those who know
I want to know how Socrates tells the difference between belief and knowledge. Capital letters Truth and Knowledge seem pretty important to him, but in this statement he's assuming that the ignorant and the knowledgeable are easily distinguished.
And I am afraid to point this out to you, lest you should think that I have some animosity against you, and that I speak, not for the sake of discovering the truth, but from jealousy of you. Now if you are one of my sort, I should like to cross-examine you, but if not I will let you alone. And what is my sort? you will ask. I am one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything which is not true, and very willing to refute any one else who says what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute; for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two, just as the gain is greater of being cured of a very great evil than of curing another.
Socrates again showing concern with ascertaining truth (love of truth/knowledge). Interested in a dialectic, not a debate concerned with being right.
the arts are made great, not by those who are without scruple in boasting about them, but by those who are able to discover all of the resources which each art affords
The definition of arts. Both Isocrates and Socrates claim that only complete knowledge can meet the definition of arts.
oblivious of the fact that the arts are made great, not by those who are without scruple in boasting about them, but by those who are able to discover all of the resources which each art affords.
Another argument for "true" knowledge (referred to as 'art' here). There is a recurring theme here about in order for someone to graduate from memorizing information to true knowledge, one must think critically about their subject at hand (admittedly, I may be reading too much into this)
But in order that I may not appear to be breaking down the pretensions of others while myself making greater claims than are within my powers, I believe that the very arguments by which I myself was convinced will make it clear to others also that these things are true.
He calls on his own studies, calling them the "very arguments by which I myself was convinced" and relies on his knowledge to deem his words true.
For I hold that to obtain a knowledge of the elements out of which we make and compose all discourses is not so very difficult if anyone entrusts himself, not to those who make rash promises, but to those who have some knowledge of these things.
Does this go back to the knowledge verses experience debate?
the teachers who do not scruple to vaunt their powers with utter disregard of the truth have created the impression that those who choose a life of careless indolence are better advised than those who devote themselves to serious study.
Is this stating that traditional teachers that hesitate to boast their knowledge without regard to the truth (possibly meaning the same thing as plato's "experience") inadvertently seem less educated than those who choose a life of careless indolence (sophists?)?