This document provides an overview of philosophical methods and concepts in philosophy. It discusses the Socratic method, which involves asking questions to stimulate critical thinking and draw out ideas. It also discusses other philosophical methods like inductive, deductive, and dialectical methods. The document then covers key areas of philosophy like epistemology, ontology, ethics, and contemporary movements. It provides definitions and explanations of concepts within these areas. The overall document serves as a comprehensive introduction and guide to the field of philosophy, covering its nature, scope, methods, and various topics of inquiry.

1. 1

2. 2
CSS Philosophy
(Created and Designed by Entireeducation.com)
Contact Us:03084293988

3. 3
About Entireeducation.com
You are welcome for visiting our website which is fully composed of educational systems
including different countries university admissions which consist much essential for admitting
in University. Some university not only provides information but also ask that you can take
admission on-line so, we also provide on-line admission. We take daily update to each and
every university or other educational institute. We are now providing now daily new
university admission from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Our first objective to
give first South Asian universities then We will provide the international, worldwide
universities.
Entireeducation Team incorporates with professional and create a new CSS notes for
aspirants. CSS Notes are fully comprises in accordance with new syllabus updated in 2016.
Our professional notes stay and layout notes up to mark. Student will get an extensive hub of
knowledge regarding Philosophy from these notes. The best thing of Entireeducation notes
reflects only one handbook for the students. Through which a student can easily extract and
through out the entire concepts. Fully updated notes assist student to pulls through life
career in a gleaming way with a collaboration of Entireeducation notes.
Thanks
Regards, Entireeducation.com

4. 4
Table of Content:
Introduction:.......................................................................................................................4
• Definition, Nature and Scope of Philosophy
II. Philosophical Methods:..................................................................................................8
• Socratic Method (Socrates)
…………………………………………………………………..9
• Inductive Method (Bacon, Mill)
……………………………………………………………..13
• Deductive Method (Aristotle, Descartes)
…………………………………………………...17
• Dialectical Method (Hegel); Fallibilistic Method (Popper)
………………………………....23
III. Epistemology:
• Rationalism (Plato, Descartes, Spinoza);
………………………………………………....29
• Empiricism (Locke, Berkeley,Hume);
……………………………………………….…......32
• Transcendentalism (Kant); Intuitionism (Bergsonl)
……………………………………...39
IV. Ontology:
• Idealism (Plato, Berkeley);
………………………………………………………………….47
• Representative Realism (Locke);
…………………………………………………...……..60
• Materialism(Marx)
………………………………………………………………..………..…..61
V. Muslim Thinkers:
• Allama Iqbal., ………………………………………………………………………….…..69
• Imam Ghazali, …………………………………………………………………….……....71
• Al-Farabi, ……………………………………………………………………………….….76
• Ibn-e- Sina, ………………………………………………………………………..…..…..84
• Ibn-e-Khaldun, ………………………………………………………………………..…….94
• Ibn-e-Rushid, …………………………………………………………………………..…104
• Shah Wali Ullah……………………………………………………………………….…..119

5. 5
VI. Ethics: What is morality? The challenge of cultural relativism: ……………….…..125
• Does morality depend on religion.
…………………………………………………….129
Psychological and ethical egoism:
• Virtue Ethics (Aristotle),
………………………………………………………………....143
• Moral Absolutism (Kant),
…………………………………………………………………..147
• Utilitarianism (Mill),
………………………………………………………………………...157
• Social Contract Theory.
……………………………………………………………..……..187
VII. Contemporary Philosophical Movements:
• Existentialism (Heidegger, Sartre);
………………………………………………….…..213
• Pragmatism (Peirce, James, Dewey); …………………………………………
………..246
• Neo-pragmatism (Rorty);
…………………………………………………………………....261
• Postmodernism (Lyotard, Foucault, Derrida)
………………………………………..,…..298

