Senior High School

12

INTRODUCTION TO THE
PHILOSOPHY OF THE
HUMAN PERSON
CARLO I. CERBITO, LPT
Subject Teacher
09480482129
carlocerbito27@gmail.com

2
 Introduction to the
Philosophy of the
Human Person
Quarter 1 – Module 2.1:
Methods of Philosophizing

Name : __________________________

Grade Level : __________________________

3
 Welcome to the Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person Module
on Methods of Philosophizing!

The hand is one of the most symbolized part of the human body. It is often used
to depict skill, action and purpose. Through our hands we may learn, create and
accomplish. Hence, the hand in this learning resource signifies that you as a learner is
capable and empowered to successfully achieve the relevant competencies and skills
at your own pace and time. Your academic success lies in your own hands!

This module was designed to provide you with fun and meaningful opportunities
for guided and independent learning at your own pace and time. You will be enabled
to process the contents of the learning resource while being an active learner.

This module has the following parts and corresponding icons:

What I Need to Know This will give you an idea of the skills
or competencies you are expected to learn in the module.
What I Know This part includes an activity that aims to check what
you already know about the lesson to take. If you get all the answers
correct (100%), you may decide to skip
this module.

What’s In This is a brief drill or review to help you link the current lesson
with the previous one.
What’s New In this portion, the new lesson will be introduced to you in
various ways such as a story, a song, a poem, a
problem opener, an activity or a situation.

What is It This section provides a brief discussion of the lesson.

This aims to help you discover and understand new concepts
and skills.

What’s More This comprises activities for independent You may

check the answers to the exercises using the Answer Key at the end
of the module.

What I Have Learned This includes questions or blank

sentence/paragraph to be filled in to process what
you learned from the lesson.

What I Can Do This section provides an activity which will help you
transfer your new knowledge or skill into real life
situations or concerns.

4
 Assessment This is a task which aims to evaluate your level of mastery
in achieving the learning competency.

Additional Activities In this portion, another activity will be given to

you to enrich your knowledge or skill of the lesson earned. This also
tends retention of learned concepts.

At the end of this module you will also find:

References This is a list of all sources used in developing this module.

The following are some reminders in using this module:

1. Use the module with care. Do not put unnecessary mark/s on any part of the
module.
Use a separate sheet of paper in answering the exercises.
2. Don’t forget to answer What I Know before moving on to the other activities
included in the module.
3. Read the instruction carefully before doing each task.
4. Observe honesty and integrity in doing the tasks and checking your answers.
5. Finish the task at hand before proceeding to the next.
6. Return this module to your teacher/facilitator once you are through with it.
If you encounter any difficulty in answering the tasks in this module, do not
hesitate to consult your teacher or facilitator. Always bear in mind that you are not
alone.

We hope that through this material, you will experience meaningful learning and
gain deep understanding of the relevant competencies. You can do it!

What I Need to Know

This module was designed and written with you in mind. It is here to help you
master the nature of Philosophy. The scope of this module permits it to be used in
many different learning situations. The language used recognizes the diverse
vocabulary level of students. The lessons are arranged to follow the standard sequence
of the course. But the order in which you read them can be changed to correspond with
the textbook you are now using.

5
The module is divided into two lessons, namely:

• Lesson 1- Knowledge and Truth

• Lesson 2– Theories of Truth

MOST ESSENTIAL LEARNING COMPETENCIES

After going through this module, you are expected to:

