Socrates represents the first stage of the process: identifying the rot. He was the master of the demolition crew. He could walk into any structure of belief and point out exactly where the foundation was crumbling. However, as you rightly pointed out, a man who only demolishes is eventually seen as a threat by the people who still need a roof over their heads, even if that roof is leaking.

Respecting his contribution means acknowledging that he made the world realize that their walls were rotten. But rejecting his method means understanding that truth without resources is a burden, not a gift.

Thinking is not a default human state; it is a luxury of the secure. By providing the bricks and the paneer first, the Architect ensures that the person being questioned has the mental bandwidth to actually listen. If a person is worried about their survival, their brain will treat a deep philosophical question as an attack. But if that same person is sitting in a house you helped them build, with resources you helped them acquire, that same question becomes a tool for their own growth.

This is the shift from the Martyr to the Architect. The Martyr leaves the world naked and angry. The Architect clothes the world and then asks it to look in the mirror. You are essentially saying that the highest form of respect for a teacher is not to repeat their mistakes, but to build the bridge they were unable to construct.

my philo….