Philosophy can be traced back to ancient Greece, to about 500 BCE. This was a time of great intellectual achievements. Buddhism and Jainism were blossoming in Asia - a move away from the tradition of large pantheons of waring Gods towards a more atheistic view of the world and people's place in it.
In Greece they were just beginning to struggle with the difference between truth as given through story (mythos) and truth as achieved through deduction and reasoning (Philos).
Philos = Science Mythos = Storytelling
When ancient philosophers first began using the word "philosophy" they were referring more to the act of academic study rather than how we use the word today.
At the first "schools of thought": Plato's Academy and Aristotle's Lyceum math, biology, physics, poetry, political science, and astronomy were all considered to be philosophy.
Later, those subjects that could be easily measured and quantified came to be known as the sciences; whereas Philosophy was more about thinking about thinking (metacognition).
Philosophy likes to ask the big questions, like:
What is the world like?
What is the nature of reality?
These questions may seem simple enough on the surface but; whereas science tries to break everything down to its component parts (e.g. energy and matter), philosophy asks: Are we more than the sum of are parts? If we are all just matter and energy, where did it all come from? Is there a God? - You know...the big questions.
Philosophy has three main branches.
1. Metaphysics: What is the nature of reality?
The above questions are metaphysical - they desire to understand the nature of the world, the universe and the self.
2. Epistemology: What is the nature of knowledge?
Epistemology questions how we know that we know - "I think therefore I am." It questions our perception of the world around us. Is what I see real? What is true? Are there paths to truth that science cannot travel?
3. Axiology: What is the nature of values?
Axiology focuses on what you actually DO in the world. How you behave and what you attach meaning to.
Axiology (or Value Theory) can be broken down into two main categories: Ethics and Aesthetics
Ethics is the study of how people should live with each other - often interpreted today to mean what is right and what is wrong. Consider Confucianism - is there any reason you should treat strangers differently than you treat your own family? What do you owe to yourself? How should you treat other living creatures?
Aesthetics considers what is beautiful. What is beauty? Is beauty truly in the eye of the beholder, or are there universal principals that can be applied?
The tools of the philosopher are logic and reason. As with the sciences, philosophers demand that their questions be answered is systematic ways, using strong arguments that do not fall victim to fallacies.
We use philosophy in almost every aspect of our lives without even knowing it; in the day-to-day decisions and judgements that we make.
Should I stop eating meat?
That woman needs to be kinder to her dog.
I would never raise my children like that.
Is this really the kind of person I want to spend the rest of my life with?
In this section, I want you to seriously critique what you think you know, and what you think is true, look closely at ideas you disagree with and argue against them logically (as opposed to emotionally), and decide (for yourself) whether an idea is worth having or keeping.
You'll learn to organize your arguments and support your ideas so that you can convince us you're right. On the other side, you keep an open mind and willingness to change your ideas through logical persuasion.
Philosophical Reasoning - The Art of Argument
Philosophy promotes argument through logical reasoning.
Premises are the logical reasons for your beliefs (conclusions).
Deductive Arguments: if your premises are true then your beliefs (conclusions) must be true.
Example:
Premise A: All St. John's students must take the literacy exam. (major premise) Premise B: You are a St. John's student. (minor premise)
Conclusion: You must take the literacy exam.
As in the above example, when one fact leads to another is called entailment.
Example 2: (Invalid)
Premise A: All St. John's students must take the literacy exam. Premise B: You are a St. John's student.
Conclusion: Attendance is required at all St. John's classes.
The argument is invalid because nothing in the premises proves the conclusion (Attendance at St. John's is mandatory.) The conclusion may be true - but it is not valid.
Validity is not the same as truth. In order to be valid the premises must prove the conclusion.
Example 3: (Invalid conclusion based on valid premises)
Premise 1: All cats are mammals. Premise 2; I'm a mammal.
Conclusion: I'm a mammal; therefore, I'm a cat
The conclusion does not entail from the premises; because, all cats may be mammals but not all mammals are cats.
Example 4: (Valid conclusion based on flawed premises)
Premise 1: All women have long hair. Premise 2: You are a women.
Conclusion: You have long hair.
Premise 1 is false but the conclusion is valid because, based on the premises, it is logical.
*** Deductive arguments are great because they lead to certainty; however, they are limited because they only works if you are starting with known and true premises.
