Looking at Philosophy

What is philosophy? Simply defined it is the love of truth. Some use it to also mean the study of truth. But what is truth? How do we define truth? Can we simply say, “Truth is what I believe.”

To take it an extreme one would then conclude that the lit candle will never burn the cloth, since it is what is believed. Given the few seconds needed, obviously the statement is false. Belief can also be stated as something based on a series of facts. To the one seeking truth, building a series of statements to prove something is called “an argument.”

It is important to avoid mixing a logical argument, whose sole purpose is to prove or disprove something with the one who is not exercising good judgment.  This proceeds to annoy those around because of unkind statements that do little to support the point of this, screed or tirade.

We take the time to align facts a way that supports what we believe in, for example the candle:

The candle is a small fire

Fire can reach high temperatures

Cotton burns at a lower temperature than the candle flame

Cotton must be exposed to the flame for a minimum of five seconds to catch on fire

Therefore, the piece of cotton cloth will burn when exposed to the candle for five seconds.

No amount of faith or belief will change these facts. (Okay, there may be a slight variation in the times, but the argument stands.) The argumentative person might attack the person for not believing what just happened, while the disbeliever may claim the test was rigged. These last two are examples of how not to prove what you believe in. From what can be seen above, logic is a big part of philosophy. One is certainly free to hold certain beliefs that cannot be supported by logic or a solid argument.

Often, the challenge is in areas where there is insufficient evidence to make a solid decision, yet one must be made. How to make the decision?

Philosophy is not:

·         A way to argue with those you do not agree with citing values and ideas from “Ancient Wisdom”

·         A way to get out of doing assigned tasks

·         A system of tools to learn new methods of disrespectful behavior

·         A way to attack someone of different faith or religion

·         A method of ruthlessly disagreeing with someone else

There are those who will remain hostile to the Christian faith; who will do so very politely.  There are those who will wear this hostility openly and unkindly.  Courtesy will have us to refrain from engaging in fruitless ventures. 

The Apostle Paul reasoned with those in the Greek mindset who would argue politely and properly.  These can be called intellectual giants, for they will consider what is being said.  Matters of faith ultimately reside in the heart, with the barriers often being very strong.  The word of God is a powerful tool, sharper and stronger than a two-edged sword, used properly can only strengthen the kingdom. 

But the argument needs two crucial parts, the first is facts, the next covered with philosophical principles is tactics and techniques.  The Bible is the most accurate piece of ancient literature on planet Earth.  The alignment of facts to support this position is part of the argument.  Having the facts to organize is another.

Fact #1:     Over 24,000 manuscript parts, pieces, and whole manuscripts of  the New Testament

Fact #2:     Of these over 9,000 are complete manuscripts of the NT

Fact #3:     The writings are 99% identical, minor changes (spellings) do not affect

                   doctrinal principles nor historical facts

Fact #4:      The writings of Homer account for less than 4,000 manuscripts and pieces

Fact #5:      Less than 25 years from the original to oldest manuscripts, Homer is over 100 years

(The Old Testament has a different set of details including method of copying, details, first person accounts, languages)

Conclusion:         The most accurate piece of ancient literature on planet earth is the Bible.

There is easily more than this, but the idea is simple, organize the facts, present them with a strong conclusion.

A valid conclusion is one that can be drawn from the facts presented.  A truthful conclusion would flow from accurate facts presented.  Sadly, if in an argument the one or more facts presented are not correct, the valid conclusion may indeed be wrong – false.  Here we see the valid  conclusion that lacks veracity.

#1:          Cats have ears

#2:          Cats make a barking sound

#3:          Cats have toes on their feet

#4:          Cats eat meat

#5:          Carnivores eat meat

Conclusion:         Carnivores are cats that bark, have toes, and eat meat.

#2 is obviously wrong, altering the conclusion, valid but lacking veracity.

Deductive reasoning leads from a general to a specific idea or conclusion.

Itching happens in the evening

Itching happens after eating dinner

Itching happens after eating vegetables

By eliminating vegetables and adding them one by one itching happens after eating carrots

Itching is caused by carrots

Inductive reasoning seems to the opposite direction, from the specific to the general.  Some simple examples:

·         Jill and Bob are friends. Jill likes to dance, cook and write. Bob likes to dance and cook. Therefore it can be assumed he also likes to write.

·         All students that have been taught by Mrs. Smith are right handed. So, Mrs. Smith assumes that all students are right handed.

·         All observed children like to play with Legos. All children, therefore, enjoy playing with Legos.

Another tactic is use Inference, or to infer.  Simply, the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former; or a conclusion or opinion that is formed because of known facts or evidence.

Please note: NOT the same as deductive or inductive reasoning because:  Here one fact may NOT lead directly to another.  In fact the same terms are usually NOT used form premise to premise.

For example: The program uses records of past purchases to make inferences about what customers will buy in the future.

Assembling known facts, one may be able to use deductive or inductive reasoning. If some speculation is involved, we move to inferring.  The inferred conclusion is usually not as strong as the prior methods, but is usually equally as strong, and perhaps is the only viable method of reaching a conclusion.