BASIC NOTE ON

GST212 -
Philosophy, Logic
and
Human Existence

For AUST 200 Level

Lecturer: Prof. Iroye Samuel Opeyemi
(Ph.D, LL.M, B.L, LL.B, PGDDE, DIP.TH.)

1
Module 1 An Overview of Philosophy
Unit 1 Definition and Scope of Philosophy
Unit 2 Methods of Philosophy
Unit 3 Branches of Philosophy

Unit 1 Definition and Scope of Philosophy

1.0 Introduction and General Overview

1.1 Definition of Philosophy
1.2 The Various Conceptions of Philosophy
1.2.1 The Under-Labourer Conception of Philosophy
1.2.2 The Master Scientist Con Caption

1.0 Introduction/General Overview

In this unit we shall be looking at the definition and scope of philosophy
generally but most importantly as a discipline. The unit will give a general
overview of development of Philosophy and focus particularly on the
controversial nature of the definition or conception of philosophy, it will consider
both the layman and academics conceptions and understandings of philosophy.

For a proper study of Philosophy, there are basic knowledge expected to be

acquired about the historical development of Philosophy and these are
highlighted as follows:

a) Father of Philosophy: Socrates is widely considered the "father of

Western philosophy". He is credited with founding Western philosophy and
is among the first moral philosophers.

2
 b) Why Socrates is often referred to as the father of Western
philosophy: Socrates developed a unique method of inquiry, the
Socratic method, which involved asking probing questions to challenge
assumptions and encourage critical thinking. This method is still used in
education today. Socrates's ideas and teaching style profoundly
influenced his students, particularly Plato and Aristotle, who went on to
shape the course of Western philosophy

c) The First Philosopher: Thales of Miletus is widely considered the first

philosopher in the Western tradition. He lived in Ionia (modern-day
western Turkey) during the 6th century BCE. He is known for proposing
that water was the fundamental element of the universe, representing a
shift towards rational explanation over mythological accounts.

d) The Branches of Philosophy: There are seven (7) branches of

philosophy and these includes; Metaphysics, Axiology, Epistemology, Logic,
Ethics, Political Philosophy, and Aesthetics. These branches help us explore
different aspects of human existence and knowledge, creating a
framework to understand the mind, society, and the world.
e) Periods of Philosophy: The developmental (historical) periods of
philosophy are broadly divided into Ancient, Medieval, Modern, and
Contemporary periods.

1.1 Definition Philosophy

3
Subject of Many Interpretations: The term “Philosophy” is known to have
many interpretations, and, because of the critical nature of the discipline no one
philosopher can define philosophy in a way that will be acceptable to every
philosopher. Unlike other disciplines such as economics, history, political science,
biology etc. where students can give a straight forward definition of their
respective discipline, this is not possible with philosophy.

There is no particular, exact or direct definition of philosophy. From the early

days of study, each philosopher defines philosophy from his or her perspective or
that each philosopher defines philosophy based on what he or she perceives as
the central problem(s) or what we may call the subject matter of philosophy.

Since there are many problems or issues that philosophy deals with, there are
many definitions of philosophy and this account for the reason Bodunrin (1981:
12) recommends to new learners in philosophy, who wants to attempt the
definition of philosophy, to always wait for a problem to be settled in the cause
of his or her studying philosophy, then a personalized definition will emerged.

What you should always have in mind is that when a student of philosophy asks
a question “what is Philosophy” he has started philosophizing and to philosophize
is to wonder about life and about the fundamental issues that borders on human
existence.

Literal Definition: Literally, the term "philosophy" means, “Love of Wisdom”.

In a broad sense, philosophy is an activity people undertake when they seek to
understand fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live,
and their relationships to the world and to each other.

4
Scientific Definition: Scientifically, philosophy is defined as the study or
research into the fundamental causes of all things using only human reason.

General Definitions of Philosophy:

Philosophy is a combination of two Greek words, philein sophia, meaning lover of

wisdom. This could be in business, politics, human relations, or carpentry and
other skills.

Philosophy helps to develop the capacity to see the world from the perspective of
other individuals and other culture; it enhances one's ability to perceive the
relationships among the various fields of study; and it deepens one's sense of
the meaning and variety of human experience.

Agbafor Igwe (3) describes it as “a rational quest for truth, meaning and logical
inter-connectedness of our fundamental ideas”.

According to Iroye Samuel O., Philosophy is the study of human aspirations to

get basic information, facts or knowledge about humans, the world they live in
and how they interact and relate.

Philosophy tries to understand the universe we find ourselves in. It tries to

uncover the mysteries behind both human and non-human existence through
orderly reflection. It is, thus, a study of our existence and all things in our
universe.

1.2 The Various Conceptions of Philosophy

The problem with a definition of philosophy also arises due to the various
‘conceptions’ and ‘misconceptions’, understanding and misunderstanding of

5
philosophy. Because of this, the discipline has been given various meanings or
definitions. This section focuses on the different conceptions or definitions of the
discipline from various groups or individual’s perspective. This begins from
professionals to the lay man and by ‘lay man’ I mean the average man in-the-
street.

These conceptions are listed and explained as follows:

1.2.1 Under- labourer Conception

1.2.2 The Master Scientist Conception of Philosophy

1.2.1 Under- labourer Conception

This is in another word called the popular conception of philosophy. In this

sense, the word philosophy is often used to characterize a person or a group of
persons' attitude to life. Attitude here means the general pattern or the habitual
way of response of the person to events. Also, attitude, in a more developed
sense, characterizes a person's expressed or observed worldview, which may be
the sum of his assumptions, beliefs, attitudes, and prejudices which are partly
inherited and partly acquired in the process of living (Akinpelu, 1981 :2). In this
sense everybody is a philosopher in so far as everybody has a philosophy of life,
that is, an attitude towards life. When we claim to have a personal philosophy of
life, it refers to either or both two senses that we sometimes refer. Thus, why in
the street you often heard people saying, ‘My philosophy’, ‘His philosophy’, and
so on. If you ask a common man: “What is your philosophy of life”? You will get
answers such as: “My philosophy of life is to take things gently” or You can see
here that when we talk of a layman’s conception of philosophy, it simply means,

6
the sum of a person’s beliefs, the main principles that control and guide a
person’s life. This view also suggests that at least most human adults have
necessarily some philosophy of life, since it would be impossible to lead a human
life without some forms of beliefs and definite principles to guide those beliefs.
These include among others various ideas about man and the supernatural
realities, such as God, Soul, Spirits which governs human life and world-view.

In Halverson view, this impression of philosophy is understood to have a very

practical orientation. And a philosophy of life… include views on such things as
the nature of man and man’s place in the universe, some convictions about what
things are worth for and so on (1967:4). In this conception, the term philosophy
also refers to the profound sayings of the elders which are witty and pregnant
with meanings. It is under-labourer because it does not capture the sense in
which philosophy is understood technically speaking.

1.2.2 The Master Scientist Conception of Philosophy

This conception of philosophy is itself the result of philosophical doctrine that

sees knowledge as exclusively depending on sense experience. Whatever cannot
be observed or is not subject to objective verification cannot constitute
knowledge.
In more recent times, this philosophical doctrine has come to be known
as scientism. This conception repudiates knowledge that is not based on
scientific method of enquiry. This impression or conception extols the sciences
and treats the Humanities like a vast debating society or subject meant for those
without serious academics or professional ambition. This conception is further a

7
product of a lopsided view of technology. Most people tend to ascribe the credit
for technological achievements to the physical sciences, whereas, in fact,
technological progress is due to a combination of many aspects of human life
including politics, law, education, art, commerce, and philosophy. Lack of
appreciation for this according to Onigbinde (1999:20) has made many to
assume that only science, and no other field - can yield knowledge and
understanding.

However, the implications and the inadequacies of this conception is not

farfetched. The implication of restricting human knowledge to human experience
is "half knowledge" or "lopsided knowledge". Reality goes beyond experimental
and observable. This explains why the empirical disciplines cannot answer the
question of purpose - why the universe exists in the first place. It is incompetent
to explain the ultimate purpose of our existence or of the universe because of its
empirical constraints but to argue that such questions cannot be fruitfully
investigated because they fall outside the ambits of the empirical sciences is
sheer intellectual dishonesty.

Conclusion:
Philosophy consists in the constant and unwavering disposition to seek the truth.
In the light of this, Plato defines philosophy as a man whose passion is to seek
the truth, a man whose heart is fixed on reality'. According to Aristotle,
philosophy is rightly called the knowledge of the truth'. It is not out of place
therefore to say that philosophy is synonymous with truth. Be that as it may,
given the various conceptions of philosophy as outlined above, we submit with
Omoregbe that philosophy is a rational search for answers to the questions that
arise in the mind when we reflect on human experience. It is also a rational

8
search for answers to the basic questions about the ultimate meaning of reality
and of human life.
Unit 2 Methods of Philosophy

Contents
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Socratic Method
2.2 Synthetic Method of Plato
2.3 Pragmatic Method
2.4 Skepticism
2.5 Empiricism and Rationalism
2.6 Kant’s Critical/Transcendental Method
2.7 Dialectical Method of Hegel

2.0 Introduction
To examine methods of Philosophy we are referring to the ways by which the act
of philosophy can be carried out. This unit will therefore be examining the
various ways by which philosophical processes have been carried out from the
time of Socrates.

2.1 Socratic Method

Socratic Method is a form of logical argumentation originated by the ancient

Greek philosopher Socrates. The Socratic method of philosophical consists in
arguing out the entire process of the subject in question, in the manner of a
dialogue. (i.e. Using dialogue to explain or interrogate the subject matter).

9
It is believed that the term is now generally used as a name for any educational
strategy that involves the cross-examination of students by their teacher, and
the method used by Socrates has been re-created by his student Plato to follow
a more specific pattern.

Socratic Method is a philosophical teaching technique developed by Socrates that

utilizes a series of questions and answers to stimulate critical thinking and
explore a topic depth. It is a dialogue between a teacher and students, where
the teacher’s primary goal is to guide the student toward a deeper understanding
by challenging their assumptions and beliefs through questioning, rather than
directly providing information.

In this process, the teacher professes entire ignorance all the while, finally
getting the truth from the mouth of the questioner himself, by the ingenious
method of subtle examination, through the process of questioning and analysis.

The Socratic Method can be summed up in the following processes:

a) The assumption of an ignorance of truth by the teacher, which has been

called the Socratic irony: This attitude of intellectual humility and basing
oneself on the most fundamental of propositions in an argument is, as
with Descartes, essential to unravel the depths of truth.

b) The method of dialogue or conversation as an effective technique in the

discovery of truth: This is based on a grasp of the presence of the
knowledge of the true and the good in every person at the bottom of his

10
 being, in spite of hasty conclusions that one may make regarding things
due to immature observations and pet prejudices. This common ground of
truth among men can be brought out to the surface by careful analysis,
argument and investigation, by question and answer. This is often called
the art of philosophic midwifery.

c) The establishment of correct concepts or definitions before trying to know

their application in life’s instances.

d) The art of proceeding from the observed facts to more general truths, i.e.,
adopting the inductive method of reasoning. The method of Socrates is
also deductive in the sense that it draws out the consequences and
implications of certain concepts and judges their validity.

2.2 Synthetic Dialectic Method of Plato

This is a follow up to the analytical method of Socrates. Plato's "Synthetic

Dialectic" method, also known as the dialectic method, is a philosophical
approach that involves a question-and-answer dialogue to explore and refine
ideas, ultimately aiming to uncover truth through the process of reasoned debate
and synthesis.
It is a way of seeking truth through reasoned dialogue. It involves presenting
opposing ideas (a thesis and antithesis) and then synthesizing them into a more
comprehensive understanding, ultimately aiming for a deeper understanding of
the truth.

11
This method is used to move from common opinions (doxa) to a more refined
understanding of concepts and ultimately, the forms.

This method contrasts with Aristotle's Rhetorical Approach, which focuses on

persuasion.

Plato’s dialectic method mostly consisted in the grouping of scattered particulars

into a single concept or idea and the dissection of this concept or idea into
classes, i.e., the generalisation and arrangement of the idea.

Key Features of Plato's Synthetic Dialectic: This includes;

i. Questioning and Dialogue: The method relies heavily on asking
questions to challenge assumptions and probe the underlying nature of
concepts.
ii. Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis: A dialectical discussion often
involves a starting thesis or position, followed by an opposing antithesis,
and finally, a synthesis that integrates the strengths of both.
iii. Seeking Truth: The goal of the dialectic is not to win an argument, but
to arrive at a deeper understanding of a topic, leading to the discovery of
truth.
iv. Intellectual Growth: The process of dialectical inquiry is seen as a
means of intellectual development, allowing individuals to clarify their
own thinking and expand their knowledge.
v. Connection to the Forms: Plato believed that the dialectic method
could lead to knowledge of the Forms, which are the perfect, unchanging
realities that underpin our perceived world

12
2.3 Pragmatic Method

In philosophy, the pragmatic method emphasizes practicality and real-world

application as the criteria for judging the merit of ideas and beliefs. It suggests
that the value of an idea lies in its usefulness and its ability to lead to positive
consequences, rather than abstract theoretical principles. This approach shifts
the focus from abstract concepts to concrete results, prioritizing action and
experience over doctrine

According to the pragmatic method, everything is real when it tends to fruitful

activity and results. The character of fulfilling the primal interests of man should
be the guiding principle in philosophy. Human interest is the touchstone of
philosophical endeavour, of all activity—physical, mental, moral or spiritual.
Values are to be judged by results, and the test of truth is workability.

2.4 Skepticism

Skepticism in philosophy is a method that questions the certainty of knowledge

claims and the validity of evidence, often leading to a stance of doubt about the
possibility of knowing things with certainty. It's not just about doubting specific
claims, but about questioning the foundations upon which knowledge claims are
built. Skeptics often argue that we cannot be certain about the external world,
the nature of reality, or even our own perceptions.

It is a process by which man stepped into the region of philosophy through

doubt and skeptical thinking. It is a believe that certain knowledge is not always

13
possible. Man commenced doubting the validity of authority and dogma no less
than that of accepted traditional beliefs. Descartes readily comes to mind in this
form of method. Descartes started with doubting everything, even the validity of
thought itself. Later, Kant, too, followed the critical method of enquiry in
philosophy. Bradley was of the opinion that the chief need of philosophy is “a
skeptical study of first principles.” However, he adds: “By skepticism is not meant
doubt about or disbelief in some tenet or tenets. It is an attempt to become
aware and to doubt all preconceptions and the essence is to ensure certainty in
the process.”

