The term, from the Latin terminus would literally mean the last element into which a proposition may be resolved, namely, the spoken, or the written word.
1. DEFINITION
Term is a sensible conventional sign expressive of a concept.
Sensible: the spoken or written words are sensible, that is, they are perceivable through the senses.
Conventional: this is said by distinction from natural signs. A natural sign is one whose connection with the object it manifest is given by nature: e.g. smoke is a natural sign of fire; heavy dark clouds, of rain. A conventional sign is one whose connection with the thing it manifest is provided by common understanding or agreement, which is usually tacit; e.g. the flag of a nation.
Sign: This is something that manifests another object, aside from itself. If it manifests only itself, it is not a sign.
Expressive of a concept: the term expresses immediately the concept. However, since the concept is essentially expressive of the object, its sign, which is the term, is also expressive of the object.
2. SIGNS
a. Formal sign – one that manifest an object from its likeness or resemblance to it: e.g., a photograph is a formal sign of the physical appearance of a person, or a thing, from the resemblance it bears to the physical appearance of the latter.
b. Instrumental sign – one which manifests an object from any other connection it bears to the latter, aside from resemblance: e.g., footprints, flag, and insignia.
3. CLASSIFICATION OF TERMS
Terms are instrumental signs whereas Concepts are formal signs. The following are some of the classifications of terms.
According To Meaning
a. Univocal or homologous: term bearing the same meaning as applied to several individuals. E.g. man, cat, scientist, student, etc. Pedro is man. Juan is man. Man is taken as a univocal/homologous term.
b. Analogous: term expressing kindred meanings. The Greek word analogy means associated meaning. It may be analogous:
i. BY PROPORTION or by the association of the objects to which the term is applied. It is also known as logical analogy. e.g., the term HEALTHY is analogous by proportion, when applied to a man as subject of health, to climate as factor and to color as sign of health.
ii. BY PROPORTIONALITY, or by virtue of the kindred similarity of the conceptual and formal reasons denoted. It is also known as metaphysical analogy. e.g., between the goodness of a mother and the goodness of a pair of shoes, between the 1/3 of 27 and the 1/3 of 9. Lungs are man and gills are to fish.
The formal reasons of things are intrinsic to them, the said similarity of proportionality is to said to be intrinsic, by distinction from the external or physical similarity of things.
c. Equivocal: term outwardly or apparently the same, but expressing different meanings. The Latin original equivocal denotes sameness as to term only. The term may be equivocal:
i. In pronunciation only. E.g., sweet and suite; week and weak; sun and son; hens and hence; key and quay.
ii. In writing only. E.g., bow [bou] means inclination of head, with or without bending the body and bow [bō] which means weapon shooting arrow; dingy (rowboat or dirty).
iii. In both pronunciation and writing. E.g., ball (spheroid or dance); bat (animal, or club); club (weapon, group, or building); ring (circular device or sound).
d. Metaphorical: term transferred from its proper meaning or object and applied to something lese, on account of the latter’s resemblance to the former and to denote such resemblance. E.g., the king of animals; henpecked husband; tomboy; hand of hand; school head.
According To Extension
a. Common: Term which may be applied indiscriminately to many persons, or objects. E.g., man, house, teacher.
b. Singular or Individual: term which can be applied only to one subject, or to one object. It may be:
i. The proper name: Joseph M. Bello; TTMIST; Senate of the Philippines.
ii. A common term restricted by a particular circumstance of place, time, incident, or object. E.g., the Dean of CMIT; the author of Fundamental logic; the present Pope.
iii. A common term restricted by a demonstrative pronoun. E.g., this computer, that girl.
According To Comprehension
Terms may be concrete, or abstract. Aside from this, term may also be:
a. Generic: when it expresses the common constituent or the common essential feature of the object. E.g., a hammer is TOOL; a man is an ANIMAL.
b. Specific: when it expresses the distinctive constituent or the distinctive essential feature of the object. E.g., man is RATIONAL animal.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
CONTRADICTORY AND CONTRARY CONCEPTS
a. CONTRADICTORY – one of which expresses a positive conceptual reason or formal feature, and the other is negation.
