observation.
Mathematics can be said as the
Unlike the empirical sciences however, there are
certain statements in the real world that have this
immunity. They are the statements on the matter
of pure reason – that is, you cannot disprove a an
instance of logical fact even through manipulation
and experimentation, nor is it disprovable by
finding other examples through experience. The
arithmetic statement 2 + 2 will, and always be 4,
no matter what.
The field of mathematics deals on matter that is
based on pure reason, or that may only seem the
case.
Case 1:
How do we know that 2+2 = 4?
· 2 trees and 2 more trees results to 4 trees
right?
· Is 2+2 = 4 a generalization from experience?
· Does the sum of 2+2 change when we do it in
certain conditions?
· Does 2+2 not equal to 4 in some other world?
The arithmetic 2+2 = 4 is something we learn; we
were not born knowing it. However, unlike other
things we learned, like Newton’s Laws of Motion as
a law of nature, 2+2 = 4 is an eternal truth, like the
Law of Noncontradiction and the Principle of Logic.
Mathematics consists of necessary truths. It
cannot be disproved to say otherwise.
Case 2:
In any context, does 2 and 2 always make
4? Is arithmetic true in all cases?
· Why won’t 2 halves of an orange together
equal to 4 halves of an orange?
· Don’t 2 sharks and 2 fishes in the same tank
equal to 4 aquatic animals?
· How can 1 solitary body cell eventually become
4 cells?
· How did 2 ice cubes and 2 more ice cubes
become 0 ice cubes?
These examples being said, how can arithmetic be
necessary if they aren’t true in all cases when
observation often shows them to be false? While
these may be true, 2 + 2 will always be 4.
Arithmetic does not tell us why 2 halves of an
orange not equal to 4 halves of it, nor why 2 sharks
and 2 fishes eventually result to only 2 animals, nor
how a singular cell can suddenly become 5,000,000
cells. It only tells us that at that specific
instance/moment, 2 and 2 is 4, which is a fact of
logic and pure reason. It doesn’t tell us why ice
melts. Therefore, it cannot be disproved by
arithmetic truth of a moment of time.
How do we distinguish Statements about Nature
from Statements about Numbers?
*Consider the case of “two apples”. When
we say two apples…
=Does it matter when we talk about
apples? Oranges? Vegetables? Jollibee? Aliens?
Elon Musk and his quiet leaf blowers? Avengers:
Endgame spoilers? El Chupacabra?
Ø If it does, then it is a Statement about Nature.
Ø If it does not, and ONLY talks about numbers (of
apples), then it is a Statement about Numbers.
In any case of reality, Arithmetic remains
untouched and absolute. If you happen to be
counting how many trees you pass by on the way
to AS (Palma Hall), you see 2 in front and 2 in back
then you tried to count them all together but
suddenly end up with 5, this does not disprove the
truth of 2+2 = 4. If you happened to add 2 and 2 but
end up with 5, then you must have included
another tree that you saw.
Other necessary truths examples:
1. Nothing can be red all over and green all over
at the same time.
Ø Red is red and green is green.
Ø An object can be red and green striped or be
covered in another color that is a mix of red and
green.
Ø However, an all red object cannot be green and
vice versa; being red excludes the color green.
Ø Just because an object is both red and hard, does
not mean it can be both red and green.
Ø The presence of an all-red fills the characteristic
of color, but not the quality of being “hard”,
therefore an object can also be green and hard.
(*Principle of Determinables)
2. Two things can’t be at the same time at the
same place.
Ø Two objects crashing into each other does not
mean there are two objects on the same place at
the same time.
Ø Rather, two colliding objects tried to be on the
same space, but now one object occupies a portion
of space previously occupied by a portion of the
other, while both objects still being physically and
fundamentally separate from each other.
Ø If two candles are melted to become a singular
candle, that doesn’t mean there are two things in
the same place, rather the two candles fused
together to become in one place but in terms of its
matter composition, the molecules of the first
candle are still separate and different from the
second candle, it’s just that their molecules lie on
top of each other and technically not occupying the
“same place”.
3. One thing can’t be in two different places in
the same time.
Ø When there are two objects which, say both
have the same exact appearance, dimensions,
composition, and other qualities, and they are both
at different places at the same time, they are two
spatially different objects – even though they are
essentially the same object.
Ø If for example, genetic cloning was perfect, and
there are two instances of the same essential
person of same, appearance, genetic
configuration, way of thinking, sufferings from
acads, etc., they are still two different individuals
because they both occupy different “spaces”.
4. If A can be B, that does not necessarily mean
B can be A.
Ø If the qualities of object B encloses the qualities
