Lesson 1 Notes PHIL 104: Philosophy and Society

Lecturer: Bonface Nyamweya (0752035439)

Class Slogan: "Let Wisdom Flow Bothways"
Lesson 1- Introduction
➢ Loosely speaking, philosophy is a worldview e.g. Each community or
society has its own perception regarding things like death etc. They
interpret the reality around them using their unique values and lenses.
➢ Philosophy is also generally understood as the love of wisdom from its
Greek etymology – philo (love), Sophia (wisdom).
➢ When Chaerephon asked Pythian the prophetess to consult the Oracle of
Delphi whether there is anyone wiser than Socrates, the Oracle said that
there was none.
➢ However, Socrates did not consider himself the wisest rather a lover of
wisdom, a midwife of knowledge through his deductive reasoning.
➢ Strictly speaking, philosophy is the systematic and critical search for truth,
knowledge and the principles of the first causes of reality.
➢ Philosophy is grounded on inquiry, curiosity, like that of a child asking
‘what is this? And that? Why are you doing this? Etc’
➢ In the process of its critical inquiry, philosophy seeks certainty and clarity.
➢ Socrates, at the point of death, in the Apology which is one of his dialogues,
says, ‘In another world they do not put a man to death for asking questions’
p 30.
➢ In Cratylus, Socrates, when asked whether names are natural or
conventional, he says, ‘…there is a great deal of difficulty in this sort of
knowledge, and therefore we had better leave the question open ended until
we have heard both sides.’ P 118.
➢ Philosophy avoids thus biases and prejudices as it examines both sides of
the argument.
➢ Philosophy involves wonder. For example, the German Philosopher
Immanuel Kant in his second critique ‘The Critique of Practical Reason’
of 1788 says, ‘Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing
admiration and awe the more often and the more enduringly reflection is
occupied with them- "the starry heavens above me and the moral law
within me"
➢ Philosophy goes beyond what we see as the senses present it. This why
when everyone believed for a long time that it is the sun moving around
the earth, people like Nicolas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei had to think
the contrary and support their positions by sound arguments and findings.

Branches of Philosophy
Logic- deals with correct reasoning
Metaphysics- studies being in itself, the first causes of reality
Theodicy- studies the nature of God without appealing to scriptures but
through reason.
Anthropology- studies man
Cosmology- studies the cosmos/universe/world
Epistemology- deals with the theory of knowledge
Ethics- deals with what is right or wrong
Aesthetics- studies beauty
 Lesson 2 Notes PHIL 104: Philosophy and Society
Lecturer: Bonface Nyamweya (0752035439)
Class Slogan: "Let Wisdom Flow Bothways"
Lesson 2- Logic
➢ The term logic comes from the Greek word ‘logos’ that means ‘word’.
➢ In Greek, the expression ‘logos techne’ suggests ‘the art of reasoning’.
➢ Logic is thus a branch of philosophy that deals with the art of correct
reasoning.
➢ It investigates arguments. An argument is a claim with supportive details.
E.g. Someone can say ‘I am alive because I am breathing.’ This is an
argument whereby the claim/conclusion is ‘I am alive’ and the supportive
detail given or reason is ‘because I am breathing’.
➢ Karl Popper, in his book: The Logic of Scientific Discovery says ‘A
scientist, whether theorist or experimenter, puts forward statements, or
systems of statements and tests them step by step. In the field of empirical
sciences, more particularly, he constructs hypotheses, or systems of
theories, and tests them against experience by observation and experiment.
I suggest that it is the task of the logic of scientific discovery or the logic
of knowledge to give a logical analysis of this procedure, that is, to analyse
the method of the empirical sciences’ p 3.
➢ Basically, Popper is saying that it is the work of logic to examine the
methodology, findings and manner of presentations of the scientific
findings.
➢ Logic can be understood broadly under deductive reasoning and inductive
reasoning.
Deductive Reasoning
➢ Deductive arguments are those whose conclusions must be true if the
premises are true.
➢ A premise is a logical standard form of a statement. It has a subject, copula
and predicate. In the premise ‘All human beings are mortal’, the subject is
‘All human beings’, the copula is that which joins the subject with the
predicate and in this case, it is ‘is’, the predicate or that which is attributed
to the subject is ‘mortal’.
