Critical Analysis Essay: Plato and Social Media   

Plato was a Greek philosopher who was a founder of Western philosophy in the 5th century BCE. Through him, we have seen advancements in Western thought, and he is just a spectacular role model in the philosophy industry. Social media and technology were not possible until now. In present times, we are endowed with more technology that allows us to gain information about any topic that is presented. With this technology and our understanding of ancient philosophy, it’s worth considering if social media could’ve made a difference in how information was passed along to others. The author, Nathan Dufour Oglesby, states that Plato and his ideologies are meant to be shared for the benefit of moving forward as humans, not for gaining likes and having the satisfaction of popularity. He would use social media as a way to uncover the truth and to pass along knowledge. He would use his ideologies as a way to reach an even bigger truth for an audience who seeks such truth.  

 Plato would interact with social media and use his influence through it to create a better understanding for everyone around him. He explains how social media is basically like an agora, which in his time was used as a place for sharing and gaining knowledge through people in a plaza. According to Nathan Dufour Oglesby, various platforms are “modern public squares.” (Nathan 1).  The author uses this historical reference to show how Plato had experiences with the Agora, which he would use to pass on messages to others through his speeches and performances. This has a connection with people physically and in the moment, while on social media it is more of a digital spectacle, increasing the argument that these places are parallel to each other, showing how they have a connection with one another. 

Moving forward with the article, Oglesby argues that content itself can be altered and wrong, which brings up the question of what is right and how do we show value to the truth over the internet? He argued that likes and reposts are not the answer to popularity but rather to wisdom. Making the question, which wisdom is valid, and how do we recognize it? During Plato’s time there were these people who were known as Sophists; these people were always looking for admiration and popularity. According to Oglesby, “popularity may be quantified by likes, but not by wisdom.” (Nathan 5). This shows that Plato wouldn’t be looking forward to these likes and dislikes that he may receive if he were to be able to be on these platforms, but he would be interested in the discussion with people around the world and seeing his success in the more wisdom he gains. This piece of evidence strengthens the overall arguments of Plato using social media as a way to gain knowledge and to not be a part of those sophists who only want attention and admiration. In addition to only wanting fame, people may bend and contort the truth as they may see fit to get these likes, showing how most social media may prevent Plato from speaking his truth and getting confused on how the world works. 

Oglesby also brings up the topic of layering the truth. He speaks upon how images and information are created and always reformed, which takes away from the original thought process and recirculates it. Social media has a way of always changing information that is being shared through users who use the platform in their own way. Even changing us humans to an “@” user since it’s how we manage to distinguish ourselves from others. Oglesby states, “We become at ourselves the idealized image; the layering of what we publish eclipses the immediacy of our physical being.” The author states how people are more digitalized and are apart from their true selves that are being taken over by images and information that are shared and altered with. This shows how the authors’ values are how we as humans are losing ourselves because social media is masking the truth through all the copies, and that these copies shouldn’t change the humans we truly are. Usually, this masking becomes a part of a bigger issue, and it’s how we allow this information to get to us in the first place. 

Now that we know how masking of truth is happening through all the copies and edited knowledge, it’s now understood that the truth is not 100 percent correct, but also Oglesby now argues that due to social media algorithms, we can’t even stop the spread of these copies and edited knowledge that seem to be passing from one to another. Due to our own digitals’ algorithms, we fall into a place that we can’t even take ourselves out of, which is falseness due to constantly sharing and reposting what is given to the individual algorithms. Oglesby says how “we are each deceived uniquely…circulating our own sophistries.”  The author’s choices of these words are to show how we are the reason why we create our own algorithms and how, because of the circulation of nonsense, we just dig a bigger hole for us to know the truth behind all the layers of concealment. The author uses the historical reference of the sophists and how they wanted to spread their information for the satisfaction of attention to interlink it with the idea of algorithms and how they are showing us false information and sending it to others. 

So social media has its upsides but also has its downsides when it comes to developing the truth and how people are able to see this truth. But now it’s more about how people would respond to these facts and images. It is morally right to say that nowadays there are people who would oppose any ideas that may come from another person because of how vast social media is and how people are able to discuss and argue due to it being very open to the public. Showing how these social media spaces can be a prime target for people who are cynical. According to Oglesby, cynicism is a “culture of oppositions, vicious satire, and critique” (Oglesby 11) that would only damage these social media platforms even more because of how they would act towards people sharing their public opinions. But there are also groups of people who would not have any of these platforms at all, which would otherwise show defeat of passing information. The author brings up the ideas of Stoics and how these people would either have these platforms to contribute to human well-being or not have them at all. In Oglesby’s article it states, “If the former, go for it; if the latter, delete your accounts.” (Oglesby 12). He shows the perspective of a stoic persona and how it would just be wise to delete your accounts if you’re not using them for the better of humankind.   

To conclude what was stated, the author Oglesby gave various reasons on how Plato would use these social media platforms in order to seek truth and not use them for fame and/or likes. He also argued that people are losing themselves as humans because of the masking of identity over a screen and the layering of the truth to be found in so many copies of what can and/or cannot be true. Also, presenting the value and recognition of certain topics and how we can really know if something can be true or not. And lastly, people and their behaviors on these social media platforms. Due to all these reasons, the author concluded that the truth of social media is our best progression but our worst dysfunction. Due to how we as people manage ourselves in the media today.