Not really. Both his ideas and his method (dialogues) have been very influential.
These days, you could probably say that his ideas are more influential than his method: not many academic philosophers write in dialogue form, but his ideas are still referenced constantly.
Thank you. I guess by 'method of analysis', I meant the way he refined definitions in an attempt to make them logically consistent, not his use of dialogue necessarily. I'm just a layman, but it seemed to me like that was what distinguished him from his contemporaries.
I think you might be thinking of Socrates, who is indeed mostly known for his Socratic method. But it’s a bit complicated, as we mostly know of Socrates from Plato’s writings, in which he is usually the main character. Socrates didn’t write anything down himself.
In any case, both Socrates and Plato have been immensely influential on Western thought, probably more than anyone else.
Thanks again. I do know all of this, and I've read quite a few of his works. I was hoping someone who has formally studied philosophy or the history of philosophy could give an in-depth take.
Sure, I mean you’re kind of right there with the comment about Socrates being known for his method as compared to his contemporaries. But the key is that his method is seen as such a radical departure that he is typically considered the “first” philosopher, with other Greek thinkers before him lumped into the category of pre-Socratics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Socratic_philosophy
This is a narrative though, and of course the actual history of philosophy is more complicated. But at least in academic philosophy, the order of teaching and categorization usually goes pre-Socratics, then Socrates and Plato, then Aristotle.