I know
that Plato is acknowledged as one of the world’s greatest thinkers – but I
couldn’t help but wonder throughout the entire reading – is he really one the
greatest OR was he simply the first to write ideas down and that should be his
acknowledged role in history. The biggest challenge I have with him is that the
mind is pre-loaded with ALL TRUTH. First history has demonstrated that over
time more and more is understood about the natural world and human condition –
at Plato’s time very little truth or fact had been scientifically revealed.
Second since he was the father of his field his theories in my mind were like
drafts that have since been revised and
refined – what happened to the saying standing on the shoulders of giants. Second
were these teachings at all intended for implementation? They don’t seem like
it, instead more like thought games of if-then situations. I’m a very pragmatic
person, so not generating knowledge and solutions is a waste in my mind. Instead
of finding TRUTH and knowledge in his mind was he instead simply establishing a
philosophical agenda?
Questions:
Forms are real knowledge reached by the mind: but are forms
things or simply ideas?
How accurate in this book?
Thoughts on the graphic novel
Pros: Easy
to digest nuggets of knowledge set the stage for further study and application.
Allows one to quickly pick-up on topics on interest without being miered in the
details, overwhelm by complexity or confused by new terms/concepts. Like the
idea on not being stodgy in graduate school about what we read, instead
progressively accepting everything has a purpose.
Con:
Wanted TOC or roadmap of ideas, arrangement felt very random.
Term paper
I am
interested to examine the role of kairos and/or commonplace in the context of English
Second Language authors in working in the discipline of biomedicine.
Globalization has created a single scientific community where English is
universal language and scientific journals and conferences are a commonplace.
Technology has enabled scientific discovery as well as the establishment of a
global community, but the playing field is not equal. English first language authors
are at a distinct advantage, when it comes to presenting their work and it’s significance
in manuscripts, conference proceedings and grants. In the term paper I would
like to investigating hurdles as well as aids that ESL authors face and how a
shared understanding of required elements in each communication can be leveraged
to assist ESL authors successfully participate in a global scientific community.
I can certainly appreciate your thoughts and insights on Plato, Hilary. I, too, find that truth evolves because we can only 'know' what we understand and in the natural sciences we are constantly building on the processes and products that we understand.
ReplyDeleteMy first exposure to a graphic novel style of writing was in visual rhetoric. I actually really enjoyed it. I think that there is a lot of value in presenting information in these short, bits especially since there is a lot of information that is delivered that way now. Interesting that you should mention a TOC or roadmap and specifically that the 'arrangement' felt very random. 'Arrangement' is the term that I am going to focus on for my video presentation and I think these graphic novels may represent an interesting dichotomy--a novel about a classical rhetorician/philosopher that does not employ a significant canon of rhetoric:)
I always enjoy your perspectives.
Hi Hilary,
ReplyDelete"the mind is preloaded with all truths" is a struggle for me also. I'm not sure if he's referring to the "Cognitive Dissonance" that we experience when we do something that "society" says is ok but our mind tells us is wasteful or indulgent (drinking bottled water, for example) - or if he's referring to some sort of instinct ... I'm hoping that he meant conscience/cognitive dissonance, not "you're born knowing everything" such as the (albeit fictional, but well researched) "flat heads" in Jean Auel's series "The Earth's Children".
If Plato meant the latter, not the former, then what evolutionary (or psychological or moral) purpose did the restructuring of the human brain from Neanderthal to Cro Magnon and beyond? Why does our brain-stem *just* regulate homeostasis, and not keep us connected to the entire species and its instinctive drives?
(I'm using Auel's upper-paleolithic era characters because they're a handy example of the transition in species from instinct & group-think to creative problem solving & active learning)
Hilary, I love your research topic idea. I've long thought that ESL speakers had a disadvantage in the academy, but wondered if that was my ethnocentric and naive take on what's happening in scholarship. For example, I remember at SIGDOC being underwhelmed with the presentations from Brazilian presenters, but I was never quite sure if the language barrier had impeded my ability to see the value in their research. I know you're focus is in biomedicine, but I think what you learn could have applications elsewhere. Certainly, it's worth investigating. I'll be eager to hear what you learn as your project moves along.
ReplyDeletePlato makes me mad?! haha...I can sooo hear you say this.
ReplyDelete"...thought games of if-then situations. I’m a very pragmatic person, so not generating knowledge and solutions is a waste in my mind." Slow down and study your navel for awhile...there may be some value in learning to think in another way. And check out some modern paintings! ;-)
"Kairos" (the concept and the practice) itself is slippery from a pragmatic, rational viewpoint, ain't it? What would kairos be in a lab setting testing chemical reactions...or some such thing...does a good scientist take into account context, setting, appropriateness & overall value? Or does she isolate the truth?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I like to explore what "evidence is"-- in fact that was the topic of my term paper last semester. In law and in science you go down some fun worm holes into metaphysics when you ask yourself what qualifies as real enough to provide evidence of any event (including scientific ones). The evidence can only be sufficient to suggest a conclusion, but all evidence and thus all conclusions contain bias (which all too often is not acknowledged because we use the same study designs and statistical practices so often). That's where I bridge into an interest in Plato and others that have attempted to define Truth and Knowledge, or even what qualifies as Real. They are all involved in Science's all-encompassing devotion to 'Objectivity' in a world where nothing can ever be objective, after all our senses are only telling us part of the information about the world to begin with.
ReplyDelete