The Socratic paradoxes - no one does wrong willingly, virtue is knowledge, and all the virtues are one - are widely believed to be counterintuitive or even obviously false. In "The Socratic Paradox and Its Enemies", Roslyn Weiss challenges this prevailing view, arguing that the paradoxes are best seen as Socrates' response to the pernicious views of some of his contemporaries - that is, to the sophistic beliefs that no one is willingly just, that those who are just and temperate are fools, and that only some virtues (courage and wisdom), but not others (justice, temperance, and piety) are marks of true excellence. If Socrates is essentially a combatant, Weiss argues, then the things he says and how outrageously he says them cannot be properly interpreted in isolation from the notions he opposes. Viewed in the context of these opposing ideas, the paradoxes emerge as Socrates' means of championing the cause of justice in the face of those who would impugn it. Such an unorthodox reading - ranging over six of Plato's dialogues - is sure to spark debate in philosophy, classics, and political theory.