Home - Wittgenstein's Logic of Language | Search

The Origins and Branches of Philosophy

Philosophy begins by calling itself into question, because the
question of what philosophy is, is itself a philosophical
question. Topics on this page:

The Origins of the Meaning of the word 'Philosophy'
The Historical Branches or Traditional Parts of Philosophy
Clarification: the Earliest Meaning of 'Philosophy'
The Historical Periods of Philosophy
Note: the origins of philosophy in the human mind is discussed
elsewhere.

"What is Philosophy?"

Is the word 'philosophy' an "umbrella word"? Can it only be
defined as a basket of inter-related subjects. Or is there an
essence of philosophy? Is it clear what the words 'Philosophy
is the love of wisdom' might be used to mean? That rather
vague definition comes from the origin and etymology of the
word 'philosophy'. (But is the English word 'wisdom' always an
appropriate translation of the Greek word 'sophia'?)

The trouble with the expression 'umbrella word' is that it may
suggest that "umbrella words" are not the usual case; that
essences ["general definitions" (Philosophical Investigations
71; cf. 480: "general concept")] are more likely to be found
than mere "family resemblances (or, likenesses)", whereas just
the opposite may be the case.

I would not call e.g. the word 'game' an umbrella word, but we
could make a classification scheme (We could reorganize our
grammar this way) grouping concept-words into the sub-
categories of "umbrella-word" versus "essence-word".

This is the general definition of 'philosophy' that I myself might
suggest: Philosophy is critical thinking about first and last
questions. It derives from Socrates ("critical thinking" or
thoroughgoing reason as the guide to life) and Albert
Schweitzer ("elemental and final" were his translator's words).
Or I might say that: A philosophy is a rational way of looking at
things, specifically in logic, ethics or metaphysics: within that
way of looking at things, there is truth and falsity; but a way of
looking at things is not itself true or false.

How helpful is a definition of that sort? Not very if you are just
beginning your studies, because it comes at the end of an
investigation, not at its beginning. When I say "what philosophy
is", I am reflecting about what I have learned, or think I have
learned; but I am also saying what I judge ought to be called
'philosophy' (regardless of what others call by that name).

I have made this drawing to illustrate a picture of Philosophy
often presented at school. Most of the ancients did classify
Logic as a part (or, branch) of Philosophy, although Aristotle
did not. Aristotle classified logic (which he called "analytics")
instead only as a tool of philosophy; and his followers (the
Peripatetics, and later the Scholastics) called his works about
logic the organon ("tool" or "instrument"). Among more recent
philosophers Logic is by some classified as a part of
Philosophy, but by others as not a part.

Rather than simply branches of Philosophy, however, a list of
philosophers grouped according to some scheme or other
could complete this picture. (Always remember that "there are
many ways to cut a pie", not only one.)

How shall Philosophy speak of things known (Physics,
Metaphysics) without asking how or if anything can be known,
and about the methods by which something may be known
(Epistemology, Logic). Regarding Ethics (Axiology), there have
been philosophers who have not spoken about this at all.
(Physics nowadays, of course, is further divided into the
natural sciences and those hybrid disciplines called "social
sciences", and not regarded by most thinkers as a part of
Philosophy at all. On the other hand, according to some
philosophers there is no such thing as Metaphysics -- but that
is an eternal question in philosophy.)

Origins of the Meaning of the Word 'Philosophy'

Eduard Zeller gives as the earliest meaning of the word
'philosophy' as 'thirst for learning'. (Outlines of the History of
Greek Philosophy. 13th ed., rev. Nestle, tr. Palmer. (London:
1931), p. 23n)

Zeller writes that the word 'philosopher' "seems first to have
acquired its technical sense in the circle or Socrates and Plato
and only after that to have attained general currency" (p. 23).

The Greek word 'philosophia' = 'thirst for education' in Plato's
Protagoras 335d-e, 342a-d. "In a new meaning however, [see]
Phaedrus 278d [quoted below]." Because of the latter text,
Zeller thinks it cannot be correct to attribute the statement that
only God is wise to Pythagoras (Diog. L. i, 12 [Pythagoras did
not call himself [a wise man, or,] "one who knows" (sophist),
but only "one who wants to know" (philosopher) (ibid. viii, 1)]).
"Isocrates [436-338 B.C.] too ... called his general education
philosophia [meaning what we call Learning (Plato rejects this
as too broad in Republic 5.475c-d: a philosopher is not
someone who wants to know just any- and every-thing)]."
(Zeller, p. 23n)

