COURSE TITTLE: PHILOSOPHY, LOGIC AND HUMAN EXISTENCE

COURSE CODE: GST 212

PREAMBLE
Philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind,
and language. It explores questions like: What is the nature of reality? What can we know? What is
the meaning of life? What is morally right and wrong? Major branches include metaphysics,
epistemology, ethics, and logic. Logic on the other hand is the study of valid reasoning and
argumentation. It includes deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Logical fallacies are errors in
reasoning that can lead to false conclusions. While human existence refers to the state or fact of being
alive as a human being. Philosophers have explored questions about the nature of human existence for
centuries. Key themes include the meaning of life, free will vs. determinism, the nature of
consciousness, and the search for purpose and fulfillment. Each of these areas shall be explored in
much greater depth.

UNIT ONE
MEANING, NATURE, AND SCOPE

1.1 Meaning of Philosophy

1.1.1 A Layman Perspective: Philosophy is the act of thinking deeply about life, the world, and our
place in it. Have you ever wondered or ponder on questions like what is a worthwhile life? Is there
sense to the universe? what can be known? what moral obligations do people have to one another?
what makes a society just? where are we? what does it mean to be a good person? What is right and
wrong? What is the best way to live. By doing this just as any other reflective person sometimes
does-is already to think philosophically. From the point of view of the layman (a person who is has
not studied philosophy), philosophy is understood from its day-to-day application. First, it is
common to hear people talk of “my philosophy of life” which means “a general view of life or a
general theory or principles about how we ought to conduct our lives”. One could hear people say, for
instance, my philosophy of life is honesty understood to mean that the individual wants to be honest
in everything he does. Other could say my Philosophy of life is God first, man second, understood to
mean that the person wants his religious convictions to guide his/her actions before the consideration
of man. Also, we hear people talk about the capitalist philosophy, an understanding of modelled after
Karl Marx in which maximization of profits drive people’s actions. Everyday conversations about
fairness, purpose, happiness, or truth are all parts of philosophy. When you wonder why bad things
happen to good people, you are doing philosophy of religion, when you ask whether something is bad
or wrong, you are doing ethics, when you try to understand what is real or just an illusion, you are
thinking about reality, which is called metaphysics, when you ask how we know what we know, you
are exploring knowledge or epistemology. Philosophy teaches us to think clearly, ask good questions,
and look at things from different angles. It does not give final answers but it helps us understand
ourselves and others better. Philosophy simply s a tool for mind-it helps us make sense of the world
and live wisely.

1.1.2 Academic Discipline

Philosophy is a discipline that seeks to understand the fundamental truths about human existence, the
world, knowledge, morality, and reality. The term philosophy originates from two Greek words:
"Philo" (love) and "Sophia" (wisdom), meaning "the love of wisdom." Philosophers critically analyze
concepts, arguments, and beliefs to uncover meaning, truth, and rational principles guiding human
life.
Philosophy is defined as the rational, systematic, and critical study of the fundamental nature of
reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It involves asking deep, reflective
questions such as: What is reality? What can we know? What is morally right or wrong? Does God
exist? What is the meaning of life?

1
Philosophy in a broad sense is an activity people undertake when they seek to understand
fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the
world and to each other. It is an activity which essentially involves, among other things, the
redescription of what we are doing, thinking, believing, assuming, in such a way that we bring our
reasons to light more perspicuously or else make the alternatives more apparent, or in some way or
other are better enabled to take a justified stand to our action, thought, belief, assumption. It basically
refers to a reflection on reality, critical thinking which leads to the knowledge of all things through
their ultimate causes. A rational explanation of things. It means reflection on the totality of things we
encounter, in view of their ultimate reasons.

1.2 Nature of Philosophy

The nature of philosophy is both theoretical and practical. It is concerned with seeking wisdom,
understanding reality, and shaping a better human society. By cultivating rational thinking,
philosophy enhances intellectual growth, moral reasoning, and character formation, aligning with the
university’s mission of knowledge, wisdom, skills, and character development.
The nature of philosophy can be understood through its key characteristics:
Rational and Critical: Philosophy uses reason and logic as its main tools.
It critically examines beliefs, ideas, and assumptions rather than accepting them blindly.
Systematic: Philosophical inquiry follows a logical sequence and coherent argumentation.
Philosophers organize thoughts and arguments systematically to reach conclusions.
Speculative: Philosophy goes beyond empirical facts and engages in speculation about what might
exist or be possible, such as the nature of the soul, free will, or the universe.
Reflective: Philosophical thinking involves deep reflection on fundamental human concerns, values,
and life’s purpose.
Universal: It deals with universal questions that apply to all human beings, regardless of culture or
location. Examples include the search for justice, truth, beauty, and the good life.
Practical: Although theoretical, philosophy influences real-life decisions, shaping ethics, politics,
law, education, religion, and personal conduct. Philosophy helps individuals develop critical thinking
and reasoning skills, make sound judgments in personal and public life, understand complex social,
ethical, and political issues, shape character and values like honesty, justice, integrity, and empathy
and contribute to leadership, governance, lawmaking, education, and scientific development
Studies all Things: The material object of philosophy (general subject matter of philosophy or what
philosophy studies) is all things (reality), which makes it a universal science. Unlike particular
sciences, which concentrate on the study of some specific aspect of reality, philosophy studies all
aspects of reality, the totality of things. Philosophy alone among the branches of human knowledge,
has for its object everything which is. Indeed, the material object or subject matter of philosophy is
all beings or all that exists i.e being in general, all reality, both material and immaterial, natural and
supernatural, physical and metaphysical. E.g human beings, the universe, God, society, morality,
knowledge. The formal object of Philosophy (or how philosophy studies) is that philosophy study
reality through reason to discover the ultimate causes, principles, and meanings. Philosophy makes
rational inquiry into the ultimate causes and meanings. It does this by asking why? and how?
Rationally.
Fundamental Questions Philosophy Seeks to Answer include what is ultimately real? what can we
know? How do we know? what is good or bad? How should we act? what is beauty? what constitutes
a good argument?
Method of Inquiry. Philosophy is a method of inquiry. It is not just a body of knowledge but also a
method of thinking and reasoning. Philosophical inquiry involves questioning assumptions, clarifying
concepts, analyzing arguments, seeking logical consistency, pursuing the truth without bias.
Mother of all sciences. Philosophy in relation to other disciplines is regarded as the "mother of all
sciences" because. It gave birth to other academic fields such as physics, psychology, political

2
science, sociology, and economics. It interacts with religion, science, arts, and politics to provide a
deeper understanding of human life and the world.

1.3 The Scope of Philosophy

The natural scope of philosophy is natural human reason. Philosophy in general and metaphysics in
particular is the science of things in their first causes insofar as they belong to the natural order and
they fall under the operation of natural or unaided (by faith) human reason. In its search for ultimate
explanations, it applies reasoning to facts supplied by experience. However, philosophy possesses a
metaphysical character. This is because the ultimate explanations it seeks are centered on God and
often refer to purely intelligible aspects of reality. It leads one to explanations based on causes beyond
sensible reality. Even when philosophy takes on the question of God it remains within its scope. It
does not compete with supernatural theology and their goals do not necessarily coincide. Even in its
ascent to God philosophy sticks to its method and remains within its scope, without taking into its
content what is drawn from Revelation. It makes a critical analysis of the action which our beliefs and
knowledge-claims have produced; our claims to knowledge and applications of knowledge are
brought under the probing eye of philosophy.

1.4 Characteristics of Philosophy

Enoh (1995) Identifies the Main Characteristics of Philosophy as Follows:
1. Philosophy generally attempts to provide a comprehensive view of man and the universe.
other disciplines in contrast separate the activities of man and the universe and examines these
in segments.
2. It is not just a body of knowledge, it is concepts with all aspects of knowledge, therefore, it
applies the findings of other branches of knowledge(disciplines) to arrive at a view of the
nature of man and the universe
3. In addition to its attempt to provide a comprehensive view of man and the universe, which is
metaphysical, philosophy is also concerned with question of knowledge and value.
4. Philosophy is concern with the analysis of concepts and issues as well as as criticism and
clarification by employing the tool of analysis
5. Philosophy is normative or prescriptive by establishing the end of life worth achieving
6. whether philosophy is analytic, prescriptive or speculative, its guiding principles are
consistency, coherence and objectivity,
7. Philosophy does not employ empirical methods. it deals with abstracts issues that cannot be
verified through observations and experiments
8. Through criticisms, clarifications and prescriptions, philosophy is always a source of direction
to other disciplines
9. Philosophy does not pretend to provide answers to questions, it questions answer others arrive
at.

1.5 Relevance of Philosophy

The following are some relevance of the philosophy.
1) Philosophy Has Practical Impacts on Human Existence: Philosophical sciences like ethics,
political philosophy, philosophy of education, social philosophy, etc have a practical bearing
on society and on the human person's ultimate goal, happiness. In the case of politics for
example, philosophy may focus its attention on the principles that underlie alternative actions
in a given political context, e.g., the change of a constitution in order to curb abuse of political
office.
2) The Philosophical Endeavor of Critical Thinking Widens Our Scope and Perspective of
Views: It liberates form prejudice and provincialism. It gives us the breadth and depth to
evaluate reality more critically. In effect, it influences our fundamental beliefs and our general
worldview and our perception of values. Consequently, such change of perception can affect

3
 our lifestyle since our way of looking at the world is transformed, and with it our way of
living. Yet such a change in the life of a person or even in the life of the philosopher himself
should not be confused with the specific goal of the philosophical investigation. It is only its
offshoot.
3) Understanding the Society: An understanding and appreciation of philosophy will help one in
understanding his society. Philosophy has a profound influence on the formation and
development of society and institutions and created value system. The consideration of
almost all human disciplines from a philosophical perspective today showed the influence of
philosophy in society. e.g. philosophy of law, philosophy of science, philosophy of education,
philosophy of art, philosophy of language, and so on all give directions and guides to the
various disciplines. There is the desire to look more critically at the problems that pummel
society today in order to give them solutions that are more comprehensive.
4) Philosophy frees us from dogmatism. Philosophy brings intellectual independence and
tolerance of others' side of the story because it frees us from dogmatism. By dogmatism we
mean the a priori commitment to a position or explanation of things or state of affairs, which
gives no room for a second or even a third opinion. Philosophy permits us to look over the
fence and listen to what the "lady over there is saying." Whether I like her as a person or not is
irrelevant. We are not obliged to subscribe to what others say or hold but the ability to listen
affords us a broader spectrum for the interpretation of reality. A decision made after
considering other possible alternatives is worth more than one made unilaterally, even if they
ended up being identical.
5) Philosophy is key in the building of true and authentic humanism. Philosophy is a science
which operates within the scope of natural human reason and seeks the ultimate causes of
reality. It is this inner nature of philosophy that gives it its bridging capacity to relate with
human culture, with the particular sciences, with the contemporary world and with faith. It is
therefore difficult to undervalue or suppress philosophy in the process of formation toward a
true and authentic humanism, and especially in view of the mission to humanity of those
under formation of whatever kind. This is true of anyone under education and is engaged in
the pursuit of meaningful dialogue with contemporary culture for the promotion of a
humanism geared toward the human person's discovery of the self in their full integrity.
6) Philosophy addresses the fundamental yearnings of the human spirit. It does this by
bringing things to a supreme level of knowledge (to which other sciences are incapable). The
most fundamental problems of philosophy are found today at the center of the anxieties of
contemporary men and women and in the entire modern culture in all its complexity, which
evokes the eternal themes of human thought, namely the meaning of life and death, of good
and evil, the dignity of the human person, the scandal of suffering, oppression, injustice,
violence, disease, hunger, etc. and eventually the problem of God. How to confront these
issues and do so in manner that avails the best solutions for human self-realization is not a
side issue for philosophy. In an age like ours, riding high on the successes of science and
technology, it is necessary to stress that the positive (empirical) sciences cannot respond
adequately to these yearnings of the human spirit. It is to the sphere of philosophy that such
questions belong because it transcends all merely exterior and partial aspects of phenomena
and addresses itself to the totality of reality, seeking to comprehend and to explain it in the
light of the ultimate causes. It brings things to a supreme level of knowledge (to which other
sciences are incapable), which is the characteristic prerogative of the human spirit.
7) Philosophy sharpens our religious faith and make it safer. Another significant reason why
the study of philosophy is necessary is that Philosophy sharpens our religious faith and make
it safer by helping man to ask “why he believes” what he believes. The role of religion in
human life cannot be underestimated nor stressed enough, not even today when some sections
of society are portraying an aversion for the sacred and the divine. Philosophy sharpens our
religious belief. Philosophy is the handmaid of theology because the revealed truth always
requires reflection on the part of the believer since faith must seek understanding. The human
person has a natural propensity to God and whereas this, in some individuals, may not develop

4
 into knowledge of or belief in God, most people go beyond this mere ordinary natural
inclination and profess faith in the Supreme Being. The place of religion in human life cannot
therefore be stressed enough. While religion cannot be reduced to philosophy, Divine
Revelation in itself presupposes the light of reason. "Religion may begin with an emotional
response; but the time comes when that emotional response has to be thought out... religion is
never safe until a man can tell, not only what he believes, but why he believes." (William
Barclay) This is why in many instances an exclusive recourse to the light of revelation is not
in the interest of religion. This is because, firstly, the adherence to revelation is not an act of
blind faith (fideism). Belief in a Supreme Being presupposes of its nature the reasons for
believing and the motives of credibility, which are in a great measure philosophical, e.g. the
knowledge of God, the concept of creation, providence, knowledge of the human individual as
a free and responsible person and the immortality of the soul. Moreover, revealed truth always
requires reflection on the part of the believer because faith seeks understanding. From a
practical perspective, philosophy is irreplaceable for the encounter between believers and
unbelievers, giving it a very evident realistic value. Today, it is undeniable that philosophical
presuppositions underlie most of the cultural orientations, pedagogical choices, juridical
norms, social reforms, and many political decisions.
8) Philosophy finds lasting solutions to the human person's highest aspiration: self-
realization in the absolute sense. Philosophy is a human science involved in the concrete life
of the human person and therefore the problems with which it deals have to do with human
life, seeking to find lasting solutions to them, solutions that respond to the human person's
highest aspiration: self-realization in the absolute sense. What distinguishes philosophy from
other sciences that also deal with human life and its related problems is its approach and
perspective. Because it is not held down by the particularity of the particular or positive
sciences, it works for the most comprehensive explanations to the human enigma seeking to
give them most radical foundations, foundations that offer the highest respect for human
dignity. Yet philosophy is not just concerned with the mundanity of life. It soars up to the
levels of religious experience, which being so important to the human spirit cannot be left
unexamined.
9) Philosophy lays the foundations and provides the presuppositions upon which a
meaningful encounter between the human and the divine can be set and developed. In doing
so, philosophy does not however arrogantly take unto itself the role of the governance of
religion. Questions about who I am, where am coming from, and where am going are not
impersonal questions to which I can choose to be or not to be indifferent. They are questions
requiring personal involvement in the search for thoroughgoing responses to them. They are
also questions that will certainly bring one to relate with their surroundings, which in itself
requires such a one to move from looking for solutions to merely self-centered problems, to
being other-centred, in every sense of the expression other-centred. To be sure, philosophy
does not discuss issues or problems affecting philosophers alone, far from it. Far from being
purely speculative, philosophy, by the questions it deals with, exerts a deep influence on
human existence. Philosophers are above all human beings, who even in their primary call of
thinking should have the interest of the human person at the centre of their research.
Philosophy should be human and strive to remain that way otherwise it ceases to be
philosophy. If philosophy has sometimes lost its relevance to 'normal human beings' that
should be attributed to the recklessness of bad philosophy and not to the nature of philosophic
thinking in the purity of its spirit.

5
 UNIT TWO
BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY
Introduction:
There are various ways of dividing philosophy, each with a history behind it. For philosophers like
Aristotle, Aquinas and Wolff, philosophy is seen as having three principal departments, namely logic,
theoretical and practical philosophy:
1. Logic (propaedeutic or introductory science), Logic, strictly speaking, is the introduction to
philosophy and it studies conceptual being (ens rationis).
2. Theoretical (speculative) philosophy studies the being of things (real being, ens reale). It is
further divided into metaphysics, epistemology, natural theology, philosophy of nature, and
philosophy of living beings,
3. Practical philosophy. Practical philosophy studies human acts. This consists of ethics (moral
philosophy) and Aesthetics (philosophy of Arts)
Others scholars also identify systemic philosophy and History of philosophy as
branches of philosophy.
4. Systematic philosophy makes a distinction between basic disciplines like logic, cosmology,
epistemology, metaphysics, etc., and special disciplines like philosophy of humanities,
philosophy of the natural sciences, philosophy of mathematics, social and political
philosophy, philosophy of Religion, philosophy of science, philosophy of history, History of
philosophy, philosophy of mind, philosophy of education, philosophy of law, philosophy of
language etc., and these with even further divisions.
5. History of philosophy however maintains its four principal periods: ancient, mediaeval,
modern and contemporary.

Nevertheless, the following are generally considered as the major branches of philosophy:
1. Metaphysics
2. Logic
3. Ethics
4. Epistemology
5. Aesthetics

2.1 Metaphysics
From the etymological’ point of view, metaphysics is translated to mean “after the things of nature”.
Meta and Physical which together means after or beyond the physical World. Metaphysics is mostly
concern with the non-material component of things other than material ones. It is the branch of
philosophy that examines the problem of ultimate reality and being. The word metaphysics was first
used by Andronicus of Rhodes (70 A.D.), the first editor of the corpus aristotelicum, to denote those
books of Aristotle, which, according to his collocation, were placed after the works of Physics.
Understood in this sense, metaphysics means "beyond physics" and refers to what Aristotle called
"First Philosophy." He called it First Philosophy because it studies the first causes and principles of
reality. It is therefore first because it holds a natural primacy in philosophy and even with respect to
the other sciences.
Metaphysics is philosophy in the strict sense since it seeks the most intimate aspect of reality (ENS),
its being, seeking its ultimate causes in the most absolute sense. It therefore investigates into the

6
nature, constitution and structure of being in general. Its material object is reality in its totality, and it
is not limited to a particular reality. Only nothing (that which is "without being") lies outside the
scope of metaphysics. Its formal object is the being of reality or of things, that is, being as such.
Therefore, the subject matter proper to metaphysics includes realities not dependent on matter for
their being, like God and the pure intelligences. Its perspective consists in the study of reality in the
light of its ultimate causes. Unlike the particular sciences like biology, medicine, physics, chemistry,
etc., which focus on a particular aspect of the universe or reality, metaphysics is that science which
studies all reality by focusing on the most common aspect of everything: the fact that all "is" or "is
real." Trees, mosquitoes, seas, planets, human persons, pure spirits, are all included in the definition
of "everything." The "to be" of each one of these realities is the special concern of this study. Not so
much that they are this or that but simply that they are. That is why we said its formal object is the
being of beings. Metaphysics therefore studies the ultimate cause and the first and most universal
principles of reality. It stands as "a core of philosophical knowledge that influences all the other
branches, for it seeks the ultimate structure of the universe, which necessarily leads to the study of its
first and radical cause."
Metaphysics is the nucleus of philosophy because all the other branches study their subject matter
from its perspective. Whereas it studies the being of things in a general way, the other philosophical
disciplines limit themselves to some types of beings with a specific way of being. These disciplines
therefore do not arrive at the universal conclusions reached by metaphysics nor tackle strictly
metaphysical problems. Metaphysics seeks the ultimate most radical foundation of reality, and the
most fundamental characteristic of beings is that they are. What it means 'to be' and the ways of being
are some of the principal questions that occupy metaphysicians.
Basic Issues in Metaphysics: Metaphysics issues or problems are perennial ones which keep on re-
emerging. Even during the pre-Socrates period, philosopher like Parmenides of Elea, issues in
metaphysic have been seriously discussed by Scholastics Philosophers and even modern
philosophers. In fact, even the un-philosophical mind keeps on wondering about his creation, the
creation of the physical world, the world beyond and a host of other issues that keep on fascinating
people. Such metaphysical problems such as; or may ask question such as; is there life after death?
What is the nature of the universe, of life, of mind and its product, the Freedom of mankind, the
existence of God? It also asks question to know whether material object exists independently of any
other component or force. As of man, metaphysics will be interested in examining what his nature is
like, where he comes from and where he will go after death. Has he got any free will or is his action
determined by certain forces, which he cannot control? In considering the universe, it will take
interest in such question as the origin and purpose of the universe, is the creation made by a
supernatural being? What is its nature? We also resort to philosophy when things are wrong with us.
That’s why philosophy is said to be a child of failure. The great books in philosophy were authored
by those who were worried, disappointed, disillusioned or fascinated by the happening of their time.
For example, Plato’s Republic was written out of Plato’s disillusion of the politics of his time
culminating into the death of his friend Socrates. Plato’s Republic was in search of an ideal society by
teaching what constitute justice. Joseph Omoregbe identified the basic issues in Metaphysics as
follows, the problem of being, the problem of appearance and reality, the problem of unity and
diversity, the problem of change and permanence, the problem of causality and the problem of body
and mind interaction, lastly, the problem of freedom and determinism.
Metaphysical Problems: Some Metaphysical problems include
1. The Problem of Mind-Body Interaction: The question of the nature of human mind and its
relation to the body has been a controversial issue in Western Philosophy. What is the
relationship between the mind and the body (or brain)? Are they distinct substances or the
same.
Plato, St. Augustine, Aquinas and Descartes conceived the mind as separate substance from
the body. It can exist on its own without the body. On the other hand, David Hume, Russell
and others have denied that the mind is separate from the body. Russell says, the mind is
nothing but a series of perceptions which succeed each other in sequence. Beyond this, there
is nothing that can be called the mind. Williams James’ believed that the mind is nothing but a

