In this blog post, we explore Plato’s critical view of writing and the philosophical reasons why he chose to write despite his distrust.
Many philosophers have had quite negative views on writing and reading. They despised books and believed that the wisdom gained from them was fake and far from reality. At the root of this attitude toward books lies Plato. Plato was a philosopher who expressed his aversion to writing more clearly than anyone else. However, he wrote so much that it is said that “Plato died while writing,” and he left behind works that were more meticulously polished than those of any other philosopher. So why did Plato develop such negative views on writing and written words? Plato emphasized that writing is not always a good thing. He believed that true wisdom can only be attained by receiving living teachings, memorizing them, and internalizing them. However, since written words can be referred to when necessary, there is no need to memorize them.
He was concerned that writing would make memory increasingly useless and lead to more forgetting and loss. Plato believed that written texts were merely copies of “vivid, soulful words (truth)” and were nothing more than the externalization of the inner mind. Therefore, written records lack the inner nature of the mind. For Plato, knowledge is not mere imitation, but the perfect union of the subject of knowledge and the object of knowledge, that is, “self-presence.” Therefore, relying on letters and texts written in letters hinders active self-presence through memory and results in its loss.
Plato’s view is clearly expressed in his book Phaedrus. In a conversation between Socrates and Phaedrus, Socrates argues that writing deteriorates human memory and makes people dependent on external records, ultimately preventing them from attaining true wisdom. This conversation reflects Plato’s deep concern about the dangers of writing. Plato believed that it was important to pass on wisdom through live conversation and direct education. This shows that his philosophy was an attempt to transcend the limitations of writing.
However, is it really possible to achieve perfect self-presence without any mediation? In relation to this question, we should consider Plato’s statement that “serious people do not write about serious (important) matters.” In other words, this means that writings on serious issues should not be taken seriously. The more serious and important the subject, the more one should refrain from writing about it, and even if one does, one should not take it too seriously. However, Plato himself wrote these words. In fact, Plato himself is contradicting himself. This is because he wrote extensively on very serious issues such as truth and falsehood, good and evil, and death. He was a very serious person, and the topics he dealt with were also serious and important.
So, is Plato committing a self-contradiction here? At first glance, it seems contradictory, but here we can see the tension that exists between philosophy and text. Philosophy always seeks to transcend text and confront the problems of reality and truth. This is because text cannot capture the totality of reality or reveal living truth. However, this transcendence can only be achieved through letters and text. Philosophy and thought can be sustained and maintained through letters and text.
Plato’s dual attitude was possible because he was a philosopher. Philosophers are people who constantly pursue truth and, in the process, question and examine the theories and hypotheses they have established. Therefore, while clearly recognizing the limitations of writing, Plato had no choice but to write in order to develop his philosophical thinking. His writings are not simply a means of conveying knowledge, but serve as tools that constantly pose questions to readers and stimulate their thinking. This explains why Plato’s philosophy, while emphasizing lively dialogue and education, was able to be continuously transmitted and developed through writing.
Furthermore, despite his negative view of writing, Plato left behind many writings, which shows that his philosophical thinking was that much more detailed and profound. His works are not mere records, but the results of philosophical inquiry, and they had a great influence on later philosophers. Therefore, Plato’s criticism of the limitations of writing is an important clue to understanding the depth of his philosophy.
Plato’s philosophical stance provides many lessons for us today. In modern society, we are exposed to an enormous amount of information and knowledge in written form. However, as Plato warned, we must recognize that relying on writing can hinder us from reaching true wisdom. True knowledge is not simply the accumulation of information, but rather the process of internalizing it and making it our own.
