CHAPTER TWO

BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY

Philosophy involves a widespread collection and ever-evoking kinds of topics which address our
dynamic world. The major branches of philosophy are Metaphysics that studies reality and
being; Epistemology addressing theory and reality of knowledge; Axiology focusing on
assessment within aesthetics and ethics and Logic reflecting argumentation and reasoning.
(I) METAPHYSICS AS A BRANCH OF PHILOSOPHY

Coined from the Greek words “meta” meaning “after or beyond” and “physics” meaning
“nature” or “physical”. Conceptually, metaphysics was adopted by Andronicus of Rhodes, Greek
philosopher in about 7OBC while editing the works of Aristotle. Metaphysics involve issues and
theory outside nature often referred to as “first philosophy” by Aristotle.
Metaphysics as a branch of philosophy examines the nature of reality focusing on reality of man
as a human and non-human such as God, world, mind soul spirit and so on. Metaphysics
investigates reality as distinct from that which is illusionary. The human thought is central to
everything existing beyond human comprehension and natural appearances. It explains what
lies beyond the physical world of experience. It deals with something which is outside nature
but accounts for events of nature. It is the interpretation of the physical phenomena in terms of
the non-physical.
As a branch of philosophy, metaphysics is usually divided to four aspects namely: ontology,
cosmology, theology and philosophical psychology.
Ontology: Is derived from the Greek words “onto” which means “to be” or beginning” or “root
of things” and “logos” which means “study or science of”. Thus ontology is the study of the
beginning or essence of things. It studies “Being”, what is “to be” or “to exist”. Ontologians
studies Being and Non-being, the kinds of beings as the characteristics of being. Ontology deals,
with problem of being. E.g. origin of human, where does it come from. As the science of being,
its object is Pure Being or Being qua being. The question then is “what is this Beings.”? Being is
both foundation as well as the unity of all beings. Aristotle identifies it with God. God is pure
Being or Being par Excellence to Thomas Aquinas while the scholastic philosophers made a
distinction between necessary being and contingent being. A necessary being owes his
existence to on other being outside himself. A contingent being is not responsible for its own
existence, and does not contain within itself, the sufficient reason for its existence.
Philosophers are divided over this metaphysical issue of reality.
Cosmology: Is derived from the Greek words “cosmos” meaning “universe” and logos” meaning
“Science or study”. Cosmology thus; as an aspect of metaphysics studies the universe. It
focuses on the study of the universe in terms of its origin, its composition and processes. It
examines concepts like man, force, time, space, motion, and causality and so on.
Philosophical Psychology: is derived from the Greek words psyche meaning “mind or soul” and
“logos” meaning “study or science”. Philosophical psychology literally is the science or study of
the human mind. It examines the nature of the human mind, operations and basic
compositions. It is concerned about discovering the causes and motives of human conduct.
Philosophical psychology refers to the mental process relating to ideas about human thought,
development, attitudes, moods, intentions and human needs. Thus, psychology directs and
enables one to understand his/her actions and attitudes.
Theology: comes from the Greek word “Theo” meaning “God” and ‘logos meaning “science or
study”. Theology is the study or science of God. It traces the origin and nature of religion to the
spirit’s search for its source i.e. infinite spirit. This search of the finite spirit for the infinite spirit,
its source, is what constitutes theology or religion (Omoregbe, 1993). Thus, the concept of God
is central to theology. God is such an incomprehensive mystery that different religions conceive
him differently. Philosophers through the ages have been interested in the question as to
whether or not God actually exists. Does God really exist? Philosophers, from Plato to the
present day gave various arguments to prove the existence of God while Nietzsche, the German
philosopher and some radical Christian theologians says God once existed but that he is now
dead.
Problems of Metaphysics
The abstractness of metaphysics has continuing problems generated problems as long as man
exist. All efforts made in the past and present have not been able to solve these problems. The
problems includes: problems of being, problems of permanence and problem of mind-body
interaction.
The Problem of Being: According to Parmenides, whatever that is in existence is being. He went
further to say that being is one, eternal and unchanging. To Aristotle the being is God and is
pure. Thomas Aquinas in religious characteristics of being emphasizes that God is being par
excellence and that man or creature is a being in analogical sense. The above shows that there
are variations of conceptions of being ranging from anything in existence to mystical conception
of a hidden reality which is mysterious, transcendent and is the source of all things.
The problem of Change and Permanence: The problem of change and permanence is one of
the earliest problems of western philosophy. Which of these two elements is primary?
Heraclitus a Greek materialist proclaimed that change is the fundamental characteristics of
existence. Everything in nature is in the state of continuous change, nothing is static — “You
cannot step into the same river twice”. He went further so that the first water has flown away
by the time you stepped into it the second time. To him, there is no lasting feature in life.
Existence is a perpetual change. Everything is constantly changing, moving, developing,
growing, coming into being, passing away and being renewed.
Parmenides held extreme positions which subsequent philosophers tried to reconcile
Parmenides held that permanence was the primary feature. Reality is being to him. What is
cannot change and cannot pass out of existence. What is permanent must remain ever the
same. There is no change but permanence. Reality is existence, it is fixed, unchanging,
unchangeable, cannot alter, move or separate. He says “To be is to exit to exist is to be “Being
is, not-being is not”.
Furthermore, Empedocles of Akragas and Anaxagoras of Clazornenes tried to reconcile the
problem of change and permanence. Anaxagoras postulated that an unlimited number of
material elements constituted the universe. In everything there are particles of every other
thing. They combine to form bodies under the guidance of an independent intelligence called
Nous. The various combinations of the infinite qualitative, variety of primary elements of
matter make up existing things. The elements are the seeds of thing. Nous is the motive force
that guides the union and division of the elements. Change is constantly at work in nature.
Nous introduce order into the universe and dominates the interaction of the basic elements.
Empedocles on the other hand postulated the theory of four elements namely, earth, air, fire
and water. The four elements fundamentally remain constantly the same although they
combine or separate to effect changes in objects.
Plato in a similar manner explaining the reality of both change and permanence postulated two
worlds: the physical world or phenomena world and the world of forms of Neumena. The world
of forms is also called the world of ideas or intelligible world. It is the ideal world where
everything is in its perfect form. The question is ‘What are the forms? Plato says, they are the
universal ideas of things, the essences of things or real nature of things. To him, the things in
the physical world are imperfect copies, imperfect reflections or shadows of the real things in
the world of forms. Individuals things in this world according to Plato come into being and
eventually pass away, their essences in the world of forms never pass away, but neither change
nor die. For example, an individual person keep changing aid later pass away but the essence of
man, the form of man in the bid of form never changes nor dies.
Problem of Mind-Body Interaction: The question of the nature of the human mind and its
relation with the body has long been a controversial issue in the sense that how can the mind
(an immaterial substance) interact with the body (a material) substance? This problem lies
solely in the conception of the mind. For examples, different philosophers have conceived the
mind differently. Philosophers like Plato, Augustine. Aquinas and Descartes sees the mind as a
separate substance which can exist on its own without the body. While philosophers like David
Flume and Bernard Russell denied that the mind is a separate substance which can exist
independently of the body. To them, the mind is nothing other than series of perceptions which
succeed each other in sequence. Beyond this rapid succession of perceptions, there is no entity
that could be called the mind or soul. William James saw the mind as nothing other than a
stream of consciousness. While the epiphenomena lists says the mind is a function of the brain
or a by-product of the brain.

