Tuesday, February 27, 2007
response paper
Has anyone heard and/or read about the actual requirements for this week's paper? Did Dr. Mahoney post it and I just missed it? Was there an email? Let me know...
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The $1 question
Hello All,
Hope this blog finds you all well. I wanted to bring up something that was in the various texts that we were to read for tonight. Are we as a country too involved with ourselves, as Goodnight points out? I know that other cultures depend on each other more for support and existence. Why do we as Americans not participate with the social sphere of argument? I know one could argue that TV is a way in which the audience can view multiple perspectives, seperate from our own, but is TV a true form of communication? (I would argue no for the simple fact that there is not a two way exchange of informaton in TV). Are we as a TV nation too wrapped up in the individualistic aspect of ourselves to even enjoy anothers perspective from our own? SO Many questions to answer! Sorry, I guess I am in a questioning kind of mood.
Jen
Hope this blog finds you all well. I wanted to bring up something that was in the various texts that we were to read for tonight. Are we as a country too involved with ourselves, as Goodnight points out? I know that other cultures depend on each other more for support and existence. Why do we as Americans not participate with the social sphere of argument? I know one could argue that TV is a way in which the audience can view multiple perspectives, seperate from our own, but is TV a true form of communication? (I would argue no for the simple fact that there is not a two way exchange of informaton in TV). Are we as a TV nation too wrapped up in the individualistic aspect of ourselves to even enjoy anothers perspective from our own? SO Many questions to answer! Sorry, I guess I am in a questioning kind of mood.
Jen
Hi everyone. I wish I could be in class tonight to discuss some of the blog posts that I haven't had time to respond to, but some personal stuff has come up and I can't be there. I am overwhelmed at the amount of material we have had to read and I am wayyyyyyy behind on that so maybe it's a good thing I can't be in class. You guys would be showing me up like crazy. I have never liked Ramage but I have read his book before and thought he was an ass. As I scan back through it, I've found some interesting things that make me think he may not be such a bad guy after all. It's just such tedious writing!
Alright, first I wanted to talk about Bush's State of the Union Address. I think Bush is about the most worthless President we've ever had, so this made me laugh. Sorry to all the Republicans in class (if there are any). Wait, I think I hear the CIA breaking down my door. Wouldn't that be insane?! Rhetoric is killing me. It really is. There are so many fa sits that I can't begin to grasp everything. But at the same time it's all common knowledge. For instance, during the Union Address. It's pretty crafty to have your audience keep clapping after everything you say during the beginning of your speech, Mr. Bush. It keeps the people gungho (I don't e
ven know if that's really a word and if it is I'm sure I spelled it wrong) about what you're saying, even if the words coming from your mouth are pure crap. But the audience doesn't recognize that because there is too much excitement in the air and some people (like myself) just like to clap. But the whole address to the country kept changing. Soon after it began, the clapping became more erratic and spaced out. Toward the end of his speech "the president begins a long narrative, over 900 uninterrupted words, enumerating the evidence of Saddam Hussein's duplicity and evil intentions. In contrast to earlier "sound-bite" proclamations, this applause-free interval frames the passage in a lengthy, steepled silence that implies a rapt audience hanging on every word and lends great weight to the president's words." Hahaha, oh god I love it..."great weight." Wow. I feel awful for the person who actually had to count how many words there were before the audience clapped. I'm sorry, but I don't understand how just because someone else is clapping that you would be on the edge of your seat. I get how a person's ears would perk up, but is someone really going to follow and believe what someone else says just because some jerk in the back row begins a wave of clapping? It's just clapping people. Two hands hitting each other. But it works and that amazes me.
