Plato wrote Apology that covers the trial of Socrates and his oratory defense of his position. Socrates calls himself gadfly, as his full intention was not to prove himself “innocent,” but to file a set of questions to stimulate action in terms of how one ought to think about issues, and what the oratory and written outcomes would be. This deals in particular with how philosophy was developed. Gadfly questions issues and matters to the point of ensuring an outcome of examined arguments, premises and conclusions. The idea is to question those things that can lead to a constructive discussions, and plausible outcomes for everyday life (Apology by Plato, N.d., N.p.).
Philosophy allows one to find a consistent view of how things can be associated, and to make sense of it in in the broadest sense. This would include every possible aspect of life, and that includes physical objects, morality, ethics, human rights, pain, ideas, and more. This is not commonsense, but it requires reasoning, analysis, and discussion at an academic and intellectual level. It requires of anyone to present a strong argument. Socrates, therefore, argued for “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Going through life without questioning serious issues will lead to a life that has no intellectual value.
Philosophy assists in finding connections and relationships between various issues in life. The meaning of life, that Socrates stood for, means that you are able to correlate your existing belief system with what already exists, and that you can support your view with good arguments. The position you take will cement your own beliefs, and truths, and allow you to assimilate it into your life. Philosophy, therefore, helps you to use your intellectual understanding to make sense of your own beliefs within other philosophies and worldviews. Socrates gave the first inclination of how you should go about establishing such a truth in your own life.
In this instance, it is necessary to use logic. No philosophical argument can survive without pure logic. It is this logical reasoning that would help you find a solid argument. By establishing a good premise, the argument would lead to solidifying your position. The argument would thus follow: a premise, an argument, and a conclusion. In order for the argument to be solidified, epistemology adds to your meager evidence to be rationalized to move forward for more insight. An argument cannot stand without moral theory, though. This is especially true when it comes to the standard of what is right and what is wrong. Moral theory also gives you the insight into what actions would be morally right or wrong. Within the logic of an argument and the morality issue, there is also the issue whether something exists or not. Metaphysics, therefore, form a large part of the argument for the existence of, for example, God, the mind, substance, causality, or relation. This leads to the conclusion that philosophical debates are not decided empirically.
The Difference between an Invalid Deductive Argument and a Strong Inductive Argument A logical argument is n necessity for any philosophical point you are trying to make. However, for the logic to work, you would need to make use of either deductive or inductive arguments. You could fall prey to the invalid deductive argument should you not be aware of the premise that is needed to provide the necessary support for the conclusion. If you, therefore, have a weak premise it would be difficult to reach a valid conclusion to your argument. It will diminish your argument, and could lead your statements and propositions to be false or untrue. Thus, this way of argument can only lead to it being a “wrong” or a “bad” way to argue. For this reason, and for philosophy to work, you need to have a strong inductive argument. For this method of argument, there is no need for a premise to support your conclusion. There is only a need to have the “probability” that the premise supports the conclusion.
Deductively Invalid Argument
The invalid deductive argument is based in the conclusion that is not aligned to the premise. One could deduce that the argument is based in a statement that: All cynical people are disgruntled. This is followed by the premise that: Some meticulous people are cynical. Thus, the conclusion would be thus: Therefore, some disgruntled people are not meticulous. By looking at the argument, one can see that there is a discrepancy between the statement, the premise, and the conclusion. The argument is deductively invalid as it ends in the conclusion in which the premise is not true. Another example to show this is as follows: The statement: Cars participating in the Formula One races are required to have an engine capacity of 1.6 liters. The premise is: My car must be a Formula One race car, as it has an engine capacity of 1.6 liters. Therefore, I can race in the Formula One races. The statement is valid. However, the premise is invalid, as the engine capacity alone does not make for Formula One race car. Hence, the conclusion drawn from this is invalid. I cannot participate in a Formula One race even though my car has a valid engine capacity.
Argument Construction
There are ongoing debates around the possession, ownership, and sale of handguns. The question is whether it should or should not be outlawed. Each side has a valid argument, which makes it a very difficult decision for those in charge. Even though guns are seen as dangerous, the person holding the gun is actually in charge. Guns in homes plus anger could lead to a man killing his entire family. Many people have mistakenly shot a family member thinking that it was a burglar. Even though many feel that guns are there to protect their families, there is no guarantee that you would be able to pull the trigger when confronted with the taking of another’s life. A gun, therefore, does not necessarily protect people. Guns are not dangerous, yet people holding the guns can be dangerous. Hence, the possession, ownership, and sale of handguns should be outlawed.
References
The Internet Classics Archive | Apology by Plato. (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html
