The following is an attempt to better understand the effect of different types of discourse on what I’ve termed the “intellectual constitution” of the individuals involved. For this purpose, I’ve drawn a distinction between two modes of discourse – argument and discussion – the former of which embodies the intellectually unhealthy aspects of discourse and the latter, the healthy.
By the end of the CSA debate yesterday evening, there were about 20 people in the Great Space. Only six of us were actually there for the debate. Students filed by, ordering coffee and sandwiches, without as much as a glance towards their fellow students competing for the right to represent them. The ironic part of this dismal turnout? There are actually enough candidates to debate this year.
I’ve been thinking a lot recently about arguments, and specifically, the relationship between pragmatic and moral arguments. In government, politicians are constantly faced with the need to balance these, because while pragmatism might get things done the political party’s base of support is often bound by ideology and more receptive to arguments that speak to their own moral assumptions.
The start of the 2010 calendar year also signals the start of the legislative session at the Minnesota state capitol in St. Paul. The future of the Minnesota State Grant is one major topic before state legislators this session and is an issue of great importance to Carleton students.
I would argue that it can be demonstrated objectively that there are such things as a) universal constituents of human nature, and b) universal rule concerning the ways in which these interact with one another; this is essentially to say that there is a singular internal world or reality which we all experience or a singular consciousness of which we are all instantiations
Governing, as we are told, is about assuring the consent of the governed. Recently, the Carleton Student Association Senate joined the fray of attempting to democratize its processes, amending, without consent of the masses at Carleton, its governing bi-laws. While I do not doubt its ascendant-to-virtue intentions, and while I think that the current form of the CSA inadequately represents the interests of students, I think what the body did was wrong.
- Super Bowl would give Saints a post-Katrina boost
- Favre deserved a return to the Super Bowl
Steroid usage should not be a Hall of Fame disqualifier - By David Sacks
Steroids should prohibit athletes from Hall of Fame consideration - By Justin Rotman
As members of the Carleton family, are we entitled to exhibit the rude, self-indulgent and insensitive behavior witnessed that evening? Does participating in elite intellectual pursuit in our liberal arts “bubble” give any of us the right to infringe on the collective enjoyment and stimulation experienced in a concert setting?
Perhaps this earthquake is what was needed for our world to truly recognize the problems that face Haiti. Maybe, from the rubble, Haiti will rebuild its great nation that has seen better times: A fresh start. But they cannot do it alone, and Haiti should never recede from our consciousness, even when other issues are on our minds.
AIDS often seems like a far-removed cause, relegated to distant tragedies, and overall of little concern to students on a snowy Midwestern campus. But this issue is far less remote than sometimes thought. Within the Carleton community, it is important to remember that HIV/AIDS is a condition that affects peers, friends, and family members. Our own county has the third highest HIV infection rate in the state of Minnesota.
Happy Bodies is a campus wide body positivity network dedicated to discussion and activism for bodies everywhere. Here are a few body-positive sentiments we promote.