7
 stream of consciousness. The mind-body problem is the problem of how the mind, an
immaterial substance can interact with the body a material substance. It is also accepted to
certain limit that mental act can affect the body, example, when a man is angry, his eyes
become red. On the other hand physical act can also affect the mind. Thus, if the brain is
damaged, the mind ceases to function properly. This together raises the question. How can an
immaterial substance act on a material substance or material substance acting on an
immaterial substance?
To Spinoza’, it is not a problem because spirit and matter are attributed to the same thing
substance (God and nature). He does not see mind and body as two separate substances but
aspect of the same substance. Therefore, both mental and physical acts are two sides of the
same coin and from same source God and nature. Therefore, he believed that there is no
question of the body influencing the mind or mind influencing the body. The act is parallel
action each corresponding to other. Spinoza theory is known as the theory of parallelism. It
Therefore denies the body and mind interaction.
2. The Problem of Substance: what is substance? What underlies the properties of things. The
metaphysical problem attracted the attention of Philosophers. Aristotle distinguished between
substance and accident. Substance is whatever exists on its own, while its opposite, accident is
whatever cannot exist on its own but depends on other things. According to John Locke, when
we look at things what we see are actual qualities, colour, height, size. But we know qualities
cannot exist on their own as they must be existing in something which supports them. This is
how we come to form ideas of substance.
3. The Problem of Essence and Existence: What does it mean to exist? What is the nature of
being. Existence and essence, which proceeds the other. Philosophers are divided over which
comes first? Is it existence or essence? This is the standing controversy. J. P. Sartre’s main
contention is that existence preceded essence, as opposed to traditional western philosophers,
which gives primacy to essence over existence.
4. The Problem of Universal: Do universals (like “redness” or “beauty”) exists independently
of particular things? Philosophers in succession hold that things such as beauty, justice,
goodness, whiteness, humanity etc are universals. They are universal concepts and not just
ideas in the mind. We recognize them in things that exhibit them, and this means that they are
real, though they are not physical. Socrates was the first philosopher in the West to discover
the universals and he insisted on the distinction between the universal and things that exhibit
them.
5. The Problem of Appearance and Reality: The controversy here is whether appearance is the
same thing as reality or appearance is one thing and reality is another. It is a truism to say that
appearance deceives, and that our senses deceive us. We cannot therefore always take things
as they appear to us, nor can we always rely on our senses, since they sometimes deceive us.
Perminides, Plato and Rene Descartes” Mistrust sense as a means of acquiring knowledge. For
instance, Bertrand Russell says, we assume as certain many things which on closer scrutiny
are found to be so full of apparent contradictions that only a great amount of thoughts enables
us to know that it is that we really may believe is.
6. The Problem of Unity and Diversity: It is true that diversity is observable in the universe.
How is it that there is basic unity in the midst of amazing diversity of the things in the
universe? The lonians, the earliest philosophers in the West were struck by the unity as well as
diversity of things in the universe. These philosophers adopted a monistic explanation and
held that all things were basically one in various forms. In Western philosophy three
approaches have been adopted. Namely; the monistic, the dualistic, and the pluralistic
approach as to explain the problem of unity and diversity in metaphysic. Philosophers do not
agree in these issues.
7. The Problem of Change and Permanence: One of the earliest problems in Western
philosophy is the problem of change and permanence. Which of the two elements, i.e. change
or permanence is primary? Heraclitus and Parminides” held extreme position which
subsequent philosophers tried to reconcile. While Heraclitus held that change was the basic

8
 feature of the universe, Parminides denied this and held that permanence was the primary
feature. Here lies the controversy.

8. The Problem of Causality: What does it mean for one thing to cause another? Is causation
real or a mental construct? Cause is that which is responsible for bringing something into
existence. The statement “everything had a cause” is taken to be universal application, since
there is no event that has no cause nothing ever happens without cause. Scientist tells us that
the universe is an orderly cosmos, chaotic universe where anything can happen. In other
words, it is a universe governed by laws and things happen only accordingly to these laws.
This is the basic presupposition of modern science, and all that scientists do is to understand
these laws so as to know the kind of causes that can produce certain kinds of desirable effects.

9. The Problem of Freedom and Determinism: Are our actions free, or determined by prior
causes? It is commonly believed that man is free; that he makes use of his freedom the way he
likes and is therefore held morally responsible for whatever he does. The theory of
determinism however denies that man is really free. According to this theory, determinism
also is known as Fatalism. The future is irrevocable fixed and man do very little to change it.
Logical determinists claim that future event is caused and so it must either occur or not occur
and so what we call history is the manifestation of divine will. Albert Einstein, the greatest
scientist of the last millennium argued along these lines.
10. The Problem of Personal Identity: What makes someone the same person over time?
11. The problem of Identity and Change: How can something change and yet remain the same
thing over time?

2.2 Logic
Logic is the study of reason as a tool of acquiring knowledge. Logic, which studies argumentation
and reason is properly called a propaedeutic science because the other sciences are dependent
upon it inasmuch as it teaches the method of procedure in the acquisition of knowledge. As an art;
logic is the tool of all sciences because coherent and orderly thinking is crucial for the attainment
of the truth in any field whatsoever. For such a task, spontaneous logic is sufficient and one need
not have a rigorous scientific drilling in logic. Yet logic only ensures formal correctness of the
reasoning process but not its truth. It does not make scientific discoveries and does not guarantee
exhaustive research. Philosophy must also begin with logic because "one must already surd to
seek at the same time knowledge and the way of attaining has satisfied this precondition can he
proceed to acquire knowledge; and neither is it easy to get." Only when a philosopher has
satisfied this precondition can he proceed to acquire knowledge of things by their first principles.
The formal object of logic is conceptual being or being of reason, which exists only in the mind.
It studies the relations the mind establishes among different products or contents of intellectual
knowledge (concepts, propositions and syllogisms), and seeks to understand the different
relations, which arise in our mind when it knows things. The proper object of logic is constituted
by logical properties or relations, for example a proposition. A proposition is only found in the
mind and not in reality. It is therefore a being of reason.

Problems addressed by Logic:

1. The Nature of Truth: What does it mean for a statement or proposition to be true?
2. Validity and Soundness: What makes an argument logically valid or sound?
3. The Structure of Arguments: How are arguments constructed and evaluated for correctness?
4. The Problem of Logical Form: How do we distinguish between form and content in reasoning?
5. Paradoxes: How should logic deal with paradoxes like the Liar Paradox ("This sentence is false")?
6. The Nature of Logical Consequence: What does it mean for a conclusion to follow necessarily
from premises?

9
7. Deductive vs Inductive Reasoning: What distinguishes these types of reasoning, and when is each
appropriate?
8. The Limits of Logic: Are there truths that cannot be captured or proven within any logical system
(e.g., Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems)?
9. Symbolic Representation of Reasoning: How can symbols represent complex reasoning more
clearly than natural language?
10. The Problem of Logical Necessity: Why are some truths necessarily true (e.g., “2+2=4”)?
11. Modal Logic Issues: How do we logically understand necessity and possibility?
12. Set-Theoretical and Mathematical Foundations: How does logic underlie mathematics and its
foundational assumptions?
13. Logic and Language: How do logical principles relate to linguistic meaning, reference, and
ambiguity?

2.3 Epistemology or The Theory of Knowledge

The word epistemology comes from the Greek words εлɩστημ (épistéme), which means true and
certain knowledge and λoyos (logos) meaning study, explanation. Literally therefore, it means the
study of Knowledge. At times, it is also called criteriology, that is, from kriterion a rule by which one
may test knowledge to distinguish the true from the false. It is also called gnoseology, from gnosis,
which means knowledge in the general sense. It is therefore the study of the nature of knowledge and
its justification or more precisely, the study of the scope of metaphysical knowledge itself and its
relation to being. As a science, it tries to identify the essential and defining components of
knowledge; thus, providing an analysis of it.
Epistemology is that branch of philosophy that is concerned with origin of knowledge, veracity
(truth) or reliability of knowledge or validity of knowledge claims. Accordingly, epistemology asks
such questions as: where does knowledge comes from? How is it formulated, expressed and
communicated. Is knowledge simply a derivation from reasons? Is there any difference between
knowledge and belief, reality and error, or imagination, etc? Abroad area of concern in epistemology
is to examine the kinds of knowledge and their sources together with theories that are used to justify
the truth of knowledge claims.
Six sources of knowledge have been identified according to Enoh (1995):
a. Common-sense knowledge
b. Authoritative knowledge
c. Empirical knowledge
d. Rational or the use of reason
e. Intuition knowledge
f. Revealed knowledge

(a) Common Sense Knowledge: This type of knowledge is tied to the custom and tradition of a
society or where one is associated. It is what everyone in the society knows. E.g. it is a known fact
that women don’t bury the death. In most African communities also, women don’t touch
masquerades. Though such knowledge may be dangerous, because in the Philosophical sense such
beliefs or assertions have not been verified.
(b) Authoritative Knowledge: This type of knowledge is acquired from a respected source. A great
amount of knowledge is derived from some authorities. Such an authority could be a leader, elder,
academician etc. some of them have great wisdom in all they engage in; even so the philosophical
problem arises concerning the validity of the information or one may ask, what are the criteria
through which an authority exist? In view of this, suspending once critical knowledge and accepting
an authoritative knowledge becomes a matter of concern.
(c) Empirical knowledge or Use of Experience: This is derived from practical use of experience or
experiment. It is critical, exact and precise of sense observation. The empirical methods of
investigations include:
1. Identifying the problem

10
2. Data gathering
3. Organization and analysis of data to infer suitable Solution
4.Formulation of Assumption/Hypothesis
5.Testing, analyzing and clarification in a controlled designed way.
12. Solution arrives at.
(d) Rational Knowledge or The Use of Reasons: This involves logical reasoning alone to arrive at
solution to problems. This is because; philosophers are of the view that the mind is an active agent.
Which select, organizes syntheses and conceptualize what is known? Through critical reasoning,
problems can be solved.
(e) Intuition Knowledge: It is knowledge that is acquired directly by an immediate contact of the
mind with the object without going through the process of reasoning. It comes as a flash into the
mind. It can come in form of inventive instruction when in a flash, a certain bright idea comes to our
mind in form of a vision. Musician and Artist do enjoy such intuition occasionally and the result is
quite beautiful. It is however still hotly debated among philosophers to the preposition that one can
grasp with immediate certainly conscious knowledge of events and people of the external world using
intuitive Knowledge.
(f) Revealed knowledge: This type of knowledge is normally disclosed to an individual by
supernatural. The Holy Books, the Bible and the Quran are thought to be revealed by God to some
chosen individuals: Prophet Mohammed and Jesus Christ respectively. However, if religion is the
basis of the knowledge, what assurance is it that the person who was given the knowledge is telling
the truth. Even if something is revealed, we are left with the problem of interpretation. How can we
be certain that God message is understood?

Conditions of Knowledge: In an attempt to answer these questions with regards to what constitute
knowledge, Ayer gave these conditions of knowledge as follows;
1. What one said to know be true
2. That one be sure of it (ability of justify)
3. That one should have the right to be sure

Criteria for Knowledge:

1.Existence: This means that knowledge should have existential referent. In other words, what should
be that which exists? The geography teacher for instance, teaching the Relief Features of Africa
should make reference to such features that exist. If He makes reference to Kilimanjaro Mountain, it
is with the understanding that Mount Kilimanjaro exists somewhere in Africa.
2.Certainty: This means that knowledge should be validly proved. We have treated this condition of
knowledge earlier.
3. Validity: This means that knowledge should not be self-Contradictory.
4.Veracity: This means knowledge expresses truth. Falsehood does not constitute knowledge. It is the
inherent in knowledge that make it reliable and certain.
5. Utility: This is to say knowledge is either useful in its direct benefit to the knower or in its potential
or creating further knowledge.

key problems addressed by epistemology; the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge:
1. The Nature of Knowledge: What is knowledge? Is it justified true belief, or something more?
2. The Problem of Justification: What justifies a belief? What makes a belief rational or reasonable?
3. The Problem of Skepticism: Can we truly know anything at all? How can we respond to
radical doubt?
4. Sources of Knowledge: What are the sources of knowledge—sense experience (empiricism),
reason (rationalism), intuition, testimony?
5. The Problem of Truth: What is truth? Is it correspondence with reality, coherence within a system,
or something else?
6. Internalism vs. Externalism: Does justification depend only on factors internal to the subject's
mind, or also on external factors?

11
7. A Priori and A Posteriori Knowledge: What can we know independently of experience, and what
requires experience?
8. Analytic vs. Synthetic Judgments: Are some truths true by definition (analytic) and others true by
how the world is (synthetic)?
9. The Gettier Problem: Can someone have a justified true belief and still not have knowledge?
10. Knowledge vs. Belief: How is knowledge different from belief? Can one believe something
without knowing it?
11. The Problem of Perception: Can we trust our senses? How do perceptual errors affect knowledge?
12. Testimony and Epistemic Dependence: How much knowledge can we gain from others' reports?
When is testimony reliable?
13. Epistemic Relativism vs. Objectivism: Is knowledge relative to cultures or individuals, or is it
objective and universal?
14. Epistemic Virtue and Responsibility: What character traits help one become a good knower? Is
there an ethics of belief?

2.4 Ethics
Ethics belong to a branch of philosophy called axiology. Axiology is the study of values. It is the
branch of philosophy that is concerned with various criteria which underlie the choices we make or
what the factors which affect our desires, interest, needs, likes, performances, (Enoh, 2001). As
highlighted earlier, man is a valuing animal. He prefers other things over others. Man has likes,
dislikes, preferences. What do we value most? Etc. some of these things are values intrinsic. For
instance, happiness is not a material value, but we all aspire to be happy in life. Similarly good health
gives value to life. We also value material things like money, good house, sometimes leading to
primitive acquisition of wealth.
Axiology as a branch of philosophy tries to elute the various basis or groups of our interests,
choices, and desires. As a rational animal, man reflects on these wants, desires and preferences,
sometimes reason may compel us to abandon some of this interest, pursuit of pleasure. Pleasure may
lead to destruction, for instance, it is transitory and short live. A typical example is the pleasure a
drunkard enjoys in the act of drinking. Immediately, after the glittery pleasure the man will come
back to be the same, displeasure and unhappiness set in. on the other hand, Axiology is divided into
two components, ethics and aesthetics.
Ethics as an axiological study is a normative science of human conduct. It describes the way things
ought to be, as normative sciences that deals with norms and standards. Ethics deals with the norms
of right conduct. The concept of man reveals that man is a rational animal and is also capable of
human desires emotions, attitudes and passions. Philosophers were divided on whether morality is
function of reason or function of the passions. Others held that morality is a function of passion.
Ethics studies human acts insofar as they are ordered among themselves and towards the end.
Their goodness or badness depends on how they are related to a person's final end. If they lead one to
it, they are good and if they lead one away from it they are bad. Ethics is the most "useful" practical
science because it leads human persons towards their ultimate end and happiness. The sense in which
ethics is a practical science has to be properly understood. It is practical because it teaches not only
the most general rules, but also the particular rules applicable to the particular action to be performed.
It is however not essentially practical.
The object of study of moral philosophy is the human act directed towards its end. The material
object of ethics is therefore human acts. These are responsible acts proceeding from human free will.
Its formal object is the relation of these human acts to a person's last end. Ethics is usually divided
into general and social ethics. The first deals with principles regarding the morality of human acts: the
last end of the human person, moral law, conscience, sin and virtue. The second applies these
principles to the individual's life in relationship with others in society. It therefore studies: common
good, the relation between individuals and society, social authority, civil law (its binding character),

12
the principle of subsidiarity, family (role and rights), and marriage. Ethics is distinct from psychology
in that whereas it studies the morality of human acts, psychology concerns itself with their nature and
characteristics. Nonetheless, ethics makes use of psychology in its study of human acts, at least at the
beginning.
A contemporary philosopher faulted the early philosophers on the basis of morality. He contends
that morality is the integrated function of both reason and the passion. He argued that the right
understanding of man’s nature is necessary for the right understanding of morality. From this
perspective, both the supra human beings are outside the sphere of morality. The supra human beings
are outside because they disembodied spirits without passion, while the infrahuman beings are
outside the moral sphere because they are non-rational and passions are essential ingredients of
morality. Man is the only being that combines rationality and passions; hence moral sphere is
uniquely human feature, therefore a harmonious blend of passions and reason. What then is the
purpose of ethics?

The Purpose of Ethics: Ethic is the systematic study of the norms of human behaviours and the
purpose of studying these norms is to ensure that human behavior confirms to them, the study of ethic
can he likened to the study of logic. The study of logic does help one to think more correctly and
avoid fallacies and the study of theology does help one deepen one’s religious outlook. The same
applied to ethics, the study of ethics does help to elevate on one’s moral standard. Training in ethics
should enable us see ones moral standard. Training in ethics should enable us see the defect in our
own and other people’s conduct and to understand their exact nature so that if the desire is there, we
are better able to set things right in our own conduct and make profitable suggestion to others. It does
not follow, however, as necessity that those who did not study ethics might not attain a high moral
standard. Or the study of logic is a precondition for correct reasoning, implying that those without the
knowledge is virtue and ignorance is vice is worth revising here to buttress the importance of the
study of more likely disposed to doing the right thing than who does not know.

key problems addressed by ethics as a branch of philosophy:

1. The Nature of Morality: What is morality? Is it objective, subjective, or relative?
2. The Problem of Moral Relativism: Are moral values universal or culturally dependent?
3. The Basis of Moral Judgments: On what grounds can we say something is right or wrong?
4. The Is–Ought Problem: Can we derive what ought to be from what is (fact vs. value)?
5. The Problem of Free Will and Moral Responsibility: Are we morally responsible for actions if
they are determined?
6. Utilitarianism vs. Deontology vs. Virtue Ethics: Which ethical theory provides the best guide to
right action?
7. Moral Motivation: What motivates people to act morally? Self-interest, duty, emotion?
8. The Problem of Moral Dilemmas: How should we decide when moral rules or values conflict?
9. The Objectivity of Moral Values: Are moral values facts about the world or human constructs?
10. Ethical Egoism vs. Altruism: Should individuals prioritize their own interests or the interests
of others?
11. Applied Ethics Problems: How should we approach specific ethical issues (e.g. abortion,
euthanasia, war, climate change)?
12. Justice and Fairness: What is a just society? How should goods and opportunities be
distributed?
13. Rights and Duties: What rights do people have, and what duties do others have in response?
14. Moral Epistemology: How can we know what is morally right or wrong
15. Ethics and Religion: Is morality dependent on God or can it be grounded independently?

2.5 Aesthetics
Aesthetics deal with the norm of beauty. In other words, this branch of axiology is concerned with
appreciating beauty in nature and art. It attempts to evaluate the various criteria of beauty that is a

13
justification we make for preferring a certain work of art, to another, (Enoh, 2004)”. It is in the very
nature of man to appreciate beauty in work of art, music, etc. it is in light of satisfying man’s quest for
beauty that displays the work of art organized at local, national and even international levels. In the
same vein, beauty contests have become a common place in our modern world to satisfy the crave for
beauty and its appreciation.
Aesthetics can generally be understood as the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of art
and the character of our experience of art and of the natural environment. From the point of view of
work, art can be divided into liberal and servile, the former being an immanent activity whose object
is immaterial and is found primarily in the mind or imagination of the artists. The latter on the other
hand is the result of bodily effort by its maker. From the point of view of purpose, a distinction can be
made between useful and fine art. Useful art produces things to be enjoyed for some other end (also
called performing arts: music, drama, and dance), while fine art produces objects that are enjoyed for
their own sake (also called visual arts: painting, sculpture, architecture, photography, print-making).
In fine art mimesis (imitation) is the immediate end sought and it is not a means to something else.12
Static objects are created, whose principal value is their aesthetic quality. The end product of the
useful or performing arts is not a static object but the performance of some kind by one or more
people.
Aesthetics answers the question of what art is, concerning itself with its nature, conditions, and
consequences. Philosophy of art also inquiries into the nature of art, if it is a virtue of the practical
intellect, and how it is distinguished from both the speculative virtues (under- standing of first
principles, wisdom, knowledge) and the moral virtues (especially prudence). It also investigates how
arts is divided and classified in its different classes, and so on. Apart from this, it also deals with
issues like how art works are to be interpreted, appreciated, and understood. Aesthetic judgement,
aesthetic value, and aesthetic valuator, are some of the major concerns of aesthetics. Aesthetics is
practical because it is concerned with making and its object is to order from above the branches of
practical instruction. However, it remains essentially speculative in virtue of its object and method of
procedure, in addition to being remote from actual practice. The individual arts are the ones that
possess rules sufficiently detailed to be applicable to practical work. Aesthetics only formulates
general rules, which are far too general for immediate application.

