Critique on Kris's essay

This paper has some great points with what I feel are pretty strong arguments as well as having some arguments that may need some work. Starting with the introduction paragraph, the first thing that caught my eye was the first sentence. It sounds as though you are using a circular argument. As far as what I interpreted from it, it sounds like, “The things people don’t notice are what they don’t notice.” I’m sure there is method behind this but it started me off a bit confused. On the other hand I feel like the intro paragraph does a good job of establishing the controversy with some good currency. Some of the claims in the sentences may be a bit on the strong side, so I wanted to suggest a really good tactic to clean them up. It’s called “hedging.” Basically you would want to sort of “step back a bit from your claim to imply the possibility of your argument rather than the matter-of-factness. For example: rather than starting off by saying “People aren’t noticing our lack of personality due to technology”, you might say “Technology may be affecting parts of our personality that we aren’t realizing.” This way you are proposing a suggestive idea that you will later stand by with conviction in your later paragraphs after establishing good evidence. Also, it doesn’t seem too clear exactly where your thesis is or what exactly your central argument is. If I had to guess, it would be “Technology is posing a threat to our social interactions and, thus, creates issues for expression of our personalities...” Maybe you can somehow incorporate that into your intro paragraph toward the end. With these suggestions I feel like you would have a solid first paragraph.

I think you did a great job with the argument where you discuss how technology is depriving emotions. Although the claim may be a bit strong, you back up the argument with a lot of good hypothetical situations where people could be lied to through texting or facebook. I think this the most convincing part of your paper.

Another suggestion I have for this paper is how you talk about personality. Usually when I think of that word or read it I associate it with the all-encompassing aspects of a person’s psyche and behavior. I see that when you use the word in your paper you are referring to just the parts that have to do with either the freedom to choose something or navigating around the world. I suggest maybe establishing an arbitrary definition to the reader before you argue that it’s being affected. You could maybe say, “…among the intricacies and complexities of our personalities, certain parts of them are particularly vulnerable to various technological advancements, such as…..” I feel that if you establish what exactly you mean by “personality,” your reader may be more inclined to follow your argument.

Lastly, you bring a good refutation paragraph with the counter argument, however, I feel that it may be too general or broad. I suggest maybe using a concrete example of an instance where a consequence does not outweigh the benefits. Maybe something like, “people argue that misuse of social networking websites are giving the websites a bad rap and not the websites themselves. Those that are negatively affected pertain to a small crowd so the benefits may seem to outweigh the consequences. But what about when someone commits suicide over facebook because her friend (actually her friend’s mom) pushes her to kill herself? That seems like a consequence that outweighs any benefit.” That would tie into the pathos of rhetoric argument and very closely applies to your claim about people lying over facebook or, rather, things not being what they seem.

Overall, this essay has a huge amount of great ideas with good anecdotal evidence. Some arguments may be a littler weaker than others, but I feel like my suggestions might strengthen them up a bit. 

Feel free to tear mine apart too please! Thanks

Response to Hitchens

Question 1: Hitchens uses a few strategies to argue his viewpoint, however, the one that stands out the most is his own personal experience. Is someones argument automatically invalid if they haven't experienced it? What does this say about parallel arguments that involve a viewpoint on experiences that must be experienced in order to have a strong opinion?

Question 2: Based on what Hitchens explains about "terrorist school" and training for torture, what do you think Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would say about waterboarding?

Question 3: The argument on indicting the US on grounds of torture brings to mind the idea of subjective opinions. Do you think that torture may have an intrinsic moral essence? Might there be a "absolute" right or wrong regarding torture without making the intention relevant?

Response to Question 3:

I feel that this question very interestingly hold philosophical value. A philosophy will teach you about philosophers like Dostoyevsky. There is just something about killing an infant that implies some kind of intrinsic immorality. There is virtually no argument absolving someone for killing an infant. Any angle you attack it from has a foundational fallacy. 

So in relation to Hitchens, an indictment against the US becomes a question of which side's morality is superior. In that general context, it's quite obvious that the answer is neither. Of course, morality is pretty much a concept generated by mind. Other than the question of the mind, every carbon-based molecule (which is everything) is atomically a series of forces that are interpreted by us as mathematical equations and, subsequently, everything that occurs is- from a scientific viewpoint- a random sequence of molecules coming into contact with other molecules. However, the subject matter in this particular argument regarding torture is a little different. Like killing babies, is there something intrinsically wrong with a helpless human being. Forget the intention. I know that the contention for torture is that it used to extract information for whatever benefit. But forget the intention (as Gabe said in class "intentions pave the pathway to hell"). How can waterboarding a human being be a good thing? Even if it is saving a nation from destruction, what about the prisoner? The prisoner is on the other side of that. His nation, system of beliefs, values, family, friends, honor, integrity, is irrevocably destroyed. 

