PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE - Induction comes from experience

Philosophy – critical thinking, ideas | not observation, - The one popularize induction is FRANCIS
experimentation BACON: Take away assumptions
Today, Science is Special o If there is/are then it will result to
 It has many claims OBSERVATIONAL MISTAKES\
 Very influential (can be harmful as well)
 Science is successful, people of high regard SECOND STEP: IDENTIFY THE KEY CONCEPTS IN THE
 In a sense, that it has solved many physical THEORY
problems, thanks to technological Ex.: In Religion: God, Prayer, Faith
achievement
 One aspect of human life that has contributed for the
- Don’t consult in the dictionary
good welfare of man
Dictionary: Tells us “this is ‘how’ this
 Researchers related to science as much supported
Concept is used commonly by people
than researchers like literatures. Ex. Vaccines
Matter: Weight: Measurement in terms of gravity
What is so special with science?
Mass: Nass: Measurement of the thing itself
- Because it follows the SCIENTIFIC METHOD
FIRST STEP: OBSERVATION Science uses NaCI, sodium chloride rather than salt because
- Observing regularities: Patterns in the other countries (when language is concern) salt is said in
- Then science makes generalizations other way around.
Generalizations: Laws, Hypothesis, models
PHILOSOPHICAL DEFINITION
1. Universal 1. NECESSARY
- Must be true to all/anywhere 2. SUFFICIENT
Ex. Light traves 300,00 km/s in Tacloban, in
Palo everywhere Ex: Bachelor
- Place, space, geography Dictionary: an UNMARRIED man
- If not true to all then it is not a law
PHILOSOPHICAL:
- Claims are valid everywhere
Necessary When the requirement of necessary
2. Necessary
~not an animal and sufficient is met, then the
- Something to do with time ~not a woman definition from Scientific and
- Valid anytime ~not young boy Philosophical can be interchanged.
:Laws should be valid ANYTIME &
ANYWHERE THIRD STEP: BEGIN TO ASK QUESTIONS
~ Thanks to this method we’ve come to understand God is omnipotent?
better our physical world Soul is the principle of Life material or immaterial?
ex. Heat expand bodies Mind is the source of consciousness
~ To predict phenomena
- Through observations we can now predict THINGS CAN BE VERY PROBLEMATIC

Why do Science deals only in Generalizations and not in FOURTH STEP: WHAT ARE THE CLAIMS REGARDING
particulars? THESE CONCEPTS/AREAS OF STUDY?

Why? Because Particulars don’t explain Consciousness

Theories:
“De gustibus non est disputendum” 1. Emergenticism – “emerge”
When it come to tastes, there is no debate/argument because Meaning – cannot be grasp by matter but only with the mind
tastes are particular. Mind – consciousness (something immaterial)

Things, truths whose validity is/are everywhere – Science Emergenticism – “emerge” combination of elements /
chemicals produces new reality then it is now
SCIENCE: GENERALIZATIONS NOT PARTICULAR consciousness
Ex. H2O
Inductive Method / Inductive
- From particular to General Soul – responsible to consciousness not the brain
because it is an organ/material
 - When science and philosophy wasn’t
2. David Chalmer distinguished yet but have come to explain
- No need to explain consciousness instead nature
make consciousness as a starting point Scientific Revolution
- Consciousness as ‘given’ - Where clashes of ideas happened
- Mobile phone: extension of human mind : Ptolemaic Model
part of consciousness Copernican Revolution

Science: nothing presumed instead it proves thru observation Newton: Time & Space – Absolute
and experimentations Einstein: Time & Space – Relative

Theories: Science 1. JUDEO-CHRISTIAN WORLD-VIEW

Now: Genesis: the spirit hovered over
- Scientists would say/claim “the universe is The water: order
13.5 billion years”
- How come? -If the universe is in order therefore, we can study it.
-if the universe is in disorder, there would be no scientific laws,
- Answer: it is because it is the only range that
why?
our scientific tools can go.
- because laws requires to be true anywhere &
Do claims of science have somethings to do with Truth or
anytime so if that’s the case then the truths/facts of now may
useful?
not be true tomorrow and so ion.
- Scientific Realism and Anti-realism Debate -Judeo-Christians were considered the first Scientists where
- science owes a lot.
Scientific Realism: tends to be optimistic. They argue that -We can read God’s mind in the universe because God has 2
well confirmed scientific theories are approximately true; the bibles 1. Scriptures in Hebrew 2. In Mathematics: that why we
entities they postulate do exist. can study the world mathematically.

VS. From Ancient to Medieval Period

Scientific Anti-Realism: tends to be less optimistic; they Used: Deductive method
believe what a scientific theory says about From General to Particular
observable, but not about observables. Approach: Everything has a purpose | Final Cause
: they about that there is a mind – independent
reality. INDUCTIVE METHOD
: they do not consider literally scientific theories - Was proposed by Francis bacon, an angelic, Christian
: regardless whether true or not as long as it is Scientist.
USEFUL - We have to go away with deduction because we cannot
Ex:
question the first principles of axioms.
Theory of Multi-verse (not observable): True or False? Doesn’t
- The more they studied with deduction method the more
matter
:but can be useful to explain certain phenomena they discovered many anomalies
ex. Electrons - Therefore, we go away with Deduction instead we start
with OBSEVATIONS (Particular-General Principles)
IS SCIENCE NORMATIVE OR DESCRIPTIVE? - Francis Bacon: “What if we reverse the method of
In Sparta Deduction?”
Spartans: Stealing is a discipline - Go away with principles and start with observation first.
In Judeo-Christian, - Common Sense brought problems
Stealing is a crime/sin - (Neutral) The observation must be NEUTRAL when
gathering data.
Hence, Normative – is what we ought to (obligatory)
While, Descriptive – how things are descriptions FRANCIS BACON
- Book: Novum Organum
WHERE DOES SCIENCE BEGIN?
- : New Instrument / Method
Ancient:
Introduction: Aim/Objective
Thales: Water
- He promises to introduce a new method which
will restore the senses (versus the
 mind/deductive method) to their former rank of Ex: Time of Einstein, everyone sees and thinks of
importance Einsteinian way.
- Look things objective, what was thrown before -Gravity is the curvature of space
you -the heavier the object the more it warped time and
- Let the senses judge space.

IDOLS OF THE MIND ERGO:

1. Idols of the Tribe : so, we don’t have to start with the mind
(motive, purpose, purpose driven culture) : we cannot trust the mind
- We see the world in a particular way : the mind is not a good starting point to see things
regardless of race objectively
- We think in an anthropomorphic manner.
NEW METHODS (Induction Method) FROM/AGAINST THE
Anthropomorphism – we believe
IDOLS
that man nature is like man (nature acts as a
purpose).
INDUCTION METHOD
- There is more order in nature than there Step 1 Presuppositionless Observation
really is. Step 2 Gather Data
2. Idols of the Cave Step 3 Experiment
- Error of the mind (individual)
- Reality depends on how we see it (allegory Deductive Method – No more
of the cave) - If the premises are TRUE, the conclusion will
- Culture, upbringings, social class (colores) have to be necessarily TRUE.
Colors our eyes on how we - Example: All men are mortal
see/look at reality - Socrates is a man
Ex: Girls tend to take time on selecting clothes - Therefore, Socrates is mortal
because their eyes are different from men.
(necessary to be TRUE)
What’s the defect? Or the downside?
Women:
- This metho gives no something new, no new
When they select red, they examine more which
shade knowledge produced unlike in science it
of red always yields to new knowledge.

