Thought I’d share a few thoughts on this blog (social media at it’s best!)

ETS sounds like it plays an important roll. Certainly the notion that not every technology is appropriate or beneficial for a classroom environment is an important one. The ability to intelligently filter through the ever-expanding and overwhelming amount of technology and software will help ensure the tools students and faculty utilize are the most useful. Undoubtedly it will also help the University keep costs low by avoiding technological redundancies or social media inefficiency.

I think that the point about social media providing a meeting space for discussion between classrooms is really important. I have found the transition to classes utilizing online resources and social media to be helpful. There is a tendency for students to leave the classroom and put the day’s lecture and thoughts out of their mind, and to move on the next thing. With increasing technology, social media and online connectivity the classroom experience plays a bigger part in students’ lives. That being said, naturally the desire to keep work separate from home life can be undermined slightly more with this societal innovation, if allowed to. I suppose there is always a trade off!

Lastly, one need only look at the inside of the Smeal building to see that business as well as many science areas have successfully converged modern technology with pedagogical settings. Broadly speaking, it doesn’t seem like the Liberal Arts, perhaps partly due to its extremely wise range (which Mr. Dolan alluded to) have enjoyed the same degree of technological and pedagogical convergence. This is unfortunate since the Liberal Arts are such a critical area of a diverse and well-balanced education. For this reason, the effort of Mr. Dolan, Dean Long and others to facilitate the convergence of Liberal Arts with modern technology and social media is an invaluable one.

Jackie, sorry to hear about your technical difficulties, feel free to usurp my posts anytime! I think your insights were interesting, especially the human-technology having a reciprocity factor. I'm a bit rusty on Heidegger myself, but it sounds like you have appropriately summed up some important notions of his. Marcuse definitely alludes to the manifold danger of technological advances, if only at the societal level.

Interesting, I think Marcuse was way ahead of his time. The Stanley Fish article seems to make broad generaliztions. This is often the case with Mr. Fish, in my opinion. He states that in the humanities "Now Spanish is the only safe department to be in." Really? As if departmental success does not vary greatly by university, region, etc. To say that Spanish is a more popular language - that claim might be able to be substantiated. But how could one even define what a 'safe' department is?

I do agree with Fish's claim that ".. it is the job of presidents and chancellors to proclaim the value of liberal arts education loudly and often and at least try to make the powers that be understand what is being lost when traditions of culture and art that have been vital for hundreds and even thousands of years disappear from the academic scene." Someone has to do something about humanities courses being cut from curriculums nationwide, as Fish alluded to with his SUNY Albany description.

This is a great post, Drew. I think you shared a lot of interesting analysis. I'd like to comment on just one particular section that struck my fancy. You wrote that "With mechanical reproduction the auras of works generated prior to mechanical reproduction is somewhat degraded to a degree. There is a diminishing of the awe-invoking power the Mona Lisa or an original manuscript of Bach if we are able to look up their images online, and even print out copies with little to no effort. " I think that mechanical reproduction necessarily degrades the aura of artistic works. It's simply supply and demand here; the more of something the less valuable it becomes, and the more it's aura diminishes.

@Josh, Here I see a strong correlation to our discussion of authenticity with regard to plagiarism. Even if the copies are copied legally, there is still the issue of decreasing aura. I see a parallel between the economic concept of "decreasing marginal benefit" and Benjamin's diminishing aura you alluded to.

Thanks Stefan, The concepts of "public sphere"and "lifeworld" are certainly complex and seem to change even throughout Habermas's analysis. I can't seem to access that article, I think a membership is required?

@Andrea, I agree that it is interesting, and it's also a shame. I wonder whether it is simply the capitalist drive for economic success that puts getting a job over learning, for a large number of students.

I believe that it's a fallacy of false dilemma that these overheard students (any many others) struggle with. Whether one goes to college to earn a degree or to have fun? Should one party or study to pass the exam?

Where is the love of learning for learnings sake, or "joie de vivre"? How dramatically the values of students have changed over the hundreds of years since Plato's Academy.

Sam, so as not to put words in your mouth, let me say that I'm not sure you were advocating that there is a direct correlation. I see your post as drawing some excellent contrasts, so perhaps you'll agree with me.

Sam, I enjoyed reading your post. I'm not sure I see the correlation between theology and historical materialism. I feel that theology, and religion in general, are the conclusions. I'm not going to go into how accurate or reasonable those conclusions are, but simply say that any doctrine is a set of statements about metaphysics (I.E. Genesis), morality or how to live your life (Deuteronomy, for example). Theology is based upon a particular doctrine, and the doctrine requires faith to be "believed' in literally (the religious are usually the most eager to admit this). For the religious, the conclusions are already there.

Historical materialism, I feel is a means by which to draw conclusions about society, culture, etc. It's a process by which one could analyze society and it's values. Though certainly it's also an idea that also requires epistemic belief (as with , does not require any faith. This is not to say it is necessarily correct, either. As with any empirically-based methodology, one can analyze the facts (assuming they are available) then draw the conclusions, and still be mistaken.

Historical materialism could be employed, to draw the following completely hypothetical conclusion. Since people in Texas have historically eaten more beef than any other state, cows should be the most valuable there, since demand is highest. In fact, it could be the case that since there is a higher demand for beef, cows are actually in ready supply and a surplus exists, making them less valuable. If employing historical materialism, this statement could be methodologically and empirically proven or disproved. This is probably a lousy example, but the point I'm trying to show is that historical materialism and theology, for me, are fairly opposite in methodological approach. With theology, the conclusions are there (often "divinely inspired") from the get-go, where as with a historical materialist approach, you must derive conclusions from facts or observation. I really like this quote: "According to its adherents, Historical Materialism is important in explaining history from a scientific perspective, by following the scientific method, as opposed to belief-system theories like Creationism and Intelligent Design which explain the present from a belief-system point of view" (John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark, Richard York, Critique of Intelligent Design: Materialism versus Creationism from Antiquity to the Present, 2008)

Anyway, I think our discussion of this topic in class was interesting. One of the areas of our discussion that I thought was key was our focus on technology as a catalyst for exacerbating academic plagiarism. It's certainly an extremely relevant topic and increasingly prevalent in our society, unfortunately.

So my written formulations have given me away! Your mind's ear was accurate, I'll concede. I was hoping to incite at least a shred of doubt in others as to whether I was being facetious or not! :)