Author: admin

Posted on

What is Qualitative Research?

Qualitative research is an approach to research that focuses on understanding the subjective experiences and perspectives of individuals and groups. It is a method of inquiry that is used in many different fields, including sociology, anthropology, psychology, and education. Unlike quantitative research, which focuses on numerical data and statistical analysis, qualitative research is concerned with exploring and interpreting the meanings that people attach to their experiences and behaviors.

The main aim of qualitative research is to gain a deep understanding of the social or cultural phenomenon under investigation, and to do so in a way that is sensitive to the unique perspectives of those involved. This often involves collecting data through a variety of methods, including interviews, focus group discussions, observations, and document analysis.

One of the key features of qualitative research is its emphasis on the researcher’s role in the research process. Qualitative researchers acknowledge that their own biases and perspectives can influence the data they collect and the analysis they conduct. As such, they strive to be reflexive and transparent about their own positionality, and to engage in ongoing critical reflection throughout the research process.

Another important feature of qualitative research is its flexibility. Qualitative researchers are open to adjusting their research questions, methods, and analysis as they gather new information and insights. This allows them to be responsive to the unique features of the research context, and to develop a rich and nuanced understanding of the phenomenon under investigation.

Qualitative research often involves collecting data through in-depth interviews with participants. These interviews are typically semi-structured, meaning that the researcher has a set of broad questions to guide the conversation, but is also able to follow up on interesting or unexpected responses. The goal of these interviews is to gather detailed information about the participant’s experiences, perspectives, and behaviors, and to do so in a way that allows them to share their views in their own words.

Another common method used in qualitative research is participant observation. This involves the researcher immersing themselves in the social or cultural context being studied, and observing the behavior and interactions of the people involved. This approach allows the researcher to gain an insider’s perspective on the phenomenon under investigation, and to observe how people interact with each other and their environment in real time.

Focus groups are another method often used in qualitative research. Focus groups involve bringing together a small group of participants to discuss a specific topic or issue. The researcher typically acts as a facilitator, guiding the conversation and encouraging participants to share their thoughts and opinions. This approach can be useful for exploring group dynamics and social norms, and for identifying common themes and perspectives across a group of people.

Document analysis is another method commonly used in qualitative research. This involves analyzing documents such as texts, images, or videos to gain insights into the social or cultural phenomenon under investigation. This approach can be particularly useful for studying historical or archival materials, or for analyzing media representations of a particular issue.

Once data has been collected, qualitative researchers engage in a process of analysis to identify patterns and themes in the data. This often involves a process of coding, where the researcher systematically identifies and categorizes different types of data based on their meaning or significance. These codes are then grouped together into broader themes or categories, which are used to develop a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under investigation.

One of the strengths of qualitative research is its ability to generate rich and detailed descriptions of social and cultural phenomena. By focusing on the subjective experiences and perspectives of individuals and groups, qualitative research can provide insights into the complexity and nuance of human behavior and social interactions.

However, one of the criticisms of qualitative research is that it can be difficult to generalize findings to larger populations. Because qualitative research typically involves small samples and in-depth analysis of specific contexts, it can be difficult to draw broader conclusions about the social or cultural phenomenon being studied.

In conclusion, qualitative research is an important approach to research that allows for a deep and nuanced understanding of social and cultural phenomena. By focusing on the subjective experiences and perspectives of individuals and groups, qualitative research can reveal insights that would be missed by other methods.

One of the key strengths of qualitative research is its flexibility. Qualitative researchers are open to adjusting their research questions, methods, and analysis as they gather new information and insights, allowing them to be responsive to the unique features of the research context.

Another strength of qualitative research is its emphasis on the researcher’s role in the research process. Qualitative researchers acknowledge that their own biases and perspectives can influence the data they collect and the analysis they conduct, and strive to be reflexive and transparent about their positionality.

Despite its many strengths, qualitative research does have some limitations. It can be difficult to generalize findings to larger populations, and the in-depth analysis of specific contexts may not be applicable to other settings.

Overall, qualitative research is a valuable approach to research that provides a rich and detailed understanding of social and cultural phenomena. When used in conjunction with other methods, it can provide a more complete picture of the complex and multifaceted nature of human behavior and interactions.

Types of Qualitative Research Method or Design

Some of the common types of qualitative research methods or designs are the following: 

1) historical research design, 

2) archival research design, 

3) oral history research design, 

4) ethnolinguistic research design, 

5) case study, 

6) process documentation research design, 

7) ethnographic research design, and 

8) naturalistic research design.

Let me briefly discuss the meaning, nature and dynamics of these types of qualitative research designs.

Historical Research Design

Recent trends in historical research in education include seeing education as broader than schooling, viewing school systems in the context of social and economic development, and studying the history of elite intentions and actions. Historical research methods in education make possible the making of broader generalizations about the past, of judgments about its relation to the present, and of predictions about the future.

Examples of historical studies in education include the examination of length of schooling among different social groups by calculating the school-entry and school-leaving ages of different students in sample years, patterns of school attendance, years of schooling, and school expenditures, the different experiences of different social groups, and the impact of schooling on later life in different historical periods.

There is also a need for historical research on popular attitudes, quality of educational experience in the past, and intellectual and institutional history of education.

Archival Research Design

Primary sources of information concerning Philippine history are found in different archives in the Philippines and abroad. Archival research enables a historian to uncover ever new reinterpretations of historical reality.

Oral History Research Design

This is a form of historical activity, a first-hand reminiscence of historical events through the intervention of the historian. It records, for posterity, intimate primary knowledge and experience of individuals prominent in various fields, or those in positions of authority about certain topics, institutions, or about their own lives. This type of research method involves tape recording interview, transcribing them into typescripts, and checking for accuracy by the interviewer and the interviewee.

Ethnolinguistic Research Design

This is a research method which use language in the study of human groups. It deals with description of an ethnic group using linguistic tool. It is a tool for studying changes in meanings, beliefs, values, and codes, that is, the collective conscious and unconscious mind of a human group. According to some scholars, ethnolinguistic research method suggests studies to infer something about the culture and the life of the early ethnic group based on the memoirs of the early ethnographers and the grammar, observations, doctrines, and accounts of apostolic work by the early missionaries.

Case Study Research Design

A case study is a thick description of the interpretation, explanation, understanding, and prediction of an individual, group, or phenomenon obtained through in-depth investigation of the focus of interest.

Types of Case Study

  1. Ethnographic case study which involves single in-depth study, usually through participant observation and interview.
  2. Action research case study which focuses on bringing about change in the case under study.
  3. Evaluative case study which involves the evaluation of programs.
  4. Educational case study which is designed to enhance understanding of education actions.

Process Documentation Research

This is a useful tool for evolving a program based on a new intervention strategy. An example of this research method is the intervention strategy employed by the National Irrigation Agency (government agency in-charge of developing and assisting national and communal irrigation systems in the Philippines) whereby farmers got involved in the planning, design, and construction of their communal irrigation system. This resulted in the development or strengthening of the skills and structures of farmers’ association for system operations and maintenance.

