I call "straw man" on this arguement. (I would really think straw man arguments would be considered beneath one so logic oriented.) Perhaps you merely misunderstand my point so let me clarify.
Socrates did have a higher purpose to "truth". To undertand it, to live it, and to inspire others to believe in it. This is what you would expect from an ENTP philosopher. An INTP philosopher would seek understanding of "truth" above acting on this understanding to both live "truth" and inspire others to do so.
Socrates clearly did all three. He sought to understand truth, to live truth, and to inspire others to believe in it. The essence of our argument is to where he placed the greatest importance of his "higher purpose". Was it primarily to understand "truth", or did he understand truth because his "higher purpose" was to live "truth" and to inspire others to do so as well? I believe it is the latter, but one might see the "higher purpose" to be focused on understanding the truth since the story is told through the perspective of an introvert.
Well he did represent Socrates' actions as they really were. They were the actions of an ENTP. But he is also teaching a lesson in his writings. The ENTP actions are being used to teach an introverted lesson.
It is much like the stories told today that go, "There once was a boy who worked hard by persistantly shooting freethrows every day. And that boy grew up to be Micheal Jordan. So if you want to be like Micheal Jordan you need to work hard and be persistant". This story is not fiction, but it is not a biography either. It's a story based on true events that is used to illustrate a point. This is essentially how all of Plato's writings about Socrates go. (Obviously Plato is a better story teller than the people telling these stories though.)
Before you said "Socrates being ENTP is a claim of merit". Now you say he "only resembed an ENTP on a very superficial level". Their seems to be inconsistency in your reasoning. If you are to be as committed to truth as Socrates then you should be consistent in your reasoning.
I wouldn't say that Plato misrepresented him. I would say that the reader might get the wrong idea by confusing Socrates actions with the points that Plato is trying to make through his writings.
Okay we are drifting of course now.
My claim: The reason to believe that Socrates was an INTP is grounded in how Socrates behaved in Plato's story. It has nothing to do with Plato's commentary. We are going only by what Plato SHOWED, and not what he told.
Not sure what role Plato teaching a lesson plays here, unless this somehow interfered with the way Socrates was represented. The case here must be either that Plato did tell the story entirely like it was, or his circumstances (as for instance his need to teach a lesson) got in the way. It is one of the two. Either he did represent him accurately or he did not. The reason to believe that he did is because he would have been reproached by others who he claimed spoke to Socrates in his dialogues. All of those people were alive.
(I dont think there was a straw man fallacy there. I only made your argument SEEM weaker because of my attitude towards it, but the content of your premises was preserved in its entirety. That Socrates was not influenced by a sense of inner purpose to the extent that I suggest he was, and that his inner purpose didnt make him as internally focused as an INTP would be expected to be.)
Okay. So, lets assume for the sake of the argument that Plato told the story as it really was.
My claim: Socrates focused primarily on his higher purpose of search for truth. His external actions were not part of his agenda, they were merely an entailment of his inner mindset.
Your response: Socrates did put a high premium on a higher purpose, but was not influenced by the higher purpose to the extent that I claim he was. He consciously made an effort to impact others externally.
My response: Socrates was driven by a sense of higher purpose because we notice that philosophy was an end in itself for him. This was his main problem with the sophists. They thought that its better to convince your opponent to agree with you than to know the truth. Yet the crux of the teaching of Socrates was about how to discover the truth. ENTPs like Russell and Hume often taught about the external and ostensible benefits of being a truth seeker, and how you can use philosophy to make yourself happier. Socrates had none of this. All he taught was that you need to know the truth and thats period, basically, dont worry about what happens afterwards as he'd tell you.
Yes, Socrates did also preach and inspire others. But again, the difference between him and Hume is that Hume saw influencing others as an end in itself. Yet for Socrates it was merely an entailment of his inner mindset. Before he died, Plato reports, he claimed that he would go to another realm where he could argue with people incessantly who would always take his claims seriously just so he can finally grasp the precious truth. Yet, an ENTP in his shoes, I'd speculate would envision himself learning about what is true for the purpose of sharing it with others. Influencing people would be more important than just knowing the truth. Yet with the way Socrates phrased that one, it sounded like he was saying that he sees arguing as an end in itself, and it wasnt important to him if others really bought into it so long as he learned something. ENTPs certainly would find this unacceptable, as an unresponsive audience is undesirable and the purpose of learning the truth goes back to no other end than sharing it with others.
In the end, I contend that arguing and truth seeking was an end in itself for Socrates, presentation was not. As we see in many of his dialogues he lost his audience. Euthyphro ran off on him the other day and Socrates was chasing afterwards .."You still havent told me what Virtue is!" And when he was on trial, he didnt seek to persuade or take the matter seriously, he took it as another one of his philosophy lessons where he presented not to influence people but to work through his thought experiments..yes to work through his thought experiments..as we often see in his dialogues others say "Yes Socrates..I understand you..whatever you say Socrates.." And he was hardly perturbed by this...Again, an ENTP would make extra sure that their message is coming through clearly..even at the expense of their own learning..that is why..I'd think David Hume and Bertrand Russell arguably were the clearest writers of philosophy..
I do not think that there is a contradiction in saying that Socrates seems like an ENTP only on a superficial level and saying that to argue that he was an ENTP had much merit..As investigating this matter in detail tends to be difficult..especially if we consider that we have little access to his inner life based on the way Plato told the story.
Another comment to add on this matter is that Socrates actually spent more time alone than in dialogue with others, and this detail is difficult to notice unless one has read most of the dialogues very carefully..
He often would retreat in his inner world for hours often over 10 consecutive hours..completely oblivious to his external environment..(it is difficult for an ENTP to be unaware of the external environment because of the dominant Ne).he also had a great discipline of mind..Could meditate for long periods of time in brutally cold weather...that is a property of Ti..intense dedication to inner purpose..ENTPs could also do this, though less proficiently because Ti is less developed..Socrates was also devoid of problems in regards to being overly scattered and flakey as ENPs tend to be...Certainly ENPs can overcome this by developing Introverted Judgment and learning to focus intensely. Yet for the INPs it comes more naturally..ENPs would struggle with this a lot untill they'd overcome that, yet INTPs would hardly struggle at all..hence such intense concentration and discipline of mind came to Socrates seemingly naturally, whilst for an ENTP this would be more of a learned skill.
And again, to recapitulate. It is not that Socrates did not wish to inspire others at all, it is just that it was of a lower priority to him than it would be to an ENTP. And as I have previously answered in my longer post, living out the truth is very much an INP quality. An INTP would want to make sure that everything that he does is somehow tied down to the higher purpose of seeking the truth as it is in that case. He would argue to ensure that he is looking specifically for the truth and nothing else. Yet an ENTP would be more shifty as Introverted Judgment is weaker. Behavior of such an INTP is much analogous to John Milton's perennial search for human goodness (search for paradise) and Soren Kierkegaard's longing for faith..perennial quest to erect an archetype of a magnanimous Christian. So living out the truth is very much a property of INP. More of a property of an INP psyche than ENP because it is a property of Introverted Judgment. Introverted Judgment is stronger in INPs than it is in ENPs.
Let me know if I misunderstood your argument..I think I have fairly represented it this time though..