“Would Plato Tweet? The Greek Guide to Social Media” by Nathan Dufour Oglesby.
“I know only one thing: that I know nothing.” (Daily Philosophy)
Promoting learning is one of the most apparent signs of self-improvement. Admitting that you don’t know everything is also an achievement; it demonstrates self-reflection and a desire to grow. Knowing the facts of our past shapes our future and daily evolution; therefore, I have always been intrigued by philosophers and how their ideas and knowledge influence their audiences. Aristotle, Albert Einstein, Plato, and Newton each has their own way of sharing and teaching their disciples, but what they all have in common is that they have left an excellent legacy for humanity with their theories, laws, and so on.
Socrates is the father of speech, and he taught his disciples through debate and did not write anything down, because he believed that knowledge and ideas lived better in memory and that words could be defended when spoken, unlike those that could not be defended when written down. At that time, philosophy and argumentation were carried out in public places. Socrates lived by questioning people to identify how much his disciples knew. This also led him to develop a teaching method called the Maieutic, which consisted of asking questions to stimulate critical thinking, leaving behind excellent argumentation as a legacy (Philosophy Institute).
This means that philosophy is always present in our routines. However, the way we share it has undergone considerable changes. Therefore, this essay aims to highlight how the exchange of ideas has changed and how the Socratic method would be transformed into the digital age. By analyzing how philosophers use public spaces to persuade and influence people’s lives, it’s possible to compare this practice with the current state of social media, a platform where people discuss, share ideas, and disseminate knowledge.
In the text, “Would Plato Tweet? The Greek Guide to Social Media” by Nathan Dufour Oglesby, he shares an interesting perspective on what ancient Greek philosophers would be like if they used social media. According to the author, Socrates or Plato would not use ‘TikTok’ or ‘Twitter’ because these do not stimulate deep thinking; instead, they would use another social network where they could nurture their knowledge more directly and consistently, in line with their teaching method that we know, and at the same time capture people’s attention. According to Oglesby, “Socrates or Plato may not have used Twitter or TikTok, but as Nathan Dufour Oglesby writes, they would have had things to say about how to navigate social media more wisely” (p. 1).
Oglesby uses literary elements of the scene to make us feel present in that moment. Historical and cultural references, such as mentioning the Agora of ancient cities, which played a fundamental role as a place where philosophers shared ideas with large audiences through representations such as poetry, and where more topics arose, allowing them to connect more closely with their audience. Therefore, for Oglesby, this is already something more significant as he changes from a more personal language to share with us that his vocation is to be a content creator on social networks, and he even expresses that he shares philosophical themes. According to Oglesby: “I imagine this for very specific reasons – my vocation, and profession, is making music videos and other forms of content, often ancient philosophy, and endeavoring to disseminate it on the internet”(p. 1). This information is important because it reveals to us that in the article, we will be looking at both perspectives quite a bit; he even argues that the meaning of his platforms like Agora is for the simple fact that in one place, you can find diverse content.
As he highlights in the title of this article, we can interpret that the legacy of how philosophers shared messages is such an efficient way that they are now guides for influencers or they were the influencers of their time. In the text, they do not reveal that there are figures like Jordan Peterson or Brene Brown where they spread philosophical ideas about virtue and happiness through their social networks. Perhaps they are not classical philosophers, but they are considered philosophers in the eyes of the audience for the way they record their thoughts.
This makes us think that philosophers, if they had the same technological development that we find today, would obtain greater potential than is already known to spread messages with great creativity and the help of social networks. For example, the article mentions several talents that philosophers used to capture attention, such as poetry and rap. The influential pre-Socratic philosopher Xenophanes presented his ideas in the context of rhapsodic contests, where poets vied for prizes and renown philosophical rap competitions, of a sort. Early philosophers also developed highly elaborate public personas, and “If these modes of self-presentation had included the ability to take video, you would have had some potentially very viral philosophers. They were, in their manner, akin to content creators and influencers, in that their intellectual authority consisted not only in their ideas, but their performative eloquence, and the cult of personality with which the surrounded themselves” (p. 3).
Oglesby achieves a perfect fit with the scenario so that readers can see his perspective; however, within this comparison and debate, this article shares something deeper and more relevant, and this is how, in both eras, it is very important to identify how they filter the message of classifying real wisdom with fame. As we know, words have power and make an impact on people’s minds. This is why ancient expose false sages, and many government officials were widely used in the Agora to determine false sages, and many from the government also intervened to distort certain topics. But the difference with social networks is that, at a general level, they are not in charge of filtering which content is promoting real wisdom, and which is simply doing it for fame. According to Jenkins, “Facebook does not have the intention of promoting morality, and does not particularly seek to educate its users,” she writes, “so I think Plato would have disapproved of it for this reason alone” (p. 7).