Ethnographic Research Design

This research method is grounded on anthropology. Data are gathered through unstructured interviews, participant observation, and field notes. Other sources of data include the use of documents, records, photography, maps, genealogies, and social network diagrams. Research questions in ethnographic research method are descriptive in nature. This includes questions on values, beliefs, and practices of a cultural group.

Ethnographic research method involves describing and interpreting events that occur within the life of a group, with special attention to social structures and behaviors of individuals with respect to group membership. They are particularly appropriate for empirical research on a school, classroom, family, social organizations, or ethnic communities.

Naturalistic Research Design

Naturalistic inquiry is a more general term for ethnography, sociological field methods, case study methods, participant observation, ecological psychology, and psychodynamic social psychology. It involves extensive study of a case (for example, a group, institutions, communities, programs, and social systems) over an extended period of time. Points of interest here include not only the case itself, but also the ecology, context, or milieu in which it exists. And the researcher exposes herself directly with the case and is solely responsible for gathering and interpreting data.

Unlike experimental studies, naturalistic inquiry does not introduce any intervention, but instead studies the natural occurrence of events where they are found. Furthermore, the meaning of the constructs or ideas to be studied is not arbitrarily fixed or operationalized in advance of data collection. Instead, the researcher attempts to elicit the multiple meanings about those ideas that are upheld by each person. Similarly, hypotheses are neither derived from theory nor stated in advance. Rather, explanations about the relationships among variables come from the data rather than from preexisting theories.

Data collection in naturalistic inquiry typically centers on in-depth, open-ended interviews, direct observations, examination of documents, and community studies. Quantitative data are not avoided. During data collection, copious notes are kept, including verbatim accounts of what was observed and the responses of the interviewees. Interpretation and analysis of data are done as soon as data collection began.

It is important to note that the report of the naturalistic inquiry does not rely on statistics, graphs, or abstract models, but on the language familiar to the reader and the images that evoke readers’ association. What are important here are the precise use of language, rich description, and clear presentation of ideas to produce vicarious experiences for readers who could not be there themselves.

Criteria in doing Naturalistic Research

Scholars listed eight criteria that should be observed in naturalistic research, namely: 

1) duration, 

2) scope, 

3) ethics, 

4) logic, 

5) verification, 

6) stance of the researcher, 

7) writing, and 

8) contribution to knowledge

The researcher should be in direct contact with the case sufficiently enough to become thoroughly familiar with all its aspects and context (duration). The case study should be studies extensively (scope). The researcher should maintain the confidentiality and protection of the site and the informants (ethics). There should be an internal logical fit between the data in the data record and the ideas or analysis that purports to come from them (verification). The researcher should maintain dispassionate distance from the case, or at least clearly identify their prejudices (stance of the researcher). The report should have been written effectively and provide a pleasing piece of writing (writing). Lastly, it should contribute to knowledge regarding psychological and social ideas that the information yields (contribution to knowledge).

Limitations of Naturalistic Inquiry

Scholars listed some limitations of the naturalistic inquiry. For one, naturalistic inquiry is labor intensive because it requires prolonged exposure to the case. The researcher’s biases or prejudices may also influence the outcome of the study. Furthermore, a researcher with a low level of energy or intellectual ability might miss subtle but significant patterns of behaviors or events. And lastly, establishing causality and generalizing results are not possible with this research.

Posted on

Research Plan: Definition and How to Prepare It

The research plan, which is also called “research proposal” before acceptance by competent authority, is a scholarly paper. As is well-known, it must conform to accepted conventions of academic and scientific procedure. It is expected to show evidence of intelligent grasp of the problem being proposed for solution, and fields related to it. It must also present appropriate and valid method and procedure for the solution of the problem.

Allowing for certain variations due to preferences of scholars, disciplines, and institutions, a research plan generally contains the following:

1) The title of the personal study,

2) Statement of the problem,

3) Review of related literature, and

4) Scope and limitation of the study,

5) Importance or significance of the study,

6) Definition of terms, and theoretical framework,

7) Methods and procedure,

8) Bibliography.

The Title

The title of the research plan should be brief but descriptive and comprehensive. The title should also be an adequate index to the key contents of the following: 1) the statement of the problem, 2) the method(s) used, and 3) the expected or hypothetical conclusion(s).

Although it is the first to appear on the research plan, it can remain tentative until the problem and methodology have been clearly formulated. (See also W. C. Campbell & S. V. Ballou, Form and Style: Theses, Reports, Term Papers, 4th ed., Boston, USA: Houghton Miffin, 1974, p. 15).

The Statement of the Problem

The statement of the problem is the part of the research plan, which contains two parts, namely: 1) a careful exposition of an area involving significant problems, and how such problems affect knowledge in the given discipline, and 2) a clear and concise statement of the problem. The first is an essay that demonstrates the researcher’s intelligent and broad grasp of the key problem currently confronting her discipline. The second is a clear statement of the question(s) to be answered or hypothesis to be tested.

The statement of the problem in experimental research is usually in the form of a hypothesis or a series of related hypotheses which call for proof or disproof. Other types of research require that the problem be stated categorically in the form of a question or series of related questions. In case a question needs further specification by means of sub-questions, care is to be taken that the sub-questions are all comprehended by the primary question. Multiple questions and questions which add new problems not expressed or implied in the primary question must be avoided. (See Campbell & Ballou, p. 18).

It must be remembered that the statement of the problem is not the same with the statement of the purpose of the study. The first is the question to be answered, while the second is the reason for answering the question.

A good statement of the problem must be consistent with the title and the methods and procedure to be used in the research.

Review of Related Literature

It is assumed that before the researcher starts making the research plan, she has read many important works related to the proposed study. The aims of the review of related literature are:

1) to show that the researcher is familiar with key ideas in his field of study;

2) to show that the knowledge in the field is incomplete, unreliable, or both; and

3) to show that the findings of the proposed study will: a) add to, b) supplement, 

         and/or c) correct present knowledge.

The tone and tenor of the review of related literature are both expository and evaluative or critical.

The materials subject to review under this heading are both published and unpublished materials containing anything that have some pertinence to the proposed subject of study. These include books, periodicals, documents, theses, dissertations, and all papers that are conventionally regarded among scholars as disciplinary literature. This explains why it is redundant to say “literature and studies” because the term “literature” includes all studies, which are on record and reported.

Scope and Limitation of the Study

The scope of the study refers to the 

1) specific source(s) of information, and 

2) time involved in the study. 

Since the scope of the study directly affect the validity of the conclusion derived from it, it may be assumed that a study that has no specifically defined scope and limitation of sources and time cannot lead to a definite and valid generalization and/or conclusion.

The limitation of the study refers to shortcoming or source of weakness of the study. The honest researcher must admit the weakness or limitation of any aspect of her investigation or her tools of investigation, and source of information. This fundamental rule is required by intellectual honesty. For example, using translation as reference due to one’s lack of proficiency in the original language of the source is a limitation of the investigator. Limitations that are so great as to cause doubt concerning the validity or conclusion of the study invalidate a research plan.

