Critical Thinking

Five people, A, B, C, D, E speak simultaneously. A says that B is lying. B says that C is lying. C says that D is lying. D says that E is lying. E says that all of the others, A, B, C, and D are lying. Who is lying and who is telling the truth? Briefly explain your answer.

            Everybody lies. Since all people ascertain that the person they are addressing do not tell the truth it follow that the five people are all lying. In this case, E can be assumed as the only person that tells the truth since everybody else is named lying other than E. It can also be assumed that A, the only person that is not named to be lying, can be telling the truth. But E the last person, names all five people to be lying. Basing from this precept, it can be concluded that all five people can be considered to be lying or all of them are telling the truth, since everybody is lying telling the other that they are lying, then it presupposes the argument that everybody is telling the truth about everybody telling a lie. In a metaphysical sense, everybody can be considered lying since there is no conception of what can be construed as true. Deception falls with every person that readily assumes person A, B, C, D, or E is lying. The reader cannot take for granted the words that every person is trying to say since there is no concept of truth.

A person remarks: “That girl’s father is my father’s only son.” Assume that the person is correct. What can be correctly inferred about the relationship between the speaker and the girl referred to? Briefly explain your answer.

            The girl is the speaker’s niece since the girl’s father is the speaker’s brother. However, it can be inferred from the problem that speaker must be a woman/girl since the argument dictates that the father has only one son. The statement does not necessarily dictate that the girl’s father only has one child but rather only has one son.

B

2

3

A

You are presented with four cards like those above and told that each card has a symbol on each side. How many cards must you flip to determine the truth or falsity of the claim that if there is an odd numeral on one side of a card, then there is a vowel on the other. Which cards must you flip?

            Two cards should be flipped. Either card number three or the card labelled with the letter A. If cards two and three follow four and five in the succeeding cards then, card number three should contain a vowel either E, I, O, or U. Card A also can either posses an odd or even number if it follows that the pattern of numbers follow that of cards two and three.

Logic

Captain Power will either carry the car or hire a towing service. Captain Power cannot carry a car. Therefore, Captain Power will hire a towing service.

            The logic is correct yet remains a fallacy. In the first premise, the argument contains the word ‘either’ which connotes that the statement is not universally true and therefore cannot be accepted. In logic, arguments must contain a thesis which presupposes an argument or problem. In this case, the problem is superficial as per the use of either. There is also no connection to that of the antithesis and the syntheses (second and final premise) for the arguments are merely speculations rather than verifiable truth or fact. In addition, there is already presumption on the persona of Captain Power as a being possessing superhuman strength. The whole premise is infallible since the antithesis declares that Captain Power cannot carry a car, which contradicts his assumed nature. The whole argument is incoherent and incorrect.

No liberals are protectionists. No protectionists are progressive. Therefore, No liberals are progressive.

            In the context of syllogism, this argument is incorrect since the first and second premise contradicts each other with a double negative wherein there is no proof that liberals are not protectionists. There is also no universal truth on the preceding arguments especially on the notion of protectionists and liberals. There is also no proof that liberals can be protectionists or protectionists can be progressive. The form of logic is correct, but the statements are merely used to prove that liberals and protectionists are not progressive.

They that are of God hear God’s words. Ye are not of God. Therefore, Ye hear them not.

            There is no proof or criteria that a person or individual can be of God. There is no defined structure on what it is to be ‘of god’ or the terms to be called ‘of god’. The second argument states that those who are of God hear his words and those that are of not God do not hear them. The syllogism is correct. However, there is a much more deeper explanation and understanding than the given concept of logic. How can a person be of God? Does it necessarily mean that to be not ‘of God’ means that there is already

This argument is invalid. Therefore, this argument is invalid.

            This statement needs proof in order to be invalid. In addition, there is also no antithesis to negate the first premise of the argument. It immediately concludes that the argument is invalid in the synthesis or the final premise. Also, the first premise cannot necessarily dictate the end result of the synthesis since the whole argument lacks an antithesis.

None but the brave deserves the fair. Adrian is brave. Therefore Adrian deserves the fair.

            Again, there is no universality in the first premise. Does it necessitate that only the brave deserves the fair? This syllogism is also similar to that of the succeeding ones wherein, there is no validity in the claims of the first premise or there is no second premise to contradict the thesis, which gives false conclusions in the synthesis.

