Chinese, Mandarin

Spanish

English

Hindi

Arabic

Portuguese

Bengali

Russian

Japanese

Punjabi

German

Javanese

Malay

Telugu

Vietnamese

Korean

French

Marathi

Tamil

Urdu

Turkish

Italian

Chinese, Yue / Cantonese

Thai

Gujarati

Chinese, Jin

Chinese, Min Nan

Persian, Dari

Persian, Western

Polish

Pashto

Kannada

Chinese, Xiang

Malayalam

Sundanese

Hausa

Odia

Burmese

Chinese, Hakka

Ukrainian

Bihari, Bhojpuri

Tagalog

Yoruba

Bihari, Maithili

Uzbek

Sindhi

Amharic

Fula

Romanian

Oromo

Igbo

Azerbaijani

Chinese, Gan

Dutch

Kurdish, Central

Kurdish, Northern

Kurdish, Southern

Malagasy

Lahnda, Saraiki

Nepali

Sinhalese

Chittagonian

Zhuang

Khmer

Turkmen

Assamese

Madurese

Somali

Marwari

Bihari, Magahi

Haryanvi

Hungarian

Chhattisgarhi

Greek, Modern

Chewa

Dakhini

Akan, Twi

Akan, Fante

Kazakh

Chinese, Min Bei

Sylheti

Zulu

Czech

Kinyarwanda

Marwari, Dhundhari

Haitian Creole

Chinese, Min Dong

Ilocano

Quechua

Kirundi

Swedish

Hmong

Shona

Uyghur

Hiligaynon

Mossi

Xhosa

Belarusian

Balochi

Philosophy

<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Philosophers love to argue. But this love does not mean that philosophy lectures are loud, contentious events. Most people think of an argument as a verbal disagreement, and the term evokes images of raised voices, heightened emotions, and possibly bad behavior. However, in philosophy, this word does not have a negative connotation. An <OpenstaxTerm>argument</OpenstaxTerm> in philosophy is a reasoned position—to argue is simply to offer a set of reasons in support of some conclusion. The goal of an individual argument is to support a conclusion. However, the long-term goal of argumentation between philosophers is to get closer to the truth. In contemporary academic philosophy, philosophers are engaged in dialogue with each other where they offer arguments in the publication of articles. Philosophers also engage in argument at conferences and in paper presentations and lectures. In this way, contemporary academic philosophers are engaged in a dialectic of sorts.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	A traditional dialectic is a debate or discussion between at least two people who hold differing views. But unlike debate, participants in the discussion do not have the goal of “winning,” or proving that the other view is wrong. Rather, the goal is to get closer to the truth. Thus, dialectics make use of logic and reason, while debates often use rhetorical ploys or appeal to the emotions. Because of the tendency of participants to appeal to emotion and prejudice in many modern popular debates, philosophers often qualify their words and refer to <OpenstaxEm>reasoned</OpenstaxEm> debate when discussing proper public discourse between people. But even reasoned debates can become adversarial, while dialectics are mostly collaborative. The participants in a dialectic, whom philosophers refer to as “interlocutors,” enter into discourse with the aim of trading their poor or false beliefs for knowledge.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Dialectics usually start with a question. An interlocutor offers an answer to the question, which is then scrutinized by all participants. Reasons against the answer are given, and someone may offer a counterexample to the answer—that is, a case that illustrates that the answer is wrong. The interlocutors will then analyze why the answer is wrong and try to locate its weakness. The interlocutors may also examine what made the answer plausible in the first place. Next, someone offers another answer to the question—possibly a refined version of the previous answer that has been adjusted in light of the weaknesses and strengths identified in the analysis. This process is repeated over and over, with each iteration theoretically bringing participants closer to the truth.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	While dialectics aims at the truth, the creation of knowledge is not its sole function. For example, a long, deep conversation with a friend about the meaning of life should not be viewed as a failure if you do not come up with a satisfactory answer to life’s purpose. In this instance, the process has as much value as the aim (getting closer to the truth). Contemporary academic philosophers view their practice in the same way.