EXAMPLE: White or non – white; Living or non – living.
Between them no intermediate or alternative is possible. a man is either living, or non – living: he may be dying but he is still living.
RULE: one is necessarily true, and the other is necessarily false. Hence, both cannot be affirmed, or denied at the same time of the same thing. If one is affirmed, the other is denied; and vice versa.
E.g., the plant is alive. Therefore, it is not non – alive. The stone is non – alive. Therefore, it is not alive.
b. CONTRARY – concepts that express conceptual reason or formal features which are opposed to each other as extremes in a certain order or class.
EXAMPLE: rich and poor; black and white; clever and stupid.
Between such extremes there are many intermediates possible: a man may neither be white, nor black, but brown; he may not be clever nor stupid, but average.
RULE: both cannot be true; but both can be false. Hence, if one is affirmed, the other must be denied. But, if one is denied, the other is doubtful: it may be affirmed or denied.
E.g., this paper is white; therefore, it is not black. It is not black; it is doubtful if it is white. It cannot be white and black at the same time; but it may not be white nor black.
EXAMPLE: White or non – white; Living or non – living.
Between them no intermediate or alternative is possible. a man is either living, or non – living: he may be dying but he is still living.
RULE: one is necessarily true, and the other is necessarily false. Hence, both cannot be affirmed, or denied at the same time of the same thing. If one is affirmed, the other is denied; and vice versa.
E.g., the plant is alive. Therefore, it is not non – alive. The stone is non – alive. Therefore, it is not alive.
b. CONTRARY – concepts that express conceptual reason or formal features which are opposed to each other as extremes in a certain order or class.
EXAMPLE: rich and poor; black and white; clever and stupid.
Between such extremes there are many intermediates possible: a man may neither be white, nor black, but brown; he may not be clever nor stupid, but average.
RULE: both cannot be true; but both can be false. Hence, if one is affirmed, the other must be denied. But, if one is denied, the other is doubtful: it may be affirmed or denied.
E.g., this paper is white; therefore, it is not black. It is not black; it is doubtful if it is white. It cannot be white and black at the same time; but it may not be white nor black.
IDEA, ABSTRACTION AND PROPERTIES OF IDEAS
Ideas are the building blocks of knowledge and of inference.
Idea is defined as the intellectual “image” or representation of a thing. It is the same as the concept in the mind. The term idea comes from the original Greek which means image. As applied to the idea, the term image be taken metaphorically, in an analogous sense.
The idea is an abstract representation of things, and may be expressed or defined by meaningful terms.
Example: an igorot may intellectually identify and distinguish a watch from other objects; but if he does not know what it is for, or does not know that it is a mechanical device for telling time, he has no idea of it.
1. IDEA AND PHANTASM
The idea must be carefully distinguish from the phantasm.
Phantasm is a sensible image existing in the imagination, which is one of the internal sense – faculties located in the brain. It is defined as the sensible representation of the material features of a thing, usually a kind of pictorial image, bearing a shape or figure.
The idea is the meaning of the phantasm. In our present condition a phantasm usually accompanies the idea. It helps fixate our thoughts.
In the case of the abstract things, as democracy, rights, science, unity, etc., the idea is accompanied by the respective term in the imagination. Oftentimes, however, we create new phantasms and literary expressions to respond to our new ideas.
The chief differences between IDEA and PHANTASM are:
Idea | Phantasm |
ü Found in the intellect ü Universal ü Constant ü Possible of complex and immaterial things | ü Found in the imagination ü Individual ü Changeable ü Not possible of complex and immaterial things |
2. ABSTRACTION OF IDEA
Imagination External senses sense memory Common sense cogitative sense PERCEPT PHANTASM Agent Intellect Possible Intellect ABSTRACTED NATURE THING IDEA
3. PROPERTIES OF IDEA
a. Comprehension – is the set of thought elements or conceptual features contained in an idea. It is also referred to as the implication, or the connotation of the idea.