Key aspects of skepticism in philosophy

a) Doubting the certainty of knowledge: Skeptics challenge the idea

that we can have absolutely certain knowledge about anything.
b) Questioning the basis of knowledge claims: They examine the
principles and evidence on which knowledge claims are based, seeking to
uncover potential flaws or limitations.
c) Exploring the possibility of error: Skeptics recognize that our senses,
reason, and even our own minds can be unreliable.
d) Not a denial of all knowledge: While skepticism can be extreme
(absolute skepticism), it can also be more moderate, questioning the
certainty of specific knowledge claims while still acknowledging the
possibility of knowledge in some areas.

2.5 Empiricism and Rationalism

Empiricism and rationalism are opposing philosophical methods in epistemology,

focusing on how we acquire knowledge. Empiricism emphasizes that knowledge

14
comes from experience, particularly sensory experience, while rationalism argues
that reason and innate ideas are the primary sources of knowledge.

Empiricism is a theory which states that knowledge comes only or primarily

from sensory experience. One of several views of epistemology, the study of
human knowledge, • It is the view that all knowledge of reality is derived from
sense experience. It is known as “a posteriori knowledge”, which is derived from
experience.

Rationalism is an epistemological position in which reason is said to be the

primary source of all knowledge, superior to the senses. • In general, rationalists
believe that abstract reasoning can produce undeniable, absolutely certain truths
about nature, existence, and the whole of reality. It is known as “a priori
knowledge” which is independent of experience.

2.6 Kant’s Critical/Transcendental Method

Transcendental Philosophy is defined as a groundbreaking epistemological
framework introduced by Kant, focusing on assessing the aims, methods, and
limits of human knowledge, including moral and aesthetic judgments.

Kant's critical or transcendental method is a philosophical approach that

investigates the conditions of possibility for knowledge and experience, focusing
on the structure of the mind and how it shapes our understanding of the
world. It is all about understanding the conditions that make knowledge possible
by examining the structure of human understanding itself, rather than just
looking at the world as it appears. It does not aim to describe the world “in
itself” but rather the way we experience and understand it. This method,

15
developed in works like the "Critique of Pure Reason," seeks to identify the
fundamental principles and categories that allow for meaningful knowledge and
experience.

Kant describes time and space not only as "empirically real" but transcendentally
ideal. Kant argues that the conscious subject recognizes the objects of
experience not as they are in themselves, but only the way they appear to us
under the conditions of our sensibility.

Kant points out that, though the material of our knowledge is supplied by the
senses, the universality and the necessity about it comes from the very nature
and constitution of the understanding, which is the knower of all things in the
world. But the world which we thus know through synthetic a priori knowledge is
not the real world, for; it is built by the materials supplied by the senses, which
gain the characters of universality and necessity when they are brought into
shape by the categories provided by the understanding. The world of reality
cannot be known by the powers that man possesses at present. If we had been
endowed with a consciousness-in-general or an intellectual intuition uninfluenced
by the judgments and categories of the understanding, it would have been
possible for us to know the reality as such; but as this kind of consciousness is
not possessed by us, we cannot know reality. What we know are just empirical
facts or phenomena constructed by precepts and concepts common to all men.
The postulates of reality that reason advances are only necessities felt by it and
not realities in themselves.
2.7 Dialectical Method of Hegel

16
Kant’s critical method was taken much further and completed by Hegel in a
staggering system of idealism built by means of what he termed the dialectical
method.

Hegel's dialectical method, also known as the Hegelian dialectic, is a

philosophical method that involves examining ideas and their contradictions to
arrive at a more complete understanding. It's a process of movement through
opposing ideas (thesis and antithesis) to arrive at a synthesis that resolves the
contradiction and advances knowledge.

Simply put, it is a way of understanding how ideas evolve through a process of

contraction and resolution. It involves identifying a starting idea (thesis), then its
opposite or contradiction (antithesis), and finally a new higher level idea that
combines the strength of both (synthesis). This process is used to analyze and
develop concepts, leading to a more complete and nuanced understanding.

This method of Hegel consists in the constructive dialectical process of opposition

and reconciliation. Thesis, antithesis and synthesis are its moments. The
existence of the finite and its assertion of itself as such is the thesis. This thesis
naturally evokes the existence and assertion of the finite that is its opposite. This
is its antithesis. The relation between the thesis and the antithesis implies a
reconciliation of these two in a higher synthesis brought about by the evolving
force of the Whole, which transcends the isolated factors of the existence and
the assertion of the thesis and the antithesis. This reconciliation results in the
cooperation of the thesis and the antithesis and in a blend of the existence and
the assertion of the unity of the synthesis. Then this synthesis itself becomes a
thesis to which there is an antithesis. The two again get unified and transcended

17
in a still higher synthesis. This process of dialectical unification in higher and
higher syntheses continues in various grades, progressively, until the Absolute is
reached, where all contradiction is finally and fully reconciled.

Conclusion

The true philosophic method should not be lopsided, should not be biased to any
or special dogma, but comprehend within itself the processes of reflection and
speculation and at the same time be able to reconcile the deductive and the
inductive methods of reasoning.

Unit 3 Branches of Philosophy

18
Contents
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Logic
3.2 Metaphysics
3.3 Epistemology
3.4 Ethics
4.0 Conclusion

3.0 Introduction

This study introduces you to the major branches of philosophy. It is an

opportunity for you to know the divisions and sub-divisions within philosophy.

3.1 Logic

The word Logic does not have a straight forward answer, which means no
straight forward definition can be given to it, nevertheless quite a number of
writers have tried to give their own definition of Logic within their different
perceptions and concentration of their study or research.

The word “Logic” is Derived from the Greek word Logos (“reason”, “word”), it is
concerned with reasoning. It attempts to offer conditions under which an
argument may be deemed valid, invalid, sound or unsound as the case may be.
It deals with arguments as encountered in our daily lives. Arguments are the
major concern of logic, and this is why it is also defined as the science of
arguments.

Logic has been variously defined by different scholars. Copi for instance, defines
“logic as the study of the methods and principles used in distinguishing good
(correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning” (1972). On the other hand, Nancy sees
Logic “as the science that appraises reasoning as correct or incorrect” (1990:34).
Kahane on his part defines logic as “an attempt to distinguish between correct
(valid) and incorrect (invalid) arguments” (1968:2). According to DipoIrele
(1999: 12)
Logic is that “branch of philosophy that deals with the structure and principles of
reasoning or sound argument.” To Ade Ali, (2003:5), “Logic is a reflective study
19
that provides the canons for judging and evaluation of correct reasoning…it is
also the study of the principles of reasoning especially of the structure of
proposition as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in
deductive reasoning.” What is common to all the above and other definitions of
logic is that logic is not a clever way of dogging issues using a cunny means but
rather it is a systematic expository study of how human beings ought to think if
they are to reason correctly. It is the study of how to ensure that your reasoning
conforms to fundamental principles that governs correct reasoning.

You need to know that logic is an instrumental branch of philosophy. In point of

fact, always remember that logic is the tool of philosophizing. Logic enables
philosophers to make their arguments well stated and persuasive more than
other people do.

The logician is most concerned with argument which can be described as a string
of statement that can simply be divided into two parts namely premise(s) and
conclusion.

Argument
An argument is “any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from
the others which are regarded as providing support or grounds for the truth of
that one” (copi 7). Arguments are simply statements (propositions) in which one
of the statements called a conclusion is derived from other statements called
premises which give backing for its truth (i.e. truth of the conclusion). There are
three terms in an argument, they are proposition, premise and conclusion.

a. Proposition
Simply put, a proposition is a statement that is either true or false. Thus, it is a
special type of statement. A proposition, generally, is stated using a declarative
sentence. Any sentence that lacks these criteria is not a proposition.

Declarative sentences are assertive and communicate information directly. They

are said to have truth value because they are either true or false unlike the other
kinds of sentences. EG.

 “AUST is a University”

20
  “AUST is Located in Lugbe”

The above statements are declarative sentences and are empirically verifiable.
Whereas the first proposition is true, the second is false.

b. Premise
A premise is a proposition that offers support or grounds for accepting the
conclusion of an argument. An argument may have one or more premises.

One Premise Argument:

Example of an argument with a single premise:

Tinubu is the President of the Nigeria
Therefore, Tinubu is a Nigeria citizen.

Here, the proposition “Tinubu is the President of the Nigeria” is the premise of
the argument. It gives evidence or reason for arriving at the conclusion: “Tinubu
is a Nigeria citizen”.

Two Premise Arguments

Let us also consider an example of an argument with two premises.

GST212 is a Compulsory Course in AUST

Amenat is a Student of GST212
Therefore of Amenat is a student of AUST

Here, “GST212 is a Compulsory Course in AUST” and “Amenat is a Student of

GST212” are the two premises of the argument which offer support to the
conclusion: “Amenat is a student of AUST”.

c. Conclusion

21
The conclusion of an argument is the proposition inferred or arrived at from a
premise or premises. From the examples above, the following are the
conclusions of the arguments: “Tinubu is a Nigeria citizen”, “Amenat is a student
of AUST”.

Types of Arguments
There are basically two types of arguments – Deductive arguments and inductive
arguments. This distinction is rooted on certain relations that exist between the
premise(s) and conclusion of an argument.

i. Deductive Argument: This is the type of argument whose premises are

said to provide conclusive grounds for the affirmation of its conclusion.
The premises of a valid argument are said to necessitate the conclusion of
the argument. Thus, if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be
false, it must necessarily be true, otherwise, it is invalid. Example:

All Lagosians are Nigerians

Bayo is a Lagosian
Therefore, Bayo is a Nigerian.

ii. Inductive Arguments: An inductive argument is an argument “which the

conclusion follows not necessarily, but only probably from the truth of the
premises” (Igwe 78). The logical connection between the premises and
conclusion of an inductive argument is that of probability, not necessity as
with deductive argument. Thus, if the premises of an inductive argument
are true, the conclusion would only be probably true.

Distinction between Deductive and Inductive Arguments

While validity, invalidity, soundness and unsoundness relate to deductive

arguments, inductive arguments are classified or assessed as being stronger,
weaker, better or worse according to the intensity, degree or proportion of
support their premises give to their conclusions. Let us consider the following
examples.

22
i. John is a Nigerian student and he is intelligent
Abigail is a Nigerian student and she is intelligent
Therefore, all Nigerian students are intelligent

ii. One hundred students of Philosophy Department have been observed

Eighty of them are intelligent
Therefore, all Philosophy students are intelligent.

Argument (ii) of the above inductive argument examples is stronger than

argument (i) because its premises offer more intense or degree of support to its
conclusion than the premises of argument (i) did. In argument (ii), about 80% of
the students were observed before drawing the conclusion whereas in argument
(i) only two students out of the millions of the Nigerian students were observed.

FORMS OF ARGUMENT

There are two forms of argument; they are Simple argument and Complex
argument.

a. Simple Argument: A simple argument is one that contains one, two or

three ideas. Normally, such arguments consist of two or three statements
as premises with another sentence as conclusion. Example

1. Only students of AUST study GST212

Dumebi studies GST212.
Therefore, DUMEBI is a student of AUST
2. All metals conduct electricity
Copper is a metal
Consequently, copper conducts electricity

b. Complex Argument: The second argument is a complex argument. This

form of argument consists of as many arguments as possible with so many
premises and conclusion(s).

23
Complex argument could take various patterns like seminar paper, debate, a
write-up. Structurally, a complex argument normally has a theme, with so many
premises and conclusion(s).

Example:
There are two ways of dealing with criminals. Either rehabilitate them or\ punish
them. Rehabilitation is not a viable option for the following reasons:
One, the cost of rehabilitation has sky-rocketed. Two, rehabilitation is not
effective: it does not deter criminals or would be criminals. Three, there are
conflicting methods of rehabilitation. Four, prisoners seem to be getting too good
a lifestyle for what they have done. I suggest therefore that we should use the
other option, that is, punish them (Achilike, 2010:18).

From this example, you will notice that identifying a complex argument involves
a complex reasoning. But you will notice the following when you compare it with
the simple sentence that you have read earlier.
1. It has very many major (claims) premises
2. It has mini-premises supporting each or some of the major premises
3. It has major conclusion that is major theme or position being defended
4. It has additional supporting claims or auxiliary evidences for the position being
defended.

3.2 Metaphysics

The word metaphysics is derived from the Greek words Meta (after) and physika
(physical), “meta-ta-physika”, which means ‘after the physics.’ The word first
used by Andronicus of Rhodes (around 70 B.C.) (Rhodes is a city, an Island
reputed as the largest in Greece at the time), a commentator on Aristotle’s
works. He used the term to describe Aristotle’s works which came after the
discussions on the physical sciences. It was recorded that Aristotle wrote a series
of books dealing with nature which he himself called “the physics”. However,
decades after
Aristotle’s death Andronicus decided to sort through his works and gave them
titles. When Andronicus reached the batch of writings that followed “the physics”
he did not know what to call them, so he invented word “metaphysics”. This
means that the Greek word ‘meta’, ‘after’ also means beyond. In this sense,
metaphysics means that which is beyond the ‘physical eye’.

24
This has been defined as the science of being as being. ‘Being qua tale’. This is
the branch of philosophy that studies reality in its most comprehensive scope
and fundamental principles. It is the science that tries to determine the real
nature of things.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the ultimate nature of
reality or things. It attempts to understand and explain why things are the way
they are. Aristotle referred to it as first philosophy or Sophia (wisdom), in other
words, the science of final/ultimate causes and principles. He also designated it
the science of being qua being, i.e. the study of “what is as it is” or “what is
insofar as it is”. “Being” means “that which is” or “exists” or “anything that can
be said to be, whether spiritual, abstract or physical”. “Qua” is a Greek word
loosely considered to mean “as” or “insofar as”. Aristotle also viewed
metaphysics as theology because it deals with a unique of being – God who is
beyond the senses. Metaphysics, thus, as could be seen, deals with both sensible
and supersensible realities.

TAKE NOTE: Though Aristotle is considered as the founding father of

metaphysics as a science of reality, he was not the first to raise metaphysical
problems. Metaphysics as an intellectual enterprise dates back to the pre-
Socratic philosophers such as Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes as well as
Pythagoras, Parmenides and Heraclitus. The concern of these philosophers was
the search for the primary stuff of the universe. They were also concerned with
determining the ultimate constitutive elements and grounds for the unity of
things.

