That was kinda Socrates' schtick: demand a definition, and then show that it wasn't a good one. Which was true, but not really all that useful.

The best I can say for it is that it shows the way people think they have definitions of things, but they don't. Push on pretty much any nontrivial definition and it will fail. That observation, at least, is kind of interesting, in that it shows the limits of the way we think about stuff.

But we do think about stuff, and both bio and silicon neural nets do a pretty good, messy job of it. If Socrates had pushed harder on that, he might have gotten some real work done about the nature of thought. Instead, he always just struck me as being kind of a jerk, rather than contributing anything.