Socrates Benefit Of Writing

1135 Words3 Pages

Envision a world without writing, where every education system is solely lecture-based. There would be no street signs for pedestrians and drivers, no books to educate the new generations, and most importantly, no technology to address economic and social needs. Today’s society strongly emphasizes on the ability to write as writing is a vital skill in day-to-day activities. So was Socrates wrong to claim that writing is a hindrance to the practice of self-improvement? Maybe it was not as necessary during his time period, but it is undeniably essential in today’s world. Contrary to Socrates' opposition of writing, writing is a beneficial and crucial skill to society because it improves accessibility of knowledge, increases uniformity of information, acts as a perseverance of events, and enhances communication. Without this skill, the United States civilization and many others might not have advanced to their current statuses.
Socrates is a Greek philosopher who lived in Athens from 469 to 399 B.C. He was one of the greatest philosophers of his time, raising many new ideas about life. One of the many arguments that Socrates made was his case against writing, which can be found in Plato’s except, Phaedrus. When writing was first introduced, it was presented as a technology that would help build knowledge and memory. However, as a strong believer in spoken rhetoric, Socrates thought that writing would only inhibit the ability to communicate persuasive arguments verbally. He believed that true knowledge can only be obtained during verbal exchange of ideas. He also argued that humans would build reliance towards writing, grow over dependent on it, which would ultimately destroy the human capability of memory. Furthermore, writing, to So...

... middle of paper ...

...ite to inform, while others write to remember. Either way, documentation seems beneficial to both the writer, and the reader.
In conclusion, not everyone is a good speaker, as not everyone is a good writer. With that being said, with both tools in hand, one can choose the one that is more of their expertise, instead of limiting themselves to only one that they would struggle in. Also, there are people out there who are speech impaired. They have the right to express their ideas, and if they cannot speak, the most reliable tool they can turn to is writing. The human mind is able to store up “to fifty-thousand times the amount of text contained in the U.S Library of Congress,” but can barely retain more than a few of those data (Rene 30-33). If that is the case, would it not be a better idea to use writing to the advantages of society as a form of memory storage?

Open Document