Division of Metaphysics:

Metaphysics is generally divided into Ontology and Cosmology. Ontology is the

study of being or existence and forms. Form is the basic structure of a thing; in
other words, the unique feature distinct from its material. Cosmology, on the
other hand, is the study of or theory about the physical universe as a whole. This
meaning stems from the Greek kosmos (the world or universe) and logos (theory
or study). Cosmology as an arm of metaphysics deals with the universe as a
whole, particularly, its make-up and organization.

3.3 Epistemology

25
Epistemology is also one of the traditional branches of philosophy.
Etymologically, it derives from two Greek words Episteme which means
“knowledge” and logos which means “science of study, discourse or reasoning”
Put together, epistemology is the study or the science of knowledge. It is the
branch of philosophy which investigates the scope, source and limitations of
human knowledge. In this branch of philosophy, the philosopher wishes to know
what knowledge means. Is knowledge different from opinion and belief? Thus,
epistemology tries to discover what knowledge is and how it differs from mere
opinion or belief. It examines what constitutes belief and what constitute
knowledge? How does knowledge differ from belief? What does it mean to know
and how do humans know what they claim to know? What can we know? Can
we know anything with certainty or must we be certified with mere guess and
opinion? Is there any limit to what we can know? What is the relation between
knowledge and reality? Does all knowledge of the real world arise out of
experience or do we have knowledge that is in some degree independent of
experience?

3.4 Ethics
Ethics derived from the Greek word Ethos which means “custom” or “character”-
it is a customary or acceptable way of acting. It is the philosophy of the morality
of human conduct. Sometimes it is called “moral philosophy”. It is the branch of
philosophy that concerns itself with right, or wrong, and other issues related to
evaluating human action. And you should always remember that Socrates was
the first to systematize the discipline. He was the first to claim that “the
unexamined life is not worth living”. Socrates devoted all his life to a critical
examination of human behaviour. He was the first to confess that “the only thing
I know is that I know nothing”. In his opinion, ethics is also referred to as the
science of human conduct”. It is the philosophical study of the so-called moral
facts: namely such things as moral evaluations, commandments, norms, virtuous
acts, the manifestations of conscience (Brugger:117) |.

Ethics raises questions such as: why should a person be moral? What is morality?
Where did the idea of morality come from? What is the good life for man? Are
there consequences for immoral actions? Are there rewards for moral acts? Who
or what determines what is morally right? Ethics is majorly sub-divided into
Meta-ethics, Applied ethics, Normative or Prescriptive ethics and
Descriptive ethics.

26
 i. Meta-ethics: Meta-ethics deals with the character or nature of moral
concepts and judgments as well as the nature of ethics itself. It analyses
such ethical concepts or terms as justice, good, equity, fairness, duty,
obligation, principles, etc. The major problem in meta-ethics is how to
determine a good or bad action. In other words, what is a good action? Or
what constitutes a bad action? Again, what do moral concepts describe?
Natural entities or supernatural entities? Meta-ethics also deals with the
controversy over whether moral judgments are objective, subjective,
absolute or relative. Major meta-ethical theories include naturalism, anti-
naturalism (also called non-naturalism and intuitionism), emotivism and
prescriptivism.

ii. Applied Ethics: Applied ethics, also called practical ethics, is the
application of ethical principles or theories to practical moral problems
arising in various fields of human life. It attempts to find answers to moral
questions of practical life. This, it does, using ethical theories and
principles relevant to the problem. Its development has led to the
development of policies in various fields of endeavour geared towards
helping individuals, organisations and governments favourably deal with
practical moral problems. Branches of applied ethics include bioethics,
environmental ethics, business ethics, academic ethics, medical ethics,
nursing ethics, agricultural ethics, and legal ethics, among others.
Prominent moral issues it handles include racial discrimination, birth
control, abortion, sexual equality, cloning, and environmental degradation.
Applied ethics focuses on applying moral principles to specific situations
and problems

iii. Normative or Prescriptive Ethics: The main duty of normative ethics is

to prescribe what ought to be both for humans and society. In other
words, it prescribes that criteria for human actions properly be judged as
morally good or bad.

iv. Descriptive Ethics: The duty of descriptive ethics is to examine the

moral views held by human beings or the society and to confirm whether
these views are universal or not. In Udoidem’s words: “The study of
human actions centres on the description of … How human beings behave
or act without actually making value judgments or prescribing what human
beings should or should not do” (1992:70).

27
Module 2 Relevance of Philosophy
Unit 1 Philosophy and other Disciplines
Unit 2 The Usefulness of Philosophy
Unit 3 Sources of Knowledge and Criteria for Knowing

Unit 1 Philosophy and other Disciplines Contents

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Philosophy and science
1.2 Philosophy and Religion
1.3 Philosophy and Education
1.4 Philosophy and Law

This unit introduces the analysis of the relationship between philosophy and
some other disciplines. Bearing in mind that there is no discipline per se that
does not stem from philosophy as parent discipline. The focus in this unit will be
specifically on the relationship between philosophy, the sciences, religion,
education and law.

28
1.1 Philosophy and Science

Until late 16 and early 19 centuries all scientific knowledge was within the ambit
of philosophical inquiry. In other words, philosophy was the “science” per
excellence. But according to Archie J. Bahm: As reflections upon problems
became increasing, complex and as special techniques were developed,
specialists limited the range of these inquiries, and the sciences were born.
Among the first were mechanics, mathematics and astronomy. Among the latest
were psychology and sociology.

There is no doubt that science stemmed from philosophy. It is also true that as a
discipline, science bears some specific characteristics different from philosophy.
According to Harold H. Titus, scientific knowledge can be defined as: A system of
man’s understanding of nature, society and thought. It reflects the world in
concepts, categories and laws whose truth is verified by practical experience.
Science is the study of the totality of the concrete spheres of material reality. It
is concerned to investigate and establish objective laws of nature by forming
working hypothesis by which man may be enabled to harness nature to his
purposes and transform his environment (1997:65).
From the above definition of science, it should be clear to you that the main
purpose of science as discipline is to observe, understand natural phenomena
and then control processes. To any scientist it is assumed that the universe, the
orderly and natural phenomena are predictable and lawful.

Similarities and Differences between Philosophy and Science

Take note that philosophy and science should not be perceived as competitors.
Notwithstanding that science originated from philosophy, as a discipline their
subject matter is different.
The scientist main business is to explain natural phenomena, while a philosopher
does not intend to do so. An average scientist always seeks for explanation while
the philosopher basically seeks for justification. You should also know that the
two main scientific purposes are prediction and control over phenomena. There
are also six steps procedures in any scientific inquiry which one cannot avoid.
These are: observation, inductive generalization, hypothesis, attempted
verification of hypothesis, proof or disproof and knowledge. Thus,
prediction and control based on the laws of induction are what makes science
not only original but also different from philosophy. As academic disciplines, their

29
methodologies are quite different. The philosopher’s inquiry begins where that of
the scientist stops. It may be difficult for a scientist to answer philosophical
questions. Philosophy operates at a different level. A scientist cannot answer
philosophical questions such as: is the world divided into mind and matter or is it
possessed of independent power”. Is the mind subject to matter or is it
possessed of independent power? Has the universe any unity or purpose? Is it
evolving towards some goal? Are there really laws of nature or do we believe in
them only because of our inmate love of order? Does God exist? You can see
that none of these questions can find answer in the scientist’s laboratory.

Take Note that the kind of knowledge that the scientist and philosopher seek is
different, the purpose of their disciplines is often similar, because both of them
are motivated by sheer curiosity and the satisfaction of having knowledge of the
universe purely for the pleasure of the understanding.

1.2 Philosophy and Religion

The purposes of philosophy and religion are fundamentally opposed. A

philosopher is always critical while a religionist is not. For a religionist, the role of
reason is basically one of interpreting and defending the dogma derived from
sources whose authority and truth is taken on faith. While any serious
philosopher begins his investigations from a position of intellectual neutrality
regardless of where his personal sympathies may lie. In philosophy, any known
assumption is subject to critical scrutiny. While religion is purely dogmatic. In
religion knowledge is sought principally to achieve what a given religion takes to
be human kind’s final happiness or destiny. While in philosophy, knowledge is
sought simply for its own sake. Philosophy often questions the assumptions of
religion.
You should also know that the purposes of philosophy should not be confused
with those of the religious minister, the theologians, the psycho-analyst, pastors
and imams. A philosopher is not a magician. Critical reasoning, neutrality and the
desire for knowledge for its own sake are the basic concerns of a philosopher. It
is in this sense that philosophy is very different from religion.

1.3 Philosophy and Education

This minor branch of philosophy refers to the study of the fundamental principles
of the theory of education as distinguished from the science or art of education.
That is, the empirical study of educational process and the techniques or

30
methods of educational practice. For instance, to the pragmatists, the philosophy
of education principally deals with values and goals of education which include
the nature of humans as capable of being educated, the agent by which
education is achieved, the characteristics of a truly educated person, the trained
abilities acquired in education which help one to solve practical problems of life
and control of his environment. In this branch of philosophy, the philosopher
examines the concept of education and what it means to educate and how best
it can be achieved. He looks at stages involved in education and what the goals
of ideal education are.

1.4 Philosophy and Law

The function philosophy performs in law is that it studies the nature of law and
philosophical principles of law and justice with reference to the origin and the
end of the civil law and the principles that should govern its formulation. A
critical and philosophical look at law in its generality is the function of a discipline
called jurisprudence which, as understood by lawyers, denote a working
knowledge of a particular system of law with reference to the exercise of private
and public decision-making functions and scholarly critiques of the resulting
actions. According to Pizzorni, there are three classifications of the main object of
philosophy of law and these are:

1. The universal concept of law, that is its essential features which must be
present in every juridical system

2. The foundation of law from which every legal system derives its origin and
values.

3. The standard or criteria with which all existing laws are guided and
evaluated, for the problem of the evaluation of law of law is the problem
of the philosophy of law. (curled from Omoregbe, 1994:173)

Philosophy of law differs from the science of law. While the science of law
deepens man’s knowledge of laws or legal system, the philosophy of law
broadens man’s horizon and opens the human mind to see that there is more to
the reality of law and legal experience than can be seen through the empirical
study of law.

Unit 2 The Usefulness of Philosophy

31
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Main Content
2.2 Conclusion

2.0 Introduction
This study is to introduce to you the usefulness of philosophy. It is an
opportunity for you to know how useful philosophy is to human kinds and the
environment. The usefulness of philosophy as discussed here will enhance your
understanding of philosophy as distinguished from those who conceive it as an
abstract contemplation and romance with the unreal far removed from practical
living.

2.1 Main Content: The Usefulness of Philosophy

Take Note that those who conceive philosophy as an intellectually complex and
as an abstract contemplation that is far removed from practical living, do not see
any meaningfulness or relevance in philosophical enterprise.
However, philosophy is both mentally and practically relevance to human kinds.
One of the usefulness of philosophy is that it helps to foster or develop the habit
of reflections and thus further help us to enlarge the areas of our awareness to
become more alive, more discerning, more critical, and to be more enlightened.
The age in which we live is an age of uncertainty and change, when many of the
older beliefs and the ways of doing things are inadequate. When this is the
situation, we need a scale of values and a sense of direction. Philosophy provides
this sense of direction. It provides us with a unity of outlook and response to the
reality of the world in which we live and operate. It provides us with the
parameters for discernment and for judging issues and articulating problems
intelligently and critically.
Philosophy in the intellectual realm trains one to think clearly, critically and
independently. Through, philosophy one can develop analytical abilities with
which one can effectively handle both practical and abstract issues.
At moral level, it helps to provide insight in distinguishing among values and to
identify for oneself what is best and most relevant. It enables one to distinguish
which human behaviour is good, moral, acceptable and praiseworthy as against
those that are bad, immoral, unacceptable and condemnable.
As a professional in any field, philosophy provides the intellectual background
helpful to success. It challenges one to come up with one’s own effective ways of
solving problems that do not have readymade answer. Furthermore, it helps in
the rationalization and organization of results of human inquiry, religion historical
and scientific into consistent view world.

32
2.2 Conclusion

Some persons hold the view that philosophy is an abstract and believe that
philosophy has no practical relevance to humankind. But the usefulness of
philosophy in the various field of study make the assertion to be untrue.

Unit 3 Sources of Knowledge and Criteria for Knowing

Contents
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Difference between knowledge, opinion and belief
3.1.1 Common-sense understanding of knowledge, opinion
and belief
3.1.2 Philosophical understanding of knowledge, opinion
and belief
3.2 Sources of knowledge
3.2.1 Reason
3.2.2 Sense experience
3.2.3 Intuition
3.2.4 Authority
3.2.5 Revelation and faith.
4.0 Conclusion

3.0 Introduction

This study unit introduces the different sources and criteria for knowing.
It is an opportunity for you to differentiate between common sense and
philosophical understanding of knowledge, belief and opinion. The different
sources of knowledge will be emphasized.

3.1 Difference between Knowledge, Opinion and Belief

Often, the terms knowledge, opinion and belief are used interchangeably and
when considered at the surface level, it ordinarily looks as if there is no
difference among them. In the daily life, it is easy for someone to say he
“knows” when he should say he “believes”. On the other hand, he “believes”
when he should say he “knows”. It is important to know that like philosophy, the
question of knowledge is not an easy one. It is not easy to align our thoughts

33
with reality. Our mind is always puzzled when it comes to adjusting our beliefs to
the knowledge of things in the world, so that our beliefs become grounded in
evidence. Therefore, the relationship and the difference between knowledge,
opinion and belief depend on the person’s position.

3.1.1 Common-sense Understanding of Knowledge, Opinion and Belief

As stated earlier, often knowledge, opinion and belief are used interchangeably.
This confusion mostly appears in common sense usage. To a layman knowledge
implies many things. For instance, knowledge can even be synonymous with
acquaintance. When a layman asks a question such as:

“Do you know the President of the AUST?” In his mind this question is the same
as “are you acquainted with the President?” However, the truth is that you might
know the President in the sense of being acquainted with him without knowing
much about him. On the other hand, it is also possible to know a great deal
about some other person which you have never met. For instance, as a student
of philosophy, you know a great deal about Plato, but I am sure that you never
met him.

Also, in daily life, some people say they “know” while they mean “believe” or
“think”. For instance, when a layman says that a medicine is good; What he has
in mind is “think” because he might have some authoritative persons saying it
that ‘that medicine is good’. Most of the time we hear people saying that they
“know” that Black men are cursed, nothing good can come out of them. They
“know” that things will never work well for them.

In the above statements there is an obvious confusion between knowledge,

opinion and belief. And, this is what happens in the daily life of a layman.

