Blackspot

Calvisius Sabinus

It is one thing to remember, another to know.

In the upcoming issue of Adbusters -- #89: The Ecopsychology Issue -- there is a thoughtful letter to the editor by David Miller of Calgary. Mr. Miller writes in defense of Google, which he feels has been unjustly attacked by stodgy old-school educators. This is how he explains the essence of his argument:

"The Google Generation can retrieve facts almost instantaneously, from nearly anywhere, on an infinite number of subjects. Some may see this as detrimental to the intelligence of youth, but I see it as liberating. Without the need to memorize vast swaths of cold, dead, factual information, it is possible to cut to the quick and focus on the larger picture."

What is interesting about this argument is that it originated out of the ancient philosophical inquiry into the nature of wisdom. And one can trace its rhetorical lineage through Montaigne, the inventor of the essay, to Seneca, the Roman Stoic philosopher. Arguably, Mr. Miller is obliquely quoting Seneca who once wrote: "it is one thing to remember, another to know."

If we were to take only these words by Seneca into account, then we could conclude that Miller's defense of search engines is valid: in releasing us from the burden of remembering, Google frees us to know. But a deeper reading of Seneca reveals a stinging rebuke of relying on Google.

For Seneca, the stereotypical Google user would be remarkably similar to Calvisius Sabinus, a rich Roman who Seneca explains mastered a unique type of ignorance and stupidity. Sabinus was a foolish man, unable to remember the facts and literary allusions that comprised the educated culture of that time. But he was also a vain man who wanted to be intelligent. With his great wealth he devised a plan.

Calvisius Sabinus purchased educated slaves, each of whom was tasked with knowing a specific bit of culture. One slave knew Homer, another Hesiod and there were others that were expert in each of the nine lyric poets. It cost him a tremendous amount of money to educate these slaves, but once they were ready he put them to use. If, in the midst of a feast, he wished to recite the Greek poet Pindar then he would simply speak while his slave whispered into his ear. In this way, Sabinus believed he had attained wisdom because as he explained to a guest who suggested it would have been easier to educate himself instead of his slaves, responded that, "what any member of his household knew, he himself knew also."

From our perspective, Calvisius Sabinus is ridiculous. But one must wonder whether we are not like him. Do we rely on Google to provide us with the knowledge that we lack, leaving ourselves empty of wisdom? Is Google like the retinue of educated slaves, ever ready to insert the proper cultural reference so that we may stay in overall ignorance?

For Seneca, the definition of wisdom was not simply to be one who does not rely on memorization. He went further, and said that wisdom was something that can only happen once knowledge had become internalized, a part of ourselves. Or, in the words of Montaigne, who wrote the following after reflecting on the story of Sabinus:

"We take other men's knowledge and opinions upon trust; which is an idle and superficial learning. We must make it our own. We are in this very like him, who having need of fire, went to a neighbor's house to fetch it, and finding a very good one there, sat down to warm himself without remembering to carry any with him home."


Micah White is a contributing editor at Adbusters and an independent activist. He lives in Berkeley, CA and is currently writing a book about the future of activism. www.micahmwhite.com or micah (at) adbusters.org

14 comments on the article “Calvisius Sabinus”

Displaying 1 - 10 of 14

Page 1 of 2

James I

I don't understand this anti-Google arguement. The knowledge of the universe is provided on Google, just as it would be in the most ideal library on the planet? What difference does it make that the knowledge is instantly accessible for free?
I have to acquire knowledge, before I can possess it, whether that be studying for years to no further practical benefit to myself. Or I could Google it when the need or curiosity requires, and further my knowledge piece by piece throughout my life with a free, unlimited resource (well, in the Western World at least).

James I
http://jamesmcanespy.co.uk

James I

I don't understand this anti-Google arguement. The knowledge of the universe is provided on Google, just as it would be in the most ideal library on the planet? What difference does it make that the knowledge is instantly accessible for free?
I have to acquire knowledge, before I can possess it, whether that be studying for years to no further practical benefit to myself. Or I could Google it when the need or curiosity requires, and further my knowledge piece by piece throughout my life with a free, unlimited resource (well, in the Western World at least).

