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.
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.
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.
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 (resextenza). 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quantitative research is a type of empirical research that uses numerical data to study a phenomenon or a problem. It is a systematic approach that involves the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data using statistical methods. This method of research is often used in the natural sciences, social sciences, and health sciences, and is characterized by its focus on measurement, objectivity, and generalizability.
One of the primary characteristics of quantitative research is its reliance on numerical data. This data can take many forms, including survey responses, laboratory measurements, or secondary data sources. The use of numerical data allows researchers to make precise and accurate measurements of variables, which can be analyzed using statistical techniques.
Another characteristic of quantitative research is its emphasis on objectivity. Unlike qualitative research, which is often subjective and interpretive, quantitative research seeks to minimize the influence of the researcher’s own biases and assumptions. This is achieved through the use of standardized methods and procedures for data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
Generalizability is another important characteristic of quantitative research. The goal of quantitative research is to draw conclusions that can be applied to a larger population beyond the specific sample being studied. This is achieved through the use of random sampling techniques, which ensure that the sample is representative of the larger population.
The process of conducting quantitative research can be broken down into several key stages, including:
Identifying the research question: This involves identifying a research problem or question that can be addressed using quantitative methods. The research question should be specific, measurable, and relevant to the field of study.
Developing the research design: This involves determining the appropriate research design and methodology for the study. This may include selecting a sample, determining the variables to be measured, and identifying appropriate data collection methods.
Collecting the data: This involves collecting the numerical data necessary to address the research question. This may involve administering surveys, conducting laboratory experiments, or collecting data from existing sources.
Analyzing the data: This involves using statistical methods to analyze the data and identify patterns, relationships, and trends. This may include descriptive statistics, such as means and standard deviations, as well as inferential statistics, such as correlation and regression analyses.
Interpreting the results: This involves drawing conclusions based on the data analysis and interpreting the findings in the context of the research question. This may involve comparing the results to previous research, discussing limitations and implications, and identifying areas for future research.
One of the key advantages of quantitative research is its ability to provide precise and reliable data. The use of standardized methods and procedures for data collection and analysis ensures that the data is objective and can be replicated by other researchers. This also allows for the comparison of results across different studies, which can help to establish patterns and relationships within the field of study.
Another advantage of quantitative research is its ability to identify cause-and-effect relationships. By manipulating one or more variables and measuring the effect on another variable, researchers can establish causal relationships between variables. This can be useful in developing interventions and treatments for various problems and conditions.
However, there are also some limitations to quantitative research. One limitation is its reliance on numerical data, which may not capture the full complexity and richness of human experience. This can be particularly true in fields such as psychology and sociology, where subjective experiences and emotions may be difficult to quantify.
Another limitation is the potential for researcher bias. While the use of standardized methods and procedures can minimize bias, researchers may still have their own biases and assumptions that can influence the study design and data interpretation.
In conclusion, quantitative research is an important research method used in various fields of study, including natural sciences, social sciences, and health sciences. Its emphasis on numerical data, objectivity, and generalizability make it a powerful tool for generating precise and reliable data that can inform decision-making and contribute to the advancement of knowledge.
While there are limitations to quantitative research, such as its reliance on numerical data and the potential for researcher bias, these can be mitigated through careful study design, data collection, and analysis. Additionally, the ability of quantitative research to identify cause-and-effect relationships can be particularly valuable in developing interventions and treatments for various problems and conditions.
Overall, quantitative research plays an important role in advancing our understanding of the world around us and has contributed to significant breakthroughs in various fields of study. Its systematic and rigorous approach provides a foundation for generating reliable and trustworthy knowledge, and will continue to be an essential tool for researchers in the future.
Types of Quantitative Research Method
There are two major types of quantitative research method, namely:
1) primary quantitative research method and
2) secondary quantitative research method
On the one hand, primary quantitative research method focuses on the collection of data directly from the respondents themselves. On the other hand, as the name suggests, secondary quantitative research method involves using already existing data from previous researches or from the internet, libraries, government records, and other public sources.
Primary Quantitative Research Method
Primary quantitative research method is further divided into three sub-types, namely:
1) in terms of techniques and types of study,
2) data collection methodologies, and
3) data analysis techniques.
Under techniques and types of study we have
1) survey research,
2) correlational research,
3) causal-comparative research, and
4) experimental research
Under data collection methodologies we have
1) sampling method and
2) surveys and polls.