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>Indian Dialectics and Debate</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxTerm>Dialectics</OpenstaxTerm> played an important role in early <OpenstaxTerm>Indian philosophy</OpenstaxTerm>. The earliest known philosophical writings originate in India as sections of the <OpenstaxTerm>Vedas</OpenstaxTerm>, which have been dated as far back as 1500 BCE (Mark 2020). The Vedas are often considered religious texts, but it is more accurate to think of them as religious <OpenstaxEm>and</OpenstaxEm> philosophical texts since they explore what it means to be a human being, discuss the purpose and function of the mind, and attempt to identify the goal of life. The <OpenstaxTerm>Upanishads</OpenstaxTerm>, which are the most philosophical of the Vedic texts, often take the form of dialogues. These dialogues generally occur between two participants—one who knows a truth and the other who seeks to know and understand the truth. The Vedic dialectics explore fundamental concepts such as <OpenstaxEm>Brahman</OpenstaxEm> (the One without a second, which includes the universe as its manifestation), <OpenstaxEm>dharma</OpenstaxEm> (an individual’s purpose and duty), and <OpenstaxEm>atman</OpenstaxEm> (an individual’s higher self). As in many dialectics, questioning, reasoning, and realizations that arise through the dialogue are the aim of these texts.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Buddhist philosophical texts that were part of early Indian philosophy also contain narrative dialogues (Gillon 2021). Logical argumentation is evident in these, and as time progressed, texts became more focused on argument, particularly those relying on analogical reasoning, or the use of analogies. Analogies use an object that is known to draw inferences about other similar objects. Over time, the analogical arguments used in Buddhist texts took on <OpenstaxEm>structure</OpenstaxEm>. When arguments have structure, they rely on a form that captures a specific manner of reasoning, such that the reasoning can be schematized. The structure of arguments in classical Indian texts appears slightly different than in classical Western texts of logic. Below is an example of the canonical form of an argument about the nature of the soul from the <OpenstaxEm>Caraka-samhita</OpenstaxEm> (CS 3.8.31) (Gillon 2021). First, the canonical form identifies components to the argument:
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Claim: The soul is eternal.<OpenstaxBr />Reason: because it is unproduced.<OpenstaxBr />Example: Space is unproduced and it is eternal.<OpenstaxBr />Application: Just as space is unproduced, so is the soul.<OpenstaxBr />Conclusion: Therefore, the soul is eternal.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Here, the text makes an analogy between space and the soul, where space exemplifies a necessary relationship between being unproduced and being eternal. We may imagine the argument in a slightly different form:
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxOl>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		The soul is unproduced.
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		As in the case of space, whatever is unproduced is also eternal.
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		Therefore, the soul is eternal.
	</OpenstaxLi>
</OpenstaxOl>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	This argument form gives us a scheme that could be applied to many different cases:
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxOl>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		X has property P.
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		Y is a paradigmatic example of something that has property P. Y also has property S, where P is the cause of S.
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		Therefore, X has property S because it has property P.
	</OpenstaxLi>
