Sorry, Cody, I didn't mean that you advocated abstinence. I realize that the focus was on the "dissatisfaction many students feel about sex and talking about sex on campus." Yet, the dissatisfaction felt by a student is nothing new and abstinence as a solution for that dissatisfaction is not a new solution. After all, Augustus had to put to a halt the sexual excesses of the Romans with his moral laws that he instituted during his reign. Whether abstinence is a choice or a law, the advocacy of it is something that seems to be throughout history and not just during our generation.

Lastly two points: If the article is moving toward personal choice and freedom, that movement was made long before now, even before the late 1960s. Though the Sexual Revolution is the culmination of personal sexual freedom, the changing of sexual mores was already well under way before the 1960s. I mean, a person only has to read a history of the 1920s to find out that different sexual attitudes and choices existed and were widely practiced--though not to the extent after the Sexual Revolution.

Though I am arguing a bit, my post's point is that the group advocating abstinence does seem to be sensational in that it is acting in the manner of a reactionary group. I personally do not disagree with group but the group is nevertheless acting in the manner of the groups of the 1960s that advocated the opposite position--and that is fine. The group openly supports abstinence. I am just a bit puzzled as to why there is a debate at all. We have the freedom to either abstain or to indulge. But why do Americans continue to debate the matter if there is no desire for consensual agreement on it?

Nevertheless, I enjoyed the post and I see your point.

The group's original point of abstinence as being a life-style choice would have suited it better. The changing of the group's platform--seen as provoking in the article--does seem to be in the same character of other groups that promote alternative lifestyles, though. And though TLR's position promotes reaction from those who disagree with it, does it come as a surprise that there is reaction at all? Both the article and Cody focus on the issue of of abstinence on college campuses, yet what is the reader to make over the article's sensationalism? After all, are college students really afraid of eunuchs and abstainers taking away their sexual freedom? It seems that the debate over abstinence is finished. Sure, it is always a personal choice. However, abstinence is no longer a cultural norm, unless a person lives in culturally conservative environment isolated from the rest of society.

Personally, it seems hard for me to follow the one-sided debate over abstinence. Abstinence is only one choice out of many, and the choices seem to grow as the old and new fluctuate between favor and disfavor. If parents advocate abstinence to their children or a person decides to abstain from sex, that is fine. And if one student advocates to another not to have consensual sex outside of marriage, how is that any different from the other student advocating a position on any other topic to another student?

And is there a need at all for people to react to a group's position when the group itself is not promoting legislation that favors abstinence but rather promoting an opinion about it?

It just seems odd today that if someone has an opinion that is somehow perceived as offensive, that opinion, then, must garner reaction and an article. This just isn't with sex but with every other societal or political issue. One day the conservative talk show host may rail against abstinence if it ever becomes the lifestyle of President Obama, arguing that the President means to take away the citizenry's sexual freedom. Likewise, the liberal talk show host may sneer at the conservative politician who has come to enjoy living the wild and reckless life that long-ago left abstinence at the doorstep.

Your post Joni made me wonder about communist countries during the 20th Century. Though China's one-child policy is often cited as being an example of a government's involvement in the personal relations of its citizenry, I cannot recall another such well-known restriction on sexual relations or reproductive rights. I know that the Nazis practiced sterilization of persons that the Nazi government deemed to be undesirables but that seems to be more of an example of eugenics rather than interference in consensual, romantic relationships. Also, were relationships between men and women as free as the relationships between men alone? I cannot remember if we discussed this in class but it seems to me that the free Athenian woman did not have has much of a choice in her relationship(s).