Men: Inductive Method

Only sees the dress of the women as red, no other All swans that we have seen are white.
reds Therefore, all swans are white.
: The conclusion may not be necessarily be true
Men: : Not all inductive conclusions have the same value,
Conversation: INFORMATIONAL (direct, short time) some are weak, some are strong.
Women - No bias, no presupposition
Conversation: Relational (more conversation before - No bias, mind does not dictate but facts
the main topic, took long)

3. Idol of the Market Place

- Language, words after the mind
- Ex. “He’s Crazy” – explanation of behavior 3 Conditions for Inductive Argument to be Strong
- the language dictates the mind (as if language 1. The number of observations must be large.
explains reality 2. The observations must be made under a variety of
-so don’t rely on language conditions
-words react in our understanding 3. None of the statements must contradict the general
hypothesis.
4. Idol of the Theatre
- refers to the intellectual and philosophical baggage KARL POPPER
- it’s like “uso” on how we think - to prove something as valid, you need a lot of
- and so it leads us to error because we go to what’s
experiments.
generally accepted “uso”.
- To prove something as not valid you need one example.
 Even observation is no neutral.
What is the objective of this method? There is a bias against bias
- To make it scientifically There is a prejudice against prejudice.
What is a hypothesis? Nothing wrong with bias.
- Is a supposition or proposed explanation
made on the basis of limited evidence and Theory can affect observation
can be a starting point for further A theory is like a searchlight that illuminates the areas we like
investigation. to observe. It serves as a background to sift or to examine
What is Theory? what is relevant and what is not relevant. It affects our view on
- Having less truth-value than scientific laws. phenomenon. Gusto observaran. Mayda ka na selection hini
But still Inductive method is problematic. na mind. Even when we observe we are loaded with theories.

1. Must be large, but how large? No rule Observation is colored by many conditions, variable, & factors.
- Considering that there have been scientific laws or
claims that have been observed/experiment once and yet was Methods of Science
accepted. (ex. Einstein) 1. Inductive method – observation and inductive
Ex. Touching a hot water reasoning or for short induction.
Observation is problematic.
- Tested once and yet acceptance or enough
Doctor example new and old doctor.
to say that its not.
Theories affect the way we look at the things.
E – t and s are absolute
Theory and Hypothesis
N – t and space are relative
How can our observations must be valid?
Even inductive method is magulo
In science there is no specific rule
 The problem of induction of the inductive method
which is to be the strength of Science
To confirm hypothesis waray gud makakasiring kun makapira.
Problem in Philosophy: from observation –
universal principals from particular to universal,
Scientific Method | Observation - that is not free from
universal statements which makes science
questions.
interesting. It is from experience
1. How large must be the number of observations?
In inductive the conclusion is not necessarily true,
1,5,10,20?? Good Condition
could be false.
2. How varied are the conditions in order for a scientist
1. Ex: the carabao that I saw last year, last
to arrive at a good inductive argument? VARIED –
month, yesterday were black – experience
room temperature, mood of the scientist, color of the
observation
lab gown, the perfume, the weight, the walls of the
2. Therefore, all carabao are black.
laboratory like space can affect time
It is valid?
Hagkot ha seminaryo
Norwood Russell Hanson 1958
You cannot make it necessarily true
“Pattern of Discovery: An Inquiry in to the conceptual
Foundation of Science, - This book – observation is more
The knowledge of knowledge is the
complex than what it appears. That all of us are like cameras,
knowledge of particular
look at the phenomena at the same way. Camera Model of
Observation. But in the reality our eyes are not like camera
It is valid?
lenses, the way of that phenomenon is different. Bacon we
One solution
have to avoid the idols of the cave but in the reality we cannot
1. There is a universal that anything that
simply just kukuhaon hit aton background, its part of us.
comes from experience, it will make it a
OBJECTIVE, this model does not apply. Ex. Two doctor saw
universal truth
the phenomena but they have different idea. We cannot avoid
Kun naexperience ito uro-utro, it may
from our subjective experience
now consider as a true.
If you have tested the experiment, and
Can we still have objective observation
your experiment is true it may be
Observation is not neutral
consider as true.
Inductive method – works because of
Neurath – bias, prejudice is like a raft that enables us to
experience.
navigate the sea of observation / interpretation
 Experience is a reliable bases for ***to prove something – to prove one assumption – in
universal valid statements. senses cases its true
 Establish the principle of induction  Einstein: Gravity is not a force
 How come from particular
experiences, observations to arrive SCIENTIFIC METHOD
at universally and necessarily truths Observation: not an innocent activity
Principle of induction 1. How large must be the number of observations?
 “Whatever happens in the past will also happen 1, 5, 10, 20? Good induction
today and in the future” 2. How varied are the conditions in order for a scientist
 To prove, you need induction, experience, but to arrive at a certain, a good inductive?
how valid is that? It is problematic it both comes, a. Room temperature
even the very method, the inductive is defected b. Mood of the scientist
c. Space and time
But how are we that the future and today is in the past? d. Color of the lab clothes/perfume
 Because east and the west sunrise and sunset e. Weight of the scientist
To save from the FALSE or TRUE we use PROBABLE f. Color of the lab
One is enough to prove to be wrong  Hence: Questionable
To be true, you need many to be true. Norwood Russel Hanson 1958
Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into the conceptual
How should we understand inductive method? foundation of Science
INDUCTION – has power : An observation is not objective
David Hume- induction comes from particular experience. “Camera model of Observation”
Ex: gun powdered = explosion comes from experience, there is  Different qualities get some image
a causal relation between gun powder and explosion.  Our background/upbringing, will affect the way
we perceive
UNIFORMITY Principle – anywhere anytime Ex: two doctors saw the same phenomenon, illness, [one is
How do we explain causality? expert] but different decision/opinion
1st Doctor [New]: Operation
CUSTOM / HABIT 2nd Doctor [Expert]: Medication
We have habit that when it comes like that. Induction is just a : Our interpretation would differ from one another
matter of custom. One follows the other – part of human : We cannot avoid observing things
nature. SUBJECTIVELY(idols of the tribe/cave)
David Hume, there is no causality it is a matter of HABIT. One Theories, assumptions, presuppositions, prejudice
Follows the Other. There is no causality, it is a matter of came to play --- color our eyes
CUSTOM AND HABIT OF THE MIND. With these theoriesObservation is NOT NEUTRAL
 NEURATH 
Hypothesis: Conclusion – True Bias prejudice is like a raft that enables us to navigate
the sea of observation/interpretation
KARL POPPER: “Conjectures and Refutations”
Proving theory and hypothesis is cheap, and it is difficult. “THERE IS A BIAS AGAINST BIAS.”
Hans Georg Gadamer
What matters in Science is NOT to confirm that your In gravity, we cannot remove the idols of the mind, instead
hypothesis is correct (true) kay permi ka la hanging. But to thanks to this bias, prejudices that we come to navigate the
show that your hypothesis is wrong. sea of observation/interpretation
FALSIFIABILITY / FALSIFICATION Theory of Karl Popper
Compare 3 Philosophers NON-OBJECTIVE OBSERVATION
- Sigmund Freud - Human Psychology – -- In fact, your theory is much like the importance. It like a
obsess with Sex searchlight that illuminates the areas we like to observe. It
- Karl Marx – Economy / Materialism serves as a background to life what is relevant and what is not
- Albert Einstein relevant.
-- Hence, the way to look at things are influenced, colored,
ELEMENT OF THE INDUCTIVE METHOD ARE NOW conditioned by our theories we have in Mind.
QUESTIONED.
1. How large? In terms of observation, is one enough to Method of Science
prove something? INDUCTIVE METHOD
Observation and Inductive Reasoning
Observation  is not objective as it may be even theories can Solution: Custom | habit of Mind
affect the way we look at things Induction is a matter of custom, habit “One follows the other”
 Even the induction is problematic
THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTIVE METHOD What to do with induction?
(who is the strength of Science) Science: Tue or false
Observation: Particular  Universals Theory Hypothesis: Conclusion – True or false?
Universals - True Necessarily universality  Anywhere Can be false; tentative then
anytime – Thru: Experience Karl Popper: “Conjectures and Refutations”
Conclusion: Could possibly be TRUE or be FALSE Proving theories true is CHEAP
What matters in Science is not to confirm that your hypothesis
1. The Carabao that I saw last year, last month, is CORRECT (TRUE)
yesterday were back. ***Correct: But to show that your hypothesis is wrong
2. Ergo/Therefore all carabaos are black. Claim – Method
Solution: Universal Principle (Mismatch)
Repeated experience – result
Therefore, it is a valid universally Falsifiability/Falsification Theory
Problem: it is much likely deductive  Sigmund Freud
 Karl Marx – Materialism (the movement of history
 Who tells us that observation/experience ….. is irreversible)
 Albert Einstein
We need to establish first the principle of induction Paul Feyerabend
 Anything Goes
Universals (universally and necessarily valid  It doesn’t matter where the truth
TRUTHS) came from
 Don’t determine nor religion
 There are also TREASURES in
PARTICULAR (experience observation) them

What is hidden in Induction that is not articulated?