Under data analysis techniques we have
1) SWOT analysis,
2) conjoint analysis,
3) cross-tabulation, and
4) TURF analysis
Let us now briefly discuss each. Please note that our intention here is just to provide readers with a basic understanding of each concept. A thorough and exhaustive discussion on each concept will be done in a separate article.
Under Techniques and Types of Study
Survey
Survey research involves the collection of information from a sample of respondents through their answers to a set of questions. Survey research employs a variety of methods in collecting data, such as the use of questionnaires, online polls, online surveys, and other types of surveys.
As we can see, in survey research, researchers choose a sample of respondents from a population and administer a standardized questionnaire. The questionnaire can be a face-to-face interview, telephone interview, or a written document completed by the respondent being surveyed.
There are two types of survey, namely:
1) cross-sectional surveys and
2) longitudinal surveys
Cross-sectional survey refers to the collection of data from a sample target of population at one specific point in time. The participants in the study are selected based on particular variable of interest. Thus, participants in cross-sectional studies are chosen based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria set by the study. For instance, researchers who are studying consumer traits may select a group of people who differ in income but study them at one point in time. By doing this, any differences in income can presumably be attributed to differences in consumption habit rather than something that happened over time.
Like cross-sectional survey, longitudinal survey is observational. However, unlike cross-sectional survey which collects data from a sample target of population at one specific point in time, longitudinal survey is conducted across various time duration. Here, researchers conduct several observations of the same subject over a period of time, sometimes lasting days, weeks, months, years, or even decades. For example, researchers might want to look at the change in blood sugar levels among men over 40 who meditate daily for 10 minutes for a period of 2 years.
Hence, because longitudinal studies go beyond a single moment in time, then this type of survey is more likely to suggest a cause-and-effect relationship between variables.
Correlational Research
According to Adi Bhat, “Correlational research is a type of non-experimental research method, in which a researcher measures two variables, understands and assess the statistical relationship between them with no influence from any extraneous variable.” See Adi Bhat, “Correlational Research: Definition with Example”, QuestionPro, available from https://www.questionpro.com/blog/correlational-research/.
It is important to note that unlike in experimental research where the researcher manipulates some variables and then measure the effects of this manipulation on other variables, in correlational research design, the researcher does not influence any variables but only measure them and look for relations (that is, correlations) between some set of variables.
As we can see, in correlational research, the researcher may want to know or discover more about the relationship between and among variables. This is important for many reasons. For one, the knowledge about the relationship between and among variables may help address a particular problem or clarify some issues or even make some predictions. For instance, we may want to correlate money with happiness. But why the need to know the correlation between money and happiness? Maybe we want to test whether the cliché “Money can’t buy happiness” is true or not.
Causal-Comparative Research
Causal-comparative research is also called quasi-experimental research.
Causal-comparative research design depends mainly on the factor of comparison. Researchers used this quantitative research design in order to establish cause and effect relationship between two or more variables, where one variable is dependent on the other. However, it must be noted that in observing the impact of the independent variable on the dependent variable, the independent variable should be established but not manipulated.
It is also important to note that the attempt to find or determine the relationships between independent and dependent variables in causal-comparative research design should be done after the action or event has occurred. As already hinted above, the main goal of a causal-comparative research design is to determine whether the independent variable affects (directly or indirectly) the outcome or the dependent variable. And, as we can see, this is done by comparing two or more groups of individuals.
There are three most commonly used methods in causal-comparative research, namely, the chi-square test, the paired samples and independent tests, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) or ANCOVA. Please note that PHILO-notes will discuss each of this method in a separate article.
Experimental Research
Experimental research is a type of quantitative research method where the researchers examine the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable.
Experimental research is conducted to test theories or construct theoretical explanations about a particular phenomenon under investigation. In some cases, researchers conduct experiments to discover facts that will support in making decisions, especially when there is not enough data or information to support such decisions.
In experimental research, researchers manipulate one variable and control the rest of the variables. As we may already know, the manipulated variable is the independent variable and it is called “the manipulated variable” because this is the variable that researchers change or alter in the experiment. It is important to note that in experimental research, the researchers should only have one manipulated variable at a time.
