Socrates and Grice: weirdos?

At

http://lsv.uky.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0812E&L=CLASSICS-L&P=R1650&I=-3

I quote from M. Davidson:

"Did this apply in the ancient world as well? Do we have any examples of ancient writers or other creative individuals with over-the-top political, social, or religious ideas outside the field of their own expertise? Did this happen much in the ancient world, and if not, why not?"

I first thought: Socrates. Creative individual? yes. Weird ideas? yes. And I would like it to compare him to: H. P. Grice. Creative individual? yes. Weird ideas? yes.
To understand Socrates is very difficult, and I'm not really concerned with all his facets, but with his creation of 'philosophical analysis' alla Oxford. The triad is indeed Socrates-Plato-Aristotle. The connection with Grice is not so difficult, but also concerns a triad: Austin-Urmson-Grice. Points of contact:

1. Socratic-Platonic-Aristotelian philosophical analysis _versus_ 'sophistical' manipulations of concepts.
2. Austin-Urmson-Grice 'philosophical analysis' _versus_ 'the intelligentsia'. Grice describes this best in a couple of publications: his "Life and
Opinions of Paul Grice", but notably in his "Valedictory Epilogue" analysed passage
by passage in S. R. Chapman, "Life of Paul Grice" (Palgrave). In "Life and opinions", Grice describes himself as an irreverent 'dissident'
and rationalist to boot. I would think that was exactly the way Socrates
would label himself! In "Valedictory Epilogue" he focuses not so much on Socrates, although he is mentioned, but in the third in the triad, Aristotle; which if my analogy holds water, is Grice himself. Grice discusses 'philosophical analysis' of the Athenian 'dialectic' as a foreshadow of philosophical analysis of the Oxonian
'dialectic'. Both 'dialectics' were aimed at 'ordinary language': the
language of the 'many'; but they did not stop at that; they aimed at a clarification of the language (or 'ta legomena', to be specific) of the many not so much in opposition to the language of the few -- that would be back to the
intelligentsia he is dissenting with -- but to the language of the _wise_.
So, Socrates and Grice found themselves in scenarios where common little
words had gained 'self-importance' due to over-use; they both felt the need to
involve themselves in collaborative dialogues -- with the 'younger generation'
because it's never so easy to teach an old dog new tricks -- to get to the
'wise' (i.e. true) interpretation of the common little word: read: 'just',
'right', 'good', 'beautiful', true', 'correct', ... In broader terms, I would think *all* philosophers worth their name, even in the classical tradition, where 'creative individuals with 'weird' -- to 'middle America' or the establishment -- ideas. Even Aristippus the Cyrenaic, even if it looked like he just joined the corridors of powers, you read what he says and you cannot deny the title of philosopher: it shows!
The class thing -- 'middle America', intelligentsia, etc. -- obviously need
some nonanachronic treatment, but you know what I mean. Popper and many other
continental philosophers (notably Bergmann who referred to the
Austin-Urmson-Grice as the 'futilitarians') were criticised for endorsing the _status quo_: the stone universitities, the classical curriculum, the classics, the
sensitivity to questions of usage which are a prerrogative and an expertise of
public-school educated 'gents' --. But being the chaff of that empty and
politicised critique, lies an attempt to join with the 'greats' in what shines in
the History of Western Thought.
Grice and Socrates _exceed_ philosophy, and it should come as no surprise
that the former is included in that huge volume, "Great thinkers of the
Twentieth Century".
(Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for my other passion when it comes
to Greek things: sculpture: I always found that what Policleto did when he
came out with his Canon could just as well achieved by throwing an ephebe on a
pond, and use the corpse (or body) as the own sculpture: hardly a 'creative',
or 'weird' idea, to reproduce the beauty that the human body is. Or not).