Digital Dialogue

Noëlle McAfee, Research Professor at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, joins me for episode 18 of the Digital Dialogue which is another special SPEP edition.  Noëlle has numerous publications in the area of democratic political theory, social/political philosophy, femin...ist theory and American pragmatism including three books, Habermas, Kristeva, and Citizenship by Cornell University Press, 2000, Julia Kristeva, publish by Routledge in 2003, and a text that Shannon Sullivan and I discussed in episode 8 of the Digital Dialogue entitled Democracy and the Political Unconsious. She is here today to talk further about her book and to explore the transformative possibilities digital media opens for politics. This year at SPEP, there was an excellent book panel on Noëlle's book in which Shannon Sullivan, of Penn State University and Robyn Marasco, of Hunter College, commented and Noëlle responded. A number of issues that grow out of that conversation frame some of our discussion on this episode of the Digital Dialogue. Digital Dialogue 18 with Noëlle McAfee: Political UnconsciousTo subscribe to the Digital Dialogue through iTunesU, click here.Related LinksThe Institute for Conflict Analysis and ResolutionNoëlle's excellent blog, Gone Public. Read More

Rose Cherubin, Associate Professor of Philosophy at George Mason University, joins me and a special panel of colleagues from the Ancient Philosophy Society for a special SPEP edition of the Digital Dialogue. We gathered together in Arlington, VA to discuss the paper Rose Cherubin gave at the APS panel at SPEP entitle...d "Parmenides: Another Way."Rose specializes in Ancient Greek Philosophy, particularly the thinking of Parmenides, and metaphysics. She has published numerous articles in Ancient Greek Philosophy and she is currently working on a book related to the thinking of Parmenides with the working title: Justice, Knowledge and Inquiry. My other two panelists are previous interlocutors on the Digital Dialogue, Sara Brill, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Fairfield University, who joined me for Digital Dialogue episode 13 on Psychology and Politics, and Jill Gordan, the Charles A. Dana Professor of Philosophy at Colby College, who joined me for Digital Dialogue episode 9 on Erotic Politics.Digital Dialogue 17 with Rose Cherubin, Jill Gordon and Sara Brill: ParmenidesSubscribe to the Digital Dialogue through iTunesU.Read More

In concluding our discussion on The Phaedrus, one of the topics we hoped to explore but didn't really have time to delve into was how we were supposed to interpret Phaedrus's growth, or lack thereof, throughout the text, so I'd like to open up this topic for discussion. In the beginning Socrates seemed to use Lysias's... speech as well as his own two speeches to demonstrate to Phaedrus the danger of obsessing over a well-written or particularly persuasive speech and thus taking it as the truth. By presenting a speech Phaedrus praised highly and then revealing his true opinion by delivering a speech taking the opposite stance, Socrates reveals Phaedrus's inability to pass rational judgment upon an argument before accepting it as correct or true. After thinking and discussing critically with Phaedrus for the rest of the dialogue, it appears that one of Socrates' main goals was to teach his young friend to critically engage topics himself and come to his own conclusions rather than accept the first thing he hears. But is this goal achieved? On one hand, the text at line 276e seems to suggest through Phaedrus's words that he finally is engaging the discussion critically and expanding upon what Socrates has said: P: "You refer to a very noble kind of play, Socrates, in contrast to a worthless kind, that of the person who is able to play with speeches, telling tales about justice and the other things you mention." Immediately following, however the exchange beginning at 277a4 seems to reveal quite the opposite: S: Now that we've agreed about these matters, Phaedrus, we can decide about those others. P: What are they? S: We've gotten to this point because we wanted to know about the following: what we were going to make of the criticism of Lysias as a writer of speeches, and, with regard to speeches themselves, which were written in an artful manner and which not. It seems to me that what is artful and what is not has been made abundantly clear. P: I thought so, but remind me again how it went." If it had really also been made so abundantly clear to Phaedrus, would he actually have forgotten already? Or is it just that he is still relying on another to make the difficult and intelligent conclusions for him? It seems to me like this moment is Phaedrus's golden opportunity to demonstrate that he has actually gained something from this exchange and present an idea or conclusion from his own interpretations. Instead, Phaedrus is reduced to simple one line responses or questions aimed at gaining a response from Socrates, just as the other rhetors we have thus far encountered. I'm interested to see if you all agree or if there are different interpretations regarding Phaedrus's growth throughout the dialogue. Read More

