abstract: My dissertation is situated in the speculative—that rhetorical domain of human affairs concerned with conditions we cannot entirely predict or control. Specifically, my research investigates the polarization and unease many of us feel as we imagine a world in which humans are no longer in the driver’s seat. It offers a literate practice of framing to facilitate substantive talk about the possible effects of the impending technology. To pursue this line of inquiry, I draw from Kenneth Burke’s frames of acceptance and rejection. In particular, I developed a computer-based tool and tested the prototype in a pilot project. The study is designed to assess the technai (rhetorical problem-solving tools that transform limits and barriers into possibilities) I fashioned from Burke’s six frames of acceptance and rejection to prompt participants to articulate epic, tragic, comedic, elegiac, satirical and burlesque driving futures. Findings from the study reveal that the practice of framing helps scaffold participants’ thinking beyond the good/bad binary and toward more realistically complex understandings and expectations of the future of driving. For example, one student commented that “the frames guided discussion and added a well-rounded perspective that we individuals may not have otherwise taken into consideration.” Ultimately, this study demonstrates the power of effectively designed deliberative experiences. Technai teach useful practices to teachers, students, scholars – all of whom need opportunities to critically assess the risks and rewards of our technology-laden lives. This research pushes our scholarship to focus on rhetorics that surround speculative public scientific controversies like the driverless car, in order to advocate for our individual and collective well-being. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation English 2016

Doctor Educationis / Three questions are central to this thesis: First, can the practice of teaching be made safe from luck through the controlling power of knowledge and reason? Second, even if it can be made safe from luck, should it be? Third, if it is neither possible nor desirable to exclude luck from teaching, what knowledge and personal qualities will put practitioners in the strongest position to face the contingencies of luck and, more especially, to face those conflicts which arise as a consequence of circumstances beyond the practitioner's control? Martha Nussbaum's account of luck and ethics in Greek philosophy and tragedy prompts the questions and provides, with Aristotle, many of the conceptual tools for answering them; Thomas Nagel's work on moral luck provides the categories for a more refined account of luck and its place in teaching. With respect to the first two questions, I argue that as a human practice teaching is open to the vicissitudes of fortune and cannot be made safe from luck, except at the expense of its vitality. Like other human practices, teaching is mutable, indeterminate and particular. Both its primary and secondary agents (teachers and pupils) and the practice itself are vulnerable to luck in four categories: constitutive, circumstantial, causal and consequential. But teaching is not just a matter of luck; it is a public practice in which some people are put into the hands of others for specific purposes, usually at public expense. If we have no way of holding practitioners accountable for their actions, the practice loses credibility. Any money or trust put into it is simply a gamble. For these and other reasons, the drive to exclude luck from practice is strong. Yet strong luck-diminishment projects are themselves a threat to the vitality of the practice. During the twentieth century two strong luck-diminishment projects have been especially detrimental to teaching: one rooted in the science of management, the other in the empirical sciences. Both have resulted in a proliferation of unfruitful and often trivial research projects, to misconceived programmes of teacher education, to distorted notions of knowledge and excellence in teaching, and to self-defeating and impoverished practice. Luck-diminishment projects rooted in logic are more or less threatening to vital practice, depending on how far they are committed to instrumental reasoning and a science of measurement. These are blunt and controversial claims. A central task of the thesis is to refine and defend them. The refinement proceeds by way of a contrastive analysis of strong luck-diminishment projects and others which are more responsive to the indeterminacy of practice. With respect to the final question, I argue that there are at least three sets of necessary conditions for a flourishing practice in the face of luck. One concerns what Aristotle calls the virtues of intellect and character. Central among these are practical rationality (conceived non-instrumentally), situational appreciation, and the knowledge required for an intelligent pursuit of the definitive ends of teaching. A second set concerns enabling institutions. A third concerns the kind of community best able to nurture those qualities necessary for vital and excellent practice. All three sets are themselves vulnerable to reversal. Keeping the practice of teaching alive and ensuring that it remains true to its definitive ends is thus a matter of sustained struggle.