SOCRATES: [The one who] has done his work with a
knowledge of the truth [and] can defend his statements when
challenged [ought to be designated by a name] that indicates
his serious pursuit.
PHAEDRUS: Then what names would you assign him?
SOCRATES: To call him wise ["sophist" = "wise man"],
Phaedrus, would, I think, be going too far; the epithet is proper
only to a god. A name that would fit him better, and have more
seemliness, would be "lover of wisdom" ["philosopher"], or
something similar. (Phaedrus 278c-d, tr. R. Hackforth)

At Phaedrus 230d, Socrates calls himself "a lover of learning".
Phaedrus has said that Socrates is like "a stranger being
shown the country by a guide", because, it seems that,
Socrates never sets foot outside the walls of the city of Athens.
To which Socrates replies: "I am a lover of learning, and trees
and open country won't teach me anything, whereas men in
the town do." But if Phaedrus will offer Socrates "volumes of
speeches I don't doubt you can cart me all round Attica, and
anywhere else you please". (230d-e)

Etymology. The Greek philia means: 'friendship' or 'fondness',
from philos: 'dear' [cf. our expression 'philharmonic society':
"friends of music"]. The Greek root-word-meaning of the word
'philosophy' would be "love [philo] of wisdom [sophia]";
however, in this particular case, that type of definition [meaning
of the word 'meaning'] of the word 'philosophy' does not make
its meaning too much clearer. Because what, after all, do we
mean by the word 'wisdom'?

Although, there is also the question of whether the English
word 'wisdom' is the best translation of the Greek word
'sophia'. We use the form expression "Know thyself!", not
"Enwisen thyself!" (or, in non-P. G. Wodehouse's Bertie
Wooster's English, "Acquire wisdom of thyself!" or "Become
wise about thyself!"). And yet the knowledge that is sought is
what we call 'wisdom' in English, because it is specifically the
knowledge of how we should live our life ("We are discussing
no small matter, but how to live"), and in order to know how we
should live our life we need to know what manner of being we
are and what our end is, that is to say: to what purpose our life
exists. If anyone were wise, he would know the answers to
these questions. So that the English word 'wisdom' does
appear to be the best translation of the Greek word 'sophia'.

But, on the other hand, the word 'wisdom' is not always the
best translation of 'sophia'. For when Socrates questions the
artisans (Apology 22d-e), he says that the artisans are "wise",
or possess sophia, in so far as [i.e. because] they know how to
practice their art, although their "wisdom" goes no further than
that particular knowledge. But we do not call the knowledge of
how to practice an art 'wisdom'. Therefore, sometimes, the
English word 'knowledge' will be the best translation of the
Greek word 'sophia'.

Thus, based on its etymology, the word 'philosophy' might be
translated into English as 'thirst for knowledge of how we
should live our life'. But that is Ethics, and Ethics is only one
branch of Philosophy.

An Ancient View of Philosophy

In the Prologue to his Lives and Opinions of the Eminent
Philosophers (tr. from the Greek by R. D. Hicks; abbr. Diog. L.)
Diogenes Laertius [fl. c. 3rd century A.D.], says of philosophy
that "its very name refuses to be translated into foreign
speech" (i, 4), and that "the first to use the term, and to call
himself a philosopher or lover of wisdom, was Pythagoras; for,
said he, no man is wise, but God alone" (i, 12).

Philosophy, defined as "the pursuit of wisdom" (i, 13), "has
three parts, physics, ethics, and dialectic or logic. Physics is
the part concerned with the universe and all that it contains;
ethics that concerned with life and all that has to do with us;
while the processes of reasoning employed by both form the
province of dialectic." (i, 18) Philosophers may be divided into
dogmatics ['dogma' = 'opinion'] and skeptics: all those who
make assertions about things assuming that they can be know
are dogmatists; while all who suspend their judgment on the
ground that things are unknowable are sceptics." (i, 16)

The early Greek Stoics divided philosophy into three parts:
physics (which we now call 'metaphysics'), ethics, and logic.
(vii, 39)

Among the dogmatics belong the Eclectics or "Selectors";
these were "philosophers who were attached to no particular
school, but made a selection of favorite dogmas from the
tenets of the different sects". (Oskar Seyffert, Classical
Dictionary)

The Two Schools and their Orders of Succession

Philosophy, according to Diog. L. i, 13-15, "had a twofold
origin; it started with Anaximander on the one hand, with
Pythagoras on the other. The former was a pupil of Thales,
Pythagoras was taught by Pherecydes. The one school was
called Ionian, because Thales, a Milesian and therefore an
Ionian, instructed Anaximander; the other school was called
Italian from Pythagoras, who worked for the most part in Italy
[in the area called Magna Graecia by the early Romans]."