1. Distinguish opinion from truth;

2. Realize that the methods of philosophy lead to wisdom and truth
Specific objectives:

1. Identify the meaning, importance, and source of knowledge.

2. Describe, the steps/processes of acquiring knowledge.

3. Explain how validating one’s knowledge leads to truth.

4. Compare/contrast different theories of truth.

What I Know
Select the keyword that best fits the statement in each item.
Write the chosen letter on a separate sheet of paper.
1. The Correspondence Theory of truth asserts that truth must
A. be agreed by upon by two people
B. corresponds with experience and fact
C. be based on myth and reality
D. be agreed by upon by three people only
2. This theory of truth is the agreement of things with one another.
A. Pragmatic Theory of Truth C. Coherence Theory of Truth
B. Correspondence Theory of Truth D. Dialectical Theory of Truth
3. The truth of a belief is tested by its satisfactory results when it is put into
operation.
A. Pragmatic Theory of Truth C. Correspondence Theory of Truth
B. Coherence Theory of Truth D. Dialectical Theory of Truth
4. This theory of truth deals with the consistency of the truth of statements
claimed within the system that is being used.
A. Correspondence Theory of Truth C. Pragmatic Theory of Truth
B. Coherence Theory of Truth D. Dialectical Theory of Truth

6
5. You know that “Snow is white" if and only if snow is white.
A. Correspondence Theory of Truth C. Pragmatic Theory of Truth
B. Coherence Theory of Truth D. Dialectical Theory of Truth
6. Truth is a property of an extensive body of interrelated statements; hence,
statements have degrees of truth and falsity.
A. Coherence Theory of Truth C. Correspondent Theory Truth
B. Pragmatic Theory of Truth D. Dialectical Theory of Truth
7. This theory of truth is tantamount to the belief in the good or practical
consequence that an idea would bring.
A. Coherence Theory of Truth C. Correspondent Theory Truth
B. Pragmatic Theory of Truth D. Dialectical Theory of Truth
8. It is the idea that something is true if it accurately describes the world.
A. Pragmatic Theory of Truth C. Coherence Theory Truth
B. Correspondence Theory of Truth D. Dialectical Theory of Truth
9. A statement is not known to be true if the fact corresponding to the
statement is not, in principle, verifiable in some manner.
A. Correspondence Theory of Truth C. Pragmatic Theory of Truth
B. Coherence Theory of Truth D. Dialectical Theory of Truth
10. You can never know something is true until you can test its validity. If you
cannot test it, you cannot know it.
A. Pragmatic Theory of Truth C. Correspondence Theory of Truth
B. Coherence Theory of Truth D. Dialectical Theory of Truth
11. Formal discussion entails process.
A. argument C. discussion
B. lecture D. debate
12. Informal discourse does not entail tedious preparation.
A. lecture C. argument
B. debate D. discussion
13. It is true if it is in exact conformity to what is observed in their actual status
and relations.
A. rational C. reasonable
B. concrete D. empirical
14. Light Railway Transit is a train.
A. common senses C. self-evident
B. complex confirmation D. corresponds to argument
15. Reason is the chief source and test of truth.
A. Rational C. Reasonable
B. Concrete D. Empirical

7
 Knowledge and
Lesson 1 Truth
Have you ever experienced believing in something you thought is true but in the
end you discovered that it is false? For example you feel that the person standing in
front of you is a true friend who will never betray you but in the end he did betray you.
Or during an examination period you feel strongly that “A” is the right answer for item
number 12 but it turned out to be “B.” Or you feel that your belief(s) can guide you in
the correct path only to discover that that it leads to disaster. These, and countless
examples from your experiences, show that there is a BIG difference to what we feel
is true and what is really true.

According to philosophy if you want to know the truth you have to use, not emotions,
but thinking. To think however is an act of choice which is not always done properly.
Sometimes we need guidance to straighten our thoughts. This is what module 2
provides. Welcome to the province of epistemology.

What’s
In
Direction: Make a Hashtag (#) (at least five) of what you have learned about the
significance of Epistemology or act of knowing from the previous lesson.