➢ We can have a complete argument, for example:
Major Premise- All human beings are mortal
Minor premise- John is a human being
Therefore, John is mortal

The conclusion ‘John is mortal’ flows from the major and minor premise hence
we say it is a valid argument. A valid argument is that whose conclusion directly
flows from the premises. If the conclusion were, say, ‘John is holy’, the argument
would have been invalid since the concept or predicate of holiness is not
mentioned anywhere in the premises. If the argument is valid and what it claims
is true e.g. ‘John is mortal’, then the argument is considered sound. On the other
hand, if the argument is false, we say it is an unsound argument. All invalid
arguments are considered to be unsound arguments.
Inductive Reasoning
➢ These arguments deal with what is only likely to be the case.
➢ Their conclusions are not conclusive/certain/assertions rather hypothetical
or probable.
➢ The conclusion follows probably from the premises.
➢ The premises provide probable but not logically conclusive grounds for the
truth of the conclusion.
➢ The premises if true only make the conclusion likely.
For example,
Major premise- Most campus students own smartphones
Minor premise- Onyango is a campus student
Therefore, Onyango probably owns a smartphone
➢ An inductive argument that is not strong is considered to be weak.
➢ In a weak argument, the conclusion does not follow probably from the
premises.
➢ Hence, the conclusion is not probable.
For example, in the case below, nothing in the premise affirms even
slightly, the conclusion that the next pope is likely to be a woman. Examine
this argument critically:
All previous popes have been men
Therefore, probably the next pope will be a woman
➢ No strong inductive argument can have true premises and a probably false
conclusion.
 ➢ A good inductive argument must both be strong (i.e. inductively well-
reasoned such that the conclusion flows from the premises) and have true
premises.
➢ If an argument is inductively strong, and has all true premises, it is said to
be a cogent argument. This basically means it is persuasive enough because
it is likely to be the case.
➢ If an inductive argument either is weak or has at least one false premise, it
is said to be uncogent argument.
In Summary:

Deductive Argument

Valid or
invalid. All
Deductive Sound or
invalid
Arguments Unsound
arguments are
unsound

Inductive Arguments

Strong or
Weak. All
Inductive Weak Cogent or
Arguments arguments Uncogent
are
Uncogent
Major Fallacies
➢ Fallacies are errors committed when reasoning. They are mistakes in
reasoning.
I. Personal Attack – Ad Hominem
This involves a person attacking another and not the argument. A person responds
by talking about one’s personality etc and not the person’s argument. E.g. When
Prof Henry Indangasi wrote an article on Saturday 29 July 2023, Saturday Nation,
‘No: Micere Mugo was not a Deep Thinker’, he argued that the success of the late
Micere Mugo was as a result of her private affairs with the late President Mugabe
and not out of her intellectual efforts as such. It is an attack on the lifestyle and
personality of the late Prof Micere Mugo and not at all what the late intellectually
contributed. It is a personal attack. It is ad hominem.
David Muchunguh, on Monday 31 July, 2023, responded to Indangasi in an article
on Daily Nation newspaper ‘Threatened by Fame of Others: Indangasi Slammed
over Micere Mugo Piece’. He relied on several authorities. For example, Dr John
Njenga and Prof Kimani Njogu.
Patrick Gathara wrote:
Not harsh. Just a terrible piece. It does not argue what it pretends to argue. It just
rambles through innuendos without once stating and supporting a real point. I
have nothing against critiquing the dead, but this is not it.
This counter argument indeed confirms the dissatisfaction of people who read the
allegations against the late Prof Micere by Prof Indangasi and no doubt such was
a personal attack.
II. Tu Quoque
Here a person attacks the hypocrisy in the person arguing and not at all the
argument itself.
E.g.
(Doctor to a patient): You should stop smoking cigarettes. Your lungs are
endangered. You might develop TB or lung cancer.
Patient: You are a smoker yourself. You are advising me to stop as who?
III. Ad Misericordiem
We appeal to mercy/pity and not the argument.
E.g.
Teacher: Your son did so poorly in the psychology term paper. He must re-sit for
this unit.
Parent: My son should not do a re-sit. He will be depressed, refuse food, and be
withdrawn from everyone. Just remark his paper and award him a pass mark, I
beg you for heaven’s sake. Just have mercy. You see now.
IV. Ad populum
Here we appeal to the public that just because everyone or the majority or so and
so are doing it or believe so, so should we.
E.g.
Why are you drinking?
But don’t all my friends drink?
V. Straw man’s argument
Here we weaken the argument either by oversimplifying what was said or by
overstretching it then we draw our conclusion basing on that distorted argument.
For example:
Senator Cheregan has argued that we should outlaw sportpesa. Obviously, the
senator favours complete governmental censorship of books, magazines, betting
and films. Frankly, I’m shocked that such a view should be expressed on the floor
of the Kenyan senate. It runs contrary to everything our democratic nation stands
for. No senator should listen seriously to such a proposal.