With this evidence I could analyze that this would be one of the reasons why Plato would not use social networks like Facebook, because Plato has always gone down the path of defending the truth, and above all for the most important thing which is to prioritize this truth for the knowledge of his disciples, which is why this attracts consequences; if the truth is not determined immediately and since ancient times as today this is a very debatable and worrying issue that the truth falls into the wrong hands that only look out for their well-being by providing erroneous information and that this is used to manipulate people’s thinking. According to the author, “We may be justifiably alarmed by this section of the book, and call to mind countries with aggressive policies of internet censorship. But from the vantage point of current controversies, such as vaccine disinformation or political polarization, we can at least discern, in sharp relief, what Plato felt was at stake in his socio-political thought-experiment.” (p. 8). This evidence shows us a direct connection between ancient philosophy and the problems we find in society today. This makes the reader question how the control of information on social networks sows a doubt that everything we call consumerism may be false because it does not promote the true intentions of sharing knowledge.
Socrates is the clearest example that is a fundamental support for this argument since he has always defined himself by not knowing anything and putting others to the test, where, based on the person’s response, he demonstrates ignorance. In Plato’s Phaedrus, Plato had a good intention of promoting the scriptures as support to better develop the knowledge of his disciples in the beginning, however, Socrates, the very wise, told him the story of the Egyptian God Theuth, where he said that writing would not make people wiser but that it would make people depend on the words that they write, with no chance to go back and defend their critical thinking if questions arose. Socrates said that the scriptures cannot be defended like words, then in short, writing in his eyes could be interpreted as a type of knowledge that makes you think wise but it actually isn’t, and it is the same as the false information on social networks that makes us feel informed. However, it must be noted that on social networks, each person has their own truth based on the content they consume.
In Conclusion, “Would Plato tweet? The Greek guide to social networks” by Nathan Dufour Oglesby is a very interesting article where the first thing that caught my attention as a reader was imagining a philosopher as renowned as Socrates and Plato using social networks, This offers a reflection into how their legacy still lives on despite being viewed from a different perspective, which is sharing information in a public place digitally,. Oglesby demonstrating that despite the great technology that is out there, we will never ignore the nature that we are, which is human interaction, the desire to share, persuade and influence remains intact. In this article we analyze the importance of detecting true information, and we notice the risk that is caused in the learning when information is false. Oglesby showed us both versions and examples of the evolution in which it has its advantages such as using a platform to connect with the world in a more precise and direct way to the negative side that also brings with it moral and intellectual risks: misinformation, superficial fame and the loss of authentic dialogue. But above all, the most important thing is the teaching of prioritizing the truth over knowledge, like Plato and Socrates, who always prioritized the knowledge of their disciples’ teaching with the truth and not teaching for popularity, but for questions.
Oglesby went beyond showing us not only how philosophers would act online, but also how we and how various problems that are reflected in our daily lives today, and that we should use technological resources more responsibly promoting good. Also, in this reading we were able to connect perfectly as an audience through symbolism, I feel that the author fulfilled his purpose well by showing us how the way of sharing messages has evolved but at the same time it is part of the legacy that the philosophers left us, we living the same experience. I completely agree with always highlighting true information and making better use of the method that Socrates did, such as activities of conducting surveys of people to measure their knowledge. I think that social networks are an extraordinary platform because it allows you to expand without the need to leave your home and that critical thinking can be promoted since one interacted through comments, however it nce one interacted through comments, however it is always good for one as a creator to make sure to provide adequate information so as not to alter manipulation with our audience and always keep our credibility pending time to share message.
Work Cited
Oglesby, Nathan Dufour. “Would Plato Tweet? The Ancient Greek Guide to Social Media.” BBC News, BBC, 1 Sept. 2022,www.bbc.com/future/article/20210922-would-plato-tweet-the-ancient-greek-guide-to-social-media.
Plato – Phaedrus, Penguin Classics Edition, 2005.
“Socrates on Knowing Nothing.” Daily Philosophy, Daily Philosophy, 4 July 2025, daily-philosophy.com/quotes-socrates-knowing-nothing/.
“The Socratic Method: A Foundation for Critical Thinking • Philosophy Institute.” Philosophy Institute, 7 Nov. 2025,philosophy.institute/ancient-medieval/socratic-method-critical-thinking/.