3.1.2 Philosophical Understanding of Knowledge, Opinion and Belief

The philosophical understanding of knowledge is very different from that of the
layman. For a layman, knowledge, opinion and belief are interwoven. But it is not
possible in philosophy. For a philosopher, you say “know” when you possess
information that is beyond doubt and the information is also true.

a) Knowledge: In philosophy, knowledge, opinion and belief are

distinguished by their justification, truth and the degree of conviction they
hold. Knowledge is typically understood as a justified true belief, meaning
it’s not just a guess but supported by evidence and corresponds to reality.

34
What matters here are that knowledge implies being sure, being certain.
Also, believing is a pre-condition for knowledge. Because, when you know
something, you have a right to a certain confidence in your belief as a true
and reliable guide to action. Evidence is the unique characteristic of
knowledge.

Sources of Knowledge:

One of the perennial questions in the history of epistemology that is theory

of knowledge has always been: How does knowledge come about? How do
we know propositions to be true? Or by what means do we come by our
knowledge of the real world? Answers to these questions have been given
through the following means: (a) Reason, (b) Sense experience (c)
Authority (d) Intuition (e) Revelation/faith and (f) Mystical experience.

a. Reason: Rationalism is a school of thought in epistemology which

holds that human beings can acquire knowledge of reality using our
minds alone, by thinking or pure reason. To any rationalist, reason is
a necessary ingredient for all our knowledge claims. This is one of
the reasons why Aristotle defines man as “a rational animal”. Thus,
the ability to think is what is called reason. Any serious rationalist
agrees that we cannot acquire knowledge through sense experience
without the powers of reason. For them, it is true that our
perceptual experience provides the raw material for judgments, but
without reason, we cannot make judgments at all. For instance, to
reason that the object in front of you is a blackboard you must first
of all recognize it as a blackboard based on certain perceptual
characteristics such as colour, smell, taste, size, shape as they recur
in your experience.

b. Sense Experience: Sense experience is another source of

knowledge. The Empiricists are the proponents of sense experience
theory. To any empiricist, as far as knowledge is concerned, only
sense experience matters. In other words, empiricism is the
philosophical theory which denies reason while insisting that
experience is always the necessary ingredient in our knowledge
claims of the natural world. This school of thought or group have
Bishop George Berkeley who asserted Esseestpercipii meaning ‘to be

35
 is to be perceived’. His position simply implies that what i.e. known,
true and real is that which satisfies the sense experience condition.
Other prominent members are John Locke and David Hume.

c. Authority: Authority is also considered as one of the sources of

knowledge. Authority as source of knowledge occurs when we make
certain claims to knowledge based on the authority of someone who
is a specialist in the particular field of knowledge. “Magister dixit” i.e.
the ‘Master said”. For instance, I know HIV is real because “The
Minister of Health” in Nigeria said so..

Here, “The Minister of Health” becomes an authority on the subject.

But you should always remember that even as a source of
knowledge, authority is a relative term. A man may be an authority
in a certain field of knowledge like the Minister; however, this does
not confer certainty on the claim being made even if he claims some
knowledge of it. Aside, it is fallacious to reason this way.

d. Intuition: Another source of knowledge is intuition; Balm defines

intuition as the “immediacy of apprehension” (1995:5). According to
him:… Intuition is the name we give to the way awareness
apprehends when awareness apprehends appearance directly. No
intuiting exists apart from awareness; no awareness exists without
intuiting (1995:5).

Intuition is the ability to understand something instinctively, without

the need for conscious reasoning. In Philosophy, intuition refers to
the capacity for acquiring knowledge without relying on conscious
reasoning or external observation.

e. Revelation and Faith: These are also considered as sources of

knowledge. It is common to hear people saying: “it was revealed to
me in a dream” or “it was revealed to me by God and I have faith in
it”. “My faith guides me in this matter and I know that it is certainly
true”.

f. Mystical Experience: A mystical experience is often described as a

profound and transformative encounter with something beyond
ordinary, sensory experience. It involves a sense of connection to

36
 something larger than oneself, often described as a spiritual,
transcendent, or mystical reality. While the nature of the experience
is subjective, it can lead to a deepened sense of meaning, purpose
and unity

b) Opinions: Opinions are personal perspectives or judgements that may or

may not be based on evidence and are often held with less certainty.

c) Beliefs: Beliefs on the other hand, are attitudes towards proportion,

where one accepts it as true, even if its not necessarily justified by
evidence or corresponds to reality.

37
Module 3 History and Development of Philosophy
Unit 1 The Ancient Age of Philosophy
Unit 2 Medieval and Renaissance Age of Philosophy
Unit 3 Modern Period of Philosophy
Unit 4 Philosophical Movements in The Contemporary Period
Unit 5 The Idea of African Philosophy

Unit 1 The Ancient Age of Philosophy

The Scholars in this age consists of the following:

1.1 Pre-Socratic Age

1.1.1 Thales
1.1.2 Anaximander
1.1.3 Anaximenex
1.2 Other Philosophers of the Pre-Socratic Age
1.2.1 Heraclitus
1.2.2 Parmenedes
1.2.3 Zeno of Elea
1.2.4 Empedocles, Democritus and Pythagoras
1.3 Socrates and the Classical Age
1.3.1 Socrates
1.3.2 Plato
1.3.3 Aristotle
1.4 Philosophical movement of the Socratic Age

38
1.1 Pre-Socratic

Philosophy grew out of wonder and curiosity. What is known as Western Philosophy- by
which we usually mean everything apart from the Eastern Philosophy of China, Indian,
Japan, etc. really began in Greece in about 6 th B.C. But, you need to know that before
this period, the Greeks have always been asking questions on issues that concerns
man and his existence. They ask questions about reality, cosmos, and other
fundamental matters that surround human existence. Answers to these questions are
always sought through religion and mythology. However, at some point, answers to
some of these questions are considered not rational enough, especially by Thales,
Anaximander and Aneximenes as prominent figures. These groups of thinkers were
curious to know the ultimate source of things. Thus, the question; what is the ultimate
source or primary source of all things? This question got different responses from the
three philosophers and they attempt a more rational response to the above question
and offer a rational explanation of the universe.

1.1.1 Thales of Miletus

He is usually considered the first proper philosopher, although he was just as concerned
with natural philosophy (what we now call science) as with philosophy as we know it.
Perhaps, you should note that Thales and most of the other Pre-Socratic philosophers
(i.e. those who lived before Socrates) limited themselves in their discussions to what we
can call Metaphysics. This\ is because they were preoccupied with inquiry into the
nature of existence, being and the world. They were referred to as Materialists,
because, they believed that all things are composed of material entity only). Also, they
were mainly preoccupied with attempts to identify or establish what reality is without
recourse to any kind of supernatural or mythological explanations. That is, they attempt
to identify or establish that the world is made up of a single underlying item or
substance. (This idea is referred to as Monisim in the latter years of the development of
philosophy). According to Thales, he thought the whole universe was composed of
different forms of water. In other words, according to Thales, water is the primary
source of all things in the universe. It is the original element of which all things were
made; water is the underlying unity in all things. Thales is also said to have predicted an
eclipse of the sun which is believed to have occurred in 585BC.

1.1.2 Anaximander
He is the second Greek philosopher and he was a pupil of Thales. He was also from
Miletus in Ionia. Like his master, he held that there must be an original element, a
primary stuff of which all things were made. But he did not think it was water as Thales
did. According to him, the primary source of all things cannot be any of the things we
know because all the elements we know conflict with each other. If any of them were
the original stuff, it would simply conquer and submerge the others. The source of all
things must therefore be a neutral element, different from all the elements we know. It
must be infinite, boundless, eternal and indeterminate. You also must know that
Anaximander maintained that this world is not the only world that exist. He believed that

39
there are many worlds and this world of ours is just one of them. He is said to have
made the first map ever in history. He is also regarded as the early evolutionist,
because he maintained that all living things\ originated from the sea and during time
developed into various forms by means of adaptations to the environment. He believed
that man also evolved from animals but not the kinds of animals we know. He is known
to have maintained that the earth is like a cylinder in shape, a position that differentiate
him from those who believed that the world is flat.

1.1.3 Anaximenes
He is also from Miletus and he is the third Greek philosopher. Like his predecessors, he
also believes that there must be an original stuff from which all things are made, the
primary source or underlying source of all things. To him, this is Air and not Water. Air
is the original source and the primary element of all things. “Just as our soul being air,
hold us together, so do breathe and air encompass the whole world”. To explain his
position, he develops what he called the theory of condensation and refraction. When
air rarefies, it become light and turns into fire; and when it condenses it become cold,
thick and turn into winds, cloud, water, earth and finally stones, both hot and cold, light
and thick things, indeed all things came from condensation and refraction. Thus, by
these processes, all things came from air and will dissolve into air. To Anaximenes, the
earth is flat and rests on air.
Although, these three philosophers came from the same city called Miletus in Ionia and
their philosophical discussion was referred to as the Ionian School of philosophy,
however, this school of philosophy came to an end with the destruction of the city of
Miletus by the Persian in 494BC.

1.2 Other Philosophers in the Pre-Socratic age

Another issue the Pre-Socratics wrestled with was the so-called problem of change,
how things appear to change from one form to another. Some of the philosophers who
engaged themselves in this issue are, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Zeno of Elea,
Empedocles, Democritus and Pythagoras.

1.2.1 Heraclitus

In seeking for the primary source of all things, like the three Ionians, he thought that the
original stuff from which all things were made is Fire. However, Heraclitus was more
preoccupied with the problem of change in his philosophical enterprise. He believed in
an on-going process of perpetual change, a constant interplay of opposites. Given his
believe that everything in the universe undergoes perpetual change, he at a time
asserted that “Nothing is static, everything is in a state of flux”.

40
1.2.2 Parmenedes

On like Heraclitus, Parmenedes, using a complicated deductive argument, denied that

there was any such thing as change at all, and argued that everything that exists is
permanent, indestructible and unchanging. This might sound like an unlikely
proposition, but Parmenedes' challenge was well-argued and was important in
encouraging other philosophers to come up with convincing counter-arguments.

1.2.3 Zeno of Elea

He was a student of Parmenedes, and is best known for his famous paradoxes of
motion (the best known of which is that of the Achilles and the Hare). His idea of
paradoxes of motion helped to lay the foundations for the study of Logic. However,
Zeno’s underlying intention was really to show, like his master Parmenedes and all
other before him, that all belief in plurality and change is mistaken, and that motion is
nothing but an illusion. Although, these ideas might seem to us rather simplistic and
unconvincing today, we should bear in mind that, during this time, there was really no
scientific knowledge whatsoever. Their attempts were therefore important first steps in
the development of philosophical thought. They also set the stage for two other
important Pre-Socratic philosophers: Empedocles and Democritus.

1.2.4 Empedocles, Democritus and Pythagoras

These two, Empedocles and Democritus combined their ideas into the theory of the
four classical elements (earth, air, fire and water), which became the standard dogma
for much of the next two thousand years. Democritus later developed the extremely
influential idea of Atomism. This theory simply states that all of reality is composed of
tiny, indivisible and indestructible building blocks known as atoms, which form
different combinations and shapes within the surrounding void.

Another early and very influential Greek philosopher was Pythagoras, who led\ a rather
bizarre religious sect and essentially believed that all of reality was governed by
numbers, and that its essence could be encountered through the study of
mathematics. He is known for his claim that with figures the world can be constructed.

1.3 Socratic or Classical Age of Philosophy

1.3.1 Socrates

Philosophy really took off, though, with Socrates and Plato in the 5th - 4th Century B.C.
(often referred to as the Classical or Socratic period of philosophy). Unlike most of the
Pre-Socratic philosophers before him, Socrates was more concerned with how people
should behave, and so was perhaps the first major philosopher of Ethics. He developed
a system of critical reasoning to work out how to live properly and to tell the difference
between right and wrong. His system, sometimes referred to as the Socratic Method,

41
was to break problems down into a series of questions, the answers to which would
gradually distil a solution. Although he was careful to claim not to have all the answers
himself, his constant questioning made him many enemies among the authorities of
Athens who eventually had him put to death.

We must point out here that Socrates himself never wrote anything down, and what we
know of his views comes from the "Dialogues" of his student Plato, perhaps the best
known, most widely studied and most influential philosopher of all time.

1.3.2 Plato
In his writings, Plato was a pupil of Socrates. He blended Ethics, Metaphysics (the study
of reality), Political Philosophy and Epistemology (the theory of knowledge and how we
can acquire it) into an interconnected and systematic philosophy. He provided the first
real opposition to the Materialism of the Pre- Socratic, and he developed doctrines such
as Platonic Realism, Essentialism and Idealism, including his important and famous
theory of Forms and universals. Plato believed that the world we perceive around us
is composed of mere representations or instances of the pure ideal Forms.
The real world to him, had their own existence elsewhere. This idea of Plato is known
as Platonic Realism. He used his theory of World of Form to develop and explain his
epistemology, (he identified the four levels of knowledge namely imagining, belief,
thinking and perfect intelligence). He also identified the soul as having three parts
namely, reason, spirit and\ appetite. These three parts of man’s soul are related to the
three strata or classes in the society: the individual appetites represent the class of
workers who satisfy these appetites (the craftsmen or artisans), there is a connection
between the spirited element in man and the large-scale version of this force in the
military (the guardians or the soldiers). Also, there is a deep connection between the
rational element in men and the unique function of leadership in the ruler (the
philosopher king). This tripartite distinction of the soul and the society was used to
explain his idea of Justice both in the soul and in the state. Thus, to him, there will be
justice in the soul if the three parts of the soul functions independently of one another
and there will be justice in the state if each of the parts that is, the artisan, the soldier
and the ruler operate without any interference. Plato developed a theory known as
Eudaimonism

This is the believed that virtue was a kind of knowledge (the knowledge of good and
evil) that we need in order to reach the ultimate good, which is the aim of all human
desires and actions. Plato’s Political Philosophy was\ developed mainly in his famous
book "Republic", where he describes an ideal (though rather grim and anti-democratic)
society composed of Workers and Warriors, ruled over by wise Philosopher Kings.