Thus, when someone asks for the meaning of a term, he expects an answer from its comprehension. E.g., What is philosophy? – a science of all things by their ultimate causes and principles as known by natural reason alone.
b. Extension – is the range or scope of individuals and classes to which idea may be applied. It is also referred to as denotation, application.
Thus, when a student asks for an example of Philosphy, he expects an answer from its extension, as Logic, Epistemology, etc.
The general law on comprehension and extension of idea is that: THE GREATER THE COMPREHENSION, THE LESS IS THE EXTENSION; AND VICE VERSA. This principle also applicable in Terms.
Comprehension | Extension |
Substance | Spirits, minerals, plants, brutes, men |
Material substance | minerals, plants, brutes, men |
Living material substance | plants, brutes, men |
Sentient living material substance | brutes, men |
Rational sentient living material substance | Men |
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
CHAPTER VIII: LOGIC
Logic is generally given as the first part of philosophy. This is does not mean that Logic is the easiest branch of philosophy. It is quite the contrary.
However, Logic is given in the first part of philosophical study because logic imparts the knowledge of correct inferential thinking, and philosophy makes ample use of inferential thinking. In this manner, the student of philosophy is equipped with the intellectual means for gauging and appreciating the validity of the philosophical inferences and for determining the truth of their conclusions with certainty.
On the other hand, the knowledge of logic empowers us not only to make valid inferences, but also to establish the truth of his own conclusions by way of rational demonstrations. This is not of little importance, considering that philosophy deals with abstract matters, and that in the realm of abstract matters, truth and certainty are rather elusive.
ORGANON
For this reason Aristotle designated logic as organon that is to say, the universal rational instrument for the acquisition of philosophical knowledge. It is also the main instrument for pushing forward the frontiers of philosophical knowledge by expanding its conclusions.
Logic is also useful and necessary for equipping the mind with “knowledgeability” for making correct inferences and determining the correctness of the inferences people make regarding abstract things and topics, as freedom, rights, social justice, etc.
LOGIKE
The founder of logic is Aristotle; however, the actual name of logic was introduced by Zeno the Stoic. Coming from the Greek logike, it would etymologically denote a treatise on matters pertaining to thought.
Really, logic is defined as the science and art directing the very act of reason, through which man in the very act of reason proceeds orderly, easily and without error. Thus, it is commonly defined as the philosophical science of correct reasoning or inferential thinking.
Reasoning and thinking do not refer to the act of the mind proper, BUT to the mental product thereof, namely, the syllogistic argument.
CLASSIFICATIONS OF LOGIC
Natural Logic – is the innate inclination and aptitude of the intellect for right discourse. Common sense is a natural logic.
Artificial Logic – is the doctrine which acquired through study and work and contains an ordered collection of rules, by which the intellect is directed promptly and effectively to right reasoning.
KINDS OF ARTIFICIAL LOGIC
Minor Logic (Dialectics) – is based from the way according to form because it treats on, the rules after which conclusions are legitimately deduced.
Major Logic (Critics/Epistemology) – is based from the way according to form because it treats on the truth of the conclusion and furthermore, it inquires on what constitutes the truth, the ways in acquiring truth and criterion to distinguish the false from the conclusions.
DIVISION OF LOGIC
Logic is commonly divided according to the three acts of the mind, which provide the different elements of the subject – matter and the different bases of the different inferential functions.
I. Apprehension, Idea, Predictability of Ideas.
II. Judgment, Enunciation, Predication of Ideas.
III. Reasoning, Argument, Inference of new predication.
DEDUCTIVE LOGIC AND INDUCTIVE LOGIC
This division is applicable only to the Third Part of Logic. It covers only the discussion about inferential process from the Universal to the Particular (deduction).
