"Opportunity" for Amusing Ourselves to Death

Chapter 1
"You cannot use smoke to do philosophy" (Postman 7). I agree with Postman that mediums often define the content of discussion. Smoke signals would have not been used to discuss complex thoughts, but to communicate basic, essential information that the other group need to know.This same idea applies to the day when our class communicated by only using pictures on a whiteboard and gestures. It was very difficult to understand any concept that involved anything more than the basics. Just like you cannot do philosophy with smoke signals, you cannot express advanced concepts with charades and Pictionary, because the medium defines the message.

Chapter 2
"The best things on television are its junk, and no one and nothing is seriously threatened by it" (Postman 16). I disagree with Postman, because although television's junk is recognized as garbage and can be used for leisure time, it is still junk. The "junk" of television often has little to no morals, and even if we recognize this, we still watch and soon our thoughts and our spiritual life begin to suffer. A really good example of this is the show Family Guy. This show really has no morals and although it does not pose a physical threat, it certainly can lead you away from your values if you are not careful. If you fill your life with the garbage of this world, won't your actions and thoughts start to reflect that junk? I am not suggesting that anyone will mimic the actions of Family Guy, but if you allow your morals to decline, it will show in your life. I understand that Postman is saying that television is okay as long as you recognize that it is all entertainment and mostly junk, and that watching it as "junk" is okay, if you do not take it seriously. However, filling one's time with garbage can seriously threaten a person's morals and purity of thought.

Chapter 3
"The influence of the printed word in every arena of public discourse was insistent and powerful not merely because of the quantity of printed matter but because of its monopoly" (Postman 41). I agree with this statement. Because they had nothing else in the early years of our country, the culture was focused on typography and the power of the written word. A person was praised on their wit in an argument, not how they physically looked while making that argument, which is what television often focuses on. Today, technology has a monopoly on most of the discourse of the world. Even if there are more books today than in the 1600s-1800s, technology, especially Internet and television, still dominates because of the speed it can communicate with. With the Internet, one can find out right now what someone in Japan thinks about a certain subject without having to wait for a newspaper or book to tell you. With the Internet, all this information is at one's fingertips. Technology has become a sort of monopoly over today's world just like typography dominated the communication of the past.

Chapter 4
"Is there any audience of Americans today who could endure seven hours of talk? or five? or three? Especially without picture of any kind?" (Postman 45). While I find this question/statement offensive, I mostly agree with it. Oftentimes, it is difficult to sit through a 45 minute/hour lecture during class if all it is is talk. Sometimes, it is difficult to listen to even 20 minute of a sermon at Chapel. If the talk is not entertaining or engaging in the way we are used to (accompanied by props or a PowerPoint presentation to look at), most people will not listen, even if the speaker has good points.

Chapter 5
"But most of our daily news is inert, consisting of information that gives us something to talk about but cannot lead to any meaningful action" (Postman 68). While this may be true with many pieces of news, I do not completely agree with this. Because of the daily news on the turmoil in Libya, I know that gasoline prices are rising and will continue to rise for a long time. Because the gasoline prices are climbing, I might change my driving habits, such as the number of trips out or how many people to a car. Because of this information, I can take action in my daily life. I realize that Postman's point was that many stories on the daily news are not immediately applicable to our everyday lives, but the news about Libya is clearly an exception.

Chapter 6
"Each technology has an agenda of its own" (Postman 84). I agree with this statement. Although a watch could be used as a paperweight or a metronome (if you have one that clicks), this is not the primary purpose it was created for. A watch's "agenda" is to tell time. The same is with television. Its main purpose is to be entertainment, although theoretically it could be used for other purposes, like a light or a place to put books. However, this was not the intended use when the inventor created this device. Therefore, "each technology has an agenda of its own."

