SALVACION NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

S.Y. 2022 - 2023

Name: _____________________________________ Grade Level and Block: _______

Intro to the Philosopy of the Human Person

Quarter 1 – Lesson 2.2: Methods of Philosophizing

LESSON 1: METHODS OF PHILOSOPHIZING

1. THE DIALECTIC METHOD

This method of philosophizing was conceived by the Greek philosopher Socrates (born 470 BCE). The method
starts with eliciting the definition of a certain word from a person who appears to be familiar (or “pretends” to
be familiar) with its meaning. Socrates then points out the imperfections of the understanding of the person
through a series of questions. What Socrates desires is for the person to realize his ignorance and
contradictions, and thereby correcting his own mistakes and arriving at a complete knowledge of the true
meaning of the word.

The Socratic Method was modernized and treated in a different way by George Wilhelm Hegel, a German
philosopher. Hegel was an idealist. He believed that the ideas of the human minds have access of what the
world is like. People are social beings and could be completely influenced by other people’s ideas. An
individual’s mind is influenced by means of a common language, customs of one’s society, and the cultural
institutions that one belongs to. Hegel refers this to “Spirit” as the collective consciousness of a society which
is responsible for honing one’s consciousness and ideas.

Hegel also believed that the Spirit is constantly changing and evolving. According to Hegel, the spirit changes
through dialectic. First, there is an idea about the world (much like a thesis), which has a natural characteristic
of having errors which give rise to the antithesis. The thesis and antithesis can be eventually resolved by
creating a synthesis which is a new idea comprised of the essentials of both the thesis and the antithesis. To
Hegel, society and culture follow this design, and one could understand all of human history without the use
of logic or empirical data simply by using logic (Klein, 2013).
2. THE PRAGMATIC METHOD
It was started by Charles S. Pierce (1839-1914), popularized by William James (1842-1910) and
institutionalized in American culture by John Dewey (1859-1952).

According to the pragmatists, philosophy seems to offer a set of beliefs about human beings and his
relationship to the world. Pragmatists offer no such beliefs. Rather, they seek to make philosophy relevant by
solving real life problems. It is purely a philosophy of method and not of substance.

What pragmatism aims is to test the dogma of science, religion and philosophy by determining their practical
results. The pragmatic test is: if I practice this belief, will it bring success or failure? Will I solve problems or
create problems? Successful experience is the verification process of truth for the pragmatists (Stumpf 2008).

3. THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD

The phenomenological method was conceived by Edmund Husserl (born in 1859), one of the greatest intellects
of the 19th century.

Husserl’s main purpose was to build a philosophy free from any biases or preconceived ideas. One can only
do this if one returns to immediate experience. Husserl said that he was only looking to “things and facts
themselves, as these are given in actual experience and intuition” (quoted by Stumpf 2008). This experience
is not the objective world of science separate from us, but the world as it appears to us or (borrowing the term
of the 18thcentury German philosopher Immanuel Kant) the phenomenal world - hence, the term
phenomenology.

However, our beliefs about human beings and the world prevent us from seeing clearly this immediate
experience which he calls “pure subjectivity”. Thus, to know the truth, we have to put aside one by one all our
limiting beliefs about the world which represents our biases. Husserl calls this process phenomenological
epoche (epoche is the Greek word for bracketing). Bracketing is not ignoring. It is an act of stepping back at
our biases and prejudices to make sure that they do not influence the way we think. Only facts provided by
immediate experience must influence us.

4. THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REFLECTIONS

For Gabriel Marcel, reflection is not just a disinterested look at experience. It emerged when something
valuable is at stake. Marcel gave an example of a watch. Suppose you try to take a watch from your pocket.
To your surprise, the watch that you expect to be there is not there. A break from your ordinary routine
happened. From this break, reflection appears in the form of a question: Where is my watch? Then, a host of
questions, connected to the first one, followed: Where was the last time I’ve seen my watch? Was there a hole
in my pocket? You try to retrace your steps from this moment back to the time when you last saw your watch.
From this example, you will see that reflection arise when there is a disruption from your normal routine and
when something valuable is at stake. Then, Marcel identified two levels of reflection: primary reflection and
secondary reflection.

Marcel applied these two levels of reflection to the most fundamental question: Who am I?Nowadays, we try
to answer this question by filling up a form given by our school for example. The form asked us to write our
name, age, gender, address, name of parents, etc. To answer this, of course we have to think to distinguish
who we are (the self) against other things (the non-self or objects). This is the primary reflection.

Yet, we had an uneasy feeling that all the information we put on the form (although true) do not fully capture
who we really are (Marcel 1970). We view that our self is bigger and more expansive than what is there on the
form. Thus, we are not merely thinking but we are thinking about thinking and about the process we perform
in answering the form. This is the secondary reflection. The result of secondary reflection is a more expansive
view of the self until it embraces the world. Thus, the separation of the self and the world brought about by
primary reflection were united by the secondary reflection
 5. THE ANALYTIC METHOD
The task of analytic approach is not to create another system of ideas to counter the Hegelian system but to
clarify how philosophers used words through an analysis of language (Stumpf 2008). As quoted by Stumpf,
Wittgenstein said that ‘the object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thought’ so that ‘the result of
philosophy is not a number of philosophical propositions, but to make propositions clear”. Analytic philosophers
employed various methods of linguistic analysis such as the principle of verification and logical analysis (Rudolf
Carnap).

