No, the article does not mention that it completely dismisses the rest of The Republic and just name drops Plato while deliberately ignoring one of his main points. It's particularly bad in this case because the remaining books of The Republic are basically a long reply to the aporetic ending of the first book.
It's intellectually lazy and rude. Don't grab quotes out of context to make a point the author never made, mentioning that you do so just makes things worse, not better.
No worries, that's what we're here for ;) I thought the text right after the quote makes it sufficiently clear that this is the losing side of a socratic dialogue but I can see your point.
It's intellectually lazy and rude. Don't grab quotes out of context to make a point the author never made, mentioning that you do so just makes things worse, not better.
My 2 cent, sorry if it sounds like nitpicking.