6. 6
Introduction:
Definition:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as
existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] The Ancient Greek word
φιλοσοφία (philosophia) was probably coined by Pythagoras[3] and literally means "love of
wisdom" or "friend of wisdom".[4][5][6][7][8] Philosophy has been divided into many sub-
fields. It has been divided chronologically (e.g., ancient and modern); by topic (the major
topics being epistemology, logic, metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics); and by style (e.g.,
analytic philosophy).
As a method, philosophy is often distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems
by its questioning, critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational
argument.[9] As a noun, the term "philosophy" can refer to any body of knowledge.[10]
Historically, these bodies of knowledge were commonly divided into natural philosophy,
moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy.[8]
There have been debates throughout the history of philosophy. The type of existence, if any,
of universals and abstract objects is an issue of serious debate in metaphysical philosophy.
One debate that has commanded the attention of ethicists in the modern era has been
between whether actions are to be morally evaluated solely by their consequences, a view
known as consequentialism, or whether actions are to be morally evaluated solely by
consideration of agents' duties or the rights of those whom the action concerns, a view
known as deontology.
Nature of Philosophy:
Philosophy is for everyone. In fact, although most people may be vague about what
philosophy is, we all engage in philosophy whether we are aware of it or not. We all have
some ideas concerning free will, human nature, morality, the meaning of life, and the like.
Everyone, at one time or another, either because of startling events or simple curiosity, asks
philosophical questions like: "Does God exist?" "Is there life after death?" "Are there any

7. 7
absolute or universal moral principles?" "What do ethical terms like good, bad, right, and
wrong mean?" "What is beauty?" "What are the characteristics of a 'good' work of art?"
"From what sources do we gain our knowledge?" "Does sensory experience provide
indubitable knowledge?"
So what is philosophy? Literally the term philosophy is derived from the Greek words philos
("loving") and sophia ("wisdom"), and means "the love of wisdom." But philosophers do not
always agree on the nature and function of philosophy. Here are four definitions that attempt
to explain what is generally meant by the term philosophy. These definitions do not
necessarily reflect a consensus of philosophical opinion.
1. Philosophy analyzes the foundations and presuppositions underlying other disciplines.
Philosophy investigates and studies the underpinnings of science, art, and theology.
Philosophers do not ask "Are Pablo Picasso's paintings 'good' works of art?" (as art critics
do) but "Is aesthetic judgment a matter of personal taste, or are there objective standards
that we can apply to evaluate a work of art?" Philosophers do not ask "Is the theory of
evolution true?" (as biologists and physical anthropologists do) but "How do we distinguish
truth from error?"
2. Philosophy attempts to develop a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the
world. Philosophy seeks to integrate the knowledge of the sciences with that of other fields
of study to achieve some kind of consistent and coherent world view. Philosophers do not
want to confine their attention to a fragment of human experience or knowledge, but rather,
want to reflect upon life as a totality. In speaking of this particular function, Charlie Dunbar
Broad, an English twentieth century philosopher, says: "Its object is to take over the results of
the various sciences, to add to them the results of the religious and ethical experiences of
mankind, and then to reflect upon the whole. The hope is that, by this means, we may be
able to reach some general conclusions as to the nature of the universe, and as to our
position and prospects in it." (Scientific Thought, New York: Harcourt, 1923, p. 20)
3. Philosophy studies and critically evaluates our most deeply held beliefs and attitudes; in
particular, those which are often held uncritically. Philosophers have an attitude of critical
and logical thoughtfulness. They force us to see the significance and consequences of our
beliefs, and sometimes their inconsistencies. They analyze the evidence (or lack of it) for our
most treasured beliefs, and seek to remove from our perspectives every taint and trace of
ignorance, prejudice, superstition, blind acceptance of ideas, and any other form of
irrationality.
4. Philosophy investigates the principles and rules of language, and attempts to clarify the
meaning of vague words and concepts. Philosophy examines the role of language in
communication and thought, and the problem of how to identify or ensure the presence of
meaning in our use of language. It is a method--a practice--which seeks to expose the
problems and confusions which have results from the misuse of language, and to clarify the
meaning and use of vague terms in scientific and/or everyday discourse.
Scope of Philosophy;

