I finished chapter one of Amusing Ourselves to Death today, and there was one specific part of the first chapter that I couldn't get out of my head. Postman quotes Ernst Cassirer in conjunction with his argument:
"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. He has so
enveloped himself in linguistic forms, in artistic images, in mythical
symbols or religious rites that he cannot see or know anything except by
the interposition of (an) artificial medium."
I really disagree with what this quote is trying to say. It criticizes the current mindset of society that today people aren't capable of taking things at face value. Isn't that a good thing? I'll set up a hypothetical: take entity x. In Cassirer and Postman's ideal world, someone would encounter "x" in a very simplistic, and without much thought of anything else would "deal with it." I don't think that's good. I find it a sign of evolution mentally as a society. We don't take things at face value. We analyze them. What's wrong with applying metaphors to more easily understand things? What if entity x was super complicated. We would need to be able to apply some "artificial medium" like a metaphor or by comparing it to something else that's similar. Innovating ways to comprehend complex concepts is intellectual evolution; taking things at face value with little analysis is not.
Also I just applied a metaphor with entity x to try and explain my stance on this debate better. Without it, it would have been harder to spread my idea, and the spreading of ideas is after all very essential to the concept of free thought.
I also find this quote hypocritical to the main theme of both Brave New Worldand from what it seems Amusing Ourselves to Death - that consumption prohibits free thought (and how awful that is). Doesn't this quote discourage free thought? Taking something at face value without much thinking is in a way consumption. That wouldn't be engaging in free thought, someone in this situation would be letting all of the thinking be done for them.
Liam McDougal
Please sign your posts, sez your teacher for the 20th time.
ReplyDeletePS. I am really trying, but I do not understand your point. I can see you working hard to explain, and I am working hard to grasp your idea, but...what we have here is a failure to communicate. Please help. What are you saying?
ReplyDeleteDo you REALLY mean hypocritical?
Would you please not use "entity X" as your "metaphor." It is hard to make a comparison with an "x" factor. X is unknown. Please take another shot at explaining your idea.
PS. "What this quote is trying to say" implies that the speaker did not say what they meant to say, and in my experience, it is not the author who is unclear. Let's assume that Neil Postman said exactly what he meant to say.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I agree wholeheartedly with the passage you chose, so come on. Let's hash this out.
ReplyDeleteSorry about not signing my post
DeleteMy interpretation of the quote was that people in today's time are so removed from reality, and that people are so enveloped within their thoughts, plus they over-analyze situations instead of dealing with them simplistically.
I say that this argument goes against Postman's and Huxley's argument that free thought is so important. If something would be presented to me, then I would not take it at face value (which is what the quote implies I should do). I would apply metaphors and intangible concepts (i.e. linguistic forms, in artistic images, and in mythical symbols) to try and understand whatever it is I'm being presented. I am engaging in free thought because I am not just accepting of what I am being given, I am personally interpreting it.
Again that's my interpretation of the quote and I could be really wrong