Plato would question Net dependability, speaker says

Plato would be amazed by the Internet but would demand society question whether it is truly beneficial or harmful, according to philosophy professor David Roochnik.

In his lecture, “Plato and the Internet,” Roochnik delivered his interpretation of what Plato would have thought of the Internet and modern communication yesterday, to a crowd of about 50 at Marsh Chapel in the final installment of Marsh Chapel’s Fall 2000 Food for Thought lecture series.

“What Plato says about writing can be multiplied by a billion and imported to the Internet,” Roochnik said. “What need is there to remember anything, when you can just call up information that easily?”

In Plato’s time, the written word was the new technology, similar to the widespread availability of computers today. Though writing began before Plato, it wasn’t until his lifetime in the third century B.C. when writing became “a force in the culture,” Roochnik said.

Plato disagreed with those who said writing would improve minds, improve memory and make us wiser, believing speaking was a stronger medium.

“Anything can and is written down. It’s indiscriminant,” Roochnik said. “The great trick of speaking is that you can’t remember everything. It has to be worth it.”

Roochnik argued the power of the Internet gives us a great deal, but because of the full reach of its power, it is also a great threat.

“Plato feared that writing was out of the writer’s control,” Roochnik said. “Anybody can access the Internet. The free, open ease of use is one of the Internet’s great boasts.”

Plato was not completely against the written word. His criticism itself was written and because of that, Roochnik believes, he didn’t believe writing was entirely without merit.

“Either Plato was a bozo, or he was suggesting there’s a way writing can circumvent his own criticism,” Roochnik said. “Like a parent, it can take care of its offspring.”

Plato said writing was a “pharmakon,” which translated from Greek means either “medicinal drug” or “poison.” He said all writing could either be a positive or a negative for society.

“I think Plato proposes every technology is like a pharmakon,” Roochnik said. “Our relationship to technology should be our relationship to a pharmakon.

Drawing parallels between the growth of the Internet and the growth of other once-new technologies such as television, Roochnik explained that no technological advance comes without a price.

“Every new technology gives power as it takes away,” Roochnik said. “We are given power over our environment, but we lose our power to overcome it ourselves.”

Writing can take on a life of its own, according to Roochnik. No matter how careful the writer is, every piece of writing is subject to misinterpretation.

“You can’t ever really protect your writing,” Roochnik said. “It’s like a child separated from its parents.”

Roochnik said Plato also believed not all information was meant to be shared. Speaking allows the speaker to judge his audience and then release the information they feel is appropriate.

“Writing can’t shut up. It can’t refuse itself to anybody,” Roochnik said. “Once it’s out there in the world circulating, the writer can’t do anything about it.”

Roochnik urged those in attendance to remain skeptical of new technologies, to not merely become a culture of technology fanatics.

“What worries me is not my daughter typing away on Instant Messenger, but that we may lose the spark to question technology,” Roochnik said. “Absence of questioning is a catastrophe.”