Laughing instead of Thinking

Postman states, “For in the end, he was trying to tell us that what afflicted the people in Brave New World was not that they were laughing instead of thinking, but that they did not know what they were laughing about and why they had stopped thinking.” In my opinion, if Postman were to use a single sentence to explain his view on the Age of Technology aside from a 163 page novel, he would use this sentence. Like most ending sentences should, this sentence pretty much sums up his whole book. The Age of Technology is taking over our lives and we do not even realize it. Earlier in the book, Postman discusses that there is no harm in watching television as long as you realize the dangers of television because this will keep television from taking over your life. The problem with this is that almost nobody does recognize these dangers. “Public consciousness has not yet assimilated the point that technology is ideology.” (Postman 157) While we let the Age of Technology take over our lives, we laugh and go along with it without realizing what is happening to our so called priorities. In the end, when we finally do realize we are ‘laughing’ (or letting Technology take over our lives) we are going to look back and not remember that this happened. Also, when we finally realize this, it will be too late to change our technological ways. This I believe where Postman’s overall theme lies. We need to learn to control our lives now, before it is too late to change the fact that we are laughing.

If this is how not talking feels like, I'd hate to lose my voice.

“You’re not allowed to talk.” These are five words I’m sure any teenager would dread to hear. Upon hearing this, many would laugh with a smart remark of “psh yeah right” under their breath. Unfortunately though, we had to live this horrid forecast for a whole school day. My first encounter with the no-talking rule was with Mr. Kearney in the early morning of Friday before anyone was at school yet. Every morning Mr. Kearny passes by my locker as I unload my books and always greets me with a bright smile and a cheerful “Well good morning Ashley!” Following this, we usually have a recap of how our nights were and such. As I walked into school and started unloading my books I saw nobody was there yet so I quickly threw my books in hopes that I could hurry to the bathroom in hopes to avoid any temptation of early morning conversation. Upon throwing my books, a binder managed to slip out of my arms and spilt all of its contents onto the floor. As I franticly began picking up the mess, I saw Mr. Kearny walk through the door towards me for a good morning. He asked his usual “how are you” and I remained quiet giving him a thumbs up. Not taking the silence, he continued asking how my snow days were and of course, I wasn’t allowed to answer. Thinking something was wrong, his grin turned into a concerned frown. Not wanting to ruin his day, I led him to the office, where my dad was residing for the moment. I had him explain the situation and Mr. Kearny then understood my unusual silence. 
        When reading chapter two over the weekend, I was brought back to this morning scene when I saw Postman’s idea that “the concept of truth is intimately linked to the biases of forms of expression” on page 22. People all too often overlook the truth found in simple expressions. Every morning I simply talk to Mr. Kearny aside from expressing how I really feel each morning. He had to discover how my day was not from the usual words I present him with, but by my expressions, which in the end give more truth than words. Its harder to lie through expressions than it is through words, which I believe is Postman’s overall point in chapter two.
         Although Friday’s lesson did teach me this lesson, I did find it hard to rely on simply expressions and illustrations. I never realized how much I do only use my words and almost dread, but also in a way, cant wait for the next time that I lose my voice.

Pets to Technology

In both his novel Amusing ourselves to Death as well as his interview at Calvin, Neil Postman revolves around the ideas that humans are slowly becoming “pets to their technology” as well as the idea that humans are used to change and preferring it in many circumstances.  Using both ideas, Postman creates his universal idea that Americans of the ‘80s as well as modern day are too obsessed with technology.

            In the interview, Postman discusses how instead of simply having technology as a convenience, Americans are becoming too addicted to their televisions and phones for example, making them dependent on them. This dependency, Postman describes, resembles how a pet depends on its caregiver. “They are becoming pets to their computers” he says. Postman describes an idea much like this in his novel. On page 11, he says that “A person who reads a book or who watches television or who glances at his watch is no usually interested in how his mind is organized and controlled by these events, still less in what idea of the world is suggested by a book, television, or a watch.”

By stating this, Postman is making the point that humans are becoming more and more accustomed to watching tv, or using a phone without realizing the idea behind it. It is becoming daily routine and slowly taking over humans’ lives and humans don’t even realize how dependent they are becoming on technology. They are becoming “pets to technology.”

