Treść głównego artykułu

Abstrakt

The main thesis of the presented article implies that one of the possible and, simultaneously, immensely important responses to the question: “Why philosophy?,” is to indicate the necessity of a philosophical diagnosis regarding the current condition of communicative rationality. This diagnosis—obtained on the basis of the analyses and decisions of transcendental-pragmatic communication philosophy—ultimately obliges philosophy to construct the theoretical framework for the project of new paideia. The primary features of this project stem from the recognition of the megamedia character of today’s communication space and fundamental threats that are conditioned by the specificity of this space. The postulated paideia project must be based on the ethical principle of co-responsibility and its goal: shaping towards discursive rationality.

Słowa kluczowe

communicative aggression, megamedia communication, paideia, discursive rationality, transcendental pragmatics, co-responsibility

Szczegóły artykułu

Jak cytować
Sierocka, B. (2021). Why Philosophy? New Paideia in the Face of Megamedia Aggression. Teraźniejszość – Człowiek – Edukacja, 23(2(90), 29-45. https://doi.org/10.34862/tce/2021/21/30/e66n-9c73

Referencje

  1. Apel, K.-O. (1973). Transformation der Philosophie, v. 1-2. Suhrkamp.
  2. Apel, K.-O. (1986). Logosauszeichnung der menschlichen Sprache. Die philosophische Tragweite der Sprachtheorie. In H.-G. Bosshard (Ed.), Perspektiven auf Sprache. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zum Gedenken an Hans Hörmann (pp. 45-87). De Gruyter.
  3. Apel, K.-O. (1996). Die Vernunftfunktion der kommunikativen Rationalität. Zum Verhältnis von konsensualkommunikativer Rationalität, strategischer Rationalität und Systemrationalität.
  4. In K.-O. Apel & M. Kettner (Eds.), Die eine Vernunft und die vielen Rationalitäten (pp.17-41) Suhrkamp.
  5. Apel, K.-O., & Holger, B. (Eds.) (2001). Prinzip Mitverantwortung. Grundlage für Ethik und Pädagogik. Königshausen & Neumann.
  6. Bernstein, M. S., Monroy-Hernández, A., Drew, H., André, P., Panovich, K., & Vargas, G. (2011). 4chan and /b/: An analysis of anonymity and ephemerality in a large online community. In Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. AAAI Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221297869_4chan_and_b_An_Analysis_of_Anonymity_and_Ephemerality_in_a_Large_Online_Community
  7. Castells, M. (2001). The internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business, and society. Oxford University Press.
  8. Christopherson, K. (2007). The positive and negative implications of anonymity in Internet social interactions: “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”. Computers in Human Behavior, 23: 3038–3056. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222428988_The_positive_and_negative_implications_of_anonymity_in_Internet_social_interactions_On_the_Internet_Nobody_Knows_You%27re_a_Dog
  9. Heirman, W., & Walrave, M. (2008). Assessing concerns and issues about the mediation of technology in cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2(2).
  10. Jaeger, W. (1986). Paideia: The ideals of Greek culture, Three Volumes. (G. Highed, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
  11. Joinson, A. (1998). Causes and implications of disinhibited behavior on the Internet. In J. Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal implications (pp. 43–60). Academic Press.
  12. Kuhlmann, W. 1985. Reflexive Letztbegründung. Untersuchungen zur Transzendentalpragmatik, Freiburg/München: Verlag Karl Alber.
  13. Lee, E.-J. (2007). Deindividuation effects on group polarization in computer-mediated communication: the role of group identification, public-self-awareness, and perceived argument quality. Journal of Communication, 57(2): 385–403.
  14. Levinson, P. (2009). New new media. Penguin Academics.
  15. Martens, E., & Schnädelbach, H. (1985). Philosophie: Ein Grundkurs. Rowohlt Verlag.
  16. Marrou, H. I. (1982). A history of education in Antiquity. (G. Lamb, Trans.). University of Wisconsin Press.
  17. Postmes, T. and Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123: 238–259.
  18. Pyżalski, J. (2012). From cyberbullying to electronic aggression: Typology of the phenomenon. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17(3–4), 305–317.
  19. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
  20. Sierocka, B. (2003). Krytyka i dyskurs: O transcendentalno-pragmatycznym uprawomocnieniu krytyki filozoficznej. Aureus.
  21. Sierocka, B. (2006). Idea współodpowiedzialności a model racjonalności dyskursywnej: Przyczynek do projektu nowej paidei. In M. Dziemianowicz, D. Gołębniak, & R. Kwaśnica (Eds.). Przetrwanie i rozwój jako niezbywalne powinności wychowania. Wrocław Wydawnictwo Naukowe DSWE TWP.
  22. Sierocka, B. (2021). Communicating aggression in a megamedia world. Routledge.
  23. Shepherd, T., Harvey, A., Jordan, T., Srauy, S., and Miltner, K. (2015). Histories of Hating. Social Media + Society, 7–12: 1–10.
  24. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3): 321-6.
  25. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. William Morrow.
  26. Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard University Press.