that can be found in object A, then all instances of
A can be B, but not all B can be A.
Ø If a circle can also be an ellipse, then all instances
of circles can be defined also in terms of the
qualities of ellipses, but the inverse can’t be true,
since ellipses can’t be circles.
Ø If a square can also be a rectangle, then all
instances of squares can be defined also in terms
of the qualities of a rectangle, but the inverse can’t
be true, since rectangles can’t be squares. Both of
them, however, are quadrilaterals, meaning they
can be defined in terms of the qualities of a
quadrilateral, but not all quadrilaterals can be
defined in terms of the qualities of a square or a
rectangle.
Ø A description of an object can also fit the
description of another object as long as the
description of the first object is a subset of the
description of the second object.
*The Principle of Determinables says that you can’t
have more than one determinate (instance of a
characteristic) at the same time under the same
determinable (quality/category of characteristic)
According to Kant, there is a way to know
whether something is certain or not. There are two
kinds of judgments for this.
● Analytic judgment/proposition
○ takes the form “All A is A”, the predicate
repeats all or part of what was already in the
subject (e.g. all bachelors are bachelors, all
bachelors are unmarried)
○ can also take the form “All AB is B”, only a
defining characteristic, not the whole
definition, appears in the predicate (e.g. all
triangles have three sides)
● Synthetic judgment/proposition
○ takes the form “All A is B”, predicate says
something over and above what was in the
subject (e.g. all bachelors are tall)
The “certainty” we derive after examining
such judgments could be categorized into:
● A priori truth
○ something that can be known
“independently of experience”
○ we need only to know the meaning of words
to know whether they’re true
● A posteriori truth
○ knowable only after experiencing it
○ can be proven and disproven by experience
+ Analytic propositions are a priori. Statements
that are a posteriori are synthetic.
Aside from a priori and a posteriori, Kant proposed
a third category.
Synthetic a priori
❖ A statement that is true independent of
experience yet gives us knowledge of the world
outside language.
“How is synthetic a priori possible?”
➢ We ordinarily believe that our knowledge
“must conform to the way things are.” It is also
true that “objects must conform to our
knowledge.”
➢ The world as we perceive it through our senses
and understand it through our reason must be
adapted to our mode of perception and
cognition.
➢ It is not the world “as it is in itself” that we
perceive, but as it is filtered through our senses
and our understanding.
➢ We do not look at the world, specifically space
and time, as something with other possible
alternatives. We come to it with the postulate
that whatever it contains shall be in three-
dimensional space and that whatever events
occur shall take place in a single time series.
➢ The world as we perceive it has spatial and
temporal character. The world as it appears to
us must then have this spatial and temporal
character.
Objections to Kant’s view:
- Arithmetical propositions as synthetic a priori
vs. analytic vs. synthetic
- Euclidean geometry as synthetic a priori vs.
empirical
- “Filtered” reality and the nature of the mind
- Noumenal world as an inference
CAUSE
> " When A is required in order for B to occur, we
won't get result B unless prior condition, A, is
fulfilled"
> What is necessary as a means toward one end
may not be for another
> Empirical vs Logical conditions
notes:
>The "home base" or home turf" of the word
"must" is in the context of command.
>The uniformities of nature were conceived as the
expression of the will of God, or of the Gods.
Constant conjunction- According to David Hume, "
A causes B" means:
1. Temporal precedence- the cause precedes the
effect
2. Contiguity in space and time- "There is no action
at a distance"
3. Necessary connection- the cause and effect are
necessarily connected; that if the cause occurs, the
effect must occur, it cannot but occur
>We never observe that one event must follow
another but only that it does in fact follow another
> According to Hume, in every case we have to wait
and see what happens; we cannot say in advance
of experience what will happen.
> Certain regular sequences have been observed
through thousands of cases; it is this experience
that makes us to claim about what causes what.
Person- to- person causality
>It is different when people are the causes of their
own inner states
>People have an inner experience of power
Necessary and sufficient condition
> Mill vs Hume, Mill said that there are many
regularities that aren't causal
Regularity in terms of:
1. Necessary condition- A is a necessary condition
for B, so if condition B does not occur, then
condition A would not have occurred
2. Sufficient condition- for every event there is a set
of condition that were sufficient to produce it,
otherwise it would not have occurred
- To state what is the cause of an occurrence is to
