June 18, 2010

Scientific Reasoning and Critical Thinking

Course Identification

  1. Subject Code: Philosophy 11
  2. Course Title: Scientific Reasoning and Critical Thinking
  3. Course Description:

This course is specifically an outlined study of the basic principles of philosophy and its branches. It also covers an introduction to formal logic to develop the students skills in forming clear and systematic though, conducting inquiries and carrying our abstract and critical thinking (CSU General Catalogue, Revised 2008-2009)

  1. Number of Units: 3
  2. Number of Hours: 54
  3. Course Requirements:

Quizzes                                -              -              -                30%

Class Standing   -              -              -                20%

Recitation           -              5%

Assignments      -              5%

Project                 -              10%

Periodic Test      -             -              -                50%

Total                      -              -              -              100%

  1. Course Objectives:

At the end of the semester, the students must be able to:

  1. Distinguish a good argument from a bad argument.
  2. Understand the central ideas and topics studied in Traditional and Symbolic Logic
  3. Construct their own arguments, in traditional language and in symbolic language.
  4. Develop philosophical and critical thinking.
Course Content


Specific Objectives Instructional Materials Used Strategies and Activities Evaluation Time





  1. 1. To orient the students with the basics of concepts, such as:
  • Meaning of Philosophy
  • Branches of Philosophy
  • Definition of Logic
  • Core of Logic
  • Types of Logic
  • Basic Technical Terms
  1. 2. To elaborate on the idea of Logic as an Organon towards truth

  1. 1. To distinguish, through explanation and examples, the forms and functions of language.
  2. 2. To discuss the nature of emotive words
  3. 3. To discuss Disagreements & their types

  1. 1. To identify and understand the parts of an argument
  2. 2. To diagram an argument
  3. 3. To distinguish an argument from a non-argument
  4. 4. To distinguish, through explanation and examples, a deductive argument from an inductive argument
  5. 5. To discuss the concepts of Truth, Validity, and Soundness

  • Transparencies with OHP
  • Handouts

  • Lecture and Exercises

  • Preliminary Examination
  • Quizzes
  • Seatwork
  • Assignments
  • Report

6 days

(12 hrs)

Course Content



Specific Objectives Instructional Materials Used Strategies and Activities Evaluation Time







  1. VI. Inductive Arguments & the Scientific Method

  1. 1. To  define and understand the categorical term
  2. 2. To discuss the “comprehension” and “extension” of a term
  3. 3. To analyze a term according to its Quantity & Distribution
  4. 4. Identify the kinds of terms (Univocal, Equivocal, & Analogous)

  1. 1. To explain the Categorical Proposition & its standard forms
  2. 2. To analyze a Categorical Proposition according to its quality, quantity, & distribution
  3. 3. To analyze a Categorical Proposition using the Venn Diagram

  1. 1. To understand the Categorical Syllogism through the syllogistic rules
  2. 2. To analyze the validity of the “logical form” of a Categorical Syllogism through its “mood” and “figure”
  3. 3. To analyze a Categorical Syllogism using a Venn Diagram

  1. 1. To identify and distinguish, through explanation and examples, an immediate from a mediate inference.
  2. 2. To discuss the Traditional Square of Opposition
  3. 3. To identify and understand the different forms of “Eduction” (conversion, obversion, contraposition, & inversion)

  1. 1. To discuss and cite examples of the different types of Hypothetical Syllogism
  2. 2. To indentify and explain the special mediate inference, such as Enthymemes, Epichireme, Polysyllogism, Sorites, & Dilemma
  1. 1. To explain the reasoning mechanism of an inductive argument
  2. To see the importance of the inductive method in the Empirical Sciences

  • Transparencies with OHP
  • Handouts

  • Lecture and Exercises

  • MidtermExamination
  • Quizzes
  • Seatwork
  • Assignments
  • Report

10 days

(20 hrs)

Course Content




Specific Objectives Instructional Materials Used Strategies and Activities Evaluation Time








  1. 1. To explain the erroneous process of thinking in the fallacies
  2. 2. To identify and understand the types of formal fallacies
  3. 3. To identify and understand the different types of informal fallacies

  1. 1. To explain the nature of symbolic propositional logic
  2. 2. To discuss propositions & truth-values
  3. 3. To identify & understand the different Basic Logical Operators, their truth functions, and how they can be analyzed through truth tables

To understand the paradoxes in the nature of material implication

To analyze the truth function of propositions through the short-cut truth table method & forking

  1. 1. To identify & explain the different rules of replacement
  2. 2. To indentify & explain the different rules of inference
  3. 3. To construct formal proofs through the different rules

  1. 1. To explain the rationale behind predicate logic
  2. 2. To discuss the theory of quantification
  3. 3. To discuss the quantifiers and connectives
  4. 4. To construct formula

