>the socratic dialogues

Nobody really gets angry in the dialogues, though. They're more like infomercial audience members.

>>1613468
>are you SICK AND TIRED of not being able to define arete?

>>1613459
meh, the Eleatic stranger was alright.

Also, Sophists are good lads, philosophers were just salty Sophists were getting all the dough.

>>1613577
Sophists won in the end. Today truth is considered relative, politicians can say whatever they want and whoever has the best campaign adds wins. Are you happy?

>>1613588
>I have never read a single work by the sophists, nor have I read Plato's Sophist, nor could I provide a definition for sophistry or what a sophist is

>>1613595
Actually, I can
>his art may be traced as a branch of the appropriative, acquisitive family-which hunts animals,-living-land-tame animals; which hunts man,-privately-for hire,-taking money in exchange-having the semblance of education; and this is termed Sophistry, and is a hunt after young men of wealth and rank-such is the conclusion.

t. Plato

>>1613605
And does this actually reflect the so-called evil and deceitful sophists of old?

You can pin that down to almost any sort of paid teacher, or even an unpaid one (a "sophist beggar"), as long as it doesn't fit with your narrative of "genuine education".

also
>I have never read any analysis on Plato's Sophist

>>1613614
>I'll just the goalpost

t. Sophist

>>1613620
move the goalpost*

I should know better than to argue with a sophist. This is the lesson of the Euthydemus. Cheers

>>1613628
There is nothing wrong with sophistry

>>1613459
>summing up with a shitty biased comic your own incapacity to understand things

Legit question here, are you 14 ?

>>1617426
how new r u

>>1617426
you're a fucking idiot desu senpai. People like you should be chemically castrated, I'm not meming here.

Lurk more before posting.