Introduction to Philosophy

What is Philosophy?

Important NOTEs

Many of these slides contain text at the bottom (not visible in the presentation view) this is
narrative that talks you through the slides. You should read the text and look over the slide.

Its just like a lecture, except that my contribution is typed rather than spoken.

Some of these lectures, including this one, contain homework assignments

These are designated by the slide title: HOMEWORK
Type your answers to the questions into an MS Word document and submit it to the drop
box on ANGEL (in the lessons tab) before the indicated deadline
The drop box will be labeled Homework drop box with a date

Overview
I

Background

II

Traditions

III

Subfields

IV

Major periods in Western philosophy

Practice Quiz Hows your reading comprehension?

1. Name the central claim that the authors defend in their introduction to philosophy (pp. 3-8).
2. Briefly summarize the main line of argument given in support of that claim.
3. The authors argue that the best way to read philosophy is:
A. Passively, where the goal is to commit the most important terms to memory
B. Skim and scan first, then read for detail after spotting main ideas
C. Aggressively, as an interested opponent to the author
D. Trick question: the authors dont tell you how to read philosophy

I. Background: What is Philosophy?

Etymology: Greek

Philosophy = love (pursuit) of

wisdom
Philo = love
Sophia = wisdom

It asks the most basic questions

big, fundamental
questions about our
universe, questions prior to
all other disciplines
Scope & implications

The Death of Socrates

(1787)
Jacques-Louis David

Philosophys scope
Philosophical questions are
Broad questions about our universe to which we do or must presuppose some
answers
Difficult questions about everyday concepts
Philosophy as conceptual analysis: the analysis of concepts to gain knowledge/clarity
Concept: an idea, especially of a class or set of particular objects/things

car

mind

device

freedom

person

rights

Philosophy involves, centrally, the analysis of concepts that figure into

every domain

What is philosophy?

Argumentati
on

Philosophy:
Argument
about &
assessment
of
fundamental
concepts/ide
as

Conceptual
clarity

Are there concepts in science &

engineering in need of philosophical analysis?

Technology

Innovation

Science/scientific method

Mathematics/mathematical truth

Numbers

Statistical significance

Progress

Rights

Moral rightness

Truth

Are there any philosophical questions

that arise in engineering?

Why is technological progress a good thing?

Can this technology be used immorally?

What grounds my criteria for evaluating the success of my scientific theory?

Will access to this technology be equitable?

Am I obligated to consider all possible implications of my invention?

Are mathematical truths objective?

What kind of thing is a number?

Are scientific generalizations truth-apt or merely more and less useful?

What is the relationship between logic and mathematics?

What is mathematic (or scientific) beauty?

Does my theory presuppose a defensible view of reality?

What is an explanation?

Are there scientific laws?

What grounds an inductive generalization?

ii. Traditions
Central traditions in the history of philosophy
Major divides:
A. Eastern & Western
B. Western: Continental & Analytic
C. Analytic: Naturalism & Non-Naturalism

A. Eastern & Western by comparison

Eastern Tradition

Western

1. Geographically: Asia, Middle East

1. Geographically: Americas, Europe

2. Conceptually/methodologically:

2. Conceptually/methodologically:

interest in universal patterns

Blunted divide between the
secular and religious

Influence of monotheism
God, creator
Sharp divide between the
secular and religious

B. Western tradition:
Continental & Analytic
Continental Philosophy
19th & 20th C. European philosophy
Term used by the analytic tradition to
distance itself methodologically
non-analytic philosophy
(pejorative?)
Negative definition

Hegels (1770-1831) theory

of reality set the stage for
the development of the
continental tradition and
the
eventual
continental/analytic divide.

