Socrates is considered as one of the most significant founders of Western philosophy, and among the first people to personify progressive Greek ideals of justice, wisdom, and temperance. The philosopher introduced a new perspective on the ideology of the ancient world. He never wrote, but all of his ideas and thoughts were written down by his pupils.
The Apology was written by Plato, who was one of his followers and a famous philosopher as well. The name of his work comes from the Greek word apologia, which means defense. It is Socrates’ response on trial for his life. The Apology reflects the dramatization of a crucial moment in Western intellectual history and the fierce defense of the philosophical life value. In Apology, Socrates referred to himself as a gadfly. Understanding the use of the metaphor as a characteristic of the discipline of philosophy is necessary to comprehend what made the philosopher an object of fascination and controversy.
Socrates was a provocative figure, who often caused anger and resentment from people he questioned. His actions, which often cast him into the role of a dissident within his community, made him enemies. The philosopher raised questions such as what beauty is, and what happens after death. He questioned what the relevance of human virtues were. Socrates’ problems with the society he lived in arose from his disagreement with the acquired verities of Athenian ideology and religion. He demanded that his fellow citizens examine in a rigorous manner their beliefs and assumptions concerning the values they held most dear. The philosopher pointed out that people who were supposed to be spiritual were more focused on material things than caring about their souls. He founded philosophy as a form of political and social criticism, if not direct civil disobedience.
It is evident that such philosophy made many people feel uncomfortable and foolish. Socrates became a gadfly of society because he was shaking and breaking established rules and beliefs. As he admitted, his goal was to wake up an intellectually and spiritually sleeping society. As a result, Socrates ended up in court, charged with corrupting the youth and not recognizing the gods of the city. The Apology tells that Socrates was sentenced to death for telling the truth and holding firmly to his beliefs.
One of the philosopher’s statements before his death was, ‘unexamined life is not worth living’. Once again, the assertion demonstrates the power of his beliefs. Socrates stood by his principles by preferring to die rather than give up examining himself and others. No precise arguments are found against his thesis. People who live without examining their lives cannot learn from their mistakes. Moreover, such people are not capable of developing themselves because it is impossible to improve something without determining its current level of development.
It is important for the study of logic to determine the difference between deductive and inductive arguments. The first step should be an argument in which the facts support the conclusion. Thus, the details have to support the outcome in such way that if the outlooks are true, then the conclusion cannot be false. An inductive argument, on the contrary, is an argument where viewpoints do not support the conclusion. In other words, if angles of thought are true, then the end result is probably correct.
Deductive arguments are divided into two types, valid and invalid. The valid deductive argument consists of views which guarantee that a conclusion is correct. In other words, there must be a logical connection between them. In contrast, invalid arguments consist of perspectives which are not connected to conclusions.
A strong inductive argument is one which consists of ideas that provide the best available evidence. In other words, unlike invalid deductive arguments, inductive ideas are logically connected to the conclusion. The stronger the inductive argument is, the more chances are that the end result is right.
All cynical people are disgruntled. Some meticulous people are cynical. Therefore, some disgruntled people are not meticulous. This is a perfect example of a deductively invalid argument because its viewpoint does not guarantee a precise conclusion. The statement contains confusing ideas, but the outcome is correct. The statement has the fallowing structure:
All Cp are Dp
Some Mp are Cp
Not All Dp are Mp
The opposite example for this argument would be a statement with meaningful logic, but with an inconclusive opinion. For instance, all lemons are sour. Chilly is hot. Therefore, eating is not pleasant. The argument is contradictory because it does not guarantee a realistic conclusion.
Exclusive savings! Save 25% on your ORDER
Get 15% OFF your FIRST ORDER + 10% OFF every order by receiving 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
All good arguments should be logically connected to their conclusions. For example, possession, ownership, and sale of handguns will lead to increased crime rate. Firstly, it is dangerous because people can use them carelessly. In other words, people might just shoot each other when they lose temper. Secondly, guns can be stolen by criminals and used against the civilian population. Thirdly, people might be irresponsible and leave them within the reach of children, which can lead to injuries and death. Finally, guns can break, or people might drop them, which might also lead to many injuries and possible, death. Therefore, the possession, ownership, and sale of handguns should be outlawed.