Significance of the Study

The significance of the study is generally of two kinds, namely, 1) the significance of the expected findings of the study to the specific discipline to which the study belongs, and 2) the benefit that human world may derive from the findings. Evidence of significance on the first level is generally sufficient. Significance of the second level if not discreetly put tends to be pretentious and violates the modesty generally expected of scholars. It is, therefore, generally best to convince the reader that the answer(s) one is trying to discover are important mainly to one’s line of study, and leave the “earth-shaking” value of the study understated or implied.

Research on the graduate school level is expected to show evidence of 1) mastery of scientific and rational methods of arriving at conclusions, and 2) actual contribution of new knowledge to the pool of human knowledge. Unless the study meets this requirement, the study is not significant, and this could imply that the student fails even in the first.

Definition of Terms and Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of the study is stated here. This is the place to present 1) the assumption of the study, that is, proposition regarded are true and therefore not requiring proof in the proposed research, and 2) the definition of key terms.

It is usual that scholars or researchers work within the framework of a discipline, which have generally accepted principles or law which need simply to be assumed as true, and within whose framework the researcher performs his reflected thinking. This means placing the proposed study in the context of a specific school of thought in the researcher’s field of study. It may also require statement of ideas already proved satisfactory by other or previous researchers.

When the theoretical framework in the form of assumptions has been completed, key terms, especially those that are used in a particular or unusual sense, are defined. Operational definitions are preferred. Sources of definitions are properly indicated. Definitions not indicated as having been borrowed from sources are assumed to belong to the author of the research plan.

Operational definitions reduce abstract terms (for example, education) to concrete or quantifiable or measurable terms. The term “development”, for example, is defined operationally as “getting people to know, desire, and be capable of doing better things”. Operational definitions are always in a framework of a study.

Methods and Procedure

Methods refer to the set of procedures or steps to be undertaken for discovering knowledge with reference to the time setting of the truth to be known, that is, the past, present, and the future.

Truth of the past is historical. That of the present is described or pictured. And that of the future can be experimented, that is, create a situation whereby an unknown truth can be observed under controlled conditions. Therefore, there are three methods in general use in the scholarly world.

One method may be used, or where necessary, a combination of all three. But the use of these in combination must be done with great care so that it is always clear when each of the methods is being used, especially in the writing of the research report.

In certain disciplines, such as Literature and Philosophy, textual studies are usual. Studies of text are historical because the ordinary aim of this type of study is to arrive at the original intent of the author insofar as this is possible. This involved an attempt to situate words in their historical or biological context, with reference to their import at the time and place the document was written.

In the research plan, it is sufficient to indicate which method is proposed to be used.

Procedures are sub-items under methods. They are steps in logical or chronological sequence which are seen as an organized system of steps toward the discovery of truth, which involve 1) analyzing, 2) classifying, 3) comparing, 4) narrating, and 5) making conclusions regarding what causes produced what effects. One should not confuse method with the steps in a method.

After the procedures have been presented, a proposed outline of the expected report (for example, thesis, dissertation, and term paper) is presented. This outline shows clearly the proposed titles and subsections under each title. Parts or chapters are presented in their expected final sequence which indicate how the successive parts lead to the findings and conclusion.

Bibliography

This is a systematic listing of all available references in libraries, archives, collections, and in other sources. Exhaustiveness is ideal. Although last in the research plan, it is the first to be done in the order of procedure and time. This is because before anyone can formulate a title or problem for the research plan, one has to know whether there are available sources, or whether there already exist and completed studies covering the same area and problem. The way to discover the sources is to look for them wherever they may be an make a listing of these sources.

Final Note: Sometimes, a research plan or proposal may be presented for evaluation in order to secure funding. When this is the case, two things must be added to the foregoing parts: 1) a timetable indicating the schedule of research activities and the time each step in the research is expected to be completed, and 2) a statement of expenses properly itemized to indicate which amount is for which activity, and for which logistics (that is, tools, equipment, instruments, postage, and the like) and related expenses, such as salaries and publication expenses. It is important to note that the budget is not only itemized but also justified.

Posted on

Characteristics of Quantitative Research

Quantitative research is a type of research method that is used to collect and analyze numerical data. The data is collected through structured and standardized research instruments, such as surveys, questionnaires, and experiments. This type of research involves statistical analysis to test hypotheses and draw conclusions about a population.

The following are some of the key characteristics of quantitative research:

1. Use of measurable data:

Quantitative research relies on measurable data, which can be analyzed using statistical methods. This data is typically collected using standardized research instruments, such as questionnaires or surveys. The data can be analyzed using statistical techniques, such as regression analysis, correlation analysis, or factor analysis, to test hypotheses and draw conclusions.

2. Use of statistical analysis:

Quantitative research uses statistical analysis to analyze the data. This analysis helps researchers to test hypotheses and determine whether the results are statistically significant. Statistical analysis also allows researchers to draw inferences about a population from a sample of data.

3. Use of a large sample size:

Quantitative research often uses a large sample size to ensure that the results are representative of the population being studied. The sample size should be large enough to minimize the effects of sampling error and to ensure that the results are reliable and generalizable.

4. Use of standardized research instruments:

Quantitative research uses standardized research instruments, such as surveys or questionnaires, to collect data. These instruments are designed to ensure that the data collected is valid and reliable. Standardization ensures that the data is collected in a consistent and systematic manner.

5. Use of objective measurements:

Quantitative research relies on objective measurements of variables. This means that the variables being measured are defined in a way that can be objectively quantified. Objective measurements help to ensure that the results are valid and reliable.

6. Focus on causality:

Quantitative research often focuses on determining causality between variables. Researchers are interested in determining whether changes in one variable cause changes in another variable. This is typically done through experimental research designs, where the researcher manipulates one variable and measures the effect on another variable.

7. Use of deductive reasoning:

Quantitative research uses deductive reasoning to test hypotheses. Deductive reasoning involves starting with a theory or hypothesis and then testing it through empirical observation. This allows researchers to make predictions about the relationship between variables and to test those predictions through statistical analysis.

8. Emphasis on objectivity:

Quantitative research emphasizes objectivity in the research process. This means that the researcher should remain neutral and impartial throughout the research process. Researchers must avoid introducing their own biases or values into the research process to ensure that the results are objective and reliable.

In conclusion, quantitative research is a powerful research method that is used to collect and analyze numerical data. This type of research relies on measurable data, statistical analysis, a large sample size, standardized research instruments, objective measurements, a focus on causality, deductive reasoning, and an emphasis on objectivity. By carefully designing and conducting quantitative research studies, researchers can gain valuable insights into the complex and multifaceted nature of human behavior.

Posted on

Kant’s Concept of the Self

Looking for affordable accommodations at Panglao Island, Bohol? Belle’s Residences is your perfect tropical escape. Residence 1 offers the ideal blend of comfort, convenience, and affordability, making it the perfect base for your island adventure.
 
For inquiries, visit us:
 
Facebook Page: Belle’s Residences – Panglao Vacation Homes

Website: Belle’s Residences – Panglao

BOOK NOW VIA ARBNB

In this lecture notes, I will briefly explain the nature and dynamics of the “Self” according to Immanuel Kant. But it must be noted at the outset that Kant’s concept of the self is very difficult to systematize because in the first place, Kant himself did not fully develop this concept. This is partly because Kant’s concept of the self serves only as the foundation of his moral theory. In fact, for Kant, the human person as a rational moral agent is the sole basis in determining the truth of the categorical imperative. 

