PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY

THE NATURE AND SUBJECT MATTER OF PHILOSOPHY

Philosophy as an enterprise has no univocal definition. For centuries,
philosophers have proposed various definitions to explain and create
understanding of philosophy.
Etymologically, philosophy as a word was derived from two Greek words;
‘philo’ which means love and ‘sophia’ which means wisdom. Thus, philosophy
means the love of wisdom.
Other scholars have however variously defined philosophy. For some, it is the
investigation of the nature of the universe, acquisition of knowledge and how
humans ought to behave with their environment.
Again, others also conceive of philosophy as the science of understanding
human essence as well as the interaction between human and nature.
It must be noted that, philosophy engages in abstraction. Abstraction is the
creation of mental picture of understanding about a subject matter. To abstract
is to have the ability to understand and imagine a state of affairs that is beyond
the physical.
Philosophy again deals with reflections. Reflection is when one considers issues
into perspectives and examines the underlying matters which are obscure to
the normal mind.
Furthermore, philosophy employs Analysis which is basically a detailed
assessment of a state of affairs in order to unearth hidden meanings.

NATURE AND SUBJECT MATTER

PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION
Philosophy as a discipline is conceived as a being broad enough to encompass
other discipline such as religion. As part of the investigation undertaken by
philosophers is the basic question about the existence and knowledge about
the Supreme being.
 Although this is a metaphysical question, the beginning of the philosophical
discourse, in Greece detailed out an understanding of the Supreme being or
God.
It is important to note that even though western philosophy sought to
dissociate spirituality from physicalism, such an endeavor has not been entirely
successful because of the broadness of the philosophical enterprise.
Nevertheless, certain focuses of religion have not been an interesting issue for
philosophers. It is important to note that religious deliberations have required
philosophical reflections and analysis. For instance, the existence of God, the
soul, reincarnation, the essence of man etc.

PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

Some philosophers define philosophy as the science of human investigation.
Thus, they conceive of philosophy as a science. It is important to note that,
scientific investigation and enquiry employ the tools of philosophy to arrive at
its conclusions. The basic tool used by scientists is the inductive method. This
is where observations are made on several instances and conclusions are
drawn from them. These conclusions are based on probabilities. The inductive
method is derived from logic which is a tool used by philosophers.
Another method employed by scientists in testing their hypothesis is the
Socratic method or dialectic method. This is where conclusion is reached
based on a step-by-step investigation. Here, each step contributes to arriving
at the conclusion.
BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY
There are three main branches of philosophy. These are metaphysics,
epistemology and ethics.
METAPHYSICS
It deals with the understanding of the universe. It makes an investigation into
that which exist in the universe and is responsible for the existence of all other
things in the universe.
EPISTEMOLOGY deals with the nature of knowledge, the acquisition of
knowledge and objectivity or otherwise of knowledge. Hence, epistemology is
an investigation into the various theories of knowledge.
ETHICS deals with the investigation of human conduct or behavior. This branch
assesses actions that are good, bad, acceptable, unacceptable etc. Here,
ethical theories are employed to make such assessments.

METAPHYSICS
It derives from the Greek words ‘meta’ and ‘physica’. Meta translates as after
or extra and physica means physical or that which transcends the physical. The
term ‘metaphysics’ was coined or first used by Andronuchus of Rhodes, the
chronicler (70 BC). Eventually, after physics came to be understood as beyond
physics ie beyond the physical world and metaphysics came to be understood
as the discipline or branch of philosophy that deals with realities beyond the
physical world.
Metaphysics is defined as the study of the totality of being, ie the nature and
structure of reality as a whole. The subject matter of metaphysics is being, ie
whatever that exists.

PRE-SOCRATICS
The term is used to draw a sharp distinction between Socrates who was
interested in human conducts and his predecessors who were interested in
finding the arche (material principle/ substance) of all things. Pre-Socratics
were known as physikoi/phusikoi (students of nature) and their activity is
called Physiologia (study of nature).
Available historical documents pinpoints to ancients Greece as the birthplace
of Western Philosophy. The first pre-Socratic philosophers were from Miletus
and they became known as the Milesians, and they are Thales, Anaximender
and Anaximenes. They were the first to break away from the mythological way
of explaining natural phenomena by attempting to give explanations to natural
occurrences.