  • Transparencies with OHP
  • Handouts

  • Lecture and Exercises

  • Final Examination
  • Quizzes
  • Seatwork
  • Assignments
  • Report

11 days

(22 hrs)


There will be no textbook for this course; required readings will be provided as the course progresses. However, students are especially recommended to read the following introductory books:

  1. Irving Copi. Introduction to Logic. Macmillan,1969.
  2. I. M. Copi and Carl Cohen. Introduction to Logic. New York: Prentice Hall, 2001 (11th edition).
  3. Andrew H. Bachhuber. Introduction to Logic. New York: Meredith Publishing Company, 1957.
  4. Maria Imelda Pastrama Nabor-Nery. Logic with Ethics and Value Education. Ed. by Rtn. Jose Cruz Nery, Sr.. Manila: Katha Publishing Co., Inc.
  5. I.M. Copi. Symbolic Logic. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

You can also refer to the following online materials:,,

Reviewed by:


Prepared by:


Subject Instructor

Approved by:


College Dean

Michael Jhon M. Tamayao, M.Phil.

Introduction to Philosophy

Lecture 1:


 I. Myths and the Birth of Science…

Myths have always been part of human consciousness. Before the Spaniards introduced Christianity to the Philippines, Filipinos have embraced myths as a rule of life. The myth of “Bathala”, for example, was firmly believed as the explanation of how man and the world came to be. “Bathala”, the supreme being bestowed with all the superlative qualities, was then seen as the ultimate “cause” of everything. For our ancestors, myths were the “accepted explanations” for the various cosmological and social phenomena. They were seen as “the truths” that underlie reality. This mythological predisposition has been so engrained in our Filipino mindset that traces of it can still be observed today. Whenever beset by a seemingly unsolvable predicament, we Filipinos often say “bahala na” (anything goes), firmly believing that everything will be alright under the grace of the Almighty. The word “bahala” is obviously a modern rendition of “Bathala.” This alludes to the fact that the phrase “bahala na” also means “Bathala (God) will take care of everything.” Indeed myths shaped, not only the world-view of our ancestors, but also our modern life-worlds.


2500 years ago, mythological explanations were also widespread in Greece, the heart of the ancient western civilization. Before it became the much-applauded scientific and philosophical culture, Greece has also been a mythological culture. Spearheaded by the likes of Hesiod and Homer, Greeks viewed the world from a very complex mythological perspective. Famous gods and goddesses like Zeus and Athena, and Aphrodite and Aries were all Greek concoctions that were considered as “causes” of the many transformations observed in nature. Myths served as the uncontested rationalization for all the natural phenomena.


However, something remarkable and “unthinkable” happened in Miletus, a small corner of a Greek colony in Asia Minor – man suddenly began to think “scientifically” and “philosophically.” This was a moment (considered as a gift to mankind) which totally changed the course of the human history. Until today, no one still knows why or how this happened. It continues to be a mystery – a blessing, I can say – that elevated man into a higher state of consciousness.


Some scholars say that the flourishing economic condition of sixth-century Miletus was the impetus for the emergence of this scientific and philosophical approach of thinking in Greece. Veritably, wealth stimulates not only the economic progress of a nation but also its intellectual and cultural progress. When his primal needs have all been served, man begins to ask questions which “busy” and “preoccupied” minds cannot ask. Questions like “why are we here?”, “where did everything come from?”, and “what is the underlying stuff of all things?” This is what happened in Greece. While the slaves did all the manual labors, the citizens concentrated on knowledge and culture. Eventually, the citizens’ inquisitive minds sought for explanations beyond the myths, for explanations which were grounded in the objects themselves. Thus, an imminent change from a mythologically imagined world to a world grasped scientifically and philosophically took place in Greece. However, science and philosophy were not yet distinguished during that time. The Greek philosophers simply saw both disciplines as man’s passionate disposition towards the acquisition of “wisdom.” Their entanglement proved to be very fruitful and find their visible significance in the natural philosophers.





II. The Quest for the “Underlying Stuff” of Nature…


According to Aristotle, “Thales of Miletus” (624-547 BC) was the first scientific and philosophical thinker, as he was the first person to investigate on the originating principle (archê) of things. He was often pronounced as the “Father of Science” and the founder of the school of natural philosophy or Cosmology (study of the “ordered” universe). He has varied interests, investigating on almost all fields of knowledge. In Plato’s Republic, Thales was described as a man who has “many and ingenious inventions for arts and business of life.”[1] He traveled in many places including Egypt and Babylon from which he acquired knowledge in engineering, geometry, agriculture and astronomy. He excelled in the domain of applied science as he accurately predicted a solar eclipse in May 28, 585 BC. He was so highly esteemed that Plutrach, a well-known historian and ancient scholar, named him, together with the likes of Socrates and Aristotle, as one of the Seven Sages of ancient times. And as the letter cited by Diogenes Laertius purported, all scientific and philosophical discourses begin with his treatises.  