PRESUMPTION (but not an evidence)

“Whatever happens in the past will also happen today and in
the future?
Ex. Rising and Setting of the Son
But who told us that future……

But how valid is that? How can we prove that?

How can they be so sure? Who told us that?

Logically questionable
Heat expands bodies…
How can we be so sure? How about tomorrow?
The universe may change tomorrow
True Anytime and Anywhere (“All”)
Instead, probable | Probability (“Most”)
-- How should we explain induction?
David Hume
Well, where does induction comes from?
Ex. Causal Relation | Causality
Gun powder = explosion
(from experience) But there is no logical connection in
the 2 that could be true anytime and
Cause Effect anywhere
not also by nature but only in the
mind
 PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE
Philosophy of Language – is a branch of Philosophy that
attempts “to give philosophically illuminating descriptions of
certain general features of Language, such as reference, truth, Before: Now:
meaning and necessity. -Astronomy -Became an independent science
It is different from LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY a philosophical -Mathematics - “ non-euclidean Math
method for solving philosophical problems analyzing the -Medicine - Became an independent science
language of these problems. -Physics - Became an independent science

Where does meaning come from?

Language use? All Progressed
Language cognition? Particular  general
Particular
Heat silver- expanded
Heat Gold – Expanded
Heat bronze – Expanded
Heart iron – expanded
General:
Heat expand bodies (generalizations)
Generalizations – must have
1. universality – place
2. necessity – time
Words can’t really picture the world reality because we can’t Science adds more knowledge (progress) : we know more
repeat what just had happened but only “traces of Reality.”
Ex. Investigation on Accidents Kant: Much had been progressed by science while
Traces of Reality – Jacques Derrida on ‘Deconstruction’: Philosophy remained stagnant.
Words are poor to capture the world. Ex: metaphysics

Linguistic Philosophy - What is in science that we’ve been doing

Problems: Ethics, Physics, right which in philosophy that we’ve been
Astronomy doing wrong?
Ex. Physics Philosophy of Language – What is it? Kant: LANGUAGE
Bodies Study of Language itself From Generalizations  Language
To: Generalized laws/language
Human Bodies | Stories
-after the 2nd World War Scientific Statements
material
- Vienna Cirlc
Things
1. Synthetic Apriori
How did the Philosophy of Language come out as a new 2. Analytic Apriori – True but not add knowledge
branch of Philosophy? A triangle has 3 angles
3. Synthetic Aposteriori
Modern Philosophy Main issue: I realized that crabs are sweet
- Knowledge -we cant know that crabs are sweet until we taste it
- Understanding through experience.
According to Kant 4. Analytic Aposteriori
- Both are important
1. Sense/empiricist of British Science adds knowledge/something new that we don’t know
2. Rationalism of French before.
Scientific Statement is a synthetic Apriori (through observation)
Rationalism Empiricism Synthetic – Experience, you cannot generalize experience,
Descartes John Locke always particular.
Malebranch G. Berkeley Ex: the weather is cold for me, but not to all.
David Hume
Aristotle: the knowledge of/from experience is the
knowledge of particulars.
Kant: Experiential Knowledge – particulars
 But applied by generalizations can be generalized 1. NEGATIVELY – There should be now a limit to the scope of
because they are true & anytime philosophical activity.
a. G.F. Hegel – Absolute Idealism (Freedom)
S P b. A. Shopenhauer
The act of being | is the foundation of every perfection, c. K. Marx.
every being
S P 1. Hegel – dealt with the Kenosis (Letter of Paul to Philippians)
Essence is | in potency in relation to the act of being. Jesus did not deem equality with God…….

For PHILOSOPHY to progress, it must follow the progress - The movement of history s like the
of science, the language of science – Linguistic movement of the sun – east to west.
philosophy - East: Asian
- HISTORY
HOW West: Europeans
EVOLVES
Kant saw why does Philosophy didn’t progress just as - Mid: Middle East (Arabs, Persians, Turkey,
Science did. Hebrews
Philosophy is dependent on Language but philosophers - How does history works?
used the same words but they give them different meanings - Its because of the clashing of ideas
Ex. God, Soul, substance, good and bad - East: only the emperor holds the
power and freedom
Analogical – foot man, mountain but both found under - Middle: Some are, some are slaves
Philosophy used Equivocal – pitcher baseball pitcher - West: Everyone is free
does not after the other - Hegel: “Freedom ends in me.”
Univocal – one meaning – Gold : movement of ideas are/is
unstoppable
Whereas Science used Univocal Term to remove confusions : it is because of the spirit of the mind.
Ex. NaCI – Salt The idea that dictates with economy.

LINGUISTIC TURN:
- The main task now of Philosophy is to 2. Shopehauer – competed with Hegel
CLARIFY NOTIONS by means of analysis Man is proud of himself
of language. What moves the history? It is the will
Ludwig Wittgenstein:
- “The object of Philosophy is the Logical 3. Marx – History moves through materialism (economy)
Clarification of thoughts” so that “the - Everybody owns anything – Communism –
result of Philosophy is not a number of Economy
philosophical propositions to make - unlike with Hegel
particular clear.” - the economy dictates the idea
: the matter over our thinking
Kant: Why do philosophy remained stagnant where in fact it : material progress
was the mother of Science??
NOTE!
- So what is in Science that is progressed over
However, these are not the concern of philosophy
years?
anymore, but of Science.
- Kant: Let us look at the faktum of Science – “These” Philosophical Systems of the said
fact Philosophers
PHILOSOPHIA – it is no longer the task of philosophy to
investigate the nature reality, explain the universe.
What makes Science Progress? - It is of Science, such as Physics.
LANGUAGE
Laws of Gravity
Wittgenstein : Philosophy is “not a doctrine but an audacity.”
Laws of Inertia
: its not its function to make, to come up with
Laws that accepted to be true, valid to anywhere and
metaphysical, ethical proposition.
anytime.
Analytic Philosophy
- Philosophy became a janitor to clarify/clean
Then, linguistic turn happed.
propositions,
LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY -
The discovery of reality, of facts, is now the task of scientists. Proponents:
Sapir, Whorf, Michael, Dumett
After all the scientists have no facts left for philosophers to Why do Filipinos find hard in philosophizing?
discover. Being? What is being in Tagalog? NONE. Why?
Because we are not find of VERBS.
No more to construct philosophical systems We can construct sentence w/o verbs
No more propositions of Nature but that’s the task of Science SHE IS BEAUTIFUL – verb IS
right now so philosophy now becomes only the “janitor” just to MAGANDA SYA – no verb
simply clarify propositions.
Thought: not time conscious why? Because
2. POSITIVELY verbs/actions of time.
- Philosophy can now render a genuine service by Filipinos are not conscious of verbs/time
carefully unraveling complex problems whose origins rest in FILIPINO TIME
the imprecise use of Language. Language controls thinking & behavior.
Ex. Nations are suffering due to the COVID-19 Crisis
Nations – Philosophy then now clarifies whether this word is a 2. Thought has priority over language
land - our thoughts affects our world
Ex: Organ Transplant can only be allowed upon the
death of the patient
But what do you mean by death? Death of Brain, brain dead Brain
Bla… bla… bla..
Death of Heart? And many opinions what death truly
is.
Interpretations “Key”
Germans: Heavy, jagged, metal (masculine)
Then, Philosophy now comes to clarify the proposition. Spaniards: golden, intricate, lovely , shining (femine)
: the Positive contribution of Philosophy
Logical Positivism The way how they describe it is because their
Analytic Philosophy thoughts affect their words.
- to help science to clarify
Logical Positivism – Vienna Circle 3. Language are thought are co-extensive
- To make philosophy a Science -Donald Davidson
- Scientific world - What we can think is what we can speak
- Scientificize philosophy - What we can speak is what we can think/imagine
Science now has the authority and Philosophy was reduce to a
mere activity and help to scientists.
4. Language and thought have nothing to do with each
Philosophy is no longer a rival of Science in the sense that other
propose and challenge scientific analysis of the world. -Gorgias