            “People like ourselves see nothing wondrous in writing.” Postman makes a great point when stating this. In his interview, he describes how people are adapted to high end technology and prefer change and advances in it. They do not stick to old time traditions and his novel on page 13 he describes an example of this. While in the past humans depended on reading and writing as not only their informational sources, but as well as their entertainment, modern day citizens are being to lose their interest and  desire for reading and enjoy it.

A Colorful Vocabulary

Chevez's Article

Based on the first six words of Chavez’s article, the reader is led to think that the purpose of the article is to promote civility. Chavez confidently uses the word bellicose to describe the metaphors used in politics. Bellicose, a word meaning eager to fight, is a perfect word for the political world, because they (more often than the common American) are eager to fight and use any range of vocabulary to win for their cuase.
              Through the usage of uncommon words such as “schizophrenic” Chavez describes the usage a colorful vocabulary that has been recently debated over. By using such unordinary words, Chavez obviously takes the side of using uncommon and sometimes vulgar words as long as the words have the correct and appropriate intentions and then tries to influence the reader to use such intentions when containing a colorful vocabulary. She best proves her point when she describes the Los Angeles Times restricting certain racial descriptor words and then goes on to say that “It is rarely the words themselves but the context and intent that matter.” She is saying that as long as the words you use have good motives, it is perfectly acceptable to use those words. But if you are intending to harass, any word will hurt.

            Although Chavez makes some fantastic points, I have to disagree with her. In the earlier days, words she describes such as “nigger” or “gay” had originated with completely different meanings than what they are commonly known as in modern day. As unfortunate as it is, Americans today can take any word from the English dictionary and find an inappropriate meaning to it. It’s sad, but that’s the American nature.

            Even if you have correct motives behind words, especially commonly offensive words, any American human will most likely take it in the wrong context. Generations today are becoming more selfish, oblivious to any courteous meaning that may lurk behind an unusual word, immediately taking offense to it. I would like agree with Chavez, but due to the lack of respectfulness that Americans now bring to the table, I am unable to.

reduse.REUSE.recycle

“Reuse provides maximum function for given material and energy input.”

In the article by Waldemar R. Semrau, he discusses his career path in life and references it to the old saying ‘reduce, reuse, recycle.’ In this article, he leaves some background information out. Although it may cause a hint of confusion, I think it does the article well. If there had been excess information about him, readers may have concentrated more on that knowledge aside from the point he had been trying to make. 

He starts his story off telling of his childhood dream to be a surgeon, and continues by illustrating working as a Engineer. After numerous years of working in this field, he then again decided that he wanted to be a surgeon and attempted to pursue it. He believes he would be a good example of reusing, because he is 75 years old and has had multiple jobs.  By occupying himself with so many jobs, Semrau says he is ‘reusing’ his work life. He is not just retiring after being employed in one job like most people do; he continues to keep working, much like reusing a can or a water bottle. By telling this story, Semrau is trying to say that we should not waste our talents, but to keep using them.        

   

Savior of the Nations Come!

             Reading the lyrics to many songs does not give you the same effect as when you listen to the song. It makes it harder to detect the author’s true tone towards the matter they are writing about. This song is different though. It has obvious feelings of joy and thankfulness that it made evident within the first few verses. Luther states, “Wondrous birth! O wondrous Child!” He is giving thanks for all of the wonderful things that Christ has done! His ecstatic writing remains through the whole song while and reading this song made me feel happy that Christ is my Savior.

 His use of rhyming makes his song even more harmonious; especially when he contrasts hell with “the song of triumph swell.” This particular part of the song shows the true defeat of eternal death in hell. Also, the repetition of the last verse emphasizes that his true purpose of the song is to give praise.

             I think that this whole hymn together is an example of pathos. By writing this hymn, Luther is declaring his jubilant emotion towards our Savior. He tries and definitely succeeds at making his impression, which I think is a strong and inspiring gesture.

Borghardt vs. Edwards

Reverend Borghardt's sermon mentions Christ a total of 23 times.

He talks about Christ taking on death, making us holy, slaying, making us alive, living, coming, making, smiling and reigning in his sermon.

The difference between Edwards’ sermon and Reverend Borghardt's sermon is evident. Although they both preach towards the same goal of hoping their congregation will come and remain in the faith, they take completely different approaches to the matter. Edward revolves around the general topic of what will happen if we do not believe and harshly describes the cruel punishments of non-believers on judgment day. Borghardt, on the other hand, stays on the calmer side, describing how Jesus saves you. He makes you feel better about yourself. Both sermons have the same overall effect, but I personally enjoy Borghardt’s approach better.