In this example, the respondent has distorted the argument by senator Cheregan
by overstretching it from ‘outlawing sportpesa’ to censorship of magazines, etc.
It is a distortion of what was said.
VI. Red Herring
Unlike straw man where the argument is first weakened, here it is dodged.
E.g.
Farmers to the minister of agriculture:
‘We have not received our pay. No fertilizers. What is wrong?’
The minister:
‘I was born in Ikonyero village. I sold Mukombero in the streets. I know
agriculture is profitable. It is agriculture that has made me whom I am today.
Those questioning me don’t know what they are saying. I am a village boy. You
can’t teach me agriculture. Can you?’
VII. Equivocation
Involves use of the same word in different senses. It arises out of ambiguity. A
word refers to one or more meanings. A term refers to only one meaning in logic.
In equivocation, it is one word but different terms implied.
E.g.
All laws can be changed through legislation
Newton’s law of inertia is a law
Therefore, Newton’s law of inertia should be changed through legislation
The term law in the major premise means the ordinary laws like in statutes while
the term law in the minor premise means the scientific principles. The conclusion
is false because of this equivocation/ambiguity of the word law.
VIII. Begging the Question
A person paraphrases the conclusion or restates it as it is.
e.g.
Capital punishment is morally wrong because it is ethically impermissible to
inflict death as punishment for a crime.
The reason given against capital punishment tells us nothing new about capital
punishment rather it paraphrases what capital punishment is.
IX. Inappropriate Appeal to Authority
A person uncritically cites an authority that is not reliable. It is common in adverts
where e.g. celebrities endorse products like phones when they are only, say,
experts in music and not at all in software engineering.
X. Appeal to Ignorance- Ad ignorantium
The person asserts that a claim must be true because no one has proven it false or
that a claim must be false because no one has proved it to be true.
e.g.
There must be intelligent life on other planets
No one has proven that there isn’t.
 XI. Loaded question
Contains an unfair or unverified assumption that is highly questionable. E.g.
Wanjohi: Have you stopped cheating on exams?
Kebengi: No!
Wanjohi: Oh, so you admit that you still cheat on exams?
Kebengi: No, I mean to say yes!
Wanjohi: Oh, so you admit that you used to cheat in your exams?
Kebengi: No!
XII. Questionable Cause- post hoc, correlation and
oversimplification
The person without sufficient evidence concludes that one thing is the cause of
another. It happens through post hoc, correlation or oversimplification.
Post hoc- the person assumes without adequate evidence that because one event,
A, occurred before another event, B, therefore A is the cause of B.
e.g.
How do you know that Ketepa tea is a cure for common cold?
Last week I had a bad case of the sniffles. I drunk a cup of Ketepa tea and the
next morning my sniffles were gone.
This conclusion is not necessarily true. The evidence is questionable. It does not
detail the medicinal properties, if any, in Ketepa tea, that can be judged as the
cure for common cold. Rather, the argument is based on mere post hoc that since
recovery happened after drinking the tea therefore the tea is a medicine for the
common cold.
Correlation – here the person assumes without sufficient evidence that because
A and B are always together/regularly occur together, A must be the cause of B
or the other way round.
e.g.
I ate omena on Monday, sat for my Chemistry paper, failed. I ate omena on
Tuesday, sat for my Physics paper, failed. I ate omena on Wednesday, sat for my
Maths paper, failed. No doubt omena is the cause of my failure, it does not go
well with intelligence. I will stop eating omena so that I can get good scores.
Oversimplification- a persons concludes that A is the cause of B without
sufficient evidence, when in fact, there are several causes of B.
E.g.
Violent crime has declined steadily in recent years.
Obviously, tougher imprisonment policies are working.
Or
KCSE E scores have risen sharply since 2022
Clearly, students are watching tv too much.
XIII. Hasty Generalization
When a general conclusion is drawn from a sample that is biased or too small.
E.g.
Business person:
I’ve hired three Maasais in the past six months in my kibandaski as waiters. All
of them were lazy. I cannot work with Maasai people; they are all lazy people.
Such an argument is based on an experience of just three Maasais and the person
is drawing a conclusion upon all the Maasai community. This is a very small
sample/representation of the millions of the Maasai people, majority of whom
could possibly not be lazy. This is hasty generalization.
XIV. Slippery Slope
When we claim without sufficient evidence, that a seemingly harmless action, if
taken, will lead to a disastrous outcome.
e.g.