(ii) EPISTEMOLOGY AS A BRANCH OF PHOLOSOPHY

Epistemology also known as Gnoseology refers a branch of philosophy that focuses on theory of
human knowledge. Coined from the Greek words “Episteme” meaning knowledge and “logos”
meaning “science or study”. This deals with human knowledge. It raise questions such as: What
is knowing? What is the nature of knowledge? How do you know that you know? What is the
difference between knowledge and belief (faith)? Thereby studying the nature of human
knowledge, its origin, limits, justification, reliability/unreliability and certainty/uncertainty. It
demands for justification and explanations on how do we know what we know? How can we
prove what we know? How can we justify our knowledge? What is the guarantee of the
certainty of our knowledge? How are we sure that what we claim to know to be true is really
true? All these are skeptical questions. The skeptics have fondly contributed immensely to the
development of epistemology in western philosophy by challenging the basics of knowledge as
well as the claim to know. Epistemology emerged therefore to find answers to the challenges of
the skeptics as well as refuting them.
Skeptism: Is doubt, or denial of the possibility of knowledge. To claim something is to be sure or
certain of that thing. But the skeptics doubted the possibility of certainty. Pyrhho of Ellis (360
— 240 BC): The founder of school of skepticism denied the possibility of certainty in knowledge.
To him, we can never know true nature of things since our mind cannot penetrate into their
inner sphere of truth. Things can only be known the way they appear to us, not the way they
are. However, the importance of skepticism rest in the fact that it reassures us of the extent of
truth or the validity and limits of our knowledge of reality.
What is knowledge?
Empirically speaking, knowledge has to do with experience derived from coming into contact
with objects of knowledge by way of perception. By this we mean, knowledge is acquired.
Fundamentally, knowledge is the same as cognition, the synthesis of all our sensations and
perceptions i.e. the beings with consciousness can only claim to know anything. So, human
consciousness is the foundation of knowledge.
We can them make use of knowledge in these four senses:
a) The identification of an object, person, place or thing i.e. to know something or someone
(e.g. know him)
b) The discovery of facts i.e. know that
c) Acquisition of skill i.e. know how
d) Knowledge by acquaintance i.e. “to know where”, or “to know whether” (Kehinde, 1998).
From the above, the term knowledge” lacks universal definition; definition of knowledge is
given according to the school of thought a philosopher belong to e.g. Socrates is known for this
saying “the only thing I know is that, I know nothing” (Mcdowill. 1973).
Types of Knowledge
1. Empirical Knowledge: is the knowledge acquired through sense perception i.e.
knowledge of the five senses. Hence, sense knowledge is always knowledge of an individual
object, a particular object, not the knowledge of a class or category objects, because sense
organs can only present us with particular concrete object. Here object perceived through the
sense organ is interpreted through the ego (consciousness) from which meaning is derived.
2. Rational Knowledge: Is the knowledge acquire through the sense of reasoning. Reason
is our ability to think, to understand and to form concepts about the objects or facts of our
experiences. On the other hand, reason is likened to evidence given by verbal expression in
attempting to justify an action; explain the observed occurrence of phenomenon of our
experience. If we reason in either of above senses, we are engaging in abstraction or
speculation which involves the mental process of separating the particular features of our
experience from the general ones and later on, express these in the form of statements or as
arguments or judgment. Subjects such as mathematics, philosophy logic are good examples of
rational knowledge e.g. in mathematics, the teacher should not just mark the answer to a
mathematical question wrong, rather should award credit to the logic of steps by which the
student reaches the answer. So also in philosophical practices because philosophers are not
only interested in the final conclusion. For examples, the premise that there is a doctor implies
that there must be a patient or given a premise that a woman is a spinster, it suffices to say that
she is not married. Rational knowledge is thus a law of being inferred.
3. Intuitive Knowledge: Is knowledge derived by intuition that is knowledge acquired
when one comes in contact with the object without necessarily going through the process of
reason. Such knowledge comes by direct insight or by coming as a flash into the mind. In
intuitive knowledge, we do not prove or even acquire what we know, but rather discover it with
ease i.e. simply and suddenly as an insight.
5. Authoritative Knowledge: This is acquired through authority that is to say, it is a way of
knowing by accepting and depending on what someone known to be a specialist on any field of
knowledge has said or written without verification e.g. authorities such as newspaper journals,
textbooks, dictionary, etc. the dictum by Socrates •knowledge is virtue, ignorant is vice” is a
reference in philosophy.
6. A Priori Knowledge: A prior knowledge is the knowledge acquired prior to experience
and independently of experience that is knowledge that is acquire by reason without
experience. Rationalist metaphysicians like Plato. Plotinus, the Stoics, John Scotus, Enugena,
Spinoza. Leibniz. Ficnte. Schelling, Hegel, Schopenbauer, Heidegger etc discussed so many in
theory metaphysics that are not objects of sense-perception or empirical experience.
7. A Posteriori Knowledge: Is a kind of knowledge that is gained through empirical
experience. The empiricists are those who claim that all human knowledge derive from
experience and that there can be knowledge which is not derived from sense experience.
THEORIES OF TRUTH
There are two traditional theories of truth. These are the correspondence theory and
coherence theory. But other theories have been propounded by contemporary philosophers
and these includes pragmatic and performance theories of truth.
Correspondence Theory of Truth: This theory opines that a proposition is true of it corresponds
with objective facts, that is if what the proposition asserts is really the case or if upon
investigation what the proposition asserts can synchronize with things in the world. In essence,
correspondence theory holds that there ought to be a correspondence between what is
asserted by a proposition and what the state of affairs really is. Anything to the contrary cannot
yield truth.
Coherence Theory of Truth: Maintains that a proposition is true if the conclusion of a body of
propositions logically follows from the premises. The theory urges the systematic coherence
between one proposition and a day of positions. Each proposition in a body of positions should
support %x strengthen the others. The truth of one proposition is contained in another. There is
a relation of entailment between one proposition and another, logical proof is the basic quality
of truth.
Pragmatic Theory of Truth: Maintains that a proposition is true if it works practice or leads to
and produces successful results. What is true is what works in practice.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. State the meaning of epistemology.
2. Briefly discuss any five types or sources of knowledge.
3. Write a short note on any three popular theories of truth.