I think Hitchens should have expanded on this. I understand that his point to get across was that waterboarding is torture. On that note I can agree, but i feel that my question is inevitably blatant when discussing his argument. No doubt, his rhetoric in this article is pretty solid. Personal anecdotes evoking pathos as well as describing waterboarding's effects on the U.S.'s diplomatic publicity to conjure logos work hand in hand here. But intellectualizing an argument, I feel, will do much to enhance the weight of an argument. If you can appeal to the reader's introspective psyche, you can go far in demonstrating a convincing argument. Look at Descartes' Meditations. A bit of rationalizing can do a lot. 

First Essay

Chris Gomez

Professor Brown

English 1B

20 February 2013

The Internet as a Lens

In our modern day and age, the Internet is notable for contributing dramatically to many components of our society. In a split second, anyone can log on and view a massacre in a third world country that someone recorded the night before and tell the rest of the world what they thought about it. Communication is probably one of the largest advancements the Internet has provided. Anyone can participate in any heated debate or intelligent discussion they wish to be a part of at any time of the day. As generations move on, our nation is hearing more voices and perspectives than ever before and more people now have access to large audiences where their views and opinions can be heard and discussed. This huge shift into diversity has even attracted political figures to provide for the discussion of political issues of all kinds hoping that extending more topics to more people will produce a more democratic form of society. The problem with this is that the Internet has evolved exponentially and many prospects of its effects have not exactly been anticipated. Opening more politics to the public has created a vast diversity of debates that have actually led to more difficult attempts to conflict resolution. This problem has further brought to attention what role the Internet really plays in this political debacle. Many might argue that the Internet has done wonders for democracy by attempting to include more of the population into the nation’s progression. On the contrary, the Internet might not be the cause of the issue at hand. By closely looking at the Internet’s effects on diversity, the problems that online forums pose, and the seemingly inconsistent constructs of our democracy, we can fully understand where to place the blame for the faults of our system.

The Internet has allowed for democracy to capitalize on one of its major cornerstones: diversity. Before online forums were even a distant prospect of technological advancement, the public distribution of information through earlier types of media had significant regulations. In the 1930’s, a law was passed stating that in order to publicly portray information through the media, a license must to be obtained (Hanson). The license simply validated that the intent to release information to the public was based on the public interest with respect to various and diverse viewpoints. The issue here lies in the understanding of how much of the public interest is being accounted for. Certainly, contemporary minorities may not have had access to these media of information because of a variety of reasons, namely, economic problems, and therefore may not have participated in resolving public issues. Not all citizens of the nation were able to absorb the flow of communication that the media was propagating; even more noteworthy is that fact that much of public broadcast was executed by large corporations and monopolized industries that tended to decrease the diversity of information. With the influx of the Internet’s assortment of capabilities, communication is definitely a prime advancement. Physical distance is essentially eliminated as a setback and a vast majority of people can come into contact with each other at any time of any day. Furthermore, free Internet access has even reached neighborhood service centers where even the financially- disadvantaged may play a role in public discussion and debate (Sirianni). These advancements have allowed the unified consciousness to accept more and more diversity into consideration. What isn’t seen as clearly, however, is what this constantly diversifying consciousness is showing us about our political ideology. 

The extremes that the Internet has taken diversity to have created some obstacles that affect the way we practice solving social issues. Firstly, the “googlization” of the online world gives anyone the opportunity to engage in any whim or conjecture they please. Presumably, much of this is put to good use. Research papers may be more timely written and research itself can be done quicker with more content being absorbed. The problem lays in what media theorist Neil Postman calls the “information glut.” It’s debatable how much of this information on the Internet is relevant, however we can assume that one person won’t see a majority of it in their lifetime. As far as an arbitrary definition for “useful”, in the context of politics, not all of the Internet contributes to discussions of social issues and debates and therefore isn’t “used” to progress mankind’s societal constructs. Professor Jarice Hanson, in her analyses on technology’s influence in society, has found that online discussions and debates tend to react to information “overloads” by seeking comfort over being overwhelmed (Hanson). Someone who is bombarded with a flood of opinions upon different topics over a collection of different blog sites will naturally seek out the familiar tones of their own opinions. Without the mitigation that the government previously had on public media, the online forums have given rise to the “citizen media” (Hanson). With more people present online more groups are produced. Different individuals will seek out comforting conversations specific to their own values and firmly stand by them as conversations progress. This inevitably creates a problem when it comes to social debates mainly because a common ground is hardly reached among such a large and diverse audience. Democracy ideals are being fulfilled with this modern ability to join forces with any type of group that exists but it has all but lengthened the pathway to a resolution. It’s easy to see this as a problem in social debates, but taking it a step further, an intrinsic flaw in our system of social equality is obscurely being revealed.

