Comments for gonepublic: philosophy, politics, & public life

Comment on Austin Eats by Joseph Orosco

Joseph Orosco — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:52:21 +0000

Veggie Heaven across the street from the Dobie at UT. Cheap but the food is really quite good. Try the honey lemonande!

Comment on Tweeterland and Thinking by Noelle McAfee

Noelle McAfee — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 01:17:55 +0000

Joshua, I admit to exaggerating the kicking and screaming part. The truth is that a lot of interesting and smart people I know are using twitter, so I’ve decided to check it out. I am worried about the 140 character limit, but I am seeing that it is a way to follow what other people are thinking about. The trade-off seems to be between depth and quantity. I had a BBCworldnews feed coming at me, but it was way too much — a “tweet” every few minutes — so I turned that off. I’d rather sit down for an hour and focus on the news than get bombarded by snippets of information every few minutes. On the other hand, it is exciting to follow what interesting people are thinking about, especially when one is holed up in a small room working on writing projects. So far I’m liking the ability to follow the interests of a lot of interesting people as they upload urls of things that have come across their desks. It’s like having an aggregator of items of interest.

I’ll remain ambivalent, with this apparent trade-off between speeded-up quantity and slow reflection on a narrower set of matters.

Comment on Tweeterland and Thinking by Joshua

Joshua — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:22:34 +0000

Can you say why you’ve succumbed? Your recriminations I can understand… but I’m curious to hear your motivations as well. I see, in part, the benefit of social networking sites for mining fallow social capital, but twitter doesn’t seem to have that appeal. So what -is- the appeal?

Comment on Public Scholars and Intellectuals by Rick Livingston

Rick Livingston — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:18:44 +0000

I think MT’s comment supports the notion that “public scholarship” isn’t the best name for this sort of work. “Scholarship” is a old-fashioned word, rooted in old-fashioned assumptions about academic labor (”research”). Those assumptions pull us back towards stereotypical views of the relation between “academics” and “the public”–MT’s image of one-way communication (broadcasting or teaching freshmen)–rather than more complex images of overlap and exchange. To the extent that virtual spaces (blogs and such) erode the established boundaries of The Academy, traditional ideas about knowledge, expertise and authority are increasingly inadequate, obstacles to thought rather than vehicles of understanding.

To my mind, the heart of this work is in construction, the creation of spaces that can bring individuals together in the form of a public (i.e. “the” public doesn’t pre-exist its gathering). “Scholarship” doesn’t capture that. “Public learning” may get us a little closer.

Comment on Public Scholars and Intellectuals by Noelle McAfee

Noelle McAfee — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 22:31:42 +0000

Thanks, MT. Good point, but note that we’re carrying on this conversation online. Maybe I still need to state what seems to be obvious — public scholarship happens not just in the classroom or in the news media but also via new media. So, yes, I agree.

Comment on Public Scholars and Intellectuals by MT

MT — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:19:45 +0000

Funny you don’t mention the converse prospect of the public contributing to scholarship when academics go online. It seems like your vision is either like broadcasting or teaching freshmen. Most of the dialog an academic ends up engaging in online might indeed be a bore or a chore, and yet like a 49er panning for gold one could still think hopefully about what the process might yield–if not from the vulgar masses, then from people scholarly in fields other than one’s own. Not that I’ve noticed blogging ever living up to such once prevailing hopes, but I’m just sayin.

Comment on Public Scholars and Intellectuals by cwkoopman

cwkoopman — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:03:43 +0000

How about “public thought” (which is the term I’m going with these days)? I’m eager to read the “report you are/were working up” following the conference. Please let me know when it’s available. Thanks for a great blog, Noelle.

Comment on V.P. Qualities by Joshua

Joshua — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:33:33 +0000

If I were a betting man, I’d bet the VP slot will go to Kathleen Sebelius. Also, if you haven’t been following it, there’re a series of posts on all the potential VPs on electoral-vote.com that have been very good at evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of various potentials for both parties.

Comment on Rick Roderick Lives by Adrian

Adrian — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:27:02 +0000

Great video. Thanks.

Comment on Charles Taylor Wins Templeton Prize by Scott

Scott — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:39:38 +0000

For more from Taylor himself, I recommend checking out the interview with him we recently posted at The Other Journal. It’s a great read in which Taylor discusses the ideas in his newest book ‘A Secular Age’, as well as interacting with the ideas currently referred to as ‘the new atheism.’

Part 1: http://theotherjournal.com/article.php?id=375
Part 2: http://theotherjournal.com/article.php?id=376