PHILOSOPHY 1 FINALS REVIEWER

1. Explain the network problem and how the critical thinker is related to
the independent thinker and creative thinker.
The concepts independent, critical, and creative thinking found in the objectives of
the GEP of the UP System would constitute what Ralph Johnson called a network
problem.
Network Problem-> The concepts cannot be understood in isolation from
another.
The concept of an independent thinker and critical thinker overlaps. Both thinkers
accept the epistemic obligation not to accept the truth of any statement or belief
unless they have examined the evidence of it. Both thinkers are not impressed even
if the statement or belief comes from authoritative sources.
Independent thinker -> Takes pain in deciding for himself on the basis of
evidence which belief to accept on the basis of evidence which belief to accept and
which attitude to adopt; or which course of action to take on the basis of the
strength of the argument supporting it.
Critical thinker -> Must first of all be an independent thinker.
-> One who has developed the ability, among others, to judge
whether the classification of concept is correct, or whether a definition is
acceptable.
-> He can readily evaluate whether a knowledge claim is founded on
evidence or not.
-> He can also judge whether an argument an argument is
valid or invalid; or whether piece of reasoning is sound or unsound.
-> He cannot only criticize and evaluate the argument or
reasoning of another person, but he can also evaluate and even criticize his own
acts, beliefs, behavior, and argument of reasoning.
-> Has reached a the level of meta-cognition (the ability to be
intellectually self-conscious)
So it seems that the crucial difference between an independent thinker and critical
thinker is that the latters evaluative and critical skills are focused on his own
thoughts and behavior processes.
Creative thinker -> one who has developed the ability to bring to existence
something new, like a new solution to an old problem, or a novel argument in
support of an old thesis or new criticism against an old argument. He has the
1 | Philosophy I Finals Reviewer

capacity to invent a new method, like a new artistic

object, art form, and a new rearrangement from an
old pattern.

Hence, to be a critical thinker one must first of all

be an independent thinker.

2. Explain the rules in composing a Definition

Definiendum
epistemology; the
youre defining

word

Definiensthe
genus;
sub
discipline
of
philosophy
Differentiasource,
nature and validity
knowledge

of

RULE 1: Definitions should not be too broad to

include non-members or too narrow to exclude genuine members. A
sounddefinition states a trait or a set of traits, characteristics, or functions that
members must possess. The trait need not be an essential trait that is necessary
and sufficient condition for membership. If this were the requirement it would
narrowly limit concept formation in ordinary language. The concept of family
resemblance of traits and characteristics will do for most of our ordinary concepts.
RULE 2: Definitions must not be circular. You are prone to do this if you are using
synonym to define a term like: An alien is a foreigner. Definition by synonym is an
approximation of a definition. As such, it gives a rough idea of the use of an
unfamiliar term by a familiar one. Some subtle examples of circular definitions are:
A cause is an event that has an effect. And an effect is an event that has a cause.
Another good pair to illustrate the error is: Belief is having faith; and faith is having
belief.
RULE 3: Via Negativa. A sound definition must not be stated in negative when it
can be stated in the affirmative. Definitions must state what it is and not what it is
not. This is not to say that some concepts cannot be defined except in the negative.
Example of via negative: Mind is an entity that is neither tangible nor visible; it has
no weight, mass or location.
RULE 4: A sound definition should not use figurative, obscure, and metaphorical
language. The language is informative, but it is uninformative. Example: Love is
never having to say youre sorry; Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
RULE 5: Avoid defining by synonym or ostensive definition. These are incomplete
as well as misleading techniques. [Note: Ostensive definitionpointing out
examples.]