Philosophia est ancilla scientiae -Language is different

Philosophy is a handmaid of Science / katulong -Thought is different
MEANING Ex. Explain what vinegar tastes
Where does meaning come from? In mind, you can think of something ‘sour’ but in
Can meaning be known? words, you can’t explain what’s really the taste of vinegar
Difference of meaning from ideas? Or
The color of orange and red
When we speak of Meaning - It’s a question of how language can transmit
We speak of LANGUAGE and – THOUGHT what is in the thought/mind

MEANING
Language is a meaningful one.
Word without meaning is not a language
But there are still problems:
How does language & thought relate with each other? THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
1. Language has priority over thought. 1. John Locke: “IDEATIONAL THEORY OF MEANING”
- is analytically prior to thought Language: Sociability
 - Allow us to communicate - Ideas are sometime difficult to distinguish as
Man is a social animal TRUE or FALSE but objects can be.
Articulate and distinct sounds Ex. Pres. Duterte is the current
Language ‘transports’ carry True True
President of the Philippines.
Public words that are used as signs of our private ideas. True
(persona) Is there Pres. Duterte? Yes
Is there a Preside of the Phil? Yes
“Homely” U.S. – positive Is he the current pres of the Phil? Yes
U.S. – Negative/ugly! Ex. Fr. Manny is now inside the Sacred
Heart Seminary Palo Compound.
- Language suppose to carry meaning. - The meaning should now correspond to the
- Before you speak, you need to have ideas in objects.
mind, if not then you’ll speak the wrong - The object theory of meaning fails to account
choice of words. for the nature of identity statements and the
Particular: Ideas: fact that some words though having no
General: multitude of particular existence. references (objects represented) are still
meaningful.
1. Before you talk, you need to have ideas.
Distinct Ex. Mt. Apo is Mt. Apo
soundsIdeas Words Is there Mt. Apo? Yes
Is it still meaningful statement? Yes.
Private Public
Unicorns were thought to fly like birds.
-is there unicorns? No, does not exist
Arbitrary/conventional -though to fly like birds? Yes, ancient times
“they say”
Be sure to have ideas
Words are still meaningful even though there are no
Right choice of words  know the cultural/community objects.
because words are sometimes Identity statements
used differently Meaningful statements
Question on the common use What is true or false?
Ex: What is meaningful or not?
Ideas: “chismosa”  words: “marites”
Conventional – sabot sabot la, Ex. Atlantis does not exist
no strict logical between “chismosa” & “marities” A city that does not exist
because language is
does not have sense
LOCKE: How private ideas be shared in public/community with but is it meaningful? Yes.
common use of words/sounds. meaningless? No.
Problem: Ideas not objects.
Ideasso private that, to the point that we cannot put it in :True and Meaningful
words/say in the minimum.
3. Gottlob Frege: SENSE REFERENCE THEORY OF
Ex. MEANING
Saints asked their encounter with God. Combination of Locke’s Idea and Mill’s Object
John Locke’s Ideational Theory of Meaning
Ideas are private: objectivity of meaning ONE
Sense: REFERENCE
Mode of Presenting/manner of identifying its reference
but (ideaJohn Locke’s)
2. John Stuart Mill: OBJECT THEORY OF MEANING MANY
Reference: SENSES
The object (objectJ.S. Mill’s) Combination

- Words, language, should “transport” objects Object

- Names are name of things (objects) not : Venus is Venus a = a identity statement
: Venus is the evening star a=b
mere ideas.
: Venus is the morning star a=c
Frege: got the strengths of J. Locke & J.S. Mill and
avoided their deficiency
Wittgenstein:
Ex. Jose Rizal - Language can only be meaningful if:
Author of Noli Me Tangere Word pictures an object
Philippine National Hero -identifiable
- One reference (Rizal) -publicly
- With many senses - A statement can only be meaningful (true or false)
a. A statement that has reference only without a sense is if the words picture objects VERIFIED
meaningless. Ex: Fr. Manuel Baybay
b. A statement that has sense only without reference is
meaningless Ex. Is the rector of the Sacred Heart
Seminary

Frege: Statements which share referents (the same reference)

could be substituted for one another without changing the truth
value of a sentence. - Wittgenstein: Vienna Circle/circle of Vienna
Ex. All Filipinos know that Joseph Estrada was born in - On Ethics: Good or Bad
Tondo But what is good and bad?
True
All Filipinos know that Jose Marcelo (Estrada) It does not picture something
Ejercito was born in Tondo.
Reduced to be like a ‘poetry’
Of the same reference True or False does not
: but do all Filipinos who Jose Marcelo Ejercito is? matter/No but encourages us to
a. can be true be good.
b. but the other can be false
SO THIS IS HOW G. FREGE THEORY-PROBLEMATIC USEFUL but MEANINGLESS
4. LUTTWIG WITTGENSTEIN: PICTURE THEORY OF
- Limitation of the representative function
MEANING
- influenced by Frege of Language
- we are too impressed with language  Language has a limit.
Language and its capacity or represent  It is a tool but has limit.
 The limits of what language can
Do language have limits? represent are imposed by the
properties of language itself.
- A meaningful statement is that statement  So Wittgenstein proposes, picture theory
which is within the limits of Language of meaning
- Explain words what is sweet and bitter  the statement/proposition should
- : no matter we explain, we can give us a clear idea of what state of
never be understood affairs we should look for in the world
to VERIFY the truth of the statement.
 The meaning of a word, phrase,
statement, proposition is its
VERIFICATION!
 If we say something that is can’t be
presented then it would be meaningless.
 VERIFICATION is so true to science.
 Meaningful: that can be verified and can
be represented.
  Meaningless: can’t be verified, can’t be Undeserved condemnation of Language
represented goes beyond the border of Ordinary Language – it is not clear. It could be declarative
language of what is meaningful statement, interrogative statement, Imperativve. The
problem with ordinary language is that it mix all the
statements. It is not precise. It is confusing. Ambiguous. It
WORD WORLD causes a lot of MISCOMMUNICATION. Unprecise
VERIFY meaning.