(iii) AXIOLOGY AS A BRANCH OF PHOLOSOPHY

This has to do with problems of values. It has ethics or moral philosophy and aesthetics as part
of its components. Ethics, studies standards for decision making is the part of philosophy that is
called ethics. As a branch of philosophy Ethics deals with the morality of human conduct hence
it is known as moral philosophy. For the analytic school of philosophy, ethics is conceived as the
analysis of moral terms: while R. M. Hare. sees “ethics as ‘the logical study of the language of
moraIs”. According to the Encyclopedia Britanica Volume 8 “ethics derives from the Greek word
“ethos’ meaning “character”, it is the systematic study of the nature of value concepts. “good’.
“bad”, “ought”, “right”, “wrong” etc and as the general principle which justifies us in applying
them to anything, also called moral philosophy.
Ethics are set of principles, rules or codes which regulates the behaviour and conduct of people
and so bind them together, e.g. professional ethnics in teaching, legal, medicine and in school
system, discipline, and moral behaviour. Ethics can therefore by defined as the normative
science of the conduct of human living in societies emphasizing judgment (he conduct to be
right or wrong, to be good or bad. or in some similar ways. Each community has its own ethics.
Over-time philosophers have worked out formulas of justice, loyalty, and happiness that should
help policy makers avoid reliance on blind hunch. Aesthetics however, is concerned with the
principles of beauty, neatness, personal hygiene, dirtiness that is adorable. This forms the basis
of an ideal society that permits interdependence and growth. As confirmed by Aristotle when
he says “He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is self-sufficient for
himself must be either a beast or a god”.’

Reasons for Living a Moral or Ethical Life

Various answers have been given to the question “Why man ought to live a moral life”. To men
like Thomas Aquinas, Williams of Ockham and John Locke and religious people, man ought to
live a moral life because God has commanded it. They believed that God gave His people the
“Ten Commandments” so as to serve as action guiding devices and any disobedience will bring
about punishment here on earth or in the life after death. Hence, there is no escape route from
divine justice, if man lives an immoral life.
Secondly, man ought to live a moral life because he is a rational being. Man’s rationality
enables him to know that certain actions are good and it must be performed while on the other
hand certain actions are bad and must be avoided. Kant was of the opinion that moral law is a
self-imposed law, coming from man’s rational will. Man must therefore live to the dictate of
this rational nature.
Thirdly, man ought to live a moral life because he is a social being and a member of the society.
Man is a social animal who lives in a society and because of his animality he has to observe
certain moral rules. For him to fit in as a member of a society, he has to sign an implicit contract
by obeying the norms of morality so that life can be peaceful and society can also be made
possible. Thus, immoral actions are anti-social actions. Fourthly, man ought to live a moral life
so as to be happy. The ultimate goal of ethics is happiness. The end of mans aspiration in life is
happiness. According to Socrates virtue is knowledge. No man does evil willingly. All virtues are
ultimately one. His main interest is to make men better. A virtuous man is a happy man while a
wicked man is an unhappy man. Plato also believed that virtue brings about what is good. He
says:
“All men desire only what is good. Therefore no man desires what is evil. To do wrong is to act
in a way that will bring out evil. Therefore no man desires to do wrong. Therefore when a man
does wrong he does so unwillingly.
Social Morality
Man’s existence is incomplete without being a member of a society. During our discussion
above, man is regarded as a social animal because of his metrication with his fellow man and
also objects around him. It is as a result of these interactions that he has to conform with
societal norms in that morality is regarded as the soul of the society. Hence, a good citizen must
be man of moral integrity. Moral principles such as Justice, tolerance, sense of duty or
obligation, honesty, discipline, will form part of our discussion ‘below.