Example:
All TTMIST students are intelligent. (Universal)
But, Gorgonia is a student of TTMIST. (Particular)
Therefore, Gorgonia is intelligent. (particular)
And from Individuals to the Universals (induction). It is also an inadequate division of the whole science.
Example:
This bag falls, this book falls, this pen falls, this pad of paper falls.
Therefore, all material/bodily objects fall.
However, Logic is given in the first part of philosophical study because logic imparts the knowledge of correct inferential thinking, and philosophy makes ample use of inferential thinking. In this manner, the student of philosophy is equipped with the intellectual means for gauging and appreciating the validity of the philosophical inferences and for determining the truth of their conclusions with certainty.
On the other hand, the knowledge of logic empowers us not only to make valid inferences, but also to establish the truth of his own conclusions by way of rational demonstrations. This is not of little importance, considering that philosophy deals with abstract matters, and that in the realm of abstract matters, truth and certainty are rather elusive.
ORGANON
For this reason Aristotle designated logic as organon that is to say, the universal rational instrument for the acquisition of philosophical knowledge. It is also the main instrument for pushing forward the frontiers of philosophical knowledge by expanding its conclusions.
Logic is also useful and necessary for equipping the mind with “knowledgeability” for making correct inferences and determining the correctness of the inferences people make regarding abstract things and topics, as freedom, rights, social justice, etc.
LOGIKE
The founder of logic is Aristotle; however, the actual name of logic was introduced by Zeno the Stoic. Coming from the Greek logike, it would etymologically denote a treatise on matters pertaining to thought.
Really, logic is defined as the science and art directing the very act of reason, through which man in the very act of reason proceeds orderly, easily and without error. Thus, it is commonly defined as the philosophical science of correct reasoning or inferential thinking.
Reasoning and thinking do not refer to the act of the mind proper, BUT to the mental product thereof, namely, the syllogistic argument.
CLASSIFICATIONS OF LOGIC
Natural Logic – is the innate inclination and aptitude of the intellect for right discourse. Common sense is a natural logic.
Artificial Logic – is the doctrine which acquired through study and work and contains an ordered collection of rules, by which the intellect is directed promptly and effectively to right reasoning.
KINDS OF ARTIFICIAL LOGIC
Minor Logic (Dialectics) – is based from the way according to form because it treats on, the rules after which conclusions are legitimately deduced.
Major Logic (Critics/Epistemology) – is based from the way according to form because it treats on the truth of the conclusion and furthermore, it inquires on what constitutes the truth, the ways in acquiring truth and criterion to distinguish the false from the conclusions.
DIVISION OF LOGIC
Logic is commonly divided according to the three acts of the mind, which provide the different elements of the subject – matter and the different bases of the different inferential functions.
I. Apprehension, Idea, Predictability of Ideas.
II. Judgment, Enunciation, Predication of Ideas.
III. Reasoning, Argument, Inference of new predication.
DEDUCTIVE LOGIC AND INDUCTIVE LOGIC
This division is applicable only to the Third Part of Logic. It covers only the discussion about inferential process from the Universal to the Particular (deduction).
Example:
All TTMIST students are intelligent. (Universal)
But, Gorgonia is a student of TTMIST. (Particular)
Therefore, Gorgonia is intelligent. (particular)
And from Individuals to the Universals (induction). It is also an inadequate division of the whole science.
Example:
This bag falls, this book falls, this pen falls, this pad of paper falls.
Therefore, all material/bodily objects fall.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
CHAPTER VII: THEODICY
SPECIAL METAPHYSICS / THEODICY
As we have discussed recently, metaphysics deals/elucidates/demonstrates or studies beings which are beyond nature. Thus, questions about the existence and nature of minds, bodies, God, space, time, causality, unity, identity, and the world are all metaphysical issues.
