Part 6/9:
In a vivid hypothetical election debate, Socrates illustrates this point through a portrayal of a doctor versus a sweet shop owner. The sweet shop owner charms voters with promises of indulgence, while the doctor provides necessary but unpleasant truths. Socrates posits that the doctor’s prudent yet uncomfortable message would likely incite outrage among the electorate, effectively sidelining reasoned argument in favor of appealing platitudes.