Liu Xin

This dissertation argues that, since authority is inevitable and indispensable in effective teaching, we need more theory and research on how teachers can use authority more constructively in teaching rather than their trying to avoid using authority or simply ignoring its existence in the classroom. Since the teacher's discourse is the key to the traditional teacher's authority in the classroom, changing the teacher's discourse therefore becomes the key issue in talking about teachers' authority. ;In the larger social context, radical educationists' criticism of the dominant discourse is progressive and revolutionary. However, I disagree with radical educationists that replacing the teaching of alternative discourses with the teaching of other discourses is a means of changing the traditional classroom and the traditional teacher's authority. First, teaching is always "symbolic imposition" , and a change of content does not completely change the basic institutional function of teaching and therefore does not change the traditional teacher's authority, for, as J. Hillis Miller points out, form and style can be equally oppressive as content. Second, since alternative discourses such as deconstruction, feminism, multiculturalism, and radical theories are all responses to the dominant discourse and are therefore parasitic upon it, avoiding teaching the dominant discourse not only leaves an irretrievable gap in students' education but also impedes students' development of critical literacy and thus disempowers them. ;Informed by Richard Rorty's edifying philosophy and his notions of normal and abnormal discourse, I argue that the teaching of first-year college writing can be conceived as a process of helping students move from their Abnormal Discourse I to Abnormal Discourse II by way of normal discourse . I propose that teachers play an edifying role in the writing class through a two-level interaction among the three discourses so as to turn the teacher's authority into enabling constraints that will enhance students' development of critical literacy

In this paper, I aim to explore the structure of the exercise in the second part of the Parmenides. In analyzing the transitional section, I claim that in addition to diairesis, there is another method of division, namely, cross-division, which Porphyry terms chiasmus. On this basis, I explain how Plato uses chiasmus to divide the exercise into eight hypotheses, in which the subjects of the paired hypotheses (I–VI, II–V, III–VII, and IV–VIII) are the same and those of the nonpaired hypotheses differ. In closing, I reconstruct the universal scheme of the exercise on the basis of Plato’s use of chiasmus.

In this paper, I articulate three kinds of division that Plato and Aristotle acknowledge to be proper, valid methods of division, namely, diairesis, parallel division, and chiasmus. I attempt to explain the relationship among the three kinds of division, namely, how they transform from one to another. Starting with Plato’s division of constitution in the Statesman, I illuminate that from ostensible diairesis emerges a parallel division, and the parallel division causes a cross-division to occur. Thus, the sixfold division of constitution is not a diairesis but rather is a 3 x 2 cross-division. Inheriting the three kinds of division from Plato, Aristotle advances the form by providing a theoretical explanation to the transformation of the three kinds of division. In Topics Z6, Aristotle prescribes two conditions under which a parallel division can originate from or construct ostensible diairesis and how the parallel division further causes a cross-division to occur.