This part is called special metaphysics because it specializes or focuses solely about God and those that are related to God. Hence, special metaphysics is also known as Theodicy which literally mean the science of God (Theos).
As a branch of philosophy theodicy does not mention the true name of God neither discusses who really the true God is. But theodicy demonstrates, through reason and not faith, the existence of the Supreme Being known as God. Hence, it differs from theology.
1. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
From time immemorial people are divided by geographical locations, principles, traditions, social status and even in faith.
Some believes in one God (monotheism), some believes in many gods (polytheism), some denies the existence of God (atheism), while others contend that human beings do not have sufficient evidence to warrant either the affirmation or the denial of God’s existence (agnosticism). The agnostics believe that we lack knowledge of the existence of God. In this, the agnostic, who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists, differs from the atheist, who denies that god exists.
Nowadays, most of us believe in God. In fact we always profess our faith that He exist every time we say the Creed: “I believe in God, the Father Almighty…” (Credo in Deum, Patrem Omnipotentem).
But let us take some of the questions concerning God and His existence.
v Do you believe in God?
v What if bible were not written or was burned during the persecution of Christians, are we still going to believe in God?
v Is our belief about God’s existence based on faith or reason?
v And most importantly, does God really exist?
v And if you answer it with affirmative, can you demonstrate God’s existence aside from faith?
Let us consider first the following definition before we elucidate the above questions.
v Existence – that which actualizes an essence and sets it outside its cause as a thing produced.
v Demonstration – reasoning out of truth so thoroughly and completely that the person who understands every step of the process is compelled to recognize it.
v a priori argument – is an argument that is taken to reason deductively from abstract general premises
v a posteriori argument – is an argument that relies upon specific information derived from sense perception.
v Essence – that which makes a thing to be it is.
v Faith – the assent to truth on account of the authority of God.
Note well that the true essence of God is incomprehensible. Thus, we will never know the totality of God’s essence but ONLY SOMETHING ABOUT HIS ESSENCE.
God’s existence can be demonstrated through a posteriori and through the five ways known as the quinquae viae of St. Thomas Aquinas, viz.
v Cause and Effect
v Design/Teleological argument
v Motion
v Moral Order
v History
CHAPTER VI: ONTOLOGY
1. GENERAL METAPHYSICS / ONTOLOGY
Metaphysics as a term is derived from the two Greek words “meta” (meta) which means “beyond” or “after” and “physika” which literally mean “nature” (jusika). Thus, etymologically speaking, metaphysics is a study of all things which are beyond nature.
Really, metaphysics is defined as a Branch of philosophy concerned with providing a comprehensive account of the most general features of reality as a whole; the study of being as such, otherwise stated as the study of beings as being.
Ontology on one hand is defined as a branch of metaphysics concerned with identifying, in the most general terms, the kinds of beings that actually exist.
Thus, questions about the existence and nature of minds, bodies, God, space, time, causality, unity, identity, and the world are all metaphysical issues.
2. BEING
Being is that which exists or has the capacity of existence.
THE NOTION OF BEING
Being is the participle of the verb to be and means that which is or that which has to be or a thing having to be.
3. KINDS OF BEING
a. ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL BEING:
v Actual – that has actual existence in the real order. E.g. Philippines
v Potential – has the capacity of existing in the real order. E.g. Dragon
b. INFINITE AND FINITE BEING:
v Infinite Being – a being that possesses all perfections without limits. E.g. God
v Finite Being – are beings that possess perfection with certain limits. E.g. Created beings
c. NECESSARY AND CONTINGENT BEING:
v Necessary Being – that which is impossible for it not to exist. Its very nature requires the being to exist. E.g. God
v Contingent Being – is a being that exists and it would be possible for it not to exist. It very nature does not require it to exist. E.g. man
d. IMMUTABLE AND MUTABLE BEING
v Immutable Being – is that which is not subject to change. It possesses all actuality.
v Mutable being – being that can become another being or other than it is. It possesses actuality and potentiality. It is thus subject to change.
e. ETERNAL AND TEMPORAL BEING:
v Eternal Being – that which has no beginning and no ending and not subject to time.
v Temporal being – being that has beginning and it has no ending.
f. ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE BEING:
v Absolute Being – is that which is in itself sufficient and independent to anything else and is therefore capable being without reference to anything else.
v Relative Being – is that which has some reference to something and it cannot have being independently of that to which it is referred.