8. 8
The terms philosophus and philosophia were first employed by Pythagoras (in Cicero’s
Tusculan Disputations) and roughly meant to Pythogoras as the pursuit of wisdom. The term
philosophy then in turn changed to signify wisdom and the love of it, which was seen as the
highest kind of knowledge. There are various kinds of knowledge, for example knowledge we
gain via our everyday experience of reality for example historical, literary, knowledge about
the physical world, knowledge about art etc. There are also other forms of knowledge that
we gain by making use of our intellect and capability to reason in order to classify, analyze,
and interpret etc. the knowledge we gain from everyday experience.
We try to explain knowledge gained from our senses in order to understand and gain insight
about their causes and reasons. Knowledge from our capability to reason in turn yield
systemized truths which we call sciences. For example, knowledge about the physical world
gained from our senses are in turn intellectually analyzed to yield certain truths about the
physical world and thus rightly called the empirical physical sciences (e.g. physics and
biology).
Knowledge about certain geometrical structures gained via sense experience is reasoned
and analyzed and in turn yield certain truths about them and rightly called the mathematical
sciences (e.g. algebra geometry in this case etc.). There is also knowledge from our sense
experience of our social enterprises as humans and from these we analyze, reason etc. and
from it the social sciences emerge (e.g. economy, psychology, political etc.). These are
called special sciences since they deal with whatever relevant causes of the particular topic
they are concerned about.
There are also more general sciences whose domains are much more extensive than the
special sciences. For example, we are also moral beings that are capable reasoning and
from this moral and ethical science arise that need to incorporate understanding from
physical sciences and social sciences.
In this sense, philosophy is seen as a general science and its main aim is to answer deeper
and more extensive questions and in order to do so, rational enquiry and reasoning needs to
be employed to understand the more ultimate reasons and causes of things. Here it is
important to distinguish between philosophy and theology. Theology tries to answer and
reason about ultimate questions by making use of reason that is aided and enlightened by
Divine revelation (For example Christian theology is enlightened by Jesus, or Islamic
theology by Mohammed etc.). Philosophy, properly understood, is thus different from
theology and different from the special sciences and properly defined as: the science of all
things through their ultimate reasons and causes as discovered by the unaided capabilities
of the human intellect and human reason (See Coffey's, Ontology, Theory of Being).
Philosophy can be divided into practical (e.g. ethics, Logic, Philosophy of science, mind etc.)
and speculative (e.g. metaphysics).
A few things about the philosophy of logic, metaphysics, the special sciences and especially
the empirical physical sciences needs to be said to further distinguish between what kinds of
sciences they are.

9. 9
The empirical physical sciences studies things such as objects, substances, processes,
organisms etc. and may be referred to as “real sciences” or “scientiae reales” as the
Scholastics described it. Philosophy of logic studies thought as a process capable of
attaining certain proofs and truths. The study of logic can thus be referred to as a “rational
science” or what the Scholastics called “scientia rationalis”. Metaphysics in turn is
concerned with real being and its attributes. In other words it is concerned with the very
nature of a thing, with being itself, with the root principle and operations of existing things.
Aristotle referred to it as philosophia prima, i.e. the first philosophy that deals with the most
fundamental and deepest aspects of reality. Metaphysics (traditionally viewed as the queen
of the sciences), while called a speculative philosophy and a general science, is informed by
the findings of the special sciences as well as logic. Also, metaphysical arguments and views
can only be successful if the overall metaphysical view is coherent and interprets the facts
logically and consistently.
Philosophy means "love of wisdom." The word was first coined by Pythagoras. Wisdom is a
matter not of knowledge but of understanding and insight. It is achieved by enquiring into the
why of things rather than into their how or what. Such enquiries lead philosophy to ask
questions that are more basic and fundamental than those asked by science: not "what is the
cause of X?" but "Is it the case that everything has a cause?" Unlike religion, philosophy
wants to understand why things are the way they are and not simply to accept on faith that
they must be so. Philosophy may in part be defined as an attempt, by way of reason alone, to
gain an understanding of our nature and the nature of the world we live in. To be a
Philosopher, therefore, is to be interested in the following four questions, which give rise to
philosophy's four main areas:
• What are we like and what should we do? (ethics)
• Is the world such that we can do it? (metaphysics)
• How do we know all this? (epistemology)
• How much faith can we place in this knowledge? (logic)
Philosophical Methods:
Socratic Method (Socrates):
Socratic method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic
debate, is named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates. Elenchus is a form of
cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering

10. 10
questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions. It
is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view
is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themselves in some way, thus
weakening the defender's point. This method is introduced by Socrates in Plato's Theaetetus
as midwifery (maieutics) because it is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the
interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding.
The Socratic method is a method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are
found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic
method searches for general, commonly held truths that shape beliefs, and scrutinizes them
to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions
formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs
about some topic, exploring the definitions or logoi (singular logos), seeking to characterize
the general characteristics shared by various particular instances. Aristotle attributed to
Socrates the discovery of the method of definition and induction, which he regarded as the
essence of the scientific method.
Method:
Elenchus (Ancient Greek: ἔλεγχος elengkhos "argument of disproof or refutation; cross-
examining, testing, scrutiny esp. for purposes of refutation"[3]) is the central technique of the
Socratic method. The Latin form elenchus (plural elenchi ) is used in English as the technical
philosophical term.[4] The most common adjectival form in English is elenctic; elenchic and
elenchtic are also current.
In Plato's early dialogues, the elenchus is the technique Socrates uses to investigate, for
example, the nature or definition of ethical concepts such as justice or virtue. According to
Vlastos,[5] it has the following steps:
• Socrates' interlocutor asserts a thesis, for example "Courage is endurance of the
soul", which Socrates considers false and targets for refutation.
• Socrates secures his interlocutor's agreement to further premises, for example
"Courage is a fine thing" and "Ignorant endurance is not a fine thing".
• Socrates then argues, and the interlocutor agrees, that these further premises imply
the contrary of the original thesis; in this case, it leads to: "courage is not endurance
of the soul".
• Socrates then claims that he has shown that his interlocutor's thesis is false and that
its negation is true.
One elenctic examination can lead to a new, more refined, examination of the concept being
considered, in this case it invites an examination of the claim: "Courage is wise endurance of
the soul". Most Socratic inquiries consist of a series of elenchi and typically end in
puzzlement known as aporia.
Frede[6] points out that Vlastos' conclusion in step #4 above makes nonsense of the aporetic
nature of the early dialogues. Having shown that a proposed thesis is false is insufficient to
conclude that some other competing thesis must be true. Rather, the interlocutors have

11. 11
reached aporia, an improved state of still not knowing what to say about the subject under
discussion.
The exact nature of the elenchus is subject to a great deal of debate, in particular concerning
whether it is a positive method, leading to knowledge, or a negative method used solely to
refute false claims to knowledge.[7]
W. K. C. Guthrie in The Greek Philosophers sees it as an error to regard the Socratic method
as a means by which one seeks the answer to a problem, or knowledge. Guthrie claims that
the Socratic method actually aims to demonstrate one's ignorance. Socrates, unlike the
Sophists, did believe that knowledge was possible, but believed that the first step to
knowledge was recognition of one's ignorance. Guthrie writes, "[Socrates] was accustomed
to say that he did not himself know anything, and that the only way in which he was wiser
than other men was that he was conscious of his own ignorance, while they were not. The
essence of the Socratic method is to convince the interlocutor that whereas he thought he
knew something, in fact he does not
Inductive Method (Bacon, Mill):
The Baconian method is the investigative method developed by Sir Francis Bacon. The
method was put forward in Bacon's book Novum Organum (1620), or 'New Method', and was
supposed to replace the methods put forward in Aristotle's Organon. This method was
influential upon the development of the scientific method in modern science; but also more
generally in the early modern rejection of medieval Aristotelianism. With the upcoming
Romanticism in the 19th century, it was replaced by Humboldtian science.
Description in the Novum Organum
Bacon's view of induction
Bacon's method is an example of the application of inductive reasoning. However, Bacon's
method of induction is much more complex than the essential inductive process of making
generalizations from observations. Bacon's method begins with description of the
requirements for making the careful, systematic observations necessary to produce quality
facts. He then proceeds to use induction, the ability to generalize from a set of facts to one or
more axioms. However, he stresses the necessity of not generalizing beyond what the facts
truly demonstrate. The next step may be to gather additional data, or the researcher may use
existing data and the new axioms to establish additional axioms. Specific types of facts can
be particularly useful, such as negative instances, exceptional instances and data from
experiments. The whole process is repeated in a stepwise fashion to build a an increasingly
complex base of knowledge, but one which is always supported by observed facts, or more
generally speaking, empirical data.
He argues in the Novum Organum that our only hope for building true knowledge is through
this careful method. Old knowledge-building methods were often not based in facts, but
often on broad, ill-proven deductions, and metaphysical conjecture. Even when theories
were based in fact, they were often broad generalizations and/or abstractions from few
instances of casually gathered observations. Using Bacon's process, man could start fresh,

