Plato, Saussure
The readings from this week focus on communication and language. One reading is Phaedrus from “the Dialogues of Plato, vol. 1.” This work is a dialogue between Phaedrus and Socrates on love and philosophy; which also touches on the merits of speech versus written word. Socrates voices his opinion that the “art of rhetoric” is more effective through the spoken word than it is through the written.
The second reading was a “Course in General Linguistics” compiled from the teachings of Ferdinand de Saussure. This discourse focuses on language as a science and some of the ideas that explain that science. In truth, I found Saussure difficult to read and I had a hard time really understanding all it had to say.
The very fact that I found it difficult to absorb Saussure and even to some degree Plato really speaks to the fact that language today has evolved. Being of the “internet generation," I have become used to absorbing sound bytes or very short, concise concepts. A news headline, an instant message, a tweet, or a status update – these inform me in less than 140 characters. If they don’t catch my interest, I move on. Having been out of school for a year and a half, I feel I’m having to retrain my brain to comprehend larger sources of information. I mention this embarrassing tidbit because it directly relates to the issue at hand – the evolution of language and communication.
Plato’s Socrates argues that speech is superior to the written word. In some ways, it is. One can adjust the message they deliver according to the audience digesting the message. For example, Socrates stays to deliver a second speech because he “recognizes the oracular sign which forbids him to depart until he has done penance.” In other words, because he was present for the delivery of the message, he can interpret the audience’s (Phaedrus) insufficient understanding and stay to complete the message. Also, the orator can take “the inspiration of the place” they are when communicating their message and use this to their advantage. Socrates draws upon the inspiration from the nature around him to strengthen his message. However, how much of Socrates’ resistance to the written word is based on the fact that it is the newer form of communication and therefore less advanced or less prestigious?
This is similar to the current transformation from analog to digital forms of communication. Those of us that have allegiance to both worlds know that both have their own redeeming qualities. Analog has more credibility because society perceives published work as having gone through a process that deems it credible (i.e. editing and professional review). However, digital is wonderful because it can be so easily adjusted (not unlike Socrates’ view on the spoken word). If an idea is not understood in its current form, it can be adjusted in a matter of seconds. Another benefit to digital is the idea of collaborative intelligence. Many people can contribute to a work and therefore the reader benefits from the knowledge of many rather than the knowledge of one (as is the case with a book written by one author). Of course, the downside to this is the “Wikipedia quality problem”. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/
With the ability of people to contribute to knowledge anonymously, there is little quality control that ensures that these people’s contribution is correct or if they are actually trying to contribute quality information. For example, I could easily add a string of curse words to one of these sites and it would not only be irrelevant but, to many, offensive. Collective intelligence can easily become collective garbage.
But what do we make of the so-called devolution of intelligence? Is Google making us stupid? http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
Like I mentioned above, I feel as though my brain has been re-circuited. I struggled through Saussure because I haven’t taken in content in that way in a while. I read in hyperlinks and headlines. As Nicholas Carr said, “The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.” It’s somewhat alarming to me that I can’t sit down with a textbook the way I used to. I think it’s especially concerning because I had a good mastery of this “skill” (being able to read books or informative papers) as few as two years ago. However, at the same time, am I unnecessarily holding on to the old ideas on communication? This is a new age. Just like how the ability to give speeches lost some of it’s value due to the prevalence of the written word, will the ability to read long works lose it’s necessity? Though we still cling to analog communication today, in the future will it be important at all?
