Did the Printing Press Create More Wisdom, or More Noise?

[admin]

The invention of the printing press is often celebrated as one of the greatest achievements in human history. Books became cheaper, literacy expanded, and knowledge spread far beyond the monasteries, universities, and courts where it had once been concentrated.

Yet not everyone viewed this development as an unqualified success. For most of history, relatively few people read extensively. Today, literacy is widespread and access to information is nearly unlimited. Yet many would argue that public discourse is more confused and fragmented than ever before.

For most of human history, access to books, manuscripts, and formal education was limited. Knowledge was transmitted through institutions, traditions, and authorities that exercised significant control over what was taught, copied, and preserved.

Yet it is worth asking whether every civilization that endured understood something we have forgotten: that information is not merely a resource to be distributed, but a force that must be governed. If every idea deserves immediate publication and every opinion unlimited circulation, should we be surprised when confusion grows faster than wisdom?

Was the spread of literacy and printed material an unquestionable improvement? Or did the printing press make it easier not only for truth to spread, but also for error, propaganda, half-knowledge, and endless controversy?

To put the question provocatively: if fewer members of younger generations read serious books than previous generations, is that necessarily a sign of decline, or does it force us to reconsider whether mass reading was ever the civilizational achievement we assume it was?

Did the printing press create more wisdom, or merely more information?

[MagiOmni]

Modern news has made it clear that the printing press and in general everybody having access to any information isn't a simple positive, though that's true for any mechanism for spreading ideas. I would say that it has increased the "standard deviation", so to speak, of general wisdom in the populace. More intelligent and dedicated individuals from all walks of life are able to gain knowledge at a rate they would never be able to in previous eras. On the other hand, those who arent able to filter bad information are fed false beliefs and they learn to know less than nothing.

I do think that separately individuals have gotten less intelligent over time in western society, but I would argue thats due to the incentives of universal suffrage rather than the printing press. Lazy individuals are attracted to the ideas of the welfare state, and once they are enabled they become complacent and in many cases demand more from the state, and they are given influence over the wealth of others by the power structures of the state. These people tend to develop an inconsistent ideology in order to justify why the government should take things from others and give it to them, which is what a lot of the modern non academic left is nowadays.

The rapid spread of information only accelerated the decline of wisdom by giving justifications to the individuals who already held those beliefs, it's not the root cause of it, which at a first order is degeneracy and at a second order is universal suffrage. A solution to this would be to give more decision making power to the more intelligent individuals to both incentivize intelligence and avoid degenerates making decisions, but that would require an unbiased system which will never happen when such a system is in the control of a central authority. I do know of a moral and accurate way of making such decisions, but such a discussion would be far out of scope for the topic.

[Alfred Cromwell]

I agree with your observation that the printing press increased the spread of both wisdom and error.
My own suspicion is that technologies of communication are never neutral. They do not simply distribute ideas; they reshape the relationship between authority, tradition, and knowledge itself.

A society in which books are scarce will organize itself differently from a society in which every individual has immediate access to thousands of competing claims. My problem is not merely that more falsehoods become available, indeed they do, but also that the individual increasingly becomes the final judge between them.

I believe universal suffrage, for example, is actually a consequence of a fragmented religious authority (caused in no small part by the printing press), for it also multiplied sects, and encouraged the habit of private judgment on an unprecedented scale.

To add to that unfortunate situation, we also do not have the existence of institutions capable of authoritatively distinguishing truth from error. Once information becomes effectively unlimited while authority becomes increasingly contested, confusion may grow even among intelligent people.

[MagiOmni]

You've made me rethink my view on the rapid spread of information, I do now think the printing press has fundamentally changed the interaction of individuals with the society. We also agree that much of the problem is individuals being the final judges of right and wrong, as it ignores the countless years of wisdom built by our ancestors. However, I dont believe the printing press is responsible for this (In the same way a butterfly flapping their wings might have literally caused a tornado, but that doesnt make the butterfly guilty of the damage that ensues), but rather I still think the problem is that individuals who know better are subject to the will of those who don't.

If, in a hypothetical world, every individual was able to join a society that followed their political ideology, then among those societies the best ideologies would compete and the least degenerate would come out on top as the most happy and successful. Individuals would be able to see what ideologies cause societies to flourish and would be incentivized to become less degenerate in order to be let in with the individuals of other societies. In this world, the rapid spread of information would be of massive benefit, as it would allow competent people to make better societies which cultivate better cultures and incentivize others to those societies and cultures. The ralid spread of information in this world would incentivize individuals to become better people. Note that many of the societies would be exclusionary in many aspects to those who arent able to hold to the standards of the society.

Contrast that with the current power structures, where the competent few are subject to the will of the ignorant, and often selfish, many. The rapid spread of information in this society (which is much like our modern one) would be expected to cause damage; if those who arent able to filter out bad information are given power and a lot of bad information, they're going to cause a lot of trouble. In my view we should be striving towards a world more like the former. I dont think it's a useful view to blame the printing press, and I think it would be immoral and dangerous to restrict the spread of information, so we should build around the technology, viewing it as a natural force to work around rather than an evil that should be fought against.

