FOUNDATION IN MANAGEMENT STUDY 2015

AD 0033INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPSHY

48. Studying philosophy sharpens your analytical abilities,enabling you to identify and evaluate the strengths and

weaknesses in any position

PREPARED FOR:Prof. Madya Dr Munif Z. F. Nordin

PREPARED BY:SITI NUR SAFIYAH BINTI AHMAD

MATRIC NUMBER:

1

F00125

Table of Contents1 Introduction 3 1.1 What is Analytical abilities? 42 Content/Literature review 52.1 Definition of Critical Thinking 5

3 Analysis 8 3.1 The relationship of Philosophy and Terrorism 9 3.2 “Terrorism” from the French Revolution to the early 21st century 10 3.3 Violence and terror 114 Conclusion 145 Reference 16

2

1.0 Introduction

Many people think that philosophy is detached from reality and is

useless. In this essay I will explain why philosophy is a very

useful subject and why "studying philosophy sharpens your

analytical abilities, enabling you to identify and evaluate the

strengths and weaknesses in any position.”

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems,

such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge,

values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished

from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical,

generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational

argument. In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can

refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an

individual or group". (Wikipedia)

In Greek, "philosophy" means "love of wisdom." Philosophy is

based on rational argument and appeal to facts. The history of

the modern sciences begins with philosophical inquiries, and the

scientific method of experimentation and proof remains an

instance of the general approach that a philosopher tries to

3

bring to a question: one that is logical and rigorous. However,

while today the sciences focus on specialized inquiries in

restricted domains, the questions addressed by philosophy remain

the most general and most basic, the issues that underlie the

sciences and stand at the base of a world-view.

Philosophic thought is an inescapable part of human

existence. Almost everyone has been puzzled from time to time by

such essentially philosophic questions as "What does life mean?"

"Did I have any existence before I was born?" and "Is there life

after death?" Most people also have some kind of philosophy in

the sense of a personal outlook on life. Even a person who claims

that considering philosophic questions is a waste of time is

expressing what is important, worthwhile, or valuable. A

rejection of all philosophy is in itself philosophy.

By studying philosophy, people can clarify what they

believe, and they can be stimulated to think about ultimate

questions. A person can study philosophers of the past to

discover why they thought as they did and what value their

thoughts may have in one's own life. There are people who simply

enjoy reading the great philosophers, especially those who were

also great writers.

1.1 Analytical Abilities

Analytical Abilities is the skill to visualize, articulate,

and solve both complex and uncomplicated problems and concepts

and make decisions that are sensible and based on available

4

information. Such skills include demonstration of the ability to

apply logical thinking to gathering and analyzing information,

designing and testing solutions to problems, and formulating

plans. (Wikipedia)

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally.

It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent

thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the

following:

understand the logical connections between ideas

identify, construct and evaluate arguments

detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning

solve problems systematically

identify the relevance and importance of ideas

reflect on the justification of one's own beliefs and values

Critical thinking is not a matter of accumulating information. A

person with a good memory and who knows a lot of facts is not

necessarily good at critical thinking. A critical thinker is able

to deduce consequences from what he knows, and he knows how to

make use of information to solve problems, and to seek relevant

sources of information to inform himself.

Critical thinking should not be confused with being argumentative

or being critical of other people. Although critical thinking

skills can be used in exposing fallacies and bad reasoning,

critical thinking can also play an important role in cooperative

reasoning and constructive tasks. Critical thinking can help us

5

acquire knowledge, improve our theories, and strengthen

arguments. We can use critical thinking to enhance work processes

and improve social institutions.

2.0 Content

Educators have long been aware of the importance of critical

thinking skills as an outcome of student learning. More recently,

the Partnership for 21st Century Skills has identified critical

thinking as one of several learning and innovation skills

necessary to prepare students for post-secondary education and

the workforce. In addition, the newly created Common Core State

Standards reflect critical thinking as a cross-disciplinary skill

vital for college and employment. Despite widespread recognition

of its importance, there is a notable lack of consensus regarding

the definition of critical thinking. The purposes of this

literature review are to (a) explore the ways in which critical

thinking has been defined by researchers, (b) investigate how

critical thinking develops (c) learn how teachers can encourage

the development of critical thinking skills in their students,

and (d) review best practices in assessing critical thinking

skills.

2.1 Definition of Critical Thinking

6

Theoretical Background

The literature on critical thinking has roots in two primary

academic disciplines:

Philosophy and psychology (Lewis & Smith, 1993). Sternberg (1986)

has also noted a third

Critical thinking strand within the field of education. These

separate academic strands have

developed different approaches to defining critical thinking that

reflect their respective concerns.

Each of these approaches is explored more fully below.

The philosophical approach.

