The more I learn about the Socratic philosophers, the less I like them. I'm still quite fond of Aristotle for pointing out the principles of moderation, which, though insufficient, are still a much better argument for healthy living than most others I've come across, and I've never particularly liked Plato -- another point in favor of Aristotle: he didn't agree with Plato too much. But the more I read about Socrates, the less I feel like he was actually a uniquely challenging and brilliant individual, and the more I feel like he was probably the ancient Athenian Ron Paul. Lots of oversimplified ideas, that get really good press because it's easy to see why they seem like they spit all over pre-existing knowledge, and hard to see why they really don't work. I mean, imagine if in 2000 years, all we had left of knowledge about Ron Paul was a bunch of Libertarian newsletters? The man would seem like a saint, and the rest of Western civilization would look like fools for ignoring him.
Of course, I don't know that Socrates was actually an annoying Libertarian-esque pseudo-intellectual. But apart from that, I'm still annoyed with the degree to which he's celebrated as an iconic figure in history and treated like the founding father of thought. Issac Newton had it right when he said that intellectual achievements stand on the shoulders of giants. And all things considered, Plato contributed more to developing knowledge than Socrates did, and Plato was wrong about pretty much everything.
On level, I'm pretty sick of talking about philosophers who covered material we know to be wrong. But beyond that, I think over 2000 years is enough time to get sole and specific credit for general principles with which a thinker is loosely and non-exclusively affiliated. I bet with a little digging, we could find a Socrates-like character in every historical tradition around the world. That stuff is public domain by now, and should be taught that way.