PHILOSOPHICAL REFLECTION ON THE PROBLEM OF UNBELIEF

Do you believe in god? Does god exist? If god exists, is he an obstacle to human? These are just some few questions being answered in the history of humanity. We can observe that faith is always included to mans’ business or issues. Yes, it is a great issue in a way it attracts men to debate whether to believe or not.

When we talk about unbelief, we come up with the idea of an atheist. There are the ones who are famous if not the most common example. Most believers think of an atheist as someone not virtuous. They think that being an atheist means living in hell. Likewise, some atheists think that god is a barrier to mans’ life. Who is correct? Well, I can not tell but let’s examine them. Some atheist especially the humanist consider god as a shackle to mans’ improvement by means of thinking that he is the reason why people do this and do that. We lower ourselves to uplift god or he is giving us problems in life to solve rather than enjoying our life.

While some believers think that their faith is firm in a way they do not want to accept the possibility that their belief can be a mistake. They even try to cover up for the mistakes like saying that “error has no rights” or commonly by covering their ears.

Belief is different from knowledge. Knowledge is with certainty there is a period on it while belief is something, by its nature, falsifiable. So we can not say that our belief is strong. Unless we are talking about knowledge not belief for something strong is something that does not need improvement or to further expand but belief must expand to broaden its range.

They are actually different level or types of atheist. We must not be mistaken of who they are for sometimes other atheist are more christianly or more virtuous than us. Is it? Yes, hard to accept but some act manlier than those who are so-called Christians by name. They do good things for other people for the sake of humanity.

We must not take those problems of unbelief negatively instead we must accept it to improve faith or belief for everything has an equivalent doubt. To do this we must first be humble not self-satisfied as they say, “Only those who are humble has the room for progress.”

PHILOSOPHICAL RESEARCH ON THE PROBLEM OF THE ONE AND THE MANY

I. Introduction

In the History of Philosophy, we can view that many were trying to answer problems and one of it is the problem of the one and the many. What is this problem of the one and the many? We can relate here how beings are alike and yet are different. For example, James and John are beings. Now with the problem of the one and the many, how come James and John are the same and yet they are also different.

It is fitting to begin with Ancient Greek Philosophy, which originated from the correct realization that there must be One that is common to and connect the Many.

The early Greek philosophers primarily concerned with the problem of the one and the many. They simply stated the problem involves explaining the infinity of things in the universe. We can see that many separate things can be related to single; unifying thing (the One) was some material substance, like water, or air. Later Greek philosophers would conceive of this one thing as something more abstract, like number.

The Problem of the One and the Many is at the very foundation of all human knowledge. It is a problem that has been known for many thousands of years without solution. It is surprising that it is now accepted by many that we can never solve the Problem of the One and the Many, thus we can never directly know what exists, what reality is (what we are).


II. Statement of the Problem

There is one (1) main problem that the researcher seeks to answer in the endeavor namely: How can Reality or Being be one at the same time many?

To understand more the problem presented, it is sub-divided into different questions:
1. How did the problem of the one and the many begun?
2. Who are the philosophers involve in the problem?
3. What are their (philosophers) solutions to the problem?
4. How did they come out with their (philosophers) solutions?
5. What is the difficulty of their solutions?

III. Definition of Terms

Being – is the most abstract of all terms, for it means everything that is; as such Reality is a synonym for Being.[1]

One – refers to the similarity of beings.

Many – refers to the differences.

Monism (from greek μονοσ - monos - one) – is a term that describes any philosophy that denies that there are many separate beings in the universe.[2]

Radical monism – denies all multiplicity and diversity in being as illusion.[3]

Mitigated Monism – does not admit real diversity, but only as modes or parts of a single all-bracing being or substance, not as distinct in their own right with their own autonomous existence.[4]

Pluralism – is the theory that reality is not one or two but many. Pluralism stands in contrast with monism.[5]

Essence – is the attribute (or set of attributes) that make an object or substance what it fundamentally is, and that it has necessary, in contrast with accident, properties that the object or substance has contingently and without which the substance could have existed.[6]

Existence – For Thomists, existence is the act of being as contrasted with essence.[7]

IV. Methodology

This work is primarily a philosophical reflection and exposition of the solutions to the problem of the one and the many. The researcher went through series of research in library and in internet to gather adequate resources and data in order to present in a comprehensive and a careful manner the solutions to the questions stated in the statement of question.

