Great Works I: Remixing Memory

Socrates mainly focuses on the fact that writing takes away a person’s intelligence but he never once disucusses how people would share their views or knowledge when they die.  How would we learn how to cook new recipes or learn about the make-up of a cell if the written word didn’t exist?  Socrates only speaks about the negative aspects of the written word and not the positive ones.  Socrates says, “…once written down they are tossed about anywhere among those who do and and among those who do not understand them,” (97), but he does not mention anything about people in the future who may come across this speech and completely understand it and be able to relate to it.

Nicholas Carr agrees with this idea in “The Oral World vs. The Written Word”.  He even says “But literacy ‘is absolutely necessary for the development not only of science but also of history, philosophy, explicative understanding of literature and of any art, and indeed for the explanation of language…” (3).  Nicholas Carr also mentions that during Plato’s days poetry was the main source of knowledge.

Nicholas Carr’s argument in “Is Google Making Us Stupid” makes an immense amount of sense.  While reading about the author’s tendency to skim written works I found myself skimming.  The internet has definitely changed society’s way of thinking.  Many of my peers do not read unless its required of them.  Nicholas Carr writes, “the more they use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing,” (2), which makes sense because everything on the internet is short and to the point.  The more time a person spends on the internet, the less likely they are going to be interested in reading something that is long and drawn out.  Since the internet is becoming more popular with society every day, the rate for voluntary reading is greatly decreasing.

First, be sure to leave a short hello comment on the Welcome post!

For your first blog assignment, due Tuesday, you’ll need to start by carefully reading the three short texts I handed out at the end of class on Thursday: the excerpt from Plato’s Phaedrus and the two essays by tech writer Nicholas Carr (links below if you’d like to check out the other articles he links to).

The Oral World and the Written Word

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

In a short post of no more than 500 words, explain your take on the three texts. What do you make of Socrates’ argument in Phaedrus? How do you understand the contradiction inherent in the fact that Plato is himself a writer, *writing* about the idea that writing is bad? Do you think Carr’s argument about the internet is solid? Why or why not? Your post should reference at least one particular moment (a passage or a sentence) in each of the three texts; be sure to use quotation marks if you’re quoting directly and to cite page numbers so that others can find what you’re talking about. Your post shouldn’t just offer a summary or paraphrase of the texts but should instead start to respond by pointing out a moment or moments of inconsistency or confusion, making a case *against* a position offered by one or more of the texts, or extending a position offered by one or more of the texts. Feel free here to reference your own experience!

This should be a new post of your own (not a comment on this post); you can start a new post by going to the “+New” button at the top of this screen. Before you “Publish” your post, be sure to proofread it carefully and please tag your post (in the window to the right)—you can use existing tags or create new ones of your own. If you’re still learning how to use the blog platform, check out the “Help!” button at the top of the screen. A rubric for how blog posts are evaluated can be found on the syllabus and under the “assignments” tab.