NOT UNDER REAL BEING
v Mental being – inside the mind and has the capacity to exist outside the mind.
v Logical being – purely in the mind.
Metaphysics as a term is derived from the two Greek words “meta” (meta) which means “beyond” or “after” and “physika” which literally mean “nature” (jusika). Thus, etymologically speaking, metaphysics is a study of all things which are beyond nature.
Really, metaphysics is defined as a Branch of philosophy concerned with providing a comprehensive account of the most general features of reality as a whole; the study of being as such, otherwise stated as the study of beings as being.
Ontology on one hand is defined as a branch of metaphysics concerned with identifying, in the most general terms, the kinds of beings that actually exist.
Thus, questions about the existence and nature of minds, bodies, God, space, time, causality, unity, identity, and the world are all metaphysical issues.
2. BEING
Being is that which exists or has the capacity of existence.
THE NOTION OF BEING
Being is the participle of the verb to be and means that which is or that which has to be or a thing having to be.
3. KINDS OF BEING
a. ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL BEING:
v Actual – that has actual existence in the real order. E.g. Philippines
v Potential – has the capacity of existing in the real order. E.g. Dragon
b. INFINITE AND FINITE BEING:
v Infinite Being – a being that possesses all perfections without limits. E.g. God
v Finite Being – are beings that possess perfection with certain limits. E.g. Created beings
c. NECESSARY AND CONTINGENT BEING:
v Necessary Being – that which is impossible for it not to exist. Its very nature requires the being to exist. E.g. God
v Contingent Being – is a being that exists and it would be possible for it not to exist. It very nature does not require it to exist. E.g. man
d. IMMUTABLE AND MUTABLE BEING
v Immutable Being – is that which is not subject to change. It possesses all actuality.
v Mutable being – being that can become another being or other than it is. It possesses actuality and potentiality. It is thus subject to change.
e. ETERNAL AND TEMPORAL BEING:
v Eternal Being – that which has no beginning and no ending and not subject to time.
v Temporal being – being that has beginning and it has no ending.
f. ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE BEING:
v Absolute Being – is that which is in itself sufficient and independent to anything else and is therefore capable being without reference to anything else.
v Relative Being – is that which has some reference to something and it cannot have being independently of that to which it is referred.
NOT UNDER REAL BEING
v Mental being – inside the mind and has the capacity to exist outside the mind.
v Logical being – purely in the mind.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
CHAPTER V: NATURE OF TRUTH
1. NATURE OF TRUTH
Plato wrote, Socrates, the most influential philosopher in the history of western of thought, died knowing only one thing about the truth, that is, he did not know anything about the truth.
Truth is the final cause of philosophy. All the branches of philosophy endeavors to know the truth. However, truth is too elusive. The quest for truth has started long before the advent of philosophy and this quest continue until this post modern period.
But for purposes of the present discussion, let try to “understand” truth from the standpoint of Epistemology.
2. EPISTEMOLOGY
The word epistemology is derived from the two Greek words Epistem (episthmh) + Logos (logoz). Epistem means knowledge while Logos means science. Hence, it is etymologically defined as science of knowledge.
As a branch of philosophy, epistemology is defined as that which studies the sources, validity and limits of knowledge. It inquires into perception, meaning and truth.
Epistemology investigates the human knowledge itself from the standpoint if certainty, validity and truth – value of such knowledge.