Doctor Educationis / Three questions are central to this thesis: First, can the practice of teaching be made safe from luck through the controlling power of knowledge and reason? Second, even if it can be made safe from luck, should it be? Third, if it is neither possible nor desirable to exclude luck from teaching, what knowledge and personal qualities will put practitioners in the strongest position to face the contingencies of luck and, more especially, to face those conflicts which arise as a consequence of circumstances beyond the practitioner's control? Martha Nussbaum's account of luck and ethics in Greek philosophy and tragedy prompts the questions and provides, with Aristotle, many of the conceptual tools for answering them; Thomas Nagel's work on moral luck provides the categories for a more refined account of luck and its place in teaching. With respect to the first two questions, I argue that as a human practice teaching is open to the vicissitudes of fortune and cannot be made safe from luck, except at the expense of its vitality. Like other human practices, teaching is mutable, indeterminate and particular. Both its primary and secondary agents (teachers and pupils) and the practice itself are vulnerable to luck in four categories: constitutive, circumstantial, causal and consequential. But teaching is not just a matter of luck; it is a public practice in which some people are put into the hands of others for specific purposes, usually at public expense. If we have no way of holding practitioners accountable for their actions, the practice loses credibility. Any money or trust put into it is simply a gamble. For these and other reasons, the drive to exclude luck from practice is strong. Yet strong luck-diminishment projects are themselves a threat to the vitality of the practice. During the twentieth century two strong luck-diminishment projects have been especially detrimental to teaching: one rooted in the science of management, the other in the empirical sciences. Both have resulted in a proliferation of unfruitful and often trivial research projects, to misconceived programmers of teacher education, to distorted notions of knowledge and excellence in teaching, and to self-defeating and impoverished practice. Luck-diminishment projects rooted in logic are more or less threatening to vital practice, depending on how far they are committed to instrumental reasoning and a science of measurement. These are blunt and controversial claims. A central task of the thesis is to refine and defend them. The refinement proceeds by way of a contrastive analysis of strong luck-diminishment projects and others which are more responsive to the indeterminacy of practice. With respect to the final question, I argue that there are at least three sets of necessary conditions for a flourishing practice in the face of luck. One concerns what Aristotle calls the virtues of intellect and character. Central among these are practical rationality (conceived non-instrumentally), situational appreciation, and the knowledge required for an intelligent pursuit of the definitive ends of teaching. A second set concerns enabling institutions. A third concerns the kind of community best able to nurture those qualities necessary for vital and excellent practice. All three sets are themselves vulnerable to reversal. Keeping the practice of teaching alive and ensuring that it remains true to its definitive ends is thus a matter of sustained struggle.

Cette thèse de doctorat étudie la manière dont Aristote, Platon et Isocrate font du recours à la notion d’empeiria et de la promotion d’une certaine conception de l’expérience, le moyen de se défendre contre l’accusation d’inexpérience qui les vise et de polémiquer entre eux sur la question de l’excellence, dans les domaines théorique, technique et pratique. Cet examen permet d’éclairer sous un jour nouveau la question de l’empirisme antique, en considérant, d’une part, la critique que Platon et Aristote adressent à une certaine conception empirico-sophistique des savoirs et de la pratique, en reconsidérant de l’autre, le supposé empirisme d’Aristote. Si la notion d’empirisme n’a pas d’équivalent en grec, Platon fait de la notion d’empeiria, désignant une forme de pratique non-technique ignorant les causes, un instrument polémique permettant de souligner le défaut de technicité des différentes techniques, que les sophistes se font forts de transmettre. En mettant l’accent sur « l’expérience de la vérité », Platon remet en question l’empirisme de ceux qui ignorent la valeur théorique et pratique de la connaissance des réalités intelligibles. Aristote poursuit la réflexion, en reconsidérant le rôle positif, cognitif et pratique, de l’empeiria comme connaissance acquise à partir de la sensation. Aristote poursuit la critique d’un certain empirisme, dont se rendent coupables tous ceux qui échouent à s’élever à la connaissance de l’universel, tout en déplorant le défaut d’empeiria de ceux dont le savoir est purement théorique. Si comme Platon, Aristote n’est pas un empiriste, parce qu’il refuse de faire de la sensation le principe de la connaissance et le critère du vrai, son rationalisme diffère de celui de Platon, par le rôle reconnue à la sensation et l’expérience dans les domaines théorique, technique et pratique. Cette étude entend révéler l’urgence de distinctions en philosophie de la connaissance dans le cadre des études anciennes, comme la distinction entre le rationalisme logique de Platon et le rationalisme empirique d’Aristote, par exemple, permettant de mesurer l’originalité des doctrines antiques sur des problèmes aussi fondamentaux que l’origine et le principe de la connaissance et de l’action bonne. / This dissertation investigates how Aristotle, Plato and Isocrates use the notion of empeiria and promote a certain conception of experience, in order to defend themselves from the charge of inexperience made against them, and also in order to debate about the question of excellence in the theoretical, technical and practical fields. This study sheds some new lights on ancient empiricism, by investigating, on one hand, Plato’s and Aristotle’s criticism against an empiricist sophistic approach of knowledge and action, and, on the other hand, the so-called Aristotelian empiricism. Although the concept of ‘empiricism’ has no equivalent in Greek, Plato uses the notion of empeiria to designate a non-technical form of action, in order to underlie a lack of technicality and to question the value of what some sophists claim to teach under the name of technai. While insisting on a philosophical kind of experience of truth, Plato criticizes what appears to be the empiricism of those who ignore the theoretical and practical value of the knowledge of intelligible realities. Aristotle goes beyond this stance by re-evaluating positively the role of empeiria, both in its cognitive and practical aspects, as a specific kind of knowledge, derived from sense-perception. He still criticizes the empiricism of those who fail to reach a certain kind of knowledge, namely the knowledge of universals, but also adds a criticism against those who lack the knowledge of particulars acquired through sense-perception and experience.If Aristotle is no more an empiricist than Plato, since he does not recognize sense-perception as the principle of knowledge and as the criterion of the truth, his rationalism is quite different from Plato’s, because of the important role he gives to sense-perception and experience in all areas. This study intends to break through in the direction of some distinctions in ancient philosophy, such as the distinction between Plato’s logical rationalism and Aristotle’s empirical rationalism, which would enable us to re-evaluate the originality of the Ancients on some fundamental issues like the problem of the origin and principle of knowledge and of good action.