Answer

The Nature of Philosophy

Short Essay

In Apology, Socrates refers to himself, metaphorically, as a gadfly to Athenian society. He uses this metaphor, in part, in arguing for his assertion that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” This essay explains how this metaphor is considered characteristic of the discipline of philosophy, particularly how it justifies what is referred to as the conceptual analysis, and the constructive, tasks of contemporary philosophy.

The credo “the unexamined life is not worth living” can rightly be said to summarize Socrates’ beliefs about life in general. Here, the philosopher implies that it is the very act of continuously examining life that makes it (life) worth living.  This credo is characteristic of the discipline of philosophy, particularly as regards what has been referred to as the conceptual analysis and the constructive tasks of contemporary philosophy. In this vein, philosophy emerges as a discipline that deals with individuals’ beliefs about themselves and the world around them. Through philosophy, individuals are able to not only identify, but also interrogate and critically evaluate the various assumptions that they make, so that nothing is too clear as to escape examination and interrogation. This way, contemporary philosophy performs its tasks in the spirit of Socrates’ credo that “the unexamined life is not worth living”.

At the individual level, the implication of Socrates’ credo is that if one fails to question or examine his/her own life, such an individual is highly likely to misunderstand him/herself in relation to the world. Thus, against the backdrop of the role of philosophy in society, an inference can be made that failing to examine (life) is in essence foregoing critical thinking and as such remaining oblivious or blind to one’s behaviors, emotions, and thoughts. Without such examination, an individual experiences the world passively as opposed to being an active interpreter of that which is encountered. Through examination of life, valid and more reliable approximations can be arrived at even as individuals strive to address daily challenges. There is no doubt that interrogation and contextual critical thinking ensures more optimal decision-making and responsibility for one’s actions.

Socrates’ statement also gains elevation when weighed in the context of the merits of self-taught knowledge (as opposed to what an individual is taught by others). In this vein, self- examination affords individuals truth, importantly in the manner they conceptualize it since truth is relative. Without self-examination, one would be left at the mercy of other people and given the trickery that characterizes the world that would pose the risk of digesting lies or half-truths as the truth. The point here is that the examination emphasized by Socrates is important for uncovering and comprehending truth as it is in an individual’s world, more importantly from the individual’s perspective. This begs the question: could there be any merits to an unexamined life? Socrates’ critics would present that indeed an unexamined life has its own merits. Interestingly, such a position would factor in the notions of truth and ignorance asserting that sometimes it is just better when some truths are not known since individuals have less to worry about. If there are bitter truths or things that people would rather not know, then an unexamined life is worth living. However, philosophy leaves no stone unturned; it does not spare even the peaceful tranquility that would result from an unexamined life, hence the relation of the credo under focus and the nature of this discipline.

It is imperative to explore the relevance of the conclusion that “an unexamined life is not worth living” in today’s society. Indeed, this conclusion/statement is as relevant today as it was in the Socratic period. This position finds support in the fact that self-examination allows for application of critical thinking that without doubt is integral to seeking solutions to various problems of human existence. Even beyond self-examination there can be examination at the social level where the people that an individual interacts can play a role. As such, an unexamined life would mean individuals have no sense of belonging, the effects of which (for instance alienation) can be quite detrimental. To claim that an unexamined life is worth living in today’s society would be like saying philosophy has no place in the world. It is through philosophy and such examination that life is interrogated and solutions to problems sought. An unexamined life would mean individuals have limited opportunities and experience little or no growth because they (individuals) would be oblivious to many things in their world. Quite conversely, an examined life brings many things to light and the questions that people ask themselves yield even more-mind provoking answers that in turn lead to further interrogation. An examined life allows individuals to perceive phenomena from multiple-perspective and through critical thinking make optimal decisions as may be required by situations at hand. The quest for further inquiry never ends and that can only lead to more knowledge, which is power particularly as far as addressing problems compounding the world is concerned.

In conclusion, Socrates’ credo that “the unexamined life is not worth living” is characteristic of the discipline of philosophy, more particularly in the context of what has been referred to as the conceptual analysis, and the constructive, tasks of contemporary philosophy. An examined life, as is characteristic of the discipline of philosophy lays bare various phenomena such as the beliefs that people harbor about life in general. It also allows for illumination and comprehension of the assumptions that individuals make in relation to the world in which they live. Indeed, the conclusion that “the unexamined life is not worth living” is relevant in today’s society just as it was in Socratic times.

Logic Questions

1. Classifying Arguments
2. 90% of observed crows are black. Therefore, 90% of all crows are black. Furthermore, I conclude that the next crow I observe will be black.
3. If 90% of observed crows are black, then the next crow I observe will be black. In fact, 90% of observed crows are black. Therefore, the next crow I observe will be black.

Argument (A) is deductively invalid.

This inference is based on the fact that while it is true that 90% of the crows observed are black, there still a significant possibility that the percentage of black crows is more or less than the stated 90%. This figure only remains true and valid in relation to the OBSERVED crows and not ALL crows. It is impossible to validly deduce that 90% of all crows are black because the number of crows yet to be observed is unknown. The same reasoning applies to the conclusion that the next crow to be observed will be black. Importantly, this argument is deductively invalid because there is a possibility that the conclusion is false even if the preceding premises are true.

Following the same logical reasoning as applied to argument (A) above, argument(B) is also deductively invalid. It is possible for the conclusion to be false even if the premises are true.

Having inferred that both arguments are deductively invalid, a task arises to identify which of the two is the better argument. The term “better” is vague in context as whichever reason given for such an inference cannot take away the statement’s deductive invalidity, so implication would be that such a statement offers a lesser guarantee that against the backdrop of the given premises, the conclusion is more probable. Notably, the second premise (in fact, 90% of observed crows are black) in (B) is stated/presented with absolute certainty (based on use of the word “fact”), making the risk of the conclusion being wrong more reasonable as opposed to the case in (A). Thus, in as much as they are both deductively invalid, argument (B) is better than argument (A).

2. Argument Form and Counter Example

All subjectivists are relativists. Some objectivists are subjectivists. Therefore, some relativists are not objectivists.

Form:

All Bs are Cs

All As are Bs

All As are Cs

The subject matter notwithstanding (that is without knowing who subjectivists, relativists, and subjectivists actually are), the conclusion in this argument does not flow from the premised. This disconnect renders the argument deductively invalid in its entirety, irrespective of whether it makes sense or not.

Counter example:

All thieves are criminals. Some rapists are thieves. Therefore, some criminals are not rapists.