Can someone explain how this is wrong?
>Spends life advocating against sophistry
>cant convince the mob
>sophists can convince the mob
>gets killed by the mob
>somehow this is validating?
Socrates Life refutes itself
Socrates Life refutes itself
Jackson Scott
Parker Garcia
Its some kid on twitter thinking he's profound for saying socrates is a dummy. Twitter is shit. sage
Jace Edwards
Plato was the one really agaisnt sophistry, and many say that's because they were his competitors in the market.
Chase Morris
>sophists can convince the mob
Except when they can't. The art of the sophists is not a magic wand that makes you win the election every time, ask the Saudis paying the Clinton Foundation. Also this:
Jonathan Baker
It's not wrong. Schopenhauer, the only true Platonist that ever was, saw it too. How can you bear to be mere appearance when the forms exist?
Henry Long
You are making an incorrect assumption about its purpose
Angel Baker
cuz the forms aren't there twice
Logan Harris
there is nothing socrates could "convince" athens to believe - he knew that he knew nothing
Luke Bell
>yeah, Darwinian epistemology sounds like a good idea.
Hunter Murphy
>goal is to "convince" the mob
wrong,
Goal was stimulating critical thinking
Read more than the wiki please.