12. 12
setting aside old superstitions, over-generalizations, and traditional (often unproven) "facts".
Researchers could slowly but accurately build an essential base of knowledge from the
ground up. Describing then-existing knowledge, Bacon claims:
There is the same degree of licentiousness and error in forming axioms as [there is] in
abstracting notions, and [also] in the first principles, which depend in common induction
[versus Bacon's induction]; still more is this the case in axioms and inferior propositions
derived from syllogisms.[4]
Although Bacon advocated a very empirical, observational, reasoned method, that did away
metaphysical conjecture, Bacon was a religious man, believed in God, and believed his work
had a religious role. He contended, like other researchers at the time, that by doing this
careful work man could begin to understand God's wonderful creation, reclaim the
knowledge that had been lost in Adam and Eve's "fall", and make the most of his (sic) God-
given talents.
Approach to causality
The method consists of procedures for isolating and further investigating the form nature, or
cause, of a phenomenon, including the method of agreement, method of difference, and
method of concomitant variation.[5]
Bacon suggests that you draw up a list of all things in which the phenomenon you are trying
to explain occurs, as well as a list of things in which it does not occur. Then you rank your
lists according to the degree in which the phenomenon occurs in each one. Then you should
be able to deduce what factors match the occurrence of the phenomenon in one list and
don't occur in the other list, and also what factors change in accordance with the way the
data had been ranked.
Thus, if an army is successful when commanded by Essex, and not successful when not
commanded by Essex: and when it is more or less successful according to the degree of
involvement of Essex as its commander, then it is scientifically reasonable to say that being
commanded by Essex is causally related to the army's success.
From this Bacon suggests that the underlying cause of the phenomenon, what he calls the
"form," can be approximated by interpreting the results of one's observations. This
approximation Bacon calls the "First Vintage." It is not a final conclusion about the formal
cause of the phenomenon but merely a hypothesis. It is only the first stage in the attempt to
find the form and it must be scrutinized and compared to other hypotheses. In this manner,
the truth of natural philosophy is approached "by gradual degrees," as stated in his Novum
Organum.
Refinements
The "Baconian method" does not end at the First Vintage. Bacon described numerous
classes of Instances with Special Powers, cases in which the phenomenon one is attempting
to explain is particularly relevant. These instances, of which Bacon describes 27 in the
Novum Organum, aid and accelerate the process of induction.

13. 13
Aside from the First Vintage and the Instances with Special Powers, Bacon enumerates
additional "aids to the intellect" which presumably are the next steps in his method. These
additional aids, however, were never explained beyond their initial limited appearance in
Novum Organum.
Natural history
The Natural History of Pliny the Elder was a classical Roman encyclopedia work. Induction,
for Bacon's followers, meant a type of rigour applied to factual matters. Reasoning should not
be applied in plain fashion to just any collection of examples, an approach identified as
"Plinian". In considering natural facts, a fuller survey was required to form a basis for going
further.[6] Bacon made it clear he was looking for more than "a botany" with discursive
accretions.
In concrete terms, the cabinet of curiosities, exemplifying the Plinian approach, was to be
upgraded from a source of wonderment to a challenge to science.[8] The main source in
Bacon's works for the approach was his Sylva Sylvarum, and it suggested a more systematic
collection of data in the search for causal explanations.
Underlying the method, as applied in this context, are therefore the "tables of natural history"
and the ways in which they are to be constructed. Bacon's background in the common law
has been proposed as a source for this concept of investigation
As a general intellectual programme, Bacon's ideas on "natural history" have been seen as a
broad influence on British writers later in the 17th century, in particular in economic thought
and within the Royal Society.
Idols of the mind (idola mentis)
Bacon also listed what he called the idols (false images) of the mind. He described these as
things which obstructed the path of correct scientific reasoning.
• Idols of the Tribe (Idola tribus): This is humans' tendency to perceive more order and
regularity in systems than truly exists, and is due to people following their
preconceived ideas about things.
• Idols of the Cave (Idola specus): This is due to individuals' personal weaknesses in
reasoning due to particular personalities, likes and dislikes.
• Idols of the Marketplace (Idola fori): This is due to confusion in the use of language
and taking some words in science to have a different meaning than their common
usage.
• Idols of the Theatre (Idola theatri): This is the following of academic dogma and not
asking questions about the world.
These four fallacies are sometimes compared to a similar list in the first part of Roger
Bacon's Opus Majus which, although it was much older, had not been printed in Francis
Bacon's time.

