Recently in Critical Self-Reflection Category

As we have been discussing in class, public opinion plays a critical role in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.  The aim of this post is to focus on public opinion; more specifically, focus on what we consider public opinion and if public opinion is something that truly exists.

Last Wednesday, Margaret facilitated an interesting discussion.  Public opinion serves many different meanings.  Even if we break up the phrase into two, separate words, can we identify a clear, concise definition?  Who/what is a public?  Is it the nation, state, region, some farm in Bobo, Alabama?  What is opinion?  Is it what we think as a state, local community, neighborhood or is it our personal beliefs?  Because both of these words can serve several meanings, there must be something more behind the difficulty in defining these terms. 

For Habermas, he believes that "Public opinion had the form of common sense..." (120).  He continues and quotes Hegel, "... the opening of this opportunity to know has a more universal aspect, because by this means public opinion first reaches thoughts that are true..." (Hegel, Hegel's Philosophy of Right; pg. 203-4).  Habermas continues further, "The public sphere served only to integrate subjective opinions into the objectivity assumed by the spirit in the form of the state..." (120).  Therefore, "Opinion publique was relegated to the sphere of opinion; hence the reason that was realized in the existing state in its turn retained the very element of impenetrability characterizing personal domination..." (121). 

What seems evident through these given passages is that the argument for public opinion remains restricted and shallow.  Not only does Habermas, with examples drawn from Hegel and Marx, show that public opinion is problematic, he also shows that its subjectivity makes it despised.  Noam Chomsky seems to also agree when asked about public opinion in America:

If the elite strategy for managing the electorate is to ignore the will of the people as you interpret it through polling data essentially, what is an actual progressive vision of changing the US electoral system? Is it election finance, is it third party activism?

Chomsky:  We have models right in front of us. Like pick, say, Bolivia, the poorest county in South America. They had a democratic election a couple of years ago that you can't even dream about in the US. It's kind of interesting it's not discussed; it's a real democratic election. A large majority of the population became organised and active for the first time in history and elected someone from their own ranks on crucial issues that everyone knew about - control of resource, cultural rights, issues of justice, you know, really serious issues. And, furthermore, they didn't just do it on election day by pushing a button, they've been struggling about these things for years. A couple of years before this they managed to drive Bechtel and the World Bank out of the country when they were trying to privatise the water. It was a pretty harsh struggle and a lot of people were killed. Well, they reached a point where they finally could manifest this through the electoral system - they didn't have to change the electoral laws, they had to change the way the public acts. And that's the poorest country in South America. Actually if we look at the poorest country in the hemisphere - Haiti - the same thing happened in 1990. You know, if peasants in Bolivia and Haiti can do this, it's ridiculous to say we can't.

(http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/06/2008624202053652281.html)

What I wish to ask, or attempt to warrant a discussion from, is this issue of public opinion.  As citizens in America, do our opinions matter?  Any ideas?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ8imPmQ0js

Marcuse introduces the goal of his book as reinterpreting Freud's theoretical conception in terms of its own socio-historical content. My basic question, as Marcuse questioned, is whether or not libidinal (sexual) liberation can be led to liberation of human being. It may not be true. As we can see, repression of sexual liberation is currently replaced by an obsessive repression saying "enjoy sex," which we are under this imperative.

 

Marcuse' question seems to start up from this. His basic question seems to be, "would non-repressive civilization be possible? And, can liberation of sex instinct lead to the destruction of repressive civilization by vitalizing individual pleasure?"

 

Specifically, he questions, "Is the conflict between pleasure principle and reality principle irreconcilable to such a degree that it necessitates the repressive transformation of man's instinctual structure? Or does it allow the concept of a non-repressive civilization? (p.5)"

 

<Issue 1> What is the hidden trend in psycholanalysis?

