Philosophy is a subject
that we can use to discover a lot of truth about the world we live in. There
are several reasons why it is so important:
1) Philosophy has a
broad definition
One definition of philosophy
that I thought fit philosophy pretty well is "the love of knowledge",
or as Webster's dictionary defines it, "the pursuit of wisdom". These
definitions fit as a general definition of philosophy because almost any type
of knowledge that we have involves philosophy in some way. Another simple way
to describe philosophy is, "using reason to ask questions and draw
conclusions about the world we live in."
2) Philosophy separates
good arguments from bad arguments
One way we engage in
philosophy is through arguments. I do not use the word
"argument" in reference to a back-and-forth verbal fight with another
person. I refer to the definition, "a
coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion."
This definition flows
into a logical aspect of philosophy, where we can use logic to draw conclusions
about the world. A logical argument involves premises that lead to a
conclusion. A premise is basically a statement that claims certain things
within itself, but is also part of a series of claims that lead to a
conclusion. In order for an argument to be sound, all of the premises must be
true and the form of the argument must "follow" to the conclusion.
An argument follows when
the first premise leads to the next premise logically, and that premise leads
to the next premise logically, and on and on until the last premise leads to
the conclusion. If an argument does follow logically, then the truth of
individual premises need to be proven false in order to prove the entire
argument false.
The easiest way to
understand how an argument works is through an example. Take the following
example:
1. All cats are not dogs
(1st premise)
2. Felix is a cat
(2nd premise)
3. Therefore, Felix is
not a dog (conclusion)
This first premise
involves a subject, cats, and claims something about that subject. To follow up
that premise, the 2nd premise establishes that Felix is that subject. Thus,
what is true about that subject is also true about Felix. Felix, like all cats,
is not a dog. The argument flows logically, and the premises follow to the
conclusion.
In order to refute the
argument, you would need to show that #1 or #2 are false. For example, you
could get Felix and show that he is actually a mouse. If that were the case,
the entire argument would be invalid. The conclusion may still be true, and the
argument still would follow, but the means to reach the conclusion would be
improper.
This next example shows
an argument that does not follow, and is basically non-sensible:
1. When I wear shoes,
they are always red
2. I am wearing shoes
3. Red is a color of the
rainbow
Assuming #1 and #2 are
true, the argument seems to work until you try to transition from #2 to #3.
There is nothing that connects premise #2 to the conclusion. There is some sort
of breakdown in the argument; you cannot follow the argument from premise #1 to
the conclusion in a way that makes sense.
Using this logical form
is one way we can determine if an argument holds up (a good argument) or breaks
down (a bad argument). Arguments can have fallacies that
show that the argument is a poor one. But why does the entire argument have to
be false if one of the components of the arguments is shown to be false?
That question leads to a
situation where assumptions need to be made. In this case, we need to assume
that logic can be used to discover truth about the world. If an argument in not
logical, it is not true.
There is not an argument
that can be made to "prove" logic works; it is just an assumption
that we need to make in order to form arguments in the first place. If there
was a way to show that logic exists, it could be simply through personal
experience. We obviously seem to be able to draw conclusions about our world in
this logical way.
Once you establish the assumption that you can
use logic, then the idea of making an argument and verifying its truth works.
And this idea of assumptions leads to the final important aspect of philosophy
I will discuss.
3) Philosophy
establishes assumptions that are necessary to make conclusions using other
areas of truth
Philosophy's penetration
into all knowledge becomes evident when you consider that the assumptions we
use every day are based in philosophy. The assumption that we can use our mind
to form reasonable conclusions branches out to every other area of truth. If
that philosophical assumption were not established, any truth claim a person
makes would be meaningless and untrustworthy.
This basic assumption is
called an axiom, or a
self-evident truth. Other axioms include the continuity of nature, the
existence of time, and the existence of truth. All other areas of truth
are dependent on philosophy to some extent because of these necessary
assumptions. One example is science, since the
scientific method is built off certain philosophical assumptions.
So does that mean that
philosophy is self-sustaining, where it does not need to involve the other
truth areas I discussed in this blog? Even if that is the case, I do not think
that is an important issue. The question that is more important is "does
philosophy cover all truth about the world?" I think the
answer to that is no. When you focus on one area of truth and ignore the rest,
you miss many opportunities to discover truth about the world. Philosophy is no
exception. You can make logical arguments that follow perfectly using
philosophy. However, if those arguments are not supplemented by history,
science, religion, and other areas of truth, they will be much more difficult
to prove.
That ends this little
introduction on the area of philosophy. This blog is almost done with
"building" a foundation for what I am going to talk about next. My
next post will be about the truth area of religion.