3. ASIDE FROM KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS NECESSARILY TRUE, THERE IS ALSO KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS CONTINGENTLY TRUE.
Necessary truth is when there is a necessary conformity between the object and the knowledge.
Contingent truth is when sometimes there is no conformity or there exists a conformity between the object and knowledge.
Knowledge is an inner grasp and possession of reality or of an object.
Knowledge is necessarily true from the very perfection and nature of the object when it reacts certainly about the object which cannot be otherwise.
Knowledge is contingently true when somebody may affirm that someone for example he knows that he is accustomed to study such hour. Having presumed, therefore, that he is studying, the affirmation is but only contingently true; for some proposition can also be pronounced, even if he, on accounts of some other later besides the habit, is playing, and in this case, the affirmation did not conform to the object.
4. TRUTH IS AN ABSOLUTE THING
Truth is the conformity of thought and thing.
Absolute means perfect in itself; fixed; unchanging.
A thing is said to be absolutely true when it does not change with times, place and persons.
But, truth does not change with times, places, and persons.
Therefore, truth is an absolute thing.
a. This could be proven by experience. For example, it was once believed that the earth is flat; nevertheless, the earth is not flat. Nor was it flat when it was believed to be so.
What was true when such belief prevailed, is still true, and will be true forever. A mistaken judgment has been corrected but truth has not changed.
b. There are also statements which is fix in a point of time and it must always be understood with reference to that fixed point; such as twelve years ago I said “I am a little boy,’ and the statement was true. If pronounce the same statement today, it is not true. What was said twelve years ago was true. It will forever be true and will remain unchanged.
c. THERE ARE SIX STATES OF THE MIND WITH REFERENCE TO TRUTH
Truth is the conformity of thought and thing otherwise stated as the agreement between the judgment of the mind and objective thing judged.
State of the mind is the condition of the mind in reference to truth.
CLASSIFICATION OF THE STATES OF THE MIND
a. An indecisive state of mind is when the mind does not give a definite or positive judgment.
b. A decisive state of mind is when the mind has already made a decision or judgment and rests in it.
Indecisive State of Mind
IGNORANCE – the lack of knowledge in a subject capable of possessing it.
a. Privative Ignorance – lack of knowledge which one ought to have and reasonably be expected to have and so indicated a real privation in the subject.
b. Negative Ignorance – ignorance of knowledge which one is not reasonably expected to possess, so constitutes no real privation in the subject.
DOUBT – when the mind hesitates between contradictory judgments, unable to deliver either one or the other is true. Doubt, unlike ignorance, involves the presence of some knowledge in the mind.
a. Positive Doubt – the mind is in doubt by reason of apparently equal argument or reasons for each of the two contradictory judgments.
b. Negative Doubt – the mind is in doubt when there appears no good argument or reason for deciding either ways.
SUSPICION – when the mind begins, however slightly, to incline towards one of the contradictories, without definitely accepting it or rejecting the opposite judgment.
Decisive State of Mind
OPINION – when the mind definitely decides for one of two contradictory judgments having reasons for its decisions, bur realizing that, after all, the opposite judgment maybe the true one. Opinion involves definite pronouncement of judgment by the mind, but the judgment is not wholly.
CERTITUDE – is the unwavering assent of the mind to known truth. It implies no fear that; after all, the opposite may be true; instead it rigorously excludes such fear.
ERROR – the state of the mind in which that false is judged to be true, or that which is true is judged to be false.
Plato wrote, Socrates, the most influential philosopher in the history of western of thought, died knowing only one thing about the truth, that is, he did not know anything about the truth.
Truth is the final cause of philosophy. All the branches of philosophy endeavors to know the truth. However, truth is too elusive. The quest for truth has started long before the advent of philosophy and this quest continue until this post modern period.
But for purposes of the present discussion, let try to “understand” truth from the standpoint of Epistemology.
