Summary

Plato is one of the best writers that the humankind has ever known. His work has caused
a deep influence on the occidental’s history. However, this philosopher has created one of the
staunchest critics against writing. Contradictory though this attitude may seem, it could be
explained once the conceptual pillars Plato used to analyze writing are learnt.

The decline of the situation in the Athens of Plato’s time together with the arrival of the
sophists had a strong impact on society. Bearing that in mind, Plato’s ethical and political
concerns received definitive answers. In that situation, education played a significant role. It
was regarded as an exercise whose main aim was to search for the harmony of the soul. Such
harmony facilitated access to the true reality. Nevertheless, only the one who reached that
level would be able to take the best decisions. As a consequence, the one who developed that
power had to follow that educational path, which would guide them to the knowledge of the
true reality.

Phaedrus and Letters VII were the texts in which Plato expressed strong criticism of
writing. Those pieces had a connection with the period of Plato’s Maturity and Old Age. In
the first one, Plato made incisive criticism to the arguments of the sophists. In addition, he
formulated a philosophy that led souls to acquiring the knowledge of the truth. Therefore, he
brought up a type of philosophical writing that cooperated with the philosophical rhetoric.

​ In Letters VII, Plato did not sharply criticize writing itself. Instead, he made a point
of the inappropriate use ​Dionysius The Tyrant made of it. Plato attacked such despotic
individual for using the philosopher’s ways of writing to win considerable fame and glory.
No matter how hard Plato attempted to get rid of such use of writing, he did not passed
judgment on writing itself. Hence, ​Phaedrus and Letters VII complemented one another
perfectly well so that readers can understand the Platonic criticism of writing.