My point is that many sophist arguments seem very based if you accept their premise/analogy. You have to reject the premise to see the flaws.
Indeed, or you can expand the analogy. If the ship could visit two islands, one which makes the captain rich, one which makes the crew rich, which would be visited most?
Also, the selection process of who controls the ship is "solved" (captain), but who picks the captain? Who decides which people are experienced in seafaring and also not corrupt/evil?
Another problem I have with this story is "That is definitely so" answer from Socrates' opposition. NOBODY I talk to ever says that. They weasel out of such traps easily even when dumb
Now, that could happen once or twice, but with the Plato stories it happens over and over. I cannot imagine that this was how actual Socrates discussions usually happened.