It is also important to note that there are three main variables involved in experimental research, namely, the independent variable, the dependent variable, and the controlled variable. Again, the independent variable is the variable that is altered or changed during the experiment; the dependent variable is the variable that is being tested or measured in the experiment; and the controlled variable is the variable that is kept constant during the experiment. The controlled variable must be kept constant during the experiment because any change in the controlled variable will invalidate the results of the experiment.
Take, for instance, the experiment that attempts to investigate the effect of sunlight on the growth of plants. As we can see, the independent variable would be the amount of light the plant receives, while the dependent variable would be plant growth. Hence, given the amount of light we give to the plant (independent variable), the researcher measures the growth of the plan every, say, 5 days (dependent variable). As we can see, the results of the measurement will depend upon the amount of light given to the plant. The controlled variable in this experiment could be temperature, water, size of container, humidity, and type of soil. Please note again that changes in these variables will invalidate the results of the study. Hence, they must remain constant (thus, controlled) throughout the experiment. Thus, in experimental research, there are only two variables that change, namely, the independent variable and the dependent variable.
Under Data Collection Methodologies
Data collection method is the second major step in primary quantitative research. Scholars and researchers divide data collection methodologies into two, namely:
1) sampling methods and
2) surveys and polls
Sampling Method
In statistical research, sampling refers to the process whereby researchers select a representative group from the population to be studied. A sample, therefore, is the group of people who will take part in the study while the target population is the total group of people or individuals from which the sample can be drawn. As is well known, the individuals who will take part in the study are referred to as “participants”.
Quantitative researchers divide sampling method into two major types, namely, probabilitysampling method and non-probability sampling method.
On the one hand, probability sampling is a sampling technique where a sample from a larger target population are chosen with the use of a method based on the theory of probability, a theory in mathematics which is concerned with the analysis of random phenomena. It involves random selection, which allows researchers to make statistical inferences about the whole population.
It must be noted that when doing probability sampling, everyone in the target population must have equal chance of being selected. Hence, in probability sampling, participants are chosen randomly. And if the researcher wants to produce results that are truly representative of the whole population, then she needs to employ a probability sampling technique.
There are four main types of probability sampling technique, namely:
1) simple random sampling,
2) stratified random sampling,
3) cluster sampling, and
4) systematic sampling
Simple random sampling technique is the basic sampling technique where researchers select a group of individuals, which is called “a sample”, from a large population. Here, each member of the group is chosen entirely by chance and each has an equal chance of being selected. Please note that this type of sampling technique is implemented when the target population is considerably large.
For example, simple random sampling technique can be simply done by assigning numbers to the population and then randomly select the numbers which will become members of the sample. To illustrate, if a researcher wants to select a simple random sample of 50 members of a particular organization, then she may assign a number to every member in that organization from 1 to 500 using a random number generator to select 50 members.
In stratified random sampling technique, a large population is divided into smaller groups or strata and members of a sample are selected randomly from these groups or strata. However, it must be noted that those groups or strata should not overlap with each other. Of course, these smaller groups or strata should represent the entire population together.
One of the best ways to do stratified random sampling technique is to group the members according to sex, age, ethnicity, economic status, and what not. And then using a simple random sampling technique, the researcher chooses members from these groups. However, it must be noted that members from each group should be distinct to ensure that each member of all group has equal opportunity of being selected.
Please note that his sample technique is also called “random quota sample”.
Cluster sampling technique usually involves selecting participants from geographically spread-out population, such as cities, provinces, or states. Here, the geographically spread-out population is divided into clusters or subgroups, and instead of sampling from each subgroup, researchers randomly select the entire subgroups.
Let us suppose the researchers want to choose 100 participants from the entire population of Australia. Since they can hardly get a complete list of all people in Australia, the researchers may randomly choose areas in Australia, such as cities or states, and randomly select from within these geographical boundaries. This may include families or universities or non-government organizations from the cluster or subgroups.
Lastly,systematic sampling technique is a type of probability sampling technique that is similar to simple random sampling. But instead of randomly generating numbers, sample members are selected at regular intervals. The process starts with the selection of sample members from a larger population through random starting point but with fixed and periodic intervals. This interval, which is known as “sample interval”, is calculated by dividing the entire population size by the desired sample size.
