Doing Philosophy

Human beings have a unique facility to reason, it stems from our

self conscious ability to know that we exist. We are not like
computers which simply manipulate information and are not self-
aware.
Philosophy involves thinking in abstract ideas (e.g not where I
should go this afternoon but why am I here at all)
This sort of thinking helps us to ask questions that concern
our existence in relation to our place as individuals in an
often puzzling world. First it allows us to work out whether
the question is meaningful (and that we are justified in pursuing
and answer), second, it helps us to work through the problem,
obtain a conclusion and decide whether that conclusion is valid.
Whether or not the conclusion is true will depend on the truth
contained in the argument.
 The method of philosophy as a way of thinking can be (and is) used
in all fields of human enquiry: scientific, ethical, religious, political or
any other matter of psychological importance to us as individuals or
members of society.
DOING PHILOSOPHY
We do philosophy all the time because we are continually taking in
information, thinking about it and coming up with conclusions. We
often arrive at conclusions very different from other people,
however, human difference
is valuable and important – the world would be a
very dull place if everyone thought x was good
looking – but sometimes human difference is a
result of different people tackling thinking in
different ways. This may not be so important
when working out whether or not someone is good
looking but it may have serious consequences
for the person accused of murder whose future
is dependent on a jury.
 The reason to philosophise need not be abstract.
Primitive people were doing philosophy when they
thought about the best
ways of trapping animals
for food. Should they dig a
hole and cover it to make a
trap, or should they make a
net, chase the animal and
Throw the net over it? If we
like to eat wild duck what
would our method of
catching them be? Would
the same reasoning apply to
bears? How we come to conclusions about these
questions involves us in thinking and involves us in
philosophy.
 Question

Because I like digging holes in the ground and I

like eating wild duck for my dinner, I conclude
that if I dig holes in the ground I will be able to
catch wild duck (and have a satisfying dinner).

Does this make sense?

If not why not?
Explain carefully your reasons for
holding this view.
 Philosophy first started when human beings began to wonder why their world
was like it was. They assumed that the earth was created by God but when
they began to wonder about the nature of God himself (eg who is he or she?
Where is God? Is God completely powerful? Is God good? Etc) they began to
philosophise. This sort of thinking is called ‘metaphysics’ and is to do with
thinking about what and why things ‘really are’. All philosophy in some way
connects to this central metaphysical theme.

What is the best approach to philosophy?

We can approach philosophy by looking at its history (eg The ancient Greeks,
Descartes etc) or we can study by topic (philosophy of science, philosophy of
mind etc). Both have their merits. Whichever we choose, its important to have
an understanding of what philosophers have thought about and we will be
examining key works of the key philosophers. Philosophy is also about using our
imagination to come up with new ideas and argue in their defence, or to
challenge existing ideas by providing rational arguments against them. It is an
activity. To argue effectively we need to be aware of what it is to reason. There
is little (or nothing) to be gained by proclaiming we have a ‘philosophy’ about
this or that without supporting our ideas by reason or if we have no declared
reasons for holding a view to simply state ‘’that’s what I believe and that’s all
there is to it’’.
 Doing Philosophy - An exercise
For each of the following decide how you wish to respond to the question then work
out:
Why you think this?
What reasons you have for thinking this?
Where these reasons came from?
Why you believe your reasons?
If you would change your view if someone could convince you otherwise?

1.Do you believe that war is wrong?

2.Do you believe that criminals should be punished for their crimes or helped to lead
better lives?
3.Do you think that the earth is flat?
4.Do you think that everyone in the world should have the same amount of money?
5.Do you think homosexuality is natural and acceptable?
6.If forced to make a choice between the death of a baby or the death of 10 baby
dolphins – what would you chose?
 LOGIC
In Star Trek when Spock is referred to as
being ‘logical’ it is usually taken to
mean that he is without emotion.
Sherlock Holmes is considered similarly
‘cold’. Why is this? And what is being
‘logical’ anyway?
 Reason and Logic
‘The madman is not the
man who has lost his
reason. The madman is
the man who has lost
everything but his
reason.’
 Introduction – The master of deduction

• In one mystery concerning the theft of

an expensive racehorse, a police
officer asks Sherlock Holmes if any
aspect of the crime strikes him as
significant. ‘Yes’, he says ‘the curious
incident of the dog in the night time’.
The dog did nothing in the night time’
says the hapless police officer. ‘That
was the curious incident’, replies
Holmes.
• How has Holmes deduced the solution
to the crime?
Solution • The solution to the crime hinges on
the fact that the watchdog guarding
the horse did not bark in the night,
and from that Holmes deduces that
the thief must have been known to
the dog. We can lay out Holmes
reasoning formally as follows:

• Watchdogs bark at strangers.