The Key Issues in Aesthetics includes the following:

1. The Nature of Beauty: What is beauty? Is it objective or subjective?
2. The Definition of Art: What qualifies something as a work of art?
3. The Problem of Aesthetic Experience: What makes an experience aesthetic? How is it different
from other kinds of experiences?
4. Art and Emotion: How does art evoke emotions, and what is the nature of those emotions?
5. The Value of Art: Why is art valuable? Is its value intrinsic, instrumental, or both?
6. The Problem of Interpretation: How should artworks be interpreted? Is there a correct or final
interpretation?
7. Aesthetic Judgment: Can aesthetic judgments be right or wrong, or are they purely subjective?
8. The Relationship Between Art and Morality: Can or should moral considerations influence our
evaluation of art?
9. Representation and Mimesis: What does it mean for art to represent reality? Is imitation essential to
art?
10. Form vs. Content: Which matters more in art: the form (style, technique) or the content (message,
theme)?
11. The Role of the Artist: What is the artist’s role in creating meaning or conveying truth?
12. Art and Truth: Can art convey truth? If so, what kind of truth?
13. The Ontology of Art: What kind of thing is a work of art? Is it an object, a performance, or
something else?
14. The Role of Taste: Is "good taste" a matter of personal preference or can it be cultivated and
judged?
15. Art and Cultural Context: How do history and culture shape the creation and appreciation of art?

14
 UNIT THREE

METHODS AND FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY

3.1 Methods of doing philosophy

By method here, we refer to the way by which the act of philosophy can be carried out. The specific
methods of doing philosophy include the following:
1. Analytical Method: this method deals with the clarification of the meaning of concepts,
particularly on the contexts of their usage. This is because words or concepts have different
meanings and such meaning vary in meaning depending on the context in which such words are
used. An analytic philosopher therefore examines the use of such concepts critically to determine
their implications or otherwise.

2. Speculative Method: This involves the making of inferences from some personal thinking
experiences or observative features of things, such inferences or speculation should form sound
reasoning. In short, it is a method in which philosophy seeks to ingrate thinking, experiences,
and even observable facts in order to construct meaningful wholes. It tries to put the various
components into some synthesis.

3. Prescriptive Method: This method is concern with establishing standard or criteria for assessing
values, judging conducts and appraising act. Prescriptive philosophy goes beyond mere analysis
of concepts to establish criteria for evaluating actions. Prescriptive philosophers find the analytic
one unnecessary because they can’t prescribe or find solutions to emerging problems.

4. Historical Method: This method involves the tracing of the development of ideas over time. Facts on
certain concepts can be traced to fish out information about such in the past. The logical
relationships of ideas and the thinking or assumption behind the ideas are expressed. This makes
philosophy different from mere historical accounts.

5. Socrates Method: The most famous method for deriving truth in the ancient world was that of
Socrates (496-399BC) formed on Plato’s view, Socrates used the question-and-answer method in

15
 his philosophical pursuit. In case like this, Socrates viewed himself as a sort of midwife who
helped individuals to give birth to ideas within their own mind. Pre-supposition of their method
is that truth is inborn or native to the human mind Socrates believed that these truths are innate,
man know them in their previous existence (pre-existence) question are therefore ask to enable
the individuals gain their lost of memory. Questioning method is very different, indeed, clear
question often aids in their own answer. In addition, the interrogatives style in human grammar is
of course a natural method of gaining information.

The Socratic method of philosophical consists in arguing out the entire process of the subject in
question, in the manner of a dialogue. The prima facie view is refuted by exposing the
inconsistencies and contradictions involved in accepting it as true. The teacher professes entire
ignorance all the while, finally getting the truth from the mouth of the questioner himself, by the
ingenious method of subtle examination, through the process of questioning and analysis. This
technique of argument is based on a complete knowledge of the fundamental component
elements of the subject of the argument and their relation to the constitution and condition of the
intellect and reason of the opposite party concerned in the discussion.

6. Synthetic Dialectic Method of Plato: The analytical method of Socrates was followed by the
synthetic dialectic of Plato, which concerned itself with discovering the causal relation
between thought and being. Plato’s dialectic method mostly consisted in the grouping of
scattered particulars into a single concept or idea and the dissection of this concept or idea into
classes, i.e., the generalisation and arrangement of the idea. The arriving at a fact depends on
the establishment of a correct concept or notion or principle. It is not possible to know, for
example, what the true is or who a good man is, unless we first settle in our knowledge the
nature of truth and goodness.
7. Phenomenological Method: The phenomenological method is an attempt to get back to a pre-
theoretical approach to one’s primary awareness according to Kolberg. It seeks to give purely a
neutral description of one’s awareness of the world, before he ever begins to think about
reflectively. In this sense, the phenomenological method claims to be a presupposition less
method letting the bare fact of one’s primary experience speak for themselves.
Phenomenology is a philosophy of experience. For phenomenology the ultimate source of all
meaning and value is the lived experience of human beings. All philosophical systems, scientific
theories, or aesthetic judgments have the status of abstractions from the ebb and flow of the lived
world.

3.2 Fundamental Problems of Philosophy

1. The problem of reality (metaphysics)
2. Problem of knowledge
3. Problem of morality
4. Problem of mind and consiuosness
5. The problem of God and religion (philosophy of religion)
6. the problem of justice and political philosophy and 15
7. The problem of meaning and existentialism
8. The Problem of Personal Identity
9. The problem of time
10. The problem of causation
11. The Problem of Free Will vs. Determinism
12. The Problem of Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness
13. The Problem of Truth
14. The Problem of Aesthetic Value
15. The Problem of Political Authority and 6
16. The Problem of Evil in Theodicy

16
 17. The Problem of Language and Meaning
18. The Problem of the Self
19. he Problem of Death and Immortality
20. The Problem of Artificial Life and Bioethics
21. The Problem of Consciousness in Animals
22. The Problem of Relativism vs. Objectivism
23. The Problem of The One and the Many
24. The Problem of Reductionism vs. Holism
25. The Problem of Ethical Dilemmas
26. The Problem of Introspection
27. The Problem of Mathematical Objects
28. The Problem of Science and Metaphysics
29. The Problem of Happiness and Well-being
30. The Problem of Ecological Ethics and Sustainability

1.The Problem of Reality.

This is a metaphysical problem concern with a fundamental question of “What is ultimately real?”
Accordingly, philosophers have proposed different answers including the following.
Materialism asserts that reality is fundamentally composed of physical matter. Thinkers like Thomas
Hobbes and Karl Marx argue that all phenomena, including thoughts and consciousness, can be
explained by material interactions. Idealism, on the other hand, holds that reality is primarily
composed of ideas or mental constructs. Plato’s theory of Forms and George Berkeley’s subjective
idealism suggest that material objects depend on perception.

Dualism, particularly associated with René Descartes, maintains that reality consists of two distinct
substances: mind and matter while Monism posits that there is only one fundamental reality. Spinoza,
for example, argued that reality is a single, unified substance, which he identified as God or Nature.

2.The Problem of Knowledge (Epistemology)

This is an epistemological problem. Epistemology deals with the nature, sources, and limits of human
knowledge. The central question is: How do we know what we know?
Rationalism represented by philosophers like Descartes and Leibniz argue that knowledge is
primarily derived from reason and innate ideas. While Empiricism represented by John Locke and
David Hume contends that knowledge originates from sensory experience.
Skepticism queries whether we Can we ever be certain about anything? Philosophers like Pyrrho and
David Hume have challenged the reliability of human knowledge, arguing that our senses and
reasoning might be deceptive.

3.The Problem of Morality.

Ethics explores questions of right and wrong, virtue and vice, and moral responsibility. The main
problem is: What makes an action morally right or wrong? In addressing this problem,
Moral relativists like Protagoras, Nietzsche argue that morality depends on cultural or individual
perspectives while Moral absolutists like Emmanuel Kant and Thomas Aquinas hold that moral
truths exist independently of human opinions.
Consequentialism represented by the utilitarians like Bentham Benjamin and John Mill argues that
the morality of an action depends on its outcomes while the Deontological ethics while philosophers
like Kant in his categorical imperative asserts that certain actions are inherently right or wrong,
regardless of consequences.

3.The Problem of Free Will and Moral Responsibility

The basic question here is whether man can be held morally responsible for his actions if our actions,
as it where are determined by physical laws, genetics, or divine predestination.

17
To address this problem, the compatibilists like David Hume argue that free will is compatible with
determinism, while libertarians (e.g., Sartre) insist that humans are radically free.

4.The Problem of God and Religion.

This is the concern of religious philosophy which examines the existence of God, the nature of faith,
and the problem of evil. An issue is the Problem of Evil. If God is all-powerful and good, why does
evil exist? Atheism and Agnosticism represented by thinkers like Bertrand Russell and Richard
Dawkins argue that religious beliefs lack empirical justification. For the Atheist, the existence of evil
disproves an all-good God. If an all-good, all-powerful God exists, why is there evil? There are
however in favour of the existence of God. Augustinian theodicy holds that evil is the absence of
good while the Irenaean theodicy maintains that evil is necessary for soul development. The
Ontological Argument of Anselm holds that God’s existence is logically necessary. The cosmological
Argument of Aquinas is that everything has a cause, leading to a First Cause (God). Parley’s
Teleological Argument holds that the order in nature implies intelligent design and that this can be no
other than God.
5.The Problem of Personal Identity
What makes a person the same over time? Is personal identity based on physical continuity,
psychological continuity, or something else? For John Locke in his Memory Theory, Personal identity
is tied to memory. The Body Theory hold that identity is based on the continuity of the physical
body. The Soul Theory maintain that identity is rooted in a non-material soul. For David Hume in his
Bundle Theory, there is no fixed self, just a collection of perceptions.

6.The Problem of Time

What is time? Does it exist independently of human perception? For the presentism, only the present
moment is real. For the eternalism, the past, present and future all equally exist. The Growing Block
Theory however hold that the past and present exist, but the future does not yet exist.

7.The Problem of Free Will vs. Determinism

The question here is whether human actions are free, or are they determined by prior causes? For
Hard Determinism, all actions are determined by past events while Libertarianism hold that humans
have genuine free will. But compatibilism holds that free will and determinism can coexist.
8.The Problem of Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness
A critical question here is whether machines can be conscious? If a robot behaves like a human, does
it have a mind? If a machine can imitate human intelligence, should it be considered intelligent? The
Chinese Room Argument (Searle) hold that a system can manipulate symbols without understanding
meaning.

9.The Problem of Aesthetic Value

What makes something beautiful? Is beauty subjective or objective?
Plato held that beauty is an eternal Form while Kant holds that beauty is a subjective judgment but
has universal appeal.

10.The Problem of Death and Immortality

What happens after death? For the Materialist, death is the end of consciousness. The Dualist view is
that the soul survives after death While the existentialist like Martin Heidegger holds that death gives
meaning to life.

18
 UNIT FOUR

LOGIC
4.0 Introduction
Logic is a foundational discipline in philosophy and critical thinking. It provides the rules and
principles for distinguishing valid reasoning from fallacious reasoning. Logic is a tool for evaluating
arguments and it is applied in diverse fields such as mathematics, computer science, law, and
everyday decision-making.

4.1 Definition of Logic

Logic is the study of valid reasoning and argumentation. It is a systematic study of the principles of
valid inference and correct reasoning. It examines how conclusions follow from premises and
determines the structure of sound arguments. According to Aristotle, Logic is the "instrument"
(organon) for obtaining knowledge. Aristotle defined logic as the scientific study of fundamental
principles of human thoughts and the laws that underline valid thought processes and discourse.
Immanuel Kant defines Logic as the science of the necessary laws of thought while for Bertrand
Russell, Logic is the study of forms of valid inference. Copi defines logic as the study of the methods
and principles used in distinguishing good/correct) from bad /incorrect reasoning. It is the science of
the principles of correct reasoning. Logic provides a framework for distinguishing between good and
bad reasoning.
Etymologically, the word ‘logic’ is derived from the Greek word logike, meaning “possessed of
reason, intellectual, dialectical, argumentative”.
Logic is properly called a propaedeutic science because the other sciences are dependent upon it
inasmuch as it teaches the method of procedure in the acquisition of knowledge.
As an art; logic is the tool of all sciences because coherent and orderly thinking is crucial for the
attainment of the truth in any field whatsoever. For such a task, spontaneous logic is sufficient and
one need not have a rigorous scientific drilling in logic. Yet logic only ensures formal correctness of
the reasoning process but not its truth. It does not make scientific discoveries and does not guarantee
exhaustive research.
The formal object of logic is conceptual being or being of reason, which exists only in the mind. It
studies the relations the mind establishes among different products or contents of intellectual
knowledge (concepts, propositions and syllogisms), and seeks to understand the different relations,
which arise in our mind when it knows things. The proper object of logic is constituted by logical
properties or relations, for example a proposition. A proposition is only found in the mind and not in
reality. It is therefore a being of reason.

19
Formal rule of logic
The formal rule of logic states that premises of an argument must adequately support the conclusion
and that if the premises of an argument are true, the conclusion must also be true.

4.2 Fundamental Characteristics of Logic

1. Rationality – Logic relies on reason and objectivity, rejecting subjective biases.
2. Systematic Nature – It follows structured rules and principles.
3. Universality – Logical principles apply across all disciplines.
4. Consistency – It ensures coherence and prevents contradictions in arguments.
5. Precision – Logic avoids ambiguity by defining terms clearly.

4.3 The Scope of Logic and Branches of Logic

4.3.1 The Scope of Logic
Logic is the branch of philosophy that deals with reasoning—how we think correctly and arrive at
valid conclusions. It provides the rules and methods for evaluating whether arguments are sound or
flawed. Logic is used in philosophy, mathematics, computer science, law, science, and everyday
thinking. The scope of logic includes:

1. Analysis of Arguments: Logic helps distinguish between good (valid) and bad (invalid) reasoning.
2. Development of Critical Thinking: It sharpens our ability to analyze, evaluate, and construct clear
arguments.
3. Foundation for Other Disciplines: Logic supports reasoning in mathematics, science, ethics, and
language.
4. Symbolic Representation of Thought: Logic uses symbols to simplify complex reasoning
processes, especially in mathematical logic.
5. Language and Meaning: Logic studies how language is used in arguments, helping us avoid
confusion and ambiguity.

4.3.2 Major Branches of Logic

Logic is broadly divided into formal and informal logic, with several subfields that apply to different
domains.
A. Formal Logic: Formal logic studies argument structures independent of content, focusing on form
rather than meaning. It is concerned with form or structure of arguments rather than content. It also
uses symbols and formulas to represent logical relationships.
Example: If all humans are mortal, and Socrates is human, then Socrates is mortal.

1. Deductive Logic is mostly concerned with reasoning from general premises to specific
conclusions.
Example:
Premise 1: All men are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

2. Inductive Logic mostly moves from specific instances to general conclusions.

Example: After observing multiple white swans, one might conclude, “All swans are white.”
However, inductive reasoning does not guarantee absolute certainty.

3. Symbolic Logic Uses mathematical symbols to express logical relationships.

Example: If p represents “It is raining” and q represents “The ground is wet,” then: (If it rains, then
the ground will be wet).
20
4. Mathematical Logic. A subfield of symbolic logic that applies formal methods to mathematical
reasoning.
It is used in computing, set theory, and number theory.

B. Informal Logic
Informal logic deals with reasoning in natural language, focusing on argumentation in everyday
contexts. Focuses on everyday language and reasoning. Deals with fallacies (errors in reasoning),
persuasion, and rhetoric. Example: Analyzing arguments in a political speech or debate. It is
characterized by following:
1. Critical Thinking: Analyzing and evaluating arguments in public discourse, law, and ethics.
Example: Recognizing logical fallacies in political speeches.
2. Fallacy Analysis. This identifies common errors in reasoning, such as:
Ad hominem: Attacking the person instead of the argument.
Straw man: Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to refute it easily.
Post hoc fallacy: Assuming that because one event follows another, the first caused the second.
3. Rhetoric and Persuasion. Examines how arguments are structured in legal, political, and media
discourse.
4. Epistemic Logic. This explores the nature of knowledge and belief.
Example: "If I know that 2+2=4, then I must also know that 4-2=2."

4.4. Applications of Logic in Society

Logic is indispensable in various fields, influencing problem-solving, decision-making, and ethical
reasoning.
Logic in Science and Technology
Used in the scientific method to formulate hypotheses and test theories.
Essential in computer programming (Boolean logic, algorithm design).
Powers artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Logic in Law and Ethics

Legal reasoning depends on logical consistency.
Ethical arguments use logic to justify moral principles.
Example: In court cases, lawyers use deductive reasoning to prove guilt or innocence.

Logic in Politics and Governance

Helps in evaluating policies based on rational principles.
Detects fallacious reasoning in political propaganda.

Logic in Business and Economics

Enhances decision-making and problem-solving.
Ensures rational economic analysis in market predictions and investment strategies.

Logic in Education and Critical Thinking

Develops analytical skills in students.
Prevents misinformation and improves reasoning skills.

4.5 The Importance of Logic in Human Life

1. Promotes Rational Thinking – Helps individuals make reasoned judgments.
2. Enhances Communication – Ensures clarity in speech and writing.
3. Strengthens Argumentation – Helps in constructing valid arguments.
4. Prevents Manipulation – Protects against deceptive reasoning and propaganda.
5. Advances Scientific Discovery – Forms the foundation of research methodologies.

21
4.6 Conclusion
Logic is essential for intellectual development and practical decision-making. By understanding its
nature and scope, individuals can enhance their reasoning abilities, avoid fallacies, and contribute to
rational discourse in society.

UNIT FIVE

THE LAWS OF THOUGHT

5.0 Introduction
The Laws of Thought are fundamental principles in logic that govern rational reasoning. They form
the basis of valid inference and argumentation, ensuring consistency in thought and communication.
These laws are foundational in philosophy, mathematics, science, and everyday decision-making.
They include three fundamental laws of thoughts also described as the three classical laws of thought
and formulated by Aristotle and later refined by logicians such as Leibniz and Boole. The three
classical laws of thought include Law of Identity, the Law of Non-Contradiction, and the Law of
Excluded Middle. There is also the Law of Sufficient Reason, sometimes considered a fourth law.

5.1 The Law of Identity (A is A)

This law asserts that an object, idea, or concept remains what it is, regardless of time or context.
Every entity is identical to itself. The law of identity simply states that anything is what it is. For
example, “A is A”; “B is B” and “C is C”.
Example:
"A human is a human."
"A triangle is a three-sided shape."

Philosophical Implications:
Ensures stability in definitions and reasoning.
Used in mathematics and logic to establish equivalencies.

Law of Identity in Real Life Application.

Mathematics: A number remains itself (e.g., 5 = 5).
Legal Contracts: If a person signs an agreement, they are bound by that agreement.
Personal Identity: If you are a doctor, you remain a doctor until you formally change professions.
If a company is registered as "ABC Ltd.," it cannot also be "XYZ Ltd." at the same time.

5.2. The Law of Non-Contradiction (Not Both A and Not-A)

This law holds that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense.
The law of non-contradiction states that nothing can be both ‘A’ and not ‘A’. According to the law, if
this is ‘A’ then it cannot at the same time be ‘–A’. For instance, if this is a chalk, it cannot be anything
else than a chalk. If this is a house, it cannot be anything else than a house. A way to avoid self–

22
contradiction is to obey the law of non–contradiction. A statement and its direct negation cannot be
true simultaneously.
Example:
"It is raining and it is not raining" is contradictory.
"A cat cannot be both alive and dead at the same time."

Philosophical Implications:
Ensures logical coherence.
Prevents contradictions in arguments.
Used in ethics, law, and science to establish truth.

Law of Non-Contradiction in Real Life application

Science: A substance cannot be both solid and liquid at the same temperature and pressure.
Law: A person cannot be both guilty and not guilty of a crime in the same trial.
Ethics: A society cannot uphold human rights while also denying them.
Example:
A person cannot say, "I am a strict vegetarian" while eating a steak.

5.3 The Law of Excluded Middle (Either A or Not-A)

This law holds that every statement is either true or false, with no middle ground. The law of
excluded middle states that everything is either A or not A. As it indicates, the law of excluded middle
excludes the middle ground between A and not A. According to the law, everything must choose to be
either A or not A. It cannot choose to be neither. A proposition must be either true or false—there is
no third option.
Example:
"The light is either ON or OFF."
"A person is either present or absent."

Philosophical Implications:
Used in formal logic and binary systems (e.g., computer programming).
Essential in mathematical proofs.
Helps in clear decision-making processes.

Law of Excluded Middle in Real Life application

Computers: A computer program command is either executed or not.
Sports: A team either wins or loses (excluding draws).
Decision Making: A person either accepts a job offer or does not.
Example: When voting, a person either casts a ballot or does not. There is no middle ground.

5.4 The Law of Sufficient Reason (Leibniz’s Principle)

This law state that everything that happens must have a reason or cause. It asserts that nothing occurs
without a rational explanation.
Example:
"Why does the sun rise? Because of the Earth’s rotation."
"Why does a person commit a crime? Due to social, psychological, or economic factors."

Philosophical Implications:
Basis for scientific inquiry and causality.
Helps in constructing rational arguments.

Law of Sufficient Reason in Real Life Application

Medicine: A disease does not appear randomly; there is a biological cause.
Economics: Inflation occurs due to changes in supply, demand, or monetary policy.
23
Physics: Objects fall due to gravity, not by chance.
Example:
A bridge collapses not because of "bad luck" but due to structural failure, poor maintenance, or
excessive weight.