Senator Ontimbu Matongorori has argued that we should outlaw terrorist threats
on the internet. This proposal is dangerous and must be strongly resisted. If we
allow the government to outlaw terrorist threats on the internet, next it will want
to ban ‘hate speech’ and other allegedly ‘harmful’ ideas on telegram, Facebook,
radios, etc. Eventually, everything that you see, hear, or read will be totally
controlled by the government.’
XV. Weak Analogy
Comparing two or more things that are not really comparable in relevant
aspects/respects.
For example:
Avocado is creamy and tastes well with githeri. Busaa is creamy and therefore
would taste well with avocado.
 Lesson 3 Notes PHIL 104: Philosophy and Society
Lecturer: Bonface Nyamweya (0752035439)
Class Slogan: "Let Wisdom Flow Bothways"
Lesson 3- Metaphysics
➢ When you look outside, you see many things including trees, people,
insects, buildings etc.
➢ You have no doubt that they exist.
➢ You know nonetheless that they exist as particular things e.g. buildings,
trees, etc.
➢ You can enumerate their properties like height, colour, texture, etc.
➢ These properties belong to those things you saw, they depend on those
things to be understood, and, they are not self-reliant. E.g. We don’t just
say tall. We talk of a tall tree, a tall building etc. We do not talk of white or
blue. We speak of a blue pen. A white wall. Etc. Those things that are
properties of others we call them in metaphysics, accidents. Those that are
self-reliant we call them substance. But what is metaphysics itself?
➢ The name ‘Metaphysics’ which literary means ‘beyond the physics’ was
coined by Andronicus of Rhodes in order to designate Aristotle’s works on
‘First Philosophy’ which were placed after his books on physics.
➢ This already hints at the fact that metaphysics goes beyond the material
world studied by physics.
➢ Metaphysics is the study of the ultimate cause and the first and most
universal principles of reality.
➢ While other sciences are after secondary causes/immediate causes like
blood pressure and say symptoms of a disease, philosophy goes for the
ultimate cause of the existence of whatever exists. The ultimate cause of
life is what some people call God, Plato calls the Demiurge in his book
Timaeus, and Aristotle calls the ‘Thought-Thinking-Thought’.
➢ Metaphysics delves into the universals principles like change and
becoming/potency, actuality, quantity, essence, substance, accidents, etc.
➢ At this level, metaphysics includes everything real in its study since it seeks
the ultimate cause and fundamental principles of reality; in contrast,
particular sciences study only a limited aspect of the world. For example,
physics focuses on the aspect of energy and matter.
➢ Philosophers ask questions like ‘what is quantity?’, ‘what is causality?’,
‘what is life?’, ‘what is being?’, ‘what is nothingness?’ etc that are after the
first causes/universal aspects of reality around us.
Metaphysics as the science of being as being
➢ Metaphysics investigates ‘being’ as its subject matter. It examines being in
itself or in its fullness or totality.
➢ When a botanist studies and classifies plant species, he knows that ‘plants
are’, that they are ‘beings’; the notion of being comes before that of any
plant species.
➢ ‘Being’ is a metaphysical term equivalent to what is called ‘thing’ in
ordinary language.
➢ ‘Being’ signifies ‘that which is’, or something endowed with the act of
being.
➢ A tree is a being, and so is a bird, a man, etc; but whereas the word ‘bird’
signifies a particular nature or manner of being, being expresses the fact
that the bird is.
➢ The word ‘being’ is the present participle of the verb ‘to be’.
➢ Just as a person, insofar as he or she studies is called a student, so, too, a
man, insofar as he has the act of being is called a ‘being’.
➢ St. Thomas Aquinas, in his commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, says,
‘The other sciences, which deal with particular beings, do indeed consider
being, however they do not consider being as being, but as some particular
kind of being, for example number or line or fire or the like’.
➢ Thus, the material object of metaphysics includes all reality or in other
words, everything that is.
The Key Notions of Being
Substance versus Accidents
➢ Substance comes from the Latin word ‘Sub stare’ to mean that which
stands under.
➢ Substance is that which remains unchanged when everything else
changes.
➢ Aristotle in his Metaphysics enumerates the ten categories but he puts
primacy on substance as the first one and the rest like quantity, quality,
relation, etc are secondary- they are accidents because they rely or
depend on the substance to exist. Things like colour, height, texture etc
can only be spoken about in relation to other things. They are accidents.
Their being depends on another thing for them to exist or to be
understood.
➢ Accidents are therefore properties or attributes or predicates of the
substance that is the subject in the strict sense.
 ➢ In his book The Consolation of Philosophy, Anicius Manlius Severinus
Boethius defines a person as an individual substance of a rational
nature.