#______________________________________________________________

#______________________________________________________________

#______________________________________________________________

#______________________________________________________________

#______________________________________________________________
8
 What’s New
Right now we are living in a very challenging time
that some people call the “New Normal.” In this time
things that we usually take for granted like the freedom
to travel, entertainment like concerts and movies and
yes, even haircuts, are hard to come by. Not only that
the economy is bleeding to death with thousands losing
their jobs and countless businesses closing. And we
must not forget the thousands of people who were
infected and lost their lives.
Source:
https://www.shutterstock.om/search/scientist+sketchc All of this happened because
we have one tiny enemy which we can’t see but is deadly: the Covid 19 virus. No
wonder scientists in giant pharmaceutical companies are in a race to develop the
vaccine for this virus. The survival of human civilization may depend on their
achievement. And in all of this mankind is relying on one thing which can defeat the
virus: the knowledge inside the head of every scientist developing the cure. Without
knowledge the vaccine needed to end this pandemic is impossible.
Our reliance however on knowledge is not new. Even before the Covid 19
pandemic people are already relying on knowledge for their survival. Without
knowledge on how to create a fire, how to cook
one’s food, how to build a shelter, how to build
dams to control flooding, how to create laws to
preserve order in society and yes even how to
think properly, we would still be in a prehistoric
cave. Knowledge literally enabled mankind to
survive and reach the present level of our
civilization.

It is on the recognition of the supreme

importance of knowledge that gave rise to the
branch of philosophy known as epistemology. Let
us therefore explore the meaning, foundation and importance of epistemology.
Source:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Charles- Darwin-as-an-earthworm-
scientist-caricaturefromthe-journal-Punch-publishedin_fig3_42387382

9
 What is It
WHAT IS EPISTEMOLOGY?
There is no one correct definition of epistemology. The one that I’m going
to use came from the philosopher Ayn Rand:
“Epistemology is a science devoted to the discovery of the proper method
of acquiring and validating knowledge” (Rand 1990). The purpose of epistemology
therefore is two-fold:
1. To show how we can acquire knowledge.
2. To give us a method of demonstrating whether the knowledge we acquired
is really knowledge (i.e., true).
Since knowledge plays a central role in epistemology let us briefly described its
nature.

THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE

According to Ayn Rand knowledge is a “mental grasp of reality reached either
by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation”
(Rand 1990).
When you know something (be it the behavior of your friend, the movement of
the planets, or the origin of civilizations) you understand its nature. You identify what it
is. And it stays with you. Knowledge is a retained form of awareness (Binswanger
2014).
So how do you acquire knowledge? Miss Rand’s definition gives us two ways:
First, we can acquire knowledge using our senses: seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling,
smelling. How do you know that the table is brown? Because you see it. How do you
know that fire is hot? Because you feel it. This method of acquiring knowledge is called
empiricism and it has many adherents in the history of philosophy such as John Locke,
George Berkley, David Hume.

10
The Empiricists (from left to right) John Locke, George Berkley, and David

Second, we can acquire knowledge by thinking with the use of our minds
(what philosophers call the rational faculty). This is what rationalism advocates.
(Some well-known rationalists in history are Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza
and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz).

The Rationalists (from left to right) Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza and
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

However thinking is just half of the story of knowing (in fact the second half).
The reason is that thinking involves content. To think is to think of something. You
cannot think about nothing. This is where sense perception enters the picture by
feeding our minds with data coming from the outside world so that we can have
something to think about.

ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE

Let us now explore the first part of epistemology: the process of acquiring
knowledge.

11
 1. Reality
To know is to know something. This “something” is what philosophers call
reality, existence, being. Let us employ the term existence. Existence is everything
there is (another name for it is the Universe [Peikoff 1990]). It includes everything
we perceive (animals, plants, human beings, inanimate objects) and everything
inside our heads (e.g., our thoughts and emotions) which represents our inner
world.
Existence is really all there is to know. If nothing exists knowledge is impossible.

2. Perception
Our first and only contact with reality is through our senses. Knowledge
begins with perceptual knowledge. At first the senses give us knowledge of things
or entities (what Aristotle calls primary substance): dog, cat, chair, table, man.
Later we became aware not only of things but certain aspects of things like
qualities (blue, hard, smooth), quantities (seven inches or six pounds),
relationships (in front of, son of) even actions (jumping, running, flying). These so
called Aristotelian categories cannot be separated from the entities that have it.
Red for example cannot be separated from red objects; walking cannot be
separated from the person that walks, etc.

