Socrates as Gadfly

Socrates as Gadfly

            Philosophy is about questioning the activities taking place in the society. However, the Greek government was unnerved by Socrates’ philosophical deeds. The uncomfortable nature of the ancient government is evidenced by Socrates’ conviction and the subsequent biased judgment. On the other hand, a sting by a gadfly creates a discomfort and a reaction by the victim. Thus, Socrates’ comparison with a gadfly is justified and serves as a reminder to philosophers in the modern society to check on the performance of governments and state corporations.

            Philosophy is supposed to provide a solution to the problems crippling the societal development. A society without philosophers is doomed to fail due to gradual decays. Lack of accountability and poor implementation of governmental duties and obligations are signs of decay in the society. These will not happen if there is an oversight gadfly.

            Philosophy is closely related to other intellectual pursuits. Science, for instance, is anchored in a constant questioning as to why people, plants, and other matter are the way they are. Most scholars argue that Science would not exist today were it not for the constant efforts of philosophers to seek for a solution to life problems. In fact, famous scientists, including Isaac Newton, considered themselves as ‘gadflies’ following the footsteps of Socrates. Other disciplines closely related to philosophy include mathematics (based on arguments) and law. In fact, Socrates’ search for justice is evident in his trial as he seeks an overhaul of oppressive laws that restricted free will and scrutiny of government’s deeds.

‘The Unexamined life is Not worth Living’

            Socrates believed that there is a reason that humans are created as intellectual beings, unlike any other creature. As such, every person is obliged to exploit his /her skills fully for the betterment of the next generations. It would be a waste to spend the entire lifetime in the darkness of arrogance while there is a potential to create a deeper enlightened meaning to life. Besides, human behavior can be shaped by proper knowledge of the surroundings in addition to instincts and inner desires. Socrates also believed that humans are able to make conscious and ethical decisions if they are able to weigh the available options through a search for deeper knowledge and understanding. 

            According to Socrates, the human life should involve growth, both personally and spiritually. Without constant reflection of individual's life, it is hardly possible to thrive and prosper towards an understanding of true nature of humans. As such, memories of the past are imperative in the determination of the future course of action.

            While many people believe that unexamined life has its benefits, Socrates sought to change the age-old notion that life should be taken at face value. He tabled facts that proved that humans are able to transcend the odds to solve the life mysteries through scientific and philosophical know-how. Partly, his principles and arguments are still considered today because they have stood the test of time.

Invalid Deductive Argument and Strong Inductive Argument

            Invalid deductive arguments offer no guarantee of the truth and legitimacy of the conclusion. The argument is only considered as a deductive if it is verifiable that the assumptions (premises) are true. The support placed by the arguer should possess a loophole for the conclusion to be falsified, even if the premises are assumed to be true. 

            On the other hand, inductive arguments are based on probabilities, in that there is no strong support by the arguer for the certainty of the conclusion. A strong inductive argument makes it highly unlikely that the conclusion is false. Unlike deductive arguments and weak inductive arguments, the chance of success in the case of a strong inductive argument is based on the degree. The determination of an argument as good or bad relies on the relationship between the premises and conclusion. Thus, a good argument should have a strong or valid relationship between the argument and the premises. The reverse is also true. In this case, the invalid deductive argument is a bad while the strong inductive argument is considered to be good.

Deductively Invalid Argument

            In the statement, ‘All cynical people are disgruntled. Some meticulous people are Cynical. Therefore, some disgruntled people are not meticulous', the form of the argument is Hypothetical Syllogism. This is because the argument is based on a hypothetical chain. The subsequent arguments are conditional as per the first notion. Therefore, the invalidity of the conclusion is as a result of the supporting conditions as stated. 

            Example: All Harvard students are hard working. Some computer scientists are Harvard students. Therefore, some hardworking students are not computer scientists.

Argument Construction

            People that own handguns use them to hunt wild animals legally. Also, the handgun owners use them for sporting and recreational activities. People that possess the handguns use them to protect their friends and families. They also use the handguns to protect their business premises and other property.  The gun sellers earn a living from the business. Therefore, the ownership, the possession and the sale of handguns should not be outlawed.