Toward the end of Phaedrus there is a famous argument against writing, only partially undermined by the fact that Plato in fact wrote it.
Perhaps the students in this course find the argument compelling, not against books as such, but against blogging, or so it appears from the microscopic torrent of participation here. I would love to see you make the case, but you'll have to do so under the shadow of Plato's paradox, since you'll be doing so on a blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Blogging differs from other traditional methods of writing, or the written word; when used in a group type setting, blogging IS a dialogue between two or more persons. I think its effectiveness is comparable to, and has some advantages over, one-on-one conversation. Whereas intimate dialogues use body language, voice inflection,and the possibility of directly working together in the moment to solve problems--blogging requires, for an effective exchange of ideas, well thought out proposals and unique approaches to sometimes difficult and ambiguous material. With blogging we have time to review and scrutinize the written word; we are on guard against overly persuasive, manipulative, and begging-the-question rhetoric absent of critical analysis and rigor. (This type of fallacious reasoning often slips under the radar in intimate conversation and is better detected through reflective examination of the written word.) So, while Plato had his doubts about the written word, perhaps he would approve of blogging as an interactive tool for thought provoking discourse.
Good point. Some forms of electronic communication combine elements of traditional writing with those of old-fashioned face-to-face conversation -- possibly for better, sometimes for worse (notice how easy it is to misunderstand the tone of a message when you can't hear the inflection or see the face). If we are careful to preserve the best aspects of each in the design or use of the medium, and avoid the worst, it could very well be a good thing.
I'm more than suspicious of the value of completely on-line courses in philosophy, however, but maybe I'm just a curmudgeon.
I would probably never sign up for an online philosophy class. I would much rather read material together and talk in person with one friend than with a group over the internet. It is easier to get excited about material when it is discussed in person. It is much more rewarding to engage in active conversation than expressing a whole chunk of thoughts at once and waiting a few days to get a response.
I have long avoided using passive communication methods like Livejournal, forums, and Facebook. I find it somewhat awkward to write entries for those forms of communication. It is hard to pinpoint why exactly I find writing a blog entry uncomfortable, so I just attribute it to being something new. It makes participation harder because of the amount of effort that it takes to communicate few thoughts.
It is almost embarrassing to mention that it took me about 50 minutes to write this response. I generally spend about 30-45 (besides the inherent reading time) minutes writing a weekly responses to material in any given class. But then again, I am much less practiced at blogging.
“If we are careful to preserve the best aspects...it could very well be a good thing.” I think a combination of the two disciplines, when examined sequentially, makes for a stimulating atmosphere in and out of a group type setting. A blog is a place to refine ideas discussed in class, and to post thoughts throughout the course on related topics that spring into our heads at ghastly hours.
When used as a dialogue, and supplemented with group discussion, I think writing on-line has value. However, there are times when, absent of actual persons, the written word is ambiguous. For example:
All texts by Plato are not mythical allusions to real things.
This (potential) categorical proposition (not in standard logical form) means two different things when we apply a simple shift in inflection. When we stress the quantifier “All” we understand that to mean:
Some texts by Plato are not mythical allusions to real things.
When we stress the copula “Are not” we understand that to mean:
No texts by Plato are not mythical allusions to real things.
Not all statements fall neatly into logical format; and the benefits of “face-to-face conversation” are obvious in the above example. But I think there are advantages to both systems, and when incorporated form a powerful institution of learning.
Correction: No texts by Plato are mythical allusions to real things.
I overlooked the importance of accents in spoken language while taking logic. Part of the study of logic gives the writer tools to rid his/her sentences of the ambiguities without the aid of accents. These tools can be used in spoken language as well as written language, while expressive accents cannot be used in written language. However, the writer usually has more time to express thoughts than the speaker, which can result in better clarity.
Toward the beginning of the Phaedrus, Socrates mentions that he never leaves the city limits because the way he learns is by talking to other people (230 d5). This is evidence that he does seem to hold dialogue in high regard, and might therefore appreciate blogging. However, I suspect that he might still lament its adverse effects on the memory, such as he suggests result from writing (275 a1). Personally, I find that my practices of speaking and writing inform and strengthen each other by allowing me to practice in one what is more difficult to accomplish in the other.
I also find it interesting to consider whether Socrates would consider blogging to be a higher form of writing than Plato's dialogues, since, in accordance with the theory of the forms, the dialogues are in a sense imitations of what actually takes place in a blog. Although, it is more precise to say that Plato's dialogues imitate spoken conversations rather than typed ones. In that case, maybe the two modes of writing would derive from different forms. Or perhaps, if the Great Speech is intended as a farewell to the theory of the forms, then these kinds of considerations no longer apply.
I think Nehamas and Woodruff exaggerate if we take them to mean Plato abandons the theory of forms. Rather, I am intrigued by their suggestion that Plato may here bid farewell to some specific features of the theory, which he now views as heuristically inspiring but not tenable.
So how about this one:
"All sentences are not ambiguous."
It agree, rather the helpful information
Post a Comment