I am familiar with this quote and I while I do not want to assume, I think it was intended as a rebuttal/counter to old codger how ancients also thought writing would kill memory.
Spoiler alert. It did. Very few people attempt to commit things to memory outside some Guiness record competitions. And just in case I did not hit the point, introduction of Google with world encyclopedia at anyone's hand, further exacerbated that trend.
To sum up, I appreciate the sentiment, but in HN I do hope for, nay, I expect pushback in the form that goes beyond weirdly smug quote.
What I am saying is: argue with me. Don't quote me philosophical bumper stickers.
It seems to me that the average person around me remembers more than the ancients had the ability to even know. To your point of "pointless essays teach children how to write to an audience", there are entire populations of people who, as a matter of survival, learn how to modulate their communication based on the recipient. Those children learn this skill well before they write any essays about "How X influenced 19th century England".
<<It seems to me that the average person around me remembers more than the ancients had the ability to even know.
It is possible. I have no easy way to counter that. I could yell anecdata is not necessarily valid/useful/relevant data, but I know I use it myself to an extent so I will avoid going down that path.
It is true that is likely that I will likely be able to talk to a random person about a variant of pop psychology/crime investigation/science/relationship mechanics shown on recent TV show and I admittedly cannot produce evidence of Plato dealing with the same level of 'not exactly ignorance, but very low level understanding of anything'. I can talk with an average bloke near me about basic genetics, but it in a very limited kind of way.
Is being vaguely aware of a subject memorized knowledge ( 'ahh, yes, quantum mechanics.. that wheelchair guy invented gravity right' kinda way )? Plato was talking about the kind of memory skill that allowed one to recite Homer. And I am not defending oral tradition ( alphabet was a good invention ), but comparing my friend remembering lines to "Shake shake shake" does not seem to be on the same level.
So, to put it in a more direct way:
To what extent does an average person around constitute remembering more when compared to Homer? Or is there is just so much more to know in general that an average person can only deal with very vague generalities.
<< To your point of "pointless essays teach children how to write to an audience", there are entire populations of people who, as a matter of survival, learn how to modulate their communication based on the recipient.
Do they though? Last set of news that made circles across all media was that of professor, who made things too hard. I suppose you argue yes. Not only did they survive; they veritably vanquished their audience into oblivion. But I ask you: was that what I mean when suggesting writing and you generalized to modulating message for your audience? Both answers could be argued to be true, but society as whole suffers more with only one of them.
Spoiler alert. It did. Very few people attempt to commit things to memory outside some Guiness record competitions. And just in case I did not hit the point, introduction of Google with world encyclopedia at anyone's hand, further exacerbated that trend.
To sum up, I appreciate the sentiment, but in HN I do hope for, nay, I expect pushback in the form that goes beyond weirdly smug quote.
What I am saying is: argue with me. Don't quote me philosophical bumper stickers.