Brave New World

"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 Postman is attempting to make here is that entertainment in and of itself is not the main issue but rather that rational information relayed in the form of entertainment has serious ramifications on our society. This is significantly important because if people do not realize this in our society today, rational, contextual information will greatly decrease, as it already has been doing for quite some time. Not only will people lose the ability to retain continuity in thoughts, but they will also be ignorant of the fact that this calamity is even occuring or why it is occuring. Postman also wants people to understand that entertainment is not all bad, but when it is used as a means to convey "serious" information it can be extremely dangerous.

It's True, You Really Can't Do Philosophy With Smoke Signals

Friday’s communication experiment was a day to remember.  I actually started out the day feeling kind of nervous to be honest.  I was worried that my teachers would call on me in class and consequently, it would be rather difficult to answer their query.  This proved to be very true as the day progressed.  When others, not necessarily teachers, asked me questions or commented on something to me it was nearly impossible to relay my thoughts and feelings/opinions.  On the contrary, illustrating simple commands was relatively simple. When looking back on this aspect of the experience, I was able to relate it to a concept from Postman’s book. In chapter one he emphasizes the fact that “you can’t do philosophy with smoke signals.”  Experiencing this on Friday cemented this idea into my mind.  Trying to illustrate complex concepts with the simple forms of communications we were allowed was nearly impossible, just like Postman said with his smoke signal analogy. The simple forms of expression took away from the message.  Overall, I believe Friday’s experiment was a success, specifically with helping me to understand Postman’s premise by experiencing it rather than just reading it. 

Amusing Yourself to Death? Pshh, Cloning Will Keep You Alive Forever

Neil Postman is very constant in his thoughts and ideas as can be seen when comparing chapter 1 of his book and his lecture at Calvin College. Toward the end of his lecture, Postman quotes another man who says that one day we will be talking more with machines than with humans and that talking with machines will become a very natural and comfortable thing for us. This idea also surfaces on page 11 of Postman's book when he writes of how the idea of moment to moment, a product of the clock, "is man conversing with himself about and through a piece of machinery he created." The clock is no doubt a piece of machinery that is very familiar to man. We check the clock countless times every day and profess the idea of living "moment to moment". Postman is saying that the every day relationship between this idea of moment to moment and man, is nothing more than man conversing with machinery, in this case, the clock. He shows how comfortably talking to machinery has been a part of our society for quite some time and he reinforces that idea in his lecture when he says that this sort of trend in human-machine relationships will continue to rise. Another idea Postman talks of in his lecture is the new technology of cloning and "spare parts." He explains how one man proposed that at birth, a clone of that person should be made so that the person can have spare body parts at their disposable throughout life. This idea, the man suggests, would prolong one's life and therefore work against time. Postman talks of a related idea on page 14 of his book. He writes of how the invention of eyeglasses "suggested the idea that human beings need not accept as final either the endowments of nature or the ravages of time." With these two ideas Postman shows his belief that new medical technologies are leading people to believe and accept as fact that their bodies are improvable and maybe even immortal. On a broader scope, Postman is showing that technology in general is altering the way people view the world and truth and furthermore what truths they accept as true, false, or negotiable. Neil Postman holds firm to his ideas and beliefs as can be seen when comparing his book and his lecture.

Civil and Persuasive

1. When reading the first few words of the article, one can see that Chavez's intent is to show that civility in dealing with society will be the prevailing theme of the article. However, when reading the remainder of the article and contrasting that with the first few words, another layer of meaning is added. Chavez wants us to question the true meaning of civility-what is and is not considered civil language.
2. The word bellicose in this context means aggressive or hostile. In this article, Chavez uses this term to reveal the contradictions that politicians speak in their line of work. Politicians repeatedly preach political correctness and try not to offend with words and yet they use aggressively hostile metaphors to ridicule their opponents and win campaigns.
3. Chavez is trying to persuade that it is very much possible to eloquently debate with others and express your opinions with language while still being civil. Chavez brings up a very good point to support her belief. She writes of the recent debate about taking the "N word" out of Huck Finn and how this could "distort the author's intent and interferes with the reader's understanding." This example best defends her opinion because it shows that it is not the literal words, but the intent behind them, than can either greatly strengthen your debate or hurt others.
4. I agree with Chavez because most people aren't able to strongly debate and express their opinion without using derogatory or hurtful words.

Reuse Everything....Seriously....EVERYTHING

1. Semrau's point of reusing becomes apparent when he writes, "Quite simply, use what you have until it can no longer function."
2. Semrau's intent for this essay is to show readers that there are many resources that can be reused, not just materials such as paper and plastic. While it is important to reuse these materials, he is trying to say that there are other ways to be "green". What we don’t know at the beginning of the essay is that Semrau is practicing the concept of reusing by donating his body to science. He intentionally leaves out this information until the end and by doing so, he more effectively demonstrates the intent of the essay. When he first begins talking about reusing, thoughts of conventional methods of reusing may come to mind. When he starts talking about fulfilling his dream of going to medical school, the reader may wonder how Semrau could practice reusing in this scenario. And finally, when he reveals that he is donating his body to science for Harvard Medical School, the reader understands the very unconventional way in which he is reusing his resources. By not revealing this information until the close of the essay, he helps the reader think more about reusing and more readily understand that there are very unconventional but beneficial ways to reuse.

Savior of the Nations, Come

When reading the hymn, "Savior of the Nations, Come" a central theme is presented throughout: The Lord sent his Son to earth as a baby boy, who would conquer sin and death for all creation. To demonstrate this theme, Luther discusses the purity of our Lord Jesus Christ, being born of a virgin and by the Holy Spirit. Luther also further emphasizes the theme by writing of how Jesus was persecuted during his time on earth, but succeeded death and reigns on high in heaven despite that. Luther includes that we should refrain from sin and stay faithful by focusing on the manger scene and that we should praise God for the gift of his Son.
Luther uses the literary tool of diction in order to show how Jesus Christ conquered death and eternal suffering in hell. In the fourth and fifth stanzas, Luther includes words like "triumph" and "victory." He could have used words such as success or accomplish but these words would not have been nearly as effective to convey the crucially important theme. The choice words "triumph" and "victory" help readers further understand Jesus' never-ending power that ultimately defeated our eternal death and separation from Him forever.

Sinners in the Hands of Angry or Loving God?

1. Reverend Borghardt referenced Christ about 35 times during his sermon. Of those 35 times, Christ was the subject of the verb about 25 times. Some of the verbs he used to describe Jesus' actions were "makes holy", "sets apart", "was slain", "took on our sin and death", "died for us", "lives again", "rose and reigns on the throne", "puts on and still wears our flesh and blood", "makes us alive", "puts his name on us", "wants us and got us", "came to us", and "made blessings for us", among others.

2. The theme‘s of Edwards and Borghardt‘s sermons differ greatly. Edwards preaches that all should live in fear of God’s angry wrath and punishment for our sins. He says that God could throw us into hell at any moment in time. He emphasizes that God detests us and has no mercy on any sinner. Borghardt, on the other hand, preaches that God smiles at us because of Christ’s death for our sins and the spiritual cleansing that comes from that sacrifice. He says that we shouldn’t fear God because he loves us and calls us home to heaven when we die.