Let us suppose a school is planning to form a dance troupe to represent itself in a national competition. If the school is seeking to form a systematic sample of 300 students from a population of 3000, then it may select every 10th person from the entire 3000 student population to build a sample systematically.
On the other hand, non-probability sampling technique is one in which, in the process of gathering the samples or participants, all members of the target population do not have equal chances of being chosen. At the core of non-probability sampling is the idea that samples or participants are chosen by the researcher based on her own subjective judgment. Hence, contrary to probability sampling, non-probability sampling technique does not select samples or participants randomly from a target population.
In non-probability sampling technique, subjective judgment is employed in deciding which aspects or elements are included in the sample. For instance, if the researcher would want to study the lived experiences of Asian immigrants who experience racial discrimination in New York City, then the researcher may just select between 10 and 20 samples or participants out of, say, 1000 population of Asian immigrants in New York City. And this 10-20 participants are those who directly experienced racial discrimination.
It is important to note that non-probability sampling technique is commonly employed in qualitative research method.
There are five types of non-probability sampling technique, namely:
1) convenience sampling,
2) consecutive sampling,
3) quota sampling,
4) snowball sampling, and
5) judgmental sampling
As the name suggests, convenience sampling technique is a sampling technique where samples or participants are chosen simply because of their convenient accessibility and proximity to the researcher. Here, samples or participants are chosen since they are very easy to recruit for the study.
Of course, it would be better if the researcher will include in the study all members of the target population. But in most cases, the target population is huge and is spread geographically. That is why it is best to use a “sampling technique”, and one of the famous sampling techniques is the convenience sampling technique because aside from the fact that it is fast and practical, it is also inexpensive and easy to implement without sacrificing the quality of the output of the research.
Consecutive sampling technique is quite similar to convenience sampling technique, except with a slight variation. Here, the researcher chooses a sample or group of people and then conduct research on it over a period of time, and then moves on to another sample, and so on until the goal of the research is attained. For example, if the researcher wants to determine the lived experiences of Asian immigrants on racial discrimination in the United States, then she may select a sample from New York and conduct research on it and then she may move on to California, select a sample there and conduct a research on it, and so on.
Quota sampling technique is the process of selecting specific characteristics of the target population, such as traits and personalities, to form a subgroup or strata. The researcher may then choose members of various strata or subgroups as part of the sample in proportion to a population on interest.
Snowball sampling technique is used by researchers when potential participants from the target population is hard to locate or the sample of the study is limited to extremely small strata or subgroups of the target population. As the name suggests, it is called “snowball sampling” because, just as the snow becomes bigger and bigger when rolled down in heaps, the researcher gets more participants by way of referral after interviewing or gathering information from the initial subject.
As we can see, the snowball sampling technique involves the process of asking the initial subject to nominate another potential subject with similar trait, characteristics, or interest. The researcher will then observe, study or gather information from the nominated subject and then continue the process in the same manner until a sufficient number of subjects is obtained.
Judgmental sampling technique is a type of non-probability sampling technique where researchers create samples or select unit to be sampled based on their own knowledge, experience, skills or judgment. Judgmental sampling technique is also called “purposive sampling technique”.
Because the researcher’s knowledge, experience, skills or judgment is instrumental in the creation of the sample, scholars are convinced that this sampling technique will produce highly accurate results with minimal margin of error.
Now, once the sample is determined, the researcher may proceed with the collection of data. This is where surveys and polls come in.
Surveys and Polls
On the one hand, a survey is defined as the collection of data from a predetermined sample with the purpose of gaining information or insights on various topics of interest. It is important to note that surveys involve the gathering of data directly from the source. And given the ease of survey distribution and the wide number of respondents it can reach (of course, depending on research objective and research time), a survey is one of the most important aspects when conducting quantitative research.
On the other hand, a poll is defined as the collection of feedback with the use of close-ended questions from a sample. Unlike surveys which involve asking a wide range of multiple questions, polls involve asking only one question or one multiple choice question.
The most commonly used types of polls are election polls and exit polls. Both of these types of polls collect data or information from a large sample size but use just one multiple question. Here, the participants can choose from among the answers predefined by the researchers themselves. For example, the researchers may ask the respondents who would they vote for president in the upcoming US elections. Researchers then can restrict voters to choose just one answer to the question like, for instance, “A. Obama, B. Biden, C. Trump, or D. Undecied”.
