Communication is the characteristic that unites humanity with the human race. The ability to share, define and collaborate on ideas with others is what creates society. Since the beginning of time, influential people have emphasized the importance of this process. Plato, a Greek philosopher who lived around 400 BC, was a prolific author who defined many of the key early philosophical ideas. In his work Plato's Republic, Plato wrote Book VII: The Allegory of the Cave. This allegory describes the nature of education and the duty of those who find a greater truth to return to the less educated and share their findings: “It is our duty as founders, therefore, to compel the better nature to achieve the study we said first is the most important, that is to make the climb and see the good. But when they have made it and have looked sufficiently, we must not allow them to do what they are allowed to do today... Stand there and refuse to go down again to the prisoners in the cave and share their labors and their honors, if are worth less or more." This concept of collaborative communication is further explained in a work by John Stuart Mill, a 19th century English philosopher who synthesized the ideas of the Enlightenment and Romanticism in his philosophical endeavors. In this work, On Liberty of Thought and Discussion, from On Liberty, Mill emphasizes the need to engage with all ideas in efforts to create a more complete truth; “…There is a more common case than both of these; when the conflicting doctrines, instead of one being true and the other false, share the truth with each other; and the non-conforming opinion serves to furnish the rest of the truth, of which the received doctrine incorporates only a part.” A more contemporary author, David Bohm, a 20th century theoretical physicist who turned to philosophy late in life, further develops this concept of collaborative truth in On Communication, from On Dialogue: “Thus, in a dialogue, each person does not attempt to render shares some ideas or information that is already known to him. Rather, it can be said that the two people are doing something in common, that is, creating something new together." Through this broad timeline of philosophical development we see each of the influential figures singing the praises of a “collaborative truth,” the creation of higher understanding through the exploration and creation of new information. This collaborative truth is the key to how humanity and societies are unique to humans. While each author touts this idea, I argue that each of these men is hypocritical in their application of the ideas they hope to spread. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Plato was born into an "aristocratic and distinguished family." This gave him the financial and political comfort to deeply explore his philosophical interests. Plato had a wide circle of influential figures in his life, including his teacher Socrates, and the ability to travel and interact with important political and philosophical figures of his time. Later in his life, Plato founded the Academy. The Academy was a space for in-depth investigation of science, mathematics, and philosophical ideas, as at that time each of these subjects was deeply intertwined as a broader idea of ​​academic breadth. This Academy was more accessible as it had no tuition fee, but still required the financial comfort to pursue a lifestyle with little monetary gain. This is similar to the current norm of an unpaid internship being required in many fields. This academic space wasmade up of educated, financially stable people who could travel in search of a greater truth. Not only that, but out of all the students at this academy, only two women have been students in this space. Through this view of Plato's Academy we find a very narrow part of the larger society who were even able to engage with his works, and these people were those who were similar to Plato and had an educational background. This seems to be in sharp contrast to his claims in the Allegory of the Cave that the learned have a duty to "go down again to the captives in the cave and share their labors and their honors, whether they be of lesser or greater worth." (Book VII: The Allegory of the Cave). Instead, Plato's work tends to be more in line with his own description of the one who spent his time educated and therefore without truth, "the latter would fail because they would refuse to act, thinking that they had established themselves while still alive in the Distant Islands of the Blessed.” We have now established that Plato had a narrow sphere of who was able to engage with his ideas and create the dialogue that he found so valuable, and this strengthened his claim as a one-sided communicator in his works published have been stylized as dialogues primarily in order to replicate the collaborative truth that comes from actual discussion. However, this places Plato's views as the basis for all ongoing “discussion” and removes real interaction and the creation of new ideas from the. sue. Plato has created a select sphere of those who have access to the truths he hopes to reveal and discover in the world and has centered his opinions in a position of authority over those who consume his communication, the listeners. John Stuart Mill is a founding father of modern liberalism, praised for