ven know if that's really a word and if it is I'm sure I spelled it wrong) about what you're saying, even if the words coming from your mouth are pure crap. But the audience doesn't recognize that because there is too much excitement in the air and some people (like myself) just like to clap. But the whole address to the country kept changing. Soon after it began, the clapping became more erratic and spaced out. Toward the end of his speech "the president begins a long narrative, over 900 uninterrupted words, enumerating the evidence of Saddam Hussein's duplicity and evil intentions. In contrast to earlier "sound-bite" proclamations, this applause-free interval frames the passage in a lengthy, steepled silence that implies a rapt audience hanging on every word and lends great weight to the president's words." Hahaha, oh god I love it..."great weight." Wow. I feel awful for the person who actually had to count how many words there were before the audience clapped. I'm sorry, but I don't understand how just because someone else is clapping that you would be on the edge of your seat. I get how a person's ears would perk up, but is someone really going to follow and believe what someone else says just because some jerk in the back row begins a wave of clapping? It's just clapping people. Two hands hitting each other. But it works and that amazes me. Rhetoric isn't a bad thing. I don't think persuasion is either. It's like that saying "Guns don't kill, people do." If someone wants to use rhetoric in an evil way then that's his or her prerogative. However, should rhetoric fall in the hands of the wrong person, well...it's chaos, it's controversy, it's...the Bush administration! I'm going to get arrested. All I'm trying to say is that rhetoric can be used as a tool to help or hurt. It only takes one person to spoil a good thing. I suppose that's all the anger my body can take for one day. As soon as I get caught up on the reading, I will post more. Perhaps it won't be quite so opinionated. Although, that's very unlikely...ask Dr. Mahoney.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
I’m going to try and respond to both Steve and Hannah’s comments by throwing in some of my own philosophy. Comments directed more toward the texts are in my reading response from Thursday. (I hate repeating myself.) This rant/post might sound somewhat distant from what we are talking about, but I will bring it home by the end of this post. So, here we go…
The “perfect” world would exist in a state of anarchy. There would be no leaders and no followers. Everyone would fulfill a role for the betterment of the whole (and consequently the self) without the need of government or religion or whatever (sounds like a Beatles song). However, I feel that people are innately "evil" (or maybe it would be more appropriate to say hedonistic). Self-gratification is part of our nature. If we were born with a blank slate, the world would be full of Buddhists in a constant state of nirvana and we would probably die out from starvation or lack of breading (think about animals, they don’t bread to perpetuate the species, they bread because it feels good. In a way, genital stimulation is Nature’s little pseudo-rhetorical device used to convince animals to bread by appealing to their hedonistic impulses.) If everyone was born with a blank slate or were innately good, where would "evil "come from? The only answer I can think of is the desire for pleasure or at least the avoidance of displeasure.
With that being said, there is a need for rhetoric. Ramage says there are two reasons for rhetoric: to persuade, and to interpret. With the Greeks, the audience was the key to everything, but it was never discussed in much detail. This is where, I believe, interpretations comes into play. Or as Steve put it, “We think in language and concepts and use methods which are to some or all extent not innate, but passed on by influence, environment, and reflection. …we are in fact engaging in rhetoric.” Again, there is rhetoric going on in our heads all the time. Unless there was one universal mind, the ideal anarchist society cannot exist. Everyone has a unique sense of reality formulated in their heads based on that which is perceived "by influence, environment, and reflection." Since our brains are not hooked up to one central mainframe, we need to communicate our ideas as efficiently as possible with others and ourselves.
I’ve been involved in many activist events dealing mostly with politics and animal rights in the local area. I’ve argued for better education, civil liberties, and antidiscrimination on my radio show. In the school newspaper, I’ve warned people about slander in the media and the dangers of organized religion. I’ve tried every rhetorical tactic in my power to get across my ideas. Unless people are tapped into my brain and can see the world exactly as I see it, they aren’t going to grasp my message. Through rhetorical devises, I can give people some insight and hopefully influence them to learn more about my cause, to experience the things that I have experienced on their own. This could be something as simple as reading a specific book. Some people simply don’t know and we can change their lives, but some people just don’t care because they are disparagingly complacent.
I’m not saying that people need to do what I say. In stead, they should think about what I say and engage in a dialogue with me so we can learn from each other. However, the problem goes back to the idea of hedonism. I have fallen into the Mahoney circle of despair on many issues. The average person doesn’t want to feel despair. It is easier to surrender their responsibilities to others. This is why so many KU students tell me “yeah, I don’t really care about politics” when I ask them something political. This is why so many students say, “but meat tastes so good” when I tell them about the environmental degradation, health concerns, and inhumane treatment of animals cause from meat consumption.
Since human weakness makes anarchy impossible, we regrettably need structure, government, and rhetoric. If we didn’t have government, black people would still be lynched, women wouldn’t have a vote, and children would be working in factories. Maybe we need to be politicians to change things (Ugh, I know) and use rhetorical devises to get elected, to convince people to vote for us so they don’t have to think for themselves. I would rather think for people than say an Adam Putnam or a Dennis Hasstert. Outside politics, the least we can do is continuing learning and help educate others.