V. Body

Our common experience tells us that we live in a world of many real beings. I am only one of those beings. These beings can be understood according to their different natures, and they come into being and go out of being.

We sometimes compare ourselves with others. We either look for our similarity or our differences. But what we will tackle about the similarity or unity and multiplicity is much different from our everyday concepts.

The problem of the one and the many originated with the Greek philosophers who tried to answer where the world is made of? The first among Ancient Greek philosophers is Thales. He opens out the problem of the one and the many with his novel inquiry concerning the nature of the things. “What is everything made of, or what kind of ‘stuff’ goes into the composition of things?[8]” With this question, we can see clearly that Thales agree that there are different kinds of things and yet he believe that there is the One that all things are similar.

Thales recognizes that the world is not just what it appears to be and asks about its fundamental nature. Change is apparent. Thales asks about the nature of that which endures change.

What is the nature of the underlying substance that goes through changes? The question here raises a metaphysical issue and does so in a way that invites rational investigation rather than mere speculation or appeal to myth and the supernatural. Is his idea must be taken seriously? Yes, although his concept is only in the chrysalis state, the idea: everything is one must be taken seriously. From it, the other philosophers develop the answers of the problem.

Like Thales, his contemporaries and fellow Greek Pre-Socratic philosophers, Anaximander and Anaximines believed that there is the one that all things are similar. But these philosophers have different concept of the One. These philosophers did not really think of the problem of the one and the many but their importance is that they come out with the idea of a thing which beings are similar.

Among the Pre-Socratic philosophers, Heraclitus and Parmenides were the great figure with the problem. They tried to answer the question with their observation and logical argument. Heraclitus answered the problem with his chief idea that “all things in flux.[9]” He defined reality as in constant change. He said that all things change and has no similarity. He tries to answer the problem from his observation. To illustrate his idea, you get two stone and try to observe both. You may notice that the two stones are different from each other. Heraclitus found change itself to be the only thing that was permanent. The search for a permanent material substratum is illusory, he thought.

Parmenides rejects Heraclitus and agrees with Xenophanes on the unity and no changeability of all being. Being is everywhere indivisible and the same, motionless and unchangeable. Reason gives us the only true idea of the world as unchanging being. The senses mislead us in presenting the world as manifold and changing. This view demands an “error theory”, an explanation of the ordinary person’s apparent experience of change and diversity. In our ordinary experience of the world, our senses erroneously place Not-Being on a-par with being. We get our perceptions of individual things by representing them as separated by void. But in reality, there is no Not-Being. He denies the reality of change.

For Parmenides, change is impossible. The very notion is incoherent. This is not just an assumption that Parmenides makes. Nor is it based on observation. Rather, it is the conclusion of a strictly deductive argument, from more basic premises. And it is not only the startling conclusion Parmenides draws. He also holds that there is no coming into existence, or ceasing to exist.

“According to traditional interpretation, Parmenides goes even further, denying that there is such a thing as plurality. On this view, Parmenides denies that there are many things, maintaining instead that only one thing exists.[10]”

This interpretation was no longer universal accepted but still common. It is not clear but they believe that Parmenides thought that this one thing is.

The atomists, such as Democritus (c. 460-360 BC), Leucippus, and Lucretius, did not say that there was one being, but that there was really only one kind of being, the atom (ατομοσ, atomos, individisible).[11]

The atomists like the other pre-Socratic philosophers such as Parmenides and Heraclitus were monist. The atomists use the atoms to answer the problem of the one and the many wherein beings are made up of atom, “small lumps of stuff which may be logically analyzable into parts.[12]” The beings now are one in the case of they are made up of atoms and to explain the differences is that the atoms are in constant movement in different direction.

The pre-Socratic philosophers can be considered as monist or more specifically radical monist. Among them, Parmenides was the major figure of radical monist in the period.
Plotinus, a contemporary of Aristotle, tried to answer the problem of the one and the many with his two-act theory and the doctrine of procession or reversion. In his two-act theory he presented two arguments:

“Two aspects to all things: an ‘inner act’ and an ‘outer act’. The inner act is the substance or essence of the thing. The outer act is a distinct entity; an image or likeness of the inner act.[13]”

In the first argument, he presented the one as the inner act and the many as outer act. For example, the heat is the essence of fire (its inner act) and the heat that flows out from fire (its outer act). We can see that there are different structures or shapes of fire which he calls the outer act.

