August 06, 2004
The Symposium
While pointing out the utter vapidness of televised round-table "discussions" and other political chatter, Phil wonders what Plato would have done:
THRASYMACHUS: "Damn right, 'rebuttal.' Justice is merely the interest of the stronger. Quick, simple, applicable anywhere. Next question."SOCRATES: "Surely we can't leave it at that. Let us talk about what this means..."
PLATO: "Socrates, rebuttal? Ten seconds."
SOCRATES: "You can't be serious. We're talking about justice, here! I can't just summarize it in some bite-sized little..."
PLATO: "Hold that thought. When we come back, we'll have more on justice and the polis. You're watching Academy Live."
Of course, he's making some more serious points, but there's the hook for you.
In the way of conclusion, he writes:
Is there an avenue for the type of conversation that truly is enlightening? I don't know. Especially now, it seems often more the result of dumb luck (or divine providence, depending on your view) that a discussion can come about among the learned, concerned for the good, the true, the beautiful. In previous centuries, where literacy was lacking for many, perhaps these types of dialogues came about more easily, since the number actually able to discuss in an educated way was smaller. Now, we are almost all to a person half-educated, trying to speak the same way, or have chattering pundits speak for us.
I disagree with this part. In answer to his question, there are many forums for enlightening discussions. One of the more obvious ones is blogs. Yes, there are many superficial, troll-ridden discussions, but our own humble experiment has been fairly successful at generating some long, fascinating discussions on a wide range of topics. Then, of course, there's always the hours-long coffee shop conversations with intelligent friends and strangers which can be both insightful, entertaining, and highly rewarding.
I imagine what Phil is really talking about are more public, influential discussions though. In that case, he's correct to claim they just aren't any high profile, serious-minded debates about "the good, the true, the beautiful," but I'm not sure if there ever has been. Our current mass media and its nearly ubiquitous reach is unprecedented. It's not an 18th century French salon, an English coffee house, or a Greek symposium. As a result of its very nature as a visual medium, television devalues the written word and the more patient meditations it allows, an attitude that I think informed those types of discussions in the past. Furthermore, television directs its "debates" at a vastly larger audience than Plato would have ever considered. Socrates's dialogues were between himself and a handful of other people, much like current round tables, but they didn't take place on the floor of a packed Coliseum (yes, I know that's an anachronism). This suggests that serious, deep conversations are inherently private affairs between a handful of people, precisely the form of conversations that can still be found.