3. Concept

After we perceive things we began to notice that some of the things we

perceive are similar to other things. For example we see three individuals let’s call
them Juan, Pablo and Pedro who may have nothing in common at first glance. But
when we compare them with another entity, a dog for example, suddenly their
differences become insignificant. Their big difference to a dog highlights their
similarity to one another (Binswanger 2014)
We therefore grouped them into one class or group, named the group
(“man” or “human being”) and define what that group is to give it identity (Peikoff
1990). We now have a concept which according to one dictionary means “an
abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances” (Merriam-Webster
Dictionary)
The first concepts we formed are concepts of things like dog, cat, man,
house, car. These elementary concepts are called first level concepts (Rand 1990).
From these first level concepts we can form higher level concepts through

12
a process which Rand calls “abstraction from abstractions” (Rand1990).
Let us describe the two types of abstraction from abstractions: wider
generalizations (or simply widenings) and subdivisions (or narrowings)
(Binswanger 2014):
Wider generalization is the process of forming wider and wider concepts.
For example from Juan, Pedro and Pablo we can form the concept “man”. Then
from man, dog, cat, monkey we can form a higher and wider concept “animal”. And
from plant and animal we can form a still higher and wider concept “living
organism”. As we go up to these progressive widenings our knowledge increases.
Subdivisions consist of identifying finer and finer distinctions. For example “man”
is a first level concept that we can subdivide according to profession (doctor,
entertainer, fireman, teacher), or race (Asian, Caucasian [white], black), or gender
(man, woman, lesbian, gay), or nationality (Filipino, Chinese, American) among
other things. As we go down these progressive narrowings our knowledge of things
subsumed under a concept increases.

The result of this progressive widenings and narrowings is a hierarchy (or

levels) of concepts whose based is sense perception. As we move further from the
perceptual base knowledge becomes more abstract and as we move closer to the
perceptual level knowledge becomes more concrete.

4. Proposition
When we use concepts in order to classify or describe an “existent” (a
particular that exist be it an object, a person, an action or event, etc) (Rand 1990)
we use what philosophers call a proposition (Binswanger 2014). A proposition is a
statement that expresses either an assertion or a denial (Copi, 2002) that an
existent belongs to a class or possess certain attribute.
Proposition is usually expressed in a declarative sentence. When I say, for
example, that “Men are mortals” I am making an assertion of men which are
affirmative in nature (thus the statement is an affirmative proposition). When I
make an opposite claim however, “Men are not mortals” I am denying something
about men and thus my statement is negative in nature (thus the proposition is
called a negative proposition)
An affirmative proposition therefore has the following structure: “S is P”
(where S is the subject, P is the predicate and “is” is the copula stating the logical
relationship of S and P) while the negative proposition has the structure “S is not
P” (“is not” is the copula expressing denial).

13
 Notice that statements like “Men are mortals”, “Angels are not demons”,
and “Saints are not sinners” can either be true or false. “Truth and falsity are called
the two possible truth values of the statement” (Hurley 2011). (Later were going to
explore the nature of truth).

5. Inference
How do we demonstrate that the statement is true? By providing an
argument. According to Hurley an argument “is a group of statements, one or more
of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reason to believe
one of the others (the conclusion) (Hurley 2011). To clarify this definition let’s give
an example using the famous Socratic argument: All men are mortals Socrates
is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
Here we have three related statements (or propositions). The last statement
beginning with the word “therefore” is what we call a conclusion. A conclusion is a
statement that we want to prove. The first two statements are what we call premises
(singular form: premise). A premise provides justification, evidence, and proof to the
conclusion.
An argument expresses a reasoning process which logicians call inference
(Hurley 2011). Arguments however is not the only form of inference but logicians
usually used “argument” and “inference” interchangeably.
There are still many things to be discuss on the topic of knowledge
acquisition. We only provided a brief overview of the topic.

