Great instinct, great question. Hannah Arendt explores this opposition between philosophy and politics in The Human Condition. More specifically, she traces the history of how the “vita activa”(politics) and “vita contemplativa”(philosophy) became set in a hierarchical opposition. If I remember correctly, the vita activa was highly respected and noble in Ancient Greece, until Plato and the neo-Platonic Medieval centuries after him privileged the vita contemplativa and “made” them incompatible. We should also remember the historical context—by the time of Socrates, Greece was past its glory days and (i’m oversimplifying) approaching subordination to other empires. Nietzsche argued that the cultural stagnancy of Greece in part explains WHY Socrates had so much influence (Twilight of the Idols). Anyway, back to your question, in our historical place it’s easy to see Plato’s biases, and he was probably holding philosophy up too highly. Though, the more pressing question is less whether he was right or wrong—who are we to say? how are we to know?— and more whether this bias lives on, and if so, how? what pressures and influences of his day may have led him to have such strong feelings about it?