FOR THE WORD TO CORRESPOND IN THE WORLD

IT MUS BE VERIFIED! VIENNA CIRCLE LOGICAL POSTIVISM
Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap, Herbert Feigl, Philipp
 What can be debated as True or False is only within Frank, Kurt Godel, Hans Han, Victor kraft, Otto Neurath,
the scope of Language etc.
Rudolf Carnap
Traktatus-Logicus- Herbert Feigl
Philipp Frank
Language has a limit. Kurt Godel prove that Math is an incomplete science
WIttgeinstein-tubtob la it magamit dida. Traktatus, that Hans Han
representative language has limit. Meaningful within the Victor Kraft
limit. Devoid of cognitive significance. Incapacity of Otto Neurath
language is a self-imposed language by very properties of Etc.
language due to the fact language has limit. Ex. The They had one ambition – there plan is to campaign for a
taste. SCIENTIFIC WORLD-VIEW they want to change how the
By very property of language it is not men basic sensation way they think; they look at the world.
like excitement. Religiosity is another- you are crossing to Everything is connected to Science. We are living the
the world of mystical that means you cannot explain. dream of the Vienna Circle Logical Positivism

VERIFICATION – statement can be meaningful when SCIENTIFIC WORLD-VIEW – Manifesto

things can be verified. What did they do to promote? They had a convention;
The meaning of a word, proposition or statement is its congresses – Prague 1929 | Konigsberg 1930 | Prague
verification. According to its verification. If not verified 1934 | Paris 1935 | Copenhagen 1936 | Parish 1937 |
then its meaningless. Cambridge 1938 | Massachusetts 1934
Most of them are killed because most of them are Jewish
2 kinds of Meaningless proposition in Germany.
a. Alleged proposition that is not really a proposition We are the great sons of the Vienna Circle. It contributed
(meaning not really a linguistic proposition) it is to the world-view
just taken to be one because of its grammatical
form. NOTHING TO REPRESENT. Nalipat la kita 2 important features of world view.
kay mayda niya grammatical form. 1. It is empiricist and positivist.
Ex. Love is sweeter the second time around. (it is 2. Logic: Logical analysis as method.
a meaningless statement, we are caught The connection to Lugwig Wittgenstein of the Vienna
because of its grammatical form, baga la hin Circle Logical Positivism because of the Logicus
meaningful but it is not verified because of its Traktatus Philosophical. W- was not the member but the
linguistic representation) soul of the Vienna circle.
b. A proposition that tries to present that it cannot To purify Science from ordinary language
represent. (actually mayda gad kuno): there is
something to represent, however, this something They publish International Encyclopedia of Unified
is beyond the limit of what can be represent by Science -one language for all sciences
means of language. “the MYSTICAL” the
experience of GOD VIENNA CIRCLE
THIS IS THE END OF LANGUAGE I LOGICAL POSITIVISM
LOGICAL EMPIRICISM
NEO POSITIVISM Auguste Comte  Meanings depend on our use
Different names of the Vienna Circle  Ordinary is as perfect as it can be.
 Example is the game CHESS
They proposed to have is one language – SCIENTIFIC  When we speak of essences, we don’t need
LANGUAGE, to be strict because it is a matter of
The Physical World is One so UNIFIED ALL SCIENCES USAGE/USAP-USAPAN
 1 language: Verifiable  Everything depends on the agreement.
How do we unify language – distinguishing Scientific  We can even change rules.
Language and Metaphysical Language.
The principle of Verifiable TRACTATUS LOGICO-PHILOSOPHICUS
 “A statement is meaningful if only if there By: Ludwig Wittgenstein
is some objective method to verify its ~Wittgenstein was a student of
truth.”  BERTRAND RUSSELL
 Ex. Gold expands when heated. TRUE! Thea is a black cat behind the green
Permanent things are what truly exist in door in the living room
the world – NO! how do you verified?  Language should picture out
Therefore, this one is meaningless. It will facts
not pass in the principle of Verifiability  Scientific world -view

Analytic statements  If cannot picture facts then the

A triangle has 3 sides. 2+2=4 statement is meaningless
Empirical Statements
 The earth revolves around the sun. 1.1 The world is totality of facts, not things
2.1 We make to ourselves picture of facts
The Vienna Circle  Expression of attitudes 2.15
2.1512 It is like a scale applied to reality
Is this statement is also verifiable? 2.222 Agreement of sense | reality – TRUE | FALSE
NO, because it is SELFISH, it is meaningless. VERIFICATION
That is why the Vienna Circle collapse. 4.0031 Role of Philosophy: ‘Critique of Language’
Purify Language
FINAL POINT : Purify Science by using Philosophy as Janitor/
Wittgenstein realize his mistake making propositions clear.
4.06 Propositions can be true or false only by being
Ludwig Wittgenstein I  Traktatus Logicus pictures of the reality.
Philosophicus 4.112 Objects of Philosophy: Logical clarification of
 The statement can be only thoughts
meaningful, mayda Philosophy is not a theory but an activity.
corresponding object na The result of Philosophy is not number of
ginpipicture. The meaning Philosophical Propositions but to make propositions clear
does not have to depend on 4.113 Philosophy limits the disputable sphere of Natural
object, it must be the usage of Science
the words. Principle of DEMARCATION
Ludwig Wittgenstein I  Philosophical Investigations Used to be COSMOLOGY (Philo)
 Use theory of Meaning or
 Language Game Theory of Pseudo-science
Meaning :metaphysics
The meaning does not depend :Cosmology
on object, it depends on our - No factual basis
surusarabot. 4.116 Everything that can be thought at all can be thought
 There is nothing wrong with ordinary clearly. Everything that can be said clearly
language.  Thinking clearly
 Is saying clearly  Otto Neurath
 And ETC.
7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be Goal: Campaign for Scientific World-View
SILENT (One View of Reality)
Ex. St. Thomas’ experience on beatific vision (mystical) Today: Knowledge is simply SCIENCE
All is explained by SCIENCE
WITTGENSTEIN Nothing mystical by SCIENTIFIC
------- “ -------- VC: Manifesto
The meaning of a word, proposition or stamen is its What did they do to advertise/campaign?
verification. They made congresses/conventions
--------------------  Prague 1929
2 Kinds of Meaningless Proposition  Konigsberg 1930
a. Alleged Proposition that is not really a proposition  Prague 1934
(meaning not really a linguistic representation); it  Paris 1935
is just taken to be one because of its  Copenhagen 1936
GRAMMATICAL FORM  Paris 1937
Ex. Love is sweeter the second time around  Cambridge 1938
---N.B. Absolutely there is nothing to represent---  Massachusetts 1939
b. A proposition that tries to represent what it Then war happened, Wittgenstein was killed by Hitler and
cannot represent: there is something to represent made the members of VC separated from each other but
however this something is beyond the limits of became a way to spread their goal.
what can be represented by means of Language
--- Mystical --- 2 FEATURES OF SCIENTIFIC WORLD-VIEW
1. Empiricist / Positivist
ELIZABETH ANSCOMBE 2. LOGIC: Logical Analysis
- Catholic Philosopher
- Literary Executioner of Wittgenstein Logicus Tractatus became the Bible of Vienna Circle
Ex.: Experiences of the Saints Vienna Circle: once and for all let us purify SCIENCE
They prefer not to talk since what they’ve from any philosophical terms and languages from
seen is beyond the limits of what Language can Ordinary Language
represent Put a demarcation…
St. Thomas: “Straw” Published: International Encyclopedia of Unified Science
Ordinary Language Scientific Revolution by Thomas Kuhn was
Declarative: published within that book – Volume 2
Interrogative: Ambiguous not Precise
Imperative: Confusing Vienna circle
Ex.: Mama: Alas dose na, nagkikinita ka pa Logical Positivism
It may seem to be interrogative but actually it is Logical Empiricism
imperative, why? Because the mother to say “Go to Bed” Neo-positivism – whose original positivist AUGUST
which is an imperative one. COMTE positivism
Hence, ordinary Language is confusing and not
precise. Phenomena HistoryAge of ReligionAge of
PhilosophyNow, age of Science SCIENTIFIC
VEINNA CIRCLE: LOGICAL POSITIVISM LANGUAGE
 Moritz Schlick
 Rudolph Carnap Vienna Circle: Unify Science/All sciences
 Herbert Feigl 1 physical word = 1 language ; verifiable – Scientific &
 Philipp Frank Metaphysical
 Kurt Godel
 Hans Hahn How to Purify?
 Victor Kraft By Principle of Verifiability
 “A statement is meaningful if and only if there is o How about the movie is not of
some objective method to verify its truth.” Philippine Culture?
Ex. Gold expands when heated.
Permanent things are what truly exist in the world.
True/Meaningful
Meaningful? No. because we cannot verify,
devoid of cognitive significance

