Send Message
Add Friend
Block UserChimps beat humans in photographic memory test
The video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEnXHTytX3s
The article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7124156.stm
What Plato wrote in The Phaedrus:
Socrates: "At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was a famous old god, whose name was Theuth [Thoth]; the bird which is called the Ibis is sacred to him, and he was the inventor of many arts, such as arithmetic and calculation and geometry and astronomy and draughts and dice, but his great discovery was the use of letters.
Now in those days the god Thamus was the king of the whole country of Egypt; and he dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt which the Hellenes call Egyptian Thebes, and the god himself is called by them Ammon. To him came Theuth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and censured others, as he approved or disapproved of them. It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts.
But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality."
What do you think? Has a reliance on writing been partially responsible for a deterioration of the human memory? Do you think people had better memories in ancient times than they do today?
Can our memories be improved now, or are we stuck with the memory capacities we were born with? Has anybody tried any memory-enhancing exercises? Did it work?
The Dialectic
In Plato's Phaedrus, Socrates contrasts the value of spoken words with those that are written. Written words are like paintings, he says, because although they may seem "alive," they can't answer any questions and will only say the same thing to everyone they encounter, indiscriminately. Anyone not understanding the words, or who has questions or alternate ideas, is out of luck. In Socrates' view, since written screeds are incapable of defending themselves, they are not able to teach the truth adequately.
By contrast, spoken words have a living speaker that can a) answer questions and b) choose how best to explain an idea to a particular person. Spoken words can also be answered with another idea which could even lead to a third that reconciles both points of view. This verbal give-and-take learning process is the dialectic.
A segment explaining one way of looking at the dialectic was shown on the powerpoint presentation I embedded in the blog a while back. It described how a thesis and antithesis (two differing ideas) can create a synthesis (a third idea that transcends both). This was certainly going on in the ancient world and can be seen in the syncretization of religions in later times. The powerpoint is correct in its questioning whether this process necessarily leads to "progress." When religions are syncretized, isn't something from each original religion lost in the process? Some modern people whose religions are now being co-opted seem to think so. What's your view?
Back to writing vs. the dialectic. Socrates believed that the best use of writing is to remind people of things they already know, whereas the dialectic should be used to investigate truth. "Truth springs from argument amongst friends," David Hume once said. It's thought that this is why Plato wrote dialogues: the conversations between various speakers in his books demonstrate how the dialectic works. Using this method, Plato could present a number of different arguments in a way that lets the reader take sides and consider which argument is more convincing. In fact, some arguments Plato makes are not convincing at all. The "ideal city" he describes in the Republic is a place most people wouldn't want to live in, for example. Because this form of writing helps us to take sides and disagree, it performs at least part of the service that true dialogue with another person can provide.
How has engaging in dialogue and/or reading a dialogue between others helped you?
MM, Kriosa! Great profile pic! :-) I also like the quote. I just came across your page as I'm about to go offline, but I'll come back and read more ASAP... and I hope you'll stop by my page sometime! BB, Isadora aka "Dizzy Aura"
Lady Isadora02:25 AM EST