Department of Education

Division of Iloilo
Pavia National High School
Pavia Iloilo

“QUALITY EDUCATION OUR PRIDE”

METHODS OF PHILOSOPHIZING

I. On Truth

Philosophy is not the sole bearer of truth. In fact, it is not so much “the Truth” that
Learner’s Competency:
concerns philosophy. What concerns the most is “the way or process” by which we
2.1. Distinguish opinion can distinguish claims that are true from those that are false.
from truth
What is truth? Oftentimes, truth is equated with scientific truth. Based on facts and
PPT11/12-Ic-2.1
scientifically proven as it is backed up by data-gathering, analysis and repeated
verification as in the process of “research studies”. Truth understood this way is what philosophers call objective truths.
They point to descriptions of “states of affairs” which remain true regardless of who is viewing them.

In Metaphysics, ancient Greek philosophers approached the problem of truth by looking at the nature of
knowledge. It pushes us to question what we know. We are asks, “do we really know what we know and how we know
that we know?”
Knowing the truth is a complex matter. But, nonetheless, we have to determine it. To answer, what truth is, we
will answer the question with a question: “what kind of truth are you referring to?”

Kinds of Truth

1. Natural phenomena

Truth here is scientific in nature and detach from the perspective and attitude of
the person who perceives it. Examples of which includes seasons in a year, which naturally
comes and goes whether or not we want it; the chemical component of water remains
H2O, and will remain as it is no matter who would wish to change it.

2. Norms or values
Truth here comes from consensus or general
agreement on what is right and what is wrong. The result of this agreement that has
been established over time, thus accepted and hardly questioned by anyone. Norms
or values appear as truths. Example of which includes, giving honor to what has
been agreed upon in work, business and even at play as well as the upholding of
man’s dignity.
It is noteworthy, though that these truths are “created” or constructed by
people. As such they can be changed through a critical examination and deliberation
of the members of a community.

3. Person’s sincerity
The statement “I am telling the truth,” ”I have clean conscience” is being evaluated.
We wanted to be certain that the person’s claim is consistent with their inner thoughts and
intentions. Thus, the follow up question, “are you sure?” We ask, because only the person
claiming it can validate the truthfulness of the claim. Nobody else can? Because no one got the
power or have an access to the minds and thoughts of the claimant.
Now, how will we know if the claim “I am telling the truth” is indeed true? We look at
their corresponding actions that would win our trust. If there is consistency in the actions and
claims of the person they are trustworthy, thus we trust them. Example is on honesty in all
dealings and “palabra de honor”, sinabi mo, panindigan mo, is consistently practiced.
From the discussion above, we now see that determining the domains of truth is
important. Because in it, lies our evaluation or justification of the truthfulness or falsity of the claim.
Truth and Justification

Truth is defined as “it is what has passed the procedures of justification” (Rorty, 1989). Justification is defined as
the process of proving the truth or validity of a statement.

Nature of Truth Justification

1. Scientific  Justified through data gathered from careful observation and analysis

When scientific claim is no longer questioned or criticized, it gains the status of a scientific
truth.

Example: Vaccine for Corona Virus has to undergo careful analysis and be given only if all
doubts about its safety is established.

2. Norms/ Justifying this takes longer than scientific truths

Values Because those involved in the process of justifying them are people coming from varying
backgrounds and history, with differences in perspectives, to get a consensus or agreement
is not easy.
In effect social norms take time before they are turned into hard laws, if they do become
laws, there is always the impending possibility of them being revoked or changed because
norms that have become laws for a particular generation may no longer be true for another
generation
However, despite the difficulty of gaining a consensus, it is still possible that we can talk
about social truth. No matter how painful the process or how long it takes justification be
achieved, we cannot simply resort to the easy way out by saying that “anything goes.”
Importantly, social norms turned to social “truths” are the basis for the balance in our
society. Without them, society will be a jungle meant for the strong and the fittest to
survive.

3. Personal The longest to justify among the three.

Because personal truths take a whole lifetime of consistency in the actions and decisions of a
person who makes a claim about himself
Example an “I love you” of a suitor is not easily believed. True love is tested by time as the
saying goes.
Believing on someone’s sincerity takes years of hard work. All the more when a person who
said so has a patterned of unfulfilled words and promises. Those who have bad records too
is another case to consider. Here it is more difficult to ascertain the truth of a person’s
declaration. Their conversion is often doubted.
Thus, proving it should be constant.
For the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, it is important that a declaration of conversion
must be declared publicly.

