Possibly, like Mephistopheles in Faust, he may retaliate on his adversaries.

But the philosopher will still be justified in asking, 'How may the heavenly gift of poesy be devoted to the good of mankind ?' Returning to Plato, we may observe that a similar mixture of truth and error appears in other parts of the argument.

He is aware of the absurdity of mankind framing their whole lives according to Homer; just as in the Phaedrus he intimates the absurdity of interpreting mythology upon rational principles; both these were the modern tendencies of his own age, which he deservedly ridicules.

On the other hand, his argument that Homer, if he had been able to teach mankind anything worth knowing, would not have been allowed by them to go about begging as a rhapsodist, is both false and contrary to the spirit of Plato (Rep.).

It may be compared with those other paradoxes of the Gorgias, that 'No statesman was ever unjustly put to death by the city of which he was the head'; and that 'No Sophist was ever defrauded by his pupils' (Gorg.)...
The argument for immortality seems to rest on the absolute dualism of soul and body.