HEGELS INTEGRATIVE PHILOSOPHY

Basic Tenets:
The goal of philosophy is to grasp the
Absolute:
an integrated unity of all that is real in
experience
The method: Hegelian Dialectic
Any abstract idea, when fully considered,
leads to its own negation
Integrating contradictions
The contradiction yields a richer
idea, which helps us grasp the
Absolute

Continental
Philosophers:
Derrida
Fichte
Foucault
Heidegger
Husserl
Kierkegaard
Sartre
Schelling
Schopenhauer

Analytic Philosophy

Analysis of arguments
Form: Logic (formal logic)

Emphasis on:
Consistent reasoning
Demonstrable conclusions
Clarity & precision in language

Relationship with scientific inquiry:

Influenced by scientific method
Systematic approach, precision,
objectivity
Solving problems by clearing away
confusion, confounds, obscurity
Unity with science: inquiry into the natural
world
Similar goals, different starting points
and tools

Russell
&
Moore
reacted
to
the
Hegelian tradition by
returning to a view of
reality as a collection
of atomic entities
that we can analyze
for clarity

III. Analytic philosophy: subfields

Logic

Assessment of argument form (structure)

Metaphysics

Epistemology

Philosophy of

Language

Science

Mind

Morality (Ethics)

Applied Philosophy

Education

Engineering

Business

Map of analytic Philosophy

Core: Logic, Metaphysics, Episte

Phil. Science, Phil. Mind, Ethics, Phil. Languag

Philosophy of :
Religion
Law
Mathematics
Education
Aesthetics
History of Philosophy
Social Philosophy
Political Philosophy

IV. Periods in western philosophy

1 Ancient Philosophy

2 Medieval (& Renaissance)

3 Modern

4 Contemporary

1. Ancient
ANCIENT:
600 BC AD 300

600 BC
Greek Philosophy
(Thales,
Anaximander,
Anaximenes)
Pre-Socratics

400 BC
Socrates (469-399)

300 BC
Zeno, Stoic School
Euclid (Geometer)

Plato (427-347)
Founds Academy
~380

Aristotle (384-322)
Enters Academy to
study under Plato
~367

Language: Greek
Topics: All, especially political,
ethics, metaphysics, and logic
Big Names: Aristotle,
Socrates, Plato

100 BC
Cicero
(106-43)
Roman statesman,
orator, writer

0 BC/AD
Jesus of Nazareth
(4 BC- AD 30)

Raphael, School of Athens (1511)

2. Medieval & Renaissance (AD 300

1500s)

MEDIEVAL:
AD 300-600

Language: Latin
Topics: Theology ( esp.
Christianity), Faith vs. Reason
Big Names: Augustine,
Aquinas, Anselm

Jesus (AD 26)

AD 100
Epictetus (Stoic)
(55-135)
Marcus Aurelius
(121-180)

AD 200
Gnosticism
Manichaeism
Mani (216-277)

AD 400
St. Augustine
(354-430)
Confessions
City of God

529 AD
Closing of
Athenian Schools
By Justinian
(Roman Emperor)

3. Modern

MODERN:
1600-1900

Languages: Latin,
German, French, English
Topics: Metaphysics &
Epistemology, Ethics &
Society, Mind
Big Names: Descartes,
Hume, Kant, Locke,
Nietzsche

William of Ockham
(1285-1349)
Dante (1265)

Machiavelli
(1469-1527)

Francis Bacon
(1561-1626)

1700
Locke (1632-1704)

1800
Kant (1724-1804)

Chaucer (1340)

Descartes
(1596-1650)
Meditations

Columbus crosses
Atlantic
Hume (1711-1776)
Copernican Revolution
1492
1543
Galileo

J.S. Mill
(1806-73)

1900
Nietzsche
(1844-1900)

4. Contemporary
CONTEMPORARY:
1900-Present

Reaction to Hegel &

Continentals

1903

Russell develops
Logic & conceptual
Analysis (1900)

Moores
ordinary
language philosophy

Language: English &

German
Topics: All, especially Logic
& Math, Science,
Metaphysics, Epistemology,
and the analytic/continental
divide
Big Names: Russell &
Whitehead, Quine, Carnap

1930s-50s
Logical Positivism
Carnap & the
Vienna
Circle

1960s
Epistemology
Gettiers Challenge
To JTB Theory

Review questions
1. What makes a question philosophical?
2. What kind of analysis is central to the Western analytic tradition?
3. Name two or three major traditional divides (divides by tradition).
4. What are two of the main ways in which the Western and Eastern traditions differ?
5. What is the relationship between analytic philosophy and science?
6. Why are logic, metaphysics, and epistemology at the core of analytic philosophy?
7. Name the four major periods in the development of Western philosophy.

