In my opinion, Socrates seems to display two strategies when he is engaged in discussions within his dialogues. The first is to show that he interlocutor has contradictory beliefs and the second is for the other to appear ignorant. These methods cause two dilemmas, the first being one of ignorance as he constantly claims to know nothing at certain times yet on the otherhand, he believes he has knowledge of the truth. The second strategy is the question of methodological goals - how can a method which is designed to result in bringing about ignorance to the opposition, yield knowledge of the truth? But this is inconsistent with his disclaiming knowledge. Besides, Socrates goal is almost always to only prove contradiction; and an interlocutor could escape by withdrawing one of the inconsistent claims.
             These interlocutors who were known as providers of "education" were called sophists - meaning wise or knowledgeable persons. They worked for a fee, and would give lessons on any subject for which there was a demand, and for which they considered themselves qualified. But the main demand was for training in law and public speaking. Much of what I know about the sophists derives from Plato's writings that i have studied, and he always portrays them in a negative way. I believe Plato did that because he wanted to draw a sharp contrast between the true philosopher, who loves wisdom and virtue for their own sakes, and the mere sophist, who uses, and trains others to use sophistry in pursuit of power and wealth. It seems to me that the terms 'sophist' and 'philosopher' were more or less interchangeable, and both Socrates and Plato were themselves sometimes described as sophists. At one end of the spectrum there were unprincipled teachers of rhetoric, who charged high fees for training ordinary citizens in rhetorical techniques for 'making the weaker case appear the stronger'. At the other end there were dedicated educators, w...