Yet, I also have to laugh at our own predicament: Americans are free to love whomever they please, yet this freedom entails not a hedonistic culture, per se, but rather the freedom to not love at all. After all, recall Lysias's speech. He encouraged gratification of the stranger or friend rather than the lover, as gratification of the lover only entails trouble for the beloved. This may seem like hedonism or even a strange version of indifferent stoicism; but nevertheless, as with the Athenian Greek, it seems that American culture affords the individual to choose his or her own path, regardless of the emotional consequence. Yet, this freedom seems preferable to structured or organized courtships or relations. After all, the individual is allowed to seek out what is best for either him or her, and, though the desired result may not always be had, there is still the possibility for obtaining it.

In responding to the metaphor, I feel as if my arms are to weary to pick up the bow and aim the arrow. Really, is there a case in which Plato's Socrates ever tires from his search for the Good?

With the previous comment of frustration aside, I think, Jordan, that your metaphor of the archer is apt. After all, this semester has been more about trying to put one's finger on what Plato means and expresses in his dialogues. I have had read Plato in other classes and it seems--after having this class--arrows were flying all over the place, as the texts were read with the intent of nailing the exact intent of Plato. This is not to say that what was taught was wrong or incorrect but the aspect of metaphor and the dialogue as being and acting as literature were never addressed. In trying to aim for the target, it seems that understanding metaphor and also allusion within Platonic dialogue serves as a mark at which first to aim. After all, if a student reads Plato texts literally, what happens to the rich character of the text--its use of metaphor and layered meaning?

Second, I think you are right, Tony, for thinking that metaphor may serve as a linguistic tool in attempting to verbalize the unknown Good. Yet, there is a question: If the truth were ever to be clearly evident, would the language describing it demonstrate simplicity or rather the complexity of metaphor? I cannot help but think Socrates censoring of the poets in "The Republic." In any case, if there is an answer to be found it may be expressed in the style of either poet or the philosopher, just as Aristophanes and Socrates lay side-by-side in Plato's "Symposium."

After having watched Professor Long's video in class, I realized tonight that his video is the first in which I have seen philosophy presented (advertised, perhaps) in a medium other than text. Sadly, I have to admit that I watch too much C-SPAN 2 on the weekends in which many authors are interviewed about their books, which vary in their subject and topic; and never have I seen a presentation on Socratic politics.

Also, for a cable channel C-SPAN does not utilize any other medium other than video in presenting and framing interviews and panel discussions. What you see is what you get: the ability to hear and see discussion but no access to the discussion or active participation in it. The video, instead, is a firm first step in forwarding discussion and debate through technology that grows learning, engaging the curious with Plato's Socrates.

During class time, Professor Long asked us whether or not the video appealed to us. Did it generate interest? Did it express Socrates' lines spoken to Glaucon? Of course, some students responded that some aspects of the video appealed to them and other aspects did not. The video--whatever its similarities may be to other commercials that it was compared to in class--did its job for me. After all, to approach it otherwise, may turn the video from being a short piece about Socrates into being simply another internet video. If the video was made to generate interest and inquiry about Socrates and Professor Long's research, the video should not merely be some gimmick or online sensation. The video avoids the crass sentimentality of some YouTube videos. (I have in mind campaign videos from the last presidential election and not Anthony's posted videos.) After all, American politics seems today to be a business of emotional conjuring besides a back-room pastime for schemes and promises. And if this blog and Professor Long's research is concerned with Socratic politics and not contemporary politics, the video should not retain the pathos of today's popular political discussions that occur in media--whatever those topics may be.

Moreover, the video does not smother the subject of it. It is the video's message that the viewer remembers and not solely the video itself. The video's effects do not drown out the path toward Justice.

Socrates probably could exist in today's world. However, he would probably be relegated to the check-out counter at Blockbuster or a used-books store. Or, perhaps, he would simply ride the Cata bus all day, looking and watching the world go by.

Cody writes that Socrates has some particularly odd traits yet I do not think that these would necessarily disqualify him from society or the Penn State campus. After all, we Penn Staters are a weird bunch ourselves with every individual having his or her own batch of idiosyncrasies. I mean, how would a world of people wearing band t-shirts, Crocs, and Uggs appear to an ancient Greek? And with personal fashion aside, what would Socrates think of Calculus and bounded books? Knowledge of the world has progressed to such a degree to certainly cause the philosopher to momentarily black-out from amazement and puzzlement.