THE NATURE OF TRUTH

Now that we know how we know, it’s time to see whether the knowledge we
acquired is “really” knowledge i.e., is true. This is the second part of epistemology:
validating one’s knowledge.
The first step in validating one’s knowledge is to ask oneself the following
question: “How did I arrive at this belief, by what steps?” (Binswanger 2014). Thus
you have to retrace the steps you took to acquire the knowledge, “reverse
engineer” the process (Binswanger 2014). This is what Dr. Peikoff calls reduction
(Peikoff 1990). One will therefore realize that the steps you took to acquire
knowledge (perception-concept-proposition-inference) are the same steps needed

14
to validate knowledge (but in reverse order). Thus what the ancient pre-Socratic
philosopher Heraclitus said is true when applied to epistemology: “the way up
[knowledge acquisition] is the way down [knowledge validation]” (quoted by Dr.
Binswanger 2014).
If we perform the process of reduction, we will realized that all true
knowledge rest ultimately on sense perception. “A belief is true if it can be justified
or proven through the use of one’s senses” (Abella 2016). Consider the following
statements (Abella 2016):
I am alive.
I have a

body. I
can

breathe.

You can only validate the above statements if you observed yourself using
your senses. Feel your body. Are you breathing? Feel your pulse. Observe your
body. Is it moving? These and countless examples provided by your senses
proved that you’re alive (Abella 2016).
Not all statements however can be validated directly by the senses. Some
beliefs or ideas need a “multi-step process of validation called proof’ (Binswanger
2014). Nevertheless proof rests ultimately on sense perception.
Statements based on sense perception are factual and if we based our beliefs on
such facts our beliefs are true (Abella 2016).
For example the belief that human beings have the right to life rests on the
following claim:
1. Human beings are rational animals.
2. Animals (including human beings) are living organisms.

And of course the fact that we are alive can be demonstrated perceptually
as shown above.
A third way to determine if the statement is true is through a consensus
(Abella 2016). If the majority agrees that a statement is true then it is true. However
there are certain limitations to this approach. Far too many times in history false
ideas became popular which ultimately leads to disaster. For example the vast
majority of Germans during the time of Adolph Hitler believed that Jews are racially
inferior. This is obviously false supported by a pseudo biological science of the
Nazi. The result of this false consensus is the extermination of millions of Jews in
many parts of Europe.

15
 A fourth way to determine whether a statement is true is to test it by means
of action (Abella 2016). For example you want to know if a person is friendly. Well
the best way to find out is to approach the person. Thus the famous Nike injunction
of “Just do it” is applicable in this situation.

TRUTH VS OPINION
Identifying truth however can sometimes be tricky. The reason is that there
are times when we strongly held an idea that we feel “deep down” to be true. For
example religious people strongly believed that there is life after death. Some
people who embraced democracy may passionately embraced the idea that the
majority is always right. Or on a more personal level you may feel strongly that
your sister is “selfish”.
However we must not confused strongly held beliefs with truth. Truth is
knowledge validated and when we say validated we mean they are based on the
facts of reality.
You must understand dear student that the facts of reality are independent
of your thoughts, feelings or preferences (Ayn Rand calls this the primacy of
existence [Rand 1982]). That is the characteristic of truth. For example the
statement “Jose Rizal died in 1896” is true. You may not like that statement or
deny it strongly. That does not change the fact that the statement is true because
it is based on what really happened in the past. There are many sources that can
validate the truth of that statement if one cared to look.
However when you say that “Jose Rizal is the greatest man who ever lived”
you are stating your preference and not facts. This is an opinion. Now it is true that
there are many facts about Rizal but that statement is asserting something that is
beyond what the facts state. That statement represents not facts but your
interpretation of facts which may reveal your biases.

