The critique of writing in the Phaedrus has enthused discuss about prominence of historical transition of the dialogue from oral to literacy form. In very broad terms, this passage presented philosophical critique of writing and unnecessary of literacy. According to this passage, invention of writing has detrimental effect on process of thinking, “creates forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories”, and creates “only the pretense of wisdom”, which generates just a shallow “knowledge without the reality”. Socrates draws a parallel between writing and painting, and argue that “for the creations of the painter have the attitude of life, and yet if you ask them a question they preserve a solemn silence …same way be said of speeches; you would imagine that they had intelligence, but if you want to know anything and put a question to one of them, the speaker always gives one unvarying answer”. Therefore, Socrates saw more value and vivacity in live dialogue then voiceless letters. Dialogue, according to Socrates is “the word of knowledge which has a living soul” while “written word is properly no more than an image.”
Ultimate and shortsighted belief that its either/ or is the key misstep in discussions like these. Conclusive position that one or the other is good or better, ergo the new format has no value, eventually ineffectual. Socrates, again, is most right. Reading alone does not granted you true knowledge or actual understanding of certain concepts. However, speaking and dialogue alone cannot distribute and preserve knowledge and ideas to those able to learn it the way writing can. Therefore, one does not need to be better than the other, for they are completely able to coexist, and, in fact, should.
It is hard to understand the whole illogicality and paradox of Socrates’ protest against writing. Despite the fact that Socrates is clearly “shares Thamus’s view”, he “ grants that there are practical benefits to capturing one’s thoughts in writing –“ as memorials against the forgetfulness of old age”. (The Oral World vs. The Written Word) Besides, we wouldn’t have Socrates’ records at all if Plato hadn’t written them down. One of the reasons why Plato, is himself a writer, critiques writing, probably, rooted to elitism. “In Plato’s time, and for centuries afterward, heightened consciousness was reserved for an elite.”(The Oral World vs. The Written Word) Plato and Socrates belong to an exceptional superior class – philosophers. Socrates claims that, “If any one of you has composed these things with a knowledge of the truth, if you can defend your writing when you are challenged, and if you yourself make the argument that your writing is of little worth, then you must be called by a name not derived by these writings, but rather by those things which you are seriously pursuing.” Philosophical writing is presented and defended on unusual terms. While the writing itself must be of little worth, philosophical writing gains its strength through the defense that its author (or another advocate) offers. As Plato presents it, philosophical writing in itself is little more than a meaningless artifact. It is only when the written words are invoked by a philosopher that the words have meaning.” ( Pithos , Spring 2014 Process and the rhetoric of writing in Plato’s Phaedrus, by Ryan Murphy)
Plato’s Phaedrus, written 360 B.C.E. highlights the idea that “the technology of the alphabet will alter a person mind, and not for the better”( The Oral World vs. The Written Word) many centuries after, same idea and anxiety over the increasingly cold modes of electronic communication, Internet and new educational evolution emphasized in Nicolas Carr’s article. The author claims that new technology modifies our way of thinking and not for good. It “shape the process of thoughts … , chipping away the capacity for concentration and contemplation, weakened capacity for deep reading”, and making us “decoders of information” rather then deep and cautious readers. (Is Google Making Us Stupid?) I disagree with the author, furthermore his argument is just another consistent belief that the old way is superior , ergo the new format has no value. Subsequently he is trying to plea to our moving nature to not only confront change, but to rebel against a technology which is turning us intro “pancake people” who is click too much, read too little, and remember even less, with flat and artificial intelligence. Why comprehend this word, as “of Kubrick’s dark prophecy”, Mr. Carr? Yes, Internet is changing the way people think, but it does not mean we become robots with artificial intellect. Language is the technology for communication. Internet is just a medium for the exchange of language, in every form imaginable. The reason why people prefer Internet to other form of communications is its simplicity and speed. As we move from specialization to generalizations it becomes necessary to deal with the wide range of problems however, human intelligence is limited. “In a purely oral culture, thinking is governed by the capacity of human memory” (The Oral World vs. The Written Word) and the capacity of human brain changed not so much since Socrates era. Moreover another limiting factor has added- time, which today is the most valuable and irretrievable resource. The faster you find solution, information or source, the better. Therefore the creators of Google have realized our limitation and find the way to add the brain’s capacity for knowledge. Therefore, my point is- same as writing enables the communication of discourse over time and space, internet helps us find information faster, be more efficient and productive. In order to move forward we should not be categorical. Similarly to Socrates’ dilemma of writing or speaking relevance, Carr’s argument against Internet, in favor of books and live text, not optimized by exclusion of one or the other. The compromise and the only ingenious elucidation could be found through maximization when used together.