THALES
Thales is of the view that the material principle (arche) is water, (ta hugon)
that is the universe was created out of water.
REASONS FOR HIS VIEW
• Water is the nourishment/nutriment of everything.
• Water is the only substance that can exist in the three states of matter in
the same time.
• The seed of everything contains water.
• Miletus was an Island city, shaping his thinking into believing that water
is responsible for everything.
ANAXIMENDER
He is believed to have been a student of Thales and like Thales, he
believed that there is a single basic stuff responsible for everything in
the universe. However, he disagreed with Thales that the arche is water.
In his view, this primary substance should be something that is infinite,
indefinite, boundless, something of an apeiron nature.
ANAXIMENES
He is the last Milesian and like Thales, he chose a determinate or
definite element as the arche, however he chose air (aer). It is believed
that he got this on how man and animals live. He also chose air because
of the process of condensation and refraction (a reduction in the density
of a material, especially that of a fluid).
XENOPHANES
He wasn’t interested in the arche but in theology so he attacked the
Homeric gods on two fronts or ways.
• The immorality of the gods.
• The anthropomorphic nature of the gods.
He believed that there is one God.
PARMENIDES
He is of the belief that reality is one, eternal, permanent, unchanging
and full everywhere. According to him, there is nothing like void or not
being. It is only in appearance that being appears to be multiplied.
However, in truth, being is one. He also says that, being appears to be
multiplied due to the illusion of our senses, however, reason tells us that
in truth, being is one.
HERACLITUS
He believes that all things are in the space of flux, meaning all things are
constantly changing, nothing remains the same. So, to him, the only
permanent thing in the universe is change. He is famous for his saying
that, ‘you can’t step in the same water twice, for fresh waters are ever
flowing in upon you’. He was of the view that fire is the arche.
PYTHAGORA
 He thought that number is divine and the language of the universe is
written in the language of mathematics.
METAPHYSICAL THEORIES
There are three main ways of tackling metaphysical theories. They are;
• Materialism
• Idealism
• Dualism
Materialism and idealism are monistic theories because they postulate one
entity as being the ultimate reality.
MATERIALISM
It upholds the primacy of matter over spirit or idea in its conception of the
nature of ultimate reality. Some materialists deny the existence of immaterial
entities while others admit the existence of immaterial entities (even though
they may think such realities are by-products of matter). Proponents of
materialism include the Atomists---- Aristotle, Karl Marx, Thomas Hobbes etc.
PROBLEMS OF MATERIALISM
• The existence of pains (Qualia) can’t be explained by materialists.
• The mind-body problem. For instance, a man entertaining sexual
thoughts, such acts can’t be explained by materialists in that the mind is
immaterial. How does an immaterial object react with material object?
Hence, materialism being a problem.
• Beliefs
• Emotions.

IDEALISM
Idealism is the exact opposite of materialism. It upholds the primacy of
idea or spirit in its conception of reality. Idealism holds that, the ultimate
reality is essentially immaterial or spiritual. Thus, it states that, matter
cannot be an independent substance. This theory therefore reduces
matter to idea or spirit. Proponents include Plato, Berkeley, Kant and
Leibniz.

TYPES OF IDEALISM
• Subjective idealism
• Objective idealism
Subjective idealism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that only the
mind and mental context exist.
Objective idealism is a form of philosophical monism that postulates that
there is ultimately only one perceiver, and that perceiver is also that which is
perceived.
DUALISM
This the theory that maintains that there are two kinds of reality; Material and
Immaterial
These two entities although they have different properties are believed to
interact. The main proponent is Rene Descartes.
PROBLEMS OF DUALISM
How can material substance interact with immaterial substance?
• Appearance and reality: Plato say realities are in the world of forms, one
can only get there by the powers of reasoning. Parmenedes, says reality
is one. Since the senses deceive us, all things are unchanging, they
appear to be changing only by illusion. (Reality can be apprehended)
• Mind body problem: Material substance influencing and interacting with
the immaterial substance and vice versa.
EXAMPLE: Immaterial substance influencing and interacting with
material substance; experiencing broken heart, entertaining sexual
thought to cause sexual arousal etc.
Material substance influencing and interacting with immaterial substance;
hitting your leg on a stone, feeling the pain of taking injection, receiving
heavy blows in the face causing madness, etc.
RENE DESCARTES
According to him, there is some sort of interaction between the mind and
body. Although, independent, they interact (interactionism). However, the
problem he faced tells us about the nature of this interaction and where it
takes place (pineal gland) in the innermost part of the brain. His disciples,
Nicholas Malebranche and Gnelinix came out with occasionalism (solving the
problem of interactionism). They saw the difficulties in the interactionism. The
mind and body are made of two clocks. They believe that, God made the mind
and body in a way that when the mind strikes, the body automatically follows.
(occasionalism).
BENEDICT DE SPINOZA
He believes that the mind and body are more of two attributes of the same
realities.
EXISTENCE OF GOD/PROBLEM OF EVIL
Philosophers have not been able to prove the existence of God since ages, yet
they have argued and given reasons why they believe he might exist. Below are
three arguments proposed by some philosophers.
• Ontological argument.
• Cosmological argument.
• Teleological argument.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
ST Anselm believes that God is the greatest being you can imagine or
conceive of that He exist, but if he doesn’t exist then he can’t be the
greatest, therefore, he must exist. The fact of imagining something does
not mean it exists.
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
ST Thomas Aquinos says everything in this world has a cause, if then we
will run into an infinite regress of causes. (The argument of uncaused
cause.) Everything is moved by something, which is also moved by the
unmoved mover, which is responsible for all motions in the world.
TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
This is also known as the ‘argument of design’, it states that based on
the observation of the purposefulness of the world, no one can say that
God does not exist. It is believed that nothing came out of nothing, but it
is the creation of an intelligent Being. (Thomas Aquinas)