I’ll try to post more about the readings this upcoming week, but thanks for reading my rant anyway!
The “perfect” world would exist in a state of anarchy. There would be no leaders and no followers. Everyone would fulfill a role for the betterment of the whole (and consequently the self) without the need of government or religion or whatever (sounds like a Beatles song). However, I feel that people are innately "evil" (or maybe it would be more appropriate to say hedonistic). Self-gratification is part of our nature. If we were born with a blank slate, the world would be full of Buddhists in a constant state of nirvana and we would probably die out from starvation or lack of breading (think about animals, they don’t bread to perpetuate the species, they bread because it feels good. In a way, genital stimulation is Nature’s little pseudo-rhetorical device used to convince animals to bread by appealing to their hedonistic impulses.) If everyone was born with a blank slate or were innately good, where would "evil "come from? The only answer I can think of is the desire for pleasure or at least the avoidance of displeasure.
With that being said, there is a need for rhetoric. Ramage says there are two reasons for rhetoric: to persuade, and to interpret. With the Greeks, the audience was the key to everything, but it was never discussed in much detail. This is where, I believe, interpretations comes into play. Or as Steve put it, “We think in language and concepts and use methods which are to some or all extent not innate, but passed on by influence, environment, and reflection. …we are in fact engaging in rhetoric.” Again, there is rhetoric going on in our heads all the time. Unless there was one universal mind, the ideal anarchist society cannot exist. Everyone has a unique sense of reality formulated in their heads based on that which is perceived "by influence, environment, and reflection." Since our brains are not hooked up to one central mainframe, we need to communicate our ideas as efficiently as possible with others and ourselves.
I’ve been involved in many activist events dealing mostly with politics and animal rights in the local area. I’ve argued for better education, civil liberties, and antidiscrimination on my radio show. In the school newspaper, I’ve warned people about slander in the media and the dangers of organized religion. I’ve tried every rhetorical tactic in my power to get across my ideas. Unless people are tapped into my brain and can see the world exactly as I see it, they aren’t going to grasp my message. Through rhetorical devises, I can give people some insight and hopefully influence them to learn more about my cause, to experience the things that I have experienced on their own. This could be something as simple as reading a specific book. Some people simply don’t know and we can change their lives, but some people just don’t care because they are disparagingly complacent.
I’m not saying that people need to do what I say. In stead, they should think about what I say and engage in a dialogue with me so we can learn from each other. However, the problem goes back to the idea of hedonism. I have fallen into the Mahoney circle of despair on many issues. The average person doesn’t want to feel despair. It is easier to surrender their responsibilities to others. This is why so many KU students tell me “yeah, I don’t really care about politics” when I ask them something political. This is why so many students say, “but meat tastes so good” when I tell them about the environmental degradation, health concerns, and inhumane treatment of animals cause from meat consumption.
Since human weakness makes anarchy impossible, we regrettably need structure, government, and rhetoric. If we didn’t have government, black people would still be lynched, women wouldn’t have a vote, and children would be working in factories. Maybe we need to be politicians to change things (Ugh, I know) and use rhetorical devises to get elected, to convince people to vote for us so they don’t have to think for themselves. I would rather think for people than say an Adam Putnam or a Dennis Hasstert. Outside politics, the least we can do is continuing learning and help educate others.
I’ll try to post more about the readings this upcoming week, but thanks for reading my rant anyway!
Friday, February 16, 2007
Don't Fear the Rhetor!
Consider this Quote from Thomas Farrell:
"Rhetoric...is more than the practice; it is the entire process of forming, expressing, and judging public thought in real life" (CRT 96).
This perspective immediately made me focus on Farrell's use of the words "public" and "real life," and whether or not the implication is that rhetoric does not take place within the landscape of one's mind. What I mean in question form is: Does private thought, interior exposition, and the myriad of ways and means that an individual judges and assesses propositions to him or herself constitute rhetorical acts?
If I ask myself 'how do I feel about gay marriage?'--and answer 'well, Steve, certainly the history of America has shown a general progress of giving more people more rights, so yeah...let the gay population have at it.' Then I counter: 'Yes, that may be the case for American History, but world history dictates that marriage has always been between a man and a woman...and thus no-way for same-sex marriage.' Most likely, I would eventually get to the synthesis of being in favor for civil unions and letting the traditionalists keep their sacrosanct word. This faux dialogue within my mind is actually a monologue or a soliloquy...but does it or does it not engage in the same rhetorical flourish that all issues of consequence invariably embrace?