A recent article on CNN and the latter half of the Digital Dialogue 16:  Emerson and Self-Culture (about 47 minutes in) discuss the effect that technology has on a person's memory.  The CNN article, entitled "Do diaries mess with your brain?" discusses our reliance on technology - from blackberries to Twitter...--and whether or not "If we rely on technology for documenting, sorting and storing information -- creating digital diaries, or "lifestreaming" -- what will become of our minds?" The fear, according to the article is that, "...recording everything you do takes people out of the 'here and now', psychologists say, Constant documenting may make people less thoughtful about and engaged in what they're doing because they are focused on the recording process." In the Digital Dialogue, Professor Long discusses with John Lysaker Plato's view on another advancement in technology called writing. Plato, even though he didn't like writing, still embraced the new technology and wrote, although he wrote about the problems with writing. An obvious example of this is in The Phaedrus.  Socrates tells a story about Theuth (a divine being presenting technology) and the King of Egypt Thamus and their discussion on writing's impact on the mind: It's said that Thamus presented many points many points both for and against each art, which would have a long speech to report, but when it came to letters, Theuth said, "This branch of learning, your majesty, will make Egyptians wiser and improve their memories, for I've discovered a magic potion for memory and wisdom.: But Thamus replied, "Most artful Theuth, while one person is able to create the products of art, another is able to judge what harm or benefit they hold for those who intend to use them. Now you, father of letters, as a result of your affection for them, are stating the opposite of what their effect will be. If people learn them it will make their soul forgetful through lack of exercising their memory. They'll put trust in the external marks of writing instead of using their own internal capacity for remembering on their own. You've discovered a magic potion not for memory, but for reminding, and you offer your pupils apparent, not true, wisdom. After they have heard many things from you, but without instruction, they will seem to be very knowledgeable when they are for the most part ignorant, and they will be hard to get along with, since they will have only the appearance of wisdom instead of being really wise. (274e-275b) It seems to me that that Theuth, Plato, and Socrates would not have been surprised by the CNN article. This leads to a very interesting question as to the role technology plays in our life, and whether or not it is making us intellectually lazy. The brain, like every part of the body, must be stimulated intellectually or it will decay. Technology seems to be a double edged sword: the availability of information allows us to study things we never would've been exposed to otherwise, while the convenience of that technology makes us reliant on it instead of our own mental capacities. Even while I write this blog entry, I am misspelling words which I know with a simple right click I can fix in a second. Instead of focusing on spelling it correctly the first time, I'm just going to get it as close as possible and allow Microsoft Word to fix it for me. This is one of many examples of technology allowing a person to be intellectually lazy. With Google and Wikipedia so readily available and brimming with useful information, why memorize anything anymore? The question I present to you is this: Is technology messing with our brain? Read More

John Lysaker, Professor of Philosophy and acting Director of Graduate Studies at Emory University. John's research focuses on philosophical psychology, aesthetics, social & political philosophy, and 19th & 20 century continental and American philosophy. He has numerous publications in these areas, including t...wo monographs, his first, You Must Change Your Life: Poetry and the Birth of Sense was published in 2002 by Penn State University Press, and his second, Emerson and Self-Culture, was published in 2008 by Indiana University Press. It is this second book that brings him to the Digital Dialogue today. In it, John enters into dialogue with the thinking of Ralph Waldo Emerson in order to perform self-culture, which he understands as an ongoing activity of self-realization in which one articulates and affirms the commitments and values that animate one's life. Digital Dialogue 16 with John Lysaker: Emerson and Self-Culture To subscribe to the Digital Dialogue via iTunesU, click here.Read More