For a very in-depth analysis of this topic, see The Art of Memory by Frances Yates. Much of that book is conjectural, and I don't think it ever found much purch

For a very in-depth analysis of this topic, see The Art of Memory by Frances Yates. Much of that book is conjectural, and I don't think it ever found much purchase within the scholarly community. (Not because it's outright B.S., I don't think, but rather because the implications aren't particularly interesting to modern scholars of philosophy or history; the conjectures aren't worth proving or disproving.) However, it definitely helped me to contextualize Ancient Greek thought in this area, especially Platonic thought and its effect on subsequent philosophy in the Western tradition. I don't think this aspect of Ancient Greek philosophy or Platonic thought, especially the historical context, is clarified until rather advanced philosophical studies in university, if at all, so when you do you see it discussed or alluded to it's not stated plainly and it be can difficult to recognize. Usually it's just the implications and the more abstract aspects that are discussed, pre-translated into modern terminology and concepts. Memorization was an important technology of the time, and like most technologies it was used (and abused) to analogize and conceptualize abstract processes and phenomena, often to the point of equivocation. Failing to appreciate the role that memorization played back then is like failing to appreciate, for example, how the Internet and social media shape our understanding and debate of culture and politics in the early 21st century; the debates can all seem very esoteric, random, and confusing unless and until you have the historical anchor to contextualize things. Then much of the logic, presumptions, and emphases become easier to understand and translate into more familiar terms; banal even. I'm reminded of this admonition against technological equivocation from a mathematics professor, E.C. Zeeman, discussing the role astronomy as reflected in the Antikythera Mechanism had in shaping ancient thought on the nature of the world: > I would like to conclude by telling a cautionary tale. Let us try and place the Antikythera Mechanism within the global context of ancient Greek thought. Firstly came the astronomers observing the motions of the heavenly bodies and collecting data. Secondly came the mathematicians inventing mathematical notation to describe the motions and fit the data. Thirdly came the technicians making mechanical models to simulate those mathematical constructions, like the Antikythera Mechanism. Fourthly came generations of students who learned their astronomy from these machines. Fifthly came scientists whose imagination had been so blinkered by generations of such learning that they actually believed that this was how the heavens worked. Sixthly came the authorities who insisted upon the received dogma. And so the human race was fooled into accepting the Ptolemaic system for a thousand years. > Today we are in danger of making the same mistake over computers. Our present generation is able to view them with an appropriate skepticism when necessary. But our children's children may be brought up within a society dominated by computers, that they may actually believe this is how our brains work. We do not want the human race to be fooled again for another thousand years. http://zakuski.utsa.edu/~gokhman/ecz/gears_from_the_greeks.pdf http://zakuski.utsa.edu/~gokhman/ecz/gears_from_the_greeks.p...