1.3.4 Aristotle
Aristotle was the third in the main trio of classical philosophers. He was Plato’s student.
He created an even more comprehensive system of philosophy than his master Plato.
His philosophical works span across Ethics,
Aesthetics, Metaphysics, Logic Politics and Science, and his work influenced almost all
later philosophical thinking, particularly those of the medieval period. Aristotle was

42
engaged in a system of logic called Deductive Logic, with its emphasis on syllogism.
Syllogism is a system of logic where a conclusion, or synthesis, is inferred from two
other premises, the thesis and antithesis.
This system of logic remained the dominant form of Logic until the 19th Century. Unlike
Plato, Aristotle held that Form and Matter cannot be separated, and cannot exist apart
from each other. Although, he too believed in a kind of Eudemonism, Aristotle saw
Ethics as a very complex concept and that human beings cannot always control our
own moral environment. He believed that happiness could best be achieved by living a
balanced life and avoiding excess by pursuing a golden mean in everything. This
position is like his formula for political stability through steering a middle course between
tyranny and democracy.

1.4 Philosophical Movements of the Socratic Age

It should be noted here that in the philosophical history of Ancient Greece, there were
several other schools or movements that also held sway, in addition to Platonism and
Aristotelianism. These movements or schools are:

a. Sophism: -This group held a relativistic view on knowledge. In other words, they
believe that there is no absolute truth and two points of view can be acceptable
at the same time. Generally, they hold skeptical views on truth and morality
(although, over time, Sophism came to denote a class of intellectuals who taught
courses in rhetoric and "excellence" or "virtue" for money). Prominent members
of this movement are Protagoras and Gorgias.

b. Cynicism: - This group rejected all conventional desires for health, wealth,
power and fame, and advocated a life free from all possessions and property as
the way to achieving Virtue (a life best exemplified by its most famous proponent,
Diagenes).

c. Skepticism :- This is also known as Pyrrhonism after the movement's founder,

Pyrrho, which held that, because we can never know the true in nner substance
of things, only how they appear to us (and therefore we can never know which
opinions are right or wrong), we should suspend judgment on everything as the
only way of achieving inner peace.

d. Epicureanism :- This group was named after its founder Epicurus, whose main
goal was to attain happiness and tranquillity through leading a simple, moderate
life, the cultivation of friendships and the limiting of desires (quite contrary to the
common perception of the word "epicurean").

e. Hedonism:-The Hedonists are of the view that pleasure is the most important
pursuit of mankind, and that we should always act so as to maximize our own
pleasure.

f. Stoicism :- This theory was developed by Zeno of Citium, and later espoused
by Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius), which taught self-control\ and fortitude as a

43
 means of overcoming destructive emotions in order to develop clear judgment
and inner calm and the ultimate goal of freedom from suffering.

g. Neo-Platonism :- This developed out of Plato's work, largely by Plotinus. It was

largely a religious philosophy which became a strong influence on early
Christianity (especially on St. Augustine), and taught the existence of an ineffable
and transcendent One, from which the rest of the universe "emanates" as a
sequence of lesser beings.

Unit 2 Medieval and Renaissance Age of Philosophy

2.0 Introduction

2.1 Some Islamic philosophers of the Medieval Age

2.1.1 Avicenna
2.1.2 Averroes

2.2 Christian philosophers of the Medieval Age

2.2.1 St. Augustine
2.2.2 St. Anslem
2.3 The Renaissance period

2.0 Introduction

In this unit, we shall discuss the age of philosophy that follows immediately after the
Ancient age. This age is called the Medieval or the Middle age. This unit also features
the Renaissance age which is the aged very close to the medieval period. The medieval

44
period and Renaissance age are so close that the trial in distinguishing them is rather
difficult. Moreover, it was the era that is seen to have restored the philosophical
enterprise from the dogmatism of the middle age.

2.1 Medieval/Middle Age - Islamic Philosophers

This period was around 11th Century, when there was a renewed flowering of thought,
both in Christian Europe and in Muslim and Jewish Middle East. Most of the
philosophers of this time were mainly concerned with proving the existence of God and
with reconciling Christianity/Islam with the classical philosophy of Greece (particularly
Aristotelianism).

2.1.1 Avicenna(11th century, Persian) :-

He is one of the great Islamic philosophers of the Medieval period. Avicenna tried to
reconcile the rational philosophy of Aristotelianism and Neo-Platonism with Islamic
theology. He also introduced the concept of the "tabula rasa" (the idea that humans
are born with no innate or built-in mental content). His idea of “tabula rasa” later
influenced British Empiricists like John Locke.

2.1.2 Averroes (12th century, Spanish/Arabic) :-

He is another Islamic philosopher whose translations and commentaries on Aristotle
had a profound impact on the Scholastic movement in Europe, and he claimed that
Avicenna’s interpretations were a distortion of genuine Aristotelianism. It is important to
state here also, that the Jewish philosopher Maimonides also attempted the same
reconciliation of Aristotle with the Hebrew Scriptures around the same time.

2.2 Medieval/Middle Age - Christian Philosophers

Before we discuss these Christian philosophers, perhaps it should be mentioned here

that the Medieval Christian philosophers were all part of a movement called
Scholasticism which tried to combine Logic, Metaphysics, Epistemology and Semantics
(the theory of meaning) into one discipline, and to reconcile the philosophy of the
ancient classical philosophers (particularly Aristotle) with Christian theology. Also, you
need to understand the Scholastic method as a method that thoroughly and critically
read the works of renowned scholars, note down any disagreements and points of
contention, and then resolve them using Formal Logic and analysis of language.

2.2.1 St. Augustine

He hailed from Tagaste in North Africa. He was the first philosopher who introduced the
problem of evil in the world of utmost important. To him, since
God created all things and God is infinitely good, how then do we explain the existence
of evil in a world that a good God created? This problem to
Augustine possesses serious problem to the existence of God, who is said to be good,
kind, powerful and the creator of all things. He is known for his concept of time, which

45
he believed to be an elusive concept. Thus, to him although we talk about Past, Present
and Future, neither the past nor the future really exists, for the past is gone and the
future is not yet, and the present is only a passing moment. He is also known for his
idea that the concept of truth and
God in some sense are within man, but since God is internal He also transcends man.
His proof for the existence of God is that since every effect has a cause, the universe as
an effect must have a cause. This cause must\ be God. Also, he argued that the
universal conviction of mankind that God exists is proof of God’s existence. If God does
not exist hoe did the whole human race become convinced of his existence.

2.2.2 St. Anselm:-

He is best known as the originator of the Ontological Argument for the existence of
God by abstract reasoning alone. St Anselm is often regarded as the first of the
Scholastics. Another member of the Scholastic is St Thomas Aquinas. He is also known
for his five rational proofs for the existence of God, and his definition of the cardinal
virtues and the theological virtues. He is generally considered the greatest, and certainly
had the greatest influence on the theology of the Catholic Church. Other important
members of the Scholastics included Peter Abelard, Albertus Magnus, John Duns
Scotus and William of Ockham. Each of them contributed slight variations to the same
general beliefs. For instance, Abelard introduced the doctrine of limbo for unbaptized
babies; Scotus rejected the distinction between essence and existence that Aquinas
had insisted on; Ockham introduced the important methodological principle known as
Ockham's Razor, that one should not multiply arguments beyond the necessary; etc.
It is important to mention here that the revival of classical civilization and learning in the
15th and 16th Century known as the Renaissance brought the Medieval period to a
close. It was marked by a movement away from religion and medieval Scholasticism
and towards Humanism (the belief that humans can solve their own problems through
reliance on reason and the scientific method) and a new sense of critical inquiry.

2.3 Renaissance Age

This age is classified as the period of revival of classical civilization and learning, which
occurred in the 15th and 16th Century. It was the age that brought the medieval period
to a close. It was marked by a movement away from religion and medieval
Scholasticism and towards Humanism (the belief that humans can solve their own
problems through reliance on reason and the scientific method) and a new sense of
critical inquiry.

Among the major philosophical figures of the Renaissance were:

 Erasmus:- He attacked many of the traditions of the Catholic Church and

popular superstitions, and became the intellectual father of the European
Reformation;

46
  Niccolo Machiavelli:- He was known for his acclaimed cynical and devious
Political Philosophy. His political ideas have become notorious and has remained
controversial among scholars.

 Thomas More:- He was a Christian Humanist whose book "Utopia" influenced

generations of politicians and planners and even the early development of
Socialist ideas.

 Francis Bacon:- He is an empiricist. His belief is that truth requires evidence

from the real world. His application of inductive reasoning – generalizations
based on individual instances - were both influential in the development of
modern scientific methodology.

Unit 3 Modern Period of Philosophy

3.0 Introduction
3.1 Rationalism
3.1.1 Rene Descartes
3.1.2 Baruch Spinoza
3.1.3 Gottfried Leibniz
3.2 Nicolas Malebranche
3.3 British Empiricism
3.3.1 John Locke
3.3.2 Bishop George Berkeley
3.3.3 David Hume

47
3.4 Some other philosophers of the period

3.5 Late Modern Period

3.3.4 Immanuel Kant

Late Modern Period

3.0 Introduction

The Age of Reason was in the 17th Century and the Age of Enlightenment was in the
18th Century. These ages recorded serious advances in science, the growth of
religious tolerance and the rise of liberalism. These ages marked the real beginnings of
modern philosophy. In large part, the period can be seen as an ongoing battle between
two opposing doctrines, Rationalism- which is the belief that all knowledge arises from
intellectual and deductive reason, rather than from the senses; and Empiricism, which
represent the belief that the origin of all knowledge is sense experience.

3.1 Rationalism

3.1.1 Rene Descartes

We must note here that the revolution that took place in philosophical thought in these
two ages was sparked by the French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes.
He was the first figure in the loose movement known as Rationalism, and much of
subsequent Western philosophy can be seen as a response to his ideas. His method
was known as methodological skepticism and its aim was to dispel Skepticism and
arrive at certain knowledge. This method was to remove everything about which there
could be even a suspicion of doubt (including the unreliable senses, even his own body
which could be merely an illusion) to arrive at the single indubitable principle that he
possessed consciousness and was able to think ("I think, therefore I am" “Cogito ergo
Sum”). He then argued that our perception of the world around us must be created for
us by God. He saw the human body as a kind of machine that follows the mechanical
laws of physics, while the mind or what he called consciousness was a quite separate
entity, not subject to the laws of physics, which is only able to influence the body and
deal with the outside world by a kind of mysterious two-way interaction. This idea,
known as Dualism (or, more specifically, Cartesian Dualism), set the agenda for later
philosophical discussion of the "mind-body problem". Despite Descartes' innovation
and boldness, he was a product of his times and never abandoned the traditional idea
of a God, which he saw as the one true substance from which everything else was
made.

3.1.2 Baruch Spinoza

48
Spinoza happens to be the second great figure of Rationalism. He was the Dutchman.
His conception of the world was quite different from that of Descartes. He built up a
strikingly original self-contained metaphysical system in which he rejected Descartes'
Dualism in favour of a kind of Monism where mind and body were just two different
aspects of a single underlying substance which might be called Nature (and which he
also equated with a God of infinitely many attributes, effectively a kind of Pantheism).
Spinoza was a thoroughgoing Determinist who believed that absolutely everything
(even human behaviour) occurs through the operation of necessity, leaving absolutely
no room for free will and spontaneity. He also took the Moral Relativist position that
nothing can be in itself either good or bad, except to the extent that it is subjectively
perceived to be so by the individual (and, anyway, in an ordered deterministic world, the
very concepts of Good and Evil can have little or no absolute meaning).

3.1.3 Gottfried Leibniz

He is the third great Rationalist and he was a German philosopher. In order to
overcome what he saw as drawbacks and inconsistencies in the theories of the first two
rationalists, Descartes and Spinoza, he devised a rather eccentric metaphysical theory
of monads operating according to a pre-established divine harmony. According to
Leibniz's theory, the real world is actually composed of eternal, non-material and
mutually-independent elements he called monads, and the material world that we see
and touch is actually just phenomena (appearances or by-products of the underlying
real world). The apparent harmony prevailing among monads arises because of the will
of God (the supreme monad) who arranges everything in the world in a deterministic
manner. Leibniz also saw this as overcoming the problematic interaction between mind
and matter arising in Descartes' system, and he declared that this must be the best
possible world, simply because it was created and determined by a perfect God.

3.2 Nicolas Malebranche

Nicolas Malebranche, a French philosopher was also an important figure in 17th
Century. He was a follower of Descartes in that he believed that humans attain
knowledge through ideas or immaterial representations in the mind. However, he
argued (more or less following St. Augustine point of view) that all ideas actually exist
only in God, and that God was the only active power.
Thus, he believed that what appears to be "interaction" between body and mind is
caused by God, but in such a way that similar movements in the body will "occasion"
similar ideas in the mind, an idea he called Occasionalism.

3.3 British Empiricism

Direct opposition to the continental European Rationalism movement was the equally
loose movement of British Empiricism, which was also represented by three main
philosophers, John Locke, Bishop George Berkeley and David Hume.

3.3.1 John Locke

He argued that all of our ideas, whether simple or complex, are ultimately derived from
experience, so that the knowledge of which we are capable is therefore severely limited

49
both in its scope and in its certainty. His idea represents a kind of modified Skepticism.
He believed that the real inner natures of things derive from what he called their primary
qualities which we can never experience and so never know. Locke, like Avicenna
before him, believed that the mind was a tabula rasa (or blank slate) and that people
are born without innate ideas, although he did believe that humans have absolute
natural rights which are inherent in the nature of Ethics. Along with Thomas Hobbes and
Jean Jack Rousseau, he was one of the originators of Social Contract Theory, which
formed the theoretical underpinning for democracy, republicanism, Liberalism and
Libertarianism, and his political views influenced both the American and French
Revolutions.

3.3.2 Bishop George Berkeley

The second of the British Empiricists chronologically was Bishop George Berkeley,
although his empiricism was of a more radical kind, mixed with a twist of Idealism. Using
cogent arguments, he developed the rather counterintuitive system known as
Immaterialism (or sometimes as Subjective Idealism), which held that underlying reality
consists exclusively of minds and their ideas, and that individuals can only directly know
these ideas or perceptions (although not the objects themselves) through experience.
Thus, according to Berkeley's theory, an object only really exists if someone is there to
see or sense it ("to be is to be perceived"), although, he added, the infinite mind of God
perceives everything all the time, and so in this respect the objects continue to exist.

3.3.3 David Hume

David Hume was the third, and perhaps greatest, of the movement. He believed
strongly that only experience and observation should be the foundations of any logical
argument. Hume argued that, although we may form beliefs and make inductive
inferences about things outside our experience (by means of instinct, imagination and
custom), they cannot be conclusively established by reason and we should not make
any claims to certain knowledge about them. Although, he never openly declared
himself an atheist, he found the idea of a God effectively nonsensical, given that there is
no way of arriving at the idea through sensory data. He attacked many of the basic
assumptions of religion and gave many of the classic criticisms of some of the
arguments for the existence of God (particularly the teleological argument). In his
Political Philosophy, Hume stressed the importance of moderation, and his work
contains elements of both Conservatism and Liberalism.