PROBLEM OF EVIL
It deals with why we have an idea of God whose individual body is a
spirit and yet this evil. There seem to be a contradiction between God’s
attributes of Omnipotence and Benevolence and the factual existence of
 evil. God being Omnipotent means he wields unending power with
which he can erase evil in this entirety from the surface of the universe.
This attribute of Benevolence means he is holy loving and such a being
should naturally eschew evil. However, we still experience evil.

EPISTEMOLOGY
It derives from the Greek word ‘epistem’ and logos/logia. Episteme
means knowledge and logia/logos means science, study of or theory.
Etymologically, epistemology is described as the science of knowledge,
study of knowledge or the theory of knowledge.
Epistemology is the study human knowledge, its origin, its scope, its
limitations, its justifications, its reliability or otherwise or its certainty or
otherwise. The questions it asks include; What can we know? Is there
indubitable knowledge? How can we prove that know? How can we
justify our knowledge claims? What is truth? What do we mean when
we say a proposition is true?

THEORIES OF KNOWLEDGE
Basically, there are three theories which try to answer whether we can
know and what we can know. These are;
• Rationalism
• Empiricism
• Skepticism
RATIONALISM
It has the view that knowledge is acquired using the mind, ie knowledge is a
pure mental process. Proponents include Plato, Spinoza, Descartes, Leibniz.
Plato believes that before birth, the soul learns all that it needs in the world of
forms, but at the point of birth it forgets everything because the body is
injured. Therefore, all that we learn is just a recollection or reflection of past
knowledge.
Descartes saw that in a state of states looks like raw state, hence he doubted
everything in existence including himself. However, in the course of thinking he
realized that he can’t think if he doesn’t exist. Therefore, he said; “cogito ergo
sum”, I think therefore I am.
 EMPRICISM
It is the epistemological theory which states that knowledge is acquired
through the human senses. Empiricists claim that for us to acquire knowledge
of an object, we have to perceive that object with our senses. According to
empiricists, it is only that perception of things through these senses can we
acquire genuine knowledge. They therefore reject the theory of innate ideas,
since they believe that the human mind is completely blank at birth.
Proponents include David Hume, Bishop George Berkerley, John Locke.
SKEPTICISM
The skeptics doubt that it is possible to attain truth or knowledge of anything.
They doubt everything. They believe that we cannot know anything for certain.
TYPES OF SKEPTICISM
Universal skepticism seems to boldly claim certainty in the knowledge that
knowledge is impossible. The obvious contradiction is that if they really believe
in their own theory, it should force them to conclude that there is no way to
know that their theory is true, because the very nature of their theory says
that knowledge is impossible.
Limited skepticism is the view that one cannot possess knowledge in some
particular domain. It contrasts with universal skepticism, the view that one
cannot know anything at all.
Proponents included Phyrro of Elis (360-275BC), Arcesilaus (c. 315-241 BC)
Carneades (c. 213-129 BC)
DISTINCTION BTN KNOWLWDGE & OPINION/BELIEF
1. Traditionally, knowledge is defined by Plato as justified true belief,
so for something to pass as knowledge, one must believe in it,
that it must be true and we must have justifications in believing in
that thing.
• Belief in existence (on assumption)
• It must be a true condition
• Justification condition
 2. Plato believes that truth is an entity, that exist outside the mind ie
in the intelligible world of forms. The mind discovers truth and
participates in it.
3. Descartes believes that truth is the clear and distinct perception of
innate ideas. According to him, truth is indubitable. It comes from
within us not outside of us. The most basic truth from which all
other things follow logically is “I think therefore, I am.” Cogito
ergo sum.
THEORIES OF TRUTH
Basically, there are three theories of truth;
• The correspondent theory of truth.
• The coherent theory of truth.
• The pragmatic theory of truth.
CORRESPONDENT THEORY OF TRUTH
This theory states that truth is the correspondence of the mind with reality, ie
If what in the mind corresponds with objective reality.
PRAGMATIC THEORY OF TRUTH
This theory states that a proposition or statement is true if and only if it works
in practice ie an idea is true if and only if it works and leads to a beneficial
result.
COHERRENT THEORY OF TRUTH
This theory states that a statement is true if and only if it coheres with an
existing system of statement already known to be true.
Proponents include C. S. Pierce, john Bewey, William James.
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
Ethics is derived from the Greek word ‘ethos’ meaning conduct. It is
used interchangeably with morality which is derived from the Latin word
‘mores’ which also means conduct or behavior. Ethics is normally
defined as the philosophical investigations into human conduct. Others
also define it as the assessment of human behavior in order to
determine whether it is acceptable or unacceptable, right or wrong,
good or bad etc.
 Ethics deals with principles which are supposed to guide human conduct
or behavior. The principles which Ethics use are first conceived as
maxims.