Obligation or Sense of Duty

Obligation means something you do and which the law can force you to do whether you lIke it
or not. It is the proper concept for the illumination of moral fidelity to law. Obligation is used to
denote all the moral relations in which an individual might find himself entangled. It is regarded
as morally creative that is they make act that are creative indifferent into acts that are or
wrong. According to Professor Ladd, Obligations are opaque and totalistic in the sense that they
bind us quite independently of the intrinsic merits of the actions themselves and also they
demand that we do the whole of what we are obligated to do exactly when we are obligated to
do it. Thus, to have a sense of duty is to take one’s duty seriously; neglecting One’s duties to
make life difficult for others which might also affect the society as a whole.
Justice
For a society to be peaceful, everybody must be treated fairly and justly. The concept of justice
denotes equality of all men. In the writings of Justice Cardozo, one finds the legal scholars
challenged by the moral imperative to finds ways in which he can do justice creatively.
What we are seeking is not merely the justice that one receives when his rights
and duties are determined by the law as it is; what we are seeking is the justice
to which law in its making should conform….
In other words, nobody should be above the law in that what makes a being a human being is
the same in all men, no man is more of a human being than another man. There should be no
discrimination of any kind. For justice to be meaningful and applicable in the society it must be
devoid of such factors as bribery, nepotism or favoritism, tribalism, sex etc. For example, if a
lady and a young man with the same qualification apply for the same job, the lady should not
be given preference (because of her beauty and gender) over the man. Both application should
be treated equally without bias. A person who does injustice to other people as a result of a
selfish interest has sold his conscience and moral integrity.
Honesty
For any society to progress, the leader and members of such society must be straight forward.
There is a common adage that says “honesty is the best policy”: But this adage is commonly
said at one’s wit’s end in that we find it difficult to practical’s it. For example, if we look at the
Nigeria Political scene, what do we see? dishonest men holding political posts. We see cases of
forged certificates (Toronto) over inflated contracts, embezzlement of public funds under the
guise of sitting arid furniture allowance, bribes from all angles, etc.
However, a man who chooses to be honest and remain poor has chosen a higher value that is
rewarding and ever-lasting. For it is better to loose worldly things so as to preserve one’s moral
integrity. “A good name is far better than silver and gold”.
Discipline
By discipline, we mean ability to produce self-control or ability to train one’s mind and
character. It can also be referred to as an habits or obedience. Hence, man’s rationality which is
reason enables man to exercise restraint over his passions, desires, emotions and appetites.
The ability to exercise self-control is then known as discipline or self-discipline. Man should
therefore not live below his status as a rational animal by letting his lower emotions over power
him. Discipline is a factor that can make any society move forward. A good leader must also be
disciplined for him to be able to carry his people along. For example, indiscipline have
characterized Nigeria as a country (because it is in all facets of life, banks, higher institutions.
ministries, etc. One of the reasons for toppling the government of Buhari/Idiagbon is because
of the introduction of War Against Indiscipline (WAI) while the army ushered in regime of
settlement.
Tolerance
Tolerance is an act of enduring or allowing other people’s opinions, beliefs, behaviours,
customs e. t. c different from our own. It is thus a mark of respect for other people’s freedom
and dignity since, we are operating in a free world where there is freedom of belief, religion
association, expression or speech, property, private life e. t. c. We should be able to tolerate
each other. But it should be noted that evil deeds should not be tolerated. Tolerance devoid of
morality is baseless.
Relationship between Ethics, Morality Norm, Education and Law
Ethics has been described above as the branch of philosophy which deals with the morality of
human conduct. It suffices then that ethics concerned itself with the improvement of mankind.
For example, Socrates and Plato’s ethical theories attempt to prove that men ought to be good.
Socrates aimed at bringing home to individuals their ignorance of what virtue is and at proving
to them that if they knew what it was, they would inevitably seek and find it. To him “virtue is
knowledge”.
Morality, more than anything else in human life, is something we just cannot get away from.
We are not all scientists, few of us are artists, many of us have no religion. But all of us have to
deal, at one time or another, with the problem of moral decision. We should be able to answer
the questions of the form “What ought to do"? The moralist claims to tell us what we ought to
do, which is to answer the questions of the form “what ought Ito do”? The practitioner of
descriptive ethics claims to tell us what people’s moral views are, that is, to answer the
questions of what form “What do people in society B think about suicide?” and his task is
complete when he has given a list of all the moral principles which are held at a particular time
in a particular community, in so far they can be formulated. But the practitioner of
philosophical ethics — moral philosopher has a different task from either of these, and his task
is never complete.
Indeed, morality is something which has to be learned, and those who are responsible for the
moral education do in fact assume the capacity of moral experts. The business of moral
philosophy thus, is not to enunciate moral principles, but to study them, morality, therefore is
the behaviour which a society recognizes as good, behaviour which helps the society to run
smoothly, on the other hand, many people believe that there is an unchangeable code of
morality summarised perhaps in Ten Commandments. It may be that morality is a changeable
code of conduct which alters according to the needs of the society, or it may be that it is a
natural law” which never alters, although some societies may obey it and others not. The only
thing that is good without qualification or restriction is a good will which is to say, a good will is
good in all circumstances, and in that sense is an absolute or unconditioned good.
We may also describe it as the only thing that is good in itself-good independently of its relation
to other things. The question then is: How is it that a man’s recognition of a moral principle can
make a difference to his conduct? How is it that a man’s decision that a certain act is what he
ought to do, can also decide him to do it? Given that a certain act is my duty, why should I
perform it? Or given that it is wrong, why should I abstain? Why is the moral law not something
which I can be contented with, acknowledge with awe and reverence, but something that can
prompt me to act contrary to my inclinations? The answers to these questions are that the
function of morality is to control and guide conduct, to help us to find answers to questions
about practical decisions which we want to ask and which we need to answer.
Moral decisions are ultimate decision, that is, decision in accordance with principles which one
cannot hesitate whether to accept or not; they are just “there”.
Norms are specific guides to conduct. To the idealist, norm is seen as an idea in the minds of
members of a group or society specifying what certain people under certain circumstances are
expected to do. This approach leads to what we might call ideal norms. But this kind of
definition raises a number of problems. Does the phrase “are expected to do” mean “ought to
do” does it merely refer to what people “usually do”? 1-low many people have to have the
same ideas before we speak of a norm - 100% or 50% or less? And how do we find out what
ideas people have and can we speak of a norm if the expectation is not carried out? The idealist
approach to the definition of norms, thus appears to be inadequate.
On the other hand, the behaviourist approach maintains that a norm exists, if in a given
situation, either certain pattern of behaviour is performed, or else sanctions are brought
against the person who omitted that behaviour. Again, like the idealist approach the
behaviourist approach is question begging. First, how does one define ‘sanctions”? It cannot
just be a reaction disagreeable to the person sanctioned because, then the fact that people
have to pay income tax (which most people dislike) could be taken as evidence that {here was a
norm against earning money.
Secondly, would it not be necessary to claim that the pattern of behaviour linking sanctions to
the omission or certain other behaviour was also a norm? But then there would have to be
another sanction to demonstrate that this second norm existed.
Thirdly, the feeling that a norm is binding is ignored by the behaviourist approach, which just
looks at external behaviour. The most option this approach can hope for, then, is to describe
certain regularities which one might call “statistical norms”.
What constitutes a norm should be a synthesis of these two approaches. That is when the ideal
norms and statistical norms are congruent, we can say that a norm exists.
Education has been seen as a conscious moulder of man, in which he acquires the knowledge
needed to cope with the inherent problems of life, according to his age, ability and aptitude.
To Plato, “Education is that training which is given by suitable habits, to the first instincts of
virtue in children, when pleasure and pain are rightly implanted in non-rational souls. The
particular training in respect of pleasure and pain, which leads you to hate and love what you
ought to hate and love”.
Milton” on the other hand, defined “education as that which fits a man to perform justly,
skillfully and magnanimously, all the other offices, both public and private, of peace and war”.
Lodge’ defined Education from two perspectives the wider and narrower perspective. From the
wider perspective, Education is equivalent to ‘experience’, the experience of a living organism
interaction with its normal environment” while his narrower definition sees Education as:
Experience or nature, is still the teacher, but in the specific social institution known as
schooling” it is guided by teacher.
Home defined Education as the “External process of superior adjustment of the physically and
mentally developed, free, and conscious, human being to God, as manifested in the intellectual,
emotional and volitional environment of man”. To Langford” Education is an activity which aims
at practical results in contrast with activities which aim at theoretical results’.
From the above definitions, we can say that Education centered around human nature.
Education and morality go side by side. Any education devoid of morality is dangerous to the
person who acquires it and society at large, such education lacks value and is incomplete moral
education must be part of formal education and must be given adequate attention. That is why,
Nigeria as a nation is not progressing like other developing nations because we have men with
high standard of education but very low standard of morality. Their education is non beneficial
in that it fails to fulfil its purpose of catering for the- needs of human nature.
Every society has some machinery for upholding norms, settling disputes, dispensing justice. In
simple societies, law shades into custom and is upheld through informal procedures and
sanctions. In a society the legal order is more clearly distinct and carries a heavy burden of
social integration. Law sustains and encourages social organization by defining what men can
rely on in the conduct of others. Law in society is best understood by considering the
contribution law makes to social organization, culture, and, the person: the distinctive
resources, mechanisms and problems of laws; the influence of social forces on legal ideas and
practices. In this perspective, law is studied society or enterprise, a living institution performing
social tasks. The legal order therefore, is more than a system of norms or rules. It is also a set of
agencies responding to social needs and aspirations.
Moreso, the major social functions of a legal system are: maintaining public order; upholding
rights and duties; facilitating Cooperative action: conferring legitimacy and communicating
moral standards although many legal rules have little moral or symbolic significance. This
variation is reflected in a traditional legal distinction between acts malaprohihita (wrong done
by prohibition) and acts mala in se (wrong in themselves). Acts mala in se include, in addition to
all felonies, all branches of public order, injuries to person or property, outrages upon public
decency or good morals, rid breach of official duty, when done unlawfully or corruptly. Acts
mala prohibita include any matter forbidden or commanded by statute, but not otherwise
wrong.
Hence, the classic argument against legislating morals is found in J S. Mill’s 5O essay on liberty:
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member
of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own
good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant...
From the above analysis, we can say that ethics, morality, norm, education and law are all
guides to human conduct, they are not mutually exclusive in that they control and regulate
behaviour which is to say they are action guiding devices.