For many others, the Internet can be seen as alleviating many restrictions in practicing democracy. Online forums largely foster breeding grounds for debate; in many cases, collective action is undergone in response to discussion (Dreznerq, and Farrell). In the interests of personal health, people can discuss problems ranging from nutritional advice to symptom diagnoses. Forums may not only provide competencies for debate on various issues, but it can promote lifestyle changes where alternative opinions can be exposed and considered by anyone. Although these aspects are essential to have in a democracy, this “arena of interactions,” is contributing to “non-democratic regimes” where its usefulness to the political spectrum is not as credited (Dreznerq, and Farrell). So, in terms of “practicing,” the Internet is definitely succeeding. Practically every opinion that exists or has ever existed can be viewed, discussed, fortified, or challenged within the cyber realm. This is exactly what our democratic philosophies encourage. When politics get thrown into the equation, however, our government is hard-pressed to find a resolution among the plethora of viewpoints within public debate forums. Being able to voice your own opinion with confidence to a large audience has contributed to more and more diversity. This just shows that increased citizen involvement in politics doesn’t make anything easier. Professor of Law Peter M. Shane points out that “the global public sphere should not be expected to mirror the cultural unity” (Democracy Online: The Prospects For Political Renewal Through The Internet). Yes, it does tend to be fairer allowing all kinds of individuals to speak their mind, but this fairness nullifies any prospects of reaching a common ground. This takes the view away from the problems the Internet has caused and puts the focus on democracy itself.

 It’s basic fact that the Internet is cultivating more and more opinions, but this doesn’t uphold the pragmatism of democracy. Social equality can be met when, in a pure theoretical sense, the resolution of a social issue meets the needs of all citizens of a nation. In essence, everyone needs to be happy but order for that to happen, everyone needs to want the same thing. Our nation’s emphasis on individualism and standing out among others defeats this and cannot serve as a means to social equality. Diversity supersedes social equality and only further convolutes a unified consciousness. Such is the reason we have sovereign nations. There is not a basis upon which everyone can find a common ground. Human nature is responsible for this societal flaw in democracy, not the Internet. The Internet has merely served to facilitate and make known to us the fallacies in social philosophies. It can still be said, however, the Internet serves as a place for the unprecedented practice of democracy. It allows us to maintain the opportunity to exercise our rights but what needs to be understood is it isn’t democracy that is being changed. The changes are the different components of democracy we will be able to strengthen or weaken as we come to discover new means of societal interaction, and as long as humans remain humans, these new means will just teach us more about something we may never accomplish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Biblography

 

 

 

Dreznerq, Daniel, and Henry Farrell. "Blogs, Politics and Power: A Special Issue of Public

            Choice." Pubic Choice. Vol. 134.No. 1/2 (2008): pp. 1-13. Print.                                             

 

Hanson, Jarice. 24/7 : How Cell Phones And The Internet Change The Way We Live, Work,

            And Play. n.p.: Praeger, 2007. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 20 Feb. 2013.

 

Shane, Peter M. Democracy Online : The Prospects For Political Renewal Through The Internet.

n.p.: Routledge, 2004. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 20 Feb. 2013.

Sirianni, Carmen. Investing in Democracy: Engaging Citizens in Collaborative Governance.

Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press , 2008. Print.

 

 

 

Response to Paglia Article

Questions:

1. Paglia makes well-deserved connections between Lady Gaga and her effect on modern-day social interaction. How might this relate to Postmodern elements?

2. Why might this article be exceptionally persuasive as opposed to previous articles read?

3. I resort to this perspective a lot when responding to arguments, but it can't be overlooked: Paglia hardly utilizes a rebuttal technique to strengthen the argument. What has Paglia failed to mention about what Lady Gaga has done to benefit generations rather then destroy ethical constructs?