3. What is a concept and what are the types of concepts?

2 | Philosophy I Finals Reviewer

A word is the simplest unit of communication. Words are the indispensable means of
communication. Without words, concepts cannot be formed; without concepts,
various types of knowledge claims cannot be asserted; without knowledge claims,
arguments cannot be composed. A concept is made up of ideas.
Concepts are native to your intellect they are our means of acquiring knowledge.
Concepts are the building blocks of our knowledge, yet they can hardly be imagined
to exist (or better term is subsist) in our minds. Thus, without the ability to form
concepts, human knowledge will not be possible.
Unfortunately, we do not have a fixed, as well as hard and fast, classification of
concepts. Although, there are seven categories that are readily available.
TYPES OF CONCEPTS:
Empirical Concept
If the members of the extension of a concept can be observed in the world, then the
concept is empirical. If the members are observable in the way tables and chairs are
observable, then the members exist in space and time. They are therefore tangible
and visible to the unaided senses. In addition, the trait, characteristic, and functions
that the members must possess are also observable in the waytangible and
visible. Examples: stick and stone, tables and chairs.
Theoretical Concept
Scientists speak of theoretical entities or theoretical constructs. These entities
cannot be observed to exist in time and space by the unaided senses. Such entities
are observable only through the use of very powerful sensory extending devices like
the electron microscope. Nevertheless, the tentative posit of their existence is
necessary for a scientific theory to be functional and for it to generate research. A
good example is the putative make up of matter into atom and its constituent
particles.
Dispositional Concept
There are hybrid concepts that come from sciences such as: elastic, magnetic,
temperature, etc. These concepts do not designate a directly observable trait or
characteristic that members must have but they exhibit this observable trait only if
certain operations are performed. For example, to determine if an object is
magnetic we have to perform certain operation like putting some iron fillings near
the object and if the iron filings adhere to object, then you know the object is
magnetic. Scientific Properties.
Analytic Concept

3 | Philosophy I Finals Reviewer

The members of the extension of analytic or abstract concepts are those entities
which cannot be found in the world. They are neither tangible nor visible like tables
and chairs. They are conceptual entities and as such creations of our minds. A good
example that I know you are familiar with is the concept of numbers. As an analytic
concept, the members of the extension are not empirical objects like tables and
chairs.
Evaluative Concept
This covers a whole range of conceptswe have the moral, aesthetic, and even the
religious. Concepts like good or bad; right or wrong; moral or immoral fall into the
moral category. The concepts of beauty and ugliness are under the aesthetic and
the concepts of heaven and hell are in the category of the religious. Legal concepts
like guilty or not guilty are also evaluative. Evaluative concepts are our judgments
of worth or value of a person, act, behavior, event, place, etc.

Fictitious Concepts
Similarly, the intension of fictitious concepts is also clearly delineated, but we know
that the members of the extension of the concepts are purely imaginary. Mermaids
and Unicorns are good examples of fictitious concepts. Fictitious concepts are not
bad per se. In fact, in mythology and fairy tales, they provide a unique source of
entertainment. What is misleading is when fictitious concepts support to e empirical
while in fact they are not. Ghost, tikbalang, nuno sa punso and manananggal are
good examples of fictitious concepts pretending to be empirical. Because some
Filipinos believe such entities exist, they seem to lie in-between the fictitious and
the empirical.

Metaphysical Concepts
Metaphysical concepts assumed the center stage in many philosophical systems. A
good example is the concept of substance like God, mind, and matter. For instance,
the intension of the concept mind is described as follows: It is an entity that is
fundamental. It is immaterial, it has no weight, no mass and consequently it cannot
be located in space yet it is believed to exist in time. It is also indivisible and cannot
be divided into parts. It is also eternal and so it cannot be destroyed unless
destroyed by God. Nevertheless, it is believes that the mind interacts with the body.
Another very interesting metaphysical concepts offered by the idealist philosophers
is called absolute. It is characterized as a universal mind and as such, it is
composed of the totality of all minds, past, present and to come, together with all
their ideas, of course. We are all part of one realitythe absolute.
4 | Philosophy I Finals Reviewer

4. Explain the two sources of knowledge and the two theories of truth

Faculty of Reason Reason can be considered a source of knowledge, either by

deducing truths from existing knowledge, or by learning things a priori, discovering
necessary truths (such as mathematical truths) through pure reason. The view that
reason is the primary source of knowledge is called rationalism
Faculty of Perception that which can be perceived through the experiences of the
senses. The view that experience is the primary source of knowledge is called
empiricism.
We only have to two types of knowledge claims: the formal and the empirical.
Formal -> faculty of reason
Empirical -> faculty of sense
Our sources of knowledge:
When a formal knowledge claim is made, like Humes example of the square of the
hypotenuse is equal to the square of the two sides it is made by using an analytic
statement. And when an empirical knowledge claim is made like the sun will rise
tomorrow the claim is made using an empirical statement.
Two Theories of Truth
*Humes relation of ideas and matters of fact
Correspondence Theory of Truth -> Use of five senses

