Plato said authentic philosophical teaching cannot be written down
In the Seventh Letter, Plato says he never wrote down his true philosophical teaching because philosophy is not purely propositional but a kind of experience; the dialogue form exists precisely to carry what cannot be written.
The video won't play here. Listen to the audio instead:
The argument · tap a timestamp to hear it
Political disagreement really can ruin your putt
A paper by Berkeley and Yale researchers claims professional golfers perform worse in politically mixed groups, with the effect strengthening as partisan intensity increases. The hosts question the methodology: players' political views are mostly inferred from Twitter posts and donation records, which itself introduces selection bias—actual conservatives who dislike publicity might never be identified at all. Moreover, the paper never measured any anxiety or interaction, yet directly concludes this is ‘political heterogeneity causing psychological tension’. Both hosts think the effect itself may be real but find insufficient evidence for attributing it to political disagreement.
— DavePlato says authentic philosophy cannot be written
According to the Seventh Letter, which is widely believed to be authentically from Plato, Plato says he never wrote down his true philosophical teaching because it simply cannot be written. The reason: every written work presupposes that a philosophical position can be exhaustively laid out as a series of propositions. But for Plato, philosophy is not purely propositional—at least part of it is an experience related to what the Phaedrus calls ‘divine madness’. So Plato needs a form that can present arguments and also present this non-propositional experience—and that is why the dialogue form exists.
— TamlerNo conclusion is deliberate: Plato's design
The hosts point out that many of Plato's dialogues deliberately offer no conclusion—so-called aporetic dialogues—like the Euthyphro, which disputes throughout about ‘what is piety’ yet reaches no answer. This is not failure but design: once you give a conclusion, the reader stops thinking, just as Socrates criticizes writing for ‘making people stop remembering’. Tamler quotes David Lynch for comparison—‘closure’ is just an excuse to make you forget what you just saw; anything truly alive should leave you still thinking, still arguing after you finish.
— TamlerTwo conceptions of truth: proposition versus process
Dave proposes a new idea: Plato actually operates with two different conceptions of truth. One is propositional—like mathematics, you present your argument, others either believe it or they don't, and that's the end of it. The other is processual—truth is not something you can fit into a sentence and hand to someone else, but something you can only approach through sustained questioning and participation. If you hold the latter conception, what you can do is not ‘give an answer’ but get the other person to ‘keep thinking this way’. The hosts believe this is the deep reason Plato refused to write philosophy as a checklist of propositions.
— DaveDialogue is shadow, yet shadow can lead from the cave
Plato says in the Republic that art is a threefold imitation of reality (Form—concrete thing—artistic depiction), often read as a devaluation of art. But Highland argues this framework actually explains the value of the dialogue: the dialogue itself is an imitation or image of ‘philosophical dialogue’ as such. Plato even often has dialogues reported second or third hand, deliberately emphasizing this is a ‘shadow’ that passes through layers. Yet a good imitation can lead the viewer toward the very reality it imitates—dialogue as philosophy's image can lead readers toward actually doing philosophy.
— TamlerPhilosophy conferences reserve half time for questions; papers do not
The hosts compare academic conferences in philosophy and psychology. Psychology conferences typically run 45 minutes of talks and 15 minutes of questions, often leaving things unresolved. Philosophy conferences follow the convention of splitting time equally between presentation and questions, sometimes giving questions more time, because everyone agrees ‘philosophy really happens in the question-and-answer session’. Yet ironically, philosophers accept this in conference format but when writing journal papers fail to bring any of this dialogical character into the text itself—response articles appear years after publication, already a different kind of philosophical inquiry.
Is Socrates in the Crito playing a part?
Highland argues that Socrates in the Apology is radical and uncompromising, yet three weeks later in the Crito he meekly says ‘Athens is my parent, I must honor my covenant with the law’—completely different people. He infers Socrates' arguments were actually aimed at Crito, to keep Crito's soul from falling, not reasons Socrates himself genuinely believed. Tamler disagrees with this split judgment—he thinks Socrates could well genuinely believe this ‘covenant with law’ argument. The quiet tone after accepting the sentence is simply not contradictory to the passionate tone of defending himself; there's no need to strain and explain it as ‘this is what he's saying to someone else’.
— TamlerSocrates' death is the highest form of comedy
At the paper's end, Highland argues that Socrates' composure facing death represents the highest form of comedy: comedy won at the price of acknowledging tragedy, yet transcending tragic lamentation. Socrates grasps the tragic situation of philosophy but does not react like a tragic hero; instead he faces it with a smile from the ‘divine’ perspective. The hosts recall the end of the Symposium, where Socrates tries to convince the comic playwright Aristophanes and the tragic playwright Agathon that ‘one person should be able to write both tragedy and comedy’—in Plato's hands, Socrates himself is often a comic figure, like Bugs Bunny, poking fun at others for enjoyment.
— TamlerIn their own words · checked verbatim
Professional golfers maintain silence during shots but simply being aware of politically different others in a shared spaces creates psychological tension that disrupts performance.
Dave22:21
At best, what we are likely to find is a cursory glance at the dramatic structure, a few respectful comments on Plato's artistic genius, and then on to the real philosophical meat of the dialogues, the arguments themselves.
Tamler31:24
The implicit assumption of any written treatise, or at least the goal, is that the philosophical position can be articulated in a series of propositions.
Tamler35:28
I keep hearing that [ __ ] word closure. Closure is just an excuse to forget you saw the damn thing.
Tamler49:33
Whereas there is something important about like the concept of truth being more about a process.
Dave51:35
Thus, as we saw earlier, the dialogues function both as imitations of and invitations to philosophy.
Tamler58:44
Comedy is purchased at the price of the tragic realization but transcends the tragic lament.
Tamler1:14:56
Figures
| Golf politicization study data span | 1997–2022 PGA Championship data | 8:10 |
Glossary
- Seventh Letter
- A letter widely believed to be authentically from Plato, which discusses why genuine philosophical teaching cannot be written.
- aporetic dialogue
- A common form in early Platonic dialogues, debating a concept throughout yet offering no final answer.
- divine madness
- A state of philosophical experience mentioned in the Phaedrus, related to love and transcending rational propositions.
How to listen
Scholars and graduate students interested in philosophical form, instructors preparing seminars, and anyone curious why reading a paper and participating in dialogue are cognitively distinct.
The first ~20 minutes on Texas election results and golf politicization paper can be skipped without affecting the Plato discussion that follows.