My initial view is that yes...interior decision-making is rhetorical in essence. The processes of thinking seem to have the qualities outlined by Ramage--contingency, persuasion, pathos, logos, and even audience...myself and the implied audience of the world as my 'made decision' will eventually manifest explicitly or implicitly outside myself. I use Platonic, Aristotelian, and even elements of sophist rhetoric to make an informed choice--hopefully the best possible from an assessment of mentally well-articulated propositions. The more contentious aspects of sophistry, if engaged, would constitute mental defect or delusion--relying on racism, bigotry, fear, ignorance, rationalization, apathy, etc. to base an opinion. Contentious sophistry in the mind would cause one to accept errant propositions.
The larger point is: If rhetoric is used to convince others of (presumably) better propositions, then aren't the same techniques used to convince (i.e. decide) things for ourselves?
One last thing. When I broached this subject of mental rhetoric with Dr. Mahoney, he reminded me that what we consider the interior, the private, the personal, is very much composed of what is outer and public. We think in language and concepts and use methods which are to some or all extent not innate, but passed on by influence, environment, and reflection. This makes me believe that alone in the dark of night when we consider things grand or small--that we are in fact engaging in rhetoric.
I no longer fear the rhetor in myself or others. Like most things in this world it seems that it is judicious use that leads to excellence. I guess the important message of this post is to urge people to use rhetoric and not let rhetoric ride roughshod over you.
"Rhetoric...is more than the practice; it is the entire process of forming, expressing, and judging public thought in real life" (CRT 96).
This perspective immediately made me focus on Farrell's use of the words "public" and "real life," and whether or not the implication is that rhetoric does not take place within the landscape of one's mind. What I mean in question form is: Does private thought, interior exposition, and the myriad of ways and means that an individual judges and assesses propositions to him or herself constitute rhetorical acts?
If I ask myself 'how do I feel about gay marriage?'--and answer 'well, Steve, certainly the history of America has shown a general progress of giving more people more rights, so yeah...let the gay population have at it.' Then I counter: 'Yes, that may be the case for American History, but world history dictates that marriage has always been between a man and a woman...and thus no-way for same-sex marriage.' Most likely, I would eventually get to the synthesis of being in favor for civil unions and letting the traditionalists keep their sacrosanct word. This faux dialogue within my mind is actually a monologue or a soliloquy...but does it or does it not engage in the same rhetorical flourish that all issues of consequence invariably embrace?
My initial view is that yes...interior decision-making is rhetorical in essence. The processes of thinking seem to have the qualities outlined by Ramage--contingency, persuasion, pathos, logos, and even audience...myself and the implied audience of the world as my 'made decision' will eventually manifest explicitly or implicitly outside myself. I use Platonic, Aristotelian, and even elements of sophist rhetoric to make an informed choice--hopefully the best possible from an assessment of mentally well-articulated propositions. The more contentious aspects of sophistry, if engaged, would constitute mental defect or delusion--relying on racism, bigotry, fear, ignorance, rationalization, apathy, etc. to base an opinion. Contentious sophistry in the mind would cause one to accept errant propositions.
The larger point is: If rhetoric is used to convince others of (presumably) better propositions, then aren't the same techniques used to convince (i.e. decide) things for ourselves?
One last thing. When I broached this subject of mental rhetoric with Dr. Mahoney, he reminded me that what we consider the interior, the private, the personal, is very much composed of what is outer and public. We think in language and concepts and use methods which are to some or all extent not innate, but passed on by influence, environment, and reflection. This makes me believe that alone in the dark of night when we consider things grand or small--that we are in fact engaging in rhetoric.
I no longer fear the rhetor in myself or others. Like most things in this world it seems that it is judicious use that leads to excellence. I guess the important message of this post is to urge people to use rhetoric and not let rhetoric ride roughshod over you.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Drudging along
Hello all! I was wondering is anyone found the readings at all interesting this week? I thought they were pure drudgery, and I usually do not say this about anything! I really hated reading Ramage again, although this week it seemed to be the text that I most connected with, maybe that's because of the Sidebars about politics and the State of the Union Speech. I also liked the feminist perspective on "The Taming of the Polos/Polis." I was wondering however, why Sutton uses the Amazons (very male-like warrior women) to convey femininity on a binary level. Shouldn't she have used vestal virgins or some other uber feminine characters to get her point across, especially if Aphrodite (the goddess of love and lust) is its mother? I don't know, maybe I am blabbing.