Indeed, behind the formal ethical façade of Kant’s categorical imperative is the attempt of the human person to achieve moral perfection. Hence, we can surmise that the ultimate goal of Kant’s moral teachings is for the human person to become morally perfect. And for this reason, it can be argued that anybody who wants to study Kantian ethics should first and foremost understand Kant’s concept of the self as the anthropological basis of his moral teachings.

So, how does Kant view the self?

According to Kant, the human person has a two-fold nature, namely:

1) homo noumenon and 

2) homo phaenomenon

On the one hand, the term noumenon, which is derived from Kant’s epistemology, refers to the essence of things. For Kant, the noumenon is the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich). According to Kant, the noumenon cannot be known because, as the essence of things, it is beyond experience. For example, as Kant would have us believe, we cannot know the “tableness” of the table, or that which makes a table really “a table”. Later on, Hegel argues that there is no such thing as “thing-in-itself” or the “tableness” of the table. For Hegel, what reason knows is all there is to know.

On the other hand, the term phaenomenon, according to Kant, refers to the thing as it appears to the observer. In other words, the phaenomenon is the empirical part of a thing. It is indeed that part of a thing that can be experienced by humans. The hardness, texture, color, and shape of a table are all that we can know about the table. For Kant, they are the phaenomenal aspects of the table.

For Kant, therefore, everything that exists has two natures, namely: 

1) the non-empirical part (noumenon or essence) and 

2) the empirical part (phaenomenon). 

Applied to humans, the homo noumenon for Kant is the godlike self of the human person which comprises the psychological state and intellect, while the homo phaenomenon is the merely human self or, simply, the physical self.

Now, it is important to note that when it comes to Kantian ethics, the phaenomenal self is dropped from the equation. This is because the homo phaenomenon is the animal or instinctual aspect of the human person. Therefore, it cannot be put under moral obligation. Just think, for example, of how ridiculous it is to sue a cat for stealing your food. So, when it comes to Kantian ethics, we only talk about the homo noumenon or the “godlike self”. However, the phaenomenal self is equally important if we talk about the “self” in itself because one cannot be a complete self without it. In fact, according to Kant, we humans have both an inner self and an outer self which allow us to become conscious. This is because the inner self comprises our psychological state and rational intellect, while our outer self comprises our senses and other instinctual functions. Again, it is just that when it comes to ethics, Kant focuses only on the noumenal self for the same reason already given.

If the homo phaenomenon cannot be put under moral obligation, Kant says that the homo noumenon or the noumenal self (or godlike self) can be put under moral obligation simply because it is the self that is endowed with “freedom”. The homo noumenon or the noumenal self, therefore, is a free agent. And it is this very idea of freedom that the noumenal self is said to have an “absolute inner worth”, a value which is beyond any price and which demands respect.

As a free agent, Kant says that the the noumenal self has two aspects, namely, 1) free choice (freie Willkür) and 2) will (Wille).

On the one hand, “free choice” is understood as the capacity of the self to act without being determined to do so by any external material forces. On the other hand, “will” is the capacity of the self to set forth unconditionally binding moral laws.

So, with free choice, the human person (and it must be noted that in Kantian philosophy, when we say the “human person” we mean the “noumenal self) can do whatever she wants to do. However, even if the human person can do whatever she wants to do, she may not always do whatever she wishes because of the self-imposed moral law promulgated by the will. For instance, because of free choice, the human person is free “to lie”, but because the will promulgated the moral law “not to lie”, then the human person or the self has to always tell the truth.

This now brings us to the idea that being true to one’s self is, for Kant, respecting one’s self. And for Kant, it is our duty to respect our own self because doing so is respecting humanity at the same time. This implies that if we violate our duty to respect our very own selves, then we fail somehow to give humanity the same respect it demands.

A concrete example of respecting one’ self is not to harm it by, say, not drinking too much alcohol or committing suicide. Needless to say, drinking too much alcohol will harm the body, which in the long run will ruin the entire person. In the case of suicide, if one kills herself, she is not only undermining her own “absolute inner worth” as a person but also the “absolute inner worth” of the entire human race.

Now, Kant believes that the noumenal self is the idealized person who is destined to be perfect since she has in herself the godlike nature as belonging to the world of understanding.

Logically then, we can infer that for Kant, the noumenal self is the human person’s real self. It is indeed the person’s true self. Since we have this godlike self, Kant believes that it is our duty to attain perfection by actualizing this godlike noumenal self.  And according to Kant, we can attain perfection or we can actualize our godlike self by developing ourselves into moral persons, which can be done by obeying the command of the categorical imperative.

But how does the human person actualize her true self if she cannot know her noumenal self? The phaenomenal self can provide us the key.

Since the human person cannot know her noumenal self, then she must take into account the fact that part of her “self” belongs to the phaenomenal world, that she has a phenomenal self, a physical body so to speak. As already mentioned, this is the self that can be experienced by the senses. We can touch it, see it, smell it. We can even taste it if we like.

In this way, the human person can have an idea of her noumenal self. In simple terms, the body, which is the seat of reason or intellect, allows the self to think, analyze, understand, and interpret reality. The phenomenal self, therefore, serves as the springboard for the actualization of the noumenal self.

Lastly, because the phaenomenal self always appeals to “desires”, which, according to Kant, is the source of errors, it has to be guided by a moral principle based on reason. Thus, the human person as a rational being must also consider her “self” as belonging to the intelligible world if she hopes to attain perfection. This is where the categorical imperative comes in. As Tucker (1972, p. 35) argues, the noumenal self tries to actualize its godlike nature as the real self by obeying the dictate of reason through the categorical imperative.

Posted on

David Hume’s Concept of the Self

Looking for affordable accommodations at Panglao Island, Bohol? Experience the charm of Residence 3 at Belle’s Residences. This inviting space offers a perfect mix of comfort and convenience, located just minutes from Panglao’s pristine beaches.
 
For inquiries, visit us:

Facebook Page: Belle’s Residences – Panglao Vacation Homes

Website: Belle’s Residences – Panglao

BOOK NOW VIA AIRBNB

David Hume’s concept of the self does not only differ from but runs counter to Descartes’s and the other philosophers of the self, such as Plato and Aristotle. This is because, for Hume, there is no such thing as a “self”.

Let me briefly explain why for Hume the concept of the self is an illusion.

First, we need to clarify the term “soul” that Plato and Aristotle used and “mind” that Descartes used.

For Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and other philosophers who engaged this issue, the term soul or mind refers to a thing or substance which is supposed to be invariably the same through time. So, these philosophers understood the soul as a substance. And as we may already know, a substance is understood in traditional metaphysics as anything, material or immaterial, whose existence is independent on anything else.

So, for these thinkers, the soul or mind is the seat for all our mental states, such as thinking, analyzing, imagining, and the like. This means that the “I”, that is, “the self” is the same all throughout one’s lifetime. One may change physically or emotionally, but the “I” or “self” remains the same.