The order of succession of the school of Ionia "terminates with
Clitomachus and Chrysippus and Theophrastus, that of Italy
with Epicurus. The succession passes from Thales through
Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Archelaus, to
Socrates, who introduced ethics or moral philosophy; from
Socrates to his pupils the Socratics, and especially to Plato,
the founder of the Old Academy.... This line brings us to
Clitomachus.

"There is another which ends with Chrysippus, that is to say by
passing from Socrates to Antisthenes, then to Diogenes the
Cynic [Diogenes of Sinope], Crates of Thebes, Zeno of Citium,
Cleanthes, Chrysippus. And yet again another ends with
Theophrastus; thus from Plato it passes to Aristotle, and from
Aristotle to Theophrastus. In this manner the school of Ionia
comes to an end.

"In the Italian school the order of succession is as follows: first
Pherecydes, next Pythagoras, next his son Telauges, then
Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno of Elea, Leucippus,
Democritus, who had many pupils, in particular Nausiphanes
(and Naucydes), who were teachers of Epicurus."

Note by R. D. Hicks: "The arrangement followed in i, 12-15
treats the Italian school as a true succession, whereas in Book
IX, many of them are regarded as sporadic thinkers, according
to the view expressed in viii, 91" (p. 16-17) which is: "Having
now dealt with the famous Pythagoreans, let us next discuss
the so-called "sporadic" philosophers. And first we must speak
of Heraclitus."

The Historical Branches or Traditional Parts of Philosophy

Again, the question of what philosophy is -- is itself a
philosophical question. But from an historical point of view, we
can divide philosophy into inter-related subjects or questions.
Looking under the umbrella or into the basket, we find:

Metaphysics (The title given to the work that comes after
Aristotle's books about the world of nature (physica) in the
catalog of his works)
First Philosophy (Aristotle's own name for metaphysics). Study
of the first (i.e. ultimate) causes of reality, or, of first principles.
What is real ("really real": reality vs. mere appearance)?
Ontology: study of "being" or "Being" as such.
Natural Theology. By 'theology' the Greeks meant "talk about
the gods". This talk can be divided into divine theology (which
is not philosophy) and natural philosophy (which is). Divine
Theology: demonstrations based on "revealed truths" -- i.e.
religious authority, e.g. "sacred scripture", church defined
dogma, articles of faith (creeds): "faith seeking understanding",
e.g. of the Divine Trinity. Natural Theology: demonstrations
from naturally known (not "revealed") principles, e.g. of "the
existence of God".
"Why is there something rather than nothing?" (Leibniz) Why
does anything at all exist?
Epistemology. Questions of knowledge, truth and falsity, belief,
certainty. How is it possible, if it is possible, to know anything
at all? What is the nature of belief? "Theories of knowledge"
such as: "correspondence", "cohesion"
Axiology. Questions of value or worth.
Ethics: about right and wrong, good and evil, about what we
should do, how we should live: questions of moral value. "Is it
possible to derive an ought from an is?" (Hume). Distinction the
Greek Sophists make between nomos (convention, tradition)
and physis (nature). Duty, moral obligation. "Moral Science".
The word 'morals' ('morality') is Latin for the Greek word
'ethics'; there is no inherent difference in meaning between the
two words.
The criterion of a real ethic is whether it allows their full rights
to the problems of personal morality and of the relation of man
to man, problems with which we are concerned every day and
every hour, and in which we must become ethical
personalities. (Albert Schweitzer, Civilization and Ethics, tr.
Campion)

We are talking about no small matter, but how we should live
our life. (Plato, Gorgias, Republic)