See you all next week.
Jen
See you all next week.
Jen
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
..........
I have been dancing around these questions ever since I started to take a serious look at Rhetoric- you all fell victim to my rampage last week. I begged someone to tell me how to manifest my desires to make positive progressive change in a system that leaves no room for alternatives... I just finished reading chapter three in Ramage (refreshed at how straightforward he is) and am pleased to understand better the dynamics of rhetoric. I am wondering now, if I ought to reconsider my plea to help all individuals become thinking, conscious, questioning individuals- would things really move in a progressive trend if that were the case? Or would it spread a mass chaos of everyone questioning and everyone confused?
I like Ramage's idea that rhetoric in its most ideal world would function pluralistically- representing an understanding that there are no terms to deem one truth more valid than another- that as human beings we would appreciate not the differences but the commonalities among us- I'm wondering if he thinks that we still would have leaders and followers... Or if everyone would lead themselves- maybe that isn't the most ideal...
What I mean to question is whether or not I am right, in a realistic sense, to believe that everyone (if they had the true opportunity [i.e. environment, desire, motivation, encouragement etc]) really would value being a thinking and questioning individual- and if it's even the right thing to push for that? Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not saying that we ought to perpetuate the faults in our system that seem to keep people in the positions that enable our current consumerist trends- what I wonder is, would things really be better if everyone was questioning, searching, dissecting, protesting and reconstructing? Is this society comprised of some as leaders and the rest as followers for a reason? Are the followers content with being told what to believe? Have they seen that they are followers and chosen to remain that way because that is what they want? Or do they just not know?
I was talking with a friend who believes that hoping to "empower" people in the way I have deemed necessary is 1) unrealistic and 2) Not what people want- because people already know they are being manipulated by the media, that the education system is often doing a disservice to our youth, that our government lies to us and then sends our people into the war zone- but they choose to be told what to believe in, what to support- and so to be a really effective progressive leader- what can I do? Get straight myself. Work on being free myself, be that aware, conscious, thinking individual and let MY life represent all the things I hope for others- because essentially the followers are just looking for the next person to believe- the power lies in who they will believe next- If I don't want people to continue to be manipulated by selfish greedy aims- is it wrong to live right, to live free and inspire people to follow because essentially I am influencing them based on my own ideology? I guess I can't be responsible or feel guilty if my aims are pure and positive in their nature, and if they don't believe what I stand and live for then they will believe something else, right?
This is where my whole negative perception of rhetoric is throttled. I have been so anti-rhetoric because I am aware of the coercion that runs rampant in our society- but then again wouldn't I be essentially doing the same thing if I lived as I stated above? Or is that persuasion? I guess I wouldn't be asking people to consider what I aim to represent with my life, my words, my art, my work as the ONLY truth with no alternatives- but help them to see the benefits.....
I'm just continuing to question- and I am wondering what y'all might think about the idea of natural leaders/followers.. Feel free to comment honestly, because I am still working out how I feel and understand all this anyway....
I like Ramage's idea that rhetoric in its most ideal world would function pluralistically- representing an understanding that there are no terms to deem one truth more valid than another- that as human beings we would appreciate not the differences but the commonalities among us- I'm wondering if he thinks that we still would have leaders and followers... Or if everyone would lead themselves- maybe that isn't the most ideal...
What I mean to question is whether or not I am right, in a realistic sense, to believe that everyone (if they had the true opportunity [i.e. environment, desire, motivation, encouragement etc]) really would value being a thinking and questioning individual- and if it's even the right thing to push for that? Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not saying that we ought to perpetuate the faults in our system that seem to keep people in the positions that enable our current consumerist trends- what I wonder is, would things really be better if everyone was questioning, searching, dissecting, protesting and reconstructing? Is this society comprised of some as leaders and the rest as followers for a reason? Are the followers content with being told what to believe? Have they seen that they are followers and chosen to remain that way because that is what they want? Or do they just not know?