Chapter 7
"But as long as the music is there as a frame for the program, the view is comforted to believe that there is nothing to be greatly alarmed about; that in fact, the events that are reported have as much relation to reality as do scenes in a play" (Postman 103). As this is a similar concept to an earlier quote I used, I again disagree with this statement. I again make the connection to the events in Libya leading to the rising gasoline prices. This is daily news reported that has had a definite effect on "reality" for Americans. Also I often find myself alarmed at the horrible news shown daily. Although it is true that no subject is touched upon for more that a minute or two at a time, the events that are shown are often horrible and shocking. Some bad news, especially when it is local, causes people to increase security for their homes or to create stricter rulers for their children . The addition of music to news does not take away the seriousness of the situation, but rather helps the viewer interpret the seriousness of the news about to be used. Lighter music is used for lighter news, and heavier music is used for heavier news.

Chapter 8
"Television favors moods of conciliation and is at its best when substance of any kind is muted" (Postman 116). I agree with this in general. Because television has such a wide audience, any arguments or substance on television has to be completely politically correct, or else wise the content will taken negatively and the point will be lost. As a result, content is often wishy-washy and does not take a stand to make sure that someone is not offended. A good example of this caution is shown in the article "Civility Not Censorship" from a previous post. Because bellicose words might be offensive to some, others argued that they should not be used in public speaking. This deprives people from being able to fully use the range of the English language to prove their point, and so are limited. This limitation "mutes" the substance of the argument or point.

Chapter 9
"The television commercial is not at all about the character of the products to be consumed. It is about the character of the consumers of products" (Postman 128). There are a few rare exceptions to this, but in general this statement proves true. When beer commercials, such as Bud Light, come on, they are not really advertising the beer. They are advertising all the good times that could come along with the beer. Especially in Bud Light commercials, little is said about the taste or quality of the beer, but rather the scenarios usually associated with the beer. The commercial is often not about the product, but about the people and the situation surrounding the product.

Chapter 10
"In other words, the most important thing one learns is always something about how one learns" (Postman 144). This quote was saying this after stating that Sesame Street does not teach children to love school but to love television. To an extent, I agree with this. IF children do not learn how to sit down in a classroom to learn, how will they be able to survive college and other learning opportunities in their future? A good example is the new video game school in New York. This school uses video game instead of traditional classrooms to teach children in grades 6-12 their basic school subjects. AS cool as I think this is, I wonder how these kids will be able to learn in a college setting when they are no longer learning by this medium. Because they have been learning this way for so long, will they be able to adjust back the the traditional way of learning. The video games, just like Sesame Street, are teaching these students to love the video games, not the subject they are learning.

A Brave New World

"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." The distinction is that laughter was not the cause of the end of thinking, but that the laughter continued even if understanding of any kind, even of the joke itself, did not. They did not even realize why they had stopped thinking. This matters because entertainment in itself does not end thinking, but when one is ignorant of the effects of calling everything entertainment, one slowly loses the ability to think or understand. If one never questions how technology is shaping one's thinking or culture, then one will never become aware that there are dangers in using technology in regards to intellect. However, if one is aware of this, then one can avoid the dangers and treat television and most technology like it should be treated: like entertainment, not serious topics (for the most part.)

Dr. Postman

In his speech, Dr. Postman paralleled several ideas from his book Amusing Ourselves to Death. One is how technology changes how we act. One of Postman's points in his book was, "For although culture is a creation of speech, it is recreated anew by every medium of communication-from painting to hieroglyphs to the alphabet to television." Postman talked about how eventually, because we are becoming used to talking through machines, we might become more comfortable talking into them than not, an example of our culture changing because of the "medium of communication." Also, because we are so used to talking to machines, Postman used an example from Negropante in his speech, who suggested we might begin to talk to inanimate objects without any reservation at all. This is similar to a quote Postman used in his book by Ernst Cassirer: "Physical reality seems to recede in proportion as man's symbolic activity advances. Instead of dealing with the things themselves man is in a sense constantly conversing with himself."  Negropante suggested that we might begin to talk to doorknobs and toasters quite comfortably because of our constant use of technology to speak. If one is talking to an inanimate object, then one is essentially "constantly conversing with himself." Postman's point in all of this was to say the symbolism of technology might cause someone to associate objects with conversation because of the medium of communication, even if this is an unlikely extreme.