➢ We shall grasp this in details under anthropology where man will be the
subject of our study.
Essence versus Existence
➢ Something which is (something which exists) and the very act of being
of that thing (say a rose) means that existence and essence exist together
in the same thing. When I meet a tree, I first recognize the fact that it
exists and at the same time that it exists as a flower say a rose.
➢ Essence is what identifies things individually, independent of any
accidental or changeable qualities they may have e.g. height, colour etc.
➢ Put in another way, essence is the whatness of a thing. It is what defines
a thing. It is what makes one being a cow and another a stone. A cow is
a cow because it has assumed the essence/whatness of a cow- the
cowness in it makes it a cow just like the stoneness in a stone makes it
a stone. Stoneness and cowness are two different essences as we have
seen therefore.
➢ This is why St Thomas Aquinas in his De Ente et Essentia states that
since a substance is said to be a being primarily and without
qualification, whereas an accident is a being only secondarily and, as it
were, with qualification, only a substance has an essence in a strict and
true sense, while an accident has it only somehow, with qualification.
➢ Boethius in his book On Two Natures states that a thing is intelligible
only on account of its essence and definition.
➢ Aristotle, in Book 5 of the Metaphysics says that every substance is a
nature. But the name “nature” taken in this way seems to signify the
essence of a thing insofar as it is related to the thing’s proper operation,
since nothing is deprived of its proper operation. The name “quiddity,”
on the other hand, is derived from the fact that it is signified by the
definition; but it is called “essence” [essentia], because it is that through
which and in which a thing has its being [esse].
➢ In the nature of God under Theodicy, we shall see that God’s Essence is
the same as His Existence hence we do not say that God is full of
wisdom but that God is wisdom itself, because to say God is full of
wisdom is to suggest that each time God shares His wisdom with us, he
lacks in the same measure.
Potentiality versus Actuality
Something is in potentiality if it is in the process of becoming something else.
For example, timber can be in potentiality of becoming a desk. But it is already
timber. To say it is timber is to say it has the act of being timber. To say it is
becoming a chair is to say it is in the process of gaining perfection to be a
chair, it is a potential chair. Something can therefore be in actuality in one
respect and again be in potentiality to gain some perfection and be something
else as seen.
Necessity versus Contingency
We are in the process of obtaining perfection as human beings but God is
perfection itself. So, we are in potentiality of being say holy but God is
holiness itself. Hence God is pure actuality drawing us contingent beings to
His perfection as a necessary being.
A contingent being is that being whose existence depends on another being for
it to exist. Human beings and other creatures depend on the supreme being to
exist. That supreme being whose being is self-reliant is a necessary being as
He does not depend on any other being other than Himself to exist. He is
existence itself.
Form and matter
Plato says that true knowledge of things is in another world, the world of
forms. He argues that the physical world is a poor imitation of the world of
forms where our souls once existed before they were imprisoned in our bodies
to forget everything. For Plato, true knowledge of forms can be accessed
through transcendence, going beyond the physical world.
Aristotle however tells us that form and matter are in the same thing. A chair
is a chair because it has assumed the form of a chair and the material (timber
or iron sheets) to be shaped into that chair. He speaks of hylomorphism (from
the Greek word: hylo- matter, morphe- form) that is basically the doctrine of
form and matter. He says form and matter exist together in the same thing and
that we do not have a separate world of forms like Plato had said. Aristotle
thus speaks about immanence, the fact of form and matter exiting in the same
thing.
Aristotle’s Four Causes
A cause is that out of which a thing comes to be, and which persists e.g. bronze
can be the cause of a statue. It is the material cause as we shall see below.
 1. Formal Cause
If an engineer has an idea of a beautiful storey building, that idea or map is the
form that will be used as a guide in the construction of that building. Formal cause
is thus the ideal cause of reality.
2. Material Cause
The engineer will give a quotation of the quantities of metals, sand, ballast, etc
all the materials needed in the construction. This is the material cause of this
building. Material cause is that which is being shaped into what the form dictates.
3. Efficient Cause
People will be hired to dig the foundation, mix the concrete, welding etc labour
for the building to stand as per the map. This is efficient cause. It is does not
remain with the building but only facilitates the material cause to take shape as
per the form given.
4. Final Cause
This is the purpose or telos of the building say it was intended to be admission
block. Aristotle says that things exist for a particular purpose- teleology. Hence
the building will serve its purpose as the admission block.
In de Anima, Aristotle says that the soul is a cause in three ways- efficient,
formal and final cause.
*This marks the end of our lesson 3. Any questions before the CAT are
most welcome. God bless.