Entertainment is all that matters

In the closing lines of the book, Postman makes the distinction between a concerned society and an unconcerned society. He certainly believes that laughing instead of thinking is fine, but the problem arises when we no longer care about what we are laughing at so long as we are being amused. And when we stop concerning ourselves with that fact, we stop caring about why we have stopped thinking. Our form of entertainment today is so simplistic and as soon as the television turns on, it’s like our minds shut off as we prepare ourselves for the gumbo it will feed us. We don’t care about what we are watching, what we are thinking, or even think about thinking for that matter, when that glowing box is before us.

Philosophy or gray blobs?

The most difficult part of communicating through illustrations and charades was actually trying to make the other person see what you wanted to convey to them. While it was hilarious looking at the drawings and people flailing their arms around, you weren’t able to get the full impact of their message. Really bad drawings and acting just didn’t allow you to explain any really deep or long thoughts, like when Postman writes about trying to do philosophy with smoke signals. Yes, that puff of smoke symbolizes the great philosophies of Aristotle. Umm no? It’s a gray blob! There was also the problem that you could think they were trying to say one thing when really, they meant something completely different. Truth is limited to the forms of communication we use, and when our communication means are poor, our message can be greatly affected.

Amusing Myself to Death with this Book

In his speech, Postman makes the comment that the new human dilemma is the “delusion to believe that technological changes of our era have rendered irrelevant the wisdom of the ages and the sages.” He then proceeds to talk about a technology that had been recently improved: cloning. I think his quote and discussion of cloning go very well with where he wrote about Las Vegas becoming our “national character and aspiration.” The other ages Postman mentions – the Age of Boston and the Age of New York – reveal the great accomplishments of our nation and are something we should be proud of. On the other hand, Las Vegas symbolizes this Age of Entertainment and Technology and the deterioration of our values as a society, as we are becoming increasingly concerned with all aspects of our life revolving them instead of what is right. We are making previous values our society held dear useless and irrelevant with all our new technology. This is proven true with cloning. The whole idea of cloning was to replicate a person when he or she was born and then store the clone away in some warehouse until the “original/real” person needed a spare limb or something. Cloning has completely shattered our belief in the value of the human life by saying that we are defining the standards of a human being and a clone, although very much alive and a human no doubt, is not a human but merely a tool at the disposal of the person who is in need of them. We are using technology to twist our world and make what we’re doing appear acceptable. We want progress, progress, progress and more and more technology, no matter what it takes or what it costs us. If our values don’t fit with what needs to be done, we’ll bend them to align with what we want. And like smoke signals and fat men running for president, all our values no longer matter when we keep creating newer and more advanced technology.

Should Target change its name???

1.      “Civility in public discourse is important.” In this opening, Chavez intends to convey to the reader that politeness and consideration for others is important in public situations (on TV or the radio), but not to the extent where certain basic English words can no longer be used as they could lead to dangerous accidents like the recent shooting in Tucson.

2.      Chavez used the word bellicose, meaning belligerent, when she was describing the different phrases used in politics that can also double as military terms. She chose this word specifically I think because she was trying to show people that these political phrases, while sounding hostile and belligerent, are ambiguous and don’t mean what they literally say.

3.      A) Chavez is attempting to persuade the reader to see that these words have absolutely no connection to problems that have occurred, such as what happened in Tucson, but it’s “the context and intent that matter.”

B) The best example that supports her point is where she wrote about the Los Angeles Times banning words such as: Indian, Hispanic, ghetto and inner city. Once again, it’s not the words that matter or cause harm, but it’s in the negative way in which people use them toward other people or situations.

4.      I agree wholly with Chavez, especially on the point where she says that banning words has no effect whatsoever and would only “deprive us of the ability to express ourselves fully.”

Cadavers (ewww...)

1.      Semrau’s main point: “Quite simply, use what you have until it can no longer function. Then it’s time to recycle.”

2.      I think that by intentionally keeping information from readers Semrau actually helps the intent of his essay, which is to show people the importance of reusing, more specifically our bodies. If Semrau had been blunt and stated that he was going to be donating his body to the study of science after he died and wanted others to join him, I think many people would have felt very uncomfortable and would have stopped reading. Being a cadaver for a med school just isn’t something people typically do so I think it was better for him to make the reader curious as to why he liked the idea of reusing. Semrau seems to think that we should use our bodies for as long as we possibly can and then when we no longer need them, we should let others make use of them. He makes a good point: “Most of us have many things that we don’t or won’t use – things we no longer need. Whatever it is, if it has some function then someone can make use of it.” Basically, our bodies can still be useful to others, even when they’re no longer useful to us. This statement from Semrau makes a lot of sense and I think people can relate to it – I mean, everyone has reused something in their life. Conserving, reusing and recycling are now more important than ever in our world as our resources are slowly depleting. This could help people understand the importance Semrau feels about reusing our bodies. People generally reuse objects through garage sales, donations and gifts. Semrau asks: why not through science?

Savior of the Nations Come

The theme of Luther’s hymn, Savior of the Nations Come, is the glory displayed by Jesus Christ’s birth, death and resurrection. Verse two does an exceptional job of presenting the glory of Christ’s birth. It says: “Not by human flesh and blood, by the Spirit of our God, was the Word of God made flesh – Woman’s offspring, pure and fresh.” Even though Christ was fully man, “Woman’s offspring,” He was also fully God, “the Word of God made flesh.” Luther goes on to add in verse three, “Wondrous birth! O wondrous Child!” Christ’s birth was remarkable because He didn’t have to come to earth as a lowly baby or at all. But His love for us is unconditional and immutable and so He sacrificed his position in Heaven to redeem the lost. “Marvel now, O heaven and earth, that the Lord chose such a birth,” as stated in verse one reveals that Christ had the power and authority to come as a powerful king yet He chose the most humble state possible, a helpless baby. Above all, Christ’s glory was shown through His death and resurrection. Verse four says: “From the Father forth He came and returneth to the same, captive leading death and hell – High the song of triumph swell!” This verse shows that Christ triumphantly defeated sin and death through His own death and that He rose victoriously to return to His glorified position in Heaven. I think that to an extent every hymn has pathos, and Luther’s hymn is no exception. As Christians, we should be overjoyed listening to this hymn, telling us of all the marvelous works Christ has done for us. We should be excited to hear that Christ chose to live among us, offered Himself in our place, died our death, defeated sin and the devil, and that because of Him we will be in Heaven one day.   

Borghardt vs. Edwards

1.      Times Christ is mentioned: 34

2.      Verbs where Christ is the subject: Makes us holy, took on our sin and death, died for us on the cross, was slain, lives again, died our death, rose and reigns, makes us alive, doesn’t push Heaven and holiness far away from us, came and made this place a place of blessing, make blessings even more, can’t stand to be without us anymore, calling us home, reigns on the throne with the Father

3.      The theme of Rev. Borghardt’s sermon is the complete opposite if the theme of Jonathan Edwards’s Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Rev. Borghardt’s sermon centered on what Christ has done for us and how we will receive God’s riches – salvation and eternal life – at the expense of Christ’s death on the cross. He spoke hope to the listeners and of the perfection and absolute blissfulness of Heaven and how it will be beyond anything we have ever experienced. On the other hand, Edwards focused on God’s condemnation of us and His wrath toward us if we do not repent of our sins and how God is ready to throw us in the fiery pits of hell when our time on earth is at an end. He spoke of how God is repulsed by our sinful state and regards us as if we were some loathsome creatures. In a major contrast to Rev. Borghardt’s hope inspiring sermon, Edwards strikes fear into the hearts of those listening by telling them of the torture and agony they will experience in hell.