3.4 Some other philosophers of the period

Aside the above discussed philosophers, there were some other "nonaligned"
philosophers of the period and many of were most active in the area of Political
Philosophy. Some of them and ideas of their philosophical discussion are mentioned
below:

•Thomas Hobbes, who described in his famous book "Leviathan" how the natural state
of mankind was brute-like and poor, and how the modern state was a kind of "social
contract" (Contractarianism) whereby individuals deliberately give up their natural

50
rights for the sake of protection by the state (accepting, according to Hobbes, any abuse
of power as the price of peace, which some have seen as a justification for
authoritarianism and even Totalitarianism); • Blaise Pascal, a confirmed Fideist (the
view that religious belief depends wholly on faith or revelation, rather than reason,
intellect or natural theology) who opposed both Rationalism and Empiricism as being
insufficient for determining major truths;

• Voltaire, an indefatigable fighter for social reform throughout his life, but wholly cynical
of most philosophies of the day, from Leibniz’s optimism to Pascal's pessimism, and
from Catholic dogma to French political institutions;

• Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose discussion of inequality and whose theory of the

popular will and society as a social contract entered into for the mutual benefit of all
strongly influenced the French Revolution and the subsequent development of Liberal,
Conservative and even Socialist theory;

•Edmund Burke, who was considered as one of the founding fathers of modern
Conservatism and Liberalism, although he also produced perhaps the first serious
defence of Anarchism.

Immanuel Kant: He was a German philosopher who appeared towards the end of the
Age of Enlightenment. Kant made another paradigm shift as important as that which
was made by Descartes some years earlier, and in many ways, this marks the shift to
Modern philosophy. He sought to move philosophy beyond the debate between
Rationalism and Empiricism and he attempted to combine those two apparently
contradictory doctrines into one overarching system. A whole movement called
Kantianism developed in the wake of his work, and most of the subsequent history of
philosophy can be seen as responses, in one way or another, to his ideas.
According to Kant, Empiricism and Rationalism could be combined. He also believed
that statements were possible that were both synthetic (a posteriori knowledge from
experience alone as we have in Empiricism) but also a priori (from reason alone, as
we have in Rationalism). Thus, without the senses we could not become aware of any
object, but without understanding and reason we could not form any conception or idea
of it. However, our senses can only tell us about the appearance of a thing,
phenomenon and not the "thing-in-itself," noumenon, which Kant believed was
essentially unknowable, although we have certain innate predispositions as to what
exists, which is known as Transcendental Idealism). Kant made a great contribution to
Ethics with his theory of the Categorical Imperative. The theory simply state that we
should “act only in such a way that we would want our actions to become a universal
law, applicable to everyone in a similar situation”. This theory is also interpreted as
Moral Universalism and that we should treat other individuals as ends in themselves,
not as mere means, which means Moral Absolutism, even if that means sacrificing the
greater good. To Kant, any attempts to prove God's existence are just a waste of time,
because our concepts only work properly in the empirical world (which God is above
and beyond), although he also argued that it was not irrational to believe in something
that clearly cannot be proven either way.

51
3.5 Late Modern Period

Let it be stated here also, that the Modern period produced German Idealist
philosophers and Romanticism Movements. Thus, philosophers like Arthur
Schopenhauer whose philosophy was considered very singular and a product of the
age. He was a thorough-going pessimist who believed that the "will-tolife" (the drive to
survive and to reproduce) was the underlying driving force of the world, and that the
pursuit of happiness, love and intellectual satisfaction was very much secondary and
essentially futile. He saw art (and other artistic, moral and ascetic forms of awareness)
as the only way to overcome the fundamentally frustration-filled and painful human
condition.

The greatest and most influential of the German Idealists was Georg Hegel. Although,
his works have a reputation for abstractness and difficulty, however, he is often
considered the summit of early 19th Century German thought, and his influence was
profound. He extended Aristotle's process of dialectic (resolving a thesis and its
opposing antithesis into a synthesis) to apply to the real world - including the whole of
history - in an on-going process of conflict resolution towards what he called the
Absolute Idea. However, he stressed that what is really changing in this process is the
underlying "Geist" (mind, spirit, soul), and he saw each person's individual
consciousness as being part of an Absolute Mind, which is sometimes referred to as
Absolute Idealism.

Another important figure of this period was Karl Marx who was strongly influenced by
Hegel's dialectical method and his analysis of history. His Marxist theory including the
concepts of historical materialism, class struggle, the labour theory of value, the
bourgeoisie, etc., which he developed with his friend Friedrich Engels as a reaction
against the rampant Capitalism of 19th Century Europe, provided the intellectual base
for later radical and revolutionary Socialism and Communism.

Unit 4 Philosophical Movements in The Contemporary Period

4.0 Introduction
4.1 Utilitarianism
4.2 Pragmatism
4.3 Logical Positivism
4.4 Analytic Philosophy
4.5 Continental Philosophy
4.5.1 Phenomenology
4.5.2 Existentialism

52
4.0 Introduction
In this unit, you are going to learn about the various philosophical ideas in the
contemporary time. We shall be talking about Pragmatism, Logical Positivism and the
two philosophical movements trending in the contemporary age, which are Analytic and
Continental philosophy.

4.1 Utilitarianism
In England, the Contemporary age began in the 19th Century. It recorded a very different
kind of philosophy, which grew out of the British Empiricist tradition of the previous
century. One of such philosophy is the Utilitarianism movement. It was founded by the
social reformer, Jeremy Bentham and was popularized by his even more radical protégé
John Stuart Mill. The idea of Utilitarianism is a type of Consequentialism. It is kind
of approach to Ethics that stresses an action's outcome or the consequence of an
action. It holds that the right action is that which would cause "the greatest happiness of
the greatest number". This theory was refined by Mill to stress the quality not just the
quantity of happiness, and intellectual and moral pleasures over more physical forms.
He counselled that coercion in society is only justifiable either to defend ourselves or to
defend others from harm (the "harm principle").

4.2 Pragmatism
As we have development and changes in philosophical tradition in England, so also was
the development of philosophical tradition in America in the 19 th Century. The most
popular American movement of the late 19th Century was Pragmatism, which was
initiated by C.S Peirce and developed and popularized by William James and John
Dewey. The theory of Pragmatism is based on Peirce's “pragmatic maxim”, that the
meaning of any concept is really just the same as its operational or practical
consequences. In other words, it means that something is true only insofar as it works in
practice. Peirce also introduced the idea of Fallibilism, the idea that all truths and "facts"
are necessarily provisional, that they can never be certain but only probable.
Furthermore, William James extended the idea of Pragmatism to serve as a method for
analysing philosophic problems and as a theory of truth. On the other hand, John
Dewey's presented his own Pragmatism as Instrumentalism. His idea of
Instrumentalism simply stands for the methodological view that concepts and theories
are merely useful instruments, best measured by how effective they are in explaining
and predicting phenomena, and not by whether they are true or false. He also
contributed significantly to the development of Philosophy of Education and to modern
progressive education, particularly what he called "learning-by-doing".

4.3 Logical Positivism

European philosophy was not limited to the German Idealists in the Contemporary
period. There was the French sociologist and philosopher Auguste Comte who founded
the influential Positivism movement around the belief that the only authentic knowledge
was scientific knowledge, based on actual sense experience and strict application of the

53
scientific method. Comte saw this as the final phase in the evolution of humanity, and
even constructed a non-theistic, pseudo-mystical "positive religion" around the idea.
The Logical Positivism which developed from Auguste Comte’s Positivism campaigned
for a systematic reduction of all human knowledge down to logical and scientific
foundations and claimed that a statement can be meaningful only if it is either purely
formal especially, mathematics and logic or if it is capable of empirical verification. The
school grew from the discussions of the so-called "Vienna Circle" in the early 20th
Century. The members of this group include the following philosophers among others:
Mauritz Schlick, Otto Neurath, Hans Hahn, Rudolf Carnap and Ludwig
Wittgenstein whose work Tractatus, published in 1921, was a text of great importance
for the group. Tractatus was the picture theory of meaning, which asserted that
‘thoughts’, as expressed in language, picture the facts of the world, and that the
structure of language is also determined by the structure of reality. In the 1930s, A.J
Ayer was largely responsible for the spread of this philosophical movement to Britain,
even as its influence was already waning in Europe.
The philosophy of Soren Kierkegaard was also highly influential in the contemporary
period. Having trained in Hegel’s philosophy and not impressed by it, his philosophy
could be a direct reaction against Hegel. He was an extremely religious man (despite
his attacks on the Danish state church). But, his analysis of the way in which human
freedom tends to lead to "angst" (dread), the call of the infinite, and eventually to
despair, was highly influential on later Existentialists like Heidegger and Jean Paul
Sartre.

4.4 Analytic Philosophy and Continental Philosophy

20th Century philosophy was dominated to a great extent by the rivalry between these
two philosophical traditions; Analytic Philosophy, which simply express the mindset
that philosophy should apply ‘logical techniques’ and be consistent with modern
science; and Continental Philosophy which, in very general terms, rejects Scientism
and tend towards Historicism.

4.4.1 Analytic Philosophy

An important idea that influenced the Analytic Philosophy tradition was the Logicism,
which was developed during the late 19th Century by Gottlob Frege. Logicism attempt
to show that some, or even all, of mathematics can be reduced to Logic. Frege’s work
revolutionized modern mathematical Logic.
This idea was championed by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead in the early
20th Century. They both wrote a book titled Principia Mathematica, a ground-breaking
and monumental book that was particularly important milestone.
Both Russell and Whitehead went on to develop other philosophies. Russell's work was
mainly in Philosophy of Language and the theory of Logical Atomism. Whitehead
developed a metaphysical approach known as Process Philosophy, which posited
ever-changing subjective forms to complement Plato's eternal forms.
Some other important philosophers in the Analytic Philosophy includes
W.V.O. Quine, Gibert Ryle and in the early 20th century we have G.E Moore, a
contemporary of Russell at Cambridge University. Moore’s 1903 "Principia Ethica" has
become one of the standard texts of modern Ethics and Meta- Ethics. The work inspired

54
the movement away from Ethical Naturalism (the belief that there exist moral properties,
which we can know empirically, and that can be reduced to entirely non-ethicalor natural
properties, such as needs, wants or pleasures) and towards Ethical Non-Naturalism (the
belief that there are no such moral properties). He pointed out that the term "good", for
instance, is in fact indefinable because it lacks natural properties in the way that the
terms "blue", "smooth", etc, have them.

4.4. 2 Continental Philosophy

4.4.2.1 Phenomenology
On the Continental Philosophy side, an important figure in the early 20 th Century was
the German Edmund Husserl. He was the founder of Phenomenology a great and very
influential movement of the Century. Husserl developed the idea, parts of which date
back to Descartes and even Plato, that what we call reality really consists of objects and
events (phenomena) as they are perceived or understood in the human consciousness,
and not of anything independent of human consciousness (which may or may not exist).
Thus, we can effectively, ignore sensory data, and deal only with the "intentional
content" that is, the mind's built-in mental description of external reality, which allows us
to perceive aspects of the real world outside.

4.4.2.2 Existentialism
Martin Heidegger, a formal pupil of Husserl attempted a decline of his master’s
philosophy- Phenomenology in his own philosophy. In his work titled Being and Time of
1927, Heidegger explained how Husserl's view (of man as a subject confronted by, and
reacting to, objects) broke down in certain circumstances, and how the existence of
objects only has any real significance and meaning within a whole social context (what
Heidegger called "being in the world"). Heidegger argued that ‘existence’ was
inextricably linked with time, and that being is just an on-going process of becoming.
This line of thinking led him to speculate that we can only avoid what he called
inauthentic lives (and the anxiety which inevitably goes with such lives) by accepting
how things are in the real world andresponding to situations in an individualistic way. In
his later work, Heidegger went so far as to assert that we have essentially come to the
end of philosophy, having tried out and discarded all the possible permutations of
philosophical thought. Jean-Paul Sartre, along with his French contemporaries, Albert
Camus, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Simone de Beauvoir was considered the main
figurehead of the Existentialist movement. Sartre, a confirmed Atheist and a committed
Marxist and Communist for most of his life, adapted and extended the work of
Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Husserl and Heidegger, and concluded that "existence is prior
to essence". This is because of his believe that humans are thrust into an unfeeling,
godless universe against our will, and that we must then establish meaning for our lives
by what we do and how we act. To Sartre, we always have choices (and therefore
freedom) and that, while this freedom is empowering, it also brings with it moral
responsibility and an existential dread (or "angst"). According to Sartre, genuine human
dignity can only be achieved by our active acceptance of this angst and despair. In
addition to Existentialism, three main philosophical schools dominated Continental
Philosophy in the second half of the 20th Century. One of the three schools is

55
Structuralism, which is the broad belief that all human activity and its products (even
perception and thought itself) are constructed and not natural, and that everything has
meaning only through the language system in which we operate. The second school is
the Post-Structuralism, which is a reaction to the first school- Structuralism. This second
school Post- Structuralism stresses the culture and society of the reader over that of the
author. The third school is called Post-Modernism. It is an even less welldefined field,
marked by a kind of "pick'n'mix" openness to a variety of different meanings and
authorities from unexpected places, as well as a willingness to borrow unashamedly
from previous movements or traditions.

Michel Foucault the French radical philosopher has been associated with all of these
movements. Much of his work are on language and, among other things, he has looked
at how certain underlying conditions of truth have constituted what was acceptable at
different times in history, and how the body and sexuality are cultural constructs rather
than natural phenomena.
Although sometimes criticized for his lax standards of scholarship, his ideas are
nevertheless frequently cited in a wide variety of different disciplines.
Last but not the list that should also be mentioned is Deconstructionism (often called
just Deconstruction). This is a method that focuses on literary criticism that questions
traditional assumptions about certainty, identity and truth, and looks for the underlying
assumptions (both unspoken and implicit), as well as the ideas and frameworks, that
form the basis for thought and belief. The method was developed by the Frenchman
Jacques Derrida (who is also credited as a major figure in Post-Structuralism). His work
is highly cerebral and self-consciously "difficult", and he has been repeatedly accused of
pseudo-philosophy and sophistry.