To summarize an opinion has the following characteristics:

1. Based on emotions
2. Open to interpretation
3. Cannot be confirmed
4. Inherently biased

While truth is:

16
 1. Based on the facts of reality
2. Can be confirmed with other sources
3. Independent of one’s interpretation, preferences and
biases

Lesson 2 Theories of Truth

In knowing the truth or falsity of a statement, we generally use the following
Theories of Truth:

1. The Correspondence theory of Truth:

The basic idea of the correspondence theory is that what we believe

or say is true if it corresponds to the way things actually are based on the
facts. It argues that an idea that correspond with reality is true while an idea,
which does not correspond to reality is false. For example, if I say, “The
sky is blue” then I looked outside and saw that it is indeed blue, then my
statement is true. On the other hand, if I say, “Pigs have wings” and then I
checked a pig and it does not have wings, then my statement is false. In
general, statements of beliefs, propositions, and ideas are capable being
true or false.
However, according the Eubulides, a student of the Megara school
of philosophy, “the correspondence theory of truth leaves us in the lurch
when we are confronted with statements such as “I am lying” or “What I am
saying here is false.” These are statements and therefore, are capable of
being true or false. But if they are true because they correspond with reality,
then any preceding statement or proposition must be false. Conversely, if
these statements are false because they do not agree with reality, then any
preceding statement or proposition must be true. Thus, no matter what we
say about the truth or falsehood of these statements, we immediately
contradict ourselves.”
This does not mean that the Correspondence Theory of Truth is
wrong or useless and, to be perfectly honest, it is difficult to give up such an

17
 intuitively obvious idea that truth must match reality. Nevertheless, the
above criticisms should indicate that it probably is not a comprehensive
explanation of the nature of truth.
Arguably, it is a fair description of what truth should be, but it may
not be an adequate description of how truth actually “works” in human minds
and social situations (Cline, 2007).
Austin Cline argues, it is important to note here that “truth” is not a
property of “facts.” This may seem odd at first, but a distinction must be
made between facts and beliefs. A fact is some set of circumstances in the
world while a belief is an opinion about what those facts are. A fact cannot
be either true or false because it simply the way the world is. A belief,
however, is capable of being true or false because it may or may not
accurately describe the world.

2. The Coherence Theory of Truth:

It has already been established that the Correspondence Theory assumes

that a belief is true when we are able to confirm it with reality. In other
words, by simply checking if the statement or belief agrees with the way
things really are, we can know the truth. However, as Austin Cline argues,
this manner of determining the truth is rather odd and simplistic. Cline said
that a belief can be an inaccurate description of reality that may also fit in
with a larger, complex system of further inaccurate descriptions of reality.
Thus, by relying on the Correspondence Theory, that inaccurate belief will
still be called “truth” even though it does not actually describe actual state
of things. So how do we resolve this problem? In order to know the truth
of a statement, it must be tested as part of a larger set of ideas. Statements
cannot be sufficiently evaluated in isolation. For example, if you pick up a
ball and drop it accidentally, the action cannot be simply explained by our
belief in the law of gravity which can be verified but also by a host of other
factors that may have something to do with the incident, such as the
accuracy of our visual perception. For Cline, only when statements are
tested as part of a larger system of complex ideas, then one might conclude
that the statement is “true”. By testing this set of complex ideas against
reality, then one can ascertain whether the statement is “true” or “false”.
Consequently, by using this method, we establish that the statement
“coheres” with the larger system. In a sense, the Coherence Theory is
similar to the Correspondence Theory since both evaluates statements
based on their agreement with reality. The difference lies in the method
18
 where the former involves a larger system while the latter relies on a single
evidence of fact.
As a result, Coherence Theories have often been rejected for lacking
justification in their application to other areas of truth, especially in
statements or claims about the natural world, empirical data in general, and
assertions about practical matters of psychology and society, especially
when they are used without support from the other major theories of truth.
Coherence theories represent the ideas of rationalist philosophers
such as Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Georg Wilhelm
Friedrich Hegel and the British philosopher F.H Bradley. Moreover, this
method had its resurgence in the ideas of several proponents of logical
positivism, notably Otto Neurath and Carl Hempel.