Correspondence Theory of Truth

Relational

Empirical Knowledge Claim

Theory of Reality

The statement is relative to the state of affairs

Realist Version of Correspondence Theory of Truth

If claim is about a present event, it corresponds to direct observation

If claim is about a future event, it corresponds to observation of past

regularities

5 | Philosophy I Finals Reviewer

If claim is about the past, it corresponds to documents and testimony

If claim is about generalization, it corresponds to the representative of

the sample of the population involved

Coherence Theory of Truth -> Use of the faculty of reason

Relational

Formal knowledge claim the analytical statement

Formal system the context

Math, Logic, Geometry, Empirical

The predicate is contained in the subject

The terms used must follow conventional usage in a given language

game

5. Explain your obligation as a critical thinker.

Your Obligation

Never accept the truth of any statement or belief

adequate evidence for it

Healthy Skepticism

Distinguish between the known, knowable, and unknowable

Empiricism's help

The Known, Knowable, and the Unknowable

unless there is

Knowable as extrapolation from the known

Cloning, Origin of Life

Known and Knowable as Provable

Evidence in Fact

6 | Philosophy I Finals Reviewer

Evidence

The Unprovable

Claims
unprovable

Readily available
Principle

Hypothetic

assumed to be true as

Heaven & hell, reincarnation of the soul

PQ

in

Empirically Unprovable

Unprovable if claim is empirical, hence unknowable

Exception on evaluative claims

Guard against rumors and superstitions

Reject all beliefs in the unknowable?

6. Construct and explain the truth table of logical constants.

Truth table of Conjunction (And)

Truth table of Alternation

PvQ

7 | Philosophy I Finals Reviewer

F
F

(Or)

Truth table of Conditional (Ifthen)

P

P -> Q

Truth table of Biconditional (If and only if)

P

P Q

Double Negative

8 | Philosophy I Finals Reviewer

~P

Negative of Compound Statement

P Q
T

~(P
Q)
F

P
v
Q

~(P

v
P Q~(P ~(P

Q)
Q) Q)
T
F
T
F
F
T
F P -> Q T ~(P ->
Q)
T
F
P Q
T
F
F
T
F

7. What are the complex arguments forms? Give examples with content of
each.
Modus Ponens
-> Valid argument; premise ii affirms the antecedent
i. R -> L
ii. R
iii. L

Affirming the Consequent

->invalid argument; reverse of Modus Ponens
i. R -> L
ii. L
iii. R

Modus Tollens

9 | Philosophy I Finals Reviewer

-> Valid argument; counter part of the valid form modus ponens; denying the
consequence
i. R -> L
ii. ~L
iii. ~R

Denying the Antecedent

-> Invalid argument; often confused with modus tollens
i. R -> L
ii. ~R
iii. ~L

Detaching the Consequent

-> Invalid argument
i. R -> L
ii. L
*You cannot infer the consequent because the conjunction can still be true even if
the consequence (L) is false.

Hypothetical Syllogism
->Complicated valid argument
i. R -> L
ii. L -> C
iii. R -> C

Fallacy of Misplaced Middle

10 | Philosophy I Finals Reviewer

-> Invalid argument; often confused with hypothetical syllogism

i. R -> L
ii. C -> L
iii. R -> C

Constructive Dilemma
-> Complicated valid argument; a combination of two modus ponens
i. R v L
ii. R -> D
iii. L -> C
iv. D v C

Destructive Dilemma
-> Valid argument; it denies the consequent ~D and ~C of both conditionals and
therefore you can validly infer the denial of the antecedent in the conclusion. The
argument structure is a combination to two modus tollens.
i. ~D v ~C
ii. R -> D
iii. L -> C
iv. ~R v ~L

Pseudo Dilemma I
-> Invalid argument; denies the antecedent of premise i and ii. And so it cannot
conclude the denial of both the consequents. This invalid argument is often
confused with Destructive Dilemma.
i. R -> D
ii. L -> C
iii. ~R v ~L
11 | Philosophy I Finals Reviewer

iv. ~D v ~C

Pseudo Dilemma II
-> Invalid argument often confused with Constructive Dilemma.
i. D v C
ii. R -> D
iii. L -> C
iv. R v L

8. What are the appropriate standards for measuring argument strength?

Give examples of each
1. The criteria for judging the strength of an empirical argument is measured in
terms of the evidence offered by the premises to verify the truth (or probability) of
the conclusion. In this type, the strength of the relation between the premises and
conclusion may be susceptible to degrees. For example:
More likely than not, Isabel comes from a poor family, because Isabel is a UP
freshman batch 1998 and most freshmen batch 1998 come from poor families.

