One model of what Plato is up to (far from the only one: there is a lot of variety in interpreting Plato):

• He is completely sincere, and NOT trying to trick anyone.
• Why would anyone believe that, when the average reader thinks his Socrates is tricky and even deceptive?
• 1. Because there is ALWAYS a way to read it as being sincere that is interesting and yields philosophically interesting results.
• 2. Because, if he is tricky and even deceptive, then Plato either knew that and made him that way on purpose or did so unaware that he was making mistakes.
  
• If Plato did it on purpose, why read Plato? he's bad philosophy.
• Unless of course, like a scholar named R. Weiss, you think you can have him be deceptive AND do good philosophy: my intuition is that you cannot.
  
• If Plato did not know it, he is writing bad philosophy in that he did not catch what seem like obvious mistakes.
• Given that there is a way to read him as sincere, I read him that way, because it yields more interesting philosophy, and I think philosophy is what Plato is good for and probably what he was trying to do.

• The "elenchus"
• That is the name of the Socratic conversation that examines someone else's view and shows that person how their own beliefs refute it.
• It consists of the following:
• Interlocutor says something like 'justice is the advantage of the stronger' for example, then Socrates asks some questions:
  
• Do you mean what they think is advantageous to them? Yes.
  
• Does every stronger person know what is really advantageous to them? No.
  
• So sometimes the stronger's actions yield disadvantageous things for them? Yes.
  
• Is justice always advantageous? Yes.
• Then justice cannot always be what seems advantageous to the stronger.
  
• Therefore the interlocutor's initial assertion that every X is P is wrong.
• Bailly note: that example was quickly done and may not be logically valid or sound or perfectly reflect something in R. I, but the big point stands.
• The big point is that Socrates secures agreement to a few questions and then circles back to the interlocutor's initial claim to point out a problem with it.
• So the elenchus is a machine to discover logical inconsistency.
  

• The 'elenchus' could produce truth if:
• every human has some true beliefs about the things Socrates is asking about.
• every true claim is compatible with every other true claim
• every false claim is incompatible with some true claim
• there is only one set of true claims
• If we do the elenchus repeatedly, only true beliefs will get through, is the idea.
  
• A possibly big problem is that the characters consistently reject the interlocutor's initial claim rather than some other claim that led to it's refutation. The elenchus could just produce chaos and greater uncertainty once you realize that, logically, it does not refute the initial position but rather merely uncovers inconsistency of belief.
  

• When Socrates says he does not know the answers (called Socrates 'disavowal of knowledge'), that serves two purposes:
• 1. to point out that the elenchus is a process that needs to be repeated, possibly forever: it does not simply spit out truth: it eliminates or reveals inconsistency
• Socrates can sincerely mean it that he does not know, even though he seems to have a much better idea what the answer might be than his interlocutors and even though he has been doing this his whole adult life up to the dialogue in question.
  
• 2. to force the interlocutor (and us too by extension) to find the answer themself
• autonomy/owning the answer

• Plato is also forcing us to question it all and find our own answers by never vouching for the dialogue's content with his own voice

• A few more things:
  
• Socrates does not 'teach' content: if he teaches anything, he teaches processes, ways to reason.
  
• those processes are almost all new at the time
• not that cave women did not use them, but making them explicit and repeatable moves that become standard moves, and occasionally calling attention to and examining their nature qua moves, is a new thing
  
• Plato's dialogues portray all of this as something done socially: between people, not inside of one person
• that may well be significant: is 'thought' something that one does on one's own or something that must be done between people to be well done?
• maybe we need other people to 'keep us honest' and make us 'think outside the box'
  
• Plato lived in a VERY competitive society: but he makes Socrates claim to NEVER try to win: Socrates consistently claims to be trying to find the truth along WITH his interlocutors and to be utterly unconcerned with who wins the argument
  

• whatever else we think about all this, Plato's dialogue form is a very good way to isolate and examine a position.

• dialogues like the Gorgias may be fundamentally different from dialogues like Republic 2-10.
• Why?
  
• 1. First answer:
• Because Gorgias (and Republic I) are 'aporetic': they REFUTE the interlocutor rather than present positive content.
• Republic 2-10, however, presents a lot of positive content.
• 2. Second answer:
• Because Gorgias (and Republic I) are just about purely ETHICAL: they talk about ethical issues
• many of Plato's dialogues are like that: they are usually considered 'early'  dialogues
  
• But Republic 2-10 presents so much more:
• a pscyhology
• an epistemology
• a metaphysics
• an ontology
• and more