• The watchdog did not bark at the
thief.
• Therefore the thief was not a
stranger.
 Argument
We argue in different ways: we quarrel, debate or
persuade. In a philosophical sense argument is
used to persuade others of your point of view.
Although quarrels may not have rules, persuasion
arguments do.

There are 2 categories of argument: Deductive

and Inductive.
A deductive argument provides conclusive
support for its conclusion as long as it is valid, an
inductive argument provides probable support
for its conclusion providing it supplies strong
evidence.
1. Deductive argument is a
method of ascertaining
validity. A properly
constructed deductive
argument is valid so if all its
premises are true then its
conclusion must be true.
 Aristotle (384-322BC) is credited with inventing deductive
arguments as a means to drawing conclusions. By looking at
his own example we can see the form deductive arguments
take:

If the question were asked ‘Is Socrates mortal?’

then the following deductive argument could be
applied.

All men are mortal (1st premise)

Socrates is a man (2nd premise)
Socrates is mortal (conclusion)

The conclusion follows from the premise. A valid deductive

argument will always lead to a valid conclusion but the truth
of the conclusion relies on the truth of the premises.
 Cartman gives us another example.

•If the boys combine their lost teeth,

then they’ll get money from the
Tooth Fairy (premise 1)
•If they get money from the Tooth
Fairy, then they can buy a PS3 (premise 2)
-------------------------------------------
•Hence, if the boys combine their lost teeth
then they can buy a PS3 (conclusion)
 2. Inductive argument is a
method of ascertaining the
degree of certainty the premises
confer on the conclusion. A
properly constructed inductive
argument has strength in that if
all the premises are true then the
conclusion is probably true.
 How sure are you that some day you will die?
What evidence do you have for your belief?

While deductive reasoning goes from the general

to the particular, another kind of reasoning known
as induction, goes in the opposite direction – from
the particular to the general. With reference to the
above example, my belief that all human beings
are mortal is based on the observation that in
history, every human being I know of has
eventually died, and I have never heard of a
human being who didn’t die. Therefore I can say
with confidence that ‘all observed human beings
have died’. Our inductive reasoning can therefore
lead us to the conclusion that ‘all human beings
are mortal’.
 South Park offers another example:
•Because in the past when we
mentioned towel related things,
Towelie has always showed up.
(premise 1)
•And because we will mention
Something towel related now.
(premise 2)
-------------------------------------------------
We can conclude that Towelie will show
up. (conclusion)
 Final Thoughts
On a practical level as students of philosophy you will need to write
essays that show evidence of sound rational conclusions drawn
from the application of rigorously applied induced or deduced
logic. This will give far greater weight and importance to your
claims.
On an even more serious note it is through fallacious reasoning or
faulty reasoning that many people seem to make poor decisions. In
South Park the case is put forward in the episode called Chef Aid
where a prominent lawyer successfully applies the Chewbacca
defence to prove a point to the jury and acquit the record company
of being found guilty of copyright violations of Chefs original song.
 This South Park portrayal of absurd reasoning is
funny in the cartoon. However its not so funny when
we see faulty reasoning at work in the real world.
Consider the following conclusions drawn.
All Jews are vermin
Vermin needs to be destroyed
All Jews need to be destroyed
OR
All terrorists are evil
All terrorists are Muslim
All Muslims are evil
 OR
All Americans are immoral
Immorality is punishable by death
I will sacrifice my life to bring
death to Americans.

Logic is the study of the principles of correct reasoning

associated with the formation and analysis of arguments. A
claim is shown to be true or false as a result of evidence,
which can take the forms of either direct testimony of your
senses, explanations, the testimony of others, appeal to well-
established theories, appeal to appropriate authority, appeal
to definitions and good arguments, among others.