Under Data Analysis Techniques
Data analysis is the third aspect of the primary quantitative research. Needless to say, after raw data were collected, analysis has to follow in order to derive statistical inferences from the research. It is here where the researcher will relate the results of the study to the objective of the study and then establish the statistical relevance of the results.
Data analysis, therefore, aims to extract useful information from the data gathered in order to come up with a sound decision or, perhaps, a reasoned opinion regarding the issue under investigation. This necessarily involves the process of cleaning, transforming, and modeling data.
Some of the common statistical analysis methods that researchers used in analyzing quantitative data are 1) SWOT analysis method, 2) conjoint analysis method, 3) cross-tabulation method, and 4) TURF analysis method.
SWOT stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. SWOT, therefore, is a statistical analysis method that is used to assess and evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of, say, organizations or any relevant entity for that matter. An organization, for example, may use SWOT analysis to make the most of what it got to its advantage. In this way, organizations can reduce the chances of failure by understanding what they lack which then enables it to eliminate threats that may catch them unaware.
SWOT analysis also enables an organization to develop strategies that can be the sources of its competitive advantage over its competitors, which in turn enables the organization to compete successfully in the market.
Conjoint analysis is a survey-based statistical technique that is used in market research to learn how individuals make different and complicated purchasing decisions. Researchers consider conjoint analysis as one of the most effective models in extracting consumer preferences during the purchasing process. This is because after the data are turned into “quantitative measurements” through the use of a statistical analysis, organizations or companies can then evaluate products or services in a way no other method can.
Cross-tabulation is also known as contingency tables or cross tabs. As a statistical analysis technique, researchers use cross-tabulation to find patterns, trends, and probabilities within raw data. Researchers do this by grouping different variables to understand their correlation and show how such correlation changes from one variable grouping to another.
Lastly, TURF stands for Totally Unduplicated Reach and Frequency. TURF analysis is a type of statistical analysis that researchers used in understanding the potential of a target market. TURF analysis usually identifies the number of users reached by a communication as well as the manner in which they were reached.
Secondary Quantitative Research Method
As the name suggests, secondary quantitative research is a research method that appropriates already existing data. Secondary quantitative research method is also known as desk research. This is so because researchers can just sit on their desks and conduct research using existing data or secondary data. Researchers may collect quantitative data from the internet, libraries, previous researches, or government records and then summarize and collate such existing data to increase the overall effectiveness of research.
While it is possible for researchers to come up with some new findings or conclusions from already existing data, secondary quantitative research method has the function of validating existing data with the purpose of strengthening or proving and disproving previously collected data. Some of the famously used secondary quantitative research methods are:
Scholars have not agreed on a single, objective definition of the term research. This can be observed in the varying definitions of the said term. For example, the Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary defines it as…
“the systematic investigation into the study of materials, sources etc. in order to establish facts and reach new conclusion”,
while Fredrick Kerlinger defines research as…
the systematic, controlled, empirical and critical investigation of hypothetical propositions about presumed relations among natural phenomena (see Kerlinger, Fred N. 1973. Foundations of Behavioral Researches. 2nd edition. Holt: Rinehart and Winston).
Other scholars, such as Paul Leedy, defines research in a more utilitarian manner. For Leedy, research is “a procedure by which we attempt to find systematically, and with the support of demonstrable fact, the answer to a question or the resolution of a problem” (see Leedy, Paul D. 1989. Practical Research: Planning and Design. London: Collier Macmillan).
Despite these varying definitions, scholars have come up with a working definition of research. Generally speaking, research is defined as the scientific investigation of a problem or gap, which aims at the discovery or interpretation of new facts. According to some scholars, the discovery or interpretation of news facts may lead to a revision or even rejection of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts.
As is well known, research makes use of the rigorous and questioning techniques of scientific inquiry. Hence, research employs a scientific method.
As we can see, research is a specific term, which necessarily involves a scientific rigor. For this reason, any type of inquiry that does not involve a scientific rigor cannot be called “research” in the strict sense of the word, such as the mere act of gathering facts and information. For instance, someone may say she wants to go to the library to do further research on the meaning, nature and dynamics of earthquakes. As we can see, the term research is wrongly used here because in the first place it lacks the scientific rigor.
What is scientific rigor?
By scientific rigor we mean the implementation of the highest standards and best practices of science. But what is science in the first place?
