Socrates vs. the Written Phrase – Wondermark

Previously, I shared a curmudgeonly 1889 article about the menace of electricity and the telephone and its religious cousin, a fifteenth-century screed lamenting the printing press. I’m gathering information right here in service of a speculation that progress is universally despised, that the “get off my garden you whippersnappers” feeling that all of us sometimes expertise is extra tied to our make-up as people than the expertise and the modifications themselves. These emotions, I posit, are common, and maybe make us really feel disconnected — we see others doing issues in a different way, and experiencing life another way, and we are able to’t perceive it, or all we are able to see is what they’re lacking. If solely they’d understand! But these persons are not dangerous — they’re merely native to the subsequent factor, maybe, they usually expertise the planet barely in a different way. And so the planet turns.

When I discussed that I supposed this curmudgeonly sentiment towards progress was widespread all all through historical past, some commenters pointed me to the Phaedrus, a Socratic dialogue of round 370 B.C.

In it, Socrates recounts to Phaedrus the Egyptian legend of Theuth, the god who invented “numbers and arithmetic and geometry and astronomy, additionally draughts and cube, and, most vital of all, letters.” Theuth presents the Egyptian king Thamus together with his many innovations, and Thamus

…stated many issues to Theuth in reward or blame of the varied arts, which it will take too lengthy to repeat; however after they got here to the letters, “This invention, O king,” stated Theuth, “will make the Egyptians wiser and can enhance their reminiscences; for it’s an elixir of reminiscence and knowledge that I’ve found.”

But Thamus replied, “Most ingenious Theuth, one man has the power to beget arts, however the skill to guage of their usefulness or harmfulness to their customers belongs to a different; and now you, who’re the daddy of letters, have been led by your affection to ascribe to them an influence the other of that which they actually possess.

“For this invention will produce forgetfulness within the minds of those that be taught to make use of it, as a result of they won’t apply their reminiscence. Their belief in writing, produced by exterior characters which aren’t any a part of themselves, will discourage using their very own reminiscence inside them. You have invented an elixir not of reminiscence, however of reminding; and also you supply your pupils the looks of knowledge, not true knowledge, for they may learn many issues with out instruction and can due to this fact appear to know many issues, when they’re for probably the most half ignorant and onerous to get together with, since they don’t seem to be smart, however solely seem smart.” (Phaedrus 274c-275b)

To which Phaedrus calmly replies: “Socrates, you simply make up tales of Egypt or any nation you please.”

Socrates continues:

Socrates
He who thinks, then, that he has left behind him any artwork in writing, and he who receives it within the perception that something in writing will probably be clear and sure, can be an totally easy individual, and in reality unaware of the prophecy of Ammon, if he thinks written phrases are of any use besides to remind him who is aware of the matter about which they’re written.

Phaedrus
Very true.

Socrates
Writing, Phaedrus, has this unusual high quality, and may be very like portray; for the creatures of portray stand like residing beings, but when one asks them a query, they protect a solemn silence. And so it’s with written phrases; you would possibly suppose they spoke as if that they had intelligence, however when you query them, wishing to learn about their sayings, they all the time say just one and the identical factor. And each phrase, when as soon as it’s written, is bandied about, alike amongst those that perceive and those that have no real interest in it, and it is aware of to not whom to talk or to not communicate; when ill-treated or unjustly reviled it all the time wants its father to assist it; for it has no energy to guard or assist itself.

Now inform me; is there not one other type of speech, or phrase, which reveals itself to be the legit brother of this bastard one, each within the method of its begetting and in its higher and extra highly effective nature?

Phaedrus
What is that this phrase and the way is it begotten, as you say?

Socrates
The phrase which is written with intelligence within the thoughts of the learner, which is ready to defend itself and is aware of to whom it ought to communicate, and earlier than whom to be silent.

Phaedrus
You imply the residing and respiration phrase of him who is aware of, of which the written phrase could justly be known as the picture.

