Writing is a large part of society, without
it the World would simply not be the same, and would not have moved forward.
Without writing, we would all still be living in caves, as nobody could record
measurements to build a house, this is just one of the many examples of how
writing has changed the world. Plato, the famous Ancient Greek Philosopher
disputes the importance of writing. For the purpose of this post, there are two
points that shall be focused on within it, showing that they are not valid
arguments, that Plato believes how writing is inhuman, and how Plato believes
that writing destroys memory. The first point made by Plato shall be disproven,
as it will be centred around the argument, as made by Jasper Neel, author at
South Illinois University, that “The only possible way one could work out a
systematic, fixed idea about the soul was in writing.” As he states within Plato, Derrida, and Writing. The second
point shall be centred on an argument made by another author, Ronna Burger,
from the University of Alabama, in which she states “…the perfect fixity of the
written word seems to exclude the possibility of living thought.” Which is the
main argument that will be utilised to show how Plato’s point is invalid. It
can be said that Plato was a great mind, however he was still a human, and he
has contradicted himself in the past by the arguments he makes.
Plato states that writing is inhuman. When
Plato began writing, it was about religion, the supernatural, and how it
affects people. Neel notes that early in Plato’s career, Plato stated “The only
possible way one could work out a systematic, fixed idea about the soul was in
writing.” This point here shows that the only way to comprehend the soul, is by
writing about it, hence being human has links to writing, as all people have
souls. Plato has unintentionally contradicted himself here and this is because he
has stated how humans want to comprehend what they are, and the only way to
comprehend what they are is by writing about it. Plato, in his statement that
writing is inhuman, has failed to recall on his past statements, of which he
argued the importance of writing to humanity. How can writing be so inhuman if
it is the only way that we can find out about our souls? This is why Plato has
contradicted himself, as he has given writing such great significance to
humanity early in his career, yet fails to recall this in his later claims. One
more interesting point that can be made about Plato’s argument here is that if
writing is so inhuman, why did Plato continue to write after writing the Phaedrus? If he believed it was so
inhuman, he would have surely given writing up completely.
In the Phaedrus,
Plato also states that writing destroys memory. This is because people have
to rely on something other than their own mind in order to remember certain
things. Author, Burger, states that Plato mentioned, “…the perfect fixity of
the written word seems to exclude the possibility of living thought.” In this,
it can then be drawn that written words are not living, but we can also draw
that they are timeless, that they can essentially last forever, as a “perfect
fixity”. It could then be drawn upon, that as a “perfect fixity”, that being
there forever, means that it will be able to be read by many generations. As a
“perfect fixity”, it could be read multiple times by the same generation. Once
someone reads something too many times, it is etched into their memory. It
could then be said that writing aids memory, rather than destroys it. Another
analogy that can be used to demonstrate this is by looking at actors. Actors
spend time reading and re-reading their written lines, reciting them to
themselves, more than likely making errors. When they make the errors they can
refer straight back to the written work and recite again, until they perfect
it. Without writing, lines for actors in plays would have to be passed by word
of mouth, which would more than likely lead to a Chinese whispers situation.
This is another clear example of how writing can aid memory, rather than
destroy it, which is why Plato’s point is invalid.
Plato, whilst being a great writer of his
time, still made errors. The errors that were made in regards to his views on
why writing is bad for humanity are very interesting because he wrote them
down, hence contradicting himself again. Had he wanted to get his point across
properly, he would have had to use word of mouth, which would not have been
timeless, as the written word has proven to be here. It is from these two
points that are argued in this post, that we can see how Plato has failed to
back up his argument with any evidence, yet there is so much evidence going in
the opposite direction, which disprove his arguments. His arguments are
disproven in today’s world, given the importance of writing. Without writing,
everything would be completely different, and the World may not have moved
forward from biblical times. Plato’s thinking shows us the relevance of writing
however, because without writing, he would not have been able to record his arguments
against writing, which is rather ironic.