I was talking with a friend who believes that hoping to "empower" people in the way I have deemed necessary is 1) unrealistic and 2) Not what people want- because people already know they are being manipulated by the media, that the education system is often doing a disservice to our youth, that our government lies to us and then sends our people into the war zone- but they choose to be told what to believe in, what to support- and so to be a really effective progressive leader- what can I do? Get straight myself. Work on being free myself, be that aware, conscious, thinking individual and let MY life represent all the things I hope for others- because essentially the followers are just looking for the next person to believe- the power lies in who they will believe next- If I don't want people to continue to be manipulated by selfish greedy aims- is it wrong to live right, to live free and inspire people to follow because essentially I am influencing them based on my own ideology? I guess I can't be responsible or feel guilty if my aims are pure and positive in their nature, and if they don't believe what I stand and live for then they will believe something else, right?
This is where my whole negative perception of rhetoric is throttled. I have been so anti-rhetoric because I am aware of the coercion that runs rampant in our society- but then again wouldn't I be essentially doing the same thing if I lived as I stated above? Or is that persuasion? I guess I wouldn't be asking people to consider what I aim to represent with my life, my words, my art, my work as the ONLY truth with no alternatives- but help them to see the benefits.....
I'm just continuing to question- and I am wondering what y'all might think about the idea of natural leaders/followers.. Feel free to comment honestly, because I am still working out how I feel and understand all this anyway....
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Sophist with the Mostest
I really enjoyed reading Jarratt's book, although, I understand if some of the terms were completely confusing (I thank heaven that I took lit. crit. with Jennifer Bottinelli last semester!!). Most interesting to me was the idea that the sophists rhetoric was everchanging and kinetic (like Heraclitus says that we can never step in the same river twice) while Socrates and Plato's rhetoric is more static, because truth, or the "Divine Truth" is always consistent and unchanging.
Reading Love's Labour's Lost this week really sealed the deal for me in the idea that rhetoric is a feminine art form. In the Shakespeare play, the women are the ones that display the best ability to use their tongue in a witty and persuasive way, much unlike the men who were forced into inaction and incapability for rhetoric. Jarratt says that the language of sophistry is seductive and capable of trickery; this idea also is evident in the play, where the women trick the men, through language and persuasion, into believing their speech after they switch masks to make the men believe that they are different people.
The one really cool thing that I thought was completely hilarious that Jarratt mentions, is the idea that Gorgias had made so much money on teaching the masses rhetoric that he made a solid gold statue of himself, which ties into the idea that I said last class that Gorgias thinks that he is a god (and quite a pompous one at that!).
See you all in class,
Jen
Reading Love's Labour's Lost this week really sealed the deal for me in the idea that rhetoric is a feminine art form. In the Shakespeare play, the women are the ones that display the best ability to use their tongue in a witty and persuasive way, much unlike the men who were forced into inaction and incapability for rhetoric. Jarratt says that the language of sophistry is seductive and capable of trickery; this idea also is evident in the play, where the women trick the men, through language and persuasion, into believing their speech after they switch masks to make the men believe that they are different people.
The one really cool thing that I thought was completely hilarious that Jarratt mentions, is the idea that Gorgias had made so much money on teaching the masses rhetoric that he made a solid gold statue of himself, which ties into the idea that I said last class that Gorgias thinks that he is a god (and quite a pompous one at that!).
See you all in class,
Jen
What an awesome book...
The following Jarratt quote says it all:What I have tried to do through this overview of literary, political, and philosophical backgrounds to the sophists is complicate the historical trope dominating most historical accounts of them.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Sophists 2.0
I logged onto Blogger just to see if anyone read Rereading the Sophists yet, (I’m starting it right after I post this) and I clicked on the one blog link “Tech Sophist” to see what it was. It is some professor, “Dr. Lanette Cadle, Assistant Professor of English at Missouri State University, specializing in Rhetoric and Composition, especially where those subjects intersect digital spaces.” You should really read some of these posts, they’re amazing. Anyway, I watched the video that was posted there and it made me appreciate TIME’s decision of making “You” the person of the year. I think Plato would shit a brick if he knew how influential things like Wikipedia, YouTube, MySpace, and Blogger are. You can be a digital Sophist right from your living room. You wouldn't even have to wear out a pair of sandals walking from town to town. Any who, from a Platonian perspective, I think we can already see the dangers of this type of information in relation to identity, ethics, copywriter issues, Truth with a big T, etcetera. Anyway, I’m going to read now and post again after I finish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)