Odysseus Makridis

Plato inaugurated the Western tradition of political philosophy in his effort to vindicate the memory of Socrates and prevent future persecutions of philosophy. To attain this double objective, Plato embedded teachings and distributed themes with a view to appropriately revealing and withholding insights. The ultimate crucible for heuristically testing this Platonic method is Plato's distribution of themes of eros and force. Eros and force parallel the two cardinal features of the erotic Socrates who was suspected of guiding ambitious youths to demagogic careers. Plato's metaphysics, dominated by his theory of Forms or Ideas, similarly originated in indignation at Socrates' legal murder and anguish about the future of philosophy. By positing fixed, eternal, and immutable standards, Plato seeks to preempt the litigious excesses, oratorical shenanigans and legalistic leeway that once made it possible to charge and convict Socrates. The reference of what is actual to a transcendent standard of truth served also to usher in the western tradition of textual embeddedness of meanings. This means that original political philosophy, understood as Platonic philosophy, is a relationship between form and content---between "how" something is articulated in writing and "what" is written. After the onslaught of the diagnostic critique of western thought, unleashed mainly by Nietzsche and Heidegger, the revival of esotericism in our century has been useful in unlocking Platonic interpretation and in showing Plato's text to be dependent on an inextricable interweaving between form and content

Within the bosom of the humanities philosophy reposes and, as an academic field, it is ever so often criticized for its aloofness. In a recent book, Roudometof and Dessi (2022, 9-10) politely quip that philosophy’s engagement with the “glocal” has been “resilient,” transacted mostly “without encroaching on other fields.” Philosophy’s ostensible remoteness stems in part from its institutional affiliation with, cultivation and deployment of often forbiddingly technical tools of logical analysis. Although the academic field comprises a manifold of specialities, with resentment often arising against prohibitively technical branches, I narrow my focus to an understanding of “philosophy” as an activity engrossed in logical analysis, and I will plead as defence of this avowed postulation that by so doing, operationally as it were, I can argue that philosophy can make critical and salutary contributions to the burgeoning field of glocalization studies, which is so ably canvassed in the book edited by Roudometof and Dessi. Notwithstanding the promissory note offered above, and since my definition of philosophy may seem unduly restrictive, it is incumbent on me to disambiguate across related notions and to make an initial case as to both the plausibility and arguable pay-offs from taking philosophy in the way I just adumbrated. This is a substantive issue as it relates to a case I will be making as to what philosophy may have to offer to the study of glocalization.

This paper considers characteristic views advanced in the past fifteen years that may be considered relatively sympathetic to student practices of cheating on graded assignments or exams. We detect and analyze typical fallacies that are recurrent in articles that promote a revisionist view of cheating as morally permissible. We offer a general, deontological argument that cheating is immoral. The efforts to justify student cheating take several forms. For example, it has been argued that cheating may be tolerated if the student did not intend to cheat, perhaps because of a failure to understand the normal rules or expected procedures. We also argue that student collaboration in graded work constitutes cheating even if the instructor condones such collaboration. In a similar vein, we address the view that student copying is cheating even if the instructor alters the rules to allow such copying. This moral view can be applied to any cheating behavior, we argue. As a specific example, we demonstrate how it can be applied to the pedagogical recommendation that instructors should encourage their students to cheat in order to cultivate student skills in the area of cyber security. We also address the view that student cheating can be justified by situations in which the student believes that he/she is being subjected to an unfair or unethical overall learning environment.