One of the main reasons why Thales was esteemed during his times was his defiance against commonly accepted conjectures and myths. His original views and hypotheses about nature were excitingly new, on the basis of which Aristotle recognized him as the founder of natural philosophy and his ideas as the genesis of scientific investigation.


Thales’ natural philosophy is duly understood through his infamous claim that “all things are full of gods.”[2] Although this statement may sound “mythological,” its real import served as the catalyst for scientific thinking. His position challenged the validity and relevance of myths in explaining the natural world. The idea of “god in things” rejects the idea of an “external god” which causes the transformations of the physical world, and advances explanations inferred from the natural conditions of things themselves. The answer for Thales must not be “outside” nature but “inside” nature itself.


“God in things” also suggests that things are life-like insofar as their change or behavior is intelligible and predictable.[3] The notion of “predictability” of things presupposes the notion of “causality.” Things are causes (aitia) of other things so that all the transformations could be ordered as to their causes. Things are predictable because they follow a pattern of unbroken causality. The notions of predictability and causality are two of the most important concepts in modern sciences. It is precisely for this reason that we can discern the philosophico-scientific significance of Thales’ assertion.


Thales was an extreme thinker, inasmuch as he wanted to find the “ultimate cause of all things.” Unlike the doctors and astronomers who only sought for the “proximate causes” of diseases and cosmic changes, the philosopher Thales sought for “the” cause, the “underlying stuff” that connected all things with one thread. “Order out of chaos”, this was the motif of his philosophy. It was the search for that underlying stuff which ordered nature that concerned him (and the subsequent natural philosophers) the most.






III. The Various Proposals…


What is the underlying stuff of nature?


In order to answer this highly “theoretical” question, Thales reverted back to the domain of observational experience. In his journeys he observed that life sprung from where water was. Crops and vegetables grew near rivers. Frogs and worms appeared every after the rain poured. Great civilizations like Egypt, Mesopotamia, and India thrived near bodies of water. More so, living creatures, such as plants, animals and men, are mostly made-up of moist. Rivers also generate earth, as Thales might have observed when he saw coastal lands grow in each passing year.[4] Ultimately, water nourishes everything in the cosmos. Thus Thales concluded that water was “the underlying stuff” of nature; or, as Aristotle wrote in his Metaphysics, for Thales “all things are water.” Nature as water is a single material substance, manifested in a myriad of ways which water can turn into. Water after all was a substance that can take all the various forms of matter (solid, liquid and gas) and as such the major component of all things. The fact for Thales was that all things were mere manifestations of water. Although his water-thesis may seem naive for us today, his views, if put against the background of ancient mythology from which it drastically departed, were innovative and revolutionary.          


After Thales various Milesian philosophers proposed their own versions of the “underlying stuff.” Anaximander (610-546 BC), believed to be a student of Thales and the second Milesian philosopher, stated that the “boundless” united everything in nature. We do not and cannot exactly say what Anaximander meant by this “boundless” but one thing was sure, that the ordering cause of nature was not a single substance but an “infinity” of constant encroachments. For him the various elements of nature (water, earth, fire and air) were constantly opposing each other in a battle for dominance. Nature is constantly changing but its changes (the opposition of the different elements) will in the end produce a balance.


The notion of “boundless” or “infinity” also goes beyond the “finitude” of created things. Created things are limited in the sense that they are perishable. Things that are perishable constantly change and that which continually changes is unintelligible. If what we are seeking is an “intelligible cause” that unites and goes beyond the multiplicity of the physical world, then the only possible answer is something “infinite,” “uncreated” or, for Anaximander, the “boundless.”


Another Milesian philosopher proposed that “air” or “vapour” was the underlying stuff of all things. His name was Anaximenes (570-526 BC), the third Milesian philosopher. For Anaximenes, air, which was and continued to be the most dominant element in the universe, was the origin of earth, water and fire. Water was just condensed air or the compact form of vapour (air). Earth was also a condensed form of air, more condense than water. Anaximenes figured this out by observing that when the snow melted the earth emerged. And lastly, fire was rarefied air. Its air molecules – using a more modern term – were less dense than water and earth.[5]


Moreover, for the old worlds, air was not just the source of life; it represented life itself. This idea was not only embraced by the west but also by the east. The author of the book of Genesis, for example, an Israelite, spoke of God blowing into man’s nostrils the “breath” or “air” of life.[6] The connection of air and life was so strong that separating them is inconceivable. Air must therefore be the grounding element of life and reality.


This theory unique of Milesian cosmologies that relies on a single material substance in explaining the unity of things is called Material Monism. The several substances (earth, water, air, fire, etc) and the varied changes in nature are just modifications of the single material stuff that is always and everywhere present.     



