[brendoelfrendo]

Hm, I think Plato is largely true; not in the sense that writing is a harmful crutch, but in the sense that simply being able to read something is not a substitute for knowing it. I think we can see that at play here on HN and on the larger internet all the time: people who read a paper or article, and then attempt to discuss it, without realizing that their understanding of the material is entirely incorrect. These are "men filled not with wisdom but the conceit of wisdom," and they lack the awareness to understand that they don't understand.

In other words it is not the writing that is harmful, but the lack of teaching.

[falcor84]

I understand where Socrates/Plato is coming from, but this doesn't match my experience. I had no "lack of teaching", having sat through about 18 years of it in total, but I definitely have a better average recollection of things that I read of my own interest than things I was "taught". Maybe things would have been different if I had a world class philosopher as a personal tutor, but alas that was not to be.

If were to rephrase it, I would put the distinction not between teaching and reading, but between passive consumption and active learning.

EDIT: Thinking more about having a world class philosopher as a personal tutor, I suddenly remembered a quote from Russell that took me a while to track down, but here it is:

> In 343 B.C. he [Aristotle] became tutor to Alexander, then thirteen years old, and continued in that position until, at the age of sixteen ... Everything one would wish to know of the relations of Aristotle and Alexander is unascertainable, the more so as legends were soon invented on the subject. There are letters between them which are generally regarded as forgeries. People who admire both men suppose that the tutor influenced the pupil. Hegel thinks that Alexander's career shows the practical usefulness of philosophy. As to this, A. W. Benn says: "It would be unfortunate if philosophy had no better testimonial to show for herself than the character of Alexander. . . . Arrogant, drunken, cruel, vindictive, and grossly superstitious, he united the vices of a Highland chieftain to the frenzy of an Oriental despot."

> ... As to Aristotle's influence on him, we are left free to conjecture whatever seems to us most plausible. For my part, I should suppose it nil.

- "A History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell, Chapter XIX p. 160