The writings of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and more recently,

Matthew Lipman and

Richard Paul, exemplify the philosophical approach. This approach

focuses on the hypothetical

critical thinker, enumerating the qualities and characteristics

of this person rather than the

behaviors or actions the critical thinker can perform (Lewis &

Smith, 1993; Thayer-Bacon,

2000). Sternberg (1986) has noted that this school of thought

approaches the critical thinker as an

7

ideal type, focusing on what people are capable of doing under

the best of circumstances.

Accordingly, Richard Paul (1992) discusses critical thinking in

the context of “perfections of

thought” (p. 9). This preoccupation with the ideal critical

thinker is evident in the American

Philosophical Association’s consensus portrait of the ideal

critical thinker as someone who is

inquisitive in nature, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded, has a

desire to be well-informed,

understands diverse viewpoints, and is willing to both suspend

judgment and to consider other

perspectives (Facione, 1990).

Those working within the philosophical tradition also emphasize

qualities or standards of

thought. For example, Bailin (2002) defines critical thinking as

thinking of a particular quality—

essentially good thinking that meets specified criteria or

standards of adequacy and accuracy.

Further, the philosophical approach has traditionally focused on

the application of formal rules of

logic (Lewis & Smith, 1993; Sternberg, 1986). One limitation of

this approach to defining

8

critical thinking is that it does not always correspond to

reality (Sternberg, 1986). By

emphasizing the ideal critical thinker and what people have the

capacity to do, this approach may

have less to contribute to discussions about how people actually

think.

Definitions of critical thinking emerging from the philosophical

tradition include

“the propensity and skill to engage in an activity with

reflective skepticism” (McPeck, 1981, p. 8);

“reflective and reasonable thinking that is focused on

deciding what to believe or do” (Ennis, 1985, p. 45);

“skillful, responsible thinking that facilitates good

judgment because it 1) relies upon criteria, 2) is self-

correcting, and 3) is sensitive to context” (Lipman, 1988,

p. 39);

“purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in

interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as

well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual,

methodological, criteriological, or conceptual

considerations upon which that judgment is based” (Facione,

1990, p. 3);

9

“disciplined, self-directed thinking that exemplifies the

perfections of thinking appropriate to a particular mode or

domain of thought” (Paul, 1992, p. 9);

thinking that is goal-directed and purposive, “thinking

aimed at forming a judgment,” where the thinking itself

meets standards of adequacy and accuracy (Bailin et al.,

1999b, p. 287); and

“Judging in a reflective way what to do or what to believe”

(Facione, 2000, p. 61).

10

3.0 Analysis

How can by studying philosophy we can have Analytical abilities?

Philosophy is a studies of seeking the answer, to seek the answer

we see that Critical thinking skills are highly related to logic

(a philosophical domain), which is the study of proper reasoning.

That is because the main idea of critical thinking is to reason

well. The critical thinking classes taught by philosophers teach

students about logic in addition to providing practice problems

that can improve their critical thinking skills.

Why critical thinking?

1. Critical thinking is a higher-level cognitive skill which

lecturers look for in a university student. When you are

completing your assignments (essay, reports, presentations,

exams), you have to give evidence of critical thinking .Go beyond

simple description and make sure you evaluate by weighing up the

pros and cons, the strengths and weaknesses of any argument.

2. Critical thinking gives you an intellectual approach that

enables you to select from the available information that which

is relevant to you and which you most agree with ( example what

is the most up-to-date information, who is the most respected

person in that area, what is the most credible source)

11

So by having a good and matured critical thinking,

then we are able to identifying and evaluate the strength and

weaknesses in any situation. Meaning to say, Analytical abilities

is improving our critical thinking.

Philosophy is the sources of knowledge, Philosophy is

also an activity of thought. Nothing is wrong in philosophy and

every question that come out must have a reason You can ask

whatever question you want and answer them yourself and it will

never seen as a wrong answer as its the philosophy. Why is that

the answer? Is there other answer?

The best way to study philosophy is to approach it as

a police investigation: follow every trail, clue and implication,

in order to discover who is a murderer and who is a hero. The

investigation criterion is in these two questions: Why? And how?

Whether a given proposition seems fair - why? If another argument

seems wrong - why? And how could I believe?

3.1 The relationship of Philosophy and Terrorism

Before the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11

September 2001, the subject of terrorism did not loom large in

philosophical discussion. Philosophical literature in English

amounted to a few monographs and a single collection of papers

devoted solely, or largely, to questions to do with terrorism.

Articles on the subject in philosophy journals were few and far

between; neither of the two major philosophy encyclopedias had an

12

entry. The attacks of September 11 and their aftermath put

terrorism on the philosophical agenda: it is now the topic of

numerous books, journal articles, special journal issues, and

conferences.

