It's extremely naive (and, oh so, contemporary) to treat the philosophical arguments put forward in that text (which was written by Plato, btw, who attributes it to the Egyptian King Thamus), as some kind of failed prophecy.
Writing DID have a negative impact on the directness and vividness of memory of pre-writing civilizations, and the role that memory played there.
To use a somewhat crude analogue, Plato was speaking of a phenomenon akin to what we have today, where any idiot with an internet connection can play the know-it-all in conversation, not by having studied a subject and absorbed it, but by just looking it up on Wikipedia to get a shallow quote.
This, which we have all witnessed on online forums, also holds for written books. Yes, they can help solidify memory and pass it over to the next generations. But they also served as an easy shortcut to information, compared to memory (which takes years and experience to create). While everybody can aknowledge what was gained, few (like Plato) could see what was lost in the process.
Can we agree that writing did have negative impacts, but given the trajectory of human civilization since then, that the benefits have outweighed the costs?
>Can we agree that writing did have negative impacts, but given the trajectory of human civilization since then, that the benefits have outweighed the costs?
Sounds reasonable, but then again, the work of philosophy (or thought in general) is to question what sounds reasonable.
For example, why should we have to be that proud of the "trajectory of human civilization since then"?
Sure, we since had computers and brain surgery.
We also had nazi concentration camps, 2 wolrd wars, colonialism, Stalinism, the nuclear arms race, and global warming. Oh, and Justin Bieber.
If a WW III thing was to happen in the next 50 years, taking most of the population with it, I'm sure more than a few people will think "Damn, we were better off before all that technological shit -- perhaps even writing enabled us for more that we were good to handle".
A (partial) end to slavery.
Significantly improved lives for women as far as being raped and domestic violence goes.
A significant number of people moving from the working class to the middle class
Democracy vs having a violent war frequently when there is a question of succession.
A significantly reduced fear of violent death, or violence in general really.
Unless you don't think slaves are people, I really think people are much better off nowadays compared to pre-writing.
Writing DID have a negative impact on the directness and vividness of memory of pre-writing civilizations, and the role that memory played there.
To use a somewhat crude analogue, Plato was speaking of a phenomenon akin to what we have today, where any idiot with an internet connection can play the know-it-all in conversation, not by having studied a subject and absorbed it, but by just looking it up on Wikipedia to get a shallow quote.
This, which we have all witnessed on online forums, also holds for written books. Yes, they can help solidify memory and pass it over to the next generations. But they also served as an easy shortcut to information, compared to memory (which takes years and experience to create). While everybody can aknowledge what was gained, few (like Plato) could see what was lost in the process.