The natural of philosophy

Answer

The Nature of Philosophy

Discussion Question- What characterizes a philosophical question?

A philosophical question is marked by its morphology, relevance, semantics, and scope. Additionally, in principle, the answers to a philosophical question are open to any form of uncluttered and rational as well as honest disagreement which is ultimate albeit not absolute closed to any further questioning due to empirical and logic-mathematical resources.

Short Essay Question – The Nature of Philosophy

Socrates views himself as a gadfly to Athenian society in ‘Apology.' The reference to gadfly is meant to show that he is a person who through criticism provokes others to reason logically and take appropriate actions. A gadfly is a fly that mostly stings livestock to annoy them and hence take the role of a provocative stimulus. Socrates in this particular instance aims to arouse not only drowsy but also apathetic Athenians into realizing that they do not know themselves and indeed have no knowledge of what they claim to know. When Socrates cross-examined some of the prominent citizens, he was convinced that there was some form of prejudice against him. Some of the examples of Plato’s stinging such as a gadfly is Theætetus. In this dialogue, Socrates questions Theætetus who is a distinguished mathematician about the nature and scope of his knowledge. The reason for this questioning is to explain that knowledge is not just a perception but a reality. When Theætetus explains to Socrates that knowledge is a perception, Socrates is quick to enquire how Protagoras can rank his experience at a higher position than that of others. The aim of this provocative stimulus is to awaken people to the fact that they need to question things and use logic.

The metaphor of a gadfly has been used to argue the proposition that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Notably, Socrates coins this phrase to justify his position of choosing death over exile during his trial for various crimes including impiety, disbelieve to the gods, corrupting the young, and all forms of wrongdoing. The tone of Socrates in this phrase is not only absolute but also uncompromising. Such a metaphor is considered to be a characteristic of the discipline of philosophy because an unexemplified life cannot be said to have been logically examined. The phrase was being addressed to who those who participate in ‘human being’ and especially the form of ‘being’ which is only distinctive to humans. Human beings are marked by the capacity and capability to not only transcend instinct and desire but also make both conscious and ethical choices. However, this is not to mean that instinct and desire cannot shape the behavior of beings. The claim in this metaphor is in concordance with the philosophical belief that logical questions should be open to further exploration and questioning. As such, Socrates metaphor is meant to say that those who do not examine their lives and make conscious and ethical decisions fail even to live lives which can be described as fully human.

Socrates’ metaphor underscores the fact that philosophy which is the ‘love of wisdom’ is an important pursuit for people. As such, he proposes that the pursuit of knowledge through exploration and questioning as well as a logical argument is key to qualifying individuals who have lived an exemplified life. Through examining and thinking, people can live their lives to the fullest and ensure that they determine whether a particular argument is logical or not. His view about people examining their lives applied to others who took a step ahead to begin their examination of issues such as the existing fallacies to question and logically argue for or against them. Although the statement is controversial based on the fact that self-critical examination is superfluid, it is critical that people question things to establish their positive and adverse effects on the society. The discipline of philosophy is concerned with several aspects including the fundamental nature of reality as well as being and the nature and grounds of knowledge as well as ethics and most importantly logic. Socrates, in this case, reinforces those elements of philosophy by encouraging people to be like gadflies and ensure that they provoke others to question their lives and their scope of knowledge.

The argument by Socrates in apology justifies what the course readings define as conceptual analysis and the constructive task of modern philosophy. The theoretical analysis provides that analysis should follow a set of instructions which lead to a specific goal. The use of such a method is based on a particular theoretical as well as the factual background. Socrates, in his metaphor, supports this idea by stating that examination of life should lead to the goal of achieving a ‘living worth.' Additionally, having logical arguments has the goals of acquiring knowledge and gauging the veracity of certain statements and pronouncements. Constructive tasks of modern philosophy exist to broaden conceptual theory either by postulating a new relation or stating an already known relation which applies to a particular argument. Such concepts are supported by Socrates who emphasizes the importance of logical argument and reasoning which translates to finding new meanings to specific concepts and ideas. Socrates’ conclusion that “the unexamined life is not worth living” is not that relevant today because people are more concerned with the self-critical examination as opposed to that proposed by others.

Logic Questions

Question 1

After a consideration of the two arguments, one of them has been logically reasoned than the other. The term ‘better’ is vague and should be read to mean which of the two arguments is logical and valid. As such, how valid an argument is can be used as the basis to discern whether it is better than the other or not. Of the two arguments, the first (A) argument is “better” than the second one (B) as it is deductively valid. In this regard, the first two statements of the arguments are premises whereas the final point is the conclusion. In a deductively valid argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion would also be true. In the first argument, the first statement (A) thus is ‘better.’

The second argument is invalid for various reasons. One of those is that the premises of the argument do not follow a logical form. The premises do not come first followed by the conclusion. On the contrary, the conclusion comes before the premises which then makes argument invalid as it lacks logical form. A deductively invalid argument is one whose conclusion has the smallest possibility of being true (Sober, 2013). Although the premises are true, the conclusion is false. The premises are just as right as the conclusion. Such issues with the second argument (B) makes it not better than the first one (A).

Question 2

An argument is deductively invalid if it has a possibility that its conclusion is false despite the premises being true. The ladder argument is valid, even if the statements contained are false. The validity of an argument is premised on the idea that if the premises are correct then the conclusions are too. However, according to Sober (2013), the premises in a valid argument must provide an absolute guarantee that the conclusion is right. The concern of validity is the relationship of the premises to the conclusion. In some of the instances, an argument becomes obviously invalid. In the present case, the argument is invalid because the conclusion is false based on the premises. The premises beg the question as to whether the conclusion is true. This form of the argument is illogical, and the conclusion cannot, therefore, be true. Premises which do not follow a logical structure lead to a false conclusion (Sober, 2013). The following is a counterexample which shows the deductive invalidity of the current argument.

‘All long-term convicts are murderers. Some long-term convicts are murderers. Some murderers are long-term convicts.’

The above argument is deductively invalid and is a further example that if there is a possibility that the logical form is critical in determining whether arguments are valid. The argument is invalid simply because of the consistent way that it has. As such, although the premises are true, the conclusion is false due to failure to follow a logical form.