Introduction to Logic
The Methods of Philosophy
Part I

overview
I

Background: Rhetoric & Sophistry

II

The Development of Logic

III

Fundamentals of Logic
Arguments, propositions, inference
Inductive and Deductive Inference
Evaluation: Validity, Soundness, Strength, and Weakness

I. Background:
Format of Philosophical discourse

Using arguments to advance, support, and criticize competing

philosophical theories
Theories about fundamental questions and concepts
Conceptual analysis

Advancing a theory goes beyond merely asserting opinion

It involves giving reasons (in the form of arguments) to
accept a claim
Careful and systematic thinking about claims and concepts

History of argument
Rhetoric: The art of persuasion using language
Culture of Ancient Greece:
Emphasis on political participation
Athenian citizens present their own cases in court
Legal disputes often protracted
Result: Emergence of Sophistry:
Professionalization of teaching rhetoric

Sophistry

Sophist: (Greek) One who practices wisdom

A group of teachers of rhetoric (~440 BC)

Culture of Greece need for education in
the art of persuasion

Sophists claimed to teach whatever it takes to be

successful
Legally
Commercially
Politically

Make the weaker argument the stronger

(even when theres no argument at all)

The growth of rhetoric

II. The Development of logic

Classical logic
Ancient Greece
Aristotles syllogism
Goal: understanding reason, the nature of
inference

Contemporary logic
Bertrand Russell
Analytic Philosophy
Goal: understanding reason, the basis for
scientific and mathematical inquiry

Logic vs. Rhetoric

Rhetoric

Logic

Make the weaker argument the

stronger

Distinguishing good from bad

arguments

Persuasion getting a practical

result

Consistency, objectivity

Appearance over Truth

Truth

III. Fundamentals
Logic: The study of the principles governing inference in an argument
Argument: A series of statements, where one is claimed to follow from (inferred from) the others
A set of claims containing an inference
Inference: The act of deriving one claim from another claim or set of claims
The follow from part; the move in an argument

Propositions
Proposition: The content of a statement
Propositions may be asserted or denied
Must have a truth value: T or F
Propositions are the building blocks of arguments

Sentence: A unit of language expressing a complete thought

Sentences generally express propositions
Though the sentence is technically distinct from the proposition
The sentence is the vehicle for the proposition

Propositions vs. Sentences

Sentences are the vehicles that carry propositions

We use sentences to express ideas, or propositions, but they are not the same
thing:

It is raining
Es regnet
Esta lloviendo

3 different sentences

Each asserts the same proposition

From Propositions to Arguments

Argument:
a group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others

Premises:
A proposition or set of propositions used to make an inference to a conclusion
The support for the conclusion

Conclusion:
A proposition that is claimed to follow from a set of premises
The part of the argument that you infer from the premises

Premises and conclusions

Conclusions often indicated by:

Therefore, thus, hence, consequently, it follows that, then, this entails that, etc.

Premises often indicated by:

Because, as, for, since, given that, etc.