"History of man is the history of his repression. Culture (civilization) constrains not only his societal but also his biological existence, not only parts of the human being but his instinctual structure itself. (p.11)"

The reality principle supersedes the pleasure principle: man learns to give up momentary, uncertain, and destructive pleasure for delayed, restrained, but "assured" pleasure. (p.13)

 

But, Marcuse argues, "the adjustment of pleasure to the reality principle implies the subjugation and diversion of the destructive force of instinctual gratification, of its incompatibility with the established societal norms and relations, and, by that token, implies the transubstantiation of pleasure itself. (p.13)"

 

In his view, the replacement of the pleasure principle by the reality principle is the great traumatic event in the development of repressive mental apparatus proceeding on two levels; Ontogenesis (the growth of the repressed individual) and Phylogenesis (the growth of repressed civilization, p.15; 20)

 

Q: What is the hidden trend of psychoanalysis Marcuse pointed out?

The unconsciousness is the drive for integral gratification, which is absence of want and repression... and it preserves the memory of past stages of individual development at which integral gratification is obtained. (p.18)

So he argues that "the reality principle restrains the cognitive function of memory (p.19)," because, he thinks repression of instincts has been reproduced by making us continuously forget our past memory. We can see his thought from this statement, "the rediscovered past yields critical standards which are tabooed by the present...... The liberation of the past does not end in its reconciliation with the present...... The recherche du temps perdu becomes the vehicle of future liberation. - Marcuse (p. 19)."

 

 

<Issue 2> The attribute of instincts:

As he points out, two ultimate principles which govern the mental apparatus: "Pleasure principle and Reality principle"

- Pleasure principle: a tendency operating in the service of a function whose business it is to free the mental apparatus entirely from excitation or to keep the amount of excitation in it constant or to keep it as low as possible.

- Nirvana principle: the effort to reduce, to keep constant or to remove internal tension due to stimuli.

In this process, sexuality (governed by Pleasure principle in the light of Nirvana principle) becomes the same as death instinct.

<Issue 3> The relation between Eros and Thanatos

He askes, "Does Eros detour to Death? But, I thought Marcuse did not anwer. Instead, he turns to the new concept of instinct. "the instincts are no longer in terms of their origin and their organic function, but in terms of a determining force which gives the life processes a definite "direction" (Richtung), in terms of "life-principles."

 

But, according to Marcuse, At the earliest stage, Freud's theory is built around the antagonism between sex (libidinous) and ego (self-presentation) instincts, in turn at the latest stage, its is centered on the conflict between the life instincts (Eros) and the death instinct (Thanatos) (p.22)

 

Marcuse mentions that self-preservation instincts are of a libidinal nature, part of Eros (p.23). Therefore, he stresses that "the dualistic conception of the instincts, which had become questionable ever since the introduction of narcissism (p.27)." That is, Eros and Thanatos become entangled with each other.

 

<Issue 4> Surplus repression and Performance principle

The fact that there exists specific socio-historical context within the instinctual structure of repression means it would not be universal (or generalized.) Here he distinguishes surplus repression from (basic) repression, he thinks, if (basic) repression is universal and general, surplus repression is specific for maintenance of dominant power. So, if repression is general and universal, the entire elimination of repression would be impossible, that is the Freud's conclusion. But, if we can distinguish surplus repression from (basic) repression, the constitution of new instinctual structure may be possible, that is the Marcuse's thought. So, we can see,

 

- Surplus repression: the restrictions necessitated by social domination. This is distinguished from (basic) repression: the "modifications" of the instincts necessary for the perpetuation of the human race in civilization. He defines it as "additional controls arising from the specific institutions of domination (p.37)."

- Performance principle: the prevailing historical form of the reality principle. He designates it in order to "emphasize that society is stratified according to the competitive economic performances of its members under its rule (p.44)."

<Issue 5> The sense of guilt

Marcuse mentions that the very progress of civilization leads to the release of increasingly destructive forces. In Ch.3, he attempts to bridge the gap between individual and mass psychology, saying that individual psychology is thus in itself group psychology in so far as the individual still is in archaic identity with the species (p.56).  

And, he points out "To Freud, the universal fate is in the instinctual drives, but they are themselves subject to historical "modifications (p.58)."