56
Unit 5 The Idea of African Philosophy
Contents
5.0 Introduction
5.1 The Meaning of African Philosophy
5.2 The Nature of African Philosophy
5.3 Currents in African Philosophy
5.3.1 Ethno-Philosophy
5.3.2 Sage Philosophy
5.3.3 Professional Philosophy
5.3.4 Nationalist and Ideological Philosophy
5.3.5 Hermeneutic Philosophy
5.3.6 Literary and Artistic Philosophy
5.3.7 The Historical Trends

5.0 Introduction
The search for African philosophy is dominated by the need for a new identity authentic
to Africans and distinct from those imposed by western culture and tradition. Before now
the beliefs of the Western philosophers was that two species of human beings exist. On
one hand were the Westerners, who are seen and are believed to be the only set of
human beings who could reason.
And on the other side were the Africans, who lacks ideas and whom rational thought
was considered impossible. For instance, some Western scholars like
Hegel believed that Africans are people against which all reason could be contrasted,
some believe even if Africans can reason, it is not as developed as what exists in the
Western society. Since Africans are a special specie of human race, Africans cannot
philosophize, understand or demonstrate any form of philosophical enterprise. This Unit
is therefore an examination of these Western opinion on African philosophy with a view
to show the meaning of African philosophy.

5.1 Meaning and nature of African philosophy

First begin by asking yourself some questions such as; were our forbearers’ non-
thinking creatures? Are we still thinking? Do we have a school of thought that equips
our policy makers, guides our scholars and provide guidance for our development? Or
are we just living on borrowed thought and precepts? All these questions arouse as a
result of the perception of the Westerners about us and their declaration of our lack of
philosophical truth like them.
You need to know that the Western civilization is based on the philosophy of the West
this philosophy supposedly emanates from Greece specifically Athens: men like
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pericles, Cicero, Archimedes and modern ones like Eistein,
Heideggar, Hobbes etc. have contributed not only to the philosophical thought of the
west, but laid the foundation of her science, technology and art. These thinkers provided
valuable answers to issues wide ranging from morality, government, politics, religion
and war. In universities across Nigeria, students are taught Western Philosophy, but
what is fundamentally lacking is an understanding of their own philosophy. But do we
Africans have philosophy? If we do, what is our philosophy, how do we describe or
define African philosophy.

57
African philosophy can be formally defined as a critical thinking by Africans on their
experiences of reality. Nigerian born Philosopher K.C. Anyanwu defined African
philosophy as "that which concerns itself with the way in which African people of the
past and present make sense of their destiny and of the world in which they live.” If we
accept this definition, then African philosophy is a critical reflection on African
leaderships in the administration of their duties towards their citizens; the ethical life
style. It will also provide possible solutions to the problems experienced in African
governance, as we have observed about Western philosophy.

According to Joseph I. Omoregbe a philosopher is one who attempts to understand the

world's phenomena, the purpose of human existence, the nature of the world, and the
place of human beings in that world. Omoregbe believes that this form of natural
philosophy is identifiable in Africa even before individual African philosophers can be
distinguished in the sources.

5.2 Nature of African philosophy

African refers to sub-Sahara African and by simple definition Philosophy is thinking – to
think, man requires a language. Thus, the postulation of early Western sojourners that
once leaved in various parts of the African continent to have restricted to writing as the
only means by which thinking is guaranteed. Writing is not a prerequisite for thinking.
Aside this position and as noted in the history of philosophy, certain societies in the
ancient time also existed and the process of thinking was noted especially during the
Pre- Socratic period of the development of philosophy.
As in most Western cultures, thinkers in Sub-Sahara Africa constituted a special class
of people that sought to preserve their works in various forms and did so mostly through
oral tradition. Morality, religion and politics were a major concern. But perhaps, due to
the nature or peculiarity of their environments while the European philosopher was
primarily occupied with issues of politics and morality his counterpart in Africa was more
interested and concentrated in religion and morality. Thus, common to the tradition is
the issue morality, which seems to be the core of philosophy. Morality which can simply
be described as the question of what constitutes good or bad is an essential ingredient
of any useable school of thought.

Furthermore, philosophy functions on three main attributes in a society. These attributes

are: Culture, Civilization and Language. Since Africa have a language, civilization and
culture the question we should then ask is, whether there were reasons behind our
culture or not? If the answer is yes, the other questions that needs to be considered are:
What did the definite departure point for the thinking African? Is there a uniform body of
thought called African Philosophy? It is the last question that always generate
arguments whenever attempt is made to justify the existence of African Philosophy. But
then, all the arguments end up in revealing the multiplicity of religion, languages,
cultures, civilizations various African society and as such what eventually become
African philosophy in the contemporary time. There is multiplicity of ideas that results
from the differences in customs, civilization and tradition but this cannot suggest that
there is no African philosophy.

58
At the heart of most African Philosophy is the concept of communalism which is not
socialism, communism, capitalism nor the other “isms” of the West. Most of African
philosophies even though not written are encoded in wise sayings, proverbs which in
the words of our fathers are the yam with which words are eaten. Take for instance the
wise words of the people to the east of the Nigeria: that “if a child washes his hands, he
shall eat with kings”. This word epitomizes the fundamental philosophy of the Igbo
people to the east of the Niger. Indeed, it shows the republican and egalitarian nature of
that society that believes in absolute meritocracy: if the same saying were postulated in
the Yoruba land it will be utter rubbish. In the traditional Yoruba land, royalty then age
and then merit (wealth and accomplishment) is the order of precedence. There are
thousands and thousands of such proverbs that epitomizes the beauty of the
traditionalist approach to African thoughts.
It should be noted here that the disagreement on whether there is African philosophy, or
the possibility of its existence also persist among African scholars as well, until now that
we have professional African Philosophers, who now research and teach African
philosophy in African Universities. One of the most basic disagreements among
scholars concerns what exactly the term 'African' qualifies: the content of the philosophy
and the distinctive methods employed, or the identities of the philosophers. On the
former view, philosophy counts as African if it involves African themes such as
perceptions of time, personhood, space and other subjects, or uses methods that are
defined as distinctively African.2 In the latter view, African philosophy is any philosophy
produced by Africans or by people of African descent, and others engaged in critiques
or analysis of their works.

5.3 Currents in African Philosophy

5.3.1 Ethno- Philosophy
Ethno-philosophy has been used to record the beliefs found in African cultures. Such an
approach treats African philosophy as consisting in a set of shared beliefs, values,
categories, and assumptions that are implicit in the language, practices, and beliefs of
African cultures; in short, the uniquely African word view. As such, it is seen as an item
of communal property rather than an activity for the individual.
One proponent of this form, Placide Tempels, argued in The Bantu Philosophy that the
metaphysical categories of the Bantu people are reflected in their linguistic categories.
According to this view, African philosophy can be best understood as springing from the
fundamental assumptions about reality reflected in the languages of Africa.
Another example of this sort of approach is the work of E. J. Algoa a Nigerian who
argues for the existence of an African Philosophy of History stemming from traditional
proverbs from the Niger Delta in his paper "An African Philosophy of History in the Oral
Tradition." Algoa (Babalola: 1998) argues that in African philosophy, age is seen as an
important factor in gaining wisdom and interpreting the past. In support of this view, he
cites proverbs such as "More days, more wisdom", and "What an old man sees seated,
a youth does not see standing." Truth is seen as eternal and unchanging ("Truth never
rots"), but people are subject to error ("Even a four-legged horse stumbles and falls"). It
is dangerous to judge by appearances ("A large eye does not mean keen vision"), but
first-hand observation can be trusted ("He who sees does not err"). The past is not seen
as fundamentally different from the present, but all history is contemporary history ("A

59
storyteller does not tell of a different season"). The future remains beyond knowledge
("Even a bird with a long neck cannot see the future"). Nevertheless, it is said, "God will
outlive eternity." History is seen as vitally important ("One ignorant of his origin is
nonhuman"), and historians (known as "sons of the soil") are highly revered ("The son of
the soil has the python's keen eyes").
In the same, there are several Yoruba proverbs that points to Metaphysics,
Epistemology, Ethics, and so on. For instance, (prostration is not good conduct; one’s
intention exists in the mind already), which points to appearance and reality. (It is not
understanding the Ifamessage that makes one to look up, since theIfa is not on the
ceiling), this proverb emphasis the distinction between opinion and knowledge. There is
the ethical proverb that emphasis sincerity and the need to keep promise made - (He
who borrows one thousand, two hundred and refuses to pay has blocked one thousand,
four hundred). However, these arguments must be taken with a grain of cultural
relativism, as there are so many cultures in Africa, with patriarchies, matriarchies,
monotheists and traditional religionists among the population, and as such the attitudes
of the two-society mentioned above cannot be taken to represent the whole of Africa.
Leopold Sedar Senghor also embraced this approach. His view in support of his
approach is embodied in his concept Negritude. In the Negritude, he argued that the
distinctly African approach to reality is based on emotion rather than logic, works itself
out in participation rather than analysis, and manifests itself through the arts rather than
the sciences. Other African philosophers who upholds the ethno-philosophy approach
are John Mbiti, Cheikh Anta Diop and Mubabinge Bilolo, etc.
It is important to know that this approach has been criticised. The critics of this
approach argue that the actual philosophical work in producing a coherent philosophical
position is being done by the academic philosopher, and that the sayings of the same
culture can be selected from and organised in many ways to produce very different,
often contradictory systems of thought
(Odimegwu etal’: 2009).

5.3.2 Sage Philosophy / Philosophical Sagacity

Philosophical sagacity also known as Sage philosophy is a sort of individualist version
of ethno-philosophy, in which one records the beliefs of certain special members of a
community. It has also been viewed as midway between the claims of ethno-
philosophers and the professional school. According to Odera Oruka, Sage philosophy
is the expressed thoughts of wise men and women in any given community and is a
way of thinking and explaining the world that fluctuates between popular wisdom
(known communal maxims aphorisms and general common-sense truths) and dialectic
wisdom, an expounded wisdom and a rational thought of some given individuals within
a community. The position of this approach is that, although most societies demand
some degree of conformity of belief and behaviour from their members, a certain few of
those members reach a particularly high level of knowledge and understanding of their
cultures' worldviews; such people are sages. In some cases, the sage goes beyond
mere knowledge and understanding to reflection and questioning—these become the
targets of philosophical sagacity (Odimegwu: 2009).
This approach wants whatever that will go by the name African philosophy must meet
certain criteria which other philosophies like Western, Chines, Indian, etc. already have.

60
One of such criteria is not to consider it as a communal enterprise but rather it should
be seen as the work of an individual.
This may explain why Odera Oruka the contended that philosophy is never a community
patrimony which, as such, belonged to all members of the society. Philosophy as far as
this approach is concerned is an individual enterprise. It is the conscious effort of an
individual philosopher as he contemplates the universe and its reality. Thus, we can
speak of individual philosophy as we speak of the philosophy of Plato, Aristotle, Hegels,
etc. One of the criticisms of this approach is that not all reflection and questioning is
philosophical; besides, if African philosophy were to be defined purely in terms of
philosophic sagacity, then the thoughts of the sages could not be African philosophy, for
they did not record them from other sages. Critics argued further that the problem with
both ethno-philosophy and philosophical sagacity is that there is surely an important
distinction between philosophy and the history of ideas, although other philosophers
consider the two topics to be remarkably similar(Okolo: 1990). The argument is that no
matter how interesting the beliefs of a people such as the Akan or the Yoruba may be to
the philosopher, they remain beliefs, not philosophy. To call them philosophy is to use a
secondary sense of that term, such as in "my philosophy is live and let live.

5.3.3 Professional philosophy

Professional philosophy is usually identified as that produced by African philosophers
trained in the Western philosophical tradition, that embraces a universal view of the
methods and concerns of philosophy. Those philosophers identified in this category
often explicitly reject the assumptions of ethno-philosophy and adopt a Universalist
worldview of philosophy that requires all philosophy to be accessible and applicable to
all peoples and cultures in the world. Professional philosophy insists that ethno-
philosophy does not possess the ability to be critical which, is the most important
characteristic of philosophy. To them artifacts of ethno-philosophy, myths, proverbs,
folklores and indeed all the artifacts of ethno-philosophy are not criticized. That even if
they entail wisdom such wisdom is not philosophic in nature.

It is emphasized by a member of the group that it is the philosophical texts, that is,
writings of these professionally trained philosophers that can only qualify as African
philosophy. ‘African philosophy equals African literature. That is, the whole of
philosophical texts produced by Africans’.

5.3.4 Nationalist and ideological philosophy

Nationalist and ideological philosophy might be considered a special case of philosophic
sagacity, in which not sages but ideologues are the subjects. Alternatively, it has been
considered as a subcategory of professional political philosophy. In either case, the
same sort of problem arises with retaining a distinction between ideology and
philosophy, and also between sets of ideas and a special way of reasoning. Examples
include Nyerere’s U’ jamaa, Senghor’s Negritude. Nkrumaism, etc.

5.3.5 The Hermeneutic Philosophy

This is a philosophical current which insists that philosophy in Africa should be
hermeneutic in nature. Hermeneutics is a theory and method of interpretation,

61
especially, the interpretation of philosophical texts. This current was suggested by a
Nigerian philosopher Theophilus Okere (1983) after which other philosophers like
Tsenay Serequeberhan took the challenge (Makumba;
2007).

This philosopher does not want to be engaged in the debate like what ensued between
the ethno-philosophers and the professional philosophers. To this current, myths,
folklores, proverbs etc. are no philosophy. Philosophy is and will remain a conscious
effort of a critical individual. However, the nonphilosophy could form the philosophy of
any race. It is from non-philosophy that philosophy arises (Oguejiofor: 2001). The
emergence of philosophy from non-philosophy is made possible through the process of
hermeneutics, which is interpretation. Thus, philosophy arises from non-philosophy
when philosophers reflect on symbols of culture like myth, folklore and proverbs of the
people and interpret them critically. It is therefore correct to say that the culture of Africa
is of some relevance in the emergence of African philosophy.

5.3.6 Literary/ Artistic Philosophy

Literary and Artistic philosophers recognized that there are some African literary
scholars whose writings reflects philosophical issues in their essays. These scholars are
seen to be critical of the African condition in their works and they try to point out what
existence entails in an ideal African situation. Scholars like Achebe, Soyinka,
Okotp’iBtek and others are therefore recognized as been philosophical.