Extended & Simple Arguments

Extended arguments

Contain other arguments within them

Simple arguments

Do not contain other arguments within them

Most philosophical articles contain extended arguments

Extended arguments are only as good as their components

Must be broken down and analyzed

A complex argument is only as good as its weakest inference

Inference
The process of reasoning from a set of premises to a conclusion
The inference is the act of drawing a conclusion from a set of premises or
supporting claims
(The conclusion is sometimes also called the inference)

Broadly, two kinds of inference (or reasoning):

Deductive
Inductive

Logic evaluates quality of inferences

III. Inference
Two Kinds of Inference:
Deductive inference
Attempts to show that the conclusion must follow from the premises the argument
guarantees the conclusion
Conclusion follows necessarily
E.g: Mathematics uses deductive inference
Inductive inference (non-deductive)
Attempts to show that the conclusion probably follows from the premises
The argument is intended to make the conclusion likely
E.g. science uses inductive inference

Evaluating Inferences

Inference correctly links premises and conclusion

Deductive arguments: attempt to guarantee conclusion

Valid = good deductive inference
Invalid = bad deductive inference

Inductive arguments: attempt to make conclusion likely

Strong = good inductive inference
Weak = bad inductive inference

Deductive Arguments

Attempt to guarantee the truth of the conclusion

Use a set of premises to derive a conclusion

2 things to evaluate:

The inference
The process of reasoning, or movement from premises to conclusion (validity)

The content
The truth of the premises themselves (soundness)

Evaluating Deduction - Step 1

Validity:
A property of deductive arguments
Df: An argument is valid if the truth of the premises would guarantee the
truth of the conclusion

Assuming the premises are true, is the conclusion a necessary result?

Yes: Valid argument
No: Invalid argument

Step 2: Soundness

The argument is valid, but are the premises actually true?

That requires looking at the content of the argument

Soundness:
1. Validity: if premises are true, conclusion is true; and
2. All true premises

A deductive argument is sound when it is valid AND the premises are actually
true.
When a deductive argument is sound, the conclusion must be true it cannot be
any other way.

Necessary & Sufficient conditions

Necessary condition: must be satisfied for statement to be true
Sufficient condition: if satisfied, ensures a statements truth

Validity is a necessary condition (NC) for soundness

All sound arguments are valid arguments
But not all valid arguments are sound
Validity is not a sufficient condition (SC) for soundness

Example Deductive Argument

1. All human beings are mortal.
2. Socrates is a human being.
C. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Step 1: If the premises were true, must the conclusion be?
Step 2: Are the premises actually true?

Evaluating Inductive Arguments

It is not possible for inductive arguments to guarantee a conclusion

Hence scientific hypotheses are always strong/weak, not T or F

Instead, inductive arguments make the conclusion probable or likely

Evaluation:
Do the premises make the conclusion likely?
Yes: Inductively strong
No: Inductively weak

Example Inductive Argument

1. Raven #1 is black.
2. Raven #2 is black.
3. Raven #3 is black.
4. In fact, any raven I have ever seen is black.
C. Therefore, all ravens are black.
Evaluation: how likely is the conclusion given the premises?

Induction vs. Deduction

What is the primary difference?

Deduction: Guarantee
Induction: Probability

Deduction doesnt try to go far beyond the available facts

Moves stepwise to available information
Analysis of what you already know

Induction goes beyond the available facts

Draws conclusions about the unobserved on the basis of the observed

Induction vs. Deduction

Deduction: from general principles to particular cases
Reasoning from general to specific
Geometric proofs are deductive because they are an attempt to show
that what is true of triangles in general is true of this particular triangle,
T.

Induction: from particular cases to general principles

Reasoning from specific to general

Science is often inductive because it goes beyond the evidence

It reasons from specific cases to generalizations about the way the
world works

Inductive or deductive inference?

1. Only wrapped textbooks may be returned
2. Your textbook is unwrapped
3. Therefore, your textbook may not be returned.

Inductive or deductive?
1.Jimmy is a great student in the front row
2.Jamal is a great student in the front row
3.Susan is a great student in the front row
4.The best students always sit in the front row

Inductive or deductive?
1. Students sitting in the front row are probably among the best students
2. Jimmy is sitting in the front row
3. Jimmy is probably one of the best students.