“Each hypostasis is the complete cause of the next lower one. The lower one emanates from the higher as the outer act of the higher. This accounts only for the existence or "matter" of the lower level.[14]”

This matter is then informed, and the lower hypostasis comes into being, through the act of contemplating the higher one. The characteristics, procession and reversion are non-temporal events. Procession is necessary, not deliberate and not diminishing.
In his two-act theory, his idea is not well accepted but his importance or contribution to the problem was that through his idea the great philosophers develop his idea into a more convincing one.
Let us then move further to a modern philosopher, Spinoza. He defines reality as:

There simply is no other reality than reality as mathematically described: anything which presents itself as "reality" - but which is not mathematically "capturable" - is simply illusion.[15]

From his definition of reality, Spinoza develops a radical monism. As we shall see, his monism will exclude "ordinary reality" as illusory. While this saves him from the Cartesian problem of explaining relation, it is hardly more satisfactory as a philosophy. Those of you with some history of philosophy background might compare Spinoza in this way to Parmenides.
Baruch Spinoza is like Parmenides in his solution. He is also consider a monist but quite different with Parmenides. He is a mitigated monist. He considers the diversity as modes of the one substance or reality.

Another solution to the problem is that of Baruch Spinoza. He contended that everything that exists in nature is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. This reality that he is talking is God and he concluded that the rest are just modes of the Substance.

The most popular solution is that of Thomas Aquinas. We can also include here the concept of Aristotle where it is the basis of Thomas. Thomas answers the problem with his Essence and Existence. In his concept, the one is the existence. We are beings and beings exist therefore we all exist. What unites us is our act of existence and what differentiates us is limiting essence. It is like a stair, the whole stair is the act of existence, what differentiates is the level on each stair. One is different from other level.

The difficulty of the solution of Thomas is the distinction of existence and essence. Much of the philosophers after him have criticized his theory. They would not accept that the existence and essence has a real distinction for the existence makes essence real.

The different solution discuss are just a glimpse of the problem of the one and the many. We can not disregard the Ancient Greek philosophers for their contribution to the problem. Yes, their answers are not satisfactory but from their answers were became the basis of the great philosophers to the problem of the one and the many. Among the solutions above, the most regarded as the popular and question by many is the solution of Thomas Aquinas. He did not actual formulated new idea but he base it to that of Aristotle. He somewhat further elaborates it.

The essence and existence are the best way to explore the content of the intuition of being. Their outside meanings are easy to grasp. Essence is what a thing is, and existence is that it is or that it exists, and what a thing is not the same as that it is. There are two distinct attitudes of mind involved, one when we name something and the other when we assert that it exists.
We distinguish one thing from another and even oppose one thing to another. An elephant is not a carrot, and we don't expect anyone to confuse the two. But we rarely if ever stop and consider the ultimate nature of the “whats” we are constantly making use of.

The problem of the one and the many influence much of other philosophical and theological thoughts. It illuminates the existence of God like what St. Thomas did and it further develops some major philosophical questions.

We may want either answer the problem with radical monism like the Ancient Greek philosophers did, with mitigated monism like Baruch Spinoza did, or with pluralism either radical or mitigated. The problem of the one and the many is one of the most controversial issues in metaphysics from it the other sub-topics in metaphysics exist like God and evil.

VII. Conclusion

In the problem of the One and the Many, Philosophies are monistic, dualistic or pluralistic, and no one point of view has been able to eliminate the appeal of the other positions to some philosophers. This is the difference or division that cut across the classical types of philosophy.

The problem of the one and the many is a question which all the philosophers both from East and West tried to answer. And through our own experiences, we can clearly see that Being is both one and many. All beings are one in the act of existence and they only differ from their essence.

Perhaps, the problem of the one and the many is the central and most important theme of all traditional philosohy.