5.5 Applications of the Laws of Thought

The laws of thought provide the logical foundation for clear reasoning, knowledge acquisition, and
rational decision-making. Understanding these principles enhances critical thinking, problem-solving,
and effective argumentation.
Science and Mathematics
Ensures logical consistency in mathematical proofs.
Used in physics to develop scientific theories.

Law and Ethics

Prevents contradictions in legal reasoning.
Helps define moral absolutes (e.g., justice cannot be injustice).

Artificial Intelligence and Computing

Forms the foundation of Boolean logic in programming.
Used in decision-making algorithms.

Critical Thinking and Communication

Helps in debate, journalism, and academic writing.
Avoids fallacies and misinformation.

24
 UNIT SIX

ARGUMENT
6.0 Introduction
Logic is the study of valid reasoning and argumentation. The central aim of logic is to analyze
arguments—to identify their structures, assess their validity, and evaluate their soundness.
Understanding what an argument is, its components, and how to determine whether it is valid or
sound is fundamental to logical and philosophical reasoning. Hence the nature of argument, validity,
soundness, and structure of argument inter alia are the concern of this section of the study.

6.1 Meaning of Argument

Critical thinking involves identifying and developing good arguments. In everyday life, many often
use the word “Argument” to mean a verbal dispute, quarrel or disagreement. In critical thinking, an
“Argument” is a set of propositions (claims or statements) which contain premises that are offered to
support the conclusion. Put differently, an argument is a set of propositions in which one or more of
the propositions, known as premises(s), are put forward so as to offer reasons for another
propositions, known as the conclusion. Three fundamental terms: Proposition, Premises(s), and
Conclusion stand out and need elucidation for a good understanding of what argument is in
philosophy.
In philosophy, a proposition is a declarative sentence that is either true or false. It is a statement which
can be appraised as either true or false. Sentences like exclamation, question and command are not
declarative sentences, hence not a proposition. For instance:
1. “Come here”!
2. “Are you going to the movies”
3. “Close the door”
4. “There are students in this class”
5. “The lecturer for GST 212 is in the class.”
The first three sentences 1-3 are not propositions since they cannot be either true or false. But, the
fourth and fifth sentences are propositions since they can either be true or false. If a proposition is
true, then we say its truth-value is true, and if a proposition is false, we say its truth-value is false. It
should be noted that arguments are made of propositions.
In every argument there is always two elements: a premise component and a conclusion component.
The premise component is used to confirm or prove the conclusion component. To recap, an argument
is a piece of reasoning in which propositions/statements are offered as support or evidence for some
other propositions/statement. The proposition/statement being supported is the conclusion of the
argument and the reasons given in support of the conclusion are called premise(s). For example:
i. Jaja drives a jeep to school

25
 This implies that either she is rich or her parents are
ii. The car has outlived its usefulness; hence we should get a new car.
In argument”1”, the conclusion is: either she is rich or her parents are. The premises is: jaja drives a
jeep to school, in argument “2” the conclusion is: we should get a new car. The premises is: the car
has outlived its usefulness. From these examples, we can assert that a premise is a proposition an
arguer offers in support of a conclusion. That is an arguer offers a premise as evidence for the truth of
the conclusion, as justification for a reason to believe the truth of the conclusion, as justification for
or a reason to believe the conclusion. While, conclusion is proposition, the truth of which one claims
to be supported by the premise(s). The relationship that exists between the premise(s) of an argument
and its conclusion suggest classification of arguments.

An argument is a group of statements in which one statement (the conclusion) is claimed to follow
from the others (the premises). It refers to set of claims in which one or more of the claims, the
premises, are put forward so as to offer reasons for another claim, the conclusion. A group of
propositions that can be structured into two parts, that is premise(s) which is also known as ‘reason’
and ‘conclusion’ which can also be known as ‘claim’. At least two propositions or statements form an
argument otherwise it is not argument. But not all the statements are arguments. An argument in logic
is not a quarrel or dispute, but a set of statements, one of which (the conclusion) is supported by
others (the premises).
Example:
Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

6.2 Components of an Argument

1.Premises: The premises are some of the statements in an argument that provides reason(s) for which
the conclusion is affirmed, the foundational statements or reasons that support the conclusion. They are
Statements that provide support or evidence for the conclusion and they are assumed to be true for the
purpose of evaluating the argument’s structure. Indicators of Premise include: because, since, for, given
that, assuming that.
Example:
Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a human.

2.Conclusion. This is the statement that the premises are intended to support. It is what the argument
tries to prove or establish. The main point the argument tries to establish, the part of the statements in
an argument that is affirmed based on the other statements, which are called premises. Indicators of
Conclusion include therefore, thus, so, it follows that, hence.

Example:
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

3.Inference: This is the logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. It shows how
the conclusion follows from the premises. The inference ties the premises together in a way that
logically leads to the conclusion. It's the reasoning process used to move from the premises to the
conclusion.

4.Assumptions (Implicit Premises). Sometimes, arguments rely on unstated premises that are
assumed to be known or accepted by the audience.
Example:
If someone says, "He must be rich because he drives a Ferrari," the
implicit assumption is: "Only rich people drive Ferraris."

26
 5.Qualifier: This indicates the strength of the argument. Words like "probably," "certainly," or
"possibly" suggest how confident the speaker is about the conclusion.
Example:
"It is likely that it will rain tomorrow."

6.Counterarguments (and Rebuttals): In stronger arguments, potential objections are anticipated

and addressed.
Example:
"Although some people believe climate change is natural, the overwhelming scientific evidence
supports human contribution."

6.3 Structure of an Argument

Logical analysis of arguments involves identifying how the premises and conclusion are arranged.
The structure of an argument refers to the logical form or pattern it follows.
1 Linear (Simple) Structure: A straight path from premises to conclusion.
Example:
P1: If it rains, the ground gets wet.
P2: It is raining.
Conclusion: Therefore, the ground is wet.

2 Complex Structures: This includes arguments with:

Sub-arguments: where a premise is itself supported by other premises.
Convergent support: where multiple independent premises support the same conclusion.
Linked premises: where premises must be combined to support the conclusion.

6.5 Types of Arguments

6.5.1 Deductive Arguments

Deductive argument claims that the conclusion of an argument necessarily follows from the premises.
If valid and premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Deductive Argument is that kind of
argument in which the premises do not only support but also guarantee the conclusion. In other
words, the conclusion is directly inferred from the premises. In a deductive argument, the conclusion
does not contain any new information aside those that we already have in the premises. This means
that deductive arguments as those arguments that are made in such a way as to produce conclusions
that follow the certainty or with logical necessity from the premises. Deductive arguments attempt to
support their conclusions with certainty. In a valid deductive argument, the reasoning process between
the premises and conclusions is so well connected so as to ensure the conclusion. Most deductive
arguments move from general propositions as premises to particular proposition as the conclusion. A
deductive argument can be valid or invalid, sound or unsound.
Example:
All TUM Students have matriculation number
Billy is a TUM Student
Therefore, Billy has matriculation number

All mammals are warm-blooded.

A whale is a mammal.
Therefore, a whale is warm-blooded.

6.5.1.2 Types of Deductive Argument

There are two types of deductive arguments: categorical syllogisms and propositional arguments.

27
i.) Categorical syllogisms. A syllogism is a deductive argument in which a conclusion is drawn or inferred
from two premises. This implies that a syllogism is a two premises deductive argument. Categorical
syllogisms reason on the basis of the relationship between categories. Categorical syllogisms have two
premises and a conclusion, and each of these propositions contain two categories- it subject and predict. For
example, in the categorical proposition “All students are smart”, the subject is “student” and the predicate is
“smart”.
There are four types of categorical propositions:
 Universal affirmative: all S is P. (A Proposition) example: All students are smart.
 Particular affirmative: some S is P (I Proposition) example: some ladies are lazy.
 Universal negative: No S is P (E Proposition) example: No men are trees.
 Particular negative: some S is not P (O Proposition) example: some ladies are not lazy.
An example of a categorical syllogism:
All Nigerians are intelligent people
All smart people are Nigerians
Therefore, all smart people are intelligent people.
Now suppose that M represents the category of Nigerians P represents category of intelligent people,
and S represents the category of smart people. The argument may be schematically represented as:\
i. All M is P
ii. All S is M
iii. Therefore, All S is P
As we can see, there are three different categories in every categorical syllogism, a subject- the first
term in the conclusion which is also found in the second premise; a predicate-the second term in the
conclusion which is also found in the first premises; and a middle term- the term found in both of the
premises. In the above example, P, the predicate in the conclusion, is the major term. S, the subject in
the conclusion is the minor term, M which appears in both premises but not in the conclusion, is the
middle term.
A valid categorical syllogism establishes a connection between the subject of the conclusion and the
predicate of the conclusion by means of a middle term. In a categorical syllogism, the predicate is the
largest category, the subject is the smallest category, and the middle term is medium sized, it infers
that the subject is part of the predicate from the fact that the middle term is part of the predicate and
the subject is part of the middle term. In the example above, “smart people” are part of the larger
category “Nigerians”, which are part of the even category “intelligent people”. The middle term
connects together the subject and the predicate is so firmly that we know with certainty that the
subject is part of the predicate.
ii.) Propositional Arguments: The second type of deductive reasoning we are examining is known
as propositional logic. As the same implies, the basic unit of this type of argument is the proposition,
not the category. “Proposition”, as earlier noted, is a synonym for statement or claim. The sentence
“All men are honest” contains two categories (“men” and “honest”), but is merely one statement.
However, some sentences contain more than one statement, for example “All men are honest, and all
women are honest too”. Propositional logic “deals, with the relationships holding between simple
propositions and their compounds”. In other words, propositional logic is concerned with the way we
combine simple propositions/statements, and how to determine the truth and falsity or complex
propositions/statements. Complex propositions are constructed using logical operators- four of which
are: negation, conjunction, disjunction, and conditional.
logical operators for construction of complex propositions.
Name Synonyms Part Rule
Negation no, not Not applicable Reverse the Truth value of the original
statement.
Conjunction and, but Conjuncts Ony if both conjunct are true
Disjunction Or Disjuncts Only false if The antecedent is True and the
Consequent is false.

Conditional If … then …, Antecedent or If the antecedents are true, then the

28
 implies hypothesis implication holds. If P and Q are true, then
Consequent or the implication holds
conclusion If P is true but Q is false, the implication
fails
If P is false, the implication is still
considered true
If p is false, even if Q is also false, then the
implication is true.

The logical symbols for these operators are: (Negation): (Conjunction): v (Disjunction).
There are many valid propositional arguments, but we will examine just four of them.
1.Modus Ponens Example
1) P q. 1. If Daniel is found guilty or murder then he will be convicted.
2) P. 2. Daniel is found guilty of murder.
3) Therefore, q 3. Therefore, he will be convicted.

2.Modus Tollens Example

1) P q. 1. If Marx was a humanist, then his thoughts are worth studying.

2) q. 2. His thoughts are not worth studying.
3) Therefore, q 3. Therefore, Marx was not a humanist.

3. Hypothetical Syllogism Example

1) P q. 1. If the people elect their own government,
then the political system is democratic.
2) q r. 2. If the political system is democratic,
then the economy is prosperous.
3) Therefore, p r 3. Therefore, if the people elect their own government,
then the economy must be prosperous.

3. Disjunctive Example

1) P V q. 1. P V q 1. All human beings are either male or female.

Or
2) p. 2. q. 2. Ekaette Udoh is not male.

3) Therefore, q. 3.Therefore, P 3. Therefore, Ekaette Udoh must be female.

As we can see, the letters in propositional arguments stand for statements not categories, as is the case
in categorical syllogisms. Also, Modus Ponens and Hypothetical Syllogism arguments use conditional
statements, Modus Tollens Syllogism arguments use statement and negations, and Disjunctive
Syllogism arguments use Disjunctions and negations.

6.5.1.3 Validity and Soundness of Deductive Argument

1. Valid Argument: An argument is said to be valid when the conclusion of that argument is derived from
or follows from the premises. In any valid argument, there is an absolute connection between the premises
and the conclusion and it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. In a valid
argument, the premises imply or entail or necessitate the conclusion. The conclusion follows from the
premises; or can be inferred from the premises. What matters most in the determination of a valid argument
is the link between the premises and the conclusion rather than the truth or falsity of the statements
comprising the arguments. We can also say that an argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for the

29
premises to be true and the conclusion false. Validity does not depend on the truth of the premises, only on
the logical form.

Examples:
All Nigerians are proud
Peter is a Nigerian
Therefore, peter is proud.
All birds can fly.
Penguins are birds.
Therefore, penguins can fly.

In the second example, The form is valid, even though the premise is false (penguins cannot fly).

2 Invalid argument: An invalid argument occurs when there is no absolute connection between the
premises and the conclusion. Invalid Deductive Argument is one that the premises do not support the
conclusion. In other words, the conclusion cannot be inferred from the premises and the premises do not
necessitate the conclusion. All invalid arguments are unsound.

Example:
All boys are dressed in shirts
Some girls are dressed in shirts
Therefore, some girls are boys

3 Sound: A valid deductive argument is said to be sound if the premises of that argument as well as the
conclusion are all true prepositions. An argument is sound if it is valid, and all of its premises are true.
Soundness = Validity + True Premises
Example:
All men are mortal
John is a man
Therefore, John is Mortal

All humans are mortal.

Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

4 Unsound argument: A valid argument is said to be unsound if the premises of that argument are either all
false or contain a mixture of true and false prepositions, notwithstanding the truth value of its conclusion.

Example:
All Nigerians are Africans
All Africans are whites
Therefore, all Nigerians are whites.

6.5.1.4 Importance of Understanding Argument, Validity, and Soundness

i. Promotes critical thinking and clarity in reasoning.

ii. Essential for academic writing and debate.
iii. Helps identify faulty arguments and avoid deception.
iv. Useful in law, science, ethics, politics, and everyday life.

30
6.5.2 Inductive Arguments
An inductive Argument is an argument that its premise(s) only support, but do not guarantee its conclusion.
It is a claim that the conclusion probably follows from the premises. Conclusion is likely, but not
guaranteed. Inductive argument does not claim that their premises, even if true, support their conclusions
with certainty. The conclusion of an inductive argument logically implies an item of information not
necessarily implied by the premises and that which can be confirmed or refuted only on the basis of
evidence drawn from sense experience. Inductive argument is structured in such way that from one set of
propositions (premises), it moves to another (conclusion). Here, there is an attempt to support the truth of a
conclusion with probability. In other words, inductive argument are constructed to produce conclusions that
will probably follow from the premises. In contrast to deductive arguments, inductive arguments are unable
to establish that their conclusions are false. Nevertheless, the better an inductive argument is, the less likely
it is that its conclusion is false. It should be noted that one major reason why inductive arguments are
incapable of certainty, is that these arguments support their conclusions using empirical evidence, and this
evidence is never perfect reliable. Again, we say that inductive arguments are forms of reasoning in which
the premises provide probable support for the conclusion, rather than guaranteed proof.
Inductive arguments are evaluated based on their strength—how likely the conclusion is, given the
premises. Hence an inductive argument can be strong or weak, high or low, good or bad depending on
whether the premises make the conclusion more or less probable than not, depending on the level of
evidence in the premise. The main difference between deductive and inductive arguments is a matter of a
relative degrees with which their conclusions are claimed on the basis of their premises. The premises of a
deductive argument provide fool proof evidence for the conclusion of a valid deductive argument. While the
premises of an inductive argument provide only such evidence as make it reasonable for one to accept the
conclusion. Inductive argument often proceeds from the experienced (particular) to the inexperienced
(general); from the known to the unknown. or instance;

Examples:
Okon is a Nigerian and a football player. .
Emeka is a Nigerian and a football player.
Tunde is a Nigerian and a football player. ,
Therefore, All Nigerians are football players.

The sun has risen every day in recorded history.

Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.

6.5.2.2 Weak and Strong Inductive Argument

1. Weak or low inductive Argument: An inductive argument is weak when the level and strength of
evidence or data used as premises and the degree of certainty contained in the conclusion are low.
Example of inductive arguments with premises offering low support for conclusion:
Dangote worked hard and became rich
Otedola worked hard and became rich
Saraki worked hard and became rich
Therefore, all who worked hard will become rich

2. Strong or High Inductive Argument: An inductive argument is strong when the level and strength of
evidence or data used as premises and the degree of evidence contained in the conclusion is high.
Example of inductive arguments with high degree of support for conclusion:
Almost all footballers are rich .
JJ. Okocha is a footballer
. It follows that J.J Okocha is rich
N/B. Inductive arguments are not judged by validity, but by strength and cogency.

31
6.5.2.3 Types of inductive arguments

1.Generalization (Inductive Generalization): This refers to drawing a general conclusion from a sample
of specific instances. Example: "90 out of 100 surveyed students prefer online learning. Therefore, most
students prefer online learning." The strength depends on: sample size and representativeness of the
sample.

2. Statistical Syllogism: Applying a general statistical claim to a specific case. Example: "Most university
professors have PhDs. Dr. Okeke is a university professor. Therefore, Dr. Okeke probably as a PhD."
Strength depends on: the proportion mentioned and how typical the individual case is.

3. Causal Inference: Inferring a cause from an observed effect (or vice versa). Example: "Every time it
rains, the traffic gets worse. Therefore, the rain probably causes traffic congestion."
Strength depends on: Correlation consistency, consideration of alternative causes and temporal sequence

4.Analogical Reasoning (Argument by Analogy). Inferring that because two things are similar in some
respects, they are probably similar in others. Example: "Humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their DNA.
Humans feel pain, so chimpanzees probably do too."
Strength depends on: Number and relevance of similarities, as well as absence of dissimilarities.

5.Prediction: Using past patterns or trends to predict future events. Example: "The sun has risen every day
in recorded history. Therefore, it will probably rise tomorrow."
Strength depends on: Consistency of the pattern and External conditions remaining the same

6.Inference to the Best Explanation (Abductive Reasoning): Inferring the most plausible explanation for
an observed phenomenon. Example: "The grass is wet. The best explanation is that it rained last night."
Strength depends on: Simplicity of the explanation and Scope and coherence with known facts

7. Authority-Based Induction: Concluding that something is probably true because an expert or reliable
source says so. Example: "The WHO says the vaccine is effective. Therefore, the vaccine is probably
effective."
Strength depends on: Credibility of the authority and Consensus among experts.

Summary Table
Type Reasoning Pattern Key Feature
1. Generation From sample to population Strength based on sample
quality
2. Statistical From generalization to specific case Applies a general pattern
Syllogism
3. Causal Inference From correlation to causation Seeks cause-effect
relationship
4. Analogical From similarity in some aspects to Relies on relevant similarities
Reasoning others
5. Prediction From past to future Based on trends or reason
6. Best Explanation From facts to most plausible Inference to cause or reason
explanation
7. Authority-Based Based on expert opinion or trusted Trust in the source
sources.

32
 UNIT SEVEN

ELEMENTS OF SYLLOGISM AND INTRODUCTION TO SYMBOLIC LOGIC

7.1 Definition and Structure of Syllogism

A syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning consisting of two premises and a conclusion, where the
conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. It is a core structure in classical logic.

Basic Structure of a Syllogism

A syllogism typically has three statements:
Major Premise (general statement)
Minor Premise (specific statement)
Conclusion (derived from the above two)

Example:
Major Premise: All humans are mortal.
Minor Premise: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

7.2 Elements of a Syllogism

The elements of a syllogism include the terms, propositions, mood and the figure

A. Terms: A term is a word or phrase that represents a class or category in a logical statement. A
standard syllogism contains three distinct terms:

1.Major Term (P) – Predicate of the conclusion, the term that appears in the major premise and the
conclusion. It is called major because it represents the more general category.

Example: All humans (M) are mortal (P).

Socrates (S) is a human (M).
Therefore, Socrates (S) is mortal (P).

33
 The major term is Mortal

2. Minor Term (S) – Subject of the conclusion. It appears in the minor premise and the conclusion.
It is called minor because it refers to the more specific class or group

Example: All humans (M) are mortal (P).

Socrates (S) is a human (M).
Therefore, Socrates (S) is mortal (P).

Socrates is the Minor Term in this example.

3. Middle Term (M) – The term that appears in both premises but not in the conclusion; links S and P.
Its purpose is to link the minor and the major terms logically.
Must be distributed at least once for a valid syllogism

Example: All M are P

All S are M
Therefore, All S are P. “M” is the middle term

Example: All humans (M) are mortal (P).

Socrates (S) is a human (M).
Therefore, Socrates (S) is mortal (P).

The middle term here is human

B. Propositions
A proposition is a declarative sentence that affirms or denies something about a subject.
In a syllogism, there are three categorical propositions:
1. Major Premise: This is a general statement containing the major term (predicate of the conclusion)
and the middle term. E.g All mammals are animals.
2. Minor Premise: a specific statement containing the minor term (subject of the conclusion) and the
middle term. E.g All dogs are mammals.
3. Conclusion: A statement derived from the premises, containing the minor term (subject) and the
major term (predicate). E.g Therefore, all dogs are animals.

