SUMMARY
In the Platonic dialogue Phaedrus, Socrates speaks with a young, somewhat superficial Athenian, the eponymous Phaedrus. The young man is a fan of speeches and tells Socrates of one he’s recently heard by Lysias, son of Cephalus, a speechwriter, on the topic of love. Socrates, who also likes speeches, with some gentle prodding, convinces Phaedrus to read the written speech. The speech argues that, contemporary ethics in mind, a boy should have “relations” with a lover (someone who is interested in him) as opposed to a non-lover (someone who may not be so interested but seeks a mutual benefit).
The main topic of the dialogue is on the nature of rhetoric and of philosophy. The former is seen by Socrates as shallow, while the latter seeks true knowledge and understanding.
The structure of the dialogue is as follows. First, there’s the written speech read by Phaedrus. It argues that a non-lover is better for a boy than a lover in that a non-lover may give the boy more advantages since he is without the passionate nature of the lover, who could be driven to illogical behavior that may harm the boy, should the relationship go south.
Next, Socrates, initially somewhat coy, delivers the first of two speeches. He argues in the speech’s favor, for the non-lover, but elaborates. There are two human guiding principles: pleasure, which is inherently selfish, and reason, which is not. Both lead to different outcomes, the former to overindulgence, the latter to wisdom.
Then there’s Socrates second speech in which, divinely inspired, he argues that, put simply, if love is madness, not all madness is bad. Madness, as he describes, is a gift from the gods. One example he gives is poetic madness, a blessing from the Muses. He argues that the lover, not the non-lover, is better for the boy. He compares the lover to a philosopher, someone like Socrates, in that love may be a type of divine madness that provides some hidden knowledge.
Finally, Socrates goes on to critique the invention of writing - yes, writing! Socrates is against it for a few reasons. It eliminates the need for an important and valued skill in memorization. In practice, it also eliminates the tradition of the dialectic, which was Socrates’ philosophy in action. With speeches, a common use for writing, one would read or hear a speech, but the speech itself was static and did not answer questions. They provided answers to questions that may be asked that may be memorized without true understanding. Philosophy, on the other hand, as Socrates would see it, lives on the tongue of the lover, the lover of wisdom.
RESPONSE
Phaedrus is a deconstructive work; it’s self-contradictory. That is, Plato through Socrates, his great teacher, criticizes writing - in a piece of writing! Many scholars have commented on this. Robin Waterfield, who wrote the Introduction to and translated the Oxford World’s Classics edition of the dialogue, argues Plato does this consciously. He is modeling the dialectic through the dialogue between Socrates and Phaedrus, having the latter perform the role of the somewhat naive seeker of knowledge who needs to be guided toward a more useful heuristic. It’s also modeled in Socrates, who humbly denies credit for his speeches, crediting the gods for their inspiration, and is reluctant to criticize Lysias’ work, merely expounding on its ideas and providing an alternative. If the philosopher is anything, he is a questioner - a questioner of everything and a knower of but one fact: that he does not know.
It’s, therefore, easy to see why writing would seem to pose a threat to the OG of philosophers, especially given the prominence of rhetoric during his time. Rhetoric was essentially marketing or persuasion. Practitioners were largely lawyers and speechmakers. People memorized speeches, reciting them word for word (like Phaedrus). To Socrates, this rote memorization led to the appearance of knowledge but was actually vapid, lacking in actual wisdom.
Socrates, like many critical of nascent technologies, especially those in wide use today, failed to see new use cases for writing that would emerge, such as philosophical or otherwise educational books, which have disseminated knowledge globally and provided a scaffold of knowledge for other writers and scholars to build upon. Hardly anyone today considers books to be anti-intellectual.
Socrates’ critique, therefore, was shortsighted. He’s hard to blame. Writing was new; people were unaware of how it would evolve and be used over time - and how society might change, sometimes because of it. Luckily, Plato saw something in writing, however inchoate. Otherwise, the world would not have these rich dialogues of Socrates’ teachings, a man who lived and died by the principles of reason and logic, wherever they might lead.
I can’t help but think that something similar is happening with ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs). Granted LLMs provide a different risk, they make plagiarism and fraud much easier. I think they’ll always be an arms race between those who seek technologies for ill and those who use technologies to protect from the former. LLMs provide the ability to boost productivity. While the current WGA strike shows that this too can have harmful effects, if harnessed correctly, we may find ourselves once again with a technology that allows us to do more than we could before - in a sense, to be more human since we can do more and with fewer constraints. As a writer, and a human, I’m excited.
According to Microsoft, ChatGPT-4, the current model, shows “sparks of artificial general intelligence” - or human-like intelligence. The performance is impressive. I remain skeptical, however, of claims that these technologies think like we do. We create stories of the world. LLMs largely splice together - albeit skillfully - human ideas and thoughts into coherent and persuasive - and highly probable - responses to prompts.
LLMs will continue to evolve. As with Socrates, it’s hard to know how these technologies will change and how much we will change as a result. Ultimately, it’s up to us to shape these technologies. After all, they’re a reflection of us. And that, amid all the AI fear, uncertainty, and doubt, is hopeful.