The review complains about exhaustive enumeration, but (sorry) sampling is required for analysis. And the "Tolstoy" problem was expressed (better?) in Socrates

The review complains about exhaustive enumeration, but (sorry) sampling is required for analysis. And the "Tolstoy" problem was expressed (better?) in Socrates' time via Ecclesiastes (~ even kingdoms turn to dust) and Silenus (~ better not to be born), the dual perils of materialism and spirituality. So it's pretty hard to tell if a review of a book about dialogs about Socrates hasn't lost all connection to relevance, but there's good reason to believe that understanding Socrates now is relevant, and the book might help. Philosophy is just taking responsibility for our unavoidable phenomenological fictions to avoid the delusions and violence of their blind spots and projections -- good science and good ethics. The alternative is not science or realpolitik but obliviousness (which is nevertheless often required in the practice of both). Socrates as an ugly stonemason would have been ignored in Athenian society - not even given an ear, regardless of any wisdom. But Socrates was a war hero. You can imagine how effective a strong, squat stonemason would be in a melee. In the midst of particularly horrible defeat and retreat, he managed to save some of the elites (and their armor/honor) by not freaking out. Imagine how conflicted he might feel about society after seeing friends die horribly, and brutally bashing so many enemies, and then being celebrated for it. On Socrates' return from that war, he meets the beautiful young Charmides, and they discuss the untranslatable virtue "sophrosyne". Think of it as the virtue appropriate to retreat and peace, by comparison to courage as the virtue of attack and war. At the time the dialog was written, Charmides had grown up to become one of the democratic tyrants that destroyed Athens. It was the youth flocking to Socrates (for his critique of received wisdoms?) that led to Socrates' condemnation and death after his students grew up to ruin Athenian society. Tech is experiencing a similar turn in the public mind, for many of the same reasons. Through careful analysis and opportunism, it effectively displaced scleric systems, but with exploitative ones beyond society's control. There's as much value to be saved in a calm peace as to be taken in deploying every new weapon as soon as it's available. But there seem to be far fewer such leaders.