IV. Change and Permanence…


Central to Thales’ view of reality was the idea of “One” in the “Many,” i.e., that there was one unchanging thing that serves as the principle cause of the many changing things. On the one hand, there was Permanence and, on the other hand, there was Change. Two subsequent philosophers embraced these two sides of Thales’ view. Heraclitus focused on the side of change, while for Parmenides, the side of permanence.


i. Heraclitus


Heraclitus accepted Thales’ notion that there was “one” underlying stuff behind the “many” observable things. For him the reality of one cause was demanded by reason, and the reality of the many changing things was demanded by sense experience. His eyes saw the changes but his mind saw the order behind those changes. Indeed, there must be “one” among the “many.”


But for Heraclitus this “one” cause was not “unchanging”; it was also changing. The orderly changes in nature cannot possibly have one “unchanging” cause because evidently everything, how orderly it may be, changes. Thales was then looking for the “one” underlying stuff which accounted for the order in the change but at the same time was also “changing”. For him this one changing stuff was “fire.”


Fire is a continually changing substance but simultaneously remains as one single thing. Whereas Thales’ notion of water involved his reversion from abstract reason to sense experience, Heraclitus’ idea of fire was perfectly consistent to sense experience.[7] The perfect balance and connectivity of reason and sense experience found its way into Heraclitus’ ingenious concoction of fire as the “one changing stuff.”


In Fragment 76, Heraclitus said, “Fire lives the death of earth, and air the death of fire, water lives the death of air, earth that of water.” This assertion simply points to the fact that in the rational cycle of change nothing is ever lost or gained. In fire, life and death continue in an endless cycle. Fire is the cause of the continuous and eternal change. This triggered Heraclitus to say that fire in itself has a “living logos (reason)” that makes the natural world appear intelligible. 


Eventually Heraclitus linked fire with God. If fire possesses a “living reason” that lets changes of nature intelligible, fire must be the bond that unites everything, including “opposites” (e.g. love and strife, war and peace, beauty and ugliness, black and white, freedom and imprisonment). But there can be no other being capable of becoming this ultimate bond than God himself. God is “day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, fullness and hunger.”[8]


            ii. Parmenides


While Heraclitus wholly embraced the idea of “change”, Parmenides completely rejected its intelligibility. For the latter, “change is impossible” because it involves the absurd idea that something comes into being and goes out of being. Whatever pushed Parmenides to propose this assertion must be something beyond doubt. And this was precisely what happened; his reason pushed him to rebuff what his sense perception dictated and stick to a seemingly preposterous statement.


For Parmenides, both Thales and Heraclitus’ notion of “One” in the “Many” is problematic. The “One” is not the “Many” and the “Many” cannot be “One.” This is a self-evident proposition. Furthermore, Parmenides identified the “One” with what is – with Reality or Being. Reality or Being is not just this or that or even the collection of all things. Reality is the living condition, our encounter with the world and the things at hand. Reality is a happening; a dynamic process that lets the things at hand become something significant, i.e. something “there.” Reality therefore is not just some graspable or perceptible thing but it is simply what is, the on-going presencing. But although Reality or Being has extension, i.e. it manifests itself in particular things, it does not have particular qualities. It is just “one undifferentiated happening” and not “many.”


Being or Reality cannot change because if it changes then it would become Being or non-Being (what is not). Being cannot become Being because it is already Being, and Being cannot become non-Being because there will be “no thing” (non-Being) for it to turn into. Being after all will still be Being. To put it in simpler terms, if “something” (Being) will change, then it does not change at all because there is “no thing” (non-Being) to change into.


From all these complex assertions, Parmenides only wanted to state a self-evident truth, i.e. “what is is (Being is Being) and what is not is not (non-Being is non-Being) as that what is not cannot be what is (Being cannot be Nothing).” Under Parmenides’ deductions therefore change, which incorporates the idea that what is can come into being and go out of being, is theoretically impossible. The inevitable consequence of this proposition is to deny the data perceived by our senses. Changes are just illusions.


iii. The Heraclitean and Parmenidean Influence to Science


Modern day science exhibits the Heraclitean emphasis on sense experience. Just like Heraclitus, scientists today emphasize knowledge gained from observational corroboration, and thus they advance the “empirical spirit” of science. As a consequence, this empirical stance fosters greater stress on sense perception and discourages pure speculative theory in the domain of science.