2. The criteria for judging the strength of an analytic argument rest on the
stability of the truth of the analytic statement, which is often an analytic definition
or a WFF of some formal science. It seems that this type of argument is not
susceptible to degrees. For example:
Eagles have feathers and all animals with feathers are birds, therefore all eagles
are birds.

3. The criteria for judging the strength of an evaluative argument rest on the
extent of public acceptance or inter-subjective consensus regarding the moral
principle offered to justify an evaluative claim. The relationship between the
12 | Philosophy I Finals Reviewer

premise set and conclusion o this type of argument is loose and susceptible to
variations from different audience. For example:
Pedro should not be punished. Although he is accused of a crime, he is innocent.
And we should never punish an innocent person.

9. Enumerate the basic fallacies and of informal logic and explain each.
1. Argumentum ad Hominem- Mud slinging. The fallacy of attacking the character
or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument
instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the
argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.
2. Argumentum ad Baculum- Argument to the club. The fallacy committed when
one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a
conclusion.
3. Argumentum ad Misericordiam- the fallacy committed when pity or a related
emotion such as sympathy or compassion is appealed to for the sake of getting a
conclusion accepted.
4. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam- the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the
basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not
been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.
Just because nobody has proven x doesnt mean y is true.
5. Argumentum ad Populum- (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy
of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and
enthusiasms of the multitude. Appeal to popularity and tradition.
6. Argumentum ad Vericundiam- The fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an
authority outside his special field. Anyone can give opinions or advice; the fallacy
only occurs when the reason for assenting to the conclusion is based on following
the recommendation or advice of an improper authority.
7. Strawman Fallacy- committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual
position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that
position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
13 | Philosophy I Finals Reviewer

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a

position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as
well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
8. Red Herring- is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert
attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading
attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has
the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is
actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
9. False Analogy- misleading notion in which an argument is based on deceptive,
superficial, or unlikely comparisons. An example of false analogy is 'people are like
dogs. False analogies respond best to clear discipline.
10. Slippery Slope Fallacy- You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will
eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen. The problem with this
reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts
attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such
extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to
emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted
by unsubstantiated conjecture.

11. Fallacy of Complex Question- the fallacy of phrasing a question that, by the way
it is worded, assumes something not contextually granted, assumes something not
true, or assumes a false dichotomy. To be a fallacy, and not just a rhetorical
technique, the conclusion (usually an answer to the question) must be present
either implicitly or explicitly.
12. Petitio Principii (circular reasoning, circular argument, begging the question)Fallacy of begging the question. It uses the premise as conclusion. The reason
petitio principii is considered to be a fallacy is not that the inference is invalid
(because any statement is indeed equivalent to itself), but that the argument can
be deceptive. A statement cannot prove itself. A premise must have a different
source of reason, ground or evidence for its truth from that of the conclusion.
13. Fallacy of False Dilemma- Although valid in form, the argument is false.
Example: Either you do not value human life or you do not love your Uncle Fred; it
seems to us that you do not love your Uncle Fred. Therefore, you do not value
human life.
14 | Philosophy I Finals Reviewer

14. Non Sequitur- an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its
premises. In a non sequitur, the argument is fallacious because there is a
disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are
special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a
formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have
been classified into many different types of logical fallacies.
10. Explain the difference between Formal Logic and Informal Logic
There are two general types of ways to examine arguments for soundness: formal
and informal.

FORMAL LOGIC
-created
-deductive
-depends on the logical form for
strength
-the content of the argument is
irrelevant
- Formal arguments tend to be
simple, straightforward, and
extreme.

INFORMAL LOGIC
-naturally formed
-focuses on the content that formal
logic disregards
-According to Johnson, the task of
informal logic is to understand and
analyze argument as they are used
in ordinary discourse in everyday
discussion without the paradigm
logical form as template.
- They tend to be complex and
contain unstated assumptions.

15 | Philosophy I Finals Reviewer

16 | Philosophy I Finals Reviewer