Now, for Hume, if we possess this substance, then we must have an “impression” of it. However, for Hume, we do not, and cannot, have an impression of such idea. For Hume, therefore, the term soul, mind, or self is one of those meaningless words that we utter.

So, for Hume, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and the rest of the philosophers of the self were arguing only about “words” simply because neither of them knows exactly what a soul, mind, or self is. They don’t experience it concretely in the first place, according to Hume.

But how did Hume arrive at the idea that there is no such thing as the idea of the “self”?

Let us now turn to Hume’s theory of ideas.

First, we have to remember that Hume neither affirms nor denies the idea of the self. It’s just that for Hume, talking about it simply doesn’t make sense.

The reason behind Hume’s claim that there is no such thing as the idea of the self can be gleaned from his theory of ideas. So, on Hume’s theory of ideas.

As John Locke argues, ideas come from sensation and reflection. Hume calls it impression. Hence, it must be noted that when Hume used the term “impression”, he means “idea”. When we say “impression” in Hume, this includes both sensation and reflection in Locke. And for Hume, we can have an idea, that is, an impression, of something if we experience it concretely. For this reason, Hume argues that ideas that do not represent something in reality is an abstract idea and, therefore, meaningless. The idea of a “unicorn” is an example of an abstract idea because in the first place, there is no unicorn in reality.

For Hume, there is a multiplicity of ideas; yet all these ideas are linked together that form a coherent whole. According to Hume, this is made possible by the “laws of association”.

According to Hume, there are three laws of association, namely:

1) resemblance, 

2) contiguity in time or place, and 

3) cause and effect

Hume says that in the law of resemblance, the idea of one object tends to call to mind ideas of resembling objects. For instance, the idea of “honey” resembles the ideas of “sweet” and “liquid”.

In the law of contiguity in time and place, Hume says that when we think, for instance, of “Osama Bin Laden”, we tend to think of “terrorism” or “suicide bombing”.

In the law of cause and effect, Hume says that when we think of, for instance, the idea of a “fresh egg falling to the ground”, it calls to mind the idea of a “splattered mess”.

Please note that Hume puts more emphasis on the third law of cause and effect. As a matter of fact, the law of cause and effect is one of the most important concepts in Hume’s theory of ideas. This explains why after talking about the law of cause and effect, Hume proceeds to the discussion on “perception” and “reasoning”.

On Perception and Reasoning

According to Hume, human understanding is furnished with the faculty of perception and the faculty of reason.

On the one hand, the object of perception are impressions or ideas. And, on the other hand, the object of reason are propositions.

According to Hume, propositions are either 

1) a priori statements about relations of ideas or 

2) empirical statements about matters of fact and real existence.

For Hume, relations of ideas can be known intuitively or demonstratively. For example, the proposition “All triangles have three angles” is an example of a proposition that can be known intuitively.  The proposition “The sum total of all three angles in a right triangle is equal to 180 degrees” is an example of a proposition that can be known demonstratively.

It is important to note that in relations of ideas, the truth can be established without empirical evidence. In fact, in both examples above, we don’t need to resort to experience before we can truly say that all triangles have three angles or, indeed, the sum total of all three angles in a right triangle is equal to 180 degrees. Through mental processes alone, we can truly say that indeed the propositions above are absolutely true.

Matters of fact, for Hume, are propositions whose truth can be discovered through experience alone. Take, for example, the proposition “Sugar is sweet”. Obviously, one cannot really say that indeed sugar is sweet if one has not tasted it. Hence, we can never come to know that sugar is sweet without resorting to experience.

It must be noted that it is “matters of fact” that concerns Hume. In fact, Hume’s theory of knowledge centers on the idea of “matters of fact”.

Hume asks: “What is the nature of the empirical evidence which assures us of any real existence of matters of fact?”

According to Hume, we are assured of some facts by the present testimony of our senses or by the records of our memory. In other words, for Hume, we know that facts exist in reality simply because we experience them. This explains why Hume was an empiricist.

But the question is by what means do we get beyond such facts? In other words, how can we be sure that such facts exist in reality? This is the central question in Hume’s theory of knowledge, which he developed in his famous work Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

So, again, by what means do we get beyond such facts?

According to Hume, it is by means of the relation of cause and effect that we are enabled to make, more or less reasonable, predictions and conjectures that go beyond the data of perception and memory.

But how do we arrive at the knowledge of cause and effect?

The answer, for Hume, is not reasoning a priori (as the rationalists would have us believe) but entirely from experience. Again, for Hume, our knowledge of cause and effect relation remains limited to experience. Of course, the mind steps beyond experience and engage in reasoning. But for Hume, this kind of reasoning is not supported by any argument or process of understanding through relations of ideas or through reasoning a priori. This kind of reasoning, for Hume, is supported by habit or custom.

Now, it must be noted that for the rationalists, cause and effect relation falls under a priori reasoning. In other words, for the rationalists, there is a necessary connection between cause and effect. For example, if it is raining at the moment, then reason tells us that the road must be wet. However, for Hume, in reality there is no necessary connection between two events, between cause and effect. The idea of a necessary connection is produced in the mind not through reason a priori, but through habit or custom. Hence, Hume did not reject the idea of “connection” wholesale. He only rejects the idea of connection employed in metaphysical reasoning, that is, the a priori reasoning in rationalism.

Again, for Hume, there is (necessary) connection only through experience (in common life and practice) which is based on habit. Hence, the only evidence assuring us of any real existence and matters of fact is experience, that is, 1) the present testimony of our senses, 2) the records of our memory, and 3) the causal (experiential) reasoning based on the empirically observed regularities of past experience.

Now, let’s go back to Hume’s concept of the self and apply what we have learned from his theory of ideas.

For Hume, if we look inside ourselves, we cannot find an impression (that is, an idea) of a “self” as a substance. In other words, we cannot experience the self concretely. Hence, for Hume, we have no reason to suppose that we are “selves” or “mind”, or “souls”. As Hume famously says, we are just a bunch of impressions.

This means that like the idea of an ultimate or necessary cause (as we discussed above) the idea of “self” is natural and inevitable. We are inclined to think about the self because we exist, because we are accustomed to it. However, for Hume, like the idea of an ultimate or necessary cause, the idea of a “self” is a mere fiction. Again, the idea of the self is anything but a bundle of impressions or, in other words, the idea of the self is just a supposition.

Indeed, for Hume, the idea of the self is simply an idea and there is no guarantee that it exists in reality. Again, it is natural to talk about it because we exist, because we are accustomed to it, but to suppose that there is within us an unchanging substance called the “self” is an illusion, at least for Hume.

Posted on

René Descartes’s Concept of the Self

Looking for affordable accommodations at Panglao Island, Bohol? Experience the charm of Residence 3 at Belle’s Residences. This inviting space offers a perfect mix of comfort and convenience, located just minutes from Panglao’s pristine beaches.

For inquiries, visit us:

Facebook Page: Belle’s Residences – Panglao Vacation Homes

Website: Belle’s Residences – Panglao

BOOK NOW VIA AIRBNB

René Descartes’s concept of the self revolves around the idea of mind-body dualism. For Descartes, a human person is composed of two parts, namely, a material body and a non-material mind.