Yet, what would prevent Plato's Socrates from achieving his fifteen minutes of fame today would probably be both the clamor of the modern world and the contemporary attitude of being disinterested in the truth. I mean, where would Socrates take Phaedrus to discuss rhetoric and the erotic? Where is a quite grove to be found? Certainly not next to 322 or even in Pattee Library. Places that afford a person quite reflection diminish everyday as plasma-screen tvs and concrete are placed upon every surface like wall-paper. Moreover, the young Phaedrus of today may be more enamored by his newest iPhone application than by a speech, even if the speech were well written.

Really, this is not my chance to rail against the modern time but to simply ask the following questions: If Socrates were around today, would anybody take the time to listen to him? It may be that Socrates would fit-in just fine in today's world; but how many people would give the philosopher his or her attention? Would his philosophy and his attempt at trying to know the Good be passed over for another way of learning and living?

And perhaps for Socrates, his greatest struggle today over the Good would not be with Gorgias but rather with Tony Robbins.

This is interesting. In a sense, memorization for most of us is rote memorization, taking the time to simply "buckle down" and stamp information upon the brain--a process done without style. But how does one memorize a performance or the manner of a performance, rather? Joni writes that memorization is the groundwork for a musician or a performer to make a piece of performance work his or her own. And I think that she is correct. Especially for popular music, it seems that there are two levels of internalization for a piece of music: the cover-song; and if the performer is talented enough, making that cover-song his or her own. There are many examples of an artist covering a song in which the artist has failed to make it his or her own or having covered the song without transferring the qualities of the original song to the cover. I have in mind the Limp Bizkit's cover of the Who's song "Behind Blue Eyes--a cover-song that does not even approach the original.

On the other hand, artists such as Patti Smith and Manfred Mann have covered Bruce Springsteen's songs--"Because the Night" and "Blinded by the Light," respectively-- with such skill and excellence that their covers are often favored to the Boss's original versions. So, to assert that a performer simply memorizes material and then later regurgitates it discounts the artist's natural or developed talent to not only memorize the material but also to recall it in such a way that produces pleasure for the audience. In the "Phaedrus" Socrates himself says that a speech needs to be tailored to the specific audience that will hear it: "When one is qualified to say which sort of person will be persuaded by which sorts of speeches..." (271e).

Lastly, an aside: As a teen-ager, I was always impressed with a musician's ability to perform his or her songs live in front of an audience. Yet, after later having learned that many musicians use monitors to display a song's lyrics (even Bruce Springsteen, sadly), it seems that what counts for the audience is not the memorization of a song but rather the artist's ability to perform it in his or her own style--a style that is difficult or near impossible to be replicated by another artist.

I thought that I would never have to run into Roland Barthes again. Yet, somehow, his idea is getting kicked around outside of the English department. And I still disagree with the man--for whatever that is worth.

If a text is mutable as this post proposes it to be, what, then, is its purpose? After all, if meaning cannot be conveyed successfully, there is little reason to attempt communication at all. Why attempt communication when nothing is being understood clearly? Sure, any written piece of work may eventually conjure-up different interpretations later-on; or, likewise, different meanings for words. And though these interpretations may accumulate, there is, and forever will be, the author's original intention and message.

I think Barthe--though I have not read his essay "The Death of the Author" in a while--takes for granted the mutability of language. Yet, there is a limit: warning signs for electric fences are seldom taken to be for less than what they are: warnings. Sure, the red print and thunderbolt may stir-up dreams of past JackAss episodes and other humorous scenarios but, nevertheless, the original message is clearly communicated. To except that message is up to the dare-devil.

