From Plato’s warnings about the written word to the modern A.I. gold rush, technology has always threatened to replace deep thought with the mere illusion of knowledge.
This is a powerful distinction: technology can expand access to knowledge while simultaneously weakening the conditions required for wisdom.
The real risk is not simply that AI gives us answers. It is that it can remove us from the struggle through which judgment is formed, which is the process of taking a position, testing it against reality, receiving feedback, and refining our understanding. When we become passive editors of statistically probable output, we may appear more knowledgeable while becoming less capable of independent thought.
So good. The line about becoming a society of editors rather than creators is the one that sticks, and framing it through Theuth and Thamus sets it up perfectly.
Thank you Eva, for another very thoughtful article!
Toolste’s objection is entirely valid. Perhaps the concept of embodiment offers a suitable bridge here. As neuroscience confirms, writing by hand is based on a deep, subtle connection between our mind and the closely linked motor center.
More broadly, this brings to mind Hannah Arendt, who observed that genuine “thinking” begins only when deeper empathy and a comprehensive context are taken into account—which is why her verdict was: “Eichmann was unable to think.”
Herein lies the crucial point: We often underestimate how long the chain of thought is that makes civilized thinking and action possible in the first place. This path involves four essential stages:
1) The conscious perception of facts and the effort to consistently separate them from opinions,
2) The acceptance of these facts, even against the inner resistance of one’s own limbic system,
3) Classifying these insights according to their true significance and proportions within a broader context,
4) Only then do we attain true “understanding” in Arendt’s sense, empowering us to conduct ourselves in a civilized rather than archaic fashion.
Although the modern flood of information has been drastically amplified by AI tools, mere data is far from being facts. These four stages can be ascended exclusively through “slow thinking.”
Your valuable contributions, dear Eva, impressively show us how to move forward on this path—thoughtfully and step by step.
👏👏👏❤️
Thanks Dariusz!
This is a powerful distinction: technology can expand access to knowledge while simultaneously weakening the conditions required for wisdom.
The real risk is not simply that AI gives us answers. It is that it can remove us from the struggle through which judgment is formed, which is the process of taking a position, testing it against reality, receiving feedback, and refining our understanding. When we become passive editors of statistically probable output, we may appear more knowledgeable while becoming less capable of independent thought.
So good. The line about becoming a society of editors rather than creators is the one that sticks, and framing it through Theuth and Thamus sets it up perfectly.
Thank you Eva, for another very thoughtful article!
Toolste’s objection is entirely valid. Perhaps the concept of embodiment offers a suitable bridge here. As neuroscience confirms, writing by hand is based on a deep, subtle connection between our mind and the closely linked motor center.
More broadly, this brings to mind Hannah Arendt, who observed that genuine “thinking” begins only when deeper empathy and a comprehensive context are taken into account—which is why her verdict was: “Eichmann was unable to think.”
Herein lies the crucial point: We often underestimate how long the chain of thought is that makes civilized thinking and action possible in the first place. This path involves four essential stages:
1) The conscious perception of facts and the effort to consistently separate them from opinions,
2) The acceptance of these facts, even against the inner resistance of one’s own limbic system,
3) Classifying these insights according to their true significance and proportions within a broader context,
4) Only then do we attain true “understanding” in Arendt’s sense, empowering us to conduct ourselves in a civilized rather than archaic fashion.
Although the modern flood of information has been drastically amplified by AI tools, mere data is far from being facts. These four stages can be ascended exclusively through “slow thinking.”
Your valuable contributions, dear Eva, impressively show us how to move forward on this path—thoughtfully and step by step.
While i agree with you about what is lost with AI, I don't think you do Plato justice to the implications of what is lost with writing
Fair point. Plato’s critique is much broader than the loss of memorization.