INTRODUCTION TO THE
PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN
PERSON
MET # 2. Methods of Philosophizing
Lesson 2: Truth and Opinion
Chunk 1
The Complexity of Truth and Jürgen Habermas’
Three Domains of Truth
Tell me if it’s TRUE or FALSE
• The sun rises in the west.
• Chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream.
• Lying is always wrong.
Imagine this:
A friend says, ‘I was hurt by what you said.’
You reply, ‘But I was only telling the truth!’
Now, ask yourself: Which truth matters more—what you
meant or how it was received?
The twist:
Why are some answers easy to agree on, and others seem
to depend on opinion or belief?
• That’s because not all truths are the same. It’s complex, and
German philosopher Jürgen Habermas developed a theory that
helps us understand this better through Three Domains of Truth
in communication.
• Today, we’ll explore the Three Domains of Truth — a key
concept in understanding how people view reality, belief, and
values.
Habermas’ Three Domains of Truth
Habermas was a 20th-century German philosopher known
for his work in communication and society. He proposed
that when we make a statement, we are not only describing
reality — we are also making three types of claims at once.
Understanding these domains helps us think critically about
communication and how truth works in real-life situations.
1. Objective Truth (Factual Truth)
Definition: Habermas calls this: Claim to truth
• Truth based on observable, measurable, and verifiable
facts.
• The truthfulness or accuracy of the statement — is it factually
correct?
Example: Water boils at 100°C at sea level.
The Earth revolves around the Sun
Basis: Science, mathematics, evidence, and empirical data.
Why it's important: It helps us build knowledge that everyone can
agree on.
2. Subjective Truth (Personal Truth)
Definition: Habermas calls this: Claim to sincerity
• Truth based on personal perspectives, feelings, or
experiences.
• The speaker’s authenticity or honesty — are they being
sincere?
Example: “I feel happiest when I’m alone.”
“I’m nervous about speaking in front of the class.”
Basis: Emotions, thoughts, preferences, individual experiences.
Why it's important: It helps us understand and respect individual
experiences.
3. Normative Truth (Cultural/Moral/Religious Truth)
Definition: Habermas calls this: Claim to rightness
• Truth based on norms, values, or traditions shared by a group.
• Whether a statement aligns with shared values or social norms
— is it appropriate or acceptable in a given context?
Example: “Stealing is wrong.”
“Everyone should be treated with respect.”
Basis: Morals, religion, cultural practices, law, social agreement.
Why it's important: It shapes laws, ethics, and societal rules.
Summary Table
Domain Based On Example
Objective Facts, science, logic 2+2 = 4
Subjective Personal experience/feeling I love rainy days
Normative Beliefs, morals, culture Always respect your elders
Every time we say something, we’re making three claims at
once:
Is it true? (objective truth)
Do I mean it? (sincerity)
Is it right? (normative appropriateness)
Analyze it using Habermas' domains
“You failed because you didn’t study hard enough.”
• Is the statement factually accurate?
• Is the speaker sincere or just being mean?
• Is the statement appropriate to say in that context?
• The statement “You failed because you didn’t study
hard enough.” can be analyzed through Habermas’
Three Domains of Truth, but it primarily belongs to the
Objective Domain (Claim to Truth).
Why?
The speaker is making a factual claim about the reason for
the failure — that it was due to not studying hard enough.
Why Does This Matter?
“In a world full of social media posts, news, opinions, and
conversations, knowing that truth is complex helps us listen
better, respond wisely, and think critically.
Habermas reminds us that truth isn't just about facts—it’s
about honesty, fairness, and understanding in how we
communicate.”
Exit Question
"Why do you think it’s important to identify which domain of
truth we’re dealing with in a conversation or argument?"
Chunk 2
Four Common Fallacies
• What did you feel while watching the video?
• How do you think the world will work if we base our
decisions to our emotions all the time? Is it valid to use
your emotions to make you do unusual things?
What Are Logical Fallacies?
• Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that weaken
arguments. Even if the conclusion might seem true, a
fallacious argument uses poor logic to get there. These
fallacies often appear in everyday conversations,
debates, and media.
• This are errors in reasoning that make arguments invalid
or misleading. In philosophy, fallacies prevent us from
reaching truth and understanding the human person.
Four common logical fallacies:
• Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
• Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
• False Dilemma (Either-Or Fallacy)
• Slippery Slope
1. Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
Definition: Attacking the person instead of the argument.
Philosophical Example:
– "You can't trust what Jean-Paul Sartre said about freedom—he lived a
controversial lifestyle."
– “You can’t believe what Simone de Beauvoir says about freedom—she
wasn’t even religious.”
Why it’s a fallacy: We must evaluate ideas based on logic and
reasoning, not on who presents them. Even if someone is flawed,
their argument may still be valid.
2. Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
Definition: Claiming something is true just because an authority or
famous person says it.
Philosophical Example:
– "Plato believed in the existence of an ideal world, so it must be true."
– “Descartes said ‘I think, therefore I am,’ so everything he said must be
right.”
Why it’s a fallacy: Authority figures can be wrong. In philosophy,
we’re encouraged to examine arguments critically, even if they come
from respected thinkers.
3. False Dilemma (Either-Or Fallacy)
Definition: Presenting only two options when more exist.
Philosophical Example:
– "Either humans are completely free or everything is predetermined—
there's no in-between."
– “Either we have total freedom, or we are just robots controlled by fate.”
Why it’s a fallacy: There can be more balanced views, such as
compatibilism—free will within some limits.