enumerate this whole set of conditions
3. Plurality of causes- Sometimes, the same general
type of effect can be brought about but different
means
THE CAUSAL PRINCIPLE
Causal Principle or Determinism- to believe that
everything that happens in the universe has a
cause
a. Theological determinism
b. Scientific determinism
c. Mechanism determinism
Challenges faced by the Causal Principle
1. Is the principle immune to refutation?
2. A rule, not a proposition?
3. Back to the empirical interpretation
FREEDOM
● We have freedom in various degrees and
various aspects
● No human being is THAT free. Our
freedom is limited
● “Slaves to our genes”
● -we are free to perform those actions
that we can perform by choosing to do
them
● - but also, we are free from many things--
restrictions on freedom are the result of
the actions of others
● - Freedom from: negative freedom
We are not free from the dictates of
other if we are coerced by others
Restrictions: inner compulsions over
which we have no control
● “You don’t have a free choice because the
alternatives were forced upon you; you
were not free from his coercion therefore
your freedom is limited”
● There are degrees to coercion
You are not coerced until you:
a. Believe that the threat is genuine
b. She has the power and will to carry it out
c. The threatened loss to make you do as
ordered
 CHANCE
● Coercion an ambiguous word that for determinists, implies
External Constraint - constraint by others no such thing of indeterminism
(a) Coincidence-the occurrence of two or more
events with no causal relationship
Internal Constraint - unable to control
-but one could happen without the other
within oneself; helpless
(b) Ignorance of causes- occurrences with no
known causes or with a lot of factors on which the
● People untrained in psychology have a outcome depends
little understanding of the extent to (c) Mathematical probability- calculated, with
which inner compulsions occur mathematical formula
● “The free-will problem” -ignorant of the actual past
● Conclusion: freedom is an behavior/frequencies and relevant factors
illusion and that in fact no one is (d) Statistical probability- calculated
ever free based upon past frequencies
● All of our actions are determined (e) No cause- impossible in ordinary life
by prior conditions
FATALISM DETERMINISM AS INCOMPATIBLE WITH
FREEDOM
● Whatever happens is “fated” to happen
● No different outcomes from what it did: it
was all fated to happen Determinism
● People are seldom fatalists with regard to
the immediate future; more likely to be
As viewed by As viewed by
fatalistic about long-term outcomes over
which they have no control indeterminists determinists
● Not only that we can change them but
John Locke's “the inner Events are
they are in some way “fated” to happen
springs of action” determined by
● Predestination: everything that happens
is divinely predestined to happen; God’s “People feel that they are previously existing
will originating their actions but causes; in each case
● Determinism: whatever happens has actually they’re no more there is causation
some cause or other free than the hands of the
clock. Their acts are
INDETERMINISM inevitable products of prior
● Not all events have causes conditions.”
● WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU may be the
result of prior conditions *With Earth’s first Clay They did * Rubáiyát of Omar
● WHAT YOU DO may be influenced by the Last Man knead, Khayyám- confusing
prior conditions but it is not determined And then of the Last Harvest reference of “last
by them sow’d the Seed:
dawn of reckoning”
Yea, the first Morning of
> Freedom: I caused my actions. to God and fate’s
Creation wrote
What the Last Dawn of
reckoning
> Determinism: My actions are caused by Reckoning shall read.
me. Inevitable product-
* Rubáiyát of Omar a category where
PREDICTABILITY Khayyám- pessimistic things that can be
● Indeterminist: Human actions can never suspicion that everything is avoided and those
be predicted. Some human events are not predestined; that cannot be are
entirely caused by past events or lumped
conditions.
Final event is inevitable
● Determinists: All events, including human
action, have their causal roots in the past.
 Cannot achieve freedom Freedom is
because life is linear; there’s achieved if actions
no alternative are done out of free
will; not coerced

C → D →E C → D → E
▲ ▲
Causal factors i.e.
will power,
encouragement,
praise, blame,
advice, attempted
influences, etc.

Complex network C-1, C-2, Controlled C-1, C-2,

C-3 → inevitable E C-3 → desired E

J.L Austin:
Consider the case where I miss a very short putt
and kick myself because I could have holed it. It is
not that I should have holed if I had tried: I did try,
and missed. It is not that I should have holed it if
conditions had been different: that might of course
be so, but I am talking about conditions as they
precisely were, and asserting that I could have
holed it."

Free will
-admit responsibility for your actions
-“Power to choose” -Locke

Theory of agency
-attempt to reconcile determinism with freedom
-for an act to be free, it must be caused by an
agent