The Fallacies Of Socrates's Argument Against Writing

Writing about philosophy can be a very empowering and even enjoyable endeavor, but it is unsound to first look to writings for clarification of foundational logical facts that all people can grasp on their own rather than looking directly to reason itself in the first place.  Exposure to the written ideas of others is wholly unecessary when it comes to knowing facts that strictly pertain to logic, introspection, or one's immediate sensory perceptions, yet it is one of the only ways to obtain certain kinds of information, such as hearsay from historians and scientists.

In Phaedrus, Socrates argues against writing not on the grounds that it is epistemologically unecessary, but on the grounds that it harms a person's ability to remember information.  He also asserts that written words, like paintings, have the appearance of conveying ideas intelligently, but they fall short of conversation between people because books cannot explain themselves like people can.  The second objection is refuted by simply pointing out that writing everyday information down is not some philosophical declaration that writing is always superior to every other form of communication, but an act of convenience that can be very beneficial; the first is the more renowned objection.

When examining whether or not writing impairs or even destroys a person's capacity to memorize, Socrates makes the obvious mistake of treating all people as if they will have the same psychological reactions to using or reading written material.  This is like saying that all people will abuse alcohol if given the opportunity to drink it or that all people will become physically sluggish if they sleep for more than seven hours a night.  While some people might be affected in one way, others might not be affected at all or might be affected in a different way.

For some, writing can stimulate memory, aiding their ability to lock some kinds of information in their minds and recall it at a later time.  It is possible for writing things down to lead to none of what Socrates predicted.  Even when it does, it is not because of the objective nature of writing, but because of the psychological nature of an individual person.  Socrates, as usual, is guilty of fallacious reasoning in this case.  He makes mere assumptions about the nature of writing instead of reasoning out what does and does not follow from the concept of writing things down.

The impact of a given activity on a person's ability to memorize things depends largely on the individual in question.  This is true of writing, but it is also true of other things as well.  Perhaps mnemonics help some people memorize information, but others might find them useless.  In the same way, writing things down might weaken a particular person's memory, but it might have the opposite effect or no effect at all on another person.  In light of his other fallacies, it should not be surprising to anyone familiar with Plato's dialogues that Socrates fails to be rational in this portion of Phaedrus.