It must be noted that Descartes’s idea of the “mind” is not different from the idea of the “soul” understood in antiquity, for instance, Plato’s concept of the soul.

For Descartes, the mind, or the soul, is superior to the body for it is in the mind that “mental states” occur. This is because for Descartes, the mental states, such as thinking, imagining, and analyzing, rather than the physical states of the body, such as pain, hunger, and thirst, are fundamental to our life as persons. In other words, for Descartes, it is the mind that makes us humans. Thus, for Descartes, the “mind” is the “real self”.

But how does Descartes view the soul as the true self of humans and how does it differ from the body?

On the one hand, Descartes’s understanding of the body as a material entity consists in extension (res extenza). In fact, according to Descartes, all things in the material world can be understood and explained in terms of size, shape, and motion. Hence, to be a “body” for Descartes is

1) to have size and shape, 

2) to endure, and 

3) to be movable and changeable.

The main reason why Descartes puts premium on “extension” as the essence of bodies or material things is that the conception of the things’ extension, such as size or shape, is clear and distinct. In other words, one cannot doubt the size and shape of a thing. For example, if one is holding a pen, one cannot doubt that it is tubelike and a bit small. But if we talk about the other purported features of a thing, such as color and taste, Descartes says that they are obscure and confused. Hence, these attributes do not constitute a thing. For example, the color red is not what makes a rose truly a rose. A rose flower can be white or yellow. It doesn’t have to be red for it to be called a rose. Later on, Jonh Locke calls these qualities “secondary qualities”, which for him do not necessarily constitute a thing.

On the other hand, as explained in his second meditation, Descartes argues that the mind or soul is an immaterial, nonextended substance that thinks (res cogitans). By “thinking” Descartes means being conscious of one’s self and the object of its thinking. Thus, for Descartes, the mind as the true self of humans is a thinking thing. And it is interesting to note that, according to Descartes, knowledge of oneself as a subject of conscious states and acts is the most certain knowledge anyone can have.

But how does Descartes view a thinking thing?

For Descartes, a thinking thing is a being that doubts, understands, asserts, denies, wills, imagines, and the like.

In Meditation II of his seminal work titled Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes demonstrates how certainty can be attained.

As already mentioned, Descartes is convinced that he can be certain that he exists because if he doubts, there must be a thinking mind that does the doubting. Thus, Descartes famously say: “I think, therefore, I am”. According to Descartes, this statement is indubitable because even if a powerful demon were to deceive him into thinking that he does not exist, he needs to exist in order for the demon to deceive him. Therefore, whenever Descartes thinks, he exists.

From here, Descartes proceeds to addressing the question “What is this ‘I’ that does the thinking?”.

Descartes, however, concedes that though what he perceives with his senses may be false, he cannot deny that he is perceiving. Thus, for Descartes, the human mind is capable of both thought and perception. In other words, for Descartes, sensation or perception belongs to the mind. As a matter of fact, sensation is one of the functions of the mind (the other is thinking). Descartes uses the analogy of the wax to prove his point.

As we can see, a solid wax and melted wax are the same wax. For some thinkers, such as the empiricists, it is the senses that distinguishes a solid wax from a melted wax. For Descartes, however, the ability to distinguish a solid wax from a melted wax is not the function of the senses but of thought. In other words, it is “thought” or the “reasoning mind” that makes the judgment that a solid wax and melted wax are the same wax.

For Descartes, therefore, because the senses can be deceived, physical objects, including bodies, are properly perceived only by the intellect. Indeed, for Descartes, the mind is the only thing that one can be certain of.

Finally, Descartes believes that the mind and body are both substances (please note that in traditional metaphysics, the term substance refers to anything that can exist on its own independent of anything else). Therefore, for Descartes, mind and body are completely distinct and that they are independent from each other.

Although they are completely distinct from each other, Descartes argues that the mind and body are in some sense unified. For Descartes, this union is what makes possible the interaction between mind and body.

So, despite the real distinction between mind and body, Descartes argues that these substances nevertheless interact with each other. According to Descartes, the mind causes certain changes in the body and the body in the mind.

Part of the reason why Descartes aims to establish the distinction between mind and body is to establish the fact that the soul is immortal.  As we can see, the distinction between mind and body opens up the possibility of establishing the immortality of the soul since it involves the idea that the “decay of the body does not imply the destruction of the soul”.

But how does Descartes prove the crucial claim that the mind and body are capable of existing apart from each other?

Here, Descartes invokes what he calls 1) clear and distinct conception of the mind as a thing that is complete and does not require any extended qualities in order to exist, and 2) the corresponding clear and distinct conception of the body not requiring any mental properties in order to exist.

As we can see, Descartes’s real distinction argument turns on the reliability of so-called clear and distinct perception. However, Descartes did not give a concrete example of a mind existing apart from the body, and a body existing apart from the mind.

Also, when asked about the specificity of this interaction, Descartes was unable to answer and instead appeal to God. In Descartes’ understanding, God sets up or institutes those particular causal relations between mind and body that are, in general, the most conducive to the well-being of the composite of mind and body.

Posted on

Aristotle’s Concept of the Self

Looking for affordable accommodations at Panglao Island, Bohol? Belle’s Residences is your perfect tropical escape. Residence 1 offers the ideal blend of comfort, convenience, and affordability, making it the perfect base for your island adventure.

For inquiries, visit us:

Facebook Page: Belle’s Residences – Panglao Vacation Homes

Website: Belle’s Residences – Panglao

BOOK NOW VIA ARBNB

Aristotle was undoubtedly the most brilliant student of Plato. Yet, Aristotle diverged from most of Plato’s fundamental philosophies, especially on the concept of the self.

As we may already know, Plato is sure that the true self is the soul, not the body. And to be specific, the true self for Plato is the rational soul which is separable from the body. Aristotle’s concept of the self is quite the opposite.

Aristotle’s concept of the self is more complicated as he talked about so many things in this topic. However, there is one main theme in Aristotle’s narrative of the soul that guides us in understanding his concept of the self, that is, the human person is a “rational animal”. In other words, for Aristotle, the human person is simply an animal that thinks.

How did Aristotle come up with the idea that the human person is just an animal that thinks? His idea of the soul provides the key.

Aristotle defines the soul as the principle of life. And as the principle of life, it causes the body to live. This explains why for Aristotle all living beings have souls. Because for Aristotle all living beings have souls, then it follows that plants and animals (in addition to humans) have souls too. Thus, Aristotle distinguishes three levels of soul, namely, vegetative soul, sensitive soul, and rational soul.

According to Aristotle, the vegetative soul is found in plants, while the sensitive and rational souls are found in animals and humans respectively.

According to Aristotle, plants have souls because they possess the three basic requirements for something to be called a “living being”, that is, the capacity to grow, reproduce, and feed itself.

Sensitive souls also grow, reproduce, and feed themselves; but unlike vegetative souls, sensitive souls are capable of sensation.

Finally, rational souls grow, reproduce, feed themselves, and feel; but unlike the sensitive souls, rational souls are capable of thinking. According to Aristotle, this highest level of soul is present only in humans.

