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?