[1] http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Metaphysics-One-Many-Infinite-Finite.htm.%20March%206, 2007
[2] http://www.hyoomik.com/phi205/pluralism.htm.%20March%207, 2007
[3] W. Norris Clarke, Sj, “Central Problems of Metaphysics” (Manila: Ateneo de Manila University, 2001) p.10.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Harold H. Titus, “Living Issues in Philosophy” (New York: American Book Company, 1953) p. 485
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence.%20March%207, 2007
[7] Harold H. Titus, “Living Issues in Philosophy” (New York: American Book Company, 1953) p. 480
[8] Ibid. p. 310
[9] http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2b.htm.%20March%209, 2007

[10] http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/parm1.htm.%20March%207, 2007
[11] http://www.hyoomik.com/phi205/pluralism.htm.%20March%207, 2007
[12] A.H. Armstrong, Introduction to Ancient History of Philosophy (Rowman & Little Pub. Inc, 1981) p. 18
[13] http://ls.poly.edu/~jbain/mms/handouts/mmsplotinus.htm.%20March%208, 2007
[14] Ibid.
[15] http://www.drury.edu/ess/history/modern/spinoza.html.%20March%2010, 2007

METHODS OF PHILOSOPHICAL RESEARCH

I. Introduction

Research has come to be employed in contemporary academic life as a generic term referring to forms of inquiry pursued in all the many disciplines, from the natural sciences to the humanities.[1] Philosophers have been engaged in research throughout the entire history of philosophy, and continue to be so engaged today. They search for information which will lead to the truth. But what is information? Information has been given different meanings by various writers in the general field of information theory.

According to Claude E. Shannon, “The word ‘information’… is likely that at least a number of these will prove sufficiently useful in certain applications to deserve further study and permanent recognition.[2]”

To gain the information need, we shall have to use methods of research. There are lots of methods of philosophical research that will help one to make his search easier. It is hard to search in the field of philosophy. There are lots of topics that can shift from one idea to another. To locate the philosophy that we are looking for, we must use a specific method, a research method.

What is a research method? A research method is a strategy of inquiry which moves from the underlying philosophical assumptions to research design and data collection. The choice of research method influences the way in which the researcher collects data. Specific research methods also imply different skills, assumptions and research practices. This is why many works of today often include a section on the methodology of the researchers. Let us then enumerate some philosophical research methods.

II. Methodology

1. Historical Method

The historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence to research and then to write history.[3] The question of the nature, and indeed the possibility, of sound historical method is raised in the philosophy of history, as a question of epistemology…

There are four divisions of history of philosophy namely Ancient, Medieval, Modern and Contemporary. These divisions help the researcher to find about the transitions of thought from one age to another. It also helps the researcher to know who the philosophers are or what the popular topics are on each period.

2. Interview

People of today rarely use this kind of research. It is quite difficult, today, to find a person knowledgeable about philosophy. This is the least reliable method of research. But to enlighten our knowledge of it, let us define interview. What is interview?
“A research interview is a structured social interaction between a researcher and a subject who is identified as a potential source of information, in which the interviewer initiates and controls the exchange to obtain quantifiable and comparable information relevant to an emerging or previously stated hypothesis.[4]”

3. Action Research

There are numerous definitions of action research, however one of the most widely cited is that of Rapoport’s, who defines action research in the following way:

“Action research aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical framework.[5]”

This definition makes clear that it is concerned to enlarge the stock of knowledge and it is this aspect of action research that distinguishes it from applied social science. Action research is research that each of us can do on our own practice, that we can do to improve its practice, or that larger organizations or institutions can conduct on themselves, assisted or guided by professional researchers, with the aim of improving their strategies, practices, and knowledge of the environments within which they practice.


5. Grounded Theory

Grounded theory is a research method that seeks to develop theory that is grounded in data systematically gathered and analyzed.[6] It is the most commonly use method. The major difference between grounded theory and other methods is it is specific approach to theory development – grounded theory suggests that there should be a continuous interplay between data collection and analysis.

4. Case study method

A case study is a research strategy, sometimes likened to an experiment, a history, or a simulation, though not linked to any particular type of evidence or method of data collection.[7]

Case study provides a systematic way of looking at events, collecting data, analyzing information, and reporting the results. As a result the researcher may gain a sharpened understanding of why the instance happened as it did, and what might become important to look at more extensively in future research. Usually case studies are employed where the behavior or situation is so rare that other methods, involving larger groups of participants, are not possible.

6. Survey Method

The survey is made from data collected via interviews or questionnaires.[8] A survey is a structured list of questions presented to people. Surveys may be written or oral, face to face or over the phone. It is possible to cheaply survey large numbers of people, but the data quality may be lower than some other methods because people do not always answer questions accurately.

A survey may focus on opinions or factual information depending on its purpose, and many surveys involve administering questions to individuals. When the questions are administered by a researcher, the survey is called a structured interview or a researcher-administered survey. When the questions are administered by the respondent, the survey is referred to as a questionnaire or a self-administered survey.