Historically, according to B. R. Hergenhahn, science came into existence as a way of answering questions about nature by examining nature directly, rather than by depending on church dogmas, past authorities, superstition, or abstract thought processes alone. In fact, for Hergenhahn, from science’s inception, its ultimate authority has been empirical observations, that is, the direct observation of nature. But according to Hergenhahn, there is more to science than simply observing nature. Hergenhahn says that for observations to be useful, they must be organized or categorized in some way, and the ways in which they are similar to or different from other observations must be noted. And for Hergenhahn, after noting similarities and differences among observations, many scientists take the additional step of attempting to explain what they have observed. See Hergenhahn, B. R. 2005. An Introduction to the History of Psychology, 5th edition. United States: Thomson Wadsworth.
From the above discussion, we can now draw a general conception of science as the systematic attempt to rationally categorize or explain empirical investigations. In fact, the famous philosopher Karl Popper, who was an authority in the history of science, argues that science is a way of testing rigorously the proposed solutions to a problem.
Types of Research
There are two types of research in terms of the nature and purpose of the study, namely:
(1) basic or fundamental research and
(2) applied research.
On the one hand, basic research is a type of research that investigates the basic reasons and principle behind the occurrence of a particular phenomenon or event. Basic research is also referred to as theoretical research. As a theoretical research, basic research, therefore, is driven by pure curiosity and the desire to expand one’s knowledge on a specific subject-matter or discipline. Hence, as we can see, basic research may not necessarily lead to an immediate use or application. An example of basic research is an investigation that looks at the factors that trigger depression.
Although this type of research does not directly address real world issues or problems, basic research is equally important as it enhances our understanding of the world around us. This is because basic research provides us with a systematic and deep insight into a problem that can have practical significance to our life and the society as a whole.
Scholars further divide basic research into pure and strategic types of research. Pure research is conducted without any specific outcome in mind other than the advancement of knowledge, while strategic research is conducted with the intention of providing a broad base of knowledge which may help in addressing a specific problem.
Applied research, on the other hand, is a type of research that aims at finding solutions to pressing problems that society, organizations, and the like are facing by employing well-known theories and principles. Sometimes, applied research is conducted to determine the possible uses or applications of the findings of basic research. An example of an applied research is a study that attempts to determine the impact of mining on the socio-economic life of the indigenous peoples.
Basic and applied research are further divided into three types of research in terms of methods, namely:
1) quantitative research,
2) qualitative research, and
3) mixed research method.
Quantitative Research Method
Quantitative research method is a systematic investigation of observable phenomena through a computational, mathematical, and, most especially, statistical technique. Hence, in quantitative research method, the researcher analyzes the data with the help of statistics and hopes that the figures will produce logical and unbiased results. In terms of purpose, quantitative research method aims to develop mathematical models, hypotheses, and theories that pertain to the quantifiable phenomena under investigation.
As we can see, quantitative research method is numerical in nature, and employs statistics and mathematics in the interpretation of data. This explains why results in quantitative research method are presented in tables and graphs. As a matter of fact, research papers that employ a quantitative research method are replete with tables and graphs.
As is well known, quantitative research method is widely employed in the social sciences, such as in sociology, psychology, gender studies, development studies, economics, community health, demography, and political science. Researches in education also employ quantitative research method, although other educational research themes can be conducted using a qualitative research method.
Qualitative Research Method
Qualitative research method is a type of research that does not require a sophisticated statistical treatment. Defined more broadly, qualitative research method is a scientific investigation of non-quantifiable phenomena, such as experiences, with the intention of understanding a particular phenomenon through a holistic description and exploration of the meaning, nature, and dynamics of the said phenomenon or situation. This explains why qualitative research is the best method when it comes to researching about the “why and how” questions of human experience. A concrete example of a qualitative research is a study that attempts to determine the lived experiences of Senior High school teachers who were asked to teach subjects that are not aligned with their field of specialization. For instance, in the Philippine educational system, many humanities graduate teachers in the Senior High School were asked to teach science subjects. Needless to say, these teachers have been experiencing problems in terms of mastery and content delivery. Thus, one of the best ways to help these teachers deliver a quality instruction is to know their lived experiences, particularly their difficulties and challenges. This is because once we know the difficulties and challenges that these teachers have been experiencing, we can easily offer some practicable alternatives that may help address the problem.