REVIEW QUESTIONS
(I) Ethics, morality, norm, education and law are all guides to human action. Discuss.
2) What do you consider as the main preoccupation of ethics?
3) List and discuss four reasons for living a moral life.
4) Write short notes on the following
(i) Sense of duty and Honesty
(ii) Discipline and Justice
(iii) Tolerance
5) Morality is regarded as the soul of the society. Discuss.
6) “A virtuous man is a happy man”. Explain.

(IV)LOGIC AS A BRANCH OF PHILOSOPHY

Logic is an aspect of philosophy. Some scholars perceive it as either a branch or as a tool in
philosophy. Precisely in philosophical terms that logic is both a branch and a tool Odia, 2005;
Olusanya, Akinsanya & Osiyemi, 2016). Logic” comes from the Greek Concept “Logikos”
connoting “Reason” “Logic” meaning sentence, discourse, reason, rule, ratio, account, rational,
principle and definition. Universally, logic has no accepted definition.
According to Irving Copi (in Ogbinaka, 2010: 73), logic is “the study of the methods and
principles used to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning.” In a related
development, he referring to the science of reasoning.
Bertrand Russell opined (in Ogbinaka, 2010: 73-74), logic is the study of inferences and rational
rrasoning. Madubuchi Dukor (2004) says logic is the study of deductive and inductive
arguments. In addition, it also studies language and how it (i.e., language) corresponds to the
world of facts and idea, the study of the principles or criteria used to determine whether or not
an argument provides good reasons for accepting the truth of a claim.
Logic is the study of the norms of sound and unsound arguments. It tries to determine the
rules, the criteria and techniques of establishing valid and invalid inferences. It deals with the
formal structure, material content and correctness of the whole reasoning process. Clearly it
distinct thinking, clear and distinct linguistic transactions (Unah, 2010:103).
From the above discussion, it is obvious that the major concern (i.e., subject matter) of logic is
the coherence or soundness of arguments. Logic is a branch and tool of philosophy which
studies the dynamics of argument formation.

Process of Logic
Logical processes in philosophical entails Simple apprehension, Judgment, Reasoning and
Argument.

Simple Apprehension
Simple apprehension the process by which the mind initially conceives or forms a concept or
idea about something or issue without affirming or it. For instance, if I say “throw the ball” This
is a simple apprehension because I have not said anything about the ball. I have neither
affirmed nor denied anything about the ball. Some philosophers and logicians have denied the
possibility of a simple apprehension.