DEFINITION OF CONCEPTS
MAXIMS: It is a personal principle developed by an individual to guide
his/her life. Thus, a maxim is a subjective principle.
VALUE JUDGEMENT: it is the determination by an individual or society
of an action as to whether such an action is right or wrong, acceptable or
unacceptable, good or bad etc.
NON-MORAL PERSON/AGENT: This is a person who has the disposition
to act on principles that are not moral in nature. In other words, such an
agent performs his or her actions on the basis of other principles apart
from morality. For instance, the laws of science, religion etc.
MORAL AGENT: This is a person who has the capability to distinguish
between right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable, good or bad, etc.
AMORAL AGENT: This is a person who has no knowledge of morality or
moral principles let alone live y them. For instance, a toddler, a mad
person.
IMMORAL AGENT: This is a person who knows of moral principles and
can distinguish between that which is good and bad but consciously
performs actions which is bad.

ETHICAL THEORIES
Ethics deals with theories which prescribe the actions that have moral
contents.
These theories have their own concept of the Highest Good or Summum
Bonum. The summum bonum is the ultimate concept according to which all
actions aim. Thus, it is the highest principle or concept that motivates a moral
action. The theories are also prescriptive. This means that they require that
moral agents performed them. Again, the theories have their own principles or
rules according to which an action must satisfy in order for that action to be
moral.
• EGOISM: It is the theory that a moral action is one that satisfies the
self-interest of the one performing the action.
 • ALTRUISM: It is the theory that a moral action must seek and satisfy
the interest of others.
• HEDOISM: It is the theory that an action is moral when that action
maximizes pleasures for the moral agent.
• UTILITARIANISM: It is of the theory that a moral action is that which
produces happiness for the greatest number of people or happiness for
the majority.
• DIVINE COMMAND: It is of the theory that actions that are good or
bad, right or wrong etc are that which is determined by the Supreme
Being.
• VIRTUE ETHICS: It is the theory that morality should be based on the
development of o virtuous character by the moral agent.
• EMOTIVISM: It is the theory that moral principles and concepts are
only emotional expressions and therefore they are meaningless.
ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES
Teleologism/Consequentialism: It is the perspective that moral determination
is based on the end result of an action. In other words, an action is moral on
the basis that the consequences of that action are good.
Deontologism: It is the perspective that moral determination is based on the
intent to perform a duty. In order words, an action is moral if it is performed to
satisfy the requirement of a rule which must be obeyed.
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
Punishment: It is the imposition of unfavorable conditions or states on a
person who has acted contrary to the law. It is given by an authority higher
than the offender. Punishment can be retributive or reformative.
Reformative Punishment: The problem of punishment therefore is whether or
not to punish people in order to reform them.
Retributive Punishment: the problem of punishment is therefore whether or
not people should be punished in order to deter others from committing the
same offense.
Freewill: Freewill provides that humans make choices, take decisions and
perform actions on the basis of absolute freedom.
Determinism: It is the position that human actions are always influenced by
external factors.
 LOGICAL PROBLEMS
Logics is a tool applied in philosophy. It deals with the means of making
analysis.
Argument: It is a group of propositions that has a premise or premises
and a conclusion such that there is an existing relationship between a
premise or premises and a conclusion. There are two types of
arguments;
• Deductive argument
• Inductive argument
Deductive argument is one which has its premise or premises providing full or
absolute support for the conclusion. They are assessed as to whether they are
valid or invalid.
Inductive argument is an argument which has its premise or premises
providing some or probable support to the conclusion. They are assessed s to
whether they are strong or weak.
FALLACIES
A fallacy is defined as an error in reasoning. There are two types of fallacies;
• Formal fallacy or non-sequitur arguments
• Informal fallacy
Formal fallacy is one which is committed when the rules of inference are not
followed. Examples; fallacy of affirming the consequences, fallacy of defending
the antecedent, hypothetical fallacy.
Informal fallacies are emotional expressions used to convince an audience in
order to make them accept or reject a certain state of affairs. Examples; appeal
to anger, personal attack, strawman fallacy.
It must be noted that logic generally employs statements or propositions which
are also declarative statements.