is right, I think: the media/press has always been a real mixed bag, no matter what age we were in. Indeed, the discussions of the press put me in mind of Plato's analysis in the dialogue The Sophist, where he has Socrates discussing what he calls the manipulators of images (you could actually translate the Greek as something like "image handlers")and how they distort the logos of reality for their personal benefit, covering over the appearing of the being of truth (thus the care you must take with them: they seem silly at first, but look at how they tame and subdue the great beast of public appetite, and lead the mob around by the nose). And then there is Cicero, with his distinctions between a true and false rhetoric (rhetoric having a positive function, being a witty account of the realities of the situation to persuade one's fellow citizens of the truth). I think the battle is always the same, and we are just shocked to find ourselves fighting it . . . again. Plato has Socrates say in the Republic that

"here, my dear Glaucon, is the highest danger we face in being human; and therefore the utmost care should be taken. Let each one of us leave every other kind of knowledge and seek and follow one thing only, if perhaps he may be able to learn and may find someone who will make him able to discern between good and evil, and so to choose always and everywhere the better life as he has opportunity. He should consider the bearing of all these things which have been mentioned severally and collectively upon moral excellence . . . he will then look at the nature of the soul, and from the consideration of all these qualities he will be able to determine which is the better and which is the worse; and so he will choose, giving the name of evil to the life which will make his soul more unjust, and good to the life which will make his soul more just; all else he will disregard."

Always we are facing this choice.

And bebop-o, I know I've only met you through these forums, but I hope you are ok. Take care, man.

was that a significant portion of white women acted in this way such as to influence the outcome (since clearly he could not mean that all white women did, which would be ridiculous, since obviously they didn't). At least that's what I thought when I read his post and felt a sinking feeling in my bones that he may be right. In my logic class I teach the students to operate by what logicians call the principle of charity: to interpret your interlocuter's point in the best light possible, thus facilitating real argument.

never underestimate the power of a brother from off the corner (even if he has no super secret powers).

that is a useful point. An example from my field: the best history of philosophy is by Coplestone, who writes from a clearly stated Thomist perspective but makes that clear; thus his critiques of a position are clearly from that point of view and one is then able to evaluate the position for oneself, given the clear way he presents the position he critiques.

Wish we could have some of that partisan press coverage you speak of here in the colonies.

on Hillary's "emotional breakdown":

http://tinyurl.com/2kst3h

You wrote:The war over what things mean now differs as much from the ideological arguments of the past as nuclear weapons differ from siege engines and ships-of-the-line.

Does such a quantitative development equal a qualitative one? A real question for me I wonder about. Since nuclear weapons could mean the end of life on earth I suppose any distinctions are rendered moot with that example. But the industrialization of ideology: is it that it can progress so far that free choice itself is ruled out (if you believe in such?). Is there a qualitative dimension to the human being or not: that I suppose is the million dollar question. The best stuff I have ever read along these lines and that informs my questioning is the work of Jacques Ellul, particularly in the Technological Society, among others. It is a crucial question: is our age qualitatively different? Has all the quantitative development (in the industrialization of modifying human behavior) reached some kind of critical mass to make a qualitative difference? Or does quality, the non-quantitative, not exist at all, and so my question simply represents a category mistake? I still gamble on the reality of the qualitative, as I have not seen it decisively disproven.

I am finally a funny kind of Platonist. I do not think even our age has cast its nets fine enough to catch what it means to exist as a flower, let alone a human being looking at one.

But sometimes I have my doubts.