As we can see, a qualitative research method is non-numerical, descriptive, exploratory, and narrative in nature. It investigates the “why and how” questions of human experience and attempts to understand holistically a particular phenomenon or situation. And in terms of purpose, a qualitative research method primarily aims to know the meaning, nature, and dynamics of a particular phenomenon or situation under investigation.
Mixed Method
Mixed method, as the name suggests, involves a systematic integration or combination of both quantitative and qualitative research methods in the investigation of a particular phenomenon, event, or situation. The fundamental premise of this method or type of research is that the integration or combination of both the quantitative and qualitative methods or types of research will result in a holistic and more meaningful interpretation of data. In most cases, the qualitative aspect of this type of research supports the findings and conclusion arrived at in the quantitative interpretation data. But of course, on the other hand, the quantitative aspect may also support the findings and conclusion arrived at in the qualitative interpretation of data.
Mixed method originates in the social sciences, but has been expanded recently into the medical and allied health sciences, such as nursing, social work, community health, mental health, pharmacy, and alternative medicine.
As we can see, mixed method may involve analyzing both numerical and non-numerical data. It may also present results in tables and graphs backed up by a strong narrative. Mixed method can also be exploratory and conclusive at the same time.
Kohlberg’s stages of moral development is a theory that describes how individuals develop their understanding of morality over time. The theory consists of three levels, each of which has two stages. In this essay, we will explore each of these levels and stages in more detail.
Level 1: Pre-Conventional Morality
The pre-conventional level is the first level of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, and it is typically observed in young children. At this level, individuals are focused on avoiding punishment and seeking rewards. Their moral reasoning is based on their own self-interest and personal needs.
Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation
At the first stage of the pre-conventional level, individuals view rules and authority as absolute. They obey rules to avoid punishment, and they believe that those who break rules should be punished. They are not able to take into account the needs or feelings of others.
Stage 2: Individualism and Exchange Orientation
At the second stage of the pre-conventional level, individuals begin to consider the needs and desires of others. They understand that others have their own self-interests and may engage in exchanges to meet their needs. For example, a child may share her toys with a friend in exchange for the friend sharing their toys in return.
Level 2: Conventional Morality
The second level of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development is the conventional level. At this level, individuals are focused on maintaining social order and conforming to societal norms. They are concerned with being a “good” person and following the expectations of others.
Stage 3: Interpersonal Relationships Orientation
At the third stage of the conventional level, individuals are focused on being perceived as a good person by others. They are motivated by a desire to maintain positive relationships with others and to be seen as kind, helpful, and cooperative. They conform to societal norms to fit in and be accepted by others.
Stage 4: Maintaining Social Order Orientation
At the fourth stage of the conventional level, individuals understand the importance of following the laws and rules of society. They believe that laws are necessary for maintaining social order, and they feel a duty to obey them. They are concerned with upholding the social order and maintaining the status quo.
Level 3: Post-Conventional Morality
The post-conventional level is the third and final level of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. At this level, individuals are capable of thinking beyond the expectations of society and are willing to challenge social norms and conventions to uphold their own ethical principles.
Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights Orientation
At the fifth stage of the post-conventional level, individuals recognize that laws and social norms are created by people and are subject to change. They believe that rules should be based on the mutual benefit of all members of society and that there are times when it may be necessary to challenge unjust laws. They are willing to weigh the interests of different groups and make decisions based on what is fair and just.
Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principles Orientation
At the sixth and final stage of the post-conventional level, individuals develop a sense of personal ethical principles that are independent of society’s rules and norms. They believe in the inherent value of all individuals and the importance of upholding human rights and dignity. They are willing to stand up for their beliefs and principles, even if it means going against social norms and expectations.
Critiques of Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development
Despite its widespread influence, Kohlberg’s stages of moral development has faced criticism from various perspectives. Some of the critiques are as follows:
Cultural Bias: One of the primary critiques of Kohlberg’s theory is that it is heavily influenced by Western cultural values and may not be applicable to people from different cultural backgrounds. The stages were developed based on research with Western participants, and critics argue that the stages may not be relevant or accurate for individuals from other cultures.