LESSON 2: DIFFERENT FALACIES

Philosophizing involves the gift of speech and the gift of intelligence that enable us to reason out and detect the falsity
or truthfulness of a statement. When one reasons out, he/she expresses his opinion and when others disagree, then
argument begins. In philosophical parlance argument is not an emotional reptilian word war or a territorial show of force
between persons but a philosophical method in knowing the truth of a certain phenomenon or reality. It is a set of
statements which includes the premises and conclusion (the latter is the one that claims the truth of the premises)
(Cornejo & Ebia, 2017).

However, there are arguments that are erroneous or based from faulty reasoning called Fallacies (Abella, 2016).
Unconsciously, we are culprits of this in our daily interaction with people including our families and friends. Even TV
commercials intentionally employ some faulty reasoning to convince their target market to purchase their products.
Lawyers outwit each other by employing some fallacies to defend their clients. I am sure you are familiar with the
famous “Flip Top Battles” group in today’s digital world. Shall we say a modern dialectical approach which appeal not
only to the mind but also to our aesthetic sense? They entertain audience and it is awesome how they display their wit
to outsmart each other in a poetic manner. It becomes an art and aesthetically superb, but if you go beyond
entertainment and analyze their statements there are a lot of faulty reasoning going on. Below are some of the Fallacies
which we believe you need to be aware of. Abella, Roberto D. in his book “Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human
Person” laid down some of these fallacies:

FALLACY Short Description Examples

Argumentum ad Hominem came from Latin word “homo” “How can we believe him when he talks
Hominem which means man. This fallacy literally means about social distancing, he is a lawyer
(Attacking the Person) hitting the person below the belt instead of who is a liar.”
focusing on the issue at hand.
Argumentum ad Baculum is a Latin word which means scepter “TV Patrol is the best news program on
Baculum or stick. A scepter is a symbol of authority. TV. If you don’t believe me, I won’t let you
(Appeal to Force) Normally it is the Pope who carries it in his watch the TV.”
hands. This is committed when a person uses
threat or force to advance an argument.
Argumentum ad Misercordiam came from Latin word “Forgive me officer, there are lot of
Misercordiam Misericordia which means pity or boarders in this apartment including
(Appeal to Pity) compassion. A person uses emotion such as myself. Only the owner was issued a
pity to convince someone quarantine pass. We don’t have food; we
can’t give our ATM to the owner. That’s
why I went out. So I did not violate the
Bayanihan Act Heal as One.”
Argumentum ad Populum is the Latin word for people. Most of “I’m sure you want to have an iPhone.
Populum TV commercials are guilty of this argument Almost 80% of your schoolmates
(Appeal to People) / which exploit people’s vanity, desires, are using it.”
Bandwagon Fallacy etc.
 FALLACY Short Description Examples
Argumentum ad Traditio means tradition. Advancing an idea All of us in the family, from our ancestors
Traditio since it has been practice for a long time up to now, are devout Catholics, so it is
(Appeal to Tradition) only right that you will be baptized as a
Catholic.
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam a Latin word for ignorance. According to Zecharia Sitchin, the author
Ignorantiam Whatever has been proven false must be true of the book “Cosmic Code, “Adam was
and vice versa. the first test tube baby. Since nobody
proves otherwise, therefore it is true.”
Petitio Principii It is a fallacy in which a conclusion is taken for God exists because the Bible says so.
(Begging the Question) granted in the premises. Also called “circular The Bible is inspired, therefore we know
argument” that God exists.
Hasty Generalization This fallacy us committed when one reaches Our neighbor who is a police officer was
a generalization based on insufficient convicted of being a drug dealer,
evidence therefore, all police officers are drug
dealers.
Cause and Effect Assuming that the effect is related to a cause “My teacher didn’t collect the homework
because both events occur one after the other two weeks in a row when my friend was
absent. Therefore, my friend being absent
is the reason why my teacher doesn’t
collect the homework.”
Fallacy of Composition Infers that something is true of a part, is true You are a doctor, therefore you came
of a whole from a family of doctors.”
Fallacy of Division Infers that something is true of the whole, “Your family is smart, therefore you are
must also be true on its parts smart.”
Fallacy of Equivocation Using the same term in different situation with “Humans walk by their legs. The table has
different meaning legs. Therefore, the table walks by its
legs.”

ACTIVITY 1: LET’S APPLY

Directions: Fill in the table below with the main proponents of methods of philosophizing. For each method, answer the
questions: “How can you find truth using this method?” and “On what real-life situation can you apply this method? (Use
separate sheet if needed)

Give a real-life situation

How can truth be found
Method of Philosophizing Main Proponents where this method can be
using this method?
applied

Dialectic

Pragmatic
 Phenomenological

Primary and Secondary

Reflection

Analytic

ACTIVITY 2: WIN AN ARGUMENT

Directions: By using the graphic organizer of dialectic method below, answer the question: How do you criticize someone’s
opinion/argument in a way that makes sense and is respectful? Try to talk or interview two persons that have contrasting
idea about the question, then write your own synthesis to their answers. (Use separate sheet if needed)
ACTIVITY 3: COMIC ON
Directions: Draw a comic strip that portrays ONE type of fallacy. Explain your work. Do this on a short bondpaper.

ASSESSMENT

DIRECTIONS: Read and comprehend each statement. Choose the letter of the correct answer and write it on the space
before each number.