Quickshot 3
Socrates Would Have Loved Live Streaming
‘’Writing is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.’’ — Plato, The Phaedrus
Youtube, Twitch, Snaps, stories… online creative expression constantly evolves, and these days it seems like the most compelling visual attractions reside in the realm of live broadcasts, where reality is unfiltered, active participation is encouraged, and people show themselves with fresh honesty, in free form, unbound from edits and cuts.
Coming from a long tradition of radio shows, live talks, tv programmes and web series, live streaming is now empowered by the much better quality of recording tools and broadcasting platforms, distribution is made flawless by the widespread access to a fast internet connection that most people enjoy. These conditions have unleashed a new chapter in the history of free-form creativity, which is now all about unfiltered presentation of the creator’s reality and the participation of the audience, and which sits in stark contrast with the fast, superedited and superproduced forms of entertainment that usually dominate on the web.
The power of streaming comes from unfiltered realism. It’s like hanging out in your room with ten thousand people.
Live streams are long, messy, uncut and full of dead spots. They only rely on the skills of the broadcasters to fill up space and keep up the energy. From videogame streams (back again to lead the way to the potential of the format, just like they did with Youtube back in the day), to sex shows and chill sessions, the key concept is the creation of intimacy, a direct line between the streamer and the watcher, who are able to share experiences that feel genuine. It’s a form of realism that can get massively exposed while retaining the key principle of intimacy. It’s like hanging out in your room with ten thousand people.
And from this key principle, live streaming is growing and expanding to reach higher levels of sophistication, as it is expected from any medium. It’s becoming an artform in itself. Streaming has already got its idioms, specific rituals and calls to action. It now encompasses live lectures, debates, newsrooms and comedy performances. Donations from the spectators make it a viable revenue source for professional broadcasters.
There’s a lot of room for this medium to keep growing, as we all become more skilled and even more sophisticated, but its most compelling feature will always be the presentation of people, experiences and interactions that feel real. With all the blemishes that human interactions naturally have in our daily lives.
Streaming is, today, the most honest creative form there is. And that is why people love it.
As it turns out, there was a very popular figure who lived many centuries ago, and used to think something similar of the relationship between the two main expressive forms of his time, discourse and written text. A man who was always on the hunt for the universal truths of the human nature we all share, and thought that true philosophical discovery could only reside in the active form of dialogue, something alive that fleshy and bloody people create in real time, rather than on the dead pages of a book, which only take a snapshot of truth and mummify it for posterity, while the complexity that made it alive disappears.
This person thought that knowledge is a birthing process where man pulls the truth out of man, while simply reading knowledge that other people produced without going through the painful process of conquering it yourself only makes you a dumb vessel.
This person was Socrates, and he would have loved live streaming.
Socrates is one of the great fathers of Western philosophy. He amassed a vast following back in his time, 2500 years ago, as a social commentator and moral critic who constantly prodded the institutions of power, who questioned every belief and every piece of common knowedge, trying to find their reason to exist, and trying to unlock the ultimate truths that govern our existence. He was a controversial figure; loved by many, hated by many others. And he eventually suffered the consequences of the high emotions he stirred up.
But beyond his provocations, paradoxes and intellectual pranks, Socrates considered himself an educator. Someone who gets people started in their quest for knowledge, which they can only find within. Socrates never fed his beliefs to people, and never taught the same thing the same way twice. He wanted to get people to share ideas actively, to think and talk, instead of passively accepting what the read on a page.
Socrates’ only purpose was to reach as many people as possible, to capture the unrepeatable act of enlightenment time and time again, with each one of his interlocutors.
This is where the biggest problem with Socrates happens. In his contempt for the written form, the man didn’t leave anything behind. No books, no diaries. We only know him through the chronicles of the time and the detailed recounts written down by his students, mainly Plato, who spent most of his career writing his master’s most important dialogues.
Socrates didn’t want to be famous. He didn’t want to leave his mark on history. His only purpose was to reach as many people as possible, to capture the unrepeatable act of enlightenment time and time again, with each one of his interlocutors. He didn’t care about posterity, because he knew that teaching from the grave is impossible. He knew that his students would continue his work after he was gone.
It’s understandable why someone like Socrates wouldn’t hold the written word in high regard as a way to transmit wisdom. But the problem with his line of thinking is that, first of all, writing is excellent. Literacy and written records unleashed the intellectual potential of humankind like nothing else before. It’s about passing on knowledge in a reliable manner, and not everything requires debate. You can just as well read a book, or a lecture, or a research and use them as platforms for your own ideas, without being forced to passively accept everything you read as it is.
Secondly, it’s unfeasible. Even if we agreed that dialogue is always superior to writing, as an instrument to transmit knowledge it hits a hard barrier pretty fast. Most people back then, and even now, didn’t have access to masters and thinkers to debate. Talking takes time, takes energy, and it can only involve a relatively small number of people at a time. Geographic concentration is a very important factor. That’s why University is so sought after and expensive. But even if you were indeed so lucky to live surrounded by geniuses and luminaries willing to debate you at all times, you would soon enough encounter the limitations of having individual people as your only source of information; namely their biases, gaps in their knowledge, and the fact that it’s very very hard to keep up to date with the evolutions of your field when you can only talk to the people near you, or embark on long travels.
The tradeoff is simple: dialogue is active, deep and can only address a limited audience. Reading is passive, limited but the size of the audience is unlimited. We’ve always needed to spread information and preserve it as best as possible, and the best option for many millennia has been to write things down.
What’s exciting, however, is that Socrates only lived 2500 years ago. He didn’t have all the new tools and means of communication that we can freely access today. If he had, he would have found that there is a way to spread his dialogue to a potentially infinite amount of people, while still retaining the active spirit that makes them superior in the first place. Live video streaming, a medium which relies on unfiltered authenticity and direct communication with the audience.
Socrates would have been a live streamer.
People love to watch streams and podcasts for hours on end. They like lectures, conversations and shows of all kinds that take their time to unfold, as long as they remain informative and entertaining.
Socrates would have gone crazy about this. Unlimited by time, or language, or the size of the room, he would have perfected the art of live dialogues, involving more and more people from around the world to seek the ultimate truths and moral virtues together, in a continuous process of communal self-examination.
I can picture him making a living with donations, setting up his recording station while his pupils gather around to adjust the lighting, grab questions on Twitter and share production notes. I can see him inviting relevant political figures to his show, only to enrage them and provoke explosive reactions. I can see him gathering millions of followers, and cultivating the community obsessively, by bringing people live on the streams to talk and debate hot topics.
And, frankly, I can see him deleting every stream after it’s over. Because even the recording of a dialogue is an unreliable way to transmit knowledge.
Live streaming is still relatively young. Right now it’s all about videogames, cam girls and podcasts. But because of the participative and unfiltered ways people can come together during live streams, maybe it will give way to a new generation of dialoguing philosophers who want to reach the masses in creative ways, and inquire on the ultimate meaning of life together.
Socrates won’t be back anytime soon to take advantage of live videos. But maybe we can make him proud.