Judgment
After the initially conception or formation of concept or idea by the mind about something or
issue. Judgment indicated the act by which the mind affirms or denies something or issue. Using
the above example, “throw the black ball For instance, if I say “look, that ship is big” then I have
made a judgment by affirming the “colour” of the ball and the bigness of the ship
Reasoning and Argument
As the third and last stage of any logical process reasoning and argument involves the process
by which the mind passes several judgments to a further judgment distinct from the preceding
ones but implicitly contained in them. Such “throw the black, big weak leather ball”, reasoning
and argument has further judge the ball, by examining the size (big) and leather quality (weak).
Fundamentally, apart from simple apprehension and judgment, logic
is strictly concerned with reasoning and argument.
Types of logic
Logic in the modern sense is wider because it deals with the basic operations of truth values
this include deductive, inductive sentential or propositional, syllogistic, modal, epistemic
deontic and predicate.
Deductive logic
Deductive logic is the process of moving from the general to the specific, when the
conclusion follows from its premises with absolute necessity or certainty.
Here premises or assertion provide a conclusive evidence for the conclusion. It is an inferential
reasoning that follows necessarily from given premises. An inference is deductively valid if and
only if the premise(s) follows from the conclusion or if there is no reason for us to accept the
premises as true and reject the conclusion. In order words, the conclusion is derived from the
premises or that the premise provides adequate support for the conclusion to hold.
Inductive Logic
Inductive logic occurs when premises do not lead to conclusion with certainty. Inductive logic is
based on probability. As the opposite of deductive logic, Inductive Logic process is such that the
conclusion in any discussion or premise is not supported in absolute term by the series of
observations made. Inductive logic is neither valid nor invalid; it is probable but not certain. It
is a logical process where a reliable generalization from observations is derived. Inductive
logical evaluation requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations. To
provide such definition it may take the form of mathematical models of probability.
Syllogistic Logic.
This is the traditional logic developed by Aristotle it centres on syllogistic arguments. Here
major premise is stated first followed by minor premise then conclusion, the two premises
(major and minor) are usually stated then finally followed with a conclusion.
Prepositional Logic.

Here logical relationship between two sentence issue and phenomenon is tested considering its
truth-value and validity. This form of logic is concerned with testing the truth-value validity of
propositions through logical rules and principles. For instance wife and husband, atom and
compound or phrase and sentence.

Modal Logic

Modal logic focuses on necessity, possibility and impossibility about a phenomenon or

sentence. This is done by semantics modified by special verbs or modal particles. For
example, “We go to the games” and perhaps “We may go to the games” or We will go the
games”. More abstractly, we might say the modality affects the circumstances in which we take
an assertion to be satisfied.

Epistemic Logic

This is the logic of knowledge and belief. It focuses on propositional knowledge and provides
insight into the properties of individual knower which has provided a means to model
complicated scenarios involving groups of knower and has improved our understanding of the
dynamics of inquiry. You need to know that this form of logic has many applications in
computer science and economics.
Deontic Logic

This type of logic directly involves topics of considerable practical significance such as morality,
law, social and business organizations (their norms, as well as their normative constitution), and
security system. It deals with obligation and permission.
CHARACTERISTICS OF LOGIC AS AN ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE
 Logic refers to method, an instrument or a tool used in thinking and communication
(Onigbinde, 2005).
 Logic deals with organized reasoning and thinking.
 It deals with a special kind of sentences called propositions (Uduigwomen, 2000).
 The subject matter of logic is argument (Uduma, 1997).
 It deals with form, structure and pattern of arguments (i.e., logic is concerned with
formal reasoning).
 It focuses on propositions and how inferences may be derived from such propositions
(Ogbinaka, 2010).
 As a rational human activity, logic deals with language and its usage; and
 It probes into the laws of thought (i.e., rules of right reasoning). We now turn to the
history of logic.

HISTORY OF LOGIC AS AN ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE

Logic was first used by Zeno, a Greek philosopher and the founder of the stoic school who lived
circa 300 B.C. Aristotle merely used the term “Organon”, not logic, in his writings (Farayola,
2001; Dukor, 2004). As an academic activity in the western world, logic has been traced to
Aristotle, a philosopher who merely lived between 384 — 322B.C. (Dukor, 2004; Onigbinde,
2005). Aristotle had six treatises on logic. The Aristotelian “Organon” (“Instrument”) reveals
that the principles of logic characterized the way reality is structured (Onigbinde, 2005). Hence,
for him, both logic and reality are inseparable.
These treatises or writings were published under a Greek title, ORGANON (meaning,
“Instrument”). These treatises are:
1. The categories
2. Terms and propositions
3. Inference
4. Logical Analysis
5. Method of Reasoning and Demonstrative proof
6. Fallacious Reasoning.
Although logic as an organized academic discipline is traced to Aristotle, the concept (“logic”)
was
BENEFITS OF LOGIC AS AN ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE
The study of logic has many benefits. Some of these are:
1. Logic enhances the capacity of the human mind for rational or clear thinking. For
Uduigwomen (2000) and Ogbinaka (2010), this it does by stipulating the rules, principles
and procedures to be followed during arguments.
2. Logic imbues students with the ability to critically analyse arguments and to be
investigative in nature (Onigbinde, 2005).
3. The study of logic enables logicians to be clear and precise with the use of language.
4. It enhances students’ ability to formulate arguments in a rigorous manner (Onigbinde,
2005).
5. It enables learners to be systematic and procedural in their approach to issues.
6. Logic enables students to be coherent and consistent if their reasoning.
7. It helps individuals to avoid errors in the process of argument. True to the fact, errors
(or fallacies) are products of crooked or irrational thinking.
8. Logic has implications for various academic disciplines including Sociology, History,
Biology, Building Technology and Business Education among others as long as there is
reason for arguments, classification, ordering of things and use of language. Let us look
at the scope of logic:

SCOPE OFIOGICASAN ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE

As observed by Lacey (1976) and Uduigwomen (2000), there are two aspects of academic logic.
Philosophical logic (informal or logical theory) and formal logic (or logic of calculus). The former
(i.e., Philosophical or Informal logic) deals with the principles or notions which are relevant to
logic while the latter (i.e., formal logic) focuses on the instrument for appraising the validity of
arguments (Dukor, 2004). Formal logic is further divided into propositional and predicate or
conclusion logic.
Uduma (I 99’7) and Unah (2010) look at the scope of logic from another perspective. For these
duo, as an academic study, logic incorporates psychology of reasoning. Terms and their
meaning; grammar and rhetoric’s the right use of words: the study of sentence types and
synonyms; Eristic; sophistry: dialectics, errors in reasoning; mathematics and different formal
systems.

REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Write out the etymological words for logic.
2. Highlight the definition of logic and discuss these definition in details.
3. What is the subject matter of logic?
4. State and briefly discuss five features of logic as an academic discipline.
5. What is the Aristotelian concept for logic? Briefly discuss the implication of this concept.
6. Aristotle had six treatises on logic. Write out these treatises.
7a. Who was the philosopher who first used the concept of logic” in his publication?
10. Academic logic may be divided into two basic components. These are?

PHILOSOPHICAL LOGIC: METHOD DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE REASONING

Introduction
Reasoning or Logic as human intellectual property consists of drawing a conclusion from
previously established premises. Philosophically logic refers to natural logic, informal logic or
ordinary language logic. Informally, logic consist of being critical, rational and discriminating in
the use of words; clarity of expression; coherence and consistence; avoidance of vagueness,
fallacies and contradictions; and being unemotionally attached to issues. Reasoning help us
learn about the world solve issues and create a paradigm for man to live comfortably. For
instance, Imagine found yourself, wandering around and you came across a tree with rich black
fruit, you pick a piece of fruit; you ate it. Twenty minutes later you a terrible stomach upset.
You made a mental note that this tree's fruit is poisonous. A month later, you come across a
tree of the same species. This time, you know to avoid the fruit. "It's poisonous," you explain to
the rest of your group. This illustrates deductive and inductive reasoning drawing conclusions
from the evidence around us.
Conceptual Clarification
Some concepts are central to the study of logic. This concepts are considered as follows.
STATEMENT
A statement is a proposition. It asserts or denies an issue or event. In philosophical logic
statement and proposition are used interchangeably.
SENTENCE
A sentence is a group of words that makes a complete sense. A sentence may express a
statement, a question or a command. The implication of this is that every statement is a
sentence; but, not every sentence is a statement.
According to Ngamen-Kouassi (2007), when a sentence affirms or denies an affairs; then, it may
be termed a logical statement (or a proposition).On the other hand, a sentence expressing a
question or a command is not a logical statement. Duigwomen (2000) contends that there are
different types of sentences. They include the following:
• Interrogative Sentence: It takes the form of a question. For example: “who took Plato’s cup of
water?”
• Imperative Sentence: This is a command. For example: “Get up! “; “Get out!” etc.
•Optative Sentence: This is a mere wish or desire. For example: “Ah, it’s a bright day! “; “Oh,
goodness me!” etc. Unah (2010: 106) refers to this type of expressions as “exclamatory
• Declarative or Indicative Sentence: This is an affirmation or denial of a state of affairs. It is a
proposition. According to Unah (2010), the uniqueness of a declarative sentence is that it can
be verified in order to establish.
PROPOSITION
A proposition is a declarative or an indicative sentence (Uduigwonien, 2000:200). Quidpro quo,
it is an assertive sentence (Uduma, 1997: 195). In logic, a proposition can be adjudged “true” or
“false”. A true proposition corresponds or aligns with a particular state of affairs; while a false
proposition contrasts with a state of affairs.
A proposition may also be classified as affirmative or negative. An affirmative proposition is a
positive assertion of a state of affair. For example, “All Africans are mortal”. Conversely, a
negative proposition denies something. For example, “All Africans are not mortal”.
PREMISE
A premise is a proposition or statement within an argument which provides justification for the
conclusion of that argument. Put in another way, premise is a supporting proposition in an
argument (Unah, 2010). Premise can be inform of major or minor.
INFERENCE
Inference is the procedure of deriving the conclusion from premises of that particular
statement or argument. According to Okoro (2011), inference is the process of abstraction,
extraction or judgment. On his part, Unah (2010) says it is the process of transiting from
premises to a conclusion.
CONCLUSION
According to Ngamen-Kouassi (2007:32), “a conclusion is that proposition, within the argument,
that is arrived at on the strength or basis of the information provided by the premises.” Quid
pro quo, a conclusion is a supported proposition in an argument (Unah, 2010).
It is important to point out that both premises and conclusion may take different positions in an
argument. Sometimes, a premise may begin an argument. At some other occasions, the
conclusion of an argument may proceed the premise (or premises).
ARGUMENT
An argument is a group of propositions made up of premises and a conclusion. For Onigbinde
(2005:8), It is “... a set of statements of which one statement (that is, the conclusion) is
supported by other statements (that is, the premises)”. Ogunkoya and Ekwealo (2011:117)
compliment this view. They say “an argument is a set of propositions in which one or more
propositions (which are sometimes called premises) are said to provide reasons or evidence for
the truth of another proposition (the conclusion)”.
The characteristics of an argument include:
• It is made up of premises and a conclusion.
• At least two propositions or statements form an argument otherwise, it is not an argument.
An argument must not have more than one conclusion. This takes us to the next issue.
Deductive reasoning
Etymologically, deductive comes from the Latin word deductus (to lead away). Hence,
deductive reasoning leads away from a generalization about a class to identify a specific
member belonging to that class (Mayfield, 1994). Deductive reasoning begins with a premise
that is proven through
observations.Deductive reasoning as a basic form of valid reasoning which starts witha g e n e r
al statement or hypothesis and examines the possibilities to reach a speci
f i c l o g i c conclusion. Thus deductive reasoning premises are claimed to provide conclusive
grounds for the truth of its conclusion. The implication of this, for Onigbinde (2005:13), is that
“the truth of the premises would guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Thus, it starts from
the process of reasoning that starts from general statements to reach a logical conclusion. It
involves thinking from general to specific. This method is sometimes also called the top-down
approach. Syllogisms are a good example to explain deductive reasoning. These use conditional
statements to form a conclusion by joining the hypothesis of one statement with the other.
Another example is Hypothetical chains this involves putting together a cause-effect or
prediction statements about a specific event, to draw a conclusion.
Characteristics of Deductive Reasoning
 I. It generates necessary conclusions. If the premises of the arguments are true, the
conclusion drawn should be true.
II. It puts together a general statement about a group and a statement establishing a
member of that group, and draws a conclusion about that member.
III. It puts together a general prediction and a statement about a given situation, and draws
a conclusion.
IV. The degree of support that premises give to the conclusion is partial and probabilistic.
V. The conclusion of the argument always indicates something different from what the
premises state. Hence, it is implicative.