Respose to Question 2:

In relation to discussions in class, I can pinpoint a good reason why this article might make even diehard fans of Gaga such as myself agree with the content(not to say that I do). The author definitely took the audience into consideration. Try to find one person in our society today who wants to believe the era of sex is over. When the article poses this argument that Gaga has normalized sexuality so much that its been booted out of taboo standard, many would be quite concerned.

Sexuality as taboo is one of the foundational reasons, other than the biological drive, that makes sex so popular. Paglia sort of makes a good point when explaining how Gaga de-sexualizes her persona, thus virtually eliminating any affiliation she may have with sex. Her blatant rhetoric of sexual conduct in her lyrics alone destroy libido. I don't mean to bolster the article's standpoint, but I need to make clear this point before I explain my next. Gaga entered the celebrity atmosphere as a potential sex icon. Her first music video "Just Dance" portrays her in a very "Kesha-esque" fashion with short dresses and strong sexual overtones. Was this an attempt to put her foot in the door of fame before revolutionizing it with her current contradictory persona?

I believe that this argument is very powerful because of how relevant it is to everyone's day to day life. The author characterizes fame and celebrities as voices of the contemporary generation. Put sex on top of that and you have persuasion. Put "death of sex" on top of that and you have followers.

It doesn't matter that the author uses no rebuttal technique. The content alone is controversial enough to raise eyebrows. Especially when using postmodernist perspectives to disclose an abhorrent truth. It's no question that Paglia is not a Postmodernist. She obviously hates what Gaga may or may not have done to the nation's consciousness. Either way, blurred gender boundaries, asexuality, dissolving borderlines between fact and fiction, and comments about social internet media all fit into postmodernism.

Drawing away from Paglia's technique, I feel a bit differently. I don't doubt that what she is revealing may be true, but it's her perspective I may disagree with. Just like I said with Carr: Is what's happening to society necessarily a bad thing? Okay, so maybe sex loses its popularity as a publicity technique, but are we going to stop having sex? Low self-esteem people feeling empowered by Gaga's image aren't the only part of our population that has sex. That won't change.

On the subject of the arguments against the impending postmodern future as a whole, I have to agree. Gaga does have her fans eating out of her hand. If she shouldn't be credited because of her musicianship, her avant-garde artistics style, or her personality, she should at least get props for being business savvy. She knows exactly how to accommodate the energy of her audience. She knows exactly how to manipulate her audience in to feeling deficient and she knows how to give them what they think they need. Gaga's a smart women. I don't know for sure if her image represents her true values and ideals, but looking at her net worth and albums sales, the ends justify the means.


*side note: still love Gaga :)

Response to David Weinberger

Questions:

1. Weinberger brings to question the dangers that the internet may be contributing to controlled diversity. On the contrary, solidarity is not necessarily an undesirable concept within our nation. In that context, how might the internet positively be affecting people's opportunities to the rising of solidarity?

2. The implementation of "moderators" within internet forums is talked about in the passage as people who arbitrate certain regulations within a community of people. How can this relate to figures in our society who hold this kind of power?

3. Does narrowing down the criteria for what "diversity" means in the context of solving problems defeat the purpose of the definition of the word? How can this relate to democracy?

Response to question 1:

Regardless of my stand on the passage, I feel that Weinberger doesn't address the rise of solidarity that the internet has allowed for. Of course, the collective goal is that of "fairness." The whole point of utilizing diversity to resolve issues to accommodate the needs and feelings of as many people as possible, but this looks different on a macroscopic level. Isn't the nation as a whole an "echo chamber" in relation to the rest of the world? Had diversity allowed for the absolute democratization of conflict resolution, we would not have the extensive and intricate issues with foreign policy that we deal with today?

What I'm seeing is a perspective that clings to objectivity as much as possible. Every individual nation is essentially an echo chamber in relation to the rest of the world. This is the problem Weinberger sees, however, his view is on a smaller scale within society. If this danger that the internet is creating group polarization were to be resolved, then we would have the skills to resolve any world debate and, thus, live in harmony with a common ground between every sovereign body.

The internet is merely allowing for us to see this on a smaller scale because of its ability eliminate the problem of distance between people. If anything, the internet has done nothing to create more group polarization. Rather, the internet is just revealing to us how much it already exists; it just acts as the facilitator.

Looking at the matter from a different point of view, we can see that the internet has allowed for more solidarity. It makes sense that, the more and more diverse a group becomes, the less likely it is to find a common ground. The tendency to surround yourself with ideas that conform to your own is almost innate. The internet has provided for us to capitalize on something we are already conditioned to do. If Weinberger had seen this as a good thing, he might have said that the internet is allowing for more like minds to collaborate for a unified cause that could not otherwise have occurred. On the contrary, all things are good in moderation. Weinberger sees this as something that needs to happen, but puts to question how much. Solidarity is good to an extent. But what does that even mean? Who decides what ideas are opportune for conglomeration?