Despite the many ways by which we can understand truth, there is common definition among them of what
truth is – it is, that has surpassed its test of justification. To answer the question, “What is the truth?” we must first
determine what truth we are referring to, then apply the corresponding criteria of justifying the truth of such assertion.
If we are clear about what makes a statement true, we can easily distinguish it from mere opinion.

On Opinion

Opinion is any person’s statement of judgement about something that are in need of further justification. If they
do not pass the tests of justification, opinions will have to be defended with better reasons to strengthen them. Thus, a
healthy discussion on issues is very important. It is not good to simply shut people up when they speak against an
opinion. It is not also helpful if critics refuse to listen to the defense of those who agree with opinion.

How to critique opinions?

Whoever makes an opinion must be able to argue for it in the most reasonable way. A philosophical mind must
examine arguments supporting an opinion.
Arguments are series of statements that provide reasons to determine that a claim or opinion is truthful. We can
witness in a debate that arguments are used to explain two sides of a proposition: affirmative and negative. After
hearing the arguments of both sides, judgment regarding the truthfulness of the proposition is made.
It is noteworthy to remember that not all arguments are truthful nor have the same merit because some are
better presented and substantiated than others. Just like in a debate as an example again, the team with members who
argues well and states it in accordance to the principles of argumentation, wins.
 Serious attention and importance should be given to arguments because it conveys ideas that influence the
thinking, actions, and behavior of people. Out from it, people can either make right or wrong decisions. Be aware that it
is also possible that claims and arguments are given by persons who have ill intentions and wish to twist or manipulate
facts or truths.

In search for wisdom, we must evaluate arguments and ways of expressing one’s beliefs, emotions, and opinions. T
hus, this study on methods of looking at truth and what will be considered as mere “opinions.” Philosophizing is to think
or express oneself in a philosophical manner. It also discusses or considers a matter from a philosophical standpoint.
 In Phenomenology, truth is based on the person’s consciousness.
 In Existentialism, truth is based on exercising choices and personal freedom.
 In Postmodernism it is accepted that truth is not absolute
 In Logic, truth is based on reasoning and critical thinking.

A. Phenomenology: On Consciousness (Edmund Husserl)

 It comes from a Greek word “phainomenon” which means “appearance.”
 It focuses on careful inspection and description of phenomena or appearances, defined as any object of
conscious experience, that is, that which we are conscious of (Johnston, 2006).
 It is the scientific study of the essential structures of consciousness. By studying structures, we can find
certainty.
Husserl’s phenomenology is the thesis that consciousness is intentional. Every act of consciousness is directed at
some object or another, possibly a material object or an “ideal” object (e.g. mathematics).
Phenomenologist can distinguish and describe the nature of the intentional acts of consciousness and the
intentional objects of consciousness without any particular commitment, which are defined through the content of
consciousness.
The phenomenological standpoint is achieved through a series of phenomenological “reductions” that eliminate
certain aspects of our experience from consideration. Husserl formulates these reductions and their emphasis shifts
throughout his career.

1) EPOCHE or suspension, in which the phenomenologist “brackets” all questions of truth or reality and simply describes
the contents of consciousness. Husserl’s ideas were borrowed from early Skeptics and Descartes).
2) Focuses on the meanings of consciousness. Thus, Husserl defends a notion of intuition that differs from and is more
specialized that the ordinary notion of “experience.” Some intuitions are eidetic, that is, they reveal necessary truths.
These are the essence of phenomenology.

In sum, what interest the phenomenologist’s are the contents of consciousness and not on things of the natural
world.
 Natural world is our ordinary everyday viewpoint and the ordinary stance of the natural sciences, describing
things and states of affairs.
 Phenomenological standpoint is the special viewpoint achieved by the phenomenologist as he or she focuses
not on things but our consciousness of things (Solomon and Higgins 2010)

B. Existentialism: On Freedom (Soren Kierkegaard)

One’s search for truth might be based on one’s attitude or outlook. Unlike phenomenology, existentialism is more
of an outlook or attitude supported by diverse doctrines centered on certain common themes which includes the
following:
 The human condition or the relation of the individual to the world;
 The human response to that condition;
 Being (the difference between the being of the person which is “existence” and the being of other kinds of
things;
 Human freedom;
 The significance (and unavoidability) of choice and decision in the absence of certainty and;
 The concreteness and subjectivity of life as lived, against abstractions and false objectifications