4. Slippery Slope
Definition: Assuming one small step leads to disaster without proof.
Philosophical Example:
– "If we allow people to question traditional morals, soon society will have
no values at all."
– “If we allow people to define truth for themselves, then society will fall
into chaos.”
Why it’s a fallacy: It assumes a chain reaction without proving it. In
philosophy, we need evidence and careful reasoning for each step.
Activity: Fallacy Hunt!
• Identify which fallacy is being used.
• Explain what makes it a fallacy.
• Suggest a better way to respond.
1. People who don’t believe in the soul are just cold-
hearted and evil.
Fallacy: Ad Hominem
Why: It attacks the person, not the belief.
2. You can't accept what Karl Marx said about society—
he wasn't even rich!
Fallacy: Ad Hominem
Why: Let’s examine Marx’s ideas about class struggle
based on the reasoning he provides.
3. You should believe in the concept of the soul
because my teacher said it’s true.
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
Why: Relies solely on authority instead of logical reasoning.
4. Either you believe that humans are totally free, or
you believe we are just puppets controlled by fate.
Fallacy: False Dilemma
Why: Suggests only two extreme options when other
perspectives exist.
5. Anyone who disagrees with Aristotle’s view of the
soul is just ignorant of real philosophy.
Fallacy: Ad Hominem
Why: Attacks the person’s knowledge rather than
addressing the argument.
6. If we allow people to express their individual beliefs,
soon society will become lawless.
Fallacy: Slippery Slope
Why: Predicts an extreme consequence without sufficient
evidence.
7. Sigmund Freud was a famous psychologist, so
everything he said about the human mind must be true.
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
Why: Assumes correctness based on fame, not on
evidence.
8. We must choose: either we follow religion or we have
no values at all.
Fallacy: False Dilemma
Why: Ignores that values can come from multiple sources.
9. You can’t trust what he says about morality—he’s
been caught cheating in class before.
Fallacy: Ad Hominem
Why: Uses the person’s past mistake to dismiss their
argument.
10. If we question traditions about the self and the soul,
soon no one will respect morality anymore.
Fallacy: Slippery Slope
Why: Jumps from questioning to chaos without proving the
link.
Why Learn About Fallacies?
Understanding logical fallacies helps us:
Think more critically
Argue more clearly and respectfully
Avoid being misled by false or manipulative reasoning
Chunk 3
Methods of Philosophizing
Puzzle Activity
Formative questions
• Which group shared the story that was close enough to
the picture?
• Which story was farthest from the real picture?
• Before you saw the real picture, do you think it was
possible for the class to answer questions a and b?
Dialogue
• Imagine the whole magazine picture representing the
TRUTH, the teacher representing a supreme being who
alone has access to the bigger part of the truth, and the
groups representing all of us who equally have small bits
of knowledge about the TRUTH.
• Do you think this is a more or less accurate
representation of our human condition?
• What does this say about a human being's quest for
truth?
• In reality, no one has complete access to the bigger truth.
Being human essentially means that our views will always
be partial.
• As such, no one has a say on what "method" is right in
ascertaining what is true.
• In the end, our approaches to understanding truths will
always be related to our unique position in this vast
richness of reality.
• Have you ever had a debate with a friend about
something you believed to be true? What happened?
• How do we know if something is a fact (truth) or just
someone’s opinion?
Identify which is truth and which is opinion:
• “The sun rises in the east.”
• “Chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream.”
“How do we verify the first? Why is the second
debatable?”
Discussion Proper
• Define Philosophizing
– Philosophizing is the act of thinking deeply, clearly, and
critically about fundamental questions concerning life, truth,
knowledge, and reality.
– searching for truth through clear and deep thinking. Using
methods like the Socratic Method, Logical Analysis,
Phenomenology, and Existentialism, we can go beyond opinion
and approach truth more responsibly.
Truth vs. Opinion
Truth Opinion
Based on facts and evidence Based on beliefs or preferences
Objective (the same for everyone) Subjective (can differ between people)
Can be verified Cannot always be proven
Methods of Philosophizing
🧩 1. Socratic Method
• Definition: A method of questioning to clarify ideas and expose
contradictions.
• Goal: Lead someone to realize truth through their own reasoning.
Example:
“What do you mean by justice?” “Can a person be just and still
harm others?”
• Class Activity: Let students ask each other questions about a
claim like “Money makes people happy.”
🧩 2. Logical Analysis
• Definition: A method that uses reason and logical thinking to
analyze arguments.
• Goal: Examine if an argument follows valid reasoning.
Example:
“If all humans are mortal, and I am human, then I am mortal.”
• Discuss: Why is this logically valid? Is it truth or opinion?
🧩 3. Phenomenological Method
• Definition: Describes how things appear to our consciousness.
• Goal: Understand experiences from the first-person point of view.
Example:
“Describe the feeling of being lonely without explaining or judging
it.”
• Prompt: Ask students how love or sadness feels without saying
whether it’s good or bad.
🧩 4. Existential Method
• Definition: Focuses on individual freedom, choice, and
responsibility.
• Goal: Explore how we create meaning in life.
Example:
“You are free to choose your career, but are you also responsible
for its consequences?”
• Discuss: Is that a truth or opinion?
Processing Questions
• Why is it important to know if something is a truth or an opinion?
• How do these methods help you understand the world better?
• Which method do you think helps you distinguish the truth the
most?
• Can a person’s opinion eventually become truth?