 

-The sense of guilt

Freud attributes to the sense of guilt a decisive role in the development of civilization, In Freud, hypothesis, the sense of guilt is primary guilt feeling about the perpetration of the supreme crime, patricide, and the sense of guilt reflects twofold structure and its ambivalence: threat to destroy the life of the group by the removal of the authority and a society without suppression and domination (p.66)

 

This sense of guilt is repeated and reinforced throughout history. He says, "Freud assumes that the primal crime and the sense of guilt attached to it are reproduced in modified forms, throughout history (p.69)." In doing so, "the events and experiences which may "awaken" the repressed material - even without a specific strengthening of the instincts attached to it - encountered in the institutions and ideologies which individual faces daily and which reproduce, in their very structure, both domination and the impulse to overthrow it (p.74)." Also, he points out, "Domination has outgrown the sphere of personal relationships and created the institutions for the orderly satisfaction of human needs on an expanding scale (p.77)."

 

 

Other issues

 

1. Death Instinct (Thanatos)

Marcuse said, "The death instinct is destructiveness not for its own sake, but for the relief of tension...... It is an expression of the eternal struggle against suffering and repression. And the death instinct itself seems to be affected by the historical changes which affect this struggle (p.29)."

 

In order to explain the historical character of the instincts as well as to place instincts in the new concept of the person, he turns to Freud's concept of id-ego-superego.

 

2. Function of Superego as another mental entity:

He points out, "a number of societal and cultural influences are taken in by the superego until it coagulates into the powerful representative of established morality (p.32)." He also mentions, "The external world faced by the growing ego is at any stage a specific socio-historical organization of reality, affecting the mental structure through specific societal agencies or agents (p.34)."

 

Therefore, he criticizes Freud's "reality principle" making "historical contingencies into biological necessities. But, at the same time, Marcuse supports Freud's generalization saying that "a repressive organization of the instincts underlies all historical forms of the reality principle in civilization (p.34)."

 

3. Labor as a field of surplus repression

Marcuse thinks, "Scarcity (Ananke) teaches men that they cannot freely gratify their instinctual impulses, that they cannot live under the pleasure principle (p.17)." So there is a need to necessitate work (painful arrangements and undertakings) for procuring the means and for satisfying needs (p.35).

 

However, under the performance principle, body and mind are made into instruments of "alienated labor (p.46)." In his view, alienated labor is absence of gratification, negation of the pleasure principle (p.45).

 

4. Organization of Scarcity:

The scope of man's desires and the instrumentalities for their gratification is thus immeasurably increased, and his ability to alter reality consciously in accordance with "what is useful" seems to promise a gradual removal of extraneous barriers to his gratification. However, neither his desires nor his alternation of reality are henceforth his own: they are now "organized" by his society. And this "organization" represses and transubstantiates his original instinctual needs (p.14-15).

 

"The distribution of scarcity as well as the effort of overcoming it, the mode of work, has been imposed upon individuals by a more rational utilization of power... It remains the rationality of domination, and the gradual conquest of scarcity was inextricably bound up with and shaped by the interest of domination (p.36)."

And, he mentions, "A society governed by the performance principle must of necessity impose such distribution...... It must learn to forget the claim for timeless and useless gratification, for the eternity of pleasure (p.47)."

 

5. Polymorphous perverse

Freud questioned why the taboo on the perversion is sustained with such an extraordinary rigidity, even if sexuality is by nature polymorphous perverse. He argues that "they are a symbol of what had to be suppressed so that suppression could prevail and organize the ever more efficient domination of man and nature....... Further, the allowance of perversions would endanger the orderly reproduction not only of labor power but perhaps even of mankind itself (p.50-51)."

The perversions mean that "ultimate identity of Eros and death instinct or the submission of Eros to the death instinct. Therefore, the instinctual drive pursuing ultimate fulfillment regresses from the pleasure principle to the Nirvana principle (p.51).

 

Such a repressed sex instinct reinforces destruction instinct as much as regressed Eros, and this destruction instinct contributes the formation of the superego. In turn, superego undertakes a role of submitting the pleasure ego to the reality principle and assures civilized morality (p.52).

 

6. Civilization, Alienated labor, Desexaulization, and Sublimation

Marcuse mentions that "civilization is fir of all progress in work; that is, work for the procurement and augmentation of the necessities of life. But, "basic work is non-libidinal, is labor; labor is "unpleasantness" and it has to be enforced....... If there is no original work instinct, then the energy required for (unpleasurable) work must be withdrawn from the primary instinct - from the sexual and the destructive instincts (p.82)." He also points out that "the work that created and enlarged the material basis of civilization was chiefly labor, alienated labor, painful and miserable- and still is, even though not all work involves desexualization and not all work is unpleasurable...... If alienated labor has anything to do with Eros, it must be very indirectly, and with a considerably sublimated and weakend Eros (p.83, 85)." 