Parmenides, on the other hand, was the first philosopher who distinguished non-Being from Being and who argued that only the latter was strictly knowable.[9] Science today firmly abides by this Parmenidean dictum such that only “something” – and not “no thing” – is the “object” of science. As Heidegger, a famous 20th century philosopher, puts it, “science wishes to know nothing of Nothing.” Furthermore, Parmenides also underscored the fact, a fact limitedly recognized by Thales and Heraclitus, that knowledge about reality must go beyond a perception of changing material thing.[10] 


V. Sophism and Relativism…


The philosophical epoch wherein Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus and Parmenides belonged was the Pre-Socratic period. This epoch was called as such because it was a period that came before Socrates, a philosopher recognized as one of the greatest thinkers of all time. Socrates fought for the validity of “universal” ideas as opposed to “relativistic” ideas proposed by the so-called “Sophists,” the learned teachers and masters of the arts of ancient Greece. Though the word “sophist” came to denote mere cleverness (sophis), a Sophist was generally regarded as an expert (sophiste) in knowing how to forcefully use rhetorics for practical purposes.[11] They were tagged as “relativists” because “truth” for them was based on how “you” present a position and persuade the listeners to your truth claim. Truth was relative to the capable, learned and persuasive individual or group of individuals. Among several prominent Sophists was Protagoras. 


i. Protagoras


Protagoras, as described by Plato in the dialogue Protagoras, was “a man of wide experience, deep learning, and original thought.” Although Plato was disdainful of the Sophist’s relativism, his assertion that Protagoras had “original thought” implied that at least part of Protagoras’ thought went beyond sophistic rhetoric. Indeed, Protagoras has “original thought” as when he stated, in his treatise Truth, that “man is the measure of all things.” The statement may have become all too common already but its implication has become ever too elusive. On its simplest sense, the statement meant truth varied from one man to another so much so that every man has his own interpretation or “measure” of the truth of things. From this perspective, there was no objective way in resolving which perspective was true because each person was entitled to his own truth. Now although you may have the same assertions as mine, it will just redown to the fact that agreements are rooted in our “subjective” perception and not about what is “objectively” true about the world.


Relativity finds its roots in Protagoras’ notion of “measurement” in the phrase “man is the measure of all things.” “Measurement” in the statement is predominantly associated with sense perception and not with reason. As such, no question can be universally true because all measurements from sense perception vary. But every assertion is “subjectively” true because it holds true to every individual.


We might argue that Protagoras is proposing a very inconsistent system of thought. Under his system, everybody is left to his own with no standards to follow. But looking from a wider perspective, Protagoras is just proposing a more realistic character of human knowledge – that it can never be absolute. True enough, man can never possess an absolute knowledge of reality for the simple reason that we are finite and reality is infinite. Thus man can but only give bits of what reality is and never the whole of it.


Protagoras’ relativism can thus be understood into two ways: first, extreme (irrational) relativism, and, second, moderate (rational) relativism. For extreme relativism, there is no such thing as “Reality” because truth is only based on man’s propositions. What is real is what I say it is. Rational relativism, on the other hand, affirms the existence of “Reality” and adds that this reality cannot be limited by a “single characterization.” So unlike extreme relativism which ascribes truth to all propositions because it rejects reality, moderate relativism holds that all propositions are true because there is a “complex reality” which cannot be fully comprehended. All assertions for the latter are affirmed because it adds understanding to all the possible dimensions of reality. Thus, while the root of relativism for “extreme relativism” is the non-existence of reality, the root of relativism for “moderate relativism” is the complexity of reality.


ii. Implications of Relativism


For some people, relativism is a very dangerous way of thinking. Moralists and statesmen, most especially, abhor this way of thinking because it prevents the establishment of a “universal norm” for human action that distinguishes good actions from bad actions. For them, relativism destroys the idea of “order” because it topples down the existence of laws, whether of nature or of human nature, which could provide a basis for universal moral political laws. Without “norms” there will be no basis for order and declaration of laws. And this is precisely the terrible thing about relativism – it abandons any objective or rational standards in morality and politics.


The good point of relativism, however, is that it develops the art of rhetoric for clear and forceful use of language. True enough, if one speaks clearly and forcefully, then others can easily accept or reject that which is clearly understood. While the device can be used to deceive, it can be used for the pursuance of truth as well.



VI. Atomism


Aside from Sophism, there was also a budding group of thinkers in Greece called the “Atomists.” Leucippus (490-430 B.C.) was said to be the founder of this school of thought, and then it was influentially developed by Democritus. For some, atomism comprised the first thoroughly scientific view of the world.[12]


i. Democritus


The Atomistic philosophy is commonly affiliated to Democritus. He came from Thrace where Protagoras was also originally from. Although both of them came from the place, they have nothing in common. While Protagoras held that “man is the measure of all things”, Democritus believed that “man knows nothing.” This stand of Democritus was merely a pessimistic commentary on the regrettable state of opinion.[13]


The seeds of Atomism can be found in the philosophies of Heraclitus and Parmenides. On the one hand, Democritus’ Atomism saw the manifoldness of reality in Heraclitus notion of change. On the other hand, Democritus also accepted Parmenides’ notion of an unchanging dimension of reality. For Democritus, there were very tiny atoms unseen by the naked eye that were “internally unchanging” and at the same time “made up all the changing visible things we perceive.” For him, “atoms” were the answer to the venerable question of the “one in the many.” It was the “One” because it was internally unchanging, eternal, indestructible, and without emptiness. However, it was a material object, i.e. the smallest material component of things which cannot be divided into smaller parts. It was also the reason for the “Many” inasmuch as the perceivable things were ultimately caused to change and to behave in predictable ways by the mechanical forces of atoms.


