1. He deserved it, for being obnoxious, arrogant and generally infuriating, and for verbally slapping so many people throughout his “careerâ€.
2. He was a hypocrite. He wanted to show the world that no one truly understands anything, and yet, at the same time, he clearly thought that he understood the world better than anyone else. However, if no one understands anything, then everyone’s knowledge is equal; so, what gave Socrates the right to be so egotistical?
3. Although the so-called “Socratic Method†has its redeeming qualities when used in present day, when it is used the way it was intended to be used (i.e. the way that Socrates himself used it), it is simply a cruel and unusual way to tell a person that they are ignorant, by making fun of them, and playing with them the way a cat plays with a mouse before ripping it to shreds. By slapping Socrates upside the head, I would simply be doing what his “victims†(such as Euthyphro) would have done, had they not been overly polite.
4. None of his “dialogues†did any good. The point of a dialogue is to get something done, or prepare for something to get done. However, the purpose of Socrates’ dialogues was to convince people that they knew nothing, which did not help anyone to get anything done! When it succeeded, one would presume that they would be convinced to do what he did, i.e. protest everything that is flawed, but not suggest any alternatives (because apparently Socrates didn’t understand the idea of “the lesser of two evilsâ€). Not only is this counterproductive, but this is a waste of time. Honestly, if Socrates cared so much about helping people, couldn’t he have used his massive brain to go find new and creative ways to feed the poor, instead of unnecessarily crushing people’s egos for a living?
5. It is the fault of Socrates that we, in the twenty-first century, have to deal with pretentious, arrogant intellectuals who perceive themselves to be “gadfliesâ€, when they’re actually burdens on society who do nothing useful for a living!