his revolutionary ideas of unfettered free speech, education for all, and, most revolutionary in some people's eyes, a supporter of women's rights. Through his writings in Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, Mill defends the need for all opinions to be freely expressed on two fronts; first, that if the opinion were correct, those who held the wrong opinion would obtain the truth; second, that even if the opinion is false, those who are right benefit from the consolidation of the debate's beliefs. Mill argues that the truth often also lies halfway between two opposing views. These arguments establish a pretty solid position for Mill that lives in line with his philosophical ideas and the broader concept we found in Collaborative Truth. He often shared viewpoints in newspapers and other publicly available publications, while welcoming dissenting viewpoints and even finding that common underlying truth on issues. One obvious issue that highlights Mill's hypocrisy on the issue of collaborative truth is his defense of Britain's imperialist action. John Stuart Mill was employed by the British East India Company for over half his life. This company was only able to maintain its power and wealth through Britain's inhuman rule over India. Mill viewed India as “barbaric” and not worthy of the same rights and liberties he so aggressively advocated for white men and women: “he assumed that there was a readily available scale of civilization by which peoples could be classified. He was absolutely certain that the English were civilized and that the people of Asia, Africa and Ireland were uncivilized and barbaric” (Sullivan, Eileen P.). This meant that his communication ideas,free speech, collaborative truth, those ideas are only relevant to those deemed worthy of being, and in this case that meant those who are European. This idea is once again reflected in his idea that those with more education should have more than one vote. John Stuart Mill is hypocritical in his defenses of the value of all perspectives and the right of every perspective to have equal weight, his Collaborative Truth conveniently excluding large segments of the world. David Bohm is a 20th century physicist and philosopher well known for contributions to the theoretical physics used for the atomic bomb and his philosophical perspective on communication. His work, On Communication, talks about the need for open dialogue with the aim of "creating something new together". The point most emphasized by Bohm in this piece is the value of the collaborative process as the main reason for dialogue. He mentions the need to overcome one's communication "blocks", or an "insensitivity or 'anaesthesia' to one's contradictions". In his Dialogue Proposal, Bohm further defines an ideal communication facilitation in his style, a point he emphasizes concerns the role of leader or instructor; “Any controlling authority, no matter how carefully or sensitively applied, will tend to impede and inhibit the free play of thought and the often delicate and subtle feelings that would otherwise be shared.” Both of these statements, that one must overcome one's contradictions for constructive communication and that an authority role is contrary to the purpose of dialogue, come together to create a strong sense of irony in Bohm's On Communication. If one seeks a goal toward collaborative truth, then using a written essay to further explain that one-sided dialogue is the “communication problem” (On Communication) is hypocritical. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper now from our expert writers. Get a Custom Essay As a learning activity for this dive into communication, I was assigned a partner to do a listening activity with. This meant meeting with Zac Shields to spend 30 minutes trying to communicate. The premises of this activity summarize the problem that each of the three authors analyzed by us encountered, namely a limitation of the role of the listener. In the instructions we were told to take turns, one partner spends 15 minutes talking about himself, while the other partner is unable to respond in any way other than talking about the speaking partner, and then switches. The idea of ​​Collaborative Truth, which each of the philosophers concluded and to which we gave a name, needs listening as a communication tool, not as a role. In the case of Plato, Mill and Bohm, each contradicted this idea in a slightly different way. Plato and Mill created a hierarchy that excluded perspectives vital to the collaborative process. This is reflected in the limitations placed on the listener's role in the activity, each response had to be linked to the speaker's ideas. In Bohm's case he contradicted himself by underlining the importance of truths shared and created in the form of a written work. His essay was genuine, but lacks many nuances that could be found if only there was response and communication to develop further ideas. This is demonstrated by the strict and one-sided role of the speaker in this activity. Instead of exploring and discovering further or even new ideas, the speaker has to spend 15 minutes just talking about their thoughts. Although the activity was a successful exercise in focusing and attending to another person's ideas, it ran counter to the idea that Plato, Mill, and Bohm all agreed meant”.. 2019.