In a way, Democritus sought to reunite once again the two sorts of realities and modes of knowing then. Reality has One unchanging stuff but also has many perceivable changes. The permanent “one” is known through reason, while the perceivable changes (Many) are perceived by the senses.



ii. Atomistic Materialism 


For the Atomists, matter, without any intrinsic reason or purpose, is the sole reality.[14] This is now the pervading theory of reality of modern science. The world is not composed of spirits or ruled by unseen forces but it is governed by mechanical forces called atoms. This must also apply to the reality of man. Man does not have dual nature, the flesh and soul. Rather, it is purely a material object that is only more complex than the others.


Atomism held that knowledge was not based on an “immaterial faculty of reason.” Man acquired knowledge using a “material sort of reason.” This sounds atrocious but Democritus firmly asserted that reason was just a higher form of “perception.” He called this higher form of perception that apprehended unchanging facts as “trueborn” perceptions. Thus, knowledge was simply seen as perception.



iii. Problems with Atomism


What is immediately implied in the Atomist materialism is that “everything is mechanically determined.” It is generally accepted that matter is governed by the law of causality. Matter is always a cause of another. This is self-evident. Now, this pattern, which is fervently embraced by matter, accounts for their predictable behavior. The building block of all matter is atom so that all perceptible material entities, including human beings, are configurations of atoms. Moreover, atoms are impelled by mechanical forces to act on one another. This then makes all material movements, including human “actions”, as causally determined. Thus, human freedom and moral actions are irrelevant under the Atomistic materialism.         


Truth is also reduced to perception in Atomism. This makes even the human faculty of reason a material function. This obviously reduces man to a soul-less machine, doing what it was determined to do and acting out of a determined set of laws. But despite this reduction, Atomism stressed the importance of perception in the acquisition of knowledge. True enough, nothing is known unless it passes through the senses.             


[1]               Plato, The Republic, Trans. by Paul Shorey (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1953), 600a.

[2]               Plato, Laws, 859b. Aristotle, De Anima, 411 a7-8.

[3]               Robert Trundle, Jr., Ancient Greek Philosophy: Its Development and Relevance to Our Times (Avebury: Ashgate Publishing Company, 1994), p11. Henceforth, Trundle.

[4] The coast of the ancient port of Miletus has grown by moving ten kilometers away from its original location. The inhabitants were witnesses to this increase in landmass, thinking water was the cause and generator of earth.

Nevertheless, the theory the water generates earth has already been proven wrong in 1769 by the experiments of Antoine Lavoisier

[5] The more rarefied the air particles are the hotter is the object, and the more dense the air particles are the colder is the object. This is supported by a simple experiment of blowing your hand. If you blow on your hand with a relaxed mouth, then the air is hot; if you blow with a pursed lips, the air is cold. Thus, fire is hot because of it has rarefied air particles, and the earth is cold because of its dense particles. 

[6] See Genesis, chap. 2:7.

[7]               Trundle, p. 20.

[8]               Fragment 67.

[9]               Trundle, p. 31.

[10]             Ibid.

[11]             Ibid., p. 32.

[12]             Ibid., p. 54.

[13]             Ibid.

[14]             In contrast to Democritus, Thales and Heraclitus still gave “soul” and “life” to reality. Thales, for instance, had spoken of “god in things” and Heraclitus of “logos of Reason.” Democritus entirely eradicated the immaterial dimension of reality.


By Michael John M. Tamayao, Ph.L., M.A.

One of the most powerful and influential passages ever written in Western philosophy is Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.[1] It ingeniously pictures the metaphysical[2] and epistemological[3] situation of man in a charmingly metaphorical way. As a metaphysical account, the allegory of the cave is a symbolic depiction of how man is trapped in his everyday illusionary material existence, and how he can free himself from this trap through the philosophical dispositions of deep personal and social awareness and constant self-examination. As an epistemological account, it tries to establish the importance of Ideas, which we apprehend only through reason, over mere opinions, which are derived from our fleeting experience of the physical world.

Because this passage brilliantly summarizes the key tenets of Plato’s philosophy, the allegory of the cave is a good place to begin a discussion of Platonic philosophy. The Simile of the Divided Line and the Doctrine of Ideas, which are the grounding theories of Plato’s philosophy, are excellently made comprehensible in this seemingly uncomplicated story for grade-schoolers. Rather than being too abstract, Plato clarified his radical philosophical statements – like for example “ideas are the basis of reality and not the material world” – through this simple metaphor. Unlike the current perception that philosophy is a highly abstract (or may be absurd) discipline devoid of all practicality, Plato’s philosophical work, as presented by his allegory, depicts a concrete and useful belief that could guide us in living life’s daily grind.  

