  It is sometimes thought that the philosopher cannot be better off in  experience, for the philosopher has never lived as an adult who is  fully committed to the pleasures of the money-lover. But this point  does not disable Socrates’ argument. The philosopher does not have  exactly the experience that the money-lover has, but the  philosopher has far more experience of the money-lover’s  pleasures than the money-lover has of the philosopher’s pleasures.  The comparative judgment is enough to secure Socrates’ conclusion:  because the philosopher is a better judge than the others,  the philosopher’s judgment has a better claim on the truth.