Why might “Socratic Wisdom” be useful? By stating that he knows what he does not know and that he does not pretend to know what he does not, Socrates established the foremost theoretical premise of scientific skepticism, which even today lays at the foundation of a so-called ‘scientific method’. Apparently, Socrates was well aware of the fact that, in order for people to proceed with accumulating objective knowledge, they must know what represents the empirical limits for such knowledge’s continuous accumulation. At the same time, according to Socrates, the process of people growing ever more knowledgeable of surrounding reality and their place in it has the value of ‘thing in itself’. That is – the fact that our perception of surrounding reality can never provide us with fully objective insight on such reality’s actual essence, should not prevent us from indulging in intellectual pursuits as our foremost priority. While in the process of gaining knowledge, we get closer to God: “Inasmuch as the soul is manifestly immortal, there is no release or salvation from evil except the attainment of the highest wisdom. For the soul when on her progress to the world below takes nothing with her but nurture and education” (Plato 488). The usefulness of Socratic idea that the ‘unexamined life is not worth living’ is being concerned with the fact that it exposes the sheer counter-productiveness of just about any religion that thrive upon people’s blind faith and shows that it is specifically science and not religion, which accounts for the actual pathway towards divinity. Given the fact that, even today, many people continue to profess a variety of utterly outdated religious beliefs; the enlightening value of ‘Socratic wisdom’ can hardly be underestimated. What are some of the points sophists advance to support their claim that sense-perception is deficient for transmitting reality as it is? Sophists used to promote an idea that rationale-based reasoning and perceptional empiricism could not be considered adequate instruments for assessing reality. For example, they used to point out to the fact that, when assessed through the lenses of rationale, flying arrow will never reach its target, because there can be no limit to dividing arrow’s pathway to the target on ever smaller segments – hence, arrow’s constant suspension in the air. Sophistic argument, in this respect, can be best addressed by Plato’s suggestion that, even though our rationale-driven cognition cannot possibly provide us with the full understanding of universe’s workings, it nevertheless does bring us closer to understanding the metaphysical significance of these workings’ empirically observed manifestations. Nevertheless, Sophist reasoning in the domain of morality/ethics appears fully valid. Therefore, I do agree with the suggestion that, given the fact that morality and law are merely abstract conventions, they should not be looked upon as absolutes. Just as it used to be the case with Sophists, I do believe that the conventional morality and law remain valid only for as long as they correlate with the laws of nature. And, as we are now well aware of, the foremost law of nature is survival of the fittest. Thus, if law and morality prevent a particular individual from trying to realize its full existential potential, there can be no good reasons for him of her not to consider