Its quite possible that the only thing diversity has done for nation is make more evident the fallacies of democracy. Maybe we have pushed far enough to the boundaries of democracy to find that human nature will be its downfall. Democracy implies fairness, but we all know that life isn't fair. That is simply because not everyone can be happy at the same time. This issue will never be resolved. Democracy and diversity has sort of revealed to us the notion that in order to attain absolute fairness, we kind of have to all want the same thing, thus, making it self-defeating.

Response to Carr Article

Questions:

1. Supposing the exponential progression of technology is "making us stupid," what might be the dangers and repercussions associated with this crisis. What might the undesirable consequence look like?

2. Nicholas Carr touches on the idea that thought processes can be influenced by the method of writing used to communicate information. How might this be applied to the today's modern use of touch screen phones, tablets and iPads?

3. Regardless of the small rebuttal that Carr implements toward the end of the article that implies the possibility that the internet may produce positive enhancements in the way humans think, he seems to have an idea that the internet's effect on us is a degradation of intelligence. Does the fact that we may be thinking differently mean our intelligence is changing? Is there a "correct" way to be thinking?

Response: Question 2

Carr sheds light on an interesting idea that deals with how our states of mind can be influenced by the methods by which information is received. Before applying this to modern day technology, a trip in the opposite direction may help to grasp the weight of this notion.

Although Carr was not being entirely outlandish, it might have helped more to have included Lacanian theory to fortify his argument. It's interesting to note that this idea of how reading and writing effects our thought processes dates back 10,000 years ago to early days of mankind. Jacques Lacan introduces this theory that the concept of language itself has ultimately transformed and dictated the way humans think from the day they're born. Because language cannot wholesomely facilitate what we think and feel, we accept the fact that certain things just can't be explained using words, therefore, limits are created around our interpretation of information. In addition, we understand concepts predominantly through the languages we understand them with which ultimately confines our psyche to the restraints that that language has. What can be gathered from this is that Carr fails to argue that not only can writing down information have an effect in reducing our intelligence, but our intelligence, by default, is not operating at it's optimized capacity.

The most perplexing part about this is that we have gone from thinking, to speaking, to writing, to reading, to typing, to tapping. This past semester showed me the degree by which the iPad and tablet is being utilized. One of my classmates wrote his entire 17 page research paper using the "notes" application of his iPad. So, does Neitzche's experience in his change of prose have a parallel occurrence in this situation? What makes me think the most is how different my friend's essay might have been had he typed it on a word processor, let alone wrote it by hand.

Typing a command into an electronic device forces us to mentally review the concept of the command simultaneously as it is being processed electronically. The iPad now allows us to push, through a flat screen, a button that "represents" the command we wish to enter. For example, spacing our words in a sentence when handwriting is, by far, much different then pressing the space bar on a keyboard. The space is intended to allow for smooth comprehension when reading; however, the sequence of thought that goes into pressing the space bar might be a lot different than pressing a button that represents a button that represents the spacing of words. Technology's addition of convenience in this case is clear, but the effects on our brains isn't.

The alphabet itself is also something to ponder. Letters that represent sounds that combine to form different sounds are seen visually. My point is that purely conceptual information created solely by humans has been "systematized." Obviously this is an easily understood idea. There isn't anything too farfetched about it until you change perspective. What needs to be understood is how many mediums this information, like the alphabet, goes through before it is received by us. What began as a sound that symbolized a fragmented thought is now a picture on a keyboard. The reason this relates to Carr's idea is that technology is creating conveniences that don't only make physical activities easier, but even make neurological automatic responses to stimuli unnecessary. I honestly believe that before writing existed, speaking these words without seeing how they are spelled in my mind would dramatically alter the way I interpret or understand what I am saying.

I feel that there is much speculation to be had on the matter. I don't doubt that Carr is onto something more accurate than assumed at first glance. What causes skepticism, however, is that Carr is proposing theories about the way an organ in our body is affected when this particular organ isn't even fully understood. The mind and brain are the final frontiers of science next to space. Biology and physiology can be taught and understood quite in depth but psychology and neurology remain heated disciplines among academics. The sad truth is, we might live to see the detrimental premonitions that Carr has before we can even begin to fully conceive the intricacies of the human mind.