</OpenstaxOl>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	As you will see later in the section on deductive argumentation, relying on argumentative structure is a feature of logical reasoning.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Classical Indian philosophical texts also refer to the occurrence of reasoned public debates. Public debate was a further method of rational inquiry and likely the main mode of rational inquiry that most people had access to. One mode of debate took the form of assemblies in which experts considered specific topics, including those in politics and law (Gillon 2021). Arguments are the public expression of private inferences, and only by exposing one’s private thoughts through argument can they be tested. Public arguments are a method to improve one’s reasoning when it is scrutinized by others.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>Greek Dialectics and Debate</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Ancient Greek philosophy is also known for its use of dialectic and debate. <OpenstaxTerm>Socrates</OpenstaxTerm>, perhaps the most famous ancient Greek philosopher, claimed that knowledge is true opinion backed by argument (Plato, <OpenstaxEm>Meno</OpenstaxEm>). “Opinion” here means unjustified belief: your beliefs could be true, but they cannot count as knowledge unless you have reasons for them and can offer justifications for your beliefs when questioned by others. Furthermore, Socrates’s method of gaining knowledge was to engage in dialectics with others. All of what we know about Socrates is through the writings of others—particularly the writings of <OpenstaxTerm>Plato</OpenstaxTerm>. Quite appropriately, Plato uses dialogues in all his works, in which Socrates is almost always a participant.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Socrates never wrote anything down. In the <OpenstaxEm>Phaedrus</OpenstaxEm>, one of Plato’s dialogues, Socrates criticizes written works as being a dead discourse of sorts. Books cannot respond to you when you ask questions. He states, “You’d think they were speaking as if they had some understanding, but if you question anything that has been said because you want to learn more, it continues to signify just the very same thing forever” (<OpenstaxEm>Phaedrus</OpenstaxEm>, 275e). Clearly, dialectics was central to Socrates’s philosophical method.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxNote>
	<OpenstaxNoteTitle> Connections </OpenstaxNoteTitle> 
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		Learn more about Socrates in the <a href="./fe58be6f-3b61-4e16-b3b6-db6924f0b2f2@a904be0:5796313c-8206-4685-b4fd-374401b2ab73.xhtml">introduction to philosophy chapter</a>.
	</OpenstaxParagraph>
</OpenstaxNote>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Plato’s dialogues are a testament to the importance of public discourse as a form of rational inquiry in ancient Greece. Based on Greek philosophical writings, we can assume reasoned public debate took place and that Socrates preferred it as a method of teaching and learning. In Plato’s dialogues, many questions are asked, and Socrates’s interlocutors offer answers to which Socrates asks further clarifying questions. Through the process of questioning, false beliefs and inadequate understanding are exposed. Socrates’s goal was not simply to offer people truth. Rather, through questioning, Socrates guides people to discover the truth on their own, provided they are willing to keep an open mind and admit, when necessary, that they are in the wrong. In Plato’s dialogues, participants don’t always land on a determinate answer, but they as well as readers are always left with a clearer understanding of the correct way to <OpenstaxEm>reason</OpenstaxEm>.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	If any ancient Greek philosopher most embodies the tie between dialectic and logic, it is <OpenstaxTerm>Aristotle</OpenstaxTerm> (c. 384–322 BCE), who was a student of Plato. Aristotle wrote books on the art of dialectic (Smith 2020). And he probably participated in gymnastic dialectic—a structured dialectic contest practiced in the Academy (the school founded by Plato, which Aristotle attended). But more importantly, Aristotle created a complex system of logic upon which skill in the art of dialectic relied. Aristotle’s logic is the earliest formal systematized account of inference we know of and was considered the most accurate and complete system until the late 19th century (Smith 2020). Aristotle’s system is taught in logic classes to this day.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00001" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/787dd3a138ffbb94aecf18bcc6b0d0b1e0f81ab8" alt="A marble bust of bearded face with stringy hair and a pronounced nose, displayed on a pedestal." mediaType="image/jpeg" width="600" height="800" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="600">
	<strong>Figure 5.2</strong> Roman copy in marble of a Greek bronze bust of Aristotle. (credit: “Vienna 014” by Jeremy Thompson/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)
</OpenstaxFigureText>