Examples of Deductive Reasoning

Generally here are common examples of deductive reasoning are:
Major premise: If the window is open, the room will be cold. Minor premise: The room is
warm.
Conclusion: Therefore, the window is not open.
Major premise: All mammals have backbones. Minor premise: Humans are mammals.
Conclusion: Humans have backbones.

Major premise: All birds lay eggs. Minor premise: Pigeons are birds.
Conclusion: Pigeons lay eggs.

Major premise: All plants perform photosynthesis. Minor premise: A Mango is a plant.
Conclusion: A cactus performs photosynthesis.

Major premise: All grey hair men are grandfathers, Minor premise: Jide has grey hair. Minor
premise: Major Conclusion: Therefore, Jide is a grandfather.

Major premise: Shadow is a dog, Minor premise: All dogs are mammals, Conclusion: therefore,
Shadow is a mammal.
Major premise: All dogs can bark, Minor premise: Skiddo is a dog, therefore, Conclusion:
Skiddo can bark ".
For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis or guess statement must be correct. It is
assumed that the statements, "All dogs can bark" and "a Skiddo is a dog" are true, then Skiddo
can bark. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true. In deductive reasoning, if something is
true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class.
Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning extracts a likely (but not certain) premise from specific and limited
observations from which conclusions are drawn. Etymologically, induction comes from two
Latin words, viz. ‘in” meaning “in”; and “ducere” meaning “to lead”. Hence, induction leads
reasoning from evidence about some members of a class to form a conclusion about all
members of that class. For Okoro (2011:86), an inductive argument is one whose premises do
not provide necessary or conclusive ground for the truth of its conclusion. Thus, there is no
absolute connection between the conclusion and the premises. In like deductive arguments
that are always described as valid or invalid, sound or unsound; inductive arguments are
generally described as correct or incorrect, strong or weak in nature.
Inductive reasoning as the process of reasoning in which it is believed that the pre
mises of an argument support the truth of conclusion, but they do not
ensure its truth. Therefore, inductive reasoning refers to
as a way of examining phenomena by using broad generalizations from specific
observations. Inductive reasoning is used to form hypotheses and theories.

Characteristic of Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning is characterized by the following:

1. The degree of support that premises give to the conclusion is partial and probabilistic.
2. The conclusion of the argument always indicates something different from what the
premises state. Hence, it is implicative.
3. An inductive argument is always described as correct or incorrect; strong or weak; and
sound or unsound.
4. It is usually based on observation. The premises of inductive arguments are usually bits
of
evidence that we've gathered by observation direct or indirect.
5. Its conclusions are tentative generalizations about groups or relationships, or
predictions. Eating one bad fruit yields the conclusion that what is true for one fruit
must be
true for the whole group of fruit. If one little green apple gives you stomachaches, you
will
conclude that little green apples always give stomachaches. Often, these conclusions
seem to
be proven facts. But because we're drawing conclusions based on what we do observe,
we
don't necessarily know that we're getting the whole picture. You will see a good
 example of
this below (the turkey before Thanksgiving!) So inductive conclusions, however solid
they
seem, do not necessarily follow the premises. Other conclusions are always possible
(maybe
not reasonable, but possible).
Examples of Inductive Arguments
1. An Inductive Argument from a particular case to a General case:
Ade, a politician, is a liar.
Igwe, a politician, is an liar
Therefore, all politicians are liars.
2. An inductive argument from a particular case to a particular case:
The rain fell on 2nd of April 1990.
The rain fell on 2nd of April 2004
Therefore, it is likely that rain will fall on 2nd of April 2018.
3. An Inductive Argument from a General case to a General case:
AII plants grow from infancy to adulthood
All animals grow from infancy to adulthood
Then, all living things will grow from infancy to adulthood.
4. I see fireflies in my backyard every summer.
This summer, I will probably see fireflies in my backyard.

5. I tend to catch colds when people around me are sick.

Colds are infectious.

6. Every dog I meet is friendly.

Most dogs are usually friendly.

If every dog you meet is friendly, it is reasonable to form the hypothesis that most dogs are
usually friendly. This is an example of inductive reasoning.

Difference between Deductive and Inductive Reasoning

The main difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is that deductive reasoning
involves moving from general observations to specific conclusions, while inductive reasoning
involves moving from specific observations to general explanations. Deductive reasoning is the
process of reasoning that starts from general statements to reach a logical conclusion while
inductive reasoning is the process of reasoning that moves from specific observations to
broader generalizations.

Differences between deductive and inductive on a broader conceptual spectrum are classified
into the followings:

General and Specific

Deductive reasoning involves moving from general to specific while inductive reasoning
involves moving from specific to general.

Approach
While deductive reasoning involves a top-down approach, inductive reasoning involves a
bottom-up approach.

Validity
In deductive reasoning, the conclusion has to be true if the premises are true, but in inductive
reasoning, the truth of premises does not necessarily guarantee the truth of conclusions.

Usage
We typically use inductive reasoning in our daily lives since its fast and easy to use, but
deductive reasoning is comparatively more difficult as we need facts that are definitely true.

Conclusion
In brief, deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are two opposite processes of reasoning.
The main difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is that deductive reasoning
involves moving from general observations to specific conclusions while inductive reasoning
involves moving from specific observations to general explanations. Therefore, deductive
reasoning involves a top-down approach, while inductive reasoning involves a bottom-up
approach.

REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Write out the etymological words for logic.
2. Highlight the definition of logic in this chapter. Discuss this definition in details.
3. What is the subject matter of logic?
4. State and briefly discuss five features of logic as an academic discipline.
5. Differentiate with examples deductive and inductive logic