 

In the meantime, "the main sphere of civilization appears as a sphere of sublimation. But, sublimation involves desexualization...... Culture demands continuous sublimation; it thereby weaken Eros, the builder of culture. And, desexualization unbinds the destructive impulses (p. 82-83.)."

 

"This feature of late industrial civilization would have instinctual roots which perpetuate destructiveness beyond all rationality. The growing mastery of nature then would, with the growing productivity of labor, develop and fulfill the human needs only as a by-product: increasing cultural wealth and knowledge would provide the material for progressive destruction and the need for increasing instinctual repression (p.87)."

 

7. Recurrent cycle of Domination-Rebellion-Domination

- Domination: The second domination is not simply a repetition of the first one; the cyclical movement is progress in domination....... Domination becomes increasingly impersonal, objective, universal, and also increasingly impersonal, effective, productive.

   - Rebellion: Marcuse points out that the development of a hierarchical system of social labor not only rationalizes domination but also "contains" the rebellion against domination (p.90).

 

In his view, each revolution has been the conscious effort to replace one ruling group by another; but each revolution has released forces that have striven for the abolition of domination and exploitation (p.90). Marcuse seeks that reason why they have been defeated from the origin and the perpetuation of the sense of guilt (referred above). The economic and political incorporation of the individuals into the hierarchical system of labor is accompanied by an instinctual process in which the human objects of domination reproduce their own repression (p.91). In this way, the existing liberties and gratification are tied to the requirements of domination through the rationalization of guilt feeling (p.92).

I am currently at a stand-still amidst a project that I intend to finish before the summer is over.  This project, which I am seeking the guidance of Dr. Long for, is a paper that explains the relationship between Socrates and three of his larger rivals that are found amongst the Platonic dialogues: Thrasymachus, Polus, and Callicles.  The philosophy that these men forged can be found today in those philosophers who we call the 'moderns'; such members (off the top of my head) may be seen as Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke.  What I am trying to establish in this paper is a critical examination of Socrates and the role that he plays while trying to deal with these three men and their total disregard for morality along with their slightly-strange manifestation of the definition of justice.

Thrasymachus, a large, burly man, is found in Book I of the Republic.  Socrates initially begins a conversation with Polemarchus, that son of Cephalus, on the topic of justice.  Polemarchus seems like a legitimate guy to Socrates; he is not overly irrational and unwilling to accept possible assumptions of virtuous ways of living, but he is willing to delve into inquiry when the time is right.  After awhile, Thrasymachus becomes impatient and lashes out, exclaiming, "What balderdash is this that you have been talking, and why do you Simple Simons truckle and give way to one another? But if you really wish, Socrates, to know what the just is, don't merely ask questions... but do you yourself answer and tell what you say the just is." (Republic, 336b).  Socrates, aside from being quite frightened, responds and wishes for Thrasymachus to give his definition of what justice is; Thrasymachus replies, "I affirm that the just is nothing else than the advantage of the stronger." (Republic, 338c-d).

Callicles, as we have mentioned before, opens the Gorgias with a statement about war; "In war and battle, they say, one must take part in this manner, Socrates." (Gorgias, 447a).  Polus, the youngest of the three, does not take hold of Socrates in an angry manner, but can be see as overly-excited to display his rhetorical skills.  Socrates wishes for someone to define what rhetoric is; Gorgias explains, "I for one say it is being able to persuade by speeches judges in the law court, councillors in the council, assemblymen in the assembly... And indeed with this power you will have the doctor as your slave, and the trainer as your slave..." (Gorgias, 452e).  From this point, both Polus and Callicles intervene at certain times to help defend this view of Gorgias'.  This argument is then turned from what rhetoric is, to how one should rule.  Since both of these men believe that rhetoric is used to gain power, Socrates wishes to discuss what justice is in their eyes.  Both believe, despite Socrates refuting Polus in a sense, that injustice is more beneficial - therefore injustice is truly just; Callicles states, "... the man who will live correctly must let his own desires be as great as possible and not chasten them..." (Gorgias, 491e).