Aesthetics: about beauty and art
Social: about politics (i.e. life in the community or state, from
the Greek polis: 'city-state')
Logic (from the Greek logos: 'a meaningful word'). (1) "The art
of reasoning" (dialectic): the study of sound and unsound
reasoning, of valid and invalid argument. (2) The study of the
"logic of language": of signs versus their meanings, of sense
versus nonsense, of definition, and clarity and obscurity, -- not
for its own sake but only as it affects philosophical problems
(Logic is therefore different from the Philosophy of Language).
Natural Philosophy (now called 'science'). The question: "Is
science a philosophy?" is asked generally in Philosophy and
specifically in the Philosophy of Science.
The Philosophy of X, where the value of the variable X can be
any subject. The Philosophy of X asks: what is the nature of X?
what are the limits of its subject-matter? What are its
foundations? For example:
Philosophy of Mathematics (Foundations of Mathematics):
what is a mathematical proof? What is mathematics about --
reality or marks on paper or ...? What is a geometric point?
What are numbers?
Philosophy of Science: what is a scientific theory? Are facts
"theory laden" (or concept laden)? What is scientific truth (if
there is such a thing)? Philosophy of the Social Sciences.
Philosophy of Religion (secular study of religion: basically,
what is religion, what is it about?)
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Law (physis vs. nomos e.g.); Philosophy of
Education; Philosophy of Medicine (Health and disease -- by
what criterion is something classified as one or the other?);
Philosophy of Economics (Is economics a science?)
Philosophy of History, both of critical (historiography: the
writing of history) and of speculative (Is there a pattern to
historical events, an eternal cycle e.g.?)
("The Philosophy of Philosophy" is called 'meta-philosophy' by
some.)
Etc. About any subject matter: what is its fundamental nature,
what are its principles, what does it take for granted (What are
its assumptions)? Questions like these.
Query: what are the different branches of philosophy?
"There are many ways to slice a cake" -- i.e. many possible
systems of classification. But to speak of the "branches of
philosophy" ... but the branches of a tree spring from a trunk,
and so now tell me: what is the trunk of philosophy? Can a tree
consist of nothing but branches -- i.e. what is the application of
this metaphor (if it is a metaphor and not merely a thoughtless
form of expression)? By 'metaphor' we mean: a comparison of
the type: A is like B in such-and-such a way or ways -- but
when we speak of "the branches of philosophy", apparently
using the metaphor "Philosophy is a tree" -- that is no
metaphor. A good metaphor would be "Philosophy is a pie"
(which may be cut in many different ways to suit many different
purposes).
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PHILO AND SCIENCE
What is the difference between science and philosophy? (and
theology)
*

I have been reading and thinking about the nature of science,
and its definitions, for a long time - probably since I saw
Bronowski's TV programme The Ascent of Man in 1972.

Any comprehensive definition must be minimal - in particular
there is no characteristic scientific method, nor mode (i.e.
Popper was wrong, although interesting and useful) - nor does
science have any essential attribute of being self-correcting,
nor is science necessarily observational or empirical.

And so on.

So what made the difference between science and what went
before?
This is the idea: Science came from philosophy and philosophy
from theology - by a process of specialization - a part coming
off from the whole, and being pursued autonomously as a
social system.

Theology is a social system that aims to discover the truth; and
which puts the truths of divine revelation first and reason
subordinate (if at all); philosophy aims to discover truth (or
used to) but puts reason first - but remains (in its early phases)
constrained by revelation.

Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine
revelation as an allowable explanation.
So science is a specialized social system, based on reason,
but which excludes all reference to divine revelation.
But what is special about being a social system?

Mainly time and effort, in a co-operative sense (although the
cooperation can be between just a few people).

So science is simply some people devoting time and effort to
investigating the world using reason and excluding reference to
divine revelation.
Naturally, since Science excludes divine revelation, science
can have no formal impact on theology, nor can it have any
formal impact on philosophy.

Yet, apparently, science has substantially impacted on
theology and philosophy - it is, for example taken to have
discredited Christianity.

How did this perception arise?

1. Science as (until recently) been perceived as in enabling
(somehow, indirectly) humans to increase power over nature
(this perception may be subjective/ delusional, or false, as it
often is now - or it can be all-but undeniable).

Yet science is (or rather was) successful mainly because a lot
of smart people were putting a lot of effort into discovering
truth.

(And now that people don't try to discover truth, they don't
discover it - naturally not.)

2. Sheer habit. People trained and competent in the (wholly
artificial) scientific way of thinking, which a priori excludes
religious explanations, leads to human beings who habitually
exclude divine explanations.

*

And it turns out that habit is very powerful as a socialization
device.

Such that people trained in an artificial (hence difficult) and
socially-approved specialized mode of thinking, eventually do
not notice the exclusions of their mode of thought, and assume
that their mode of thought is the whole thing; assume that that
which was excluded a priori has instead been excluded
because it was false.

A mistaken inference - but mainstream in modernity.
NOTE ADDED: in sum, to put it another way, progress in
science was essentially a consequence of the quality and
quantity of man-hours dedicated to the aim of discovering truth
about the world using reason and excluding religious
explanations.

When the most able truth-seeking people with leisure from
subsistence increasingly shifted their interest, activity and effort
away from theology into philosophy (from, say, the twelfth
century onwards in the West) and then from philosophy into
science (from, say, the seventeenth century) - this shifted
achievement in the same direction.

