The Myth of Theuth: why Plato distrusted writing

Plato wrote a book to say that books do not teach. That is the paradox that the myth of Theuth and Thamus, in the Phaedrus, leaves at the door of the reader: if writing is so dangerous, why did he write? This article follows the myth, the image of the painting that does not answer, and the way out that Plato himself found, which was to write dialogues.

The king who refused the gift

The scene is Egyptian. The god Theuth, inventor of numbers, geometry and letters, presents his arts to King Thamus and says they should be taught to the people. In some editions the god appears as Thoth and the king as Tamuz, but it is the same myth (Phaedrus 274c-275b). Then comes writing's turn, and Theuth announces it as an achievement: it will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memory.

The king does not accept. He replies that the inventor of an art is not the best judge of what it will do to those who use it. And that writing will produce exactly the opposite of what the inventor expects.

What the king sees: remembering from outside

Thamus's argument is about where memory lives. Whoever trusts letters will stop exercising memory, and will remember things "from outside, through external marks, and not from within themselves." Hence the line that became famous: "So you have not invented an aid to memory, but only to reminding" (Phaedrus 275a).

Memory is what lives in you. Reminding is the note that tells you from outside. And the king adds the effect that weighs most: writing gives students "the semblance of wisdom, not the truth," because they receive much information without instruction and take themselves to be wise. In the king's words, they become "imaginary wise men instead of true wise men." What this means for those who read today, with the shelves full and the words failing when it is time to say what they read, is the subject of I forget everything I read: what Plato says about it, and it stays outside this article.

Phármakon: remedy and poison

The Greek word at stake is phármakon, and it holds the tension of the myth. It means remedy, and it also means poison. Theuth offers writing as a remedy. The king replies that, for those who use it, it will act in the opposite way. In translation the word can come out as "remedy" or as "aid," and lose the other half of its meaning: in Greek, the same word says both.

The painting that does not answer

Socrates then explains why writing fails, with an image. "Writing, Phaedrus, has a drawback that resembles painting. Painted figures have the attitude of living beings, but if you question them they remain gravely silent. The same goes for speeches" (Phaedrus 275d).

Think of a well-painted portrait. It seems to look at you. Ask it something, and nothing. This is what happens with a text: it always says the same thing, to whoever reads it. It does not know who it is speaking to, does not defend itself when someone disagrees, does not explain when someone fails to understand. The target of the myth, then, is not the book itself, but the book taken as a store of knowledge, the text that is enough by itself.

The other writing

Socrates then says there is another writing, the legitimate one: the one done, with knowledge, in the soul of the one who learns (Phaedrus 276a). This is the knowledge that answers. It is what you can say with your own mouth, and defend when someone disagrees. Knowledge like this does not depend on opening the book to be consulted, because it has already been written in the person who carries it.

The paradox dissolves: Plato wrote dialogues

And here the paradox from the beginning dissolves. Plato did write, yes, but he wrote in dialogues. Conversations that demand an explanation, an answer, a justification of one's own claim. The text stays silent, like any painting, but the dialogue places inside the page the question and the answer that the page alone cannot give. His book does not want to be a store of knowledge. It wants to be the beginning of a conversation.

There is a practical consequence, and the class states it at the close: the knowledge that answers almost always appears in the presence of another person, someone who disagrees, who asks, who holds a position different from yours and forces you to say with your own mouth what you understood. That is why, more than reading alone, it is worth reading together.

Four centuries later

About four centuries later, a man who wrote many letters said something very similar about what is written in the one who learns. The bridge between Plato and Paul is in You are our letter: Plato, Paul and writing on the soul.

Where to read the myth

The myth is near the end of the Phaedrus, at 274c-275b, and the painting and the legitimate writing come right after, at 275d-276a. If you have not yet read the dialogue, the starting point is Plato's Phaedrus: summary and how to read it, which shows how this passage connects to the love and beauty of the first half of the book. The myth is brief, and it is one of those passages that yield most when read with someone.

Continue: Plato's Phaedrus: summary and how to read it · I forget everything I read: what Plato says about it · You are our letter: Plato, Paul and writing on the soul · Why is Macbeth "the Scottish play"?
Source class: Fedro, de Platão