I will be graduating in May, but this semester was my last semester taking courses. I have only a bachelor's thesis standing between me and a degree in philosophy (with a minor in English), and I am at a confluence of life paths. In fact, I feel as if, instead of finding the path down which I was "meant" to go in life, I have come instead to some sort of central hub where a host of highways meets. I am intrigued by the thought of journalism, either through graduate school or my own hit-and-miss efforts, but I know for certain that I discovered a lot about myself intellectually and as a global citizen. I know that I would like to be proactive outside of academia, and would like to use my pen (or laptop, for my fellow information-age denizens) in order to achieve that goal. Ultimately, I would like to bring attention to what I perceive to be injustices to our fellow global citizens.

I believe that what I have taken away from this class is the resolve to strive for an ethical goal, no matter how nebulous or impossible it may seem, and to constantly reevaluate myself in order to ensure that I am both properly executing that goal as well as being a responsible overall citizen. I have also gleaned a profound sense of accountability for my words and my actions. And, of course, I have gleaned something equally as important (to me): a sound intellectual basis in Ancient philosophy and some new training in etymology (I absolutely loved looking up Greek words and their roots, and then perceiving how they composed many familiar contemporary words).

Since Josh has his reservations about metaphors, and Jordan and I seem to be fond of them, couldn't we perhaps expand this conversation to the mythos/logos dichotomy? A common complaint about the metaphor is that it is too enigmatic, not straightforward enough. The same goes with the myth of course, which is considered an allegory, the allegory being intimately related to if not synonymous with the metaphor. Josh did not make such a complaint about the metaphor nor did he make the kind of complaint we heard about metaphors/myths from, say, Anthony and me in the first weekly round-up podcast. We complained about the religious allegory that Protagoras used to discuss the teaching of civic virtues. In retrospect, I put too little thought into the myth, and probably discredited what was a perfectly legitimate delivery. For example, British moral philosopher Mary Midgley points out that science--yes, rational, logical, "objective" science--uses "machine imagery" (1) to disseminate its thoughts through popular society. Midgley's definition of myths indicates that they "are imaginative patterns, networks of powerful symbols that suggest particular ways of interpreting the world" (1). Enter machine imagery. By thinking of our bodies, for example, as machines with component parts and ones that need to be properly cared for, we easily imbibe the science behind disease and illness, growth and puberty, digestion, and so on. Very rarely would one hear a person being chastised for thinking of the body in these terms, or of thinking of the nutrition of living organisms in terms of a "food chain" or "food web." These are hermeneutics, plain and simple. They are used to interpret a so-called "objective" fact that lies before us--a self-evident object or phenomenon in the world.

Perhaps, though, that's the problem. "Things" such as the Good are not self-evident objects, and so we can actually best (emphasis) describe in metaphors. Maybe that's the jibe against the myth in the Protagoran sense, although I would not be inclined to apply that double-standard.

Your thoughts? I probably way departed from Jordan's post, and if I did so I'm sorry, Jordan.

Source: Midgley, Mary. "The Myths We Live By." London: Routledge, 2003.

Another note on the arrow: Perhaps it's the trajectory of the arrow that's important, at times, and not the target? Especially if we grant that the target is unattainable, we might consider how we get to whatever mark we ultimately strike. For instance, if the arrow has improper fletching, or its fletching and its broadhead are competing to guide it, then the flight is erratic--the arrow does not fly straight and winds up fighting against the air current. If we are slightly disloyal to your metaphor and take the arrow alone as ourselves, this metaphor could map onto the charioteer metaphor that Jingting brought up: if we have two parts of our triad competing, just like the fletching and the broadhead, it will be a rough trip and we will likely find that the trajectory has altered and taken us toward a new target anyway. Actually, we do stay loyal to your metaphor, Jordan. We can blame the craftsman of the arrow for improperly calculating the length and angle of the fletching, for example, or for putting too many blades on the broadhead, or for forgetting to flute the blades. In the same spirit, we can blame the person for improperly caring for her soul--not cultivating her rational faculty or not sufficiently taming her appetitive faculty.

Your thoughts?

Maybe I'm on the opposite end of the metaphorical spectrum from Josh--maybe I like metaphors a little too much. Great post, Jordan.