[StudentDriver]

Both.
I have a solution to reduce noise. have spread of information about how to do philosophy so that people understand how to take things with a grain of salt. Then show some profound philosophy, that people can apply rn. Then people will see that sometimes take with grain of salt and sometimes not.

[maxirater]

When the famous psychologist Carl Jung (coinventor of modern psychology along with Freud) was asked in this interview on youtube about the Ego and if that is what defines the self:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8KHp-FAzOA (see the timestamp on the first 1/4 of the interview)
he interestingly replied how he did not know when the Ego was invented by humanity. This indicates he does not really understand what ego is and how it is a product of the economic and social environment. The ego did not exist in most ancient societies which were all monarchies and most all the citizens were peasant farmers. Seriously how can you have an ego when all you do is work your farm for a king and maybe work some simple trade like wood working or black smithing? So basically during the renaissance in europe industrialization started happening and trade guilds were formed and a merchant class was created. This coincided with the introduction of the printing press which enabled common men to have access to reading material and be able to learn and become educated. Before that there was absolutely no purpose for the average citizen to learn to read/write or even do simple math as all they did was farm. In the early 1800s this industrialization accelerated greatly and suddenly millions of citizens were working in factories. This created a requirement for universal education for at least basic reading/writing/arithmetic for everyone. This created upper mobility for the average citizen to become educated and choose a career path in their chosen area of skills and knowledge. This of course created ego. Ego is not some hidden subconscious trait that governs the behavior of humans like they are senseless animals. Ego is simply an outgrowth of human potential provided by the opportunities of their environment. So to address the original question, did the printing press create wisdom or noise? It created both, the wisdom is all the education we got, the noise was the ego it created in man.

[trevor123]

In my view we should be striving towards a world more like the former. I don't think it's a useful view to blame the printing press, and I think it would be immoral and dangerous to restrict the spread of information, so we should build around the technology, viewing it as a natural force to work around rather than an evil that should be fought against.

The pandora's box has already been opened: there no practical scenario where the internet, so much less the printing press, loses its efficacy to disseminate information altogether.

However, I would argue with the notion that it is immoral to restrict the spread of information. The ability to spread information quickly is not a thing that can be used neutrally. Every person who acts upon that ability to spread their ideas is not spreading a neutral substance to the population. There are many people, as you correctly note, that are simply ignorant on important matters. If these people are to be exposed to harmful ideas, and they are not educated enough or too ignorant to be able to reject the errors therein, then it would only seem right, for their own protection that limits be placed on the information that these people could be exposed to.

The obvious next question is who gets to decide what should and should not be allowed to be spread, and I think the only answer that makes any sense is that the Church should be that ultimate arbiter of the truth on earth. As Mr Cromwell correctly noted, the dissolution of religious authority as something that ought to be recognized by the individual will always necessarily lead to error abounding in society to the detriment of the populus.

The most pertinent case of the spread of error is heresy. If men are granted the liberty to distribute error into the minds of the faithful without consequence, why would we be surprised when heresy abounds and the Church is placed under threat? Would it not be a stain on our conscience if we were to allow the Christian faithful to be injected with the poison of heresy?

Whether or not you are a Roman Catholic, it behooves this discourse to quote Council of Trent:

And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,–thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,–print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author’s name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned.
(Council of Trent, Fourth Session)

[MagiOmni]

However, I would argue with the notion that it is immoral to restrict the spread of information. The ability to spread information quickly is not a thing that can be used neutrally. Every person who acts upon that ability to spread their ideas is not spreading a neutral substance to the population. There are many people, as you correctly note, that are simply ignorant on important matters. If these people are to be exposed to harmful ideas, and they are not educated enough or too ignorant to be able to reject the errors therein, then it would only seem right, for their own protection that limits be placed on the information that these people could be exposed to.

I would like to clarify because my wording seems to have caused a misunderstanding. When I say it's immoral to restrict the spread of information, what I mean is that it's immoral to use force or a threat of force (imprisonment, fining, execution etc.) in order to restrict that spread, basically any method a government would use. I think things such as moderation, excommunication or boycotting are useful and moral ways to restrict that spread. Such things shouldnt be mandated by the government but rather decided by consent of (groups of) individuals in that society. Of course you can go too far even in those regards, but I don't find it to be an immoral use of power, instead just poor management of society. The extent which you use these tools is really a question of human nature and culture, so I think a lot of AB testing would be required in order to figure out proper consequences, and these rules would likely change over time. I do think it's fair to say that modern society doesnt moderate enough of its discourse, to the point where basic property rights are disregarded in cases like rioting, and ideas which clearly violate people's natural rights are considered in all levels of governance. Thats part of what I meant by societies competing, they wouldnt allow certain individuals and ideas in their society to keep the peace.