[67Irralphaisa]

Plato, not Socrates, wrote the Euthydemus.

I did not claim otherwise.

Philosophers and historians do not generally consider Plato's dialogs to be decisive as to what Socrates said or did, and it is generally accepted that Plato put his own ideas into the mouth of the character he called "Socrates."

It's more complex than than that.

Only when there is corroboration from independent sources do the researchers tentatively hold that such-and-such was probably said or done by Socrates, as he never wrote anything.

Another thing he has in common with the Buddha.

Petitio Principii. You have yet to establish that there is anything dubious about the link, but are tacitly asking us to proceed on the assumption that you have.

I am not committing the informal fallacy called "begging the question..., the fallacy of improperly arguing in a circle" (CDP, p. 434. '99). The "establishing" regards the inferiority of the source (link) to the CDP. Furthermore, re-statement is not necessarily circularity. "Circular reasoning should not be presumed to be inherently fallacious, but can be fallacious where the circular argument has been used to disguise or cover up a failure to fulfill burden of proof. The problem arises where the conclusion that was supposed to be proved is presumed within the premises to be granted by the respondent of the argument" (CDP, p. 433. '99). The burden of proof lies with the comparers of the sources; no premises have (yet) been (fully) granted.

Believe it or not, I don't really enjoy informal fallacies. Logic has never been my favorite part of philosophy. I'm more interested in epistemology and ethics and the philosophy/Buddhism intersects therein. I don't like ontology (metaphysics) much either.