Since humans possess all the characteristics of animals, that is, the capacity to grow, reproduce, feed itself, and feel, in addition to being rational, Aristotle concludes that the human person is just an animal that thinks. As Aristotle’s famous dictum on the human person goes, “Man is a rational animal.”

Again, this explains why for Aristotle the human person is just an animal that thinks.

Now, for Aristotle, the human person is not a soul distinct from the body as Plato would have us believe. Aristotle argues that the self or the human person is a composite of body and soul and that the two are inseparable. Aristotle’s concept of the self, therefore, was constructed in terms of hylomorphism.

Aristotle views the soul as the “form” of the human body. And as “form” of the body, the soul is the very structure of the human body which allows humans to perform activities of life, such as thinking, willing, imagining, desiring, and perceiving.

While Aristotle believes that the human person is essentially body and soul, he was led to interpret the “true self” of humans as the soul that animates the body. However, Aristotle believes that the body is as important as the soul as it serves as “matter” to the soul.

Although Aristotle contends that the soul is the form of the body, he did not argue for the primacy of the former over the latter. Again, Aristotle’s concept of the self is hylomorphic, that is, the self or the human person is composed of body and soul. The two are inseparable. Thus, we cannot talk about the self with a soul only or a self with a body only. For Aristotle, the self is essentially body and soul. Indeed, for Aristotle, the self is a unified creature.

Posted on

Plato’s Concept of the Self

Searching for budget-friendly accommodations at Panglao Island, Bohol? Discover Residence 2 at Belle’s Residences—a cozy retreat designed for comfort and relaxation. Conveniently located near Panglao’s stunning beaches, this residence offers modern amenities at an unbeatable value.
 
For inquiries, visit us:

Facebook Page: Belle’s Residences – Panglao Vacation Homes

Website: Belle’s Residences – Panglao

BOOK NOW VIA ARBNB

Plato’s concept of the self can be gleaned from his notion of the soul. This is because, and it must be noted from the outset, we cannot find in Plato a full articulation of the concept of the “self”.

In fact, in ancient Greek philosophy, we could not find any systematic articulation of the concept of self. What we can find when we study the ancient Greek’s conception of the self are questions like “What is the fundamental truth about human nature?” or “What defines the fundamental identity of an individual?”. These questions, however, give us an idea of how the ancient Greek philosophers understood the “self”, that is, as human persons capable of reason and action. And if one is quite familiar with ancient Greek philosophy, these aspects of the human person (that is, the capacity to think and act) point to the idea of the “soul”.

Again, this explains why we always refer to the soul when we study Plato’s concept of the self. As a matter of fact, in many of his dialogues, Plato contends that the true self of the human person is the “rational soul”, that is, the reason or the intellect that constitutes the person’s soul, and which is separable from the body.

So, how does Plato conceive of the soul as the true self of humans?

Plato conceives of the self as a knower. Hence, for Plato, the concepts of the self and knowledge are inextricably linked. This is because Plato’s concept of the self is practically constructed on the basis of his reflections on the nature of the rational soul as the highest form of cognition.

But it must be noted that for Plato, the human person is composed of body and soul. In other words, the human person is a dichotomy of body and soul. The body is the material and destructible part of the human person, while the soul is the immaterial and indestructible part. Plato argues that the soul is really an entity distinct from the body. Indeed, for Plato, the soul is the self.

As we can see, the body and the soul can be separated. In fact, Plato believes that the soul is just residing in the body temporarily. Thus, in Plato’s concept of the self, we have the idea that when the human person dies, the soul departs from the body leaving the latter to decompose. And because the soul is immaterial and indestructible, it cannot die. It is eternal.

According to Plato, the soul, conceived of as self, has three parts, namely: 

1) the rational soul, 

2) the spiritual soul, and 

3) the appetitive soul

For Plato, the rational soul is located in the head. Being located in the head, the rational soul enables the human person to think, reflect, analyze, and do other cognitive functions.

The spiritual soul, on the other hand, is located in the chest. It enables the person to experience happiness, joy, sadness, abomination, anger, and other emotional feelings.

Lastly, the appetitive soul is located in the abdomen. This is the part of the soul that drives the human person to experience physical pain, hunger, thirst, and other physical wants.

Now, according to Plato, the rational soul is superior to the spiritual soul and appetitive soul as it serves as their moral and rational guide.

In the Allegory of the Chariot, which Plato developed in his work Phaedrus, Plato illustrated the role of the rational soul as the charioteer. The charioteer’s role is to drive his horses onward and upward, keeping his team working together in harmony towards the realm of the gods, a place of illumination, reality and truth.

As narrated in the Phaedrus, the chariot is pulled by two winged horses, one mortal and the other immortal.

On the one hand, the mortal horse is deformed and obstinate. Plato describes it as a “crooked lumbering animal, of a dark color, with grey eyes and blood-red complexion; the mate of insolence and pride, shag-eared and deaf, hardly yielding to whip and spur”.

On the other hand, the immortal horse is noble and game, “upright and cleanly made…his color is white, and his eyes dark; he is a lover of honor and modesty and temperance, and the follower of true glory; he needs no touch of the whip, but is guided by word and admonition only”.

In the driver’s seat is the charioteer whose task is to control both horses, guiding and harnessing them to propel the chariot with speed and efficiency. Plato says that the destination of the charioteer is the ridge of heaven, beyond which he may behold the “Forms”, that is, the essences of things like Beauty, Wisdom, Courage, Justice, and Goodness.

Now, the white horse wishes to rise and reach the destination, but the dark horse pulls the chariot back towards the earth. They pull in opposite directions. As we can see, the two horses are very different and they struggled against each other. For this reason, the task of the charioteer is difficult and troublesome. But if the charioteer wishes to reach his destination, then he must harmonize the two horses by controlling them.

In relation to the self, Plato shows that the black and white horses represent desire and spirit respectively, while the charioteer represents the person’s reason or the rational soul. And as the rational soul, the charioteer must have a vision and purpose. He must know where he is heading. And he must know and understand the nature of the two horses if he wishes to properly harness the chariot and reach his destination.

The rational soul as the true self, therefore, must at all times control the spiritual and appetitive soul. And according to Plato, if the rational soul is successful in controlling the spiritual and appetitive souls, that is, if the charioteer is able to harmonize the two horses, a well-balanced personality is attained. Indeed, this is, in a nutshell, how Plato views the true self.

Posted on

Logic: Meaning and Key Concepts

Logic is one of the major branches of philosophy, which is commonly understood as the science or study of correct processes of thinking or reasoning. Broadly construed, logic, therefore, is that specific branch of philosophy that studies the processes of correct thinking.

Etymologically speaking, the term “logic” is derived from the Greek word logos, which is often translated in English as “word”, “discourse” or “reason”. In the Greek tradition of understanding the nature of reality, the term “reason” was commonly appropriated. And for the ancient Greek thinkers, logos as “reason” could mean two things, namely: 1) that which refers to “human reason”, which seeks to attain an objective or universal understanding of the nature of reality, and 2) that which refers to “universal intelligence” or “rational divine intelligence”―indeed, that universal ruling force that governs the cosmos.