While social sciences study the causes, main varieties, and

consequences of terrorism and history traces and attempts to

explain the way terrorism has evolved over time, philosophy

focuses on two fundamental—and related—questions. The first is

conceptual: What is terrorism? The second is moral: Can terrorism

ever be morally justified?

Philosophers have offered a range of positions on both

questions. With regard to the problem of defining terrorism, the

dominant approach seeks to acknowledge the core meaning

“terrorism” has in common use. Terrorism is understood as a type

of violence. Many definitions highlight the experience of terror

or fear as the proximate aim of that violence. Neither violence

nor terror is inflicted for its own sake, but rather for the sake

of a further aim such as coercion, or some more specific

political objective. But there are also definitions that sever

the conceptual connection of terrorism with violence or with

terror. With regard to the moral standing of terrorism,

philosophers differ both on how that is to be determined and what

the determination is. Consequentialists propose to judge

13

terrorism, like everything else, in light of its consequences.

Nonconsequentialists argue that its moral status is not simply a

matter of what consequences, on balance, terrorism has, but is

rather determined, whether solely or largely, by what it is.

Positions on the morality of terrorism range from justification

when its consequences on balance are good, or when some

deontological moral requirements are satisfied, to its absolute,

or almost absolute, rejection.

3.2 “Terrorism” from the French Revolution to the early 21st

century

When it first entered public discourse in the West, the word

“terrorism” meant the reign of terror the Jacobins imposed in

France from the fall of 1793 to the summer of 1794. Its ultimate

aim was the reshaping of both society and human nature. That was

to be achieved by destroying the old regime, suppressing all

enemies of the revolutionary government, and inculcating and

enforcing civic virtue. A central role in attaining these

objectives was accorded to revolutionary tribunals which had wide

authority, were constrained by very few rules of procedure, and

saw their task as carrying out revolutionary policy rather than

meting out legal justice of the more conventional sort. They went

after “enemies of the people”, actual or potential, proven or

suspected; the law on the basis of which they were operating

“enumerated just who the enemies of the people might be in terms

14

so ambiguous as to exclude no one” (Carter 1989: 142). The

standard punishment was death. Trials and executions were meant

to strike terror in the hearts of all who lacked civic virtue;

the Jacobins believed that was a necessary means of consolidating

the new regime. This necessity provided both the rationale of the

reign of terror and its moral justification. As Robespierre put

it, terror was but “an emanation of virtue”; without it, virtue

remained impotent. Accordingly, the Jacobins applied the term to

their own actions and policies quite unabashedly, without any

negative connotations.

Yet the term “terrorism” and its cognates soon took on very

strong negative connotations. Critics of the excesses of the

French Revolution had watched its reign with horror from the

start. Terrorism came to be associated with drastic abuse of

power and related to the notion of tyranny as rule based on fear,

a recurring theme in political philosophy.

In the second half of the 19th century, there was a shift in both

descriptive and evaluative meaning of the term. Disillusioned

with other methods of political struggle, some anarchist and

other revolutionary organizations, and subsequently some

nationalist groups too, took to political violence. They had come

to the conclusion that words were not enough, and what was called

for were deeds: extreme, dramatic deeds that would strike at the

heart of the unjust, oppressive social and political order,

15

generate fear and despair among its supporters, demonstrate its

vulnerability to the oppressed, and ultimately force political

and social change. This was “propaganda by the deed”, and the

deed was for the most part assassination of royalty or highly

placed government officials. Unlike the Jacobins' reign of

terror, which operated in a virtually indiscriminate way, this

type of terrorism—as both advocates and critics called it—was

largely employed in a highly discriminate manner. This was

especially true of Russian revolutionary organizations such as

People's Will or Socialist Revolutionary Party (SR): they held

that it was morally justified to assassinate a government

official only if his complicity in the oppressive regime was

significant enough for him to deserve to die, and the

assassination would make an important contribution to the

struggle. Their violence steered clear of other, uninvolved or

insufficiently involved persons. Some instances of “propaganda by

the deed” carried out by French and Spanish anarchists in the

1880s and 1890s were indiscriminate killings of common citizens;

but that was an exception, rather than the rule. The perpetrators

and some of those sympathetic to their cause claimed those acts

were nevertheless morally legitimate, whether as retribution

(exacted on the assumption that no member of the ruling class was

innocent) or as a means necessary for the overthrow of the unjust

order. Accordingly, in their parlance, too, the term “terrorism”

implied no censure. When used by others, it conveyed a strong

condemnation of the practice.