Really, Barthes' essay and Tony's post illustrate the multifaceted nature of language. On the one hand it is utilitarian, expressing nothing more than a direct message; on the other, it is the basis for literature: an art that often times wants to resist easy interpretation and, sometimes, create confusion and misunderstanding.

Already much has been said about physical beauty, yet I would like to take a jab at Socrates's quote that Taylor provides. What explains the general fascination with physical beauty? If the beauty of the soul is to be considered more valuable, why isn't this higher beauty immediately recognized by us or American society? It does not seem to me that this a indictment of our culture but rather an admission that man and woman are not disembodied spirits of knowledge, always seeking-out intangible virtue. The enjoyment of physical beauty simply may simply be an innocent, natural enjoyment.

Though, at times, American culture seems tawdry in its excessive fascination with physical beauty, it is only harmful when physical beauty is made to be the highest good. And in America, it simply is not the case that physical beauty always triumphs--just as there is Heidi Klum, there is also Larry King and Meat Loaf.

Sure, there are the beautiful people always trying to preserve their beauty with the weekly trip to the plastic surgeon but this does not seem to be widespread in our culture: After all, who knows somebody that has undergone plastic surgery for purely cosmetic reasons? It seems to me that this attempt at preserving one's appearance is the past time of a particular segment of the American population.

And it cannot be stressed enough that attraction to physical beauty is not a fault. After all, nobody disparages a beautiful woman or handsome man for their physical qualities. Rather, admiration for these qualities is an appreciation of physical beauty and natural harmony. If the beauty of cathedrals or of ancient ruins can be praised, should not the beauty of the human body be praised also? Physical beauty may be an aesthetic pleasure that is a preliminary necessity to understanding and evaluating unseen virtue. Moreover, where would Pygmalion be? Did not his statue's form make him happy? Likewise, physical beauty seems to be a reminder that man and woman are physical creatures. It may have been forgotten that physical beauty is not something crass, deserving the scorn of those zipping around the heavens with Zeus and the other Olympians.

Binge drinking while in college seems to be the symptom of something more insidious in the culture of American higher education. Sure, it is good to exhort moderation to one's fellow students but moderation in drink is not really a problem--in the sense, that once out of college there are only a few acceptable occasions for drinking libations liberally, e.g., sporting events and weddings. After all, college is a just a slice of life and the problems associated with college are usually left behind on campus for new freshman to take-up. That is not to say that being irresponsible with alcohol should be tolerated--no, not at all. One student's death due to alcohol consumption that occurred on campus this semester demonstrates the pitfalls of the party culture that is the part of Penn State; a culture that even surpasses the fictional hijinks and excesses in the movie "Animal House."

Yet, drinking just seems to be a symptom of the excess of higher education (and more). Any student that examines his or her tuition bill for the semester will notice that tuition always increases, along with the increase in fees and the addition of new fees. (Of course, the new building fee was successfully added last year to the cost of attending this university.) In fact, a Wall Street Journal article states that tuition for a four-year public university has increased 35% in the past five years.

The increase does not reflect moderation in budgeting. Sure, it is a bad economy--aid to higher education is being cut. Yet, when the economy was good and both federal and state governments were providing universities with aid, tuition still did not drop. It only went up. Cody states that most students receive help with paying their education. Yet, if this aid comes through loans from either a public or private source, a bill with interest included will be due upon graduation.

So, if a university increases tuition to an absurd cost that does not reflect the real cost of an education, this question is asked by this student: Which is really worse: the hang-over on Sunday morning after Daryll Clark hands out free footballs to the Ohio State secondary or the cost shouldered by students in order to attend college? After all, sleep can take away the pains of Iron City. Yet, student loans are not so easy to forget. Indeed, the once active college student may have a family and a paunch before the student loans are paid off.

And so, Josh asks whether or not moderation may require indulgent behavior in order that it may be learned. And if this is so--in respect to college--moderation is a costly lesson.

Source:

<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB11617391130410282..." target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB11617391130410282...