that assumes something not
contextually granted, an unsupported, or unverified assumption. It’s a trick
way of asking a question which establishes a false dichotomy in order to
arrive at a conclusion.
E.g., Asking someone if they have stopped beating their wife is a fallacy of
complex question. This is because the answer to this question is either a yes,
or a no, however, the question itself assumes that wife-beating has been
going on previously, even though the person may have never even hit their
wife. Hence, regardless of answer, the general idea is that the accused has hit
their wife at least once before, even though that may not be the case.

P3- Fallacy of begging the question

This occurs when a premise within an argument assumes the truth of the
argument’s conclusion, rather than supports it. You assume without proof
the stand, or at least a significant part of it that is in question, failing to prove
anything but that which is already assumed.
E.g., “Wool sweaters are superior to nylon jackets as fall attire, as wool
sweaters have a higher wool content.”
This begs the question because it fails to explain why/how having the higher
wool content makes the sweater superior fall attire.
SYLLOGISM
This the final segment under logical structures. From the Latin word “syllogismus or
syllogismos” which means to join together in though the two propositions (premises) from
which we draw a third proposition (conclusion).

This is an act of thought in which from two given propositions, we proceed to a third
proposition, the truth of which necessarily follows from the truth of these given
propositions. The categorical standard for of a syllogism consists of three propositions (2
premises, one conclusion).

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.
Hence, Socrates is mortal.

In a syllogism, there are only 3 terms

a) The major term: This is the term that appears as the predicate of the conclusion. (P)
b) The minor term: This is the term that appears as the subject of the conclusion. (S)
c) The middle term: This is the term that appears in the premises, but not in the
conclusion. (M)
Each term appears twice in a syllogism.

Hence, the major premise is the term which contains the major term, and the minor
premise is the premise which contains the minor term.

There are eight rules of categorical syllogism to adhere to when formulating a syllogism:
1) Only three terms may appear in the syllogism (major, minor, and middle).
2) Neither the major nor minor term may be a universal in the conclusion if it is a
particular in the premise(s).
3) The middle term cannot occur in the conclusion.
4) The middle term must be distributed at least once in the premises.
5) If both premises are affirmative, the conclusion must also be affirmative.
6) Both premises cannot be negative, at least one must be affirmative, as nothing can
be concluded from two negatives.
7) If even one of the premises is negative, then the conclusion must be negative as well.
Same rule is applied if a premise is particular.
8) No conclusion can be drawn from two particular premises, at least one must be
universal. The predicates of affirmative premises are always particular terms.
The figure of a syllogism refers to the position of the middle term within the syllogism.
There are four syllogistic categories.

FIGURE 1
In figure 1, the middle term is the subject of the major premise, and the predicate of the
minor premise.
M-P
S-M
S-P
E.g., All mothers are caring.
Yinka is a mother.
Therefore, Yinka is caring.

FIGURE 2
In figure 2, the middle term is the predicate of both premises.
P-M
S-M
S-P
E.g., No man has XX chromosomes.
Women have XX chromosomes.
Therefore, women are not men.

Figure 3
In figure 3, the middle term is the subject of both premises.
M-P
M-S
S-P
E.g.,
All laptops have RAM.
All laptops are information processors.
Some information processors have RAM.

Figure 4
In figure 4, the middle term is the predicate of the major premise, and the subject of the
minor premise.
P-M
M-S
S-P
E.g., Some girls are professional soccer players.
All professional soccer players train weekly.
Some girls train weekly.

ARISTOTELIAN CATEGORIES
METAPHYSICS
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies being.
Etymologically: “meta” – after/beyond
“physika” – physics
The term was first used by Andronicus of Rhodes when he compiled the works of Aristotle in
which he spoke of things beyond physics.
Definitions usually situate a particular within a general class, so defining what being is may
be difficult. However, in philosophy, we define being in the following ways:
 That which is.
 That which can be thought of.
 That which is not nothing
The notion of being thus implies things:
Ens – in which being is a subject, or something.
Esse – in which being is an act, or a perfection.

Types of beings include:

 Real beings: Concrete beings that exist in reality e.g. dogs, houses, chairs etc.
 Beings of Reason: These are beings that exist only in the mind e.g. unicorns, candy
mountains, a moon made of cheese etc. They also include logical beings such as love,
hope, and anger.

The two constituent principles present in every contingent being (Ens) are:
 Esse (the act of being): This is the act of actually being, in which all real beings
participate in by virtue of existing. Contingent beings do not have the fullness of
being because our esse is a gift from the one necessary being, God, who possesses
esse in full. It is universal because it is common to all things that are. It is a
constituent act because it is common to all things which are. It is the basis of all
perfections, and is possessed in varying degrees by different things. Esse differs from
ens in the sense that esse is an analogical notion.
 Essence: This is the manner in which beings are, that makes them what they are. This
is why I am different from Lori Harvey (as she possesses Damson Idris, and I
unfortunately do not ). Essence limits esse, in the sense that the manner of your
being limits the extent to which you exhibit your perfection. (For example, a plant
can move, but not to the extent that I can, because our essences are different). The
only being that has their esse equal to their essence is GOD (slay). Essence follows
esse as well.

CATEGORIES
Categories are modes that express particular ways of being. According to Aristotle, every
created reality fundamentally consists of one substance, and 9 accidents. These substance
and accidents consist of everything created in reality, and we can see this through the
different kinds of changes we observe in reality.

What then is a substance?

Substance is that reality to whose essence or nature it is proper to be by itself, and not in
another subject. Esse (the act of being), belongs to the substance.
Etymology: “substratum”

Substances can be primary or secondary

Primary substance: Individual substance that exist in reality e.g. dog, cat, chair.
Secondary substance: An abstract concept. The essence of the primary substance.

Accidents then, are the multiple perfections that depend on the substance to exist. It is that
reality to whose essence/nature it is proper to be in something else/another subject.

(Refer to substantial change and accidental change on the problem of change in page 7).

Aristotle’s categories are made up of one substance, and nine accidents.

Accidents, also known as predicates, are therefore the forms of perfection that affect the
substance. They are:
1) Quality
2) Quantity
3) Location
4) Passion
5) Position
6) Relation
7) When (Time)
8) Action
9) Possession.
Case study:
Our substance: A dog.
Our possible accidents:
Quality: This dog is a German Shepherd.
Quantity: There is only one dog.
Location: The dog is in Ibadan.
Passion: This dog absolutely loves treats.
Position: The dog is in front of the class.
Relation: The dog is related to Gbenga’s dog.
Time: The dog was born 3 months ago.
Action: The dog is sleeping.
Possession: The dog is mine.