Types of Propositions (A, E, I, O):

A (Universal Affirmative): All S are P
E (Universal Negative): No S are P
I (Particular Affirmative): Some S are P
O (Particular Negative): Some S are not P

C. Mood and Figure

The mood of a syllogism refers to the types of categorical propositions (A, E, I, O) that make up the
major premise, minor premise, and conclusion.
Mood is the sequence of the types of propositions (e.g., A-A-A, E-A-E).
It is written as three-letter code, each letter representing one of the propositions in the syllogism.
Example: Major premise: All M are P (A)
Minor Premise: All S are M (A)
Conclusion: All S are P (A)

34
Therefore, the mood here = AAA

The Figure The figure of a syllogism refers to the position of the middle term (M) in the two
premises.
It affects the logical structure of the argument, even when the same terms and propositions are used.
There are 4 figures, based on how the middle term is placed in each premise:

Figure 1:
Major premise: M – P
Minor premise: S – M
Conclusion: S – P Example:

All men (M) are mortal (P).

∴ All Greeks are mortal.

All Greeks (S) are men (M).

Figure 2:
Major premise: P – M
Minor premise: S – M
Conclusion: S – P Example:

No immortal (P) is a man (M).

∴ No Greeks are immortal.

All Greeks (S) are men (M).

Figure 3:
Major premise: M – P
Minor premise: M – S
Conclusion: S – P

Example:
All philosophers (M) are thinkers (P).

∴ Some Greeks are thinkers.

All philosophers (M) are Greeks (S).

Figure 4:
Major premise: P – M
Minor premise: M – S
Conclusion: S – P

Example:
All mortal beings (P) are men (M).

∴ Some Greeks are mortal beings.

All men (M) are Greeks (S).

The figure of a syllogism depends on the position of the middle term (M) in the premise
It refers to the arrangement of the middle term in the premises.
There are four figures, each based on where the middle term appears
Figure Major Minor Conclusio MIDDLE TERM POSSITION
n
1 M—P S—M S-P Subject in major, predicate in
minor
35
 2 P—M S—M S-P Predicate in both premises
3 M—P M—S S-P Subjects in both premises
4 P—M M—S S-P Predicate in major, subject in
minor

Example:
If a syllogism is:
All M are P
All S are M
All S are P

The mood is AAA while the Figure is 1

All M are P
All S are M
Therefore, all S are P

N/B
1.The subject is who or what the statement is about. In logic, it's the first term in a categorical
proposition. It is often a class or category in logic (e.g., "All dogs are animals").

2.The predicate is what is asserted or denied about the subject. It completes the idea being expressed.
In categorical logic, it's the second term of the proposition (after the verb).

3. The predicate of the conclusion: The predicate of the conclusion is the term that appears as the
predicate in the final statement (the conclusion) of a syllogism. It is referred to as the major term (P).
It also appears in the major premise of the syllogism.

Example: Conclusion: "Therefore, Socrates is mortal."

→ Predicate of the conclusion: mortal

4.Subject of the Conclusion: The subject of the conclusion is the term that appears as the subject in
the final statement of a syllogism. It is referred to as the minor term (S). It also appears in the minor
premise.
Example: Conclusion: "Therefore, Socrates is mortal."
→ Subject of the conclusion: Socrates

5. Categorical Statement: A categorical statement is a declarative sentence that makes an assertion

about the relationship between two classes or categories.
It consists of a subject, a copula (is/are), and a predicate. There are four standard forms:
A: Universal Affirmative – All S are P
E: Universal Negative – No S are P
I: Particular Affirmative – Some S are P
O: Particular Negative – Some S are not P

7.3 Rules of Valid Syllogism

1. Must contain exactly three terms.
2. The middle term must be distributed at least once.
3. No term may be distributed in the conclusion unless distributed in the premises.
4. Two negative premises are not allowed.
5. If one premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative.

36
6. If both premises are affirmative, the conclusion must also be affirmative.
7. A syllogism cannot have two particular premises.

Violating any of these rules leads to a fallacy.

7.4 Common Syllogistic Fallacies

Undistributed Middle
Illicit Major / Illicit Minor
Exclusive Premises
Drawing Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premise
Existential Fallacy

UNIT EIGHT

INTRODUCTION TO SYMBOLIC LOGIC

8.1 What is Symbolic Logic?

Symbolic logic is the branch of logic where symbols are used to represent logical forms and
relationships, allowing reasoning to be expressed in a precise, clear, and concise manner. It is a
precise way to represent logical relationships using symbols. Helps in clear, structured reasoning.
The key points are that:
Unlike natural language, symbolic logic eliminates ambiguity.
It allows for the formal study of arguments based on structure rather than content.
It is foundational for mathematics, computer science, philosophy, and linguistics.

8.2 Importance:
Clarifies arguments.
Detects errors in reasoning.
Helps in constructing valid and sound arguments.
Essential in developing algorithms and proofs.

8.3 Main Components of Symbolic Logic

1.Symbols: These are used to represent statements/propositions; usually with letters like p, q, r. They
are also used to represent logical connectives, symbols that link propositions.

Logical Connectives
Symbol Name Verbal equivalent
~ Negation “Not”
^ Conjunction And
V Disjunction Or
→ Conditional If... then...
↔ Biconditional If and only if.

37
8.4 Statements and Propositions
A statement (or proposition) is a declarative sentence that is either true or false, but not both.
Examples:
"The sky is blue." (True statement)
"2 + 2 = 5." (False statement)

Non-examples:
"Close the door!" (Command, not a statement)
"What time is it?" (Question, not a statement)

8.5 Basic Logical Operations

1. Negation (~p)
Meaning: "It is not the case that p."
If p is true, ~p is false; if p is false, ~p is true.

2. Conjunction (p ∧ q)
Meaning: "p and q."
True only if both p and q are true.

3. Disjunction (p ∨ q)
Meaning: "p or q."
True if at least one of p or q is true.

4. Conditional (p → q)
Meaning: "If p, then q."
False only if p is true and q is false.

5. Biconditional (p ↔ q)
Meaning: "p if and only if q."
True if p and q are both true or both false.

8.6 Truth Tables

Truth tables show how the truth value of a compound statement depends on the truth values of its
components.

Example 1: Truth Table for p ∧ q

P Q P^q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

EXPLANATION:
P^q is true only when both p and q are true
In all other cases, it is false

Example 2: Truth Table for p → q

P Q p---q
T T T
38
 T F F
F T T
F F T

EXPLANATION:
. A conditional p—q is false only when p is true and q is false
. In all other case, the statement is considered true

8.7 Translating Natural Language into Symbolic Form

Examples:
"If it rains, then the ground gets wet."

Let p: "It rains"; q: "The ground gets wet."

Symbolic form: p → q

"Either the alarm is set or the doors are locked."

Let p: "The alarm is set"; q: "The doors are locked."

Symbolic form: p ∨ q

8.8 Arguments in Symbolic Logic

An argument consists of premises (assumptions) leading to a conclusion.
Form:
Premises → Conclusion
Example:
1. If it is raining, then the streets are wet. (p → q)
2. It is raining. (p)
3. Therefore, the streets are wet. (q)

(p → q), p ⊢ q
Symbolic Structure:

(⊢ means "therefore")

8.9 Common Logical Laws in propositional Logic

Name Formulation
Law of identity
Law of non-contradiction
Law of excluded middle
Double Negation law
Commutative Laws
Associative Laws
Distributive Laws
De Morgans Laws
Idempotent Laws
Absorption Laws
39
 Implication Laws
Biconditional Laws

8.10 Common Mistakes in Symbolic Logic

(p → q), q ⊢ p (Wrong!)
1.Affirming the Consequent (invalid):

(p → q), ~p ⊢ ~q (Wrong!)
2.Denying the Antecedent (invalid):

3.Confusing "or":
In logic, "or" usually means "inclusive or" unless otherwise stated.

8.11. Applications of Symbolic Logic.

Symbolic logic is used in
1. Mathematical Proofs
2. Computer Programming and Artificial Intelligence
3. Philosophical Argument Analysis
4. Digital Circuit Design
5. Legal Reasoning

8.11 Conclusion
Symbolic logic is a precise way to represent logical relationships using symbols. It helps in clear,
structured reasoning and provides a language and toolkit for precise reasoning. It helps identify valid
arguments, avoid fallacies, and construct sound inferences — skills crucial for philosophy,
mathematics, computer science, law, and everyday critical thinking.

Logical Operations

Conjunction (p ∧ q): True if both p and q are true.

Negation (~p): Opposite truth value of p.

Disjunction (p ∨ q): True if at least one of p or q is true.

Conditional (p → q): False only if p is true and q is false.
Biconditional (p ↔ q): True if both p and q have the same truth value.

p ∧ q: Only true if both p and q are true.

Basic Truth Table Patterns

p ∨ q: True if either or both are true.

p → q: False only if p is true and q is false.
p ↔ q: True if both are the same.

Modus Ponens: (p → q), p ⊢ q

Key Argument Forms

Modus Tollens: (p → q), ~q ⊢ ~p

Disjunctive Syllogism: (p ∨ q), ~p ⊢ q
Hypothetical Syllogism: (p → q), (q → r) ⊢ (p → r)

Validity vs Soundness
Validity: Structure is correct.
Soundness: Structure is correct and premises are true.

40
 UNIT NINE
RULES OF INFERENCES
9.1 Introduction:
Rules of inference are the standard rules used in deductive reasoning to derive conclusions from
premises. They form the basis of deductive reasoning. The focus of this unit is the first nine rules of
inference.

9.2 Nine rules of inferences

Rule 1: Modus Ponens (MP) (Affirming the Antecedent)

Form: (If , and , then )
If P → Q

∴Q
P

(If P → Q, and P is true, then Q must be true.

Idea: Think of it like a promise Kept.: “If I study (P), then I will pass (Q)”. You studied, so expect to
pass.

Explanation: If “P implies Q” is true, and P is true, then Q must also be true.

Direct reasoning from cause to effect.

Example.
1. If it rains, the ground gets wet.

∴ The ground gets wet.

It is raining.

2. If I study hard, I will pass the exam.

∴ I will pass the exam.

I study hard.

3. If I water the plant, it will grow

41
 I did water it
Therefore, it will grow.
4. If I press the power button, the computer will turn on.
I press the power button.
Therefore, the computer will turn on
5. If a student scores 70 or above, he is an A student.
Okon scored 75.
Therefore, Okon is an A student
6. If I take this medicine, I will feel better.
I took the medicine.
Therefore, I will feel better.

Rule 2: Modus Tollens (MT) -Denying the Consequent

Form: (If , and , then)

If P → Q

∴ ¬P
¬Q

(If P → Q, and ¬Q is true, then ¬P is true.)

Idea: A reverse deduction: if the result didn’t happen, the cause must be missing. “If there is fire,
there’s smoke. But there’s no smoke. So, no fire.”

Explanation: If “P implies Q ” is true, but Q is false, then P must be also be fasle.

Reasoning Backward: the result didn’t happen, so the cause didn’t occur.

Examples:
1. “If I were rich, I’d have a yacht.
I don’t have a yacht.
So, I’m not rich.”
2. If she is asleep, the lights are off.
The light are on.
Therefore, she is not asleep.
3. If it is a dog, it has four legs.

∴ It is not a dog.
It doesn’t have four legs.

4. If the car starts, the engine will make a sound.

∴ The car didn’t start.

The engine doesn’t make a sound.

5. If he is a doctor, he went to medical school.

∴ He is not a doctor.
He did not go to medical school.

Rule 3: Hypothetical Syllogism (HS)

Form: (If , and , then)
If P → Q

∴P→R
If Q → R

(If P → Q and Q → R, then P → R)

Idea: Domino effect: push the first, the last will fall.

42
 “If it rains, the ground will be wet. If the ground is wet, the game is cancelled. So, if it rains, the game
is cancelled.”
Explanation: If P leads to Q, and Q leads to R, then P leads R. This is a chain of reasoning or
logical dominoes

Examples:
1. “If I wake up early, I’ll go jogging.
If I go jogging, I’ll feel energetic.
Therefore, if I wake up early, I’ll feel energetic.”

2. If I study, I’ll pass.

∴ If I study, I’ll graduate.

If I pass, I’ll graduate.

3. If I wake up early, I’ll catch the bus.

∴ If I wake up early, I’ll be on time.

If I catch the bus, I’ll be on time.

4. If the alarm rings, I will wake up.

∴ If the alarm rings, I’ll go to work.

If I wake up, I’ll go to work.

Rule 4: Disjunctive Syllogism (DS).

Form: (and, then)

P∨Q

∴Q
¬P

(Either P or Q, Not P, therefore Q)

Idea: Process of elimination: If one option is ruled out, the other must be true. “It’s either coffee or
tea. It’s not coffee. Then it must be tea.”
Explanation: If at least one of P or Q is true, and P is false, then Q must be true.

Examples
1: It’s either Monday or Tuesday. I
It’s not Monday
So it’s Tuesday

2. Either John or Mary went to the market.

∴ Mary went to the market.

John didn’t go.

3. Either John is at home or at the gym.

∴ John is at the gym.

John is not at home.

4.I will eat rice or beans.

∴ I will eat beans.

I will not eat rice.

1. “It’s either Sunday or Monday.

43
 It’s not Sunday.
Then it’s Monday.”

Rule 5: Addition (Add)

Form: (From , infer)

∴P∨Q
P

Idea: You can always add possibilities, even irrelevant ones.

Explanation: If a statement P is true, then the disjunction P ∨ Q (read as “P or Q”) must also be true-
“I am awake. Therefore, I am awake or dreaming.”

regardless of whether Q is true or false. This is because in Logic, an “or statement is true if at least
one of the parts is true”)

Examples

∴ It is cold or it is raining.
1. It is cold today.

∴ It is sunny or it is raining.
2. It is sunny.

∴ She is a student or a teacher.

3. She is a student.

4. “I’m eating.
So, I’m eating or flying to the moon.”

Rule 6: Simplification (Simp)

P∧Q
Form: (From , infer)

∴P
(or ∴ Q)

Idea: Pick one from a package: If two things are true together, either is true alone.
Explanation: if two statements are true together (conjunction), then each one is true
individually.

Examples:
1. “I’m tired and hungry.
So, I’m tired.”

∴ It is Monday.
2. It is Monday and I have class.

∴ It is Monday.
3. It is Monday and I have an exam.

∴ He is tall.
4. He is tall and he is smart.

5. “She is a doctor and a teacher.

Therefore, she is a doctor.”

44
Rule 7: Conjunction (Conj)

Form:

Q∴ P ∧ Q
P

∴ P ∧ Q)
(P, Q

Idea: Combine truths: If two things are true independently, they're true together. “I like apples. I like
oranges. So, I like apples and oranges.”
Explanation: if two statements are both true separately, you can combine them
into one compound statement using “and”
Examples:
1. He sings.
He dances.
Therefore, he sings and dances.
2. It is Tuesday.

∴ It is Tuesday and I have a meeting.

I have a meeting.

3. The sky is blue.

∴ The sky is blue and the grass is green.

The grass is green.

4. I passed English.

∴ I passed English and Mathematics.

I passed Mathematics.

Rule 8: Constructive Dilemma (CD)

(P → Q) ∧ (R → S)
Form:

P∨R
∴Q∨S

Idea:
Two if-then traps: whichever starting point happens, an ending must follow.
“If it rains, I’ll stay in. If it’s hot, I’ll go swimming. It’s either raining or hot. So, I’ll either stay in or
swim.”

Explanation: if two conditional statements are true and at least one of the premises is true (P or R),
then at least one of the conclusions must be true (Q or S). It’s like facing two possible scenarios, and
either way, a result will follow
Examples
1. If I study, I will pass.
If I play hard, I will relax.
I will either study or play hard.
Therefore, I will either pass or relax.

2. If I read, I’ll learn.

If I travel, I’ll explore.
45
 I’ll either read or travel.
So, I’ll either learn or explore.

3. If I go to the party, I’ll have fun.

If I stay home, I’ll rest.

∴ I’ll have fun or rest.

Either I go to the party or stay home.

4. If I go out, I’ll get wet.

If I stay home, I’ll be bored.

∴ I’ll get wet or be bored.

Either I go out or stay home.

5. If she travels, she’ll see Paris.

If she stays, she’ll write a book.

∴ She will either see Paris or write a book.

She will either travel or stay.

(P → Q) ∧ (R → S)
Rule 9: Destructive Dilemma (DD) Form:

¬Q ∨ ¬S
∴ ¬P ∨ ¬R
Idea:
Two outcomes denied, so causes fail: if neither conclusion is true, one of the conditions didn’t occur.
“If I cook, we’ll eat. If I drive, we’ll travel. We neither ate nor traveled. So I neither cooked nor
drove.”
Explanation: if the outcomes of two conditional statements are both false (or at least one is), then at
least one of the starting conditions must also be false. It’s like saying: if you didn’t get the result, then
the cause didn’t happen.
Examples:
1. If I wake up early, I will go jogging
If I have time, I will cook.
But i didn’t jog or cook.
Therefore, I didn’t wake up early or didn’t have time.

2. If I win the lottery, I’ll buy a car.

If I get promoted, I’ll move to a bigger house.
I did neither.
So I didn’t win or get promoted.

3. If I work hard, I’ll pass.

If I play too much, I’ll fail.

∴ I didn’t work hard or I didn’t play too much.

I didn’t pass or I didn’t fail.

4. If I win the lottery, I’ll buy a car.

If I get promoted, I’ll move cities.

∴ I didn’t win the lottery or I didn’t get promoted.

I didn’t buy a car or I didn’t move cities.

5. If the alarm rings, we evacuate.

If there is a fire, we call 911.
46
 ∴ The alarm didn’t ring or there was no fire.
We didn’t evacuate or we didn’t call 911.

Other rules of inferences include:

10. Biconditional Introduction (BI): If P ↔ Q and Q → P, the P Q
11. Biconditional Elimination (BE): If P Q, then P → Q and Q → P.
12. Double Negation (DN): If ¬ ¬ P, then P
13. De Morgans Laws

9.3 Argument Analysis Using Rules of Inferences

A. Steps in Argument Analysis

1. Identify premises and conclusion.
2. Translate statements into logical form.
3. Determine which rule(s) apply.
4. Apply rules to derive the conclusion.
5. Check the argument’s validity.

B. Example Analysis
Argument:
If it is raining, then the ground is wet.

∴ The ground is wet.

It is raining.

Analysis:
P: It is raining

Form: P → Q, P ∴ Q (Modus Ponens)

Q: The ground is wet

C. Practice Argument

Argument:
If I eat too much, I get sick.
If I get sick, I stay in bed.

∴ I stay in bed.
I eat too much.

Analysis:
P: I eat too much
Q: I get sick
R: I stay in bed

1. P → Q
2. Q → R
3. P

and derived P → R: R (Modus Ponens) ∴ I stay in bed.

From 1 and 2: P → R (Hypothetical Syllogism) From 3

9.4 Conclusion

47
Understanding the rules of inference is essential to critical thinking, logical reasoning, and clear
communication. Mastery of these rules empowers students to evaluate arguments logically and
construct persuasive reasoning.

More Examples of Argument Analysis

Below are argument analysis examples for each of the 9 Rules of Inference, with at least 3 examples
per rule. Each argument is broken down into its premises and conclusion, and the rule used is
identified.

1. Modus Ponens (MP) – If P → Q and P, then Q

Example 1:
Premise 1: If it is raining, then the ground is wet.
Premise 2: It is raining.
Conclusion: Therefore, the ground is wet.

Example 2:
Premise 1: If a person is a teacher, then they have a degree.
Premise 2: John is a teacher.
Conclusion: Therefore, John has a degree.

Example 3:
Premise 1: If I study hard, I will pass.
Premise 2: I studied hard.
Conclusion: Therefore, I will pass.

2. Modus Tollens (MT) – If P → Q and ¬Q, then ¬P

Example 1:
Premise 1: If the machine is on, the light will be blinking.
Premise 2: The light is not blinking.
Conclusion: Therefore, the machine is not on.

Example 2:
Premise 1: If this chemical is acidic, it will turn blue litmus red.
Premise 2: It did not turn the litmus red.
Conclusion: Therefore, the chemical is not acidic.

Example 3:
Premise 1: If a book is interesting, I will finish it in a day.
Premise 2: I didn’t finish it in a day.
Conclusion: Therefore, the book is not interesting.

3. Hypothetical Syllogism (HS) – If P → Q and Q → R, then P → R

Example 1:
Premise 1: If I wake up early, I will get to the station on time.
Premise 2: If I get to the station on time, I will catch the train.
Conclusion: Therefore, if I wake up early, I will catch the train.

Example 2:
48
Premise 1: If we plant trees, they will grow.
Premise 2: If they grow, the air will be cleaner.
Conclusion: Therefore, if we plant trees, the air will be cleaner.

Example 3:
Premise 1: If it snows, the roads will be slippery.
Premise 2: If the roads are slippery, accidents will increase.
Conclusion: Therefore, if it snows, accidents will increase.

4. Disjunctive Syllogism (DS) – P ∨ Q, ¬P ⟹ Q

Example 1:
Premise 1: The answer is either A or B.
Premise 2: It is not A.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is B.

Example 2:
Premise 1: Either the phone is off or the battery is dead.
Premise 2: The phone is not off.
Conclusion: Therefore, the battery is dead.

Example 3:
Premise 1: I will eat pizza or pasta.
Premise 2: I will not eat pizza.
Conclusion: Therefore, I will eat pasta.