Analytic Statements:
A triangle has 3 sides
Empirical Statements
The earth revolves around the sun
Ethics—meaningless, not scientific
Ex: Doing good,
doing evil is bad – useful – can motivate us inspire us.
Morality religion – all are useful as expressions of
attributes
Principle of Verifiability: Problematic itself
And is meaningless
Therefore, it self-destructs
 That’s why Vienna Circle
collapsed
 Ludwig Wittgenstein realized that she was
wrong

Ludwig Wittgenstein II – emerged

Picture theory of meaning

L. Wittgenstein I – Tractatus Logico Philosophicus

L. Wittgenstein II – Philosophical Investigation
-- meaning does not have to depend on our USE
 Use of theory of meaning | Language Game Theory of
Meaning
- There is nothing wrong with ordinary
language
- That which she criticized before
- Chess Game ---
The roles of the Chess pieces
Rules
One can follow
One can change
- When we speak of essences
o We don’t need to be strict about
it.
- Ex. Filipino Movies
o How can we say that is a Filipino
Movie?
o How about if the setting is on
foreign country?
ETHICS 3rd Issue
Study of Human Conduct Equality is respecting every individual

Human Act Understanding Human Person | What the Human person

Man is?
Act of Man Ethical Issue: Abortion
Moved by: Utilitarianism
Intellect | Truth
Rational ABORTION
Will | Good - Direct and voluntary elimination of the
Human Being in its initial phase
Direct – when the action to abort is intended as the end
- Practical science of the morality and as means.
- Morality of human conduct | principles Intentional
- “Science” Abortion: Intentional
Desired
- Systematic organized body of knowledge
: if not INTENDED then it is miscarriage
- ‘Practical’ science Abortion can be indirect, it is unavoidable
- Systematized | Double Effect
- Apply to our actions 1. The evil act must not precede the good effect
- Object: Human Acts 2. Grave reason should be sufficient
- Formal: 3. Intention of the agent must be HONEST (what is
SPECIAL ETHICS to be done)
- Deals with the individual and social 2015 : 56 million cases of Abortion
aspect
Misleading terms to abortion
- Rights and duties
1. Interruption of pregnancy
1. Abortion
2. Emergency against conception
2. Contraception
Rules:
3. Invitro-fertilizations
1. Voluntary – induced 20 weeks;
4. Divorce
safe abortion from danger abortion
5. Gender Ideologies
Issue: the reproductive health of Women
6. Same-sex Marriage
Good: the reproductive health of women
7. Organ Transplant
8. Brain Dead - It is reasonable for abortion to be
9. Surrogate Motherhood legalized?
10. Euthanasia - Remember, the reproductive
11. Vaccines health/organ of women is also meant for
12. Feta cell Lines being pregnant or pregnancy
13. Death Penalty ARGUMENTS
Abortion is not medical treatment
Most of the issues falls on Not necessary
FAMILY – a basic unity of the community An ideology, ideological argument
composed of Father, Mother & Children
Abortion | Same – sex Marriage morally and intrinsically evil
Sexuality – Biological Aspect of Man autonomy of the women (feminist movement)
Gender – social construct, cultural - Women should decide
[Link]: - Allowing women to self-determination
(Ancient Times) Women as 2nd class in Economic Reason
the Society - Argument of Poverty
2nd Issue: -if you cannot support the child, then we
Women’s right to vote abort it.
Consequentialism - Intentional – commission
- End justifies the means - Omit – omission
- Subjective – the good of the mother  Intentional and provoked death
- Argument favorable to the person who  Legal aspect: through the petition patient with
want the act. some witnesses / relatives of the patient
when does life begin?  Involuntarily euthanasia – not euthanasia /
- Argument of personhood homicide / voluntarily euthanasia
Pro-abortionist: Is that a human person? - Homicide  unintentional
- Counter: it is considered as human - Murder  intentional
person already because though it is still  The author of euthanasia participated by a nurse
in _____ to be actualized as human who could know what the doctor will be doing
person (rational being) but it is an  WHO – exclusively the action or omission direct
individual already so it has already the is intentional provocation of death who falls in
right, right to life as individual person. advance / terminal infirmity/sickness with the
 ABORTION – NOT A SOLUTION TO SOCIAL expressed petition of the patient.
ISSUE  Evangelium Vitae 65 by Pope John II - action or
omission as nature and intention causes death
EUTHANASIA with the end to eliminate my suffering or pain
- End of life  Intentional and natural cause of death
- Connected with misery and pain Will of the Patient
1. Voluntary – patient takes the decision or third
- Pain, personal limitation
person – the bearer of the will of the patient
- Long term infirmity 2. Not Voluntary – the third person
- What are the factors that moves - No consent of the patient
someone to end his life? 3. Involuntary – the third person
- Actions about the final stage of life. - No consent of the patient
1. Euthanasia
- No consent of the relatives
2. Excess of Medical
Bethan and Mil
3. Palliative Care – it is the best
 Happiness and Misery ‘Utilitarianism’ – to
solution to reduce pain before death
eliminate misery to achieve happiness
(reduce too much suffering) with
Arguments
respect to human life
1. Mercy – I don’t want the person to suffer so let us
 Easy death without suffering (ancient
kill him
understanding)
2. Utilitarianism (no intrinsic evil) no intrinsically evil
 Sickness / agony reduced
acts in themselves
 Medical intervention to reduce pain terminating
life prematurely suppressing life. - Actions should be judged right or wrong
 It is never a palliative care according to Happiness and misery
 Not in dignify way - Euthanasian becomes morally
 There no MERCY KILLING because mercy and acceptable
killing two contradictory terms Right actions are the one with best results
 Puts end deliberately (motive/intention) on his life morally good
 Intentionally seeks death without pain or ‘sweet
pain’ 3. Good and Evil are to be measured in terms of
Brain Dead – Total & Irreversible (two types) Happiness and Unhappiness and nothing else
Is there such term as brain dead? Medically, yes? But matter
actually, it is DEATH. - Less pain, less misery, more happiness
Aside from “intentional” (from the definition his action End of Man: search for
consist to omit a necessary intervention to save a curable happiness to be happy. No one
patient. [omittance] wants misery
4. Equality
 - Each individual happiness is equal life now becomes not the beautiful gift
 Any action is morally right if increases happiness of the couples/married life (total self-
and decreasing misery giving & self-acceptance)
: therefore, Euthanasia becomes morally right kill life now is seeing as.
the patient to increase happiness and decrease  Objection with the personhood of Embryo
misery - They could be discarded anytime since it
 But utilitarianism is wrong. is not yet a human person
Happiness is not only the bases/measure - In 1960, question on the personhood of
of the uprightness of the act. Embryo was trivialized resulting to say
 Elimination of Freedom and Religion that the embryo is not a human person.
- Impose one religion so that there will no  Becomes a luxurious business
conflict among religion yet each one of - Invitro fertilization
us do have freedom, therefore - Embryos are to be selected with good
utilitarianism/happiness is not only the qualities but some embryos will be
bases, and applicable. thrown and some are used as a material
 Golden Rule (different interpretation) for human experimentation
- Not on the person but in the action done  Origin of Human Life
- On the condition of the person - If man has the capacity to interfere in the
- If I don’t want to suffer just as others transmission of human life
suffer then let’s eliminate it - Man has the capacity to limit life, killing
 Hopelessness of the Patient embryo is possible
- Not a valid argument for Euthanasia - Implies logic of dominion and control
- Doctors commit mistake - Religious POV: Human Life is gift from
- Sometimes, doctors gave us yet the God so nobody has the right to disregard