The weakness or disadvantage of survey is that it only measures the existing phenomenon without inquiring into why it exists. In this method you do not answer questions such as why or how but your main intention is to use the data for solving some problems not formulating new ideas.

7. Categorization Method

Categorization is the process in which ideas and objects are recognized, differentiated and understood.[9] Categorization implies that objects are grouped into categories, usually for some specific purpose. Ideally, a category illuminates a relationship between the subjects and objects of knowledge. There are different ways of approaching categorization.

Categorization can be likening to classification. In a way, philosophy is divided under different classification or what we know as branches like Logic, Ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Cosmology and so on. In the method, a researcher can easily look for what category is his or her subject matter and can find the different philosophers involved on the topic whatever is their period.

8. Questionnaires Method

Questionnaires offer researchers a quick, easy way to collect a great deal of information.[10] In this method, a researcher can easily access to the subject matter but one weakness of this method is that it reduces variety, creativity, and individuality of responses. It can also cause the researcher like young men to focus not on the subject but more on the questions.

III. Best Method

The best method that I will prefer to use is the Categorization method. Why? It is because in philosophy, most of ideas are divided or categorize according to the field. It is quite simple to look at the ideas if it is divided accordingly to their views. Categorization helps a researcher to look at different philosopher regardless of the period as long as its topic is in accordance with the field or branch.

IV. Conclusion

There are lots of research methods that we can use in philosophy. We need to know what kind of method to use to simplify our job of researching. The methods must be in accordance with the type of research like interview is not for formulating new hypothesis but only for solving problem.
Remember that a method can never be useful if it is used in a different manner. To be an effective researcher, you need to know what kind of method that you must use on the subject matter.
While lots of information maybe available to a researcher, it is important that he selects the best method that will best answer the kind of work he is trying to explore into.


Bibliography

[1] http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/governance/statements/research.html.%20March%204, 2007
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research.%20February%2025, 2007
[4] Ibid.
[5] Http://www.qual.auckland.ac.nz/. February 26, 2007
[6] Ibid.
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research.%20February%2025, 2007
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/devresearch.htm.%20February%2027, 2007

THE MEANING OF PHILOSOPHY

Let us attempt to define philosophy adequately. Philosophy is sometimes approached or defined at different points of view, which are supplementary rather than contradictory. We might like to get two things straight at the start.

“Firstly, philosophy isn’t a subject – it’s an activity. Consequently one doesn’t study it: one does it. This is how philosophers, at least those in the Anglo-Saxon tradition (which for some obscure historical reason seems to include the Finns), tend to put it. And secondly, philosophy is largely a matter of conceptual analysis – or thinking about thinking.”[1]

It is important to know first what the meaning of definition is. We must study the terms that we are using, to be clear at the start. “The term definition is derived from the Latin word de-fenire meaning to state to limits of or to enclose within limits.”[2] Now as we start giving definition of philosophy, let us remember that we are limiting the meaning of philosophy.

The definition of philosophy may be nominal or real. . In nominal, it may be either etymological or vernacular. While in real, it may either be intrinsic or extrinsic.

What is the etymological definition of philosophy? But first what is etymological definition? Etymological definition limits a thing by taking its derivation. We mean that we get the meaning of a word from its root.

“Etymologically, philosophy is derived from the two Greek words philein meaning love or friendship and sophia meaning wisdom.”[3]

When we combine the derived meaning of Philosophy, we will come up to the meaning of philosophy as love of wisdom. This meaning is an understanding of the philosophy given to us by the ancient Greek philosophers and until now we accept and use this definition.

Literally, Philosophy means love of wisdom. But what is love and what is wisdom? Love is basically a drive towards a particular thing. And wisdom means an application of knowledge. Thus wisdom cannot be dissociated with knowledge.

The Chinese also gave a definition to philosophy which stands so close to the ancient Greeks definition of philosophy as love of wisdom.

“The Chinese, however, define philosophy as Zhe-Xue or Che Shueh (this is originally coined by Dr. Nishi Amane).The Chinese understands Zhe-Xue or philosophy as the study of wisdom.”[4]

The Chinese characters, Zhe and Xue, suggest the inseparability of the words and actions. Thus, for the Chinese, philosophy is the translation of the words into action or the application of the theory into practice. Hence, for the Chinese, philosophy singles out a person to live on what he says.

If the Greeks and the Chinese have their own definitions of Philosophy, the Hindus, too, have something they call their own.