5. Addition – P ⟹ P ∨ Q
Example 1:
Premise: I am hungry.
Conclusion: Therefore, I am hungry or tired.

Example 2:
Premise: The sun is shining.
Conclusion: Therefore, the sun is shining or it is raining.

Example 3:
Premise: Water boils at 100°C.
Conclusion: Therefore, water boils at 100°C or it freezes at 0°C.

6. Simplification – P ∧ Q ⟹ P

Example 1:
Premise: I studied and I passed.
Conclusion: Therefore, I studied.

Example 2:
Premise: She is a doctor and a writer.
Conclusion: Therefore, she is a doctor.

Example 3:

49
Premise: The engine is running and the lights are on.
Conclusion: Therefore, the engine is running.

7. Conjunction – P, Q ⟹ P ∧ Q
Example 1:
Premises: The sky is blue. The grass is green.
Conclusion: Therefore, the sky is blue and the grass is green.

Example 2:
Premises: I love music. I play the piano.
Conclusion: Therefore, I love music and I play the piano.

Example 3:
Premises: The door is open. The light is on.
Conclusion: Therefore, the door is open and the light is on.

8. Constructive Dilemma – (P → Q) ∧ (R → S), P ∨ R ⟹ Q ∨ S

Example 1:
Premises: If I study, I will pass. If I sleep early, I will feel fresh.
Premise: I will either study or sleep early.
Conclusion: Therefore, I will pass or feel fresh.

Example 2:
Premises: If it rains, the crops will grow. If it’s sunny, we’ll go out.
Premise: Either it rains or it’s sunny.
Conclusion: Therefore, the crops will grow or we’ll go out.

Example 3:
Premises: If I win, I’ll celebrate. If I lose, I’ll learn.
Premise: I’ll either win or lose.
Conclusion: Therefore, I’ll celebrate or learn.

9. Destructive Dilemma – (P → Q) ∧ (R → S), ¬Q ∨ ¬S ⟹ ¬P ∨ ¬R

Example 1:
Premises: If I study, I will pass. If I play too much, I will fail.
Premise: I didn’t pass or I didn’t fail.
Conclusion: Therefore, I didn’t study or I didn’t play too much.

Example 2:
Premises: If the car is on, the engine makes noise. If the fan is on, it spins.
Premise: The engine is silent or the fan is still.
Conclusion: Therefore, the car isn’t on or the fan isn’t on.

Example 3:
Premises: If the device works, the screen will light up. If the charger is plugged, the battery will
charge.
Premise: The screen doesn’t light up or the battery didn’t charge.
Conclusion: Therefore, the device doesn’t work or the charger isn’t plugged.

50
 UNIT TEN

INTRODUCTION TO INFORMAL FALLACIES

10.1 Introduction
Errors in reasoning, also known as fallacies, are mistakes in argumentation that underline the logical
validity or persuasiveness of an argument. Errors in reasoning are broadly divided into formal
fallacies and informal fallacies. In this units we shall study informal fallacies.
Informal fallacies are errors in reasoning that arise due to problems in the content, language,
assumptions, or context of an argument, rather than in its formal structure. Informal fallacies often
appear persuasive but lack true logical support. These fallacies are also known as material fallacies.
They are psychologically persuasive but not logically persuasive. In informal fallacies, there are no
mistakes in the formal structure of arguments rather, they are rooted in the failure of the evidence to
be relevant to the conclusion or in some injustice and ambiguity. Informal fallacies rests on the
content of the argument. Unlike formal fallacy, no any coded rules is violated. Individuals may fall
into this error because of his or her carelessness, coupled with inattention or being misled by
language problems. They are common in everyday conversation, politics, media, and leadership
communication. Recognizing informal fallacies is vital for clear thinking, ethical leadership, and
sound judgment.

10.2 Categories of Informal Fallacies

Informal fallacies could be divided into four groups: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of ambiguity,
fallacies of Presumption and fallacies of weak Induction

10.2.1. Fallacies of Relevance

These are fallacies whose premises are not relevant to the conclusion. These fallacies distract from
the issue at hand by appealing to something irrelevant. These fallacies present the premises of
arguments in such a way that their conclusion could be doubted. That is, given the premises of an

51
argument, we do not have a strong conviction or confidence for accepting the conclusion of such
argument.
Fallacies of relevance include ad hominem, appeal to pity, appeal to authority, red herring, Straw
man.

1.Ad Hominem (Personal Attack): Attacking the person instead of addressing their argument.
Types: Abusive: Insulting the speaker, Pointing to the speaker's situation or bias.
The main business of this fallacy is to attack the person who advances an argument rather than
providing a rational critique of the argument itself. The attacker’s main objective is to make it
assertion acceptable. This fallacy is informed of character assassination.
For instance:
Mr. A: President Tinubu of the Federal Territory of Nigeria will be the next African Union Chairman
Mr. B: Mr. Tinubu is the president of one of the most corrupted countries in the world.
Therefore, it is impossible for him to become the future African union chairman.

An argument against the person does not always involve outright verbal abuse. Subtle ways are
sometimes used but with the sole aim of discrediting an opponent by suggesting that the opponent’s
judgment is distorted by some factor in his or her circumstances. This form of argument is sometimes
called the circumstantial ad hominem. For instance, during the celebration of their marriage, Mr. and
Mrs. Kule refused to serve beer to their guests. They claimed that no born-again child of God would
either drink or serve beer to other persons. Here, you can see that Mr. and Mrs. Kunle commit the
circumstantial form of the argument and hominem fallacy. You should always remember that the
attack in the argument against the person can take three forms:
i.Abusive: direct personal attack on the opponent.
ii.Circumstantial: attempt to discredit by calling attention to the circumstances or situation of the
opponent.
iii.Tu quoque: this is committed when in an argument, rather than defending oneself, the arguer is
being found guilty.
iv.The fallacy of attacking affiliation: this is occurring when in an argument, it is concluded that a
people should either be accepted or rejected because he belongs to a group or association which one
does not like or that is unpopular with one’s audience. Example: "Don't listen to her ideas on
education — she never even finished school."

2.Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum). This argument uses threats to make someone accept
a conclusion. Example: "You either accept the plan or risk losing your job." The word Baculum is a
Latin word which stands for “staff”. Here, the word ‘Staff’ is seen as a symbol of power.
Argumentum ad Baculum fallacy is mostly used whenever a conclusion is defended by a threat to the
well- being of those who do not accept it. The threat can be physical, moral or psychological. It can
be implicit or explicit. Here is the case of a physical threat: “Godwin, I don’t want to see you driving
any car to campus whenever you have my class. Do you realize I am your teacher and I am the alpha
and omega of this course? I am the one who will determine whether you pass or fail at the end of the
semester. It is better you comply or else you will fail this course” You can see here that there is no
logical link the threatened “you will fail” on the conclusion. Of course you will agree that there is
nothing bad in Godwin a car to campus. But it is probable that the threat might induce Godwin to
accept the conclusion. Another example is the case of a psychological threat: “Listen, Valerie, I know
you disagree with my view about the building project. You have made your disagreement clear to
everyone. Well, it time for you to see that you are mistaken. Let me get right to the point.
I know you have been lying to your husband about where you go on Wednesday afternoons. Unless
you want him to know where you really go, its time for you to realize that I have been right about the
building project all long. You follow me?” (Layman, 2002, p. 127). You can see here that even though
the threat to expose the lie has no relationship with the building project, it may still work because fear
is a strong motivator, and it can influence, some one’s thinking.

52
3.Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam). This argument tries to win support by making
people feel sorry. Example: "You must hire me; I have six children to feed! Misericordiam is a Latin
word that stands for “pity” or mercy”. So, argumentum ad misericordiam is a fallacy that attempt to
support a conclusion simply by evoking pity in one’s audience even though the statements that evoke
the pity are logically unrelated to the conclusion. For example: “I want to build more schools, more
hospitals, and create more employment opportunity. If you don’t vote for me this second term, I
cannot achieve these, therefore vote for me the second term”. The appeal to pity is mostly used by
politicians during campaign for election and by lawyers. The lawyer’s main objective is to get the
court to accept the conclusion that a client is innocent or at least to obtain a reduction in the measure
of punishment.

4.Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum) Bandwagon Fallacy

This fallacy involves arguing that something must be true because everyone believes it. Example:
"Everyone is buying this product, so it must be the best." " Remember that “Populum” is a Latin
word with stands for “people” or “nation” so argumentum ad populum occurs when you try to
persuade someone or a group by appealing to their emotion, feeling and sentiments. This is mostly
used in political campaigns, public debates and advertising. Here is a typical case of political
campaign: “I look out at you all, and I tell you, I am proud to be here. Proud to belong to a party that
stands for what is good for America. Proud to cast my lot with the kind of people who make this
nation great. Proud to stand with men and women who can get our nation back on its feet. Yes, there
are those who criticize us, who label our view of trade agreements as ‘protectionist’. But when I look
at you hard- working people, I know we are right, and the critics are wrong”.
You can see that the sole purpose of this speech is to persuade the crowd no matter what. It is
fallacious because the premises to the effect that “I am proud to be associated with you” and “you are
hardworking people” are irrelevant to the conclusion: “our view of trade agreements is right”. Also
bear in mind that you do not necessarily need to address a large group before you commit this kind of
fallacy. Whatever you try to convince by appealing to the need of or acceptance of your view by other
people, makes you to commit the fallacy. Here is an example: Miss Riley, are you saying that
President Bush made a moral error when he decided to go to war with Iraq? I cannot believe my ears.
That is not how Americans feel. Not true Americans, anyway. You are an American, aren’t you Miss
Riley?
This is a fallacy because there is no logical connection between the fact that Miss Riley is an
American therefore Iraq war must be justified.

5.Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam). This occurs when an argument relies on an

authority who is not qualified in the field. Example: "A famous musician says this medicine works,
so it must be effective."

6.Red Herring. This involves introducing an irrelevant issue to divert attention. Example: "Why
worry about the economy when there are wars happening abroad?" It is committed when the person
responding to an argument fails to address whichever issue(s) the arguer has raised. In a way, the
respondent distracts the arguer’s attention because the respondent is evasive.
Example:
Alan: “The use of condom during sex should be encouraged. This is because it prevents un wanted
pregnancy among youths”
Ecka: Mr Alan, are you a Christian or a Muslim?
Alan: I am neither a Christian nor a Muslim. I am a traditionalist.

Here, Ecka did not address the issue that was raised by Alan in his argument rather he only distracts
his attention.

53
7.Fallacy of Irrelevant conclusion (Ignoratio Elenchi). This fallacy is also celled fallacy of
ignoring the issue. This is because the conclusion that is drawn in the argument is irrelevant to the
premises, i.e. non sequitur. For example: “The members of the National Assembly have been accused
of official misconducts. Therefore, the Assembly complex should be closed down”

8.Straw Man. Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.

Example: "She wants to reduce military spending. Clearly, she wants to leave the country
defenseless." Give better examples

9.Fallacy of Accident: This fallacy is committed when a claim is based on a rule that is generally
valid, but the arguer fails to see the case at hand as an exception. It is common among legalist,
moralist, educationists, and other social theorists who always infer answer to specific human issues
from some absolute moral, legal, educational and other social rules (Ibid.). For example, these set of
people can reason that given that lying is bad, and then one should not tell lies, even to save life of an
innocent being. Or, given that the idea of murder is bad, it is unhuman to commit abortion, even if it
is to save life of the mother or even when the foetus is to be epileptically defective.

10.2.2 Fallacies of Ambiguity.

These occur when arguments are based on ambiguous or unclear language. These are linguistic
fallacies. These fallacies occur when ambiguous words, phrase or statements occur in arguments
without carefully attending to the ambiguity. You must know that ambiguous words are words that
has more than one meaning in a statement or when it can be used in more than one way. For instance,
the word “file” can be used to refer to metal tool with roughened surface or cover case for keeping
papers together for reference purpose and it can refer to line of persons or one behind the other. We
shall focus here only on the four (04) major fallacies of ambiguity.

1.Fallacy of Equivocation: There are some words that contain more than one meaning. The fallacy
of equivocation occurs when such a word is used in a manner that implies different meanings or
senses of the word within the same context. For instance: only man is rational. But no woman is a
man. Therefore, no woman is rational. This is a fallacy of equivocation because the word “man” is
used with two different senses within the same context. In the first sentence, the word “man” means
“humans” while in the second, it means “male humans”. Again, equivocation involves using a word
in two different senses within an argument. Example: "A feather is light. What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark."

2.Fallacy of Amphiboly: The fallacies of amphiboly and ambiguity are very similar. The only
difference is that in the fallacy of amphiboly, the double meaning is due to syntactic or sentence
structure such as a grammatical error or a mistake in punctuation. The fallacy of amphiboly is more
subtle and harder to detect than that of Equivocation. It mostly occurs when we misinterpret
someone’s original statement or intention. Here are typical cases. “Tunde removed the egg from the
cup. So, Samuel broke it.” Although, we know the meaning of the word ‘it’, but what this word refers
to is not clear to us. What did Samuel break? Is it the glass cup or the egg? Again, fallacy of
ambiguity is caused by poor grammatical construction. Example: "I saw a man on a hill with a
telescope." (Who has the telescope?)

3.Fallacy of composition: There are two major ways of committing the fallacy of composition.
These are:
1.) When a part is identified with the whole. That is, the parts have the attribute “X” therefore the
whole has attribute “X”. For instance,
i.) Each of the parts of this car engine is very light, therefore the car engine is very light.
ii.) Each player on the football team is outstanding. Hence, the team itself is outstanding.
54
The fallacy of composition is committed here because even though the car engine is made up of very
light parts but when put together the car engine itself becomes very heavy. It is the same with the
football team. Even though each of the players is outstanding and there is a lack of team work or
insufficient opportunity to practice together the team may not be outstanding.

2.) The second kind of the fallacy of composition is committed when there is confusion between the
“distributive” and “collective” use of general terms, for example:
Elephants eat more than humans. So, elephant taken as a group eat more than humans taken as a
group”. There is a fallacy of composition here because in the premises: “Elephant eat more than
humans”, the attribute of “eating more than” is predicated distributively, that is, each individual
elephant is said to eat more than any individual human eats. However, in the conclusion, the attribute
“eating more than” is predicated collectively; that is, elephant taken as a group are said to eat more
than humans taken as a group which is not true. Because there are so many more humans than
elephant.
Again, fallacy of composition involves assuming that what is true of parts must be true of the whole.
Example: "Each member of the team is excellent, so the team must be excellent."

4. Fallacy of Division
The fallacy of division is nothing more than the opposite of composition. In the fallacy of division, if
the whole has the attribute “X”, therefore the parts must have the attribute “X” as well.

Example: “the airplane is heavy, so each of its part is heavy”. There is a fallacy of division here
because some of the parts of a heavy air plane may be very light. Here is an example of the second
type of division fallacy; the soccer team is excellent. Hence, each member of the team is excellent.
There is a fallacy of division here because a team may be excellent due to team work and few
outstanding players and yet have members who are not themselves excellent players. Again, fallacy of
division involves assuming that what is true of the whole must be true of its parts. Example: "The
company is wealthy; therefore, each employee must be wealthy."

10.2.3 Fallacies of Presumption

These occur when an argument unjustifiably assumes something to be true.
This fallacy is committed, when there is the assumption in the argument’s premises, of what the
arguer is out to prove. We shall discuss three of these types of fallacies and these includes the fallacy
of complex or loaded question, fallacy of leading question and begging the question (Petito-
principii).

1.Fallacy of Complex or loaded Question: This fallacy of complex question is committed when two
or more questions are asked together at once and as an answer to one question allows one to draw a
conclusion regarding the other question. Example of such fallacy: “Have you stopped beating your
wife?” here the questioner thus assumes the person addressed has a wife, and beats his wife. Hence, it
is a complex question to answer. It occurs when asking a question that presupposes something
unproven. Example: "When did you stop cheating on exams?"

2 Fallacy of Leading Question: This occurs when an arguer attempts to base his claim on a
‘prepared’ answer, such as a witness under cross examination. For example, “You don’t know any of
the accused person; do you? No, I don’t. This fallacy is commonly used by Lawyers and any other
investigative officers to extract information from suspects and criminals.

3. Fallacy of Begging the question (Petito-pricipii): Petito-pricipii is a Latin word which means
Begging the principle. The fallacy of Begging the question is any form of argument whose conclusion
is nothing more than a restatement of one of the premises. This form of fallacy is otherwise called
Circular reasoning. Example “God exist because the Bible tells us so, we know that whatever the
55
Bible tells us must be true because it is the revealed words of God. Lying is wrong because it's not
right to lie."

10.2.4 Fallacies of Weak Induction. These fallacies are committed, when in an argument, the
premises offer some but not enough evidence for the conclusion. Some of these fallacies are
discussed below.
1. Fallacy of Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Veracudiam): This is a fallacy based on
accepting uncritically the judgment of an expert merely because he is an authority without mindful of
the evident contained in the premises of the argument which ought to indicate the conclusion. For
example: “Rev. Father Kuka has claimed that marriage must be between a man and a woman.
Therefore, gay marriage should not be legalized.”
2.Fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignoratiam): The appeal to ignorance means
that the conclusion of an argument is proven simply because nobody has proved the opposite. Here is
a typical example: “After centuries trying, no one has been able to prove that reincarnation occurs.
So, at this point, I think we can safely conclude that reincarnation does not occur.” You can see that
this fallacy has its own limits. That it has not been proven may be erroneous. This logic cannot hold
in scientific matters mostly based on hypothesis and “wait and see” attitude.

3.Fallacy of False Cause: There are many forms of false cause fallacy. But the most common form is
called in Latin post hoc, ergopropter hoc, which means “after this, therefore because of this”.
Generally, a false cause fallacy occurs when the arguer illegitimately assumes a possible cause of a
phenomenon to be the only cause although reasons are lacking for excluding other possible causes.
Here is an example: “Since I came into office 2 years ago, the rate of violent crime has decreased
significantly. So, the longer prison sentences we recommended are working. “. There is false cause
because the longer prison sentences may be a causal factor, but the simple fact that the longer
sentences preceded the decrease in violent crime does not prove this. There is no doubt that other
causal factors need to be considered.
False cause fallacy (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc) involves assuming that because one event followed
another, it was caused by it. Example: "The rooster crows before sunrise; therefore, the rooster
causes the sunrise."

4.Slippery Slope: A Slippery Slope argument, of course fallacious, has a unique structure as follows:
There is a slope- a chain of causes. It is slippery. Therefore, if you take even one step on the slope,
you will slide and fall all the way to the bottom. Since the bottom is a bad place to be, you should not
take the first step. Slippery slope fallacy occurs when in argument, it is concluded that an event
should be prevented from happening due to the belief that its occurrence will bring the occurrence of
certain other events we do not want or wish to have them happen.
Example: “If there is labour strike, schools will not run, pupils will stay at home, market will be
closed, the economy will be affected. So, strike should not be allowed, or labour strike should be
prevented or avoided”. The major problem with arguing this way is that unwanted events may not
follow from the event that the claim advocates should be prevented.

5.Fallacy of Hasty Generalization: This involves drawing a broad conclusion from a small or
unrepresentative sample. Example: "Two members of that political party lied; therefore, all members
are liars." This fallacy is an argument which applies not only to the premise cases, but also to cases
that are different in kind from those referred to in the premises. For example: someone who has
observed the performance of most logic students at interviews and then concludes that the

56
understanding of logic enhances human skill at answering questions, thus, its study must be enforced
in schools. .
6.False Dichotomy (False Dilemma). This involves Presenting only two options when more exist.
Example: "You're either with us or against us." In logic, the fallacy of false dilemma simply means
that you use a premise that unjustifiably reduces the number of alternatives to be considered. In other
words, there is a fallacy of false dilemma when the arguer assumes without justification, a limited
number of possible alternatives when there is more than that.
Here is a typical case:
“I’m tired of all these young people criticizing their own country. What I say is this, Nigeria, love it
or leave it! And since these people obviously do not want to leave the country, they should love it
instead of criticizing it”.
There is a fallacy of false dilemma here because the argument presupposes that there are only two
options: either you love Nigeria (uncritically) or you emigrate. However, you should know that there
are other possibilities or alternatives. You should also know that an argument cannot be called false
dilemma unless you are able to specify at least one alternative that has been ignored. You should also
remember that it is not every false cause fallacy that involves the unwarranted assumption that if X
precedes Y, then X causes Y.

7.Slippery Slope. This involves arguing that a small step will inevitably lead to a disastrous chain of
events. Example: "If we allow students to submit late assignments, soon they won't submit anything
on time."

8.Suppressed Evidence. This involves ignoring important evidence that would affect the conclusion.
Example: "This medicine is safe because it's natural," ignoring reports of side effects.

9. Gamblers’ Fallacy: This fallacy is committed when one argues that given the sequential or the
frequent occurrences of an event in series, the probability of its (the event) reoccurrence will increase.
For instance: “Socrates played Ludo game 10times and he lost, therefore, the probability that he will
lose the 11th game has decreased.”
You need to know that the winning or losing of the game at the 11 th time should be seen on 50-50
basis. The game can end in either way for Socrates irrespective of the previous sequential frequent
occurrences.

Other Specific Informal Fallacies

1. Appeal to Tradition. This involves Arguing that something is right because it has always
been done that way. Example: "We have always used paper ballots, so they must be the best
method."
2. Appeal to Novelty. This involves claiming something is better because it is new. Example:
"This new diet must be better because it is more recent."