2. EPISTEMOLOGY
The word epistemology is derived from the two Greek words Epistem (episthmh) + Logos (logoz). Epistem means knowledge while Logos means science. Hence, it is etymologically defined as science of knowledge.
As a branch of philosophy, epistemology is defined as that which studies the sources, validity and limits of knowledge. It inquires into perception, meaning and truth.
Epistemology investigates the human knowledge itself from the standpoint if certainty, validity and truth – value of such knowledge.
3. ASIDE FROM KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS NECESSARILY TRUE, THERE IS ALSO KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS CONTINGENTLY TRUE.
Necessary truth is when there is a necessary conformity between the object and the knowledge.
Contingent truth is when sometimes there is no conformity or there exists a conformity between the object and knowledge.
Knowledge is an inner grasp and possession of reality or of an object.
Knowledge is necessarily true from the very perfection and nature of the object when it reacts certainly about the object which cannot be otherwise.
Knowledge is contingently true when somebody may affirm that someone for example he knows that he is accustomed to study such hour. Having presumed, therefore, that he is studying, the affirmation is but only contingently true; for some proposition can also be pronounced, even if he, on accounts of some other later besides the habit, is playing, and in this case, the affirmation did not conform to the object.
4. TRUTH IS AN ABSOLUTE THING
Truth is the conformity of thought and thing.
Absolute means perfect in itself; fixed; unchanging.
A thing is said to be absolutely true when it does not change with times, place and persons.
But, truth does not change with times, places, and persons.
Therefore, truth is an absolute thing.
a. This could be proven by experience. For example, it was once believed that the earth is flat; nevertheless, the earth is not flat. Nor was it flat when it was believed to be so.
What was true when such belief prevailed, is still true, and will be true forever. A mistaken judgment has been corrected but truth has not changed.
b. There are also statements which is fix in a point of time and it must always be understood with reference to that fixed point; such as twelve years ago I said “I am a little boy,’ and the statement was true. If pronounce the same statement today, it is not true. What was said twelve years ago was true. It will forever be true and will remain unchanged.
c. THERE ARE SIX STATES OF THE MIND WITH REFERENCE TO TRUTH
Truth is the conformity of thought and thing otherwise stated as the agreement between the judgment of the mind and objective thing judged.
State of the mind is the condition of the mind in reference to truth.
CLASSIFICATION OF THE STATES OF THE MIND
a. An indecisive state of mind is when the mind does not give a definite or positive judgment.
b. A decisive state of mind is when the mind has already made a decision or judgment and rests in it.
Indecisive State of Mind
IGNORANCE – the lack of knowledge in a subject capable of possessing it.
a. Privative Ignorance – lack of knowledge which one ought to have and reasonably be expected to have and so indicated a real privation in the subject.
b. Negative Ignorance – ignorance of knowledge which one is not reasonably expected to possess, so constitutes no real privation in the subject.
DOUBT – when the mind hesitates between contradictory judgments, unable to deliver either one or the other is true. Doubt, unlike ignorance, involves the presence of some knowledge in the mind.
a. Positive Doubt – the mind is in doubt by reason of apparently equal argument or reasons for each of the two contradictory judgments.
b. Negative Doubt – the mind is in doubt when there appears no good argument or reason for deciding either ways.
SUSPICION – when the mind begins, however slightly, to incline towards one of the contradictories, without definitely accepting it or rejecting the opposite judgment.
Decisive State of Mind
OPINION – when the mind definitely decides for one of two contradictory judgments having reasons for its decisions, bur realizing that, after all, the opposite judgment maybe the true one. Opinion involves definite pronouncement of judgment by the mind, but the judgment is not wholly.
CERTITUDE – is the unwavering assent of the mind to known truth. It implies no fear that; after all, the opposite may be true; instead it rigorously excludes such fear.
ERROR – the state of the mind in which that false is judged to be true, or that which is true is judged to be false.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