14. 14
Influence
Thomas Browne the physician (1605–82) was one of the first scientists to adhere to the
empiricism of the Baconian method. His encyclopaedia Pseudodoxia Epidemica (1646–76)
includes numerous examples of Baconian investigative methodology; and its preface
paraphrases lines from Bacon's essay On Truth in his 1605 work The Advancement of
Learning. Isaac Newton's saying hypotheses non fingo (I don't frame hypotheses) occurs in
later editions of the Principia. It represents his preference for rules that could be
demonstrated, as opposed to unevidenced hypotheses.
The Baconian method was further developed and promoted by John Stuart Mill. His 1843
book, A System of Logic, was an effort to shed further light on issues of causation. In this
work, he formulated the five principles of inductive reasoning now known as Mill's methods.
Deductive Method (Aristotle, Descartes);
The history of scientific method is a history of the methodology of scientific inquiry, as
differentiated from a history of science in general. The development and elaboration of rules
for scientific reasoning and investigation has not been straightforward; scientific method has
been the subject of intense and recurring debate throughout the history of science, and
many eminent natural philosophers and scientists have argued for the primacy of one or
another approach to establishing scientific knowledge. Despite the many disagreements
about primacy of one approach over another, there also have been many identifiable trends
and historical markers in the several-millennia-long development of scientific method into
present-day forms..
Some of the most important debates in the history of scientific method center on: rationalism,
especially as advocated by René Descartes; inductivism, which rose to particular
prominence with Isaac Newton and his followers; and hypothetico-deductivism, which came
to the fore in the early 19th century. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a debate over
realism vs. antirealism was central to discussions of scientific method as powerful scientific
theories extended beyond the realm of the observable, while in the mid-20th century some
prominent philosophers argued against any universal rules of science at all.
Integrating deductive and inductive method
Attempts to systematize a scientific method were confronted in the mid-18th century by the
problem of induction, a positivist logic formulation which, in short, asserts that nothing can be
known with certainty except what is actually observed. David Hume took empiricism to the
skeptical extreme; among his positions was that there is no logical necessity that the future
should resemble the past, thus we are unable to justify inductive reasoning itself by
appealing to its past success. Hume's arguments, of course, came on the heels of many,
many centuries of excessive speculation upon excessive speculation not grounded in
empirical observation and testing. Many of Hume's radically skeptical arguments were
argued against, but not resolutely refuted, by Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in the
late 18th century.[75] Hume's arguments continue to hold a strong lingering influence and

15. 15
certainly on the consciousness of the educated classes for the better part of the 19th century
when the argument at the time became the focus on whether or not the inductive method
was valid.
Hans Christian Ørsted, (Ørsted is the Danish spelling; Oersted in other languages) (1777–
1851) was heavily influenced by Kant, in particular, Kant's Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der
Naturwissenschaft (Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science).[76] The following sections
on Ørsted encapsulate our current, common view of scientific method. His work appeared in
Danish, most accessibly in public lectures, which he translated into German, French, English,
and occasionally Latin. But some of his views go beyond Kant:
For Complete CSS Philosophy
Notes:
Call At:
03084293988,
03314019933

16. 16
For Complete CSS Philosophy
Notes:
Call At:
03084293988,
03314019933