5.4 The Historical Trend

This idea was initiated by Oguejiofor (2000) he contends that the idea of philosophy has
been in existence in Africa even before the development of the Greek philosophy. The
argument then is that it is the African philosophy, through the Egyptian connection, that
influenced the emergence of philosophy in Greece. The implication of this argument
therefore, is that there would not have been what is called Geek philosophy today if
African philosophy did not exist. Greek philosophy to them is nothing but child of
Egyptian philosophy which is African.
Moreover, we can identify the influence of the Egyptian philosophy on Greek philosophy
in two ways. First is from the point of the military invasion of Egypt by the Greeks during
which the Egyptians were conquered. At this time all the works of the Egyptian
philosophers were appropriated to themselves. The second has to do with the view that
the people who we today referred to as Greek philosophers only repeated what they
learnt at the feet of the great Egyptian philosophers who taught them. More so that
Greek philosophers like Pythagoras, Aristotle and some others were trained in Egypt.

62
Module 4 Understanding Logic
Unit 1 Definition and Scope of Logic
Unit 2 Purpose and Structure of Logic
Unit 3 Reasoning Process in Logic
Unit 4 Rules and Types of Logic

4.1 Definition and Scope of logic

Etymologically, the word ‘logic’ is derived from the Greek word logike, meaning
“possessed of reason, intellectual, dialectical, argumentative” (Fadahunsi &
Adegboyega, 2010:94). Another account on the historical origin of logic says that it is
from the word logos. Logos is an ‘expression of reason or order in words or things,
principle, mathematical ratio, thought or simply ‘word’ (Ogbinaka, 2000:187).

In the history of philosophy, Parmenides was the first ancient Greek philosopher that
developed some logical principles, and these are the principle of identity and the
principle of non-contradiction. His logical construct of ‘what is, and what is not’ gives rise
to the Aristotelian conception of ‘Truth functional logic’ (ibid). Although, he did not label
his inferential analysis ‘logic’ but we can say that his metaphysical postulations provided
the basis upon which Aristotelian and modern logic developed.

The systematic study of logic seems to have been undertaken first by Aristotle.
Although Plato used dialectic as both a method of reasoning and a means of
philosophical training, Aristotle established a system of rules and strategies for such
reasoning.

Logic has been variously defined by different scholars, but they all points towards the
same subject matter of logic. For instance, Aristotle sees logic as the scientific study of
fundamental principles of human thoughts and the laws that underline valid thought
processes and discourse (Uduigwomen & Ozumba, 1995:155). Copi defines logic as
the study of the methods and principles used in distinguishing good (correct) from bad
/incorrect reasoning (1972). On the other hand, Nancy sees logic “as the science that
appraises reasoning as correct or incorrect” (1990:3.4). Kahane on his part defines logic
as “an attempt to distinguish between correct (valid) from incorrect (invalid) arguments”
(1968:2). For Moses Oke, logic primarily “is the study of methods and principles used to
assess the strength of the evidential link between the premises (supporting reasons)
and conclusion (Claims) or arguments” (Oke, 1999:165-166). Basically, you can notice
that in the above definitions the words which stand out clearly are reasoning and
argumentation. Therefore, we can say that the study of logic is the study of correct and
incorrect reasoning and arguments or that logic is the science of reasoning.

63
What is logic in real life?
Logic, in its most basic sense, is the study of how ideas reasonably fit together. In other
words, when you apply logic, you must be concerned with analyzing ideas and
arguments by using reason and rational thinking, not emotions or mysticism or belief.

4.2 Structure and Purpose of Logic

4.2.1 The Structure of Logic

The structure of Logic is known and addressed as Logical Processes and these
constitutes; Simple apprehension, judgment, reasoning and argument. These are
examined as follows:

a) Simple Apprehension: Simple apprehension is the act by which the mind forms
the concept of something without affirming or denying anything about it. For
instance, if I say “look at that Ship” and stop there. This is a simple apprehension
because I have not said anything about the Ship. I have neither affirmed nor
denied anything about the Ship. Some philosophers and logicians have denied
the possibility of a simple apprehension. According to them, there is nothing like
simple apprehension.

b) Judgment in logic: Judgment is known as the act by which the mind affirms or
denies something of something else. For instance, if I proceed to say “look, that
ship is big” then I have made a judgment by affirming the “bigness” of the Ship.

c) Reasoning and Argument: Reasoning and argument constitute the third and
last stage of any logical process. It is also known as the act by which the mind
passes from one, two or more judgments to a further judgment distinct from the
preceding ones but implicitly contained in them. Besides simple apprehension
and judgment, logic is strictly concerned with reasoning and argument.

4.2.2 The Purpose of Logic

Logic is of immense relevance so, it is very important to study it. some of its relevance
are stated as follows:

 It is the only discipline that strictly lays down the rules which the mind must follow
to arrive at truth and thereby minimize if not totally eradicate error. In other
words, logic works as a guide through the critical thinking process.

64
  As a discipline it will also equip you with the skills needed for effective and
forceful presentation of your views.

 It forces people to think about the outcome of propositions before they ask
questions. You need to know that until a beneficial question is discovered it is
impossible to start the critical thinking process. Critical thinking involves asking
many questions. The study of logic helps one to reason well by illuminating the
principle of correct reasoning, explaining them, justifying them and exhibiting
their effective use (Copi and Cohen, 2000: xiii).

 It helps us to avoid claims for which we do not have enough reasons.

 It help us to identify arguments where we might otherwise just see a set of

unconnected or loosely related statement (Oke, 1998:17)

 Bello (2000:vii), describes the importance of logic when he asserts that a training
in is an important one for society like ours which is aspiring to democratic life,
because in a democratic society, persuasion, rather than coercion or force, is the
method of winning others to one’s point of view and in the business of
persuading others, arguments are important.

 Take note that logic is sometimes perceived by its critics as a subject that has no
practical use. This is not true. The abstractness of logic does not make it
irrelevant at all. Indeed, it is not contradictory to say that logic is to life what
oxygen is to life. We all need logic in one way or the other, in one form or
another. We all need logic to communicate and interact in the society. Even to be
illogical presupposes a logical action or decision.

4.3 Reasoning process in logic

Reasoning in logic involves drawing conclusions from premises using rules of inference,
with logic focusing on the validity of the inference process rather than the psychological
process of thinking. Thus, the Reasoning process in logic is known to have three (3)
main components and this includes:

(i) Syllogism
(ii) Premises
(iii) Conclusions

These are critically examined as follows:

65
 A. Syllogism - A syllogism is an argument that consists of two premises and a
conclusion. Syllogisms express deductive reasoning, forming specific
conclusions from general principles. Syllogism example. No fish can survive
without water. Sharks are fish.

Aristotle defines the syllogism as "a discourse in which certain (specific) things
having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of
necessity because these things are so."

There are four types of syllogism, and these are identified as, categorical, hypothetical,
disjunctive, and compound.
a) Categorical syllogisms use two premises and a conclusion, where all statements
are categorical propositions. Each premise and the conclusion relate to the
assignment of categories and classes, making it a categorical argument.

b) Hypothetical syllogisms have statements that say if one thing happens, then
another thing will happen. A hypothetical syllogism is a valid argument form, not
a fallacy. However, syllogisms can result in formal logical fallacies (or non
sequitur fallacies) if they have structural errors that render them invalid.

c) Disjunctive Syllogism is a valid argument form in logic where one premise is a

disjunction (a statement with “or” connecting two options), and the other premise
negates one of those options. The conclusion then establishes the truth of the
remaining option. The main aspects of a disjunctive syllogism are;

i. Disjunction – where the first premise presents two or more options, often
using “or”.

ii. Negation- The second premise denies one of the options presented in the
disjunction.

iii. Conclusion- The conclusion logically follows from the disjunction and the
negation, stating that the remaining option must be true.

The Example is as follows:

Premise 1: I will study for exam or I will go to a movie (Disjunction)

Premise 2: I will not go to a movie (Negation)
Conclusion: Therefore, I will study for the exam (Established by disjunctive
syllogism)

66
 So therefore the implication is that the Disjunctive Syllogism uses a process of
elimination to arrive at a valid conclusion based on the “either/or” premise and
the negation option.

d) Compound syllogism: This is a deductive argument that combines multiple

simple syllogisms or incorporates more complex logical structures than a
standard categorical syllogism. Instead of just having two premises and a
conclusion, it may involve more premises and a conclusion.

Syllogism has several near-synonyms: formal argument, deductive argument and

deductive reasoning.

A syllogism is a type of deductive reasoning where a conclusion is drawn from two

premises, with one being a general statement (major premise) and the other a specific
statement (minor premise). Here are a few examples:
Example 1:
 Major Premise: All mammals are warm-blooded.
 Minor Premise: All dogs are mammals.
 Conclusion: Therefore, all dogs are warm-blooded.
Example 2:
 Major Premise: All humans are mortal.
 Minor Premise: Socrates is a human.
 Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Example 3:
 Major Premise: It's wrong to hurt innocent beings for fun.
 Minor Premise: Puppies are innocent beings.
 Conclusion: Therefore, it's wrong to hurt puppies for fun.
Example 4:
 Major Premise: If it rains today, then I will wear my coat.
 Minor Premise: If I wear my coat, I will feel hot.
 Conclusion: If it rains today, then I will feel hot.

B. Premises: These are the starting points or assumptions that are taken as true
for the purpose of reasoning. Premises: These are the starting points or
assumptions upon which reasoning is based.

67
In logical argument, a premise is a statement or assumption on which an
argument is based. For example, if a person looks at a green apple and says,
"this apple is sour," the premises of this argument could be: 1) Green apples are
sour. In logic, a premise is a statement or proposition used as evidence or a
reason to support a conclusion, serving as the foundation for an argument.

Put another way, a premise includes the reasons and evidence behind a
conclusion. The term premise comes from medieval Latin, meaning "things
mentioned before." In philosophy as well as fiction and nonfiction writing, the
premise follows largely the same pattern. "A premise is a proposition one offers
in support of a conclusion. That is, one offers a premise as evidence for the truth
of the conclusion, as justification for or a reason to believe the conclusion." A
premise may be either the major or the minor proposition of a syllogism.

A premise is the foundation on which an argument is made. In this context,

argument does not refer to a fight or a disagreement, rather it refers to a
statement or set of statements where evidence is provided to support a certain
conclusion. The evidence is the premise. The term premise comes from Latin via
French and means "things set before." If a person is making a logical argument,
they start with a premise, statement "A", and follow up with a conclusion,
statement "B." For instance, if that person were to state that the leaves on the
trees in their location were red and yellow and orange rather than green, and
then draw the conclusion that it was fall, the initial statement about the colorful
leaves would be the premise. It would also be the thing that was set before, as in
before the conclusion.

Role of Premise in Arguments:

Premises provide the reasons or evidence that are intended to support a
particular claim or conclusion.

NOTE: A premise goes with a conclusion. If a doctor says that blueberries are
high in antioxidants that fight cancer, therefore people should eat more berries,
he is starting with a premise to support his conclusion. Because the conclusion
rests on the foundation of the premise, it is critical that the premise be solid and
true.

 Example:
 Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
 Premise 2: Socrates is a human.
 Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

68
 C. Conclusion: This is the statement that is derived from the premises through a
valid reasoning process. In logic, a conclusion is a claim or proposition that is
asserted to follow necessarily from, or is supported by, one or more premises or
statements. It's the final statement in an argument, representing the outcome of
the reasoning process. A conclusion is the statement that an argument aims to
prove or establish as true. The conclusion is derived from, or supported by, the
premises, which are the statements or reasons offered as evidence for the
conclusion.

Conclusion Indicators:
Certain words or phrases, like "therefore," "thus," "hence," or
"consequently," can indicate that a statement is a conclusion.

Importance of Conclusion:
Understanding conclusions and their relationship to premises is crucial for
evaluating the validity and soundness of arguments.

4.3.1. Types of Reasoning:

Four types of Reasoning have been identified and these are discussed as follows:
a. Deductive Reasoning: Starts with general premises and moves to
specific conclusions. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be
true. The main discipline studying logical reasoning is called logic.
Deductive reasoning is the mental process of drawing deductive
inferences. Deductively valid inferences are the most reliable form of
inference: it is impossible for their conclusion to be false if all the
premises are true. This means that the truth of the premises ensures
the truth of the conclusion. A deductive argument is sound if it is
valid and all its premises are true For example, inferring the
conclusion "no cats are frogs" from the premises "all frogs are
amphibians" and "no cats are amphibians" is a sound argument. But
even arguments with false premises can be deductively valid, like
inferring that "no cats are frogs" from the premises "all frogs are
mammals" and "no cats are mammals". In this regard, it only matters
that the conclusion could not be false if the premises are true and
not whether they actually are true.

Another Example: All humans are mortal. Socrates is a

human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

69
 b. Inductive Reasoning: Starts with specific observations or instances and
moves to a general conclusion. The conclusion is probable, but not
guaranteed, based on the evidence. Inductive reasoning, or inductive
logic, is a type of reasoning that involves drawing a general
conclusion from a set of specific observations. Some people think of
inductive reasoning as “bottomup” logic, because it involves
widening specific premises out into broader generalizations.
Example: Every swan I have seen is white. Therefore, all swans are
white.

c. Abductive Reasoning: Involves making an educated guess or

hypothesis based on available evidence or observations. Example: You
see a puddle of water on the sidewalk. You might abductively conclude
that it rained recently.

d. Reasoning by Analogy: Involves drawing a conclusion based on the

similarity between two things or situations. Example: A car and a bicycle
are both vehicles, so they both have wheels.

4.3.2 Importance of Reasoning in Logic: the importance of reasoning in logic

includes the following;
(i) Clear Thinking: Reasoning helps us to think clearly and systematically,
avoiding logical fallacies and making sound judgments.
(ii) Problem Solving: Logical reasoning is crucial for solving problems, making
decisions, and understanding complex situations.
(iii) Communication: Reasoning allows us to express our ideas and arguments in a
clear and persuasive manner.

4.4 Rules and Types of Logic

4.4.1 Rules of Logic

The rules of logic are nearly 2500 years old and date back to Plato and Aristotle who set
down the three laws of thought: identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. The
fundamental rules of logic, often called the "laws of thought," include the law of identity,
the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle.
The Explanation is as follows:
 Law of Identity:
A statement is true if and only if it is identical to itself (e.g., "A is A").

70
  Law of Non-Contradiction:
A statement and its negation cannot both be true at the same time (e.g., "A is not
not-A").

 Law of Excluded Middle:

For any statement, either the statement or its negation is true, and there is no
third possibility (e.g., "Either A is true or A is false").

4.4.2 There are four main types of logic and they are listed as follows:
 Informal logic: Uses deductive and inductive reasoning to make arguments.
 Formal logic: Uses syllogisms to make inferences.
 Symbolic logic: Uses symbols to accurately map out valid and invalid arguments.
 Mathematical logic Uses mathematical symbols to prove theoretical arguments.

71