Inference review questions

(1) What is an inference, in general, in the philosophical sense? Use at least the following three words in
your answer: proposition, premises conclusion.
(2) What kind of inference is used in the argument below?
(3) How do you know its that kind of inference as opposed to some other?
(4) Evaluate the following inference using the terminology appropriate for the kind of inference you
named in (b).
P1. The only members of the Williams family are Susan, Nathan and Alexander.
P2. Susan wears glasses.
P3. Nathan wears glasses.
P4. Alexander wears glasses.
Therefore, all members of the Williams family wear glasses.
(5) Write up one example of a deductive inference with at least 2 premises
(6) Write up one example of an inductive inference that could be mistaken for a deductive inference

HOMEWORK: week 1
Answer the following questions (numbered accordingly) on an MS Word document, include your name,
and submit to the homework drop box before Thursday @ noon.
1. Specifically, what kind (or style) of philosophy are we doing in this course, and why is logic important
to it? Explain using the appropriate vocabulary
2. Using the appropriate terminology, evaluate the following argument:

All dogs are mammals

All mammals have two legs

Therefore, all dogs have two legs

3. Explain the difference between deductive and inductive arguments

Introduction to Logic
The Methods of Philosophy
Part II: Inference & Fallacies

Rules of Inference

In deductive logic, we construct formal proofs of validity

Inference rules are rules that may be used in this process

They are valid argument forms

Some Valid Rules of Inference

Modus Ponens (MP)

PQ
P
Therefore Q

Modus Tollens (MT)

PQ
~Q
Therefore ~P

More Valid Rules of Inference

Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)

PQ
QR
Therefore PR

Disjunctive Syllogism
P or Q
~Q
Therefore P

Bad Arguments

Bad or fallacious arguments

Invalid
And thus also unsound

Fallacy: a mistake in reasoning

Formal fallacy: deductive argument with invalid form
Informal fallacy: flawed reasoning, but the flaw is not the form of the argument

Formal Fallacies

Logical fallacies

A flaw in the structure of a deductive argument

But presence of a fallacy says nothing about truth values of premises or conclusion
Both could be true, but the conclusion does not follow from premises

Example Formal Fallacy:

Affirming the consequent
If P then Q
Q
Therefore, P

If Jones is bifurcated by shark, then hes dead

Jones is dead
Therefore, Jones was bifurcated by shark

Example

Denying the antecedent

If P then Q
Not P
Therefore Not Q

If Jones is bifurcated, then he is dead

Jones is not bifurcated

Therefore, Jones is not dead

Informal Fallacies
Flaw is not in the form, but rather in the content of the propositions
logical fallacy can refer to formal or informal, but informal fallacies
are probably more common

4 general types of informal fallacy:

Fallacies of relevance
Bad induction
Fallacies of presumption
Fallacies of ambiguity

Fallacies of Relevance

Red herring
An argument that attacks some feature of an idea or program that isnt any part of the
program at all
An attempt to distract us from the real issue

Example: CA attempts ban on plastic bags

Commercial by American Chemical Council: California is in trouble: 2.3 million
unemployed, a $19 billion deficit. And what are some California politicians focused on?
Grocery bags.

Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of Relevance

Motive fallacy:
A variant of ad hominem
Argument against an idea on the grounds that the person proposing it has ulterior
motives
Not relevant to the idea they are defending

Political motives
Politicians constantly accusing each other of having political motives
Of course they do! But thats not what makes the policy they are proposing crappy

Fallacies of Presumption
Begging the Question
Assuming the truth of what you seek to prove in order to prove
it
Often the conclusion is disguised in alternate language in the premises
To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous
to the state; for it is highly conducive to the interests of the community that each individual
should enjoy a liberty, perfectly unlimited, of expressing his sentiments.

Fallacies of Ambiguity
Equivocation
To confuse several meanings of a word or phrase in the context of an
argument
E.g., a feather is light so it cannot be dark

1. If someone is entitled to an opinion, then her opinion is well

supported by the evidence
2. I am entitled to my opinion (like everyone in a democratic society
that values free speech)
3. Therefore, my opinion is well supported by the evidence