And when the most able people with leisure from subsistence
increasingly shifted their interest, activity and effort away from
truth-seeking and into other things (especially careers) (from,
say, the early-middle twentieth century) this shifted
achievement into... well, bureaucracy and media distractions.
Philosophy vs Science

Without a doubt, there is a definite distinction between
philosophy and science. The problem is because of their
interrelatedness, the two may be somewhat confusing for
many, most especially that there are many arguments between
them. Theres absolutely no philosophy-proof science because
many sciences depend on philosophy and vice versa.

Figuratively speaking, science is best likened to the human
mind while philosophy is to the human heart. Science, in
general, seeks to understand natural phenomena. It is more
concerned on empirical evidences and testable hypotheses. By
empirical, it means that which can be observed or
experimented on. By contrast, philosophy is vaguer. Defining
it in one concrete sentence may not define it entirely. However,
broadly speaking, philosophy is a school of thought that utilizes
reasoning to uncover issues concerning metaphysics, logic,
epistemology, language, ethics, aesthetics, and other
disciplines.

So how can philosophy help clarify or explain the issues at
hand? As such, philosophy helps address inquiries that
couldnt be answered simply by experimentation and
observation. It bases its explanations from the argument of
principles. Science, using its scientific methodology, is able to
acquire more knowledge because of experimentation and
observation. It bases its explanation from facts that have been
observed.

Philosophy uses questioning and a series of analyses through
logical arguments and dialectics. Thus, philosophy works by
using reason-based logical analysis. Science is different
because it makes use of hypothesis testing that is empirically
based. This difference in process enables both to work
interdependently thereby updating each other of their individual
progresses.



Philosophy improves, abandons, or objects to certain notions
or philosophical positions such as present-day concepts (i.e.
utilitarianism) as no longer 100% identical compared to their
original sense when they were first conceptualized. It
demonstrates principles that must be correct. These principles
are not really entirely correct or true but it MUST be true. It
even shows people how to act. Similarly, science has theories
that seem to have no clear end in terms of improvisation or
argumentation. A good example is the ever-growing arguments
surrounding Charles Darwins Theory of Evolution.

Summary:

1.Science seeks to understand based on natural phenomena.
2.Philosophy is vaguer than science.
3.Philosophy uses logical arguments and dialectics while
science uses hypothesis testing (empirical-based).
4.Philosophy improves, abandons, or objects to philosophical
positions while science improves, abandons, or objects to
scientific theories.
5.Science bases its explanations from experimentation and
observation while philosophy bases its explanation on an
argument of principles.
PHILO VS RELIGION
Is religion just a type of philosophy? Is philosophy a religious
activity? There seems to be some confusion at times over just
whether and how religion and philosophy should be
distinguished from each other this confusion is not
unjustified because there are some very strong similarities
between the two.

The questions discussed in both religion and philosophy tend
to be very much alike. Both religion and philosophy wrestle
with problems like: What is good? What does it mean to live a
good life? What is the nature of reality? Why are we here and
what should we be doing? How should we treat each other?
What is really most important in life?

Clearly, then, there are enough similarities that religions can be
philosophical (but need not be) and philosophies can be
religious (but again need not be). Does this mean that we
simply have two different words for the same fundamental
concept? No; there are some real differences between religion
and philosophy which warrant considering them to be two
different types of systems even though they overlap in places.

To begin with, of the two only religions have rituals. In
religions, there are ceremonies for important life events (birth,
death, marriage, etc.) and for important times of the year (days
commemorating spring, harvest, etc.). Philosophies, however,
do not have their adherents engage in ritualistic actions.
Students do not have to ritually wash their hands before
studying Hegel and professors do not celebrate a Utilitarian
Day every year.

Another difference is the fact that philosophy tends to
emphasize just the use of reason and critical thinking whereas
religions may make use of reason, but at the very least they
also rely on faith, or even use faith to the exclusion of reason.
Granted, there are any number of philosophers who have
argued that reason alone cannot discover truth or who have
tried to describe the limitations of reason in some manner
but that isnt the quite the same thing.

You wont find Hegel, Kant or Russell saying that their
philosophies are revelations from a god or that their work
should be taken on faith. Instead, they base their philosophies
on rational arguments those arguments may not also prove
valid or successful, but it is the effort which differentiates their
work from religion. In religion, and even in religious philosophy,
reasoned arguments are ultimately traced back to some basic
faith in God, gods, or religious principles which have been
discovered in some revelation.