Existentialists share a concern for the individual and personal responsibility (Chambers 2001). Soren Kierkegaard
(Danish) insisted that the authentic self was the personally chosen self.
Sartre (French) emphasizes the importance of free individual choice, regardless of the power of other people to
influence and coerce our desires, beliefs, and decisions. Further, he argued that consciousness (being-for-itself) is such
that it is always FREE to choose (though not free not to choose) and free to “negate” (or reject) the given features of the
world. One is never free of one’s situation,” BUT one is always free to “negate’ that situation and to (try to) change it. To
be human, to be conscious, is to be free to imagine, free to choose, and responsible for one’s life (Solomon and Higgins
2010).
One may be shy or assertive, but such behavior is always a choice and one can always resolve to change. One can be
Asian or American, but it is an open question how one will make of oneself, how these will be made into handicaps or
an advantage, become challenge to be overcome, or excuses doing nothing.
Socrates already concerned himself with the authenticity of the self- the genuineness of his thoughts and actions,
“the good of his soul.” He sought not mere opinions but knowledge, self-knowledge in particular and prescribed not just
right action but virtue, being “true to oneself.”
 St. Augustine was concerned with the spiritual nature of the “true” self as opposed to the inauthentic demands of
desire and the body.

C. Postmodernism: On Culture
It is a name for a diffuse family of ideas and trends that in significant respect rejects, challenges, or aims to
supersede “modernity”;It is not a philosophy. It rightly talks about world philosophy, the philosophy of many cultures,
but such talk is not a philosophy either. Postmodernists believe that humanity should come at truth beyond the rational
to the non-rational elements of human nature, including the spiritual.
Postmodernists consider that to arrive at truth, humanity should realize the limits of reason and objectivism.
Beyond exalting individual analysis of truth, Postmodernists adhere to a relational, holistic approach. They value our
existence in the world and in relation to it.

D. Analytic Tradition
For the philosophers of this tradition, language cannot objectively describe truth. Ludwig Wittgenstein claims that
language is socially conditioned. We understand the world solely in terms of our language games – that is, our
linguistics, social constructs. Truth, as we perceive it, is itself socially constructed.
Analytic philosophy is the conviction that to some significant degree, philosophical problems, puzzles, and errors
are rooted in language and can be solved or avoided by a sound understanding of language and careful attention to its
workings.

E. Logic and Critical Thinking: Tools in Reasoning

 Logic is centered in the analysis and construction of arguments.
 Logic and critical thinking serve as paths to freedom from half-truths and deceptions.
Critical thinking is distinguishing facts and opinions or personal feelings. In making rational choices, first, we
suspend beliefs and judgment until all facts have been gathered and considered.
Though facts are important, critical thinking also takes into consideration cultural systems, values, and beliefs.
Critical thinking helps us uncover bias and prejudice and open to new ideas not necessarily in agreement with previous
thought.

2 Basic Types of Reasoning:

1. Inductive – is based from observations in order to make generalizations.

2. Deductive – draws conclusion from usually one broad judgment or definition and one more specific assertion, often
an inference.
Example:
All philosophers are wise. (Major premise)
Confucius is a philosopher (Minor premise)
Therefore, Confucius is wise. (Conclusion)

Validity and Soundness of an Argument

Based on the previous example or syllogism, if the two premises are constructed logically, then the conclusion
must follow logically, the deductive argument is valid. This does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is true or false.
Validity comes from a logical conclusion based on logically premises (Reed 2010).

Strength of an Argument
Inductive arguments cannot prove if the premises are true which will also determine the truth of the conclusion.
Inductive reasoning proves only probable support to the conclusion. An inductive argument that succeeds in providing
such probable support is a strong argument. While an inductive argument that fails to provide such support is weak, a
strong argument with true premises is said to be cogent (convincing)

Example:
Lex: Do you think Congressman Garry will be re-elected?
Yna: I doubt it. His district has become more conservative in recent years. Also, 63% of the registered voters in
his district are in the Opposition.

This argument is both a statistical argument and a predictive argument, which are two common patterns of
inductive reasoning. Also, the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises.