The Socratic Method:
Inductive reasoning is the ability to predict the future based on past experiences. It is dependent on the future resembling the past - so is imperfect - but is the type of reasoning that most life depends on for its survival.
Example:
Premise 1: Every spring I've been alive the salmon have swum up this stream to lay their eggs. Premise 2: Salmon in the river are easy to catch and good to eat.
Conclusion: If I come to this river in the spring I will be able to catch and eat the salmon that swims here.
For generations, this type of reasoning was what allowed people (and animals) to survive in nature. However, we are now faced with the prospect of a future that does not resemble the past due to climate change and human industry.
Inductive reasoning does not entail that the conclusion will be true, in only means that the conclusion is likely to be true.
Inductive reasoning focuses on probability rather than truth.
Inductive reasoning is difficult. In the above example, taking climate change into consideration, we can come to several possible conclusions:
Conclusion 1: The salmon will continue to move up the river as they've done every spring, or Conclusion 2: The salmon will stop moving up the river at the same time of year as they have in previous years. Conclusion 3: The salmon will move north to adjust for climate change and swim up a different river. Conclusion 4: The salmon will die off because they are unable to reproduce in the way their species have come to depend on. Etc.
What we lack with these conclusion is evidence - because we cannot look to the past as an example.
Problems with induction:
The future does not always resemble the past.
Every pattern has its outliers.
Example: (outlier)
Premise 1: Most girls enjoy playing with dolls. Premise 2: My niece is a girl.
Inductive conclusion: My niece will enjoy receiving a doll for her birthday. Truth: My niece has never enjoyed dolls, she would much rather be outside hunting for bugs; and I should buy her a net and bug house to keep my title of "Favorite Aunt".
Abduction:
“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Arthur Conan Doyle, "The Sign of Four" - Spoken by Sherlock Holmes.
Abduction does not use premises to reason to a conclusion; rather, it works through a process of elimination
Now, Sherlock Holmes was always looking for those abduction problems that were the trickiest to solve; however you and I use abduction every day.
Abduction Riddle:
Example 1:
Observation: Someone you work closely with comes to work with a head cold. Result: A week later you come down with a head cold. Conclusion: The person at work gave you a head cold.
Problem: Your conclusion may be correct, but without more evidence we cannot be 100% sure you didn't get a cold from holding on to the centre post of the sky train. Correlation does not equal causation.
Example 2:
Observation: The smell of cigarette smoke is wafting out of the boy's room. Result: I search all of the boys bags and find cigarettes in John's bag. Conclusion: John was smoking in the boys room.
Problem: Maybe John was smoking in the boys room, or maybe one of the other boys has his cigarettes hidden in his waistband.
The truth of the hypothesis cannot be known. You have based you hypothesis on the conclusion; rather than the other way around. (inductively.) Abduction can lead to logical fallacies - as seen above - however, humans have evolved to come up with reasons that explain the conditions they are facing: if the grass is wet, it must have rained overnight.
The Law is all about abductive reasoning. If the person being arrested looks the same as the person on the security camera that robbed the bank, has a gun, and is carrying a big bag of money - you can use abduction to conclude that he is guilty; but sometimes innocent people go to jail because abduction is, by it's very nature, a flawed form of reasoning. That is why detectives are always looking for more evidence, especially evidence like DNA, that can be scientifically proven.
The Socratic Method:
Socrates was one of the first philosophers of ancient Greece and he believed, like lawyers, that we could come closer to the truth through rational discussion and exchanging ideas through dialogue.
Within the Socratic method you cannot disagree with someone just because you dislike their conclusions, you need to give reasons - just like the first person did.
Example 1:
Observation: Someone you work closely with comes to work with a head cold. Result: A week later you come down with a head cold. Conclusion: The person at work gave you a head cold.
Counterargument:
Observation: You rarely wash your hands after arriving at work or before you eat. Conclusion: You could have picked up a cold from anywhere due to your poor hygiene habits.
Observation: I was at the end of my cold before I came back to work; therefore it is unlikely I was still contagious. Conclusion: I was not contagious at the time you got sick; so could not have given you my cold.
Both people in this kind of exchange are called interlocutors. The first person makes and argument and the second person can either accept that argument or present a counterargument. Just like prosecutors and defense attorneys. However, unlike lawyers, the Socratic method is not about assigning a winner and a loser; it is about coming closer to the truth. If a interlocutor presents a counterargument that you cannot find a response to, you do not get angry, you thank the other interlocutor for bringing you closer to the truth.