At the end of each of these dialogues, Socrates can be seen successfully-failing at refuting their arguments; the elenchus was basically Socrates questioning his interlocutor and Socrates himself giving the answers (the lack of interest from his interlocutor made it seem as though Socrates was never going to change their minds, but he continued to ramble on until the argument was finished).  But, aside from the first failure, Socrates completely failed at establishing his interlocutor as a new, morally appropriate character.  Why is this so?  Was Socrates aware that he wasn't going to be able to 'transform' these men?  Did he just want to show the public their true character?  Did his 'Socratic ideals' that foster the virtues of moderation, temperance, and self-control not mean that much to them?  Is attempting to challenge a persons morals too much to ask?

This is where I wish to pick-up my paper.  I believe, so far, that Socrates is right to challenge these men - including their definitions of words along with their beliefs of what is truly virtuous.  Polus, Callicles, and Thrasymachus all promote injustice as something that is truly desirable and that all men should want to attain.  Socrates, on the other-hand, wishes to show these men that injustice cannot be considered just - two things that are opposites cannot be the same.  Here is where my problem lies, attempting to diagnose why these three men are so attached to injustice that they are willing to call it justice; to do someone wrong, take their possessions, enslave them, fulfill everyone of your desires, etc... this is what every man should want because it is perfect, uncontrolled injustice - which is equivalent to these men, as a just act.  

Struggle has been my recent philosophical fix, and in an effort to get back into this (and blogging in general), I can't see a better opportunity than this.

Something I've alluded to in my recent posts has gestured at this general idea - that by relinquishing control of the classroom, a professor forces their students into the metaphorical Colosseum. Perhaps the allegory is aggressive, but I wonder if that's bad on its own virtues (another blog topic, perhaps?), and skip over the thought for now.

Unlike many (like the 'busy work' Pam brought up), this struggle isn't pointless. Given that the students hold some stock in what is going on, as their general guidance is what leads the particulars of the class, the answers they come to and the reasons for why they do really matter. Students engage with the material because it is answering questions that really matter, and is generating content that comes from their peers! instead of facing off the cut and copy test that tests knowledge of obscurity, rather than applicability of knowledge.

But the professor isn't some noble, sitting up in the stands and looking on impassively, they are just as stuck in our struggle as we are. While beneficial to the professor (as has already been explained in recent comments), this is similarly beneficial to the students. By seeing the professor struggle with the material, attempting to come to grips with it by the student's guiding, the students learn ways to approach unforeseen problems. Instead of copying the motions of the master and getting by on technical knowledge of very specific occurrences, they learn where those techniques came from, and can carry that ability with them when a new instance is faced.

Let me begin my post with a hypothetical scenario.

Suppose you are an undergraduate taking two classes this semester (you lazy bum, you) -- Class A and Class B.

A typical day in Class A is as follows: you wander into class, sit down in front of the board, and the professor puts up PowerPoint slides full of notes. You copy them verbatim into your notebook, raise your hand only to clarify what he already wrote, and essentially that's it. Your assignment is to answer some BS question by regurgitating what your professor just told you. Are you bored yet?

Now let's look at a typical day in Class B: you come into class, and the content in front of you comes not from your professor's lecture notes, but from a living document YOU and your peers helped create. Instead of the professor doing most of the talking, there is a diversity of voices leading the lesson. And instead of praying for time to run out, you are frustrated that time has restricted you from saying all you need to say. You rush to the nearest computer lab and finish your thoughts on, let's say, a blog.

Which class sounds more appealing to you?

Unfortunately, in education, many students feel disconnected from their classes. While some students have a thirst for gaining knowledge, others develop a distaste for seemingly irrelevant "busy work." Although a lot of this depends on the student him/herself, I'd argue that an excellent and encouraging teacher can really make a difference.

We've all seen the high school movies (The Breakfast Club, anyone? Ferris Bueller?) with pretentious teachers who don't understand their students. You know, the ones that just like to hear themselves talk? Often we students feel like we're being lectured at, rather than engaged with.