Thanks for posting this, Daniel. I definitely sympathize with your thanks, and would like to say thanks to Dr. Long myself. I think, Dr. Long, that you have served as a pioneer of what is bound to be a widely used learning tool. I definitely think that this blog has increased both the relevance and the value of the course material in the eyes of our class--indeed, included in your grading criteria is tying our commentary to contemporary issues--and this is bound to catch on as more and more students and teachers check the blog out and recognize both its pedagogical efficacy and its ability to tie together a community of students. Thanks again.

I'll be sticking around, Jordan. In fact, I hope as many people as possible will do the same. It seems to me that that will be a second "test" of this blog's effectiveness--that is, whether or not it motivates students to continue with the discourse after the formal grading is over and done with.

I'm going to sit on the fence here, Jack. I think that it's necessary to be very serious about the pursuit of justice; in fact, I would argue that justice as an ethical telos should be central to one's life. That being said, however, one cannot pursue justice with enthusiasm if one is not, well, enthusiastic about it--that is, if one does not take pleasure in it. I think there even needs to be a sense of play, even of romance (perhaps eroticism?) in the search for justice. This makes justice seem like something that needs to be worked for--something for which one searches but rarely grasps. Like a potential lover, justice lies right before us, but it takes some work to seduce it. This would then go along with Socrates' idea that, though justice is at our very feet, it is elusive and difficult to catch. I hope we get some more responses.

I thought the video was very provocative and would likely appeal to those who have not studied philosophy, but I have two reservations:

First, I think the tone was a bit too heavy on the whole. The atmosphere of the video was dark and the music and the dialogue were very serious. I sort of felt like I was being led on a religious crusade rather than a vicarious search for justice. The reason religious advertisement (if one could or should call it that) is so dire is that the stakes are perceived to be ultimate: eternity in peace or eternity apart from God. The stakes are high for overlooking justice, but do we want the search to connote like this?

Second, while I appreciate the figures being utilized in the background, I think they indicate a particular definition of justice. Mother Teresa, Gandhi, King, Mandela, Tubman, and company all did similar things: they fought for social justice, every one of them fought for the rights of a marginalized group, and all but perhaps one (Mother Teresa) fought for an underprivileged "race" or ethnicity. I think this really pigeonholes justice and makes us miss out on its other modalities, such as political justice, which can come in the form of respecting a group that is marginalized politically but not socially, or religious justice, or an everyday interpersonal justice, which is something like what our blog gets at, i.e. opening our ears to hear everybody's voice, not just the marginalized and the oppressed but all who look to speak. It just seems to me that all the above figures indicate a certain way of going about searching for justice and even indicate what we should devote our attention to in searching for justice.

Great parallel, Josh. And I will add to your point that the ultimate quality of a strong community should be the ability to discern whether or not the voice of the dissident (or the invader) has merit or not. As for me, I did not think that our dissident offered anything in the form of substantive criticism. Have we revealed something about ourselves, then? That we are able, as a community, to be comfortable enough with our own shortcomings to be able to address them, and to be able to block out empty criticisms? I think that's part of this thread's purpose. I think we are considering in some measure whether or not we were justified in our response, and trying to imagine when such a response might not be appropriate. And in comparing ourselves to Socrates, we might consider whether his approach is justified, and if not, in what cases.

Great parallel, Josh. And I will add to your point that the ultimate quality of a strong community should be the ability to discern whether or not the voice of the dissident (or the invader) has merit or not. As for me, I did not think that our dissident offered anything in the form of substantive criticism. Have we revealed something about ourselves, then? That we are able, as a community, to be comfortable enough with our own shortcomings to be able to address them, and to be able to block out empty criticisms? I think that's part of this thread's purpose. I think we are considering in some measure whether or not we were justified in our response, and trying to imagine when such a response might not be appropriate. And in comparing ourselves to Socrates, we might consider whether his approach is justified, and if not, in what cases.

But the U.S. doesn't jail religious fundamentalists who clearly intend that those who do not fit into their narrow conception of the world will meet disastrous ends and deserve it. Nor does it silence the voices of those who discriminate against certain types of foreigners, such as anybody remotely Arabic-looking or all so-called "Mexicans." It seems that these people intend some sort of threat to others. Perhaps some of them just threaten the right people. In any case, I would argue that our blog condones nothing in the spirit of those two examples. Hence, it is in some measure un-democratic. You can take that as a slight but I prefer to see it as a disciplinary check that we, consciously or not, have imposed on ourselves and others who decide to engage our blog. I think that it is salutary for our community, especially our classroom community; I am simply responding to Kit's observation of the "common criticism of democracy."