1. Gender Bias: Another critique of Kohlberg’s theory is that it is biased towards males. Kohlberg’s research was conducted primarily with male participants, and some studies have found that females tend to score lower on measures of moral reasoning than males. Critics argue that Kohlberg’s stages may not accurately reflect the moral development of females and other marginalized groups.
2. Limited Scope: Kohlberg’s theory focuses primarily on moral reasoning and does not consider other factors that may influence moral development, such as emotions, empathy, and socialization. Critics argue that the theory provides an incomplete picture of moral development and may not fully capture the complexities of moral decision-making.
3. Lack of Empirical Support: Some researchers have found that Kohlberg’s stages of moral development do not consistently predict moral behavior in real-world situations. This has led some to question the validity of the theory and its ability to accurately measure moral development.
4. Hierarchy of Stages: Critics have also raised concerns about the hierarchical nature of Kohlberg’s stages, which suggests that individuals must progress through each stage in a linear fashion. Some argue that this oversimplifies the complexities of moral development and may not accurately reflect the way that individuals actually develop their moral reasoning.
5. Lack of Diversity: Kohlberg’s theory primarily focuses on the development of moral reasoning in white, middle-class males. Critics argue that the theory may not be representative of the experiences of individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds, races, and ethnicities.
In response to these critiques, some researchers have attempted to expand on Kohlberg’s theory to address some of the limitations. For example, Carol Gilligan’s theory of moral development focuses on the development of care and empathy, which she argues is a key component of moral reasoning that is often overlooked by Kohlberg’s theory. Additionally, some researchers have suggested that the stages of moral development may not be hierarchical and that individuals may move back and forth between stages depending on the context and situation.
Despite these critiques, Kohlberg’s stages of moral development remains a significant and influential theory in the field of psychology. It has provided a framework for understanding how individuals develop their understanding of morality over time, and it has helped to stimulate further research and discussion on the topic of moral development.
In these notes, I will clearly distinguish morality from ethics by explaining the meaning, nature, and dynamics of morality. Hence, these notes will briefly address the question “What is morality?”.
It must be noted, however, that the difference between ethics and morality is not that significant. In fact, the former is essentially synonymous with the latter. Etymologically speaking, ethics comes from the Greek word ethos, while morality from the Latin word mos (or mores, if it’s used in a plural form), both words referring to customary behavior. For this reason, we may use the word “immoral” in lieu of the word “unethical”, or we may use the word “moral” instead of the word “ethical”. This is the reason why we say that a “moral person” or “ethical person” is one who is good and does the right thing, and an “immoral person” or “unethical person” is one who is bad and does what is wrong.
As we can see, the terms ethics and morality can be used interchangeably. However, there is a fine line that divides the two. In other words, we can distinguish one from the other in some respects.
The first idea that came to our mind when we ask the difference between morality and ethics is that the latter generally refers to the systematic study of the rightness and wrongness of a human action, while the former is generally understood as the rightness or wrongness of a human action. In this way, we can say that ethics is the specific branch of philosophy that studies the morality (that is, the rightness or wrongness) of a human act. With this, we may initially conclude that ethics is the science of “morals”, while morality is the practice of ethics.
Based on the above initial discussion on the difference between the two terms, we can now draw the idea that ethics attempts to provide systems of moral principles and the reasons why these principles are valid. Hence, ethics is more concerned with theories that can be used to explain why a particular moral principle is valid or not, right or wrong. It is for this reason that ethicists have come up with some of the basic ethical principles that may help determine the rightness or wrongness of a human action.
Some of these basic ethical principles are: 1) Respect for persons, 2) Truthfulness and Confidentiality, 3) Autonomy and Informed Consent, 4) Beneficence, 5) Non-maleficence, and 6) Justice.
Now, as already mentioned, morality refers to principles of right and wrong behavior or rightness and wrongness (that is, goodness and badness) of human actions. And more importantly, in determining the rightness or wrongness of human actions, the moral agent is guided by the broader rules or principles of ethics. For instance, the person’s moral belief that killing is wrong may stem from the basic ethical principle of “Respect for persons” or “Non-maleficence”. Indeed, this example further explains the basic difference between ethics and morals: if ethics says that killing is wrong because it violates the basic ethical principles of “Respect for persons” or “Non-maleficence”, morality, on the other hand, says “Do not kill” because it is wrong. Again, this is the reason why ethics is understood as the science of morals, while morality is the practice of (the basic principles of) ethics.