Does knowledge require belief?

            Yes. To believe in something means that the individual accepts a cognitive interpretation of something to prove as true. For example, the statement: “I believe that the apple is red” means that there affirmation with the statement ‘the apple is red.’ This is one of the problems in epistemology. To believe in a claim or proposition means that one knows the claim to be true. Belief becomes knowledge if belief itself is true. Also, the philosopher Plato argues that there is justified true belief wherein the believer has justification or evidence for it to be true. This is relation to the pre-Socratic attempt on the use of rationality or logos to adequately explain the whole nature and order of the universe. In addition, false belief cannot be considered knowledge, even if the believer is sincere in his belief. Also, truth cannot be knowledge if there is no one who believes in it. It also follows that to believe is to know.

Does belief require understanding? What can be said on this subject about religious belief? About philosophical belief?

            Belief requires understanding, especially on the notion of justified belief. The doctrine of rationality necessitates knowledge to be known through the use of reason; that everything, in order to be true, must be proven or tested. Philosophical belief revolves around different method such as the cognitive aspect of the human mind or the innate ideas that give belief. On a philosophical standpoint, belief requires understanding because belief necessitates the individual in deriving truths in statements, arguments and standpoints. On religious belief on the other hand, there is a constant misconception that religious belief does not necessitate understanding since belief, in itself, is a already a guarantee for a person to know. There are arguments, especially on the doctrines of Catholicism wherein understanding is equated with faith. Faith on the other hand, is not at all similar to understanding since faith requires the individual to have faith without understanding how or why. There are also contradictions with faith, religion and certain philosophical systems like rationalism and empiricism. These philosophical systems rely on proofs and evidence in order for an object or concept to be considered true. One of the problems of religion, science and philosophy is on the notion of the existence of God. Strict Catholic doctrine decrees that God exists and is necessitated by his own purpose that is the creation of the universe and mankind. Philosophical explanations however, does not necessarily believe in the existence of an singular, anthropomorphic God that is responsible for the actions of individuals but rather a metaphysical identity that is the primary mover of all things that move. Science needs empirical proof in order, not only to know, but also to prove that there is a God.

            The notion of understanding and belief is widely tackled among other systems of thought especially on religious and philosophical belief. The problem on religious belief is that it contradicts with other philosophical methods of acquiring certain truths. Religious belief does not require understanding; it requires faith. Philosophical doctrines would disagree however, since understanding entails a rational belief supported by evidence. Religious and philosophical belief are two different systems of thought that has respective methods in acquiring truths.

Why do we postpone death?

            Death is nothing to be afraid of. Most people are afraid of death because they view it merely as an end of life with no more continuation. There is an irrational fear about death since there a number of ideas and images that portray death to be painful, fearful and horrible. But we cannot be fearful of what we do not experience. We postpone death out of fear. People would prefer to live longer because there is a deluded notion that life is better than death. Thus people resort to measures that oftentimes defy the natural order of life itself in order to live longer. A human person faces the inevitable, that sooner or later, one is going to die from the mortal world. Man is a being-unto-death, that is the final end is man itself and death does nothing but to separate itself from the worldly, mortal suffering. The fear comes in the individuals are afraid to face death alone. To die means that the individual has to face it alone since there can be no help when a person dies, only comfort by loved ones.

            To face death is to face the inevitable. Death is a possibility that cannot be avoided, cheated, or overcome. Death also remains indefinite for we do not know when we would die, where, or when. Life itself is not certain for we could lose our life in an instant. There are no guarantees that one can live forever, let alone postpone death. According to philosopher Martin Heidegger, death individuates man (Heidegger, 1962, n.p). When we have come to realize that death is indeed is an indefinite possibility, we enable ourselves to make authentic choices and renounce past actions in order to create a definite future. It means that these choices can be the betterment of lives or relationships and seeking redemption from past actions. To calmly face death is the ultimate self-realization for man, that there is nothing to fear. After all, the nature of death is unknown, and to die means that the person has the chance to know its true essence.

References

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. San Francisco, Calif: HarperSanFrancisco.

Soccio, D. (2007). Archetypes of Wisdom:an Introduction to Philosophy. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.