“Philosophy is Darsana. Darsana means seeing, seeing not only through the eyes, but through the whole being of the one that sees. In other words, Philosophy for the Hindus means seeing the whole of the reality through a total advertence and involvement of the looker.”[5]

This kind of definition shows up our preconception, biases, and prejudices of a certain reality since all these are partial treatment of any phenomenon or any reality.

What is then the vernacular definition of philosophy? Vernacular definition limits a term by taking into account its exclusive meaning.

“Now, consider the vernacular definition of philosophy. That which limits philosophy exclusively compared to other sciences is its ultimate foundation: reason. Of all sciences, philosophy prides itself in being the only science that investigates all things in their ultimate causes, reasons, and principles through reason alone.”[6]

This means that the philosophy does not employ faith or experiments done in laboratories. But it does not mean that philosophy is not present in theology or a science. Since philosophy is the application of theory to practice which presupposes the total attention of the viewer.

A misconception is that philosophy is something like theology. Philosophy is concerned with the undermining and questioning of dogmas whereas theology is about accepting and supporting them. To explain further the connection of theology and philosophy, Theology needs philosophy that is why philosophy is the handmaid of theology. The only difference between them is that philosophy only uses reason while theology depends on faith and reason. We can say that the end of philosophy is the beginning of theology.

What is the essential definition of philosophy? To understand it let us give the meaning of intrinsic definition. Essential definition limits a thing according to its kind.

“Philosophy as a science [Generic (genus)-Essential-Intrinsic-Real definition], it investigates and presents evidences that are systematically-arranged and complete body of knowledge or truth.”[7] Philosophy and science have much in common. Both grow out of reflective, inquiring attitude and are prompted by an impartial love of truth. Philosophy investigates not superficial or cursory but deep, critical and impartial. To simplify it, philosophy goes beyond any common sense or current set of assumption and fact. So, we can notice why philosophers must not be contended on such particular answer. A great example is Socrates who is never contended of current assumptions.

The definition of philosophy according to its real definition will help us now justify that philosophy as a science that investigates all things in their ultimate causes, reasons, and principles through human reason alone.

Let us also consider the definition of philosophy given to us by various writers and philosophers. Let us start with the definition of W.P. Montague, the author of the book, Great Visions of Philosophy.

“Philosophy is the attempt to give a reasoned conception of the universe and of man’s place in it.”[8]

In the definition given to us by Montague, we can see that it gives us a specific definition. He tries to define philosophy in one of its branches, Cosmology or Philosophy of nature which is most concerned about the cosmos or the universe and all in it.

J.A. Leighton gave a similar definition of philosophy. Like Montague, but he further explained it and gave much wider range. While E.S. Ames concept is much about life and connected philosophy with science.

“J.A. Leighton says that a complete philosophy includes a world-view, or reasoned conception of the whole cosmos, and a life-view, or doctrine of the values, meaning, and purposes of human life. E.S. Ames defines it as the endeavour to achieve a comprehensive view of life and its meaning, upon the basis of the results of the various sciences.”[9]

“Philosophy is, I think, most appropriately to be conceived as a clearing house to which the result of all other human inquiries is brought and in which the records of all forms of human experience are sifted, assessed and evaluated.”[10]

From the definition at the top, we can say that philosophy may be described as a study which is without restrictions upon its subject-matter. We may compare it to court where cases are examined and evaluated. It is unlike other Human inquiries that have their own restriction like Botany that only concerns with plants. Most of the definitions emphasize the use of methods of reflective thinking. They state or imply that the aim is to gain unity and to see life as a whole.

There might be lots of definition of philosophy but we must remember that every definition is not contradictory to the other but a support. It will all lead us that philosophy is all about truth.

[1] Jim Hankinson, “The Bluffer’s Guide to Philosophy” (United Kingdom: Oval Books, 2005) p.5.

[2]Eddie R. Babor, “The Human Person: Not real, but existing” (Manila: C&E Publishing Inc., 1998) p.13.

[3] Ibid.p.15.

[4]Eddie R. Babor, “The Human Person: Not real, but existing” (Manila: C&E Publishing Inc., 1998) p. 16.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.p.17.

[8] Harold H. Titus, “Living Issues in Philosophy” (U.S.A: American Book Company, 1953) p. 8.

[9] Ibid

[10] C. E. M. Joad, “Philosophy” (New York: Fawcett Premier Book, 1966) p.17.