When understood in the second sense, logos then means (as the ancient Greek thinkers would have us believe) the “light-giving principle”, which enables human persons to understand the nature, dynamics, and mysteries of the universe. When understood in the first sense, that is, as “human reason”, logos connotes “study”, that is, the rationality of the human mind which seeks to attain an objective or universal understanding of the nature of reality. 

Thus, when we employ the term logos in our attempt to make sense of or study something, then we are dealing with the term logos in the first sense. For example, when we define the term “psychology” from the vantage point of its etymology, then we say that psychology comes from the two Greek words, namely, psyche, which means “mind”, and logos, which means “study”. Thus, etymologically speaking, psychology is defined as the study of the mind. Indeed, it is in this context that “logic” is, again, defined as the study (or science or reason) of the correct processes of thinking or reasoning.

More specifically, when we study the correct processes of thinking or reasoning, we are necessarily dealing with arguments. 

Hence, in logic, we will be primarily dealing with the principles that govern the validity of arguments, that is, whether a certain conclusion follows from the given premises or assumptions. 

Let us consider the examples below.

If it rains today, then the road is wet.
It rains today.
Therefore, the road is wet.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The professor will be absent if and only if she is sick.
The professor is sick.
Therefore, she will be absent.

The arguments above are obviously valid arguments because their conclusions necessarily follow from the premises. Again, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true for the argument to be valid. However, there are more complicated arguments whose validity cannot be determined by simply looking at them. These arguments require a thorough analysis before we can say that they are indeed valid or not. This is precisely what concerns us in logic, and this is what the rest of the discussions in logic would like to address. 

Posted on

Socrates’s Concept of the Self

Looking for affordable accommodations at Panglao Island, Bohol? Experience the charm of Residence 3 at Belle’s Residences. This inviting space offers a perfect mix of comfort and convenience, located just minutes from Panglao’s pristine beaches.

For inquiries, visit us:

Facebook Page: Belle’s Residences – Panglao Vacation Homes

Website: Belle’s Residences – Panglao

BOOK NOW VIA AIRBNB

Socrates was an ancient Greek philosopher considered to be the forerunner of Western philosophy. He was, in particular, a scholar, teacher and philosopher who influenced countless of thinkers throughout generations. His method of questioning, famously known as the “Socratic Method”, laid the groundwork for Western systems of logic in particular and philosophy in general.

Plato was considered to be his greatest student. In fact, it was Plato who wrote his philosophy. As is well known, Socrates did not write anything. It was Plato who systematically articulated Socrates’s philosophy through his famous dialogues, which also chronicled Socrates’s life.

Socrates was eventually accused of corrupting the youth of Athens and sentenced to death by drinking hemlock. He could have opted for exile, but chose death instead. It can be surmised that Socrates used his death as a final lesson for his students to face the adversities of life calmly and squarely rather than flee like chickens and ducks when faced with storms in life.

Socrates was fully convinced that philosophy must obtain practical results for the greater wellbeing of society. And for Socrates, the very first step towards the realization of this goal is the acquisition of wisdom through “knowing one’s Self”. As Socrates famously said, ultimate wisdom comes from knowing oneself.

So, how does Socrates view the self?

The key to understanding Socrates’s concept of the self is through the philosopher’s take on the “Soul”.

But Socrates’s concept of the soul should not be viewed from the vantage point of Christianity, that is, a religious conception of the soul. It is important to note that the ancient Greeks lived long before the existence of Christianity so that for them, the concept of the soul did not have the same religious connotations that it has for us today.

But what does Socrates actually mean by soul?

Of course, we cannot know for certain what Socrates really meant by the term soul. But most scholars in philosophy agreed with Frederick Copleston, a famous historian of philosophy, who believes that when Socrates speaks of the soul, the philosopher refers to a “thinking and willing subject”.

With this conception of the soul as a thinking and willing subject, it is safe to assume that the soul for Socrates is the intellectual and moral personality of humans. So, when Socrates said that the soul is the essence of the human person, he meant that it is the essence of humans to think and will. For this reason, the soul or the self for Socrates is the responsible agent in knowing and acting rightly or wrongly.

This is because for Socrates, the soul is the seat of knowledge and ignorance, of goodness and badness. Again, as the seat of knowledge and ignorance, of goodness and badness, the soul, for Socrates, is the essence of the human person. In other words, for Socrates, the soul is the person’s true self. In fact, Socrates said that when we turn inward in search for self-knowledge, we would eventually discover our true self. Viewed from this vantage point, the self is our “inner being”.

Now, because the soul or the self is the essence of the human person, and because it constitutes our personality, Socrates urges us to take care of our soul.

But why should we take care of our soul?

According to Socrates, we need to take care of our soul to attain the “Good Life”. As we can see, this is the ultimate goal of Socrates’s philosophy. As Socrates said, the human person must see to it that her life is geared towards knowledge of the Good Life. And for Socrates, the Good Life simply means being wise and virtuous. This explains why for Socrates, the Good Life is attained through the acquisition of knowledge, wisdom, and virtue.

Now, it is important to note that for Socrates, knowledge of the Goof Life cannot be acquired exogenously, but endogenously. For this reason, it is paramount that we devote considerable amount of attention, energy, and resources to making our soul as good and beautiful as possible. This conviction is expressed most visibly in perhaps Socrates’s most famous statement: “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

This gives us a clear idea of what Socrates meant by knowledge in this context: “to know” is “to know oneself”. Indeed, for us to attain the Good Life, we need to examine our life. The reason for this is quite obvious: virtue (which for Socrates is identical with knowledge) is intrinsic to the human person, and which can be accessed through self-examination. Since virtue is intrinsic to the human person, Socrates was convinced that the human person can discover the truth, that is, the truth of the Good Life. And once the human person discovers the truth, she then does what she thinks is the right thing to doꟷthus the famous Socratic dictum: “Knowing what is right is doing what is right.”

If knowing what is right is doing what is right, what about the problem of evil?

This seems to be a problem in Socrates’s concept of the self. Socrates seems to think that humans were angels, that once they know the right thing to do, they act accordingly.

Of course, Socrates was very much aware of the existence of evil in the world. However, for Socrates, those who commit evil acts are ignorant of the truth. They are ignorant in the sense that they don’t have an immediate realization of the “Good”. Thus, again, examining one’s self is the most important task one can undertake, for it alone will give her the knowledge necessary to answer the question “how one ought to live her life”. So, the famous Socratic dictum “Knowing what is right is doing what is right” means that once the person knows her “Self”, she may then learn how to care for it.

Finally, and contrary to the opinion of the masses, one’s true self, according to Socrates, should not be identified with what one owns, with one’s social status, reputation, or even with one’s body. For Socrates, it is the state of the soul, that is, the person’s inner being, which determines the quality of one’s life. It’s not money, fame, elegant clothes, nice house, beautiful and expensive car, or high-tech gadgets that makes life meaningful, but knowledge, wisdom, and virtue.

Therefore, the true self, for Socrates, is one that is lived in accordance with knowledge, wisdom, and virtue. The true self is the virtuous self.