Socrates
Exactly. Now inform me this. Would a smart husbandman, who has seeds which he cares for and which he needs to bear fruit, plant them with severe function within the warmth of summer time in some backyard of Adonis, and enjoyment of seeing them seem in magnificence in eight days, or would he do this form of factor, when he did it in any respect, solely in play and for amusement? Would he not, when he was in earnest, observe the principles of husbandry, plant his seeds in becoming floor, and be happy when these which he had sowed reached their perfection within the eighth month?

Phaedrus
Yes, Socrates, he would, as you say, act in that manner when in earnest and within the different manner just for amusement.

Socrates
And we could suppose that he who has data of the simply and the nice and delightful has much less sense about his seeds than the husbandman?

Phaedrus
By no means.

Socrates
Then he is not going to, when in earnest, write them in ink, sowing them by a pen with phrases which can not defend themselves by argument and can’t educate the reality effectually.

Socrates lays out an argument that the written phrase can not defend itself in dialogue, and thus can not successfully educate something price figuring out. For solely by banter, by back-and-forth dialogue and rhetorical argument and the understanding of issues, can true data be conveyed. Reading mere phrases, in his thoughts, is akin to a lake quite than swimming in it — or worse, a lake and pondering that now you understand how to swim.

Plato (the transcriber of this dialogue) expounds additional on the idea in his Seventh Epistle:

After a lot effort, as names, definitions, sights, and different information of sense, are introduced into contact and friction one with one other, in the midst of scrutiny and kindly testing by males who proceed by query and reply with out ailing will, with a sudden flash there shines forth understanding about each drawback, and an intelligence whose efforts attain the furthest limits of human powers. Therefore each man of price, when coping with issues of price, will probably be removed from exposing them to ailing feeling and misunderstanding amongst males by committing them to writing…

Anyone who has adopted this discourse and digression will know nicely that, if Dionysios or anybody else, nice or small, has written a treatise on the very best issues and the primary ideas of issues, he has, so I say, neither heard nor learnt any sound educating in regards to the topic of his treatise; in any other case, he would have had the identical reverence for it, which I’ve, and would have shrunk from placing it forth right into a planet of discord and uncomeliness.

Dionysios right here is Dionysios the Younger of Syracuse, a brutal tyrant, who has written a treatise on philosophy. Plato argues that he will need to have accomplished it for fame or glory, as a result of it’s clearly a rip-off — philosophy can’t be taught in writing; it will probably solely be felt, skilled, argued out and sensed.

In a manner that is an argument similar to that of Trithemius against the printing press — {that a} perceived flattening or automating of a kind essentially includes a loss; that fact (whether or not or not it’s philosophy or Scripture) is greatest consumed and absorbed experientially. I feel it is a nice sentiment and one price contemplating even now.

Where I feel they misstep, nonetheless, is of their perception that it’s both/or: the outdated manner is superior ergo the brand new format has no worth. Though typically conflated, in my thoughts these are two separate arguments; one can’t essentially measure a brand new factor by how nice the outdated factor was. (And in fact, we wouldn’t have Plato’s data in any respect if he hadn’t written them down — which Socrates, true to his phrase, by no means did — and equally, Trimethius needed to have his treatise printed with a view to obtain any form of mass circulation.)

Interestingly, the speech-vs-text argument seems once more within the Eighties, however in reverse: with the arrival of the phone, palms are wrung that communication will change into rife with error and misunderstanding as a result of not like the telegraph, the newfangled phone leaves no written report!

This is a selected drawback within the case of enterprise transactions which will find yourself in courtroom, and likewise, curiously, within the rarefied planet of railroad switching, the place observe orders are routinely communicated forward of a prepare by a military of telegraph operators. Without written data of every communication, any errors that trigger accidents down the road couldn’t be tracked to their supply.

