Unit 1: The Nature of Philosophy, Metaphysics and Epistemology
What you must understand
Unit 1 asks you to do philosophy, not just report it. You need the tools of argument analysis: premises, conclusions, validity versus soundness, deductive versus inductive support, and the difference between explaining a claim and justifying it. You also need the core metaphysical and epistemological concepts: appearance versus reality, the nature of the self, mind and body, personal identity over time, and the sources and limits of knowledge.
Traps that appear in questions
- Validity versus truth. A valid argument can have false premises. Questions often ask whether an argument is good, which requires both validity and true premises.
- Describing versus evaluating. A question that says 'explain the philosopher's view' wants exposition; 'assess' wants your judgement with reasons.
- Confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. A necessary condition must hold; a sufficient condition guarantees the outcome. Many multiple-choice items swap these.
- Slipping into opinion. 'I think' is not an argument. Every evaluative sentence needs a reason attached.
Worked example
Consider: 'If the mind is the brain, then brain damage changes the mind. Brain damage does change the mind. Therefore the mind is the brain.' This is invalid - it affirms the consequent. The premises could both be true while the conclusion fails. A candidate who calls it 'true because the premises are true' has confused validity with truth.
Rule of thumb
Before answering any analysis question, label each sentence P (premise) or C (conclusion), then ask: does C actually follow? Only after that ask whether the premises are acceptable. Two separate steps, always in that order.