Guided Learning:
1. Share your experiences on the times you did not use reason in your life but rather, you relied more on
emotions or opinions of other people. What did you learn from the experience?
2. Determine which are the premises and the conclusion:
a) All known planets travel around the sun in elliptical orbits. Therefore, all planets travel about the sun in
elliptical orbits.
b) You have a very good circle of friends. Therefore you are very good.
c) All oranges are fruit. All fruits grow on trees. Therefore, all oranges grow on trees.
Fallacies

Fallacy is a defect in an argument. To detect fallacies, it is required to examine the argument’s content. Fallacies
not resolved can result to errors in reasoning, coming up with false conclusion and worse, distorted truth.
Some of these fallacies may be intentional, as the person making the claim is desperate to convince you to
accept his or her argument. The following are examples of fallacies.

Fallacy Characteristics Example

Attacking the It is simply, attacking the person presenting “Puro kayo batikos, ano ba ang naiambag nyo?”
person the argument itself
(Ad hominem)
appeal to pity It is an appeal to emotion in which someone “Wala namang may gusto ng krisis, huwag nating
(Ad Misericordiam) tries to win support for an argument or idea sisihin ang gobyerno.”
by exploiting his or her opponent’s feelings
of pity or guilt.
appeal to force It is usng the threat of force or an “Magsumbong ka sa pulis tungkol sa katiwalian ng
(Ad Baculum) undesirable event to advance an argument kumpanyang ito. Isipin mo ang pamilya mo. Ang
kawalang katapatan mo sa kumpanyang ito ay
malalaman ng lahat at hindi ka na makakapgtrabaho
ang muli.”
appeal to the The idea is presented as acceptable because “Maging makabayan tayo. Sumunod na lang kayong
popular/Bandwago a lot of people accept it lahat at huwag magtanong.”
n
(Ad Populum)
Begging to question It assumes the thing or idea to be proven as “Hindi tayo marunong sumunod, kasi wala tayong
true disiplina”
Cause and effect Assumes a “cause-and-effect” relationship “Kaya tayo napeste ng virus, kasi hindi nyo binoto si
between unrelated events Mar.”
fallacy of It is an assumption that what is true in a “Buong mundo, maayos. Tayo lang ang ganito kagulo.”
composition part is true for the whole

Guided Learning:
To fully grow
Cite examples infallacies
of how our judgement
are usedofintruth
dailyfrom opinions,
life. For we when
example, need toyouunderstand that there are
watch advertisements many
based onmethods to
use
popularity of endorsers , do you tend to buy their product? Did you see the fallacies of ad misericordiam or ad of: the
in making sound judgment. Advancement in philosophical or critical thinking skills starts with awareness
framework (the object
hominem toward of thinking)
others? How? and the approach (the subject thinking)

Frameworks (the object of thinking)

Philosophical topics, lessons, theories or themes have frameworks on which they were based when the authors
made them. Finding the framework is the key to unlock the understanding of the concept, theme or theory.
Framework is like a working map for us not to get lost, a kind of compass that guides us for a swift and smooth
sailing towards the truth. It is developed according to the need of a philosopher and according to the era or time in
history in which the philosopher made the concept, theme or theory.
At the time a philosopher made the concept, theme or theory, he/she is not aware of the framework on which
his/her concept, theme or theory was based, but as years pass, later generations of thinkers see the “sameness” of the
patterns, bases, structures of concepts, themes or theories made.
Knowing these frameworks is necessary because it colors the way we interpret and understand the concept,
theme or theory. We will know the philosophical framework, by looking at the a) the era in which the concept, theme or
theory was made (e.g. ancient, medieval, modern, contemporary); b) the tradition of philosophy in which the
philosopher belong (e.g., scholastic, analytic, phenomenological)

Approaches (the subject thinking/teaching/learning)

A concept, theme or theory can be approached in its framework by an approach proper to the framework (e.g.,
an ancient framework can be approached using ancient approach) but some frameworks can be approached by many
approaches.
For clearer understanding, we must know what approach to use in teaching/learning a concept, theme or
theory. The teacher/learner can combine approaches or select which approach is helpful for better understanding of the
lesson. One approach is effective for one or many of the students, but might not be effective for another student.
The teacher/learner can easily shift approaches if one or particular approach cannot facilitate learning. The
problem occurs when a teacher knows only one approach or two approaches in teaching all concepts, themes or
theories in philosophy. Worse is the case when a teacher/learner does not know that there is an approach proper to a
concept, theme or theory. Thus, to know many approaches is helpful for a teacher/learner in teaching/learning
philosophy
Attached is the matrix of the more popular frameworks and approaches throughout the history of philosophy
and are arranged according to their proper era. Take a glimpse of if and have a bird’s eye view of the many methods in
philosophizing.
 Now that we laid down the foundations of the methods in philosophizing, let us have a taste of a contemporary
philosophy with its methods and approaches in arriving at the truth.