patient recovers its means.
 Probability of Cure  Contraceptions
- A sign of hope - Any artificial means such as
condoms/pills and etc. that are
THE USE OF CONTRACEPTION deliberately and directly has an outcome
 Throw-away culture closing off one of the aims of sexual
- A culture /movement that affects the way intercourse which is the sharing of life,
we decide the beginning of life. Procreation –
- Disposal/disposable conception
- Its not a problem to eliminate being 1. Artificial --- contraceptive --- prevents
the natural way of sexual intercourse
including Human Embryo
Natural --- sexual intercourse, we
but we know that killing is a criminal
speak of conception because the
act
natural way of conception is sexual
if the contraceptive is an abortive
intercourse without contraceptives.
fashioned then it is considered as killing
2. Consent of the Agent
 When we speak of contraception
3. Deliberate & Direct
- We look also in assisted human Deliberate – with full consent of the
reproduction agent
- Depicts that we are in control of human Direct – the target of the intention is
life to prevent conception
man playing God  Why do many people use contraceptives?
manipulating 1. Accessibility – because contraceptives were
man wants domination on the made accessible
transmission of man’s life 2. Afraid of having a child
human life is now in man’s discretion 3. Economic reason
whether when does life begin
 Rich People don’t have time to raise a child. commitment, the total self giving and total
Poor People say, having a child is a difficult self acceptance that is only in marriage.
task, or raising a child is child is difficult
---- So, sex without commitment is not genuine
So, is it an economic reason which is the love and leads to unreadiness to parenthood
reason for people to use contraceptive? NO!  Why is conception morally wrong?
man is only open to God’s gift.  It destroys the unitive and procreative
4. Family Planning aspect of conjugal act/marriage
5. Pleasure
- We should always see an individual with SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD
high respect - human dignity - Destroys the procreative aspect
6. Health Reasons – the use of contraception is - Enter the third part  fidelity entails only
a valid reason two man and woman no third party
Safe-sex argument – if you can’t - Who is the mother? The couple or the
prevent/avoid it then at least to be safe mother/girl who carried the child
7. Curiosity (surrogate mother)?
 When a person does a conjugal act unitive and INVITRO FERTILIZATION
procreative aspect should not be separated - Destroys the unitive aspect of conjugal
 The use of contraceptive is against the unitive
- Like a mass murder
and procreative aspect of the conjugal act
some are selected
 For procreation – Total self-giving | Total self-
some are frozen
acceptance.
some discarded
Unitive – You accept the human fertility |
 In the woman can’t carry a child but still do
commit, it entails commitment
conjugal act with her partner, still VALID because
when does it happen?
they are still married and it is the unitive aspect of
- MARRIAGE “the value of waiting”
conjugal act.
 You can only understand the evil in contraceptive
when you understand marriage (complimentary DIVORCE
aspect of the couple)  Marriage
 Human body, is our very self, not mere things,
- Union between man and woman / bound
that we use , you are your body.
by commitment
sexual activity outside marriage is wrong
 Conjugal act is meant for procreation - The value of Waiting
genuine love – love of persons (self-giving & End: life time commitment
self-acceptance) time to know each other
sexual activity apart from marriage is not a preparation for marriage
genuine love without commitment virtue of chastity
hence, it results to unreadiness to parenthood - being ready to give oneself in
- Best remedy is not contraception marriage
- total self-giving
But abstinence (meant for self-control)
Love
- Sexual activity is means in the context of
- not just emotions because
marriage emotions changes, instead it is love in
Canon law: Done in a sexual fashion commitment
 Sexual activity outside marriage is wrong, why? - you fell in love not by external
1. Because sexual activity is reserved only for but by herself that’s why knowing is very
marriage and because the conjugal act is important before loving.
meant for procreation and therefore, sex Respect
outside marriage is wrong - something to do with chastity
2. Sex without commitment/outside marriage is also
not genuine love, why? Because genuine Commitment
love is the union of persons that entails
 - can you really be committed  Natural inclination is fulfilled
until death? Even one is adulterous? Thru Free
Even one is unfaithful. Will
 Love – not just based on feeling but the  Marriage is actualized
by herself/himself with the dignity of the
person B. Unity – stable union of one man and woman
 Acceptance - to accept totally the C. Indissolubility – attribute of Marriage by natural
past/present/future necessity
 Consequence – to accept come what  Marriage Contract – cannot be broken unless
may there is death of one of the parties or when one
 Opposite to commitment: DOUBT dies
- End of Marriage:  Separation may happen (circumstances) but still
Good of Spouses not allow or grounds to divorce or Dissolve
Upbringing of Children marriage
Procreation
 Commitment : TRUST Therefore, indissolubility of marriage means that there is
- Fidelity – infidelity is not grounds for no such thing as LAWFUL Divorce
separation because
commitment/marriage entails “For better Proof of perpetuity of Marriage
and for Worse”. 1. Showing positively that marriage to fulfill its
- Annulment – Valid Marriage (Existed) natural end, must be indissoluble
then dissolve 2. Negative demonstration, showing the evil of
divorce
- Nullity: No marriage was existed,
DIVORVE // from Sources
grounds: Shotgun Marriage
- Is evil and is opposed to the natural
There is investigation whether the
law/order
marriage existed or not
if proven the there was no marriage, it - The state did not institute marriage
is declared as null/void therefore the state has no right to abolish
MARRIAGE or essentially change it
A. Stable Union between man and woman - Properties flow necessarily from the
1. For procreation and education/upbringing of essence of a thing.
children - Doesn’t really end the relationship
2. For mutual support and helpfulness (good of 1. Now law can save a dead relationship “but
spouses) spouses can if they choose to”
- A conjugal act 2. People fall In and fall out of love
Total Self-giving - Love may brought you together, but
Total self-acceptance marriage will you together… when the
LOVE LOVE can no longer sustain marriage, let
ACCEPTANCE the marriage sustain the love
CONSEQUENCE 3. Those who are for divorce aren’t attacking your
- End: LIFE TIME COMMITMENT marriage, if you don’t want it, don’t…
- Must be FREE - Marriage is a life-union, if you don’t want,
 It is natural because rational nature inclines man don’t get married
toward it DIVORCE – an attack on marriage,
 Nature inclines man to a stable union; men are with public implications, and public
inclined by reason to many not merely to mate consequences.
 Marriage Is natural  Laws after culture, culture affects belief, belief
Conjugal society is natural society affect action.
Therefore, marriage is a conjugal society,  Law teaches, and will therefore shape not just a
natural. handful of marriages but public understanding of
what marriage is
 - Will degrade sacredness of MARRIAGE / - Leads to the perpetuation, on the thought
trial and error marriage. of divorced family
4. MARRIAGE is not a creation of state nor of the - Children has a right to live a normal life
spouses, therefore, state nor spouses has no 2. Financial – can divorce resolve poverty? No.
power or right to terminate it. Ex. Philippines has a high rate of poverty yet
- If state regulates the circumstances does not resolve to divorce
concerning divorces it will lead to an Foreign countries have no poverty issues and yet
increase in the power of the state over resolves to divorce
individual private lives.  Hence, financial problems is not the