3. The Pragmatist Theory of Truth:

The Pragramatic Theory of Truth states that a belief/statement is true

if it has a useful (pragmatic) application in the world. If it does not, then it is
not true. In addition, we can know whether a belief/statement is true by
examining the consequence of holding or accepting the statement/belief to
be true. For example, there are some people who think that there are
“ghosts” or “vampires” because they find it useful in explaining unusual
phenomena and in dealing with fears (Mabaquiao, 2016). So, if we are
going to use the word “truth”, we define it as that which is most useful to us.
However, there are objections against this theory of truth. For Austin Cline,
truth that is based on what works is very ambiguous. What happens when
a belief works in one sense but fails in another? Suppose a belief that one
will succeed may give a person the psychological strength needed to
accomplish a great deal but in the end he fails in his ultimate goal. Was his
belief “true”?
In this sense, Cline argues that when a belief works, it is more
appropriate to call it useful rather than “true”. A belief that is useful is not
necessarily true and in normal conversations, people do not typically use
the word “true” to mean “useful”.
To illustrate, the statement “It is useful to believe that my spouse is faithful”
does not at all mean the same as “It is true that my spouse is faithful.”
Granted that true beliefs are also usually the ones that are useful, but it is
not usually the case. As Nietzsche argued, sometimes untruth may be more
useful than truth.

19
 In sum, we can know if statements/beliefs are true if we look at each
statement/belief and determine if they correspond to facts, cohere with the
rules of the system and result into useful application.
It must be noted, however, that Philosophers “continue to argue with
each other on which among these three general methods is the correct one
or one that works for all kinds of statement or beliefs” (Mabaquiao, 59).
Nevertheless, it is not necessary to subscribe to only one method and
consider it to work for everyone. Perhaps it is better to use any of the three
methods that is appropriate for any given statement or belief that is being
examined.

What’s More
Activity: Inquire and Discover

1. Read the passage from “Plato’s Allegory of the Cave”

(Critical thinking, Communication, Character)

“Some prisoners are chained inside a cave, facing the back wall.
Behind them is a fire, with people passing in front of it. The prisoners cannot
turn their heads, and have always been chained this way. All they can see
and hear are shadows passing back and forth and the echoes bouncing off
the wall in front of them. One day, a prisoner is freed, and dragged outside
the cave. He is blinded by the light, confused, and resists being led outside.
But, eventually his eyes adjusts so that he able to see clearly the things
around him, and even the sun itself. He came to realize that the things he
thought were real were merely shadows of real things, and that life outside
of the cave is far better than his previous life in chains. He pities those still
inside. He ventures back into the cave to share his discovery with the
others—only to be ridiculed because he can hardly see (his eyes have
trouble at first re-adjusting to the darkness). He tried to free the other
prisoners but they violently resisted (the other prisoners refuse to be freed
and led outside, and they even tried to kill him)”.
(https://wmpeople.wm.edu/asset/index/cvance/allegory)

2. What does this story mean?

______________________________________________________________

20
 _____________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

3. How does this passage from Plato help you turn your attention toward the right
thing (i.e., truth, beauty, justice and goodness)?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

Activity: Empiricists vs. Rationalists (Critical Thinking, Communication)

Directions: Using the Venn diagram below, write the differences and similarities
between how empiricists and rationalists acquired knowledge.

Empiricists Rationalists

What I Have
Learned
Activity: Theories of Truth (Critical Thinking)
21
Direction: Identify the different theories of truth on the following statements. Write
your answer on the space provided before the number.

