[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_unwritten_doctrines
In the Qur'an there is reference to something called Mantiq-at-Tayr and this is usually translated/understood as "Bird Logic". Because the reference is to 'Solomon' and his declaration to people that he and his father David were "taught Mantiq at'Tayr'" by God. And there is a work by a world class "psychonaut" named Attar of Neishapoor who wrote a book called by the same name and translated as "Conference of the Birds". (Note 'Bird' also means 'flier'. Mantiq can also meen logic.)
So I am certain this refers to esoteric speech and the "birds" in question that had conversations with Solomon were "fliers" (as in practicing psychonaut) and the matter is related to -Godel- and limitations of discerning 'truth' via text.
There is a 'communion in conversation' that is never achieved in text.
Tired Alfred North Whitehead quotes aside, he's basically the single most influential author in the western tradition, arguably even eclipsing the bible.
And even better, we would know it by heart.
Assuning we considered it important of course. But that would be another benefit: it would also filter unimportant works over time.
Of course not everybody would know it by heart. That's a third benefit: only people interested and caring enough would know Plato. Not dilletantes.
If we never had writing, would the Huns have carried forth Platonic wisdom? Would it really have survived thousands of years of cultural evolution and the decline of Greek civilization itself? Who even is the "we" who should consider it important?
> that would be another benefit: it would also filter unimportant works over time.
How would it even be possible to know what's been lost in the oral tradition without anyone writing things down? Only takes one autocrat to massacre followers of a specific tradition to effectively erase it. Things get filtered based on their ability to survive, which is partially a function of "importance", whatever that actually means at a given time.
> a third benefit: only people interested and caring enough would know Plato. Not dilletantes.
This just seems like unabashed elitism. A "benefit" of the oral tradition is that knowledge is reserved for the deserving? No thanks.