Part A
Socrates was an ancient Athenian philosopher. His philosophy was based on the definition of ethical concepts by exposing and correcting errors. One of his most successful disciples who embodied Socrates’ thoughts and studies in his book Apology was philosopher. Socrates often used metaphors in his speeches. Two of them were chosen for further analysis and explanation: his referring to himself as a gadfly and the fact that an unexamined life is not worth living. Socrates believed that his annoying way of teaching could stimulate the citizens of Athens to change and explore the life; otherwise, their lives were worthless, and it was better to die rather than live such mundane lives. This essay focuses on the interpretation of philosopher’s metaphors and explains the connection of philosophy as a discipline with other academic and intellectual pursuits.
In Apology, Socrates refers to himself as a gadfly. Everyone knows that gadflies are insects that annoy and irritate both horses and people. These little creatures stimulate people to move and rouse them to action. Socrates acts in a similar way when he compares himself to a gadfly and the state of Athens to a lazy horse. This prominent thinker claims that the god placed him in the city to perform an important task. He says, “I was attached to this city by the god as upon a great and noble horse which was somewhat sluggish because of its size and needed to be stirred up by a kind of gadfly”. The primary aim of the philosopher is to stir the citizens criticizing them and convincing them to live according to moral virtues and justice. However, people find that Socrates is guilty of being too intrusive and interfering with the wellbeing of the whole state. Socrates is not afraid of saying what he really thinks, and his thoughts are frequently regarded offensive for others. Moreover, people do not like to be forced to do something or believe in something. Socrates imposes his way of thinking on them and does not accept the existing rules. His desire to find hidden meanings in every essential aspect and unwillingness to be silent becomes the reason of his death. True philosophers cannot keep silence and stop searching for the alternatives; thus, they intrude into every sphere of life to investigate the most significant issues in depth. Therefore, the purpose of philosophy is to stimulate the further development of various academic order essay online and intellectual pursuits Philosophy always seeks alternative worldviews, while other sciences are often limited to a particular view, unwilling to investigate new conceptions. This science also intends to enhance thinking process and inspire people to ponder various perspectives of the most serious questions. The other disciplines usually examine some evident issues and find logical explanations of the problem, while philosophy does not limit itself to one logical conclusion but tries to find new ways and solutions to the same aspects. Moreover, philosophers often impose their thoughts on the scientists, criticizing their proofs and knowledge and persuading them that they do not know anything. Presumably, there would be no development without philosophy since it stimulates people to find new perspectives and improve their thinking in any possible way.

Socrates’ ideas were often incomprehensible for his contemporaries. For example, Socrates argues that, “the unexamined life is not worth living”. In such a way, he tries to explain that people are not similar to animals that live according to their instincts. The animals merely eat, sleep, and breed, and do not have ability to ruminate over their nature and the sense of life. Human beings, on the contrary, possess the so-called gift of God or thinking ability. Socrates does not say that people should not eat and sleep or satisfy their physical needs. He rather states that people have more complicated needs. As a result, Socrates’ expression of the unexamined life may be explained as life without any ethical decisions. In modern society as well as in Socrates’ one, people often tend to follow the crowd and do what the others ask them to do. Thus, they work because they need to earn their living. They vote for their political leaders because the others do the same. Human beings gradually lose the ability to think deeply and understand the sense of life and the importance of freedom. Socrates teaches his disciples that they should live a full life, searching for ethical virtues and constantly improving their personalities. It is apparent that such way of life might be challenging, as people might be afraid of changes and new perspectives and would rather prefer clear instructions and physical satisfaction instead of the search of unexamined aspects. Moreover, they get accustomed to such life and do not want to analyze its ethical sides. Socrates, however, could not live a simple life without development and self-improvement, thus, he preferred to die.

I do agree that unexamined life is not worth living; but I disagree that a person should commit suicide when he/she has no possibility to examine this life. Human life is a precious gift despite any burdens and obstacles it might bring. Socrates was firm in his decision and he did not favor his followers. At the same time, if he agreed with the judge and accepted his ways of salvation – to leave Athens or to be silent until the end of his life – his philosophy would be irrelevant. He always taught the others that they should not blindly accept the rules without even proving that they are right. Consequently, it is possible to assume that his refusal to accept the jury’s decision was a part of his philosophy. In such a way, Socrates’ assertion may be considered as uncompromising.

In conclusion, the teachings of this ancient scholar reveal the true nature of philosophy – to motivate people to think and develop. Owing to this discipline, various academic studies have the possibility to improve. Additionally, Socrates’ followers may realize that they should not live in accordance with their wild instincts but should search for unexamined virtues and other vital life aspects instead.

Part B

1. The difference between an invalid deductive argument and a strong inductive argument may be explained as follows: an invalid deductive argument means that if premises are supposed to be true, the conclusion may be false (Sober, 2001, p. 12). For example:

Anyone who lives in Madrid lives in Spain.

Pedro lives in Spain.

Therefore, Pedro lives in Madrid.

This argument is invalid since although the premises are true, the conclusion might be wrong, because Pedro might live in Barcelona, Seville, Granada, or other Spanish cities. A strong inductive argument, conversely, relies on probability. For instance:

80% of the middle-aged Spaniards still live with their parents.

Pedro is a middle-aged Spaniard.

Therefore, Pedro lives with his parents.

This argument provides hypothetical support strong enough to be true for the conclusion. Thus, one may notice the difference between an invalid deductive argument and a strong inductive argument. The latter notion denotes a good argument because its premises are relevant, sufficient and acceptable to the conclusion. On the contrary, an invalid deductive argument is a bad argument, since it does not have enough evidence and is exclusively based upon assumptions. Hence, a strong inductive argument is better than an invalid deductive argument.

2. “All cynical people are disgruntled. Some meticulous people are cynical. Therefore, some disgruntled people are not meticulous.” This argument consists of the statement, premise, and conclusion. The conclusion is based on a false statement (there is no proof that all cynical people are disgruntled); thus, it in all probability this conclusion is incorrect. The following statements may serve as an example of the counterargument:

All fishes can swim.

Jane can swim.

Therefore, Jane is a fish.

The first premise says that all fishes are capable of swimming but it does not necessarily mean that all creatures that can swim are fishes. For this reason, even if Jane can swim and even if all fishes can swim (both premises are true), there is no valid data about Jane. Regardless of the verity of both premises, the conclusion might still be false, which demonstrates that the argument itself is invalid.

3. Most of the homicides committed in the USA are committed with handguns.

If there were no guns, there would be no gun violence.

If a person uses a handgun for self-defense and kills a robber, such person might have serious psychological disorders for the rest of his/her life.

When a child finds a handgun of his/her father, such child can kill someone unintentionally.

Consequently, the possession, ownership, and sale of handguns should be outlawed.

According to the Bureau of Justice statistics on homicide, during the last forty years the number of handgun homicides was the highest among the other homicides in the USA. It is evident that the more handguns people have, the more crime will be committed. Among the other types of weapon, handguns are regarded as the easiest ones to kill a victim. As a result, criminals prefer using firearm instead of knifes, blunt objects, or other weapons. If handguns were banned, there would be fewer crimes because the criminals would need to devise new methods to perform illegal actions. Moreover, when mentally ill people possess handguns for self-defense, they might overuse them thinking that someone wants to offend them. What aggravates the problem further is the situation when handguns are saved at home and children may find the weapon and kill themselves or someone else unintentionally. Consequently, the possession, ownership, and sale of handguns should be banned to reduce the number of crimes and save the citizens of the USA from handgun homicide.