Jan 19, 2020 in Philosophy



In this paper, two philosophical statements by Socrates attract attention. The two pieces forms a ground on the extent to one’s questions the happenings of the environment that surround them. In that sense, the paper will thus have an interest on the self-reference as a ‘social gadfly’ Socrates. A social gadfly has the definition of an individual who poses a critical analysis of others leading to annoyance. Thus, the contributions by this metaphor to the field of philosophy are examined. The second statement by Socrates refers to his choice of death as opposed to being forced to a life where he was not free to speak or make observations. From this point of view, the paper will provide an explanation, reasons, and opinion. To be precise, the argument of the essay has its foundation on the support of the notion that living unchecked was worthless in itself. 

Type of assignment
Academic level
Total price:

The ‘Social Gadfly’ Metaphor

Philosophy is better understood as affection for wisdom. In a broader way, it can be regarded as the study of general as well as fundamental nature of existence, values, reality, mind and reason among others. Socrates had a particular code of ethics that he considered necessary for a just society. By regarding himself as a ‘gadfly’, he believes to be a defender of some truths and that he would not renounce them regardless of whether or not it hurt those who were in authority. The metaphor acts as an explanation that he was a representation of public defenders interest within the city.

Socrates indicates that he worries not to himself but a society without a real protector of their rights. In his apology, he depicts his accusers as holders of high positions and respectable people but whose actions portrayed otherwise. His teachings rattle men like Lyton, Meletus, and Anytus, who represented high-class social groups in Ancient Greece. The three felt offended by Socrates, who they indicted for inciting the youth against the leadership. But in his defense, Socrates argues that he, in fact was protecting and empowering a society for justice purposes and the truth. Thus, those who were in leadership and committing the wrongs had to feel offended. He therefore under the argument considers himself as the provoker of the evil mighty of the city, and hence a ‘gadfly.’

Declaration that “The Unexamined Life is not Worth Living”

Socrates believed that intellectual exploration for truth by individuals was a more profound and significant especially for those who knew the right thing. In his defense against accusations of misleading the youth and praying to other gods, he underscores that what matters much is whether his teachings were true or false. Socrates believes that a life of fear and indignity was far much painful than a death sentence. Hence, if faced with an option of being killed on one side or exile and denied liberty to express freely on the other, he would gladly pick the former. No matter what a man may claim to have traded for their freedom, they get a controlled, life full of deception and failed goals with betrayal of their inner self. People become weak and are treated as cheap if they accept any life for the sake of it. For example, humans have their way of distinguishing right from wrong. However, in case of fear they get compelled to do the opposite of what they believe to be correct, and thus fail in their objectives. They condemn themselves to the prison of fear for the rest of their lives something that Socrates detested.

Indeed, to exact more support to this notion he argues that while an evil man may kill a righteous man, they will never injure his morality, and that would outlive them all. Over the period of human civilization, the greatest undoing to its successes has been men who have lived in their fear of death or painful consequences other than the need to demonstrate goodness. To emphasize in support of Socrates’ statement, other scholars such as Edmund Burke indicates that evil men will succeed if good men fail to do anything. That acts as a booster to Socrates opinion. A man is as bad as the evil the one should they fail to defend the correct things within a society.

Further to concurrence to the words, it appears that Socrates argument was not speaking but spoke as a way of trying to portray that there existed differences between what people were to consider as life and survival. When one lives unexamined life, they are considered to agree and live by the rules as endurance tactics, and hence not necessarily enjoying it. The life Socrates regard as examined would offer the opportunity for people to express through guaranteed freedoms. With the latter, life is viewed as positive, and a means of personal improvement. Besides, life and social development is a combination of contributions from various people belonging to different working groups and diverse knowledge. Those who fail to set goals and put necessary effort to achieve them, appear to not to be in existence to others. Moreover, the duty to build belongs to all, for all to share. 


In a nutshell, life held up by so many limitations is not worth to live. Citizens ought to have the opportunity to demonstrate their abilities as well as contribute to social development and debates freely. Again, being unproductive in life could be dangerous to both those who fail to perform as well as the performers. To non-performers as it would make them lag behind, and to the productive as they will be forced to support the unexamined by their efforts. Every person’s success should become measured by evaluating the input they bring about to the society in their lifetime. 

Logical Questions

  • Difference between invalid deductive argument and strong inductive argument

An invalid deductive argument entails a claim whose true premises do not necessarily provide a guarantee of not having a correct conclusion. On the other hand, involves an argument that the existence of true premises in a statement demonstrates a high probability of the conclusion arrived at to be also right. 

There are several reasons to regard an argument as either bad or good. First, an argument should comprise some level of accuracy. Secondly, their plausibility ought to be considered . That means a voice of reason could get verified from it. Third, the scope covered should be established. It is core to know the amount of time an argument could last. Whether it may go over for long or would come to its conclusion after a reasonable time frame. Fourth, the determination of its simplicity should be conducted. Finally, they should prove the existence of some degree of coherence.

  • Form and the structure of an argument

Despite there being a connecting between the first and second premises conclusion by the argument is only probable and not guaranteed. According to the first assertion, cynical people are dissatisfied. On the other hand, the second argument states that not all but some careful people are as well skeptical. Therefore, there is no certainty of the conclusion reached, as it could either be false or true.


  1. 1st premise: All the refugees who cross-over to Europe are poor people from Syria
  2. 2nd Premise: Abdul Muhammad is a Syrian

Conclusion: Abdul Muhammad is poor and migrating to Europe

  • Argument Construction

In America, possession, ownership and sales of handguns appear, to increase. Despite the existence laws and requirements for licensing of gun-holders, there exists a worrying trend of illegal firearm ownership. With all the guns in the hands of ordinary citizens, there underly several challenges that contribute to the need of collecting these weapons and control their possession. Some of the reasons in support of gun control includes; the possibility of increased gun violence, the likelihood of accidental shooting especially when children get hold of the weapons. Again, the probability of citizens taking law into their hands increases. Other core contributors to the school of thought consist of civilian gun possession is a threat especially in societies where religious, racial and tribal animosity exists. Increased cases of psychopaths who are resulting into violence and gun use could become an easy way to target fellow citizens.



  1. There are increased cases of violent attacks on innocent school children and innocent people in public places in America.
  2. Most of the attackers use handguns

Conclusion: Possession, ownership and sales of handguns should not be allowed.

Related essays