Phenomenological Approaches

Etymologically, it came from a Greek word, “phainomenon” meaning “appearance”. As a philosophical approach
it focuses on careful inspection of appearances of any phenomenon.

Edmund Husserl: On Consciousness

Husserl’s phenomenology is the thesis that consciousness is intentional. This means that every act of
consciousness is directed at some object or another, possibly a material object or an “ideal” object such as mathematical
concepts.
The phenomenological standpoint is achieved through a series of phenomenological “reductions” that eliminate
certain aspects of our experience from consideration. Husserl, formulates the following reductions:

1. Epoché (“bracketing”)
It is the bracketing, holding in abeyance, putting aside for a while, putting in a bracket, postpone
judgment. This we do with a purpose to make sure, to clarify, to study further what is presented to us, as truth.
Epoché for our subject, Philosophy of Man, is used for clarifying different ideas coming from you, on the
many concepts that we will be discussing till the end.
As an example, we begin with assessing the importance of studying Philosophy of Man. We ask, “is it,
important to study Philosophy of Man? Certainly, your answers will vary. All those answers will be considered,
be it affirmative or negative. Then we will place it in a bracket. Each of those answer will be clarified while trying
to see objectively the relevance or irrelevance of studying this subject. It is a long process, but together we learn
and make collective judgement as a class.
Epoché too can be applied in many situations in life at any time and any place.

2. Eidetic Reduction
It is bracketing of the unessential elements and focus on the essential or that what makes it what it is,
the eidos.
For example, on the question, “What is a good person?” There are many answers but, the eidos or the
essence, is that a good person is one who does good. However, we are asking again, what is good? Why do you
say it is good? What are the criteria of goodness? Answers should be accepted until all ideas are saturated and
digested well.
We can also combine epoché in assessing answers in eidetic reduction.

3. Transcendental Phenomenological Reduction

After knowing what it is in epoche and eidetic reduction, then we ask questions about its impact on the
human subject, its impact on us, student and teacher, journeying towards what is true.
We ask, what is this for me? What is the impact of this in my life? What does it implies? In Ilonggo, “Ti
ano?”
Knowing that a good person is one who does good, “Ti ano? Will I live a life proper for a good man?
Knowing that I need Philosophy for a wise and worthy existence, “Ti ano? So what is this for me now? Do I find it
meaningful to study philosophy and all my subjects this semester?

4. Constitutional Analysis (static, genetic)

Constitution is about the question “what makes it what it is?” Statically, this question is answered in the
“here and now”. Genetically, “what is it” is answered from its beginning and to its now and its possible future.

Existential Approaches

Existentialism as defined in Oxford Languages Dictionary, as an approach which emphasizes the existence of the
individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

In existential analysis we answer these questions surrounding a phenomena: what is its context? What are the
surrounding factors? Influences? Basis or background of a reality? These we seek to answer in order to see the
truthfulness of what happened in a person. After which, we make judgment and take necessary action as a response.
Below is an example of existential theme from an Existentialist.

1. Jean Paul Sartre: On Freedom

He emphasized the importance of free individual choice, regardless of the power of other people to influence
and coerce our desires, beliefs, and decisions.
He further, argued that man in his consciousness is always FREE to choose (though not free not to choose) and
free to “negate” or reject the given context where they are in. He claimed, one is never free of one’s situation,” BUT one
is always free to “negate’ that situation and to change it.
For example, being poor by birth can never limit us to achieve what we wish to aspire.
One thing, that imprints in my mind in studying this theme is, “hate your situation.” Change it to the better. Are you
poor? Hate it, and strive to change it. Hate your low grades due to irresponsibility, but first hate your being
irresponsible. Rebel against it by being responsible as soon as now!