On the other hand, we also remember those teachers who talked to us like we were adults, like we actually had something important to say. In high school, it was my 9th grade English teacher. At Penn State, that was Dr. Long and PHIL 200.

What made this class different (and, I'd argue, what separates a mediocre class from a memorable one) was not only the concept of replacing tests and essays with online participation and discussion, but also the openly cooperative style of Dr. Long's teaching. He never presented himself as a guy who has all the answers (though I suspect he has a better grasp on them than we do). Instead, he encouraged us to work TOGETHER -- teacher and student -- to discover the truth.

In fact, he took it a step further and actually let us AUTHOR our own textbook -- that is, he trusted us enough to let us control the blog. As a student, this sort of trust motivates you to live up to expectations. It's actually a lot of pressure ("he expects us to partially direct the class ourselves? Well jeez we better make this interesting...")

It's kind of like riding in a car, I guess. Some professors present themselves as the driver leading the way, and the students as passengers in the back seat, kind of just going along for the ride. But what makes a great professor is someone who brings the students up front, lets them sit in the passenger seat, and even lets them take turns driving for a while. Now that's fun. Heck, maybe it's even fun for the professor too.

That's why I think education best works as a 2 way street. While it requires much cooperation from the student, I think it should require just as much cooperation from the professor. The journey for knowledge should be one that we approach together, teacher hand-in-hand with student. As a student, I feel like that makes my participation seem more valuable, you know? I'm not being dragged along for the ride, I'm PART of the ride, and that's exciting.

So kudos to Dr. Long and all the other professors out there who trust students enough to let them take partial (if not sometimes total) control of the very class they're taking. While some teachers only let us raise our hands to engage with the material, Dr. Long actually gave us the chalk and invited us to step up to the chalkboard.

P.S: Cody I can already hear you calling me a brown-noser.... but it's true.

In Spring of 2009, I was an unknowing participant in a grand experiment. An experiment that would come to define that semester of my life and after. The experiment was a small class in Philosophy 200: Ancient Philosophy, which took its students on a journey with Socrates to find "the good."I had taken other philosophy classes before, and it mostly consisted of reading a bunch of confusing books, having the pretentious professor tell us how we should be interpretation these works, then taking tests in which we regurgitated everything that the professor told us. My previous experiences with philosophy had left a bad taste in my mouth, and I came to class with zero expectations and a strong dislike for philosophy of all kinds. I saw this as a "blow-off" class, an easy "A". Just go to class (sometimes), look up the books on spark notes, and just recite on the tests what the teacher said, because writing your own opinion requires too much effort and the professor will deduct points anyway.

On my first day of this philosophy class, I was bewildered by what I was hearing. No tests; just write on the professor's online blog. No final; just a ten page paper. Oh and there was a group project in the form of a podcast; I loathe group projects. I wasn't sure exactly what I just walked into. This was either going to be easier than I thought or real pain in the neck. This blog component intrigued me and terrified me at the same time. I had planned on just sliding by in this class, participating whenever the mood struck me, but doing the required work and getting my "A". This blog thing could get complicated. So I interrogated the Professor, Dr. Christopher Long, at the end of class, explaining to him I missed syllabus day, and demanding he explain this blog he was so keen on: How many times do I have to post? What about? Dr. Long's answers were surprising and disconcerting: "As little or as many times as you want, and about anything as it relates to class. I'm leaving this all up to the students." Well thanks Professor, that really answered my questions. Socrates was less ambiguous. So I decided to write once a week and I would play the devil's advocate to some extent, a role denied to me by previous philosophy classes. So my first blog post featured a comical scene from Mel Brooks, calling philosophers "bullshit artists". The professor's reaction: "You should've posted the Youtube video! We can embed video files onto the blog!"

Not the reaction I expected.

But that was not the last time I was surprised in that class. My second post featured a post on the role of piety in the Platonic dialogues, which erupted into a full out debate on religion. Not my intent, but a pleasant surprise, one that convinced that I'm going to enjoy this blogging thing. Heck, even the podcast went really really well. Before you knew it, I was addicted to the blog, checking it multiple times a day and posting more and more, either with comments or my own posts. This blogging element works: it turned a cynic like me into a true believer, and I even started to enjoy reading platonic texts. And the reason for this road to Damascus conversion was that the blog is a 21st century equivalent of what Socrates was doing over two thousand years ago: organic dialectic. The very nature of the course encourages this online, expanding the class outside of the one hour and fifteen minutes classes twice a week. It's impossible to have this sort of conversation without the blog.

