wtf is sophistry and why is the Socratic method not considered

>>3013196
>wtf is sophistry
Wut I dun like.
>why is the Socratic method not considered a form of it?
Cuz I like it. Cuck bitch.

Sophistry in the classical sense, wasn't a consistent ideology. 'A sophist' literally translates into 'a wise man'. Sophists were basically rhetoricians that elite fathers hired for their son to give them sick oratory skill in order to persuade (or cheat) their way through politics.

Socratic method can be apart of it if it's done to just trick your opponent or draw them out in a pointless trivial semantic discussion in attempt to cherry-pick any minor trip they might make in doing so just to exploit it and make them look stupid. But in essence, it's literally just self-evaluating a thing, but just with an interlocutor prompting it.

>>3013197

>>3013214
Came just to comment that this is a pretty decent definition of sophistry.
However, it seems you're being quite unfair with the Socratic method. The mistakes Socrates pointed out were legitimate logical mistakes in their time, and shouldn't have been made, even though today we would not spend so much time with some of them.