Brittney Strandahl

Philosophy 1010
Chapter one
Defining Philosophy
The actual word philosophy is Greek in origin, and it is the composite of two Greek
roots. Translating to Greek word for love and Greek word for wisdom. So in a
definition philosophy is the love or pursuit of wisdom.
Philosophy has retained a distinct areas of study:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Metaphysics
Epistemology
Ethics
Social-political philosophy
Aesthetics
Logic

Many important thinkers are; Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

Quality of a critical thinker

Open minded
Knowledgeable
Mentally active
Curious
Independent thinkers
Skilled discussants
Insightful
Self-aware
Creative
Passionate
The process of critical thinking

Stage your initial point of view

Reasoning always begins with a point of view. As a critical thinker and
aspiring philosopher, you need to take thoughtful positions and express your
views with confidence.
Define your point if you more clearly
After stating your initial point of view, decide the issue more clearly and
specifically. The language is that we use has multiple levels of meaning, and
it is often not clear precisely what meanings people are expressing. To avoid
misunderstandings in sharp in your own thinking, you must clarify key
concepts as early as possible.

Give an example of your point of view

Once your point of view is clarified, you should provide an example that
illustrates your meaning. The process of forming in defining concepts
involves the process of generalization in the process of interpretation.
Explore the origin of your point of view
To fully understand and critically invalid meet your point of view, you must
review of its history. How did the point of view develop? Have you always
held this view, or did it develop over time? This is sort of analysis will help
you understand how your perspective regarding this issue was formed.
Identify your assumptions
Assumptions are beliefs, often unstated, that underlie your point of view.
Many disputes occur and remained unresolved because the people involved
do not recognize or express their assumptions. Thus all parties must identify
clearly the assumptions that form the foundation of their points of view.
Offered the reasons, evidence, and arguments that support your point of view
Everybody has beliefs. What distinguishes informed beliefs from I informed
police in the quality of reasons, evidence, and our demands that support the
beliefs.
Consider other points of view
One of the landmarks of critical thinkers is that they strive to view situations
from perspectives other than their own, to think emphatically with and others
viewpoints, particularly those of people who disagreed with their own. If we
stay entrenched in our own narrow ways of viewing the world, the
development of our minds will be severely limited. Empathic thinking is the
only way to achieve a full understanding of lifes complexities.
Arriving at the conclusion, decision, solution, or prediction
The ultimate purpose of critical thinking is to reach an informed and
successful conclusion, decision, solution, or prediction. The goal is to achieve
a thoughtful conclusion. This is a complex process of analysis and synthesis
in which we consider all points of view; evaluate the supporting reasons,
evidence, and arguments; and then construct your most important
conclusion.
Consider the consequences
The final step in the reason process is to determine the consequences of your
conclusion, decision, solution, or prediction. The consequences refer to what
is likely to happen if our conclusion is adopted.

Stages of critical thinking

The road to becoming a critical thinker is a challenging journey that involves
passing through different stages of critical thinking in order to achieve an
effective and understanding of the worlds. This framework is based on the
work of Harvard psychologist William Perry (Forms of Intellectual and Ethical
Development in a College Years: a Scheme).
Stage one: The Garden of Eden
Stage two: Anything Goes
Stage three: Thinking Critically

Understanding arguments
As one of the essential branches of philosophy, Logic seek to establish the rules of
correct reasoning, clear understanding, invalid argumentation. In common speech
and argument usually refers to a dispute or quarrel between people, often involving
intense feelings.
Our language provides guidance in our efforts to identify reasons and conclusions.
Certain keywords, known as cue words, signaled a reason is being offered in
support of a conclusion or that a conclusion is being announced on the bases of
searching the reason.
Arguments are evaluated in terms of their effectiveness or soundness through a
process that investigates both the truth of the reason and a validity of the
conclusion.
1) TRUTH: HOW TRUE ARE SUPPORTING REASONS? The first aspects of the argument
you must evaluate is that root of the reason that is being used to support a conclusion.
Typically, evaluating this sort of beliefs usually found as reasons and our demands is a
complex an ongoing challenge.
2) VALIDITY: DO THE REASONS SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION? The evaluating
arguments involves investigating the relationship between the reasons and the
conclusion.
a) Valid argument is when the reason supports the conclusion so that the conclusion
follows from the reason being offered.
b) Invalid argument is when the reasons to not support the conclusion so that the
conclusion does not follow from the reason being offered.
3) SOUNDNESS: DOES THE ARGUMENT PASS THE TESTS OF BOTH TRUTH AND
VALIDITY? Many of the arguments being taller and life fall somewhere between
complete soundness is incomplete unsoundness because we are often not sure if our
reasons are completely true.
a) Sound argument is when an argument includes both true reason and valid
structure.

b) Unsound argument is when an argument has enough balls reason or invalid

structure.

Deductive arguments
Philosophers have caused by our demands into two different categories deductive
arguments in inductive arguments. In a deductive argument, is the argument form is valid,
and if you accept a supporting reason as true, then you must necessarily accept the
conclusion as true. These arguments use structures for valid arguments.
1) CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
a) A syllogism is an argument form that consists of two supporting premises and a
conclusion.
i) Premises:
AB
Premises:
SA
Conclusion:
SB
2) MODUS PONENS
a) The antecedent is the first part of a hypothetical statement. The setting part of a
hypothetical statement is known as the consequent. Also known as if/then
statements.
i) Premise: If A, then B
Premise:
A
Conclusion:
B
3) MODUS TOLLENS
a) The first premise is a hypothetical if/then statement, but the second premise focuses
on the consequent.
i) Premise: If A, then B
Premise:
If not A
Conclusion: Then not B
4) DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM
a) The term disjunctive means presenting alternatives, as in the first premise of our
follow the example. The second premise denied as one of the alternatives and the
conclusion affirms the remaining options.
i) Premise: Either A or B
Premise: Not A
Conclusion: Therefore B

Inductive arguments
We examine inductive arguments as an argument form in which one reasons from premise
two conclusion that is supported by the premise but does not follow necessarily from them.
CASUAL REASONING
The in argument in which one events is claimed to be the results of the occurrence of
another events.
Example: The solar system is probably the results of an enormous explosion that
occurred billions of years ago.
EMPIRICAL GENERALIZATION
In type our reasoning in which a general statement is made about an entire group based on
observing some members of the group.
Example: On average, a person with a college degree or earn over $1,340,000 more
in his or her life than a person with just a high school diploma.
Informal Fallacies
These are the unsound arguments that are often persuasive because they usually appeal to
our emotions and prejudices and because they often support conclusion that we want to
believe are accurate. These are false reasoning, arguments that are not sound because of
various errors in reasoning.
1) Hasty generalization: this type of fallacy occurs when people trying to reach a general
conclusion too quickly, lacking a significant number of instances in the sample
population to legitimately justified generalization that too good target population.
a) My first concert was bad. All of my concert will be bad.
2) Sweeping generalization: a generalization that fails to take into account the
exceptions to the rule.
a) Everyone must go to college to be successful.
3) False dilemma: occurs when we ask to choose between two extremes alternative
without being able to consider additional options. Also known as either/or.
a) Either we are completely free, or we have no freedom at all.