5. Divorce will lead infidelity, abuse, financial issue but lack of commitment
problems, lack of intimacy, communication, and
inequality. / INTERNET SOURCE \
ERGO, the mother of ALL MONSTERS. On HOMOSEXUALITY
Infidelity: removes the presumption of CCC # 2357
permanence of marriage creating a culture of Homosexuality refers to relations between men and
less commitment. between women who experience and exclusive or
Abuse: predominant sexual attraction towards a person of the
Financial Problems: divorced women and same sex.
children are at HIGH RISK OF FINANCIAL - Homosexual acts as acts of grave
VULNERABLITY; divorce moves into POVERTY depravity
after DIVORCE - Homosexual acts are intrinsically
Loss of intimacy and Communication: Disruption disordered
in the parent-child relationship - Are contrary to the law, the natural law
DIVORCE // from Fr. Alfie Protesta
- Closes the sexual act to the gift of life
- An offense against natural law
- Do not proceed from a genuine affective
- It breaks the free contract/consent
and sexual complementarity
(consented freely)  Hence, under no circumstances can they
- You cannot reclaim the total self- be approved.
acceptance and self-giving Natural Law
- Marriage: YOU GIVE YOURSELF - Moral standards that govern human
- It destroys to the basic unit of society – behavior
Family, hence, it breaks the stability of - Objectively derived from nature of human
society. beings and the world
- Only the church: holds the sanctity of Homosexuality
marriage. If you want to destroy - Unnatural
Marriage/family, destroy the church The design of each organ, as well as the
Legal Separation vs. Divorce process of reproduction, is geared for
LS – separation legally but not allowed to remarry  this function.
allowed/accepted by the church for the preservation of To violate this arrangement is to engage
the UNION/MARRIAGE in a natural act and that offend God, the
D – Breaks the Contract of Marriage and allows one to author-Natural Law
remarry - An abuse of our Human Nature, because
its act is intrinsically disordered.
ARGUMENTS PRO
Violence
- Decrease the divorce rate
1. Feminism – fight for the right of woman, the
double standard of society - No effect on heterosexuals
- Children of divorced parents, become - Separates church from state
problematic (majority) - Issue of equality
- Civil union is not the same as marriage
 - Diminishes youth suicide :emotions not commitment
- Increase amount of successful adoption (On Family)
CONS - It will have a different understanding on
- Violates Natural Law how the child sees what Family is, what
- Always denies a child either a father or a relationships are
mother - It will greatly affect the values formation
- It turns a moral into a civil right of the child.
Indissolubility – can be indissoluble if the union is
- Will turn people homosexual
between one and woman
- Defeats the states purpose of benefiting Unitive – something to do with – COMMITMENT (total
marriage self-giving) SEXUAL COMPLEMENTARY | man is
- It offends God completed by a woman
True or False Upbringing of children – affected values formation
 Homosexuals are born gay
- False, there is no evidence to support TRANSGENDER
the claim that a person can be born “I Am Woman Trap in A Man’s Body”
homosexual but this can be also be true. Concept of Gender
 Not a mental disorder Sex – biological/absolute/anatomical/given/corporeal
- True, not an illness, but a way of people - Male and Female
to express their human love and GENDER – SOCIAL CONSTRUCT
sexuality - Something linguistic
 Gay and lesbian youth: true, two/three times  Masculine
more likely to attempt suicide than Hetero.  Feminine
Accounts 30% of all complete suicides among  Neuter
adolescents.
- Emotional: something that changes from
 Homosexuality is unchangeable
time to time
- False, there is a Freedom from sexuality
- Psychological, cultural: given and
Gender: Identity, expressions and societal roles
acquired
Sex: persons physical characteristics at birth, fixed
- Something is FLUID (goes to what form
“if a person is a gay and seeks God and has good will, you want to build.)
who am I to judge him” - Dual and Non-dual
- Pope Francis Feminism
First Wave: Suffrage
- Hate the sin, not the sinner
- Women: fight the right to vote and other
HOMOSEXUALITY legal liberties
(Anthropological) - Suffrage: should for their voice to be
Sexuality heard
- Biological aspect of man Second Wave: EQUAL PAY
- Natural Absolute - Focus mainly on sexuality, rights and
Gender wage Gap
- Social Construct - Reproductive: Question: what kind of
rights? Wherein they tend to
- Something Cultural
compartmentalize/separate what human
- Something in line with affection (wrong is.
argument) Third Wave: PATRIARCHY
(Homosexuality on Marriage) - Fight for equality focusing exclusively on
- Focuses only on the UNION – simply female victims of Gender-Neural Issues
living together - Mostly in Tumblr and Facebook
: on affectivity and living together
Only concerned on WHAT I FEEL
 - Rejects labelling by adopting labels and as something linguistic: masculine, feminine,
identities neuter) wherein they could add new kind of
- Everything is blamed on men gender
 Ergo, you can modify your gender/appearance
THE GENDER BREAD but you can never modify / after your sexuality
which is absolute / anatomical / given.
Identity
Attraction DEATH
Part 1
expression When we speak of Death, we speak of
Sex - Good Medicine Practice
- Excessive Health Care
DEATH: the end of human life
: All conditions start to deteriorate that
irreversible and lethal, Man enters the
The influence of Gender TERMINAL PHASE of his life
- Person Senior Citizens: should not take the advantage of
- Family this fragility of LIFE
- Education
CULTURAL OBSTABLES | Quality of Life
- Work
False Compassion
- Community Individualism
- Politics Economic Reason/Cultural
- Law-legislative How we diagnose death?
- Church 1. The end of life
Problem on Sexual Orientation 2. Cadaver
- Something to do ATTRACTION. 3. Transplant
- “When you’re attracted to a plant then 4. Legal Aspect
what do you call yourself??
--Anthro, Psycho, Socio DEATH
Movement ------. Definitive
Equality Separate/Independent Relational Complete
Problem on the Transsexual Irreversible
Cessation of the Vital Activities of Man
- Who are they?
Death: ABSENCE OF LIFE
- Question on the Pathology of Man
- Subtype of Transgender Death: Separation of Body and Soul
Man -------------------------  TransG
Trap in a woman’s body Transsexual ---Alteration of Biological Signs of Death
Corporeal Structure  Without Respiration
 Without Heartbeat
John Money  Dilation of Eyes
- The Progenitor of Transgender  Change of Color/Odor
- Problems with his Father
Where most of Transgender PART 2
movement emerges  CELEBRAL DEATH | BRAIN DEAD
- Started the movement with the  TOTAL and Irreversible Loss of integral
Hermaphrodites capacity of the function of the organs to
 Since they cannot change / alter the sexual coordinate
orientation or chromosome arrangement, they  The SHUTTING DOWN of CNS (central
went to the GENDER main on the neuter (gender nervous system)
When do we end intensive?
When to realize transplant?

BRAIN DEAD
 Total Cessation of BRAIN ACTIVITY
 But! There is no such thing as BRAIN DEAD
because what lies there is DEATH
Why?
Because then the braid is dead everything shuts
down / ceases to function. Therefore, Dead/death

VEGETATIVE STATE of Man

 Entering the vegetative state is a sign that you
are no longer considered as HUMAN
 This state is not automatically BRAIN DEAD

 VEGATIVE STATE IS NOT COMA

 COMA IS NOT BRAIN DEAD
 Because sometimes in vegetative state or in
coma, the brain is still functioning
 Hence, it is considered BRAIN DEAD if the brain
activity totally stops functioning

ORGAN TRANSPLANT
 To save a life of another person without
damaging the life of the donor.
 But with the consent of either the patient or the
relative beforehand
 Should NOT CAUSE DEATH
 Should NOT endanger the LIFE OF THE
DONOR
 Should help to PROLONG THE LIFE OF THE
RECEIVER
 But MORALLY speaking, the donor should
CONSENT
 Because your body is not a property and thus
you cannot make evil act good just to survive.

VACCINE
 On the use of Embryo