A separation between the sacred and the profane is something
else lacking in philosophy. Certainly philosophers discuss the
phenomena of religious awe, feelings of mystery, and the
importance of sacred objects, but that is very different from
having feelings of awe and mystery around such objects within
philosophy. Many religions teach adherents to revere sacred
scriptures, but no one teaches students to revere the collected
notes of William James.
Finally, most religions tend to include some sort of belief in
what can only be described as the miraculous events
which either defy normal explanation or which are, in principal,
outside the boundaries of what should occur in our universe.
Miracles may not play a very large role in every religion, but
they are a common feature which you dont find in philosophy.
Nietzsche wasnt born of a virgin, no angels appeared to
announce the conception of Sartre, and Hume didnt make the
lame walk again.
The fact that religion and philosophy are distinct does not
mean that they are entirely separate. Because they both
address many of the same issues, it isnt uncommon for a
person to be engaged in both religion and philosophy
simultaneously. They may refer to their activity with only one
term and their choice of which term to use may reveal quite a
lot about their individual perspective on life; nevertheless, it is
important to keep their distinctness in mind when considering
them.

Reasoning
What is reasoning ?
It is also a kind of thinking but different from it, in the sense
there is checking and re - checking of the conclusion arrived at
based on certain facts so reasoning is defined as '' a process
of arriving at a new judgement on the basis of one or more
judgement,'' Reasoning is the mental activity used in and
argument, proof, or demonstration, reasoning is generally
associated with rules and methods and formal laws of logic but
many people reason and argue without being consciously
aware of it. For example when a dog comes back after seeing
the master enter his car, when we expect a letter from a friend
or turn to the gate on hearing a noise. We are thinking and
reasoning without realizing it.
Reasoning is a way of solving a problem or meeting a new
situation, perception imagination and memory are closely
related to reasoning for the help is assessing the situation and
find out alternate solution of the problem.
What is logic?
by Matt Slick

Logic is the process of proper inference. It is the system of
thinking properly, of arriving at proper conclusions. It is the
process of proper thinking based upon principles that govern
the validity of arguments.

The first law of logic is the Law of Identity. It states that
something is what it is, and is not what it is not. For example,
a rock is a rock and not a frog.

The second law of logic is the Law of Non-Contradiction. This
means that something cannot be both true and false at the
same time and in the same way. In other words, two
contradictory statements cannot both be true.

The third law of logic is the Law of Excluded Middle, which
says that a statement is either true or false. We are here is a
true statement. The planet Mars is in my pocket is not a true
statement.
The Distinction Between Logic and Reasoning
in
Evolutionary Theory
What is logical is not always reasonable
A significant portion of moral theory derives from meta-
ethics (one of three branches of ethics) that does not believe
that moral knowledge exists or that words such as moral or
good can even be defined. Meta-ethics focuses on the words
of ethical statements and not on human behaviors that are
deemed right or wrong. Scientific fact, observation and human
experience are not directly applied to the ethical reasoning's of
meta-ethics. This narrows the scope of inquiry into the nature
of morality and it produces indeterminate conclusions for meta-
ethical propositions. The fundamental problem is that
evolutionary ethics is a scientifically based theory while meta-
ethics is a philosophically based.. The logic of meta-ethics
leads one to believe that words like morality cannot be defined;
that good and goodness cannot be defined. Ostensibly, since
morality cannot be defined one cannot determine the right or
wrongness of a behavior. The logic of meta-ethics in about the
words of ethical statements, and not ethical actions. see
science and ethics What seems logical is not always
reasonable. The logic of meta-ethics leads to the idea rape is
neither right or wrong. This runs counter to reason and
centuries of human experience.

The naturalistic fallacy, a popular meta-ethical theory does not
think one can derive moral conclusions using non-moral facts.
But, in fact it can be reasonably said that ethical systems
evolve over thousands of years, strongly influenced by
behavioral facts, observation and human experience. For
example, if there are facts of public record showing an
increase of accidents when alcohol is involved while driving,
one cannot logically lead to the moral conclusion that one
ought not drink alcohol and drive. Logic says a moral position
cannot be concluded from the facts, but reason says
otherwise.

