Writing is Good (He Said Controversially)

A professor of philosophy argues that treating writing as the highest form of thought is questionable, citing a New York Times article. The author suggests that engaging students through messy conversation is more effective than forcing them to focus solely on written paragraphs to achieve genuine understanding. This perspective is further illustrated by an example from Williams College where a philosophy chair allowed students to use AI for final essays under specific guidelines, resulting in better performance. The author contrasts the traditional writing process, which involves human vulnerability and rejection, with using AI as a mirror that provides criticism without true engagement. The piece ultimately questions whether the emphasis on writing is essential for developing thought, suggesting that dialogue—speaking, answering, and defending ideas—is more valuable for genuine learning than solitary written practice aided by machines.

The argument pivots on the value of vulnerability and social friction as necessary catalysts for deep thought. The critique targets the reduction of writing to a technical process, arguing that it functions more as an antiseptic or solitary behavior than a vehicle for intellectual growth derived from engagement. The introduction of AI is framed not merely as a tool but as a mechanism for substituting authentic, painful human interaction—the necessary element of disagreement and reception—with algorithmic consensus. This frames the technological shift as an infantilization where students are trained to accept pre-formed intellectual structures rather than the difficult process of arriving at belief through communal struggle. The pattern suggests a resistance against any monolithic structure imposed on thought, whether by rigid pedagogy or powerful, invisible consensus machines. The core implication is that true cognitive sovereignty requires space for unresolved, messy dialogue, which the current trend, both in academic writing and AI-mediated interaction, seeks to eliminate in favor of efficiency and perceived clarity.