Thank you for the compliment and spotting the typo. I've corrected it.

Regarding the philosophical problem you mentioned, I wonder about the usefulness of it and have wondered about the usefulness of other examples like it in the past.

When we have objects and concepts that are poorly defined, argumentation based on them seems to become some form of playing with loose, ambiguous, or perhaps way-too-malleable definitions.

For example, what is a soul? If we say it is immortal, apparently we are supposed to accept that Socrates, the possessor or owner of the soul is immortal. Could we not say the same thing about the atoms that compose his physical body, that they are immortal?

What's the difference between our vague notion of soul and a personal memory we might have in our brain?

Another issue is that it was said Socrates has a soul, but does he not have this because he is a man? Don't all men have souls and are hence immortal?

So, I ask you, what exactly is the perspective that supposedly makes that example interesting?