What is problematic here is that the logic of meta ethics is a
two-dimensional analysis of carefully selected words that
excludes science, experience, and history as variables. The
words of logician's address the symbols of morality, good, and
goodness, but not the substance of these words and their
derivation over centuries of civilization building. Moreover, the
static logics of meta-ethics encounters a linguistic problem best
exemplified in the writings of linguist S. I. Hayakawa. In his
book, Language and Thought In Action he states "The symbol
is not the thing the thing symbolized; The map is not the
territory: The word is not the thing." The words morality, good,
and goodness are symbols that are derived from thousands of
years of observation of human behavior; some behaviors good,
some, bad, some better than others. In theory, the idea of
morality evolves from the specific term (moral, as in a specific
behavior) and moves toward the general term (morality). If
science, experience and history can be used in creating a
theory of evolutionary ethics one can arrive at a reasonable
and credible outcome. However, if these considerations are left
out, then the logic of the metaphysician's is correct in saying a
theory of evolutionary ethics is not possible because such a
theory would use non moral facts to arrive at moral
conclusions, thus, violating the rules of logic.
An example of logic and reason
Logic applied to morality begs the question of whether words
can be equated with mathematics. At every turn, logic attempts
to quantify morality in this way.

Which is most likely to occur to you: Being eaten by a shark,
or being struck by lightning. Statistics show that a person is
twice as likely to be bitten by a shark than stuck by lightening.
It logically follows from the information given that it is more
dangerous to swim in the ocean than walk out in the open
where lightning could strike you. The logical process we are
talking about here involves only the variables presented on
your computer screen. But, what is logical is not always
reasonable particularly if I limit the number of variables to only
what is on paper or a computer screen. In the proposition there
is the word "you." If we do not consider the context of "you" in
the proposition we might arrive at a faulty conclusion. Since I
do not swim in the ocean I have no chance of being bitten by a
shark Reasoning includes an interactive componenta
relationship between the words in a sentence and the person
reasoning. A person's circumstances; the context of the words;
science; and history can modify the outcome of moral analysis.
Moral reasoning takes two-dimentions words off a piece of
paper and adds needed information to the questions that arise.
One cannot separate human experience from the words
humans create to describe it.You could solve the shark and
lightning question logically but it would be such a detailed
mechanical process you might end up with a hundred pages of
words and lose sight of the object of analysis. Logic is
worthwhile to us in some places, and not in others. What is
forgotten by logician's is that single words express very
complex reductions in thinking. When the appropriate words
are used in a thesis a person is able to traverse an immense
galaxy of concepts in a few short sentences. Logic related to
human behavior is ill-equipped to convey the complexity of
human experience. Moral terminology such as good and moral
are terms that can be said to have evolved from billions of
social issues over centuries of time that are related to human
behavior. In this respect, it would be difficult to separate
human experience from human morality.

Conclusions of logic can be misleading. Take the following
example. David Hume claimed that normative statements
cannot be derived from empirical facts. The focus here is on
empirical facts that are leading reasoning people to believe
"logic" has chosen the right term for comparison with a
normative statement. If equivalent terms* are not used in an
argument, its conclusions will be misleading. Here, empirical
facts are not the equivalent term to be compared with a
normative statement. If normative statements derive directly
from human experience, and indirectly from facts used to
describe experience, then Hume's logic is flawed from the
begriming. A reasoning person trusts a theoretician such as
Hume to present an argument of equivalent and proper terms.
But if they are not equivalent or proper, a reasoning person will
be led to mistaken conclusions.

Consider, that it is not from facts that normative statements
emerge, rather from from human experience which in part is
explained by facts.
The history of logic is the study of the development of the
science of valid inference (logic). Formal logic was developed
in ancient times in China, India, and Greece. Greek logic,
particularly Aristotelian logic, found wide application and
acceptance in science and mathematics.
Aristotle's logic was further developed by Islamic and Christian
philosophers in the Middle Ages, reaching a high point in the
mid-fourteenth century. The period between the fourteenth
century and the beginning of the nineteenth century was
largely one of decline and neglect, and is regarded as barren
by at least one historian of logic.[1]
Logic was revived in the mid-nineteenth century, at the
beginning of a revolutionary period when the subject
developed into a rigorous and formalistic discipline whose
exemplar was the exact method of proof used in mathematics.
The development of the modern so-called "symbolic" or
"mathematical" logic during this period is the most significant in
the two-thousand-year history of logic, and is arguably one of
the most important and remarkable events in human
intellectual history.[2]
Progress in mathematical logic in the first few decades of the
twentieth century, particularly arising from the work of Gdel
and Tarski, had a significant impact on analytic philosophy and
philosophical logic, particularly from the 1950s onwards, in
subjects such as modal logic, temporal logic, deontic logic, and
relevance logic.
Argument
An argument is a connected series of statements or
propositions, some of which are intended to provide support,
justification or evidence for the truth of another statement or
proposition. Arguments consist of one or more premises and a
conclusion. The premises are those statements that are taken
to provide the support or evidence; the conclusion is that which
the premises allegedly support.
Truth Values
First published Tue Mar 30, 2010
Truth values have been put to quite different uses in
philosophy and logic, being characterized, for example, as:

primitive abstract objects denoted by sentences in natural and
formal languages,
abstract entities hypostatized as the equivalence classes of
sentences,
what is aimed at in judgements,
values indicating the degree of truth of sentences,
entities that can be used to explain the vagueness of concepts,
values that are preserved in valid inferences,
values that convey information concerning a given proposition.
Depending on their particular use, truth values have been
treated as unanalyzed, as defined, as unstructured, or as
structured entities.