10.2.5 Strategies for Identifying Informal Fallacies

1. Ask: Are the premises actually relevant to the conclusion?
2. Check for ambiguity: Are words or phrases being used unclearly?
3. Look for hidden assumptions: What is being taken for granted?
4. Demand evidence: Is there sufficient, representative support?
5. Guard against emotion: Is the argument playing on feelings rather than facts?

10.2.6 Application: Why Informal Fallacies Matters in learning.

57
Leaders must reason clearly and communicate ethically.
Followers must recognize poor reasoning to make wise choices.
Trust in leadership depends on sound arguments, not manipulation.
Avoiding fallacies builds integrity, respect, and good judgment.

UNIT ELEVEN
CRITICAL AND CREATIVE THINKING

11.0 Introduction:
Thinking is the active, purposeful, and organized process of generating ideas, making judgments,
solving problems, and making decisions. It is an essential mental activity that shapes how individuals
perceive, interpret, and engage with the world.

11.1 Critical Thinking’.

Critical thinking is the ability to analyze facts, evaluate arguments, identify logical relationships, and
make reasoned judgments free from personal bias or emotional influences.
Critical thinking involves the disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, analyzing,
synthesizing, and evaluating information to guide belief and action. However, it is not a natural or
spontaneous skill—it must be cultivated using specific tools and techniques.

11.2 Core Characteristics of Critical Thinking:

Clarity: Expressing thoughts clearly and precisely.
Accuracy: Seeking truth and correctness.
Relevance: Focusing on pertinent information.
Logic: Drawing conclusions based on rational connections.
Open-mindedness: Willingness to consider alternative viewpoints.

58
11.3 Processes Involved:
Identifying assumptions
Evaluating evidence
Distinguishing between facts and opinions
Recognizing fallacies
Drawing inferences and conclusions

11.4 Stages of Critical Thinking Development

Critical thinking is not a skill one either has or lacks—it is a developmental process. Individuals grow
in their capacity to think critically through deliberate practice, reflection, and education.
Understanding the stages of critical thinking development enables learners to recognize where they
stand and how they can progress toward more refined and mature thinking. The model proposed by
Richard Paul and Linda Elder outlines six stages of development. These stages show a progression
from unreflective, unaware thinking to sophisticated, skilled, and self-directed reasoning.

1. The Six Stages of Critical Thinking Development

Stage 1: The Unreflective Thinker. They are characterized by lack of awareness of significant
problems in thinking and passive acceptance of beliefs, opinions, and ideas. Thinking here is often
influenced by emotion, bias, and social conditioning.
Behaviourally, the unreflective thinker ignores evidence that contradicts beliefs., uses simplistic
reasoning, and rarely questions assumptions or personal viewpoints. The unreflective thinker can
grow by introduce the concept of thinking about thinking (metacognition) and using reflective
questioning to provoke awareness of one’s thought process.

Stage 2: The Challenged Thinker. At this stage, the thinker becomes aware that thinking can have
flaws, recognizes the influence of biases, assumptions, and poor reasoning and begins to question
own thinking and decisions.
Behaviorally, he/she identifies inconsistency in reasoning, but often struggles to correct it. Begins to
notice flawed arguments in others' thinking and may feel defensive or frustrated by the realization of
fallibility. He/she could improve by encouraging intellectual humility and perseverance and engaging
in exercises that identifies fallacies or biases.

Stage 3: The Beginning Thinker. The beginning thinker begins to take active steps toward improving
thinking, shows basic understanding of the importance of clarity, logic, and evidence and attempt to
structure thinking more logically.
Behaviourally, the beginning thinker strives to analyze and evaluate ideas critically, though
inconsistently, recognizes egocentric and sociocentric influences and starts applying criteria to assess
arguments. Growth strategies include providing critical thinking frameworks (e.g., elements of
thought, standards of reasoning) and assigning reflective journals and structured debates.

Stage 4: The Practicing Thinker. At this stage, the thinker demonstrates regular engagement in
improving thinking skills, applies intellectual standards (clarity, relevance, logic, fairness, etc.) more
consistently and is capable of identifying elements of thought and evaluating them with growing
precision. Behaviourally, he/she engages in self-assesses more effectively, practices empathy, open-
mindedness, and fair-mindedness and begins to internalize critical thinking dispositions.
He/she could improve by using complex case studies, simulations, and interdisciplinary problems.
And should also encourage peer review and collaborative reflection.

Stage 5: The Advanced Thinker. Here, thinking becomes more intuitive, automatic, and integrated.
The thinker routinely evaluates own assumptions and evidence and shows shows strong control over
egocentric and emotional influences. Behaviourally, he/she challenges the status quo respectfully and
insightfully, thinks across multiple domains with critical insight and seeks deeper meaning and long-
59
term implications in decisions. Growth strategies include taking up independent research, leadership
in group problem-solving, or mentoring roles and promoting cross-disciplinary thinking and ethical
reflection.

Stage 6: The Master Thinker. At the master’s stage, the thinker exemplifies deep, insightful, and
ethical thinking as a habit of life, maintains a high level of intellectual integrity and fair-mindedness
and embodies lifelong learning and reflective practice. The behaviours of the master thinker include
modeling critical thinking for others, navigates complex, uncertain, or controversial issues with skill
and demonstrating intellectual courage and responsibility. Improvement strategies include
encouraging scholarly inquiry, leadership in discourse, and social responsibility.
Support original thinking, publications, and presentations.

11.5
A. Progression Through the Stages
Advancement from one stage to the next requires:
Deliberate Practice – frequent and conscious use of critical thinking skills.
Feedback and Mentorship – receiving constructive feedback from educators and peers.
Intellectual Virtues – cultivating traits like humility, courage, empathy, and perseverance.
Reflection – regular self-examination and willingness to grow intellectually.

B. Importance of the Stages

Understanding these stages:
Helps learners identify their current level.
Guides educators in crafting appropriate learning activities.
Encourages patience and persistence in developing a vital lifelong skill.
Fosters a more reflective, democratic, and rational society.
Critical thinking is a developmental journey, not a static trait. Recognizing the stages—from
unreflective to master thinker—empowers individuals to consciously cultivate better reasoning,
judgment, and decision-making. In a world of increasing complexity, developing through these stages
is essential for academic, professional, and civic excellence.

11.6 Tools and Techniques to Enhance Critical Thinking

1. Conceptual Tools for Critical Thinking
i. Elements of Thought (Paul-Elder Framework)
The Elements of Thought are eight fundamental components used in reasoning:
Purpose – What is the goal of the thinking?
Question at issue – What question is being asked?
Information – What data or evidence is being used?
Interpretation and Inference – What conclusions are being drawn?
Concepts – What theories, definitions, or laws are involved?
Assumptions – What is being taken for granted?
Implications and Consequences – What are the outcomes of this thinking?
Point of View – What perspective is being used?
Use in class: Analyze texts, speeches, or arguments using these elements to dissect reasoning.

ii. Intellectual Standards

These are universal criteria used to assess the quality of reasoning:
Clarity – Is the meaning plain and understandable?
Accuracy – Is the information true and free of error?
Precision – Are details specific and exact?
Relevance – Is it related to the issue?

60
Depth – Are the complexities addressed?
Breadth – Are multiple perspectives considered?
Logic – Do conclusions follow from evidence?
Significance – Is the most important information emphasized?
Fairness – Is thinking free from bias?
Use in class: Apply these standards to evaluate arguments in essays, debates, and research papers.

2. Practical Techniques for Enhancing Critical Thinking

i.Socratic Questioning: This involves disciplined, thoughtful dialogue by asking questions that probe
assumptions, evidence, viewpoints and perspectives, consequences and implications.
Examples of Socratic questions: What do you mean by that? How do you know that is true? What is
an alternative perspective? What are the implications if you are correct?

ii. Argument Mapping: Argument mapping is the visual representation of the structure of an
argument: Premises (supporting statements), conclusions (main claims) and objections/rebuttals
Argument mapping is beneficial because it clarifies relationships between ideas, identifies weak or
missing links and improves logical coherence.

iii.Reflective Journaling. This encourages students to write about how they reached a
conclusion,what assumptions influenced them and what alternative interpretations they considered.
The benefits include the promotion of self-awareness and metacognition and reinforcement of
intellectual virtues (e.g., humility, empathy)

iv.Comparative Analysis. Here, students compare and contrast different theories, case studies,
historical events and philosophical arguments. Learners can adopt the use of Venn diagrams, T-charts,
or written comparisons to explore similarities, differences, and implications.

v.Problem-Based Learning (PBL). Here, students take up complex, real-world problems without
predefined solutions. This technique is beneficial because it encourages independent investigation,
enhances collaboration and evidence-based reasoning and stimulates inquiry and curiosity.

vi.Case Studies and Simulations. This involves analyzing real-life or hypothetical cases using
critical thinking tools. It is Beneficial as it provides context for abstract concepts and develops
decision-making and ethical reasoning.

vii. Role-Playing and Debates: Here, students assume various perspectives to argue different
positions.
The technique is beneficial because it promotes empathy and understanding of multiple viewpoints,
strengthens argumentation and rebuttal skills.

11.7 Digital Tools to Support Critical Thinking

Padlet / Miro – For collaborative mapping and brainstorming
Kialo – For structured debates
Google Scholar / JSTOR – For evidence-based research
Turnitin Feedback Studio – For self and peer review of reasoning
Diigo / Hypothesis – For annotating and critiquing texts online

11.8Barriers to Critical Thinking

Several barriers hinder the development and application of critical thinking. The barrier here refers to
anything that obstructs or impedes progress. In this context, a barrier to critical thinking is any factor

61
 that prevents or distorts clear, rational, and logical reasoning. These barriers may be psychological,
emotional, social, cultural, or cognitive in nature and can prevent individuals from objectively
analyzing information and forming well-reasoned judgments. This note explores these barriers in
detail and offers insights into how they can be identified and addressed.

Categories and Types of Barriers to Critical Thinking

A. Cognitive Barriers
1. Egocentrism: A tendency to view everything in relation to oneself. This leads to overvaluing one’s
opinions and undervaluing others’ viewpoints. Example: Refusing to consider alternative perspectives
during debates or discussions.

2. Sociocentrism: Group-centered thinking that places one’s social group or culture above others.
This leads to bias and resistance to new or different ideas. Example: Nationalistic thinking that
rejects evidence from other countries.

3. Confirmation Bias: The tendency to search for, interpret, and remember information that confirms
pre-existing beliefs. Prevents openness to opposing evidence. Example: Only reading news sources
that support one's political views.

4. Assumptions and Stereotyping: Accepting ideas without questioning their validity. This leads to
faulty conclusions based on preconceived notions. Example: Believing someone’s abilities based
on their background or appearance.

B. Emotional and Psychological Barriers

1. Fear of Criticism or Rejection: Avoiding new ideas for fear of being judged or isolated.
Example: Not sharing an innovative suggestion in class due to fear of ridicule.

2. Emotional Attachments: Clinging to beliefs or ideologies due to emotional comfort or personal

identity. Example: Ignoring facts that contradict one's religious or political convictions.

3. Overconfidence Bias: Overestimating one's knowledge or capability. This leads to dismissing expert
opinions or refusing to revise flawed reasoning.

4. Cognitive Dissonance: Psychological discomfort from holding contradictory beliefs. Instead of

resolving the conflict, individuals often reject one belief irrationally. Example: Denying scientific
facts that contradict one’s worldview.

C. Social and Cultural Barriers

1. Peer Pressure: Yielding to group expectations even when they contradict logic or truth.
Example: Conforming to groupthink in workplace decisions.

2. Cultural Conditioning: Deep-rooted beliefs instilled by family, religion, and education.

Can prevent objective assessment of alternative worldviews.

3. Authority and Tradition. Accepting ideas simply because they come from an authority figure or
because “it has always been done that way.” Example: Believing a claim solely because it was
made by a teacher or parent.

D. Linguistic and Communication Barriers

1. Ambiguity and Vagueness: Poorly defined or unclear language leads to misinterpretation.
Example: Using the word “freedom” without specifying political, economic, or personal freedom.

62
2. Misuse of Language and Logical Fallacies: Use of euphemisms, loaded language, or fallacious
reasoning. Examples: Straw man argument, slippery slope, ad hominem attacks.

3. Lack of Vocabulary: Limited vocabulary hinders the ability to articulate thoughts precisely.
Leads to incomplete or shallow reasoning.

E. Educational and Intellectual Barriers

1. Lack of Critical Thinking Training: Many educational systems prioritize rote memorization over
analytical thinking. Students may not be equipped to question or analyze information.
2. Poor Reading and Comprehension Skills: Difficulty in understanding and interpreting texts
hinders analysis.
3. Limited Exposure to Diverse Perspectives: Without diverse materials or interdisciplinary learning,
students may lack intellectual breadth.

4. Case Examples of Critical Thinking Barriers in Practice

Case 1: Workplace Bias

An organization continues with outdated procedures despite evidence of inefficiency due to adherence
to tradition and resistance to innovation.
Case 2: Academic Debate
A student dismisses a peer’s argument solely because it contradicts their personal beliefs, not based
on logic or evidence.
Case 3: Social Media Echo Chamber.
Users are exposed only to content that supports their views, reinforcing bias and limiting open-
mindedness.

11.9Creative Thinking
Creative thinking is the capacity to produce novel, original, or unconventional ideas and approaches
that are useful or valuable.

Core Characteristics:
Fluency: Generating many ideas.
Flexibility: Thinking in varied directions.
Originality: Creating unique ideas.
Elaboration: Expanding and developing ideas in detail.

Processes Involved:
Brainstorming
Metaphorical thinking
Reframing problems
Lateral thinking

11.10. Mind Mapping as a Comprehensive Strategy for Creative Thinking

1. What is Mind Mapping?
Mind mapping is a visual and diagrammatic method of organizing information that mirrors how the
human brain naturally processes and stores knowledge. It encourages non-linear thinking, allowing
connections between ideas to flow freely, which stimulates creativity, memory, and comprehension.
A mind map starts with a central idea, and from it, branches radiate outward to represent associated
thoughts, concepts, or tasks. These branches can further split into sub-branches, forming a tree-like
structure of interconnected ideas.
63
 2. Origin of Mind Mapping
Mind mapping was popularized by Tony Buzan, a British psychologist and author, who emphasized
its use in enhancing cognitive functions like note-taking, memory retention, problem-solving, and
idea generation. Buzan argued that mind mapping reflects the brain's natural way of processing
through radiant thinking.

3. How Mind Mapping Works

Step-by-Step Process:
i.Start with a Central Idea: Write the main theme or problem in the center of a blank page. Use a
strong image or keyword to stimulate attention.

ii.Add Main Branches: From the central idea, draw thick lines radiating outward for each major
category or topic related to the theme. Label each branch with a keyword.

iii.Develop Sub-branches: From the main branches, add thinner lines branching out with more
specific ideas or subtopics.

iv.Use Colors and Images: Incorporate different colors for each branch and include relevant drawings
or icons. This engages both the left and right brain, enhancing recall and creative association.

v.Keep It Concise: Use keywords or short phrases instead of long sentences. Keywords trigger
broader networks of ideas in the brain.

8. Tips for Effective Mind Mapping

Start from the center outward rather than linearly.
Use images, not just words—the brain processes visuals faster.
Keep branches curved to mimic natural neural networks.
Stick to one word per line to spark broader associations.
Review and expand regularly as new ideas emerge.

4. Comparison of Creative and Critical Thinking

FEATURES CRTITICAL THINKING CREATIVE THINKING
Nature Analytical, Judgmental Generative, imaginative
Goal Accuracy, Sound reasoning Originality, Novelty
Approach Linear, structured Divergent, Non-linear
Outcome Judged conclusions New possibilities

64
 UNIT TWELVE
HUMAN EXISTENCE
11.1 Human Existence
The last part of the subject GST 212 is human existence. The first and the second been philosophy and
logic. Whereas philosophy is defined as the study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge,
values, reason, mind, and language; Logic is a branch and a tool of philosophy and it is defined as the
study of valid reasoning and argumentation. Human Existence on other hand refers to the state or fact of
being alive as a human being. Philosophers have explored questions about the nature of human existence
for centuries such as the meaning of life and free will vs. determinism. Below is the list of some
philosophical topics on human existence.
1. The Meaning of Life: What is the purpose or significance of human existence? Is it to seek
happiness, fulfill one's duties, or achieve self-actualization?
2. Free Will vs. Determinism: Do humans have genuine free will, or is our existence predetermined by
factors like genetics, environment, or fate?
3. The Nature of Reality: What is the fundamental nature of the world we experienced? Is it material,
spiritual, or a combination of both?
4. Identity and Self: What constitutes personal identity? Is it fixed or fluid? How do we define
ourselves, and what role do external factors play in shaping our sense of self?
5. Mortality and the Human Condition: How does the awareness of our own mortality influence our
existence? Do we find meaning in the face of impermanence?
6. The Role of Suffering: What is the purpose or value of suffering in human existence? Can it lead to
personal growth, wisdom, or redemption?
7. Ethics and Morality: What moral principles or values should guide human behaviour? Are they
absolute or relative?

65
8. The Impact of Technology: How does technology shape our existence, relationships, and sense of
self? Are there limits to its influence?
9. The Search for Happiness: Is happiness the ultimate goal of human existence? What constitutes
happiness, and how can it be achieved?
10. The Interconnectedness of All Things: Are human’s part of a larger whole, connected to nature,
others, and the universe? What are the implications of this interconnectedness?
11. Artificial Intelligence: What are the implications of artificial intelligence on human existence
12. Biotechnology: Ethical considerations of biotechnology like gene editing

11.2 Meaning of Human Life

The question of the meaning of life has been pondered by philosophers for centuries, and it continues to
spark debate and reflection. Submissions on the meaning of life by philosophers include the following.

1. Existentialism: Existentialists belief that life is inherently meaningless, but that individuals can find
purpose through their choices and actions. This philosophical perspective emphasizes individual
freedom and responsibility in creating meaning in life.

2. Absurdism: Developed by thinkers like Albert Camus, absurdism acknowledges the apparent lack of
inherent meaning in the universe. However, it suggests that humans should embrace this absurdity and
create their own meaning through defiance and rebellion against the inherent chaos of existence.

3. Religious Perspectives: Many religions offer explanations for the meaning of life, often tied to
concepts of divine purpose, moral codes, and the afterlife. These perspectives vary greatly depending on
the religious tradition.

4. Utilitarianism and Ethics: Utilitarians are of the opinion that the meaning of life lies in maximizing
happiness or well-being for the greatest number of people. This perspective emphasizes ethical
principles and social justice as central to a meaningful life.

5. Transhumanism and Technological Progress: In the modern era, some thinkers speculate about the
potential for humanity to transcend its current limitations through technological advancements,
potentially leading to new forms of meaning and existence.

11.3Thoughts of philosophers on Human Life

1. Plato’s Allegory of The Cave

Plato in his Allegory of the Cave presented his ideas of human life as a journey towards enlightenment
and understanding the true nature of reality. Plato’s Allegory of the Cave is a philosophical story written
by Plato around 380 BCE. It is a thought-provoking and timeless tale that explores the nature of reality,
knowledge, and human perception. In the allegory, prisoners are held captive in a cave, facing a wall
where shadows are projected. The prisoners believe the shadows are reality, but they are actually just
projections of puppets manipulated by unseen puppeteers. One prisoner escapes, sees the true reality
outside the cave, and returns to enlighten the others. However, they are resistant to this new knowledge,
preferring the familiar comfort of their shadowy reality.
The allegory is meant to illustrate the process of enlightenment and the journey from ignorance to
knowledge. The cave represents the realm of sensory experience, while the outside world represents the
realm of true understanding and knowledge. The puppeteers represent the rulers or those who control the
narrative, and the escaped prisoner represents the philosopher-king who seeks truth and wisdom.
The allegory raises important questions about the nature of reality, perception, and knowledge about life
and it continues to inspire philosophical debates and reflections to this day!

66
 2. Aristotle’s Philosophy of Human Life.
Aristotle held that life's meaning is found in achieving happiness and flourishing through living a
virtuous life. Aristotle's arguments about the meaning of human life are primarily found in his work
"Nicomachean Ethics". He argues that the ultimate goal of human life is to achieve happiness
(eudaimonia) through living a virtuous life. Here are some key points on his philosophy of human life.
 Eudaimonia: Aristotle believed that happiness is not just a fleeting pleasure, but a long-term state of
being those results from living a fulfilling life.
 Virtue: He argued that virtues (such as courage, justice, and wisdom) are essential for achieving
happiness. Virtues are developed through habit and practice.
 The Golden Mean: Aristotle argued that virtues are found in a middle ground between excess and
deficiency. For example, courage is the mean between cowardice and recklessness.
 Reason: Aristotle believed that humans are unique in their ability to reason, and that living a life of
reason is essential to achieving happiness.
 Telos: He believed that humans have a telos (purpose) that is unique to our species. Our telos is to
achieve happiness through living a virtuous life.
 Friendship: He believed that friendship is essential for achieving happiness, as it allows us to
develop and practice virtues in our relationships with others.
 Contemplation: Aristotle also believed that contemplation (theoretical wisdom) is the highest form
of human activity, and is essential for achieving happiness.
 Aristotle's ideas have had a profound impact on Western philosophy and continue to influence
ethical and moral discussions today.