The blogging format also encourages students to take a stance on a diversity of issues related to - and unrelated to - the classroom material. By abandoning the annoying relativism infused into the college experience, the students are allowed to participate in the same journey in search for that elusive swan of "the good" that Socrates was pursuing. Only by taking a side and defending that point of view can a person truly learn whether or not they are on the path to "the good". This is necessary for a platonic dialectic conversation. And this is exactly what happened on the blog; student's interpretations of the dialogues and long held stances on other issues were challenged and defended on the blog, and we inched ever closer to finding "the good."

This format can be quite disconcerting for students at first - in fact it probably alienated a minority of the class - but the overwhelming majority of students found it engaging, and those intimidated at first eventually came to embrace it. It takes students out of their comfort zone, a necessity to truly participate in the dialectic. My own views were challenged and I even changed my mind, most notably my dislike for philosophy classes. And this was achieved through a blogging cooperative community, one that went beyond online and into real life. I came to know the all of the students in my class that semester better than any other class I've taken at Penn State. You can sit next to the same person three times a week for an entire semester and not say one word to them. This was impossible with a cooperative online community in a classroom setting. While not perfect - we digressed perhaps a little too far from the classroom material at times, and we were caught off guard by barbarians at the gates of our protected community - it was truly and engaging learning experience unique to every other class I've taken at Penn State. The story of Philosophy 200 shows the potential of this sort of pedagogy, and I hope other classes take notice and experiment. You may be surprised by what you find.

As the 2009-2010 academic year comes to a close, it is fitting that Teaching and Learning with Technology has just completed the video documenting the way I used blogging in my Fall 2009 Ancient Greek Philosophy course.  We have already posted an excellent video telling the Story of PHIL200 from a slightly different perspective. 

This is the question I would like to discuss with the 300 students in Michael Elavsky's COMM110 course who have focused their attention all semester on the question of Media and Democracy.

To begin, here is the design I developed for my small Philosophy 200 course on Ancient Greek Philosophy:

This Saturday Pam, Jordan, Cody, Professor Long and I will be delivering a presentation about our Ancient Philosophy course from last semester! We are very excited to share our experiences with others, and to attempt to capture the "essence" of our blogging experience, we created a video (along with the help of a few others!).

Taking text directly from the blog, we tried to present the most crucial aspects of our online community. Namely, we wanted to express how substantive, philosophical exchanges took form, how our community developed and expanded, how the blog fostered a true community with personal connections, and how our community faced and conquered challenges together:


The community we created is expansive and complex, but hopefully our video highlighted some of the shining moments we shared together.

Do you think we missed anything important? Did we accurately capture themes we encountered? What specific issues does our experience raise for education, for openness, or for the anonymity of commenting?

As I begin my work as Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies in the College of the Liberal Arts, I want to pause here to mention a few things about how this space will shift over the next few months.

Last semester the blog served well as a site for the cultivation of a community of learning in my PHIL200 and PHIL553 courses.  All those students remain co-authors and I welcome them to post here when they are so moved.  I would like you all to see this as a venue for philosophical dialogue.

It also serves as the blog for the Digital Dialogue, the audience for which continues to grow: please become a fan on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/DigitalDialogue!

I have tried to post a new episode each week but because the episodes tend to be a bit long, I have decided to try to do one every two weeks to give people a chance to listen and respond.  So look for Jeremy Engels, Assistant Professor of Communication here at Penn State, next week talking with me about Uncivil Speech.

The blog will also serve as a place for discussion with students with whom I am working either informally or through independent studies.  And it will continue to be a place for me to blog to think through issues related to my book project on Socratic politics.

So please continue to join me here.  And of course, as always, I invite you to contribute to the discussion when you are so moved.

I do, however, also want to invite the undergraduate students at Penn State to join us at  Liberal Arts Undergraduate Studies (LAUS), where we are trying to engage students across the College of the Liberal Arts.

• LAUS Main Page, with links to us on FB, Twitter, YouTube and Flickr