In fact, the story underscores almost any domain of human experience: Philosophy, Religion, Education, Morality, Politics, Art, and Sciences. This only points to the cohesiveness of Plato’s philosophy and the other philosophical systems of classical antiquity. Contrary to the modern educational system that compartmentalizes knowledge into exclusive departmental sciences, classical philosophies, like that of Plato’s, fuse all fields of study into one cohesive whole. This cohesive quality of thought is now used as a criterion for judging the worth of the various philosophical accounts.

Background of the Story…

The story is a dialogue between Socrates, the storyteller in the narrative, and Glaucon, a Sophist (wise man). The characters are talking about the human situation in general, that is, whether the Athenian citizens are indeed as enlightened as they think they are.

There is an overwhelming tendency to speculate that the origin of the story is Plato’s deep reverence for Socrates’ ideals. Socrates might have not said the story himself because it was an omniscient depiction of his own life. But if Socrates indeed told the story, then he really had a foresight of his fateful death in the hands of the mob. Whether or not it is Plato’s or Socrates’ own creation, the cave narrative generally illustrates how hard it is to live philosophically, that is, in the light of Socratic thought, to do what is known to be good.

The passage is hard to read without any vivid illustration of the cave most especially for the unimaginative mind. So as you read the actual dialogue, try to refer to the illustration below.


The Darkness of Ignorance…

The story begins with Socrates, the protagonist in the dialogue, attempting to picture the everyday epistemological and ontological condition of man.

And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: –Behold! human beings living in a underground cave, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the cave; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads.

In a way, this is Socrates implicitly confronting Glaucon, and all Sophists for that matter, about their arrogant sophistical claim that man already knows all things. As Socrates says, “wisest is he who knows that he does not know” because knowledge of one’s own ignorance is an intellectual edge over those who think they know but in reality do not.    

The setting looks like a very familiar scene to us – this is the picture of our everyday situation. The Cave represents our everyday worldly experience; that in this world, we are prisoners of “normalization,” using Foucault’s term. We constantly and unmindfully adhere to the dictates of the society without even questioning the reason behind these things and events. We become like zombies breathing without really living. All we believe are the things projected in front of us, and referring to the story, the flickering images caused by the passing puppeteers and craftsmen by the rampart. Like these exhibitors, who manipulate various images (human images, shapes of animals) and make various sounds, the learned people of today manipulate concepts and project all these stuffs in the manner of flickering shadows and rumbling sounds. Although many of what they say are good, because they themselves are free from the chains of ignorance, the moment they project their educated concoctions, the uneducated crowd might be mislead and talk about these projections in a more corrupted way.

The prisoners do not know that they are imprisoned. Since they were borne into this situation, they already accustomed themselves to the dehumanizing chains of the cave-prison. And it is comfortable to them; they have no responsibilities and all they need to do is to sit down, relax, and conform to what is believed. Thus, on the process, they lose their identities and self-awareness.

Socrates says, “An unexamined life is not worth living.” To passively assimilate everything is also to remove the basic human capacity of transcendence. Man, by virtue of his rational soul (mind), is capable to go beyond himself (transcendence) and be aware of where he is, where he is going, and what is his place in the network of beings. As the German philosopher Martin Heidegger would say, “to be human is to exist… to exist is to transcend…” Man is man only if he transcends, thus, aware of his very self. And this is a difficult task. Going beyond the comfortable anonymousness of everyday existence requires tremendous effort. Like in the story, only a limited few can do this.     

Seeing the Light…

As the unique prisoner turned his head and saw the fire, he was temporally blinded by the fire’s dazzling brightness. And it hurts. Obviously, Socrates (or Plato) was stating the veritable adage “truth hurts.”

This could once again mean many things. But taking the epistemological track, seeing the light means apprehending the “ideas,” and merely looking at the shadows is opining about the visible or tangible “objects.” Take note that in this particular interpretation we equate shadows with the tangible world and ideas to reality. The “One, permanent cause” behind the “Many, changing things” is the foundation of reality. For Plato, the One (On) is the Idea.

When, for example, you are talking about a “table” as when you say, “That table is good.” The word “t-a-b-l-e” does not refer to the physical table, because it (meaning the tangible thing) is just an “appearance” of the real referent, which is the “idea” of a table, or tableness. Just as the prisoners of the cave are talking about the shadows of the things behind them and think that the reality of what they are talking about lies in what they see, same is through with us who talk about “tables” or “computers” or anything whatsoever and think that the reality of “tables” or “computers” lies in the things that we see and touch. For Plato, the reality of these things does not lie on their changing physical attributes, but rather on the permanent ideas, which could be known only though reason, behind their materiality. Realizing this means that you have turned your head to the direction of the fire.    