3. Sartre's Philosophy on Human Life

For Jean-Paul Sartre, an existentialist, life has no inherent meaning; we must create our own purpose and
take responsibility for our choices. Jean-Paul Sartre's philosophy of human life is centered around
existentialism, which emphasizes individual freedom and responsibility. He argued that human beings
are "condemned to be free," meaning we have the freedom to choose our actions and create our own
meaning in life, but this freedom also brings a sense of responsibility and anxiety. Some key aspects of
Sartre's philosophy on human life include:
 Existentialism: Sartre believed that human existence is not determined by external factors like
genetics, environment, or fate, but by our own choices and actions.
 Freedom: Sartre argued that human beings have complete freedom to choose their actions, values,
and beliefs, and that this freedom is both empowering and terrifying.
 Responsibility: With freedom comes responsibility, and Sartre believed that individuals must take
responsibility for their choices and actions.
 Authenticity: Sartre valued authenticity, which means being true to oneself and living in
accordance with one's own values and beliefs, rather than conforming to societal norms or
expectations.
 Bad Faith: Sartre introduced the concept of "bad faith" (mauvaise foi), which refers to the tendency
to deny or avoid the reality of our own freedom and responsibility.
 The Absurd: Sartre believed that human existence is inherently absurd, as we seek meaning and
purpose in a seemingly meaningless and purposeless world.
 Humanism: Despite his emphasis on individual freedom and responsibility, Sartre was a humanist
who believed in the inherent value and dignity of human beings.
 in all, Sartre's philosophy emphasizes the individual's freedom and responsibility to create their own
meaning and purpose in life, and to live authentically and honestly in the face of
uncertainty and absurdity.

4. Martin Heidegger’s Philosophy of Human Life.

Martin Heidegger in his idea of Being-in-the-World maintains that life's meaning is found in our
existence and experience within the world, and our relationship with being and time. Martin Heidegger,

67
a German philosopher, is known for his complex and influential philosophy of human life. He builds his
philosophy on human based on the following key concepts:
 Being-in-the-world: Heidegger's fundamental concept, describing human existence as inherently
situated in a world that shapes our experiences and understanding.
 Existence: Heidegger focuses on human existence (Dasein) as distinct from other beings,
emphasizing our unique capacity for self-awareness and questioning our own existence.
 Temporality: Heidegger sees human existence as fundamentally temporal, with our experiences and
understanding shaped by our past, present, and future.
 Authenticity: Heidegger contrasts authentic (eigentlich) and inauthentic (uneigentlich) existence,
encouraging individuals to take responsibility for their own existence and live authentically.
 The everyday: Heidegger explores the significance of everyday experiences and phenomena,
revealing fundamental aspects of human existence.
 The They (das Man): Heidegger critiques the tendency to conform to societal norms and
expectations, which can lead to inauthentic existence.
 Being-towards-death: Heidegger's concept of our inherent mortality, which he sees as a fundamental
aspect of human existence and a motivator for authentic living.
Main ideas on Human Life:
 Human existence is characterized by its existence in a world and its unique capacity for self-
awareness.
 Authentic existence involves taking responsibility for one's own life and living in accordance with
one's own values and beliefs.
 Inauthentic existence is marked by conformity to societal norms and a lack of self-awareness.
 Human existence is fundamentally temporal, and our experiences and understanding are shaped by
our past, present, and future.
 The everyday and ordinary experiences reveal fundamental aspects of human existence.

5.Emmanuel Kant's Philosophy of Human Life

For Immanuel Kant, life's meaning is found in fulfilling our moral obligations and treating others with
respect and dignity. Emmanuel Kant's philosophy of human life is complex and multifaceted, but some
key aspects include:
 Moral Law: Kant believed that human life should be guided by moral law, which he called the
"categorical imperative." This means acting only on maxims that could be willed as universal laws.
 Autonomy: Kant emphasized human autonomy, arguing that individuals should think for themselves
and make decisions based on reason, rather than external influences.
 Dignity: He believed that human life has inherent dignity and worth, and should be treated with
respect and compassion.
 Reason: Kant saw reason as the highest human faculty, and believed it should be used to understand
the world and guide human actions.
 Ethics: His ethics focused on duties and obligations, rather than consequences or desires.
 Free Will: Kant believed in human free will, and saw it as essential for moral responsibility.
 Synthetic a priori knowledge: He argued that certain knowledge is both analytically derived (from
reason) and synthetically known (through experience).
 Critique of Metaphysics: Kant critiqued traditional metaphysics, arguing that we can't know the
"things in themselves," only the world as it appears to us through our cognitive faculties.
 Human knowledge boundaries: He believed that human knowledge has boundaries, and we should
recognize and respect these limits.
 Kant's philosophy emphasizes human rationality, morality, and autonomy, and has had a profound
influence on Western philosophy.

6.Friedrich Nietzsche's Philosophy of Human Life

68
In his philosophy of Will to Power, Friedrich Nietzsche holds that life's meaning is found in self-
overcoming, creativity, and the pursuit of excellence. Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy of human life is
complex and multifaceted, but some key aspects include:
 Will to Power: Nietzsche believed that the fundamental driving force behind all living beings is the
"will to power," the desire to exert one's strength, creativity, and individuality.
 Perspectivism: He argued that all knowledge and truth is relative and subjective, and that different
perspectives and interpretations are equal and valid.
 Critique of Traditional Morality: Nietzsche critiqued traditional morality and religion, arguing
that they suppress individual creativity and excellence, and instead promote a "herd mentality."
 Übermensch (Superman): He envisioned the possibility of humans transcending conventional
limitations and becoming something greater, the "Übermensch," through self-overcoming and
creative expression.
 Eternal Recurrence: Nietzsche proposed the idea of the "eternal recurrence," where all events in
existence recur infinitely, encouraging individuals to live their lives in the present with greatness and
affirmation.
 Affirmation of Life: Despite his critique of traditional morality, Nietzsche affirmed the value and
beauty of life, encouraging individuals to embrace its complexities and contradictions.
 Individualism and Self-Overcoming: He emphasized the importance of individual self-expression,
creativity, and constant self-overcoming, striving to become the best version of oneself.
 Nietzsche's philosophy is a call to embrace life's complexities, take responsibility for one's own
values and meaning, and strive for greatness and self-transcendence.

7.Albert Camus’ Philosophy of Human Life

For Albert Camus, life may be meaningless, but we must find ways to create our own meaning and live
with purpose despite the absurdity. Albert Camus, a French philosopher and Nobel laureate, developed a
philosophy of human life that emphasized individual freedom, choice, and responsibility. Key aspects of
his philosophy include:
 Absurdism: Camus believed that humanity's search for meaning and purpose in life is inherently at
odds with the fact that the universe is indifferent to human existence. This fundamental conflict is
what he called the "absurd."
 Moral Responsibility: Despite the absurdity of human existence, Camus argued that individuals
must take responsibility for their choices and actions. He believed that we must create our own
values and meaning in life, rather than relying on external sources such as religion or societal norms.
 Rebellion: Camus saw rebellion as a fundamental human impulse, a refusal to accept the absurdity
of our situation. He believed that rebellion can be a powerful force for individual freedom and
creativity.
 Authenticity: Camus valued authenticity and honesty, encouraging individuals to confront the
reality of their own mortality and the absurdity of life, rather than seeking escape or comfort in
illusions.
 Solidarity: Despite his emphasis on individual responsibility, Camus also believed in the importance
of human solidarity and compassion. He argued that we must work together to create a more just and
equitable society.
 The Individual: Camus believed that the individual is the primary source of meaning and value in
life. He rejected external authorities and emphasized the importance of individual freedom and
autonomy.
 The Present Moment: Camus believed that the present moment is the only truly real moment, and
that we should focus on living in the here and now, rather than dwelling on the past or worrying
about the future.
Summarily, Camus' philosophy emphasizes individual freedom, responsibility, and creativity, and
encourages us to confront the absurdity of life with courage, honesty, and solidarity.

8.Epicurus' Theory of Human Life

69
 Epicurus whose philosophy is known as Hedonism holds that the goal of life is to seek pleasure, but not
excessively, and to live a simple life free from pain and fear. Epicurus' theory of human life is based on
his philosophical teachings, which emphasize the pursuit of happiness, freedom from fear and anxiety,
and the cultivation of friendships. Here are some key aspects of his theory:
1. Pursuit of Happiness: Epicurus believed that the ultimate goal of human life is to attain happiness
(eudaimonia). However, he didn't mean pleasure or hedonism, but rather a state of contentment,
tranquillity, and freedom from physical pain and mental distress.
2. Four Remedies: Epicurus advocated for the use of "four remedies" to overcome fear and anxiety:
- Don't fear the gods (as they are not involved in human affairs).
- Don't worry about death (as it's a natural part of life).
- Don't fear pain (as it's either chronic and manageable or acute and short-lived).
- Don't fear the unknown (as it's often fuelled by unfounded fears and superstitions).
3. Freedom from Desire: Epicurus believed that desires can be a source of unhappiness and that one
should strive to be free from excessive desires and cravings. He advocated for living a simple life, free
from unnecessary desires and luxuries.
4. Importance of Friendships: Epicurus valued friendships highly, seeing them as essential for a happy
and fulfilling life. He believed that friends can provide support, comfort, and a sense of belonging.
5. Living in the Present: Epicurus emphasized the importance of living in the present moment, rather
than dwelling on the past or worrying about the future.
6. Self-Sufficiency: He advocated for self-sufficiency and autonomy, encouraging individuals to take
responsibility for their own lives and happiness.
7. Rejection of Excess: Epicurus rejected excess and extravagance, promoting a simple and moderate
way of life.
By following these principles, Epicurus believed that individuals could achieve a state of happiness,
tranquillity, and fulfillment, which he called "ataraxia" (freedom from mental and bodily disturbances).

9.Christianity and the Philosophy of Human Life

Generally, form the religious or spiritual Perspectives, Life's meaning is found in serving a higher power,
following divine commandments, or achieving spiritual enlightenment. In Christianity, the philosophy of
human life is rooted in the belief that human beings are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27)
and are therefore endowed with inherent dignity and worth. Here are some key aspects of the Christian
philosophy of human life:
1. Created to love and serve God: Human life is seen as a gift from God, and its purpose is to love and
serve Him with all one's heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30).
2. Fallen but redeemable: Christianity teaches that humanity fell from its original state of innocence
through sin (Genesis 3), but God offers redemption and salvation through Jesus Christ (John 3:16).
3. Called to holiness: Christians are called to live a life of holiness, separate from sin and the world, and
to be conformed to the image of Christ (1 Peter 1:16, Romans 8:29).
4. Body and soul: Christianity views the human person as a unity of body and soul, both of which are
created by God and will be redeemed and glorified in the end (1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 1 Thessalonians
5:23).
5. Sanctity of human life: Christian teaching holds that human life is sacred and should be protected
and respected from conception to natural death (Psalm 139:13-14, Jeremiah 1:5).
6. Love and compassion: Christians are called to love their neighbours as themselves (Mark 12:31) and
to care for the poor, the widow, and the orphan (Matthew 25:31-46, James 1:27).
7. Eternal perspective: Christianity teaches that human life is not limited to this world but has an
eternal dimension, and believers are called to live with an eye on eternity (Colossians 3:1-4, 1
Corinthians 15:50-58).
These principles form the foundation of the Christian philosophy of human life, emphasizing the
inherent value and dignity of human beings, the call to holiness and love, and the hope of eternal life.

70
10.Abraham Maslow's Philosophy of Human Life
For Abraham Maslow Life's meaning is found in personal growth, self-actualization, and fulfilling our
human potential. Abraham Maslow's philosophy of human life is centred around his theory of human
motivation and the concept of self-actualization. Here are some key aspects of his philosophy.
1. Hierarchy of Needs: Maslow proposed that human beings have different types of needs, ranging
from basic physiological needs to self-actualization needs. He arranged these needs in a hierarchical
structure, with lower-level needs needing to be fulfilled before higher-level needs can be met.
2. Self-Actualization: Maslow believed that the ultimate goal of human life is self-actualization, which
involves realizing one's full potential and becoming the best version of oneself.
3. Humanistic Approach: Maslow's philosophy is centred around a humanistic approach, focusing on
the inherent value and dignity of individuals, and emphasizing personal growth, free will, and self-
directed change.
4. Emphasis on Human Potential: Maslow believed that humans have vast, untapped potential, and
that we should strive to develop our abilities and talents to the fullest.
5. Focus on Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation: Maslow distinguished between extrinsic motivation
(external rewards or pressures) and intrinsic motivation (personal satisfaction and enjoyment). He
emphasized the importance of intrinsic motivation in driving human behaviour.
6. Peak Experiences: Maslow introduced the concept of "peak experiences," which are moments of
intense joy, wonder, and fulfillment that often accompany self-actualization.
7. Holistic View: Maslow's philosophy takes a holistic view of human life, considering the physical,
emotional, intellectual, and spiritual aspects of human experience.
8. Emphasis on Personal Responsibility: Maslow believed that individuals have the responsibility to
take charge of their own lives, make choices, and shape their own destinies.
9. Focus on the Present Moment: Maslow encouraged living in the present moment, rather than
dwelling on the past or worrying about the future.
10. Human Beings as Unique and Valuable: Maslow's philosophy emphasizes the uniqueness and
value of every individual, rejecting the idea that humans are mere machines or mere products of their
environment.
Overall, Maslow's philosophy of human life is centred around the idea that humans have the potential to
grow, develop, and self-actualize, and that we should strive to become the best version of ourselves.

11.Nigerian Philosophy of Human Life

The Nigerian Philosophy of human life encompasses various perspectives and beliefs, reflecting the
country's cultural and linguistic diversity. Some common themes include:
 Community and interconnectedness: The concept of "ubuntu" (humanity towards others)
emphasizes the importance of community, shared humanity, and mutual support.
 Respect for elders and tradition: Nigerian cultures place a high value on respect for elders,
ancestors, and traditional practices.
 Holistic worldview: Many Nigerian cultures view the world as an interconnected whole, with
spiritual, natural, and human realms intimately linked.
 Destiny and fate: The concept of “Obot” or “chi" or "ori" refers to an individual's divine purpose or
destiny, which is believed to be predetermined.
 Balance and harmony: Nigerian philosophies often emphasize the importance of balance and
harmony in life, with a focus on finding equilibrium between different aspects of human experience.
 Ancestor reverence: Ancestors are deeply respected and revered; with many cultures believing they
continue to play an active role in the lives of their descendants.
 Cosmology and spirituality: Nigerian cultures have rich cosmological beliefs, with many
recognizing a supreme being or divine force, as well as various spirits and deities.
 Ethics and moral values: Nigerian philosophies often prioritize ethical conduct, fairness, justice,
and moral rectitude.
 Human dignity and worth: The inherent value and dignity of every human being is a central theme
in Nigerian philosophical thought.

71
 Resilience and adaptability: Nigerians have developed a strong capacity for resilience and
adaptability, reflecting their history and cultural heritage

11.4 The Impact of Philosophy on Human Existence

The following are some of the ways philosophy contribute to human existence

a. Intellectual Liberation: Philosophy frees the mind from dogma and ignorance and encourages
independent and reflective thought. Socratic philosophy encouraged the examination of life and
ethical reflection.

b. Ethical Guidance. Philosophy provides frameworks for determining right and wrong. It guides
moral actions in personal, professional, and societal contexts. Kant’s moral philosophy has greatly
shaped human rights and modern ethics.

c. Social and Political Awareness. Philosophy inspires critical reflection on justice, rights, and
duties. Influences democratic ideals and legal institutions. African philosophy (e.g., Ubuntu)
emphasizes communal values and social harmony.

d. Scientific and Technological Advancements. Philosophy lays the groundwork for scientific
reasoning. It also encourages inquiry and skepticism essential for discovery. Aristotle’s logic laid
the foundations for scientific classification and reasoning.

e. Personal Identity and Purpose. Philosophy helps individuals understand their purpose and place in
the universe. It also promotes introspection and existential reflection.

Philosophy and Human Development

Philosophy has contributed to human development in several ways including the following:

1. In education philosophy has helped to develops analytical, interpretative, and evaluative skills. It
also strengthens democratic participation through civic responsibility.

2. In society generally, philosophy promotes tolerance, dialogue, and peaceful coexistence. It also
influences policy formation, legal systems, and justice.

3. In religion and spirituality, philosophy strengthens questions about the nature of divinity,
existence, and meaning. It builds bridges between faith and reason, enhancing openness to diverse
perspectives, thereby promoting religious dialogue and peaceful coexistence.

4. The transformative power of philosophy lies in its ability to ask fundamental questions, stimulate
deep reflection, and propose solutions that transcend immediate appearances.

5. Creative and critical thinking are vital cognitive philosophical tools that enable individuals to
navigate life’s complexities with insight and innovation.

6. Philosophy, as the mother of all disciplines, nurtures intellectual and inventive abilities and
significantly contributes to shaping human thought, morality, governance, and self-understanding.

7. In a rapidly changing world, the enduring relevance of philosophy lies in its capacity to challenge
assumptions, clarify values, and cultivate wisdom—essentials for both individual flourishing and
collective progress.

72
11.3.1 The Role of Philosophy in Politics, Religion, Law, Ethics, Science, Character Formation,
and Global Citizenship

Philosophy plays a vital role in shaping our understanding of various domains of human life. It fosters
critical reflection, conceptual clarity, and normative evaluation. Below are some roles of philosophy
in science, character formation, and global citizenship and its influence on politics, religion, law, and
ethics.

1. Philosophy and Politics

i. Philosophy clarifies key political concepts such as justice, power, freedom, authority, and
democracy.
ii. Philosophical analysis helps in understanding political ideologies (liberalism, socialism,
conservatism, anarchism, etc.).
iii. Philosophy explores questions of political legitimacy, the best forms of government, and
civic obligations.
iv. Philosophy evaluates the philosophical foundations of rights, duties, equality, and
distributive justice.
v. Philosophy assesses moral principles guiding political action, diplomacy, and conflict
resolution.

2. Philosophy and Religion

1. Philosophy engages with ultimate questions about existence, purpose, and the nature of God.
2. Philosophy enhance religious tolerance by encouraging interfaith dialogue, religious pluralism, and
mutual understanding.
3. Philosophy of Religion: Examines arguments for and against the existence of God, the problem of
evil, faith vs. reason, and religious experience.
4. Philosophy explores the relationship between religion and morality—whether morality requires
religion.
5. Through critical evaluation of things, philosophy challenges dogmatism and supports reasoned
belief systems.

3.Philosophy and Law

1. Philosophy explores debates about the source and legitimacy of laws.
2. Philosophical theories (Rawls, Nozick, etc.) provide frameworks for understanding legal justice.
3. Philosophy promotes discussions on the foundations and universality of rights in legal contexts.
4. Legal philosophy aids in interpreting laws, considering both letter and spirit.
5. Philosophy promotes the rule of Law and Authority: Questions about obedience, civil
disobedience, and moral resistance are addressed.

4.Philosophy and Ethics

1. Philosophy in its moral theories provides normative ethical theories such as utilitarianism,
deontology, virtue ethics, etc. to guide man.
2. By it applied ethics philosophy engages with ethical dilemmas in medicine, business, environment,
technology, etc.
3. Philosophy encourages rational moral deliberation and development of character.
4. Through it cultural and global ethics, Philosophy evaluates moral relativism vs. universalism and
promotes ethical intercultural dialogue.
5. Through ethics education, philosophy develops moral sensitivity, reasoning, and responsibility.

5.Philosophy and Science

1. Philosophy of science examines scientific methods, logic, explanation, and the growth of
knowledge.
73
2. Critical Analysis: Questions assumptions, definitions, and scope of scientific knowledge.
3. Philosophical interdisciplinary insight bridges scientific knowledge with ethics, metaphysics, and
epistemology.
4. Philosophy mediate between science and the society through it exploration of ethical implications
of scientific research and technological innovation.
5. Scientific Paradigms such as Kuhn's concept of paradigm shifts and Lakatos' research programmes
reflect philosophical contributions.

6.Philosophy and Character Formation

1.Philosophy guides personal and societal character development through values like honesty, justice,
and responsibility.
2.Critical thinking cultivates habits of mind necessary for rational and ethical living.
3. Virtue ethics encourages cultivation of virtues (e.g., courage, temperance, prudence).
4. Identity formation assists in self-reflection, understanding personal values and life goals.
5. Philosophy promotes responsibility and discipline through it emphasizes on moral responsibility
and self-control.

7.Philosophy and Global Citizenship

1. Philosophy enhances cosmopolitanism by promoting global justice, equality, and shared human
dignity.
2. Philosophy ensures global ethics by encouraging reflection on global challenges—climate change,
poverty, war, migration.
3.Philosophy promotes intercultural dialogue by developing tolerance, appreciation of diversity, and
ethical pluralism.
4.Philosophy enhances peace and human rights by supporting peace education, nonviolence, and
universal human rights.
5.Philosophy urges active engagement and encourages civic responsibility and ethical activism on
global issues.

Philosophy contributes to a comprehensive understanding of critical domains of human life. From

grounding scientific inquiry to shaping laws and moral conduct, from forming character to fostering
global responsibility, philosophy offers tools for meaningful engagement with the world. It cultivates
wisdom, dialogue, and principled action in individuals and societies.

74