_____ 1. There is a water fountain in front of the Cultural Center of the Philippines.
_____ 2. Bachelors are unmarried men.
_____ 3. The sun will rise tomorrow.
_____ 4. A dream board is necessary for dreams to come true.
_____ 5. What is more important to me at this time is my family.
_____ 6. A wooden table is a solid object.
_____ 7. Ghost and vampires exist.
_____ 8. 2+2=4
_____ 9. Cats are animals.
_____ 10. The Sky is blue.

What I Can
Do
Direction: Make a reflection paper on Truth.
(Critical Thinking, Character, Creativity, Communication)
Guide Question: What is truth? How you tell the truth to others?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

Assessment

Select the keyword that best fits the statement in each item. Write the chosen letter
on a separate sheet of paper.

22
1. Beliefs and statements are true if they are consistent with actual state of
affairs.
A. Correspondence C. pragmatic
B. coherence D. deflationary
2. Beliefs that lead to the best "payoff", that are the best justification of our
actions that promote success, are truths.
A. pragmatic theory C. correspondence theory
B. semantic theory D. coherence theory
3. Check the headline information fair, objective, and moderate
A. It’s time to consider other means of cash aid distribution
A. Other countries around the world have much better means in cash
aid distribution
B. Government vows to faster distribution of coronavirus aid
C. We can also learn lesson from Vietnam how they distribute their cash
aid
4. Statements are true on the degree to which it "hangs together" with all the
other beliefs in a system of beliefs.
A. pragmatic C. deflationary
B. coherence D. correspondence
5. The five senses are useful tools to verify the truthfulness of propositions.
A. coherence theory C. correspondence theory
B. pragmatic theory D. semantic theory
6. Why do we need epistemology?
A. To overcome poverty C. To become geniuses
B. To acquire and validate knowledge D. To succeed in life
7. Knowledge is ultimately grounded on___________.
A. Emotions C. Beliefs
B. Convictions D. Sense perception
8. Philosophers who believed that knowledge is based on sense perception.
A. Idealists C. Empiricists B. Rationalists
D. Nominalists
9. Identify which of the following statements is factual?
1. My brother arrived at 11 pm.
2. My brother always come home late because he is a good for nothing
individual.
3. Man is a living organism.
4. Free trade simply promotes the selfish greed of businessmen.
A. 1 and 4
B. 2 and 3
C. 1 and 3
23
 D. 2 and 4
10. Identify which statements above are mere opinions.
A. 1 and 3
B. 2 and 4
C. 2 and 3
D. 1 and 4

Additional Activities
Direction: Read an article/watch TV/listen to radio channel and follow the guide
questions below: (Critical thinking, Communication)

Guide Questions:

1. How do you assess the words and statement uttered/stated in the article, tv
and radio?
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

2. Which of their statements can be considered truth? Why?

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

References
Books:

Abella, Roberto D. (2016). Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person.

Quezon City: C&E Publishing

24
Binswanger, Harry. (2014). How We Know. New York: TOF Publications.

Copi, Irving M. and Cohen, Carl (2002). Introduction to Logic (11 th edition). New
Jersey: Prentice Hall

Hurley, Patrick J. (2011). A Concise Introduction to Logic (11 th edition). Boston:

Cengage Learning

Mabacquiao, N. (2017). Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person.

Quezon City: Phoenix Publishing.

Peikoff, Leonard (1990). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York:
Dutton

Rand, Ayn (1990). Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (2nd edition). New York:
Meridian

Stumpf, Samuel Enoch & Fieser, James (2008). Socrates to Sartre and Beyond (8 th
edition). New Yok: McGraw Hill

Wilber, Ken (2006). Integral Spirituality. Boston: Integral Books

Websites:

Adapted from articles by Austin Cline:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/05/29/epistemology-correspondence-
theoryoftruth.htm accessed May 31, 2020.

http://mrhoyestokwebsite.com/Knower/Useful%20Information/Three%20Different
%20Theories%20of%20Truth.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

https://wmpeople.wm.edu/asset/index/cvance/allegory

25