The biting possibility of the truth of this philosophy puts Glaucon, the interlocutor of Socrates, into his toes. This radical theory challenged the sophistical trend during that time. And indeed, it disturbed and hurt, not only Glaucon, but also the people who believed in this conventional notion of reality.

Reality outside the Cave…

The freed prisoner then puts his vision beyond the portals of the cave. And as he moves closer to the shimmering light, his vision once again groans for the bitter beauty of the sun. Coupled with the very steep and dangerous slope, the ascent is very grueling. It requires persistence, courage, and strength.

This metaphorically represents our arduous ascent to higher learning. It calls for our undying drive for the truth. Learning is precisely this – it is a pursuit for the evasive Truth. And once our eyes see the beauty of reality, we become happy in knowing what we once did not know. But in like manner, we will be sad for those who are still trapped inside the cave of ignorance. Thus, driven by pity, we will re-enter the cave and announce the good news to everyone so that they themselves will also be liberated. 


As the freed prisoner re-enters the cave, he will grope in the darkness until his eyes will once again see in the murky cave interior.  Of course, he will fumble and fall and look stupid in the eyes of the cave-dwellers. Yes, the freed man bears the truth, but will he be heard inside the cave or will they just see him as a fool? 

A true-blooded philosopher or any enlightened individual often lives an esoteric life-style. He goes beyond the usual trend because he contemplates on the more significant things in life. And unfortunately for the mob he appears to be a fool. So how should he convince them? Well, he must persistently speak of the truth and courageously face the ridicules and rejections of the people. The truth does not only hurt the ones who hear it, but also the ones who speak of it.

The great thinkers in the history of human thought have also faced the same misfortune. Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Friedrich Nietzsche, Socrates, and Jesus, to name a few, have suffered the mockeries of the people at the onset of their radical ideas. The challenge for them is to convince the unenlightened that they are not yet enlightened, i.e. to let them know that they do not still know.

The Two-World Theory…    

The Cave Allegory also speaks of Plato’s “two-world” theory, which states that human beings live in a visible and changing material world, on the one hand, and an intelligible and permanent world, on the other hand.

The visible world is the world of sensible things: what we see, hear, and experience. Because this world constantly changes, we cannot have true knowledge about it, and, therefore, it is not real – it is merely an illusion.

The intelligible world is the world of Ideas. It is made up of unchanging and eternal “forms” of things. We can know this world, which grounds the world of things, through reason alone. While this intelligible world is the ideal and eternal basis of reality, the world of things is just the imperfect and changing manifestation of the world of Ideas. What make the world of things knowable are the intelligible ideas behind them. In other words, the basis of reality is not the world of things, but the world of ideas that transcends the world of things. For example, what makes this computer real is not its physical attributes (its color, size, weight, or prize) but the idea behind its physical existence. Unlike the material computer that can vary and change, the form or idea of a computer is intelligible, abstract and applicable to all computers. This physical computer will eventually be corrupted in the future and cease to exist. The Idea of computer, or “computerness,” never changes; it will continue to exist even if viruses will have already corrupted all the computers in the world.

Using the allegory, Plato pictures the everyday situation of man. He can speak, hear, and encounter the world without actually being aware of the world of Ideas. 

Moreover, each of these worlds relates to a certain type of knowledge. Whereas “true knowledge” (epistemh) is achieved from the world of ideas, only “opinions” (doca) are given about the world of things. Plato depicts these worlds as existing on a line that can be divided in the middle: the upper part of the line is the world of ideas and the lower part is the world of things. Each region can further be divided into two. In the world of things, there are “illusions”, which compose the lower region, and “beliefs”, which compose the higher region. The illusions are the shadows represented by the artistic works of the craftsmen and poets. The beliefs are man’s knowledge of individual things, which may sometimes be true but is often times false because individual things are constantly changing. The world of ideas, on the other, can be divided into “reason” (the lower part of the region) and “intelligence” (the higher part of the region). Under reason is the knowledge of things like mathematics. And under intelligence is the knowledge of the highest and most abstract categories of things, for example, understanding the ultimate good.

Final Words…

All in all, the theory is an excellent depiction of man’s universal condition. According to Plato, although man is unconsciously trapped in the dehumanizing process of everyday normalization, he must constantly strive to free himself from this situation and seek for the truth. Not all of us can do this, but nonetheless we have the responsibility to persistently strive for this elusive goal.  


[1] The allegory (or story) is a passage from Plato’s most well known political treatise, The Republic, in particular from the Seventh Book of the said work.

[2] If you can still remember, by “metaphysical” we mean a philosophical explanation of reality.

[3] By “epistemological” we mean a philosophical account about the nature of human knowledge.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.