It's just such a great example of how people could react either with uproarious laughter or by feeling that some boundary has been violated and can think that either reaction was the most self-evidently obvious one in the world and the reasons for it were entirely contingent. It's something where you can only really witness the irrationality of it if you're in the author's position.
I once heard it speculated that philosophy might have emerged in Greece because the circumstances of being merchants engaging in interstate trade, you could see the way that certain things regarded as received knowledge were really customs, peculiar to certain cultures and locations. When you're the prankster and you can see different people reacting in different ways that seem to be tied to patterns of the circumstances of how they experienced it, you can kind of witness the contingency of those reactions playing out in real time.
One could easily argue then that Plato was essentially a prankster and what we know as western civilization is a consequence of his trickery.
In one particular European tradition, maybe? But elsewhere the trickster may themselves be a divine source of insight. Hermes in Greek, the Southwest American Kokopelli, etc.
My point is that the trickster as philosophical root is an idea that has tendrils far beyond a Western viewpoint. I cant find the ref now but IIRC some Native American traditions have the viewpoint that connecting to the divine cannot be made without first laughing, as that opens the mind to the new experience. Reminds me of some Far Eastern traditions where you need a sharp break from your normal world view to achieve an enlightening breakthrough.