5.1.1 Dialectics and Philosophical Argumentation

1 Introduction to Philosophy

1.1 What Is Philosophy?

1.1.1 Historical Origins of Philosophy

1.1.2 How It All Hangs Together

1.2 How Do Philosophers Arrive at Truth?

1.2.1 Sources of Evidence

1.2.2 Logic

1.2.3 Conceptual Analysis

1.2.4 Trade-offs

1.3 Socrates as a Paradigmatic Historical Philosopher

1.3.1 “The Life Which Is Unexamined Is Not Worth Living”

1.3.2 Human Wisdom Is Worth Little or Nothing

1.3.3 The Importance of Doing No Harm

1.4 An Overview of Contemporary Philosophy

1.4.1 What Can You Do with a Philosophy Major?

1.4.2 An Overview of Your Philosophy Textbook

2 Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

2.1 The Brain Is an Inference Machine

2.1.1 The Brain’s Adaptive Ability to Plan Ahead

2.1.2 The Evolutionary Advantage of Shortcuts

2.2 Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection

2.2.1 Critical Reflection and Metacognition

2.2.2 Cognitive Biases

2.3 Developing Good Habits of Mind

2.3.1 Strive for Objectivity

2.3.2 Adopt Epistemic Humility

2.4 Gathering Information, Evaluating Sources, and Understanding Evidence

2.4.1 Start with a Strong Foundation

2.4.2 The SIFT Method (Four Moves for Student Fact Checkers)

2.5 Reading Philosophy

2.5.1 Prepare to Read

2.5.2 Engaging with Philosophical Texts

2.5.3 Pre-reading

2.5.4 First Read

2.5.5 Close Read

2.6 Writing Philosophy Papers

2.6.1 Identify Claims

2.6.2 Collect Evidence and Build Your Case

2.6.3 Organize Your Paper

3 The Early History of Philosophy around the World

3.1 Indigenous Philosophy

3.1.1 Challenges in Researching Indigenous Philosophy

3.1.2 Indigenous African Philosophy

3.1.3 Indigenous North American Philosophical Thought

3.1.4 Mesoamerican Philosophy

3.2 Classical Indian Philosophy

3.2.1 The Vedic Tradition

3.2.2 Classical Indian Darshanas

3.3 Classical Chinese Philosophy

3.3.1 Early Chinese Philosophical Thought prior to Confucius

3.3.2 Confucianism

3.3.3 Daoism

3.3.4 Mohism

4 The Emergence of Classical Philosophy

4.1 Historiography and the History of Philosophy

4.1.1 Presentist Approach

4.1.2 Contextualist Approach

4.1.3 Hermeneutic Approach

4.2 Classical Philosophy

4.2.1 Egyptian Origins of Classical Philosophy

4.2.2 Ancient Greek Philosophy

4.2.3 The Presocratics

4.2.4 Socrates and Plato

4.2.5 Aristotle

4.2.6 Epicureans

4.2.7 Roman Philosophy

4.3 Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy

4.3.1 Defining Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy

4.3.2 Early Jewish Philosophy

4.3.3 Early Christian Philosophy

4.3.4 Islamic Philosophy

4.3.5 Late Medieval Philosophy in Christian Europe

4.3.6 Jewish Philosophers in the Christian and Islamic Worlds

4.3.7 The Rise of Reason in the Early Modern Era

5 Logic and Reasoning

5.1 Philosophical Methods for Discovering Truth

5.1.2 The Use of Reason to Discover Truth

5.1.3 Testing Hypotheses

5.1.4 Laws of Logic

5.1.5 Normativity in Logic

5.2 Logical Statements

5.2.1 Conditionals

5.2.2 Universal Statements

5.3 Arguments

5.3.1 Getting to the Premises

5.3.2 The Difference between Truth and Logic

5.4 Types of Inferences

5.4.1 Deductive Reasoning

5.4.2 Inductive Inferences

5.4.3 Abductive Reasoning

5.5 Informal Fallacies

5.5.1 Fallacies of Relevance

5.5.2 Fallacies of Weak Induction

5.5.3 Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption

5.5.4 Fallacies of Diversion

6 Metaphysics

6.1 Substance

6.1.1 Fundamentality: The One and the Many

6.1.2 Ontological Perspectives on Substance