The notion of a truth value has been explicitly introduced into
logic and philosophy by Gottlob Fregefor the first time in
Frege 1891, and most notably in his seminal paper (Frege
1892). Frege conceived this notion as a natural component of
his language analysis where sentences, being saturated
expressions, are interpreted as a special kind of names, which
refer to (denote, designate, signify) a special kind of objects:
truth values. Moreover, there are, according to Frege, only two
such objects: the True (das Wahre) and the False (das
Falsche):

A sentence proper is a proper name, and its Bedeutung, if it
has one, is a truth-value: the True or the False (Beaney 1997,
297).
This new and revolutionary idea has had a far reaching and
manifold impact on the development of modern logic. It
provides the means to uniformly complete the formal apparatus
of a functional analysis of language by generalizing the
concept of a function and introducing a special kind of
functions, namely propositional functions, or truth value
functions, whose range of values consists of the set of truth
values. Among the most typical representatives of
propositional functions one finds predicate expressions and
logical connectives. As a result, one obtains a powerful tool for
a conclusive implementation of the extensionality principle
(also called the principle of compositionality), according to
which the meaning of a complex expression is uniquely
determined by the meanings of its components. On this basis
one can also discriminate between extensional and intensional
contexts and advance further to the conception of intensional
logics. Moreover, the idea of truth values has induced a radical
rethinking of some central issues in the philosophy of logic,
including: the categorial status of truth, the theory of abstract
objects, the subject-matter of logic and its ontological
foundations, the concept of a logical system, the nature of
logical notions, etc.
Premise and Conclusion Indicator Words

Words that introduce or appear in an argument premise
include:
since (nontemporal meaning)
as indicated by
because
for
in that
as (noncomparison meaning) may be inferred from
given that
seeing that
for the reason that
inasmuch as
owing to
Words that introduce or appear in an argument conclusion
include:
therefore
wherefore
accordingly
we may conclude
entails that
hence
thus
consequently we may infer
it must be that
whence
so
it follows that
implies that
as a result
If an argument has no indicators at all, then good English style
suggests that the topic sentence of the paragraph is the
conclusion of the argument.
NON-ARGUMENTS
When we are reading (or listening) there will be many
passages that may sound like arguments but are not. We
have to learn to recognize these non-arguments. They may be
worthy of attention, but we dont directly include them in our
analysis of arguments.

An example of two passages that sound very similar show the
difference between an argument and non-argument.

1.Since Edison invented the phonograph, there have been
many technological
developments.

2.Since Edison invented the phonograph, he deserves credit
for a major technological development.

In the first example, the conclusion is not something that we
would consider arguable. It is a given that there have been
many technological developments since Edison invented the
phonograph. So we take the word since not as a premise
indicator but an indicator of time. So this is not an argument
but simply a statement.

In the second example, the conclusion that Edison deserves
credit, could be arguable. So we take the since as a premise
indicator and call this an argument.

Remember, an argument must have two things:1) a claim that
is being made, and 2) some proof, evidence, or reason to back
up that claim.


Types of Non-Arguments.
In order to recognize non-arguments we will give names and
descriptions to certain groups.

Statement of Belief or Opinion (Unsupported Assertion)
This is simply an expression about what someone happens to
believe or think about something.

Ex 1. We believe that our company must develop and
produce outstanding products that will perform a great service
or fulfill a need for our customers. We believe that our
business must be run at an adequate profit and that the
services and products we offer must be better than those
offered by competitors (Robert and Edmund Gray)

Ex. 2 When I can read the latte menu through the hole in my
servers earlobe, something is seriously out of whack. What
happened to an earring or two, in each lobe. Now any surface
is game. Brow, lip, tongue, cheek, nose. I can handle pants
that make mooning irrelevant but when it comes to piercings, I
just cant budge. (Debra Darvik)

Neither of these authors. makes any statement that his or her
belief or opinion is supported by evidence so not an argument.