16

3.3 Violence and terror

The evaluative meaning of “terrorism” has shifted

considerably more than once. So has its descriptive meaning, but

to a lesser degree. Whatever else the word may have meant, its

ordinary use over more than two centuries has typically indicated

two things: violence and intimidation (the causing of great fear

or terror, terrorizing). The dominant approach to the conceptual

question in philosophical literature reflects this. Terrorism is

usually understood as a type of violence. This violence is not

blind or sadistic, but rather aims at intimidation and at some

further political, social, or religious goal or, more broadly, at

coercion.

That is how (political) “terrorism” is defined by Per Bauhn in the first philosophical

book-length study in English:

The performance of violent acts, directed against one or more persons, intended by the

performing agent to intimidate one or more persons and thereby to bring about one or

more of the agent's political goals (Bauhn 1989: 28).

Another good example of a mainstream definition is provided in

C.A.J. Coady's article on terrorism in the Encyclopedia of

Ethics:

17

The tactic of intentionally targeting non-combatants [or non-combatant property, when

significantly related to life and security] with lethal or severe violence … meant to

produce political results via the creation of fear (Coady 2001: 1697).

Yet another example is the definition proposed by Igor Primoratz:

The deliberate use of violence, or threat of its use, against

innocent people, with the aim of intimidating some other people

into a course of action they otherwise would not take (Primoratz

2013: 24).

These definitions put aside both the question of who the

actor is and the question of what their ultimate objectives are,

and focus on what is done and what the proximate aim of doing it

is. They present terrorism as a way of acting that could be

adopted by different agents and serve various ultimate objectives

(most, but perhaps not all of them, political). It can be

employed by states or by non-state agents, and may promote

national liberation or oppression, revolutionary or conservative

causes (and possibly pursue some nonpolitical aims as well). One

can be a terrorist and a freedom fighter; terrorism is not the

monopoly of enemies of freedom. One can hold high government or

military office and design or implement a terrorist campaign;

terrorism is not the preserve of insurgents. In this way much of

the relativism concerning who is and who is not a terrorist that

has plagued contemporary public debate (see 1.1.4 above) can be

overcome.

18

Beyond concurring that violence and intimidation constitute

the core of terrorism, the definitions quoted above differ in

several respects. Does only actual violence count, or do threats

of violence also qualify? Must terrorist violence be directed

against life and limb, or does violence against (some) property

also count? Does terrorism always seek to attain some political

goal, or can there be non-political (e.g. criminal) terrorism?

All these points are minor. There is also one major difference:

while Coady and Primoratz define terrorism as violence against

non-combatants or innocent people, respectively, Bauhn's

definition includes no such restriction. Definitions of the

former type can be termed “narrow”, and those of the latter sort

“wide”. Philosophical literature on terrorism abounds in

instances of both types.

19

4.0 Conclusion

Conclusion, Philosophy is a good thing, because it helps people

to think more clearly. Philosophy helps people to understand the

world and the way people act and think. Philosophers believe that

asking philosophical questions is useful because it brings wisdom

and helps people to learn about the world and each other. Some

philosophers might even argue that the question "Is philosophy

good or bad?" is a philosophical question itself.

However, some people think that philosophy is

harmful, as philosophy encourages free-thinking and often

questions the beliefs that others hold. For example, philosophies

such as some existentialist views say that there is no meaning to

20

life or human existence, except the meaning that we make up or

invent. People from some religions do not agree with the beliefs

of existentialism.

It should be noted that every major science, including

physics, biology, and chemistry are all disciplines that

originally were considered philosophy. As speculation and

analysis about nature became more developed, these subjects

branched away. This is a process that continues even today;

psychology only split in the past century. In our own time,

subjects such as consciousness studies, decision theory, and

applied ethics have increasingly found independence from

philosophy as a whole. Because of this, philosophy seems useful

because it makes new kinds of science.

Philosophy is important because “A philosophic system

is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no

choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only

choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious,

rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical

deliberation -- or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap

of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined

contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts

and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your

subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a

single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the

place where your mind's wings should have grown.” by Ayn Rand,

Philosophy: Who Needs It

21

For more general reasons, you can learn critical

thinking skills and also reflect on big questions in life - in

ethics, religion, aesthetics, politics and other valuble

subjects. The history of philosophy is a record of people's

attempts to combine these skills and questions in hopes of

obtaining some answers.

22

Reference

Primoratz, Igor. "Terrorism." Stanford University. Stanford

University, 22 Oct. 2007. Web. 23 Jan. 2015.

Moore, Brooke Noel, and Richard Parker.Critical Thinking. 8th ed.

Boston: McGraw Hill, 2007. Print.

Webspace.ship.edu,. 'Socrates, Plato, And Aristotle'. N.p., 2009.

R.Lai, Emily. (2011). Critical thinking Retrieved from

http//:images.pearsonassessments.com/.../CriticalThinkingReviewFI

NAL.pdf

23