Luckily for the phone, good individuals have been available with sure-fire options:

At the latest assembly at Detroit of the Association of Railroad Telegraph Superintendents. Mr. M. C. Selden of the Baltimore & Ohio learn a paper upon the topic of the phone in railroad service. The objection made to the phone as compared with the telegraph, that there can be no written report, is answered by Mr. Selden. He calls consideration to the truth that the extraordinary telegraph instrument offers no written report, and that the aspect of private fallibility is current in its use; and that if a phone message is written earlier than sending and spelled out, correctly if of significance, the receiver may have ample time to put in writing it out whereas receiving it, and data are thus preserved at each ends of the road. In issues of much less very important significance the phone affords benefits which can’t be approximated by the telegraph. — Railway Age journal, 1894

In different phrases, to create a written report on the phone, the sender ought to write down what he’s going to say, and the receiver ought to write down what he hears. Perfectly handy!

In equity, a lot of the paperwork I’ve been in a position to uncover solely obliquely reference the supposed drawback, and deal with it as minor. Another suggestion:

Although the phone is thus largely availed of as a time-saver, there may be nonetheless a curious prejudice in lots of minds towards telephoning telegrams all the best way, with none intervention of the telegraph with its report — that supposedly holy talisman towards errors in transmission. Considering the large quantity of vital enterprise that’s every day transmitted by phone, with out an considerable share of error and at an immeasurably larger pace than that of the telegraph, it’s outstanding that this unreasonable prejudice towards telephoning written messages ought to nonetheless get hold of in circles the place there may be adequate widespread sense to make use of both the telegraph or phone in any respect.

That it does nonetheless exist, nonetheless, is indeniable. No doubt that is largely attributable to the truth that the phone corporations, having had as far as a lot as they’ll do to take care of their fast enterprise of supplying phone service pure and easy, haven’t but taken any steps to domesticate a worthwhile subject that lies able to their palms, the transmission and supply of native telegrams. In each massive city there may be loads of demand for an inexpensive telegraph service, and the phone firm has simply the plant and group to furnish such a service. It will but be a few years earlier than each man with whom occasional fast communication is desired by another person has his personal telegraph station in his personal place, within the type of a phone. Meanwhile the phone firm has its wires and stations, private and non-private, in all instructions, its messenger pressure and its supervisory pressure, all of the equipment, briefly, with which to prepare in a number of days a fast, environment friendly and low cost native telegraph service. At, say, 10 cents a message of twenty phrases of textual content, such a service can be worthwhile to the phone firm and would meet with a prepared demand from the general public. — The American Telephone Journal, Volume 6 (1902)

In different phrases, if people suppose telegraphy is much less handy however safer, then the reply is to make telegraphy simply as handy as telephones have change into.

We have now, 100+ years later, 2000+ years later even, come full circle on this difficulty as soon as once more, with the difficulty of texting. I’ve observed that most individuals of my era and youthful now want to textual content quite than speak on the telephone, and that is borne out by some information:

The decline in voice communications is nicely documented. “The fall of the decision is pushed by 18 to 34-year-olds, whose common month-to-month voice minutes have plunged from about 1,200 to 900 prior to now two years, in response to analysis by Nielsen.

“Texting amongst 18 to 24-year-olds has greater than doubled in the identical interval,” wrote Ian Shapira of the Washington Post earlier this 12 months.

The Nielsen Co. additionally notes that people beneath the age of 24 textual content extra typically than they name, viewing the out-of-the-blue name as tantamount to an intrusion. (Source)

But I do know not everybody agrees. A fast Google was all it took to uncover extra modern-day curmudgeons:

…People all the time say texting is extra handy than speaking on the telephone, however in lots of conditions, it will take much less time to do it the old style manner. Why not simply name the individual and get the dialog over in 5 seconds quite than persevering with a protracted string of textual content messages that takes 10 minutes? It’s known as effectivity. — Minnesota Public Radio, January 2010

Which is to not reduce the legit points with speaking by way of textual content — for instance, sarcasm and tone of voice can typically be misinterpreted.

In truth, for everybody who’s despatched an e mail or Facebook message that’s provoked the other response than you supposed (myself included), I don’t imply so as to add insult to harm right here, however…

Socrates is laughing in any respect of us.