James I
http://jamesmcanespy.co.uk

Anonymous

Google as a search engine is great, but once it expands into biotech/health/food/space travel, attempting to be an all-encompassing company (it already is attempting that) you can become a bit scared when they own all of your information, and are also the largest advertising firm on the planet. Their majority profits stem from advertising, thus, one may assume that the corporation and it's funding sources are priority over the people it serves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7yfV6RzE30 I think this video sums it up.

Anonymous

Google as a search engine is great, but once it expands into biotech/health/food/space travel, attempting to be an all-encompassing company (it already is attempting that) you can become a bit scared when they own all of your information, and are also the largest advertising firm on the planet. Their majority profits stem from advertising, thus, one may assume that the corporation and it's funding sources are priority over the people it serves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7yfV6RzE30 I think this video sums it up.

Ian Ford

The video you link to is certainly clever, but the bias is heavy and blatant.

Look, the bare facts contained within may be accurate to a degree, but they're stated in a way which suggests that Google has specifically malicious intent for the data it collects. Their revenue model is based on using and perhaps selling the data they collect on you, but most of the products detailed in the video are....

1. Technologically Marvelous
2. Best in their class
3. Completely, 100% free, and often Open Source

Should we be concerned to see a single entity amassing as much data as Google has over the years? Certainly. Should we necessarily presume that Google is "evil" (whatever that means) for having that data? no. Effort would be better spent in educating people about the kind of deal they're effectively making when they choose to use Google products or services. For the arguable price of your privacy you can have the best data finding tool in the world, free GPS, access to millions of videos, e-mail, etc., etc.

Ian Ford

The video you link to is certainly clever, but the bias is heavy and blatant.

Look, the bare facts contained within may be accurate to a degree, but they're stated in a way which suggests that Google has specifically malicious intent for the data it collects. Their revenue model is based on using and perhaps selling the data they collect on you, but most of the products detailed in the video are....

1. Technologically Marvelous
2. Best in their class
3. Completely, 100% free, and often Open Source

Should we be concerned to see a single entity amassing as much data as Google has over the years? Certainly. Should we necessarily presume that Google is "evil" (whatever that means) for having that data? no. Effort would be better spent in educating people about the kind of deal they're effectively making when they choose to use Google products or services. For the arguable price of your privacy you can have the best data finding tool in the world, free GPS, access to millions of videos, e-mail, etc., etc.

Victoria

Knowledge is the accumulation of information. Information is only as good as its sources.

If I find information on Google that I wish to share with others, I corroborate it through as many other sources as I can locate in an attempt to confirm it. As a source of misinformation, Google could be a highly successful tool.

Wisdom is experiential knowledge, rather than learned knowledge. It's formed by the memory of how we have thought and acted in the past, and whether they were right or wrong in the circumstances. After decades of accumulating this self knowledge, hopefully we become wise.

With so many sources of information available, we've learned to think widely rather than deeply. Today's youth has the potential to forget more than previous generations ever learned.

Victoria

Knowledge is the accumulation of information. Information is only as good as its sources.

If I find information on Google that I wish to share with others, I corroborate it through as many other sources as I can locate in an attempt to confirm it. As a source of misinformation, Google could be a highly successful tool.

Wisdom is experiential knowledge, rather than learned knowledge. It's formed by the memory of how we have thought and acted in the past, and whether they were right or wrong in the circumstances. After decades of accumulating this self knowledge, hopefully we become wise.

With so many sources of information available, we've learned to think widely rather than deeply. Today's youth has the potential to forget more than previous generations ever learned.

reignmann

Seriously, no matter what we've learned, it's been "whispered" in our ears by someone at sometime, whether through a conversation, or through a lecture, or through reading a book. It's what we do with the info afterwards, yes, hopefully we internalize it, though my brain is more and more like a sieve as I get older, and I never was good at remembering poetry, but if I understand Pindar, then I would feel very comfortable reciting it from a written piece of paper.

reignmann

Seriously, no matter what we've learned, it's been "whispered" in our ears by someone at sometime, whether through a conversation, or through a lecture, or through reading a book. It's what we do with the info afterwards, yes, hopefully we internalize it, though my brain is more and more like a sieve as I get older, and I never was good at remembering poetry, but if I understand Pindar, then I would feel very comfortable reciting it from a written piece of paper.

Pages

Add a new comment

Comments are closed.