Dr. Postman's speech

"Civility Not Censorship"

1. The first six words of the first line, "Civility in public discourse is important" shows what Chavez believes is the correct method for speaking in public: civility. These words are also used to show what should be done, and how this notion of "civility" should not be taken into extreme by excluding any possible word that might cause offense.
2. People have suggested that words like "target" and "in the cross hairs" should not be used because they imply shooting or war. According to them, this could be considered offensive in light of the recent Arizona shooting. Chavez used the word "bellicose", meaning war-like, to describe many other words that have war roots, like "campaign" and "rounds," to show that banning every word that might imply some form of violence would be nearly impossible and would limit the English language greatly.
3. Chavez is trying to persuade the reader that words should not be banned to be politically correct but that politicians and public speakers should use civility in how they speak, meaning not using certain words to degrade or harshly criticize others. Chavez used the example of John King on CNN apologizing for his guest using the words "in the cross hairs" so close to the Arizona shooting. She continued in the next paragraph with how Loughner's shootings had nothing to do with words. This is one of the best examples she provides in her article about how censorship of words not meant to be used to degrade or offend does not make sense.
4. I agree with Chavez. As long as one thinks before one speaks, one should not have to worry about if a particular word will offend someone if the intent was not to offend (however, if the word is vulgar, it should be omitted).

Chavez's article: "Civility Not Censorship"

Conserve, Reuse, and Recycle

The sentence that describes the point the most is "Quite simply, use what you have unitl it can no longer function. Then it's time to recycle." Semrau's intent was to encourage people to make the most of your body, even after you have no more use of it. Semrau took the saying "be green" in a very literal way. He was not striving to be green by conserving, reusing, and recycling objects, but by reusing himself. First, he described how he used his body for the first 75 years of his life, and now how he will achieve his dream of becoming a surgeon by donating his body to science. However, this point was not very evident at the beginning of the article because he left out this last fact until the very end. Because of this lack of information, readers can find themselves wondering how his life story was related to the earlier discussion of going green. The article had an effect, but the effect was sort of lost in the description of his childhood dream of becoming a surgeon. It created a lighter tone to the article, and gently introduced his idea instead of forcing it on the reader, but if his purpose was to encourage others make the most out of their bodies, it was not effective because it really was not persuasive. It did not give many reasons for doing so, only why he personally was doing it.

Hymn Analysis

The theme of "Savior of the Nations, Come" was that Christ's coming was a glorious and wondrous event. To support this theme, Luther uses the language devices of description and diction throughout the entire hymn. "By the Spirit of our God,Was the Word of God made flesh--Woman's Offspring, pure and fresh." Luther describes Jesus as the "Word of God made flesh," an almost unbelievable and awe-inspiring event.  Martin continues his amazement as he writes about Jesus' sacrifice. "Captive leading death and hell--
High the song of triumph swell!" Martin uses the word "captive" to show Jesus' victory over "death and hell," freeing us from sin forever. Because of this freedom, Luther uses "song of triumph" to express his joy over this wonderful act. This act leads to a heavenly future. "Boundless shall Thy kingdom be; When shall we its glories see?" Luther describes Jesus' kingdom as "boundless," giving the readers a full understanding of how large and wonderful the "glories" of His kingdom will be. After describing Jesus' sacrifice and victory, Luther re-describes the beginning. "Brightly doth Thy manger shine, Glorious is its light divine." With this statement, Luther reaffirms the message of how amazing Christ's coming was and how his manger brightly shines as a witness to what He accomplished.

"Savior of the Nations, Come"

Sermon Diagnostic

1. 32 mentions of Jesus
2. Verbs: makes holy, set apart, slain, is lamb, died, rose, reigns, did this death thing, makes alive, put name on us, came, makes blessing, lives
3. Rev. Borghardt's sermon had the theme of eternal life, while Edward's sermon had the theme of God's wrath and judgement. Borghardt's sermon contained much more Gospel and good news throughout the entire message, while Edward's sermon contained mostly Law, fear-invoking images, and God's eternal judgement. Borghardt's primary purpose was to tell how great God's love is for us and to tell us about this wonderful place He has prepared for those who have faith in Him, which we have access to because of what Jesus did for us. Edward simply wanted to instill fear of God's wrath.

Rev. Borghardt's Sermon